Origins of the Shia Sect

8/13/2019 Origins of the Shia Sect

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/origins-of-the-shia-sect 1/26

Origins of the Shia Sect

This is our edited version of an article written By: Ibn al-Hashimi

www.ahlelbayt.com

Jews of Yathrib

Prior to the advent of Islam, the Arabian Peninsula was inhabited by variouswarring tribes. The Arabs were plagued with to their lack of unity and theirincessant inter-tribal warfare. The motley Arabs were trapped in betweentwo regional super-powers; to the West was the powerful Roman Empire andto the East was the mighty Persian Empire, and both would terrorizeneighboring Arab provinces at will.

It was then that a Prophet arose by the name of Muhammad, who unifiedthe various Arab tribes under the banner of Islam. The Islamic ethosshattered the Jahiliyyah concept of Assabiyyah (tribalism/bigotry) andunified the Muslims under the newly defined concept of the Islamic Ummah.The Prophet unified the city of Yathrib (Medinah) which was a hotbed ofinter-tribal warfare.

The Jews of Yathrib feared the unification of the Arabs, because they usedto play on the differences between the various groups. The Jews thusconspired with a group of people, the Munafiqoon (the hypocrites), whoclaimed to be Muslim but were really disbelievers. Their leader was a mannamed Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salool. This was the first attempt of theJews to subvert Islam from the inside, using Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his lotto create schisms within the Ummah. Later, a Jew by the name of AbdullahIbn Saba would use this same technique to create schisms within theUmmah.

First, the Prophet unified the city of Yathrib (Medinah) and he expelled theconspiring Jews. Then, he conquered Mecca and set about unifying all ofArabia. The Prophet sent invitation letters to the nations of the world,inviting them to the Call of Allah.

http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/www.ahlelbayt.com

http://www.ahlelbayt.com/articles/history/www.ahlelbayt.com



The Persians

The Persian King, Chosroes, tore up the letter and declared that he wouldnever follow what he regarded as "the lowly" Arabs. The Persians consideredthemselves a superior race. Theirs was a nation of racial haughtiness and

supremacism. They were not willing to submit to the way of the inferiorArabs, nor were they ready to accept the radical Islamic call for racialequality.

After the death of the Prophet, Caliph Abu Bakr quelled the apostate tribesin the Wars of Riddah (Apostasy), and he thereby maintained the unity ofthe Arabian Peninsula. Two years later, Umar bin Khattab assumed powerand at this time, the Islamic nation-state was coming of age. Borderskirmishes between Rome and Persia eventually erupted into all-out war.

Under the guidance of the Commander of the Faithful Umar, the Muslimarmies defeated Rome and blitzed across Persia, dealing both empires acrushing blow. The Persians, with their haughty attitude of superiority, weresourly humiliated. The Muslims took the Persians as POWs (Prisoners ofWar).

Harmuzan

The defeated Persian governor and former military commander, Harmuzan,was brought before Caliph Umar. Umar said to the defeated Persian:

“Harmuzan, we Arabs are the desert-dwellers you considered too lowly foreven fighting with. We used to get licked by small columns of your troops.Now you see your King’s throne and crown lying at our feet while he isrunning about places to save his life. How did that happen?”

Harmuzan replied:

“Sir, then it used to be a war between the Persians and the Arabs. Now youhave your God with you.”

In another narration, Harmuzan declared that before it was merely the Arabforces against the Persian forces, and the Persian forces were stronger. Butnow, it was the Arab forces and Allah, and it was impossible to defeat bothat the same time. It was thus that Harmuzan and his Persian confederates



realized that the power of the Republic of Medinah lay in its religiousbeliefs. To destroy the religious beliefs of the Muslims would be to destroythe Muslims.

Harmuzan was to be executed for war crimes by Caliph Umar, but he saved

his life through an ingenious trick. He asked for water to drink, andrequested Caliph Umar for a reprieve for his life until he could finish hisdrink of water. Umar granted him this request, and upon this, Harmuzanspilled the water on the ground. Because he was unable to drink the water,therefore technically his royal reprieve would never lapse. Caliph Umarupheld his word, and thereby pardoned Harmuzan.

Assassination Plot

Harmuzan “converted” to Islam and moved to Medinah, whereupon heplanned the Persian revenge on the Arab Muslims. Harmuzan blamed theCommander of the Faithful Umar for the downfall of the Persian Empire,and it was thus that Harmuzan hatched the plan to assassinate the Caliph.

In Medinah, Harmuzan became close companions with astaunch Christian namedJafeena Al-Khalil. Jafeena was a political pawn ofthe Roman ruler and had served as an official in Damascus, Palestine andHeerah; the defeat of Rome by the Muslims left its mark on Jafeena who,

like Harmuzan, swore revenge.

The third partner was a Jew by the name of Saba bin Shamoon (whose sonwould beAbdullah Ibn Saba, the notorious founder of the Shia movement).Saba despised the Muslims who had expelled the Jews on charges ofconspiracy. All three of these individuals–Harmuzan (the Zoroastrian),Jafeena (the Christian), and Saba (the Jew) – belonged to peoples who hadgrievances against the rise of Muslim dominance.

They hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian, who had recently been captured bythe Muslims as a POW; he was a slave under a Muslim master. AbuLulu stabbed Caliph Umar bin Khattabto death.

A day before Umar had been assassinated, Abdur Rahman-–Abu Bakr’s son-–had seen Abu Lulu standing with Harmuzan and Jafeena. The three menwere whispering to one another. As Abdur Rehman passed by, the three gotstartled and a double edged dagger fell to the ground. Abdur Rahman would



later confirm that this was the same dagger that killed Umar. The murder ofUmar was thus instigated by a coalition of a Roman Christian, a Jew, and aPersian Zoroastrian. It should be noted that the Prophet had prophesied thatthe Christians, Jews, and pagans would always be united against theMuslims.

Today, the modern day Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they call him “BabaShuja-e-din” which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.”These Shia have a shrine erected for this murderer, located in the Iraniancity of Kashan called the Abu Lulu Mausoleum wherein he is buried. The Shiatravel from far distances to pray inside this shrine, and many of the Shia faston the day that Umar was killed, and even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Luluis one of the venerated founding figures of Shia ideology; the same peoplewho conspired to kill Umar were the ones who planted the seeds of the Shiamovement.

