Ghuluw – The Mother of all Shia Heresies
Ghuluw (extremism and exaggeration) with the Ahlul-Bayt does not begin with the Sabaites or Nusayrism and other than them who viewed Ali ibn Abi Talib (r) as the literal incarnation of God i.e. as God himself. The word “Ghuluw” (غُلُوّ) means to exceed reasonable bounds, or to exaggerate, or to overstate. The one who does Ghuluw is known as “Ghali” (غالِي), and those who do Ghuluw as an organised group or a sect are known as “Ghulat” (غلاة) – So “Ghuluw” (غُلُوّ) can occur whenever someone exceed the limits in ascribing ideas or divine attributes to certain personalities of which they are free of and have never claimed for themselves. In that sense the Nasara (‘Christians’) are Ghulat as they have attributed divinity to Jesus (a).
The Ahlul-Bayt (a) are undoubtly free and innocent of Twelver Rafidism and all forms of Ghuluw that are attributed to them. In that sense Ghuluw beliefs are those such as ‘Ismah (infallibility) and divine Imamah (that does not only resemble Prophethood but is in fact a rank superior to it!) for the Ahlul-Bayt have never claimed such qualities and beliefs (quite the contrary). Undoubtly, the books of the extremists, the Ghulat, the Rafidah Twelver Imamite Shi’ites have been filled with lies and exaggerations attributed to the Imams of the progeny of Muhammd (s), yet even in these books full of exaggeration and extremism and darkness, one can sometimes find the light, glimpses of the unaltered truth (that the extremists will of course either try to dilute or explain away with the Taqiyyah excuse!) that prove without a shred of doubt that the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt are free of Shia beliefs and that the Sunni position with regards to them is the most Quranic, just, balanced and rationale of all.
Confining the Imams to a specific number
Ibn Saba’ merely claimed that Ali (r) was the successor of the Prophet (s). However, he was succeeded by others who generalised this claim for his progeny. In spite of the Shia movements operating in secrecy, some of their claims would reach the Ahlul-Bayt, who would deny them openly just like their grandfather, Ali (r) did. Hence, they contrived the belief of Taqiyyah and ascribed it to them, thereby facilitating the propagation of their ideas with assurance of the masses not being influenced by the honest and exposing stances of the Ahlul-Bayt.
Ali ibn Abi Talib (r) and al-Hasanayn (his two sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn) deny the Sabaite Shia Imamah
Al-Hasan ibn Ali’s (r) grandson denies the Shia Imamah
Abdallah al-Mahd (son of al-Hasan al-Muthanna and brother of al-Hasan al-Muthallath who refuted the Rafidah of his time on the issue of the incident of Ghadir), who is the grandson of al-Hasan ibn Ali (r), emphatically denied the concept of divine Imamah and used to dispute the statement that the Imamah of Ali (r) was from Allah. He said:
‘We do not have in this affair what others do not have, and none of the household of the Prophet (s) is an Imam whose obedience is made compulsory by Allah.” [Basair al-Darajat, p. 153 and 156]
Zayd ibn Ali denies the Shia Imamah
A little bit about Imam Zayd ibn Ali. He i the son of Ali ibn al-Husayn (Zayn al-Abidin) and grandson of al-Shahid al-Husayn ibn Ali (r), they Zaydis view him as their Imam. Zayd ibn Ali led an unsuccessful rebellion against the Umayyad Caliphate and unlike other Imams of the progeny of Muhammad (s), the likes of al-Baqir and al-Sadiq (who did call for Khuruj/uprising against the leaders), Zayd believed the time was ripe for renewing the rebellion against the Umayyad Caliphs in support of the claims of his own Hashemite clan.
قولـه: ليس الإمام منا من أرخى عليه ستره، إنما الإمام من شهر سيفه
Zayd ibn Ali said: He from amongst us who does not draw his sword (do Jihad) and sits at home is not an Imam. [Rijal al-Kashshi 261, al-Bihar 46/ 197, al-Manaqib 1/260, al-Kafi 1/356]
However, in events that echoed Husayn’s own abandonment by the Kufans (Shiites) decades earlier, the bulk of Zayd’s supporters deserted him and joined the Umayyads. On the other hand, leading Sunni figures like Imam Abu Hanifa are reported to have given financial support to Zayd’s revolt. In reliable Sunni narrations Zayd bitterly scolds the “rejectors” (Rafidah) who desert him for his denouncation of their extreme views regarding the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar).
Zayd’s revolt angered the Imamite Rafidah Shiites because it ruined their religion (that states that the Imam must be divinely appointed so they made ahadith in order to tarnish his image:
الباقر قد فطن إلى ذلك، فقد روى القوم عنه أنه قال: سيخرج زيد أخي بعد موتي، ويدعو الناس إلى نفسه، ويخلع جعفراً ابني،ولا يلبث إلا ثلاثاً حتى يقتل ويصلب، ثم يحرق بالنار، ويذرى في الريح، ويمثل به مثلة ما مثل بها أحد قبله
Al-Baqir said to his son Jafar al-Sadiq: “My Brother Zayd will rebel after my death and he will call the people to give him bay’ah (allegiance) and will replace my son Jafar, but he will last only three (day) and then he will die and be crucified and then burned and his ashes will scatter with the winds and will be humiliated unlike any other human before him. [al-Bihar 46/252]
In another narration:
إن زيداً سيدعو بعدي إلى نفسه، فدعه ولا تنازعه فإن عمره قصير
‘Zayd will call for himself after me, so Ignore him and do not concern yourself with him for his life is short. [Ithbat al-Huda 3/66]
And it was Zayd ibn Ali al-Shahid (the martyr), who also emphatically denied the concept of a set of infallible Imams. Twelver Shia sources have recorded the conversation between Zayd and an alleged disciple of Jafar al-Sadiq called Abu Jafar Muḥammad b. Ali al-Nu’man al-Bajali al-Kufi, also known as Muhammad al-Ahwal or ‘Mu’min al-Taq’ (faithful of al-Taq) to the Rafidah and “Shaytan al-Taq” (Devil/Satan of Taq) to the Ahlul-Sunnah (of course this Zindiq (heretic) has been sanctified as a reliable narrator, whereas Sunni scholars have deemed him a heretic and fabricator. It is even said that he later started his own Rafidi sect, referred to as the Shaytaniyyah or Nu’maniyyah).
