The Sunni perspective by Waqqas
The Jews of Yathrib feared the unification of the Arabs, because they used to play on the differences between the various groups. The Jews thus conspired with a group of people, the Munafiqoon (the hypocrites), who claimed to be Muslim but were really disbelievers. Their leader was a man named Abdullah ibn Ubayy ibn Salool. This was the first attempt of the Jews to subvert Islam from the inside, using Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his lot to create schisms within the Ummah. Later, a Jew by the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba would use this same technique to create schisms within the Ummah.
First, the Prophet unified the city of Yathrib (Medinah) and he expelled the conspiring Jews. Then, he conquered Mecca and set about unifying all of Arabia. The Prophet sent invitation letters to the nations of the world, inviting them to the Call of Allah.
The Persian King, Chosroes, tore up the letter and declared that he would never follow what he regarded as “the lowly” Arabs. The Persians considered themselves a superior race. Theirs was a nation of racial haughtiness and supremacism. They were not willing to submit to the way of the inferior Arabs, nor were they ready to accept the radical Islamic call for racial equality.
After the death of the Prophet, Caliph Abu Bakr quelled the apostate tribes in the Wars of Riddah (Apostasy), and he thereby maintained the unity of the Arabian Peninsula. Two years later, Umar bin Khattab assumed power and at this time, the Islamic nation-state was coming of age. Border skirmishes between Rome and Persia eventually erupted into all-out war.
Under the guidance of the Commander of the Faithful Umar, the Muslim armies defeated Rome and blitzed across Persia, dealing both empires a crushing blow. The Persians, with their haughty attitude of superiority, were sourly humiliated. The Muslims took the Persians as POWs (Prisoners of War).
Harmuzan was one of the P O W.
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, and requested Caliph Umar for a reprieve for his life until he could finish his drink of water. Umar granted him this request, and upon this, Harmuzan spilled the water on the ground. Because he was unable to drink the water, therefore technically his royal reprieve would never lapse. Caliph Umar upheld his word, and thereby pardoned Harmuzan.
Harmuzan “converted” to Islam and moved to Medinah, whereupon he planned the Persian revenge on the Arab Muslims. Harmuzan blamed the Commander 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 a staunch Christian named Jafeena Al-Khalil. Jafeena was a political pawn of the Roman ruler and had served as an official in Damascus, Palestine and Heerah; 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 son would be Abdullah Ibn Saba, the notorious founder of the Shia movement). Saba despised the Muslims who had expelled the Jews on charges of conspiracy. All three of these individuals–Harmuzan (the Zoroastrian), Jafeena (the Christian), and Saba (the Jew) – belonged to peoples who had grievances against the rise of Muslim dominance.
They hired Feroz Abu Lulu, a Persian, who had recently been captured by the Muslims as a POW; he was a slave under a Muslim master. Abu Lulu stabbed Caliph Umar bin Khattab to 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 men were whispering to one another. As Abdur Rehman passed by, the three got startled 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 of Umar was thus instigated by a coalition of a Roman Christian, a Jew, and a Persian Zoroastrian. It should be noted that the Prophet had prophesied that the Christians, Jews, and pagans would always be united against the Muslims.
Today, the modern day Shia venerate Abu Lulu, and they call him “Baba Shuja-e-din” which can be translated as “Honored Defender of Religion.” These Shia have a shrine erected for this murderer, located in the Iranian city of Kashan called the Abu Lulu Mausoleum wherein he is buried. The Shia travel from far distances to pray inside this shrine, and many of the Shia fast on the day that Umar was killed, and even pass out sweets. Feroz Abu Lulu is one of the venerated founding figures of Shia ideology; the same people who conspired to kill Umar were the ones who planted the seeds of the Shia movement.
Umar’s son, Ubaidallah, was infuriated by the murder of his father. Ubaidallah killed both Harmuzan and Jafeena. Ubaidallah was thus charged with murder and brought to the court of the new Caliph, Uthman bin Affan. Ali bin Abi Talib, Uthman’s vizier, advised that Ubaidallah should be executed for murder because there was not enough evidence to convict Harmuzan and Jafeena of any crime. Furthermore, reasoned Ali, extra-judicial vigilante justice was not permitted in Islam; Harmuzan and Jafeena should at least have been entitled to a fair trial and-–if found guilty–-be executed by none other than the state.
However, the other Sahabah–-including Amir bin al A’as-–differed with Ali’s position , because they sympathized with Ubaidallah , who was the son of the great Umar . His father had just been murdered in cold blood, and so they 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, Uthman declared that the blood-money should be given to charity and the Baitul Mal. However, Ubaidallah was unable to pay the blood-money due to lack of funds, and so it was that Caliph Uthman paid this money out of his own pocket.
This was one of his first acts as Caliph, and the conspirators (in particular Abdullah Ibn Saba’s father) viewed Uthman’s decision very unfavorably. It was in this atmosphere that Uthman bin Affan came to power, and the machinations of the conspirators continued in full force. Ubaidallah had killed Harmuzan and Jafeena, but Saba bin Shamoon remained alive. His son, Abdullah Ibn Saba, “converted” to Islam and he would uphold the task of destroying Islam from within.
