Category Archives: Shia/Raafidhi

The Shia’ Menace

[By Mujlisul Ulama]

Islam and the Ummah are threatened by many menaces all over the world. Here in South Africa, the Muslim community has to contend with the worst of all menaces, namely, Shi’ism – the religion of the Shiahs which is deceptively portrayed as ‘Islam’.  The most cunning and satanic slogan the Shiahs employ is their cry of “Shiah-Sunni Unity”.

With the chimera of so-called minor academic differences, the Shiahs seek to befuddle and mislead ignorant Muslims. With their belief of holy hypocrisy called Taqiyah, the Shiahs entrap ignorant and stupid Muslims into their tentacles of kufr – KUFR which is comprised of the following fundamental doctrines of the Shi’i religion:

⚫ Rejection of the Qur’aan as a fabrication of the Sahaabah

⚫ Hatred for the Sahaabah in general, and in particular Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan, Hadhrat Aishah and Hadhrat Muaawiyyah (Radhiyallahu anhum)

⚫ Extension of Nubuwwat (Prophethood) to their ‘imaams’  who according to Shi’i doctrine  are  sinless (ma’soom), and even of a higher status than  many Ambiya (Alayhimus salaam). A cardinal article of Shiah belief is the infallibility of their imaams.

These are just some of the vile beliefs of Kufr of the Shiah religion. Insha-Allah, each of their beliefs of Kufr which are in violent conflict with Islam, shall be discussed in subsequent articles.

The Shiahs seek to mislead ignorant Muslims by claiming that Shi’ism is like one of the other Four Math-habs. This is a contemptible satanic lie. To bolster this vile falsehood reared on the basis of their corrupt belief of Taqiyah, Shiahs and their snake-like supporters masquerading as Muslims in our midst, present as ‘proof’ two putrid and silly claims:

(1) Some Sheikh of Al-Azhar university in Egypt had proclaimed Shi’ism a ‘valid’ math-hab.

(2) The so-called ‘amman accord’.

As for the first claim, be informed that Al-Azhar and its sheikhs are all person non grata in terms of the Shariah. They are modernist sell-outs supporting and justifying all the butchery, oppression and suppression of the Egyptian kuffaar regime. They have no Shar’i status. They are Zindeeqs masquerading as Muslims. They have destroyed the Deen at the behest of the zaalim, corrupt kuffaar rulers of Egypt, Thus, the views and opinions of the sheikhs of Al-Azhar constitute flotsam designed to undermine and destroy Islam. What they say about Shi’ism has absolutely no worth.

As for the so-called ‘amman accord’, this is a scrap of paper which has no Shar’i validity. A herd of scholars for dollars who have betrayed Islam and the Ummah, who have sold their Imaan for the miserable pittance and carrion of the dunya, who authored the junk paper, do not represent the Ummah nor Islam in any way whatsoever. They are among the worst ulama-e-soo’ (evil scholars).

In pursuance of the conspiracy of undermining Islam and converting ignorant and stupid Muslims to the religion of the Shiahs, the Iranian authorities have established the Shiah Temple Complex in Cape Town. This is an organ of Iblees. Muslims should give this place of fitnah a wide berth. Performance of Salaat in the temple of Sahaabah-Haters is not valid. Although the conspirators have dubbed the project a Musjid, it is essential to understand that it is not a MUSJID. The complex is a Shiah temple established for the objective of Fitnah. It is designed to lure ignorant Muslims into the cauldron of Shiah Kufr.

The lackadaisical attitude of the Cape Town molvis and sheikhs towards the Shiah menace is deplorable. They are grossly failing in their obligation of alerting and educating their ignorant flocks about the dangers of the Shiah menace.  Issuing a lukewarm statement occasionally, really serves no constructive purpose. The Waajib need of the time is for the Cape Town sheikhs and molvis to embark on an intensive grassroots campaign to educate the Muslim community about the Shiah religion.

Education is the most potent weapon to counter and overcome the dangers to Imaan posed by Shi’ism as well as all other false and satanic ideologies.

Kufr is darkness – satanic darkness. Shi’ism is this type of zulmat (darkness).  The darkness of kufr can be dispelled only by the Noor of Ilm.  Educating the masses is therefore of imperative and of urgent need and importance.

A weapon of the forces of Kufr such as Shi’ism and Gulenism, is to lure the ignorant Muslims in poor areas with monetary perks an contributions.

The Haqq confronts and combats baatil with Ilm. We have no need to imitate and adopt the ways of the Shiahs and other satanists. Our methodology glitters like the sunlight. It is the way of the Salafus Saaliheen.

Advertisements

False Accusation on Imam Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri About Tahreef al-Qur’an

The Shiites and other people of innovation have been misconstruing a statement of Shaykh Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri and allege that he said there has been textual tampering with the Qur’an. The statement is actually a comment to a hadith from Sahih Bukhari.

To understand the thing fully it is important to first read the hadith to which he commented. It goes as;

عن عبد الله بن عباس رضي الله عنهما، قال: ” يا معشر المسلمين، كيف تسألون أهل الكتاب، وكتابكم الذي أنزل على نبيه صلى الله عليه وسلم أحدث الأخبار بالله، تقرءونه لم يشب، وقد حدثكم الله أن أهل الكتاب بدلوا ما كتب الله وغيروا بأيديهم الكتاب، فقالوا: هو من عند الله ليشتروا به ثمنا قليلا، أفلا ينهاكم ما جاءكم من العلم عن مساءلتهم، ولا والله ما رأينا منهم رجلا قط يسألكم عن الذي أنزل عليكم “

Ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) said, “O assembly of Muslims! How do you ask the people of the Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite it, (the Qur’an) that has not been distorted? Allah has informed you that the people of the Scriptures distorted and changed what was revealed to them, with their own hands and they have said (as regards their changed Scriptures): ‘This is from Allah,’ in order to get some worldly benefit thereby.” Ibn Abbas added: “Isn’t the knowledge revealed to you sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you.”

[See, Sahih Bukhari, Book 48, Hadith 850.  (It is Hadith No. 2685 according to Fath al-Bari numbering system)]

Clearly, here is the subject is tampering with the Scriptures of the Jews and the Christians. Commenting on this hadith Shaykh al-Kashmiri (rahmatullah alayh) said:

واعلم أن في التحريف ثلاثة مذاهب: ذهب جماعة إلى أن التحريف في الكتب السماوية قد وقع بكل نحو في اللفظ والمعنى جميعا، وهو الذي مال إليه ابن حزم؛ وذهب جماعة إلى أن التحريف قليل، ولعل الحافظ ابن تيمية جنح إليه؛ وذهب جماعة إلى إنكار التحريف اللفظي رأسا، فالتحريف عندهم كله معنوي. قلت: يلزم على هذا المذهب أن يكون القرآن أيضا محرفا، فإن التحريف المعنوي غير قليل فيه أيضا، والذي تحقق عندي أن التحريف فيه لفظي أيضا، أما إنه عن عمد منهم، لمغلطة.  فا لله تعالى أعلم به.

“And know that there are three opinions regarding the tampering (with the previous Scriptures): A group (of scholars) said that tampering was done with the earlier revealed scriptures in every way; both in text and meanings. This is what Ibn Hazm (also) said. Another group said that (textual) tampering is minimal and seemingly Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah inclined to this opinion. A group altogether denied (occurrence of) textual tampering. According to them all tampering was by the meaning alone. I say: Going by this opinion entails there is tampering with the Qur’an as well, for tampering by the way of meaning is not less in its case either. What is established in my opinion is that there was textual tampering as well. Either they have done it intentionally or it happened by error. And Allah knows the best!”

[See, Faid al-Bari ‘ala Sahih al-Bukhari, Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyah, Beirut, 2005 vol.4 p.98]

Clearly, the entire discussion is about the tampering with the previous scriptures only. The mention of Qur’an is only in the comment to the third opinion. Maulana Kashmiri says that if  the previous nations tampered with the scriptures only  by the way of meaning and yet we say they are tampered then it would mean Qur’an is also tampered for tampering by the way of meaning is also a fact with regards to Qur’an (as the deviants like the shias/bidatis misuse the verses to justify their deviation). By saying so he meant to show the weakness of the third opinion that limits tampering of previous scriptures only to the meanings. Also it goes against the very spirit of the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) to which the comment was made.

Thereafter, he gives his own opinion that the previously revealed scriptures have indeed suffered textual tampering, whether deliberate or otherwise.

It is ironical that such an allegation is made against a scholar who was very cautious with regards to Qur’an. In fact some of his students had the feeling that he intentionally did not make any elaborate comments about the Qur’an for the respect and honor of the Word of Allah.

[See, Syed Manazir Ahsan Gilani’s memoirs, “Ihata-e-Darul ‘Uloom me bête Huwe Din“, Idara Talifat Ashrafia, Multan,  1425 AH, pp.93-94]

May Allah guide those who for some reasons keep spreading such lies against the scholars of Sunnah.

And Allah knows the best!

— Yahya Ja’far

Analysis of the ‘Ahadith’ Narrating System of Shi’ism

By Ali al-Sallabi

The  meaning  of  the  word  ‘Hadith’  in  Islamic  terminology  is  that  which  was  narrated  from  the  Prophet  ﷺ  of  words,  deeds  or  approval.  The  scholars  of  Ahl  as-Sunnah  paid  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  writing  down  the  sound  reports  and  made  every  effort  to  protect  the  Hadith  from  fabrications  and  fabricators. They  did  their  utmost  and  used  the  best  academic  methods  of  checking  and  examining  texts,  to  the  extent  that  we  can  be  certain  that  our  scholars  (may  Allah  have  mercy  on  them)  were  the  first  ones  among  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  lay  down  rules  of  precise  academic  examination  of  reports.  Their  effort  in  that  fieId  is  something  for  Muslims  to  be  proud  of  and  to  boast  about  before  all  nations.  This  is  the  bounty  of  Allah,  which  He  grants  to  whom  He  wills for  His  creatures’  needs,  and  Allah  is  All-Sufficient  All-knowing.

The  Sunni  scholars  took  the  following  steps  to  examine  and check  reports.  They  were  able  to  save  and  protect  the  Sunnah  from  the  plots  and  conspiracies  that  were  drawn  up  against  it,  and  to  cleanse  it  from  all  the  dirt  that  contaminated  it.

The  chain  of  narrators  of  reports

The  Companions  of  the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ  did  not  doubt  one  another  after  he  died,  and  the  Tabi’oon  never  hesitated  to  accept  any  hadith  that  was  narrated  by  a  Companion  from  the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ,  but  this  changed  when  fitnah  arose  and  the  wretched ‘Abdullah ibn  Saba’  started  preaching  his  evil  ideas,  which  were  based  on  an  extreme  form  of  Shiism  that  claimed  that  ‘Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  divine.  He  began  to  fabricate  reports  and  insert  them  into  the  Ahadith,  and  the  number  of  fabricated  reports  accumulated  with  the  passage  of  time.  At  this  point,  the  scholars  among  the  Companions  and  the  Tabi’oon  became  very  careful  about  the  transmission  of  hadith,  and  they  would  not  accept  any  report  unless  they  knew  its  chain  of  narration  and  narrators  and  were  satisfied  with  their  trustworthiness  and  good  character.

Ibn  Sireen  (rahimahullah)  said,  as  was  narrated  by  Imam  Muslim  in  the  introduction  to  his  collection  of  sound  hadiths (Sahih Muslim):  “They  used  not  to  ask  about  chains  of  narration,  but  when  the  fitnah  occurred,  they  said:  ‘Name  for  us  your  men  (in  the  chain  of  narration).”‘  They  would  find  out  who  were  followers  of  the  Sunnah  and  accept  their  hadiths,  and  they  would  find  out  about  who  were  followers  of  innovation  and reject  their  hadiths.  This  checking  began  at  the  time  of  the  younger  Companions  who  were  still  alive  at  the  time  of  fitnah

Muslim  narrated,  in  the  introduction  to  his  collection of  sound  hadiths,  that  Mujahid  said:  “Basheer  al-‘Adawi  came  to  Ibn  ‘Abbas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  and  started  narrating  to  him,  saying:  ‘The  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ said,  the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ said.’  Ibn  ‘Abbas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  did  not  listen  to  his  reports  and  did  not  even  look  at  him.  He  said:  ‘O  Ibn  ‘Abbas,  why  is  it  that  I  do  not  see  you  listening  to  what  I  tell  you?  I  am  narrating  to  you  from  the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ,  and  you  are  not  listening.’  Ibn ‘Abbas  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  said:  ‘At  one  time,  if  we  heard  a  man  say,  “The  Messenger  of Allah  said ﷺ ,”  we  would  all  turn  to  look  at  him  and  listen  to  him.  But  when  the  people  started  to  narrate  a  great  deal,  we  did  not  accept  from  the  people  anything  but  that  which  we  were  familiar  with.’  Then  when  lying  became  widespread,  the  Tabi’oon  began  to  ask  for  chains  of  narration.  Abu  al-‘Aliyah  said:  ‘We  used  to  hear  hadiths  from  the  Companions, but  we  would  not  be  content until  we  went  to  them  and heard  it  from  them.’  Ibn  al-Mubarak  said:  ‘The  chain  of  narration  is  part  of  the  religion.  Were  it  not  for  the  chain  of  narration,  anyone  could  say  what  they  wanted.’  Ibn  al-Mubarak  (rahimahullah)  also  said:  ‘Between  us  and  the  people  are  the  lists’  –  meaning  chains  of  narration.”

Verifying  hadiths

This  was  done  by  referring  to  the  Companions,  Tabi’oon  and prominent  scholars  in  this  field.  It  is  a  sign  of  Allah’s  preserving  the  sayings  of  His  Prophet ﷺ  that  He  made  the  lives  of  some  prominent  Companions  and  scholars  among  them  long,  so  that  they  could  serve  as  a  reference  point  and  people  could  be  guided  through  them.  When  the  fabrication  of  hadiths  began,  the  people  turned  to  these  Companions  first,  asking  them  what  they  knew  of  hadiths  and  seeking  their  advice  concerning  the  hadiths  and  reports  they  heard.  Many  trips  were  made  by  the  Tabi’oon,  and  even  some  of  the  Companions,  from  one  country  to  another  for  that  purpose,  so that  they  could  hear  proven hadiths  from  trustworthy  narrators.  Hence  Jabir  ibn  Abdullah  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  travelled  to  Syria,  and  Abu  Ayyoob  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  travelled  to  Egypt  to  hear  hadiths.

Critical  examination  of  narrators, highlighting  how  truthful  they  were

This  is  a  very  important  field,  through  which  the  scholars  were  able  to  distinguish  sound  from  fabricated  hadiths,  strong  from  weak.

They  did  very  well  in  this  regard,  tracing  narrators  and  studying  their  lives,  history  and  biography,  what  was  hidden  about  them  and  what  was  known,  never  fearing  the  blame  of  the  blamers.

They  set  out  guidelines  and  rules  and  applied  them  in  order  to  determine  whose  reports  were  to  he  accepted  and  whose  were  to  he  rejected,  whose  reports  were  to  be  written  down  and  whose  reports  were  not  to  be  written  down.  Among  the  most  important  categories  of  rejected  reporters,  whose  hadiths  are  not  to  be  accepted,  are:

a.  Those  who  tell  lies  about the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ 

The  scholars  unanimously  agreed  that  the  hadith  of  one  who  tells  lies  about  the  Prophet ﷺ  is  not  to  be  accepted.  They  also  unanimously  agreed  that  this  is  the  gravest  of  major  sins,  but  they  differed  as  to  whether  such  a  person  is  a  disbeliever  or  not.  Some  said that  he  is  a  disbeliever,  and  some  said  that  he  is  to  be  executed,  and  they  differed  as  to  whether  his  repentance  is  acceptable  or  not.

b.  Those  who  tell  lies  in  their  general  talk,  even  if  they  do  not  tell  lies  about  the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ. 

The  scholars  unanimously  agree  that  if  a  person  is  known  to have  told  a  lie,  even  once,  his  hadith  is  to  he  rejected.

c.  Followers  of  innovation  and  whims  and  desires

The  scholars  also  agreed  that  no  hadith  can  be  accepted  from  a  follower  of  innovation  if  his  innovation  constitutes  disbelief.  If  his  innovation  does  not  constitute  disbelief,  but  he  regards  lying  as  permissible,  his  hadiths  are  not  accepted  either.  What  if  he  follows  an innovation  that  does  not  constitute  disbelief  and  he  does  not  regard  lying  as  permissible  –  can  his  reports  he  accepted  or  not?  Is  there  a differentiation  between  one  who  promotes  innovation  and  calls  others  to  it,  and  one  who  does  not?  Ibn  Katheer  (rahimahullah)  said:  “Concerning  this  issue,  there  has  been  a  dispute  from  early  times  until  more  recently.  The  view  of  the  majority  is  that  there  should  be  differentiation  between  one  who  promotes  innovation  and  one  who  does  not.”  What  appears  to  me  to  be  correct  is  that  the  scholars  reject  a  narrator  who  follows  innovation  if  he  narrates  something  that  supports  his  innovation,  or  if  his  group  is  known  to  regard  lying  as permissible  and  to  fabricate  hadiths  in  support  of  their  whims  and  desires.  Hence  they  rejected  the  reports  of  the  Raafidhis,  but  they  would  accept  the  report  of  an  innovator  if  he  and  his  group  did  not  regard  lying  as  permissible,  such  as  ‘Imran  ibn  Hattan.

d.  Rejecting  the  reports  of  heretics  and  others

The  scholars  are  agreed  that the  reports  of  the  following people  are  to  be  rejected:  heretics,  evildoers,  heedless  people  who  do  not  understand  what  they  are  narrating,  and  anyone  who  does  not  meet  the  conditions  of  precision,  good  character  and  understanding.

The  scholars  of  hadith  established  guidelines  for  determining  what  is  sound,  reliable  and  weak  in  categorizing  hadith.  They  also  set  out  guidelines  for  determining  what  is  fabricated, and  they  mentioned  the  signs  by  which  this  might  be  known,  such  as  poor  language,  unsound  meanings,  being  contrary  to  the  clear  meaning  of  the  Qur’an,  contradicting  the  known  facts  of  history  at  the  time  of  the  Prophet ﷺ  and  others.

By  means  of  these  successful  efforts,  the  Islamic  religion  was preserved.  The  foundation  of  the  Sunnah,  which  is  the  second  source  of  legislation,  was  established,  and  the  Muslims  felt  reassured  with regard  to  the  hadiths  of  their  Prophet ﷺ.  Everything  alien  was  removed,  and  the  distinctions  between  what  was  sound,  reliable  and  weak  were  established.  Allah  protected  His  religion  from  tampering  by  those  who  sought  to  corrupt  it  and  those  who  were  trying  to  insert  fabricated  reports,  and  from  the  plots  of  the  heretics  and  the  shu’oobiyyah.  The  Muslims  reaped  the  harvest  of   this  blessed  and  mighty  effort,  among  the  most  prominent  features  of  which  were  the  writing  down  of  the  Sunnah,  the  science  of  hadith,  the  science  of  examining  reporters  and  other  sciences  of  hadith.

The  attitude  of  the  Shia  towards  the  Sunnah,  due  to  the  Shia  regarding  the  Companions  as  disbelievers

The  Shiite  opinion  on  imamate  led  them  to  regard  the overwhelming  majority  of  the  Companions  as  disbelievers.  As a  result  of  this  abhorrent  view,  the  Shia  rejected  almost  all  of  the  hadiths  that  were  narrated  through  the  Companions;  they  only  accepted  hadiths  that  were  narrated  through  the Imams  of  Ahl  al-Bayt  or  those  whom  they  claimed  were  “Shia”,  like  Salman  al-Farisi, ‘Ammar  ibn  Yasir,  Abu  Dharr  and  al-Miqdad  ibn  al-Aswad (radhiyallahu anhum).  They  launched  a  relentless  attack  on  narrators  of  hadith  such  as  Abu Hurayrah,  Samurah  ibn  Jundub,  ‘Urwah  ibn  al-Zubayr,  ‘Amr  ibn  al- ‘Aas,  al-Mugheerah  ibn  Shu’bah  and  others  (radhiyallahu anhum);  they  accuse  them  of  fabricating,  forging  and  lying. Imam  ‘Abdul-Qahir  al-Baghdadi  (rahimahullah) regarded  the  Shia  as  being  among  those  who  rejected  the  Sunnah  because  they  refused  to  accept  the  reports  of  the  Companions  of  the Messenger  of  guidance ﷺ.

The  Shia  waged  war  against  the  Sunnah,  hence  Ahl  as-Sunnah  (the  Sunnis)  were  known  exclusively  by  this  name  because  they  followed  the  Sunnah  of  the  Prophet.  This  is  what  was  mentioned  in  some  of  the  sources  of  Ahl  as-Sunnah,  but  the  Shia  narrate  from  their  Imams  that  everything  is  to  be  referred  to  the  Qur’an  and  Sunnah,  and  that  every  hadith  that  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  Qur’an  and  Sunnah  is  invalid.  They  also  have  other  reports  like  this.  This  means  that  the  Shia  do  not  deny  the  Sunnah  of  the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ;  they  do  refer  to  it  and  regard  it  as  parallel  to  the  Book  of  Allah  as  the  criterion  and  final  word.  However,  the  one  who  studies  their  texts  and  reports  will  reach  the  conclusion  that  most  of  their  reports  and  views  head  in  a  direction  away  from  the  Sunnah  that  is  known  to  the  Muslims,  in  terms  of  interpretation  and  application  as  well  as  chains  of  narration  and  texts.

The  word  of  the  Imam  is  like  the  word  of  Allah  and  His  Messenger ﷺ

For  the  Shia,  the  Sunnah  is  everything  that  was  narrated  from  the  ‘infallible  one’,   whether  word,  deed  or  approval.  The  one  who  does  not  understand  the  nature  of  their  madh-hab  will  not  realise  the  extent  to  which  they  have  drifted  away  from  the  Sunnah  in  this  statement.  The  ‘infallible  one’  refers  not  only  to  the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ   but  also  to  any  of  those  whose  word  they  regard  as  equal  to  the  word  of  Allah  and  the  words  of  His  Messenger ﷺ,  namely  the twelve  Imams.  They  do  not  differentiate  in  this  regard  between  these  twelve  Imams  and  the  one  who  does  not  speak  of  his  own  desire,  whose  speech  is  only  a  Revelation  revealed – the Prophet ﷺ.  These  Imams  are  not  treated  like  others  who  narrated  from  the Prophet ﷺ,  whose  words  become  binding  on  the  basis  that  they  are  trustworthy  in  narration.  They  believe  that  these  ‘infallible  ones’  were  appointed  by  Allah, as  mentioned  by  Prophet ﷺ,  to  convey  the  divine  rulings,  and  that  they  do  not  speak  of  anything  except  that which  comes  from  Allah.

There  is  also  no  differentiation  between  what  these  twelve Imams  said  at  the  age  of  childhood  and  what  they  said  at  the  age  of  maturity,  because  in  the  view  of  the  Shia,  they  cannot  err  –  either deliberately  or  accidentally  or  as  a  result  of  forgetfulness  – at  any  time  throughout  their  lives,  as  we  have  seen  above  in  the  discussion  of  the  issue  of  infallibility.  Hence  one  of  their  contemporary  shaykhs  said:  “Belief  in  the  infallibility  of  the  lmams  makes  whatever  they  utter  sound,  without  stipulating  a  condition  that  it  should  have  a  chain  of  narration  going  back  to  the  Prophet ﷺ,  as  is  the  case  with  Ahl  as-Sunnah.” For  them,  the  Sunnah  is  not  only  the  Sunnah  of  the  Prophet ﷺ;  rather  it  is  the  Sunnah  of  the  Imams,  and  the  words  of  these  Imams  are  like  the  words  of  Allah  and  His  Messenger ﷺ .  They  admit  that  this  is  what  the  Shia  added  to  the  Sunnah,  saying:  “The  Imami  Shia  added  everything  that  was  said  or  done  by  the  twelve  Imams  of words,  deeds  or  approval,  to  the  Sunnah  of  the  Prophet ﷺ.”

Their  view  stems  from  two  serious  matters  and  two  principles,  which  for  them  are  basic  to  this  issue.  One  of  their  contemporary  shaykhs  pointed  out  these  two  things  when  he  explained  that whatever  the  Imams  said  is  at  the  same  level  as  the  words  of  the  Prophet ﷺ  in  that  it  is  binding  and  must  be  followed,  and  that  whatever  ruling  they  pass  is  the  ruling  ordained  by  Allah.  He  explained  that  this  knowledge  could  be  attained  for  them  in  two  ways:  “through  inspiration  like  the  Prophet,  i.e.,  through  revelation, or  through  learning  it  from  the  infallible  one  who  came  before him.”  

They  claim  that  the  Imams  are  the  guardians  of  the  knowledge and  revelation  of  Allah.  The  author  of  al-Kafi  wrote  a  chapter  with  the  title:  “The  Imams  (alayhissalaam)  are  in  charge  of  executing  the  commands  of  Allah  and  are  the  guardians  of  His  Knowledge.”  In  this  chapter,  there  are  six  reports  to  that effect.  He  wrote  another  chapter  entitled:  “The  Imams  inherited  the  knowledge  of  the  Prophet  and  all  the  Prophets  and  the  appointed  heirs  who  came  before  them,””‘ in  which  there  are  seven  such reports.  In  a  third  chapter,  entitled  “The  Imams  know  all  branches  of knowledge  that  are  known  to  the  Angels,  Prophets  and  Messengers,”  there  are  four  reports.  The  Raafidhi  Shia  went  to  extremes  with  this  issue.  What  we  have  quoted  from  these  imaginary  sources  claimed  by  the  Shia  is  enough;  simply  reading  it  and  imagining  its  implications  is  sufficient  to  show  how  corrupt  it  is.

As  a  result  of  that  concept  of  the  Imams,  the  Raafidhi  Shia  did  not  pay  attention  to  the  soundness  of  the  chain  of  narration  or  study  and  evaluate  the  narrators,  as  the  scholars  of  hadith  did.  At  the  same time  that  they  reject  the  collections  of  sound  hadiths  of  Bukhari  and  Muslim  and  the  books  of  the  Hadith  that  are  authenticated  and  sound,  they  rely  for  their  hadiths  on  what  was  narrated  by  al-Kulayni, whose  comments  on  many  of  their  beliefs  we  have  quoted  above.  They  regard  him  as  one whose  view  is  binding  and  sound  beyond  any  doubt,  and  his  book  al-Kafi  is  one  of  the  oldest  hadith  books  of  the  Shia  and  one  of  the  most  authentic  in  their  view. 

One  of  the  Shia  described  the  status  of  this  book  among  them  when  he  said:  ‘The  lmamis  and  the  majority  of  Shia  are  agreed  on  the  superiority  of  this  book  and  on  following  it,  trusting  its  reports  and  being  content  with  its  rulings.  They  unanimously  agreed  that  it  is  of  a  supreme  status  and  high  level,  and  it  is  the  main  basis  for  all  the narrations  of  the  trustworthy  reporters  who  are  known  for  their  precision  and  knowledge  until  today.”‘ For  them,  it  is  better  than  all  the  other  books  of  hadith,  knowing  that  most  of  what  is  in  al-Kafi  –  as   Abu  Zahrah  says  –  are  reports  that  ended  with  the  Imams.  We cannot  say  that  there  is  any  hadith  with  a  chain  of  narrators  that  goes  back  all  the  way  to  the  Prophet ﷺ  or  claims  that  these  are  the  words of  the  Prophet ﷺ,  except  on  the  basis  that  the  words  of  their  Imams  are  the  same  as  the  words  of  the  Prophet ﷺ  and  are  part  of  the  religion  of  Allah.  Most  of  what  is  narrated  in  al-Kafi  stops  at  as- Sadiq  (rahimahullah),  and  very  little  of  it  goes  back  to  his  father  al-Baqir (rahimahullah).  Even  less  goes  back  to  Amir  al-Mu’mineen  ‘Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu),  and  that  which  goes back  to  the  Prophet  ﷺ  is  very  rare.

There  is  also  a  book  called  Man  la  yahduruhu  al-Faqeeh, which  was  compiled  by  Abu  Ja’far  Muhammad  ibn  ‘Ali  ibn Babawayh,  whom  they  call  ash-Shaykh  as-Sadooq,  one  of  their greatest  scholars  in  Khorasan  (d. 381  AH).  Other  main  references  of  the  Shia  include  Tahdheeb  al-Ahkam  and  al-Istibsar fima  ukhtulifa min  al-Akhbar,  by  Muhammad  ibn  al-Hasan  at-Toosi.  These  Shiite books  are  filled  with  tens  of  thousands  of  reports  and  hadiths  which  cannot  be  proven  sound;  indeed  most  of  them  are  fabricated  and made  up,'”‘ such  as  the  reports  that   on  which  they  rely  to  defend  the  idea  that  ‘Ali  (radhiyallahu anhu)  was  more entitled  to  the  caliphate.  From  the  above,  we  know  the  views  and  beliefs  of  the  Shia.  The  Shia  themselves – or  at  least  some  of  them – admit  that  in  their  books  there  are  some  fabricated  reports,  and  they  themselves  criticise  some  of  their  narrators.

Since  this  is  the  case,  the  Shia  should  follow  the  advice  of Amir  al-Mu’mineen  ‘Ali  ibn  Abi  Talib  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  when  he  said:  “Adhere  to  your  religion  and  follow  the  guidance  and  Sunnah  of  your  Prophet.  Measure  what  you  do  not  understand  against  the  Qur’an;  whatever  the  Qur’an  approves  of,  adhere  to  it,  and  whatever  it  disapproves  of, reject  it.”‘  He  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  also  said:  “Follow  the  guidance  of  your  Prophet ﷺ, for  it  is  the  best  of  guidance,  and  follow  his  Sunnah,  for  it  is  the  best  of  ways.”

They  should  adhere to  the  path  of  Amir  al-Mu’mineen  ‘Ali  ibn Abi  Talib  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  in  understanding  the  rulings  of  the  noble  Qur’an  and  the  meanings  of  its  verses.  They  should  adhere  to  the  apparent  meaning  of  the  noble  Qur’an,  understanding  the  verses  that  are  general  in  meaning  in  the  light  of  the  verses  that  are  specific  and  detailed.  They  should  pay  attention  to  what  abrogates  and  what  is  abrogated,  study  the  language of  the  Arabs,  understand  some  texts  in  the  light  of  others,  ask  about  any  verses  that  are  unclear,  understand  the  reasons  for  revelation  and  learn  from  Amir  al-Mu’mineen  ‘Ali  (radhiyallahu  anhu)  how  to  respect  the  status  of  prophethood  and  deal  with  the Sunnah  of  the  Messenger ﷺ  in  accordance  with  his  guidance.  Then  they  should  examine  the reports  in  their  books  on  the  basis  of  two  just  and  precise  measures:  the  Book  of  Allah  and  the  Sunnah  of  His  Messenger.  Whatever  is  in accordance  with  the  Book  of  Allah  and  the  Sunnah  of  His  Messenger  they  should  accept  it;  whatever  is  contrary  to  them,  they  should  reject  it  and  warn  their  followers  against  it,  especially  those  reports  that  undermine  their  Imams  themselves,  let  alone  Islam.

The  religion  of  Allah  is  complete  and  perfect.  Allah  says: This  day,  I  have  perfected  your  religion  for  you!  (Qur’an 5:3). And  the  Messenger  of  Allah ﷺ conveyed  all  that  was  revealed  to  him  and  he  followed  the  command  of  his  Lord,  Who  said:  O Messenger [Muhammad]!  Proclaim  [the Message]  which  has  been  sent  down  to  you  from  your  Lord.  And  if  you  do  not,  then  you  have  not  conveyed  His  Message)  (Qur’an 5:67).

The  Prophet ﷺ conveyed  the  message  clearly  and  eloquently, and  he  established  proof  so that  there  would  he  no  excuse left  for  anyone.  He  proclaimed  it  openly  among  the  Muslims,  without  singling  out  anyone  to  tell  him  alone  any  part  of  Shariah  and  asking  him  to  keep  it  secret.  Allah  says:  verily,  those  who  conceal  the  clear proofs,  evidences  and  the  guidance,  which  We  have  sent  down,  after  We  have  made  it  clear  for  the  people  in  the  Book,  they  are  the  ones  cursed  by  Allah  and  cursed  by  the  cursers.  Except  those  who  repent  and  do  righteous  deeds,  and  openly  declare  [the  truth  which  they concealed]!  (Qur’an 2: 159-160).