Ubaidallah’s Revenge and Uthman’s Decision

Umar’s son, Ubaidallah, was infuriated by the murder of his father.Ubaidallah killed both Harmuzan and Jafeena. Ubaidallah was thus chargedwith murder and brought to the court of the new Caliph, Uthman bin Affan.Ali bin Abi Talib, Uthman’s vizier, advised that Ubaidallah should beexecuted for murder because there was not enough evidence to convictHarmuzan and Jafeena of any crime. Furthermore, reasoned Ali, extra-judicial vigilante justice was not permitted in Islam; Harmuzan and Jafeenashould at least have been entitled to a fair trial and-–if found guilty–-beexecuted by none other than the state.

However, the other Sahabah–-including Amir bin al A’as-–differed with Ali’sposition , because they sympathized with Ubaidallah , who was the son ofthe great Umar . His father had just been murdered in cold blood, and sothey wished that Ubaidallah be forgiven due to the fact that he was acting

out of distress. Caliph Uthman thus ruled that Ubaidallah must pay blood-money. But because Harmuzan and Jafeena had no relatives, Uthmandeclared that the blood-money should be given to charity and the BaitulMal. However, Ubaidallah was unable to pay the blood-money due to lack offunds, and so it was that Caliph Uthman paid this money out of his ownpocket.



This was one of his first acts as Caliph, and the conspirators (in particularAbdullah Ibn Saba’s father) viewed Uthman’s decision very unfavorably. Itwas in this atmosphere that Uthman bin Affan came to power, and themachinations of the conspirators continued in full force. Ubaidallah hadkilled Harmuzan and Jafeena, but Saba bin Shamoon remained alive. Hisson, Abdullah Ibn Saba, “converted” to Islam and he would uphold the taskof destroying Islam from within.

The fact that Uthman showed mercy upon Ubaidallah angered Saba binShamoon and his son, Abdullah Ibn Saba. These two men lookedsympathetically towards Ali, due to the fact that Ali had taken a harshstance towards Ubaidallah’s actions. It was thus thatAbdullah ibnSaba “converted” to Islam and founded the Shia sect, calling the masses toadore Ali and agitating them against Uthman. It was Abdullah Ibn Saba’spropaganda against Uthman that helped fan the flames of civil discontentand caused the people to rise against the Caliph. And so it was that theSaba’ites (followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba)assassinated Uthman.

Uthman’s Caliphate

The murder of Umar by the Persians created an air of rebellion of suspicion.Under the rule of Umar, the Islamic state expanded far and wide, but theconquered people posed the constant threat of rebellion. Despite theseamazing victories for the Muslims, it turned out to be that the managementof these vast territories became a more difficult task than conquering them.During Caliph Uthman’s rule, the Islamic empire had grown so large that itwas crushing itself under its own weight; the state was experiencing gravefinancial troubles.

Caliph Uthman was faced with the management of these conquered peopleswho were by nature rebellious and unruly. He had the task of appointinggovernors as well as tax collectors; Caliph Uthman, an Umayyad, trusted

very few people and rightfully so considering the atmosphere of civildiscontent at the time, not to mention the assassination of Umar by theconquered Persians. So it was that Uthman appointed his family and friendsto government positions. For example, during his reign, Uthman’s cousinMuawiyyah remained the governor of Syria.



Ali acts as Vizier of the Caliph

Many poor Bedouins felt that the Uthman’s policies were tilted in favor ofthe Umayyad elite. They wrongfully accused Caliph Uthman of nepotism.(Today, the Shia also accuse him of this. The irony should not be lost that

the Shia are the ones who said that the Prophet Muhammad believed innepotism, by restricting the Caliphs in the Ahlel Bayt only.)

The Bedouins found a spokesman in Ali. Ali prevented these Bedouins fromresorting to violent rebellion and to instead use peaceful negotiation. As theVizier and top advisor of Caliph Uthman, Ali had the ability to bring the caseof the Bedouins to the Caliph, and by doing so, he brought these Bedouins tothe negotiating table, instead of the war table.

The Partisans of Ali

Ali’s supporters were a myriad of disenchanted people, some of whom hadgrievances with Caliph Uthman. These became the “Partisans of Ali” or theShia’t Ali. (It should be noted that this is not the same group as the IthnaAshari of today. In fact, the truth is that the Ithna Asharis did not exist backthen, and the doctrine of Ithna Ashari Shi’ism would only emerge centurieslater.) Indeed, these Partisans of Ali were simply recently convertedBedouins as well as conquered Persians. They were not a religious sect, but

rather a political party. The term “Shia’t Ali” was not used to denote adistinct religious sect; in fact, the partisans of Muawiyyah would be called“Shia’t Muawiyyah.”

Within the Partisans of Ali were a myriad of different groups; many of whichwere Bedouins who had just recently converted from a Mushrik faith, as wellas recently conquered Persians who clung to their Zoroastrian ways. Theywere weak in faith, ignorant, and barbaric. Both the Bedouins and theZoroastrians were accustomed to their former pagan beliefs and had adifficult time adjusting to Islam, and often-times they would mix Islam withpagan thought.

The Saba’ites



The Zoroastrians (of the defeated Persian Empire), the Christians (of thedefeated Eastern Roman Empire), and the Jews (who had been expelled bythe Muslims) grieved for the old days. In their private counsel, thesedefeated elements had reached the conclusion that it was not possible tofight Muslims on the battlefield. Therefore, they resolved to sow the seed ofdiscord amongst Muslims, using the model of the Jews of Yathrib. TheProphet had called the Muslims to unite under the banner of Islam and theQuran; the disunited Arabs had unified and defeated their enemies. Thus,these conspirators decided to undo this process; they reasoned that toremove the Muslims from Islam and the Quran would also cause disunity andweakness.

The first step of these conspirators was the assassination of Umar. Umar’sson Ubaidallah took revenge and killed Jafeena the Christian and Harmuzanthe Persian. It was then that Ali ibn Abi Talib demanded that Ubaidallah begiven the death penalty for murdering Umar’s assassins. Abdullah Ibn Saba,whose father had been a companion of Jafeena and Harmuzan, thus took aliking for Ali and declared himself a Partisan of Ali.

