BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents
The Shia, as their canonical sources emphasise, do not acknowledge the legitimacy of any empire or state in the Muslim world. They consider the Khalifah of the Muslim world a Taghut, devil/idol, and his dynasty void of any Shar’i status. They only consider the Khilafah of Amir al Muʾminin ‘Ali and Hassan radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to be exceptions to the rule. It has previously been mentioned that their narrations state that any flag which is raised before the emergence of the Mahdi, the raiser thereof is a Taghut.
Therefore, the enemy waiting for every opportunity to destroy the Muslim Ummah found its long lost need in the Shia whom they utilised in accomplishing many of their goals; this is due to the existence of the aforementioned belief whose natural result is the absence of loyalty and obedience, and overt enmity and dislike for the Muslim ruler and subjects.
The Shia denominations have thus always been a submissive tool in the hands of the enemy and an obedient mount which they have used to reach their objectives.
Furthermore, the doctrine of Taqiyyah made it easy for the Shia to strategize and give shape to conspiracies. Much like a Masonic secretive movement disguised in the garb of Islam and the garment of love and obedience to the Imam of the Muslims, but covertly determined to conspire against the Ummah. Hence they say:
خالطوهم بالبرانية وظاهروهم بالجوانية إذا كانت الأمر صبيانية
Intermingle with them outwardly and oppose them inwardly when leadership ends up in the hands of children.
The Shia have thus been deployed in various eras of history by heretics who subjugated them to fulfil their goals and execute their plans. Likewise, many of the leaders of the heretics joined the ranks of Shi’ism so that it be possible for them to exploit the simpletons. Ibn Taymiyyah mentions:
إن أكثر معتنقى التشيع لا يعتقدون دين الإسلام. إنما يتظاهرون بالتشيع لقلة عقل الشيعة وجهلهم ليتوسلوا بهم إلى أغراضهم
Majority of those who embrace Shi’ism do not really believe in the religion of Islam. They merely display Shia tendencies due to lack of intellect in the Shia and their ignorance by virtue of which they can easily exploit them in order to reach their motives.
The incidents and events of history attest to the fact that Shi’ism has been the ideal setting for any person who intended to destroy Islam and its people.
Many groups amongst the Persians whose empire the Muslims destroyed within seven years found in Shi’ism to be their long awaited opportunity. So did the Jews seize the opportunity of achieving their goals under the pretext of Shi’ism.
Till today the enemies of Islam and those who conspire against it disguise themselves with Shi’ism. During the conflict which broke out between various parties which all subscribe to the Twelver dogma, confessions had come to the fore from the people themselves. Hence one of the Shia researchers has reported that the Russian ambassador in Iran Kanyaz Dakurki would attend the lessons of their scholar al Rashati, the founder of the Kashfiyyah School which is a sub-sect of the Twelvers, which would be held in Karbalaʾ under the disguise of an invented name ‘Sheikh ‘Isa al Lankarani’. This was disclosed by the al Sharq magazine which was published by the Russian Soviet ministry of foreign affairs in the year 1924-1925.
Likewise the retired English general Jafar ‘Ali Khan (a name which he adopted to disguise himself apparently) would also disguise himself as a Shia and attend the lessons of Kazim al Rashati.
The researcher states that this phenomenon is due to the fact that the enemies foreknew that the residents of these two lands, Iraq and Iran, are from the lovers of the Ahlul Bayt and thus targeted them from the theological perspective. Hence, via the medium of the Kashfi ideology they popularised extreme ideas regarding the Imams and made them the partners of Allah in his attributes of creation and sustenance. They also fed them the idea that there is no punishment for any sin however small or big it might be.
He thereafter says:
وهكذا وجد الاستعمار في هذه الديار العربية المسلمة أرضا خصبة لغرس شجرة العقيدة الحنظلية
In this way did colonialism find fertile grounds for planting the colocynth plant of belief in these Arabian Muslim countries.
I would add that prior to this the Safawid propensity of extremism played a very pivotal role in implanting the seeds of extremism through the teachings and writings of some of their evil scholars like al Majlisi, al Jazaʾiri, al Kashani and others.
Nonetheless, this enemy who disguises himself in the garb of Shi’ism and infiltrates the ranks of the Shia at times obtains a very lofty position. Why wouldn’t this be so when their belief regarding the consensus of the Ummah accords the views of an unknown group and an unknown person precedence over all other views due to the possibility that he be the Mahdi?
Having said this, a person who analyses the events of history and its battles will realise that the problems caused by the claimants of Shi’ism have been the most grave of all problems which the Muslim dynasties have encountered. This is because they are overtly with the Muslims but are covertly their greatest enemy. To the extent that Ibn Taymiyyah has said:
إن أصل كل فتنة وبلية هم الشيعة، ومن انصوى إليهم، وكثير من السيوف التى سلت في الإسلام، إنما كان من جهتهم وبهم تسترت الزنادقة
The root of every problem and difficulty is the Shia and those who have sided with them. And many of the swords which were brandished in Islam were from the Shia. The heretics disguised themselves in them.
Furthermore, due to the fact that they consider the Muslims to be more steeped in disbelief than the Jews and the Christians, they form coalitions with the enemies of Din whose enmity is known to everyone, i.e. the Jews, the Christians and the Polytheists, and oppose the friends of Allah who are the most pious of people and the leaders of the pious.
Ibn Taymiyyah says:
وقد رأينا ورأى المسلمون أنه إذا ابتلى المسلمون بعدو كافر كانوا معه على المسلمين
We have seen and the Muslims have seen that whenever the Muslims are tested with a non-Muslim foe they are always with them against the Muslims.
By way of example, the people witnessed that when Hulagu, the king of the Mongol disbelievers, entered Sham in the year 658 A.H. the Shia were at the forefront of those helping in establishing his dominion, executing his orders and destroying the Muslim dynasty. Likewise the people all know, the learned and the lay, of the bloodbath that had occurred after the arrival of Hulagu in Iraq, the magnanimity of which is only known to Allah. The minister of the Khalifah Ibn al ‘Alqami and the Shia were his secret advisors who helped in many open and clandestine ways detailing all of which will prolong the discussion.
Before that, the Shia helped the grandfather of Hulagu, Genghis Khan, against the Muslims.
Similarly, the Muslims noticed on the shores of Sham that when the Muslims and the Christians were at war their inclination was toward the Christians whom they assisted as much as possible. They would dislike that the cities of the Christians be conquered as much as they hated that ‘Akka and other places be conquered and would give preference to their victory against the Muslims. To the extent that when the Muslims were defeated at the hands of Ghazan in the year five hundred and ninety nine and consequently the Muslim army evacuated Sham they went about wreaking havoc and causing destruction by murdering, usurping wealth, raising the flag of the cross, giving preference to Christians over the Muslims, and taking captives, wealth and weaponry from the Muslims to the Christians in Cyprus. This and other events were witnessed by the Muslims and has diffusely reached those were not present.
They were also one of the main reasons why the Christians gained control of Bayt al Maqdis in the past till the Muslims succeeded in reclaiming it from them.
The discussion on this topic is very vast and the books of history are replete with reports which sketch these unpleasant realities.
Nonetheless, if this was the influence of the Shia who stayed within the Muslim empire, then the influence of independent Shia dynasties was much more severe. Hence Ibn Taymiyyah mentions that the dynasty of the Buwayhids comprised of different types of reprehensible schools: some among them were heretics, some were Qaramitah, some with Philosophical leanings, others Mu’tazilah and yet others who were Shia.
The Muslims suffered such weakness during their reign as was not known even when Christians secured control over places which were situated at the boarders of the Muslim world. The Qaramitah rapidly spread in Egypt, the west and the east and many events transpired.
He also says the following regarding the rule of Khuda Bandah:
وانظر ما حصل لهم في دولة السلطان خدا بنده الذي صنف له هذا الكتاب كيف ظهر فيهم من الشر الذي لو دام وقوي أبطلوا به عامة شرائع الإسلام لكن يريدون أن يطفئوا نور الله بأفواههم ويأبى الله إلا أن يتم نوره ولو كره الكافرون
See what they obtained during the dynasty of Khuda Bandah for who he wrote this book. The evil which came to fore was such that if it continued and intensified then most of the symbols of Islam would have been obliterated. But they want to extinguish the light of Allah and Allah refuses except to complete his light even though the disbelievers dislike that.
Up to the present day the Shia influence is reaching the lands of the Muslims from the state of the scholars in Iran, from their organisations in Lebanon, and from their movements in the Arabian Gulf, etc.
Ihsan Ilahi Zahir mentions that the Independence of eastern Pakistan from Pakistan was due to a Shia conspiracy. He says:
وها هي باكستان الشرقية ذهبت ضحية بخيانة أحد أبناء قزلباش الشيعة يحيى خان في أيدي الهندوس
Here we have Eastern Pakistan which was lost to the Hindus due to the treachery of one of Qazalbash Shia Yahya Khan.
The leading scholar of the Shia in Pakistan opposed the implementation of the Islamic Shari’ah due to it minimising their freedom of carrying out their passions which they practice in the name of Mut’ah, and due to them being implicated for their crimes which they would otherwise very conveniently commit averring that with the love of ‘Ali no sin is harmful.
Nonetheless, these are just a few allusions to some very great issues the explanation and analyses whereof require volumes of books.
But hereunder I will choose two examples and deliberate over them so that we may take lessons:
The first is linked to the influence of the Shia within the Muslim empire, and that is the incident of Ibn al ‘Alqami and his conspiracy in destroying the Muslim empire.
The second is linked to the influence of the Shia dynasty upon the Muslims, i.e. and that is the Safawid dynasty.
The short of the story is that Ibn al ‘Alqami was the minister of the Abbasid khalifah al Musta’sim who, like his father and forefathers, followed the creed of the Ahlus Sunnah. He was lenient and not very vigilant. Exploiting these traits the Shia minister was plotting to finally destroy the Khilafah, annihilate the Ahlus Sunnah and establish a dynasty based on the dogma of the Shia. He thus took advantage of his position and the heedlessness of the Khalifah to execute his plots against the Khilafah. The threads of his conspiracy can be summed up in three stages:
The First Stage: Weakening the army and harassing the people. He done so by trying to deprive the army from their stipends and the poor people from their allowances: Ibn Kathir mentions:
وكان الوزير ابن العلقمي يجتهد في صرف الجيوش، وإسقاط اسمهم من الديوان. فكانت العساكر في آخر أيام المستنصر قريبا من مائة ألف مقاتل… فلم يزل في تقليلهم إلى أن لم يبق سوى عشرة آلاف.
And the minister Ibn al ‘Alqami would strive to divert the army and remove their names from the records. Hence the armies towards the latter part of the reign of al Mustansir consisted of a hundred thousand soldiers, but he consistently worked at decreasing them till only ten thousand remained.
The Second Stage: Correspondence with the Tatars. Ibn Kathir mentions:
ثم كاتب التتار، وأطمعهم في أخذ البلاد وسهل عليهم ذلك، وحكى لهم حقيقة الحال وكشف لهم ضعف الرجال
He then wrote to the Tatars and instilled in them greed to take the lands. He related the reality of the matter to them and revealed to them the weakness of the men.
The Third Stage: Stopping the people from combatting the Tatars and discouraging the Khalifah. He stopped the people from fighting them and made the Khalifah assume that the king of the Tatars is only coming to enter into a truce with him. He suggested to the Khalifah that he go out to him and agree with him on half of the taxes of Iraq being for him and half for the Khalifah. Hence the Khalifah went out to him in an entourage of seven hundred people who were all judges, jurists, leaders and luminaries. Through this ploy the massacre of the Khalifah and the prominent members and leaders of the community came to being without any effort from the Tatars. The Shia and the hypocrites had told Hulagu not to enter into a truce with the Khalifah; Ibn al ‘Alqami told him that the truce if enacted will only last for a year or two after which things will return to how they were. They embellished the killing of the Khalifah for him and it is said that the ones who told him to kill the Khalifah were Ibn al ‘Alqami and Nasir al Din al Tusi.
Thereafter they headed to the city and killed all the men, women, children and old people they got hold of. With the exception of the Jews and the Christians, whoever sought refuge from them and whoever sought refuge in the house of Ibn al ‘Alqami, no one else was spared.