And  We  have  not  sent  down  the  Book  [the  Qur’an]  to  you  [O Muhammad],  except  that  you  may  explain  clearly  unto  them  those things  in  which  they  differ. (Qur’an 16:  64)

So  the  religion  is  complete  and  perfect,  with  nothing  added  or  taken  away  or  altered,  not  by  any  so-called  Imam  or  any  fictional  absent  one.  The  Prophet ﷺ  bade  farewell  to  this  world  after  conveying  the  religion  in  full  and  explaining  all  of  it  as  commanded  by  his  Lord.  He ﷺ said:  “You  have  been  left  with  something  so  clear  that  its  night  is  like  its  day.  No  one  goes  astray  from  it  after  I  am gone  but  he  will  be  doomed.”‘ 

Abu  Dharr  (radhiyallahu  anhu) said: “Muhammad ﷺ left  us,  and  no  bird  moved  its  wing  in  the  sky  but he  told  us  something  about  it.”‘

                         ADDENDUM

FRAUDS, FABRICATORS AND  LIARS – THE NARRATORS  OF THE AHAADITH OF SHI`ISM

By Mujlisul Ulama

The  narrators  and  books  of  the  numerous  sects  of  Shi`ism  are  abundant.  Since,  the  Ithna  Ashris  (those  believing  in  12  Imaams)  are  predominant  today,  this  chapter  will  discuss  the  kitaabs  and   Raawis  (narrators)  of  only  this  sect.   In  terms  of  the  consensus  of  the  Ithna  Ahsris,  among  all  Shi`i  books  of  religion,  four  are described  as  “the  most  authentic”.  These  are:

(1) Kaafi,  better  known  as  Kaafi  Kulaini

(2). Man  La  Yahdhurul  faqeeh,

(3). Tahzeeb,

(4). Istibsaar.

Shiah  authorities  have  emphasised  the  incumbency  (wujoob)  of  practising  in  accordance  with  these  four  books  of  fundamental  importance.  These  four  books  are  collectively  known everything  in  as  Usool-e-Arba’ah  (the  four  principles).  According  to  some  Shiah  priests,  Kaafi  is  the  ‘most authentic’  of  the  four.  Others  say  that  Man  La  Yahdhurul  faqeeh  is  the  ‘most  authentic’  of  the  four.

The  Ithna  Ashri  Shiahs  obtain  all  their  Fiqhi  masaa`il  (Rules  of  Jurisprudence),  Usool-e-Aqaaid  (principles  of  Beliefs)  and  their  views  on  Imaamat  from  these  four  fundamental  books.  Among  the  narrators  of  so-called  Ahaadith  in  these  ‘most  authentic’  books  of  the  Shiahs  are  the  following:

a.  Hishaamain  Maithami,  and  the  author  of  Taaq.  They  were  of  the  Mujassamah  sect,  believing  that  Allah  Ta`ala  is  a  three-dimensional  physical  body.  Among  the  Mujassamah  are  those  who  believe  that  Allah’s  body  is  hollow  until  the  navel  and  solid  from  below  the  navel.  Hishaam  bin  Saalim  and  Maithami  belong  to  this  group.  Kulaini  narrates  the  following  in  this  regard:

“…………..Verily,  Hishaam  Bin  Saalim,  Maithami  and  the  author  of  Taaq  say  that  Allah  Ta`ala  is  hollow  until  the  navel  and  the  remainder  is  solid.”“  

Kulaini  also  narrates  from  Ali  Bin  Hamzah  who  said:

“I  said  to  Abu  Abdullah  alaihi  salaam  ‘I  heard  Hishaam  Ibnul  Hakam  narrating  from  you (Imaams)  that  Allah  Ta`ala  is  a  solid  body  of  Noor…………”  

b.  Zuraarah  Bin  A`yun  Bukhair  Bin  A`yun,  Ahwalain,  Sulaimaan  Ja`fari,  Muhammad  Bin  Aslam,  etc.

They  ascribed  to  the  belief  that  Allah  Ta`ala  at  one  stage  in  eternity  was  jaahil  (ignorant).  He  gained knowledge  only  at  a  later  stage.

c.  Bani  Fudhail,  Ibn  Bukhair,  etc.  were  of  corrupt  mathhab  even  according  to  Shi`i  principles  because  they  either  rejected  the  Imaamat  of  the  Imaam  of  their  time  or  they  refuted  the  entire  concept  of  Imaamat.  i.e.  they  did  not  believe  in  any  Imaam.,

A  denier  of  Imaamat  is  a  Kaafir  according  to  Shi`ism.  Yet,  Shiah  authorities  unhesitatingly  narrate  the  narratives  of  such  Kaafirs  and  base  their  religious  teachings  thereon.

d.  Ja`far  Muraadi,  Ibn  Ayyash,  etc.  Even  Shiahs  brand  these  narrators  as  Wadh-dhaa`  (fabricators).

e.  Muhammad  Bin  Isaa,  etc.  Even  Shiahs  brand  him  and  others  as  Kath-thaab  (Liars).

f.  Ibn  Ammaar,  Ibn  Miskaan,  Ibn  Sakar,  Zaid  Yamaami,  etc.  They  are  classified  as  Dhuafaa  (weak  narrators)  and  Majaaheel  (unknown  entities).

g.  Taflisi,  Qaasim  Khazaaz,  Ibn  Farqad ,  etc.  They  are  classified  Mast’rul  Haal  (i.e.  their  state  is  hidden).

The  four  ‘most  authentic’  books  of  Shi`ism  are  cluttered  with  narrations  of  these  fabricators,  liars  and  frauds.  Invariably  the  chains  of  transmission  (Asaaneed)  of  these  frauds  terminate  on  such  persons  who  were  perpetrators  of  major  sins,  eg.  those  anarchists  (Sabaiyyah  Shias)  who  had  infiltrated  the  army  of  Hadhrat  Ali  (radhiyallahu  anhu).  The  book  of  Kulaini,  i.e.  Kaafi,  known  as  ‘the  most  authentic’  book  of  the  four  fundamental  books  of  Ithna  Ahsris  contains  numerous  narrations  of  Ibn  Ayyaash  who  is  a  fabricator  and  a  liar  by  the consensus  of  Shi`i  sects.  Abu  Ja`far  Tusi  narrates  simply  from  anyone  who  claims  to  have  been  a  companion  of  an  Imaam  inspite  of  the  close  associates  of  the  Imaam  branding  him  a  liar  and  categorically  refuting  his  claim  of  Hadhrat  Ja`far companionship  of  the  Imaam.  For  example,  Ibn  Miskaan  claimed  companionship  with Saadiq.  But  the  close  companions  of  Hadhrat  Ja` far  Saadiq  refute  this  contention.

CLASSIFICATION  OF NARRATIONS

According  to  Shiahs  there  are  four  classifications  of  narrations:

(1)  Saheeh,  (2)  Hasan,  (3)  Mauthaq,  (4)  Dhaeef.

SAHEEH
The  Shi`i  definition  of  Saheeh  (Authentic)  is  that  the  narration  should  be  an  uninterrupted  chain  of transmission  linked  to  an  infallible  Imaam  through  the  medium  of  uprighteous  narrators.

In  terms  of  this  definition  a  narration  in  which  there  is  an  interruption  (or  a  missing  link)  will  not  be  However,  inspite  of  their  own  definition,  Shiahs  do  classify  narrations  with  missing  links  as  Saheeh.   eg. “Ibn  Abi  Ameer  narrated  in  the  Saheeh  like  this…”  or  “In  the  Saheeh  of  Ibn  Ameer  it  is  like  this….”

Although,  the  Shi`i  definition  of  Saheeh  stipulates  the  condition  of  Adal  (Uprighteous,  etc.)  in  practice  this  condition  is  ignored  and  narrations  in  which  the  narrator/s  is/are  not  Aadil  are  also  classified  as  Saheeh.
Example:  Hussein  Bin  Hasan  Bin  Hasan.  He  is  described  by  the  Shi`i,  Hilli,  in  Muntaha  as  Majhulul  Haal.

Shiahs  classify  the  narrations  of  Hasan  Bin  Samaa’ah  as  Saheeh  inspite  of  him  being  of  the  Waaqifiyyah  sect.  He  refuted  the  Imaamat  of  the  contemporary  Imaam.  Such  a  person  is  not  an  Aadil  according  to  the  principles  of  Shi`ism.

The  narrations  of  Abaan  Bin  Uthmaan  are  classified  as  Saheeh  inspite  of  him  being  an  Aftahi.  He  refuted  the contemporary  Imaam  and  accepted  another  person  as  the  Imaam.  He  is,  therefore,  not  Aadil  in  terms  of  Shi`ism.

The  narrations  of  Ali  Bin  Fudhaal  and  Abdullah  Bin  Bukhair  are  said  to  be  Saheeh  although  the  mathhab  of  both  was  Faasid  (corrupt)  according  to  Shiahs.  Indeed,  it  is  most  surprising  because  their  experts  have  recorded  this  information  in  their  own  writings.  Inspite  of  this,  they  classify  the  narrations  of  such  persons  as  Saheeh.  The  definition  for  Saheeh  according  to  Shi`ism  requires  that  the  narrator  be  an  Imaami  (a  follower  of  an  infallible  Imaam). Uprighteousness  and  expert  of knowledge  are  insufficient.

Even  the  narrations  of  persons  cursed  by  an  ‘infallible’  (Ma`soom)  Imaam  are  accorded  the  status  of  Saheeh.

The  narrations  of  members  of  the  Mujassamah  sect,  who  believe  that  Allah  Ta`ala  is  a  three-dimensional  body  with  physical  anthromorphical  features,  are  also  classified  as  Saheeh  inspite  of  such  narrators  being  Kaafir  even  according  the  Shiahs.

The  narrations  of  persons  who  believe  that  Allah  Ta`ala  at  one  stage  was  ignorant  and  devoid  of  His  Sifaat  (Attributes),  are  also  classified  as  Saheeh.

The  narrations  of  those  who  exposed  the  secrets  of  the  Imaams  and  betrayed  their  trust,  eg.  Abu  Baseer,  are  also  classified  as  Saheeh. The  narrations  of  also  Kaththaabeen  (Liars) –  on  their  own  admission – are  also  accepted  as  Saheeh.   Narrations  of  Majhulul  Haal  persons  are  also  described  as  Saheeh,  eg.  Hasan  Bin  Abaan.  Narrations  of  exceptionally  weak  (Dhaeef)  narrators  such  as  Mukhbir  Ibn  Sanaan,  are  likewise  assigned  the  category  of  Saheeh.

Ja`far  Bin  Muhammad  Bin  Isaa  Bin  Shaapur  Qawaari  who  is  better  known  as  Abu  Abdullah  was  a  fabricator  of  Hadith.  Inspite  of  this,  Shi`i  authorities  narrate  his  fabrications.  In  regard  to  this  great  fraud,  Najaashi  says:

“Abu  Abdullah  was  dhaeef  in  Hadith.  Ahmad  Bin  Hussein  said:  ‘He  fabricated  Hadith..  He  was  most  cunning,  narrating  from  unknown  entities.  I  have  heard  it  being  said  that  he  was  of  corrupt  Mathhab. 

Nevertheless,  Abu  Ja`far  Tusi,  the  Sheikh  of  the  group  (of  experts)  narrated  from  him  and  relied  on  his  narration.”

“Hasan  Bin  Ayyaash  Bin  Jareesh  Raazi,  who  narrated  from  Ja`far  Thaani  is  extremely  weak.  He  has  (written) a  kitaabInna  Anzalna  hu  fi  Lailatil  Qadr,  in  which  is  narrated  Ahaadith  of  dubious  words.

Nevertheless,  Kulaini  narrated  from  him  many  Ahaadith.  And  his  kitaab  according  to  them  is  the  authentic  of  the  most authentic  books.”

“Ali  Bin  Hussaan  is  a  great  fabricator  (of  Hadith).  Najaashi  said  that  he  is  extremely  weak.  Some  of  Ulama  say  that  he  was  of  the  Ghullaat  (Extremists)  of  corrupt  beliefs.  He  has  a  kitaab  (called)  Tafseerul  Baatin,  the  whole  of  which  is  a  concoction.  Nevertheless,  Kulaini  narrates  him  in  his  (Kulaini’s)  Saheeh from  (i.e. Kaafi).”

“Muhammad  Bin  Isaa  said –  Nasr  Bin  Sabbaah:  ‘He  is  a  Kath-thaab  (Great  Liar).  Inspite  of  this,  Abu  ‘Amr al-Kashi  and  others  narrate  from  him.”

“Najaashi  said:  ‘Our  Ulama  have  condemned  Abdur  Rahmaan  Bin  Katheer  Al-Haashimi,  saying  that  he  fabricated  Hadith.  Nevertheless,  their  (Shi`i  Ulama)  experts  narrate  from  him  –  experts  such  as  Hasan  bin  Ali  Bin  Fadh-dhal,  etc.  And,  Kulaini,  Ibn  Baabawayh  and  Muhammad  Bin  Hasan  Tusi  also  narrated  from  him.”

The  list  of  fabricators,  frauds  and  liars,  i.e.  even  according  to  Shiahs,  is  extremely  lengthy. Nevertheless,  Shiah  authorities  narrate  ‘Hadith’  from  them.  Such  fabrications  clutter  the  ‘most  authentic’  books  of  theology  of  the  Shiahs.   

From  the  aforegoing  discussion,  the  fallacy  of  Shi`ism  with  it’s  corrupt  basis  of  falsehood  is  conspicuously established.  Since  the  state  of  their  ‘Saheeh’  ‘Ahaadith’  is  absolutely  putrid  and  false,  discussion  on  the  other categories,  viz.  HasanMauthiq  and  Dhaeef,  is  superfluous.  The  incongruency  of  Shi`i  scholars,  i.e.  their  acceptance  of  narrators  whom  they  themselves  condemn,  is imposed  on  them  by  the following  three  factors:

1.  Their  inherent  kufr  which  has  mentally  deranged  them.

2.  Their  theology  being  absolutely  bankrupt,  lacking  entirely  in  truthful  narrators  in  view  of  Shi`ism  discarded  and  condemned  the  whole  glorious  Body  of  Sahaabah  of  Rasulullah ﷺ.

THE  MAJAAHIL

The  unknown  entities  from  whom  Shiah  authorities  narrate  so-called  Ahaadith  constitute  a dubious,  ambiguous  and  of  illegitimate  spiritual  and  moral formidable  list.  Such  unknown  narrators – dubious,  ambiguous  and  of  illegitimate  spiritual  and  moral  fibre,  characters  and origin  are  technically  termed  MAJHOOL.

The  names of  some  of  these  Majaahil  (plural  of  Majhool)  will  now  be  presented:-

Hasan  Bin  Ahbaan,  Qaasim  Bin  Sulaimaan,  Amr  Bin  Hanzalah,  Amr  Bin  Abaan,  Hussein  Bin  Alaa,  Abbaas  Bin  Amr  Qaq`ami,  Fadhl  Bin  Sakan,  Ali  Bin  Uqbah  Bin  Qais  Bin  Sam`aan,  Ibn  Abi  Alaa,  Haashim  Bin  Abi  Ammaar Husseini,  Basheer  Bin  Yasaaril  Yasaaree,  Musaa  Bin  Ja`far,  Fadhl  Bin  Sakrah,  Zaidul  Yamaani,  Saeed  Bin  Zaid, Abdur  Rahmaan  Bin  Abi  Haashim,  Bakaar  Bin  Abi  Bakr, Yazeed,  Ghaalib  Bin  Uthmaan,  Ubay  Habibul  Fulaih  Bin  Zaid,  Muhammad  Bin  Sulaih,  Abdulah  Bin  Asadi,  Ubay  Saeedul  Makaari,  Rikaaz  Bin  Farqad,  Hasan  Tifleesi,  Qa asim  Bin  Khazaaz,  Saalih  Sa`di,  Hasan  Ibn  Ali,  Ibnul  Ishaaq  Al-Ali  Bin  Duqail,  Hasan  Bin  Ali  Bin  Ibraheem,  Ibraheem  Bin  Muhammad, Hawi,  Uthmaan  Bin  Abdul  Malik,  Uthmaan  Bin  Abdullah,  Isaa  Bin  Amr,  Maulal Ansaar,  Rabi  Bin Bin Muhammad  Salmi,  Ali  Bin  Sa`d  As-Sa `di,  Muhammad  Bin  Yusuf  Bin  Ibraheem,  Mahmood  Maimoon,  Ja`far  Bin  Suwaid,  Ja`far  Bin  Kilaab.