The fact that Uthman showed mercy upon Ubaidallah angered Saba bin Shamoon and his son, Abdullah Ibn Saba. These two men looked sympathetically towards Ali, due to the fact that Ali had taken a harsh stance towards Ubaidallah’s actions. It was thus that Abdullah ibn Saba “converted” to Islam and founded the Shia sect, calling the masses to adore Ali and agitating them against Uthman. It was Abdullah Ibn Saba’s propaganda against Uthman that helped fan the flames of civil discontent and caused the people to rise against the Caliph. And so it was that the Saba’ites (followers of Abdullah Ibn Saba) assassinated Uthman.
Ali’s supporters were a myriad of disenchanted people, some of whom had grievances with Caliph Uthman. These became the “Partisans of Ali” or the Shia’t Ali. (It should be noted that this is not the same group as the Ithna Ashari of today. In fact, the truth is that the Ithna Asharis did not exist back then, and the doctrine of Ithna Ashari Shi’ism would only emerge centuries later.) Indeed, these Partisans of Ali were simply recently converted Bedouins 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 a distinct 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 which were Bedouins who had just recently converted from a Mushrik faith, as well as recently conquered Persians who clung to their Zoroastrian ways. They were weak in faith, ignorant, and barbaric. Both the Bedouins and the Zoroastrians were accustomed to their former pagan beliefs and had a difficult time adjusting to Islam, and often-times they would mix Islam with pagan thought.
The Zoroastrians (of the defeated Persian Empire), the Christians (of the defeated Eastern Roman Empire), and the Jews (who had been expelled by the Muslims) grieved for the old days. In their private counsel, these defeated elements had reached the conclusion that it was not possible to fight Muslims on the battlefield. Therefore, they resolved to sow the seed of discord amongst Muslims, using the model of the Jews of Yathrib. The Prophet had called the Muslims to unite under the banner of Islam and the Quran; the disunited Arabs had unified and defeated their enemies. Thus, these conspirators decided to undo this process; they reasoned that to remove the Muslims from Islam and the Quran would also cause disunity and weakness.
The first step of these conspirators was the assassination of Umar. Umar’s son Ubaidallah took revenge and killed Jafeena the Christian and Harmuzan the Persian. It was then that Ali ibn Abi Talib demanded that Ubaidallah be given the death penalty for murdering Umar’s assassins. Abdullah Ibn Saba, whose father had been a companion of Jafeena and Harmuzan, thus took a liking for Ali and declared himself a Partisan of Ali.
Ibn Saba carried a grudge against Umar-–it had after all been his father responsible for Umar’s death; he also carried a grudge against Uthman who pardoned the killers of his father’s companions.
Abdullah Ibn Saba saw an opportunity to exploit the disunity of the Muslims during the time of civil unrest during Uthman’s Caliphate. Ibn Saba “converted” to Islam, and tried to gain a following amongst Ali’s more extreme supporters. These followers of Ali were using him in their appeals to Caliph Uthman. They were already upset with Uthman, and thus they were the perfect target audience for Ibn Saba who would convince them of Ali’s superiority over Uthman.
Ibn Saba first called the masses to show their love and devotion to the Ahlel Bayt (Prophetic Household). He then started claiming that none could exceed 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, he confided in them that Ali was in reality the appointed successor of the Prophet, but that the Three Caliphs had usurped this right from him. Ibn Saba then unleashed a campaign of vilification against the Sahabah, and he is 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 had powers above those of a normal human being.
To appeal to the recent Persian converts, Ibn Saba infused Zoroastrian beliefs into Islam. The Zoroastrians believed that God’s spirit was in their Chosroes (king), and that this spirit moved from one king to another, through his descendants. Ibn Saba declared that the divinity of Imamah also moved from one Imam to another through the descendants of Ali. Many of the exaggerations in Shi’ism in regards to the powers of Imams take their inspiration from the Chosroes.
Ibn Saba’s ideas appealed to the pagan side of the new converts from amongst the Bedouins and Persians; these pagans were accustomed to worshiping idols and people, so the exaltation of Ali appealed to them. Eventually, Ibn Saba would take it to the ultimate extreme and he applied in full force the concept of the Persian Chosroes, declaring Ali to be Allah incarnated.
Up until then, Ali had not paid much attention to Ibn Saba’s antics, but once he heard of this news, Ali was furious. Ali threatened to burn all of Ibn Saba’s followers (called Saba’ites) to the stake including Ibn Saba; Ali asked them to repent and he would eventually exile them to Mada’in (modern day 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 avoid detection from the authorities, infiltrating the ranks of the Shia’t Ali.
Ali, who before becoming Caliph spent most of his time in Mecca and Medinah, remained oblivious to the Saba’ites who were mostly in Iraq (i.e. Kufa), Persia, and Egypt.
With the practice of Taqiyyah and Kitman, the Saba’ites functioned much like a secret society or cult, such as the Free Masons, Illuminati, and other clandestine organizations. The Saba’ites operated under a strict code of secrecy and hid their identities for fear of reprisal from the government. This created a situation such that the authorities could not clamp down on the Saba’ites due to their elusiveness, and the secret society continued to grow in numbers and fill the ranks of the Shia’t Ali, without even Ali’s knowledge.
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 of today: 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 of the Shia’t Ali; they were an extremist fringe group. With the goading of Abdullah Ibn Saba, the Egyptian Bedouins (led by the Saba’ites) were planning on rebelling against Caliph Uthman. However, news of this imminent treason by the extremist wing of the Shia’t Ali reached the ears of Uthman . Caliph Uthman thus ordered the Egyptian governor to pre-emptively take action against the malcontents. But when the Eygptian Bedouins found out that the governor was to punish the malcontents on orders of Caliph Uthman, Abdullah Ibn Saba convinced the Bedouins to siege the Caliph’s home in Medinah.
Ali did not take part in the siege, nor did he approve of it. In fact, Ali sent his own sons to protect Caliph Uthman, and he even offered 500 men to protect Uthman . How is it then that the Shia claim that Ali hated Uthman when he sent his own beloved sons to defend him and to prolong his Caliphate?
Indeed, Ali did not support the Saba’ite Bedouins who favored Ali over Uthman-–much like Ali would not support the modern day Shia today. The modern day Shia can never explain why Ali did not raise his sword against Uthman, 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 a tyrant.
Ali’s Caliphate
In any case, Uthman was assassinated by the Saba’ite Bedouins. Once Uthman 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 became reclusive and shunned his followers severely. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider one of the most authentic sources of Ali’s lectures.
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91
When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the 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 intelligence can 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 and would 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 whoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counselor than as chief.”
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)
However, the people pressured him and finally Ali became the Fourth Caliph. If Ali had really been appointed to the Imamah by Allah, then why would Ali have refused this appointment at first? Why would he dislike a position that was supposedly granted to him by Allah? If Imamah was destined for him, why is Ali claiming that he wasn’t even going to be the Caliph 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
There was a public demand for Ali to find the killers of Uthman, especially since it was known that the killers were part of the Shia’t Ali. However, Ali found himself too busy preventing a civil war to invest time and resources into finding the killers, so he planned on delaying it. This angered many people who wanted justice immediately. They found a spokeswoman in Aisha, the Prophet’s widow. She sympathized with the people who wanted to find the killers of Uthman.
The reality is that both Ali and Aisha had equally convincing arguments. On the one hand, Ali wanted to delay spending time and resources to find the killers because he had to prevent a civil war. On the other hand, Aisha cannot be blamed for feeling hurt and loss at the murder of Uthman, and surely the murderers should be brought to justice!
Aisha went to see Caliph Ali in order to resolve the issue peacefully through arbitration. She feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali to find the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali. She thus adopted the previous role of Ali: it had, after all, been Ali who would take the case of the people to Caliph Uthman in order that their demands be heard.
Both Aisha and Ali wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. However, the extremist portion of the Shia’t Ali [i.e. the Saba’ites] that were responsible for the murder of Uthman did not want Aisha to convince Ali to prosecute the murderers, since of course it was they themselves.
So these Shia’t Ali decided to attack Aisha’s contingent thereby provoking a counter-response. Soon, Ali and Aisha found themselves in a battle that nobody even knew who started it. This was the Battle of the Camel, and both Ali and Aisha found themselves enmeshed in a battle that they did not want to fight.
Aisha’s contingent was defeated. She apologized to Caliph Ali for the trouble she 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 of how although Sahabah get into disputes, they can resolve them in a civil manner. Aisha had the humility to apologize, despite the fact that she really didn’t do anything wrong, and Ali had the nobility not to hold any ill-feelings towards her and to walk her safely home.
During this chaotic time of civil war, all of the Sahabah were being pulled and 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 all of this, the Sahabah found themselves facing a civil war, despite the verse in the Quran which stated that the Ummah should remain united. It was a sad time in the history of Islam, with great Sahabah fighting other great Sahabah. But it should be remembered that the Battle of the Camel was concluded with the eventual reconciliation between Umm al Mu’mineen Aisha 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 his own ranks. Muawiyyah was a blood-relative of Uthman and he was very upset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah refused to recognize Ali as Caliph, and he demanded the right to avenge Uthman’s death. In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Ali’s forces met Muawiyyah’s in the Battle of Siffin.
The Shia say that Ali fought Muawiyyah for denying the Shia concept of the Imamah, and that Ali was the first Infallible Imam. And yet the Shia’s own books say that this was not the cause of the Battle of Siffin, but rather the cause 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 our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]
So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah. It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali, but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran.
The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyah asked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. Caliph Ali, being the noble man that he was, agreed to Shurah (consultation) for determining who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali should use arbitration. The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali as Caliph. So they accused Ali of going against the Will of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there be negotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?
A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali. They declared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to be known as the Khawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or “those who secede.” For so long, these people had been the most ardent supporters of Ali, calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahl el Bayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them. They defected against the very man they had claimed to follow!
