Chapter Five – The Sects of the Shia, their History and Beliefs

Chapter Four – Evolving of Initial Shi’ism and the First Shia & the Era of the Saba’iyyah after the Martyrdom of Sayyidina ‘Uthman and during the Time of Sayyidina ‘Ali
March 27, 2023
Invasion of the Safavids – NEW UPLOAD!!!
April 2, 2023

BACK Return to Table of contents


Chapter 5

The Sects of the Shia, their History and Beliefs


The Mischief of the Saba’iyyah after Sayyidina ‘Ali’s Demise

After his demise, Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu partisans gathered around his son Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They appointed him their Imam on the third day after his father’s departure from the worldly abode to the abode of the Hereafter.[1] The first to pledge allegiance to him was Qais ibn Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah.[2]

At this point, the Saba’iyyah went public again, with all their might, and exposed the beliefs which they had been concealing for a long time out of fear for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, wary of his vigilance and inspection of destructive ideologies and those who wish to disseminate such in the ranks of his Shia. A Shia Historian writes:


إن بدعة السبئية في الغلو ظهرت على عهد أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه عندما مرّ بقوم يأكلون في شهر رمضان نهارًا فقال لهم أسفر أنتم أم مرضى قالوا لا ولا واحدة منهما قال فمن أهل الكتاب أنتم فتعصمكم الذمة والجزية قالوا لا قال فما بال الأكل نهارًا في رمضان فقالوا له أنت أنت يومئون إلى ربوبيته فاستتابهم واستأنى ووعّدهم فأقاموا على قولهم فحفر لهم حفرًا دخن عليهم فيها طمعًا في رجوعهم فأبوا فحرقهم وقال ألا تروني قد حفرت لهم حفرًا إني إذا رأيت شيئًا منكرًا أوقدت ناري ودعوت قنبرا فلم يبرح عليه السلام من مكانه حتى صاروا حممًا ثم استترت عنهم المقالة سنة أو نحوها ثم ظهر عبد الله بن سبأ وكان يهوديًّا يتستر بالإسلام بعد وفاة أمير المؤمنين رضي الله عنه فأظهرها واتبعه قوم فسموا السبئية وقالوا إن عليًّا لم يمت

The Saba’iyyah’s innovation of fanaticism became apparent during the era of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam when he passed by people who were eating in the day during the month of Ramadan. He asked them, “Are you travellers or ill?”

“No, neither of the two,” they replied.

He then asked, “Are you from the adherents of the scripture, shielded by the covenant of protection and Jizyah?”

They replied, “No.”

“Then why are you eating in the day during Ramadan?” he enquired.

They said to him, “You are you [i.e., You are God,]” indicating to his divinity.

He demanded they repent, waited, and threatened them. Despite this, they remained adamant on their belief. He thus dug a pit for them, in which they were suffocated, hoping that they will retract. They refused, so he had them burnt alive and said, “Did you not see that I dug for them a pit. When I see any evil, I ignite my fire and summon Qambar.” He ‘alayh al Salam stood at that spot until they were burnt to ash.

This ideology remained concealed for a year or so. ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’—a Jew who disguised as a Muslim after the demise of Amir al Mu’minin—then appeared and exposed it. People followed him; thus, they were dubbed the Saba’iyyah. They claim that ‘Ali did not die.[3]


Similar has been stated by the earliest author on the sects of the Shia, al Nawbakhti, who writes:


فلما قتل علي عليه السلام افترقت التي ثبتت على إمامته وأنها فرض من الله عز وجل ورسوله عليه السلام فصاروا فرقًا ثلاثة فرقة منهم قالت إن عليًّا لم يقتل ولم يمت ولا يقتل ولا يموت حتى يسوق العرب بعصاه ويملأ الأرض عدلاً وقسطًا كما ملئت ظلمًا وجورًا وهي أول فرقة قالت في الإسلام بالوقف بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من هذه الأمة وأول من قال منها بالغلو وهذه الفرقة تسمى (السبأية) أصحاب عبد الله بن سبأ وكان ممن أظهر الطعن على أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان والصحابة وتبرأ منهم وقال إن عليًّا عليه السلام أمره بذلك فأخذه عليّ فسأله عن قوله هذا فأقر به فأمر بقتله فصاح الناس إليه يا أمير المؤمنين أتقتل رجلاً يدعو إلى حبكم أهل البيت وإلى ولايتك والبراءة من أعدائك فصيره إلى المدائن وحكى جماعة من أهل العلم من أصحاب علي عليه السلام أن عبد الله بن سبأ كان يهوديًّا فأسلم ووالى عليًّا عليه السلام وكان يقول وهو على يهوديته في يوشع بن نون بعد موسى عليه السلام بهذه المقالة فقال في إسلامه بعد وفاة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في علي عليه السلام بمثل ذلك وهو أول من شهر القول بفرض ولاية علي عليه السلام وأظهر البراءة من أعدائه وكاشف مخالفيه وهناك قال من خالف الشيعة أن أصل الرفض مأخوذ من اليهودية وقد بلغ عبد الله بن سبأ نعي علي بالمدائن قال للذي نعاه كذبت لو جئتنا بدماغه في سبعين صرة وأقمت على قتله سبعين عدلاً لعلمنا أنه لم يمت ولم يقتل ولا يموت حتى يملك الأرض

After ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam was killed, those who adhered firmly to his Imamah believing that it is an obligation from Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—and His Messenger ‘alayh al Salam fragmented . They thus split into three sects.

One sect said: ‘Ali was not killed and did not die. He will never be killed and will never die until he drives the Arabs with his staff and fills the earth with justice and equity just as it had been filled with oppression and inequity. They are the first sect of this Ummah who claimed Waqf (cessation of Imamah) in Islam after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the first sect to declare extremism. This sect is dubbed the Saba’iyyah, the supporters of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’. He was among those who openly criticised Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and the Sahabah and dissociated from them claiming that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam commanded him such. ‘Ali seized him and interrogated him about this ideology of his to which he attested, due to which ‘Ali ordered his execution. The people protested saying, “O Amir al Mu’minin, are you going to kill a man who invites to your, the Ahlul Bayt’s, love and association and dissociation from your enemies. ‘Ali thus exiled him to Mada’in.

A group of scholars of the companions of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam relate that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ was a Jew who embraced Islam and associated with ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam. While being a Jew, he invented regarding Yusha’ ibn Nun after Musa ‘alayh al Salam this ideology which he claimed, while being a Muslim, for ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He was the first person to consider it obligatory to support the Imamah of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam. He disassociated from his enemies and showed hostility to his opposers. It is from here that those who oppose the Shia deduce that Shi’ism originated from Judaism. When the crier announced the death of ‘Ali in Mada’in, he said to him, “You have lied! If you were to bring us his brain in seventy pouches and brought seventy upstanding people to testify to his death, we would still not believe that he died. He will not die until he rules the world.”[4]


All those who discussed the history of Shi’ism and its sects, whether Shia or Sunni, made a similar observation. We have reproduced this earlier from the Shia authors and their books. The fresh emergence of the Saba’iyyah and promulgation of their corrupt beliefs after ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu martyrdom has been mentioned in the books on sects of the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah:

  • ‘Abdul Qahir al Baghdadi: al Farq bayn al Firaq
  • Al Ash’ari: Maqalat al Islamiyyin
  • Al Razi: I’tiqadat Firaq al Muslimin wa al Mushrikin
  • Al Asfarayini: al Tabsir
  • Al Shahrastani: al Milal wa al Nihal
  • Ibn Hazm al Zahiri: al Fasl
  • Abu al Hassan al Balti: al Tanbih
  • Al Jurjani: al Ta’rifat
  • Al Maqrizi: al Khitat.[5]

Each of them mentioned that ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ returned from exile after ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu martyrdom and exposed his beliefs about Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu at that time. Al Asfarayini writes:


ثم إن عليًّا رضي الله عنه خاف من إحراق الباقين منهم شماتة أهل الشام وخاف اختلاف أصحابه عليه فنفى ابن سبأ إلى ساباط المدائن فلما قتل علي رضي الله عنه زعم ابن سبأ أن المقتول لم يكن عليًّا

Thereafter, Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu feared burning the rest of them, for reproach of the people of Syria and the disapproval of his companions. He thus exiled Ibn Saba’ to Sabat of Mada’in. When Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was killed, Ibn Saba’ asserted that the murdered was not ‘Ali.[6]


Al Shahrastani said:


إنما أظهر عبد الله بن سبأ بعد انتقال علي عليه السلام واجتمعت عليه جماعته

‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ divulged (his beliefs) after ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu demise. His group gathered by him.[7]


Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah Combats Ibn Saba’s Ideologies

Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah battled him and combatted his ideologies and beliefs, as did his father. Ibn Abi al Hadid al Shia speaks of this:


ثم ظهر عبد الله بن سبأ وكان يهوديًّا يتستر بالإسلام بعد وفاة أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فأظهرها واتبعه قوم فسموا السبئية وقالوا إن عليًّا عليه السلام لم يمت وإنه في السماء والرعد صوته والبرق ضوئه وإذا سمعوا صوت الرعد قالوا السلام عليك يا أمير المؤمنين وقالوا في رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أغلظ قول وافتروا عليه أعظم فرية فقالوا كتم تسعة أعشار الوحي فنقض عليهم قولهم الحسن بن علي بن محمد بن الحنفية رضي الله عنه في رسالته التي يذكر فيها الإرجاء رواها عنه سليمان بن أبي شيخ عن الهيثم بن معاوية عن عبد العزيز بن أبان عن عبد الواحد بن أيمن المكي قال شهدت الحسن بن علي بن محمد بن الحنفية يملي هذه الرسالة فذكرها وقال فيها ومن قول هذه السبئية هدينا لوحي ضل عنه الناس وعلم خفي عنهم وزعموا أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم كتم تسعة أعشار الوحي ولو كتم صلى الله عليه وسلم شيئًا مما أنزل الله عليه لكتم شأن امرأة زيد وقوله تعالى تَبْتَغِيْ مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَاجِكَ

‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ then appeared. He was a Jew who hid behind Islam after the demise of Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam and publicised it. A group followed him and were called the Saba’iyyah. They claimed, “‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam did not die. He is in the sky. Thunder is his voice and lightning is his light.” When they hear the sound of thunder, they exclaim, “Peace be upon you, O Amir al Mu’minin.” They made a blasphemous statement about Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and fabricated the gravest lie against him claiming that he concealed nine tenths of revelation. Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah refuted their claim in his letter to them, in which he speaks of al Irja’. Sulaiman ibn Abi Sheikh narrates this from him—from Haytham ibn Muawiyah—from ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Aban—from ‘Abdul Wahid ibn Ayman al Makki. He says, “I attended when Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah dictated this letter.” He then mentioned the contents of the letter, in which he wrote, “From the statements of these Saba’iyyah is: We have been guided to revelation obscure from people and knowledge unknown to them. They claimed that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam concealed nine tenths of revelation. Had he salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam concealed anything Allah revealed to him, he would have concealed the matter of Zaid’s wife and Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement: [you] seeking the approval of your wives.”[8]


The Fitnah of the Saba’iyyah during Hassan’s Time

However, his battle against them was not like the battle of his father. The Saba’iyyah began planting seeds of discord and friction and spreading the seeds of dissension, conflict, and disunity with complete liberty and unrestraint, especially after the Shia forsook and separated from Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Some of them entered the Saba’iyyah, others inclined to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and yet others joined with the Khawarij and other groups. The scholars of the Shia, viz. al Mufid, al Arbili, and al Majlisi, have drawn this image in their respective books while discussing Muawiyah’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu movement to Iraq:


وسار معاوية نحو العراق ليغلب عليه فلما بلغ جسر منبج تحرك الحسن عليه السلام وبعث حجر بن عدي يأمر العمال بالمسير واستنفر الناس للجهاد فتثاقلوا عنه ثم خفوا ومعه أخلاط من الناس بعضهم شيعة له ولأبيه وبعضهم محكمة يؤثرون قتال معاوية بكل حيلة وبعضهم أصحاب فتن وطمع في الغنائم وبعضهم شكاك وبعضهم أصحاب عصبية اتبعوا رؤساء قبائلهم لا يرجعون إلى دين فسار حتى أتى حمام عمر ثم أخذ إلى دير كعب فنزل ساباط دون القنطرة وبات هناك فلما أصبح أراد رضي الله عنه أن يمتحن أصحابه ويستبرئ أحوالهم في الطاعة له ليتميز بذلك أولياءه من أعداءه ويكون على بصيرة من لقاء معاوية وأهل الشام فأمر بهم أن ينادى بالصلاة جامعة فاجتمعوا فصعد المنبر فخطبهم فقال الحمد لله كلما حمده حامد وأشهد أن لا إله إلا الله كلما شهد له شاهد وأشهد أن محمدًا عبده ورسوله أرسله بالحق وائتمنه على الوحي صلى الله عليه وسلم أما بعد فوالله إني لأرجو أن أكون قد أصبحت بحمد الله ومنه وأنا أنصح خلق الله لخلقه وما أصبحت محتملاً على مسلم ضغينة ولا مريدًا له بسوء ولا غائلة ألا وإن ما تكرهون في الجماعة خير لكم مما تحبون في الفرقة ألا وإني ناظر لكم خيرًا من نظركم لأنفسكم فلا تخالفوا أميّ ولا تردوا علي رأيي غفر الله لي ولكم وأرشدني وإياكم لما فيه المحبة والرضا قال فنظر الناس بعضهم إلى بعض وقالوا ما ترونه يريد بما قال قالوا نظنه والله يريد أن يصالح معاوية ويسلم الأمر إليه فقالوا كفر والله الرجل ثم شدوا على فسطاطه وانتهبوه حتى أخذوا مصلاه من تحته ثم شد عليه عبد الرحمن بن عبد الله بن جعال الأزدي فنزع مطرفه عن عاتقه فبقي جالسًا متقلدًا السيف بغير رداء ثم دعا بفرسه فركبه وأحدث به طوائف من خاصته وشيعته ومنعوا منه من أراده فقال ادعوا إليّ ربيعة وهمدان فدعوا فطافوا به ودفعوا الناس عنه رضي الله عنه وسار ومعه شوب من غيرهم فلما مر في مظلم ساباط بدر إليه رجل من بني أسد يقال له الجراح بن سنان فأخذ بلجام بغلته وبيده مغول وقال الله أكبر أشركت يا حسن كما أشرك أبوك من قبل ثم طعنه في فخذه فشقه حتى بلغ العظم ثم اعتنقه الحسن عليه السلام وخرّا جميعًا إلى الأرض فوثب إليه رجل من شيعة الحسن رضي الله عنه يقال له عبد الله بن خطل الطائي فانتزع المغول من يده وخضخض به جوفه فأكب عليه آخر يقال له ظبيان بن عمارة فقطع أنفه فهلك من ذلك وأخذ آخر كان معه فقتل وحمل الحسن عليه السلام على سرير إلى المدائن فأنزل به على سعد بن مسعود الثقفي وكان عامل أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام بها فأقره الحسن عليه السلام على ذلك واشتغل الحسن عليه السلام بنفسه يعالج جرحه وكتب جماعة من رؤساء القبائل إلى معاوية بالسمع والطاعة له في السر واستحثوه على المسير نحوهم وضمنوا له تسليم الحسن رضي الله عنه إليه عند دنوهم من عسكره أو الفتك به وبلغ الحسن رضي الله عنه ذلك وورد عليه كتاب قيس بن سعد رضي الله عنه وكان قد أنقذه مع عبيد الله بن العباس عند مسيره من الكوفة ليلقى معاوية ويرده عن العراق وجعله أميرًا على الجماعة وقال إن أصبت فالأمير قيس بن سعد فوصل كتاب قيس بن سعد يخبره أنهم نازلوا معاوية بقرية يقال لها الحبوبية بإزاء مسكن وإن معاوية أرسل إلى عبيد الله بن العباس يرغبه في المسير إليه وضمن له ألف ألف درهم يعجل له منها النصف ويعطيه النصف الآخر عند دخوله إلى الكوفة فانسل عبيد الله في الليل إلى معسكر معاوية في خاصته وأصبح الناس قد فقدوا أميرهم فصلى بهم قيس بن سعد رضي الله عنه ونظر في أمورهم فازدادت بصيرة الحسن عليه السلام بخذلان القوم له وفساد نيات المحكمة فيه بما أظهروه له من السب والتكفير له واستحلال دمه ونهب أمواله ولم يبق معه من يأمن غوائله إلا خاصته من شيعة أبيه وشيعته وهم جماعة لا تقوم لأجناد الشام فكتب إلى معاوية في الهدنة والصلح وأنفذ إليه بكتب أصحابه الذين ضمنوا له فيها الفتك به وتسليمه إليه فاشترط له على نفسه في إجابته إلى صلحه شروطًا كثيرة وعقد له عقودًا كان الوفاء بها مصالح شاملة فلم يثق به الحسن رضي الله عنه وعلم باحتياله بذلك واغتياله غير أنه لم يجد بدًّا من إجابته إلى ما التمس من ترك الحرب وإنفاذ الهدنة لما كان عليه أصحابه مما وصفناه من ضعف البصائر في حقه والفساد عليه والخلف منهم له وما انطوى عليه كثير منهم في استحلال دمه وتسليمه إلى خصمه وما كان من خذلان ابن عمه له ومصيره إلى عدوه وميل الجمهور منهم إلى العاجلة وزهدهم في الآجلة فتوثق رضي الله عنه لنفسه من معاوية بتوكيد الحجة عليه والأعذار فيما بينه وبينه عند الله تعالى وعند كافة المسلمين واشترط عليه ترك سب أمير المؤمنين رضي الله عنه والعدول عن القنوت عليه في الصلاة وأن يؤمن شيعته رضي الله عنهم ولا يتعرض لأحد منهم بسوء ويوصل إلى كل ذي حق منهم حقه فأجابه معاوية إلى ذلك كله وعاهد عليه وحلف له بالوفاء

Muawiyah advanced towards Iraq to conquer it. When he reached Jisr Manbij, Hassan ‘alayh al Salam moved ahead and sent Hujr ibn ‘Adi commanding the governors to trek and commanding the people to wage war. They felt burdened and turned away from him and hid away. He had a mixture of people. Some were his and his father’s partisans; some were decisive, preferring to fight Muawiyah at every cost; some were trouble makers and desirous of booty; some were very sceptical; and some were fanatics who followed their tribal leaders and did not adhere firmly to any religion. He travelled until he reached Hammam ‘Umar, from where he travelled to Dayr Ka’b. He alighted at Sabat, before the bridge and spent the night there. In the morning, he intended to test his supporters and ascertain their condition of obedience to him, to determine his friends from his foes and to have insight into meeting Muawiyah and the residents of Syria. He commanded that an announcement be made for people to gather for salah. Once people gathered, he climbed the pulpit and addressed them:

“All praise belongs to Allah every time a praiser praises him. I testify that there is no deity besides Allah every time one testifies to His oneness. And I testify that Muhammad is His servant and Messenger whom He sent with the truth and trusted with revelation, may salutations and peace be upon him.

