The Position of the Ahl al-Sunnah from the Shi`ah Perspective

The Position of the Ahlus Sunnah from the Shia Perspective

There is no group on the surface of the earth who possesses a greater hatred for the Ahlus Sunnah than those who are called Shia. This hatred and animosity is ingrained in them from the moment they adopt the baseless beliefs of Shi’ism as a basis and doctrine. One should not be astonished — a snake can only give birth to a snake.

Any person who studies history will discover the numerous tragedies and massacres which the Shia have perpetrated against the Ahlus Sunnah. Their alliance with the enemies of Islam is well-known and does not require further elaboration. Ibn Taymiyyah says in this regard:

The Shia believe that the kufr (disbelief) of Ahlus Sunnah is worse than the kufr of the Jews and the Christians, because — according to the Shia — the Jews and the Christians are original disbelievers while the Ahlus Sunnah are apostates. There is consensus that the kufr of apostasy is more severe than original kufr. This is why they support the disbelievers against the rest of the Muslims. They supported the Tatars upon the majority of the Muslims, in fact, they were the chief orchestrators in bringing Genghis Khan — the king of the disbelievers — to the Muslim countries. The arrival of Hulagu Khan to Iraq, the conquering of the city of Halab (Aleppo) and the looting of al Salihiyyah and so forth; it is due to their filth and plots. This is why they seized Muslim soldiers as they passed by them when going to Egypt the first time. This is also the reason why they rob Muslim caravans, and assisted the Tatars and Franks against the Muslims, and are grief stricken over any victory by the Muslims. Similarly when the Muslims conquered Acre (a city in Palestine) and other places, their support of the Franks and Christians became apparent, as well as the manner in which they gave preference to them over the Muslims which people heard directly from them. All that I have mentioned is just a tip of the iceberg; otherwise the entire story is much more grievous than this. All historians agree that the greatest harm that afflicted the people of the Qiblah (i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah) was from none other than the people who were also allegedly from the people of the Qiblah. They caused more harm to the din and to its people than the outsiders and are further away from the din than the Khawarij.^{^[1]}

I do not think that the beloved readers are unaware of the dark period that the likes of Ibn al ‘Alqami and Nasir al Din al Tusi brought upon the Islamic Khilafah in Baghdad, and there inciting of Hulagu Khan to attack Baghdad and destroy the khilafah of al Musta’sam, who they flung into pile of garbage and trampled him with horses. Ibn al ‘Alqami (may Allah curse him) deceived the khalifah by telling him that Hulagu Khan wished for peace, and would soon arrive in Baghdad to negotiate a peace settlement with him. Al Musta’sam subsequently went out with 1200 people, some of them judges, and the most notable scholars of the time. Hulagu murdered all of them. It has been reported that Hulagu was hesitant to kill the khalifah al Musta’sam, but it was al Tusi who urged him on with a ruling that killing him was permissible.^{^[2]} The number of people who were killed in Baghdad following this exceeds eight hundred thousand.

The era of Abu ‘Ubaidullah al Da’iyah al Fatimi is not far from the era of Ibn al ‘Alqami, who when he came to power in Morocco, forcefully conquered every country that he went to. He destroyed its fortressed, and took all its weapons and goods as booty. He killed the leaders, the prominent, and the scholars of fiqh and hadith. He would promote the ignorant, creating ease for them with wealth and power; and impose them upon the people of virtue. He imposed heavy taxes, and robbed the Muslims of all comforts, making life extremely difficult for them. He would send out assassins to execute the scholars and jurists in their homes. He also sent his people to Rome and imposed them upon the Muslims.^{^[3]}

Similarly, al ‘Aziz Billah al Fatimi appointed a Christian as secretary, whose name was ‘Isa ibn Nastawrus. In al Sham, he appointed a Jew, by the name of Misha, as its governor. The Christians and the Jews began to abuse the Muslims on account of these appointments. The people of Egypt then decided to write send a message to him, which they did by forming a paper effigy, with a message concealed in it. They placed it on the road of al ‘Aziz, who read the message which said:

By that Being who has honoured the Jews through Misha and honoured the Christians through ‘Isa ibn Nastawrus and humiliated the Muslims through you, please lift our plight from us.^{^[4]}

This is not the first or the last crime of his, as well as the other Fatimid leaders, who were ruined slaves of the Jews.