This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explain away. They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsehood of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba’ites, were of the same belief as today’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 to arbitration 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 had chosen Ali to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophet-hood? So why would Ali arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? In matters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, we cannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salah, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.
This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali did not believe he was not divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed to arbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be the Caliph. 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 Bakr was selected.
The Shia belief system is diametrically opposed to the very Ali they claim to follow, 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 denied all claims of divine appointment and of Infallible Imamah.
Caliph Ali eventually fought against the Khawaarij Shia and defeated them and 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. So it 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 to be the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah stealing the Caliphate! There can be no denying that the Saba’ites and the Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shi’ism, since the Shia today hold the same opinion that Ali was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. with Abu 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 hold onto 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 the assassination conspiracy of Umar by the Persian Harmuzan, the Christian Jafeena, 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 of Yathrib. Ibn Saba was successful in weakening the Muslims from the inside by creating the Shia sect. Throughout its turbulent history, the Shia (who originated from the Saba’ites) have spread Fitnah to every corner of the Muslim world.
These Saba’ites killed Uthman, attacked Aisha, and killed Ali. They also supported Umar’s assassin Abu Lula. Then, these Shia betrayed Ali’s son Hasan. The Shia also deceived Ali’s second son Hussain to seek the Caliphate by giving him the impression they they would support him, but they abandoned him and many of them actually fought against him, in the battle that lead to his brutal death. Later, Hussain’s grandson would also die due to the betrayal of the Shia.
The ancestors of the Shia were a hate-mongering people, responsible for creating disunity and disarray amongst the Muslim Ummah. Today, this tradition lives on in the Shia, who carry on the practice of Tabarra, cursing and insulting the pious pioneers of Islam, rabble-rousing and trying to create hatred and disunity amongst the believers.
However, the present day Shia recognize the game plan of secret societies and wants unity among different sects to put up a united front against their onslaught.
I wish I could put together a more detailed and better response to your query and what is next.
Assalamu-Elekum
HOLIEST of all, ” SUNNI AXIS”
I admire, Waqqas sahab’s enormous insight in most scriptures including those of my ‘ hindu ancesters’-Bravo waqqas bhai. From this article too i learn a great deal–but via sunni lense as he posits himself; It will be great to hear out ‘Shia axis’ and include in this ‘ graet analysis’–that off course will not heal the great ‘ natural divide’, a boon for politicians, of both side plus hindus, jews, and christian; they have benefitted greatly and with Allah’s blessing will continue. Few points, as follows will help dull the inner hurts many sunnis including me ( only sometimes) feel by such ‘ one sided analyses ‘.
– Much before ( ~ 3000BC) islam the mideast farmers had created the ‘ cradle of civilization’in egypto-babylonia.
– This is now accepted as mother of all–hindu,greek,chinese etc religious ideas/culture.
– the cradle had ” human rights’ NO BLACK/WHITE RACISM’
– This is the mother of ” monotheism, polytheism,”, Goddess,and animal worshipp–all with GOD’s permission and mercy–a contemporary necessity–incest was normal.
– It is the mother of ” democracy, medicine,all sciences, poetary and literature language/scripts etc –accepted ay all and detailed on p 60 in urdu/hindi artificial divide and african heritage ( no sell pitch please)
– these mideastern folkes had come from africa– is accepted.
– Great pyramids, Beautifull arches/architecture ( called islamic wrongly), algebra, geometry etc were borne here and dispersed.
– Zero was borne here and “NOT INDIA”
– Great Kings, SARGON,Hamurabi, many graet PHAROAHS, rule with human right and human dignity.
– by abt 2-3 BC Some pple named ‘ Israel’ narrated a creation story and claimed as ” CHOSEN WHITES”–NOW famous as ” old testament( jewish bible). By this time Ancient records of the” ancient cradle” wrtten in Akkadian cunnieforms or egyptian graphics were lost “.
– Slowly pple started believing jewish story of creation–adam/eve, yahveh-ashira.
– At/after greek domination of mideast jewish sories stories became ” as real history” and Pharoah vs Moses-exodus had become like Facts– and so were fiction of agreat Empire of SOLOMAN/DAVID.
– As the greeks converted ” egyptian trinity” of Isis/horus/osiris into a new religion of ” christianity” with new names from a JEWISH Family of king DAVID, the original jewish story of ” old testanment-race creationism” had become ” MOST AUTHENTIC HUMAN HISTORY”– With the believe that ADAM ‘s language hebrew is mother of all.
– And also arose ” naked racism”; In the jewish story, after the flood only Noah had survived; His son generated ” semetic supermen”–the jew and Japhet-fatheres white aryan heroes.His 3rd son HAM cursed by Noah( had misbehaved)tunred black/ugly and fathered inferior slave racaes–chinese, africans etc foremost son of HAM were MISERIM father of egypt-inferior, K/Canaan-fathering palestinians. Arabs having had a black ancester mother”HAGGER” slave from ham’s son miserim fathered Ishmael with Abraham–familiar muslim story–and believed blindly.