After praise and salutations, by Allah, I hope that I passed the morning with the praise and favour of Allah and I advise the creation of Allah for His creation. I have not passed the morning harbouring any grudge for any Muslim and intending evil or misfortune for him. Harken! Indeed, what you dislike of unity is far superior for you than what you like in disunity. Harken! My vision for you is better than your vision for yourselves. Thus, do not oppose my existence and do not refute my view. May Allah forgive me and you and guide me and you to that which contains love and pleasure.”

People looked at one another and said, “What do you think he means by his statement?”

They said, “We think, by Allah, he intends to reconcile with Muawiyah and hand authority over to him.”

They said, “By Allah, the man has disbelieved.”

They then launched an attack on his tent and robbed him, stealing his prayer mat from under him. ‘Abdur Rahman ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Ja’’al al Azdi assaulted him and stole his shawl off his shoulder. Hassan remained seated, girded with a sword, without a shawl. He called for his horse and mounted it. A group of his close supporters and partisans surrounded him and defended him from those intending to attack him. He said, “Call Rabi’ah and Hamadan for me.” They were called and they encircled him and repulsed people from him ‘alayh al Salam. He moved with a mixture of others. As he passed the dark passage of Sabat, a man from the Banu Asad called Jarrah ibn Sattan rushed at him, caught hold of the bridle of his mule with a weapon in his hand, and yelled, “Allah is the greatest! You committed shirk, O Hassan, just as your father did before you,” before stabbing him in his thigh and thrusting it till it reached the bone. Hassan ‘alayh al Salam grappled him and both men fell to the ground. A man from Hassan’s ‘alayh al Salam partisans called ‘Abdullah ibn Khatal al Ta’i jumped on the villain and snatched the weapon from his hand, before thrusting it into his abdomen. Another man, Dabyan ibn ‘Umarah, assaulted him and severed his nose. The villain died on the spot. Another who was with him was seized and killed. Hassan ‘alayh al Salam was then carried on a bed to Mada’in. He was placed by Sa’d ibn Mas’ud al Thaqafi, who served as governor of that area for Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam and Hassan ‘alayh al Salam maintained him. Hassan ‘alayh al Salam remained occupied in treating his wound.

Meanwhile, a group of the leaders of the tribes wrote secretly to Muawiyah, pledging submission and obedience to him, and inciting him to travel towards them. They guaranteed handing Hassan ‘alayh al Salam over to him when they get close to his army or betraying him. Hassan ‘alayh al Salam learnt of this when the letter of Qais ibn Sa’d radiya Llahu ‘anhu reached him. He had sent Qais with ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abbas when he set out from Kufah to meet Muawiyah and to drive him out of Iraq, and make himself a leader over a united people. He said, “If you are killed, then the leader is Qais ibn Sa’d.” The letter of Qais ibn Sa’d reached informing him that they alighted with Muawiyah in a village called al Habubiyyah opposite Maskan.

Muawiyah sent a message to ‘Ubaidullah ibn al ‘Abbas encouraging him to travel to him. He guaranteed him a million dirhams, giving him half immediately and handing over the other half when he enters Kufah. ‘Ubaidullah withdrew surreptitiously during the night to Muawiyah’s army among his close comrades. The people woke up only to find their leader missing. Qais ibn Sa’d radiya Llahu ‘anhu led them in Salah and handled their affairs.

Hassan’s ‘alayh al Salam insight increased of the people deserting him and the corruption of the intentions of the tribunal concerning him with what they exposed towards him of cursing and excommunicating him, considering his blood permissible, and looting his wealth. None remained with him, who could be trusted, except his close supporters from his and his father’s partisans. They were a group, however, who could not face the armies of Syria. He thus wrote to Muawiyah of a truce and reconciliation. He also despatched to him the letters of his supporters who guaranteed deceiving him and surrendering him over. He stipulated upon himself in accepting the reconciliation many conditions and fixed many terms, loyalty to which included advantages.

Hassan ‘alayh al Salam did not rely on him and knew of his artfulness and his trickery, but found no alternative but to accept what he sought, i.e. avoiding war and enacting a truce due to the actions of his supporters of which we described a few, i.e. the weakness of insights in his right, corruption against him, opposing him, what many of them believed like the permissibility of his blood and surrendering him to his opponent, his cousin deserting him and fleeing to his enemy, the inclination of majority of them to the world, and their dislike for the Hereafter.

He ‘alayh al Salam proceeded with confidence in himself from Muawiyah by emphasising the proof against him and absolving himself between the two in the sight of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and all the Muslims. He stipulated upon him to abandon criticising Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam, to desist from praying against him in salah, to give safety to his radiya Llahu ‘anhu partisans, not to interfere harmfully with any of them, and to deliver to each of them deserving right his right. Muawiyah accepted all of this and contracted a covenant with him upon it, swearing to be loyal.[9]


Ibn Abi al Hadid al Shia adds to this:


لما أراد الحسن أن يرتحل إلى المدائن قام فخطب الناس فقال أيها الناس إنكم بايعتموني على أن تسالموا من سالمت وتحاربوا من حاربت وإني والله ما أصبحت محتملاً على أحد من هذه الأمة ضغينة في شرق ولا غرب ولما تكرهون في الجماعة والألفة والأمن وصلاح ذات البين خير مما تحبون في الفرقة والخوف والتباغض والعداوة وإن عليًّا أبي كان يقول لا تكرهوا إمارة معاوية فإنكم لو فارقتموه لرأيتم الرؤوس تندر عن كواهلها كالحنظل ثم نزل فقال الناس ما قال هذا القول إلا وهو خالع نفسه ومسلم الأمر لمعاوية فثاروا به فقطعوا كلامه وانتهبوا متاعه وانتزعوا مطرفًا عليه وأخذوا جارية كانت معه واختلف الناس فصارت طائفة معه وأكثرهم عليه فقال اللهم أنت المستعان وأمر بالرحيل فارتحل الناس وأتاه رجل بفرس فركبه وأطاف به بعض أصحابه فمنعوا الناس عنه وساروا فقدمه سنان بن الجراح الأسدي إلى مظلم ساباط فأقام به فلما دنا منه تقدم إليه يكلمه وطعنه في فخذه بالمعول طعنة كادت تصل إلى العظم فغشي عليه وابتدره أصحابه

When Hassan intended to travel to Mada’in, he addressed the people saying, “O people! Certainly, you pledged allegiance to me to be at peace with whom I make peace and engage in war against whom I wage war. By Allah, I have not rose harbouring any rancour for anyone of this Ummah, be he in the East or West. What you despise in unity, mutual love, safety, and reconciliation is far superior to what you love of disunity, fear, mutual hatred, and enmity. ‘Ali, my father, would say: ‘Do not be displeased with the leadership of Muawiyah. If you lose him, you will see heads being severed from bodies like wild gourd falling off trees.’” He then alighted.

The people said, “He did not make this statement except that he resigns and hands over authority to Muawiyah.” They thus attacked him and interrupted his speech. They stole his belongings, snatched the shawl he was wearing, and took the slave girl who was with him.

People differed. A group supported him while majority opposed him. He said, “O Allah, help is sought from You.” He commanded that the journey begin and people complied. A man brought him a horse which he mounted. Some of his supporters surrounded him and defended him from the mob. They travelled. Sinan ibn al Jarrah al Asadi went ahead of him in the dark passage of Sabat and waited in ambush. When Hassan drew close, Sinan approached him and began speaking to him. He stabbed him in his thigh with a dagger so deep it almost reached his bone. Hassan fell unconscious and his supporters rushed to him [to assist him].[10]


The Saba’iyyah harm Hassan

The Shia Historians and authors clearly write that those who robbed Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, looted his tent and its contents, and injured him were from the Sabat of Mada’in. This is the very area to which Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu exiled ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’. They were influenced by his ideologies and beliefs and incited disunity and dissent. Among them was the prey of the Saba’iyyah, Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubaid al Thaqafi, who played a role in future events, the one who exposed the very same beliefs he learnt from ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’—the deceitful wicked Jew—and from the cunning wicked Saba’iyyah. The historians write that Hassan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma entered Mada’in and stayed, while injured, at Mukhtar’s uncle place.


فقال له المختار وهو شاب هل لك في الغنى والشرف قال وما ذاك قال تأخذ الحسن بن علي وتقيده وتبعثه إلى معاوية فقال له عمه قبحك الله وقبح ما جئت به أأغدر بابن بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم

Mukhtar, who was a youngster at the time, asked his uncle, “Do you desire wealth and honour?”

“What do you mean?”

Mukhtar said, “Take Hassan ibn ‘Ali, fetter him, and send him to Muawiyah.”

His uncle told him, “May Allah disgrace you and dishonour what you bring. Should I betray the son of the daughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?”[11]


When Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu saw the behaviour of the Saba’iyyah on one side, the desertion of the Shia on the other, and bloodshed on a third, he determined the conclusion of peace to be best. The Shia Historian al Yaqubi writes:


وحمل الحسن إلى مدائن وقد نزف نزفًا شديدًا واشتدت به العلة فافترق الناس عنه وقدم معاوية إلى العراق فغلب على الأمر والحسن عليل شديد العلة فلما رأى الحسن أن لا قوة به وأن أصحابه قد افترقوا عنه فلم يقوموا له صالح معاوية وصعد المنبر فحمد الله وأثنى عليه وقال أيها الناس إن الله هداكم بأولنا وحقن دماءكم بآخرنا وقد سالمت معاوية وإن أدري لعله فتنة لكم ومتاع إلى حين

Hassan was carried to Mada’in after he lost much blood and his sickness intensified. People separated from him. Muawiyah arrived in Iraq and took control while Hassan was extremely ill. When Hassan saw he had no strength and his companions had deserted him and had not stood by him, he made peace with Muawiyah. He ascended the pulpit and after praising and glorifying Allah said, “O people, indeed Allah guided you by the first of us and protected your blood by the last of us. I have made peace with Muawiyah. I do not know, probably it might be a test for you and an enjoyment for a while.”[12]


Sayyidina Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not suffice on concluding peace with Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and relinquishing the caliphate in his favour. He went a step further and pledged allegiance in public view, together with his brothers and chief commanders of his army. The famous Shia scholar of Rijal, al Kashshi, narrates from Jafar ibn al Baqir who reports:


إن معاوية كتب إلى الحسن رضي الله عنه أن اقدم أنت والحسين وأصحاب علي فخرج معه قيس بن سعد بن عبادة الأنصاري وقدموا إلى الشام فأذن لهم معاوية وأعد لهم الخطباء فقال يا حسن قم فبايع ثم قال للحسين رضي الله عنه قم فبايع فقام فبايع ثم قال يا قيس قم فبايع فالتفت إلى الحسين رضي الله عنه ينظر ما يأمره فقال يا قيس إنه إمامي يعني الحسن رضي الله عنه

Muawiyah wrote to Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “Come along with Hussain and the companions of ‘Ali.”

Qais ibn Sa’d ibn ‘Ubadah al Ansari left with them. They arrived in Syria. Muawiyah permitted them to enter and prepared for them lecturers.

He said, “O Hassan, stand up and pledge allegiance.” He then told Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “Stand up and pledge allegiance.” He stood up and pledged allegiance. He then said, “Stand, O Qais, and pledge allegiance.” Qais turned to Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu to see what he commands him. Hussain said, “O Qais, he i.e., Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, is my leader.”[13]


The zealot Shia al Majlisi records a similar narration in his book Jila’ al ‘Uyun al Farisi, which the Shia Muhaddith al ‘Abbas al Qummi deems reliable in his major history book in Persian, Muntaha al Amal, and so does Ibn Abi al Hadid al Shia in his Sharh Nahj al Balaghah.[14]


The Split of the Shia

At this point, the Shia split into further sects.


لما وادع الحسن معاوية وأخذ منه المال الذي بعث به إليه وصالح معاوية الحسن طعنوا فيه وخالفوه ورجعوا عن إمامته فدخلوا في مقالة جمهور الناس وبقي سائر أصحابه على إمامته إلى أن قتل فلما تنحى عن محاربة معاوية وانتهى إلى مظلم ساباط وثب عليه رجل من هناك يقال له الجراح بن سنان فأخذ بلجام دابته ثم قال الله أكبر أشركت كما أشرك أبوك من قبل وطعنه بمعول في أصل فخذه فقطع الفخذ إلى العظم فاعتنقه الحسن وخرا جميعًا فاجتمع الناس على الجراح فوطئوه حتى قتلوه ثم حمل الحسن على سرير فأتي به المدائن فلم يزل يعالج بها في منزل سعد بن مسعود الثقفي حتى صلحت جراحته ثم انصرف إلى المدينة فلم يزل جريحًا من طعنته كاظمًا لغيظه متجرعا لريقه على الشجا والأذى من أهل دعوته حتى توفي رضي الله عنه في آخر صفر سنة سبع وأربعين وهو ابن خمس وأربعين سنة وستة أشهر وقال بعضهم أنه ولد سنة ثلاث من الهجرة من شهر رمضان وإمامته ست سنين وخمسة أشهر

When Hassan reconciled with Muawiyah, accepting the wealth he sent for him, and Muawiyah made peace with Hassan, they criticised him and opposed him and renounced his Imamah, thus entering into the standpoint of majority of the people. The rest of his partisans adhered to his Imamah until he was killed. When he desisted from fighting Muawiyah, and reached the dark area of Sabat, a man from that area called Jarrah ibn Sinan pounced upon him and caught hold of his animal’s bridle before shouting, “Allah is the greatest! You committed shirk just as your father committed aforetime.” He then stabbed him with a dagger in the root of his thigh so deeply that it reached the bone. Hassan grappled him and they both fell to the ground. People pounced on Jarrah and stabbed him until they killed him. Hassan was then carried on a bed to Mada’in. He was treated in the home of Sa’d ibn Mas’ud al Thaqafi until his wounds were cured. He then returned to Madinah. He remained wounded from the stab, suppressing his anger and swallowing his rage, out of grief and pain from his own supporters until he radiya Llahu ‘anhu passed away at the end of Safar, 47 AH at the age of 45 years and 6 months. Some say that he was born in the third year after Hijrah, during Ramadan. His Imamah lasted for six years and five months.[15]


A group remained loyal to Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu after the truce and pledged allegiance to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu with him. They submitted and proved their loyalty throughout their lives from 41 AH to 60 AH. At the head of such people were the sons and household members of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, viz. Hussain, Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, the sons of ‘Aqil, the sons of Jafar, and other senior members of the Banu Hashim from the family of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They held the same beliefs as the general Muslims—the Sahabah of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—without excommunicating anyone or labelling any Muslim a transgressor. They remained united, in total agreement, putting the dissension that occurred behind them and ignoring the incidents that transpired. They remained brothers and inter-married as mentioned in detail previously.


The Kaysaniyyah

A group turned away from Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and affirmed the Imamah of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. They were later named the Kaysaniyyah. They gained strength and power after Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu concluded peace with Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. They held the same beliefs as the Saba’iyyah. They evolved rapidly in the upcoming days and splintered into many Shia sects, as we will soon enumerate. Al Nawbakhti al Shia has listed them in the sects that spawned after Sayyidina ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu martyrdom and counted them as one of the three who lived in the time of Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He says:


فلما قتل علي رضي الله عنه افترقت التي ثبتت على إمامته فصاروا فرقًا ثلاثًا أولاً السبئية وثانيًا فرقة قالت بإمامة محمد بن الحنفية لأنه كان صاحب راية أبيه يوم البصرة دون أخويه فسموا الكيسانية وإنما سموا بذلك لأن المختار بن أبي عبيد الثقفي كان رئيسهم وكان يلقب كيسان وهو الذي طلب بدم الحسين بن علي رضي الله عنهما وثأره حتى قتل من قتلته وغيرهم من قتل وادعى أن محمد بن الحنفية أمره بذلك وأنه الإمام بعد أبيه وإنما لقب المختار كيسان لأن صاحب شرطته المكنى بأبي عمرة كان اسمه وكان أفرط في القول والفعل والقتل من المختار جدًّا وكان يقول أن محمد بن الحنفية وصي علي بن أبي طالب وأنه الإمام وأن المختار قيمه وعامله ويكفر من تقدم عليًّا ويكفر أهل صفين والجمل وكان يزعم أن جبريل عليه السلام يأتي بالوحي من عند الله عز وجل فيخبره ولا يراه وروى بعضهم أنه سمي بكيسان مولى علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وهو الذي حمله على الطلب بدم الحسين بن علي عليه السلام ودله على قتلته وكان صاحب سره ومؤامرته والغالب على أمره

After ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam was killed, those who remained upon his Imamah split into three sects. Firstly, the Saba’iyyah. Secondly, a sect who claimed the Imamah of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah as he held the flag of his father on the Day of Basrah (Jamal), and not his other two brothers. They were named the Kaysaniyyah. They were given this name because Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubaid al Thaqafi, titled Kaysan, was their leader. He is the very person to demand retaliation and vengeance for Hussain ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. He killed a number of his murderers as well as others claiming that Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah commanded him such and that he is the Imam after his father.