They had eventually killed approximately eleven million some odd people, or more or less. Islam had not seen a massacre of this magnitude in its history. They killed the Hashimis and took their Abbasid and non-Abbasid wives as captives. The question is: Can a person who makes the enemy march upon the family of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and all the Muslims, kill them, and imprison them be a partisan and a lover of the Ahlul Bayt?
They also killed the orators, Imams of the Masjids, and the bearers of the Qurʾan. The Masjids became empty and Salah in congregation and Jumu’ah Salah were discarded for months in Baghdad.
The motive of Ibn al ‘Alqami was to annihilate the Sunnah completely and replace it with the innovation of Shi’ism. He also wanted to deactivate the Masjids and seminaries and build a huge centre for the Shia through which they could propagate their dogma. But Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had not allowed him to do so and deprived him of all his bounties and seized him a few months after this grave incident. He was subsequently followed by his children.
Deliberate over this grave incident and appalling disloyalty. Also consider the good nature of some of the Ahlus Sunnah, which has resulted in heedlessness, who want to bridge the divide with their staunchest of enemies. Also take note of the immense hatred which the Shia bear for the Ahlus Sunnah. This Shia was the minister of al Musta’sim for fourteen years. His ministership had earned him such reverence and status as not enjoyed by any other minister. But these privileges did not help in any way to eliminate from his heart the hatred and malice which he bore for the Ahlus Sunnah. What is even more interesting is that the later Shia considered these crimes of Ibn al ‘Alqami and Nasir al Din al Tusi against the Muslims to be from their great feats and achievements. Hence Khomeini, in commending the accomplishments of Nasir al Din al Tusi mentions:
ويشعر الناس بالخسارة بفقدان الخواجة نصير الدين الطوسي وأضرابه ممن قدم خدمات جليلة للإسلام
People, i.e. the Shia, feel that they have suffered a loss upon the demise of Nasir al Din al Tusi and his likes who offered great services for Islam.
The services intended here are what al Khuwansari, who lived before him, has enlisted in the biography of Nasir al Din al Tusi;
ومن جملة أمره المشهور المعروف المنقول حكاية استيزاره للسلطان المحتشم… هلاكو خان… ومجيئه في موكب السلطان المؤيد مع كمال الاستعداد إلى دار السلام بغداد وإصلاح العباد… بإبادة ملك بني العباس، وإيقاع القتل العام من أبتاع أولئك الطغام إلى أن سال دماؤهم الأقذار كأمثال الأنهار، فانهار بها في ماء دجلة ومنها إلى جهنم دار البوار
And from his famous, well-known, and reported matters is his cooperation with the demure king Hulagu Khan and his arrival with the entourage of the aided king who came to Dar al Salam Baghdad with full preparation and reformed the bondsmen. They destroyed the kingdom of the Banu ‘Abbas carried out a mass murder of the followers of those lowly people till consequently their impure blood flowed like rivers and poured into the Tigris river and from there to Jahannam the house of ruination.
Hence they consider his conspiring to massacre the Muslims from his greatest feats, for massacre according to them is the way to guide the bondsmen and reform the lands. They consider the Muslims who were martyred in this massacre to be destined to the fire, which entails that Hulagu the polytheist and his army are from the people of Jannat due to them soothing the grudges of the Shia against the Muslims. Look at the extent of their hatred which makes the massacre of the Muslims their greatest hope in life and which makes the disbelievers closer to them than the community of the Muslims.
This is the story of Ibn al ‘Alqami which most of the books of history have recorded and which is not only acknowledged by the Shia but commended as well. But despite this, one contemporary Shia has tried to reject this incident and question its authenticity. His evidence is that those who have reported it were not alive when it happened. And when he comes to the mention of those who lived during that era and recorded it, like Shihab al Din ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Ismail (d. 665 A.H.) he responds by saying that although he lived during that era, but he was from Damascus and thus was not a first-hand witness of the incident.
This is an attempt to reject that which is very well established according to the historians, similar to their attempt to deny the existence of Ibn Sabaʾ.
After running a search through the books of history I came across a very important testimony of a great historian who possessed three attributes: 1) the Shia consider him to be from their transmitters, 2) he is from Baghdad and 3) he passed away in 673 A.H.