– Now by 600 AD, this was history when our Prophet Mohammad (BPUH) had existed.
– Allah’s swt had this great Challenge how to rebut this ‘ jewish fiction’; and how to rebut that ‘ he had no special son’.
– Jweish and christian priest were supereme–parasites on Allah’s hard working/toiling creature–created with equal rights.
NOW look at Qoranic wisdom in pristine islam.
1) NO priest and his bussiness- u can pray directly.
2) NO black/white-suprrior/inferior nations/races.
3) NO hebrew or any holy language– GOD sent wisdom in all.
4) NO semitic, japhetic, hametic, racism–NO chosen GENES.
5) Slavery based on only ‘poverty’–black/white can be poor/
/slave.
6) Untill islam; Jews claimed heaven as exclusive-all rest
as hell bound ( see Talmud) and Christians claimed same and rest ( non christian) as hell bound.
7) Islam refuted both and opened up heaven for NON Muslims too; based on your Amaal/deeds.
Reader can see the elements of modernity/democracy/lack of racism very clearly in islam and no where else. BUT mideast was dominated by jewdeo-christian racism as detaled.Soon after prophet’s demise, a consensus/democratic principles/experiance/politics etc had driven the appointment of caliphs as happend/before and also now
Thus the succession struggle had ” Ali” as claimant by ” HIS genes” from Prophet and via him from Abraham via ishmael. QORAN is mum abt ISHMAEL’s linkage with our or any prophet; If Allah had wanted to promote ” jewish racism”–he could have made prophet borne in DAVID’s family.
The biblical creationism/racism, got fully exposed with the decipherment of egyptian/ babylonian literature in 18-19th century; It is now regarded as ” priestly racism” as best. Now via Hadiths, we also have a family tree of Prophet ,NON existent before and after his demise.
Also, this decipherments, reveals NO HISTORICAL jewish state no SOLOMAN and NO DAVID and NO MOSES or exodus–this is now accepted by jewish real historians, Shlomo Sands, Israel Finkelstein Dr Herzog of Israeli universities. One can see a real peril for the future of palestine/israel.
Mr Waqqas ‘s story has ignored this perspective’ Racsim” as the harbinger of ” Shiaism”–and as said by him many converted jews and christians had pulled islam into ” biblical racism”; I know religions get divded after the founder’s demise–an unwritten law of nature–so secttarianism is ‘ acceptable’ as politics/money shadow and use religion- What i see an error in current islam is ” REGRESSION INTO JEWISH RACISM”–So clearly exposed by deciphjerments after 1800s.
My projections focussed on ” evolution” out of africa discards the racism and try to stay with ” real islam” of islamic prophet and not of Biblical racism–ideas enmeshed with history of arabic and urdu. These points 6 in # ( see above) be seen in perspective of evolution in my book and now part of modern social system that ” UNIVERSALLY” condems ‘ all racism’ jewish variety included.
Mr Waqqas clearly shows that !2- ver athna ashris had to waite for 12 to come and pass. Please also note why only 12 imaams ? In my previous posts, i have hinghlighted the ” solarism/astrology” as the basis for ” judeo-chritianity myth”– Jacob’s 12 tribes, christ’s 12 disciples, are from 12 Zodiac signs–so is Hercules’s 12 endeavers ( greek myth); We do see islam’s regression again–shia’s 12 IMAMS. We know Mecca was convergence point and allowed all including jews and christian and Sabeans etc to pray/pay and they did twaff clock wise ( sun based ). OUR holy prophet did away all that; twaff/circumbulation is now anti sun wise.
It is always a pleasure to learn from Mr Waqqas sahab.
Jazakkulah!very comprehensive and informative article ,,Allah hum sub ko sirat e mustaqeem per chalnay ki tofeeq day aur aapas mein unity day Aaameen
I have been following Rupee News for a few years! This is my first comment on the site! I am dissappointed with Rupee News, despite being informative , puts forth a badly researched , biased, false and sectarian article. A lot of this info is not true, and while some valid questions are asked, they can also be answered as well.
This also gives the images that Shias are stupid people whereas a significant number of Muslim Scientists in the Golden Age of Islam were Shia , as was Tipu Sultan, Quid E Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who was supported by Prophet Muhammad SAWW and Liaqat Ali Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Imam Khomeni ! Are they all stupid people. What about Ali Shariati?
Lastly, Allama Iqbal says that Sunni and Shia are two beautiful branches of a beautiful tree called Islam!
Another story from Muslim history. What evidence, if any, Muslims can present to prove that Islamic History narrated by them is reliable.
Dear Bro,
Thanks for such a benificial and mind-awaring iformation collected and organized potentially good. I never read about the shia concept of creation. From your this article i learnt much more and it planted a desire in my heart to search and study on it more.
May Allah guide us All , the Sunnis and the Shias to the Straight Way (The Way of those on whom You(The Lord of the ‘Alamin (mankind, jinns and all that exists)!) have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).)
thanks
What is the source of your information. I am genuinely interested in going deep into the matter. Thanks
I have followed Rupee News for a few years. Generally good articles. However this article has been very dissappointing.