Mukhtar was titled Kaysan as this was the name of the commander of his police force, with the agnomen Abu ‘Amrah. Kaysan had gone to great extremes in speaking, acting, and killing on behalf of Mukhtar. He would claim that Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah is the Wasi of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Imam and that Mukhtar is his custodian and governor. He excommunicated those who preceded ‘Ali and those who fought in Siffin and Jamal. He believed that Jibril ‘alayh al Salam brings revelation from Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—and informs him, but he does not see the former. Some of them narrate that he was named Kaysan after the freed slave of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam. He is the very one who incited him to seek vengeance for Hussain ibn ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam and notified him of his killers. He was his confidant, advisor, and overwhelmed his affairs.[16]


Accordingly, al Shahrastani states:


ومن قالوا إن الإمام تثبت بالنص اختلفوا بعد علي عليه السلام فمنهم من قال إنما نص على ابنه محمد بن الحنفية وهؤلاء هم الكيسانية وأما من لم يقل بالنص على محمد بن الحنفية فقال بالنص على الحسن والحسين وقال الإمامة في الأخوين الحسن والحسين

Those who assert that Imamah is established by textual evidence differ after ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam. Some of them affirm that he instated his son Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. These are the Kaysaniyyah. Those who do not agree with textual evidence for Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah, affirm the same for Hassan and Hussain and state, “Imamah rests with the two brothers, Hassan and Hussain.”[17]


Al Qadi al No’man[18] al Shia al Fatimi or Twelver—according to various views—holds the same stance:

فقال قوم إنه الإمام

واختلفوا وكثر الكلام

وأسقطوا الحسن والحسينا

بعد علي والوصي فينا

بل هو في شعب برضوى قد ثبت

ثم غلوا فيه فقالوا لم يمت

يأتيه قالوا رزق من ربه

بين أسود فيه وكلوا به

They differed and debated at length.

Some said, “Indeed, he is the Imam,

and Wasi after ‘Ali, amongst us.”

They discarded Hassan and Hussain.

They further fell into extremism regarding him and said that he did not die,

but rather is stationed in the Radwa gorge,

between the black in it, empowered.

They say his sustenance comes from his Rabb.[19]


Scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah who have discussed the Kaysaniyyah:

  • Al Baghdadi: al Farq bayn al Firaq
  • Al Ash’ari: Maqalat al Islamiyyin
  • Al Milti: al Tanbih
  • Al Razi: I’tiqadat Firaq al Muslimin wa al Mushrikin
  • Al Asfarayini: al Tabsir
  • Ibn Khaldun: Tarikh Ibn Khaldun
  • Ibn Hazm: al Fasl

As well as al Maqrizi and other scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah.[20]


Some Shia revert while the Ideologies of the Saba’iyyah spread

A group discarded Tashayyu’ altogether after Hassan’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu reconciliation with Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and did not regard themselves as Shia thereafter.


لما واعد الحسن معاوية وأخذ المال الذي بعث به إليه وصالح معاوية الحسن طعنوا فيه وخالفوه ورجعوا عن إمامته فدخلوا في مقولة جمهور الناس

When Hassan reconciled with Muawiyah and accepted the wealth he sent for him, and Muawiyah made peace with Hassan, they criticised him and opposed him and renounced his Imamah, thus entering into the stance of majority of the people.[21]


As regards the Saba’iyyah, they spread extensively during this time. The Shia Historian affirms this saying:


فقد ظهرت هذه البدعة الضالة وسرت سريان الوباء إلى نفر من أهل العراق

This deviant innovation surfaced and spread like cancer amongst the Iraqis.


He then mentions the reasons for its spread among them, quoting from Ibn Abi al Hadid:


كانوا من ركاكة البصائر وضعفها على حال مشهور فلا عجب من مثلهم أن تستخفهم المعجزات التي رأوها من علي رضي الله عنه فيعتقدوا في صاحبها أن الجوهر الإلهي قد حل فيه وقد قيل إن جماعة من هؤلاء من نسل النصارى واليهود وقد كانوا سمعوا من آبائهم وسلفهم القول بالحلول في أنبيائهم فاعتقدوا فيه رضي الله عنه مثل ذلك ويجوز أن يكون أصل هذه المقالة من قوم ملحدين أرادوا إدخال الإلحاد في دين الإسلام

They were of those with poor and weak insight to a well-known level. It comes with no surprise that their like would be carried away by the miracles performed by ‘Ali, believing that the Divine essence became incarnate in him. It is said that a group of them are from the progeny of the Christians and Jews. They heard from their forefathers and predecessors of the ideology of incarnation in their Prophets. They thus believed regarding him [‘Ali] the same. It is possible that the basis of this ideology came from heretics who intended to insert ilhad (heresy) in the Din of Islam.[22]

The Shia during the Era of Hussain

After Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu passed away and the Shia gathered around his brother, Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu, a major event occurred, a catastrophic disaster struck. Oh! It is Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu ‘rebellion’ against Yazid ibn Muawiyah after his father’s demise and Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu murder at Karbala’. Allow us to pause for a moment before discussing the fragmenting of the Shia after this catastrophe, to mention the Shia’s desertion and betrayal of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu.


Shia’s Desertion and Betrayal of Hussain

The extremist Shia Historian al Yaqubi mentions that once Yazid ibn Muawiyah assumed the caliphate after his father, he wrote to his governor over Madinah, Walid ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Sufyan, to take Bay’ah from Hussain ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. Walid requested this from him, but Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu left for Makkah and resided there for many days. The Iraqis wrote to him and sent messengers upon messengers to him. The last letter he received was from Hani’ ibn Abi Hani’ and Sa’id ibn ‘Abdullah al Khath’ami stating:


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم للحسين بن علي من شيعته المؤمنين والمسلمين أما بعد فحيّ هلا فإن الناس ينتظرونك لا إمام لهم غيرك فالعجل ثم العجل والسلام

In the Name of Allah, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful. To Hussain ibn ‘Ali from his believing submissive partisans (Shia). After introduction, come over as people await you. They have no Imam besides you. Make haste and come quickly. Peace.[23]


The Shia Historian al Mas’udi writes:


ولما مات معاوية راسل أهل الكوفة إلى الحسين بن علي أن قد حبسنا أنفسنا على بيعتك ونحن نموت دونك ولسنا نحضر جمعة ولا جماعة

After Muawiyah’s demise, the Kufans[24] sent letters to Hussain ibn ‘Ali saying, “We have certainly held ourselves back for your Bay’ah. We will die defending you. We do not attend Jumu’ah or congregational salah.”[25]


Another letter contains the words:


فقد اخضرت الجنات وأينعت الثمار فإذا شئت فأقبل على جند لك مجندة

The gardens have turned green and the fruits have ripened. When you desire, come to a mobilised army ready for you.[26]


When letters poured in in abundance and the desire of the Kufans intensified, he sent Muslim ibn ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib to them and wrote to them that he will reach soon after his letter. Muslim reached Kufah and they gathered around him. They pledged allegiance to him, promised him, and made a covenant with him. They gave him assurance of support, partisanship, and loyalty.[27]

Al Mufid adds:


فبايعوه وهم يبكون وتجاوز عددهم ثمانية عشر ألفا

They pledged allegiance to him while they were crying. Their numbers exceeded 18 000.[28]


After a few days, a letter from Muslim ibn ‘Aqil reached him:


إن لك مائة ألف ولا تتأخر

You have a hundred thousand [supporters]. Do not delay.[29]


Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu thus set out towards Kufah. Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma of the Banu Hashim—leader of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu armies and his special consultant, the experienced, proficient individual, one fully cognisant of the Shia of his time—approached him and advised him, as related by al Shia al Mas’udi:


يا ابن عم قد بلغني أنك تريد العراق وإنهم أهل غدر وإنما يدعونك للحرب فلا تعجل وإن أبيت إلا محاربة هذا الجبار وكرهت المقام بمكة فاشخص إلى اليمن فإنها في عزلة ولك فيها أنصار وإخوان فأقم بها وبث دعاتك واكتب إلى أهل الكوفة وأنصارك بالعراق أن يخرجوا أميرهم فإن قووا على ذلك ونفوه عنها ولم يكن بها أحد يعاديك أتيتهم وما أنا لغدرهم بآمن وإن لم يفعلوا أقمت بمكانك إلى أن يأتي الله بأمره فإن فيها حصونًا وشعوبًا فقال الحسين يا ابن عم إني لأعلم أنك لي ناصح وعلي شفيق ولكن مسلم بن عقيل كتب إلي باجتماع أهل المصر على بيعتي ونصرتي وقد أجمعت على المسير إليهم قال إنهم من خبرت وجربت وهم أصحاب أبيك وأخيك وقتلتك غدًا مع أميرهم ما أصدقه وما أحنك به وأخبر بهم إنك لو قد خرجت فبلغ ابن زياد خروجك استنفرهم إليك وكان الذين كتبوا إليك أشد من عدوك فإن عصيتني وأبيت إلى الخروج إلى الكوفة فلا تخرجن نساءك وولدك معك فوالله إني لخائف أن تقتل كما قتل عثمان ونساؤه وولده ينظرون إليه

O cousin, it has reached me that you intend Iraq. They are definitely devious. They only call you for war, so do not rush. If you refuse except to battle this tyrant and you dislike remaining in Makkah, then journey to Yemen. It is isolated and you will have supporters and brothers there. Stay there and send your callers. Write to the people of Kufah and your supporters in Iraq to remove their governor. If they have the ability to do this and exile him and there is none to act in opposition to you, then go to them. I do not feel safe from their betrayal. If they cannot, you remain where you are—as it has forts and tribes—until Allah decides His matter.

Hussain said, “O cousin, I know that you are my well-wisher and compassionate towards me. However, Muslim ibn ‘Aqil has written to me of the gathering of the people of the city to pledge allegiance to me and support me. I have decided to travel to them.”

He said, “They are those who abandoned you and you have experience with them. They are the companions of your father and your brother, and your killers tomorrow with their leader—How true, how wise, and how informed of them he is! — If you rebel and Ibn Ziyad hears of your rebellion, he will mobilise people against you. Those who wrote to you are sterner than your enemy. If you disobey me and refuse except to leave to Kufah, then do not take your women and children with, for by Allah, I fear that you will be killed as ‘Uthman was killed while his wives and children looked on.”[30]


This is what ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma told him. He had a lofty rank in the eyes of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which is not hidden from anyone, to the extent that the Shia al Mufid writes:


كان أمير المؤمنين يتعشى ليلة عند الحسن وليلة عند الحسين وليلة عند عبد الله بن العباس

Amir al Mu’minin would eat supper one night by Hassan, one night by Hussain, and one night by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas.[31]


This is his stance towards the Shia. Why should he not have this stance, when Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu himself remarked:


لوددت أن معاوية صارفني بكم صرف الدينار بالدرهم فأخذ مني عشرة منكم وأعطاني رجلاً منهم

I wish that Muawiyah exchanged his men for you, like gold coins for silver coins; him taking ten of you and giving me one of his.[32]


Abu Bakr ibn Hisham supported Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma in describing the Shia as disloyal and treacherous and advised Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu not to travel to them. Shia al Mas’udi relates:


دخل أبو بكر بن الحارث بن هشام على الحسين فقال يا ابن عم إن الرحم يظائرني عليك ولا أدري كيف أنا في النصيحة لك فقال يا أبا بكر ما أنت ممن يستغش ولا يتهم فقل فقال أبو بكر كان أبوك أقدم سابقة وأحسن في الإسلام أثرًا وأشد بأسًا والناس له أرجى ومنه أسمع وعليه أجمع فسار إلى معاوية والناس مجتمعون عليه إلا أهل الشام وهو أعز منه فخذلوه وتثاقلوا عنه حرصًا على الدنيا وضنًّا بها فجرعوه الغيظ وخالفوه حتى صار إلى ما صار إليه من كرامة الله ورضوانه ثم صنعوا بأخيك بعد أبيك ما صنعوا وقد شهدت ذلك كله ورأيته ثم أنت تريد أن تسير إلى الذي عدوا على أبيك وأخيك تقاتل بهم أهل الشام وأهل العراق ومن هو أعد منك وأقوى والناس منه أخوف وله أرجى فلو بلغهم مسيرك إليهم لاستطغوا الناس بالأموال وهم عبيد الدنيا فيقاتلك من وعدك أن ينصرك ويخذلك من أنت أحب إليه ممن ينصره فاذكر الله في نفسك فقال الحسين جزاك الله خيرًا يا ابن عم فقد أجهدك رأيك ومهما يقض الله يكن فقال إنا لله وعند الله نحتسب يا أبا عبد الله ثم دخل على الحارث بن خالد بن العاص بن هشام المخزومي والي مكة وهو يقول كم نرى ناصحًا فيعصى وظنين المغيب يلفي نصيحًا فقال وما ذاك فأخبره بما قال للحسين فقال نصحت له ورب الكعبة

Abu Bakr ibn al Harith ibn Hisham entered Hussain’s presence and submitted, “O cousin, family ties are urging me towards you. I do not know how I should advise you.”

Hussain said, “O Abu Bakr, you are not among those considered ignorant or accused. Speak.”

Abu Bakr said, “Your father enjoys the earliest precedence, leaves the most beautiful mark in Islam, and was the strongest. People had great hopes in him, they listened to him, and gathered upon him. He travelled to Muawiyah while people were unanimous upon him, except the people of Syria—and he was more honourable. Yet, they abandoned him and felt burdened by him, out of greed for the world and due consideration for it. They filled him with fury and opposed him until he ended up where he ended up, from the honour and approval of Allah. They then treated your brother after your father harmfully. You witnessed and saw all of that. Yet, you intend travelling to those who transgressed against your father and brother, to fight alongside them the people of Syria and the people of Iraq, and those who are greater in number and more powerful in strength than you? People fear him more and have greater hopes in him. If they hear of your journey to them, they will incite people with wealth, are people are slaves of the world. This will result in those who promised to support you fighting you, and those will abandon you to whom you are more beloved than those whom they are helping. Hence, remember Allah in your heart.”

Hussain said, “May Allah reward you abundantly, O my cousin. Your stance has fatigued you. Whatever Allah decides will happen.”

He said, “We belong to Allah. We hope for that which is by Allah, O Abu ‘Abdullah.”

Abu Bakr thereafter entered the presence of Harith ibn Khalid ibn al ‘As ibn Hisham al Makhzumi—the governor of Makkah—and said: “How many an advisor we see being disobeyed while the unreliable, absent is taken as a well-wisher.”

“What is this,” Harith enquired.

Abu Bakr informed him of his advice to Hussain to which he remarked, “You have advised him sincerely, by the Rabb of the Ka’bah.”[33]


Let us relate the entire incident from the Shia themselves so you may be well acquainted of their treachery and cowardice. Al Mas’udi writes:


واتصل خبر مجيء مسلم الكوفة بيزيد فكتب إلى عبيد الله بن زياد بتولية الكوفة فخرج من البصرة مسرعًا حتى قدم الكوفة على الظهر فدخلها في أهله وحشمه وعليه عمامة سوداء قد تلثم بها وهو راكب بغلة والناس يتوقعون قدوم الحسين فجعل ابن زياد يسلم على الناس فيقولون وعليك السلام يا ابن رسول الله قدمت خير مقدم حتى انتهى إلى القصر وفيه النعمان بن بشير فتحصن فيه ثم أشرف عليه فقال يا ابن رسول الله مالي وما لك وما حملك على قصد بلدي من بين البلدان فقال ابن زياد لقد طال نومك يا نعيم وحسر اللثام عن فيه فعرفه ففتح له وتنادى الناس ابن مرجانة وحصبوه بالحصباء ففاتهم ودخل القصر ولما اتصل خبر ابن زياد بمسلم تحول إلى هانئ بن عروة المرادي ووضع ابن زياد الرصد على مسلم حتى علم بموضعه فوجه محمد بن الأشعث بن قيس إلى هانئ فجاءه فسأله عن مسلم فأنكره فأغلظ له ابن زياد القول فقال هانئ إن لزياد أبيك عندي بلاء حسنًا وأنا أحب مكافأته به فهل لك في خير قال ابن زياد وما هو قال تشخص إلى أهل الشام أنت وأهل بيتك سالمين بأموالكم فإنه قد جاء حق من هو أحق من حقك وحق صاحبك فقال ابن زياد أدنوه مني فأدنوه منه فضرب وجهه بقضيب كان في يده حتى كسر أنفه وشق حاجبه ونثر لحم وجنته وكسر القضيب على وجهه ورأسه وضرب هانئ بيده إلى قائم سيف شرطي من تلك الشرط فجاذبه الرجل ومنعه السيف وصاح أصحاب هانئ بالباب قتل صاحبنا فخافهم ابن زياد وأمر بحبسه في بيت إلى جانب مجلسه وأخرج إليهم ابن زياد شريحًا القاضي فشهد عندهم أنه حي لم يقتل فانصرفوا ولما بلغ مسلمًا ما فعل ابن زياد بهانئ أمر مناديًا فنادى يا منصور وكانت شعارهم فتنادى أهل الكوفة بها فاجتمع إليه في وقت واحد ثمانية عشر ألف رجل فسار إلى ابن زياد فتحصن منه فحصروه في القصر فلم يمس مسلم ومعه غير مائة رجل فلما نظر إلى الناس يتفرقون عنه سار نحو أبواب كندة فما بلغ الباب إلا ومعه منهم ثلاثة ثم خرج من الباب فإذا ليس معه منهم أحد فبقي حائرًا لا يدري أين يذهب ولا يجد أحدًا يدله على الطريق فنزل عن فرسه ومشى متلددًا في أزقة الكوفة لا يدري أين يتوجه حتى انتهى إلى باب مولاة للأشعث بن قيس فاستسقاها ماء فسقته ثم سألته عن حاله فأعلمها بقضيته فرقت له وآوته وجاء ابنها فعلم بموضعه فلما أصبح غدا إلى محمد بن الأشعث فأعلمه فمضى ابن الأشعث إلى ابن زياد فأعلمه

News of Muslim’s arrival in Kufah reached Yazid who consequently wrote to ‘Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad appointing him governor over Kufah. ‘Ubaidullah left Basrah with haste and arrived in Kufah mounted. He entered the city among his guards and servants, covering his face with a black turban, riding a mule. People were anticipating the arrival of Hussain. Ibn Ziyad began greeting the people, who were replying, “And peace be upon you, O son of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. You have arrived at the best abode.”