In the year 351 A.H, Mu’izz al Dowlah instructed the Shia to inscribe upon all the masajid:

May Allah curse Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan, and curse the one who usurped Fadak from Fatimah,^{^[5]} curse the one who prevented Hasan from being buried alongside his grandfather,^{^[6]} curse the one who expelled Abu Dhar al Ghifari,^{^[7]} and the one who excluded Abu al ‘Abbas from the consultative committee.^{^[8]}

At night al Muhlabi indicated to Mu’izz al Dawlah to delete the word al Muhyi and replace it with the following; “May Allah curse all those who oppressed the family members of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, he should not mention in the curse anyone except Muawiyah, and he did the same.”^{^[9]}

This is an example of the Shia Buwayhid leaders, whoever wishes to read more about their scandalous actions may refer to the books of history.

During the Safavid dynasty, Shah Tahmasp ibn Shah Ismail al Safawi formed an alliance with the leader of Hungary against the Islamic Ottoman Empire, in direct contravention of the unanimous fiqhi ruling prohibiting any alliance with non-Muslims against fellow Muslims. This alliance was formed upon the ruling issued by the Grand Shia scholar ‘Ali al Karkhi .^{^[10]} One should not be astonished by their actions as the beliefs of the Shia are far worse than this.

Shah Tahmasp was no better than his own father, Shah Ismail, who had instituted the practice of cursing the rightly guided khulafa’, which he used as a means to test non-Shia Iranians. Whoever heard this cursing was instructed to respond by saying Bêsh Bad, which means in the Azerbaijani language that the listener agrees with what has been said and desires it to be increased tenfold. If anyone refused to utter these words then he was immediately executed. The number of innocent Muslims who were slaughtered by Shah Ismail exceeds a million.^{^[11]}

When he reached Baghdad in the year 1508 AD, he publicly cursed the rightly guided Khulafa’ and other leaders of Islam, he compelled the Ahlus Sunnah to embrace Shi’ism, and whoever refused was executed. This was his actions with regard to the living, as for the deceased, he unearthed their graves and exhumed their bodies, as was done with Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahu Llah. The Buwayhids, Hamdanids, Khawarizmids, who lived before the Safavids were no further from such atrocities.^{^[12]}

These were all incidents from the distant past, as far as more recent events are concerned; since Khomeini came into power in Iran in 1979 only Allah knows what has become of the Ahlus Sunnah who live there. Due to the hatred of Khomeini for the Ahlus Sunnah, he commanded General Ahmed Madani to execute the people of Arabistan when they demanded their legal rights which was snatched by the exiled Shah (Reza Pahlavi). Khomeini responded to their demands by killing and banishing the people of Arabistan.

Khomeini did not stop there; rather he instigated a war against Iraq, in an effort to unite it with the Zoroastrian Emirate. Some are of the opinion that his purpose was in actual fact to oust the then present Ba’ath Party from power, but that is not true. The reason being that if that was truly his purpose — to remove the Ba’ath [arty from power — then what need was there to kill thousands of innocent Muslims of Iraq. Perhaps some might now accuse me of being on the payroll of the Ba’ath party because I have brought up these facts, but if the mere unveiling of facts and exposure of the Shia Zoroastrian designs for the Arabian Gulf is a Ba’athist ideology then —I say — definitely I am the first Ba’athist, obviously not of the mould of Aflaq and al Asad, but rather one who calls for the renaissance of historical consciousness and so forth, which unveils the failure and greed of the Shia in the entire Islamic world.

The strategy of Khomeini was not restricted to only fighting the Muslim tribes of Iraq, rather he was also a chief supporter of the tyrant Hafiz al Asad al Nusayri, who had massacred the unarmed Syrian people simply because of their worship of one Allah. The designs of Khomeini created the problem and nourished it in other Gulf countries, such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. The radio of Tehran would broadcast a special program to the Shia of those countries, teaching them how to lead demonstrations as well as tutoring them in the construction of explosive devices. The example of Dr. Hadi al Mudarrisi comes to mind, who was expelled from Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, he is also the one who urged the Shia of Bahrain to make Molotov Cocktails and crated division between the Shia of Bahrain and its Muslims.

