We have described already the curtains which fell one by one in the past through so many centuries, in between human intellect and vision, and the Divine guidance.

            Historians are often astonished to note how the Arabs could reach the height of their glory in such a short span of time, fourteen centuries earlier.  But in fact there is nothing to be astonished about.  Their glory was the natural consequence of acting in the guidance provided by the Quran.  The most astonishing thing on the other hand is that which made the Muslim nation, after it reached the pinnacle of its glory by acting on the Quran and after it witnessed the results of such an action with its own eyes, decline in every sphere of life and ultimately fall into an abyss.   How did it happen that the veils of darkness mentioned above could manage to fall in between the light of the Quran and the followers of the Quran?  The story is most painful and hair-raising and is worth listening to with rapt attention.  It runs as follows: 

            When the forces which opposed the rising tide of Islam in the 7^th century A.D. noticed that the uneducated, unskilled, undisciplined and most backward people of the world living on dates for their subsistence, had become the dominant power of the world within a very short period, they became jealous of this.  They simply could not bear the aliens treading on their territories and demolishing the structure of their ancient civilisations.  The superior nations of that period were the Romans and the Persians who comprise the intelligentsia of that age.  They were defeated and overrun by the Arabs who were far inferior to them in material resources.  When Hermazan, the defeated Persian Governor was produced before Hazrat Omar !11 Caliph of Islam), the latter asked him why the Persians were now suffering defeat after defeat at the hands of Arabs while previously they could beat them back easily in any encounter.  Hermazan replied that earlier the Persians had fought the Arabs alone but now they had to fight against the Arabs plus their God and it was not possible for them to defeat these two forces combined.  How true his answer was when we look at the Quranic verse:

“Truly God is with the believers.” Al-Anfall 8:19.

            The Persians were men of wisdom and insight,  they truly realised that Arabs would remain invincible in the battlefield so long as they were close followers of the Quran and that the only way to overpower them was to disassociate them from the guidance of the Quran and thus get them separated from their God.  This was an important turning point in the history of Islam, and thus cam in waves of conspiracies which entirely changed the very face of Islam in the years to follow.  All the basic concepts of the Quran on which the ‘Deen’ or social order established by Muhammad (peace be upon him), came into existence, were replaced, one by one, by ideas, beliefs and superstitions which were the outcome of human thinking.  Muslims in their era of glory and triumph conquered both Romans and Persians but whereas the Roman empire was partly conquered, the Persian empire was not entirely subjugated, but the edifice of its civilisation was completely razed to the ground.  It was only natural that they felt it deeply.

            A point worth considering in this respect is that in spite of the fact that the Persians and Romans were conquered by the Muslims, they were under no impulsion to embrace Islam.  However a large number of Persians voluntarily became Muslims.  For example when the Arabs conquered Quadsia, four thousand of the selected troops of Emperor Yazd Gard, known as ‘Jund Shah’ voluntarily embraced Islam after they became separated from the Persian army and they settled down in Kufa (Iraq) by permission of Saad bin Abi Waqas.  Similarly Siah, a distinguished officer of the Persian army who was entrusted with the task of defending against the Arab invasion by Emperor Yazd Gard, instead of putting up a defence, became a Muslim along with his troops.  They settled in Basr (Iraq).  Such people who embraced Islam included not only the common men but also of intellectuals of high calibre.   It is unjust to say that all such people came into the fold of Islam with a biased mind, not can the Persians of the following generations be made responsible for the acts of their non-Muslim ancestors: they are today as god Muslims as in any other part of the world.  But, as seen from the descriptions that follows, a good number of these converts entered Islam only to spread their own beliefs to which they steadfastly stuck after they outwardly became Muslims.  Arabs of that period were only simple-minded fighters and they were not able to follow the political intrigues of non-Arabs.  But even such Persians who joined Islam in good faith were no better than the Arab tribesmen about whom the Holy Quran has said:

“The Arabs say, ‘We believe.’  Say ‘you do not believe.’  But rather you ought to say ‘We have submitted (to the Islamic power).’  For belief has not yet entered your heart.” Al-Hujarat 49:14.

            What has been described above brings into focus a conspiracy with two different aspects.  One of them being to promote the political weakening of the Muslims’ rule and the other to bring about a change in the basic ideology of Islam.  The latter had such a tremendous effect on the Muslims’ belief and their way of thinking, that it entirely changed the Islam introduced by Muhammad, to the one prevalent today.  The Islam introduced by the Messenger was based on the authority of the Quranic fundamental principles.   On the other hand, the Islam born of conspiracies was based on the authority of un-Quranic ideas given in the man-made books of tradition and history.  The orthodox Muslims today do not hold the traditions subject to the Quranic teachings, rather they give first place to traditions and consider only that version of the interpretation of the Quran to be true which is supported by traditions and the so-called history of Islam.  And one must bear in mind that all such books whether of traditions or history were written by Persians.   Among the Sunni Muslims, there are six collections of Ahadis which are considered to be authentic.  Similarly the Shias have four such collections.  But all such collections whether of Shias or Sunnis, were composed by Persians.  Similarly the first book of the history of Islam was written by Imam Tabri who was also a Persian. 

            All such literature was produced nearly three hundred years after the death of Muhammad (pbuh).  It was not based on any written record but on stories carried verbally through the centuries.

            Taqiyya – as far as the reliability of the Ahadis collections of Shias concerned there is a particular aspect of it which is worth consideration.   Taqiyya is one of the accepted basis of Shia belief.  Let us see what Taqiyya is.  The most reliable book of Shia tradition entitled Asul-el-Kafi describes it as follows: Tradition – Hazrat Abu Jafar said- “Have good outward relations with your opponents but oppose them inwardly.”

            Tradition – Hazrat Abu Abdullah said, “The establishment of institution of ‘Immat’ does not mean merely to accept it and testify it, but also means that our affairs should be kept secret from those who do not belong to us.  Our Ahadis should not be related to them.  Convey our good wishes to our friends and say that we pray for the mercy of God for those who in the state of Taqiyya express their feelings of friendship to their opponents.”  He said “O Suleman! You belong to a religion in which God glorifies those who keep secrecy and bring degradation to those who expose their ideas.”  Hazrat Abu Abdullah further said – “O Moallah! Taqiyya is the religion of myself and of my ancestors.  Without Taqiyya there is no religion.” (Reference: Urdu translation of Asul-el-Kafi by Sayed Zafar Hussain pages 240-247.) 

            Tradition – Imam Jafar Sadiq asked a ‘Shia’ “If I relate a certain tradition this year and when I come back next year, I relate something against it, then which one of the two (traditions) will you follow?”  He replied, “the latter one.”  The Imam said “God bless you.”  It means that the first one was related on the basis of Taqiyya (Al-Shafi, Volume 1, page 73). 

            It can be easily inferred from the above that it is impossible to judge the authenticity of a Hadis in the Shia collections. 

            This is a true picture of the nature of the Hadis literature and yet nobody can dare challenge its sanctity as it forms the basis of Islam amongst the orthodox Muslims.  In fact the authority in Islam is that of the Quran which is self-explanatory.  Anything in the Hadis literature which is consistent with the Quran may be as reliable and anything which goes against the basic concepts of the Quran is surely untrue and unreliable.  Muhammad was the last messenger of God.  His companions were the true believers in God, in His Messenger and in His message which is contained within the Quran.  Anything which goes against the Quranic teachings and which reflects upon the character of Muhammad and his companions is false and forged.  Thus all that is inconsistent with the Quran, in Hadis literature and in Islamic history, is falsely attributed to the Messenger and his companions and is unreliable.  The description that follows makes it abundantly clear that the conspiracy of the non-Arabs against the Arab Muslims of that age which aimed at taking the latter away from the Quran, was most cleverly accomplished.