At a time when the New World Order is trying to divide Pakistan and the Ummah into fighitng each other, Rupee News releases a slandering piece against Shias.
Firstly, the information is completely wrong and both Sunni and Shia scholars have debunked the Abdullah ibn Saba myth. Both Sunni and Shia scholars accept each other as Muslims and thier beleifs. Both Sunni and Shia scholars would disagree with this article.
Secondly, to criticize theology is one thing, but to encourage people to look at an entire population (10-15% Muslim population) as idiots, decievers and liars is dangerous and uncalled for.
Thirdly, what is the evidence for the things you have posted? I dont beleive you have any.
Ail Shariati and all the others that you have listed were great people
We simply posted a Sunni perspective. All of us hear about the Shia perspective all the time. You can write a rebuttal and we will publish it
@ Abid
Time current is the age of disinformation and information. To sift the truth from various sites one must know all the hadiths, Qura’n, Islamic History, other history especially where did the 13 sons of Abraham (pbuh) went to preach the monotheist religion.
You need to know the personal character of each Sahabah as qualified by the Final Messenger (pbuh).
Start with prompting ‘Abdullah bin Saba’ on computer. Read various sites that is against and in affirmative to what you read. Then finally do likewise on Jewish Encyclopedia.
Jewish encyclopedia affirms what you have read above.
Shii’ate Ali negates all of the above.
Please note that the Ahadiths on the internet are compromised and you must have your own volumes of Ahadiths. Which I do.
Assalamu-Elekum
Muslims from different backgrounds contributed to the rise of Islam and Islamic Empire.
Many of the Muslim scientists of the Golden Age were Shias, and a significant number were students of Imam Jafar As Sadiq (A.S).
Secondly, many other personalities like Tipu Sultan were also Shia. As also was Quid E Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Liaqat Ali Khan and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto , who contributed positively to Pakistan. Do you consider these people to be idiots or deceivers?
Lastly, the function of the Quran and Sunnah is to have dialogue between Muslims and unite them. Allama Iqbal says that Sunni and Shia are the two beautiful branches of the beautiful tree called Islam. Is Allama Iqbal not the ideologue behind Pakistan?
Al Azhar University has declared the Jafari Fiqh as the 5th Maddhab alongside Hanafi, Maliki , Shafee, and Hanbali. This was the result of dialogue from Sunni and Shia scholars together over a few decades.
There are also other initiatives where respected Sunni and Shia scholars have held discussions and concluded that both Sunni and Shias are Muslims and acceptable paths to followed despite the most controversial differences.
Anyways, I hope Rupee News shows more maturity in the future and not be stupid to place false information and sectarian propoganda in the future, atleast provide sources if you have them.
I am sory if I offended Rupee News or anyone else, but was writing my opinion,
Secondly, I would like to correct you that ur peice is not a Sunni perspective in totality but only a minority of Sunnis would agree with your analysis. Whereas majority Sunni ulema would disagree.
Thirdly you said ”we hear Shia perspective all the time”. I want to ask where ? On the internet? Media? Anyhow Shias and Sunnis are both entitled to thier own opinion.
Finally, I dont see this as an academic piece but as a biased peice with no sources to back it up. Again dont mean to offend or lecture but it is an important point.
If I am not mistaken Rupee News is for issues relating to Pakistan and the region , is demonizing a sect helpful for the purpose of Rupee News?
We did not mean to demean or disrespect anyone. There have been critical articles on various factions.
The author will be able to refute any of your concerns.
The author talked about history–his version of it!
@Akhbar: Thnx for calrifying the issue and also clarifying that this is the author’s perspective and not hard FACT. It is upon the reader to investigate these claims for him/her self and verify them.
@ Mustafa
I follow none of the Mazhab (Fitna) but the religion of Abraham on whom be peace as followed and preached by the final Messenger (PBUH) of ALLAH (SWT).
Allow me to quote you Qura’n, Al-Maida verse 3:
“This day are those who disbelieve in despair of (ever harming) your religion; so fear them not, fear Me! This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL-ISLAM”.
This day means from Adam coming down to Final Messenger (PBUH).
Have I perfected for you, means, no addition or subtraction on his perfection.
Completed my favor means, as promised, HE has sent the FINAL Messenger with Qura’n to lead mankind.
And he has called it Islam.
Now you show me where does HE say, Hanifi, Shafi, Hambali, Maliki, Wahabi, Shia, Khoja, Bohra or other Garbage.
As for the Al-Azhar university or any other universities heads, there is a problem. They have to live and feed their families so one can purchase a ‘Fatwa’ which Azhar is famous for.
Now since we (Muslims) follow Deen of Abraham, what does Qura’n say about him (pbuh).
” Ma kana ibraheemu yahoodiyyan wala nasraniyyan walakin kana haneefan musliman wama kana mina almushrikeena ” Meaning …
3:67 (Asad) Abraham was neither a “Jew” nor a “Christian”, but was one who turned away from all that is false, having surrendered himself unto God; and he was not of those who ascribe divinity to aught beside Him. –
“divinity to aught beside Him ” …Which means he was a ‘Monotheist’.
