Ignorance to the Shia creed, their Safavid Dynasty, and its atrocities throughout the Muslim world is something held in common by most of the scholars, preachers, intellectuals, and politicians. If you want evidence for my claim of ignorance, ask anyone you will, “What do you know of the Safavid Dynasty?” and you will hardly find a single person with an answer.
Most Muslims have neglected the creedal works of Ahlus Sunnah that have been authored by our scholars. Works of creed that expose the Shia ideology and by avenue of which our forefathers remained impervious to the Shia ideology. Yet today we find most of the Muslim world, as a result of neglect to the early works of our scholars, unaware of the danger posed by Shi’ism. Many claims are made in justifying this neglect.
Others claim, “The danger posed by the Christian and Zionist enemies are graver and more imminent than any other danger. As such there is no need to expand our effort in studying Shia beliefs and history.”
They have forgotten the historical coalitions and alliances between the Safavids and the European Christians; the Portuguese, the English, the French, the Russians, and the Hungarians in attacking the Ottoman Ahlus Sunnah. They have also forgotten the Iran–Contra affair in the 80s.
Today the Shia of Iran created alliances with America and Britain in order to facilitate the fall of Afghanistan and Iraq which resulted in the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The Shia masses in Iraq of Jaysh al Mahdi and others have adopted the catchphrase ‘The Jews are better than the Ahlus Sunnah’. Where might such a phrase emanate from and how does the common man become privy to such ideas?
Go to the Hawzah of Qum and Najaf, go to the south of Lebanon, to Bahrain, and to Qatif. See the hatred being taught by the Shia scholars to their followers. You will find daily brainstorming sessions of stratagems that seek to change the region and drag it into Shia polemics and politics. They are well trained in Taqiyyah, chanting slogans such as ‘national unity’, ‘religious unity’, and ‘supporting Palestine’. Iran and Hizb Allah repeatedly claim that they are enemies of the great Satan state, America, yet they form alliances with the same Satan in hopes of bringing about the collapse of Afghanistan and Iraq! They claim to assist the Palestinians and their cause, yet they kill Palestinians in Iraq and rape their women!
All this is laid out as clear as day. So, how is it that the Ahlus Sunnah are still oblivious of the Shia reality? This is a result of a systematic flaw in the education model of the contemporary Muslim and being unaware of the cyclical nature of history.
From a historical study point of view, there has been much interpolation and fabrication from the intellectual fraternity based on current nationalist trends. For instance, they promote the Safavid Dynasty to have had political differences with the Ottomans, whilst both were invaders and occupiers of the Arab lands [from a nationalistic point of view]. They opine the issue was not a religious one nor a sectarian one. In fact, it was all a political ploy whilst religion was the pawn.
Education of this sort which is not a reflection of historical actualities results in generations being raised without the truth and by extension being unable to understand current day issues.
All the Islamic groups have in some way or another contributed to this, as a result of which their followers are painfully unaware of Shi’ism and its reality. The situation can be analysed as follows:
Most of its members are unfamiliar with Shi’ism. Their approach discounts all discussions of sects and groups, though such discussions are required. As for the Safavid Dynasty, they are completely in the dark except for a few scattered individuals. It is quite sad that Mohammed Mahdi Akef, head of the Muslim Brotherhood has likened Hassan Nasr Allah to Salah al Din Ayubi! Does he not know that Hassan Nasr Allah shuns such similitude to Salah al Din? In fact, they blindly hate Salah al Din. The Lebanese Shia thinker, Hassan al Amin has authored a book in criticism of Salah al Din. Similarly, Ahmed Rasim al Nafis, a Shia of Egypt has written a piece in the Cairo paper that criticises and attacks the personage of Salah al Din.
They are preoccupied with their political organisation and in analysing the international political landscape. However, it should be noted that some of their theoreticians of old in Lebanon are Shia. A number of its members are also activists of Hizb al Da’wah in Iraq. They were amongst the early delegations to Khomeini after the revolution and have stated his constitution to be sectarian and not Islamic. Yet, they opine that the happenings in Iraq are American and British, not Iranian. Perhaps in the future they will come to realize the truth. Considering they are proponents of the caliphate and share an affinity with the Ottomans, why don’t they study what the caliphate had done to the Safavids?
They have no issue with the Shia, rather their efforts have been directed to opposing the Wahabiyyah. It seems quite peculiar that the Iraqi scholar who annotated the work of Sheikh ‘Abdul Qadir al Jilani, al Ghunyah, in the 80s removed the sections wherein Sheikh ‘Abdul Qadir sharply censured the Shia. The annotator is a well-known Sufi of Iraq.