Issue of Caliphate

            The first mighty blow that shook the very foundation of Islam was the issue of Caliphate.  Earlier it was merely a political issue but later on it assumed the form of a religious issue, which seriously affected the solidarity of the Community and divided it into two permanent sects, so much so that there is no remedy in sight which is capable of healing this wound.  The true significance of Caliphate is evident in the following verse of the Quran:

“Muhammad is no more than a messenger of God.  Many were the messengers who passed away before him.  If he died or was slain will you then turn back on your heels?  If anyone did turn back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to God.  But God (on the other hand) will swiftly reward those who (serve Him) with gratitude.” Ali-Imran 3:144.

 

            The above verse makes it clear that the organised way of life, introduced by Muhammad, was not limited to his person or to his lifetime.  Rather it was meant to be carried further after his death.  As the message of the Quran was complete and final and was meant to be followed by the future generations of mankind, the organisation set up by the last messenger of God was meant to maintained by successors.  This succession other Messenger, for the purpose of perpetuation of the organisation meant for the enforcement of the Divine laws, or to guide and channelise human affairs within limits of the fundamentals of the Quran is known as Khil’afat or Caliphate: and those who succeed the Messenger are known as Khul’afa (successors).  Caliphate was thus meant to put into practise God’s sovereignty in human affairs.  It was not kingship where one particular person is sovereign, nor was it like the modern democracy of western type where people are supposed to be sovereign.   A Khalifa or Caliph conducted human affairs by consultation but within limits of the Permanent Values provided by the Quran.   According to the Quran, those who do not conduct their affairs within the prescribed limits are not believers, such people follow their own desires:

“Those who do not judge according to what God has revealed are unbelievers.” Al-Maaida 5:47. 

again it is said:

“…So judge between them according to what God has revealed and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the finally established truth that has come to you…” Al-Maa’dia 5:48.

Thus the central organisations of Muslims is only an instrument for the enforcement of the divine laws.  This applies equally to the period when the Messenger himself administered the affairs of the Islamic State, as well as to the successive periods that followed after his death.  Thus the permanent factor in the functioning of an Islamic State is that its affairs are conducted within limitations of the divine laws which are immutable, although the personalities that control its affairs go on changing.

That is why the Quran said:

“…If he (the Messenger) dies, will you then turn back on your heel…” Ali-Imran 3:144. 

consequently an Islamic State is not run according to the whims and wishes of its administrators.Against the background described above, let us see what our Hadith literature and history tell us about the events of transfer of State administration from the Holy Messenger to his line of successors.  But prior to this it is important to focus our attention on the Quranic description of those who were the companions and the successors of the Messenger, and whose character he had moulded in a specific pattern.  They were a united body of righteous people, so much so that they were a source of strength to him.  They were men of such elevated stature that God has bracketed their strength with his own:

“…He it is Who has strengthened thee with His aid and with (the company) of believers.” Al-Anfaal 8:62. 

Their behaviour and way of life was exemplary and worthy of being followed by others:

“And one who follows the path other than that chosen by the believers.  We shall leave him in the path he has chosen and land him in hell – what an evil refuge.” Al-Nisa 4:115. 

The Quran calls them (the companions of the Messenger) ‘True Believers’ because they persistently strove in the cause of God and made all sorts of sacrifices, so much so that they had to leave their hearths and homes and migrate more suited for the establishment of social order based on the Divine laws.  Thus it is said:

“Those who believed and migrated, and strove for the cause of God, as well as those who gave (them) asylum and aid, are (all) believers in truth.   For them is the protection (of God) and a provision most generous and honourable.” Al-Anfaal 8:74. 

There can be no evidence greater than the evidence of the Quran, to show that the companions of the Messenger were men of firm belief in God and men of most exalted position, whose character was above reproach.  In the Quran they are given the glad tidings of a life of peace and plenty.

“The vanguard (of Islam), the first of those who migrated and those who gave them aid and also those who follow them in good deeds.  God is well pleased with them, as they are with Him: for them He has prepared gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein (for ever).  That is supreme felicity.” Al-Taubah 9:100.

The Quran has further given the true picture of the beauty of character of the companions of Muhammad when it is said:

“Muhammad the messenger of God: and his companions are strong and firm (like a rock) against the unbelievers (but) mild and compassionate among themselves.   You will see them bow and prostrate themselves before God seeking grace from God and His pleasure. This is the similitude in the Taur’at: and their similitude in the Gospel is like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick and it stands on its own (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight.  As a result it fills the unbelievers with rage at them.  God has promised protection and good reward to those who believe and perform deeds consistent with the divine laws.” Al-Fatth 48:29.

The Quran states further another aspect of the character of the companions of Muhammad:

“And He has put affection between their hearts.  If you had spent all that is on the earth, you could not have produced that affection, but God has done it, as His power and Wisdom are boundless.” Al-Anfaal 8:63.

This description is a true picture of the deeds, character and behaviour with one another of the companions of Muhammad as it appears in the Quran.   Now let us see what history tells us about this distinguished vanguard of Islam – Bukhari the book of Hadith literature, which is considered by orthodox Muslims to be the most true book after the Quran, and which describes the events of the death of Muhammad as follows:

Tradition – When Muhammad was on his death bed, Abbas bin Abdul Mattlab (his uncle) consulted Hazrat Ali (his son-in-law) saying that they should go and seek the opinion of the Messenger as to who should succeed him after his death; whether his successor should be from among his relatives or from amongst other people? Hazrat Ali: “Do you think there can be some aspirants for succession other than we people?” Abbas: “There must be.”  On this Hazrat Ali expressed his apprehension as follows: “If the Messenger gave his verdict against us, then we shall never be in a position to hold the reign of power.  Thus it is not advisable to consult the Messenger about it.”

One can well imagine from the above description that the companions of the Messenger, the illustrious sons of Islam and the lovers of the Quran are shown here to be ignorant of the fact that caliphate was not a personal concern of individuals and that it could not be transferred from one person to another according to their whims and wishes.  They are shown here to be neglecting the Quranic principle of ‘consultation’ for such an important transfer of  caliphate.  They are depicted here as men full of greed and lust for power.  Difference of opinion could arise amongst the companions of the Messenger, because they were after all human beings.  But it is not acceptable that they could so far as to ignore the basic principles of the Quran.

The holy Messenger from his deathbed made no declaration regarding the succession or Khil’afat because the matter was to be decided by mutual consultation amongst his followers.   If he had decided the issue himself, it would have been a tradition among the Muslims for all time to come.  As the matter was of great National importance and the central authority of the Community was to be appointed without delay, it was important to settle the issue even before the dead body of the Holy Messenger was buried.  As related in books of history the Ans’ars, on this occasion, called a meeting of their own, separately from the Muh’ajirs, for the purpose of nominating Sa’ad bin Abaida as the Caliph.  In the meantime, the Muh’ajirs including Hazrat Abu Bakr and others arrived.  What is alleged to have transpired in that meeting is as follows: Hab’ab bin Manzar (one of the Ans’ars) said in his speech, “O Ans’ars! Keep the leadership in your hands so that the people may remain obedient to you, so that nobody may dare to raise his voice against you or differ from your opinion.  You are wealthy and respectable people.  You are superior in number and experience, you are brave.  People are looking towards you.  So do not spoil your case by differing among yourselves.  These people (the Muh’ajirs) are bound to accept what you say.  The maximum concession we can give them is that there shall be one Ameer from amongst us (Ans’ars) and one from amongst them.” (Abu Bakr Siddiq by Muhammad Hussain Haikal, page 107)   This passage from history depicts the character of the Ans’ars, now let us see how it describes the behaviour of the Muh’ajirs.

In reply to the above said speech, Hazrat Omar said, “Two swords cannot be placed in one sheath.   By God, we shall never agree to your leadership because the Messenger was not amongst your people.  But we shall have no objection if the leadership remains with the people to whom the Messenger belonged.  If any section of the Arabs shall refuse leadership and caliphate to us, we shall bring forth our open and decisive arguments against them.  Who can quarrel with us, in the matter of the succession of the Messenger, as we were so close to him in relation, as well as sacrifice?  Only he could quarrel with us in this matter who is a follower of falsehood, full of sins and is prepared to fall into the pit of destruction.” (Abu Bakr Siddiq by Haikal page 108.)

In reply to the above Habab bin Manzar replied, “O Ans’ars! Have courage.  Do not listen to what Omar and his companions say.  If you show weakness at this stage, they shall usurp your share of power.  If they go against you, turn them out of your country and get hold of the reigns of power.  By God, you are the rightful successors.  The glory of Islam came with your swords and you are the source of its present status.  You gave refuge to Islam and are its back.  If you wish, you can reverse its glory.”  Hazrat Omar said in reply, “God will perish you Habab.  Not we.  God will perish you.” (Abu Bakr Siddiq by Haikal pages 108-109.)

This is what history tells us about those who, as stated earlier, are described by the Quran as follows:

“And He has put affection between their hearts.  If you had spent all that is on the earth you could not have produced that affection but God has done it.” AL-Anfaal 8:63.  And about whom it is also said, “They were strong and firm like a rock against the unbelievers, but mild and compassionate amongst each other.” Al-Fatth 48:29.

Again we find here that history has put the same argument in the mouth of Hzrat Omar, as was done in the case of Ali, when the Messenger was on his death bed.  As a matter of fact it is not merely a historical description, it is rather a conspiracy against the Quranic teachings.  It does not stop here, it goes still further, when through another forged Hadith, it tries to involve the Messenger himself in the issue.

Tradition – When the quarrel between the Muh’ajirs and the Ans’ars took a serious turn, Hazrat Abu Bakr (the first Caliph) rose up and said, “The claim of the Ans’ars is baseless.  The Messenger had decided during his lifetime that the leadership shall remain with the Quraish.”  This Hadith is certainly a forged one.

Just imagine if it could be possible that the Messenger had uttered these words, the same Messenger who spent his whole life in putting into practice the Quranic fundamental principle that there is no distinction between on man and the other, based on race and colour, that all human beings are equal and worthy of respect by birth and that the superiority of one man over the other is based only on his being nearer to the divine laws.  This one hadith described above also states that there was a rough handling of each other, between the parties concerned, on this issue.

As we know, Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq was the first caliph who succeeded the Messenger.  History describes the reaction of Hazrat Ali, on Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq becoming the caliph, as follows: Some people from among the Muh’ajirs and Ans’ars were not present when Abu Bakr Siddiq took ‘bai’at’ after he was elected as caliph.  These people were inclined towards Hazrat Ali.  Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq consulted Hazrat Omar and Abu Abaida bin Jarah, Mughira bin Shoeb about it.  They advised Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq to take Hazrat Abbas (uncle of Messenger and of Hazrat Ali) into confidence and have his share in the Khil’afat.   This was a plan to create a rift between Abbas and Ali (both relatives of the Messenger).  This, they said, shall prove useful for you (Abu Bakr) against Ali.  Accordingly Hzrat Abu Bakr met Abbas who rejected the offer on the ground that he could not accept an incomplete Khil’afat (Haikal page 119).  Later on the followers of Hazrat Ali took ‘bai’at’ with Hazrat Abu Bakr, except Hazrat Ali himself who did not do so for 6-7 months.   But he also agreed later, after the death of Hazrat Fatima.

There are several other Ahadis which describe the conflict between Abu Bakr and Ali, but one from Bukhari is worth mentioning.  Tradition – “Hazrat Fatima (daughter of the Messenger and wife of Ali) remained alive for 6 months after the death of the Messenger.  When she died Hazrat Ali quietly buried her during the night and did not inform Abu Bakr Siddiq about her death.  As long as Hazrat Fatima lived, Hazrat Ali was greatly respected, but after her death Ali felt a change in the behaviour of the people around him.  Then he resolved to accept the ‘bai’at’ of Abu Bakr.  Thus Hazrat Ali sent a message to Abu Bakr asking Abu Bakr to come and see him personally but not accompanied by Omar.  Hazrat Omar, on the other hand, foresaw danger and did not wish Abu Bakr to go alone.  However, Abu Bakr was bent upon meeting Ali and thus went to see him without company.  In the above mentioned meeting Ali said, “We realise your personal superiority and all that God has bestowed on you.  We are not jealous of the greatness which God has given you.  But we do feel that being the near relative of the Messenger, we are rightful successors to Khil’afat and that our right has been usurped by tyranny and oppression.”  After the mid-day prayers Abu Bakr first addressed the audience and explained the reason for the late acceptance of Abu Bakr’s Khilafat by Ali.  Then Ali addressed the gathering and explained his point of view.”  This Hadith, if accepted to be true, is a slur on the character of the companions of the Messenger.  As a matter of fact such Ahadis are forged ones.  These are the outcomes of a conspiracy that was hatched at a time when Khil’afat had changed into Kingship.  Imam Bukhari died in 256 A.H. and Imam Tabri died in 311 A.H. during the Abbasid reign.

The reason for our belief in such like Ahadis being forged ones, is that the character of the companions of the Messenger that is depicted therein is against the Quranic version which described them as “True Believers.”  How is it possible that the people who were so highly praised by God Himself descended to such a low level after the death of the Messenger?  Surely the revealed message of God is reliable and not man-made history.   The companions of the Messenger were given training by the Messenger himself and they had a deep insight into the teachings of the Quran.  They were a highly disciplined people.  They had no self interest in the caliphate.  They were not Kings.  They only considered themselves to be an instrument for the enforcement of divine laws.  They never went after any personal gain.  Rather they sacrificed their material possessions for the sake of their faith.  They lived the life of an ordinary man in the street.  Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq, after he became Caliph, continued to earn his livelihood by selling cloth.  There was a suggestion about giving him a maintenance allowance, so that he may be able to devote maximum time to State affairs.  He was asked by his cabinet as to what remuneration he would accept as the Head of State.  His reply was that he would accept the minimum wage given to a labourer in the state.  When asked to accept more, he replied, “I shall try to raise the standard of living of the labourers, so that I may be in a position to get more.”  This was the standard of justice and equality of man that the companions of the Messenger believed in and acted upon.

As regards the standards of discipline they maintained, it is sufficient to quote the following 0 During his lifetime, the Messenger had raised a contingent of the army to fight against the Romans and Os’ama son of Zaid bin H’arith (Zaid was a slave who was set free by the Messenger) was appointed its commander.  It was after the death of the Messenger when Abu Bakr Siddiq took up the first caliph, that the army contingent was mobilised.  The Caliph desired to keep back Omar for consultations.  As a Caliph, Abu Bakr Siddiq was the supreme authority of the State and he could have easily ordered Omar to stay behind.  But as Os’ama was the commander of the force the Caliph did not interfere.  Rather he requested Os’ama to leave Omar behind for his help, if he could so.  Os’ama accepted it with pleasure.

Under the circumstances that prevailed at the time with the highest degree of discipline maintained by the companions of the Messenger, with their thoughts and actions having been moulded in the pattern provided to them by the Messenger himself and with their firm belief and deep insight into the Quranic teachings, there is no reason to disbelieve that Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq took over the reigns of caliphate in an atmosphere of peace, tranquillity and mutual understanding: and that all sorts of cock and bull stories  about the quarrelsome behaviour of the companions of the Messenger are nothing but a conspiracy against the believers and the Quran itself.

Hazrat Omar succeeded Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq as the second caliph.  Abu Bakr Siddiq had the issue of succession after him decided during his lifetime, just before his death.  In modern times the question of succession is not a difficult problem in the presence of ready-made constitutions.  But in the past ages when there was no such constitutions it was advisable to have the question of succession decided in the presence of an existing head of state.

The Quran has commanded to settle the state affairs by mutual consultations and has given this fundamental principle, but has not prescribed the machinery for putting it into practice.   It is left to the discretion of the succeeding Muslim generations to devise ways and means for consultation so as to make it compatible with the changing circumstances and needs of the times. This way of life prescribed by the Quran is a beautiful combination of permanence and change, its fundamental principles being permanent, and the means to put them into practice being changeable with the change of time and circumstances.  The Holy Messenger did not touch on the issue of succession during his lifetime.  There was a reason for this, because in view of the respect and highest esteem in which he was held by his companions, even his slightest inclination towards anybody would have amounted to the nomination of his successor, and thus the process of nomination would have taken the form of tradition amongst the succeeding generations of Muslims.  Abu Bakr Siddiq, on the other hand, gathered men of wisdom available in Medina and with their consent and consultation decided on Hazrat Omar to be his successor.

Inheritance of Caliphate by Descent

How the above said events described in history and in Ahadis are connected with the conspiracy hatched by the Persian intelligentsia shall be explained in the following pages.   But let us note at this juncture that the conspiracy did not stop here.  It took still deeper roots.  The inheritance of caliphate in the line of descent of the Messenger was made an important issue, in order to create a rift among Muslims.  Thus Ibn Jurair Tabri described in his history , the event of Hazrat Osman succeeding Hazrat Omar as caliph, in the following words –

When Hazrat Osman was elected as caliph, Hazrat Ali turned his face to the other side and went away.   But when Abdur Rahman bin ‘Auf objected to it he came back and took ‘bai’at’ at the hand of Osm’an, but uttered at the same time, “It was fraud, it is a big fraud.” (Tabri Vol.IV.)

Hazrat Ali Said again, “After the death of the Messenger, all the three Caliphs usurped his right of succession to caliphate which was his due, by inheritance.” (Re: Nehjul Balagha – a book which is supposed to be a collection of Hazrat Ali’s addresses.) 

The question of succession of caliphate by inheritance was made further complicated in these books.   It is said that Banu Abbas claimed their own right of succession based on inheritance; on the plea that on the death of the Messenger, Abbas was alive and that he being the uncle of the Messenger, had a prior right than Hazrat Ali who was only his son-in-law and a cousin (Ali being the son of Abu Talib, the second uncle of the Messenger).  Thus the issue was a political one or rather a dispute between two claimants belonging to the same family.  But it was give a religious turn which was more dangerous.  Let us see hoe it happened.  There was a belief among the Persians that kings were super-men and that they possessed divine attributes, that they were the shadow of God on the earth, that they were infallible, that to rule was their inherent right which passes on automatically from one generation to another.   Abdulla Ibn Saba was a Jew from Yemen which in those days was an occupied territory of Persians who lived there in large numbers and influenced the ideas of the local population.  Abdulla Ibn Saba apparently became Muslim at Medina.  In due course he became acquainted with the secrets of the state.  Later on, he shifted to Kufa where he organised a centre for conspiring against Islam.  Another story runs that he remained in Madyan (Persia) for some time, then he left for Egypt from where he started spreading his net of conspiracies.  He gave publicity to a belief, similar to the one already prevalent among the Christians, that “Jesus Christ shall return to the earth once again.”  Abdulla Ibn Saba began to spread the idea that Muhammad shall also come back again on the earth.  This idea could not gain ground amongst the Muslims but instead the belief of “return to Shia Divines” took root among the Shias.

Wasi – History tells us that Abdulla also spread yet another belief, that every messenger of God appoints a Wasi or Khalifa.  It means that he leaves a will that after his death so and so shall succeed him.  Accordingly, he said that Hazrat Ali was the “‘Wasi’ of Muhammad,” thus he (Ali) ought to have succeeded him as Caliph. This gave rise to beliefs among the Muslims similar to those of the Persians about their Kings.  Now the term Im’amat came to be used instead of the term ‘Khilafat’ and the idea began to gain popularity that Im’amat is not a thing which could be left for the people to decide; that is a basic pillar of Islam; that it does not benefit a messenger of God to leave the succession for the people to decide, that he must appoint an Im’am before his death, because it has been commanded by God. Accordingly, they said Muhammad left his will for Ali to be his successor.  Hence Hazrat Ali is called “Wasi al Rasool” by the Sias (the one for who the Messenger left his will).  The innovation does not stop here and goes on to say that every Im’am also leaves a will for the appointment of his successor and that his will left under the divine command.  Accordingly an Im’am is appointed by God Himself and is therefore infallible.  Anybody who acts against him is an usurper.  Thus Im’amat is the right of Hazrat Ali and his line of descent.  Sunni Muslims, however, do not accept this belief of the appointment of an Im’am by God himself.  But this being among the Shias, they consider Sunnis to be outside the pale of Islam.  The natural consequence of this belief was the bifurcation of the Community into two permanent sects.  Haikal in his book entitled “Omar Farroq-e-Azam (Urdu translation page 419), has quoted a passage from Historians History of the World,” published by the Publishers of Encyclopaedia Britannica, which runs as follows:- “The Persians believed their kings as the sons of God and sacred personalities by birth.  Thus when the Persians rebelled against the governments of Medina and Damascus, they gathered around Ali the cousin of Muhammad who they said was his legal successor, but was kept away from Khil’afat, and gave him the dignity and sacredness which their ancestors used to give to their Kings.  Moreover like their ancestors, who used to call (a Persian King) the ‘sacred sons of heaven’ and ‘Sacred King,’ and in their books used to write of him ‘a leader and a guide,’ they gave Ali the title of Im’am, which in spite of being a simple term is very meaningful.”  The matter does not stop here.  In order to maintain a rift in the Muslim community, the Persians gathered round Im’am Hasan and Im’am Hussain, the sons of Hazrat Ali and in turn around their descendants.   There is also a story about the marriage of the daughter of the last ruler of Akass ban Sasan, with the Im’am Hussain which runs as follows –  

“When Arabs conquered Persia, three daughters of Yazd Gard, the Emperor of Persia, were captured by them.  Hazrat Omar, who was the Caliph at the time, ordered their open sale.  But Hazrat Ali advised a better treatment for them, on account of their high descent and suggested that he fix their price and hand them over to respectable people.  Thus Hazrat Ali took charge of them and handed over one of the three to Hazrat Im’am  Hussain, one to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr and one to Abdulla bin Omar.   The girl who came to the lot of Im’am Hussain came to be known as Shehr Bano.”

The story appears to have been forged in order to win favour with the Shias and is untrue on account of the following reasons:

1.                   About the prisoners of war there is a clear injunction in the Quran that they should be released either on payment of a ransom or as an act of generosity.   The Quran closed the doors of slavery for good when it was said: “When you have thoroughly subdued them (the prisoners of war) bind a bond firmly (on them) either generosity or ransom.” Muhammad 47:4 

Thus all such Ahadis relating to the prisoners of war having been made slaves are untrue, in the face of the above Quranic injunction.  If such a thing could actually happen, most of the Arab population would have been slaves by now.  In fact Hazrat Omar, the caliph, always insisted on the release of the prisoners of war.

2.                   During the above conquest when Hazrat Sa’ad entered Madyan, the city had already been vacated and Emperor Yzad Gard had already fled along with his family.  So the question of the captivity of Yazd Gard’s daughters during the Madyan campaign and thereafter does not arise.  The only occasion when the family of Yazd Gard could have been captured was at the time of his assassination, but this took place in the year 30A.H. during the caliphate of Hazrat Osm’am.

3.                   Hazrat Imam Hussain was born in the year 5A.H. and Madyan was conquered in the year 16 A.H. when the Imam was only eleven years old.  It is unimaginable that he could be married to a slave girl at that tender age.

4.                   Yazd Gard ascended his throne in 13A.H at the age of 18 years, at about the same time Hazrat Omar took over the caliphate.  Madyan was conquered in 16A.H. when Yazd Gard was at the most 21 years of age.  It is not possible that at the age of 21 he had three daughters of marriageable age.

Thus the story is obviously a forged one.  There is yet another story which runs as follows – When Shehr Bano was handed over to Hazrat Im’am Hussain, the caliph Hazrat Omar said to him, “O Abu Abdullah, your son shall be born to her who shall be a most respectable person on the face of the earth, because he shall be the best Arab, on account of being a H’ashmi, and the best of non-Arabs, on account of being a Persian.”  The story clearly smells as one of Persian origin.  Many such stories were invented to prove the superiority of the Persians over the Arabs.  Some of them are in connection with the personality of Salman Farsi, who was a Persian who embraced Islam.  His age-span has been described by certain people as ranging between 250 to 600 years.

It is said he lived as early as the companions of Jesus Christ and continued to live until the lifetime of Muhammad.  A Jew travelling towards Medina captured him.  After the Messenger migrated to medina, Salman embraced Islam and he was freed from slavery.  Stories spread by Persians about Salman make interesting reading: There is a verse in the Quran that the message of Muhammad is not confined to the people of his age, it is meant equally for all the future generations of mankind not in personal contact with him:

“(Muhammad is a messenger of God for the people of his age) as well as for others who have not already joined them”).  Al-Jumu’ah 62:3.

The story goes that when the companions of the Messenger asked him who this verse applied to, the Messenger pointed towards Salman Farsi who was sitting down beside him and said “the people of his nation.”  There is another verse in the holy Quran:

“If you turn you back, HE will substitute in your stead another people and they would not be like you.” Muhammad 47:38.

 The verse refers to the rise and fall of nations.  It is a generalised statement that whichever nation bases its social order on the divine fundamentals it is sure to survive, and the one that turns away from this path is replaced by a better one.  It is stated in Jami’a Tirmazi that people asked the Messenger ‘which nation shall follow us, if we turn back?’  The Messenger patted the back of Salman Farsi and said ‘His nation, his nation.’  Such stories were invented by the Persians to impress upon the Arabs their national superiority and to pave the way for the smooth running of their intellectual onslaught.

Another Conspiracy

 There is yet another conspiracy hatched by the Persians, with the object of creating disruption in the Islamic state of that age.  It is a story of the transfer of power from Bani Omayya to Bani Abbas bringing ultimately the end of the Islamic state with the fall of Baghdad.  During the caliphate of Hazrat Ali the Islamic state became divided into two parts.   One part was governed by Ameer Mu’awya, with its capital at Damascus (Syria).  Im’am Hasan son of Hazrat Ali succeeded his father after his death but he resigned in favour of Ameer Mu’away who thus became the sole ruler of the Islamic state.  Caliphate thus transferred to Bani Umayya.  Part played by Persians to overthrow Bani Omayya – It may be pointed out that Bani Umayya and Bani Abbas had a common line of descent.

 When Bani Omayya took over caliphate, Bani Abbas became jealous of them.  The Persians exploited the situation and used Bani Abbas as an effective instrument to overthrow the reign of Bani Omayya.  Abu Muslim Khur’asani (a Persian) was the man who vehemently supported the propaganda in favour of Bani Abbas.  To win over the people, Bu Muslim used the same old tactics that caliphate is the right of Ahle bai’at (family of Muhammad). 

Actually the progeny of Hazrat Fatima (the wife of Ali and daughter of Muhammad) are known as Ahle bai’at or family of the Messenger (whose male issue did not survive).  Bani Abbas on the other hand were the only descendents of Hazrat Abbas, one of the uncles of Muhammad.  Being inspired by the propaganda of Abu Muslim, the Abbasids took over the plea that an uncle had a better right of inheritance to Muhammad  that Ahle bai’at.  They argued that Abbas was the uncle of Muhammad and Ali was his cousin (son of the other uncle named Abu Talib who died earlier than Muhammad) and that an uncle had a better right of succession than a cousin.  However the name of Bani Abbas held no attraction for the people who considered the progeny  of Hazrat Ali and Hazrat Fatima as the real Ahle bai’at.   Abu Muslim was a genius and a highly skilled person in the art of intrigue.  He was born in Isfahan (Persia) and bred in Kufa (Iraq).  Ibrahim son of Muhammad Abbas, having realised his intellectual capacity, put him in charge of the propaganda machinery.  Abu Muslim made Khurasan his centre and without giving publicity to any one person, successfully carried out the campaign against Bani Omayya.  Incidentally, in those days the idea of Im’am Mehsi (the idea of return of an Im’am from hiding), was in vogue.  Anu Muslim gave publicity to the fact that Im’am Mehdi would soon be coming from the Khurasan side and that his army would be clad in black uniforms and its flag would also be black.  When the propaganda reached its pitch, he himself came out of Khurasan with a black army and black flag, attacked Bani Omayya and defeated them.  The Abbasids, after they took the reigns of power, became apprehensive of Abu Muslim’s intellect, intriguing qualities and influence, and killed him.

In the meantime Ahle bai’it themselves had several conflicts with Bani Omayya, such as the tragedy of Karbala in 61A/H., the rising of Zaid son of Im’am Zainal-Abedeen against Bani Omayya in 122A.H, and the rising of Yahya son of Zaid in 126A.H.  But these were all unsuccessful attempts.  After the Abbasids took over caliphate, Ahle bai’it became highly sensitive to the fact that the Abbasids used their name for the purpose of gaining power.  Thus a period of conflict and bloodshed followed between the parties, each claiming a right of succession to the Messenger, on the basis of relationship.  Abu Muslim Khurasani, who came out with the idea of the revival of the Persian Empire from the back door, could not succeed, as he was assassinated, but he left intrigues and divisions amongst the Muslims, as well as sowing the seeds of un-Quranic ideas about the succession of caliphate. 

Bramaka – This was followed by yet ANOTHER CONSPIRACY.  A seditious Persian family won the friendship of the Abbasid caliphs, and took over key posts in the administration of the state, but with ulterior motives.  This family was known as Bramaka.  The word Bramaka means the High Priest of the biggest fire worship temple of Persia.  The Bramakas failed in their mission which was meant to revive the Persian Empire, but on the other hand they achieved tremendous success in their sinister plan of changing the very face of Islam.   On account of their influence in the Abbasid caliphate, the Islamic, as well as the Arabic, way of life assumed an entirely disfigured countenance, for all time to come.  Jamasap, the ancestor of the Bramaka family, had held high positions in the Persian Empire, such as the Chief Justice and the Prime Minister etc.  He was related to Zardasht, the prophet of Persia.  Khalid Bramaka was the person who, to begin with held high position in the Abbasid Caliphate.  How he could manage to do so is a matter not related to our discussion.  He gained influence during the reign of the first Abbasid Caliph, Muhammad bin Ali, known as Saffah.  Khalid Bramaka held a highly influential post, as well as having deep friendly relations with the family of the Caliph.  He was later appointed governor of Faras.  Yahya son of Khalid was even more clever than Khalid and had a great mental acumen.  Caliph Mansoor made him the governor of Azar Baijan.  But Khalid sought for his son a rather more important and effective post, from his own point of view and that was the post of tutor to Haroon Rashid, the heir of Caliph Mansoor.  This post provided Bramaka with a much greater influence in the state and the post became more or less hereditary in the family.  Fazal and J’afar, the sons of Yahya, were even more intelligent than their father and grandfather.   During the caliphate of Haroon Rashid, the affairs of the state were more or less entirely in the hands of Yahya who ran the administration with the help of his sons Fazal and J’afar.  The result was that in actual practice the state was run by the Bramaka family, in the name of the caliph.  They used this golden opportunity to gave a Persian colour to the Islamic state and accomplished this task cleverly and successfully.  Yahya founded an institution known as Baitul-Hikmat (the home of wisdom).  He had a substantial part of Persian literature interpreted into Arabic and arranged functions and seminars of high academic standard.  In the theological controversies which took place at these functions, the Persians, Jews and Christians formed one party and Muslim religious leaders the other party, and the subjects of discussion were the Islamic beliefs and ideals.  The Arabs were simple minded men of action who never came into contact with the philosophical controversies in which the Persians were for a long time well-versed.  The Jews and Christians also  had sound knowledge of Persian philosophy.  Thus it was difficult for Arabs to compete with them.  As a result of these debates, doubts began to arise in the minds of common men regarding the Islamic beliefs and ideals, as the non-Arab ideals appeared to be more sound.  Moreover the finance of the state were under the control of Bramaka who distributed handsome rewards to Jewish and Christian debaters.

Before we discuss the details of how the Quranic Islam turned into and un’Quranic one, let us first see the extent of Bramaka’s influence in the Abbasid state.  Yahya had a number of sons and daughters, amongst who Fazal and J’afar were well learned.  Their closeness to the family of the caliph can be judged from the fact that Fasal and Haroon Rashid were both breast fed by the mother of the latter.  Thus when Haroon Rashid took over the reigns of power, he appointed Fazal to posts of the highest responsibility.  But the Bramak, as we have learnt, had their own plans.  Just as Khalid had his son Yahya appointed as tutor to Haroon Rashid, Yahya arranged to keep his son Fazal inside the palace.  J’afar on the other hand was put in charge of state affairs.  Thus the main arteries of the state both inside and outside the palace were under the control of these two brothers: and the age old experience of their father Yahya was a guiding force behind them.  But, as often happens, they became power-crazy after gaining full control of the state machinery and became less careful in the execution of their nefarious designs.  Caliph Haroon Rashid got an inkling of their wickedness, which gradually became more and more manifest.  Wherever the caliph went on tour inside the country, he could clearly notice that the Bramaka were the actual rulers and that his own influence was waning.  This startled him and he had J’afar assassinated, and imprisoned Yahya and Fazal, giving them terrible punishments.  All their properties were confiscated.

The Effects of Persian Influence on the Abbasid Caliphate and Its Ultimate End

The Bramaka were thus finished before they could achieve their ultimate goal of the revival of the Persian empire.  But, on the other hand, they achieved full benefit from their position and influence in giving the Arab state a Persian colour, and in metamorphosing the Quranic Islam brought by Muhammad into an alien Islam, the edifice of which was raised on man-made foundations.  Thus the Islam which followed later was an Ajmi or non-Arab Islam which continues to this day.  As stated earlier, Abu Muslim was the first Muslim was the first link in this chain of conspirators.  He enrolled Persians in the Arab army and thus made even the defence force of the Abbasids non-Arabs.  Khalid also joined the Arab army through Abu Muslim and, after taking a firm foothold, gradually ascended to high positions in the civil administration.  Fazal Bramaka, during the period of his ministership, enrolled exclusively Persian soldiers in the province of Khurasan and they were no less than half a million in number. Moreover all the key posts in the civil administration were allotted to Bramaka.  The finance of the state was entirely under their control, so much so that Caliph Haroon Rashid had to get their sanction to spend even petty sums.  When Im’am Muhammad bin Ali Abbas died, Abu Muslim, in order to commemorate his death, changed the colour of the army uniforms to black and even the Abbasid  state were enclosed in black covers.  Not only that, but even the colour of the people’s dress was changed to black.  Thus Abu Muslim was the person who changed the outward appearance of the Abbasids, but Bramaka changed their thinking, customs and their way of living.  During the period of ministership of Khalid, the Persian Nauroz festival came to be observed in the Abbasid state for the first time, and from then one became a permanent feature: and J’afar Bramaka in turn made popular the observance of Jashane Mehar Jan, another Persian festival.  The Nauroz festival is still observed in present day Muslim Iran and the observance of the festival of Shab-e-Barat in the present-day Muslim world, with all its firework festivities, is also a relic of the old Persian traditions.

Some people think that the Bramaka were shias, but actually they were neither shias nor sunnis.   Their beliefs, ideals and practices were entirely saturated with Zoroastrianism.

Abu Muslim Khurasni and Bramaka were left no more, but the seed they had sown on the soil of Islam continued to flourish, as a result of which the central authority of the Abbasid state became weaker and the provinces became stronger, day by day.  For instance, Dyalam (a part of Persia) was conquered by Arabs during the caliphate of Hazrat Omar.  The inhabitants of this place stuck to their old religion bit later converted to Islam.  Bawaya Dalmi was a politically active person.  He, along with his sons, first established his own kingdom in different provinces of Persia, then gradually added to it certain parts of Iraq and ultimately invaded and entered Baghdad in 334A.H.  By that  time the Abbasid Caliphate had steeply declined to such an extent that Caliph Muktafi welcomed the invaders and recognised their rule.  The caliphs from then on were only religious chiefs whose name was recited in the prayer congregations.   Caliph Muktafi was assassinated only forty days later.

Bani Bawaya were shias.  Their reign lasted till 447A.H. when Slojka replaced them.  For the next 60 years, the name of the Abbasid caliphs still continued to be recited in Jum’aa prayers.  Ultimately Halaku Khan, son of Changez Khan, took the reigns of power.  Abu al Qami was the minister of the then caliph of Baghdad.  He was Ghali Shia (it shall be described later what the significance of being a Ghali Shia is).  On the other hand Nasiruddin Toosi, a minister of Halaku Khan, was also a Ghali Shia.  These two were in league with Halaku Khan and their intrigues resulted in the assassination of Caliph Mustasam which brought to an end the Abbasid Caliphate in 656A.H.

The Persians thus ultimately took revenge for their defeat at the hands of the Arabs in the battle of Q’adsia.  These are not mere conjectures.  Persians themselves accepted this view.  Hussaon Kazimzada is a famous present-day historian pf Iran.  In his book entitled “Tajalliyat-e-Ruh-e-Iran dar Ardwar-e-Tareekhi” he relates as follows: “When Sa’ad bin abi Wqas, as a representative of the second Caliph (Hazrat Omar) conquered Iran, the Iranians since then had nurtured feelings of jealousy and revenge within themselves, which were expressed off and on in different forms, until they completely surfaced with the foundation of the Shia sect.  The well informed people know very well and agree that in the foundation and appearance of Shiaism, in addition to the ideological differences, there is also a political element.  Iranians could neither forget nor forgive that a handful of barefoot desert people of Arabia conquered their ancient kingdom, looted its treasures and killed so many innocent people.”

The same historian writes further: “Ours sane ancestors had neither any love for Bani Fatima (the descendants of the daughter of Muhammad) nor any enmity against Bani Omayya.  Their only goal was to overthrow the Arab rule somehow or other, and thereby revive their ancient kingdom and glory.  Because the Hashamite caliphate came to an end after the death of Hazrat Ali and the caliphate of Bani Omayya, a pure Arabian power took its place and became recognised as the central authority of Islam, the non_arabs thus became completely dominated by the Arabs.  Then the only course left for them was to come to the aid of the Hashamites and instigate them to rise against the ruling power.  This is what our ancestors did.”

Thus in the words of Kazimzada, when the Persians brought about the end of Bani Omayya’s caliphate with the aid of the Hasamites, and Abbasids who were Hashamites took their place, they (Persians) sent for Halakoo Khan to put an end to the Arab rule.      

Revenge Against Islam 

But the above mentioned revenge was against the Arab Muslims.  We now come to the revenge which Persians took against Islam, which had eclipsed their ancient religion of Zoroastrianism.

Before we begin this description, let us recall some of the basic concepts of Islam given to us by the Messenger, and which are contained in the Quran:

1.                   Man gains knowledge through his eyes and ears, known as perceptual knowledge.  Every human being can get it by his own efforts, by means of reading, hearing, observation and experience.

2.                   But there was another source of knowledge which was transmitted directly from God Almighty to certain selected individuals who served as the carriers of divine message to the common man.  This source of knowledge as described earlier, is known as revelation (wahi).

3.                   The messengers of God who carried the divine message from time to time were known as Nabees or the recipients of the message, as well as Messengers or deliverers of the message: Nubuwwat and Risalat thus being two faces of the same coin.   This source of knowledge ended with Muhammad (pbuh) the last Messenger of God, and thereafter perceptual knowledge remained the only source of human information, for all time to come: which means the doors of direct transmission of knowledge from God to man became closed forever.

4.                   The Divine message brought by Muhammad (pbuh), which is a complete code of life for all future generations of mankind, now lies safely inside the Quran.   This code of life is final, complete, explicit, immutable and absolutely safe from external interference. It can be understood by the use of intellect and foresight and the expanding perceptual knowledge of he world all round.  It was handed over to humanity by Muhammad (pbuh) and, as God took its safety upon Himself, there has not been the slightest change in it since it was revealed.

5.                   The way of life prescribed by the Quran is a social order which can be established in a free Muslim state.

6.                   The best suited person from amongst the believers is appointed the head of state by mutual consultations.

7.                   The Head of an Islamic state is an instrument to enforce the divine laws and injunctions contained in the Quran and is not allowed to use his personal authority.  The state administration is carried out in consultation with the Community.

Such a state was first established for them by Muhammad (pbuh) and the pattern that was presented by him continued to be followed for some time after his death.  After that period the Muslim statehood assumed a different shape on account of the non-Arab intervention initiated by the Persians. 

Let us recall that the first difference amongst the Muslim Community took place on the issue of caliphate.  As described earlier, the difference was in the choice of Hazrat Ali as Caliph.  The Persian intriguers introduced the idea that the Caliph is not chosen by mutual consultations among the believers but is appointed by God Himself, and such a person they called Im’am instead of Caliph (the word Im’am as stated earlier, also came to be used later, by Sunnis, for learned men).  The first Im’am they said was Hazrat Ali and the Immamat shall continue from then onwards by succession in his line of descent.  Earlier we discussed this belief in connection with the political situation of that age.  Now we shall describe the way it affected the social order established by Muhammad (pbuh).

The Shia Subsects and Their Beliefs

The Shias became subdivided into subsects as follows: 

1.                  Kais’ania subsect – They believe Muhammad bin Hanfia to be the second Im’am after Hazrat Ali.  He was the son of Hazrat Ali from his wife Hanfia – a wife other than Hazrat Fatima to who Im’am Hussain and Im’am Hasan were born.  At the death of this Im’am his followers spread the belief that he was the promised Mehdi who did not die but ‘had gone into hiding only to return later, after a certain period, in order to establish his rule.’  We find here that the same belief of ‘Return’ which was initiated by the Persian Abdulla Ibm Saba has been put into practice.  The same belief was carried further in respect of certain other persons as well.  Kais’ania also believed that an Im’am is also a representative of the messenger of God and that the personality of the Im’am is everlasting like God Himself.  The centre of Kais’ania subsect was Khurasan, the place from where the intrigues spread against Bani Omayya. 

2.                   Zaidia subsect – They agree with the general body of Shias as far as the succession of Imamat from Hazrat Ali to Im’am Zainal Abedeen is concerned.  But after that instead of Im’am Baqr they believe Zaid as Im’am. 

3.                   Im’amia and Ism’allia subsects – Those who accepted Im’am Baqr as Im’am also accepted his son Im’am J’afar Sadiq as Im’am but at the lower rung of the ladder there again appeared two subsects.  One subsect accepts Ismail as Im’am and the other accepts Musa Kazim as Im’am.  The former sub division is known as Ism’ailia and the latter are known as Im’amia.  The Im’amia thus accept all the 12 Im’ams from Hazrat Ali downwards to Hazrat Muhammad.  They form the major part of the Shia sect. Their belief about the twelfth Im’am (im’am Muhammad) is that he is alive and is hidden in a cave in Iraq: he shall appear before and near the Day of Judgement and shall rule the entire world.   He is also known as Im’am Mehdi.  In fact all Shias believe, in principle, as stated earlier, in the reappearance of a hidden Im’am.

4.                   Ghali subsect – A part of this subsect known as Khuram Dinia believed the Im’ams to be Gods, the messengers of God and angels.   

They did not believe in the day of resurrection.  Abdul Khitab, the pioneer of another part of this subsect known as Khitabia believed Ima’, J’afar Sadiq as God and himself as the messenger of God.  All Shia subsects believe in ‘Taqiyya.’  Khitabia also believed that there has always been two messengers of God at a time, one being vocal and the other non-vocal.  In spite of all these beliefs they still called themselves Muslims.  Intrigues and conspiracies against the government of any particular age was their aim in life.  The Ghali subsect has now become extinct.   

Let us recall that Abu al’Qami,the Minister of the last   Caliph of Baghdad and Nasirud-din Toosi, the Minister of Halaku Khan were Ghali Shias.

5.                   Ism’ailia subsect – This subsect is so particular about keeping their beliefs and teachings secret that it is rather difficult to say anything definite about them.  But some time ago a member of this subsect who was a research scholar, plucked up courage and published a book containing extracts from their secret books and documents.  He was Zaid Ali Khan, Professor of Arabic and Vice Principle of Nizam College Hyderaba Deccan (India). 

The title of this book is “The true nature of our Ism’ailia religion and its organisation.”  The following passage is from page 611 edition 1954 of this book.  “The originator of this invitation is Himoonul Qadah, a Persian, or his son Abdullah.  The objective before them was to start a religious movement which could stand against the Abbasid Caliphate.   For this purpose Im’am Abdulla formed an organisation in which they enrolled such people who were inclined towards the belief of ‘M’otazila’ and the views of their philosophers.  For the success of this movement they had to seek the help of ‘Ahle bai’at’ so as to attract the Shias who loved them.”

