The Inception of the Shia and its Historical Roots
The Inception of the Shia and its Historical Roots
The Shia, with their current principles and beliefs, did not come about all of a sudden. Rather, Shi’ism went through many different stages and it was developed over a very long period of time. It also split up into many different sects. Therefore, it goes without saying that studying the historical and ideological perspectives of Shi’ism as far as the different stages that it underwent are concerned, would require a separate discussion and research. This is why the subject of this discussion is the inception of Shi’ism and its historical roots. This absolves us of delving into their different stages and sects. We will start off by mentioning the views of the Shia from their sources which they consider reliable. This will be followed by the views of others. The reason behind this is that our research will not be truly academic and objective unless we mention the views of the people being discussed before presenting any other persons views regarding them.
Views of the Shia Regarding Their Inception
They could not even agree upon this. However, we will discuss three views, all of which are explained in their reliable books. After presenting each view, we will do an analysis thereof.
The First View
Shi’ism is a very old religion. Its inception took place before Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was even made a Messenger. Every single Nabi was asked to accept the Wilayah of ‘Ali… Many tales have been fabricated by the Shia in order to prove this view. Among them is that which is reported in al Kafi from Abu al Hasan:
ولاية على مكتوب فى جميع صحف الانبياء ولن يبعث الله رسولا الا بنبوة محمد صلى الله عليه و اله و وصية على عليه السلام
The Wilayah of ‘Ali is written in all the books of the prophets. Allah did not send any Rasul except that he believed in the nubuwwah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Wilayah of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam.[1]
It is reported from Abu Jafar al Baqir that he said regarding the verse:
وَ لَقَدْ عَهِدْنَآ اِلٰی اٰدَمَ مِنْ قَبْلُ فَنَسِیَ وَ لَمْ نَجِدْ لَهعَزْمًا
And We had already taken a promise from Adam before, but he forgot; and We found not in him determination.[2]
عهدنا اليه فى محمد والائمة من بعده فترك و لم يكن له عزم و انما سمى اولوا العزم اولى العزم لانه عهد اليهم فى محمد و الاوصياء من بعده و المهدى و سيرته و اجمع عزمهم على ذلك كذلك و الاقرار به
We had taken a promise from him regarding Muhammad and the Imams that succeed him but he left it and he was not determined.[3] The Ulul ‘Azm (the Messengers who held the loftiest ranks) were only given their title on account of the promise that was taken from them regarding Muhammad, his Awsiya after him, the Mahdi and his account. All of them were determined to uphold it and they admitted it.[4]
It is also reported in al Bihar from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam — as they falsely claim:
يا على ما بعث الله نبيا الا وقد دعاه الى ولايتك طائعا او كارها
O ‘Ali, Allah did not send any Nabi except that he made him admit your Wilayah, whether he wished to or not.[5]
Another narration from Abu Jafar al Baqir states:
ان الله تبارك و تعالى اخذ ميثاق النبيين بولاية على
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala took a promise from the prophets regarding the Wilayah of ‘Ali.[6]
Reported from Abu ‘Abdullah al Sadiq:
ولايتنا ولاية الله لم يبعث نبى قط الا بها
Our Wilayah is the Wilayah of Allah. He did not send any Nabi except that he believed in it.[7]
In an attempt to prove this blasphemous belief, their scholar Al Bahrani placed in his book a chapter which he named, “the prophets were sent upon the belief in the Wilayah of ‘Ali”. They have said:
ثبت ان جميع انبياء الله و رسله و جميع المؤمنين كانوا لعلى بن ابى طالب محبين و ثبت ان المخالفين لهم كانوا له و لجميع اهل محبته مبغضين…فلا يدخل الجنة الا من احبه من الاولين و الاخرين فهو اذن قسيم الجنة و النار
It has been established that all the prophets and messengers of Allah as well as all the believers were lovers of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. It has also been established that those who opposed them hated him and all those who loved him… Only those who loved him will enter Jannat, whether they were from the first generation or the last generation. Thus, he is the one who will divide the occupants of Jannat and Jahannam.[8]
Narrations of the same meaning have appeared in many of their reliable books such as al Kafi[9], al Wafi[10], al Bihar[11], Mustadrak al Wasa’il[12], al Khisal[13], ‘Ilal al Shara’i’[14], al Fusul al Muhimmah[15], Tafsir Furat[16], al Safi[17], al Burhan[18], etc. They have so many narrations that corroborate this that al Hurr al ‘Amili states in Wasa’il al Shia (one of their eight canonical works) that the narrations which state that Allah took a promise from the prophets when he created the creation are more than a thousand.[19]
