Hassan al ‘Askari radiya Llahu ‘anhu—who the Shia take as their eleventh Imam—passed away in the year 260 A.H, leaving behind no offspring. This fact is admitted in the books of the Shia, and the most reliable historians have also recorded it. The roots of Shi’ism were shaken by this reality just as it signalled their end, as the foundation of their religion is the Imam, whose words—according to them—holds the same weight as the speech of Allah and His Rasul.
Since the Imam passed away without any offspring, he left them without anyone to hold on to. Hence, in the year 260 A.H, divine speech was halted. This also resulted in the termination of the cash-flow, which was collected from the followers in the name of the Imam. Consequently, the Shia were divided, their affairs were uncertain, they were condemned and the matter became really difficult for them, as will appear.
However, this sect—who have made it their responsibility to divide the ummah—began stitching up their patches and worked their way around the situation so that they could keep alive the beliefs of Shi’ism and thereby continue harming the ummah. It was also the tool used by them to devour the wealth of the gullible and simple minded followers in the easiest possible manner, and to gain status and popularity amongst them.
Thus, they made the most preposterous claim, i.e. Hassan had a child who hid away, and therefore none got to know him. The reason why he went into hiding was that he feared that he would be killed, even though his father and grandfather and their ancestors were not killed by the state. It is unknown how this fear gripped him, especially since he was only child and the adults in his family were left to live. Why would anyone leave the adults and kill a new-born child?
This lie, despite its obvious fallaciousness, delighted the scholars of the Shia. Subsequently, they began spreading it among their followers. The result was that this belief penetrated the sectarian Shia circles in the most complete manner. Thereafter, the scholars began differing regarding being his deputies, with each of them producing a signed letter from this child wherein the other scholars were cursed and it was stated that the possessor of the letter was the actual representative.
Many claimants then began arriving at the scene, each wanting to be the representative of the Imam, which would entitle him to dupe the masses into handing over their hard-earned cash to him. The Twelvers, however, accepted four of these claimants as the deputies of the awaited one. They would collect money on behalf of this child, forward questions and requests of the people to him and bring back to them, in a very secretive manner, answers and correspondences which they claimed were in the hand-writing of this child. They also set a date for his public appearance, so that they would not be doubted and belied. However, when that generation passed, they presented the excuse, “Bada took place by Allah and now there is no date set for his appearance.”
These unknown letters, which were the products of the hands of this conniving clique—which are attributed to the imaginary child—are regarded by the Shia as the most reliable narrations and the texts which hold the most weight. They refer to them as al Tawqi’at, which is the name given to the so called letters of the Imams regarding the matters of the Shia. It seems as if sectarianism and fanaticism for one’s group deprives the brain of doing its functions. The thinking capacity of a person is stunned and paralyzed by means of it. How else would it be possible for this sect to grant a child like this the authority to dictate the Shari’ah? How else would they equate him to the Prophets? If he really did exist, at that stage he was to be taken care of by his guardian. Amazingly, Shari’ah was narrated from this child from the moment that he was born!
Have a look at a narration of the one who they refer to as al Saduq, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, from a female named Nasim (who they claim is the servant of the toddler). She said:
قال لي صاحب الزمان وقد دخلت عليه بعد مولده بليلة فعطست عنده فقال لي: رحمك الله، قالت نسيم: ففرحت بذلك، فقال لي – عليه السلام -: ألا أبشرك في العطاس؟ قلت: بلى يا مولاي، قال: هو أمان من الموت ثلاثة أيام
The master of the era said to me (since I walked into his presence a night after his birth and sneezed), “May Allah have mercy upon you.”
I was elated by this, so he ‘alayh al Salam said to me, “Should I not give you glad-tidings regarding the sneeze?”
I replied, ‘Please do, o my master!’
He responded, “It is a protection from death for a period of three days.”
This text is reported by one of their greatest scholars, who considers this to be from the Sunnah of the infallibles and he equates it to the statements of Allah and His Rasul. These lies were spread by a group of these fraudsters, who claimed to be in communication with the awaited one. This sect accepted four of them, as explained. The period in which these deputies claimed correspondence with the Imam is referred to as al Ghaybah al Sughra (the minor occultation), which continued for approximately seventy years. Each of the Islamic countries had a few representatives of these deputies, who would ensure that the money of their followers reached them and in return, they would produce these forged letters.
The scholars of the Shia have paid great attention to these letters, and they have preserved them in their most important books, believing that they are from wahi, which cannot be affected by falsehood in any way. To name a few, al Kulayni does so in Usul al Kafi, Ibn Babawayh in Ikmal al Din, al Tusi in al–Ghaybah, al Tabarsi in al Ihtijaj, and al Majlisi in al Bihar. Their scholar, ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar al Himyari gathered the narrations from the awaited one in a book which he named Qurb al Isnad, and the author of al Dhari’ah listed two books of theirs on this subject named al Tawqi’at al Kharijah min al Nahiyah al Muqaddasah.
These notes or letters contain the views of the Imam regarding many matters relating to din and life. They portray him as one who had access to the knowledge of the unseen, one who fulfilled the wishes of the Shia, cured their ill ones, solved their problems, answered their questions and blessed the wealth that they sent for him with acceptance. At times, these are all presented in the form of a narrative.
If a reader ponders over the verdicts ascribed to him as far as the matters of din are concerned, he will see gross ignorance regarding the basic matters of the Shari’ah, which indicates that either the one who fabricated these letters was a very ignorant bigot who could not even fabricate properly, or Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala wished to expose and disgrace them in a way that all and sundry may understand. Thus, their attempts and likes were akin to the attempts of Musaylamah’s, the imposter, attempts at producing the like of the Qur’an.
Have a look at the contents of one of these letters. You may witness the falsity for yourself:
وكتب إليه صلوات الله عليه أيضاً في سنة ثمان وثلاثمائة كتاباً سأله فيه عن مسائل.. سأل عن الأبرص والمجذوم وصاحب الفالج هل يجوز شهادتهم؟ فأجاب عليه السلام: إن كان ما بهم حادث جازت شهادتهم، وإن كانت ولادة لم تجز
He wrote a letter to him ‘alayh al Salam in the year 308, asking him regarding a few matters… He asked if the testament of the bald one, the leper, and the semi-paralyzed could be accepted.
He ‘alayh al Salam replied, “If it is affected them (after birth) then their testimony will be accepted, but if they were born like that, then it will not be accepted.”
How can baldness and its likes have any effect on the acceptance or rejection of testimonies? Can there be any rationale to the difference that was stated between the one who was born with the illness and the one who was affected by it at a later stage? Does a verdict such as this one deserve any attention? How can something so ludicrous be attributed to the Ahlul Bayt or to Islam? Another letter states that he was asked, ‘Is it permissible for a person to count his tasbih (glorification of Allah) using beads that are made from the sand of a grave and is there any virtue attached to this?’ He replied:
يسبح به فما من شيء من التسبيح أفضل منه، ومن فضله أن الرجل ينسى التسبيح ويدير السبحة فيكتب له التسبيح
He should use it to count. There is nothing more virtuous than it for counting the tasbih. Among its virtues is that if a man forgets his count and then rotates the beads, he will receive the reward of tasbih.
This ideology belongs to the religion of the idolaters, not the religion of the monotheists. They receive rewards for playing with beads. Which Shari’ah says this, and which scholar will issue such a verdict? There are many other examples of this kind of foolish and baseless verdicts.
This ‘Sunnah’, which is uttered by this awaited one, contains narratives of the unseen, and supernatural abilities by means of which many hopes turn into realities. A certain Shia , who was afflicted by a chronic illness, such that the doctors gave up hope of him recovering, turns to this “Imam” through the medium of his representatives and writes a letter in which he asks to be cured. A signed letter is returned to him, which includes a prayer for him to be cured. He did not even have to wait for a week to pass before he was cured.
Another man has a wife who is barren. His longing and desire to have children reached its peak, thus he writes to the sacred chamber. The response is a signed letter stating that his wife will give birth before the passing of four months and the child will be a boy. They even learn their dates of death from this toddler. One Shia wrote to him requesting a burial garment. The reply in the letter was:
إنك تحتاج إليه في سنة ثمانين، فمات في سنة ثمانين وبعث إليه بالكفن قبل موته بأيام
“You will need it in the year 80.” Thus, he died in the year 80 and a burial garment was sent to him a few days prior to his death.
Some of these letters indicate that upholding the practices of Islam cannot be done without the permission of this hidden individual. It is as if the ‘Sunnah’ contained in these letters hold more weight than the texts of Islam according to the Shia. This can be understood from the following texts:
ولد لي مولود فكتبت أستأذن في تطهيره يوم السابع. فلم يكتب شيئاً فمات المولود يوم الثامن..
A child was born to me, so I wrote seeking permission to cleanse him on the seventh day. Nothing was written (in reply), so the child died on the eighth day.
This person waited for the permission of the Imam to circumcise his son. Another narration indicates that marriage takes place, in most cases, after the Imam instructs that it should take place. One of them says:
زوجت بأمره سراً فلما وطئتها علقت وجاءت بابنة فاغتممت وضاق صدري فكتبت أشكو ذلك (يعني في رسالة إلى هذا الطفل المنتظر) فورد: ستكفاها، فعاشت أربع سنين ثم ماتت فورد: الله ذو أناة وأنتم تستعجلون
I married a concubine on his instruction,. After I had intercourse with her, and she gave birth to a girl, I was greatly saddened and anguished. I wrote (to this awaited Mahdi), complaining (about my situation).
The reply was, “You will be sufficed regarding her.”
She lived on for four years and then died.
Thereupon, it was stated, “Allah is patient but you people hurry.”
Hajj depends on the permission of this “child”. One Shia reports:
تهيأت للحج، وودعت الناس، وكنت – كذا – على الخروج فورد: نحن لذلك كارهون، والأمر إليك، قال: فضاق صدري واغتممت وكتبت: أنا مقيم على السمع والطاعة غير أني مغتم بتخلفي عن الحج، فوقع: لا يضيقن صدرك فإنك ستحج من قابل إن شاء الله، قال: ولما كان من قابل كتبت أستأذن، فورد الإذن
I prepared for Hajj and I bid farewell to the people. I was about to leave when it (the letter) came, “We dislike that, but the matter is for you to decide.”
Thereupon, I was disheartened and saddened so I wrote, “I am listening and obeying, so I will stay behind. However, I am grieved due to being left behind from Hajj.”
The reply was, “Do not grieve, as you will perform Hajj next year if Allah wills.”
When I wrote the next year, seeking permission, it was granted.
Is the command of their Imam above the command of Allah and His Shari’ah that they have to be given permission by him before they can carry out one of the fundamentals of Islam? These letters, despite their ridiculous contents, hold a very special position in the eyes of the Shia scholars. Hence, they grant precedence to them over that which is narrated in their books with that which they refer to as authentic isnads when there is a contradiction. Ibn Babawayh, after speaking about the letters from the sacred chamber in his book Man La Yahdurhu al Faqih, under the chapter “Two men who have been bequeathed” says:
هذا التوقيع عندي بخط أبي محمد الحسن بن علي، ثم ذكر أن في الكافي للكليني رواية بخلاف ذلك التوقيع عن الصادق، ثم قال: “لست أفتي بهذا الحديث بل أفتي بما عندي بخط الحسن بن علي
This letter is by me in the writing of Abu Muhammad Hassan ibn ‘Ali. Thereafter, he mentioned in al Kafi of al Kulayni there is a narration from al Sadiq that contradicts that letter. He then says, “I will not pass a verdict according to this hadith. Rather, I will pass a verdict based on what is by me in the writing of Hassan ibn ‘Ali.”
Al Hurr al ‘Amili commented on this saying:
فإن خط المعصوم أقوى من النقل بوسائط
The hand-writing of the infallible one holds more weight than narrations in many different ways.
How are they so sure that this was the hand-writing of the Hassan or the awaited one (who was not even born), even though hand-writings are similar? What makes them believe that these were from him, when there are so many lies attributed to the Ahlul Bayt? In order to accept this, they rely upon one who is not infallible (i.e. the deputy of the Imam), whereas infallibility is from their primary principles. Added to that, the post of being the deputy is highly questionable, as many of their leading figures attempted to secure this post for himself, as it is the easiest way to collect wealth.
