or the old days. In their private counsel, these defeated elements had reached the conclusion that it was not possible to fight Muslims on the battlefield. Therefore, they resolved to sow the seed of discord amongst Muslims, using the model of the Jews of Yathrib. The Prophet had called the Muslims to unite under the banner of Islam and the Quran; the disunited Arabs had unified and defeated their enemies. Thus, these conspirators decided to undo this process; they reasoned that to remove the Muslims from Islam and the Quran would also cause disunity and weakness.
The first step of these conspirators was the assassination of Umar. Umar’s son Ubaidallah took revenge and killed Jafeena the Christian and Harmuzan the Persian. It was then that Ali ibn Abi Talib demanded that Ubaidallah be given the death penalty for murdering Umar’s assassins. Abdullah Ibn Saba, whose father had been a companion of Jafeena and Harmuzan, thus took a liking for Ali and declared himself a Partisan of Ali.
Ibn Saba carried a grudge against Umar-–it had after all been his father responsible for Umar’s death; he also carried a grudge against Uthman who pardoned the killers of his father’s companions.
Abdullah Ibn Saba saw an opportunity to exploit the disunity of the Muslims during the time of civil unrest during Uthman’s Caliphate. Ibn Saba “converted” to Islam, and tried to gain a following amongst Ali’s more extreme supporters. These followers of Ali were using him in their appeals to Caliph Uthman. They were already upset with Uthman, and thus they were the perfect target audience for Ibn Saba who would convince them of Ali’s superiority over Uthman.
Ibn Saba first called the masses to show their love and devotion to the Ahlel Bayt (Prophetic Household). He then started claiming that none could exceed the Ahlel Bayt in status. When he gained some popularity at this, he boldly claimed that Ali was the most superior person after the Prophet. When he saw that some of his followers had indeed believed him, he confided in them that Ali was in reality the appointed successor of the Prophet, but that the Three Caliphs had usurped this right from him. Ibn Saba then unleashed a campaign of vilification against the Sahabah, and he is the first to start the practice of Tabarra, or ritualistic cursing of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. He then told his staunch supporters that Ali had powers above those of a normal human being.
To appeal to the recent Persian converts, Ibn Saba infused Zoroastrian beliefs into Islam. The Zoroastrians believed that God’s spirit was in their Chosroes (king), and that this spirit moved from one king to another, through his descendants. Ibn Saba declared that the divinity of Imamah also moved from one Imam to another through the descendants of Ali. Many of the exaggerations in Shi’ism in regards to the powers of Imams take their inspiration from the Chosroes.
Ibn Saba’s ideas appealed to the pagan side of the new converts from amongst the Beduins and Persians; these pagans were accustomed to worshipping idols and people, so the exaltation of Ali appealed to them. Eventually, Ibn Saba would take it to the ultimate extreme and he applied in full force the concept of the Persian Chosroes, declaring Ali to be Allah incarnated.
Up until then, Ali had not paid much attention to Ibn Saba’s antics, but once he heard of this news, Ali was furious. Ali threatened to burn all of Ibn Saba’s followers (called Saba’ites) to the stake including Ibn Saba; Ali asked them to repent and he would eventually exile them to Mada’in (modern day Iran) when he was Caliph.
However, the Saba’ites adopted the concept of Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding one’s faith); this allowed the Saba’ites to avoid detection from the authorities, infiltrating the ranks of the Shia’t Ali.
Ali, who before becoming Caliph spent most of his time in Mecca and Medinah, remained oblivious to the Saba’ites who were mostly in Iraq (i.e. Kufa), Persia, and Egypt.
With the practise of Taqiyyah and Kitman, the Saba’ites functioned much like a secret society or cult, such as the Free Masons, Illuminati, and other clandestine organizations. The Saba’ites operated under a strict code of secrecy and hid their identities for fear of reprisal from the government. This created a situation such that the authorities could not clamp down on the Saba’ites due to their elusiveness, and the secret society continued to grow in numbers and fill the ranks of the Shia’t Ali, without even Ali’s knowledge.