Ibn Saba carried a grudge against Umar-–it had after all been his fatherresponsible for Umar’s death; he also carried a grudge against Uthman whopardoned the killers of his father’s companions.

Abdullah Ibn Saba saw an opportunity to exploit the disunity of the Muslimsduring the time of civil unrest during Uthman’s Caliphate. Ibn Saba“converted” to Islam, and tried to gain a following amongst Ali’s moreextreme supporters. These followers of Ali were using him in their appealsto Caliph Uthman. They were already upset with Uthman, and thus theywere the perfect target audience for Ibn Saba who would convince them ofAli’s superiority over Uthman.

Ibn Saba first called the masses to show their love and devotion to the AhlelBayt (Prophetic Household). He then started claiming that none couldexceed the Ahlel Bayt in status. When he gained some popularity at this, he

boldly claimed that Ali was the most superior person after the Prophet.When he saw that some of his followers had indeed believed him, heconfided in them that Ali was in reality the appointed successor of theProphet, but that the Three Caliphs had usurped this right from him. IbnSaba then unleashed a campaign of vilification against the Sahabah, and heis the first to start the practice of Tabarra, or ritualistic cursing of Abu



Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. He then told his staunch supporters that Ali hadpowers above those of a normal human being.

To appeal to the recent Persian converts, Ibn Saba infusedZoroastrian beliefs into Islam. The Zoroastrians believed that God’s

spirit was in their Chosroes (king), and that this spirit moved from one kingto another, through his descendants. Ibn Saba declared that the divinity ofImamah also moved from one Imam to another through the descendants ofAli. Many of the exaggerations in Shi’ism in regards to the powers of Imamstake their inspiration from the Chosroes.

Ibn Saba’s ideas appealed to the pagan side of the new converts fromamongst the Beduins and Persians; these pagans were accustomed toworshipping idols and people, so the exaltation of Ali appealed to them.Eventually, Ibn Saba would take it to the ultimate extreme and he applied infull force the concept of the Persian Chosroes,declaring Ali to beAllah incarnated.

Up until then, Ali had not paid much attention to Ibn Saba’s antics, but oncehe heard of this news, Ali was furious. Ali threatened to burn all of IbnSaba’s followers (called Saba’ites) to the stake including Ibn Saba; Ali askedthem to repent and he wouldeventually exile them to Mada’in (modernday Iran) when he was Caliph.

However, the Saba’ites adopted the concept of Taqiyyah (lying)and Kitman (hiding one’s faith); this allowed the Saba’ites to avoiddetection from the authorities, infiltrating the ranks of the Shia’t Ali.

Ali, who before becoming Caliph spent most of his time in Mecca andMedinah, remained oblivious to the Saba’ites who were mostly in Iraq (i.e.Kufa), Persia, and Egypt.

With the practise of Taqiyyah and Kitman, the Saba’ites functioned muchlike a secret society or cult, such as the Free Masons, Illuminati, and otherclandestine organizations. The Saba’ites operated under a strict code ofsecrecy and hid their identities for fear of reprisal from the government.This created a situation such that the authorities could not clamp down onthe Saba’ites due to their elusiveness, and the secret society continued togrow in numbers and fill the ranks of the Shia’t Ali, without even Ali’sknowledge.



The Saba’ites were the originators of the Shia faith. Generations later,these Saba’ites would branch out into the various Shia sects we know oftoday: the Druze, Bohras, Nizaris, Zaydis, Jarudis, Sulaymanis, Butris,Ismailis, Kaysaniyyas, Qaddahiyyas, Ghullat, Aga Khanis, Ithna Asharis,Usoolis, Akhbaris, Shaykis, and so on.

Saba’ites Organize Attack on Uthman

It should be noted that these Saba’ite Bedouins were only one segment ofthe Shia’t Ali; they were an extremist fringe group. With the goading ofAbdullah Ibn Saba, the Egyptian Bedouins (led by the Saba’ites) wereplanning on rebelling against Caliph Uthman. However, news of thisimminent treason by the extremist wing of the Shia’t Ali reached the ears o f

Uthman . Caliph Uthman thus ordered the Egyptian governor to pre-emptively take action against the malcontents. But when the EygptianBedouins found out that the governor was to punish the malcontents onorders of Caliph Uthman, Abdullah Ibn Saba convinced the Bedouins to siegethe Caliph’s home in Medinah.

Ali did not take part in the siege, nor did he approve of it. In fact, Ali senthis own sons to protect Caliph Uthman, and he even offered 500 men toprotect Uthman . How is it then that the Shia claim that Ali hated Uthmanwhen he sent his own beloved sons to defend him and to prolong hisCaliphate?

Indeed, Ali did not support the Saba’ite Bedouins who favored Ali overUthman-–much like Ali would not support the modern day Shia today. Themodern day Shia can never explain why Ali did not raise his sword againstUthman, and they can only say that perhaps he was preventing bloodshed.But then why was Ali ready to shed blood in the defense of Uthman? Truly,the Shia cannot explain this: a man does not send his sons to defend atyrant.

Ali’s Caliphate

In any case, Uthman was assassinated by the Saba’ite Bedouins. OnceUthman was slain, the Shia’t Ali urged Ali to become the next Caliph. Ali,however, did not approve of the actions taken by his extremist followers



and he asked his Shia’t Ali to find someone else to be Caliph. Ali becamereclusive and shunned his followers severely. This is recorded in NahjulBalagha, which the Shia consider one of the most authentic sources of Ali’slectures.

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91

When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand afterthe murder of Uthman, Ali said:

“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has(several) faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligencecan accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and face are not discernible.You should know that if I respond to you that I would lead you as I know andwould not care about whatever [anyone else] may say. If you leave me, then

I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whoeveryou make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counselor thanas chief.”

(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)

However, the people pressured him and finally Ali became the FourthCaliph. If Ali had really been appointed to the Imamah by Allah, then whywould Ali have refused this appointment at first? Why would he dislike aposition that was supposedly granted to him by Allah? If Imamah wasdestined for him, why is Ali claiming that he wasn’t even going to be theCaliph until the people put him up to it?

