1 reply to this topic

[JayshAllah]

Origins of the Shia Sect
by www.ahlelbayt.com



Jews of Yathrib

Prior to the advent of Islam, the Arabian Peninsula was inhabited by various warring tribes.  Due to their lack of unity and their incessant inter-tribal warfare, the Arabs were a backwards race with few cultural achievements and very little military power.  The motley Arabs were trapped in between two regional super-powers;  to the West was the powerful Roman Empire and to the East was the mighty Persian Empire, and both would terrorize neighboring Arab provinces at will.

It was then that a Prophet arose by the name of Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who unified the various Arab tribes under the banner of Islam.  The Islamic ethos shattered the Jahiliyyah concept of Assabiyyah [tribalism/bigotry] and unified the Muslims under the newly defined concept of the Islamic Ummah.  The Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) unified the city of Yathrib (Medinah) which was a hotbed of inter-tribal warfare.

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.  (The Jew by the name of Abdullah Ibn Saba would use this same technique to create schisms within the Ummah.)

First, the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) 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 (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) sent invitation letters to the nations of the world, inviting them to the Call of Allah.



The Persians

The Persian King, Chosroes, tore up the letter and declared that he would never follow 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 (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), Caliph Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) quelled the apostate tribes in the Wars of Riddah (Apostacy), and he thereby maintained the unity of the Arabian Peninsula.  Two years later, Umar bin Khattab (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه), 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 (Prisonsers of War), and the once mighty Persians were forced to work as slaves for a fixed term of punishment.



Harmuzan

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

�Harmuzan, we Arabs are the desert-dwellers you considered too lowly for even 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 is running 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 you have your God with you.�

In another narration, Harmuzan declared that before it was merely the Arab forces against the Perisan forces, and the Persian forces were stronger.  But now it was the Arab forces and Allah, and it was impossible to defeat both at the same time.  It was thus that Harmuzan and his Persian confederates realized that the power of the Republic of Medinah lay in its religious beliefs.  To destroy the religious beliefs of the Muslims would be to destroy the Muslims.

Harmuzan was to be executed for war crimes by Caliph Umar (رضّى الله عنه), but he saved his life through an ingenious trick.  He asked for water to drink, and requested Caliph Umar (رضّى الله عنه) for a reprieve for his life until he could finish his drink of water.  Umar (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) upheld his word, and thereby pardoned Harmuzan.



Assassination Plot

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 (رضّى الله عنه) 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 Umar bin Khattab (رضّى الله عنه) to death.  A day before Umar (رضّى الله عنه) had been assassinated, Abdur Rehman (رضّى الله عنه)�Abu Bakr�s son (رضّى الله عنه)�had seen Abu Lulu standing with Harmuzan and Jafeena.  The three men were whispering to one another.  As Abdur Rehman (رضّى الله عنه) passed by, the three got startled and a double edged dagger fell to the ground.  Abdur Rehman (رضّى الله عنه) would later confirm that this was the same dagger that killed Umar (رضّى الله عنه).  The murder of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) was thus instigated by a coaltion of a Roman Christian, a Jew, and a Persian Zoroastrian.  It should be noted that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had prophecized 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, locating 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 (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) were the ones who planted the seeds of the Shia movement.



Ubaidallah�s Revenge (رضّى الله عنه) and Uthman�s Decision (رضّى الله عنه)