The Saba’ites were the originators of the Shia faith. Generations later, these Saba’ites would branch out into the various Shia sects we know of today: the Druze, Bohras, Nizaris, Zaydis, Jarudis, Sulaymanis, Butris, Ismailis, Kaysaniyyas, Qaddahiyyas, Ghullat, Aga Khanis, Ithna Asharis, Usoolis, Akhbaris, Shaykis, and so on.
Saba’ites Organize Attack on Uthman
It should be noted that these Saba’ite Bedouins were only one segment of the Shia’t Ali; they were an extremist fringe group. With the goading of Abdullah Ibn Saba, the Egyptian Bedouins (led by the Saba’ites) were planning on rebelling against Caliph Uthman. However, news of this imminent treason by the extremist wing of the Shia’t Ali reached the ears of Uthman . Caliph Uthman thus ordered the Egyptian governor to pre-emptively take action against the malcontents. But when the Eygptian Bedouins found out that the governor was to punish the malcontents on orders of Caliph Uthman, Abdullah Ibn Saba convinced the Bedouins to siege the Caliph’s home in Medinah.
Ali did not take part in the siege, nor did he approve of it. In fact, Ali sent his own sons to protect Caliph Uthman, and he even offered 500 men to protect Uthman . How is it then that the Shia claim that Ali hated Uthman when he sent his own beloved sons to defend him and to prolong his Caliphate?
Indeed, Ali did not support the Saba’ite Bedouins who favored Ali over Uthman-–much like Ali would not support the modern day Shia today. The modern day Shia can never explain why Ali did not raise his sword against Uthman, and they can only say that perhaps he was preventing bloodshed. But then why was Ali ready to shed blood in the defense of Uthman? Truly, the Shia cannot explain this: a man does not send his sons to defend a tyrant.
Ali’s Caliphate
In any case, Uthman was assassinated by the Saba’ite Bedouins. Once Uthman was slain, the Shia’t Ali urged Ali to become the next Caliph. Ali, however, did not approve of the actions taken by his extremist followers and he asked his Shia’t Ali to find someone else to be Caliph. Ali became reclusive and shunned his followers severely. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider one of the most authentic sources of Ali’s lectures.
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91
When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of Uthman, Ali said:
“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and face are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you that I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever [anyone else] may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counselor than as chief.”
(source: Al-Islam.org,
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)
However, the people pressured him and finally Ali became the Fourth Caliph. If Ali had really been appointed to the Imamah by Allah, then why would Ali have refused this appointment at first? Why would he dislike a position that was supposedly granted to him by Allah? If Imamah was destined for him, why is Ali claiming that he wasn’t even going to be the Caliph until the people put him up to it?
We see that Ali says the following in Nahjul Balagha:
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 205
Ali said:
“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it.”
(source: Al-Islam.org,
http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)
Battle of the Camel Instigated by Saba’ites
There was a public demand for Ali to find the killers of Uthman, especially since it was known that the killers were part of the Shia’t Ali. However, Ali found himself too busy preventing a civil war to invest time and resources into finding the killers, so he planned on delaying it. This angered many people who wanted justice immediately. They found a spokeswoman in Aisha, the Prophet’s widow. She sympathized with the people who wanted to find the killers of Uthman.
The reality is that both Ali and Aisha had equally convincing arguments. On the one hand, Ali wanted to delay spending time and resources to find the killers because he had to prevent a civil war. On the other hand, Aisha cannot be blamed for feeling hurt and loss at the murder of Uthman, and surely the murderers should be brought to justice!
Aisha went to see Caliph Ali in order to resolve the issue peacefully through arbitration. She feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali to find the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali. She thus adopted the previous role of Ali: it had, after all, been Ali who would take the case of the people to Caliph Uthman in order that their demands be heard.
Both Aisha and Ali wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. However, the extremist portion of the Shia’t Ali [i.e. the Saba’ites] that were responsible for the murder of Uthman did not want Aisha to convince Ali to prosecute the murderers, since of course it was they themselves.
So these Shia’t Ali decided to attack Aisha’s contingent thereby provoking a counter-response. Soon, Ali and Aisha found themselves in a battle that nobody even knew who started it. This was the Battle of the Camel, and both Ali and Aisha found themselves enmeshed in a battle that they did not want to fight.