We see that Ali says the following in Nahjul Balagha:

Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 205

Ali said:

“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government,

but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it.”

(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)

Battle of the Camel Instigated by Saba’ites

http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/






There was a public demand for Ali to find the killers of Uthman, especiallysince it was known that the killers were part of the Shia’t Ali. However, A lifound himself too busy preventing a civil war to invest time and resourcesinto finding the killers, so he planned on delaying it. This angered manypeople who wanted justice immediately. They found a spokeswoman inAisha, the Prophet’s widow. She sympathized with the people who wantedto find the killers of Uthman.

The reality is that both Ali and Aisha had equally convincing arguments. Onthe one hand, Ali wanted to delay spending time and resources to find thekillers because he had to prevent a civil war. On the other hand, Aishacannot be blamed for feeling hurt and loss at the murder of Uthman, andsurely the murderers should be brought to justice!

Aisha went to see Caliph Ali in order to resolve the issue peacefully througharbitration. She feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of themalcontents by convincing Ali to find the murderers, they would rebelagainst Caliph Ali. She thus adopted the previous role of Ali: it had, afterall, been Ali who would take the case of the people to Caliph Uthman inorder that their demands be heard.

Both Aisha and Ali wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. However, theextremist portion of the Shia’t Ali [i.e. the Saba’ites] that were responsiblefor the murder of Uthman did not want Aisha to convince Ali to prosecutethe murderers, since of course it was they themselves.

So these Shia’t Ali decided to attack Aisha’s contingent thereby provoking acounter-response. Soon, Ali and Aisha found themselves in a battle thatnobody even knew who started it. This was the Battle of the Camel, andboth Ali and Aisha found themselves enmeshed in a battle that they did notwant to fight.

Aisha’s contingent was defeated. She apologized to Caliph Ali for the troubleshe had caused, and Ali forgave her and safely returned Aisha to her home.

Both Ali and Aisha are considered Sahabah, and this is a shining example ofhow although Sahabah get into disputes, they can resolve them in a civilmanner. Aisha had the humility to apologize, despite the fact that she reallydidn’t do anything wrong, and Ali had the nobility not to hold any ill-feelingstowards her and to walk her safely home.



During this chaotic time of civil war, all of the Sahabah were being pulledand manipulated by their ardent followers, many of whom were rabble-rousers like the followers of Ibn Saba in the Shia’t Ali. In the confusion of allof this, the Sahabah found themselves facing a civil war, despite the versein the Quran which stated that the Ummah should remain united. It was asad time in the history of Islam, with great Sahabah fighting other greatSahabah. But it should be remembered that the Battle of the Camel wasconcluded with the eventual reconciliation between Umm al Mu’mineenAisha and Amir al Mu’mineen Caliph Ali.

Battle of Siffin and the Saba’ite Revolt Against Ali

Uthman’s cousin Muawiyyah, then the governor of Syria, was not pleased

with this outcome because Ali still did not prosecute the criminals within hisown ranks. Muawiyyah was a blood-relative of Uthman and he was veryupset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah refused torecognize Ali as Caliph, and he demanded the right to avenge Uthman’sdeath. In what was perhaps the most important battle fought betweenMuslims, Ali’s forces met Muawiyyah’s in the Battle of Siffin.

The Shia say that Ali fought Muawiyyah for denying the Shia concept of theImamah, and that Ali was the first Infallible Imam. And yet the Shia’s ownbooks say that this was not the cause of the Battle of Siffin, but rather thecause was purely political, not religious. Ali clearly said in Nahjul Balagha:

“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s forces]and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and ourcall in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more inbelieving His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, exceptfor our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from hismurder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]

So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forceswere decimating the forces of Muawiyyah. It would have been a decisivevictory for Caliph Ali, but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool theShia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pagesfrom the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bringharm to the Quran.



The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyahasked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. CaliphAli, being the noble man that he was, agreed to Shurah (consultation) fordetermining who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of hisardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali should use

arbitration. The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba thatAllah had appointed Ali as Caliph. So they accused Ali of going against theWill of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there benegotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?

A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali. Theydeclared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to beknown as theKhawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or“those who secede.” For so long, these people had been the most ardentsupporters of Ali, calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahl elBayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them. Theydefected against the very man they had claimed to follow!

This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explainaway. They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsehood of theirbeliefs. The Khawaarij,former Saba’ites, were of the same belief astoday's Ithna Ashari Shia (Twelver Shia, those who believe in 12 Imams) ,namely that Allah had appointed Ali to be Caliph. And yet, Ali agreed toarbitration with Muawiyyah. The million-dollar question is: how could Ali

agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?

How could Ali agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself hadchosen Ali to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammadagree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? Sowhy would Ali arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? Inmatters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, wecannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salah, since these mattersare already decreed by Allah.

This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali did not believe he wasnot divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed toarbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be theCaliph. This proves that what the Ahl Sunnah's (Sunnis) beliefs are correct:namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakrwas selected.



The Shia belief system is diametrically opposed to the very Ali they claim tofollow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali, much like the Khawaarij(former Saba’ites) would turn against and confront Ali; Ali is he who deniedall claims of divine appointment and of Infallible Imamah.

Caliph Ali eventually fought against the Khawaarij Shia and defeated themand was not successful in uprooting the beliefs of their followers. However,the Shia became a secret cult initially.

Ali Murdered by Saba’ites

In any case, the Khawaarij Shia turned against Caliph Ali and killed him. Soit was that Muawiyyah became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be lost

that the Khawaarij Shia are the ones who killed Ali, allowing Muawiyyah tobe the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyahstealing the Caliphate! There can be no denying that the Saba’ites andthe Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shi’ism, since the Shia today hold thesame opinion that Ali was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. withAbu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.

After Ali’s death, the Khawaarij went back into hiding, using Taqiyyah(lying) and Kitman (hiding). Abdullah ibn Abbas, a relative of the Prophet(p), attempted to persuade them to reject the Khawaarij doctrine, and so

some of them did reject it. Unfortunately, most of them continued to holdonto their Saba’ite Shia beliefs, initially secretly, and later more openly.