In Rijal al-Kashshi, one of their seminal works, and other Twelver sources there appear narrations which suggests that Shaitan al-Taq (The Shia call him Mu’min al-Taq (see: Rijal al Kashshi p. 185)) was the first person to propound the idea of Imamah being confined to specific people of the Ahlul Bayt.
It is reported in those sources that Zayd asked Shaytan al-Taq to give him allegiance so that he can fight with him against the Umayyads, Shaytan al-Taq refused because Zayd is not the ‘correct’ Imam. This comes as a shock to Zayd as he himself was a leading scholar and Imam of the progeny of Muhammad (s), in fact he’s the son of Ali ibn al-Husayn (Zayn al-Abidin) and brother of Muhammad ibn Ali (son of Zayn al-Abidin) and nephew of Jafar al-Sadiq, yet despite that he never heard of the alien Rafidi belief of ‘Imamah of twelve infallible Imams’. Whwn Zayd ibn Ali (rh) learnt of claims of Shaytan al-Taq he sent him a message in order to ascertain the truth of the matter:
الكافي – الكليني – ج ١ – الصفحة ١٧٤:
عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن علي بن الحكم، عن أبان قال: أخبرني الأحول أن زيد بن علي بن الحسين عليهما السلام بعث إليه وهو مستخف قال: فأتيته فقال لي: يا أبا جعفر ما تقول ان طرقك طارق منا أتخرج معه؟ قال:
فقلت له: إن كان أباك أو أخاك، خرجت معه قال: فقال لي: فأنا أريد أن أخرج أجاهد هؤلاء القوم فأخرج معي قال: قلت: لا ما افعل جعلت فداك، قال: فقال لي: أترغب بنفسك عني؟ قال: قلت له: إنما هي نفس واحدة فإن كان لله في الأرض حجة فالمتخلف عنك ناج والخارج معك هالك وان لا تكن لله حجة في الأرض فالمتخلف عنك والخارج معك سواء.
قال: فقال لي: يا أبا جعفر كنت أجلس مع أبي على الخوان فيلقمني البضعة السمينة ويبرد لي اللقمة الحارة حتى تبرد، شفقة علي، ولم يشفق علي من حر النار، إذا أخبرك بالدين ولم يخبرني به؟ فقلت له: جعلت فداك شفقته عليك من حر النار لم يخبرك، خاف عليك: أن لا تقبله فتدخل النار، وأخبرني أنا، فإن قبلت نجوت، وإن لم أقبل لم يبال أن أدخل النار، ثم قلت له: جعلت فداك أنتم أفضل أم الأنبياء؟ قال: بل الأنبياء قلت: يقول يعقوب ليوسف: يا بني لا تقصص رؤياك على إخوتك فيكيدوا لك كيدا، لم لم يخبرهم حتى كانوا لا يكيدونه ولكن كتمهم ذلك فكذا أبوك كتمك لأنه خاف عليك، قال: فقال: أما والله لئن قلت ذلك لقد حدثني صاحبك بالمدينة أني اقتل واصلب بالكناسة وأن عنده لصحيفة فيها قتلي وصلبي.
فحججت فحدثت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام بمقالة زيد وما قلت له، فقال: لي: أخذته من بين يديه ومن خلفه وعن يمينه وعن شماله ومن فوق رأسه ومن تحت قدميه، ولم تترك له مسلكا يسلكه.
Al-Kafi: A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Isa from Ali b. al-Hakam from Aban who said: al-Ahwal [Shaytan al-Taq] reported to me saying: Zayd b. Ali b. al-Husayn sent for me while he was in hiding so I went to see him. He [Zayd] said to me: O Aba Jafar [Shaytan al-Taq] what will you say if a knocker from among us [the family of the Prophet] knocks on your door [asking for your support to fight the unjust ruler] – would you come out in revolt with him? I said to him: If it is your father [Ali ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin] or your brother [Muhammad al-Baqir] I would set out with him. He [Zayd] said to me: Verily, I wish to rise up and fight these people so set out with me, I [Shaytan al-Taq] said: No, I will not do so, may I be made your ransom. He [Imam Zayd] said to me [Shaytan al-Taq]: do you prefer your life over mine? I [Shaytan al-Taq] said: it is only one soul [that I have] – if Allah does indeed have a hujjah [proof] on the earth [whose existence you deny] then the one who stays back from joining you is saved and the one who joins you is destroyed [for revolting without the permission of the Hujjah], but if Allah does not have a hujjah[proof] on the earth [as you claim] then the one who stays back and the one who joins you are both the same.
