CHAPTER THIRTEEN

CHAPTER THIRTEEN
THE SHIAS IN HISTORY
The history of the Islamic world is full of tragedies inflicted on it by heretical groups.
The Muslims suffered under the Fatimid state founded by the Ismaili leader `Ubaydullâh Al-Fâtimî. Muslims endured campaigns of murder and assassination at the hands of the Al-Qarâmitah (Shiite Qarmatian sect of Ismailites), the Assassins, Al-`Abîdiyyûn (Ibadis), Ismailis, and the Buyids.1 For example, in 317/930 the Al-Qarâmitah stormed Mecca
---------------------------------------
1 Al-Qarâmitah; the Qarmatians: They were members of a social and political reform movement. This movement was co-opted by the Ismailis in the tenth century and was finally absorbed by them before the First Crusade. It was a “Shia” movement, in a general sense, but they tended to regard claims to `Alî's legitimacy as a means to attain power, rather than an end in themselves. Their political method was conspiracy, and they relied on strict secrecy, in which the name of the supreme leader was never pronounced. They instituted a system of gradual initiation and ritual, which may have reached the West and influenced the development of guilds and freemasonry. They had a philosophical doctrine that relied on an allegorical interpretation of the Glorious Qur’ân. They denied all divine attributes of Allah. Their
111
killing many pilgrims throwing their bodies into the well of Zamzam. Then they removed the Black Stone and usurped it. They were a constant source of trouble until the appearance of Salâhud-Dîn (Saladin), whom they tried to kill many times, but Allah confounded their plots with this man, who brought down the Al-Fâtimiyyûn (Fatimids) state and defeated the Crusaders utterly.

Who was behind the Fall of Baghdad?
The Tatars' sack of Baghdad and its destruction by Hûlâkû (Hulegu) Khan was the worst tragedy the Muslims had ever known; about two million Muslim persons were murdered and their women were taken as booty. This was the fruit of treacherous plots of two Shias, doctrines seemed to owe much to pre-Islamic religious traditions. The Assassins were another Ismaili sect. At the time of the Crusades, they had adopted assassination as their favorite method of dealing with political opponents. The name comes from the Arabic word hashshâsh (a user of hashish). They did not differ from other Ismailis in matters of doctrine, but they followed a system of political organization into a secret league whose members owed blind obedience to the spiritual head. This and their use of murder as a political method is what distinguishes them.
The Al-`Abîdiyyûn are one of the sects of the Kharijites (the Seceders), now confined to Oman and some oases in southern Algeria. They were the followers of `Abdullâh Ibn `Ibâd Al-Murrî At-Tammîmî who left the main branch of the Kharijites about the year 65/684. They differ from the more extreme Kharijites in not considering non-Kharijites as disbelievers and rejecting political murder. They do not believe that the existence of an Imamate is an unconditional necessity. In later years, the Ibâdis split into at least twelve smaller sects and schisms. (Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, (Brill, 1974), entries for Assassins and Al-`Abîdiyyûn, and Qarmatians).
The Buwayhids were a Shia dynasty that ruled Iraq and Persia in the tenth and eleventh century. (Bosworth, The Islamic Dynasties, p. 97) [trans].
112
Muhammad Ibnul-`Alqamî and Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûsî,2 employed as ministers in the government of the last of the Abbasid caliphs, Al-Musta`sim bil-Allâh. These two men conspired against the Caliph and handed him over to Hûlâkû, and then they became ministers for the Tatar chieftain.
Ibn Kathîr mentions them in his book Al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah (the Beginning and the End) and says that Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûsî worked tirelessly to weaken the Caliph's army, which he finally reduced to ten thousand men. These were starved and impoverished to the point that they had to beg at the doors of mosques, and their salaries had been cut off. Ibn Kathîr says that Muhammad Ibnul-`Alqamî, a fanatical Shia who hated the Sunnis bitterly and wished to make the Shias rise above the Sunnis, was in contact with Hûlâkû, encouraging him to come and seize Baghdad, and was helping him with intelligence about political, military, and economic conditions within the Abbasid capital.
Ibn Kathîr also mentions that when the Tatars appeared at the gates of Baghdad, Nasîrud-Dîn was the first person to go to meet them, taking his family, companions and servants with him. Having met with Hûlâkû, At-Tûsû returned to report to the Caliph Al-Musta`sim and suggested that he go and see Hûlâkû himself. He led Al-Musta`sim to
-------------------------------------
2 In his biographical dictionary, Al-A`lâm (Prominent Figures), Az-Ziriklî said, “He [At-Tûsî] was much respected by Hûlâkû who used to ask for his advice and follow it. At-Tûsî was a philosopher who used to consult astrologers and even set up a trust to provide for their material needs. He murdered the Caliph (Al-Musta`sim), blotted out judges, scholars of Hadîth, and faqîhs, while causing no harm to philosophers and astrologers. A general perusal of his books will reveal that he was deeply immersed in philosophical matters and much influenced by the ideas of Ibn Sînâ (Avicenna) and Ptolemy. He was also involved in magic and the occult and was a serious student of witchcraft, going so far as being initiated as a sorcerer and further he worshipped idols." (Az-Zarkalî, Al-A`lâm, vol. 7, p. 30). Despite this, Khomeini insists on praising him [At-Tûsî] and wishing him blessings as we shall shortly see.
113
believe that Hûlâkû wanted to negotiate payment of a tribute. Nasîrud-Dîn and Ibnul-`Alqamî then went back with Al-Musta`sim to speak to Hûlâkû, who violently insulted the Caliph and ordered that he be dismissed. Nasîrud-Dîn advised Hûlâkû to kill the Caliph but the latter hesitated. Hûlâkû persisted urging Hûlâkû to kill Al-Musta`sim, leading him to believe that murdering Al-Musta`sim was an easy matter, until finally Hûlâkû ordered him to be killed. Al-Musta`sim was probably trampled to death, but some reports say he was strangled. A group of judges and scholars were murdered with him.
Then the Tatars turned their attention to the population of Baghdad; they gathered the men, women, children and old people together and murdered them. The “City of Peace” [Baghdad] was laid to waste. Rivers of blood flowed through its streets and an overpowering stench of death hung over it. The smell of rotten flesh spread out over Iraq and traveled with the winds as far as Syria. Damascus was struck by plague and disease when the foul air of Baghdad drifted its way.3 No one survived the Tatar holocaust except for the Jews and the Christians and, certainly, the Shias, and those who sought refuge at the houses of Ibnul-`Alqamî and Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûsî.4 As mentioned above, these two men became ministers for Hûlâkû after they had been ministers of the careless Abbasid Caliph, Al-Musta`sim.
---------------------------------------
3 This is mentioned by Ibn Kathîr, Adh-Dhahabî and Qutbud-Din Al-Yunînî.
4 Ibn Kathîr, Al-Bidâyah wan-Nihâyah, 7:13, 200, 204, 212, 215, 219, Imam Adh-Dhahabî, Diwal Al-Islâm, p. 159.
114

Epilogue
Some people may ask, what this has to do with us today, and whether it is right to hold all Shias responsible for what Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûs and Muhammad Ibnul-`Alqamî. We certainly cannot hold all the Shia responsible for what those two men did, but those [of the Sunnis] who are attracted by the words of Khomeini, who stirred many Muslims hearts with his promises to return Jerusalem and Afghanistan to the hands of the Muslims, should know that he never fails to praise Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûs. He prays for him and asks Allah to have mercy on him5, and even says that At-Tûs played a major role in the victory of Islam.
Khomeini also said, "People feel a great sense of loss for Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûsî and others (like him) who provided such a great service to Islam."6
It is a great misfortune that the Muslims fail to understand the real meaning of Khomeini's words. Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûs was, in fact, responsible for the death of two million Sunni Muslims and this is what Khomeini considers a great service to Islam. This throws fresh light on the crimes of Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûs and Muhammad Ibnul-`Alqamî, who joined forces with the Tatar tyrant. Khomeini asks Allah's pleasure for Nasîrud-Dîn At-Tûsî,7 yet the same invocation does not extend to `Umar Ibnul-Khattâb, whom he curses and reviles. Can there be any comparison between `Umar and Nasîrud-Dîn? Can we compare the man who liberated Baghdad and took it from the disbelievers, to the man who delivered it back to them? Why are the Shias so happy with Nasîrud-Dîn and so contemptuous of `Umar Ibnul-Khattâb and Abû Bakr? Is the companion and minister of Hûlâkû more honored in the sight of Allah than the Companions of the Messenger of Allah?
-----------------------------------------
5 Khomeini, Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah, p. 142.
6 Khomeini, Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah, p. 128.
7 Allah struck him down and he died epileptic.
115
If we understand the past, we can profit from it in the present, by taking it as an example of what could be. In the light of past events, we should be more vigilant in our dealings with the factions whose history is full of treachery and betrayals; who extend the hand of friendship to the enemies of this Ummah (Muslim nation).