He travelled until he reached the palace which housed No’man ibn Bashir, who was well protected in it. No’man gazed at him from the palace and said, “O son of Rasulullah! What is the matter of you and I? What has urged you to choose my city out of all the cities?”

Ibn Ziyad said, “Your sleep has definitely extended, O Nuaim.” Ibn Ziyad removed the cover from his face. No’man immediately recognised him and opened for him. People began calling out, “Ibn Marjanah,” and throwing stones at him. Ibn Ziyad managed to escape and entered the palace.

When the news of Ibn Ziyad reached Muslim, he moved to Hani’ ibn ‘Urwah al Muradi’s place. Ibn Ziyad sent scouts to find out Muslim’s whereabouts. Muhammad ibn al Ash’ath ibn Qais directed him to Hani’. Ibn Ziyad approached Hani’ and asked him about Muslim. He denied [having any knowledge] so Ibn Ziyad spoke very harsh to him. Hani’ said, “Your father, Ziyad, has favoured me and I wish to repay him for it. Do you desire any good?”

“What is it?” asked Ibn Ziyad.

He said, “Travel to the people of Sham with your family, safely with your wealth, for certainly the right of one more deserving of it than you and your friend has come.”

Ibn Ziyad told his guards to bring Hani’ close and they complied. He smote the latter’s face with a rod in his hand, severing his nose, cutting his eyebrow, and scattering the flesh of his cheek. He broke the rod on the latter’s face and head. Hani’ stretched his hand to the sword handle of one of the policemen there, but the man tugged with him and prevented him from taking the sword. Hani’s friends screamed at the door, “Our friend has been killed.” Ibn Ziyad feared them so he ordered that Hani’ be detained in the house adjacent to his seating place and brought Qadi Shurayh who testified before them that he is alive and has not been killed. They thus left.

When Muslim heard of how Ibn Ziyad treated Hani’, he commanded someone to call out, “Ya Mansur!” This was their call. The residents of Kufah began chanting this. At once, eighteen thousand people gathered by him. He set out for Ibn Ziyad, who locked himself in the palace. They surrounded his palace. Muslim did not realise, but hardly a hundred men were now with him. When he saw people deserting him, he went to the houses of the Kindah. When he reached the door, only three people were with him. By the time he exited from the door, no one was in sight. He remained confused, not knowing where to go and not finding anyone to show him the way. He alighted from his horse and walked, turning helplessly left and right in the streets of Kufah, not knowing where to head. Finally, he reached the door of a slave girl belonging to Ash’ath ibn Qais. He asked her for water and she provided him with the same before asking of his condition. He informed her of his situation. She felt pity for him and sheltered him. Her son came and learnt of his whereabouts. Next morning, he went to Muhammad ibn al Ash’ath and informed him who in turn went to Ibn Ziyad to inform him.[34]


Ibn Ziyad killed Muslim as well as Hani’ ibn ‘Urwah, who cried: “O family of Murad”—and he was their sheikh and leader. On that day, he rode among four thousand armoured men and eight thousand warriors on foot. When his allies from Kindah and other areas responded, he was among 30 000 armoured men. Their leader did not find any of them as failures and deserters.[35]

When Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu reached Qadisiyyah, Hurr ibn Yazid al Tamimi met him and asked him, “Where are you heading, O son of Rasulullah?”

“I intend this city [Kufah],” he replied.

Hurr informed him of Muslim’s murder and what transpired before advising him, “Return, as I have not left behind me any goodness, I hope for you.” He thought of returning but Muslim’s brothers told him, “By Allah, we will not return until we take our vengeance or all of us are killed.” Hussain said, “There is no goodness in living without you.”[36]

He then told the people:


أما بعد فإنه قد أتانا خبر فظيع قتل مسلم بن عقيل وهانئ بن عروة وعبد الله بن يقطر وقد خذلنا شيعتنا فمن أحب منكم الانصراف فلينصرف في غير حرج ليس معه ذمام فتفرق الناس عنه وأخذوا يمينًا وشمالاً حتى بقي في أصحابه الذين جاءوا معه من المدينة ونفر يسير ممن انضموا إليه وإنما فعل ذلك لأنه رضي الله عنه علم أن الأعراب الذين اتبعوه إنما اتبعوه وهم يظنون أنه يأتي بلدًا قد استقامت له طاعة أهله فكره أن يسيروا معه إلا وهم يعلمون على ما يقدمون فلما كان السحر أمر أصحابه فاستقوا ماء وأكثروا ثم ساروا حتى مر ببطن العقبة فنزل عليها فلقيه شيخ من بني عكرمة يقال له عمرو بن لوذان فسأله أين يريد فقال له الحسين رضي الله عنه الكوفة فقال الشيخ أنشدك لما انصرفت فوالله ما تقدم إلا على الأسنة وحد السيوف وإن هؤلاء الذين بعثوا إليك لو كانوا كفوك مؤنة القتال ووطئوا لك الأشياء فقدمت عليهم كان ذلك رأيًا فأما على هذه الحالة التي تذكر فإني لا أرى لك أن تفعل فقال له يا عبد الله ليس يخفى علي الرأي وإن الله تعالى لا يغلب على أمره

“After praise and salutation, shocking news has reached us—the killing of Muslim ibn ‘Aqil, Hani’ ibn ‘Urwah, and ‘Abdullah ibn Yaqtar. Our Shia have deserted us. Whoever among you desires to return, should return without any reproach. I will not be offended in the least.”

People scattered in various directions until only his companions who came with him from Madinah and a small group who joined remained. He only did this as he knew that the Bedouins who joined him only did so thinking that he is arriving in a city whose residents’ obedience to him is determined. He disliked them continuing with him except being fully cognisant of what they are approaching. At dawn, he ordered his companions to bring water and they brought plenty. They then travelled until they passed Batn ‘Aqabah and alighted there where they met an old man from the Banu ‘Ikrimah called ‘Amr ibn Ludhan. The old man asked where he was heading to which Hussain replied, “Kufah.”

“I plead with you [in Allah’s name] not to go there,” entreated the old man. “By Allah, you are only advancing to spears and the edges of swords. These men that have called you; had they sufficed you in fighting and trampling upon things for you, and you came to them, that would have been a good idea. But in this state of affairs you are mentioning, I do not think you should proceed.”

Hussain said to him, “O servant of Allah, I am not unaware of the best opinion. And indeed, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is not overpowered in His affair.”[37]


He then proceeded to Kufah and met one of the residents of Kufah en route, who informed him of their betrayal, abandonment, and cowardice with the words:


ليس لك بالكوفة ناصر ولا شيعة بل نتخوف أن يكونوا عليك

You do not have any supporters or partisans in Kufah. In fact, we fear they are your enemies.[38]


When the Kufan army faced him and he saw the very opposite of what they wrote, and their messengers denied writing to him, he told one of his companions:


اخرج الخرجين اللذين فيهما كتبهم إلي فأخرج خرجين مملوئين كتبًا فنشرت بين يديه

“Take out the two saddlebags which contain their letters to me.”

He took out two saddlebags filled with letters, which were then thrown in front of him.[39]


They denied sending the letters. He then travelled until Karbala’. When the soldiers of the army against Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu increased, he realised that there is no escape for him. He thus supplicated: “O Allah, decide between us and a nation who invited us to help us, but then fought us.” He continued fighting until he was killed. May Allah be pleased with him. All those who were present at Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu murder—whether part of the army who fought against him or those directly involved in his killing were particularly from Kufah. No Syrian joined them.[40]

Al Yaqubi—the zealous Shia, as Wellhausen calls him, writes:


إن أهل الكوفة لما قتلوه انتهبوا مضاربه وابتزوا حرمه وحملوهن إلى الكوفة فلما دخلن إليها خرجت نساء الكوفة يصرخن ويبكين فقال علي بن الحسين هؤلاء يبكين علينا فمن قتلنا

After the Kufans killed him, they looted his tent and robbed his personal belongings. They took his women to Kufah. As they reached Kufah, the women of Kufah came out shouting and wailing. ‘Ali ibn al Hussain remarked, “These women cry over us. Who has killed us then?”[41]


Here we wish to establish what Wellhausen, the German Historian, sympathiser of the Shia mentions:


The crowd of the Kufans, however, is not keen to work in the hands of the government, but also does not step on the side of its opponents. Even those who have written letters to Hussain and sworn allegiance, abandon his predecessor and do not lift a hand for himself; they only watch his end from afar and cry. Only a few venture out to share his fate, e.g., Abu Thumama, the treasurer, and Ibn Awsaja. For the rest, those who die for him met him accidentally, or are driven to him by human indignation at the last hour, although they have nothing to do with him and are not from his party at all. The contrast between the obliged ones who do nothing and those who are not obliged but put the former to shame is strongly emphasised and occasionally dramatically portrayed. It is worth noting that not only the Quraysh, but also the Ansar keep away from Hussain. No one left with him from Medina, and there were only a few of them among the Shi’ites in Kufa. The uprising in Medina in the year 63 was not undertaken for the Alids, and Ali b. Hussain kept himself out of it. Contrasting to these cowardly and disloyal stand the outspoken opponents of the Shia—the officials and supporters of the Umayyad government. The opposition is not about religious beliefs.[42]


Al Baghdadi comments on this:


روافض الكوفة موصوفون بالغدر والبخل وقد سار المثل بهم فيهما حتى قيل أبخل من كوفي وأغدر من كوفي والمشهور من غدرهم ثلاثة أشياء أحدهما أنهم بعد قتل علي رضي الله عنه بايعوا ابنه الحسن فلما توجه لقتال معاوية غدروا به في ساباط المدائن فطعنه سنان الجعفي في جنبه فصرعه عن فرسه وكان ذلك أحد أسباب مصالحته معاوية والثاني أنهم كاتبوا الحسين بن علي رضي الله عنه ودعوه إلى الكوفة لينصروه على يزيد بن معاوية فاغتر بهم وخرج إليهم فلما بلغ كربلاء غدروا به وصاروا مع عبيد الله بن زياد يدًا واحدة عليه حتى قتل الحسين وأكثر عشيرته بكربلاء والثالث غدرهم بزيد بن علي بن الحسين بن أبي طالب بعد أن خرجوا معه على يوسف بن عمر ثم نكثوا بيعته وأسلموا عند اشتداد القتال حتى قتل وكان من أمره ما كان

The Rawafid of Kufah are notorious for betrayal and stinginess. They have become proverbial in these qualities to the extent that it is said, “More miserly than a Kufi. More disloyal than a Kufi.” Three aspects of their betrayal are common.

    1. After the murder of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, they pledged allegiance to his son, Hassan. When he advanced to meet Muawiyah on the battlefield, they betrayed him in the Sabat of Mada’in. Thus, Sinan al Ju’fi stabbed him in his flank which caused him to fall off his horse. This is one of the reasons behind him [Hassan] reconciling with Muawiyah.
    2. They wrote to Hussain ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and invited him to Kufah to assist him against Yazid ibn Muawiyah. He was deceived by them and left towards them. When he reached Karbala’, they betrayed him and joined ‘Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad as one force against him, which led to the slaying of Hussain and majority of his family at Karbala’.
    3. They deserted Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn [‘Ali ibn] Abi Talib after rebelling with him against Yusuf ibn ‘Umar. They broke their oath and threw in the towel when the fighting intensified, hence Zaid was martyred and history took its course.[43]


These were the Shia; the Shia of ‘Ali, Hassan, and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum. This was their behaviour towards their Imams and leaders.


Shi’ism Evolves into a Religious Cult after being purely Political

We have penned this incident in detail as major evolution took place in Shi’ism after this catastrophe. It began to assume a religious form and sectarian hue after being purely political. It considered the stance of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his children opposed to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Banu Umayyah. Wellhausen has been genuinely explicit on this when he mentions the martyrdom of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu followed by the rising of Mukhtar in the guise of vengeance. He writes:


Shi’ism in Kufa was molting at that time. We have seen what it originally meant. It was an expression of the general political sentiment: Iraq’s opposition to the Syrian rule. In the beginning, the ashraf went along with the others and actually took the leading role. However, they failed in the face of danger, allowing the government to tame them and use them to suppress Shi’ite uprisings. This separated them from the Shi’a, who narrowed themselves into becoming a sect in opposition to the aristocracy and the tribal organisation. At the same time, they assumed a fanatic character as a result of the martyrdom of their heroes and saints. Already the followers of Sulaiman b. Surad had intended to rise up in Kufa itself against the aristocracy of the tribes. But only Mukhtar brought this intention to fruition. And he also drew the mawali [freed slaves] into the movement. This was obvious because the movement, although hitherto carried by Arabs, had taken on a distinctly theocratic, non-national character and was directed against the born representatives of Arab rule.[44]


Shi’ism began assimilating strange introduced ideologies just as it started splitting horribly. It became the sanctuary and refuge for those who desired to destroy Islam due to enmity or malice, those who wished to include the teachings of their forefathers—Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism – as well as those who wished to remain independent and rebel against the state; all of these parties hid behind the veil of love for the Ahlul Bayt, inventing whatever their passion desired behind it.

The stance of Raj’ah (Return) in Judaism creeped into Shi’ism coupled with the Shia claiming that the hellfire is forbidden upon every Shia except for a little while just as the Jews had claimed, “The fire will not touch us except for few days.” Christian ideologies crept into Shi’ism with the idea that the connection of the Imam to Allah is as the connection of al Masih to Him. They claimed that divine attributes converged with non-divine attributes in the Imam and that nubuwwah and prophethood will never cease. Thus, whoever assumes divine attributes is a nabi. Under the umbrella of Shi’ism appeared the ideology of reincarnation, embodiment, re-embodiment, and similar ideologies well-known among the Barahimah, Philosophers, and Persians before the advent of Islam. Some of the Persian masked themselves with Shi’ism and fought against the Umayyad State. They harboured aversion towards the Arabs and their rule and endeavoured to establish their independent rule.[45]

It is reported that al Maqrizi stated:


إن الفرس كانوا ذوي سعة وعلو يد على جميع الأمم وجلالة الخطر في أنفسها بحيث إنهم كانوا يسمون أنفسهم الأحرار والأسياد وكانوا يعدون سائر الناس عبيدًا لهم فلما امتحنوا بزوال الدولة عنهم على أيدي العرب وكان العرب عند الفرس أقل الأمم خطرًا تعاظمهم الأمر وتضاعفت لديهم المصيبة وراموا كيد الإسلام بالمحاربة في أوقات شتى وفي كل ذلك يظهر الله الحق فرأوا أن كيده على الحيلة أنجع فأظهر قوما منهم الإسلام واستمالوا أهل التشيع بإظهار محبة أهل البيت واستبشاع ظلم علي ثم سلكوا بهم مسالك شتى حتى أخرجوهم عن طريق الهدى

The Persians enjoyed an edge over other nations and held themselves in high esteem, calling themselves free and elite and considering all others their slaves. When they were afflicted with the fall of their state at the hands of the Arabs—especially when the Arabs were the least dangerous of all nations in their eyes—the matter weighed down heavily upon them and the calamity amplified in their sight. They wished to weaken Islam by battling against it on many occasions, but Allah gave victory to the truth on all these occasions. They thus felt that weakening it through indirect strategies would be more effective. A group of them entered the fold of Islam deceptively and attracted the Shia by pronouncing love for the Ahlul Bayt and ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu innocence. They then took them on various routes and derailed them from the path of guidance.[46]


Fragmenting of the Shia

Let us now revert to their fragmenting and dissension after giving some detail on them and their failure to assist their leaders and those whom they claimed to love and support. After Sayyidina Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu martyrdom, the Shia split into three sects as determined by al Nawbakhti.

After Hussain’s murder, a group of his companions retracted saying, “The approach of Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma are diverse in our eyes. If what Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu practiced was true, binding, and correct, i.e. reconciling with Muawiyah and handing authority over to him when being unable to combat him despite the abundance and power of Hassan’s supporters, then what Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu practiced, i.e. battling against Yazid ibn Muawiyah with few supporters till all of his companions were killed, is incorrect and not binding, as Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu had a greater excuse not to fight Yazid and to seek reconciliation and peace than Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu had in submitting to Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu. If what Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu did was true, binding, and correct by fighting Yazid ibn Muawiyah until he and his children and companions were killed, then Hassan’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu submission and refusal to fight Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu despite his plentiful army is wrong.” They thus fell into doubt regarding the Imamah of the two and retracted and entered the belief of the masses. Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu companions remained on their original stance of his Imamah until he passed on.