It seems as if the one who opened this door for the Shia was an expert thief who mastered the art of lying and donned the garment of hypocrisy in order to plot against the Muslims, lead people astray and earn a great deal of wealth. However, the reports of this single person, who was not even considered infallible (but rather, unreliable), became the most authentic texts according to their scholars. Consequently, they grant precedence to these letters over that which appears in their most authentic books. Furthermore, whoever claims to have had contact with this Imam, or to have written to him, secures himself the trust of his sect (even though this is the greatest proof, in the light of history and logic that they are liars), as is apparent from their books on narrators.
These letters also contain disparagement and commendation of people or narrators, which are then considered to be the basis of their approval or disapproval of any individual. Thus, they serve as a pivotal source of their din. Al Alusi says:
They formed their religion on the basis of notes, which are such that no man of intellect will doubt that they are forgeries against Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. None will accept them except those whose sight and foresight have been taken away by Allah.
Al Alusi then goes on to speak about a man from the Rafidah who claims to have met this imaginary figure whilst he was in hiding. His name is ‘Ali ibn Hussain ibn Musa Ibn Babawayh al Qummi. He also claims to have received letters from the awaited one. Al Alusi expresses his surprise that a person like this was given the title, al Saduq (the truthful one) by the Rafidah. He says:
لا يخفى عليك أن هذا من قبيل تسمية الشيء باسم ضده، وهو وإن كان يظهر الإسلام فهو كافر في نفس الأمر
It will be obvious to you that this is a case of naming something using its antonym. Even though he portrayed himself as a Muslim, he was in reality a kafir.
Next, he explains that the falsity of al Saduq’s claim cannot be hidden from any intelligent person, as al Saduq claims that he would write his question on a piece of paper, leave it in a hole in a tree at night, and the Imam would then write the answer. He then explains that the Rafidah did not stop at the point of believing this drivel, rather, they went on to establish that these are their most reliable sources and their strongest proofs. He, just like any other objective intellectual, admits that he cannot understand their claim to be followers of the Ahlul Bayt, whereas they base the laws of their religion upon all of these forgeries. The lawful and unlawful is established in their religion on the basis of fairy-tales. He says:
إنهم في الحقيقة أتباع الشياطين وأهل البيت بريئون منهم
They are, in reality, the followers of the devils, and the Ahlul Bayt have nothing to do with them.
The truth is that these kind of letters hold no weight, whether in courts, on the basis of logic or the intellect of any human. They are notes that are attributed to a child whose existence itself cannot be proven, even according to some sects of the Shia. Hence, some of them rejected his existence. According to researchers, he definitely did not exist. Over and above this, his ‘letters’ cannot be confirmed and they are transmitted through unknown sources. Can any law be based on something like this, leave alone basing an entire constitution upon it? This is an stain on the Rawafid, which will remain with them until the end of times. As long as it remains, it will serve as proof of the falsity of their religion. Allah has disgraced those who wish to attribute to His din that which has no place in it.
These letters continued throughout the minor occultation—as they refer to it—which lasted for seventy years. Four individuals, who are referred to as al Sufara’ and al Nuwwab (refresentatives or deputies) claimed, one after the other to be the Imam’s deputies. The fourth one, al Samarri, announced the end of the era of deputies and communication with the Imam. They say:
خرج التوقيع إلى أبي الحسن السمريّ: (يعني خرجت ورقة من المنتظر المزعوم) يا علي بن محمد السمريّ، اسمع أعظم الله أجر إخوانك فيك، فإنك ميت ما بينك وبين ستة أيام، فأجمع أمرك، ولا توص إلى أحد يقوم مقامك بعد وفاتك، فقد وقعت الغيبة التامة، فلا ظهور إلا بعد إذن الله تعالى ذكره.. وسيأتي من شيعتي من يدّعي المشاهدة، ألا فمن ادعى المشاهدة قبل خروج السفياني والصيحة فهو كذاب مفتر
A letter came out (i.e. a letter came from the awaited one) to Abu al Hassan al Samarri: O ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al Samari, listen—may Allah grant your brothers a great reward as far as you are concerned—as you are going to die within the next six days. Therefore, gather your matters and do not appoint anyone to take up your post after your death, as the Ghaybah has taken place in its complete form. There will be no appearance, until Allah grants permission. Some from my Shia will appear and claim to have seen (me). Lo! Whoever claims to have seen me before the appearance of the Sufyani and the Scream (the Day of Qiyamah) is indeed a lying imposter.
This means that the divine texts—according to them—came to an end in the year 329 A.H. with the commencement of al Ghaybah al Kubra (Major occultation). However, the Shia scholars were unhappy with the announcement that contact has been totally lost with the awaited one. Thus, we find many claims by them of contact with the Imam, meeting him and learning from him (although their Imam said that whoever claims so is a “lying imposter”). Hence, according to them, the divine texts did not come to an end. In fact, the Shia announced this as soon as al Samarri died. We find their scholar Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli (who was given the title ‘Allamah—the one who has extensive knowledge) claiming that he met the Mahdi, who authored a book for him in one night.
Al Nuri al Tabarsi, their celebrated scholar, explains the following text of al Kafi:
لابد لصاحب هذا الأمر من غيبة، ولابد له في غيبته من عزلة، وما بثلاثين من وحشة
It is necessary for the man of this matter to be in occultation and his occultation demands seclusion.
في كل عصر يوجد ثلاثون مؤمناً ولياً يتشرفون بلقائه
In every era, there are thirty pious believers who have the good-fortune of meeting him.
They claim further:
إن بعض المجتهدين يتمكن من لقاء الغائب ويأخذ منه بعض الأحكام الشرعية، وقد لا يستطيع أن يعلن عن هذا اللقاء لأمر الإمام له بالكتمان فهو حينئذ يدعي حصول الإجماع على هذا الحكم، وإن لم يوجد إجماع في الحقيقة
Some of the Mujtahids get the ability to meet the absent one and take from him some of the laws of Shari’ah. At times, they cannot announce this meeting, due to the instruction of the Imam to keep it hidden, as he will then claim that consensus took place upon this law, whereas in reality, no consensus took place.