Considering and the history of Islam will provide us with many examples of lessons which our lives do not suffice to experience. Many times these groups have brought misery upon the heads of the Muslims. They are today making their same old claims, and calling people to the same twisted doctrines, that so often moved their ancestors to betray and persecute the Muslims in the past.

The Druze
We should not forget the Druze of Lebanon, who deify Al-Hâkim bi-Amrillâh 8 and believe in the transmigration of souls. They deny the rising of the dead, insult the Prophet Muhammad, and call him a liar and a fraud in their secret holy book "Messages of Wisdom".
We should not forget their shameless conduct toward the Muslims and their alliances with their enemies. The British depended upon them to execute their policies in the Levant, and their true nature was again revealed on the day Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. Besides, an Israeli brigade of the Druze sect once visited the Druze of Al-Mukhtârah district, where they met with their brethren, the occasion that witnessed festivals and celebrations alongside speeches. In that same year the Druze and the Shia conspired together to strike the Sunnis in Beirut and have subjugated and smashed them.
Further, we should not forget the history of An-Nusayriyyah (the Followers of Muhammad Ibn Nusayr), which is lousy with treacheries. They deify `Alî Ibn Abû
-----------------------------------------
8 The sixth caliph of the Egyptian Fatimid dynasty.
116
Tâlib9 and believe in a qur’ân fabricated and written by their leaders, which is totally different from the Glorious Qur’ân known to all Muslims.10
Though the Twelve-Imam Shias appear to judge An-Nusayriyyah and Ismailis as disbelievers, there is, in fact, practical harmony in the past and the present among the triple.
Engraved into the memory is the period of Al-Hâkim bi-Amrillâh, who ordered to destroy Cairo and set it all ablaze. He killed a huge number of Muslims justifiably and unjustifiably, including his own ministers and counselors to the extent that it was said to him that there were no people left for him to rule. Besides, one can by no means forget the role played by most of the Shias of Mount `Âmil, who treacherously gave aid and support to the Crusaders.
Regrettably, the enemies of Islam read history through which they become acquainted with those sects and cults of deviated and destructive beliefs, who played a major role in obstructing the Islamic expansion and stood in the way of jihad. It grieves to the heart that those enemies make such erring groups play the same role today against the Sunnis.
---------------------------------------
9 It is strangely paradoxical that while the members of that Shia sect, An-Nusayriyyah, deify `Alî Ibn Abû Tâlib, they sanctify at the same time `Abdur-Rahmân Ibn Muljim, `Alî's murderer, and `Abdullâh Ibn Saba’, the Jew who sowed the seeds of Shiism.
10 The qur’ân recited and used by An-Nusayriyyah comprises many chapters that are totally different from those of the Glorious Qur’ân, with the exception of some chapter titles derived from those of the Glorious Qur’ân. For example, they have chapters entitled Ad-Dustûr, Taqdîsat Labbayka, Taqdîsat Abû Sa`d, An-Nisbah, As-Sujûd, As-Salâm, Al-Ishârah, Al-`Ayn, Ashhadu Annâ Allâha Haq, As-Sûrah Al-Kabîrah, Al-Imâmiyyah, Al-Khayr, At-Tûr (unlike the chapter of the same name in the Glorious Qur’ân), Al-Hijâbayn, An-Nuqabâ. All these chapters have nothing to do with the Noble Qur’ân revealed to Prophet Muhammad; they are nothing but polytheistic means through which they invoke and supplicate `Alî Ibn Abû Tâlib for relief and help.
117
Today we find some people working for Islam who urge us to forget these things.
Some of them say that these stories are fabrications; others say they are no longer relevant and only stand in the way of Islamic unity. Yet others maintain that the Shias today have changed, and that the Iranian Shias and others who follow the Twelve Imams really represent a fifth “school of Fiqh,” (named Al-Ja`farî School) alongside those of the Imams As-Shâfi`î, Abû Hanîfah, Ibn Hanbal, and Mâlik. They do not take the effort to read even one book of history to see the truth of the aims of these sects and the heretical beliefs they advocate. Some people working in the Islamic call today attempt to justify the false doctrine of the Shias. They ally themselves with them, stand with them, and seek help and assistance from them.

This is what they call unity!
Unity is only with those who Acknowledge Divine Unity Surely, the One Who commanded the Muslims to unite is the same One Who commanded them to disassociate themselves from those who call on other deities besides Allah. He told us how Ibrâhîm (Abraham) denied his people because they were worshipping something else alongside Allah. Allah, Exalted be He, says, {"Indeed, we are disassociated from you and from whatever you worship other than Allah. We have denied you, and there has appeared between us and you animosity and hatred forever until you believe in Allah Alone…"}11
How is it possible to unite with people who sanctify shrines and graves, invoke their dead Imams, and beg them for forgiveness? How can we unite with people who fill whole books with lies about the Prophet, putting false words in his mouth and in the
--------------------------------------
11 Qur’ân (60: 4).
118
AL HIWAR AL HADI mouths of the members of his Household, whom Allah has raised in honor? How can we unite with people who claim that the Qur’ân has been corrupted, and who insult the Companions of the Prophet, accuse them of distorting the Qur’ân, and reject hadiths narrated by them? How could real unity be achieved with people who abuse the Prophet's wives, especially `Â’ishah and Hafsah, and deem temporary marriage and anal sex with women lawful? Allah's Religion is far above being in need of such fragile, useless unity, with people of such straying beliefs.12
-----------------------------------------
12 Khomeini issued a fatwa [juristic ruling] confirming the legality of killing the apostate Salman Rushdie, author of the novel The Satanic Verses. In his book, Rushdie transgressively lies about Allah and pokes fun at the Companions of the Prophet, and insults the honor of his wives. We have no objection about the basis of this fatwa, in principle. Yet, we object to the fact which the Shia scholars neglect to mention and refuse to acknowledge; that the most important and reliable of the Shia sources, such as Al-Kâfî, clearly maintains that the Glorious Qur’ân has been distorted and insults the Companions and the wives of the Prophet, upon whom be peace. These books are held in such high esteem that Khomeini said of Al-Kâfî, "All the fundamentals and juristic rulings of our religion are contained in Al-Kafi, do you think then that we simply may leave it on the shelf?” (Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah). There is not very much difference between Salman Rushdie and An-Nûrî At-Tubrasî, the author of the book Fasl Al-Khitâb fî Ithbât Tahrîf Kitâb Rabil-Arbâb (Proof of the Distortion of Allah's Book), which seeks to prove that the Glorious Qur’ân has been distorted. Any book that raises doubts about the Qur’ân is a satanic book. On this basis, I say that there is no difference between Rushdie and At-Tubrasî for whom Khomeini asks forgiveness from Allah in his book Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah (p. 68). Both of them [Rushdie and At-Tubrasî] claim that the Glorious Qur’ân has been falsified and they insult its sanctity, and deny Allah's promise to protect and preserve it illustrated in the verse reading, {"Indeed, it is We Who sent down the Message [i.e. the Qur’ân] and indeed, We will be its guardian."} (15: 9).
119
Islam is Unified around a Single Doctrine
The unity of Islam is linked to the unity of True Doctrine. Is it possible, then, to achieve unity between two factions, one that performs prayer facing Mecca and the other that turns its face toward a grave? Between a man who raises his hands to heaven, and one who raises his hands to the graves of Imams at Karbala and Samara?
Tawhîd, the doctrine of divine unity, is the basis of Muslim unity. The unity we seek is not with dead hearts and lifeless bodies. Unity with the Shias, even if possible, would never last long. Genuine unity enjoys the blessings of Allah, and must be based upon the supremacy of the Qur’ân and the Sunnah, not at their expense, or at the expense of the honor of the Prophet's wives and Companions.13

Unity is a Blessing from Allah
The unity of hearts is a gift from Allah. It is the natural result of the unity of doctrine, sources, and method. By these things, Allah bound the hearts of the pious Salaf (Predecessors) together; Allah Almighty has said, {"…It is He Who supported you with His help and with the believers – And brought together their hearts. If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have brought their hearts together…"}14 Allah, Exalted be He, also reminds his worshippers of this blessing saying, {"And remember the favor of Allah upon
----------------------------------------
13 Could the Shias call upon the Sunnis to be in unity with them while the former insult their parents? Are their parents dearer to them than the Companions of the Prophet and the Mothers of the Believers? If there was no goodness in these men and women then there can be no goodness in those who are less than them.
14 Qur’ân 8: 62-63.
120
you – when you were enemies and He brought your hearts together and you became, by His favor, brothers."}15
It is our obligation to take a definite and an unambiguous position with respect to those who innovate in religion and those endorsing erring beliefs, be them from outside this nation of Islam or from those who affiliate themselves to it from within the Islamic nation. We must disapprove of whatever is wrong and not simply turn away from it for the sake of unity, which in such a sense would mean inclining toward them. Our actions must be based on forbidding what is wrong,16 not upon flattery and hypocrisy.