Conclusion

This article has traced the origins of the Shia, which date back to theassassination conspiracy of Umar by the Persian Harmuzan, the ChristianJafeena, and the Jew Saba. The latter’s son, Abdullah Ibn Saba, would carry

on his father’s work by adopting the subterfuge tactics of the Jews ofYathrib. Ibn Saba was successful in weakening the Muslims from the insideby creating the Shia sect. Throughout its turbulent history, the Shia (whooriginated from the Saba’ites) have spread Fitnah to every corner of theMuslim world.



These Saba’ites killed Uthman, attacked Aisha, and killed Ali. They alsosupported Umar’s assassin Abu Lula. Then, these Shia betrayed Ali's sonHasan. The Shia also deceived Ali's second son Hussain to seek the Caliphateby giving him the impression they they would support him, but theyabandoned him and many of them actually fought against him, in the battlethat lead to his brutal death. Later, Hussain’s grandson would also die dueto the betrayal of the Shia.

The ancestors of the Shia were a hate-mongering people, responsible forcreating disunity and disarray amongst the Muslim Ummah. Today, thistradition lives on in the Shia, who carry on the practice of Tabarra, cursingand insulting the pious pioneers of Islam, rabble-rousing and trying to createhatred and disunity amongst the believers.

------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------

Shia: Historical Background

1. What does the word "Shi'a" mean?

"Shie'ah", "Shi'a": a singular Arabic noun means group, party, sect, supporter.The plural form is Shiya' and Ashyaa'. There is another word in Arabic thatdenotes the same meaning, i.e Hizb, its plural is Ahzaab. Both terms wereused in the Holy Qur'an:

19:69 Then shall We certainly drag out from every sect (Shi'a) all those whowere worst in obstinate rebellion against (Allah) Most Gracious.

28:15 And he entered the city at a time when its people were not watching:and he found there two men fighting,- one of his own religion (Shie'atihi),and the other, of his foes. Now the man of his own religion (Shie'atihi)appealed to him against his foe, and Moses struck him with his fist and madean end of him. He said: "This is a work of Evil (Satan): for he is an enemythat manifestly misleads!"

37:83 Verily among those who followed his Way (Shie'atihi) was Abraham.

15:10 We did send apostles before thee amongst the religious sects (Shiya')of old:



6:65 Say: "He hath power to send calamities on you, from above and below,or to cover you with confusion in party strife (Shiya'an), giving you a taste ofmutual vengeance - each from the other." See how We explain the signs byvarious (symbols); that they may understand.

6:159 As for those who divide their religion and break up into sects(Shiya'an), thou hast no part in them in the least: their affair is with Allah.He will in the end tell them the truth of all that they did.

28:4 Truly Pharaoh elated himself in the land and broke up its people intosections (Shiya'an), depressing a small group among them: their sons heslew, but he kept alive their females: for he was indeed a maker ofmischief.

30:32 Those who split up their Religion, and become (mere) Sects

(Shiya'an),- each party (Hizben) rejoicing in that which is with itself!

During the conflict between Ali [ra] and Muawiyah [ra], both groups werereferred to as "Shi'atu Ali" and "Shi'atu Muawiyah". Hence, its early usage inthe conflict between the two great companions Ali & Muawiyah [ra-both]was to denote who "sided" with who in its political context.

2. Was the dispute between Ali and Muawiyah religious in nature?

Absolutely not. The conflict started after the murder of the 3rd CaliphOthman bin 'Affan [ra], and the existence of the murderers in the camp ofAli [ra]. However; to answer this question, we'll explore Nahjul Balaghah tosee what Ali [ra] himself had to say about it, contrary to what the Shi'a wishto present:

"The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each otherwhile we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Prophet (s) and on thesame principles and canons of religion. So far as faith in Allah and the Holy

Prophet (s) was concerned we never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe inanything over and above or other than what they were believing in and theydid not want us to change our faith. Both of us were united on theseprinciples. The point of contention between us was the question of themurder of Uthman. It had created the split. They wanted to lay the murderat my door while I am actually innocent of it."



Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 58, p. 474http://www.alislam.org/nahjul/letters/letter58.htm#letter58

Therefore, if Ali [ra] himself does not see the conflict religious nor hispolitical opponents as Kafirs (unbelievers) then the love which Shi'ites claim

to have for him and the claim that they follow him, is an unproven claimfrom their own sources. For if they do indeed love Ali [ra] they will hold hisviews in this matter too, but they are people of no understanding.Furthermore, Ali [ra] instructed his men as follows:

"I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds andrecount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a moreconvincing way of arguing. Instead of abusing them you should say, "O' Allah!save our blood and their blood, produce reconciliation between us andthem, and lead them out of their misguidance so that he who is ignorant ofthe truth may know it, and he who inclines towards rebellion and revolt mayturn away from it."

Nahjul-Balaghah: Sermon 204, or online Sermon 205 (http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/205.htm)

Are the Shi'ites in anyway, form or manner following his instructions? Mostcertainly not. All we hear from them is slandering and cursing to the bestmen honored and chosen by Allah [swt] to be the companions of His Apostle[saw]

3. Did the word "Shi'ites" exist during the era of Muhammad [saw]?

Anyone who claims that the word "Shi'a" or "Shi'ites" was used by the Apostleof Allah or during his era is a liar, and no proof whatsoever exists to supportthis claim. To illustrate as a proof, the Shi'ites themselves never agreed onwhen Shi'asm actually started. In his book "Asl al-Shi'a wa Usooliha" p. 87,Grand Rabbi Aal Kaashif-al-Ghataa' wrote:

"The first (person) who planted the seed of Shi'asm in the field of Islam, isno other than the Prophet himself. In other words, the seed of Shi'asm wasplaced side by side with the seed of Islam coequally. Its planter (the Prophet[saw]) continued to care for it by irrigating it until it grew and prosperedduring his life time, then bore fruits after his death"



This is an absolute false statement, which he supported by a false Hadith(Hadith of the Bird) to which he falsely claimed exists in Sahih al-Bukhariand Muslims, or the Hadith "Verily it is Ali and his Shi'ites who are thewinners" as most of Shi'ites writers do, to give the reader the impressionthat they are supporting their falsehood with authentic narrations from ourSihaah.

It is no wonder then, that Ibn Abil-Hadeed (586 - 656 Hijri), an extremistShi'a, admittedly writes in his Commentary on Nahjul-Balaghah:

" The origin of lies in Ahadith of virtues, started with the Shi'ites whofabricated various Ahadith in the virtues of their Imams. It was the enmitythey held against their adversaries that drove them to fabricatethem" SeeSharh Nahujul-Balaghah, vol.1, p.783 (Quoting from al-Shi'a wat-Tashayyu', p.19)

4. So when did Shi'ism evolve as a political party?

Actually, neither the Shi'ites' historians nor the Shi'ites' Rabbis have aconsensus on the evolution of Shi'ism. In his "Firaq al-Shi'a" (The Shi'aGroups) Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti, one of the foremostknown Shi'i historian, believes that Shi'ism did not start until the demise ofthe Apostle [saw]:

" The Messenger [sawa] died in the month of Rabi' al-Awwal, in the year 10of Hijra at age 63 and the duration of his prophethood was for 23 years, andhis mother is Aaminah bint Wahab bin Abdi Manaaf bin Zuhra bin Kilaab binMurra bin Ka'b bin Lu'ay bin Ghaalib. (At his death) The Ummah was dividedinto three groups. One group was called the Shi'ites, who were the Shi'ites ofAli bin Abi Taleb [as] and from them all Shi'i sects broke away. Another(group) claimed the right of succession, i.e., al-Ansaar, who called for theinauguration of Sa'd bin Ubadah al-Khazraji. A (Third) group tilted towardgiving the Bay'ah (allegiance) to Abu Bakr bin Abi Qahaafah, with an excusethat the Messenger [sawa] did not name a particular successor rather left itfor the Ummah to chose whom it wills...." (Firaq al-Shi'a: pp. 23-24)

Muhammad Hussain al-Muzaffari thinks it was started by the Prophet [saw]himself, he thus wrote in his Tareekh al-Shi'a (History of the Shi'ites):



"The call for Shi'asm started with the day when Grand Savior Muhammad[sawa] shouted the word La Ilaha illallah in Makka's sections andmountains....and hence, the call to become a Shi'ite for Abu al-Hasan [as](Ali) by the Prophet [sawa] went side by side with the call for the twotestimonies"

Tareekh al-Shi'a: Muhammad Husain al-Muzaffari, pp. 8-9, Qum, Iran.

Abu Ishaaq Ibn al-Nadim, (297-385 h), a famous Shi'i writer, did not agree toneither of the above theories, he wrote in his "al-Fihrist" that Shi'ism startedat the Battle of Camel, thus explained:

"When Talha and Az-Zubair disagreed with Ali and accepted no less than therevenge for the blood of Othman, and Ali mobilized his forces to fight them,those who followed him were then given the title, Shi'ites." (Al-Fihrist, Ibn

al-Nadim: p.249, from Ash-Shi'a wat-Tashayyu': Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, p.25)

Kamil Mustafa al-Shaybi, a Shi'a, wrote in his book:

" The independence of the term indicating Shi'asm came about only after themurder of al-Husain whereby Shi'ism became an independent entity with adistinctive identity" (The Link Between Sufism & Shi'asm: Mustafa Kamil al-Shaybi, p.23, From Ash-Shi'a wat-Tashayyu', Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, p.26)

It is obvious from their own disputes over the birth of Shi'ism, that theattempts to make Shi'itization (call to dis-unity) the original message of theProphet [saw] is a failure and can only fool the naives who go after everydrum beater.

5. If Muhammad [saw] did not start Shi'ism as some of them claim, whothen started it?

Simply, when the Jews were convinced they are unable to halt the fastgrowing and spreading of Christianity by means of force, they planed todestroy it from within. This mission was successfully carried out by RabbiPaul. When Islam came, likewise, the Jews again attempted to abort thisnew religion. Their endeavors took many forms and shapes, from attemptsto assassinate the Apostle of Allah [saw] to waging wars that ended in



deporting most of them from al-Madinah or executing those who betrayedthe truce. Similarly, they were convinced that the best way to destroy Islamand the Muslims' unity was to resort to the plot they used with Christianity.A Yemenite Jew by the name of Abdullah bin Saba' , as Paul did, pretendedto have embraced Islam to plant secretly the seeds of this new cult which hesuccessfully performed. He arrived from Yemen to al-Madinah during the eraof Zunnurain Caliph Othman bin 'Affaan [ra] and started to plan and cook theplot, waiting for the proper opportunity which he found in Ali [ra].

6. Recently, some Shi'ites began to claim that "Abdullah bin Saba'" is amyth and an imaginative personality who never existed in history, howtrue?

It is natural for them to be ashamed of this fact, but our question to themis, why they kept silent for 14 centuries and not a single scholar of themdisputed this fact throughout this period? Furthermore, what do they sayabout the giant scholars of theirs who confirmed the existence of this Jew,and what do they say about their "Infallible" Imams who likewise confirmedhis existence? Certainly, if Ibn Saba' was a myth, then this is a blow to theircredibility and "Infallibility" and the entire footings of Shi'ism has therebycollapsed.