The Shia exaggeration does not end with what you have just read. Instead, they go on to claim:
الله عز اسمه عرض ولايتنا على السماوات و الارض و الجبال و الامصار
Allah, whose name is exalted, presented our Wilayah upon the skies, earth, mountains and cities.[20]
This is why their scholar Hadi al Tahrani (who is presently one of their Ayat and authorities) said:
تدل بعض الروايات على ان كل نبى امر بالدعوة الى ولاية على رضلى الله عنه بل عرضت الولاية على جميع الاشياء فما قبل صلح و ما لم يقبل فسد
Some narrations indicate that every nabi was instructed to invite towards the Wilayah of ‘Ali. In fact, Wilayah was presented to everything. Thereafter, whatever accepted it prospered and whatever rejected it got corrupted.[21]
An Analysis of this View
There are some views and beliefs, the falsity of which can be highlighted by simply presenting them. This view, undoubtedly belongs to that category. The falsity of it is quite obvious. The Book of Allah, which is amidst us, does not lend support, in any possible way to this absurd claim. The call of the Messengers ‘alayh al Salam was towards Towhid — and not Wilayah — as they falsely claim. Allah, the most exalted says:
وَ مَآ اَرْسَلْنَا مِنْ قَبْلِكَ مِنْ رَّسُوْلٍ اِلَّا نُوْحِیْٓ اِلَیْهِ اَنَّهلَآ اِلٰهَ اِلَّآ اَنَا فَاعْبُدُوْنِ
And We sent not before you any messenger except that We revealed to him that, “There is no deity except Me, so worship Me.”[22]
وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِیْ كُلِّ اُمَّةٍ رَّسُوْلًا اَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللّٰهَ وَ اجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوْتَ
And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], Worship Allah and avoid the Taghut [idols and false gods].[23]
Every nabi and messenger of Allah called his nation towards worshipping Allah alone, without adding any partners. Nuh, Hud, Salih and Shu’ayb ‘alayh al Salam all said to their nations:
یٰقَوْمِ اعْبُدُوا اللّٰهَ مَا لَكُمْ مِّنْ اِلٰهٍ غَیْرُه
O my people, worship Allah; you have no deity other than Him.[24]
Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
امرت ان اقاتل الناس حتى يشهدوا ان لا اله الا الله و ان محمدا رسول الله
I have been commanded to wage war against people until they testify that there is no deity besides Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.[25]
Ibn ‘Abbas narrates from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who said on the occasion of sending Mu’adh radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Yemen:
انك تقدم على قوم من اهل الكتاب فليكن اول ما تدعوهم اليه عبادة الله عز و جل
You will be going to a nation from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians). The first thing that you should call them towards is the worship of Allah, the most honoured and glorious.[26]
Thus, the authentic Sunnah (ahadith) only state that which disproves this opinion. Similarly, “the luminaries among the pious predecessors were all unanimous regarding the fact that the first command towards which a person will be invited is the declaration of the Shahadatayn.”[27] With this being the case, we are forced to ask: What is the basis and origin of that which they claim regarding the Wilayah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu?
If the Wilayah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu appeared in the scriptures of all the prophets, then why are the Rawafid the only people in the world who proclaim it? Why is it unknown to the religious people? Why was this Wilayah not mentioned in the Qur’an, which abrogates all the other Books and Scriptures, and the one which is protected by Allah the Most Exalted and Glorified? The reality is that it nothing but a baseless claim which will only be proclaimed by one who lacks in din, intellect and modesty; which would have prevented him from doing so.
Ibn Taymiyyah explains:
People have removed from the scriptures of the prophets those texts in which Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was mentioned. None of them had any mention of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu… None of the Jews and Christians who have accepted Islam stated that ‘Ali was mentioned in their books, so how can it be said, “every nabi was sent after admitting to the Wilayah of ‘Ali’,” whereas they did not mention that to their nations and it was not narrated by anyone?[28]
How did these tale-producers have the audacity to belittle the prophets? How could they claim that Adam ‘alayh al Salam and they rest of the prophets (with the exception of the Ulul ‘Azm) discarded the command of Allah regarding Wilayah? This is indeed a great accusation! Wilayah has no basis, and the accusations against the prophets are even worse! The greatest paradox is that the same people who have no limits to their extremism regarding the infallibility of the Imams, unhesitatingly and impudently make these kind of claims regarding the best of Allah’s creation, i.e. the prophets.