Aisha’s contingent was defeated. She apologized to Caliph Ali for the trouble she had caused, and Ali forgave her and safely returned Aisha to her home. Both Ali and Aisha are considered Sahabah, and this is a shining example of how although Sahabah get into disputes, they can resolve them in a civil manner. Aisha had the humility to apologize, despite the fact that she really didn’t do anything wrong, and Ali had the nobility not to hold any ill-feelings towards her and to walk her safely home.
During this chaotic time of civil war, all of the Sahabah were being pulled and manipulated by their ardent followers, many of whom were rabble-rousers like the followers of Ibn Saba in the Shia’t Ali. In the confusion of all of this, the Sahabah found themselves facing a civil war, despite the verse in the Quran which stated that the Ummah should remain united. It was a sad time in the history of Islam, with great Sahabah fighting other great Sahabah. But it should be remembered that the Battle of the Camel was concluded with the eventual reconciliation between Umm al Mu’mineen Aisha and Amir al Mu’mineen Caliph Ali.
Battle of Siffin and the Saba’ite Revolt Against Ali
Uthman’s cousin Muawiyyah, then the governor of Syria, was not pleased with this outcome because Ali still did not prosecute the criminals within his own ranks. Muawiyyah was a blood-relative of Uthman and he was very upset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah refused to recognize Ali as Caliph, and he demanded the right to avenge Uthman’s death. In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Ali’s forces met Muawiyyah’s in the Battle of Siffin.
The Shia say that Ali fought Muawiyyah for denying the Shia concept of the Imamah, and that Ali was the first Infallible Imam. And yet the Shia’s own books say that this was not the cause of the Battle of Siffin, but rather the cause was purely political, not religious. Ali clearly said in Nahjul Balagha:
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s forces] and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]
So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah. It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali, but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran.
The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyah asked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. Caliph Ali, being the noble man that he was, agreed to Shurah (consultation) for determining who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali should use arbitration. The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali as Caliph. So they accused Ali of going against the Will of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there be negotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?
A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali. They declared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to be known as the Khawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or “those who secede.” For so long, these people had been the most ardent supporters of Ali, calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahl el Bayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them. They defected against the very man they had claimed to follow!
This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explain away. They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsehood of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba’ites, were of the same belief as today's Ithna Ashari Shia (Twelver Shia, those who believe in 12 Imams) , namely that Allah had appointed Ali to be Caliph. And yet, Ali agreed to arbitration with Muawiyyah. The million-dollar question is: how could Ali agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?
How could Ali agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? So why would Ali arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? In matters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, we cannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salah, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.
This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali did not believe he was not divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed to arbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be the Caliph. This proves that what the Ahl Sunnah's (Sunnis) beliefs are correct: namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakr was selected.
The Shia belief system is diametrically opposed to the very Ali they claim to follow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali, much like the Khawaarij (former Saba’ites) would turn against and confront Ali; Ali is he who denied all claims of divine appointment and of Infallible Imamah.
Caliph Ali eventually fought against the Khawaarij Shia and defeated them and was not successful in uprooting the beliefs of their followers. However, the Shia became a secret cult initially.
Ali Murdered by Saba’ites
In any case, the Khawaarij Shia turned against Caliph Ali and killed him. So it was that Muawiyyah became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be lost that the Khawaarij Shia are the ones who killed Ali, allowing Muawiyyah to be the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah stealing the Caliphate! There can be no denying that the Saba’ites and the Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shi’ism, since the Shia today hold the same opinion that Ali was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. with Abu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.
After Ali’s death, the Khawaarij went back into hiding, using Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding). Abdullah ibn Abbas, a relative of the Prophet (p), attempted to persuade them to reject the Khawaarij doctrine, and so some of them did reject it. Unfortunately, most of them continued to hold onto their Saba’ite Shia beliefs, initially secretly, and later more openly.
![قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
[112:1]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s3DVTdwT_13LXVimyDNBPZWFL2Ea2P34yEyZIIPt2Ya58EdSF4m02JAyGi4rzjIBNNFs8mH0iQJwHwWPRXizsSurgL_QG0PBT3P-nWj-98Gt105w1_UwreVY7z5pX9cPQ90kwlsuz4AnEhBOtAtGo8NNCfcgQzBapQUhKmjKD3=s0-d)
![What is the source of the Christian concept of the Trinity?
The three monotheistic religions – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – all purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as “tawhid” in Islam, this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical passage known as the “Shema”, or the Jewish creed of faith:
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord.” (Deuteronomy 6:4)
It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus, when he said:
“...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.” (Mark 12:29)
Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same message again:
“And your God is One God: there is no God but He...” (Quran 2:163)
Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however, into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both within and outside the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God is the union of three divine persons – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit – in one divine being.
If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:
“...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity...” (excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)
Let’s put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father, plus one person, God the Son, plus one person, God the Holy Ghost, equals one person, God the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?
It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine, confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.
How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?
Trinity in the Bible
References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.
In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach to all nations. While this “Great Commission” does make mention of the three persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase “...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text – that is, not the actual words of Jesus – as can be seen by two factors:
1) baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done only in the name of Jesus; and
2) the “Great Commission” was found in the first gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost – see Mark 16:15.
The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the Epistle of 1 John 5:7. Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted that the phrase:
“...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”
…is definitely a “later addition” to Biblical text, and it is not found in any of today’s versions of the Bible.
It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely man-made in origin.
The Doctrine Takes Shape
While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a “divine Son”. After all, a Son does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God’s revelations to man? In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church people who put the matter together.
Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third-century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word “Trinity” when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.
A Formal Doctrine is Drawn Up
When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two church men from Alexandria – Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop – Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.
Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.
Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Church Puts its Foot Down
The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed was being signed; “Arianism” became a catch-word from that time onward for anyone who didn’t hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.
It wasn’t until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.
Debate Continues
Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even today.
The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine of their faith, can offer nothing more than “I believe it because I was told to do so.” It is explained away as “mystery” – yet the Bible says in 1 Corinthians 14:33 that:
“... God is not the author of confusion ...”
The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus:
“... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” (Luke 4:8)
Islam and the Matter of the Trinity
While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is not the case in Islam:
“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God” (Quran 5:73)
It is worth noting that the Arabic language Bible uses the name “Allah” as the name of God.
Suzanne Haneef, in her book What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she says:
“But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in.”[1]
Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three separate entities – the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.
Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the Trinity – God being Three-in-One – is seen by Islam as a form of polytheism. Christians don’t revere just One God, they revere three.
This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn, accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out that the Quran sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church since 431 when she was given the title “Mother of God” by the Council of Ephesus, a closer examination of the verses in the Quran most often cited by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of Mary by the Quran as a “member” of the Trinity, is simply not true.
While the Quran does condemn both Trinitarianism (the Quran 4:171; 5:73)[2] and the worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Quran 5:116)[3], nowhere does it identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position of the Quran is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important; what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront against the concept of One God.
In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Quran, God’s Final Revelation to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number of eloquent passages:
“... your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner.” (Quran 18:110)
“... take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected.” (Quran 17:39)
– because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed throughout ALL His Revealed Scriptures:
“... I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other) ...” (Quran 21:92)
Footnotes:
[1] What Everyone Should Know About Islam and Muslims (Library of Islam, 1985) (pp. 183-184)
[2] “O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about God except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a Messenger of God and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. And do not say, ‘Three’; desist—it is better for you. Indeed, God is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is God as Disposer of affairs.” (Quran 4:171)
[3] “And [beware the Day] when God will say, ‘O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, ‘Take me and my mother as deities besides God?’ ‘He will say, ‘Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.’ (Quran 5:116)](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sHo8m4PbIz0drDqE7IDQ7VE7mR9mqkTNbHel-Ex8jU2zcVFrYDGDc9v15uDBIfF3ZEGIbFUcyo8Gu-4NxXQg6as4r46tcOBctBad9UjguxlF_kLmRPHe4widT1P9Ay5R4rFdbdI0U5HMpuEABhctA8lEBCNmK7di1IV2K9e1YTRQ=s0-d)
![“O believers, avoid most forms of suspicion, for verily, some suspicion is sin…” [Surah Al-Hujurat 49:12]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sC2viBXu4Qh8TMg-UIsp4yMVRM6z-9KAbYpTYgOiyTJNG1G6_AGwbOeSneX0T7LS38uwWKVo4N2ID9GqcSp8vLyPitlqIVsSKKIUwRvfFfNZXCDYR_gVU53AmIBOo13GE633tPydhxQ2q5P1DYAti7qjA2iX5Jgl8xo6KhLnzI8tPn=s0-d)
![Photo: Who are The Shiites ?? and Where did they came from ???