Nevertheless, we'll prove our point, not by using Sunni or Orientalistssources, but will call to the witness stand their very own historians andwhom they call deputies of Allah on earth, the "Infallible" Imams:

First: Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti:The well known Shi'ite "Who's Who" critic, al-Najashi in his al-Fihrist, wrote:

"al-Hasan bin Musa: Abu Muhammad al-Nubakhti, the well versed in dialects,who surpassed the peers of his time prior and after year 300 (hijra)" (Al-Fihrist: al-Najashi, p.47; From Ash-Shi'a was-Sunnah, p.22)

Another "Who's Who" critic, At-Tusi, in his al-Fihrist wrote:



"Abu Muhammad, dialectist and philosopher, was an Imami (shi'ite), anupright in faith, trustworthy (thiqah)....and he is one of the scholars'landmarks" (Al-Fihrist: At-Tusi, p.98; From Ash-Shi'a Was-Sunnah, p.22)

Nurallah at-Tasturi, in his "Majaalis al-Mu'mineen" wrote:

"al-Hasan bin Musa, one of the celebrity of this sect and its scholars. He wasa dialectist, a philosopher, an Imami in faith" (Majaalis al-Mu'mineen:Nurallah At-Tasturi, p.177; from Ash-Shi'a was-Sunnah, p.22)

Having established the authority of this historian from the Shi'ites own

sources, let's read what Mr. al-Nubakhti had to say about Ibn Saba':

"Abdullah bin Saba', was one of those who slandered Abu Bakr, Omar,Othman and the Companions and disowned them. He claimed that it was Ali[as] who enjoined this on him. Ali arrested him, and upon interrogation,admitted to the charge, and (Ali) ordered him to be executed. The Peoplecried 'O Chief of Believers ! Do you execute a man calling to your love,Ahlul-Bayt, to your allegiance, and disowning your enemies?' He (Ali) thenexiled him to al-Mada'in (Capital of Iran back then). Some of theknowledgeable companions of Ali [as] narrated that Abdullah bin Saba' was a

Jew who embraced Islam and sided with Ali [as]. That he was of the opinion,at the time when he was a Jew, claiming that Yousha' bin Noon is afterMoses. After his submission to Islam, after the demise of the Prophet [pbuh],he claimed the same for Ali [as]. He was the first to publicly mandate theImamah of Ali [as], disowning his enemies, and debated his opponents. Fromthence, those who oppose Shi'ism say: The origin of Shi'ism is rooted inJudaism. When Abdullah bin Saba' heard of the demise of Ali while in (hisexile at) al-Mada'in, he said to the announcer of the news: 'You are a liar, ifyou are to bring his head in seventy bags, and brought seventy witnessestestifying to his death, we'll insist that he did not die nor murdered, and(he) shall not die till he rules the globe' ". (Firaq al-Shi'a: Nubakhti, pp.43,44)

Second: Abu Amr bin Abdul Aziz al-Kash-shi: Another well known "Who'sWho" critic who also mentioned Ibn Saba', and one of the earliest Shi'ite



biographers. In the "Introduction" to his book, known as "Rijaal al-Kash-shi",we read:

"He is trustworthy (thiqah), an adept, an expert in traditions and men, veryknowledgeable, well founded in faith, on the upright path......The most

important books on biographies of men are four, which are heavilydepended on and (considered) the four basic pillars in this field, the mostimportant and earliest of all is: Ma'rifat al-Naqileen anil-A'immah As-Sadiqeen (Knowing the Transmitters on The Authority of The TruthfulImams) known as Rijaal al-Kash-shi". (Rijaal al-Kash-shi: al-Najaashi,Introduction)

Having established the authority of this scholar, let's examine what he has

to say about the Jew Ibn Saba':

"Some people of knowledge mentioned that Abdullah bin Saba' was a Jew,who embraced Islam and supported Ali. While he was still a Jew, he used togo to extremism in calling Yousha' bin Noon as the appointee (successor) ofMoses, thus after embracing Islam - after the demise of the Messenger ofAllah [pbuh] - he said the like about Ali. It was him who first publiclyannounced the mandatory Iamamah for Ali, rejected and disowned hisenemies, debated his opponents and called them Kafirs. Hence, those whooppose the Shi'ites often say: The Shi'ites and Rejectors (Rafidah) have theirroots in Judaism." (Rijaal al-Kash-shi: Abu 'Amr bin Abdul Aziz al-Kash-shi, p.101 al-Mamaqaani, author of "Tanqeeh al-Maqaal", who is an authoritativeShi'i biogropher quoted the like in his said book, p.184)

Now, if these Shi'ites authorities lied about the identity of Ibn Saba', thenthe possibility of them lying about other matters, like the events of Siffien,the murder of al-Hussain [ra] and other Shi'i dogmas, stands greater.Consequently, if this is the case, doubt will overshadow any and all eventsand narrations recorded by them.

But assuming that the foresaid men are liars, and error infiltrated to theirbooks, and therefore their testimony is not a proof (hujjah) nor binding,then we invite you to examine the testimony of those who are "Infallible"and looked at as "Deputies of Allah" whose sayings are equal to Allah's as theShi'ites claim:



1. "Narrated to me Muhammad bin Qolawaih: Narrated to me Sa'd binAbdullah, said: Narrated to us Yaqoub bin Yazeed and Muhammad bin Issafrom Ali bin Mahziyar, from Fadalah bin Ayoub al-Azdi, from Abban binOthman said: I heard Abu Abdullah [as] saying:'May Allah curse Abdallah bin Saba', he claimed a divineship for Amirul-Mu'mineen (Ali) [as]. By Allah, Amierul-Mu'mineen [as] was volunterily theslave of Allah. Woe to him who lie about us, for there are people who sayabout us what we don't say about ourselves, we clear ourselves to Allah fromthem, we clear ourselves to Allah from them'."

2. "Narrated Yaqoub bin Yazeed from Ibn Abi Omair and Ahmad binMuhammad bin Issa, from his father and al-Husain bin Sa'eed, from Hishambin Salim, from Abu Hamza al-Thumali said: Ali bin al-Husain [as] said:'May the curse of Allah be upon those who tell lies about us. I mentionedAbdullah Ibn Saba and each hair in my body stood up, Allah cursed him. Ali(AS) was, by Allah, a proper servant of Allah, the brother of the Messengerof Allah (PBUH). He did not earn the graciousness/honor from Allah exceptwith the obedience to Allah and His Messenger. And (similarly) theMessenger of Allah (PBUH) did not earn the honor from Allah except with hisobedience to Allah'."

3. Narrated Muhammad bin Khalid At-Tayalisi, from Ibn Abi Najran, fromAbdullah bin Sinaan said: Abu Abdullah [as] said:"We are a family of truthfulness. But we are not safe from a liar telling lies

about us to undermine our truth with his lies in front of people. TheMessenger of Allah (PBUH) was the most truthful among people in what hesaid (Lahjatan) and the most truthful among all humanity; and Musaylimaused to lie on him. The Commander of Believers (AS) was the most truthfulone among the creation of Allah after the Messenger of Allah; and the onewho used to lie on him, and tried to undermine his truthfulness and claimedlies about Allah, was Abdullah Ibn Saba."

