Mukhtaṣar A`lām al-Ḥanafiyyah min Ahl-ul-Bayt” Scholars of Ahlul-Sunnah from Ahlul-Bayt (Part 1)
Yüklə 1,23 Mb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Allama Hasan Musa Naubahti in his book “Firag ush shia” wrote
- The rise of Hezbollah
- Musa Al-Sadr and the roots of the story
1. It says in Anwar-ul-Na’umania, a Shia book, Abdullah Ibn-i-Saba was the first who declared the faith in Imamat and that Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is the true God [Na’uzubillah]. [Anwar-ul-Na'umania, Vol 2, Pg 234 - Published Iran]
“Many knowledgeable people have stated that Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew who had accepted Islam and showed great devotion for Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). As a Jew, he used to exaggerated the personality of Joshua, the son of Nun, and the Wasi of Moses. After becoming a Muslim he began to exalt the personality of Hadhrat Ali much beyond the due limit, and he was the first person to declare that it was obligatory to believe in the Imamate of Hadhrat Ali, and completely dissociated himself form his enemies and he openly opposed them and denounced them as infidels”. [Rijal-i-Kashi, page.71].
“Abdullah bin Saba was a Jew and lived in Sana. His mother was called Sauda. He embraced Islam during the period of Hadhrat Uthman. he roamed through the Muslim cities and tried to seduce the Muslims from the straight path. He launched his diabolical campaign from Hijaz and then visited Basra, Kufa and Syria. None of the Syrians cooperated with him. On the contrary, they drove him out of Syria. Thus he moved over to Egypt and settled down there permanently. He started drumming into the minds of the Egyptians that it was strange they believed in the return of Christ and denied the return of Hadhrat Muhammad [peace be upon him]. God himself had declared. Therefore he has a better claim to return to the world in comparison with Christ. He fabricated the concept of the ‘return’ or resurrection and the Egyptians turned in into a hot debating issue.” 4. Hafiz Ibn Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) and Hafiz Ibn Athir (may Allah have mercy on him) have commented on it on similar lines and Allama Ibn Khaldun (may Allah have mercy on him) has also written about it, “Abdullah bin Saba, who was popularly known as Ibn Sauda, was a Jew. He had left his country during the tenure of Hadhrat Uthman but he had not embraced Islam from the core of his heart. When he was honked out of Basra, he left for Kufa from where he made a bee – line for Syria. The Syrians also whipped him out of their country and he left for Egypt. He made Hadhrat Uthman (may Allah have mercy on him) the special butt of his critical remarks and secretly invited people to institute the Khilafat of the Ahl-i-Bait. He pressed upon people to launch the campaign and he spared no opportunity to criticize the rulers. Some of the people openly sided with him. They had come from different cities and therefore they kept up their links through correspondence. Khalid bin Maljim, Saudan bin Hamran and Kinana bin Basher supported the campaign launched by Abdullah bin Saba. They had also persuaded Ammar not to return to Madina. Ammar was one of those people who had openly lambasted Hadhrat Uthman (may Allah have mercy on him) for first turning Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) out of Syria into Madina and then for pushing him out of Madina towards Abzah, though, under the circumstances, the action of Hadhrat Uthman was justified. Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him), out of the intensity of his piety and austerity, used to force people to lead their lives on similar lines and to learn to face the hardships of life. He persuaded people to stock for themselves not more than a day’s ration. He also illustrate ed with reasoning the undesirability of hoarding gold and silver. Ibn Saba used to instigate Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) against Hadhrat Muawiyah by stressing that he supported the distribution of goods among the people. Hadhrat Abu Zar (may Allah have mercy on him) started condemning Hadhrat Muawiyah (may Allah have mercy on him). Hadhrat Muawiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) coaxed him a little and told him : I’ll also harp on the same turn that all goods belong to Allah.” 5. Hafiz ibn Hajr (may Allah have mercy on him) has related on the authority of Tarikh Abi Asakir, “He belonged to Yemen. He was a Jew, but he had donned the guise of Islam and roamed through the Muslim cities to lead the Muslims astray and dissuade them from the obedience of their Imams and to sow dissension among them. He also visited Damascus with this end in view”. [Tarikh Damishq, 7:430]
“Ibn Sauda was a Jew who had donned the gown of Islam to addle the faith of the Muslims”. 7. Abu Muhammad Hassan bin Musa has unraveled these secrets. He is the earliest Shia historian who has given an account of the Shia sects. He is one of the most famous Shias of the third century A.H. He writes, “Sabais are the companions of Abdullah bin Saba. Abdullah bin Saba made faces at Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and other companions (may Allah be pleased with them) of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and disaffiliated himself from them and he imputed his acts to the command of Hadhrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). When Hadhrat Ali caught hold of him and asked him about it, he confessed to it. After his confession, he ordered him to be executed. On hearing the order, [quite a few people] made a humble submission to Hadhrat Ali : O Amir-ul-Momineen ! You have ordered the execution of a person who professes your friendship and the love of your Ahl-i-Bait. Hadhrat Ali complied with the submission and exiled him to Madain.” 8. The famous Shia biographer Istrabadi says, “Abdullah bin Saba claimed that Hadhrat Ali is Allah and he is his Prophet. When the news reached the Amir-ul-Momineen, he sent for him and asked him about it. He owned it and insisted that he is really the one [who is the referee of his claim]. The Amir-ul-Momineen said : The devil has seduced you. Therefore you should repent at once. But he refused to repent and he put him behind the bars for three days. When he did not repent even after three days, he burned him alive”. 9. Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jailani Baghdadi (may Allah have mercy on him) says, “The followers of Abdullah bin Saba are called Sabains. Ibn Saba relied on exaggeration about the status of Hadhrat Ali and claimed that he was a prophet. Then, relying on further exaggeration he claimed that he [Hadhrat Ali] was God and he invited a party of the Kufi rebels to adopt these beliefs. When the news reached Hadhrat Ali, he had some of these people thrown into two pits of fire, as has been hinted at by a poet .” 10. All the Shia scholars have given an account of Ibn Saba, his views and beliefs and his party ; Sayyid Qummi [who died in 301 A.H.], Sheikh Taifah Tusi, Tastri in Qamus-ur-Rijal, Abbas Qummi inTohfat-ul-Ahbab, Khu Ansari in Raudhat-ul-Jannat, Sabhani in Nasikh-ut-Tawarikh and the author ofRaudhat-us-Safa, have all mentioned him and his party”. 11. Allamah Shahrastani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes under the heading of Sabaism, “Sabais are the followers of Abdullah bin Saba who had told Hadhrat Ali [r.a]: you are you i.e., you are God, but he had extradited him to Madain The historians suggest that he was actually a Jew, but he had tacked on to himself the label of Islam. During the Jewish phase, he used to claim that Hadhrat Y’osha bin Nun was the executor of Moses [a.h].” 12. Ibn Asakar has cited a tradition of Hadhrat Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) in his history, “When the oath of allegiance was taken at the hand of Hadhrat Ali and he delivered his address, Abdullah bin Saba stood up and said: you are “Dabat-ul-Ardh” [Tarikh Damishq]
“It is known as the Sabai sect because Abdullah bin Saba was its ring leader. “ [Khandan-i-Nau-Bakhti, page 275]
“The enigmatic Abdullah ibn Saba who was convertered into Islam…embarrased Ali with his excessive venertion…” [History of the Arabs, p.248 - London]
“Abdullah ibn Saba had travelled widely throughout the Empire, as Tabari says, “seeking to lead the Moslems into error…Another of his teachings that was more immediately, influential was that every Prophet has a wasi and that Ali was the wasi of Muhammed…” [The Sheit Religion of Islam, Part. 6 p.41]
“[Abdullah ibn Saba] He was the native of San’s in Yemen…He opened a campaign of behalf of Ali suggesting that Abu Bakar, Umar, and Usman were usurpers…” [Shias of Hind p.15]