Or in other words, he was a ‘ Hanif ‘ which means ‘ Monotheist “.
This ‘Hanif’ is not the same as Shii’ate (group or party) Imam Hanifi nor of the other sects that you mentioned.
As for the notables ones whom you call Shia were they stupid?
I have not gone through their religious affiliation, but deeds only.
Was the defender of Rasul ALLAH, Abu Talib Stupid?
All the non- Muslims scientist that have a huge contribution to Humanity, were they stupids?
Does ALLAH soul move from one body to another to lead man kind; true or false. This is what the Hellenistic persuasion believes and is followed by Zoroastrian and Hindus and some Shia sects.
To say ‘Ya Ali’ or ‘Ya Hussein’ or ‘Ya Hasan’ is directly opposed to Qura’nic Injunction that instructs the Muslims to ask HIM (ALLAH) alone for help and worship HIM (ALLAH) Alone.
The main Attraction of Islam is EQUALITY without any prejudices or blood lineage. Ones faith in ALLAH, HIS Rasuls and deeds will be counted and not blood lineage.
If the blood lineage was the precondition of salvation, HE would not taken Last Messenger’s Sons during infancy.
ALLAH would have also blesses Esau along with Jacob (pbuh) sons of Isac (pbuh).
Then followers of Judah are on the right path.
Sorry….Islam rejects this.
All the different sects were encouraged by non-Muslims to divide them.
What is the function of Imam Mahdi (AS)?
To get rid of sects and unite the Ummah.
Any Questions?
Assalamu-Elekum
You can challenge the references and authenticity of this and any other post, or write a rebuttal, or debate. We promise to publish it. The Sunni perspective is a reality of life, just like the Shia perspective exists.
http://www.oneummah.net/unity/unification.html
Intra-Islam dialogue is very important. We want one God, one prophet, and one deen. All the “Fiqahs” should unite, and eliminate friction. Shia and Sunni scholars should get together and define the common core of the relgion–everything else is bidat
@Waqqas: TO answer your questions is very simple. No one in stupid.
Sunnis, Shias , Hindus , Christians etc for the most part are very Nice peeople. They are all contributers to humanity.
We all are followers of Islam. Sunni , Shia, Barelvi and Deobandi and Sufi all pray to Allah SWT. No one has the rite to call them Munafiqs, or Kafirs. Criticism on theology should not result in Takfir. I know that you dont intend to.
My point is that the piece is not a Sunni perspective, there are many Sunnis who would disagree with your article , rather it is a minority among Sunnis who would agree with your article.
As for Ya Ali , Ya Hassan, these things do not contradict Tawheed. And secondly this is not limited to the Shia, infact a millions of Sunni and Sufi sheikhs have considered these practices acceptable alongside Shia scholars and have given thier analysis on the issue.
All Shias , Sufis and Sunnis pray to Allah SWT as the Supreme and consider Allah SWT as controlling everything. They consider anyone besides Allah SWT to have power. The concept of Wasilah , Tawassul and others do not contradict this point nor Tawheed as per the opinion of majority Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamah.
@ waqqas
ure right sects shouldnt exist, which includes the sunni sect and its branches as well. akhbar navees is right when he says that all scholars from all sects should come together and define the core of the religion. the scholars should define what is haraam and halal. to do this, anything that is not found in islam (qur’an and sunnah) should be removed immediately(of course ijtihad will be needed for some things).
furthermore, if u have an act of worship,etc that u believe brings benefit, and which is not deemed haraam but is not in the sunnah, then it should be kept in ur private life, not the public nor the masjid. anyone who accuses u of doing haraam b/c of that act should be punished for creating fitna. this is how it should be done. following the formula which i have written above is quite simple really if u think about it. the hard part is convincing the scholars of all these sects to do this.
@321, Akhbar: totally disagree. There can be no unification.
But there can be solidarity between Muslims, and between all human beings.
ISlamic scholars should come together to show solidarity on big issues like Palestine and highlight the similarities between all schools of thought and give a message of love and respect.
The division or difference of opinion between Maddhabs is not the problem. The problem is when it turns into personal hatred and violence.
While you may disagree–and may not want it, but the fact remains that there was a time when there were no sects.
“Madhabs” are a different issue. The differences are very minor
The sects are an issue and should all be combined in one faith.
@Akhbar: I agree with your comment! But how ? What is the procedure? How will the Ulema come together? They did not meet up in 1400 years! why would they meet up now?
Also there were no sects at one point of time, but over time they developed due to certain circumstances. But otherwise I agree.
How can you combine in one faith now? I would love to see it, but is it possible?
There have been several attempts on creating one faith (Wahdat e fiqah). It has to happen at several levels:
1) If the people want it
2) Ajami and Arabi racism is destroyed
3) Persian and Arab friction has to be eliminated
4) Iran, Saudi Arabia have to lead this
5) The Ulema have to come together
A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step!