(Ibid, pp. 100 -101)

Need further Shi'ites sources? We'll call to testimony al-Hasan bin Ali al-Hilly, another famous Shi'i biographer, and examine what he had to sayabout the Jew Ibn Saba':



"Abdullah bin Saba' returned to disbelief and showed extremism. He claimedprophethood, and that Ali [as] was Allah (in the flesh). Ali [as], for three(consecutive) days asked him to repent but he failed, thereupon, he [as]burned him (alive) with seventy other men who attributed divinity tohim"(Kitaab al-Rijaal: al-Hilly, p.469, printed in Tehran, Iran 1383 h. From

Ash-Shi'a wat-Tashayyu', p.56)

We'll further call another witness for the stand, the Shi'i biographer, al-AstraAbadi, and examine his testimony:

"Abdullah bin Saba' claimed prophethood and that Ali [as] is himself Allahthe Most Exalted. Upon hearing this charge, Amirul-Mu'mineen called andinquired it from him. When he admitted, he said to him: back off from this

say and repent, may your mother lose you. However; (Ibn Saba') refused,and (Ali) held him for three days, and, still refusing to repent, he thereforeburned him (alive)." (Manhaj al-Maqaal: al-Astar Abadi, p.203, from: Ash- Ashia wat-Tashayyu', p.56 )

We have another witness, which we like to take his statement, a Persianhistorian, in his "Tareekh Shi'i" confirmed and wrote:

"When Abdullah bin Saba' learned that the opposition to Othman in Egyptwas greater, he went there and pretended the knowledge and righteousnessuntil the people trusted him. After he established himself there, he startedto propagate his ideas and theory, that for each Prophet was an appointedsuccessor, and the appointee (wasi) of the Apostle of Allah and his successoris no other than Ali, who is blessed with knowledge and Fatwa, ornamentedwith generousity and courage, and known for his honesty and righteousness.He further said: The Ummah has wronged Ali, usurped his right, the right ofKhilafah (succession) and Walayah (allegiance). It is incumbent upon you allto aid and support him. He (immediately) revoked his obedience andallegiance to Othman, and touched many Egyptians with his sayings anddeeds, and they revolted against Othman." (Tareekh Shi'i: Rawdat As-Safa,vol.2, p.292, Tehran Ed., From: Ashi'a wat-Tashayyu' , p.56)



And there are hundreds of other books who affirmed and confirmed, thatShi'ism started with this Jewish Yemenite who pretended "Love of Ahlul-Bayt" and sought justice for them, as a plot to crack the unity of the MuslimUmmah who crushed the Jewish tribes in the Arabic Peninsula. It is notamazing therefore, that the alliance between the Jews and the PersianMajoos (Zoroastrians) prosper to revenge from those who destroyed theirdreams and humiliated a civilization not long ago, was one of two superpowers in the world. This is briefly why Shi'ism prospered mainly in the landof the Fire worshippers, Persia.

7. Who are the 12 Imams that the Shi'a believe in?

No. Kunyah, Name, Laqab, Years

01- Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Abi Taleb al-Murtada 10 bh- 40 ah

02- Abu Muhammad al-Hassan bin Ali AzZaky 03-050 h

03- Abu Abdallah al-Hussain bin Ali Sayyid al-Shuhada 04-061 h

04- Abu Muhammad Ali bin al-Hussain Zainul-'Abideen 38-095 h

05- Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Ali al-Baqir 57-114 h

06- Abu Abdallah Ja'far bin Muhammad al-Sadiq 83-148 h

07- Abu Ibrahim Musa bin Ja'far al-Kadhim 128-183 h

08- Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Musa al-Rida 148-202/3 h

09- Abu Ja'far Muhammad bin Ali al-Jawaad 195-220 h

10- Abu al-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad al-Hadi 212-254 h

11- Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Ali al-Askari 232-260 h

12- Abu al-Qasim Muhammad bin al-Hasan al-Mahdi 256-to-end of time !!!



------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------

al-Shaykh al-Saduq mentions in his al-I'tiqâdât (p.100):

ه زرارة عن وروي أ ت ق د ص ـ ه ٌ ع م ا ـ : ( د ن رج إن ود ع ا ن س و ٌ ض ٌ و .

ـ ه ٌ ع م ا ـ : ( و ض ٌ و ا ) ت : و ٌ : إن جوزع ق حدا خى ص ه ٌ ع ه آ و م و ع و ـ ه ٌ ع م ا ـ م وض ث (4)ار ف ٌ إ خ ف

ز ر و ٌ ح أ و أ و . ف : ( ذب عدو ك ه رجت إذا ٌ إ أ ر ف ه ٌ ع ٌ ا ا ف ورة د ع ر ا ( أم

ا و ج ل شركء ا و خ ه خ ك ه ش ف ق خ ا م ٌ ع ق خ شًء ك وو د ح ا و ا ر ا ) (5). ت ف ر ص ف ى إ جر ه ر خ ف ق د ص ا ـ ه ٌ ع م ا ـ

(6) ك ف ه أ ارجح أو : ك ف سرخ.

And it is related from Zurara that he said: I said to Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq thata man from among the descendants of Abdullah Ibn Saba is a believer in(the doctrine of) delegation (tafwid). And he said: And what is tafwid? I(Zurara) said: According to him Allah, the Mighty and Glorious, (in the firstinstance) created Muhammad and 'Ali, and then delegated the matter (ofcreation) to them, and these two created and gave sustenance, and causedlife and death. The Imam said: He, the enemy of Allah, has lied. When youreturn to him recite to him the verse of the Chapter of The Thunder: "Orassign they unto Allah partners who created the like of His creation so that

the creation (which they made and His creation) seemed alike to them? Say:Allah is the Creator of all things, and He is the One, the Al-mighty" [13: 16].Then I went to the man and informed him of what Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq hadsaid: And he became as if I had forced him to swallow stones or as though hewere struck dumb.

Documents

Origins of the Shia Sect