The Mukhtariyyah Kaysaniyyah

They then split after his demise into three sects. One group claimed the Imamah of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah and believed that no one remained after Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma closer to Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam than Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah, hence he is most deserving of Imamah just as Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu was most deserving after Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu than the sons of Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Muhammad is thus the Imam after Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

Another group claimed that Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah rahimahu Llah is Imam al Mahdi and he is the Wasi of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam. It is not permissible for any of his household members to oppose him or to desist from his Imamah. One can only unsheathe his sword with his leave. Hassan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma left towards Muawiyah to fight him with the permission of Muhammad alone and he reconciled and made peace with him with his leave. Moreover, Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu only left to fight Yazid with his permission. Had they left without his permission, they would have been destroyed and fallen into deviation. Whoever opposes Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah is a disbeliever, a polytheist. Muhammad has appointed Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubaid over the Iraqis after Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu murder and commanded him to seek vengeance for Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu murder. He should execute his killers and seek them wherever they are. He named him Kaysan due to his intelligence and due to him being well aware of his stance and creed among them. They are called the Mukhtariyyah and labelled the Kaysaniyyah.[47]

We mentioned aforetime that the Kaysaniyyah were present after ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu martyrdom. However, this name overpowered the Mukhtariyyah. The Kaysaniyyah splintered into many subsects like the Karabiyyah, Harbiyyah, Razaramiyyah, Bayaniyyah, Rawandiyyah, Abu al Muslimiyyah, Hashimiyyah, Harithiyyah, and many more.[48]

All these subsects affirm the Imamah of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah and believe in the ideologies planted by the Saba’iyyah and ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, including Ghaybah (Occultation), Raj’ah (Return), Tanasukh (Transmigration of souls), etc. Their poet sings:


ألا إن الأئمة من قريش ولاة الحق أربعة سواء

علي والثلاثة من بنيه هم الأسباط ليس بهم خفاء

فسبط سبط إيمان وبر وسبط غيبته كربلاء

وسبط لا يذق الموت حتى يقود الخيل يقدمها اللواء

تغيب لا يرى فيهم زمانًا برضوى عنده عسل وماء

Certainly, the Imams from Quraysh are custodians of the truth and are four individuals equal in rank.

Ali and three of his sons; they are the grandsons, with no obscurity.

One grandson is a paragon of iman and piety. And the other grandson is lost at Karbala’.

The third grandson will not taste death until he will lead horses headed by the flag.

Absent, no era are they seen in; at Radwa, surrounded by honey and water.[49]


Al Baghdadi answered these couplets in his book al Farq bayn al Firaq.[50]

One of the Kaysaniyyah said:


ألا حي المقيم بشعب رضوى وأهد له بمنزله السلاما

أضر بمعشر والوك منا وسموك الخليفة والإماما

لقد أمسى بجانب شعب رضوى تراجعه الملائكة الكلاما

وعادوا فيك أهل الأرض طرا مقامك عنهم سبعين عاما

وما ذاق ابن خولة طعم موت لا وارث له أرض عظاما

وإن له به لمقيل صدق وأندية تحدثه كراما

O people! Go to the man who lives in the valley of Radwa, visit his house and pay homage to him.

Can any damage be done to this group from our side who made him the ruler and conferred on him the title of Khalifah and Imam?

They waged war with all the residents of the earth on his account, though he lives at a distance of seventy years of travel.

He lives in seclusion in the heart of the valley of Radwa and the angels converse with him.

Ibn Khawlah has not tasted death nor has the earth hidden his bones.

On account of his virtues, he is furnished with the best residence and company, and his companions treat him with tremendous regard.[51]


Al Baghdadi has retaliated in like poetry:


لقد أفنيت عمرك بانتظار لمن وارى التراب له عظاما

فليس بشعب رضوى من إمام تراجعه الملائكة الكلاما

ولا من عنده عسل وماء    وأشربة يعل بها الطعاما

وقد ذاق ابن خولة طعم موت كما قد ذاق والده الحماما

ولو خلد امرؤ لعلو مجد لعاض المصطفى أبدًا وداما

You have wasted a whole life span waiting for a person whose bones are hidden in the earth.

There is not a single Imam in the valley of Radwa with whom the angels converse.

He has neither honey nor water at his disposal, nor any other syrup that could substitute for food.

The son of Khawlah tasted death as did his father.

If social superiority and religious piety were the guarantee of an eternal life, then the chosen Prophet would be blessed with immortality.[52]

Suitable to mention is that from the Kaysaniyyah, Imamah moved to the Banu al ‘Abbas as some of its sects believed in the transition of Imamah from Abu Hashim ibn Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah to Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al ‘Abbas—to his son Ibrahim—to Abu al ‘Abbas—to Abu Jafar al Mansur—founder of the Abbasid State.[53]


Of all these sects, the sect of Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubaid al Thaqafi gained popularity due to his might and dynamism in the name of seeking retribution for the murder of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Al Kashshi speaks of Mukhtar in his Rijal from Muhammad ibn Mas’ud:


حدثني ابن أبي علي الخزاعي قال حدثني خالد بن يزيد العمري عن الحسن بن زيد عن عمر بن علي أن المختار أرسل إلى علي بن الحسين رضي الله عنه بعشرين ألف دينار فقبلها وبنى بها دار عقيل بن أبي طالب ودارهم التي هدمت قال ثم إنه بعث إليه بأربعين ألف دينار بعدما أظهر الكلام الذي أظهره فردها ولم يقبلها والمختار هو الذي دعا الناس إلى محمد بن علي بن أبي طالب ابن الحنفية وسمو الكيسانية وهم المختارية وكان لقبه كيسان ولقب بكيسان لصاحب شرطته المكنى أبا عمرة وكان اسمه كيسان وقيل إنه سمي كيسان بكيسان مولى علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه وهو الذي حمله على الطلب بدم الحسين ودله على قتلته وكان صاحب سره والغالب على أمره وكان لا يبلغه عن رجل من أعداء الحسين رضي الله عنه أنه في دار أو موضع إلا قصده وهدم الدار بأسرها وقتل كل من فيها من ذي روح وكل دار بالكوفة خراب فهي مما هدمها وأهل الكوفة يضربون به المثل فإذا افتقر إنسان قالوا دخل أبو عمرة بيته حتى قال فيه الشاعر إبليس بما فيه خير من أبي عمرة يغويك ويطغيك ولا يعطيك كسرة

Ibn Abi ‘Ali al Khuza’i narrates—Khalid ibn Yazid al ‘Amri narrated to me—from Hassan ibn Zaid—from ‘Umar ibn ‘Ali:

Mukhtar sent 20 000 gold coins to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain which the latter accepted. He built the house of ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib with the funds as well as their house that was demolished. Mukhtar then sent to him 40 000 gold coins after voicing the declarations he voiced. ‘Ali ibn al Hussain returned the money and refused to accept it.

Mukhtar is responsible for calling people towards Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ibn al Hanafiyyah and they are called the Kaysaniyyah, and they are the Mukhtariyyah. His title was Kaysan. He was titled Kaysan as this was the name of the commander of his police force who had the agnomen Abu ‘Amrah. It is said that he was named Kaysan as Kaysan was the freed slave of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam, and he was the one who incited him to seek vengeance for Hussain’s murder and pointed out his killers. He was his confidant and in control of his affairs. News would not reach him of any of the enemies of Hussain ‘alayh al Salam being at a certain house or spot, except that he would seek him, raze his house to the ground, and kill all the living beings in that house. Every desolate house in Kufah was destroyed by him. The people of Kufah used him proverbially; whenever a man was stricken with poverty, they would say about him, “Abu ‘Amrah entered his house.” The poet sings: Iblis with all his [evil] qualities is far superior to Abu ‘Amrah. He will mislead you, terrorise you, and not give you a slice.[54]


Al Nawbakhti, from whom we quoted just now, mentions him. Wellhausen has spoken about him in detail. Probably, the discussion on him is the lengthiest discussion in his book. We cut this portion of it to describe the man and the attributes of his personality:

Mukhtar is called the Magician (Tab. II. p. 730), the Antichrist (Tab. II. p. 686) and usually the liar. The judgment is not against the fact that he pretended to be commissioned by Ibn al Hanafiyya, but against the fact that he acted as if he were a prophet. He did not call himself a prophet, but did his best to create the impression that he was. He spoke as one sitting in the counsel of God and knowing the future, and was fond of using the form of ancient soothsayers, the saj, which he delivered with masterly skill. He wanted to impress with his personality. He succeeded, albeit less in the nobles and wise men, and more in the lowly people. As long as success remained with him, he found faithful in many circles.

Then the tide turned against him and made him the wrong one. The tradition breaks the rod over him in retrospect. Originally, however, it condemned him only and did not distort his image. Rather, it did that only on a later stage, through features invented by hatred. Precisely these features then came to dominate his image in the following period. Dozy only relies on these for the image of Mukhtar that he sketches in Essai sur l’Histoire de l’Islamisme, p. 223: “He let the doves fly, he successively became Kharijite, Zubairid, and Shi’ite, and to justify this constant change, he invented the doctrine of the mutability of God.” It is not necessary to ridicule him in order to understand him. The publication of Tabari has fortunately put an end to this attitude.

If the question “Was Mukhtar a true or a false prophet?” is to be answered, it must be formulated as: “Was he sincere or not?” One can accuse him of using prophecy as a means to acquire power, but this accusation would also apply to Muhammad and one must take into account that Islam was a political religion and that an Islamic prophet had to strive for dominion. Heavier perhaps it weighs to his detriment that he hid behind a straw-man who knew nothing about him and did not want to know anything [Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah]. He did not have a good conscience on that matter, but given the circumstances, as a Muslim or a Shi’ite, it was impossible for him to act in his own name. He had to create for himself the position of a general representative (amin) of the Mahdi, who remained in the background, and thus set an example for the future [reference to the Abbasids]…

It started from an obscure heresy with which Mukhtar was connected—the so-called Saba’iyya. These had anticipated a direction that was now getting momentum in wide circles as the Shi’a were generally pushed to take a harsher stance against Catholic Islam, to emphasise their differences more sharply. The Saba’iyya are also called Kaysaniyya. Kaysan was the head of the mawali; if at the same time he was also the head of the Saba’iyya, then it would mean that they were same as the mawali (Tab. II, pp. 623, 651). This line of thought is taken further ahead and it is claimed that Shi’ism as a religion is of Iranian origin, because the mawali of Kufa were mostly Iranians. “The Shi’ites”, says Dozy [op. cit. pp. 220], “were basically a Persian sect, and it is here that the difference between the Arab race, which loves freedom, and the Persian race, accustomed to slavery, can be clearly seen. For the Persians, the principle of the election of the successor of the prophet was something unheard of and incomprehensible. They only knew the principle of heredity. They therefore thought that Muhammad having left no son, his son-in-law Ali should have succeeded him and that sovereignty was hereditary in his family. Consequently, all the caliphs except Ali were in their eyes usurpers to whom no obedience was due. The hatred they felt for the government and for Arab domination confirmed them in this opinion; at the same time, they cast covetous glances at the riches of their masters. Accustomed, moreover, to seeing in their kings descendants of the minor deities, they transferred this idolatrous respect to Ali and his posterity. Absolute obedience to the imam of Ali’s race was, in their eyes, the most important duty; if one fulfilled it, one could unscrupulously interpret all the others allegorically and transgress them. The imam was everything to them; he was God made man. Slavish submission accompanied by immorality was the basis of their System.”

A. Müller (1, p. 327) expresses himself in a similar way; he adds that long before Islam, under the influence of Indian ideas, the Persians adopted the view that the Shahanshah was an embodiment of the divine spirit which, passing from father to son, inhabited the ruling tribe.

That the Shi’ite ideas appealed to the Iranians is beyond doubt, but it does not prove that they stemmed from them.[55]


As for the remainder of their ideologies, they are covered and found in books on sects. We have mentioned what is sufficient and fulfils the need. We spoke extensively on this sect of the Shia and this man, as he and his sect are the remainder of the genuine Saba’iyyah. All the Shia after them took their ideologies and held firmly to their views. At this point, original Shi’ism began to fade away and the primary Shia grew smaller in number. At the head of them were the sons of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the Banu Hashim. The ideologies of the Saba’iyyah began overpowering and overwhelming them. In particular, the martyrdom of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu gathered partisans for Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his offspring to the extent that Talibis also felt greatly deprived and truly regretful and found in themselves the urge to seek vengeance, especially to overthrow the ruling state accused of murdering Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his family at Karbala’.


Deviant Ideologies Creeping into Shi’ism

Some of the ignorant and gullible began harbouring dislike towards everything connected to the authorities and hating all their views, even in beliefs and convictions. When they saw the authorities honouring Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and the rest of the Sahabah of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as well as his wives, the Mothers of the Believers, radiya Llahu ‘anhum, they began dissociating from them and insulting them. This was not due to them genuinely harbouring rancour for them. Rather, it was out of disapproval for what they were hearing from the pulpits. Al Dhahabi quotes from Ibn Taymiyyah on this subject:


كان السلف متفقين على تقديم أبي بكر وعمر حتى شيعة علي رضي الله عنه وروى ابن بطة عن شيخه المعروف بأبي العباس بن مسروق حدثنا محمد بن حميد حدثنا جرير عن سفيان عن عبد الله بن زياد بن حدير قال قدم أبو إسحاق السبيعي الكوفة قال لنا شمر بن عطية قوموا إليه فجلسنا إليه فتحدثوا فقال أبو إسحاق خرجت من الكوفة وليس أحد يشك في فضل أبي بكر وعمر وتقديمهما وقدمت الآن وهم يقولون ويقولون ولا والله ما أدري ما يقولون وعن ضمرة عن سعيد بن حسن قال سمعت ليث بن أبي سليم يقول أدركت الشيعة الأولى وما يفضلون على أبي بكر وعمر أحدًا وقال أحمد بن حنبل حدثنا سفيان بن عيينة عن خالد بن سلمة عن مسروق قال حب أبي بكر وعمر ومعرفة فضلهما من السنة ومسروق من أجلّ تابعي الكوفة وكذلك قال طاووس … وقد روى ذلك عن ابن مسعود وكيف لا تقدم الشيعة الأولى أبا بكر وعمر وقد تواتر عن أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب رضي الله عنه أنه قال خير هذه الأمة بعد نبيها أبو بكر ثم عمر وقد روي هذا عنه من طرق كثيرة قيل إنها تبلغ ثمانين طريقًا وقد روى البخاري عنه في صحيحه من حديث الهمدانيين الذين هم أخص الناس بعلي حتى كان يقول ولو كنت بوابًا على باب جنة لقلت لهمدان ادخلي بسلام فقد رواه البخاري من حديث سفيان الثوري وهو همداني عن منذر وهو همداني عن محمد بن الحنفية قال قلت لأبي يا أبت من خير الناس بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا بني أو ما تعرف فقلت لا قال أبو بكر فقلت ثم من قال عمر وهذا يقوله لابنه بينه وبينه ليس هو مما يجوز أن يقوله تقية ويرويه عن أبيه خاصة وقاله على المنبر وعنه أنه كان يقول لا أوتى بأحد يفضلني على أبي بكر وعمر إلا جلدته حد المفتري

The Salaf were unanimous on the precedence of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, even the partisans of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Ibn Battah narrated from his teacher, well known as Abu al ‘Abbas ibn Masruq: Muhammad ibn Humaid narrated to us—Jarir narrated to us—from Sufyan—from ‘Abdullah ibn Ziyad ibn Hudayr who said: Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i arrived in Kufah. Shamr ibn ‘Atiyyah told us to stand up to him. We sat by him and they spoke. Abu Ishaq said, “I left Kufah and there was none who doubted the superiority and precedence of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Now I come and they are speaking and talking [otherwise]. By Allah, I do not know what they are saying.”

Damrah reports—from Sa’id ibn Hassan who said: I heard Layth ibn Abi Sulaim saying, “I found the primary Shia not giving anyone precedence over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.”

Ahmed ibn Hambal said—Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah narrated to us—from Khalid ibn Salamah—from Masruq who said, “Love for Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and recognising their superiority is from the Sunnah.”

Masruq is from the most outstanding Tabi’in of Kufah. Ta’us made a similar statement. This is reported from Ibn Mas’ud.

Why would the primary Shia not award precedence to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar whereas it is established through tawatur from Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he announced, “The best of this Ummah after their Nabi is Abu Bakr then ‘Umar.” This is reported from him through multiple chains. Some suggest 80 chains. Al Bukhari narrates from him in his al Sahih from the Hadith of the Hamadanis—who were the closest of all people to ‘Ali to the extent that he would say, “Had I been a gatekeeper at the door of Jannat, I would have said to Hamadan, ‘Enter with peace.’”

Al Bukhari narrates the report of Sufyan al Thawri—a Hamadani—from Mundhir—a Hamadani—from Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah who said: I asked my father, “O beloved father, who is the best of all people after Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?”

“Do you not know, O my son,” he said.

“No,” I submitted.

He explained, “Abu Bakr.”

“Then who,” asked I.

“‘Umar,” came the reply.

He said this to his son in seclusion. It is not possible that he said this out of Taqiyyah. Muhammad specifically narrates this from his father. ‘Ali said this on the pulpit as well. It is reported from him that he announced, “No one who awards me precedence over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar is brought to me, except that I will mete out to him the punishment given to the slanderer.”[56]


Muhibb al Din al Khatib wrote in the footnotes:


هذا نص تاريخي عظيم في تحديد تطور التشيع فإن أبا إسحاق السبيعي كان شيخ الكوفة وعالمها ولد في خلافة أمير المؤمنين عثمان قبل شهادته بثلاث سنين وعمّر حتى توفي سنة 127 وكان طفلاً في خلافة أمير المؤمنين علي وهو يقول عن نفسه رفعني أبي حتى رأيت علي بن أبي طالب يخطب أبيض الرأس واللحية ولو عرفنا متى فارق الكوفة ثم عاد فزارها لتوصلنا إلى معرفة الزمن الذي كان فيه شيعة الكوفة علويين يرون ما يراه إمامهم من تفضيل أبي بكر وعمر ومتى أخذوا يفارقون عليًّا ويخالفونه فيما كان يؤمن به ويعلنه على منبر الكوفة من أفضلية أخويه صاحبي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ووزيريه وخليفتيه على أمته في أتقى وأطهر أزمانها ومن العجيب أن الخوارج والإباضية ثبتوا على عقيدتهم الأولى في أبي بكر وعمر كما كانوا عليه مع علي إلى مدة الحكم والشيعة نقضوا هذه العقيدة وعصوا فيها إمامهم بعد القرن الأول أي في أواخر حياة أبي إسحاق السبيعي

This is great historical textual evidence in determining the evolution of Shi’ism as Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i was the teacher and scholar of Kufah. He was born during the Caliphate of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, three years prior to his martyrdom. He was granted an extended life and passed away in the year 127 AH. He was a young boy during the Caliphate of Amir al Mu’minin Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He relates about himself, “My father lifted me so I could see ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib delivering a khutbah, having white hair on his head and beard.”