“Abdullah ibn Saba had hailed Ali with the words, “Thou art Thou.”… [Al-Ibanah alUsul al-Diyanah, p.7-8]
“Now the Shi’ite theory of Divine Right certainly harmonised with Persian ideas, …Abdullah ibn Saba…went from place to place, seeking to lead Moslems into error…” [The History of the Arabs, p.215]
“…ibn Saba, a Jew from the South of Arabia…he became the setter forth of strange and startling doctrines…Ali was his legate, Usmsn was a usurper…” [Al-Khilafat, Us ka Urooj, Inhetit aur Zawaal, p.217]
Jew of Yemen, Arabia, of the seventh century, who settled in Medina and embraced Islam. Having adversely criticized Calif Othman’s administration, he was banished from the town. Thence he went to Egypt, where he founded an antiothmanian sect, to promote the interests of Ali. On account of his learning he obtained great influence there, and formulated the doctrine that, just as every prophet had an assistant who afterward succeeded him, Mohammed’s vizier was Ali, who had therefore been kept out of the califate by deceit. Othman had no legal claim whatever to the califate; and the general dissatisfaction with his government greatly contributed to the spread of Abdallah’s teachings. Tradition relates that when Ali had assumed power, Abdallah ascribed divine honors to him by addressing him with the words, “Thou art Thou!” Thereupon Ali banished him to Madain. After Ali’s assassination Abdallah is said to have taught that Ali was not dead but alive, and had never been killed; that a part of the Deity was hidden in him; and that after a certain time he would return to fill the earth with justice. Till then the divine character of Ali was to remain hidden in the imams, who temporarily filled his place. It is easy to see that the whole idea rests on that of the Messiah in combination with the legend of Elijah the prophet. The attribution of divine honors to Ali was probably but a later development, and was fostered by the circumstance that in the Koran Allah is often styled “Al-Ali” [The Most High]. Bibliography: Shahrastani al-Milal, pp. 132 et seq. (in Haarbrücken’s translation, i. 200-201); Weil, Gesch. der Chalifen, i. 173-174, 209, 259.H. Hir.
“Abdullah ibn Saba was a Jewish and he [supposedly] accepted Islam during the time of Hazrat Usman (may Allah have mercy on him) and he urged the people of Egypt to kill Hadhrat Usman (may Allah have mercy on him) and he would show musch love for Hadhrat Ali (may Allah have mercy on him). He was a khabis from inside and his only mission was to create fitna among the Muslims.” عبد اللّه بن سبا كان يهوديا فاسلم ايام عثمان وهوالذى حمل اهل مصر على قتل عثمان واظهر
[Musnad Imam-i-Azam, p.158] 23. Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jailani (may Allah have mercy on him) says, “Sabain sect are attributed towards Abdullah ibn Saba and they said Hadhrat Ali is alive and will come back before Qiyamat.” [Ghunyat al-Talibin]
[Rijal-i-Kashi, p.100] [Qamus al-Rijal, 5:46] 25. Allamah Shahrastani (may Allah have mercy on him) writes: “Abdullah ibn Saba…was the first person who said that Imamat of Hadhrat Ali (may Allah have mercy on him) is proven from nas.” [Al-Milal wa al-Nahal, 1:174]
“Sabians are companions of Abdullah Ibn saba, …… Abdullah bin Saba’, was the first who slandered Abu Bakr [r.a], Omar [r.a], Othman [r.a] and the Companions and disowned them.” [Al-Maqalat wal-Firaq, p.20]
First shia scholar ibn Saba June 1, 2010 at 2:19 am | Posted in History | Leave a comment
i
Rate This 
Allama Hasan Musa Naubahti in his book “Firag ush shia” wrote: “Some people of knowledge from companions of Ali said that: “Abdulla ibn Saba was yahudi who accepted islam. He was supporter of Ali . While a Jew, he propounded the exaggerative notion that Yusha ibn Nun was divinely appointed to succeed Prophet Musa, after accepting islam, he adopted a similar stance with regard to `Ali in relation to the Holy Prophet (after his death). He (ibn Saba) was the first man who told that believe in imamat of Ali is obligatory, and he openly vitriolated his enemies (i.e. the first three Caliphs) and branded them as infidels. That is why those who opposses to shia say:”The origin of Rafd is thus based on Judaism”" 
A time line of Shiite/Raafidah treasons to Islam and crimes against Muslims May 3, 2010 at 3:10 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
The following is a brief history of the turmoils and grand events that occurred within a millennium between the Grand Fitnah against Othman Bin Affan in the first century of Hijrah and the Grand Conspiracy against the Ottomans in the 14th century of Hijrah. In this, we shall demonstrate the role of the Hypocrite Jews and their Supporters in all ages in plotting against Islam and Muslims . (1) Early in the 1st Century (h), The second Khalifah was assasinated, as well as the third and the forth consecutively. The seeds for civil and sectarian wars were planted and the creation of the first reverted cryptic group took place, under the cover of the love of Ahl al-Bayt and the defense of their rights to government. This was accomplished due to the efforts of the hypocrite Jew Abdullah Bin Sabaa’ who claimed afterwards the Divinity of Ali, thus was the creation of the early Shiiat groups known as Saba’ism. These groups have played a dangerouse role in changing one reign with another and and forcing their creed on the people. They have pulled the carpet from under the Umayyads and stabed the Abbasites in the back and sat on the thrones of Allepo, Damascuss, Cairo and other Muslim cities and countries. (2) In the 4th century (h), among them were numerouse grand consultants and secretaries. One of the foremost criminals was Abu Faraj Yaacob Bin Yousef Bin Killes (Jew), who had unlimited control over the people and the land during the reign of the Fatimis, al-Aziz Billah (365-385 h). This lasted until the people were fed up with the Jews’ & Christians’ control of the highest offices in the state, not to mention the intentional loss of battles with the Crusaders on the Mediterranean coasts. In fact, the governor of Askalan, who was one of them, gave up the city to the enemies with no justification, which resulted in his death when the soldiers and people revolted. This is exactly like when Syria gave up the Golan Hights to the Jews, with no justification either, in 1967. In 386 (h), al-Hakim Bi-Amrillah became the Khalifa over the Fatimis Khilafa and was extremely prejudiced to his Shii’sm and oppressive to people. His reign lasted until the year 411 (h) when he declared his divinity with the support of the jew Mustakeen al-Durzi, a group of Muslims then abducted and killed him. Durzi escaped and founded the sect Lebanon & Syria that bears his name now. The jews had and still have good relations with the Druze, and the Druze continued to offer the Israelis their services even now. (3) In the 5th century (h), Iraq was ruled by a Shiia government known as the Buwaihi State which also governed Persia. During their reign, the jews attained the highest positions whereby they controlled the financial revenues and the political affairs, which resulted in the revolt of the people against the authorities in Iraq and the burning of the Jews’ & Shiias’ houses in 422 (h). It is a historical fact that the Buwaihis supported the Kurmutis movement with finance and weapons, and the Jews played a significant role in distributing aid and assistance to the revolutionist Kurmutis due to their position in the state. (4) In the 7th century (h), The Shiia played a significant role in the fall of Baghdad to Holaco king of Tatars, due to to the betrayal of the Ibn al-Alkami to his Master al-Musta’sim Billah, the last Khalifa of the A bbasites. Indeed, the Fall of Baghdad is far greater in tragedy than any illustration or description. Many Muslims back then thought the Judgement Day was at hand, about 2 millions muslims were killed. (5) In the 8th century (h), some of the Tatar Kings converted to Islam and some embraced the Shiia Religion. Among those who embraced Shiia Religion was Ghyiathuddin Khuda Muhammad who was far harsher in treatment to Muslims than his ancestors. He allied himself with the Jews and the Crusaders against the Muslims, and during his reign the Jews assumed the highest positions in Baghdad, al-Moosel and Ibn Amr Island. In that they had all the authority to oppress the Muslims in any shape or manner. Furthermore, he (Ghyathuddin) allied himself with the Pope and Kings of England and France to fight the Muslims of Ahlul Sunnah. However when his son Abu Sa’eed Bahader Khan 716 (h) (who was following Ahlul Sunnah wal-Jamaa’a unlike his father) came to power he cut all relations with the Crusaders and removed all Jews from their positions and forced all Ahl-e-Kitaab to wear a special uniform to distinguish them from Muslims. Muslims were finally at ease; their joy did not last long due to the assasination of Abu Sa’eed by the Jews in 736 (h) may Allah bestow His mercy upon him. (6) In the 10th century (h), the Shiias had a state known as the Safawi State. Again, the Jews had attained the highest ranking positions and took a good advantage of it by instigating the Safawis to declare war on the Sunni Ottoman State. They arranged a treaty with the Portuguese who at the time were controlling the Arabian ( Persian ) Gulf and colonized Hormuz Island for use as a base for their fleet during the reign of Ismael the 1st, in the year 930 (h). Under the reign of his successor Tamasif, the relations between the Safawis and the Portuguese became even stronger and he went further into negotiations with Rome and Queen Elizabeth of England (962 h.) to enter into a ‘defense alliance’ between the Safawis and the British to declare war against the Ottomans. During his reign Ismael the 1st (995 h.) brought British experts to train his army and sought assistance of the British Fleet to conquer Bahrain, a battle that ended with the victory of the Ottomans. At the end of the Battle, the Commander of the Ottoman forces wrote to the Khalifa a report in which he said in describing the battle and the Shiia : “They are a group of hideous idiots, athiests KUZULBASH.” Kuzulbash means that they wore a distinctive red turban which differentiated them from Ahlul Sunnah. The turban was made of 12 rounds in symbolism of their sect of 12 Imams. As to the red color, it was to symolise the bloody hatred they had in their chests towards the Sunnis. (7) In the 14th century (h), a catastrophe befell the Khilafa System, and Muslims reverted to Kufr in groups, and continue to do so until today. This is but a drop in the ocean of what the Jews and Shiia have done against Islam & Muslims throughout a 1000 year, disguising themselves falsely as Muslims when they are indeed servants to falsehood, Kufr and Athiesm. Their mission is to spread corruption and mischief in the land so the Jews can have the control over the land and its inhabitants. And the so-called Islamic sects continue to present at all times the stabs one after the other to Islam and Muslims, to this hour. Therefore, the Jews and their allies were behind the first assasination of Khalifa in Islam as well as to the fall of the last Khalifa of Islam. The Jews and their allies were behind the first political revert (riddah) in Islam as well as behind the greatest crime against Islam, when they conspired to abolish the Ottoman Khilafa in the early 20th century. The Jews were always in leadership of all groups breaking away from Islam as well as behind the religions falsely attributed to Islam. One indeed stands amazed before the history pages due to the numerouse turmoils and conspiracies sewed by the Jews and their allies of the IslaJudaic or IslaJoosism (Majoos) groups. Specially at the distruction befell the land on the hands of the evil Kurmutis , the fitan of Khurramiya, the zung revolution, the Tatar barbarism, the Isma’ilis assasinations, the Nusairis betrayals, or the Shiiat alliance with the Christians and their espinage for the Crusaders. To apoint , that the Muslim Ulama’ gave a fatwa declaring him a kafir who use any member of these groups in the defense forces, not even as watchmen. These groups at one time have caused the death of thousands of pilgrims, and removed the Black Stone from its place in Ka’bah to Bahrain. They have also caused the destruction of Basrah and its fire with other Iraqi cities. It was these groups who aided the Crusaders to colonize the Mediterranean Coasts and led them to the gates of Jerusalem. They are the ones who caused the Fall of Baghdad and the destruction of an Islamic Civilization took Muslims centuries to establish…The fire consumed all structures and the river consumed all the books that contained valuable knowledge, dead corps were all over, and the throne of Khilafa became vacant. The historians then, considered the lose of Khilafa much more greater than that of all lost materially. It was the first time in Muslims history since the death of the Prophet [pbuh] that the Grand position of Khilafa or Imam which is a Fard and a Must, becomes vacant. The situation remained as such for three and a hlaf years, as Ibn Kathir mentioned in his History. As for Ibn al-Alkami, Holaco rewarded him by leaving him in his position as Wazeer(minister), and after his death, appointed his son Al-Fadl Abu Izzideen bin Muhammad bin al-Alkami who was even much more worse than his father on Muslims than the Tatar. Although the lose in the Fall of Baghdad was severe and painful, yet it is compared light to the lose of the Khilafa in the early 20th century. For the Muslims in the former catastrophy, were able to stand on there feet within few years, while in the later…a century almost passed by and they are not up yet. The body of the Ottoman Empire was cut into pieces, and each piece into many other pieces. And Muslims became nations and countries AGREED NEVER TO AGREE AMONG ITSELVES ON ANYTHING. Their situation is going from bad to worse, from Lebanon to Golan Hights, and from Bosnia to Chechenya, to the Surrender Peace in Palestine. But the danger in the near future lies when the sides of the triangle meets in Palestine, Iran and Ethiopia. And the green light is given to the Imam Muntazar (the 12th Shiiat Imam) or the Messiah to appear. Then the black gold will turn into fire consuming everything, and the sky shall be covered by dark clouds and the land is filled by the probagation of the pupits “This is the Muntazar(awaited one), O winds of the invisible power strike, O grandsons of al-Alkami and students of IbnuSawdaa’…O Kurmutis of the 20th century and all children of the serpent….ARISE..this is your promised day” Then, and only then, the sleeping Muslims will awake to find the State of Israel is stretched from Euphrates to Nile and to find out that the Muntazar has exchanged the Shariah of Muhammad with that of David a s mentioned in Usool al-Kaafi. On that day the Jaws of the pliers can close up on Muslims…the grandsons of the Majoos in the east, and the children of the serpent, west, to have the Serpent of Moses bite them a bite never arise after it unless Allah wills it. On that day “Jehova will cease crying…and will accept no excuse of any nation who did not aid the Jews except of IRAN and Ethiopia” as mentioned in the Talmud. But what really thrills the heart, is that Allah [SWT] is watchful and nothing is hidden from Him. For in the same year Baghdad fell (656 h), Othman Artogrul, founder of the Ottoman Khilafa, was born, which lasted for more than 6 centuries and took revenge for the honor of Islam and Muslims, and have carried the Banner of Islam to East and West, and broke the banners of the crusaders and the Shiia…all by the planning of All Wise the Exalted in Might. But the Da’wah, despite all the grave lost, and the convoys of martyrs, continued and the light of Islam shone in many parts of the world, and new young faces surfacing up among the new Islamic generation making covenant with Allah to go forward on the path of martyrdom until victory. Allah says in Quran :”Do those who practice evil think that they will outstrip us? Evil is their Judgment” “Allah has decreed : It is I and My messengers who must prevail, for Allah is Strong, Mighty” . Origins of Shia April 30, 2010 at 5:52 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
Scholars of Usul Al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) stated the following rule, “One cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it”. Based on this rule, it is meaningless to pass a judgment on Shia unless you have good knowledge about them. It is also meaningless to express one’s opinion on reconciling the views of Sunnis and Shiites without recognizing the nature of both sects. Likewise, it is of no real sense to accept or reject talking about Shia without knowing the reality of the issue, to what extent it is dangerous, its rank as to our priorities and its relation to the multiple variables the Ummah is facing. In short, before we proceed to criticize opponents or proponents of Shia, we should first understand who Shia are, what their origins are, what their theological and Fiqhi (Jurisprudential) backgrounds are, what their history is about, what their reality is an what their goals and ambitions are. Only after doing this, we can express our view foresightedly, especially when we know how many people changed their long-believed views and give up their ideas after they had been provided with sound information and clear vision. Who are Shia? The issue is not merely that of certain people living in a certain country who have some disputes with neighboring countries. Rather, it is an issue of theological, historical and Fiqhi backgrounds that have to be referred to. Many historians differ on the real beginning of Shia. What is commonly believed by the masses is that Shia are those people who supported `Ali bin Abu Talib during the caliphate of Mu`awiyah bin Abu Sufyan, (may Allah be pleased with him). Accordingly, this means that those who supported `Ali bin Abu Talib are Shia while those who supported Mu`awiyah are Sunnis. Such a notion has never been accepted by anyone. Moreover, Sunnis believe with regard to the dispute that arose between the two honorable Companions that `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the right, while Mu`awiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) exercised Ijtihad (independent judgment) but did not reach the truth. Thus, Sunnis thought is clearly siding with `Ali. Moreover, tenets, doctrines and ideologies held by Shia are entirely different from those held by `Ali bin Abu Talib absolutely. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the rise of Shia was at that era. Some historians say that the rise of Shia was after Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred. This opinion sounds to be more logical. Actually, Al-Hussein rebelled against the rule of Yazid bin Mu`aweiyah and, therefore, headed for Iraq after his followers there had promised to back him. However, they let him down at the critical time, which led to the martyrdom of Al-Hussein at Karbala. The group of people who invited him and failed to support him regretted doing so and decided to expiate their sin through rebelling against the Umayyad state. They actually did so and a large number of them were killed and thus were called Shia. This might explain why we notice that Shia are more attached to Al-Hussein bin `Ali than to `Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) himself. They also, as we can see, mark the anniversary of Al-Hussein’s martyrdom while don not mark that of `Ali bin Abu Talib. However, this sect only rose as a political one opposing the rule of the Umayyad dynasty and backed any attempts to rebel against it. Until that time, they did not hold theological or jurisprudential principles different from those of Sunnis. We will even come to know that earlier leaders whom Shiites claim to be their earlier Shia Imams were only Sunni men adopting doctrines and principles of Sunnis. The situation continued to be stable for months after the martyrdom of Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with him). At this period lived `Ali Zainul-`Abdin bin Al- Hussein who was one of the most righteous personalities and great ascetic scholars. He has never been reported to have any beliefs or ideologies different from those held by Companions and later generations. `Ali Zainul-`Abdin had two sons of a high level of piety and purity, namely, Mohammed Al-Baqir and Zaid, both of whom completely believed in beliefs held by Sunni scholars including Companions and Successors. However, Zaid bin `Ali (may Allah have mercy on him) differed in viewing that `Ali bin Abu Talib was worthier of assuming caliphate than Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Although this opinion conflicts with the Ummah’s consensus and contradicts many Hadith that explicitly held Abu Bakr Al-Siddik, `Umar and `Uthman in a higher rank than `Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), this difference of opinion, however, does not relate to doctrinal issues. While he viewed that `Ali was the best, he, however, admitted the high rank of the first three caliphs. He also believed in the permissibility of one less in rank assuming imamate despite the existence of those higher in rank. Accordingly, he did not deny the imamate of Abu Bakr, `Umar and `Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them). Apart from this view, he concurred with Sunnis in theology, principles and Fiqh. Repeating the attempt of his grandfather Al-Hussein bin `Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both), Zaid bin `Ali rebelled against the Umayyad caliph Hisham bin Abdul-Malik, which ended up with his being killed in 122 A.H. His followers then founded a sect based on his ideas, known in history as Zaydiyyah, named after Zaid bin `Ali. Though considered to be a Shia-based sect, Zaydiyyah