When disobedience, innovation, and disbelief began to appear among the Jews and the Christians, Allah turned their hearts against one another and inspired enmity and hatred among them. This was the result of their distorting what Allah had taught them. They had no chance after this to claim any victory from Allah, nor to rule in His Name, nor to command any authority by virtue of any Revelation that had come to them until they submitted to what they had been taught and applied it.
They had no hope of regaining their unity until they rejected the distortions that they had introduced in religion.
It is absolutely imperative that people come out clearly in support of truth, even if this means that those who prefer to follow their own desires abandon it, denounce it and call others to oppose it. The Prophets confronted their people telling them what Allah had required of them, and their people split between those who believed in the message of the Prophets and those who denied it. To illustrate by an example, the tribe of Quraysh accused the Prophet, upon whom be peace, of having split their community and broken families up, and likewise denied the faith that he had brought.
-------------------------------------
15 Qur’ân (3: 103).
16 Arabic: An-Nahî `an Al-Munkar [trans].
121
The Shia Call to the non-Muslims to Accept Islam
The Shias realize that it is impossible for them to call non-Muslims to their cult, or even to make it seem palatable to outsiders. They know that no one could ever accept Islam on the basis of Shia doctrines. Will people be convinced by insults and curses heaped upon the Companions? Will they make pilgrimages to the graves of the Imams, and to beat themselves with chains and wail and screech? Will they accept that the Qur’ân was altered and then take it for their divine book? Naturally, no one enters Islam by the door of Shiism.
There is no place in Shiism for calling non-Muslims to Islam. On the contrary, their approach to Islam is always negative. They totally distort the beauty of Islam. Their acts of kidnapping and assassination, and their beating themselves with chains, daggers, and knives before television cameras, is itself sufficient to drive most people away from Islam.

Shia-Christian Dialogue
When a Shia calls a Christian to Islam, the Christian may [rightfully] ask:
"To what exactly you are calling me?"
"I mean to call you to Islam and not to exaggerate about the Messiah [Jesus]," the Shia replies.
"But you exaggerated about Al-Husayn and the Imams to the point that you claim that they were made of light even before the creation of the universe,"17 the Christian retorts.
----------------------------------------
17 Khomeini, Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah, p. 52.
122
"But you call to the Messiah for help and invoke him rather than Allah and call Mary for help," argues the Shia.
“But you too call Al-Husayn and Al-Mahdî for help saying, 'O Husayn!', 'O Mahdî'! and we do the same thing, but we say, 'O Messiah'!, 'O Mary!', so what is the difference between us and you?" the Christian asks.
"I am calling you to desist from worshipping the Messiah and not to name your children `Abdul-Masîh (i.e., the servant of the Messiah)18, for the Messiah is a servant of Allah," protests the Shia.
"But do you not name your sons `Abdul-Hasan and `Abdul-Husayn19 while they were only servants of Allah?" observes the Christian.
"You wish from the Messiah what you wish not from Allah. And you call him for help rather than Allah and you visit the graves of saints and monks," the Shia says.
"You walk around the graves of your Imams and call them for help rather than Allah and give money to the keepers of tombs as penance, and this is precisely what we do with respect to the Messiah and his mother and the apostles and the saints."
"And you lavishly praised the Messiah and exaggerated about him until you ended up worshipping him."
"You lavishly praised Al-Husayn and the Imams and went beyond all bounds in aggrandizing them to the point of placing them above the Prophets. You said that they have a magnificent place in heaven beyond that even of the nearest Angels and the Messengers of Allah.20 You claimed that they were incapable of erring and forgetfulness and that they knew all things contained in the heavens and the earth, and that
-------------------------------------------
18 See note 8, p. 28 [above].
19 Servant of Al-Hasan and Servant of Al-Husayn are two names used by Shias [trans].
20 Khomeini, Al-Hukûmah Al-Islâmiyyah, p. 52.
THE SHIAS IN HISTORY
123
their knowledge is like the wisdom of the Qur’ân. So the Messiah for us is like an Imam for you. We say that belief in the Messiah and love for him are enough for us to enter Paradise, and you said that mere love of the Household of the Prophet is a means of atoning and salvation, and that your love for them cannot be tarnished by evil deeds."
The Shia says, "Your book has been altered and is filled with distortions, things taken out and things added."
The Christian replies, "But you claim that your Qur’ân has been altered and that the Companions added to it and took things from it. You say that there is not any complete and true copy of it other than the one kept with the Invisible Mahdî in his cave!
The Shias, thereon, have been happy with attempting to convert to Shiism the ignorant and those of infirm faith from this noble nation, who are but false scholars claiming to be the servants of Allah while they are in reality only servants to their own greed and ambition.