Hence he was a Shia who lived during the era of the incident in question and was from Baghdad. This is the Imam and jurist ‘Ali Ibn Anjab al Sa’i. He has attested to the crime of Ibn al ‘Alqami. He says:
… وفي أيامه (يعني المستعصم) استولت التتار على بغداد وقتلوا الخليفة، وبه انقضت الدولة العباسية من أرض العراق، وسببه أن وزير الخليفة مؤيد الدين بن العلقمي كان رافضيا…
In his days (i.e. Musta’sim) the Tartars took over Baghdad and killed the Khalifah. This brought an end to the Abbasid dynasty in the lands of Iraq. And the reason for this was that the minister of the Khalifah Muʾayyid al Din ibn al ‘Alqami was a Shia… He continues to narrate the incident.
Muhsin al Amin has considered Ibn al Sa’i from the narrators of the Shia. He says:
علي ابن أنجب البغدادي المعروف بابن الساعي له أخبار الخلفاء ت 674 ه
‘Ali ibn Anjab al Baghdadi, famously known as Ibn al Sa’i. For him is the book Akhbar al Khulafaʾ. He died in 674 A.H.
A sufficient indication for the link between the Shia and the atrocities of the Muslims and their desire that many others of the same kind transpire is the satisfaction which has come forth from the later scholars of the Shia like al Khuwansari, Khomeini and others.
Under the Safawid rule, which was founded by Shah Ismail al Safawi, Twelver Shi’ism was forcibly imposed upon the Iranians and it was deemed the official dogma of Iran. Ismail was a harsh person who was thirsty for blood to an unconceivable extent. He would popularise regarding himself that he is infallible and that there is no barrier between him and the Mahdi and that he does not take any step but in accordance with the demands of the Imams of the Twelvers.
He carried his sword and struck the Ahlus Sunnah with it. He would test the people by asking them to curse the first three Khulafaʾ. Subsequently, whoever would hear the cursing would be obligated to say ‘Besh Bad Kam Bad’ which in the Azerbaijani language means that the listener is pleased with the swearing and is requesting for more. If someone would refuse to say this particular phrase he would immediately be slayed. The Shah had ordered that the cursing take place upon the streets, in the markets, and upon the pulpits and threatened to kill those who opposed. Whenever he would conquer a city he would force the people to embrace Shi’ism by the might of his sword.
It is reported that when he conquered Tabriz and initially wanted to forcibly convert the people to Shi’ism, some of the scholars suggested that he give the matter some time due to two thirds of the city being the Ahlus Sunnah who will not bear the cursing of the three Khulafaʾ upon the pulpits. But he answered by saying:
إذا وجدت من الناس كلمة اعتراض شهرت سيفي بعون الله فلا أبقي منهم أحد حيا
If I find even a word of opposition from the people I will unsheathe my sword with the help of Allah and will thereafter not leave anyone of them alive.
On the other hand, in addition to his methodology of threatening and terrifying the people, he deployed the issue of the massacre of Hussain as a means to provoke sentiments. Hence he ordered that gatherings be organised to commemorate the martyrdom of Hussain in the ways we see them being commemorated today. And added to that he also included what is known as Majalis al Ta’ziyah (gatherings of condolences). Today these gatherings are known as ‘al Shabih’, and in them plays of the martyrdom of Hussain are done. This had a very great impact upon the people and thus some have concluded that it was one of the greatest contributors to the spread of Shi’ism in Iran. The reason being that whatever it entails, i.e. the displays of remorse, wailing, and the beating of drums and the abundance of flags which go with them; all naturally lead to the entrenchment of the Shia ideology in the recesses of the hearts by touching the sensitive cords therein.
Moving on, the scholars of the Shia helped the Safawid rulers in taking Shi’ism through the various stages of extremism and enforcing it upon the people with weaponry and fire. The most prominent among them was their scholar ‘Ali al Karaki whom the Shia accord the title ‘al Muhaqqiq al Thani’ (the second eminent research scholar) and whom Shah Tahmasp, the son of Shah Ismail, had taken as a close advisor. The latter had accorded him the status of the obeyed issuer of orders in the state. This al Karaki had contrived many innovations in Shi’ism, one being the sand upon which the Shia prostrate in their prayers on which he wrote a book in the year 933 A.H. He also wrote a book regarding the permissibility of prostrating to a servant (human) due to complying with Ismail al Safawi whose friends would flatter him to the extent of even at times worshipping him and prostrating before him.