If we knew when he departed from Kufah and then returned to visit it, we would come to realise the era in which the Shia of Kufah, the ‘Alawis, viewed what their Imam viewed of the superiority of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and when they began opposing and clashing with ‘Ali in the articles he believed in and announced on the pulpit of Kufah, i.e., the superiority of his two brothers, the two Companions, advisors, and khalifahs of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam over his Ummah in the purest and most righteous era. Astoundingly, the Khawarij and Ibadiyyah remained firm on their original belief regarding Abu Bakr and ‘Umar just as they had believed when they were with ‘Ali until the arbitration. The Shia broke this belief and disobeyed their Imam after the first generation, i.e., during the latter part of the life of Abu Ishaq al Sabi’i.[57]


هذا وبلغ الأمر بعد تطور الشيعة إلى حد أنهم بدءوا ينكرون المسلمات والأسس التي عليها يقوم المذهب الإسلامي الحنيف والشريعة السماوية السمحاء فقط لأن الحكام يتمسكون بها ويعتقدونها مثل القرآن الكتاب الذي لا يأتيه الباطل من بين يديه ولا من خلفه وسنة رسول الله التي جعلها الله بيانًا لهذا القرآن

After the evolution of Shi’ism, it reached the abyss that they began rejecting accepted beliefs and fundamentals upon which the Islamic Hanif creed and the pure heavenly Shari’ah rest, only due to the fact that the rulers adhered to them and believed in them, like the Qur’an—the book which cannot be influenced by falsehood from any side—and the Sunnah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which Allah made an explanation of this Qur’an.[58]


Then, after Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu martyrdom, the nonsensical talk and fables increased among the Shia to the extent that the sincere of the ashraf [descendants of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] and of the primary Shia endeavoured to establish a barrier in the way of these silly ideas and prevent the people from adhering to them, but they failed in this. They were then forced to distance themselves from them and Shi’ism after becoming despondent and losing hope of the people returning to the truth and desisting from deviation and misguidance. Take Ibn al Ashtar Ibrahim. Wellhausen speaks of him during Mukhtar’s dominance over the Shia and Ibrahim’s refusal to join him. He writes:


But he still had to win over another man in Kufa itself, without whose support the chiefs of the Shi’a did not expect any success against the ashraf and the governor. It was Ibrahim b. al Ashtar, the head of the Nakha tribe of Madhij, an energetic, intelligent, and independent man. Loyal to the cause of Ali like his father, he was also in contact with Ibn al Hanafiyya, but so far had not been devoted to the specific Shi’ism as it had developed recently. He had neither joined Sulaiman b. Surad nor did he want anything to do with Mukhtar. The attempts to sway him did not succeed. At last, he was presented with a letter in which Ibn al Hanafiyya himself asked him to recognise Mukhtar. He was offended that Ibn al Hanafiyya called himself the Mahdi in the letter, which he usually did not do. Meanwhile the bearers, Mukhtar himself and some ten others, stood up for authenticity. Only two caught his eye because of their reticence; the great legal scholar and traditionist Amir al Sha’bi and his father Sharahil. He took Amir aside and asked if he mistrusted the authenticity of the witnesses. “God forbid”, said he, “they are the noblest Qur’an readers and the sheikhs of the city and the knights of the Arabs!” He then had him give the names of all the witnesses and took a formal record of the process. After salvaging himself so, he accepted the demand of the letter and put himself at the service of Mukhtar.[59]



When Mukhtar changed and began revealing Saba’iyyah ideologies which he had been concealing, like enmity towards the pious predecessors and criticising the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:


They put forth their charges against him, “He has usurped the rule of his own accord without being authorised by Ibn al Hanafiyya; with his party (through a new kind of Islam) he has renounced our pious forefathers.”[60]

They now occupied the most important places, restricted Mukhtar to the castle and the mosque and cut off his communications. In order to stall them, he suggested that Ibn al Hanafiyya himself be asked about him and his legitimacy by a delegation, but was unsuccessful.[61]


Wellhausen writes:


Mukhtar stood at his peak and in front of him lay abyss. The conservative Arab Shi’ites distrusted him and many turned away from him.[62]


This amount is sufficient to highlight the evolution and transformation which occurred in Shi’ism from the first classical style. Majority of the Shia began believing in these nonsensical ideologies like white doves are angels, the pure Kursi, Nubuwwah, and matters of the unseen.


Division of the Shia after Mukhtar’s Assassination

A second split occurred among the Shia after Mukhtar’s assassination. A group believed in the Imamah of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah. He was given the agnomen Abu Muhammad and Abu Bakr, the most common one. They adhered to his Imamah strictly until he passed away in Madinah in Muharram 91 AH at the age of 55. He was born in 38 AH. His mother was an umm walad named Sulafah. Her name was Jahanshah before being captured, daughter of Yazdegerd ibn Shahryar ibn Kisra ibn Wiz ibn Hurmuz. Yazdegerd was the last king of Persia.

A group viewed that Imamah stopped at Hussain. They believed that they were only three Imams named specifically, whom Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointed as khalifah and made a bequest in favour of and appointed them as authorities over the people and the nation after them, each one respectively. Thus, they did not affirm Imamah for anyone after them.

A third group opined that after Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu passing, Imamah moved to the offspring of Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. It remains confined to them, to the exclusion of all the other children of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu. All of them are introduced equally. The one who assumes it and invites to himself is the Imam to whom obedience is obligatory on the level of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his Imamah is binding from the side of Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—upon his household and all of mankind. Whoever from the entire creation stays away from him in his undertaking and invitation towards himself is destroyed, a disbeliever. Whoever among them claims Imamah yet sits at home covering himself, is a disbeliever and polytheist as well as those who follow him in this and those who pronounce his Imamah.[63]

There are many other sects; some of whom affirm Imamah for the sons of Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu and others affirm it for others. Some of them go to the extent of establishing Nubuwwah after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam for others. Others went to the abyss of affirming divinity for other than Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—as mentioned by Ibn Hazm in his al Fasl.


Sects who Believe in Nubuwwah after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam


فالطائفة التي أوجبت النبوة بعد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فرق فمنهم الغرابية وقولهم أن محمدًا صلى الله عليه وسلم أشبه بعلي من الغراب بالغراب وأن الله عز وجل بعث جبريل عليه السلام بالوحي إلى علي فغلط جبريل بمحمد وفرقة قالت بنبوة علي وفرقة قالت بأن علي بن أبي طالب والحسن والحسين رضي الله عنهم وعلي بن الحسين ومحمد بن علي وجعفر بن محمد وموسى بن جعفر وعلي بن موسى ومحمد بن علي والحسن بن محمد والمنتظر ابن الحسن أنبياء كلهم وفرقة قالت بنبوة محمد بن إسماعيل بن جعفر فقط وهم طائفة من القرامطة وفرقة قالت بنبوة علي وبنيه الثلاثة الحسن والحسين ومحمد بن الحنفية فقط وهم طائفة من الكيسانية وقد حام المختار حول ادعاء النبوة لنفسه وسجع أسجاعًا وأنذر بالغيوب عن الله تعالى واتبعه على ذلك طوائف من الشيعة الملعونة وقال بإمامة محمد بن الحنفية وفرقة قالت بنبوة المغيرة بن سعيد وقالت فرقة منهم بنبوة منصور العجلي وهو الملقب بالكسف وكان يقال إنه المراد بقول الله عز وجل وَإِنْ يَّرَوْا كِسْفًا مِّنَ السَّمَاءِ سَاقِطًا

The group who enjoined Nubuwwah after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are few. One of them is the Ghurabiyyah who state that Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam resembled ‘Ali like a crow resembles another crow and that Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—sent Jibril ‘alayh al Salam with revelation to ‘Ali, but Jibril erred with Muhammad.

A group of them believed in the nubuwwah of ‘Ali. Others believe that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Hassan, Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum, ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, Jafar ibn Muhammad, Musa ibn Jafar, ‘Ali ibn Musa, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, and Hassan ibn Muhammad, and the Awaited son of Hassan are all Prophets.

A group believed in the nubuwwah of Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Jafar only. They are a subsect of the Qaramitah.

A group believed in the nubuwwah of ‘Ali and his three sons viz. Hassan, Hussain, and Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah only. They are a subsect of the Kaysaniyyah.

Mukhtar buzzed around claiming nubuwwah for himself, spoke in rhymed prose, and warned of aspects of the unseen from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. A group of the accursed Shia followed him in this and affirmed the Imamah of Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah.

A group believed in the nubuwwah of Mughirah ibn Sa’id and a group believed in the nubuwwah of Mansur al ‘Ijli, titled al Kisf. It was said that he was referred to by Allah’s—the Mighty and Majestic—words: If they were to see a fragment of the sky falling.


Sects who Believe in the Divinity of Humans


والقسم الثاني الذين يقولون بالإلهية لغير الله عز وجل فأولهم قوم من أصحاب عبد الله بن سبأ الحميري لعنه الله أتوا إلى علي بن أبي طالب فقالوا مشافهة أنت هو فقال لهم ومن هو قالوا أنت الله فاستعظم الأمر وأمر بنار فأججت وأحرقهم بالنار فجعلوا يقولون وهم يرمون في النار الآن صح عندنا أنه الله لأنه لا يعذب بالنار إلا الله وفي ذلك يقول رضي الله عنه لما رأيت الأمر أمرًا منكرًا أججت نارًا ودعوت قنبرا يريد قنبرًا مولاه وهو الذي تولى طرحهم في النار نعوذ بالله من أن نفتتن بمخلوق أو يفتتن بنا مخلوق فيما جل أو دقّ فإن محنة أبي الحسن رضي الله عنه من بين أصحابه رضي الله عنهم كمحنة عيسى صلى الله عليه وسلم بين أصحابه من الرسل عليهم السلام وهذه الفرقة باقية إلى اليوم فاشية عظيمة العدد يسمون العليانية منهم كان إسحاق بن محمد النخعي الأحمر الكوفي وكان من متكلميهم وله في ذلك كتاب سماه الصراط نقض عليه البهنكي والفياض لما ذكرنا ويقولون أن محمدًا رسول علي وقالت طائفة من الشيعة يعرفون بالمحمدية أن محمدًا عليه السلام هو الله تعالى الله عن كفرهم وفرقة قالت بإلاهية آدم عليه السلام والنبيين بعده نبيًّا نبيًّا إلى محمد عليه السلام ثم بإلاهية علي ثم بإلاهية الحسن ثم الحسين ثم محمد بن علي ثم جعفر بن محمد ووقفوا هاهنا وأعلنت الخطابية بذلك نهارًا بالكوفة في ولاية عيسى بن موسى بن محمد بن علي بن عبد الله بن العباس فخرجوا صدر النهار في جموع عظيمة في ازرواردية محرمين ينادون بأعلى أصواتهم لبيك جعفر لبيك جعفر قال ابن عياش وغيره كأني أنظر إليهم يومئذ فخرج إليهم عيسى بن موسى فقاتلوه فقتلهم واصطلمهم ثم زادت فرقة على ما ذكرنا فقالت بإلاهية محمد بن إسماعيل بن جعفر بن محمد وهم القرامطة وفيهم من قال بإلاهية أبي سعيد الحسن بن بهرام الجبائي وأبنائه بعده ومنهم من قال بإلاهية أبي القاسم النجار القائم باليمن في بلاد همدان المسمى بالمنصور وقالت طائفة منهم بإلاهية عبيد الله ثم الولاة من ولده إلى يومنا هذا وقالت طائفة بإلاهية أبي الخطاب محمد بن أبي زينب مولى بني أسد بالكوفة وكثر عددهم بها حتى تجاوزوا الألوف وقالوا هو إله وجعفر بن محمد إله إلا أن أبا الخطاب أكبر منه وكانوا يقولون جميع أولاد الحسن أبناء الله وأحباؤه وكانوا يقولون أنهم لا يموتون ولكنهم يرفعون إلى السماء وأشبه على الناس بهذا الشيخ الذي ترون ثم قالت طائفة منهم بإلاهية معمر بائع الحنطة بالكوفة وعبدوه كان من أصحاب أبي الخطاب لعنهم الله أجمعين وقالت طائفة بإلاهية الحسن بن منصور حلاج القطن المصلوب ببغداد بسعي الوزير ابن حامد بن العباس رحمه الله أيام المقتدر وقالت طائفة بإلاهية محمد بن علي ابن الشلمغاني الكاتب المقتول ببغداد أيام الراضي وكان أمر أصحابه أن يفسق الأرفع قدرًا منهم به ليولج فيه النور كل هذه الفرق ترى الاشتراك في النساء وقالت طائفة منهم بإلاهية شباش المغيم في وقتنا هذا حيًّا بالبصرة وقالت طائفة منهم بإلاهية أبي مسلم السراج ثم قالت طائفة من هؤلاء بإلاهية المقنع الأعور القصار القائم بثأر أبي مسلم واسم هذا القصار هاشم وقتل لعنه الله أيام المنصور وأعلنوا بذلك فخرج المنصور فقتلهم وأفناهم إلى لعنة الله وقالت الرنودية بإلاهية أبي جعفر المنصور وقالت طائفة منهم بإلاهية عبد الله بن الخرب الكندي الكوفي وعبدوه وكان يقول بتناسخ الأرواح وفرض عليهم تسعة عشر صلاة في اليوم والليلة في كل صلاة خمسة عشر ركعة إلى أن ناظره رجل من متكلمي الصفرية وأوضح له براهين الدين فأسلم وصح إسلامه وتبرأ من كل ما كان عليه وأعلم أصحابه بذلك وأظهر التوبة فتبرأ منه جميع أصحابه الذين كانوا يعبدونه ويقولون بإلاهيته ولعنوه وفارقوه ورجعوا كلهم إلى القول بإمامة عبد الله بن معاوية بن عبد الله بن جعفر بن أبي طالب وبقي عبد الله بن الخرب على الإسلام وعلى مذهب الصفرية إلى أن مات وطائفته إلى اليوم تعرف بالحزبية ومن السبابية القائلين بإلهية علي وطائفة تدعي النصرية وقد غلبوا في وقتنا هذا على جند الأردن والشام وعلى مدينة طبرية خاصة ومن قولهم لعن فاطمة بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ولعن الحسن والحسين ابني علي رضي الله عنهم وسبهم بأقذع السب وقذفهم بكل بلية والقطع بأنها وابنيها رضي الله عنهم ولعن مبغضيهم شياطين تصوروا في صورة الإنسان وقولهم في عبد الرحمن بن ملجم المرادي قاتل علي رضي الله عنه عن علي ولعنة الله على ابن ملجم فيقول هؤلاء أن عبد الرحمن بن ملجم المرادي أفضل أهل الأرض وأكرمهم في الآخرة لأنه خلص روح اللاهوت مما كان يتشبث فيه من ظلمة الجسد وكدرة فأعجبوا لهذا الجنون واسألوا الله العافية من بلاء الدنيا والآخرة فهي بيده لا بيد أحد سواه جعل الله حظنا منها الأوفى

A second group are those who believed in divinity for other than Allah—the Mighty and Majestic. The first of them are a group of the friends of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ al Himyari—may Allah curse him—who approached ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and said to him face to face, “You are he.” “Who?” asked he. They explained, “You are Allah.” He realised the gravity of the matter and commanded that a fire be kindled and he burned them with fire. They began maintaining while being thrown into the fire, “Now it is evident to us that he is Allah as no one punishes with fire except Allah.” Regarding this, he radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “When I saw the matter as repulsive, I kindled a fire and called Qambar.”

He refers to Qambar, his freed slave. He is the one who shouldered responsibility for throwing them into the fire. We seek Allah’s protection from being misled by creation or creation being misled by us in major or minor issues. The test of Abu al Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu from all the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum is like the test of ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam among his kind, the Messengers ‘alayhim al Salam. This sect remains to this day spread out, in large numbers. They are dubbed the ‘Alyaniyyah. Ishaq ibn Muhammad al Nakha’i al Ahmar al Kufi was from them. He was one of their speakers. He has a book on this topic which he named al Sirat. Al Bhanki and al Fayyad refuted it due to what it contained. They claim that Muhammad is ‘Ali’s Messenger.

A sect of the Shia recognised as the Muhammadiyyah believed that Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam is Allah. Allah is far beyond their disbelief!

A group of them believed in the divinity of Adam ‘alayh al Salam and then each of the Prophets after him until Muhammad ‘alayh al Salam, and then the divinity of ‘Ali, Hassan, Hussain, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, then Jafar ibn Muhammad and they stop here. The Khattabiyah openly announced this in Kufah during the rulership of ‘Isa ibn Musa ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al ‘Abbas. They came out publicly in broad daylight in large numbers in Izrawardiyyah wearing ihram and announcing at the top of their voices, “We are present by you, Jafar! We are present by you, Jafar!” Ibn ‘Ayyash and others say, “It is as if I am looking at them on that day. ‘Isa ibn Musa faced them and battled against them. He killed them and crucified them.”

Another sect added on to what we mentioned and claimed divinity for Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Jafar ibn Muhammad. They are the Qaramitah. Among them are those who believed in the divinity of Abu Sa’id Hassan ibn Bahram al Juba’i and his sons after him. Some of them believed in the divinity of Abu al Qasim al Najjar al Qa’im in Yemen in the lands of Hamadan, named al Mansur. A subsect of them believed in the divinity of Abu al Khattab Muhammad ibn Abi Zainab, the freed slave of Banu Asad in Kufah and their numbers increased in Kufah reaching a few thousands. They claimed that he is a deity and Jafar ibn Muhammad is a deity except that Abu al Khattab is greater than him. They would claim that all the children of Hassan are sons of Allah and His chosen ones. They would claim that they do not die but they are raised to the heavens and people are perplexed by this sheikh whom they see. Then, a subsect of them believes in the divinity of Ma’mar—seller of wheat—in Kufah and worships him. He was from the disciples of Abu al Khattab—may Allah curse them all. A group of them believe in the divinity of Hassan ibn Mansur Hallaj al Qutn, the one crucified in Baghdad with the effort of Wazir Ibn Hamid ibn al ‘Abbas rahimahu Llah during the era of al Muqtadir.

A group claims the divinity of Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al Shalmaghani, the scribe, who was killed in Baghdad in the days of al Radi. He would command the highest ranking of his followers to engage in immoral acts with him so celestial light may pass into him. All these sects permitted women-swapping. A subsect of them believes in the divinity of Shabbash al Mughim in our time who is alive in Basrah.

Another group believed in the divinity of Abu Muslim al Sarraj. Then, a party of these believed in the divinity of Muqni’ al A’war al Qassar, the one who took vengeance for Abu Muslim. The name of al Qassar is Hashim. He was killed—may Allah curse him—during the days of Mansur. They announced this publicly so Mansur set out towards them and killed them, despatching them to the curse of Allah.

The Ranudiyyah believe in the divinity of Abu Jafar al Mansur. A group believe in the divinity of ‘Abdullah ibn al Kharb al Kindi al Kufi and worship him. They believe in the transmigration of souls. He imposed upon them 19 salahs in a day and night, with fifteen rak’at in each salah. Until, a man from the spokespersons of the Sufriyyah debated him and presented to him clear evidences of Din which led to his Islam. He remained a devout Muslim and declared exoneration from all previous ideologies and notified his companions of this, making his repentance public. This led to all his companions dissociating from him, those who would worship him and affirm his divinity. They cursed him and separated from him and all of them returned to the belief in the Imamah of ‘Abdullah ibn Muawiyah ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar ibn Abi Talib. ‘Abdullah ibn al Kharb remained firm on his Islam and the creed of the Sufriyyah until he died. His group to this day is known as the Hizbiyyah.

And from the Sababiyyah are those who believe in the divinity of ‘Ali. A group called Nasriyyah; and they have become dominant in our time over the army of Jordan and Syria and the city of Tabariyyah especially. Among their beliefs is cursing Fatimah, the daughter of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and cursing Hassan and Hussain, the sons of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhum, swearing them with the most defamatory terms, slandering them of every evil, dissociation from her and her two sons radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and cursing those who hate them as shayateen who assumed the form of a human. They claim regarding ‘Abdur Rahman ibn Muljam al Muradi, the killer of Sayyidina ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu—and the curse of Allah be upon Ibn Muljam—that he is the most superior of the inhabitants of earth and the most honoured in the Hereafter as he extracted the soul of al Lahut (divinity) from what it was attached to i.e., the darkness and turbidity of the body. People are amazed at this madness. Ask Allah for safety from other troubles of the world and the Hereafter as it is in His hand, not in the hand of anyone besides Him. May Allah grant us a full share of it.


Shi’ism is the Origin of all these Deviant Sects


واعلموا أن كل من كفر هذه الكفرات الفاحشة ممن ينتمي إلى الإسلام فإنما عنصرهم الشيعة والصوفية فإن من الصوفية من يقول إن من عرف الله تعالى سقطت عنه الشرائع وزاد بعضهم واتصل بالله تعالى وبلغنا أن بنيسابور اليوم في عصرنا هذا رجلاً يكنى أبا سعيد أبا الخير هكذا معًا من الصوفية مرة يلبس الصوف ومرة يلبس الحرير المحرم على الرجال ومرة يصلي في اليوم ألف ركعة ومرة لا يصلي لا فريضة ولا نافلة وهذا كفر محض ونعوذ بالله من الضلال

Know well that all those who disbelieved and believed in these corrupt disbeliefs who attribute themselves to Islam; their origin is the Shia and Sufiyyah. Among the Sufiyyah are those who claim that the injunctions of the Shari’ah are waived for whoever recognises Allah. Some add that he joins with Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. It has reached us that in Naysabur, today in our era, is a man with the agnomen Abu Sa’id Abu al Khayr from the Sufiyyah. He sometimes wears woollen garments while sometimes he wears silk, which is forbidden for men. Sometimes he performs a thousand rak’at in a day and sometimes he does not pray at all, neither any obligatory nor any optional prayer. This is pure disbelief. We seek Allah’s protection from deviation.[64]


Al Ash’ari, al Baghdadi, al Malti, al Asfarayini and other notables have mentioned majority of these sects. Majority of these sects emerged after Hussain’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu martyrdom in the time of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, who was titled Zayn al ‘Abidin.


The Shia after ‘Ali ibn al Hussain

‘Ali ibn al Hussain rahimahu Llah passed away remaining completely loyal and submissive to the rulers and khalifas of the Banu Umayyah, to the extent that he avoided supporting and assisting any of those who rebelled against them in Madinah or Makkah.[65]


The Zaidiyyah

‘Ali ibn al Hussain is survived by many offspring, viz. Muhammad—agnominated Abu Jafar al Baqir, Zaid, ‘Umar, and others. The Shia differed with regards to Muhammad ibn ‘Ali and Zaid ibn ‘Ali. A party followed Muhammad and a party followed Zaid as the Shia Historian records:


إن الزيدية قالوا بإمامة علي ثم ابنه الحسن ثم أخيه الحسين ثم ابنه زين العابدين ثم ابنه زيد بن علي وهو صاحب هذا المذهب وخرج بالكوفة داعياً إلى الإمامة فُقتل وصُلب بالكناسة ابنه يحيى من بعده فمضى إلى خراسان وُقتل بالجوزجان بعد أن أوصى إلى محمد بن عبد الله بن حسن بن الحسن السبط فخرج بالحجاز فُقتل وعهد إلى أخيه إبراهيم فقام بالبصرة ومعه عيسى بن زيد فوجه إليهم المنصور عساكره فقتل إبراهيم وعيسى وذهب آخرون من الزيدية إلى أن الإمام بعد يحيى هو أخوه عيسى ونقلوا الإمامة في عقبه وقال آخرون منهم أن الإمام بعد محمد بن عبد الله هو أخوه إدريس الذي فر إلى المغرب ومات هناك وقام بأمره ابنه إدريس واختط مدينة فاس وكان عقبه ملوك المغرب وكان منهم الداعي الذي ملك طبرستان وأخوه محمد ثم قام بهذه الدعوة في الديلم الناصر الأطروش منهم وأسلموا على يده

The Zaidiyyah are the proponents of the Imamah of ‘Ali, then his son Hassan, then his brother Hussain, then his son Zayn al ‘Abidin, then his son Zaid ibn ‘Ali. He is the representative of this school. He came to Kufah inviting towards Imamah. He was killed and crucified at the dump. The Zaidiyyah believe in the Imamah of his son Yahya after him. Yahya travelled to Khorasan and was killed in Juzajan after bequeathing to Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Hassan ibn al Hassan (the grandson) who emerged in Hijaz and was killed. He appointed his brother Ibrahim who stood up in Basrah with ‘Isa ibn Zaid. Mansur directed his armies towards them and both Ibrahim and ‘Isa were killed.

Other Zaidiyyah held the view that the Imam after Yahya was his son ‘Isa and they carry Imamah in his progeny. Others advocate that the Imam after Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah is his brother Idris who fled to Morocco and passed away there. His son, Idris, took up his father’s mission and demarcated the city of Fas. His progeny rose to become the kings of Morocco. Among them was the Da’i who ruled Tabaristan and his brother, Muhammad. In Daylam, Nasir al Atrush advocated this call among them and they accepted Islam at his hands.[66]


Al Nawbakhti writes:


الزيدية الأقوياء منهم والضعفاء فأما الضعفاء منهم فسموا العجلية وهم أصحاب هارون سعيد العجلي وفرقة منهم يسمون البترية وهم أصحاب كثير النواء والحسن بن صالح بن حي وسالم بن أبي حفصة والحكم بن عتيبة وسلمة بن كهيل وأبي المقدام ثابت الحداد وهم الذين دعوا الناس إلى ولاية علي عليه السلام ثم خلطوها بولاية أبي بكر وعمر فهم عند العامة أفضل هذه الأصناف وذلك أنهم يفضلون علياً ويثبتون إمامة أبي بكر وينتقصون عثمان وطلحة والزبير ويرون الخروج مع كل ولد علي عليه السلام يذهبون في ذلك إلى الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر ويثبتون لمن خرج من ولد علي الإمامة عند خروجه ولا يقصدون في الإمامة قصد رجل بعينه حتى يخرج كل ولد علي عندهم على السواء من أي بطن كان وأما الأقوياء منهم فمنهم أصحاب (أبي الجارود) وأصحاب (أبي خالد الواسطي) وأصحاب (فضيل الرسان) ومنصور بن أبي الأسود وأما (الزيدية) الذين يدعون (الحسينية) فإنهم يقولون من دعا إلى الله عز وجل من آل محمد فهو مفترض الطاعة وكان (علي بن أبي طالب) إماماً في وقت ما دعا الناس وأظهر أمره ثم كان بعد الحسين إماماً عند خروجه وقبل ذلك إذا كان مجانباً لمعاوية ويزيد بن معاوية حتى ُقتل ثم زيد بن علي بن الحسين المقتول في الكوفة أمه أم ولد ثم يحيى بن زيد بن علي المقتول بخراسان وأمه ريطة بنت أبي هاشم عبد الله بن محمد بن الحنفية ثم ابنه الآخر عيسى بن زيد بن علي وأمه أم ولد ثم محمد بن عبد الله بن الحسن وأمه هند بنت أبي عبيدة بن عبد الله بن زمعة بن الأسود بن المطلب بن أسد بن العزي بن قصي ثم من دعا إلى طاعة الله من آل محمد صلى الله عليه وآله فهو إمام

The Zaidiyyah [are divided into] the strong and weak among them. The weak among them are called ‘Ijliyyah—they are the partisans of Harun Sa’id al ‘Ijli.

A group of them are called the Batriyyah—the partisans of Kathir al Nawa’, Hassan ibn Salih ibn Hayy, Salim ibn Abi Hafsah, Hakam ibn ‘Utaybah, Salamah ibn Kuhayl, and Abu al Miqdam Thabit al Haddad. They are responsible for inviting people to the Wilayah of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam. They then mixed it with the Wilayah of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. They are thus, according to the Ahlus Sunnah, the most superior of these groups. This is because they declare the superiority of ‘Ali but establish the Imamah of Abu Bakr. Although, they disparage ‘Uthman, Talhah, and Zubair. They consider rebellion with all of the offspring of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam, taking the course of enjoining good and forbidding evil. They establish Imamah for the offspring of ‘Ali who emerges when he emerges. They do not specify for Imamah a certain individual until he emerges. All the offspring of ‘Ali are equal in their sight, no matter from which family.

The strong among them—some are the companions of Abu al Jarud, some the companions of Abu Khalid al Wasiti, and some the companions of Fudayl al Rassan and Mansur ibn Abi al Aswad.

As regards the Zaidiyyah who are dubbed Hussainiyyah, they assert that whoever invites to Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—from the family of Muhammad, obedience to him is mandatory. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib was an Imam during the time he invited people and publicised his affair. Thereafter, Hussain was the Imam when he rebelled and prior to that, when he remained aloof for Muawiyah and Yazid ibn Muawiyah until he was killed. Thereafter, Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain—who was martyred at Kufah whose mother is an umm walad. Thereafter, Yahya ibn Zaid ibn ‘Ali—the one martyred in Khorasan whose mother is Ritah bint Abi Hashim ‘Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah. Thereafter, his other son, ‘Isa ibn Zaid ibn ‘Ali, and his mother is an umm walad. Thereafter, Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan whose mother is Hind bint Abi ‘Ubaidah ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zam’ah ibn al Aswad ibn al Muttalib ibn Asad ibn al ‘Uzza ibn Qusayy. Thereafter, whoever invites to the obedience of Allah from the family of Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the Imam.[67]


Al Shahrastani when speaking on the various sects of the Shia and their differences of opinion mentions:


الزيدية أتباع زيد بن علي بن الحسين بن علي عليه السلام ساقوا الإمامة في أولاد فاطمة عليها السلام ولم يجوزوا ثبوت الإمامة في غيرهم إلا أنهم جوزوا أن يكون كل فاطمي عالم زاهد شجاع سخي خرج بالإمامة يكون إماماً واجب الطاعة سواء كان من أولاد الحسن أو من أولاد الحسين وعن هذا قالت طائفة منهم بإمامة محمد وإبراهيم الإمامين ابني عبد الله بن الحسن بن الحسن الذين خرجا في أيام المنصور وُقتلا على ذلك وجوزوا خروج إمامين في قطرين يستجمعان هذه الخصال ويكون كل واحد منهما واجب الطاعة وزيد بن علي لما كان مذهبه هذا المذهب أراد أن يحصل على الأصول والفروع حتى يتحلى بالعلم فتتلمذ في الأصول واصل بن عطاء الغزال رأس المعتزلة مع اعتقاد واصل بأن جده علي بن أبي طالب في حروبه التي جرت بينه وبين أصحاب الجمل وأصحاب الشام ما كان على يقين من الصواب وأن أحد الفريقين منهما كان على خطأ لا بعينه فاقتبس منه الاعتزال وصارت أصحابه كلها معتزلة وكان من مذهبه جواز إمامة المفضول مع قيام الأفضل فقال كان علي بن أبي طالب أفضل الصحابة إلا أن الخلافة فوضت إلى أبي بكر لمصلحة رأوها وقاعدة دينية راعوها من تسكين ثائرة الفتنة وتطييب قلوب العامة فإن عهد الحروب التي جرت في أيام النبوة كان قريبا وسيف أمير المؤمنين علي عليه السلام عن دماء المشركين من قريش لم يجف بعد والضغائن في صدور القوم من طلب الثأر كما هي فما كانت القلوب تميل إليه كل الميل ولا تنقاد له الرقاب كل الانقياد وكانت المصلحة أن يكون القيام بهذا الشأن من عرفوه باللين والتودد والتقدم بالسن والسبق في الإسلام والقرب من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ألا ترى أنه لما أراد في مرضه الذي مات فيه تقليد الأمر عمر بن الخطاب رضي الله عنه زعق الناس وقالوا لقد وليت علينا فظاً غليظاً فما كانوا يرضون بأمير المؤمنين عمر لشدة وصلابة وغلظة له في الدين وفظاظة على الأعداء حتى سكنهم أبو بكر رضي الله عنه وكذلك يجوز أن يكون المفضول إماماً والأفضل قائم فيرجع إليه في الأحكام ويحكم بحكمه في القضايا ولما سمعت شيعة أهل الكوفة هذه المقالة منه وعرفوا أنه لا يتبرأ من الشيخين رفضوه حتى أتى قدره عليه فسميت رافضة وجرت بينه وبين أخيه محمد الباقر مناظرة لا من هذا الوجه بل من حيث كان يتلمذ لواصل بن عطاء ويقتبس العلم ممن يجوّز الخطاء على جده في قتال الناكثين والقاسطين ومن يتكلم في القدر على غير ما ذهب إليه أهل البيت ومن حيث أنه يشترط الخروج شرطاً في كون الإمام إماما حتى قال له يوماً على قضية مذهبك والدك ليس بإمام لأنه لم يخرج قط ولا تعرض للخروج ولما قتل زيد بن علي قام بالإمامة بعده يحيى بن زيد ومضى إلى خراسان فزيد بن علي قتل بكناسة الكوفة قتله هشام بن عبد الملك ويحيى بن زيد قتل في خراسان قتله أميرها ومحمد الإمام قتله بالمدينة عيسى بن ماهان وإبراهيم الإمام قتل بالبصرة أمر بقتلهما المنصور ولم ينتظم أمر الزيدية بعد ذلك حتى ظهر بخراسان ناصر الأطروش فطلب مكانه ليقتل فاختفى واعتزل إلى بلاد الديلم والجبل لم يتحلوا بدين الإسلام بعد فدعى الناس دعوة الإسلام على مذهب زيد بن علي فدانوا بذلك ونشأوا عليه وبقيت الزيدية في تلك البلاد ظاهرين وكان يخرج واحد بعد واحد من الأئمة ويلي أمرهم وخالفوا بني أعمامهم من الموسوية في مسائل الأصول ومالت أكثر الزيدية بعد ذلك عن القول بإمامة المفضول وطعنت في الصحابة طعن الإمامية وهم أصناف ثلاثة جارودية وسليمانية وبترية والصالحية منهم والبترية على مذهب واحد

The Zaidiyyah are the followers of Zaid ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam. They transmit Imamah in the offspring of Fatimah ‘alayha al Salam and do not permit its establishment in others besides them. They have permitted every Fatimi being a scholar, ascetic, brave, and generous individual who emerges with Imamah to be an Imam, obedience to whom is obligatory, whether he is from the offspring of Hassan or Hussain. Accordingly, a group of them affirmed the Imamah of Muhammad and Ibrahim, the Imams, the sons of ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan ibn al Hassan who emerged during the era of Mansur and were killed upon this. They have allowed the emergence of two Imams in two cities, in whom these qualities are found. Obedience to each of them will be compulsory.