He [Imam Zayd] said to me [Shaytan al-Taq]: O Abu Jafar! I used to sit with my father [Ali ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin] to share a plate with him so he would feed me the choicest piece of meat and cool for me a hot morsel fearing for my health but he did not fear for me enough to save me from the hellfire! How could it be that he informed you the truth about the religion [an alleged Hujjah/infallible Imam] and did not inform me about it! I said to him: may I be made your ransom – it is only because of his fear of hellfire for you that he did not inform you! He feared for you that you would reject it and enter the fire, but he informed me so if I accept I am saved and he was not bothered that I enter the fire [if I reject]. Then I [Shaytan al-Taq] said to him: may I be made your ransom, are you better or the prophets? He said: the prophets, I said: Yaqub said to Yusuf: “O my son – do not relate your dream to your brothers for they will devise a plot against you” (12:5) why not inform them and expect them not to devise a plot against him but rather he was to keep it a secret from them [so as not to tempt them]? the same way your father kept it a secret from you because he feared for you. He said: by Allah! Now that you mention that – your man [infallible Imam] narrated to me in Madinah that I am to be killed and crucified in Kinasa (a well known place in Kufa) and that he has a book which tells of my killing and crucifixion in it. Later I [Shaytan al-Taq] made the pilgrimage and relayed to Abu Abdallah [al-Sadiq] my conversation with Zayd, so he said to me: you took him from in front and from behind, from the right and from the left, from above his head and from below his legs and did not leave him any room to wiggle out [the argument you made was water tight]. [Al-Kafi by al-Kulayni, vol. 1, pg. 174]
After citing this narration from al Mamaqani’s Tanqih al-Maqal, Muhibb al Din al Khatib concludes that Shaitan al Taq was the first person to contrive this erroneous doctrine of Imamah, legislation, and infallibility being exclusive to a few members of the Ahlul Bayt.
He has likewise cited this quotation from Tanqih al Maqal in his additional notes upon Mukhtasar al Tuhfah and followed it with the following remarks:
و هكذا اخترع شيطان الطاق أكذوبة الإمامة، التي صارت من أصول الديانة عند الشيعة، واتهم الإمام عليازين العابدين ابن الحسين بأنه كتم أساس الدين حتي عن ابنه الذي هو من صفوة آل محمد، كما اتهم الإمام زيدا بأنه لم يبلغ درجة أخس الروافض في قابليته للإيمان بإمامة أبيه…و الشيعة هم الذين يروون هذا الخبر في أوثق المصادر عندهم و يعلنون فيه أن شيطان الطاق يزعم بوقاحته أنه يعرف عن والد الإمام زيد ما لا يعرف الإمام زيد من والده مما يتعلق بأصل الدين عندهم. وليس هذا بكثير علي شيطان الطاق الذي روي عنه الجاحظ في كتابه عن الإمامة أن الله لم يقل ثَانِيَ اثْنَيْنِ إِذْ هُمَا فِي الْغَارِ.
Shaitan al-Taq was in this way successful in forging the fallacy of Imamah which has now become the core doctrine of the Shia dogma. He accused Ali Zayn al-Abidin ibn al-Husayn of concealing the basis of the religion from his son who was one of the elite erudite members of the Ahlul-Bayt. Just as he accused Imam Zayd of not reaching the level of even the most wretched of the Shia in his ability to concede the Imamah of his father. The Shia narrate this quotation in the most authentic of their books and openly proclaim that Shaitan al-Taq—despite his wickedness—knew from the father of Imam Zayd more than even what he knew regarding the fundamentals of the religion. This is not extraordinary for Shaitan al-Taq. For al-Jahiz in his book on Imamah narrates from him that he averred that Allah did not reveal (the verse), “The second of the two when they were in the cave.” [Mukhtasar al-Tuhfah al-Ithna ‘Ashariyyah p. 195-196.]
Rijal al-Kashshi version:
وذكر أن مؤمن الطاق قيل له: ما الذي جرى بينك وبين زيد بن علي في محضر أبي عبد الله؟ قال: قال زيد بن علي: يا محمد بن علي بلغني أنك تزعم أن في آل محمد إماما مفترض الطاعة؟ قال: قلت نعم وكان أبوك علي بن الحسين أحدهم، فقال: وكيف وقد كان يؤتى بلقمة وهي حارة فيبردها بيده ثم يلقمنيها، أفترى أنه كان يشفق علي من حر اللقمة ولا يشفق علي من حر النار؟ قال: قلت له كره أن يخبرك فتكفر، فلا يكون له فيك الشفاعة لا ولله فيك المشية، فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام أخذته من بين يديه ومن خلفه فما تركت له مخرجا
Zaid said to him, “It has reached me that you [Shaytan al-Taq] claim that in the household of Muhammad there is an Imam whose obedience is mandatory?” He [Shaytan al-Taq] responded in the affirmative and said, “Your father Ali ibn al-Husayn was one of them.”Thereupon Zayd said, “How can that be, when he would take a mouthful of food, and if it was hot, he would cool it with his hand and then put it in my mouth? Do you really think that he feared the heat of the morsel for me but did not fear the heat of the Hellfire?” He [Shaytan al-Taq] thus said, “He disliked informing you fearing that you would disbelieve (fall into kufr!) depriving you thus of his intercession in your favour before Allah.” Abu Abdallah [al-Sadiq] said: You got him and did not leave him any room to wiggle out [the argument you made was water tight]. [Rijal al-Kashshi pg. 186].
Comment: Where to start really? A Zindiq known as Shaytan al-Taq (from whom the Rafidah take their religion from, as he claims to be one of the main students of Imam Jafar al-Sadiq!) had to come up with an idea to somehow explain how on earth a major Hashimite figure, the very son of Ali ibn al-Husayn (Zayn al-Abidin, whom the Rafidah ascribe to themselves as their fourth ‘infallible Imam’) dared to rebel and act as an actual Imam (i.e. not a housed-weller..). The typical Shia escape door, the Taqiyyah excuse! Imagine, a father who did Taqiyyah regarding the so called most important pillar of Islam, that is, Imamah! Mind you, he (Ali ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin) did not do so in front of his enemies, but rather in front of his own son (Zayn)! This is the chaos and myth that the Twelvers call Lutf and Imamah with which they have fooled and misguided millions upon millions!
As for the pathetic arguments of the devil of Taq (whom the Rafidah describe as an expert in theology (kalam) and apologetic debates): his flawed analogy can be deconstructed by simply pointing out that according to the Twelver Imamites, the Prophet (s) had already clearly appointed twelve successors after himself, the Ummah was infromed about this but denounced it! So what is there for the father of Zayd to hide? Zayd is the son of Ali ibn al-Husayn (Zayn al-Abidin), his brother is al-Baqir, his grandfather is al-Husayn ibn Ali, his nephew is al-Sadiq, how come that he never heard about the most important pillar of Islam, Imamah, the salvation for mankind? Could anybody hide an Islamic principle like the Prophethood of Muhammad (s) to anyone? No? Then how come the Imamah of the twelve Imams (that is more crucial to our salvation than the Prophethood of the likes of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, who are all mere servants of Ali and his children, as per Rafidism of course…) could have been hidden from a scholar (!) like Zayd ibn Ali of the progeny of Muhammad (s)?!
As for the verse (Yusuf : 5) that Shaytan al-Taq misused:
قَالَ يَا بُنَيَّ لَا تَقْصُصْ رُوْيَاكَ عَلَى إِخْوَتِكَ فَيَكِيدُواْ لَكَ كَيْدًا
إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ لِلِنسَانِ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ
He (the father) said;”O my son! Relate not your vision to your brothers, lest they should arrange a plot against you. Verily, Shaytan is to man an open enemy!”
Allah narrates the reply Yaqub gave his son Yusuf when he narrated to him the vision that he saw, which indicated that his brothers would be under his authority. Yaqub feared that if Yusuf narrated his vision to any of his brothers, they would envy him and conspire evil plots against him. This is why Yaqub said to Yusuf,
لَا تَقْصُصْ رُوْيَاكَ عَلَى إِخْوَتِكَ فَيَكِيدُواْ لَكَ كَيْدًا
(Relate not your vision to your brothers, lest they should arrange a plot against you).
In the Sunnah, there is a confirmed hadith that states,
إِذَا رَأَى أَحَدُكُمْ مَا يُحِبُّ فَلْيُحَدِّثْ بِهِ وَإِذَا رَأَى مَا يَكْرَهُ فَلْيَتَحَوَّلْ إِلَى جَنْبِهِ الاْخَرِ وَلْيَتْفُلْ عَنْ يَسَارِهِ ثَلَثًا وَلْيَسْتَعِذْ بِاللهِ مِنْ شَرِّهَا وَلَا يُحَدِّثْ بِهَا أَحَدًا فَإِنَّهَا لَنْ تَضُرَّه
If any of you saw a vision that he likes, let him narrate it. If he saw a dream that he dislikes, let him turn on his other side, blow to his left thrice, seek refuge with Allah from its evil and not tell it to anyone. Verily, it will not harm him in this case.
Besides, Yusuf (a) was not a prophet at that time, his father prepared him for it after he was informed of his dream. The flawed argument of the Shaytan of Taq boils down to his flawed comparison between an alleged infallible father (Ali ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-Abidin) and Imam who raised (!) a son (Imam Zayd) without ever telling him about not just his own (father’s) alleged divine right to rule (Imamah) but also of that of a set of twelve Imams. Yusuf did eventually declare his Prophethood and prevailed at the appointed time. Allah (ﷻ) let the wrongdoers have a momentary respite so that eventually Yusuf (as) would succeed and have authority over his nation, not just over his brothers. Unlike alleged ‘infallibles’ and house dwelling Imams who (according to Rafidi conspiracies) lived a pacifistic life, hiding essential knowledge to their grown up sons and ultimately having no authority over no one. Anyway, Yusuf (a) declared his Prophethood and his brothers and the nation of his time eventually submitted to him and thus the argument of Shaytan al-Taq is null and void, a faulty analogy (Shaytan al-Taq fabricating how Jafar al-Sadiq praised him for his ‘water tight’ arguments won’t help the Rafidah, it is in fact an insult to al-Sadiq who undoubtly didn’t say these words in praise of a pathetic argument).
Jafar ibn Muhammad (al-Sadiq) denies the Shia Imamah
Al-Imam al-Sadiq was one day visited by some people (from Kufah who sought permission to see him. He allowed them in. Having entered they said to him, “O Abu Abdullah, some people came to us, claiming that among you the Ahlul-Bayt of the Prophet (s) is an Imam whose obedience has been imposed as a duty by Allah.”
Imam Jafar replied, “No, I do not know of that in our household.”
They then said, “O Abu Abdullah, they are ardent worshipers, people of seclusion, and who fear Allah; they are claiming that you are the one.”