About  all  these  unknown  entities,  scholars  and  authorities  pass  the  following  judgement:

“Therefore,  all  of  them  are  Majaahil  (unknown  entities)  along  with  another  group  (of  narrators)  who  cannot  be  enumerated  (on  account  of  their  abundance).  However,  their  Shuyookh  (seniors)  such  as  Ibraheem,  his  son  Ibraheem,  Muhammad  Bin  Yaqoob  Kulaini,  Ibn  Baabawayh,  Abu  Ja`far  Ali  Bin  Tusi  and  his  Sheikh  Abu  Abdullah  whose  title  is  Mufeed,  narrate  from  them  (the  Majaahil)  in  their  Sihah  (i.e.  authentic  books). Their  Mujtahids  have  made  compulsory  practising  in  accordance  with  whatever  appears  in  these  Sihah.  They  think  that  these  (Sihah)  produce  absolute  knowledge  (Ilmul Qa t`i).  Murtadha,  Tusi  and  Hilli  have  explicitly  declared  this.”  [Hadyah  Majeediyah]

The Mahdi: Between Ahlus Sunnah and the Shia

One of the most prominent beliefs of the Rafidi Shia, with which their books are filled, is belief in the awaited Mahdi. What the Imami Rafidis mean by the awaited Mahdi is Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-‘Askari, who is their twelfth Imam and whom they call ‘the proof’ and ‘the one who stands for the truth’.

They claim that he was born in 255 AH and that he hid in the tunnel of Samarra in 265 AH; they are waiting for his appearance at the end of time, when he will avenge them against their enemies and support them. The Rafidi Shia still visit the tunnel of Samarra and call upon him to emerge.

In fact, this Mahdi who is claimed by the Rafidis is non-existent. Al-Hasan al-‘Askari, whom they name as his father, died without leaving any child behind; his estate was divided between his mother and his brother Ja’far. This Shiite belief in the awaited Mahdi is accompanied by many myths and fables that no rational person could believe. They believe that the Mahdi is one of the descendants of al-Husayn رضي الله عنه, and they narrate strange stories about him.

They say that when he emerges, the Rafidi Shia will come from all over to rally around him. He will bring the noble Companions رضي الله عنهم out of their graves and punish them; he will kill the Arabs and Quraysh; he will destroy the Ka’bah, the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم Mosque and all other mosques; he will call people to a new religion, a new book and new laws; and he will conquer cities with the Ark of the Covenant of the Jews.

Two springs, of water and milk, will flow for him, and one Shiite Rafidi man will gain the strength of forty men; he will give them strength and power in their hearing and vision, and he will rule according to the law of the family of Dawood عليه السلام.

The beliefs of the Rafidi Shia concerning their awaited Mahdi are false. This fact is indicated by a number of things:

It is Proven that this Mahdi was not Born

By the wisdom of Allah سبحانه و تعالى, it was decreed that al-Hasan al-‘Askari, the eleventh Imam of the Rafidis, should die childless. This was a great scandal and a major setback for the Rafidi Shia: how could the Imam die without having any sons who could succeed him as Imam? Their belief is that the one who succeeds the imam after his death must be his son, and it is not permissible for the imamate to be passed to a brother after al-Hasan رضي الله عنه and al-Husayn رضي الله عنه. The fact that this Mahdi was not born is proven in the books of the Shia themselves.

It Makes No Sense for the Mahdi to Disappear

If we accept for argument’s sake that this Mahdi was born, it makes no sense for him to disappear for this long time in the tunnel. When the Rafidi Shia are asked about the wisdom behind his disappearance in the tunnel and his not coming out to the people, they explain that he feared for his life. This is a weak excuse, and many things show this to he false. It is narrated in their books that he will be supported by Allah سبحانه و تعالى and will gain control of the entire earth, east and west. He will fill the earth with justice as it was filled with injustice, and he will live until the time when ‘Eesa ibn Maryam [Jesus the son of Mary عليه السلام] descends.

What they say means that the Mahdi will never emerge until the states of injustice and oppression and evil go away, so that he can feel that his life is safe – but at that time there will be no need for him to emerge. These states are able to protect him if he emerges, so why does he not emerge? The one who cannot protect himself from being killed will not he able to protect others either, because the one who does not have a thing cannot give it. How can they be waiting for someone like that to avenge them against their enemies and cause them to prevail? Thus their claims are proven invalid, because the reason why the Mahdi has not emerged is that he fears for his life. Based on that, the claim that the Mahdi existed at all is rendered invalid, because nothing is preventing him from coming out of hiding except fear for his life, as was clearly stated by Shaykh at-Ta’ifah at-Tusi.

So the claims about the existence of the Mahdi are proven false by the testimony of their own scholars, and this is by the grace of Allah سبحانه و تعالى.

No Benefit has been Achieved by this Mahdi

Another indication of the falseness of the Rafidi Shiite belief in the awaited Mahdi is that this Mahdi, who the Rafidis claim will emerge, has not achieved any interest, religious or worldly, and the Muslims have not benefited from him at all, either the Rafidis or any others. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah said: “This infallible one, whom they claim was born at some time more than four hundred and fifty years ago, entered the tunnel, according to them, in 260 AH, when he was five years old according to some of them, or younger than that according to others. He did not do anything that the infallible Imam does. What benefits can there be in the existence of such a one, even if he did exist? So how about if he never existed at all? What blessing or benefit did those who believed in this infallible one attain by means of him in their religious or worldly interests? … This figure in whom the Rafidis believe must be either absent, according to them, or non-existent, according to people of reason. Whatever the case, there is no benefit to anyone in either religious or worldly terms.”

The Twelver Shia nowadays have gone against this belief in practical terms through their belief in the theory of ‘guardianship of the jurist’, which allows ruling and governing by an ordinary Muslim who is not infallible and for whom there is no instruction or text from Allah and His Messenger, provided that he has knowledge and is of good character.

The Belief of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah

The sound hadiths state that at the end of time, Allah سبحانه و تعالى will bring forth a man from Ahlul-Bayt through whom Allah سبحانه و تعالى will cause Islam to prevail. He will rule for seven years, filling the earth with justice and peace as it had been filled with injustice and oppression. During his rule, the Ummah will enjoy blessings that it never enjoyed before; the earth will bring forth its vegetation, the sky will send down rain, and he will give wealth without measure. The following are some of these hadiths:

It was narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri رضي الله عنه that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “At the end of my Ummah, the Mahdi will appear. Allah will send a great deal of rain for him, the earth will bring forth its vegetation, and he will distribute wealth equally among the people. The numbers of livestock will increase, and the Ummah will become great. He will live for seven or eight years.”

It was also narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri رضي الله عنه that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The Hour will not begin until the earth is filled with oppression and enmity. Then a man from my family will emerge, and he will fill it with fairness and justice as it was filled with oppression and enmity.”

It was narrated that Thawban رضي الله عنه said: “The Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: ‘Three will fight one another for your treasure, each one of them the son of a caliph, but none of them will gain it. Then the black banners will come from the east, and they will kill you in an unprecedented manner.’ He mentioned something that I do not remember, then he said: ‘When you see him, pledge your allegiance to him even if you have to crawl over the snow, for that is the caliph of Allah, the Mahdi.'”

Imam Ibn Katheer said: “What is meant by the treasure mentioned in this report is the treasure of the Ka’bah, three sons of caliphs will be killed fighting for it until, at the end of time, the Mahdi will appear. His appearance will be from a land in the east, not from the tunnel of Samarra in which the ignorant Rafidis claim he has been until now, where they are waiting for him to emerge at the end of time. This is a kind of madness and a great deal of misguidance from Satan, because there is no proof or evidence for that, either from the Qur’an or the Sunnah, or any rational evidence …. He will be supported by people from the east, who will establish his rule. Their banners will be black, which is the colour of dignity, because the banner of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم was black and was called al-‘Iqaab… What is meant is that the promised, praiseworthy Mahdi who will appear at the end of time will originate and appear and emerge from the east, and allegiance will be sworn to him at the Ka’bah, as is indicated by some hadiths.”

It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah رضي الله عنه said that he heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say: “How will you be when the son of Maryam descends and your leader is one of you?”

It was narrated that Jabir ibn ‘Abdillah رضي الله عنه said that he heard the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم say: “A group among my Ummah will continue to fight for the truth and will prevail until the Day of Resurrection. ‘Eesa ibn Maryam will descend, and their leader will say: ‘Come and lead us in prayer,’ but he will say: ‘No, you are leaders of one another,’ as an honour from Allah to this Ummah.”

The hadiths, which are narrated in Bukhari and Muslim, indicate two things:

(1) That when ‘Eesa ibn Maryam عليه السلام descends from heaven, the one in charge of the Muslims will be one of them.

(2) That their ruler will be there to lead the Muslims in prayer, and the fact that he will ask ‘Eesa عليه السلام to lead them in prayer when he descends indicates that this ruler will be righteous and guided.

There are other hadiths in the Sunan and Musnads and elsewhere that explain these hadiths that appear in Bukhari and Muslim, they indicate that the name of that righteous man will be Muhammad ibn Abdillah and he will be called the Mahdi. The reports of the Sunnah support and explain each another.

It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri رضي الله عنه said that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “He is one of us behind whom ‘Eesa ibn Maryam will pray.”

It was narrated that Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri رضي الله عنه said that the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The Mahdi is of me. He has a high forehead and a prominent nose. He will fill the world with fairness and justice as it was filled with wrongdoing and injustice, and he will rule for seven years.”

There is no connection at all between the Mahdi of the Sunnah and the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia. There are many differences between them, such as:

(1) According to Ahlus-Sunnah, the Mahdi’s name is Muhammad ibn Abdillah, his name is the same as the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his father’s name is the same as the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم father. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, his name is Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-‘Askari.

(2) According to Ahlus-Sunnah, the Mahdi is one of the descendants of al-Hasan رضي الله عنه. The Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia is one of the descendants of al-Husayn رضي الله عنه.

(3) According to Ahlus-Sunnah, the Mahdi will be born naturally, and his lifespan will be natural. There is nothing in the hadiths to indicate that he is at all different from other people in that regard. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, his conception and birth happened in one night, and he entered the tunnel when he was nine years old; now he has been in the tunnel for more than 1150 years.

(4) The Mahdi, according to Ahlus-Sunnah, will emerge to support Islam and the Muslims, and he will not differentiate between one nation and another. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, he will emerge to support only the Rafidi Shia and to wreak vengeance on their enemies. He will hate the Arabs and Quraysh and will give them nothing but the sword; there will be no Arabs among his followers, according to their reports.

(5) The Mahdi of Ahlus-Sunnah will love the Companions رضي الله عنهم of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم; he will ask Allah to he pleased with them and will adhere to their way. He will also love the Mothers of the Believers رضى الله عنهنّ and will not mention them except in the best terms. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, they claim that he will hate the Companions of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and will bring them out of their graves in order to punish them and then burn them. He will also hate the Mothers of the Believers رضى الله عنهنّ and will despise the dearest of the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم wives to him, as-Siddeeqah bint as-Siddeeq ‘A’ishah رضي الله عنها – or so they claim.

(6) The Mahdi of Ahlus-Sunnah will act according to the Sunnah of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم; he will not leave any Sunnah without establishing it or any innovation without suppressing it. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, he will call people to a new religion and a new book.

(7) The Mahdi of Ahlus-Sunnah will build and frequent mosques. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, he will destroy mosques; he will destroy al-Masjid al-Haraam and the Ka’bah, and the Prophet’s صلى الله عليه وسلم Mosque, and will not leave a single mosque on the face of the earth – as is clearly stated in their reports.

(8) The Mahdi of Ahlus-Sunnah will rule in accordance with the Book of Allah سبحانه و تعالى and the Sunnah of His Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, he will rule according to the law of the family of Dawood عليه السلام.

(9) The Mahdi of Ahlus-Sunnah will emerge from the east. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, he will emerge from the tunnel of Samarra.

(10) The Mahdi of Ahlus-Sunnah is true and proven, as indicated by the hadiths of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and the words of the scholars of the past and of the present. As for the Mahdi of the Rafidi Shia, he is a figment of their imagination who has not appeared and will never appear.

The Shiites and Islamic History

One  of  the  worst  groups  when  it  comes  to  distorting  Islamic history  is  the  Raafdhi  Shia,  of  all  groups  and  types.  They  were  among  the  earliest  of  the  groups  to  emerge,  and  they  have  a  hierarchical  political  system  and  their  own  set  of  deviant  beliefs  and  ideology. This  is  the  group  that  tells  the  most  lies  against  its  opponents,  and  they  are  among  the  most  vehemently  opposed  of  people  towards  the Companions,  as  we  will  see.  Among  the  basic  foundations  of  their  belief  are  impugning  the  Companions  and  denouncing  them  as disbelievers,  especially  the  ‘two  shaykhs’  Abu  Bakr  and  ‘Umar  (may  Allah  be  pleased  with  them),  whom  they  refer  to  as  ‘sorcery  and  evil.’  The  Shia  have  the  greatest  number  of  narrators  and  storytellers  who  took  on  the  mission  of  spreading  their  lies  and fabrications  and  compiling  them  in  books  and  essays  about  the  events  of  Islamic  history,  especially  internal  events.  Shu’oobiyyah  and  tribalism  also  had  an  effect  on  the  fabrication  of  historical  reports  and  stories  aimed  at  distorting  Islamic  history  and  ‘proving’  the  superiority  of  one  sect  or  people  or  race  over  another,  ignoring  the  Shariah  criterion  of  superiority,  namely  taqwa“Verily,  the  most  honourable  of  you  with  Allah  is  that  [believer]  who  has  At-Taqwa  [i.e.  he  is  one  of  the  Muttaqoon  (the  pious)]”   [Qur’an  49:13].

The  deviant  sects  took  advantage  of  the  prevalence  of storytellers,  the  ignorance  and  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  Sunnah  on  the  part  of  most  of  the  people,  and  the  fact  that  some  of  them  had  drifted  away  from  the  truth  while  seeking  to  earn  a  living.  They spread  their  lies  and  fabricated  stories,  which  these  storytellers welcomed  and  spread  among  the  common  folk,  without  realising  the  situation.  Hundreds  of  fabricated  reports  about  the  Companions,  Tabi’oon  and  Muslim  scholars,  which  undermined  them  and distorted  their  history,  were  disseminated  through  them.  But  by  His  grace  and  blessing,  Allah  Ta’ala  guided  a  number  of  scholarly  critics,  who  strove  hard  to  examine  the  narrators  and  narrations,  distinguishing  between  true  and  false  and  defending  the  beliefs  and history  of  the  Ummah.  The  Sunni  scholars  put  a  great  deal  of  effort  into  pointing  out  the  fabricated  reports  by  quoting  them  and  highlighting  those  narrators  who  were  weak,  suspicions,  or  followers of  whims  and  desires.  They  drew  up  a  methodology  for  examining  the  reports  and  determining  which  to  accept,  and  they  were  successful  in  these  efforts. 