Is this not clear proof that the brains and souls of the people behind these tales are bereft of any knowledge and iman? Is it not clear proof that they are filled with hatred for the pious and chosen servants and they have made it their objective to work together against them? Can there be any doubt that they have used Shi’ism as a tool to penetrate into the matters of people and destroy their din? This is definitely the reality! Only an irreligious person can concoct these types of tales. This belief of theirs implies that the followers of the Imams are of a loftier status than the prophets (excluding the Ulul ‘Azm) as they followed the command whilst the prophets left it out! Indeed, this is pure deviation!
The promise that Allah took from the Prophets ‘alayhim al Salam was that if He sends Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as a Messenger whilst they are alive, they will believe in his nubuwwah and assist him. This was stated by Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma[29] and others. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
وَ اِذْ اَخَذَ اللّٰهُ مِیْثَاقَ النَّبِیّنَ لَمَآ اٰتَیْتُكُمْ مِّنْ کِتٰبٍ وَّحِكْمَةٍ ثُمَّ جَآءَكُمْ رَسُوْلٌ مُّصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهٖ وَلَتَنْصُرُنَّهؕ قَالَ ءَاَقْرَرْتُمْ وَاَخَذْتُمْ عَلٰی ذٰلِكُمْ اِصْرِیْؕ قَالُوْٓا اَقْرَرْنَاؕ قَالَ فَاشْهَدُوْا وَاَنَا مَعَكُمْ مِّنَ الشّٰهِدِیْنَ
And [recall, O People of the Scripture], when Allah took the covenant of the prophets, [saying], “whatever I give you of the Scripture and wisdom and then there comes to you a Messenger confirming what is with you, you [must] believe in him and support him.” [Allah] said, “have you acknowledged and taken upon that My commitment?” They said, “we have acknowledged it.” He said, “then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses.”[30]
Thus, it is as if these people have taken that which was the accolade of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and attached it to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as per their habit. They were not asked to believe in the details of that with which Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was sent, so how is it possible that they were asked to support one Sahabi out of all the believers? Further, the Muslims are unanimous regarding the fact that if a person believes in Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and obeys him without being informed that Allah created Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhum, he will not be taken to task for it, and it will not affect his entry into Jannat. When this is the case regarding the ummah of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then how can it be said that it was compulsory upon all the prophets to believe in one specific Sahabi?[31]
If we may ask, what happened to the intellect of those who believe in this type of bunkum? How is it possible that promises were taken from all the prophets prior to us, as well as their nations that they will accept the Imamah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu? This is, as explained by Ibn Taymiyyah:
The speech of mentally deranged people. The prophets all passed away before Allah created ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, so how could he be their amir? The most that can be claimed (as far as logic is concerned) is that he was the amir of the people of his time. Claiming that he was the amir and Imam of those who were created before him (his existence) as well as those who will be created after him (his death) can only be done by one who has absolutely no understanding of that which he is blurting out, and he is not shy to blurt nonsense…
This is from the same category as the claim of Ibn al ‘Arabi al Ta’i and his likes from the irreligious among the Sufis who claim that the prophets acquire the benefit of knowledge from the lantern of the seal of awliya’ (pious people), and those who only appeared six hundred years after Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Thus, the claim of these people is from the same category as the claim of those people regarding the pious. Both of them based their claims upon lies, extremism, shirk, false claims and opposition of the Qur’an, Sunnah and the beliefs of the pious predecessors, regarding which they were unanimous.[32]
What exactly is the object and motive behind this type of claims, the falsity of which is apparent to all and sundry? Is it to deter people from the din of Allah? Since the falsity of these claims are obvious, if they are spread and attributed to Islam, and the people of other religions happen to see them; they will doubt Islam itself (due to such beliefs, which defy logic as well as the revealed scriptures being attributed to Islam).
How do the intellectuals and people of knowledge react to this weird explanation regarding the corruption or prosperity of objects, plants, water, etc., that it is based on their position regarding the Wilayah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu? What will the world say regarding this? Is this the religion that they wish to present to people? Or is it simply that they wish to taint the image of Islam and prevent people from drawing close to it?