Islamic racism:
Dear Waqqas and Mustafa sahaban,
It is great to build intersect or interfaith hamony and peace, but kindly notice your own faith” most modern ” from 600 Ad on. Muslims as well/judeo-christians readers may note that Racsim of islam, arab, ujam, semtic jew etc are recent terms and non existent prior to 1-2 cent AD–a direct gift of bible/talmud–mythical non historic documents-. Kindly note my 7 points above that defines pristine islam from ” mythical abrahamism” aka RACISM.
Islamic pple must unite/understand the Racism we are trapped in. Unity must not be for money/politics but to educate non muslims/muslims the ” pristine islamic code”. I will have nothing against accepting 12 Imaams for reverence/respect but will not accept any human after prophet to have ” extra human mythical power”–or imaams having ” abrahamic genes” as there is no ” chosen genes ” in history;–all are from africa as is universally accepted. Adam/eve stories are just allegories not history.
Please note that ” egypt/mesopotamia” is the cradle of all civilizations–NOT JEWS nor CHRIstans or Muslims–all groups have put in their dimes with time. Humans have common birth from africa and common civilization rooted in the midesat.
Dr Abdul jamil khan:
You are reiterating your personal opinion that is based on ancient mythology and not facts.
Theories changes with progression of time. Quote me any text to back your statement, be it Sumerian or other, and I will tell you how the mythology originated / progressed and its actual meaning, backed by Qura’n, Hadiths and other narratives.
Abraham did not preach ‘Racism’, but the progeny of Judah did.
“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things)”. 49:13
The above verse negates Racism and Mustafa’s perception.
As for your remark, “kindly notice your own faith” is concerned, I say likewise to you, since you do accept Islam as pristine religion.
(1) Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam).” 2:136
(2) Or do ye say that Abraham, Isma’il Isaac, Jacob and the tribes were Jews or Christians? Say: Do ye know better than Allah? Ah! who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah? but Allah is not unmindful of what ye do! 2:140
(3) Say: “We believe in Allah, and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and in (the Books) given to Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, from their Lord: We make no distinction between one and another among them, and to Allah do we bow our will (in Islam).” 3:84
(4) We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob and the tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms. 4:163
(5) We divided them into twelve tribes or nations. We directed Moses by inspiration, when his (thirsty) people asked him for water: “Strike the rock with thy staff”: out of it there gushed forth twelve springs: Each group knew its own place for water. We gave them the shade of clouds, and sent down to them manna and quails, (saying): “Eat of the good things We have provided for you”: (but they rebelled); to Us they did no harm, but they harmed their own souls. 7:160
If you call the above Noble Personalities as UN-historical myth, your faith is deficient.
As far as Mustafa is concerned, he dropped the towel. I was ready in throwing numerous sayings of Imam Ali (RA) how he hated Saa’bites, Khawajirites and Shi’ites, depending on his response, quoting Shia Scholars.
You should have addressed your latest comments to Mustafa without pulling me in.
I have done some studies on ancient Archeology / Temples in correlation to Astronomy and mythology, so be careful of your next response.
Assalamu-Elekum
Dear Waqqas sahab,
Please i am only trying to learn from u; I dont need to be carefull/careless in my responnse as i am not at all testing u or any one else; Writing here for me is to learn and i have learned quiet a bit from ur postings.
I do have real legitimate questions abt bible as history; Will appreciate your elucidation if u too are into ancient history. Please do use my pvt e mail if u will–Akhbar bhai is free to give u.
Yes, my IMAAN seems defecient and correctly for many who believe that BIBLICAL stories, semites, aryans, Exodus, adam/eve. Noah to Jesus-the prophets etc are real. Why they dont exist in egyptian/mesopotamian history ? Same as Hindu/buddist/Zorasterians prophet are non historic–meaning that there is NO RECORDED HISTORY. Verbal stories are never accepted as history.
FOR me there has been only one ” recorded/historic” prophet–that is Mohammad ( pbuh). Qoranic narratives abt non historic biblical pesonlities are ” allegories”–to teach us to be better human beings.
Hope u will elborate ur ideas to enlighten me; here or in my mail; I need this material for my ongoing work; will appreciate. Thanks.
@mustafa
islamic scholars everywhere around the world ARE showing solidatory with the palestinians. i have not met one muslim that hasnt. the real problem whether u want to admit it or not is the divisions between us. and the divisions are b/c of different views on islam. there is only one correct path and all others are straying from it. there is even a reference to this in the quran. i believe the metaphor was that the straight road is the right path and all the other side branches of the roads are straying from the right path. this alone proves that we need to unite into one ummah and establish one set of laws.
this is a baseless article. It is full of contradictions. And it is not the Sunni perspective by any account.
It is only spreading hatred and disunity.
Progressives Hell, they are communist/socialist, if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, flys like a duck, its a duck.
I appreciate it for composing “The Sunni perspective on murder of
Omar and Usman | Rupee News”. Imight really be coming
back for far more reading through and commenting here in the near future.
With thanks, Elmer