This is one explanation to the claims of their scholars regarding consensus, in those cases where certain opinions were held only by them, yet they claimed that consensus was found. We will also discuss, under the chapter of ijma’, their view that if a group of people stated something and among them was ‘an unknown scholar whose lineage was not known’, then ijma’ takes place, irrespective of who opposes the view, based on the possibility that this unknown person could have been the Imam.
Their scholars firmly believe regarding this awaited one—who did not exist:
كان يجتمع بجملة من أهل العلم والتقوى الذين كانوا يستحقون المقابلة كالعلامة السيد مهدي بحر العلوم النجفي فيما اشتهر عنه، والشيخ ميثم البحراني فيما ينقل عنه
He would get together with some of the people of knowledge and piety, who deserved to be met, such as al ‘Allamah al Sayyi Mahdi Bahr al ‘Ulum al Najafi (according to that which is famous regarding him) and al Sheikh Maytham al Bahrani (as is narrated regarding him).
Books have been written by some of their scholars in which the narratives and happenings of the meetings with the awaited one by some people have been recorded. Al Majlisi (d. 1111 A.H.) done so in al Bihar and he was followed al Nuri al Tabarsi (d. 1320 A.H.) who authored a book regarding it, which he named Jannat al Ma’wa fiman Faza bi Liqa’ al Hujjah wa Mu’jizatuh fi al Ghaybah al Kubra. In this book, he records fifty-nine stories regarding those who claimed to have met the awaited one, after the era of al Majlisi.
In this manner, every accursed devil, from the human and jinn race was given an avenue through which he could plot against these people. He merely had to act as if he was the awaited one and then he could shove into their religion anything that he wished to, no matter how far it took them away from the truth. As long as this avenue remains, and they regard this to be from the Sunnah, this deviation will not be curbed.
Any irreligious old man, who dons the attire of the dervishes, clads himself in black, portrays himself as a person of knowledge and claims to be from the progeny of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu—the likes of whom are many—is granted great honour by merely claiming that he met the (non-existent) Imam. He then has the license to change their religion in any way that is demanded by his profanity, especially since these people believe that the Imam adopts different forms and changes his dress-style and appearance.
Thus, one of these two explanations apply to all of these meetings; either the one who claims to have met the hidden one is a liar who was either craving for popularity or he wished to misguide people. It is also possible that both of these were his motive. The second explanation is that he was an honest and genuine person, however the person who met him in the guise of the Imam was a devilish imposter. Ibn Taymiyyah explains:
وكذا منتظر الرافضة قد يراه أحدهم ويكون المرئي جنباً
Similar is the case of the Awaited One of the Rafidah. One of them may (believe that he) saw him whereas he actually saw a jinn.
This is the exact manner in which the Christians were led astray, as explained by Ibn Taymiyyah, as they believed that after the Messiah was (as they claim) crucified, he appeared before the Hawarin (his companions and helpers), spoke to them, and advised them. This has been mentioned in their Gospels. However, the one who actually appeared before them was a devil who said, “I am the Messiah,” whereas he was not the Messiah.
Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to explain, “After al Hallaj was killed, a figure would appear before his followers and say to them, “I am al Hallaj.” They would see with their own eyes his figure. Similarly, there was a person in Egypt who was referred to as al Dasuqi. After he died, his followers would receive books and leaflets from him. Ibn Taymiyyah says that he saw one of these books that were attributed to al Dasuqi which were shown to him by one of the sincere followers of al Dasuqi. He says:
I saw it, in the hand-writing of a jinn, and I have seen the hand-writing of the jinn a few times.
Thereafter, Ibn Taymiyyah listed a few more examples of this nature. He then says:
Similarly, those who believe that ‘Ali or Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah will remain forever, were visited by jinn who adopted their forms. This is something possible and has taken place often. The more ignorant a nation is, the more it occurs amongst them.
After seeing that the Twelvers confined themselves to very limited sources, i.e. that which is narrated from some members of the Ahlul Bayt (who were not necessarily people of knowledge as will be explained, and they even added the so called letters of a person whose existence cannot be agreed upon), taking these as an equivalent to the words of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, they took one more step in the direction of misguidance by depriving themselves of a great source of knowledge and iman; i.e. the narrations of the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who were blessed with the great fortune of accompanying Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, witnessing revelation, and understanding the interpretations. Above all, they were praised by Allah Himself.
Muhammad Hussain Al Kashif al Ghita (one of their contemporary scholars), whilst explaining the viewpoint of his people regarding the subject says:
إن الشيعة لا يعتبرون من السنة (أعني الأحاديث النبوية) إلا ما صح لهم من طرق أهل البيت.. أما ما يرويه مثل أبي هريرة، وسمرة بن جندب، وعمرو بن العاص ونظائرهم فليس لهم عند الإمامية مقدار بعوضة
The Shia pay no attention to the Sunnah (the ahadith of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), except to those which they consider authentic from the reporters of the Ahlul Bayt. As for that which is reported by the likes of Abu Hurairah, Samurah ibn Jundub, ‘Amr ibn al ‘As etc., they do not even hold the weight of a mosquito’s wing according to the Imamiyyah.
Here, he establishes that the stance of the Shia is to accept all narrations which are reported authentically from the Ahlul Bayt, leaving out all other narrations, especially the narrations of the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Since they only refer to twelve individuals as the Ahlul Bayt, and only one of them met Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as an adult, i.e. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, how could it be possible that he alone passed on the entire Sunnah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to the forthcoming generations?
This cannot be possible, as he was not with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam at all times. At times, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would go out on a journey and leave him behind, as in the case of the battle of Tabuk. On other occasions, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would remain in al Madinah al Munawwarah and send him out, as in the case when Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent him to Yemen. Another example of this is when Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent him along with Abu Bakr to deliver the message to the people of Makkah al Mukarramah. Added to the above, he could not have been aware of what was happening in the homes of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Thus we find that this was the privilege of the Mothers of the Believers, the noble wives of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Perhaps this was among the reasons and the wisdom behind him salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam having a number of wives.
Hence, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu simply could not collect the entire Sunnah. How is it then, that they do not accept anything unless it is reported by him? This concept, of only accepting from the Ahlul Bayt, also destroys the outstanding attribute of Tawatur as far as the transmission of the Shari’ah of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is concerned. This is why the Muslims have agreed that the knowledge should not be transmitted by only one person, but rather, a group of people (who could be considered enough to reach the amount of Tawatur) should transmit it, so that the one who was not present may have certainty regarding it. Most of the Islamic states received their knowledge from sources besides ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Most of those who conveyed the message of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were not from the Ahlul Bayt. It is thus unfathomable that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the only person to do so. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent As’ad ibn Zurarah to his people (the people of al Madinah) to invite them towards Islam, teach the Ansar the Qur’an and convey to them the understanding of din. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam sent Ala ibn al Hadrami radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Bahrain, Muaz and Abu Musa radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to Yemen, and ‘Itab ibn Usayd radiya Llahu ‘anhu to Makkah al Mukarramah; all with the same purpose. In light of this, what weight does the statement of the one who says that only a man from the Ahlul Bayt conveyed his message?
Some of the scholars have said that the total number of ahadith that are reported with complete chains from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu are five hundred and eighty six, from which a mere fifty are authentic. Is the Sunnah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam confined to this? The Shia admit the knowledge of halal and haram and the rites of Hajj did not reach them except through Abu Jafar. This means that nothing reached them on this subject from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and hence their predecessors would adhere to that which was reported to them by the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
The books of the Shia state:
كانت الشيعة قبل أن يكون أبو جعفر وهم لا يعرفون مناسك حجهم وحلالهم وحرامهم، حتى كان أبو جعفر ففتح لهم وبيّن لهم مناسك حجهم وحلالهم وحرامهم، حتى صار الناس يحتاجون إليهم من بعد ما كانوا يحتاجون إلى الناس
Prior to Abu Jafar, the Shia were unaware of the rites of their Hajj as well as their halal and haram. When Abu Jafar appeared, he explained to them the rites of their Hajj and their halal and haram so much so that people became in need of them after they were in need of the people.
It is indeed amazing that the Shia declare as mushrik the one who lends an ear to anyone besides the Imam. Usul al Kafi states:
من ادعى سماعاً من غير الباب الذي فتحه الله فهو مشرك
Whoever claims to have heard anything from anywhere, besides the door that was opened by Allah is a mushrik.
There you have it! They have just declared that their predecessors were mushrik, as they took their knowledge of Hajj and halal and haram from the masses. They also say:
كل ما لم يخرج من الأئمة فهو باطل
Anything that does not emanate from the Imams is false.
This is a brazen attack against the Shari’ah of the master of all the messengers, which was transmitted by the first generation to the rest of the ummah. This knowledge is referred to as the sublime Sunnah and it is upheld by the Muslims. The Rafidah, after concocting their principle, that knowledge can only be taken from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and thereafter realising that the narrations from him are very minimal (to the extent that they even admitted not having anything on the subjects of Hajj and halal and haram from him), perhaps resorted to their usual practise of fabricating narrations, in order to fill this void. It is for this reason that al Sha’bi said:
Fabrications have not been forged against any person of this Ummah as much as they have been forged against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
Due to the widespread forgeries against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu by the Rafidah — to the extent that not a single person from them could be relied upon for narrations — the authors of the authentic books were forced to turn away from them. Therefore, it can be seen that al Bukhari and Muslim do not narrate anything from him unless it is reported by his household, such as his children Hassan, Hussain, Muhammad ibn al Hanafiyyah, his scribe — ‘Ubaidullah ibn Abi Rafi’, the companions of Ibn Mas’ud and others such as ‘Ubaidah al Salmani, al Harith al Taymi, Qais ibn ‘Ubad and others. These few individuals could be trusted as they were honest in that which they narrated from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
The books of the Shia have admitted that there are many fabrications against the Ahlul Bayt. Jafar al Sadiq is reported to have said, as stated in the books of the Shia:
إن الناس أولعوا بالكذب علينا
People are fascinated with fabricating against us.
The dilemma faced by Jafar was:
اكتنفه – كما تقول كتب الشيعة – قوم جهال يدخلون عليه ويخرجون من عنده ويقولون: حدثنا جعفر بن محمد، ويحدثون بأحاديث كلها منكرات كذب موضوعة على جعفر ليستأكلوا الناس بذلك ويأخذوا منهم الدراهم
A bunch of ignorant people surrounded him, they would enter his presence and leave from his gatherings saying, “Jafar ibn Muhammad narrated to us…”, and thereafter they would narrate such things that were lies and drivel, which were fabricated in the name of Jafar so that they could collect food and dirhams from the people by means of it.
Some of the scholars have said:
The amount of forgeries that were attributed to Jafar, despite his innocence outnumber the forgeries against others.
From the above, we can gauge the depth of the problems of the Shia, who accept the narrations of all these liars and fraudsters but reject the narrations of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. In fact, they shamelessly declare the bunch of liars who thronged around Jafar to be reliable narrators. They say:
روى عن الإمام الصادق أربعة آلاف راو. وذهب بعض علماء الإمامية إلى القول بتوثيق الأربعة آلاف بدون استثناء
Four thousand narrators have reported from Jafar. Some of the scholars of the Imamiyyah are inclined towards the opinion of considering all of them, without any exception, to be reliable.
This is despite him personally complaining about them. He was also reported to have said that from all of those who claim Shi’ism, he could not even get seventeen genuine supporters. This is emphatically stated in a narration of al Kafi. The question that still remains is, why do the Twelvers disregard the ahadith of the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?
The actual cause can be traced back to the initial innovation, which was started off by ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, i.e. ‘Ali was appointed as the successor by Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum did not allow the bequest of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to take place and they denied him the post of Caliphate. This, according to the Shia, meant that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum all left the fold of Islam. They do not exclude anybody from them, except a few who could be counted on the fingers of one hand, as will appear. This sect did not give any consideration to the praises of Allah and His Rasul regarding them, their companionship of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, their Jihad and sacrifices in the path of Allah, the fact that they were the first of the ummah to respond to the call of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the fact that they put forward their lives and most valuable possessions and left behind their homelands and families to the spread Islam.
Among the most ironic beliefs held by the Shia is that they consider anyone who claims to have seen the non-existent Imam as a reliable and truthful person. Al Mamaqani (who is one of their contemporary scholars) says:
تشرف الرجل برؤية الحجة – عجل الله فرجه وجعلنا من كل مكروه فداه – بعد غيبته فنستشهد بذلك على كونه في مرتبة أعلى من مرتبة العدالة ضرورة
If a man had the fortune of seeing the Hujjah (Imam) — may Allah hasten his release and may he allow us to be sacrificed in lieu of any difficulty (that he is to face) — after his occultation, we prove by means of that that he has obviously reached the highest level of integrity.
However, the same honour is not afforded to those who were blessed with the companionship of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They do not consider the honour accrued by the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, by means of seeing Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to be a reason on the basis of which they could be considered as men of integrity. Does Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam not hold a loftier rank than an awaited individual whose existence was debated by the Shia of his era? What would his position be today, after the passing of so many centuries? Is this not an outright contradiction?
Observe and be amazed at how a person is declared reliable due to claiming that he met one who does not exist, which in reality is a clear proof that he is a liar. On the other hand, the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are maligned. The only ‘sin’ of all the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum was that they did not accept the “immediate appointment” of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to the post of Caliphate. This, according to them, is among the worst possible crimes, as the one who rejects the Imamah of any of the Twelve Imams — even the absent one who does not exist — is like Iblis, as stated by al Saduq Ibn Babawayh al Qummi.
Believing in their Imams is the yardstick by means of which they judge whether a person should be accepted or rejected. This, according to them is the foundation of iman, as will be explained. This is clear deviation. If this belief of theirs was half as important as they assert, it would have definitely been mentioned by Allah in the Qur’an, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam would have explained it to all those who enquired regarding the reality of iman and the Muslims would have had no difference of opinion regarding it.
Can any intelligent person fathom that from the era of the Sahabah and Tabi’in, up until today, the ummah did not know the most basic and fundamental aspect of their din or they unanimously rejected it? It is impossible that Allah and His Rasul would leave the best ummah, who were selected for the guidance of humanity without completing for them their din and without explaining to them a fundamental from the fundamentals of Islam. Foolishness like this can never cross the mind of a Believer.
My observation: Despite the falsity of this doctrine of theirs, by means of which they judge people and reject the narrations of those who reject any of the Imams, they only apply it to the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Thus, they reject the narrations of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, but they do not reject the narrations of some of their Shia predecessors who rejected one or more of the Imams. Their scholar, al Hurr al ‘Amili insists that the Imamiyyah accept and practise upon the narrations of the Fathiyyah, such as ‘Abdullah ibn Bukayr, as well as the narrations of the Waqifah, such as Sama’ah ibn Mahran. You will see, in their books on narrators, that many of them were Fathis, Waqifis or Nawusis.
Each one of these three groups reject at least one of the Imams of the Twelvers. Despite this, all of them are considered to be from them and reliable. As an example, Rijal al Kashshi states regarding Muhammad ibn al Walid al Khazzar, Muawiyah ibn Hakim, Musaddaq ibn Sadaqah, Muhammad ibn Salim ibn ‘Abd al Hamid:
في محمد بن الوليد الخزار، ومعاوية بن حكيم، ومصدق بن صدقة، ومحمد بن سالم بن عبد الحميد قال أبو عمرو (الكشي): وهؤلاء كلهم فطحية وهم من أجلة العلماء والفقهاء والعدول، وبعضهم أدرك الرضا – رضي الله عنه – وكلهم كوفيون
All of these are Fathiyyah and they are from the greatest scholars, jurists and people of integrity. Some of them met al Rida radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and all of them were Kufis.
Hassan ibn ‘Ali ibn Fudal, ‘Ali ibn Hadid ibn Hakim, and ‘Amr ibn Sa’id al Madayini were all from the Fathiyyah. Similarly, Abu Khalid al Sijistani, ‘Ali ibn Jafar al Marwazi, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Isa, and Hamzah ibn Bazigh were all from the Waqifah. Notwithstanding this, they were classified as reliable and the Twelvers practised upon their narrations, ignoring the statements of their Imam:
الزيدية والواقفة والنصاب بمنزلة واحدة
The Zaidiyyah, Waqifah, and Nawasib are all on the same level.
والواقف عائد عن الحق ومقيم على سيئة إن مات بها كانت جهنم مأواه وبئس المصير
The Waqif is turned away from the truth and he stands upon an evil. If he dies in this state, hell will be his abode and it is the most undesired destination.
He also said:
الواقفة “يعيشون حيارى ويموتون زنادقة
The Waqifah live in a state of confusion and they die as heretics.
Yet another statement of his reads:
فإنهم كفار مشركون زنادقة
They are disbelievers, polytheists and heretics.
Despite all of this, their narrations are accepted, or rather, the scholars of the Twelvers accept the narrations of these people, since some of the bizarre views of their religion are based on these narrations. At the same time, they reject the narrations of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Is this not a clear contradiction? The Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum only “rejected the text regarding one Imam,” but their narrations are rejected, whereas these narrators from the Waqifah and Fathiyyah reject a few Imams, as well as the texts that were stated by the Imams prior to the rejected ones. Are all not guilty of the same ‘crime’ (rejection of any of the Imams) on the basis of which the narrations of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were rejected?
After realising this, it will become abundantly clear to us that they have major contradictions in their religion, they do not have a fixed set of rules and their scholars were blinded by sectarianism. They then led astray their followers and deprived them of the fountains of knowledge and iman. Before we conclude this discussion, it should be noted that it is impossible to compare those luminaries who were praised by Allah and His Rasul to a bunch of scums, liars, and fraudsters. Had it not been for the need of highlighting the baseless nature of their attitude towards the narrations of the illustrious Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, we would not have mentioned them together.
The books of the Shia state:
عن ابن حازم قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله.. فأخبرني عن أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم صدقوا على محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أم كذبوا؟ قال: بل صدقوا
I (Ibn Hazim ) said to Abu ‘Abdullah, “Tell me about the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, were they truthful or did they forge lies against him?”
He replied, “No, they were truthful.”
No doubt, the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum have no need for this type of praise, after they were praised by Allah and His Rasul. However, we quoted it to bring to the attention of the reader that they opposed everything, even that which is reported from the Imams in their very own books, which conforms to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Instead they chose to follow the narrations of a bunch of people who fabricated lies against the Imams, such people whose lies have been exposed in the books of the Shia as well, as will be proven.