Among  the  most  prominent  of  those  who  took  on  the  mission  of  explaining  historical  errors  and  pointing  out  flaws  in  the  false reports  were: 

al-Qadi  Ibn  al-‘Arabi  in  al- ‘Awasim  min  al-Qawasim; 

Ibn  Taymiyah  in  many  of  his  books  and  essays,  especially  his  valuable  book  Minhaj  as-Sunnah  an-Nabawiyyah  ji  Naqd  Kalam  ash-Shia  wal-Qadariyyah;

the  critic  adh-Dhahabi  in  many  of  his historical  writings  such  as  Siyar A’lam  an-Nubala’,  Tareekh  al-Islam  and  Mizan  al-l’tidal’,  Naqd  ar-Rijal; 

al-Hafidh  Ibn  Katheer,  the  interpreter  of  Qur’an  and  historian,  in  his  book  al-Bidayah  wan-Nihayah; 

al-Hafidh – Ibn  Hajar  al-‘Asqalani  in  his  books  Fath  al-Bari  fi  Sharh  Saheeh  al-Bukhari, Lisan  al-Mizan, Tahdheeb  at-Tahdheeb and  al-Isabah  fi  Ma’rifat  as-Sahabah. 

With  regard  to  the  methods  used  by  the  Shia  to  distort  the historical  events  and  images  of  the  early  generation  of  the Companions  and  Tabi’oon,  there  were  many  ways,  including:

☆ Outright  fabrications  and  Lies

☆ Mentioning  a  true  story  or  incident,  but  adding  or  omitting  details  so  as  to  distort  it  and  give  the  opposite  idea.

☆ Quoting  reports  out  of  context,  so  that  the  meaning  is distorted,  and  a  false  interpretation  of  events  is  given.

☆ Highlighting  shortcomings  and  mistakes  while  concealing well-established  facts.

☆ Fabricating  poetry  and  attributing  it  to  some  poets,  in  order  to  support  some  so-called  historical  events,  because Arabic  poetry  is  regarded  as  a  historical  document  and  proof  that  helps  to  authenticate  reports.

☆ Fabricating  books  and  essays  and  falsely  attributing  them  to  scholars  and  well  known  characters,  as  the  Raafdhis  fabricated  the  hook  al-Imamah  was-Siyasah,  which  they  attributed  to  Abu  Muhammad  Abdullah  ibn  Muslim  ibn  Qutaybah  ad-Daynoori  because  he  was  famous  among  and  trusted  by  the  Sunnis,  as  we  have  seen  above.

In  the  last  century,  these  lies  and  distortions  were  welcomed by  Western  scholars  and  writers,  such  as  Orientalists  and  missionaries,  during  the  period  in  which  they  invaded  and  spread  terror  in  Muslim  lands.  They  found  in  this  material  what  they  were  looking  for,  and  they  started to  highlight  it  and  focus  on  it.  Motivated  by  their  fanaticism  and  hatred  of  the  Muslims,  they  added  lies  by  inventing  events  that  never  happened  or  misinterpreting  historical events,  purposely  distorting  and  misinterpreting  the  facts  to  support  their  beliefs.  This  group  was  then  supported  by  a  large  number  of  the  students  of  the  Orientalists  from  Arab  and  Muslim  countries,  who  adopted  their  research  methodology  and  their  ideas  and  concepts  for  analysing  and  interpreting  history;  they  took  up  the  banner  after  the  European  Missionary  and  Materialistic  Terrorists  departed  from  the  Muslim  lands.  Thus  the  harm  that  they  did  was  worse  and  greater  than  that  of  their  Orientalist  teachers  and their  predecessors  among  the  misguided  and  innovating  groups.  That  is  because  they,  like  their  teachers,  claimed  to  be  following  a  pure  academic  spirit  and  scientific  method  in  research  by  giving  up  any  and  all  pre-conceptions,  but  in  fact  most  of  them  gave  up  nothing  but  their  faith.

They  had  no  sincerity  towards  the  truth  and  no  knowledge  of following  a  sound  academic  methodology  in  proving  historical  events,  such  as  comparing  reports,  knowing  the  value  of  the  sources  to  which  they  were  referring  and  the  extent  to  which  the  narrators  were  authentic  and  accurate,  and  studying  the  context  of  those  narrators  in  terms  of  human  nature  and  development.  They  did  not  learn  anything  of  scientific  or  academic  methodology  except  for  superficial  matters  such  as  how  to  write  footnotes  and  put  together  bibliographies,  and  so  on.  This  is  probably  what  scientific  methodology  meant  to  them.  Muhibb  ad-Deen  al-Khateeb  said: 

“Those  who  received  a  foreign  education  are  controlled  by  the illusion  that  they  are  disconnected  from  that  past,  and  their  attitude  towards  its  figures  is  like  that  of  a  public  attorney  towards  the  accused.  Indeed,  some  of  them  even  went  to  extremes  to  appear  in front  of  others  as if  they  had  no  connection  with  any  part  of  Arab  and  Muslim  history,  following  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Orientalists  with  their  suspicious  views  of  the  past.  They  have  a  sense  of  contentment  and  follow  their  whims  and  desires,  at  the  time  when  fairness  dictates  that  they  should  verify  the  matter,  in  order  to  reach  a  conclusion  and  feel  at  ease  with  it  before  they  have  enough  evidence  to  prove  it.”

One  of  the  most  important  means  by  which  the  Orientalists  and  their  students  sought  to  distort  the  facts  of  Islamic  history  is:

Misinterpreting  historical  events  on  the  basis  of  modern concepts  and  ideas  and  in  accordance  with  whatever  crossed  their  minds,  without  even  verifying  the  historical  events  in  the  first  place  and  without  paying  any  attention  to  the  historical  context  in  which  the  event  took  place,  the  people’s  circumstances  at  that  time,  or  the  beliefs  that  were  guiding  them  and  that  they  were  following.  Before discussing  any  event,  it  is  essential  to  first  verify  that  it  took  place;  the  fact  that  it  is  mentioned  in  some  book  is  not  sufficient  to  prove  it.  The  stage  of  verifying  precedes  the  stage  of  discussing  and interpreting  historical  events.

The  interpretation  should  also  be  in  accordance  with  the wording  of  the  historical  report,  as  well  as  the  context  of  the  research  and  the  general  nature  of  the  society,  era  and  environment  in  which the  event  took  place.  This  interpretation  of  the  historical  event  should  not  contradict another  incident  or  series  of  incidents  that  are  proven  to  have  happened.  Examination  of  an  event  should  not  be  limited  to  one  aspect  only,  as  is  the  habit  of  many  contemporary  schools  of  thought  when  studying  history;  instead,  all  the  factors  that  have  an impact  on  the  event  should  be  scrutinised,  especially  ideological  and  intellectual  factors.  Even  after  paying  attention  to  all  of  the  above, the  interpretation  of  historical  events  is  no  more  than  a  human  effort,  which  may  be  right  or  wrong.  Some  have  given  prominence  to  the history  of  misguided  groups  and  tried  to  exaggerate  their  role,  depicting  them  as  reformers  who  were  wronged  or  oppressed.  They  have  tried  to  suggest  that  Muslim  historians  were  unfair  to  groups  like  the  Qaramitah,  Isma’ilis,  Imami  Rafidhis,  Fatimids,  Zanj,  Ikhwan  as-Safa and  the  Kharijites.  In  the  view  of  these  historians,  all  of  these groups  were  advocates  of  reform,  justice,  freedom  and  equality,  and  their  uprisings  were  aimed  at  putting  an  end  to  injustice  and  oppression.  This  propaganda  against  Islamic  history,  and  trying  to  crowd  out  the  biographies  of  heroes  and  callers  to  Islam  with  the  biographies  of  the  leaders  of  misguided  groups,  is  something  that  comes  as  no  surprise  from  people  who  are  not  Muslims,  because  they  are motivated  by  their  own  beliefs  and  aims  to  plot  against  Islam  with  all  possible  efforts  by  night  and  day,  in  secret  and  openly.  One  cannot  expect  people  who  have  no  faith  and  who  belong  to  the  disbelieving groups  to  do  anything  other  than  to  support  their  brothers  in  misguidance. 

What  some  may  find  strange  however  is  that  after  the  collapse  of  Orientalism,  the  banner  of  distortion  was  taken  up  by  writers  who  have  Muslim  names  and  are  Muslims,  who  tried  to  spread  this  poison among  their  fellow  Muslims  so  as  to  divert  the  ignorant  away  from  the  straight  path.  These  writers  rely  on  dubious,  weak,  worthless  reports  which  they  pick  up  from  literature,  fairy  stories,  folktales  and  weak  or  falsely  attributed  books.  These  books  are  what  they  use  as proof,  along  with  what  they  find  of  fabricated  reports  in  at-Tabari  and  al-Mas’oodi,  even  though  they  know  that  they  are  not  regarded  as  reliable  academic  references.  This  transgression  against  and distortion  of  Islamic  history  –  especially  the  history  of  the  early  generations  – has  been  done  by  a  number  of  means,  namely:

(a)  Choosing  and  focusing  on  particular  events,  such  as  battles  and  wars,  and  depicting  them  incorrectly  so  as  to  take  away  the  idea  of  struggle  for  the  sake  of  Allah  Ta’ala,  or  focusing  on  events  and  internal  turmoil  with  the  aim  of  presenting  the  dispute  among  the  Companions (radhiyallahu  anhum)  as  if  it  were  a  typical  example  of  conflict  and  political  scheming like  those  of  modern  times.

(b)  Concealing  and  ignoring  everything  that  could  set  a  good  example  and  motivate  people.

(c)  Shedding  doubt  by  targeting  history  and  its  celebrated  figures,  as  well  as  the  Muslim  historians  themselves,  and  casting  aspersions  on  their  knowledge  and  authenticity.

(d)  Fragmenting  Islamic  history  into  small,  disparate  parts  as  if  there  is  no  connection  between  them,  such  as  dividing  Islamic  history  on  the  basis  of  regions,  race  and  so  on. 

All  of  these  means  are  attempts  to  destroy  our  Islamic  history  and  its  beautiful  features,  and  to  prevent  it  from  becoming  a  good  example  to  follow  and  a  means  of  sound  education.

Hence  the  Muslim  historians  have  to  know  about  these  things  and  be  wary  of  them.  They  should  also  be  aware  of  those  who  followed  the  Orientalists  in  their  views  and  methodology,  and  they  should  not  accept  anything  from  them  except  with  great  caution.  If  our  scholars  (may  Allah  have  mercy  on  them)  criticise  many narrators  of  history  and  regard  their  reports  as  weak  because  they  quote  from  the  People  of  the  Book  and  their  Jewish  and  Christian  sources,  then  we  should  be  equally  cautious  in  accepting  the  views  and  interpretations  of  those  who  learned  from  the  Orientalists.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  should  reject  and  disregard  them  unless  there  is  clear  proof  to  support  them.

The Tragedy of Karbala in a Nutshell

For those who are in search for a detailed treatise which answers most of the questions of the tragedy of Karbala may read it by clicking the following links:

Karbala – A ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and the Secrets Behind it [Part 1]

[Part 2] Karbala – The ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and the Secrets Behind it

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

The substance of the article is an endeavor to reveal the real background of the tragedy of Karbala and to lay bare the events leading to a series of tragedies in the Islamic history. The tragedy taken in a distorted perspective has led to tremendous confusion about the conflicts of the Companions of the Holy Prophet ﷺ. It gave rise to a separate sect in Islam, the Shi´ah. It is necessary for every Muslim to be aware of the real background of the events in order to avoid distorted concepts about the Companions of the Holy Prophet ﷺ, as it is a part of our faith to show due respect to them all and consider everyone of them free from perversion of intention in their actions.

In The Name Of Allah, The Most Merciful & The Beneficent

On the 10th of Muharram Al-Haraam, 61 A.H., a most abominable and tragic event occurred in the desert of Karbala that resulted in the martyrdom (shahadah) of Hussain Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), the grandson of our Prophet ﷺ and the son of his daughter, along with most of the members of his family and their supporters. It should be borne in mind that this tragedy did not take place all of a sudden like a bolt from the blue. It was in fact the manifestation of the plot of Saba’iyyah which had claimed the life of Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu), the third Caliph and the son-in-law of the Prophet ﷺ twenty-five years earlier. Caliph Uthman´s (Rashiyallahu anhu) martyrdom took place on 18th of Dhu Al-Hajj, 36 A.H. [Read more: Martyrdom of ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan (Radhiyallahu Anhu) & the Role Of the Saba’iyyah]

We must not overlook the fact that the struggle between the forces of good and evil is a continuous process which never ends. In the history of mankind, evil has reigned supreme most of the time whereas the triumph of good has been sporadic and short-lived. Another well-established fact is that the evil forces, even if subdued and subjugated, never acknowledge total defeat. On the contrary, they become submissive for a while and lay low, waiting for an opportunity to strike back. Often the evil forces, when subdued, go underground but never abandon their struggle to cause rift and strife among their opponents. The Prophet of Islam ﷺ brought about an incomparable and unprecedented revolution in the history of mankind, a unique miracle for all times, and established a state and government to dispense justice to the people over a vast tract of the globe. In the words of the Qur´an:

…the Truth came and the falsehood vanished… [Al-Isra 17:81]

But toward the end of the Prophet´s revolution, the evil forces put on a disguise and lay low, waiting for the right moment for a counter-attack. Thus, immediately after the demise of the Prophet ﷺ, insurgencies raised their ugly heads against the Islamic state. False prophets and defiants of Zakat challenged the central authority and waged wars against the state of Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah. These were the counter-revolutionary forces, determined to disintegrate the newly established Islamic state; but through resolute and prompt action, Abu Bakr Siddique (Radhiyallahu Anhu), the first Caliph, defeated them and consolidated the achievements of the Prophet´s ﷺ Islamic Revolution. It was a great service to Islam rendered by the first Caliph who had a short but glorious reign.

In the next twenty years which include the reigns of ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu), the second and third Caliph of Islam, many more countries were conquered under the banner of Islam and the Muslim empire extended over a vast expanse of the globe, comprising Iraq, Syria, Iran on one side and a large part of North Africa including Egypt and Morocco on the other. But the historical process has its immutable laws. As the Revolution of the Prophet ﷺ was challenged by the reactionary movements on the Arab land, the same happened with the conquests of those two Caliphs. The first target of these reactionaries was the person of ‘Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was assassinated by Abu Lulu Feroze, a Parsi slave from Iran. [Read More: The Last Days of ‘Umar Ibn Khattab (Radhiyallahu Anhu)’s Life and His Assassination]

It was purely an Iranian plot hatched by Hurmuzan, an Iranian general, who thought that if Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) was removed from the scene, the empire of Islam would fall like a house of cards. But by the grace of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala), it survived the calamity. Abdullah Ibn Saba, a Jew from Yemen, under the garb of a Muslim, took his sojourn at Madinah. He had all the trappings of an expert plotter and the Jewish cunningness at intrigues, an attribute of his clan. He planted subversive ideas among the people. He pleaded for the usurped rights of the house of the Prophet ﷺ, carried out a propaganda campaign against Caliph Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu) and incited the people to revolt. He declared Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) to be the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and dubbed Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu) as a usurper. He told people that every Prophet has a wasee and Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) is the wasee of Prophet Mohammad ﷺ and, therefore, entitled to be the caliph after the Prophet ﷺ . He also preached the divinity of Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), thus striking at Tauheed, the very root of Islam. The Iranians, who had embraced Islam only a few years before, were taken in by this propaganda because they had a long history of kingship and hero-worship. They were familiar with the divine rights of kings, and hero-worship was diffused in their blood. They readily accepted these ideas and became their champions. Similarly Abdullah Ibn Saba floated another viewpoint related to the second appearance of Prophet Isa (Alayhis salaam). He argued that Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, who is the best amongst the prophets of Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala, would also appear with Christ, for the contrary would imply that he is inferior to Prophet Isa (Alayhis salaam). This was the same argument used by the Qadianis in later years, who invented the notion of the death and burial of Prophet Isa (Alayhis salaam) in Kashmir. They argued that it was illogical for Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to have died and for Prophet Isa (Alayhis salaam) to be alive in the heaven. Unsophisticated and illiterate Muslims saw a point of adoration in it for Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and fell an easy prey to that sort of propaganda.

Abdullah Ibn Saba travelled all over the Muslim lands and set up his propaganda centers at Basra and Kufa, but his attempts failed in Damascus. Then he went to Egypt where he formed a party of his supporters. Consequently, the last two years of Caliph Uthman´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) reign were filled with machinations, intrigue, and turmoil all over Muslim territories. It culminated in the most unjustified murder (martyrdom) of Caliph Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu) who was the ruler of a vast empire and had tens of thousands of soldiers under his command but refused to shed the blood of Muslims in self-protection. Governors of provinces from all over the empire besought the Caliph to allow them to send troops to quell the uprising and to protect his person from the rebels who had surrounded his residence, but he remained strict and steadfast in his decision. It is perhaps a unique and unprecedented episode in the entire history of mankind that a very powerful man, like the Caliph Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu), refused to use authority for his personal safety and let himself be assassinated. May Allah Subhanahu Wa Ta’ala shower His blessings on him.

The murder of Habeel (son of Adam) by his brother Qabeel is perhaps an incident comparable to Caliph Uthman´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) assassination. When Qabeel declared his intention to kill Habeel, the latter announced his resolve, in the words of the Qur´an:

Even if thou stretch out thy hand against me, I shall not stretch out my hand against thee to kill thee; lo! I fear Allah the Lord of the worlds. [Al-Ma´ida 5:28]

So, Habeel was assassinated by his brother and that was the first act of homicide in the history of mankind. It was a totally unjustified murder in which the victim refused to offer resistance as in the assassination of Caliph Uthman (Radhiyallahu Anhu). For such an act, Allah Ta’ala has declared His reward and punishment in the Qur´an:

For that cause We decreed for the children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter of corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and saveth the life of one person, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind… [Al-Ma´ida 5:32].

Before Caliph Uthman´s (radhiyallahu anhu) assassination, Abdullah Ibn Salam (Radhiyallahu anhu), a Jewish scholar who had converted to Islam, addressed the rebels surrounding the residence of the Caliph in these words: “O people! beware of murdering a caliph of a Rasool (Messenger of Allah) for, I am a scholar of Torah and I tell you that Allah avenges the murder of His prophets and the murder of the deputies of his prophets (caliphs). There has hardly been any murder of a prophet which Allah has not avenged by inflicting death on seventy thousand people and the murder of a caliph by inflicting death on thirty five thousand people.” Now it is on record that, after the martyrdom of Hadrat Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu), the conflict and strife among the Muslim continued for almost five years. Civil war broke out and three major battles — Jamal, Siffeen and Nahrawan — were fought, causing eighty-four thousand deaths of Muslims at the hands of other Muslims. Many a pious and good Muslims were slain by the sword of fellow Muslims. Amongst them were eminent Companions like Talha, Zubair, Ammar Ibn Yasir and many more (radhiyallahu anhum). Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), the fourth Caliph, also sacrificed his life in this strife. Ameer Mu´awiya (Radhiyallahu anhu) was also attacked but survived. Amr Ibn Al-Aas (Radhiyallahu anhu) survived a murder attempt due to an alibi; his proxy was killed instead. The schism and strife among the Muslims caused by Abdullah Ibn Saba and his followers claimed countless valuable lives.

An instance from the authenticated record of the battle of Jamal is narrated here to illustrate how Muslims fell victims to the traps laid by the Sabaiyyah. After the occupation of Basra, Umm Al-Mumineen Aisha (Radhiyallahu anha) received a message from Caliph Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) for talks and negotiation. It should be remembered that she was never a claimant for the caliphate. Her only demand was that the murderers of Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu) must be punished immediately. Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) offered to accept her demand if his hands were first strengthened by a declaration of allegiance to him by her group. Both the armies of Aisha and Ali (Radhiyallahu anhum) were facing each other and camping on the battle field when these negotiations started. The news of this negotiation reached Abdullah Ibn Saba and Malik Ibn Ashter Nakhey (May Allah’s Curse be on them). They immediately pursued their nefarious plot to undermine the peace talks. Accordingly, under the cover of darkness, they, along with some of their followers, mounted an attack on Umm Al-Mu’mineen Aisha´s (Radhiyallahu anha) camp and the rumour was spread that the attack was made by the forces loyal to Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu). At the same time, they sent the word to Ali´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) camp that Umm Al-Mu’mineen Aisha´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) forces had initiated the attack. Consequently the opposing armies clashed with each other with all their might, leaving thousands dead on the battle field. It is a very painful part of Muslim history that no investigation to discover the truth in time was ever successful. The same thing happened at the battle of Siffeen. When a stage for peaceful negotiations was set, the Sabaiyyahs undermined it and a new scion of dissidents, the Khawarij, appeared on the scene, opening another front for the warring factions.

During the reign of Caliph Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), the Muslim empire did not exit as a single state under one central authority but broke up into various power centers. Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu Anhu), the governor of Syria, demanded avenge of Uthman´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) murder. “The assassins of Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu) are in your camp and they are your advisers. I will not declare allegiance to you unless they are punished,” he insisted. It should be borne in mind that Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) did not put forward his claim to the Caliphate and was contented with the governorship of Syria. Whether his demand and pressure on Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) was justified or not is an open issue, and everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

Caliph Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) was killed by a Khariji, and his son Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu) accepted the allegiance of the people at Kufa, a big army base. It appeared that another conflict was in the making. Hassan Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), leading a forty thousand strong contingent, marched to Medinah where he had to confront Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu), the governor of Syria, who faced him with a huge army. A small squad was leading the army of Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu). It was rumoured that the squad had a clash with the enemy and suffered a defeat. The persons responsible for spreading this rumour were never identified. Upon hearing the rumor, the Kufi forces revolted against Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu) and not only looted his camp but also manhandled him. He had to take refuge in Chosroes´ palace. But this incident shook the confidence of Hassan Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) in his Kufi supporters; he therefore sent a word to Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) for peace talks. Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) not only accepted the offer but also sent a blank cheque, so to say, for a settlement in accordance with the terms of Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu), who laid down the following conditions:

The tax collections from the province of Ahwaz shall be paid to Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu).

A grant of two million dirham shall be paid annually to Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu), his younger brother.

Banu Hashim shall be preferred in the distribution of allowances and grants.

A general amnesty shall be declared for all who took part in the battle.

Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) accepted all these terms and peace was restored in the sprawling empire. Strife and civil war came to an end and the state was unified under one central authority as he forced allegiance from all the dissidents. Hassan Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu), commenting on the transfer of authority, said, “If Mu´awiyah  was the rightful successor to the Caliphate, he has received it and if I had that right, I, too, have passed it on to him; so the matter ends there.”

This was in accordance with the prophecy of the Holy Prophet ﷺ about Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu) when he had said, “Through my son Hassan, Allah will bring about peace between tow warring factions of Muslims.”

It was an honour bestowed on Hassan Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) by Allah Ta’ala, but the Saba’iyyah were highly indignant at his peace move. They called him names and taunted him with the words “Ya Aar Al-Mu’meneen” (O, Shame for the believers!) and “Ya Mozill Al-Mu’mineen” (You, the debaser of the Believers!). Ostensibly they were his supporters, but in fact expressed their utter resentment at his action for peace making which ushered in an era of twenty years of unity and tranquility in the Muslim empire.

Muslims belonging to Ahl Al-Sunnah Wal-Jama´ah (the Sunni sect of Islam) do not include Ameer Mu´awiyah´s (Radhiyallahu Anhu) reign in Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah (the period of Rightly Guided Caliphate). But Ameer Mu´awiyah´s (Radhiyallahu Anhu) twenty years reign is still considered to be the best period in the entire Muslim history after Al-Khilafah Al-Rashidah, because during his reign all the functions of a Muslim state — maintenance of peace, dispensation of justice, struggle for the supremacy of Islam, dissemination of the Word of Allah Ta’ala — were performed admirably well. The reign of Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz (Rahimahullah) is also considered a glorious era of Islamic history, but it should be borne in mind that Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) — who was not only a Companion of the Holy Prophet ﷺ but also a scribe of Divine Revelation — stands much higher in rank and status than Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz (Rahimahullah) because the latter was a Taba´yee (a companion of the Companions of the Prophet) and not a Sahabi. It is the common belief of the Sunnis that however pious a person may be, he cannot be rated equal to the lowest among the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ.

Hassan Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) lived for ten years during the reign of Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu), and after the peace agreement between the two, they had a very close and friendly relationship. However, Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu) was poisoned to death, most probably by the same group who were enraged at his armistice with Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu). By no stretch of imagination this heinous deed can be ascribed to Ameer Mu´awiya (Radhiyallahu Anhu) who had no grudge against Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu). [Read More: Who Poisoned Hadhrat Hasan (Radhiyallahu Anhu)?? ]

Before we discuss the nomination of Yazeed as a successor to his father, it would be appropriate to understand some basic and relevant issues. Firstly, the differences in belief (aqeedah) and juristic interpretation (fiqh) among the various sects of the Muslim Ummah have been grossly exaggerated. The Sunnis have no disagreement regarding belief, and have only some minor differences over the interpretation of the Shari´ah. In fact, there are only two sects in Islam (within the context of this topic), i.e,. Sunni and Shi´ah, because they differ over beliefs as well as over the interpretation of Shari´ah. There are certain differences which do not cause the parting of ways. For instance, opinions about historical events and personalities can be overlooked. Similarly, the Sunnis believe Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) the best among the entire mankind after the prophets of Allah, yet this does not constitute any basic article of faith of a Muslim. However, the concept of the Infallible Imamate maintained by the Shi´ahs is unacceptable because it strikes at the very root of the concept of Prophethood. Only the prophets were continuously guarded against and protected by Allah from any sin, and with the termination of Prophethood the privilege of infallibility has been taken away by Allah Ta’ala from all the progeny of Adam. The door of personal judgment (Ijtihad) is open while the door of Divine Revelation (Nabuwwah) has been closed forever.

Ijtihad, the exercise of personal judgment within the framework of the guidance provided by the Qur´an and the Sunnah (the sayings and doings of the Prophet) is a privilege vouchsafed to every Muslim who is well-versed in the teachings of Islam. The possibility of an error of judgment can never be ruled out because to err is human. But any judgement or decision made in good faith and with a clear conscience has a reward for the judge, regardless of the correctness of the judgment. That is the belief of the Muslim Ummah. In the light of this principle, we can judge the actions of all the caliphs of Islam to be without malice and can hold any opinion we like provided it is not derogatory to their status as the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ.

Now let us look at the issue of Yazeed´s nomination by his father, Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu), as an heir-apparent to the caliphate. According to authentic historical records, it was done on the advice of Mughira Ibn Shu´ba (Radhiyallahu anhu), who was a very intelligent and far-sighted Companion of the Holy Prophet ﷺ. He argued that on the death of Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu), the issue of his succession, if remained uncertain, might plunge the Ummah once again into a war as had happened in the pre-Mu´awiya period; hence it was advisable to nominate a person to wield authority in the event of Ameer Mu´awiyah´s (radhiyallahu anhu) death. He also suggested the name of Ameer Mu´awiyah´s son Yazeed for the job. Now it is open to question whether this decision was justified or not, but no aspersions should be cast on Ameer Mu´awiya (Radhiyallahu anhu) or Mughira (Radhiyallahu anhu) who arrived at the conclusion with a clear conscience and in good faith. Both occupy venerable positions in the order of merit of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ . Mughira (Radhiyallahu anhu) was one of those who swore allegiance to the Prophet ﷺ under the tree (on the occasion of Baiy´ah Al-Ridwan) and Allah Ta’ala has commended all of them who took part in that (Al-Qur´an: Al-Fath 48:18). He remained a faithful friend and supporter of Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) throughout his life. But much water had flown under the bridge since Ali´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) times and he could apprehend danger in the absence of most of the influential Companions of the Holy Prophet ﷺ who had left this world by then (60 A.H.). The new generation did not have that sense of responsibility or moral embellishment as the old had. In view of such arguments, they took a decision counter to the democratic spirit inculcated by the Prophet ﷺ among his followers. Nevertheless, they cannot be condemned as having ulterior motives of their own, apart from the good of the Ummah, because the Sunnis believe in the diction which asserts:

All Companions of the Prophet were just.

We can differ with the Companions, but we cannot malign them as mala fide.

Now look at the other side of the picture. Many prominent dignitaries among the Muslims including the three Ibad Allah — i.e., Abdullah Ibn Zubair (Radhiyallahu anhu), Abdullah Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu), Abdullah Ibn Abbas (Radhiyallahu anhu) as also Hussain Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Abdur Rahman Ibn Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu) — not only disapproved of Yazeed´s nomination but also declared it against the spirit of Islam. The historic comment of Abdur Rahman Ibn Abu Bakr (Radhiyallahu anhu), when he was asked for allegiance to Yazeed´s heirship, is well worth taking note of. He said, “Now instead of acting upon the Prophet´s ﷺ and the rightly guided Caliphs´ tradition, do you want to adopt the tradition of Caesar and Chosroes?” Also, the fact cannot be overlooked that, except these five prominent Muslims, many others, including a large number of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ, swore allegiance to Yazeed´s nomination. All these people cannot be maligned and declared mala fide. Some may even allege that Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) bought their loyalties. If we accept this premise, by the same token it can also be alleged that Hassan Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) too was bought over, and the Shi´ahs consider Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu) to be an Imam Masoom (an infallible guide or leader). Obviously this is not the right course of thought and argument because, if pursued to the logical conclusion, it would tarnish many illustrious names among the Muslims. The only right conduct for us could be to absolve all those who supported Yazeed as well as those who opposed him of all blame because they all acted according to their convictions and for the good of the Muslim Ummah.

Now let us examine the stand which Hussain Ibn Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) took in the situation. As said earlier, he sincerely believed that the nomination of Yazeed to the heirship of the Caliphate would destroy the spirit of democracy and republicanism nurtured and developed so assiduously during the Prophet´s era and afterward, and that it would lead to hereditary kingship which was repugnant to the original political teaching of Islam. He therefore resolved to oppose this with all the resources at his command. The bag load of communications, sent to him by the people of Kufa, not only approved of his stand but also promised support and loyalty to his cause. Kufa was a military base and a very strategic city situated at the crossroads to Iran and Syria. He thought that if the people of Kufa supported him, as their letters written to him indicated, it would be possible to effectively neutralize the change being brought about in the body politic of the Muslim Ummah. So he argued and resolved to act for that cause. Abdullah Ibn Abbas (Radhiyallahu anhu) also shared his thoughts but he opposed Hussain´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) going to Kufa because he knew the Kufis better and warned him not to repose his confidence in their loyalty. The Kufis had earlier betrayed Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) and his son Hassan (Radhiyallahu anhu). Abdullah Ibn Umar (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Abdullah Ibn Zubair (Radhiyallahu anhu) also had similar opinions about the Kufi character and vehemently besought Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) not to depend on their words would be against him; “Under the slightest pressure or pecuniary coercion the Kufis would change their loyalties,” the three Ibad Allah warned Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu). But he appeared to have taken a firm decision. So he brushed aside all their pleadings and warnings, and decided to proceed to Kufa, placing his confidence in Allah Ta’ala. For he acted in the true spirit of Allah´s and the Prophet´s ﷺ command:

So when you have decided (on a course of action) repose your confidence in Allah [Aal-e-Imran 3:159].

It may be argued that Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) committed a mistake in the assessment of the situation, but no insinuations about his intentions can be entertained. He had no lust for power or avarice for wealth. This is the common belief of the Ahl Al-Sunnah Wal-Jama´ah (the Sunnis). They do not consider him, like all non-Prophets, to be infallible; at the same time they do not doubt his integrity either.

When the nomination issue was deliberated upon in Madinah, Abdullah Ibn Zubair (Radhiyallahu anhu) went over to Makkah and so did Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu), because some prominent Muslim were of the opinion that Makkah would be the best place as a stronghold or base for launching a campaign for building up public opinion against Yazeed´s heirship. However, before any significant work could be done in this regard, Ameer Mu´awiyah (Radhiyallahu anhu) died and Yazeed took over the reigns of government. Now Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) received heaps of letters from the Kufis pledging their loyalty and support to him if he mounted an attack against Yazeed´s forces. He sent his cousin Muslim Ibn Aqeel (Radhiyallahu anhu) to Kufa to find out facts. Soon he received an affirmation of the loyalty of Kufis from his cousin and he started preparations for a journey to Kufa. Abdullah Ibn Umar and Abdullah Ibn Abbas (Radhiyallahu anhum) pleaded vigorously against his plan and entreated him to at least leave women and children in Makkah if he was determined to proceed to Kufa. But Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) ignored their suggestions. On the way he received the report of Muslim Ibn Aqeel´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) death at the hands of Yazeed´s men and the apathy and indifference displayed by the people of Kufa at this incident, and also the news that the Kufis had shifted their loyalties to Yazeed, pledging support to him against Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) and his followers.