The objective of the Shia is to revive the legacy of the Safavids, Buwayhids, and others from the extinct Shia states and impose their authority upon its neighbouring countries. The Iranian President, Abu al Hassan Bani-Sadr, mentioned this clearly during his inauguration as president, and before his fleeing from the rule of the Ayatollahs, in the magazine of al Nahar al ‘Arabi on the 23rd of March 1980:

Iran will never give away the three Islands, and places like Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Oman, Dubai, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and so forth… these are not independent countries according to Iran.

The previous foreign Minister Sadiq Qutub Zadah also follows him in his explicit expression on the 8th of April 1980, he says:

Adan and Baghdad follows us.

The explicit expressions of Sadiq Ruhani in terms of the Bahrain State, is no less than the expressions of the Iranian leaders in necessitating the restoration of Bahrain under Iranian rule. Ruhani mentioned clearly on the 18th of April 1980:

The parliament of Shah which gave up Bahrain in the year 1970, was not a legitimate parliament.^{^[13]}

He also says:

Bahrain will soon be an Integral part of Iran^{^[14]} and Bahrain is the fourteenth province of Iran.^{^[15]}

Not only did he utter these statements, but he announced openly that he is the one who is leading the civil disobedience taking place in Bahrain. He explicitly said this to the French News Agency:

He is leading the revolution of Bahrain on Islamic motives and not for political motives, and this is due to the request of the Bahraini people themselves. The Bahraini people want to establish an Islamic State like the Iranian State^{^[16]}, and the Bahraini people will soon witness violence^{^[17]} if the system in Bahrain continues to be the current political system.

Bahrain is not the only country which has been affected by them, Khomeini took steps forward by sending Sayed Rida to Qatar so as to incite the Shia and encouraging them to stir sectarian strife. Iranian newspapers and some Arab papers published this on the 9th of September 1979. Similarly is the case in Kuwait and other neighbouring countries, whereby the strife has been exported to them as well.

Khomeini’s main aim is to destroy the Ahlus Sunnah and to gain authority over them, even if lowers him to the level of having to form an alliance with the devil himself. In fact, that day did arrive when he formed an alliance with the racist state of Israel against the Muslim people of Iraq.

My beloved readers, we have very briefly discussed the position the Shia have taken against the Ahlus Sunnah (and not gone into detail), on account of time constraints and not wanting to over burden you. Allah willing, if we are still alive soon you will be able to read this discussion in detail in our book, Haqiqat al Shia wa al Tashayyu’.

NEXT⇒ The Shia and the Sahabah

^{^[1]} Al Fatawa vol. 28 pg. 478-479 with slight change.

^{^[2]} Refer to Dima’un ‘ala Nahr al Karkha pg. 125 written by Hassan al Sudani.

^{^[3]} Refer to Tathbit Dala’il al Nubuwwah by al Qadi ‘Abdul Jabbar ibn Ahmed al Hamadani vol. 2 pg. 599.

^{^[4]} Refer to al Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al Bashar by Abu al Fida’ vol. 2 pg. 131.

^{^[5]} Meaning Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

^{^[6]} Meaning Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha according to their claim.

^{^[7]} Meaning ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

^{^[8]} ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu

^{^[9]} Al Mukhtasar fi Akhbar al Bashar vol. 2 pg. 104.

^{^[10]} Refer to Dima’un ‘ala Nahr al Karkha pg. 91.

^{^[11]} Refer to the previous reference pg. 129.

^{^[12]} Refer to the chapter al Shia wa al Tarikh from our book Haqiqat al Shia wa al Tashayyu’.

^{^[13]} Refer to al Shabihan written by Hasan Muhammad Tawalabah second print pg. 56.

^{^[14]} Al Ra’y al ‘Am al Kuwaytiyyah published on 16/06/1979

^{^[15]} Al Ra’y al ‘Am al Kuwaytiyyah published on 17/06/1979

^{^[16]} Al Mabniyyah ‘ala Iraqat al Dima’

^{^[17]} Al Barakah fi Bu’rat al Fasad “Iranian Embassy” indeed they do not care at all in initiating revolution.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents