Shia History

Here, we examine historical events that are important to understand in regards to the Sunni-Shia debate. We clarify certain historical events that are purposefully misconstrued by the Shia propagandists. We also delve into the origins of the Shia movement, as well as its impact on history.

The Shia oftentimes portray the incident of Saqifah as a sordid affair in which Abu Bakr supposedly skipped out on the Prophet’s funeral in order to greedily crown himself the Caliph of the Ummah. This couldn’t be further from the truth. This article accurately portrays the events of Saqifah in order to exonerate Abu Bakr of the Shia allegations. ....[....]

One of the most common lies in regards to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is that she left her house to fight Ali (رضّى الله عنه) in the Battle of the Camel. The truth is that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is innocent of this slander, and the reality is that it was the Shia [i.e. Uthman’s killers] who should be blamed for the Battle of the Camel. It was they who plotted the murder of the Prophet’s own wife and thereby declared war on Allah’s Messenger. ...[.....]

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 Saba’ites, ancestors of the Shia today, have spread Fitnah to every corner of the Muslim world. .... [.....]

Both Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and Muawiyyah (رضّى الله عنه) were adherents of the same faith, of the mainstream Islam. There was, however, a third group which would form in the Battle of Siffin–the Khawaarij–who, via their relationship with the Saba’ites, were the ancestors of the modern day Shia movement. In fact, the Battle of Siffin was an important event in Islamic history to understand for this very reason as it raises many questions that the Shia cannot explain.... [.....]

The Shia spend so much energy beating themselves on the Day of Ashura, lamenting about how Yezid and the Sunnis killed Hussain (رضّى الله عنه). However, these Shia fail to mention who the real culprits are behind the massacre of Karbala. Indeed, it was the Shia of Kufa who can be held accountable for the death of the Prophet’s grandson (رضّى الله عنه). It was their betrayal and treachoury that led Hussain (رضّى الله عنه) to his imminent death...[......]

In this article, we quote many narrations from Nahjul Balagha, in which Ali (رضّى الله عنه) professes his hatred for the Shia. We see that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) will disassociate himself from the people who profess to be his Shia. And it should be remembered that this collection of Ali’s sayings (رضّى الله عنه) are considered sacred by the Shia, from the most authentic source of Nahjul Balagha. And yet, they are a testament to the impending doom of the Shia and the disgust Ali (رضّى الله عنه) felt of the Shia... [.....]

This is a rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s article entitled “Who Killed Imam Hussain? (AS)”. Answering-Ansar attempted to shift the blame away from the Shia, but this rebuttal clearly shows that there is no possible way that the Shia of Kufa can be exonerated. The Shia must acknowledge their illustrious history which involves betraying the Ahlel Bayt and leading their own Imam to his imminent death.... [......]
The first part of this article/fatwa deals with rebelling against a Caliph in general, the second part deals with Sayyiduna Hussain’s rising up against Yazid, and the third part deals with the opinion of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah regarding Yazid.... [.......]

The man who killed Sayyiduna Hussain (i.e. gave the death-blow) was a man by the name of Shimr bin Thil-Jawshan and he was a Shia, as recorded in both Sunni and Shia books. Shimr was part of the Shia, and then he betrayed Sayyiduna Hussain and joined Yazid’s men, giving Sayyiduna Hussain the death-blow..... [......]

The Shia sometimes ask why the Ahlus Sunnah does not participate in the Ashura comemmorations. This response by the Ahlel Bayt Admin should clarify the position of the Ahlus Sunnah, and it will expose the hidden agenda of the Shia who celebrate Ashura only as a means of spiting the Ahlus Sunnah.... [.......]

Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jewish Rabbi who “converted” to Islam in order to found the Shia sect. The modern day Shia propagandists will often deny the existence of Abdullah ibn Saba out of embarassment that this is their originator. And yet, Abdullah ibn Saba’s existence is well-known and has been accepted by the classical Shia scholarship, the Sunni scholarship, and even the Non-Muslim historians. Here, we see that the Jewish Encyclopedia has included an entry on the founder of Shi’ism..... [.....]

A Comprehensive Rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s Article Entitled “Saqifa; the debacle of Islamic Government”
This is a comprehensive rebuttal of Answering-Ansar’s article entitled “Saqifa; the debacle of Islamic Government”. May Allah guide us to all that what is right!

  1. Introduction: A Sunni View of Saqifah
  2. Response to Chapter 1 Entitled “Introduction”
  3. Response to Chapter 2 Entitled “The Historical Facts”
  4. Response to Chapter 3 Entitled “Analysis of the Events”
  5. Response to Chapter 4 Entitled “The Issues Raised at the Saqifa”
  6. Response to Chapter 5 Entitled “Assessing Sunni Justifications of Saqifa”
  7. [includes a description of the nomination process of the first three of the Rightly Guided Caliphs]
  8. Response to Chapter 6 Entitled “Some Crucial Observations”
  9. Response to Chapter 7 Entitled “Burial of the Prophet”
The “Jewish Encyclopedia” says:
    By : Hartwig Hirschfeld
    A Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” (The Most High).
    Bibliography: Shatrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken’s translation, i. 200-201);
    Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.

Copyright © 2005 Ahlel Bayt. All Rights Reserved.
admin @ ahlelbayt . com          webmaster @ ahlelbayt . com
The Articles published on this website may be reproduced provided they are not modified in any way and credit is given to the Ahlel Bayt website.
Alternate Links: