Shia's Peril

Shia's Peril



Many Muslims view it is very difficult and confusing to adopt a certain attitude towards Shiites. Difficulty is actually due to many reasons.

Lack of information is one of such reasons. In fact, Shia as for many Muslims is something ambiguous. They know neither their entity nor their origin. Moreover, they neither have a historical look at their past nor can expect their future. Consequently, a good number of Muslims thinks that Shia is no more than an Islamic school of thought and thus similar to Shafi'i, Maliki or other Schools of thought. Thus thinking, they do not grasp the fact that difference between Sunnis and Shiites does not relate only to subsidiary matters but also to some fundamentals as well.

The fact that many Muslims are not realistic or practical is another reason for difficulty. Actually, some Muslims have unsubstantiated rosy dreams. Thinking they are reasonable, they think there is no reason for conflict and wonder why do not we sit together overlooking our disputes, a Sunni shaking hands with a Shiite and take one way since both parties believe in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day. It seems they forgot it is a far more complicated issue. For example, we judge to be a disbeliever a person who, although believing in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day, deems drinking wine and adultery lawful. Deeming them lawful means denying their being prohibited by the Qur'an and Sunnah. If we apply the same criterion here, we will find out that the issue of Shia is so dangerous that it requires Shari'ah (Islamic Law) scholars to adopt decisive situations as far as the Islamic ruling on enormous Shiite Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) is concerned. Another reason leading to difficulty is multiplicity of deep wounds that hit many Muslim countries and multiplicity of enemies such as Jews, Crusaders, Communists, Hindus and others. In this regard, some of those claiming to be reasonable view that we should not open a new bloc for conflict.

This might be true in case we are trying to open such a bloc when it is already closed. However, being wide-open and of constant harm, ignoring it is a vice. Furthermore, it is useless to pose the repeatedly asked question: Who is more dangerous, Jews or Shiites? In fact, asking such a question aims at squelching those who try to awaken the Ummah and to put in awkward situation those who strive to protect and safeguard the Ummah. In refutation of such an argument, I say that there is no problem to face two contingent perils at a time. I would like also to ask them: Is it Sunnis who search for a justification to attack Shiites? I think the actual fact substantiated by bulk of evidence tells us that it is Shiites who harm Sunnis.

In the two previous articles, Origins of Shia and Shia's Dominance, I gave an outline of the Shia history. Through these articles, we could see tremendous aggressions committed by Shiites against the Muslim Ummah. However, I do not think that our present fact differs from the past. Rather, I certify that history repeats itself and that sons have inherited fathers' and grandfathers' rancor. Besides, no good is expected from those who claim the Companions generation was corrupt except for a very few number of them, which stands for explicitly belying the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), «The best people are those living in my generation» This Hadith (Prophetic tradition) is related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim as well as other compilations of authentic Hadith.

Undoubtedly, present Shias truth -just as their truth in the past- is very heinous.

Let us revise important matters to help us have a clearer vision and thus help us understand the ideal attitude we should adopt toward Shiites in order to know which is better, speaking or remaining silent.

First: Everyone knows the Shias attitude toward the Prophet' Companions ranging from Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (the very truthful), `Umar Al-Faruq (one who distinguishes between truth and falsehood) and `Uthman Dhon-Norain (one who married two of the Prophet's daughters) to mothers of the believers, headed by `A'ishah the mother of the believers and ending with the whole great generation. Actually, Shias books and references, as well as even their creed and belief essentials, claim that this generation as a whole is profligate or even disbeliever and that the majority of which has gone astray and accuse them of hiding and interpolating the religion.

Regarding this, should we observe and remain silent in order to avoid Fitnah (disorder) as they calim?

I wonder what Fitnah can be more than accusing this generation of corruption and lying!

I would like that you try to comprehend the following statement said be the reverend Companion Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with both of them), «When later generations of this Ummah curse earlier generations, let those who have knowledge unfold it, for one who conceals such knowledge is as if concealing what is revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him)» [The Hadith as reported in a Marfu' (traceable back to the Prophet) form is Da'if (unreliable). However, it is more authentically reported to be the words of Jabir bin Abdullah the Prophet's Companion].

Could you comprehend what depth this statement has?

Actually, defaming the Companion's generation does not stand for merely defaming some people who have passed away and thus, as claimed by some people, will not be harmed by such defamation being in Paradise in defiance of Shiites. More seriously, defaming Companions actually implies direct accusation of the authenticity of the whole religion. In fact, we received this religion through only Companions. Therefore, if doubt is cast on their morals, intentions and actions, how should we then follow this religion? Given this, the religion will be lost and the Prophet's Hadith and orders will be of no authority. On the contrary, we ask Shiites, what Qur'an do you recite? Is not it the Companions in mass, whom you defame, who transmitted the Qur'an?, Is not it Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), whom you claim to have assumed caliphate through fraud, who collected the Qur'an? Based on your claims, why did not he interpolate the Qur'an if it is true that he interpolated the Sunnah?

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, «Follow my Sunnah (manner of conduct) as well as that of my rightly-guided Caliphs» [Related by Al-Tirmidhi, Book on Knowledge Taken from Allah's Messenger (2676), Ibn majah (42) and Ahmad (17184)], Thus, the Sunnah of the four rightly-guided Caliphs is an indispensable part of the religion of Islam. Moreover, rulings and decisions issued by Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman and `Ali are binding for all Muslims everywhere and at any time till the Day of Judgment. How can then defaming them be acceptable?

To this effect, our great scholars would tremble on hearing someone affronting the Prophet's Companions. For example, Ahmed bin Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him) would say, "If you hear someone saying bad words about the Prophet's Companions, know that his being a Muslim is an object of doubt." Moreover, Judge Abu Ya`la said, "Scholars are unanimous on judging one who insults Companions while deeming it permissible to be a disbeliever and one who does so while not deeming it permissible to be a profligate."

To the same effect, Abu Zar`ah Al-Razy said, "If you see someone underestimating the Prophet's Companions, know that he is a heretic."

Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyah said, "One who claims that all Companions - except for a few number not exceeding twenty - forsook Islam after the Prophet's death is undoubtedly disbeliever."

Actually, such strict judgments regarding those who underestimate Companions is justified by the fact that it is Companions who transmitted the religion to us. Accordingly, underestimating them implies casting doubts on the religion itself. In addition, this great generation was praised in innumerable occurrences in Qur'anic verses and Hadith of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, defaming them indicates belying Allah and His Messenger.

Some people might argue that we did never hears so-and-so - a Shiite - insulting Companions. I would like to draw the attention of such people to three points:

The first point: The main point of Imamiyyah (a Shiite sect believing in the twelve Imams descending from `Ali) is that Companions conspired against `Ali bin Abu Talib, all the Prophet's Household and the Imams they believe in. Therefore, all adherents of Imamiyyah (found in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon) believe in the corruption of Companions. Should they admit the goodness of Companions, the Shiite main idea would be refuted. Therefore, it is acknowledged that all Shiites, were they leaders or followers, do neither respect or show reverence to Companions nor learn religion from them in the least.

The second point: Shiite leaders are always illusive in situations where their dislike of Companions is disclosed, although it is apparent in some of their expressions or situations as stated by Allah (may He be Exalted), "but surely you will know them by the tone of their speech" [Muhammad: 30], Transliteration: Wa Lata`rifannahum Fī Laĥni Al-Qawli, {وَلَتَعْرِفَنَّهُمْ فِي لَحْنِ الْقَوْلِ}. In this regard, we perhaps watched the debate held between Dr. Al-Qaradawi (may Allah safeguard him) and Rafsanjani on Al-Jazeera TV.

We could see how Rafsanjani was illusive regarding attempts made by Dr. Al-Qaradawi to make him say something good about Companions or Mothers of the believers. By the same token, Khamenei – the current leader of the Iranian Revolution - gave the following indecisive reply to a question about the ruling on insulting Companions that gave no definite answer regarding permissibility or otherwise, "Any saying leading to sowing discord among Muslims is absolutely impermissible." According to him, insulting Companions is not prohibited on its own, but it is only prohibited on account of its sowing discord among Muslims. This was published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on November 23, 2006.

The third point: A special care should be given to the Taqiyyah creed which constitutes nine-tenths of religion according to them. Tiqiyyah refers to a dispensation allowing believers to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. However, when they come to power, they openly disclose it. Throughout the Shia's history we referred to, we could know that when they dominate Sunni countries, such as Abbasid Caliphate in Iraq, Egypt, Morocco and other countries, they would publicly insult Companions considering it one of the essentials of their faith.

Through this point, we come to the conclusion that it is necessary to speak in order to clarify the truth regarding honorable Companions, for indeed refraining from telling' the truth is satanic. Moreover, keeping silent will result in loss of religion itself.

Second: Danger of the spread of Shiite faith in the Muslim world. Undoubtedly, propagating the Shiite faith is making its way rapidly throughout the Muslim world. It is extending beyond the borders of countries where it used to be such as Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Rather, it is now spreading on a wide range in Bahrain, UAE, Syria, Jordan, KSA, Egypt, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. More dangerously, many people have held the Shiite ideas and principles while thinking they are not Shiites. To this effect, after our articles in this regard have been published, we received a great bulk of messages whose senders claim to be Sunnis while their messages are overflowing with Shiite ideas and methodologies. We all know about fierce campaigns launched against Companions in newspapers and satellite channels in Sunni countries. Most famous are the campaign launched recently by an Egyptian newspaper against `A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), the campaign launched by another newspaper against Al-Bukhari (may Allah show mercy to him) and satellite programs presented by a famous journalist defaming Companions in all episodes.

What adds to the difficulty of the situation and the improbability of remaining silent thereon is the close relationship between Shiite and Sufi methodologies on the pretext that both of them love the Prophet's Household. As we know, Sufism is widespread in many Muslim countries when it is famous for committing many Bid'ahs and abhorred sins and shares Shia in that both sanctify the graves of the Prophet's Household. As a result, Shiism is expected to spread so long as Sufi sects are widespread in Muslim countries.

Third: The situation in Iraq is very dangerous.

It became a usual scene that Sunni Muslims are killed after glancing at their identity cards. Scholar Harith Al-Dary, Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, stated that more than 100000 Sunnis were killed by Shiites from 2003 to 2006 only. This is in addition to constant displacements of Sunnis so that Shiites might easily have authority in such regions. Furthermore, most of those displaced outside Iraq are Sunnis, which might lead to serious change of the population structure which will result in evil consequences. The question that arises is: Is the Fitnah resulting from discussing the issue of Shia more dangerous than that of killing such a great number of Sunnis? Till when should we remain silent in this regard, when everyone knows that Iran fully supports killing Sunnis according to identity cards?

Fourth: Iran has its clear, or even explicitly publicized, coveted objects in Iraq. Previously, there was an eight-year-old war between the two countries. However, their way to it is now paved, bearing in mind that Iraq represents an ultimate Shiite religious importance. In Iraq there are the holy shrines and the graves of six Shiite Imams, including the grave of `Ali bin Abu Talib in Najaf, the grave of Al-Hussein in Karbala, the grave of Musa Al-Kazim and that of Muhammad Al-Jawad in Kazimiya, and the grave of Muhammad Al-Hadi and that of AL-Hassan Al-`Askary in Samarra. This is in addition to false graves of such prophets as Adam, Noah, Hud and Salih – all located in Najaf – whose names are well-known to be falsely attributed them.


Moreover, the dangers of Iran's ambitions in Iraq is reinforced by the fact that US backs and supports such ambitions. We can all see the American-backed and sponsored Shiite government. Furthermore, reciprocal unreal accusations between the US and Iran should make no sense. Actually, USA never thinks of launching war against Iran – refer to our article "A demon under control". However, worrying is not only ambitions in Iraq's oil or wealth, or even the expansion of Shiite-dominated land, but also the fact that brutality and criminality is part and parcel of their belief in religion. They consider Companions and other Sunni Muslims who followed them to have showed enmity to the Prophet's Household. They, therefore, call us Nawasib (understood by the Shiite to mean those who declared hostility against the Household of the Prophet), although we show more respect to the Prophet's Household than them. Based on accusing us as such, they issue very dangerous judgments. For Example, Khomeini said, "It is strongly substantiated to apply the same rulings of Ahlul-Harb (people otherwise at war with Muslims) to Nawasib. This means that it will be lawful to take booties from them and divide one-fifth of it among warriors. It is even strongly substantiated that it is lawful to take up their property wherever they may be and with any how. In such a case, one-fifth is to be singled out." Asked about the ruling on one who denies the Imamate of the twelve Imams, the Shiite Imam Muhammad Sadiq Al-Rawhani said the following amazing statement, "Imamate is higher in rank than prophethood. Moreover, perfecting the religion took place through appointing Imam `Ali (peace be upon him) as the Commander of the Faithful. In this regard, Allah (may He be Exalted) said, "This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor on you" [Al-Ma'idah 3], Transliteration: Al-Yawma 'Akmaltu Lakum Dīnakum, {الْيَوْمَ أَكْمَلْتُ لَكُمْ دِينَكُمْ}. Accordingly, he who does not believe in the Imamate of the twelve Imams dies as a disbeliever."

In the article (Origins of Shia), we stated that Khomeini in his book "Al-Hukumah Al-Islamiyya (Islamic Government)" stated that Imams offer much Prayers to a degree never reached by a high-ranked angel or a prophet and thus disbelieving in them is more harmful than disbelieving in the Prophet (peace be upon him). I think this notion explains their judging others to be disbelievers, which results in deeming killing Sunnis in Iraq and everywhere to be lawful. Moreover, in this context we can understand also the inevitability of holding sway over Iraq for the Shiite sanctuaries there that is dominated by those whom they judge to be disbelievers.

Fifth: Their direct threat is not limited to Iraq only.

Rather, their ambitions extends to all the countries of the region. They consider Bahrain to be a part of Iran, which is explicitly stated by Ali Akbar Natiq Nouri, the head of the investigation section, in the Revolution leader's office while celebrating the Iranian Revolution thirtieth anniversary. He said, "Bahrain was in the past the 14th governorate of Iran and was represented by an MP in the Iranian National Consultative Assembly." Besides, it is well-known that Iran occupies three important UAE islands in the Arabian Gulf.

Moreover,they are growing so largely in number in the UEA that they now constitute 15% of the whole population. In addition, they control trade centers especially in Dubai.
The situation in KSA is also not stable. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, turmoil took place frequently in KSA. It even took place immediately after the Iranian Revolution. At that time, Shiite demonstrations were organized in Al-Qatif and Saihat, the severest of which took place on November 19, 1979. The situation got worse to the extent that they demonstrated in and tried to destroy Allah's Sacred House, which happened during Hajj seasons in 1987 and 1989. Furthermore, 450 Shiite personalities submitted a request to the crown prince at that time Prince Abdullah to assume supreme positions in the Cabinet, diplomatic corps, military and security systems and to raise their representation ratio in the Shoura Council.

In the same regard, Ali Shamkhani, the top military counselor of the Supreme Guide of the Iranian Revolution, stated that in case USA strikes Iran's nuclear institutions, Iran will not strike only US interests in the Gulf, but will also use ballistic missiles to hit strategic targets in the Gulf as well as oil pumps and energy stations in the Arabian Gulf.

This statement was published by the British Times on Sunday June 10, 2007.

Is this everything?

No, there are much more things of which we gave no mention.

In this article, we have so far discussed only five points highlighting the danger and importance of the issue of Shia. However, there remains other very important five points which I prefer not to discuss them here in brief so that I may give them their due detail. Therefore, I will put them off – if Allah wills – till the next article, after which I will speak about the ideal way to deal with such serious circumstances.

Undoubtedly, the issue of Shi`ah is not that marginal issue within the story of Islam that is to be neglected or postponed. Rather, it is one of the priorities of the Muslim Ummah. Everyone could perceive that Palestine's liberation by Salahud-Din followed only from saving Egypt from the `Abidy Shiite reign. At that time, Salahud-Din did not suppose that war against crusaders should be given priority over discussing the Shiite rule in Egypt. This is because Muslims gain victory only when they have a sound creed and sincere soldiers. Actually, Salahud-Din would never use the Egyptian people to fight with him such a fatal battle unless he relieved them of the `Abidy innovative rule. The same should apply to the Iraqi case now, as well as all countries threatened by Shiites. In fact, we have to take lessons from history.

We ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.