  Dr Zahid Ali describes further the teachings of his subjects as follows: “The primary basis of their education is that Muhammad instituted a manifest code of life and Hazrat Ali started to explain its hidden meaning.  After Hazrat Ali six Im’ams completed this secret education and the seventh Im’am Muhammad bin Ism’ail suspended the manifest Shari’at (code of laws) of Muhammad.  All the past and future Im’ams in his line of succession are ‘Khulafai Quaim’ i.e. they exist forever.  They are in hiding and at any time one of the could reappear and convert the whole of humanity to Ism’ailis.”  Zahid Ali Khan further states “Secrecy is an outstanding feature of Ism’aili teachings.  We never disclosed our real beliefs to anybody except the prominent members of our own sect, on account of political expediencies and requirements of the state, because the majority of our people were Sunnis (here he talks of the F’atimid rule in Egypt).  That is why our teachings to the common man were different to those of our selected members.  Even the newcomers into our sect were not told the secrets which were made known to our mature members.” (Preface – B)

   Dr Zahid Ali describes the Ism’aili beliefs further as follows: “ An Im’am has the right to life the Shari’at laws, as well as to reintroduce them at any time.  Regarding the Quran, they believe that just as the Jews and Christians left their original books Torah and Bible respectively and complied other books of their own thinking and speculation, the same thing happened with the Quran in the hands of the Muslims.  The Messenger composed the book of God and in the presence of his companions handed it over to his Wasi (Hazrat Ali).  These people (the companions) did not take care of it and composed another version of the Quran in their own way.  The third Caliph burnt the later compilation and prepared a version of his own.  After that Hajjaj came in and in turn burnt the version compiled by the third Caliph and made alterationd of his own.” (Preface)

  Dr Zahid Ali has quoted certain differences by comparing the present-day Quran with the one compiled by Hazrat Ali.  For example, we find in Sura al-Maa’idah verse 5:67. “Yaa’ayyu-har-Rasulu ballig maa ‘unzilla ‘ilayka mir-Rabika…”  Hazrat Ali’s version is as follows: “Yaa’ayu-har-Rasulu ballig muaa ‘unzilla ‘ilayka mir-Rabika fi Ali…”

   About the Quran compiled by Hazrat Ali, they say that it is kept in safe custody of their Im’ams and shall be opened in due course by a hibernating Ima’m after he reappears.  Regarding the interpretation of the Holy Quran they believe that the correct interpretation does not lie in its manifest words because these words have a hidden meaning which is known only to Im’ams.  On this account they say that a nabee is “Messenger N’atiq” or a vocal messenger of God whose orders are manifest, and a Wasi is “ Messenger S’amit” whose orders are secret.   The hidden meaning of some words is said to be as follows: “There is no sovereign except God” means “There is no Im’am except the Im’am of the time.” (page 408)  “Ablution” means “Hazrat Ali” as the words Wudhu and Ali both contain three letters in Arabic.

Similarly they say: Salat means Muhammad as each word contains four Arabic letters.  Thus “There is no prayer without ablution” means to accept Muhammad as the messenger of God is meaningless without accepting Ali as Wasi (page 424).  Thus according to them all the words in the Quran have hidden meanings.  It is also interesting to note that such interpretations, as they say, are ever changing.

Im’am – The central theme in shia thinking is their belief in the institution of Im’amat.  Its basis is as follows: Abdul Matlab, the grandfather of Hazrat Muhammad was the descendent of Hazrat Ibrahim.  Nabawat, the receipt of the divine message, Risalat, the delivery of the divine message, the representation of the messenger by another messenger of God and Imamat (leadership), all the four missions were entrusted in his (Abdul Matlab’s) person.  He gave separate missions to his sons Abdulla (Father of Muhammad) and Abu Talib (father Ali): Nubuwat and Ris’alat to the former and Wis’ayat and Ima’mat to the latter.  But all the four missions had accumulated in Abu Talib who in turn gave Nubuwat and Ris’alat to Muhammad and Wis’ayat and Im’amat to Hazrat Ali.  But after the death of Abu Talib all the four missions were transferred to Hazrat Ali (pages 63-64).  Thus Hazrat Ali was the real Im’am and Muhammad was only sent to certify his Im’amat.  The last message that Muhammad gave was about the Im’amat of Hazrat Ali.  Muhammad appeared only to eradicate the hidden Shirk (shirk means to make equals to God).  There is no Shirk in this world.  All believe in God.  Shirk is only the unbelief in the Wis’ayat of Hazrat Ali (page 363).  “If you see an Im’am drinking wine, committing adultery or other shameful acts, do not think that he is a disbeliever and do not express it with your tongue and have no doubts about his truthfulness, because Im’ams are under the protection of God.” (page 363). 

            “Our Im’ams are free from sins and are far superior in rank to the messenger of God: the difference between the two being that of a master and a slave.  Im’ams are free from sin while the messengers of God are not, not even Moses, not even Muhammad.” (page 366)  God forbid. 

            In India Ism’aili subsects comprise ‘Khojas and Bauhras.’  Their beliefs are given in their book entitled Mashab and B’aini T’aleem (Religion and Hidden Teachings) by Mirza Muhammad Saeed Dehlvi, are as follows: “In ancient times when Hazrat Ali was Vishnu, Muhammad took the form of ‘Ved Vayas.’  Some Khojas believe that Ali was God and Muhammad was his messenger.  Nasari (a sub-division of Ism’ailis) believe their Im’ams down to the present Agha Khan as Awtars of Hazrat Ali, and thus like Hazrat Ali are believed to be Gods.  These people, like Hindus, also believe in the transmigration of souls.  They believe in the Quran as the last authenticated Ved: but they do not consider the present Quran to be its true version (page 339-342).  Their Shari’at (religious code of law) varies according to what country they live in.  They follow the Shari’at as is followed by the majority population of that country.

 Im’amia Subsect

Herewith we quote the views of this subsect regarding Im’amat from the book entitled al-Osul-ak-Kaft, by Suqatul-Islam Muhammad bin Yaqub bin Ishal al Kalini al-Razi (died 329 A.H.).  This is the most reliable and authenticated book of Hadith amongst them and serves as a pillar of their religion.

            As stated already, the direct transfer of knowledge from God to a certain person is called Wahi or revelation, and that the message of Wahi received by Muhammad today lies safely in the pages of the Quran and that God has taken Himself the safety of this message.  This is exactly what the Quran teaches us.  Khatme Nubuwwat or the close of the divine message through the messengers of God signifies that in Deen or the way of life prescribed by God, the authority is only that of the Quran, the last book of God, and after the Quran was revealed, nobody had the right to claim that such and such a thing is from God almighty, unless it was consistent with the Quranic teachings.   Direct receipt of knowledge from God is the peculiarity of the Nabee, who is a recipient of revelation.  But we find in the book al-Osul al-Kafi that the shias have attributed this unique qualification to the Im’am as well: although they have not used the word Im’am in this respect, they have used the word Muhaddath instead.  We find one Hadith in this book which runs as follows: “Zahara relates that he asked Im’am Muhammad Baqar, to explain the difference between the words Nabee (a recipient of divine message) and Rasool, a deliverer of the divine message, as they occur in the Quranic verse (19:54).  The Im’am replied that Nabee is the one who hears the voice of the angel and can hear his voice; and Rasool is the one who hears the voice of the angel and can see him both in a dream, as while as while awake.  Zahara next asked, what would be the position of an Im’am in this respect; Im’am Muhammad Baqar replied, “An Im’am hears the voice but does not see the angel.”  After that he recited verse 22:52 of the Quran as follows: “Wa ma ‘arsalana min qablika mir-rasuulinawaa la naiyyin (wal muhaddas) illaa…” (al-Kafi, Volume 1, page 203)

              The first surprise is the extra words ‘wal Muhaddas’ here, which is not present in the Quran.  But according to the Shias, this is how the Ahele-e-bai’at (the family of the Holy Messenger) read it.  This is not a singular instance, we find so many other Quranic verses quoted in al-Kafi which contain extra words.  But here the main point of our discussion is the word Muhaddas. As stated already, a Muhaddas according to them is one to whom an angel delivers the divine message, he can hear the voice of an angel but cannot see him.  Another Hadith says, “Muhaddas is one who talks with the angel, hears his voice, but does not see him either in a dream or while awake.”  According to yet another Hadith Hazrat Ali said, “Amongst my descendants eleven Im’ams are Muhaddaseen.” (al-Kafi, Volume 1, page 281) 

            One may conclude from what has been said above that as far as the transmission of knowledge from God to man is concerned there remains no difference between a Messenger and a Muhaddas.  There are scores of Ahadis in Shafi Volume 1, in which the rank of an Im’am is shown to be equal or even superior to t