ولم يعرف له خلف ولم ير له ولد ظاهر
“He was not known to have any offspring and no son of his was seen.” Al Maqalat wa al Firaq pg. 102
 Refer to al Muntaqa pg. 31
 The details will appear under the chapter of Ghaybah.
 Further details will appear under the chapter of Ghaybah.
 Ikmal al Din pg. 406, 407 and 416
 Usul al Kafi 1/517
 Ikmal al Din pg. 450
 Al Ghaybah pg. 172
 Al Ihtijaj 2/277
 Bihar al Anwar 53/150-246
 This book was printed by al Matba’h al Islamiyyah in Tehran.
 Agha Buzurg Tahrani: al Dhari’ah ila Tasanif al Shia 4/500-501
 Bihar al Anwar 53/164
 Bihar al Anwar 53/165
 On another occasion he was asked if a person is allowed to prostrate upon a grave. He replied:
والذي عليه العمل أن يضع خده الأيمن على القبر، وأما الصلاة فإنها خلفه ويجعل القبر أمامه
The practise is to place the right cheek upon the grave. As for salah, it should be performed behind it, and the grave should be in front of it. Bihar al Anwar 53/165.
How can a person make the grave his Qiblah? Why would anyone soil his cheeks with the sand of the grave? Muslims are commanded to face the House of Allah, and to prostrate to Allah alone. Curses have been narrated regarding those who take the graves as places of prostration. The following question is among that, regarding which they claim was posed to the awaited one, followed by a signed answer from him:
قد اختلف أصحابنا في مهر المرأة فقال بعضهم: إذا دخل بها سقط المهر، ولا شيء لها، وقال بعضهم: هو لازم في الدنيا والآخرة، فكيف ذلك؟ وما الذي يجب فيه؟ فأجاب عليه السلام: إن كان عليه بالمهر كتاب فيه دين، فهو لازم له في الدنيا والآخرة، وإن كان عليه كتاب فيه ذكر الصدقات سقط إذا دخل بها، وإن لم يكن عليه كتاب فإذا دخل بها سقط في الصداق
Our scholars have differed regarding the dowry of a woman. Some of them said, ‘When he has intercourse with her, the dowry falls away and she will not deserve anything.’ Others say, ‘It is binding in this world as well as the hereafter.’ How is this possible? What is necessary?
He replied, “If it recorded on as a debt as far as the dowry is concerned, it will be compulsory upon him in this world as well as the hereafter, if it is written on a document with charities, it will fall away once he has intercourse with her, and if it is not recorded anywhere, the remainder of the dowry will fall away when he has intercourse with her.” Bihar al Anwar 53/169
Can an answer like this come out of the mouth of a scholar? Even an ignorant person who has some bit of sense will not utter such nonsense. This ideology, undoubtedly, has nothing to do with Islam. How can a person lose his or her wealth simply because there is no document wherein their right to it was recorded? The dowry, as stated above, falls away if it is not recorded! This is the constitution of thugs and anarchists, not the Shari’ah of Islam. If anyone wishes to see more of these examples, he may refer to Bihar al Anwar pg. 53, Ikmal al Din of Ibn Babawayh and al Ghaybah of al Tusi.
 Usul al Kafi 1/519
 A reference to their Mahdi.
 Ikmal al Din pg. 460
 Usul al Kafi 1/524, Ikmal al Din pg. 465, 467
 Ibn Babawayh: Ikmal al Din pg. 465
Take note that this infallible Mahdi did not have anything to say regarding the agony and grief of the one who complained, even though this was in reality, from the customs of the people of Jahiliyyah. Allah says regarding them:
وَإِذَا بُشِّرَ أَحَدُهُمْ بِالأُنثَى ظَلَّ وَجْهُهُ مُسْوَدًّا وَهُوَ كَظِيمٌ
And when one of them is informed of [the birth of] a female, his face becomes dark, and he suppresses grief. (Surah al Nahl: 58)
He was greatly worried regarding her sustenance, even though Allah is the one who is responsible for sustenance. He said:
وَلاَ تَقْتُلُواْ أَوْلادَكُمْ خَشْيَةَ إِمْلاقٍ نَّحْنُ نَرْزُقُهُمْ وَإِيَّاكُم
And do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. (Surah al Isra: 31)
The awaited one, on the other hand, considered death to be the way out.
 Usul al Kafi 1/522
 Refer to Rijal al Hilli pg.. 100 (the biography of ‘Ali ibn al Jahm), Wasa’il al Shia 20/332 (the biography of Muhammd ibn ‘Abdullah ibn Jafar a-Himyari) and 20/262 (the biography of ‘Ali ibn Hussain Ibn Babawayh).
 Refer to Rijal al Hilli pg. 90
 Kashf Ghayahib al Jahalat pg. 12 of the manuscript.
 Refer to Wasa’il al Shia 20/262
 Kashf Ghayahib al Jahalat pg. 12 of the manuscript.
 Ibn Babawayh: Ikmal al Din 2/193, al Tusi: al Ghaybah pg. 257
 Bihar al Anwar 51/361
 Al Nuri al Tabarsi: Jannat al Ma’wa 53/320 (printed with Bihar al Anwar)
 Jannat al Ma’wa 53/320-321
 Muhammad Salih: Hasa’il al Fikr pg. 123
 Refer to Agha Buzurg al Tahrani: al Dhari’ah 5/159
 Refer to Tarikh al Ghaybah al Kubra of al Sadr pg. 40
 For further information regarding the plots of the devil against man, and his adoption of the form of some of their scholars, in order to misguide them further, refer to al Furqan bayn Auliya al Rahman wa Auliya al Shaitan.
 Majmu’ Fatawa 13/95
 It was possible for the Hawarin to be confused by this, just as many scholars of the Muslims were confused due to similar occurrences. However, that which al Masih instructed them to propagate, before being raised was the truth to which they were meant to confine themselves. He was not raised until he conveyed the message of his Rabb, thus there was no need for him to re-appear.
 Majmu’ Fatawa 13/94-95
 Asl al Shia wa Usuluha pg. 79
 His statement, “except to those which they consider authentic from the reporters of the Ahlul Bayt,” is a deceptive and inaccurate statement. This is because, those who not know the nature of Shi’ism will be misled into thinking that the speech of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, which was reported by the Ahlul Bayt, is their source of knowledge. The reality, however, is that they consider each of the Twelve ‘Imams’ to be like a Rasul, i.e. he says nothing from his own desires. His speech holds the same weight as the Speech of Allah and His Rasul. This is why the speech of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam rarely appears in their books. They are satisfied with that which is supposedly reported from the Imams.
Likewise, his claim regarding the ‘Ahlul Bayt’ is also misleading, as this only refers to a handful of them. According to them, the others do not qualify as narrators. Every member of the Ahlul Bayt is not an Imam. Thus, a narration from the progeny of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha, from the children of Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhu would not be accepted by them, as none of his offspring or descendants were Imams. The most that they could qualify for, is to be narrators who will be graded by the Shia, either as acceptable narrators or rejected narrators. It is for this reason that the Twelvers regarded as kafir any member of the Ahlul Bayt who stood up for the post of Caliphate besides the Twelve Imams. Refer to Usul al Kafi 1/372. A prime example could be al Tusi’s rejection of the narrations of Zaid ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in al Istibsar (1/66). Thus, the statement of Al Kashif al Ghita is undoubtedly misleading. The reason behind his deception is that this book was spread in the Islamic countries to call towards Shi’asm.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/138, Ibn Taymiyyah goes on to say, “The narration of one person is not sufficient for knowledge of the Qur’an and the mutawatir Sunnah. If they say, ‘It is attained due to the transmission of the one who is infallible,’ it will be said to them, ‘It is necessary to first prove that he is infallible, which cannot be proven from his own statements as it is not yet established that he is infallible. It cannot be established by Ijma’ as well since no Ijma’ took place regarding it. According to the Imamiyyah, Ijma’ is only a proof on the basis of the belief that the Imam is among them. Thus, the matter once again depends upon proving that he is infallible, which cannot be backed by anything besides his own supposed statements. If he was infallible, as they claim, there would have been other proofs to it as well.’’’ Minhaj al Sunnah 4/139
 Ibn Taymiyyah says, “The cities of Islam received knowledge regarding Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam from people other than ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. As for the people of al Madinah and Makkah, the matter is clear. Similar is the case of the people of Sham and Basrah. These people hardly narrate from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Most of his knowledge was preserved in Kufah. However, its inhabitants had learnt the Qur’an and Sunnah even before the Caliphate of ‘Uthman, leave alone the Caliphate of ‘Ali. The jurists of al Madinah had mastered the din during the reign of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. As for Yemen, Muaz radiya Llahu ‘anhu stayed among them and taught them for a lengthier period than ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Hence the people of Yemen narrate more narrations from Muaz radiya Llahu ‘anhu as compared to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Shurayh and the other senior Tabi’in became accomplished jurists under the tutelage of Muaz ibn Jabal radiya Llahu ‘anhu. When ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu arrived at Kufah, Shurayh was already a judge. He and Ubaidah al Salmani had become jurists under the guidance of others. In a nutshell, the knowledge of Islam had spread before ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu arrived at Kufah.” Minhaj al Sunnah 3/15
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/15
 Ibn Hazm: al Fasl 4/213, Minhaj al Sunnah 4/139
 Usul al Kafi 2/20, Tasir al ‘Ayyashi 1/252-253, al Burhan 1/386, Rijal al Kashshi pg. 425
 Usul al Kafi 1/377
 Usul al Kafi 1/399
 Al Dhahabi: Siyar A’lam al Nubala 4/307
 Ibn al Jawzi said, ‘The Rafidah are of three types; one group who heard a hadith and then fabricated other ahadith adding on and deleting, a second group who heard nothing, but you see them attributing their lies to Jafar al Sadiq saying, “Jafar said” and “So and so said”, and a third group who are the ignorant commoners, they utter anything that comes to their mind, whether it makes sense or not.” Ibn al Jawzi: al Mawdu’at 1/338, Ibn Taymiyyah: Minhaj al Sunnah 4/119
 Majmu’ Fatawa 13/32
 Bihar al Anwar 2/246
 Refer to Rijal al Kashshi pg. 208-209, Bihar al Anwar 25/302-303 (this is only a portion of the text, which will appear in its entirety later).
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/143
 Muhammad Jawad Mughniyah: al Shia fi al Mizan pg. 110, Muhammad Hussain al Muzaffar: al Imam al Sadiq pg. 144, Agha Buzurg: al Dhari’ah 2.129, Wasa’il al Shia 2/72
 Usul al Kafi 2/242-243
 Tanqih al Maqal 1/211
 Ikmal al Din pg. 13
 They stop at Musa ibn Jafar. They do not believe in the Imamah of anyone after him. This is because they believed that Musa was alive and he did not pass away. They await his return, just as the Twelvers await the appearance of their imaginary hidden one. Refer to al Qummi: al Maqalat wa al Firaq pg. 93, al Nashi al Akbar: Masa’il al Imamah pg. 47. The author of al Zinah says, “Some hold this opinion up until this day.” Al Zinah pg. 290. However, they then ceased to exist.
The term Waqifiyyah is used at times to refer to those groups who believed that Imamah ended with others as well, such as those who believe that it was terminated after ‘Ali, al Sadiq, or Hassan al ‘Askari.
 The followers of a man named Nawus, Ibn al Nawus or ‘Ajlan ibn al Nawus. It is also said that this was actually an attribution to the village of Nawus. This sect believed that Jafar ibn Muhammd did not pass away, he is alive and he will not pass away until he emerges and rules. He is the Mahdi. The author of al Zinah says, “This sect no longer exists. None can be found today who uphold this view.” However, their narrations have remained in the books of the Twelvers.
Refer to al Qummi: al Maqalat wa al Firaq pg. 80, al Nawbakhti: Firaq al Shia pg. 67, al Razi: al Zinah pg. 286, al Ash’ari: Maqalat al Islamiyyin 1/100, al Shahrastani 1/166-167, Nishwan: al Hur al ‘In pg. 162.
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 563
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 565
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 570
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 612
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 612
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 616
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 597
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 615
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 456
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 456
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 456
 Rijal al Kashshi pg. 456
 Usul al Kafi 1/65, Bihar al Anwar 2/228
 Under the discussion of the condition of their narrators, who narrate from the Imams.Back to top