When this was the belief of Zaid ibn ‘Ali, he desired that fundamentals and subsidiary matters be settled so that he be adorned with knowledge. He learnt fundamentals from Wasil ibn ‘Ata’ al Ghazzal—the head of the Mu’tazilah—despite the latter’s belief that Zaid’s grandfather, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, in his battles with the warriors of Jamal and Siffin was not upon conviction of the truth and that one of the two parties, not specific, were in error. I’tizal resulted from him and his companions all became Mu’tazilah. In his stance was the permissibility of the less superior being Imam in the presence of the superior. He said that ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib was the most superior of the Sahabah except that the caliphate was handed over to Abu Bakr due to a maslahah [exigency] they saw and a dini rule they adhered to i.e., extinguishing the flames of fitnah and pleasing the hearts of the masses. The era of battles that occurred during the days of Nubuwwah had just passed recently and the sword of Amir al Mu’minin, ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam, from the blood of the polytheists was still moist and had not yet dried. The rancour in the hearts of the people to seek vengeance was as is. Therefore, the hearts were neither inclined to him fully nor were the necks totally submissive to him. Exigency demanded that such an individual assumes responsibility of this affair whom people recognise with softness, mutual love, seniority in age, precedence in Islam, and proximity to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Do you not notice that when in his final sickness, he intended to garland ‘Umar ibn al Khattab with this affair, people remonstrated saying, “You have appointed over us the harsh and hard-hearted.” They were thus not pleased with Amir al Mu’minin ‘Umar due to his sternness, strictness, harshness in din, and hard-heartedness towards the enemies until Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu calmed them down.

It is also possible for the less superior to be Imam and the superior to be established. Thus, verdicts will be directed to him and he will pass judgments in affairs.

When the Shia of Kufah heard this statement from him [Zaid ibn ‘Ali] and realised that he does not dissociate from Sheikhayn, they abandoned him and he met his fate. They were called Rafidah. There was a debate between him and his brother Muhammad al Baqir, not on this matter, but due to the fact that he studied by Wasil ibn ‘Ata’ and acquired knowledge from one who applies error to his grandfather in fighting those who broke their pledge, and the unjust, and one who speaks about destiny different to what the Ahlul Bayt believe, and that he stipulated rebellion a condition for an Imam being an Imam. He even told him one day, “According to the ruling of your school, your father was not an Imam as he did not rebel nor intended to.”

After Zaid ibn ‘Ali was killed and crucified, Yahya ibn Zaid stood up as Imam after him and proceeded to Khorasan. Zaid ibn ‘Ali was killed at the dump of Kufah by Hisham ibn ‘Abdul Malik while Yahya ibn Zaid was killed in Juzajan, Khorasan, by its governor. Muhammad is the Imam killed in Madinah by ‘Isa ibn Mahan. Ibrahim the Imam was killed in Basrah. Mansur ordered their killing.

The Zaidiyyah’s matter did not find stability whenceforth until Nasir al Atrush emerged in Khorasan. He was pursued at his place to be killed but hid away and moved to the land of Daylam and Jabal, where they did not adorn themselves with the din of Islam yet. He invited people towards Islam on the school of Zaid ibn ‘Ali. They adhered to it and were nurtured upon it. The Zaidiyyah remained in these lands, dominant. The Imams would emerge one after the other and assume authority over them. They opposed their cousins from the Musawiyyah in fundamental matters and majority of the Zaidiyyah inclined after this to the belief in the Imamah of the less superior and they criticised the Sahabah just like the Imamiyyah. They are divided into three sects: Jarudiyyah, Sulaimaniyyah, and Batriyyah. The Salihiyyah among them and Batriyyah are on the same creed.


The Jarudiyyah


الجارودية أصحاب أبي الجارود زعموا أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نص على عليّ عليه السلام بالوصف دون التسمية والإمام بعده علي والناس قصروا لم يتعرفوا الوصف ولم يطلبوا الموصوف وإنما نصبوا أبا بكر باختيارهم فكفروا بذلك وقد خالف أبو الجارود في هذه المقالة إمامه زيد ين علي فإنه لم يعتقد بهذا الاعتقاد واختلف الجارودية في التوقف والسوق فساق بعضهم الإمامة من علي إلى الحسن ثم إلى الحسين ثم إلى علي بن الحسين زين العابدين ثم إلى زيد بن علي ثم منه إلى الإمام محمد بن عبد الله بن الحسن بن الحسن والذين قالوا بإمامة محمد الإمام اختلفوا فمنهم من قال إنه لم يُقتل وهو بعد حي وسيخرج فيملأ الأرض عدلاً ومنهم من أقر بموته وساق الإمامة إلى محمد بن القاسم بن علي بن الحسين بن علي بن صاحب الطالقان وقد أسر في أيام المعتصم وحُمل إليه فحبسه في داره حتى مات ومنهم من قال بإمامة يحيى بن عمر صاحب الكوفة فخرج ودعا الناس واجتمع عليه خلق كثير وُقتل في أيام المستعين وُحمل رأسه إلى محمد بن عبد الله بن ظاهر حتى قال فيه بعض العلوية قتلت أعز من ركب المطايا وجئتك استلينك في الكلام وعزّ عليّ أن ألقاك إلا وفيما بيننا حد الحسام وهو يحيى بن عمر بن يحيى بن الحسين بن زيد بن علي وأما أبو الجارود فكان يسمى سرحوب سماه بذلك أبو جعفر محمد بن علي الباقر رضي الله عنه وسرحوب شيطان أعمى يسكن البحر

The Jarudiyyah, the companions of Abu al Jarud, believe that the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointed ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam by description, not name, as Imam after him. People were deficient in this in the sense that they were not aware of the description and did not seek out the described. They simply appointed Abu Bakr on their own accord and thus fell into disbelief due to this. Abu al Jarud, in this declaration, has opposed his Imam, Zaid ibn ‘Ali, who did not hold this belief.

The Jarudiyyah differed in the halting of Imamah and its continuation. Some of them passed Imamah from ‘Ali to Hassan, to Hussain, to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain Zaid al ‘Abidin, to Zaid ibn ‘Ali and from him to Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn al Hassan ibn al Hassan. Those who believe in the Imamah of Imam Muhammad differed. Some claim that he was not killed and is still alive and will emerge and fill the earth with justice. Others acknowledge his death and pass Imamah to Muhammad ibn al Qasim ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Sahib al Taliqan. He was captured during the time of Mu’tasim and taken to him. Mu’tasim detained him at his house until his death.

Some of them believe in the Imamah of Yahya ibn ‘Umar, the companion of Kufah. He emerged and invited people. A large populace gathered around him. He was killed in the days of Musta’in and his head was carried to Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Zahir. Some of the ‘Alawiyyah said regarding him:

You were killed, the most honourable of those to mount riding animals.

I have come to you being polite to you in speech.

It is my honour to meet you,

except that between us is the edge of the sword.

He is Yahya ibn ‘Umar ibn Yahya ibn al Hussain ibn Zaid ibn ‘Ali.

As for Abu al Jarud, he was named Sarhub by Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Baqir rahimahu Llah. Sarhub is the blind shaitan who lives in the sea.[68]


Qadi al No’man has spoken about the Zaidiyyah in his poem with the words:

بأن كل قائم يقوم من … نسل الحسين بن علي والحسن وقالت الطائفة الزيدية … مقالة لم تكُ بالمرضية
منهم ومن كل إمرئ في وقته … مستتراً قد انزوى في بيته بسيفه يدعو إلى التقدم … فهو الإمام دون من لم يقم
حتى إذا ُقتل قاموا بعده … مع الحسين حين قام وحده واتبعوا زيداً على ما رتبوا … من الدعاوي وإليه نسبوا
أعني ابن عبد الله من نسل حسن … وكلهم ظل قتيلاً مرتهن واتبعوا يحيى بن زيد إذ بدا … ثم تولوا بعده محمدا
وكل من سواهم الرعية … كسائر الأمة بالسوية فهؤلاء عندهم أئمة … ومن يقوم بعدهم للأمة

The Zaidiyyah Sect made an objectionable statement.

That every Qa’im who rises up from the lineage of Hussain and Hassan ibn ‘Ali,

With his sword, inviting to advance is the Imam; not the one who does not stand up,

From them and from every individual in his time who is in secret, living in seclusion in his house.

They followed Zaid upon the claims they determined and to him they are attributed,

Until he was killed; then they stood after him with Hussain when he stood alone.

And they followed Yahya ibn Zaid when he became apparent and then associated with Muhammad after him,

The son of ‘Abdullah from the progeny of Hassan. And all of them fell as martyrs.

These according to them are the Imams and those who stand up after them for the Ummah.

And all besides them are the populace, equal in rank, like the rest of the Ummah.[69]


NEXT⇒ Chapter Five – The Sects of the Shia, their History and Beliefs Continued

[1] Muruj al Dhahab, 2/426.

[2] Tarikh al Tabari, 6/91.

[3] Muhammad Hussain al Zayn al Shia: al Shia fi al Tarikh, pg. 54,55; Ibn Abi al Hadid: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 2/309.

[4] Firaq al Shia, 43-44, Najaf.

[5] Al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 225, 233; Maqalat al Islamiyyin, 1/85; I’tiqadat Firaq al Muslimin wa al Mushrikin, pg. 57; al Tabsir, pg. 108-109; al Milal wa al Nihal, 2/11, footnotes; al Fasl, 4/180; al Tanbih, pg. 25, 148; al Ta’rifat, pg. 79; al Khitat.

[6] Al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 233.

[7] Al Fasl, 2/11, footnotes.

[8] Sharh al Nahj, 8/120, Dar Ihya’ al Kutub.

[9] Al Mufid: al Irshad, pg. 189-191; al Majlisi: Jala’ al ‘Uyun, pg. 90 onward, al Arbili: Kashf al Ghummah, 2/65, Beirut; Tarikh al Yaqubi, pg. 214-215; Muruj al Dhahab, pg. 431.

[10] Sharh al Nahj, 16/36.

[11] Tarikh al Tabari, 6/92; al Kamil, 3/202; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah, 8/14. The wording is Ibn Kathir’s.

[12] Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/215.

[13] Rijal al Kashshi, pg. 102.

[14] Jila’ al ‘Uyun, 1/395; Muntaha al Amal, pg. 316; Sharh Nahj al Balaghah, 16/38.

[15] Al Nawbakhti: Firaq al Shia, pg. 46.

[16] Firaq al Shia, pg. 44,45; Rijal al Kashshi, pg. 117.

[17] Al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/28-29, footnotes.

[18] He is Abu Hanifah, al No’man ibn Abi ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn Mansur ibn Ahmed ibn al Hayawan al Tamimi al Maghribi (Moroccan). He lived in the first half of the fourth century hijri. He died in Cairo in 634 AH. The Fatimid Imam al Mu’izz li Din Allah led his Salat al Janazah. He is one of the three distinguished Fatimid missionaries. He is their authority, forerunner, and leader. He is the contemporary of four of the Fatimid Khalifas from al Mahdi—founder of the Fatimid dynasty in Morocco—to al Mu’izz li Din Allah in Egypt. Muqaddamat al Da’a’im, pg. 12,13. The Twelver Shia attribute him to their sect. (See al Nuri al Tabarsi: Mustadrak al Wasa’il.)

[19] Al Qadi al No’man: al Urjuzah al Mukhtarah, pg. 224-225.

[20] Al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 38; Maqalat al Islamiyyin, 1/89; al Tanbih, 29,138; I’tiqadat Firaq al Muslimin wa al Mushrikin, pg. 62; al Tabsir, pg. 35; Ibn Khaldun, pg. 198; Ibn Hazm: al Fasl, 4/179.

[21] Al Nawbakhti: Firaq al Shia, pg. 46.

[22] Muhammad Hussain al Zayn: al Shia fi al Tarikh, pg. 105.

[23] Tarikh al Yaqubi, 2/241,242; al Irshad, pg. 203; Kashf al Ghummah, 2/32.

[24] Yes, Kufah—the headquarters of the Shia and a fertile breeding ground. They said regarding it:

وأما الكوفة وسوادها فهناك شيعة علي بن أبي طالب وأما البصرة فعثمانية تدين بالكف وأما الجزيرة فحرورية مارقة وأما أهل الشام فليس يعرفون إلا آل أبي سفيان وطاعة بني مروان وأما أهل مكة والمدينة فقد غلب عليهما أبو بكر وعمر

Kufah and its surroundings, there reside the Shia of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. As regards to Basrah, it is ‘Uthmaniyyah who adhere to abstention. Jazirah is the [land of the] deviate Haruriyyah. The people of Syria on the other hand know nothing but the family of Abu Sufyan and obedience to the sons of Marwan. The people of Makkah and Madinah have been overpowered by Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. [Al Rida: ‘Uyun al Akhbar, quoting from al Shia fi al Tarikh.]

They report from Jafar that he said:

إن الله عرض ولايتنا على أهل الأمصار فلم يقبلها إلا أهل الكوفة

Certainly, Allah presented our Wilayah to the residents of the cities but none accepted it except the residents of Kufah. [Basa’ir al Darajat, vol. 2, chapter 10.]

Moreover, al Kulayni reports from ‘Abdullah al Walid al Kindi:

قال دخلنا على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام في زمن مروان فقال من أنتم فقلنا من أهل الكوفة فقال ما بلدة من البلدان أكثر محبًا لنا من أهل الكوفة ولا سيما هذه العصابة إن الله جل ذكره هداكم لأمر جهله الناس وأحببتمونا وأبغضنا الناس واتبعتمونا وخالفنا الناس وصدقتمونا وكذبنا الناس فأحياكم الله محيانا وأماتكم مماتنا

He said: We entered the presence of Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam during Marwan’s time.

He asked, “Who are you?”

We said, “We are Kufans.”

He said, “There is no city with more of our lovers than the residents of Kufah, especially this group. Indeed, Allah, whose remembrance is magnificent, guided you to an aspect of which people are ignorant. You loved us while people hated us, you followed us whereas people opposed us, and you believed in us while people belied us. May Allah grant you life like us and death like us. [Al Rawdah min al Kafi.]

[25] Muruj al Dhahab, 3/54.

[26] Al Tabarsi: A’lam al Wara, pg. 223; al Irshad, pg. 220.

[27] Tarikh al Yaqubi,2/242.

[28] Al Irshad, pg. 220.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Muruj al Dhahab, 3/55.

[31] Al Irshad, 3/55.

[32] Nahj al Balaghah.

[33] Muruj al Dhahab, 3/56.

[34] Muruj al Dhahab, 3/57-58.

[35] Muruj al Dhahab, 3/59.

[36] Muruj al Dhahab, 3/60-61.

[37] Al Irshad, pg. 223; A’lam al Wara, pg. 231,232; Jala’ al ‘Uyun, 2/540.

[38] Al Irshad, pg. 222.

[39] A’lam al Wara, pg. 232; al Irshad, pg. 225, Jala’ al ‘Uyun, 2/541-542.

[40] Muruj al Dhahab, 3/61.

[41] Tarikh al Yaqubi,1/235.

[42] Al Khawarij wa al Shia, pg. 134; Wellhausen: The Religio-Political Opposition Parties in Early Islam, pg. 77, 78.

[43] Al Farq bayn al Firaq, 37.

[44] Al Khawarij wa al Shia, pg. 167-168; The Religio-Political Opposition Parties in Early Islam, pg. 98.

[45] Ahmed Amin: Fajr al Islam, pg. 276-277.

[46] Al Maqrizi: al Khitat, quoting from Fajr al Islam, pg. 77.

[47] Firaq al Shia, pg. 47-48.

[48] To learn of these sects, study Firaq al Shia, pg. 48 onwards; Maqalat al Islamiyyin, pg. 89; al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 38 onwards; al Hur al ‘Ayn, pg. 157 onwards; al Milal wa al Nihal; al Tabsir; Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun, pg. 199 onwards, Egypt print.

[49] Al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 41.

[50] Al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 42.

[51] Firaq al Shia, pg. 51.

[52] Al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 43.

[53] Firaq al Shia, pg. 69; Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldun, pg. 199.

[54] Rijal al Kashshi, pg. 117.

[55] Al Khawarij wa al Shia, pg. 165-169; The Religio-Political Opposition Parties in Early Islam, pg. 97-99.

[56] Al Muntaqa, pg. 360-361, Cairo, with the annotations of Sayed Muhyi al Din al Khatib.

[57] Al Muntaqa, pg. 360-361, footnotes.

[58] I have written in detail on this topic in my books al Shia wa al Qur’an and al Shia wa al Sunnah. Whoever wishes to study it may refer to these books.

[59] Al Khawarij wa al Shia, pg. 147-148; The Religio-Political Opposition Parties in Early Islam, pg. 85,86.

[60] Al Khawarij wa al Shia, pg. 155; The Religio-Political Opposition Parties in Early Islam, pg. 90,91.

[61] Al Khawarij wa al Shia, pg. 156; The Religio-Political Opposition Parties in Early Islam, pg. 91.

[62] Al Khawarij wa al Shia, pg. 159; The Religio-Political Opposition Parties in Early Islam, pg. 93.

[63] Firaq al Shia, pg. 74.

[64] Al Fasl fi al Milal wa al Ahwa’ wa al Nihal, pg. 183 onwards.

[65] Study the books of Tarikh of the Shia and Sunnah.

[66] Al Shia fi al Tarikh, pg. 70-72; Muhammad Hussain al Tabataba’i: Shia Durr Islam Rusi, pg. 34, Qum.

[67] Firaq al Shia, pg. 77-80.

[68] Al Milal wa al Nihal, 1/207 onwards; Maqalat al Islamiyyin, 1/28 onwards; Muqaddamah Ibn Khaldun, pg. 197; al Farq bayn al Firaq, pg. 29; al Tabsir, pg. 32; al Fasl, 4/179; Maqatil al Talibiyyin, pg. 127 onwards.

[69] Al Urjuzah al Mukhtarah, pg. 214, Montreal, Canada.