The development of Shi'a Islam
..> ..>
| Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states: |
| "So when did Shi'ism evolve as a political party? "Actually, neither the Shi'ah historians nor the Shi'ah clergymen have a consensus on the evolution of Shi'ism". |
Now if the Shi'a emerged as a purely political party, why is it Rasulullah (s) said that Ali and his Shi'a will attain Paradise (see Reply 6)?
The author cites the leading Nasibi Ehsan Ellahi for his references. Let us analyse these 'alleged' inconsistencies:
First alleged contradiction
..> ..>
| Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states: |
| In his Firaq al-Shi'ah (The Shi'ah Groups), Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti, one of the foremost known Shi'i historians, believes that Shi'ism did not start until the demise of the Holy Rasul, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam: "The Messenger [sawa] died in the month of Rabi' al-Awwal, in the year 10 of Hijra at age 63 and the duration of his prophethood was for 23 years, and his mother is Aaminah bint Wahab bin Abdi Manaaf bin Zuhra bin Kilaab bin Murra bin Ka'b bin Lu'ay bin Ghaalib. (At his death) The Ummah was divided into three groups. One group was called the Shi'ites, who were the Shi'ites of Ali bin Abi Taleb [as] and from them all Shi'i sects broke away. Another (group) claimed the right of succession, i.e., al-Ansaar, who called for the inauguration of Sa'd bin Ubadah al-Khazraji. A (Third) group tilted toward giving the Bay'ah (allegiance) to Abu Bakr bin Abi Qahaafah, with an excuse that the Messenger [sawa] did not name a particular successor rather left it for the Ummah to chose whom it wills...." [Firaq ash-Shi'ah: pp. 23-24] |
So al-Nubakhti is stating:
- Shia'ism was formed upon the death of Rasulullah (s)
- Shi'as were those individuals who attached themselves to Hadhrath 'Ali (as)
Remember Rasulullah (s) had already said that 'Ali and his Shi'a would attain Paradise. Clearly during the life of Rasulullah (s) there was no reason for a separate group to call itself the Shi'a of 'Ali. The Shi'as were those who right from the beginning viewed Imam Ali (as) the rightful successor of Rasulullah (s) and attached themselves to him. Hence that group that deemed Imam Ali (as) to be rightful successor of Rasulullah (s) and affiliated themselves with his cause were indeed his supporters - his Shi'a.
Second alleged contradiction
..> ..>
| Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states: |
| "Muhammad Hussain al-Muzaffari believes it was started by the Holy Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) himself, he thus wrote in his Tareekh al-Shi'ah (History of the Shi'ah):"The call for Shi'asm started with the day when Grand Savior Muhammad [sawa] shouted the word La Ilaha illallah in Makka's sections and mountains....and hence, the call to become a Shi'ite for Abu al-Hasan [as] (Ali) by the Prophet [sawa] went side by side with the call for the two testimonies" [Tareekh ash-Shi'ah, pp. 8-9, printed in Qum, Iran.] |
so al-Muzzafari is stating:
The 'call' for Shi'aism started at the beginning of the Prophetic mission.
The 'call' for Shi'aism did indeed begin here. The writer is stating that the root of Shi'a aqeedah, namely that Ali ibne abi Talib (as) is the wasi and khalifa of Rasulullah (s) began right at the beginning of the Prophetic Mission.
The first command ordering the Messenger (s) to first proclaim Islam was to his close relatives:
"And warn your tribe of near kindred..." (The Qur'an 26: 214)
In accordance with the verse Rasulullah (s) summoned his close relatives and delivered this speech, the first call to Islam:
"Banu Abd-al Muttalib, I don't know of any young man among the Arabs who has brought for his people something better than what I have. I bring the best of this world and the world after, since God has commanded me to summon you. Which of you will aid me in this matter, so that he will be my brother, my Wasi (guardian, caretaker) and successor (Khalifa) among you?" They all held back, and although I was the youngest and the most bleary eyed, pot bellied and spindly legged of them I said "I will be your helper Oh Prophet of God". The Holy Prophet then put his hand on the back of my neck and said "This is my brother, caretaker and successor among you. Listen to him and obey him".
This occasion is called the event of Dawath zula-e-shira and countless Sunni scholars have narrated it, in a similar way.
- Tarikh, by al Tabari, Vol 2 p 217 and in the English translation by W.M.Watt, Vol 6 pp 90-91
- Tafsir, by al Tabari, Vol 19, p 121
- Tarikh, by Ibn Athir, Vol 2 p 62
- Musnad, bu Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol 1 p 159
- Kifayat al Talib, by al Ganji p 89
- Khasais, by al Nasai, p 18
- Sharh Nahjul Balagha, by Ibn Abi'l Hadid Muttazali, Vol 3 p 255
- Sharh al Shifa, by al Khifaji, Vol 3 p 37
- Tarikh, by Abul Fida, Vol 1 p 116
- Tarikh, by Ibn Asakir, Vol 1 p 85
- Durre Manthur, by Jalaladdin Suyuti, Vol 5 p 97
- Jamial Jawami, by Suyuti, Vol 7 p 392
- Tafsir, by Al Khazzin Alauddin Baghdadi, p 390
- Tafsir al Khazin, by Alauddin al-Shafii, Vol 3 p 371
- Shawahid al Tanzil, by al Hasakani, Vol p 371
- Kanz al Ummal, bu al Muttaqi al hindi Vol 15, p 15
- al Sirah al Halabiya, Vol 1 p 311
- Dalail al Nabawiyyah, by al Baiyhaqi, Vol 1, p 428
- al Mukhtasar, by al Fida, Vol 1 p 116
- Life of Muhummud, by Husnain Haykal, p 104 (1st Arabic edition, mysteriously deleted in the second edition!)
- Tadhib al Athar, Vol 4 p 62
- Muhummud from the earliest sources, by Marin Lings, p 51
It was right at the beginning of his mission that Hadhrath Muhammad (sa) set out three guiding principles, that al-Muzzafari had correctly described as "the call for Shi'asm" namely that:
- There is only one God
- Hadhrath Muhammad (s) is God's Messenger
- Ali is the brother, wasi and khalifa of Rasulullah (s)
In other words Shi'aism existed in all but name. The seed of Shi'a aqeedah was 'planted' at the Dawat as is stated by al-Muzzafari and blossomed as a clear group with the name Shi'a after the death of Rasulullah (s) as commented on by al-Nubakhti.
So (1) and (2) rather than contradict, in fact compliment one another.
Third alleged contradiction
..> ..>
| Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states: |
| "Abu Ishaq Ibn al-Nadim, a famous Shi'i writer, did not agree to neither of the above theories and wrote in his al-Fihrist that Shi'ism started at the Battle of Jamel" |
Now these are the comments of Ehsan Ellahi NOT al-Nadim. Did he state he DID not agree with the above named scholars? He continues:
..> ..>
| Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states: |
| "thus explained: "When Talha and Az-Zubair disagreed with Ali and accepted noless than the revenge for the blood of Othman, and Ali mobilized his forces to fight them, those who followed him were then given the title, Shi'ites." [al-Fihrist, Ibn al-Nadim: p.249, from Ash-Shi'ati wat-Tashayyu' by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, p.25 |
Nadim is stating:
? Those that sided with Ali (as) at Jamal were called Shi'a
Since Elahi is deceased could the scholar who copied this unashamedly show us the words where the author states that this was the FIRST time that the words Shi'a was used? Nadim is stating that during the period leading up to the Battle of Jamal, the word Shi'a of 'Ali became absolutely prevalent, not according to divine sanction but according to the opinions of the people. Hence this was based on political affiliation, those that sided with Ali were his Shi'a - his political allies, it DOES NOT mean that Shi'as never existed before that! It was here that the title became absolutely clear cut, those individuals who fought with khalifa Ali (as) were called his Shi'a. How is this inconsistent with the previous narrations?
Fourth alleged contradiction
..> ..>
| Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states: |
| Another Shi'i Alim, Kamil Mustafa al-Shaybi, wrote in his book: "The independence of the term indicating Shi'ism came about only after the murder of al-Husain [bin Ali bin Abu T?leb] whereby Shi'ism became an independent entity with a distinctive identity" [The Link Between Sufism & Shi'asm, p.23] |
Again this is where the term was a clear religious dimension for those who had an unremitting adherence to the Ahl'ul bayt (as). He is referring to the correct usage of Shi'a. During the khilafath of 'Ali (as) there existed individuals who sided with Hadhrath 'Ali (as) but they deemed him the 'political' head of State, rather than the 'religious and political' head of State. They did NOT view him as their Imam in terms of religious adherence. Despite this they were counted as Shi'a BECAUSE they fought alongside Hadhrath 'Ali (as) in Sifeen. The clear proof of this comes from the example of the Khawaarij, were initially the Shi'a of 'Ali in the sense that they fought under his helm, but then they rebelled against him. The true Shi'a, separate from those that simply deemed the Imams as Political Heads of State, were those who had an unfolding adherence to the Imams and deemed them as religious guides. The clearest existence of this group of Shi'as existed with Imam Hussain (as), the Shi'a who laid their lives in the cause of their Imam. It did indeed become an independent identity, in that it did not recognize the Khalifas as the legitimate Heads of State, they deemed Imamate to be the exclusive right of the Imams from the Prophetic Household and attached themselves to the Imams. Hence Shi'as were now a clear independent group distinct from the followers of the khalifas.
Hence NONE of the references cited by Ellahi contradict one another, if anything they show, is the progression of the Shi'a School of thought.
The root of Shi'a thought began at start of the Prophetic Mission, when Rasulullah (s) declared 'Ali (as) to be his wasi and khalifa. Shi'as were those individuals who (following Rasulullah [s]'s death) attached themselves to Hadhrath 'Ali (as), deeming him to be the legitimate khalifa. Those that sided with Imam 'Ali (as) during the Battle of Jamal were likewise deemed to be his Shi'a. Following the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) the Shi'a (adherents of the Imams) were a clear distinct group easily identifiable from the majority.
0 comments:
Post a Comment