Umar�s son, Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه), was infuriated by the murder of his father.  Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) killed both Harmuzan and Jafeena.  Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) was thus charged with murder and brought to the court of the new Caliph, Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه).  Ali bin Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه), Uthman�s vizier (رضّى الله عنه), advised that Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) should be executed for murder because there was not enough evidence to convict Harmuzan and Jafeena of any crime.  Furthermore, reasoned Ali (رضّى الله عنه), extra-judicial vigiliante 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 (رضّى الله عنه)�differed with Ali�s position (رضّى الله عنه), beacuse they sympathized with Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه), who was the son of the great Umar (رضّى الله عنه).  His father had just been murdered in cold blood, and so they wished that Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) be forgiven due to the fact that he was acting out of distress.  Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) thus ruled that Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) must pay blood-money.  But because Harmuzan and Jafeena had no relatives, Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) declared that the blood-money should be given to charity and the Baitul Mal.  However, Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) was unable to pay the blood-money due to lack of funds, and so it was that Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) very unfavorably.  It was in this atmosphere that Uthman bin Affan (رضّى الله عنه) came to power, and the machinations of the conspirators continued in full force.  Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) 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.



Uthman�s Caliphate (رضّى الله عنه)

The murder of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) by the Persians created an air of rebellion of suspiscion. Under the rule of Umar (رضّى الله عنه), the Islamic state expanded far and wide, but the conquered people posed the constant threat of rebellion.  Despite these amazing victories for the Muslims, it turned out to be that the management of these vast territories became a more difficult task than conquering them. During Caliph Uthman�s rule (رضّى الله عنه), the Islamic empire had grown so large that it was crushing itself under its own weight; the state was experiencing grave financial troubles.

Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) was faced with the management of these conquered peoples who were by nature rebellious and unruly. He had the task of appointing governors as well as tax collectors; Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), an Umayyad, trusted very few people and rightfully so considering the atmosphere of civil discontent at the time, not to mention the assassination of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) by the conquered Persians. So it was that Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) appointed his family and friends to government positions. For example, during his reign, Uthman�s cousin Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) remained the governor of Syria.



Ali (رضّى الله عنه) acts as Vizier of the Caliph

Many poor Beduins felt that the Uthman�s policies (رضّى الله عنه) were tilted in favor of the Ummayyad elite. They wrongfully accused Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) 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 [صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم] believed in nepotism, keeping the rulers in the Ahlel Bayt only.)

The Beduins found a spokesman in Ali (رضّى الله عنه). Ali (رضّى الله عنه) prevented these Beduins from resorting to violent rebellion and to instead use peaceful negotiation. As the Vizier and top advisor of Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had the ability to bring the case of the Beduins to the Caliph, and by doing so, he brought these Beduins to the negotiating table instead of the war table.



The Partisans of Ali

Ali�s supporters (رضّى الله عنه) were a myriad of disenchanted people, some of whom had grievances with Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه). 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 Beduins 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 (رضّى الله عنه) would be called �Shia�t Muawiyyah.�

Within the Partisans of Ali were a myriad of different groups; many of which were Beduins 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 Beduins 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 Saba�ites

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 (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) 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 (رضّى الله عنه).  Umar�s son Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) took revenge and killed Jafeena the Christian and Harmuzan the Persian.  It was then that Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) demanded that Ubaidallah (رضّى الله عنه) be given the death penalty for murdering Umar�s assassins (رضّى الله عنه).  Abdullah Ibn Saba, whose father had been a companion of Jafeena and Harmuzan, thus took a liking for Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and declared himself a Partisan of Ali.  Ibn Saba carried a grudge against Umar (رضّى الله عنه)�it had after all been his father responsible for Umar�s death (رضّى الله عنه);  he also carried a grudge against Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه). Ibn Saba �converted� to Islam, and tried to gain a following amongst Ali�s (رضّى الله عنه) more extreme supporters. These followers of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) were using him in their appeals to Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه).  They were already upset with Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and thus they were the perfect target audience for Ibn Saba who would convince them of Ali�s superiority (رضّى الله عنه) over Uthman (رضّى الله عنه).

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 excel the Ahlel Bayt in status. When he gained some popularity at this, he boldly claimed that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the most superior person after the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). When he saw that some of his followers had indeed believed him, he confided in them that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was in reality the appointed successor of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), 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 practise of Tabarra, or ritualistic cursing of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), Umar (رضّى الله عنه), and Uthman (رضّى الله عنه). He then told his staunch supporters that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه).  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 Beduins and Perisans; these pagans were accustomed to worshipping idols and people, so the exaltation of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) to be Allah incarnated.

Up until then, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) had not paid much attention to Ibn Saba�s antics, but once he heard of this news, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was furious. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) threatened to burn all of Ibn Saba�s followers (called Saba�ites) to the stake including Ibn Saba; Ali (رضّى الله عنه)  asked them to repent and he would eventually exile them to Mada�in (modern day Iran) when he was Caliph. But the Saba�ites adopted the concept of Taqiyyah (lying to save one�s religion) 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 (رضّى الله عنه), 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 practise 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 (رضّى الله عنه).

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 (رضّى الله عنه)

It should be noted that these Saba�ite Beduins were only one segment of the Shia�t Ali;  they were an extremist fringe group.  With the goading of Abdullah Ibn Saba, the Egyptian Beduins (led by the Saba�ites) were planning on rebelling against Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه).  But news of this imminent treason by the extremist wing of the Shia�t Ali reached the ears of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه).  Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) thus ordered the Egyptian governor to pre-emptively take action against the malcontents. But when the Eygptian Beduins found out that the governor was to punish the malcontents on orders of Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), Abdullah Ibn Saba convinced the Beduins to seige the Caliph�s home in Medinah.

Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did not take part in the seige, nor did he approve of it. In fact, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) sent his own sons to protect Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), and he even offered 500 men to protect Uthman (رضّى الله عنه).  How is it then that the Shia claim that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) hated Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) when he sent his own beloved sons to defend him and to prolong his Caliphate?  Indeed, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did not support the Saba�ite Beduins who favored Ali (رضّى الله عنه) over Uthman (رضّى الله عنه)�much like Ali (رضّى الله عنه) would not support the modern day Shia today.  The modern day Shia can never explain why Ali (رضّى الله عنه) did not raise his sword against Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), and they can only say that perhaps he was preventing bloodshed.  But then why was Ali (رضّى الله عنه) ready to shed blood in the defense of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه)?  Truly, the Shia cannot explain this:  a man does not send his sons to defend a tyrant.  If a Sahabah sent his son went to defend Yezid whom the Shia consider a tyrant, it would be the Shia who would be the first to condemn this Sahabah!



Ali�s Caliphate (رضّى الله عنه)

In any case, Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) was assassinated by the Saba�ite Beduins.  Once Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) was slain, the Shia�t Ali urged Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to become the next Caliph. Ali (رضّى الله عنه), 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 (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه).

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.�

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

However, the people pushed him and finally Ali (رضّى الله عنه) became the Fourth Caliph.



Battle of the Camel Instigated by Saba�ites

There was a public demand for Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to find the killers of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), especially since it was known that the killers were part of the Shia�t Ali. However, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنها), the Prophet�s widow. She sympathized with the people who wanted to find the killers of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه).

The reality is that both Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) had equally convincing arguments. On the one hand, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) wanted to delay spending time and resources to find the killers because he had to prevent a civil war. On the other hand, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) cannot be blamed for feeling hurt and loss at the murder of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), and surely the murderers should be brought to justice! Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) went to see Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) to find the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه).  She thus adopted the Sunnah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه):  it had, after all, been Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who would take the case of the people to Caliph Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) in order that their demands be heard.

Both Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) did not want Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to convince Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to prosecute the murderers, since of course it was they themselves. So these Shia�t Ali decided to attack Aisha�s contingent (رضّى الله عنها) thereby provoking a counter-response. Soon, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) found themselves in a battle that nobody even knew who started it. This was the Battle of the Camel, and both Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) found themselves enmeshed in a battle that they did not want to fight.

Aisha�s contingent (رضّى الله عنها) was defeated. She apologized to Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه) for the trouble she had caused, and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) forgave her and safely returned Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) to her home.  Both Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) 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 (رضّى الله عنها) had the humility to apologize despite the fact that she really didn�t do anything wrong, and Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 reunification of Umm al Mumineen Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Amir al Mumineen Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه).