Imam Jafar replied, “They know what they say better (than me). I did not command them to say so.” [Basair al-Darajat, p. 326]
Another version with a reliable chain:
جعفر، عن فضالة بن أيوب و غير واحد، عن معاوية بن عمار، عن سعيد الأعرج، قال، : كنا عند أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) فاستأذن له رجلان، فأذن لهما، فقال أحدهما أفيكم إمام مفترض الطاعة قال ما أعرف ذلك فينا، قال بالكوفة قوم يزعمون أن فيكم إماما مفترض الطاعة، و هم لا يكذبون أصحاب ورع و اجتهاد و تمييز، فهم عبد الله بن أبي يعفور و فلان و فلان، فقال أبو عبد الله (عليه السلام) ما أمرتهم بذلك و لا قلت لهم أن يقولوه، قال فما ذنبي و احمر وجهه و غضب غضبا شديدا، قال، فلما رأيا الغضب في وجهه قاما فخرجا، قال أ تعرفون الرجلين قلنا نعم هما رجلان من الزيدية، و هما يزعمان أن سيف رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) عند عبد الله بن الحسن، فقال كذبوا عليهم لعنة الله ثلاث مرات، لا و الله ما رءاه عبد الله و لا أبوه الذي ولده بواحدة من عينيه قط، ثم قال اللهم إلا أن يكون رءاه على علي بن الحسين و هو متقلده، فإن كانوا صادقين فاسألوهم ما علامته فإن في ميمنته علامة و في ميسرته علامة، و قال و الله إن عندي لسيف رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) و لامته، و الله إن عندي لراية رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)، و الله إن عندي لألواح موسى (عليه السلام) و عصاه، و الله إن عندي لخاتم سليمان بن داود، و الله إن عندي الطست التي كان موسى (عليه السلام) يقرب فيها القربان، و الله إن عندي لمثل الذي جاءت به الملائكة تحمله و الله إن عندي للشيء الذي كان رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) يضعه بين المسلمين و المشركين فلا يصل إلى المسلمين نشابة، ثم قال إن الله عز و جل أوحى إلى طالوت أنه لن يقتل جالوت إلا من لبس درعك ملأها، فدعى طالوت جنده رجلا رجلا فألبسهم الدرع فلم يملأها أحد منهم إلا داود، فقال يا داود إنك أنت تقتل جالوت فابرز إليه فبرز إليه فقتله، فإن قائمنا إن شاء الله من إذا لبس درع رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) يملأها و قد لبسها أبو جعفر فخطت عليه و لبستها أنا فكانت و كانت
Ja’far from Fadhala b. Ayyub and more than one from Muawiya b. Ammar from Sa’id al-A’raj who said: we were with Abu Abdallah (al-Sadiq) when two man sought permission (to enter upon him), and he granted them permission. One of them said: is there among you (i.e. the Ahlulbayt) an Imam whose obedience is obligatory? he (al-Sadiq) said: I do not know of such a one among us, he (the man) said: in Kufa there is a group who claim that among you there is an Imam whose obedience is obligatory, and they do not lie, the people of righteousness, and striving, and discernment, among them is Abdallah b. Abi Ya’fur, and so and so, and so and so, so Abu Abdallah (al-Sadiq) said: I did not command them that nor did I say to them to say it, so what is my fault, and his face reddened, and he became intensely angry, he (Sa’id) said: so when they both saw the anger in his face, they stood up and left, he (al-Sadiq) said: do you know the two men? We said: yes, they are two men from the Zaydiyyah, and they claim that the sword of the Messenger of Allah (s) is with Abdallah b. al-Hasan, so he (al-Sadiq) said: they have lied, may Allah curse them – thrice, No, by Allah! Abdallah has never seen it, nor his father who begat him – with either one of his eyes, then he said: Except if he had seen it upon (with) Ali b. al-Husayn and he was wearing (carrying) it around his neck, so if they are indeed truthful (i.e. in this assertion) then ask them what its (i.e. the sword’s) signs (emblems) are, for on its right there is a sign, and on its left there is a sign, and he (al-Sadiq) said: by Allah! I do have the sword of the messenger of Allah (s) and his breast plate, by Allah! I do have the banner of the messenger of Allah, by Allah! I do have the tablets of Moses (a) and his cane, by Allah! I do have the ring of Solomon the son of David (a), by Allah! I do have the altar basin upon which Moses (a) used to offer the sacrificial offering (i.e. which was kept in the Tabernacle), by Allah! I do have the like of that which was brought by the angels (who were) carrying (bearing) it (i.e. the Ark of the Covenant), by Allah! I do have the thing which if the messenger of Allah (s) used to place it in between the Muslims and the polytheists not an arrow reaches the Muslims (from the polytheists), then he said: Allah – the Mighty and Majestic – revealed to Saul: Goliath will not be killed except by the one who wears your armor and fits it perfectly, so Saul called his soldiers one after the other, so he made them wear the armor, so no one fitted it except for David, so he (Saul) said: O David, you will kill Goliath, so go out to him (challenge him to a duel i.e. one-on-one combat), so he faced him and killed him, and our Riser – if Allah wills – is the one who – if he wears the armor of the messenger of Allah – he fits it, and Abu Ja’far (al-Baqir) had tried it on – so it was larger than him, and I tried it on (wore it) and it was so and so (i.e. almost there but not yet). [Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat al-Rijal also known as Rijal al-Kashshi p. 427]
Another version in al-Kafi along with a desperate and pathetic damage control attempt by a cornerstone of a scholar of Islamism:
Mulla Salih al-Mazandarani (ملا صالح المازندراني, d. 1086 AH) says in his commentary Sharh Usul al-Kafi (a ten-volume commentary on the most sahih of the four books of hadiths in Shi’sm known as al-Kafi by Kulayni, d. 329 AH) says:
قوله (قال: فقال: لا) أجاب بذلك على سبيل التورية والمقصود أنه ليس في بني فلان من أولاد علي (عليه السلام) إمام مفترض الطاعة أو أنه ليس فينا إمام مفترض الطاعة بزعمكم فيخرج بذلك عن الكذب.
‘His (al-Sadiq’s) statement of “no” (rejection of Imamah) was by way of Tawriyah (to say something intending other than what is normally understood from it, this is a way to refrain from telling a lie, a form of Taqiyyah) and what is meant is that in such and such clan from the descendants of ‘Ali (a) there is no Imam whose obedience has been imposed as a duty by Allah or that there is no Imam whose obedience has been imposed as a duty by Allah according to you (questioners i.e. the Zaydis).’ This is how he (al-Sadiq) avoided lying.’ [Sharh Usul al-Kafi by Muhammad Salih al-Mazandarani, vol. 5, pg. 323]
Comment: An alleged infallible guide for mankind acting as if he’s Riddler, playing word games instead of standing up for his alleged God-given Imamah! Mind you, the ‘infallible’ wasn’t interrogated by the cruel Mossad, CIA or MI6 or its Umayyad equivalent, he was approached by a group of Shi’ites, Zaydis (Zaydiyyah) to be precise. Aren’t even these folks worthy of being told the alleged truth? Heck, how that they (Shi’ites of the times of al-Sadiq) were confused in this matter in the first place? Twelvers claim the Qur’an is filled with evidences for the alleged Imamah of their Imams, so is the Sunnah. Modern day Shia polemicists (mis)use) hadiths like the twelve caliphs/rulers one with utmost confidence, how come that they know better than the early Shi’ites? Of course, the truth is that the above reliable (mu’tabar according to Twelver standards) narration attributed to Jafar al-Sadiq is nothing but a fabrication, however, a fabrication that includes some truth, truth that the fabricators and heretics who lied upon the Ahlul-Bayt tried to mix with falsehood (a ridiculous one on top of it, in the form of a fuming’infallible’ Imam who suddenly turns brave and loud after the guests leave, cursing them and boasting about his relic collection. Undoubtly, al-Sadiq is free of such fabrications).
Imagine a Prophet (Hujjah, evidence of Allah on earth, as are infallible Imams according to Imamism) being visited by truth-seekers (or even vicious enemies for that matter) and being asked if he’s Wajib al-Ta’ah (someone whose obedience has been imposted as a duty by Allah for mankind) and the Prophet replying back that he has no knowledge of such thing and that he did not command anybody to do or say so! Even under dire situations, like when Prophet Muhammad kept a low profile in his temporary early stages of Da’wah (of course he never denied his Prophethood out of ‘Taqiyyah’. As a matter of fact, true Hujjaj (signs of Allah), the Prophets, endured all forms of harm, some were even thrown into the fire yet none of them ever denied their Prophethood and the obligation of others to follow and obey him), yet the Twelvers want us to believe that an alleged guide for mankind did exactly that i.e. Taqiyyah!
Besides, how come that Shi’ites of the times of al-Sadiq were confused in this matter, yet we have modern day Shia polemicists who (misuse) hadiths (like the twelve caliphs/rulers) and know better then them?!
Of course, Al-Sadiq and other great Imams of the progeny of Muhammad (s) never claimed to be infallible Imams whose obedience has been ordered by Allah and his Messenger, that is why there was confusion among various (political) Shia groups in the first place. The Ghulat, the extremists who claimed to be disciples of the Imams had always an excuse ready for contradicting statements (that people heard from the Imams). The excuse of Taqiyyah effectively stole the authority of the Imams, as now no statement or action of the Imam could be taken on face value. Its true implication could only be sought from those who claiming fellowship with them and they could claim whatever they wish, just like the Rafidah Imamites do today.]
The Imams words VS a religion of conspiracies
وفي تلك الأثناء، قام فريق صغير من المتكلمين الشيعة بالغلو في أهل البيت، وادعى بعضهم كهشام بن الحكم الكندي وهشام بن سالم الجواليقي ومحمد بن علي النعمان ، الملقب بمؤمن الطاق، وعلي بن إسماعيل بن شعيب بن ميثم التمار ، وحمران بن أعين ، وأبي بصير المرادي :” أن الإمامة مفروضة من الله ، وهي في أهل البيت ، وإنها متوارثة في ذرية الحسين بصورة عمودية إلى يوم القيامة ، وإنها تثبت بالنص أو الوصية أو المعاجز الغيبية“.1 وكانوا يغلفون أقوالهم بلفائف من الكتمان ، ويدعون أن الأئمة كانوا يسرون لهم بذلك، خلافا لما كانوا يعلنون ، ويفسرون نفيهم لهذه النظرية بالخوف والتقية.
1 – الكليني، الكافي، ج 1، ص 174، والطبرسي، الاحتجاج، ج 2، ص 141
وكان أهل البيت أنفسهم يرفضون “العصمة ” أشد الرفض ، ويصرحون أمام الجماهير بأنهم أناس عاديون قد يخطئون وقد يصيبون وأنهم ليسوا معصومين من الذنوب ، ويطالبون الناس بنقدهم وإرشادهم واتخاذ موقف المعارضة منهم لو صدر منهم أي خطأ أو أمروا بمنكر لا سمح الله . وقد وقف الإمام أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبى طالب في مسجد الكوفة وخاطب الجموع قائلا: “لا تكلموني بما تكلم به الجبابرة ولا تتحفظوا مني بما يتحفظ به عند أهل البادرة ولا تخالطوني بالمصانعة ولا تظنوا بي استثقالا في حق قيل لي ولا التماس إعظام لنفسي لما لا يصلح لي ، فانه من استثقل الحق أن يقال له أو العدل أن يعرض عليه كان العمل بهما اثقل عليه .. فلا تكفوا عن مقالة بحق أو مشورة بعدل ، فإني لست في نفسي بفوق أن أخطيء ولا آمن ذلك من فعلي ، إلا أن يكفي الله من نفسي ما هو أملك به مني . فإنما أنا وانتم عبيد مملوكون لرب لا رب غيره يملك منا ما لا نملك من أنفسنا ، وأخرجنا مما كنا فيه الى ما صلحنا عليه، فأبدلنا بعد الضلالة بالهدى وأعطانا البصيرة بعد العمى“
– انظر الخطبة كاملة في: روضة الكافي للكليني، ص 292 – 293 ، وبحار الأنوار للمجلسي، ج 74 ، ص 309
قد كان أئمة أهل البيت يعتقدون بحق الأمة الإسلامية في اختيار أوليائها، وبضرورة ممارسة الشورى ، ويدينون الاستيلاء على السلطة بالقوة. ولعلنا نجد في الحديث الذي يرويه الصدوق عن الإمام الرضا عن أبيه الكاظم عن أبيه جعفر الصادق عن أبيه محمد الباقر عن علي بن الحسين عن الحسين بن علي عن أبيه عن جده رسول الله (ص) والذي يقول فيه:” من جاءكم يريد أن يفرق الجماعة ويغصب الأمة أمرها ويتولى من غير مشورة فاقتلوه ، فان الله عز وجل قد أذن ذلك
الصدوق، عيون اخبار الرضا، ج 2 ، ص 62
Having said that, here a list of evidences proving that the Imams of the progeny of Muhammad never claimed infallibility nor being God chosen guides/Imams whose obedience is binding upon the whole Ummah and mankind!
Musa ibn Jafar (al-Kazim) denies the Shia Imamah
Another person who was instrumental with Shaitan al-Taq was Hisham ibn al-Hakam (d. 179 A.H.). Al Qadi ‘Abd al Jabbar in fact avers that the person who claimed Nass (the divine appointment of the Imams) and induced the people to revile Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, the Muhajirin, and the Ansar was Hisham ibn al-Hakam. He was the fabricator of the idea of divine appointment; no one before him made such a claim. [al-Muraja’at p. 313.]
In Rijal al Kashshi there appears a narration which states that the conspiracy of Hisham reached Harun al-Rashid:
يا أمير المؤمنين إني قد استنبطت أمر هشام فإذا هو يزعم أن لله في أرضه أماما غيرك مفروض الطاعة، قال سبحان الله! قال نعم، ويزعم أنه لو أمره بالخروج لخرج
Yahya al-Barmaki said, “O Amir al-Mu’minin! I have investigated the affair of Hisham ibn al-Hakam, he claims that there is an Imam besides you on the earth whose obedience is mandatory.”
He said, “Subhan Allah!”
Yahya said, “Yes! He also claims that if this Imams tells him to rebel he will rebel.” [Rijal al Kashshi p. 258.]
This narration suggests that Harun was amazed, which implies that this idea was still in its initial stages.
Hisham the heretic Rafidi (and hardcore Mujassim/anthropomorphist) had told the people that whatever he says, he says as the representative of Musa al-Kazim (rh). The Abbasid Ruler Mahdi subsequently imprisoned him and punished him badly. He then released him and took a pledge from him that he will not rebel against him or anyone of his progeny. To which he replied by saying:
والله ما هذا من شأني وحدثت فيه نفسي
By Allah! That is not my temperament and nor have I proposed that from my side. [Ibn Kathir: al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 10/183.]
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyah (rh) has suggested that Musa al-Kazim (rh) was convicted of wanting to overthrow the rule of Harun due to which he was imprisoned. [Minhaj al Sunnah 2/155]. Ostensibly, this was because of that being attributed to him by the Rafidi Hisham and his cohorts. Therefore, we find that the books of the Shia attest to the fact that he was imprisoned due to the statements and the lies which revolve around Imamah and the right of the Ahlul-Bayt to it being attributed to him… Hence, when these claims of Hisham reached Harun he ordered his governor thus:
شد يدك بهذا وأصحابه وبعث إلي أبي الحسن موسي عليه السلام فحبسه. فكان سبب حبسه مع غيره من الأسباب
Keep a tight grip on this person and his cohorts. He then sent his police to imprison Abu al-Hasan Musa (al-Kazim). So this was the reason for his imprisonment, among other reasons. [Rijal al Kashshi p. 262.]
The books of the Shia have likewise suspected Hisham of being part of those who assassinated Musa al Kazim. Hence their books say:
هشام بن الحكم…ضال مضل شرك في دم أبي الحسن
Hisham ibn al Hakam… a deviant person who lead others astray. He was part of those who killed Abu al-Hasan (Musa al-Kazim). [Rijal al Kashshi p. 268]
Musa al-Kazim had requested the heretical extremist Shia Rafidis like Hisham to desist from making such statements. After desisting for a month he started again whereupon he said:
أيسرك أن تشرك في دم امرئ مسلم؟ قال: لا، قال: وكيف تشرك في دمي، فإن سكت وإلا فهو الذبح. فما سكت حتي كان من أمره ما كان (صلي الله عليه وسلم
Musa al-Kazim asked him, “Does it please you to play a role in the murder of a Muslim?”
“No,” he said.
Musa al-Kazim then said to him, “Then why would you want to play a role in my murder? If you do not desist I will be slaughtered.”
He, however, did not remain silent, till eventual what happened, happened. [Rijal al-Kashi p. 270-271, 279]
Therefore Ali al-Rida (son of Musa al-Kazim) said, as the books of the Shia allege:
هشام بن الحكم فهو الذي صنع بأبي الحسن ما صنع وقال لهم وأخبرهم أتري أن الله يغفر له ما ركب منا
Hisham ibn al Hakam did whatever he did to Abu al-Hssan (al-Kazim). He then told them of what he had did and said, “Do you think Allah will forgive him for the crimes he has committed against us.”[Rijal al-Kashshi p. 278]
The books of the Shia also reveal that Hisham was brought up by heretics. Hence in Rijal al -Kashshi the following narration appears:
وهشام كان من غلمان أبي شاكر وأبو شاكر كان زنديقا
Hisham was the slave of Abu Shakir who was a heretic (Abu Shakir al-Disani the eponym of the Disaniyyah. He was one of the people who had misguided Hisham ibn al-Hakam see al-Rafi’i: Taht Rayat al Qur’an p. 176)
Despite this assertion, one of the contemporary scholars of the Shia states the following regarding Hisham, the man of all this mayhem as documented in the most reliable books of the Shia:
لم يعثر أحد من سلفنا علي شيئ مما نسبه الخصم إليه
No one has come across the evils that the opponents (Ahlus-Sunnah) ascribe to him. [al-Muraja’at p. 313]
Rafidah scholars seem to believe that people have no knowledge of what is in their books.
The conclusion nonetheless is that Hisham ibn al Hakam, Shaitan al-Taq, and their protégés were the ones who had revived the idea of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ which was specific to Ali ibn Abi Talib (r) and thereafter generalised it for the other members of the Ahlul-Bayt. In doing so, they took advantage of some of the atrocities that befell them, like that of the martyrdom of Ali (r) and his son al-Husayn (r). This paved the way for them to provoke the feelings of the people and influence their hearts in order to accomplish their malicious agendas which they harboured against the Muslim Ummah.