In the 80s and 90s they followed the Ahlus Sunnah in Iraq by making their prime opposition those youths who adopted Wahhabism. At times, they were explicit in claiming Wahhabism to pose a greater threat than Shi’ism. Today, it has become quite evident which group poses a greater threat and commits far worse atrocities.
Unfortunately, today, they themselves are introducing Shi’ism in Egypt and Yemen. Ibrahim al Jafari had attempted to create an alliance with the Qadiriyyah order of Iraq but was unsuccessful due to the influence the Ahlus Sunnah wielded in Iraq and their awareness to the Shia ploy. And all praise is for Allah.
The Sufi brothers should be well aware that the Sufi master of old, the likes of Sheikh ‘Abdul Qadir al Jilani, al Hakim al Tirmidhi, and others vehemently opposed Shi’ism. If it wasn’t for the efforts of the Kurdish scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah, most of whom were of the Sufi order, most of the Kurds would have become Shia. The Ottoman scholars too were almost all of the Sufi orders and they had deep knowledge of the Shia and passionately opposed them.
The survival of Islam in Turkey after Ataturk is owed to the Sufi movements with the likes of al Nursi rahimahu Llah and others.
It is absolutely necessary for them to educate themselves to this threat. This is more so important considering it was the Hanafi scholars rahimahu Llah who played a mighty role in the Indian Sub-Continent and Afghanistan in opposing Shi’ism, and it was these scholars who laid the foundation to this movement. They should include within their movement an education drive that creates awareness to Shi’ism and its perils.
Although they are quite aware of the perils of Shi’ism through the grace of Allah and by way of the works of Sheikh al Islam, Ihsan Ilahi Zahir, Muhibb al Din al Khatib, and others, the movement as a whole is not as well versed as those who came before them.
In any case there are a great many pitfalls of each group which can be summarized as follows:
All of the groups that form the Ahlus Sunnah, be it the Brotherhood, the Tahririyyah, the Tablighiyyah, the Sufiyyah, the Salafiyyah, or others should be well aware that the Iranian Shia Safavids do not differentiate between them. They paint them all with the sin of being part of the Ahlus Sunnah (Nawasib) whether they like it or not! Even though the Shia of today have made the Salafis their focal point and suggest that their enmity is solely for the “Wahabiyyah” thereby submitting they have no dispute with the rest of the Ahlus Sunnah; however, it becomes painfully and plainly clear that this is far from the truth. Their attacks upon Sheikh al Qardawi when he gently opposed them in Qatar at the last dialogue conference is testament to this.
Re-read history in general, specifically the history of the Ottoman Empire, go back and revisit the beliefs of its scholars, what stance did they subscribe to? Be it the Asha’irah, the Maturidiyyah, the Sufiyyah, the Salafiyyah, or any other group; what was their religious stance in relation to Shi’ism?
Bear in mind that the Ahlus Sunnah were never two groups. The Shia lived under the Ahlus Sunnah in peace throughout the reign of the Ahlus Sunnah. A reign that boasted justice with all of the Islamic sects and those who adhered to non-Islamic beliefs. Even in the eras where Islamic justice disappeared, they did not resort to killings, mutilations, and mass displacements as the Shia had done during the Safavid era. Today the Ummah is becoming painfully aware of what they are doing in Iraq and what the Shia wish to do to the entire Islamic world. Their influence is not only in Iran and Iraq. in Lebanon they incite anarchy and form alliances with the Christians in order to dismantle Lebanon. The Shia buying up large tracts of land and homes of the Ahlus Sunnah, the Druze, and the Christians in all parts of Lebanon has been widely reported; an attempt to change the demographics of Lebanon.
In Bahrain after they won the elections, they sent delegations to Lebanon to learn the art of mass strikes in order to create tensions between the general populous of Bahrain.
In Syria, they took advantage of the Alawite rule and Shi’ism began to openly take hold in the various regions of Syria. They began by first converting the Alawites to Shi’ism, whom they previously passed verdicts of disbelief on—which Khomeini had ditched for political reasons. Go to Zainab, a suburb of Damascus and see the life of the Iraqis, Iranians, and Lebanese.
Their efforts in Egypt too are plainly clear. Similar is the case in Jordan, Morocco, and Africa. Their efforts have sounded the alarms of the security services of those countries too. Their coalition with the French in Comoros resulted in the propping up of a Shia president.
Their investments in the Emirates, Bahrain, and Oman are also clear and evident.
Will anyone then take heed?