Battle of Siffin and the Saba�ite Revolt Against Ali (رضّى الله عنه)

However, Uthman�s cousin Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) was not pleased with this outcome because Ali (رضّى الله عنه) still did not prosecute the criminals within his own ranks.  Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) was a blood-relative of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) and he was very upset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه), then the governor of Syria, refused to recognize Ali (رضّى الله عنه), and he demanded the right to avenge Uthman�s death (رضّى الله عنه). In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Ali�s forces (رضّى الله عنه) met Muawiyyah�s (رضّى الله عنه) in the Battle of Siffin.

The Shia say that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) fought Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) for denying the Shia concept of the Imamah, and that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the first Infallible Imam. And yet the Shia�s own books say that this was not what the Battle of Siffin had to do with, but rather it was purely political as opposed to religious. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه). It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه), 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 (رضّى الله عنه), being the noble man that he was, agreed to vote (use Shurah) for who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba�ites, who did not agree that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) should use arbitration. The Saba�ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph. So they accused Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه). 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 (رضّى الله عنه), calling themselves the Shia�t Ali and the Lovers of Ahlel 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 falsity of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba�ites, were of the same belief of the Ithna Ashari Shia today, namely that Allah had appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be Caliph. And yet, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agreed to arbitration with Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه). The million-dollar question, asked of course by the Khawaarij: how could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?

How could Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be this supposed �Infallible Imam�?  Would Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood?  So why would Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 Salat, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.

This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) 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 Ahlus Sunnah believes is correct: namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was selected.

The Shia belief system is diammetrically opposed to the very Ali (رضّى الله عنه) they claim to follow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), much like the Khawaarij [former Saba�ites] would turn against and face Ali (رضّى الله عنه);  Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is he who denied all claims of divine appointment and of Infallible Imamah. Ali (رضّى الله عنه) denied this to the Saba�ites, the Khawaarij, and he will also deny this to the Shia of today, whose faces will be turned black on the Day of Judgement for their exaggeration and lies, where they will be grouped together with the people who defected against Ali (رضّى الله عنه), namely the Khawaarij. There is no plausible explanation that the Shia can give to the million-dollar question:  why did Ali (رضّى الله عنه) agree to Shurah?  It is indeed a slap to the face of the Shia faith.



Ali (رضّى الله عنه) Murdered by Saba�ites

In any case, the Khawaarij turned against Caliph Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and killed him. So it was that Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be lost that the Shia are the ones who killed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) allowing Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) to be the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) 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 (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. with Abu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.

After Ali�s death (رضّى الله عنه), the Khawaarij went back into hiding, using Taqiyyah (lying to save one�s religion) and Kitman (hiding one�s faith). Abdullah ibn Abbas (رضّى الله عنه), the Prophet�s cousin, persuaded many of them to reject the Khawaarij doctrine, and so many of them did reject it, although most of them continued to hold onto their Saba�ite Shia beliefs.



Conclusion

This article has traced the origins of the Shia, which date back to the assassination conspiracy of Umar (رضّى الله عنه) 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 Saba�ites, acncestors of the Shia today, have spread Fitnah to every corner of the Muslim world.  

These Saba�ites had killed Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), attacked Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), and killed Ali (رضّى الله عنه). They had also supported Umar�s assassin Abu Lula. They would betray Hasan (رضّى الله عنه) and eventually they would lead Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) to his death and then later Hussain�s grandson (رضّى الله عنه) would also die from the betrayal of the Shia defectors. 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 practise of Tabarra, cursing and insulting the pious pioneers of Islam, rabble-roubing and trying to create hatred and disunity amongst the believers.

Article Written By:  Sidi Javadi ibn Tauseef al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com

[Fatah-Momin]

http://islamic-forum...tyle_emoticons/default/image006.gif

Jazzakallah brother , inshallah I will post this on the secure board.