The many innovations which he contrived in the Shia dogma propelled some non-Shia writers to accord him the title the ‘Inventor of the Shia’. He also wrote a book regarding reviling Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma which he named Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut (the divine breezes regarding the cursing of Jibt and Taghut).
It is also said that he was the person to initiate the reviling of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in the Masjids on Fridays.
Another scholar of the Safawid dynasty was al Majlisi who partnered with the rulers in converting the Muslims in Iran. It is claimed that his book Nur al Yaqin was the cause of the conversion of seventy thousand Iranian Sunnis to Shi’ism.
This is probably from the exaggerations of the Shia, because Shi’ism did not gain traction in Iran by way of academics and persuasion, but rather by way of coercion and threatening.
The next generation grew up in an ambiance of the Hussaini commemorations which were sensationalised to an extent that the younger generation would definitely be overwhelmed with hatred and anger. This led to them not wanting to listen to any evidence or argument.
Also, al Majlisi’s book Bihar al Anwar had a very great effect in the spread of extremism in the Shia. This is because the readers of the Ta’ziyah (condolences) and the orators would draw from it whatever they found appealing and as a result filled the minds of people with extremisms and myths.
This book was one of the first books which was published on a very large scale during the Qajar era. Many copies were sent to Iraq which led to the spread of much of its unreliable information amidst the circles of the Iraqi community, similar to what had transpired in Iran.
The other angle of the impact of the Safawid dynasty should also not be neglected; and that is the various wars that it waged against the Muslim empire, its collaboration with the Portuguese and the English, its approbation of building churches and the missionary movements of the priests with who they teamed up with them in combatting the Sunnah and its adherents.
These are but a few indications to the influences of their dynasty in this sphere.
I conclude the discussion with the words of Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the topic, which if read and applied to the reality, and in light of which if history is read, you will see the truth of it as clear as the daylight. He says:
فلينظر كل عاقل فيما حدث في زمانه، وما يقرب من زمانه من الفتن والشرور والفساد في الإسلام فأنه يجد معظم ذلك من قبل الرافضة، وتجدهم من أعظم الناس فتنة وشرا، وإنهم لا يقعدون عما يمكنهم من الفتن والشرور وأيقاع الفساد بين الأمة
Every intelligent person should consider all the trials, evils and corruptions that occurred in his time, and the near past. He will find that most of them are from the side of the Shia. You will find that they are the greatest instigators of fitnah and that they do not desist from causing any fitnah, evil and corruption in the Ummah which is within their reach.
He also says:
وقد علمنا بالمعاينة والتواتر أن الفتن والشرور العظيمة التي لا تشبهها فتن إنما تخرج عنهم
And we know through observation and diffuse transmission that the great calamities and evils which are unmatched by any other in kind all come from them.
 Refer to: http://mahajjah.com/the-ruling-regarding-a-person-who-denies-the-imamah-of-one-of-the-twelve-imams/#section-the-muslim-rulers-and-their-governments
 Usul al Kafi 2/220.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 2/48.
 See his biography in al A’lam of al Zarkali 6/67; Ahsan al Wadi’ah 1/72.
 Al Tu’mah: Madinah al Hussain p. 53.
 Ibid. p. 53.
 Ibid. Same page.
 Ibid. p. 54.
 See: Madinah al Hussain p. 54.
 And then he does not lose out on any of his passions which he would indulge in before overtly entering into Shi’ism. His lustful desires are thus gratified by way of Mut’ah marriages, the lending of sexual rights and anal sex with women, each of which is an institution in their dogma. As for Shar’i obligations, they are lightened by virtue of combining Salahs and at times even completely forgiven by virtue of love for the Ahlul Bayt. Jihad is discarded till the emergence of the Mahdi. Thus there is no fear of loss of life. If he reaches the rank of a Ayah or Hujjah or a Marji’ then lustrous gold is thrown at his feet under the pretext of Khums. Likewise he reaches the level of being the Bab and consecration and reverence under the pretext of the ‘representation of the Imam’. So of what harm would it be to him to infiltrate their ranks and covertly operate for his people amidst the Shia camouflaging himself by wearing black clothing. At times he might just claim to belong to the progeny of the Ahlul Bayt in order to gain popularity.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/243.