The Saba’ites
The Zoroastrians (of the defeated Persian Empire), the Christians (of the defeated Eastern Roman Empire), and the Jews (who had been expelled by the Muslims) grieved for the old days. In their private counsel, these defeated elements had reached the conclusion that it was not possible to fight Muslims on the battlefield. Therefore, they resolved to sow the seed of discord amongst Muslims, using the model of the Jews of Yathrib. The Prophet had called the Muslims to unite under the banner of Islam and the Quran; the disunited Arabs had unified and defeated their enemies. Thus, these conspirators decided to undo this process; they reasoned that to remove the Muslims from Islam and the Quran would also cause disunity and weakness.
The first step of these conspirators was the assassination of Umar. Umar’s son Ubaidallah took revenge and killed Jafeena the Christian and Harmuzan the Persian. It was then that Ali ibn Abi Talib demanded that Ubaidallah be given the death penalty for murdering Umar’s assassins. Abdullah Ibn Saba, whose father had been a companion of Jafeena and Harmuzan, thus took a liking for Ali and declared himself a Partisan of Ali.
Ibn Saba carried a grudge against Umar-–it had after all been his father responsible for Umar’s death; he also carried a grudge against Uthman who pardoned the killers of his father’s companions.
Abdullah Ibn Saba saw an opportunity to exploit the disunity of the Muslims during the time of civil unrest during Uthman’s Caliphate. Ibn Saba “converted” to Islam, and tried to gain a following amongst Ali’s more extreme supporters. These followers of Ali were using him in their appeals to Caliph Uthman. They were already upset with Uthman, and thus they were the perfect target audience for Ibn Saba who would convince them of Ali’s superiority over Uthman.
Ibn Saba first called the masses to show their love and devotion to the Ahlel Bayt (Prophetic Household). He then started claiming that none could exceed the Ahlel Bayt in status. When he gained some popularity at this, he boldly claimed that Ali was the most superior person after the Prophet. When he saw that some of his followers had indeed believed him, he confided in them that Ali was in reality the appointed successor of the Prophet, but that the Three Caliphs had usurped this right from him. Ibn Saba then unleashed a campaign of vilification against the Sahabah, and he is the first to start the practice of Tabarra, or ritualistic cursing of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman. He then told his staunch supporters that Ali had powers above those of a normal human being.
To appeal to the recent Persian converts, Ibn Saba infused Zoroastrian beliefs into Islam. The Zoroastrians believed that God’s spirit was in their Chosroes (king), and that this spirit moved from one king to another, through his descendants. Ibn Saba declared that the divinity of Imamah also moved from one Imam to another through the descendants of Ali. Many of the exaggerations in Shi’ism in regards to the powers of Imams take their inspiration from the Chosroes.
Ibn Saba’s ideas appealed to the pagan side of the new converts from amongst the Beduins and Persians; these pagans were accustomed to worshipping idols and people, so the exaltation of Ali appealed to them. Eventually, Ibn Saba would take it to the ultimate extreme and he applied in full force the concept of the Persian Chosroes, declaring Ali to be Allah incarnated.
Up until then, Ali had not paid much attention to Ibn Saba’s antics, but once he heard of this news, Ali was furious. Ali threatened to burn all of Ibn Saba’s followers (called Saba’ites) to the stake including Ibn Saba; Ali asked them to repent and he would eventually exile them to Mada’in (modern day Iran) when he was Caliph.
However, the Saba’ites adopted the concept of Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding one’s faith); this allowed the Saba’ites to avoid detection from the authorities, infiltrating the ranks of the Shia’t Ali.
Ali, who before becoming Caliph spent most of his time in Mecca and Medinah, remained oblivious to the Saba’ites who were mostly in Iraq (i.e. Kufa), Persia, and Egypt.
With the practise of Taqiyyah and Kitman, the Saba’ites functioned much like a secret society or cult, such as the Free Masons, Illuminati, and other clandestine organizations. The Saba’ites operated under a strict code of secrecy and hid their identities for fear of reprisal from the government. This created a situation such that the authorities could not clamp down on the Saba’ites due to their elusiveness, and the secret society continued to grow in numbers and fill the ranks of the Shia’t Ali, without even Ali’s knowledge.
The Saba’ites were the originators of the Shia faith. Generations later, these Saba’ites would branch out into the various Shia sects we know of today: the Druze, Bohras, Nizaris, Zaydis, Jarudis, Sulaymanis, Butris, Ismailis, Kaysaniyyas, Qaddahiyyas, Ghullat, Aga Khanis, Ithna Asharis, Usoolis, Akhbaris, Shaykis, and so on.
Saba’ites Organize Attack on Uthman
It should be noted that these Saba’ite Bedouins were only one segment of the Shia’t Ali; they were an extremist fringe group. With the goading of Abdullah Ibn Saba, the Egyptian Bedouins (led by the Saba’ites) were planning on rebelling against Caliph Uthman. However, news of this imminent treason by the extremist wing of the Shia’t Ali reached the ears of Uthman . Caliph Uthman thus ordered the Egyptian governor to pre-emptively take action against the malcontents. But when the Eygptian Bedouins found out that the governor was to punish the malcontents on orders of Caliph Uthman, Abdullah Ibn Saba convinced the Bedouins to siege the Caliph’s home in Medinah.
Ali did not take part in the siege, nor did he approve of it. In fact, Ali sent his own sons to protect Caliph Uthman, and he even offered 500 men to protect Uthman . How is it then that the Shia claim that Ali hated Uthman when he sent his own beloved sons to defend him and to prolong his Caliphate?
Indeed, Ali did not support the Saba’ite Bedouins who favored Ali over Uthman-–much like Ali would not support the modern day Shia today. The modern day Shia can never explain why Ali did not raise his sword against Uthman, and they can only say that perhaps he was preventing bloodshed. But then why was Ali ready to shed blood in the defense of Uthman? Truly, the Shia cannot explain this: a man does not send his sons to defend a tyrant.
Ali’s Caliphate
In any case, Uthman was assassinated by the Saba’ite Bedouins. Once Uthman was slain, the Shia’t Ali urged Ali to become the next Caliph. Ali, however, did not approve of the actions taken by his extremist followers and he asked his Shia’t Ali to find someone else to be Caliph. Ali became reclusive and shunned his followers severely. This is recorded in Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia consider one of the most authentic sources of Ali’s lectures.
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 91
When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of Uthman, Ali said:
“Leave me and seek someone else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colors, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and face are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you that I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever [anyone else] may say. If you leave me, then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whoever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counselor than as chief.”
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)
However, the people pressured him and finally Ali became the Fourth Caliph. If Ali had really been appointed to the Imamah by Allah, then why would Ali have refused this appointment at first? Why would he dislike a position that was supposedly granted to him by Allah? If Imamah was destined for him, why is Ali claiming that he wasn’t even going to be the Caliph until the people put him up to it?
We see that Ali says the following in Nahjul Balagha:
Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 205
Ali said:
“By Allah, I had no liking for the caliphate nor any interest in government, but you yourselves invited me to it and prepared me for it.”
(source: Al-Islam.org, http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/)
Battle of the Camel Instigated by Saba’ites
There was a public demand for Ali to find the killers of Uthman, especially since it was known that the killers were part of the Shia’t Ali. However, Ali found himself too busy preventing a civil war to invest time and resources into finding the killers, so he planned on delaying it. This angered many people who wanted justice immediately. They found a spokeswoman in Aisha, the Prophet’s widow. She sympathized with the people who wanted to find the killers of Uthman.
The reality is that both Ali and Aisha had equally convincing arguments. On the one hand, Ali wanted to delay spending time and resources to find the killers because he had to prevent a civil war. On the other hand, Aisha cannot be blamed for feeling hurt and loss at the murder of Uthman, and surely the murderers should be brought to justice!
Aisha went to see Caliph Ali in order to resolve the issue peacefully through arbitration. She feared that if she did not intercede on behalf of the malcontents by convincing Ali to find the murderers, they would rebel against Caliph Ali. She thus adopted the previous role of Ali: it had, after all, been Ali who would take the case of the people to Caliph Uthman in order that their demands be heard.
Both Aisha and Ali wanted to resolve the issue peacefully. However, the extremist portion of the Shia’t Ali [i.e. the Saba’ites] that were responsible for the murder of Uthman did not want Aisha to convince Ali to prosecute the murderers, since of course it was they themselves.
So these Shia’t Ali decided to attack Aisha’s contingent thereby provoking a counter-response. Soon, Ali and Aisha found themselves in a battle that nobody even knew who started it. This was the Battle of the Camel, and both Ali and Aisha found themselves enmeshed in a battle that they did not want to fight.
Aisha’s contingent was defeated. She apologized to Caliph Ali for the trouble she had caused, and Ali forgave her and safely returned Aisha to her home. Both Ali and Aisha are considered Sahabah, and this is a shining example of how although Sahabah get into disputes, they can resolve them in a civil manner. Aisha had the humility to apologize, despite the fact that she really didn’t do anything wrong, and Ali had the nobility not to hold any ill-feelings towards her and to walk her safely home.
During this chaotic time of civil war, all of the Sahabah were being pulled and manipulated by their ardent followers, many of whom were rabble-rousers like the followers of Ibn Saba in the Shia’t Ali. In the confusion of all of this, the Sahabah found themselves facing a civil war, despite the verse in the Quran which stated that the Ummah should remain united. It was a sad time in the history of Islam, with great Sahabah fighting other great Sahabah. But it should be remembered that the Battle of the Camel was concluded with the eventual reconciliation between Umm al Mu’mineen Aisha and Amir al Mu’mineen Caliph Ali.
Battle of Siffin and the Saba’ite Revolt Against Ali
Uthman’s cousin Muawiyyah, then the governor of Syria, was not pleased with this outcome because Ali still did not prosecute the criminals within his own ranks. Muawiyyah was a blood-relative of Uthman and he was very upset that the murderers were not apprehended. Muawiyyah refused to recognize Ali as Caliph, and he demanded the right to avenge Uthman’s death. In what was perhaps the most important battle fought between Muslims, Ali’s forces met Muawiyyah’s in the Battle of Siffin.
The Shia say that Ali fought Muawiyyah for denying the Shia concept of the Imamah, and that Ali was the first Infallible Imam. And yet the Shia’s own books say that this was not the cause of the Battle of Siffin, but rather the cause was purely political, not religious. Ali clearly said in Nahjul Balagha:
“In the beginning of our matter, the people of Syria [Muawiyyah’s forces] and us met. It is obvious that our God is one, our Prophet is one, and our call in Islam is one. We do not see ourselves more in faith in Allah or more in believing His messenger than them, nor they do. Our matter is one, except for our disagreement in Uthman’s blood, and we are innocent from his murder.” [Nahjul Balagha, vol.3, p.648]
So it was that the Shia’t Ali met the Shia’t Muawiyyah. Caliph Ali’s forces were decimating the forces of Muawiyyah. It would have been a decisive victory for Caliph Ali, but the Shia’t Muawiyyah used a rouse to fool the Shia’t Ali. Muawiyyah’s Syrians adorned the tips of their swords with pages from the Quran. This confused the Shia’t Ali, who did not want to bring harm to the Quran.
The Shia’t Ali stopped fighting due to this trick, and the Shia’t Muawiyyah asked for a cease-fire and to resolve the issue through arbitration. Caliph Ali, being the noble man that he was, agreed to Shurah (consultation) for determining who would be Caliph. This greatly upset a contingent of his ardent followers, the Saba’ites, who did not agree that Ali should use arbitration. The Saba’ites had been convinced by Abdullah Ibn Saba that Allah had appointed Ali as Caliph. So they accused Ali of going against the Will of Allah by resorting to negotiation on the matter. How could there be negotiation on a matter that is decreed by Allah Almighty?
A portion of the Saba’ites defected and turned against Caliph Ali. They declared vociferously: “No rule but to Allah!” These defectors came to be known as the Khawaarij, which literally translates to “those who go out” or “those who secede.” For so long, these people had been the most ardent supporters of Ali, calling themselves the Shia’t Ali and the Lovers of Ahl el Bayt, but look now where their doctrinal innovation had taken them. They defected against the very man they had claimed to follow!
This event in Islamic history is one that the Shia of today cannot explain away. They try to hide it under a rug, since it shows the falsehood of their beliefs. The Khawaarij, former Saba’ites, were of the same belief as today's Ithna Ashari Shia (Twelver Shia, those who believe in 12 Imams) , namely that Allah had appointed Ali to be Caliph. And yet, Ali agreed to arbitration with Muawiyyah. The million-dollar question is: how could Ali agree to arbitration if it was a matter decreed by Allah?
How could Ali agree to negotiation on this matter if Allah Himself had chosen Ali to be this supposed “Infallible Imam”? Would Prophet Muhammad agree to arbitration and negotiation on the matter of his Prophethood? So why would Ali arbitrate and negotiate on the matter of his Imamah? In matters decreed by Allah, there can be no negotiation! For example, we cannot negotiate on the matter of eating pork or Salah, since these matters are already decreed by Allah.
This event proves without a shadow of doubt that Ali did not believe he was not divinely appointed by Allah nor by His Messenger, since he agreed to arbitration and agreed to Shurah (consultation) to decide who would be the Caliph. This proves that what the Ahl Sunnah's (Sunnis) beliefs are correct: namely that Shurah is the way to elect a leader, much like how Abu Bakr was selected.
The Shia belief system is diametrically opposed to the very Ali they claim to follow, and soon will they also be faced against Ali, much like the Khawaarij (former Saba’ites) would turn against and confront Ali; Ali is he who denied all claims of divine appointment and of Infallible Imamah.
Caliph Ali eventually fought against the Khawaarij Shia and defeated them and was not successful in uprooting the beliefs of their followers. However, the Shia became a secret cult initially.
Ali Murdered by Saba’ites
In any case, the Khawaarij Shia turned against Caliph Ali and killed him. So it was that Muawiyyah became the fifth Caliph. The irony should not be lost that the Khawaarij Shia are the ones who killed Ali, allowing Muawiyyah to be the Caliph, and now look at the Shia today lamenting about Muawiyyah stealing the Caliphate! There can be no denying that the Saba’ites and the Khawaarij are the fore-fathers of Shi’ism, since the Shia today hold the same opinion that Ali was divinely appointed and thus arbitration (i.e. with Abu Bakr or Muawiyyah) cannot be accepted.
After Ali’s death, the Khawaarij went back into hiding, using Taqiyyah (lying) and Kitman (hiding). Abdullah ibn Abbas, a relative of the Prophet (p), attempted to persuade them to reject the Khawaarij doctrine, and so some of them did reject it. Unfortunately, most of them continued to hold onto their Saba’ite Shia beliefs, initially secretly, and later more openly.](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_tB8sFktkNAIusbBMT-ht4I2balCPQwFgrW-i2q4SgRkeJfo6oQfu-H_GTeyMzDGVn8PwmyLwcFKYXkTG1Ds5sf3g_z05ZmxsVZgtMn7HBAVl9jl7z-BpuDa9wa7_3qBfiecnkIRBXneO-PremXLLrKlUBjLdxTSfwsXWWBxK2YAwOpIQBwVUcyD43jLsuR8Q=s0-d)