Now Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) was in a dilemma: should he continue his journey towards Kufa or return to Makkah? The Arab tradition of avenging the murder of their man, at all costs, was too strong for him to resist. Besides, the close relatives of Muslim Ibn Aqeel (Radhiyallahu anhu), who were accompanying Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu), declared their resolve to punish the assassins and continue their march. For Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu), it was below his dignity to abandon them and return to Makkah. So, he decided to continue his march to Kufa. Meanwhile, the two young sons of Abdullah Ibn Jaffer Tayyar, a cousin of Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu), arrived with their father´s message: “For God´s sake, don´t go to Kufa.” However, Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) continued his journey with these two boys joining his camp and arrived at the desert of Karbala. Ibn Ziyad, the governor of Kufa, arrived there with one thousand soldiers under his command and offered one option to Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) in accordance with the instruction from Yazeed: “You can neither go to Kufa nor return to Makkah, but you can go any where else you want.” Obviously, the only course open for Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) was to Damascus, the capital. It is very unfortunate that he turned down the offer and continued his sojourn at Karbala trying to win over the support of Ibn Ziyad´s men because in his addresses to the Kufis under Ibn Ziyad´s command, he mentioned the persons by name who had written letters to him pledging loyalty and support and pleaded with them to honor their pledges. The Kufis disowned their letters and denied their authorship.

Meanwhile, a reinforcement of four thousand soldiers, under the command of Amr Ibn Sa´d, arrived at Kufa from Damascus. Amr was the son of Sa´d Ibn Abi Waqas (Radhiyallahu anhu), the conqueror of Iran, and was also related to Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) for whom he had all the sympathies. Talks of reconciliation continued but the Kufis, fearing reprisals in case of a reconciliation, forced their leader Ibn Ziyad to toughen his attitude. Realizing this, Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) placed three options before them: “Allow me to return to Makkah safely, or allow me to proceed to the frontiers of the Muslim empire so that I may continue my campaign against non-Muslims, or allow me a safe passage to the capital, Damascus, where I may settle the issue with Yazeed in person.”

The conspirators, however, succeeded in undermining the reconciliation talks and forced Amr Ibn Sa´d to corner Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu). “Either surrender unconditionally or get ready for war,” they demanded. Obviously an unconditional surrender by Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) was a tall order and a challenge to his honor and dignity. He was constrained to fight the enemy though heavily outnumbered and under-equipped. Thus, the Saba’iyyah conspiracy that sabotaged the peace talks just before the battles of Jamal and Siffeen was successful once again, and Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu) and all his camp followers were slain mercilessly on the sands of Karbala. However, all of them displayed unflinching courage and valour on the battle-field.

In apportioning blame for this tragedy, fictitious stories have been fabricated about the disagreements between Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu). In fact, there were no disagreements between the two, who respected and loved each other like brothers. It is again the Sabaiyyah elements who concocted bogus stories and phony events to cover up their own heinous acts of perfidy in this drama of strife and partisan-politics forced on the Muslims. No attempt has ever been made to unmask their ugly faces and instead their version of these episodes has been accepted as authentic, resulting in deep malignity against the highly venerable and illustrious personalities of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

From the assassination of Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu) right up to the tragic event at Karbala, one can easily discern the hidden hand of Sabaiyyah agents who successfully plotted against the solidarity of the Muslim Empire and plunged in into senseless bloodshed. The entire blame must be placed on them, where it rightfully belongs, and the fair names of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ , who are all adool (scrupulously just), must be exonerated from the calumny and ignominy to which they have been exposed through the malicious propaganda of the Sabaiyyah.

It would be worthwhile to mention here two instances of fair play and God-fearing conduct of Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazeed. When Ali (Radhiyallahu anhu) defeated Umm Al-Mu’mineen Aisha (Radhiyallahu anha) at the battle of Jamal, he treated her with the same reverence and decorum to which she was entitled as one of the “Mothers of the Believers.” He conducted her and her retinue of ladies and gentlemen with all the respect and security to Madinah. This amply demonstrates that there was no personal enmity or malice between the two. Again, when the battle survivors, ladies, and children from Hussain´s camp of Karbala arrived at Damascus, Yazeed treated them with due regard and respect and expressed his sympathies with them. He also expressed his sincere condolences at the needless bloodshed and said, “Had Ibn Ziyad not gone to such an extent, I would have been pleased with him even then.”

The two martyrdoms, that of Uthman (Radhiyallahu anhu) and of Hussain (Radhiyallahu anhu), have caused agony in the hearts of the Muslim Ummah and have cast their gloomy shadows over its fourteen hundred year history. The have caused dissension and fighting among the Muslims who have fallen into the trap of those who sowed the seeds of discord and shifted the blame to the most respected persons of the Ummah. It is, in fact, the triumph of those intriguing elements who were jubilant over their accomplishment. Now, we are at each other´s throat and hurl bad names and odium on the very honorable personalities of Islam. Some people consider names of Yazeed and Shimer a symbols of profanity and an anathema while some others use Amr Ibn Sa´d´s and Ameer Mu´awiyah´s (Radhiyallahu anhu) names as expletives. May Allah guide such people to the right course and protect us from sharing their company or views and give us the wisdom and strength to heed Prophet´s warning:

Beware of expressing opinions about my Companions and, after I am gone, do not use them for your own ends; for whosoever will love them would do so because of their love for me and whosoever would have rancor against them, would do so because of their rancor against me. 

The Baseless Shi’i Claim that the Saum of Ashura was an ‘Innovation’ Of the Umayyads

Fasting on Ashura is Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and Ahlul Bayt
All Praise belongs to Allāh, the Lord of the Worlds, and may the Peace and blessings of Allāh be upon his Messenger, his family and on all of his companions.

Throughout the year Allāh Ta’ala grants His servants with ample opportunities to have their past sins forgiven and to start anew. One of these special occasions is known as `Āshūra. The fast of ‘Ashura was prescribed before the fasts of Ramadhan. The Jews observed it and so did the people of Arabia before the dawn of Islam. The fast of ‘Ashura’, which we observe on the tenth day of the month of Muharram, is the day on which Allah, may He be exalted, saved Musa (alayhis salaam), and it is the day on which some of the Jews in Madinah fasted because of that. It is also the day on which Allah commanded the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to fast at first, then the obligation to do so was abrogated when fasting Ramadhan was made obligatory, and fasting ‘Ashura’ became Mustahab (encouraged but not obligatory).

The claim that some of the Umayyad caliphs are the ones who put this day in Muharram is a Raafidhi claim. It is one of the many lies on which their religion is based and it is part of their belief to attribute all kinds of evil to the Umayyad caliphs and their era.

If the Umayyads had wanted to fabricate false hadiths and attribute them to Islam, they would have fabricated hadiths that made the day of ‘Ashura’ an Eid or festival! and not a day of fasting on which a person refrains from eating, drinking and sex.

Fasting is an act of worship in which one refrains from permissible things, and Eid is a celebration in which one partakes of those things. So, there is a clear difference between Fast and Eid.

In sha Allah! In this article, we will present before our readers sufficient evidences proving the Fast of Ashura to a Sunnah of the final Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and it was in no way an innovation of Bani Umayyah.

Some Authentic Aḥādīth Regarding `Āshūra
1. A’isha (radhiyallahu anha) reported that the Quraish used to fast on the day of Ashura during the pre-Islamic days. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ then commanded to fast on that day till (fasting) in Ramadhan became obligatory. Then the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: He who wishes to fast should do so, and he who wishes to break it may do so. [Bukhari and Muslim]

2. Abū Musā al-Ash`arī (radhiyallahu anhu) said: The day of `Āshurā was one that the Jews respected and treated as a day of festival. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ  instructed us: “You should also observe fast on this day.”   [Bukhari and Muslim]

3. Narrated Humaid bin `Abdur Rahman: That he heard Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan (radhiyallahu anhu) on the day of ‘Ashura’ during the year he performed the Hajj, saying on the pulpit,“O the people of Madinah! Where are your Religious Scholars? I heard Allah’s Apostle saying, ‘This is the day of ‘Ashura’. Allah has not enjoined its fasting on you but I am fasting it. You have the choice either to fast or not to fast (on this day).” [Bukhari and Muslim]

4. Narrated Ibn `Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu): The Prophet ﷺ  came to Madinah and saw the Jews fasting on the day of Ashura. He asked them about that. They replied, “This is a good day, the day on which Allah rescued Bani Israel from their enemy. So, Moses fasted this day.” The Prophet ﷺ said, “We have more claim over Moses than you.” So, the Prophet ﷺ fasted on that day and ordered (the Muslims) to fast (on that day). [Bukhari and Muslim].

5. Narrated Ar-Rubi’ bint Mu’awadh: “The Prophet ﷺ sent a messenger to the village of the Ansar in the morning of the day of ‘Ashura’ (10th of Muharram) to announce: ‘Whoever has eaten something should not eat but complete the fast, and whoever is observing the fast should complete it.’ “She further said, “Since then we used to fast on that day regularly and also make our boys fast. We used to make toys of wool for the boys and if anyone of them cried for, he was given those toys till it was the time of the breaking of the fast. [Bukhari and Muslim]

6. `Abd Allāh bin `Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated: “The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ observed the fast on the day of `Āshūra and ordered others to also fast. When fasting during Ramaḍhān was made compulsory, he left it.” `Abd Allāh would not fast on this day unless it coincided with his (normal days of) fasting. [al-Bukhārī and Aḥmad]

7. Ibn `Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated: “I do not know the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ singling out any days for fasting, and considering it more excellent than another, except for this day [the day of `Āshūra] and that month – meaning the month of Ramaḍhān.” [Bukhari and Muslim]

8. Abū Qatāda al-Anṣārī (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “Fasting three days every month and [fasting] the whole [month] of Ramaḍhān every year is a perpetual fast. The fast of the day of `Arafah, expiate the sins of the preceding and the coming year. The fast of the day of `Āshūra, expiate the sins of the preceding year.” [Muslim, Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Khuzaymah] [Note: The predominant view among the scholars is that it expiates minor sins, as for major sins, repentance is required. This was explicitly expressed by al-Nawawī in al-Majmū` (6/382) and Ibn Taymiyyah in al-Fatāwā al-Kubrā (4/428)]

9. Ibn `Abbās (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that when the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ fasted on the day of `Āshūra and commanded that it be observed as a fast, they (his Companions) said to him: “Messenger of Allāh ﷺ , it is a day which the Jews and Christians hold in high esteem.” Thereupon the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “When the next year comes, Allāh willing, we will observe fast on the ninth.” The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ died before the advent of the next year. [Muslim, Aḥmad, Abū Dāwūd and Ibn Mājah]

10. Abū Mūsā (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that the people of Khaybar, [most of whom were Jews] observed the fast on the day of `Āshūra and treated it as a festive day. Their women would wear ornaments and beautiful dresses. The Messenger of Allāh ﷺ said: “You (only) observe fast on this day.” [Muslim]

Sahaba (radhiyallahu anhum) who narrated about fasting on Ashura:
Here is a list of those Sahaba (companions) who have narrated or prescribed fasting on this day:

1. Ibn Umar [Bukhari and Muslim]
2. Aishah [Bukhari and Muslim]
3. Abdullah bin Mas’ud [Bukhari and Muslim]
4. Ibn ‘Abbas [Bukhari and Muslim]
5. Abu Musa al-Ash’ari [Bukhari and Muslim]
6. Salamah bin Akwa’ [Bukhari and Muslim]
7. Mu’awiyah [Bukhari and Muslim]
8. Jabir bin Samurah [Muslim]
9. Rabee’ bint Mu’awwidh [Bukhari and Muslim]
10. Abu Qatadah [Muslim]
11. One of the Azwaj Mutahharat [Nasai, Abu Dawud]
12. Muhammad bin Saifi [Nasai, Ibn Majah]
13. Hafsa [Nasai, Ahmad]
14. Qais bin Sa’d bin ‘Ubadah [Nasai, Ahmad]
15. Mu’adh bin Jabal [Abu Dawud]
16. Aslam [Abu Dawud]
17. Ali [Baihaqi, Tahawi, Bazzar, Ibn Abi Shaibah, Abdullah in Zawaid al-Musnad]
18. Hind bin Asma [Ahmad, Tahawi]
19. Abdullah Bin Zubair [Ahmad, Tahawi]
20. Abu Hurairah [Ahmad]
21. Jabir bin Abdullah [Ahmad]
22. Abdullah bin Badr al-Juhani [Ahmad]
23. Asma bin Haritha [Ahmad]
24. Zahir bin Aswad [Tabarani, Bazzar]
25. Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri [Tabrani]
26. Ruzainah [Tabrani, Abu Ya’la]
27. Khabbab [Tabrani]
28. Ubadah bin Samit [Tabrani]
29. Ma’bad al-Qurashi [Tabrani]
30. ‘Aidh bin ‘Amr [Tabrani]
31. Ammar [Tabrani]
32. Abdullah bin Jarad al-Uqaili [Mshikhah Ibn Abi As-Saqar, Amali ash-Shajari]
33. Umar bin Khattab [Abdur-Razzaq, Ibn Abi Shaibah]

Shia Ahadith of Imams from Ahle Bayt regarding fasting on Ashura:
Some ignorant Shias claimed that the Ahadith in which the Prophet ﷺ tells us to fast the tenth of Muharram “Ashura” is a fabrication by the Umayyads and they accuse Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) of this (Although it’s narrated by many others), but what those ignorant Shias didn’t know is that these Ahadith are found in al-Bukhari and Muslim which were written many years after the Umayyad Caliphate fell, so there was no “political pressure”. Anyways, the ahadith we mentioned from the saheeh Sunnah about the virtues of ‘Ashoora’, and the fact that fasting it expiates for the sins of a year, and that its date is fixed, on the tenth of Muharram – all of that is not unique to Ahl as-Sunnah. Rather it is also mentioned in the main reference book of the Shias! So how can this be reconciled with their claims that what we have are israa’eeliyyat (stories from Jewish sources), that were taken from the Jews or invented by the Umayyads??

Here are the Ahadith from the  Imams regarding fasting on Ashura from Shia books:

(i).

ـ وبإسناده عن سعد بن عبدالله ، عن أبي جعفر ، عن جعفر بن محمد بن عبدالله ، عن عبدالله بن ميمون القداح ، عن جعفر ، عن أبيه ( عليهما السلام ) قال : صيام يوم عاشوراء كفارة سنة .

Sa’ad bin ‘Abdullah from abu Ja’afar from Ja’afar bin Muhammad bin ‘Ubeidullah from ‘Abdullah bin Maymoun al-Qaddah from Imam Ja’afar from his father (as): “The fasting of ‘Ashura removes the sins of a year.” (Tahtheeb al-Ahkam 4/300 & Wasael al-Shia 10/457). [Grading: Sahih (authentic)]

(ii).

علي بن الحسن بن فضال عن هارون بن مسلم عن مسعدة بن صدقة عن ابي عبد الله عن أبيه عليهما السلام ان عليا عليه السلام قال: صوموا العاشورا التاسع والعاشر فانه يكفر ذنوب سنة. كتاب تهذيب الاحكام ج4ص299

‘Ali bin al-Hassan bin Faddal from Haroun bin Muslim from Masa’adah bin Sadaqah from Imam abu ‘Abdullah from his Father that ‘Ali (as) said: “Fast on ‘Ashura the ninth and tenth for it removes the sins of a whole year.” (Tahtheeb al-Ahkam 4/299 & Wasael al-Shia 10/457). [Grading: Muawaththaq (reliable)]

(iii).

وعنه عن يعقوب بن يزيد عن ابي همام عن ابي الحسن عليه السلام قال: صام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله يوم عاشورا. كتاب تهذيب الاحكام ج4 ص299-300

Also from him, from Ya’aqoub bin Yazid, from abu Hamam, from Imam abu al-Hassan (as): “The messenger peace be upon him and his household fasted the day of ‘Ashura.” (Tahtheeb al-Ahkam 4/299-300).

(iv).

محمد بن الحسن باسناده عن علي بن الحسن بن فضال، عن يعقوب بن يزيد، عن أبي همام، عن أبي الحسن عليه السلام قال: صام رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم يوم عاشوراء. كتاب وسائل الشيعة ج10ص457

Muhammad bin al-Hassan with its Isnad from ‘Ali bin al-Hassan bin Faddal from Ya’aqoub bin Yazid from abu Hamad from abu al-Hassan (as): “The Prophet (saw) fasted the day of ‘Ashura.” (Wasael al-Shia 10/457).

(v).

عن علي عليه السلام قال: {{صوموا يوم عاشوراء التاسع والعاشر احتياطاً،  فإنه كفارة السنة التي قبله، وإن لم يعلم به أحدكم حتى يأكل فليتم صومه}}
[مستدرك الوسائل (1/594)، جامع أحاديث الشيعة (9/475)].

Ali (ra) said: “Fast on the day of Ashoora 9th and 10th for substitution, for it is an expiation for the the past year, and if someone of you eats (by mistake) should continue his fasting.”
1- Al-Haj Hussein Al-Nuri Tabarsi in Mustadrak Al-Wasael 1/594,
2- Haj Brujardi in Jaa’me Ahadeeth Al-Shia 9/475.

Esteemed Shia Ayatullah authenticated ahadeeth regarding fasting on Ashura:
Ayatullah Abul-Qasim Al-Khoie (former head of the Hawzah in Najaf and one of the greatest Shia Hadith scholars, teacher of Ayatullah Sistani) in his book al-Mustanad fi Sharh il-`Urwat il-Wuthqa, volume 12 stated:

وأمّا الروايات المتضمّنة للأمر واستحباب الصوم في هذا اليوم فكثيرة ، مثل: صحيحة القدّاح : «صيام يوم عاشوراء كفّارة سنة»
وموثّقة مسعدة بن صدقة : «صوموا العاشوراء التاسع والعاشر فإنّه يكفّر ذنوب سنة»

‘As for the encompassing narrations commanding and recommending the fast of this day, they are many, like the authentic (Sahih) narration of al-Qadaah [from Abu `Abdillah (as), from his father Abu Ja`far (as), who said: “The fasting of the day of Ashura is atonement for a year.”

And the reliable (Muwaththaq) narration of Mas`ada b. Sadaqa from Abu `Abdillah (as), from Abu Ja`far (as), who said that Imam `Ali (as) said: “Fast on Ashura, the ninth and the tenth, for verily it atones for the sins of a year.”   (Source: al-Mustanad fi Sharh il-`Urwat il-Wuthqa)

Esteemed Shia Ayatullah admits that the Shia ahadith which forbid fasting on Ashura are all Weak:

Ayatullah Abul-Qasim Al-Khoie (former head of the Hawzah in Najaf and one of the greatest Shia Hadith scholars, teacher of Ayatullah Sistani) states:

وكيفما كان فالروايات الناهية غير نقية السند برمتها، بل هي ضعيفة بأجمعها، فليست لدينا رواية معتبرة يعتمد عليها ليحمل المعارض على التقية كما صنعه صاحب الحدائق. واما الروايات المتضمنة للامر واستحباب الصوم في هذا اليوم فكثيرة، مثل صحيحة القداح: ” صيام يوم عاشوراء كفارة سنة ” وموثقة مسعدة بن صدقة: ” صوموا للعاشوراء التاسع والعاشر فانه يكفر ذنوب سنة ” ، ونحوها غيرها، وهو مساعد للاعتبار نظرا إلى المواساة مع أهل بيت الوحي وما لا قوه في هذا اليوم العصيب من جوع وعطش وساير الآلام والمصائب العظام التي هي أعظم مما تدركه الافهام والاوهام. فالاقوى استحباب الصوم في هذا اليوم من حيث هو كما ذكره في الجواهر أخذا بهذه النصوص السليمة عن المعارض كما عرفت . كتاب الصوم للخوئي ج2 ص305

“The narrations that forbid this (Fasting) do not have proper Sanad, they are all weak, in fact we don’t have any respectable narrations that we can rely on to prove that those that differ with them are Taqqiyah. As for the narrations that speak about fasting this day and that it is favourable to fast there are plenty of them, such as the SAHIH of al-Qidah: “Fasting the day of ‘Ashoora removes the sins of a year.” and the Muwaththaq of Masa’adah bin Sadaqah: “Fast ‘Ashoora the ninth and the tenth for it removes the sins of an entire year.” and others like them. This is acceptable taking into consideration the unimaginably great hunger and thirst and pain that Ahlul-Bayt had to go through on that hard day. So the strongest opinion would be that it is favoured to fast this day.“   (Kitab al-Sawm by al-Khoei 2/305).

Similarly Al-Khoie, in al-Mustanad fi Sharh il-`Urwat il-Wuthqa, volume 12 states:

فصحّ ما ادّعيناه من أنّ الروايات الناهية كلّها ضعيفة السند ، فتكون الآمرة سليمة عن المعارض ، فلم تثبت كراهة صوم يوم عاشوراء فضلا عن الحرمة التي اختارها في الحدائق ، بل هي جائزة ندباً ولا سيّما حزناً حسبما عرفت بما لا مزيد عليه .

“So it is correct what we have claimed, that the prohibitive narrations are all da`if (weak) in sanad.  So, the authoritative is free of opposition, and the karahat (dislike) of the fast of Ashura is not established, let alone its prohibition which was the view hold in al-Hada’iq (of Yusuf al-Bahrani). Rather, it is permissible, recommended  especially (if done) mournfully according to what you have recognized by what there is no exceeding upon it.“ (al-Mustanad fi Sharh il-`Urwat il-Wuthqa).

Who deviated from the teaching of Ahlul bayt in regards to fasting on Ashura; Sunnis or Shia?
Famous Shia scholar al-Muhaqqiq al-Sha’rani says in his commentary on the book “al-Wafi” by al-Faydh al-Kashani, 22/505:

وقد يتفق لبعض الرواة الغالين في عداوة المخالفين والمبالغين في خلاف المنحرفين عن أهل البيت عليهم السلام أن يجاوزوا الحد ويلزموا أمورا من غير عمد ليخالفوا أهل الخلاف تدعوهم إلى ذلك شدة علاقتهم بالتشيع كما نرى جماعة في الأعصار المتأخرة ينكرون استحباب صوم عاشوراء مع الاتفاق على استحبابه ليخالفوا المخالفين ،
ويلتزمون بتحريف القرآن ليطعنوا به على أعداء أهل البيت عليهم السلام ، مع أن مطاعنهم في الكثرة بحيث لا يحتاج معها إلى إثبات التحريف وهدم أساس الدين

[It happens that some of the narrators who are extreme in their hatred for the Mukhalifeen (Sunnis), those who exaggerate the differences and deviate from the school of Ahlul-Bayt (as), that they may go overboard in certain beliefs un-intentionally only so they may oppose the Mukhalifeen. They do this because of their strong relation to Tashayyu`, as we see a group in the late times who deny that fasting `Ashura is liked (Mustahabb) by agreement, just so they can oppose the Mukhalifeen, and they stick to the belief that the Qur’an is corrupted so they can use this to criticize the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt (as), although there are many criticisms against them and there is no need to prove Tahreef (corruption) and demolish the foundations of the religion.]

Fact#1: Those Shias who reject the fast of Ashura by claiming it to be innovation of Umayyids or deny the fasting of Ashura being Mustahab, are the ones who deviated from the teachings of Ahlul-bayt. And the reality is known to everyone that the present day Shias reject the fasting of Ashura, whereas the Sunnis as a whole observe and recommend the fast of Ashura. Hence one doesn’t need to understand that, the Shias have deviated from the teachings of Ahlelbayt, whereas Sunnis are the ones who are the true followers of Ahlelbayt.

Fact#2: The extremist Shias of yesterday are the average Shia of today.

Fact#3: There was agreement regarding fasting on Ashura being Mustahab (encouraged), but the Ghulats (extremists) attacked the Sunnah of Prophet ﷺ and Ahlelbayt by calling it Umayyad innovation, with this they were able to replace the Sunnah of fasting on Ashura with several innovation (bid’ah) which had no relation with Islam nor with the teachings of Prophet ﷺ, infact those innovations were contrary to the teachings of Prophet ﷺ and Ahlul-bayt.

Clarification of some Shia Misconceptions regarding the Fasting of Ashura

Misconception #1:
Some Shias quote the below Shia hadith, which was authenticated by esteemed Shia scholar Sayed al-Khoei, and using this hadith they try to claim that Fast of Ashoora was abandoned.

محمد بن علي بن الحسين بإسناده عن زرارة بن أعين ومحمد بن مسلم جميعا ، أنهما سألا أبا جعفر الباقر ( عليه السلام ) عن صوم يوم عاشوراء ؟ فقال : كان صومه قبل شهر رمضان ، فلما نزل شهر رمضان ترك

Muhammad b. `Ali b. al-Husayn (Shaykh Saduq) with his isnad from Zurara b. A`yan and Muhammad b. Muslim, both of them, that they asked Abu Ja`far al-Baqir (as) about the fast of the day of `Ashura.  So he said:  Its fast was before the month of Ramadhan, so when the month of Ramadan descended, it was abandoned.  (sahih)

Response:
Sayed al-Khoei himself explained this hadith saying, that this is not actually prohibitive, but is describing that the fast of `Ashura was in place prior to the fasting of the month of Ramadhan, after which it was not an obligation to fast on `Ashura, i.e. that this had become mansukh (abrogated).

This narration about abandonment of fast of Ashura is actually about abandonment of wujoob (obligation) of Fast of Ashura. Its wujoob (obligation) was abandoned after the revelation of Ramadan and it doesn’t contradict the ahadith which speaks of istihbab of fasting on day of Ashura. As Syed al-Khoei says:

ولكنّها ـ كما ترى ـ لا تتضمّن نهياً ، بل غايته أنّ صومه صار متروكاً
ومنسوخاً بعد نزول شهر رمضان ، ولعلّه كان واجباً سابقاً ، ثمّ اُبدل بشهر رمضان كما قد تقتضيه طبيعة التبديل ، فلا تدلّ على نفي الاستحباب عنه بوجه فضلا عن الجواز

And, similar ahadith are even present in Sunni books:

Narrated `Aisha (radhiyallahu anhu): ‘Ashura’ (i.e. the tenth of Muharram) was a day on which the tribe of Quraish used to fast in the prelslamic period of ignorance. The Prophet ﷺ also used to fast on this day. So when he migrated to Madinah, he fasted on it and ordered (the Muslims) to fast on it. When the fasting of Ramadhan was enjoined, it became optional for the people to fast or not to fast on the day of Ashura. (Sahih al-Bukhari #3831).

Misconception #2:
Some Shias use the below hadith, and claim that the Fast of Ashura shouldn’t be complete day fast, but it should be broken after Salat of Asr.

Muhammad b. al-Hasan in al-Misbah from `Abdullah b. Sinan said: I entered upon Abu `Abdillah (as) on the day of `Ashura [and I met him melancholic in color, sorrowful in appearance – in the masdar] and his tears were dropping upon his eyes like dripping pearls.  So I said: What is your crying from?  So he said: Are you in (a state of) heedlessness?  Do you not know that al-Husayn (as) was afflicted in the like of this day?  So I said: What is your saying in regards to its fast?  So he said to me: Fast it without tabyeet, and break it without tashmeet, and do not make it a complete day of fasting, and your iftar is to be after the salat of `asr by an hour upon a drink of water, for verily in the like of that time from that day did the battle appear from the family of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.

Answer:
Firstly, those Shias who use this hadith have indirectly admitted that, Fasting on Ashura isn’t from the innovation of Bani Umayyah, as some ghali (extremist) Shias claim and attack the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. In regards to the reliability of this Shia hadeeth, then it is daeef (weak) because of unknown tareeq from Shaykh Tusi to Abdullah b. Sinan [not the book of Abdullah b. Sinan]. The taraiq mentioned in al-Mashaykh or in al-Fihrist would not apply in the case of Tusi’s al-Misbah. Read Syed al-Khoei’s explanation for this:

والظاهر أنّها ضعيفة السند ، لجهالة طريق الشيخ إلى عبدالله بن سنان فيما يرويه في المصباح ، فتكون في حكم المرسل .
وتوضيحه : أنّ الشيخ في كتابي التهذيب والاستبصار التزم أن يروي عن كلّ من له أصل أو كتاب عن كتابه ، فيذكر أسماء أرباب الكتب أوّل السند مثل : محمّد بن علي بن محبوب ، ومحمّد بن الحسن الصفّار ، وعبدالله بن سنان ، ونحو ذلك ، ثمّ يذكر في المشيخة طريقه إلى أرباب تلك الكتب لتخرج الروايات بذلك عن المراسـيل إلى المسانيد ، وقد ذكر طريقـه في كتابيه إلى عبدالله بن سنان ، وهو طريق صحيح .
وذكر (قدس سره) في الفهرست طريقه إلى أرباب الكتب والمجاميع ، سواء أروى عنهم في التهذيبين أم في غيرهما ، منهم : عبدالله بن سنان(1)  ، وطريقه فيه صحيح أيضاً .
وأمّا طريقه (قدس سره) إلى نفس هذا الرجل لا إلى كتابه فغير معلوم ، إذ لم يذكر لا في المشيخة ولا في الفهرست ولا في غيرهما ، لأنّهما معدّان لبيان الطرق إلى نفس الكتب لا إلى أربابها ولو في غير تلكم الكتب .
وهذه الرواية مذكورة في كتاب المصباح ، ولم يلتزم الشيخ هنا بأنّ كلّ ما يرويه عمّن له أصل أو كتاب فهو يرويه عن كتابه كما التزم بمثله في التهذيبين حسبما عرفت .
وعليه ، فمن الجائز أن يروي هذه الرواية عن غير كتاب عبدالله بن سنان الذي له إليه طريق آخر لا محالة ، وهو غير معلوم كما عرفت ، فإنّ هذا الاحتمال تطرّق بطبيعة الحال ولا مدفع له ، وهو بمجرّده كاف في عدم الجزم بصحّة السند .
بل أنّ هذا الاحتمال قريب جدّاً ، بل هو المظنون ، بل المطمأنّ به ، إذ لو كانت مذكورة في كتاب عبدالله بن سنان فلماذا أهملها في التهذيب والاستبصار مع عنوانه (قدس سره) فيهما : صوم يوم عاشوراء ، ونقله سائر الروايات الواردة في الباب وبنائه (قدس سره) على نقل ما في ذلك الكتاب وغيره من الكتب ؟! فيكشف هذا عن أنّ روايته هذه عنه عن غير كتابه كما ذكرناه . وحيث إنّ طريقـه إليه غير معلوم فالرواية في حكم المرسل ، فهي أيضاً ضعيفة السـند كالروايات الثلاث المتقدّمة .
فصحّ ما ادّعيناه من أنّ الروايات الناهية كلّها ضعيفة السند ، فتكون الآمرة سليمة عن المعارض ، فلم تثبت كراهة صوم يوم عاشوراء فضلا عن الحرمة التي اختارها في الحدائق ، بل هي جائزة ندباً ولا سيّما حزناً حسبما عرفت بما لا مزيد عليه

-End Quote-

Conclusion:
Without a shred of doubt, the injust, biased and polemic claim that the fasting of Ashura is merely a Jewish tradition and that the Sahaba and later on the Umayyads introduced it into Islam to belittle the tragedy of Karbala’ and to celebrate on that day by fasting is a blatant LIE, yet  we will be faced with this SHAMELESS lie on major Shia TV channels, Shia websites, Shia preachers and even by their major scholars, despite the fact that its an established fact from the books of Shias that, the fasting of Ashura was a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad and the Imams from Ahle bayt. Hence we would like to advice the objective Shia readers that, whatever your stand as a Shia is going to be, whether you want to follow the beautiful Sunnah of Prophet ﷺ & Ahlul-bayt or you want to skip it and engage in self-flagellation, and the other similar innovations, it’s upto you, but think twice before calling the Sunnah of Prophet ﷺ and Ahlelbayt as an innovation of Bani Umayyah.

We had given them ears, eyes, and hearts but none of their ears, eyes, and hearts proved to be of any benefit to them; they rejected the revelations of God and the torment which they mocked brought upon them utter destruction.  [Quran 46:26]