Followers of heretics not Imams of Ahlul-Bayt
The concept of the Imams being confined to a specific number was planted in the second century by a group of people who falsely claimed to be the partisans of the Ahlul-Bayt, the likes of Hisham ibn al-Hakam and Shaitan al-Taq. Imamah is from other than Allah, a mayhem that has produced nothing but confusion, even for the gullible Shias of the past who tremendously differed as to the exact count of their Imams; the author of Mukhtasar al-Tuhfah mentions:
اعلم أن الإمامية قائلون بانحصار الأئمة، ولكنهم مختلفون في مقدارهم، فقال بعضهم: خمسة، وبعضهم: سبعة، وبعضهم: ثمانية: وبعضهم: اثنا عشر، وبعضهم ثلاثة عشر
Know well that the Imamiyyah hold the view that their Imams are specified but they have differed in their specific count. Some of them say five, some say seven, some say eight, some say twelve, and some (even ) say thirteen. [Mukhtasar al-Tuhfah p. 193]
The basis of all these variant opinions is one, and that is after the demise of each Imam of the Ahlul-Bayt many sub-sects would come into existence. Some would be indefinite about the death of the Imam thereby assuming him to be the last Imam upon whom they would terminate Imamah and the count of the Imams. Whereas some would go in search of another member of the Ahlul Bayt and make him the new ‘Imam’ securing in this manner the niche to introduce into din its old inherited rituals or its cultural and racist inclinations thereby securing the clout to carry out its enmities and accomplish its aspirations. It will suffice for the reader to read the books of heresiography to learn all of this. In fact even the books of the Shia have recorded some examples of these differences and contradictions, whether they be the books of the Ismailiyyah like that of Masa’il al-Imamah of al Nashi’ al Akbar and al-Zinah of Ibn Abi Hatim, or the books of the Twelvers like that of al Maqalat wa al-Firaq of al Ash’ari al-Qummi and Firaq al-Shia of al-Nawbakhti, or the books of the Zaidiyyah like that of al-Munyah wa al Amal of al-Murtada.
Not forgetting that the issue of Imamah is not a secondary issue in their creed wherein difference of opinion is unobjectionable. It is rather the very basis of their dogma and its most crucial component, for a person who does not believe in their ‘Imam’ is not a believer. Which is why we see them dubbing each other infidels. Sometimes even the followers of one Imam excommunicate and curse each other. The belief of twelve Imams only came into existence after the demise of Hasan al-Askari (11th infertile Imam who never had any sons), as has passed already.
Hence we find some narrations in the tradition of the Twelvers which give of some indications as to the confusion and quandary that they encountered in the number of Imams. This ostensibly suggests that they are forgeries which were fabricated before the demise of Hasan al-Askari and that prior to that the belief of the twelve Imams, to whom the Twelvers subscribe, did not exist
The bitter fact is that the Imamah of the twelve Imams is a romantacised concept that was concocted by the heretics of Kufa and Qom, falsely attributed to the Imams of the progeny of Muhammad (s). It is thus that Imamites have in actual reality not taken their religion from the Ahlul-Bayt and the Imams of the progeny of Muhammad (s), what they believe to be the sect and school of Ahlul-Bayt is nothing but exaggerations and lies attributed to them by the extremists (Ghulat) and Zanadiqah (heretics), the likes of Hisham ibn al Hakam, ‘Mu`min’ (Shaytan) al-Taq and other than them. With their efforts the belief of Imamah was confined in the second century to a specific people and gained a lot of traction in Kufah (that although was a place were many pious and upright scholars emerged, even some Sahabah settled there, yet it along with the rest of southern Iraq was also the birthplace of many deviant beliefs, such as extreme forms of Shi’ism/Rafidism, Kharijism, Jahmism etc) and later Qum that has ever since become a fortress of Rafidi extremism. With the efforts of these Zanadiqah who falsely claimed to be the partisans of the Ahlul Bayt falsehood was spread in the name of the Ahlul-Bayt to this very day. May Allah guide the lost souls.
The Ahlul-Bayt and the Imams of the progeny of Muhammad (s) never claimed infallibility…
Typical Rafidi interpolation added in brackets in order to distort (tahrif) the clear-cut and unambiguous words of ‘Ali (r) that destroy the Twelver narrative of his alleged infallibility. They also usually add large footnotes where they try to water down the truth (Ali’s statement that he isn’t above erring!).
nor divine authority, on the contrary, in the same narrations that are often either overlooked (or watered down) by the extremist Imamites, the Imams made it clear that they are not hujjahs (ironically what Shi’ites call them) upon anybody, rather they are fallible man who will be judged on Judgemant day (and not judge others as the Ghulat, the Rafidah Imamiyyah have attributed to them) like everybody else:
وقال الإمام الصادق: ” والله ما نحن إلا عبيد … ما نقدر على ضرّ ولا نفع ، إن رحمنا فبرحمته، وان عذبنا فبذنوبنا ، والله مالنا على الله من حجة ولا معنا من الله براءة ، وإنا لميتون ومقبورون ومنشورون ومبعوثون ومسئولون .. أشهدكم أنى امرئ ولدني رسول الله وما معي براءة من الله ، إن أطعت رحمني وان عصيته عذبني عذابا شديدا”
الكليني، الكافي، الروضة، ص 312 ، والحر العاملي، إثبات الهداة، ص 770
‘Imam al-Sadiq: “By Allah! We are the slaves of the Being Who created us. We do not have power to cause harm or benefit [note he doesn’t add the condition ‘except with the permission of Allah’, he denies it categorically]. If we are blessed it is through His mercy and if we are punished it is through our sins. We have no hujjah upon Allah, nor are we independent of Him. We will die, be buried, resurrected, made to stand before Him, and be questioned. I make you witnesses that I am a man, a descendant of the Messenger of Allah (s) and have nowhere to turn but to Allah. If I obey Him he will shower His mercies upon me and if I disobey Him he will punish me.” [al-Bihar, vol. 25 pg. 289; Rijal al-Kashshi, 225; al-Kafi (Rawda), p. 312; Mu’jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 19 pg. 301]