It is not surprising to see the Shia proclaiming this view, as they are the champions of bizarre exaggerations which belie undeniable realities and indisputable narrations, and they believe in that which is refuted by the intellect and divine texts. This is their view regarding the one who they claim to be their Imam. However, they have equally weird beliefs regarding those who they falsely believe to be his enemies. This is their belief regarding the first two rightly guided and celebrated khulafa’:
وقع فى الخبر ان القائم رضى الله عنه اذا ظهر يحييهم و يلزمهم بكل ذنب و فساد وقع فى الدنيا حتى قتل قابيل و هابيل و رمى اخوة يوسف له فى الجب و رمى ابراهيم فى النار و سايرها و كذا روى عن الصادق انه ما ازيل حجر من موضعه و لا اريقت محجمة دم الا وهو فى اعناقهما-يعنى الخليفة الاول و الثانلى-
It appears in a narration that al Qa’im (their awaited saviour), when he emerges, will revive them and take them to task for every single sin and vice that took place in the world, even the murder of Habil by Qabil, the casting of Yusuf ‘alayh al Salam in the well by his brothers, the casting of Ibrahim (as in the fire and everything else). Similarly, it reported from al Sadiq that not a stone moved, nor did a cup of blood be spilt, except that they will be responsible for it, i.e. the first and second Khalifah.[33]
The Second View (of the Shia)
Some of the former as well as the latter day Shia believe that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the one who planted the seeds of Shi’ism, and that Shi’ism became apparent in his era. There were some Sahabah who became part of the Shia of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and supported him from that era. Al Qummi says:
فاول الفرق الشيعة وهى فرقة على بن ابى طالب المسمون شيعة على فى زمان النبى صلى الله عليه و سلم و بعده معروفون بانقطاعهم اليه و القول بامامته منهم المقداد بن الاسود الكندى و سلمان الفارسى و ابو ذر جندب بن جنادة الغفارى و عمار بتن ياسر المذحجى…وهم اول من سموا باسم التشيع من هذه الامة
The first sect to appear was the Shia, who are the sect of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. They were referred to as Shi’at ‘Ali in the time of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as well after him. They are well known for confining themselves to him and believing in his Imamah. Among them were Miqdad ibn Aswad al Kindi, Salman al Farsi Abu Dhar Jundub ibn Junadah al Ghifari and ‘Ammar ibn Yasir al Madhhaji… They were the first people to be referred to Shia in this ummah.[34]
This view is confirmed by al Nowbakhti[35] and al Razi.[36] Muhammad Hussain Al Kashif al Ghita (d. 1373 A.H) says:
ان اول من وضع بذر التشيع فى حقل الاسلام هو نفس صاحب الشريعة-يعنى ان بذرة التشيع وضعت مع بذرة الاسلام جنبا الى جنب و سواءا بسواء ولم يزل غارسها يتعاهدها بالسقى و الرى حتى نمت و ازدهرت فى حياته ثم اثمرت بعد وفاته
The first person to plant the seed of Shi’ism on the lands of Islam was the one upon whom the shari’ah was revealed. This means that the seed of Shi’ism was planted side by side and concurrently with the seed of Islam.[37] The one who planted it then took care of it by watering it and irrigating it until it grew and blossomed in his lifetime and bore its fruits after his demise.[38]
A group of present day Shia subscribe to this view.[39]
An Analysis of this View
Firstly: the first person to proclaim this view was al Qummi in his book al Maqalat wa l-Firaq and al Nowbakhti in his book Firaq al Shia. Perhaps the most influential reason behind the invention of this view is that some Muslim scholars traced back the origin and growth of Shi’ism to foreigners. They had done so on account of the clear indications which prove this, as will be explained. Therefore, in an attempt to counter this, the Shia tried to establish that their religion was divinely instated. In this way, they wish to refute the claims of their opposition that they have foreign roots. This is the reason behind this claim of theirs.
Every means and avenue was adopted by them to substantiate and support this view, including the fabrication of many ahadith against Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[40] They then went on to claim that these are narrations that are reported by the Ahlus Sunnah, whereas they are such narrations “which are unknown to the greatest scholars of the Sunnah as well as the conveyors of the shari’ah. Most of them are either fabricated, reported by unreliable people or they have no relation to that which they wish to prove therefrom.”[41]
Secondly: This view cannot be established from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. It has no reliable historical chain of narration. Rather, it is a view that is alien to Islam and it contradicts established historic fact. Islam is a means of uniting this ummah upon the truth, not a means of dividing them into sects and parties. In the era of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, there was no mention of Shia or Sunni. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
اِنَّ الدِّیْنَ عِنْدَ اللّٰهِ الْاِسْلَامُ
Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam.[42]
There is no mention of Shi’ism or anything else. They have admitted in their statement, “this means that the seed of Shi’ism was planted side by side and concurrently with the seed of Islam…” that Shi’ism is different to Islam. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
وَمَنْ یَّبْتَغِ غَیْرَ الْاِسْلَامِ دِیْنًا فَلَنْ یُّقْبَلَ مِنْهُ
And whoever desires other than Islam as religion — never will it be accepted from him…[43]
Among the undeniable historical facts which exposes the preposterousness of this view and its stark contradiction to the reality is that there were no Shia in the era of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum.[44] Some of the scholars of the Shia were forced to accept this reality, even though it is their temperament to deny established realities. Their Ayatollah and mujtahid of his time, Muhammad Hussain Al Kashif al Ghita says:
…و لم يكن للشيعة والتشيع يومئذ (فى عهد ابى بكر و عمر رضى الله عنهما) مجال للظهور لان الاسلام كان يجرى على مناهجه القويمة
There was no scope in that era (the eras of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma) for the Shia to make an appearance, as Islam was upon its correct methodology and path.[45]
A similar acknowledgement was made by another scholar of theirs, Muhammad Hussain al ‘Amili who said:
ان لفظ الشيعة قد اهمل بعد ان تمت الخلافة لابى بكر و صار المسلمون فرقة واحدة الى اواخر ايام الخليفة الثالث
The word Shia was left out after khilafah was established for Abu Bakr and the Muslims became one group. This continued until the last days of the third khalifah.[46]
We say: It was left out because it simply did not exist. How is it possible that it was left out and it did not make an appearance whereas you believe that the government was kafir, as is stated so often in your books that it cannot be doubted that these are your beliefs (the quotations and necessary explanation will soon appear). How is it possible that the Muslims were split into different sects in the era of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but they united during the eras of the three khulafa’?
Thirdly: They claim that the Shia were made up of ‘Ammar, Abu Dhar and Miqdad radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Did any of these luminaries accept any of the beliefs and doctrines of the Shia such as Nass, declaring Abu Bakr, ‘Umar as well as majority of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum to be kafir, etc.? Did they display any detachment, or dislike for them? Did they use foul language regarding them? Definitely not! None of the above can be established. The narrations and claims which appear in the books of the Shia (who have filled volumes of books with these narrations) are nothing but a figment of their imagination. They were concocted by the imaginations of the jealous ones and the enemies.[47]
Ibn al Murtada (who is a Zaidi Shia) says:
فان زعموا ان عمارا و ابا ذر الغفارلى و المقداد بن الاسود و سلمان الفارسى كانوا سلفهم لقولهم بامامة على اكذبهم كون هؤلاء لم يظهروا البراءة من الشيخين و لا السب لهم الا ترى ان عمارا كان عاملا لعمر بن الخطاب فى الكوفة و سلمان الفارسى فى المدائن
If they claim that ‘Ammar, Abu Dhar al Ghifari, Miqdad ibn Aswad and Salman al Farsi were their predecessors as they believed in the Imamah of ‘Ali, they are proven to be liars by the fact that neither did any display any kind of disassociation from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, nor did they revile them. Do you not see that ‘Ammar was ‘Umar’s governor in Kufah[48] and Salman was his governor in Mada’in[49] radiya Llahu ‘anhum?[50]
These historical facts blow away all that claims that the Shia have built up along the centuries.
Fourthly: Sheikh Musa Jar Allah believes that this view is a grave error committed by the Shia, which has reached the pinnacle of insolence. It is a severe accusation against Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and it is an intolerable manipulation of words. He is especially surprised at their claim, “the first person to plant the seed of Shi’ism is the one upon whom the shari’ah was revealed.” He remarks, “which seeds did Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam plant, that it grew into ears of reviling and declaring as disbelievers the Sahabah, and the best individuals of this ummah? It grew into ears of believing that the Qur’an was adulterated by the hypocrites among the Sahabah, the unanimity of the ummah is deviation, and righteousness is when they are divided and the true beliefs hid inside the tidal wave of the deviation of the Shia.”[51]
The Third View
It is claimed that Shi’ism started on the Day of Jamal. Ibn al Nadim[52] says:
ان عليا قصد طلحة و الزبير ليقاتلهما حتى يفيئا الى امر الله جل اسمه فسمى من اتبعه على ذلك الشيعة فكان يقول شيعتى و سماهم عليه السلام الاصفياء الاولياء شرطة الخميس الاصحاب
‘Ali set out to fight Talhah and Zubair so that they could once again submit to the law of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Thus, whoever followed him in this was called Shia. He would say, “my Shia,” and he named them, “the chosen ones, the guardians, the vanguards and the companions.”[53]
This is a view (as far as I know) that is only held by Ibn al Nadim. It seems as if he is indicating towards the appearance of the Shia in the meaning of helpers and followers, and the historical date from which the word Shia was used for the helpers of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and that he was the one who named them Shia. Thus, this view has no indication to the inception of Shi’ism as a separate sect with its own mind-set and principles. Here, the literal meaning of Shia (which means helpers) is meant. This is why he used other titles with a similar meaning such as companions and guardians. It has already been explained that the expressions “my Shia,”’ and “Shia”, just as they were used by ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, were also used by Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Dr Mustafa Kamil al Shibi (a contemporary Shia from Egypt) states that this view of Ibn al Nadim is strange, due to him mentioning that Shi’ism was a title that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself granted to his companions…[54] However, I do not see anything strange about ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu calling his helpers “my Shia.” Dr Nashshar is of the view that there is some extremism[55] in the statement of Ibn al Nadim, but he does not explain the reason behind this view.
[1] Al Kulayni: Usul al Kafi 1/437
[2] Surah Taha: 115
[3] This explanation is an exaggerated stretch of the meaning of the verse. In fact, it is blasphemy! The pious predecessors and the later scholars have both explained the verse in the following manner, “we emphasised to Adam saying to him, ‘indeed this (satan) is your enemy as well as your wife’s enemy. Ensure that he does not manage to get the two of you expelled from Jannat.’ However, he forgot that which he was told (by leaving it out). If he had determination, he would not have obeyed Iblis who was jealous of him.” Qatadah says, “’we did not find in him determination,’ i.e. perseverance.” (Tafsir al Tabari 16/220-222)
[4] Al Kulayni: Al Kafi 1/416, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi: ‘Ilal al Shara’i’ pg. 122, Al Kashani: Al Safi 2/80, Tafsir al Qummi 2/65, Hashim al Bahrani: Al Mahajjah pg. 635-636, Al Majlisi: Al Bihar 11/35, 26/278, Al Saffar: Basa’ir al Darajat pg. 21
[5] Al Bihar 11/60, Al Bahrani: Al Ma’alim al Zulfa pg. 303. This narration can also be found in Basa’ir al Darajat of al Saffar and al Ikhtisas of al Mufid.
[6] Al Nuri al Tabarsi: Mustadrak al Wasa’il 2/195, Al Ma’alim al Zulfa pg. 303
[7] Al Ma’alim al Zulfa pg. 303
[8] Al Kashani/Tafsir al Safi 1/16
[9] Al Kulayni/Usul al Kafi 2/8
[10] Al Kashani/Al Wafi 2/155, 3/10
[11] Al Majlisi/Al Bihar 35:151, Al Qummi/Safinat al Bihar 1/729
[12] Al Nuri/Mustadrak al Wasa’il 2/195
[13] Al Saduq/al Khisal 1/ 270
[14] Al Saduq/‘Ilal al Shara’i’ pg. 122, 135, 136, 143, 144, 174
[15] Al Hurr al ‘Amili/al Fusul al Muhimmah pg. 158
[16] Tafsir Furat pg. 11, 13
[17] Tafsir al Safi 2/80
[18] Al Bahrani 1/86
[19] Al Fusul al Muhimmah pg. 159
[20] Al Nuri/Mustadrak al Wasa’il 2/195
[21] Hadi al Tahrani/Wadayi’ al Nubiwwah pg. 115
[22] Surah al ambiya’: 25
[23] Surah al Nahl: 36
[24] Surah al A’raf: 59, 65, 73, 85
[25] Reported by al Bukhari in Kitab al Iman, the chapter (regarding the verse), “but if they should repent, establish salah, and give zakat, let them [go] on their way.” (Surah al Towbah: 5) (1/11), and Muslim in Kitab al Iman, the chapter of being commanded to wage war against people until they say, “there is no deity besides Allah.” It has been reported by others as well.
[26] Reported by al Bukhari and Muslim with similar wordings. The quoted version is reported by Muslim. Refer to Sahih al Bukhari, Kitab al Zakat the chapter of the obligation of Zakat (2/108) and Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Iman, the chapter of inviting towards the Shahadatayn (1/50-51)
[27] Sharh al Tahawiyyah pg. 75
[28] Minhaj al Sunnah 4/46
[29] Refer to Tafsir al Tabari 6/557 (The researched edition).
[30] Surah al A’raf: 81
[31] Refer to Minhaj al Sunnah 4/46
[32] Ibid 4/78
[33] Al Bahrani: Durrah Najafiyyah pg. 37. Refer also to Rijal al Kashshi pg. 205-206, Al Anwar al No’maniyyah 1/82.
[34] Al Maqalat wa l-Firaq pg. 15
[35] Firaq al Shia pg. 17, al Shibi erred in quoting the view of al Nowbakhti by saying that he believed that Shi’ism started after the demise of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Refer to al Silah Bayn al Tasarruf wa l-Tashayyu’ pg. 22
[36] Refer to al Razi (who was among the scholars of the Isma’iliyyah) Al Zinah pg. 205 (of the manuscript).
[37] Take note of how he admits that the seed of Shi’ism is different to the seed of Islam.
[38] Asl al Shia pg. 43
[39] Refer to Muhsin al ‘Amili: A’yan al Shia 1/13, 16, Muhammad Jawad Mughniyah: Al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah wa Ahl l-Bayt pg. 29, Hashim Ma’ruf: Tarikh al Fiqh al Jafari pg. 105, al Wabili: Hawiyyat al Tashayyu’ pg. 27, al Shirazi: Hakadha al Shia pg. 4, Muhammad al Hasani: Fi Zilal al Tashayyu’ pg. 50-51, al Zayn: Al Shia fi l-Tarikh pg. 29, 30, al Muzaffar: Tarikh al Shia pg. 18, Al Sadr: Bahth Hawl al Wilayah pg. 63, Ahmed Tuffahah: Usul l-Din pg. 18, 19
[40] The books on the subject of fabricated ahadith of the Ahlus Sunnah have many narrations regarding this subject, which were narrated by the Rawafid. As examples, refer to Al Mowdu’at of Ibn al Jowzi 1/338s, al Showkani: Al Fawa’id al Majmu’ah pg. 342, al Kattani: Tanzih al Shari’ah 1/351. They have many different ways and methods by which they try to establish proof against the Ahlus Sunnah. I have written regarding this in my book Fikrat al Taqrib pg. 51.
[41] Ibn Khaldun: Al Muqaddimah 2/527, researched by ‘Ali ‘Abdul Wahid Wafi
[42] Surah Al ‘Imran: 19
[43] Surah Al ‘Imran: 85
[44] Ibn Taymiyyah says, “during the khilafah of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma there were no such people who were referred to as Shia, and the word Shia was not attached to any person’s name.” Minhaj al Sunnah 2/64, researched by Dr Muhammad Rashad Salim.
[45] Asl al Shia pg. 48
[46] Al Shia fi l-Tarikh pg. 39-40
[47] One such view is their fabrication that Zubair, Miqdad and Salman shaved their heads with the intention of fighting Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhum (Rijal al Kashshi number 210 pg. 133). Their narrations regarding this will fill up volumes of books. It should be noted that in this narration they mentioned Zubair, whereas he later fought against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and they forgot to mention Abu Dhar, ‘Ammar and the Ahl al Bayt.
[48] Refer to Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah 4/46, Ibn Hajar: al Isabah 2/506, Ibn ‘Abdul Barr: al Isti’ab 2/473.
[49] Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d 4/87
[50] Al Munyah wa l-Amal pg. 124, 125
[51] Al Washia
[52] Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Ya’qub al Nadim. He was a Mu’tazili Shia. Among his works are al Fahrist. He died in the year 438 A.H. (Lisan al Mizan 5/72)
[53] Ibn al Nadim: al Fahrist pg. 175
[54] Al Silah Bayn al Tasawuf wa l-Tashayyu’ pg. 18
[55] Nash’at al Fikr al Falsafi 2/32