 Refer to: http://mahajjah.com/the-ruling-regarding-a-person-who-denies-the-imamah-of-one-of-the-twelve-imams/
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/110.
 Ibid. 3/38.
 He was the brother of Khuda Bandah, from the grand children of Genghis Khan, the king of the Mongols. As for the details of the incident to which Ibn Taymiyyah is alluding refer to al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 14/6.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/244; also see p. 38-39 of the same volume; also see: 4/110-111; al Muntaqa p. 329-332 and the annotations of Muhibb al Din al Khatib on the topic.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/110.
 Emerged in Iraq and a portion of Iran in the year 334 and ended in the year 437 A.H. The Twelvers consider their dynasty to be from their dynasties. (See: al Shia fi al Tarikh p. 98; al Shia fi al Mizan p. 138-148).
 Majmu’ Fatawa Shaikh al Islam 4/22.
 See footnote no. 45 of The Doctrinal and Ideological Sphere Click Here
 I.e. Minhaj al Karamah which Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli wrote and to which Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a response by the name Minhaj al Sunnah.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/244.
 See: al Amal wa al Mukhayyamat al Filastiniyyah of Muhammad al Gharib.
 Al Shia wa al Sunnah p. 11.
 See: Mazalim al Shia p. 9-10. The leader of the Shia, Mufti Jafar Hussain, said in a press conference that the Shia disagree with the execution of the capital punishments because they will be executed according to the school of the Ahlus Sunnah. (See: al Anbaʾ al Kuwaitiyyah 1/5/1979 A.C.)
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 13/202.
 Ibid. 13/202.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/38.
 Nasir was with Hulagu who had sought his company to serve him after he conquered the forts of al Alamut and took them from the Ismailiyyah. (Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 13/201).
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 13/201-202.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/38.
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 13/203.
 Ibid. 13/202-203.
 Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah p. 128.
 Rawdat al Jannat 6/300-301; also see the praises for Nasir al Din al Tusi in the book: al Nuri al Tabarsi: Mustadrak al Wasaʾil 3/483 and al Qummi: al Kuna wa al Alqab 1/356.
 Also refer to: Ibn Shakir al Kutbi: Fawat al Wafayat 2/312; al Dhahabi: al ‘Ibar 5/225; al Subki: Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah 8/262-263, etc.
See: Muhammad al Shaikh al Sa’idi: Muʾayyid al Din ibn al ‘Alqami wa Asrar Suqut al Dawlah al ‘Abbasiyyah. The University of Baghdad helped in publishing the book.
 Mukhtasar Akhbar al Khulafaʾ p. 136-137.
 The Safawid Dynasty lasted from the year 905 A.H. to 1148 A.H. (See: al Shia fi al Mizan p. 182).
 ‘Ali al Wardi: Lamahat Ijtima’iyyah min Tarikh al ‘Iraq p. 56.
 Kamil Mustafa al Shaybi: al Fikr al Shia wa al Naza’at al Sufiyah hatta Matla’ al Qarn al Thani ‘Ashar al Hijri p. 413.
 Ibid. p. 58.
 Ibid. p. 58; Tarikh al Sawafiyyin p. 55.
 Al Shaybi: al Fikr al Shia p. 415.
 Al Wardi: Lamahat Ijtima’iyyah p. 59.
 ‘Ali ibn Hilal al Karaki d. 984 A.H. (See: A’yan al Shia 42/200-201; Muqtabas al Athar 22/333)
 Al Fikr al Shia p. 416 (with reference to his biography in Rawat al Jannat p. 404).
 Al Haydari therefore says that Ismail al Safawi parted from the path of Rafd and claimed divinity; his soldiers would prostrate before him. (See: ‘Unwan al Majd 116-117).
 Al Nawaqid: al Waraqah p. 98.
 Al Fikr al Shia p. 416.
 Donalds: ‘Aqidah al Shia p. 302.
 Lamahat Ijtima’iyyah p. 77-78.
 See the details in: Tarikh al Sawafiyyin p. 93, onwards; Jamil al Misri: Hadir al ‘Alam al Islami p. 117.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/243.
 Ibid. 3/245.