agrees with Sunnis in everything except in holding `Ali in a higher position than the first three Caliphs. The followers of this sect are mainly in Yemen and they are the nearest Shia sects to Sunnis – even one can hardly distinguish them from Sunnis in most respects. It is worth mentioning that a group of the followers of Zaid bin `Ali asked him about his opinion on Abu Bakr and `Umar. In reply, he supplicated Allah to show mercy to both of them, but those who asked him refused to do the same and seceded from his sect. Therefore, they were known in the history as Rafidah (lit. dissenters) because they rejected the caliphate of Abu Bakr and `Umar on one hand, and rejected Zaid’s opinion on the other. Subsequent generations of such a group founded a sect which was later known as Ithna `Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah) to turn into Shia’s largest sect. Mohammed Al-Baqir, Zaid bin `Ali’s brother, died eight years before his brother (in 114 A.H.) leaving behind a son who became the reverend scholar Ja`far Al-Sadiq. The latter was a prominent scholar and a proficient Faqih (Jurisprudent), who held the same theology believed in by Companions, Successors and Muslim scholars in general. Late at the era of the Umayyad caliphate, the Abbasid movement started activities aiming at rallying people against the Umayyad caliphate. The movement collaborated with the groups which seceded from Zeid bin `Ali and both toppled the Umayyad caliphate in 132 A.H. The Abbasid caliphate came to power headed by the founder Abul-`Abbas Al-Saffah and his successor Abu Ja`far Al-Mansur. Those who collaborated with this movement felt disappointed as they sought to establish a caliphate ruled by one of `Ali bin Abu Talib’s grandchildren. Therefore, those people formed a group called Al-Talibiyyun (lit. proponents of `Ali bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) compared to Abbasids who are named after Al-`Abbas bin Abdul-Muttalib) with the aim of staging a coup against the Abbasid caliphate. Until this era, there were no essential theological or jurisprudential violations except that of the criticism of Abu Bakr and `Umar; actually, some of them who seceded from Zaid bin `Ali rejected them and would even curse them in public. Ja`far Al-Sadik died in 148 A.H. leaving behind a son called Musa Al-Kazim, who was also a scholar but less in rank than his father. He died in 183 A.H. leaving behind some sons including `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida. It happened that the Abbasid caliph al Ma’mun sought to contain the rebellion of Al-Talibiyyun who claimed the caliphate for the descendants of `Ali bin Abu Talib rather than those of Al-`Abbas. Thus, he nominated `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida as the crown prince, which fueled a fierce controversy among Abbasids. However, `Ali bin Musa Al-Rida suddenly died in 203 A.H., but Al-Talibiyyun accused Al-Ma’mun of killing him and once again staged successive revolutions against Abbasids just as they did with Umayyads. Anyway, passage of years gave room for revolutions to relatively calm down. Until that time, Shia had not yet adopted an independent religious school of thought to be called Shia. Rather, there were only political movements aiming at assuming power and opposing rulers due to many reasons which did not include such theological reasons as those held by Shia now. Strikingly, such dissenting calls found support on a large scale in the Persian region (currently Iran). Actually, many inhabitants of such a region felt sorry for the fall of the huge Persian empire and its fusion into the Islamic state. They, Persians, considered themselves of a higher race, a better ethnicity and a greater history than Muslims. This feeling led to the rise of Persophilia – an ideology which means giving priority to their race and ethnicity over anything even Islam. Some of them even showed deep adherence to their Persian roots, lock, stock and barrel, even the fire which they once worshiped. As they were not powerful enough to rebel against the Islamic state, and being Muslims for decades, they found the Al-Talibiyyun’s revolutions a way through which they would seek to topple the Islamic caliphate which toppled their Persian state before. In the same time, they did not want to forsake Islam which they embraced for many years. They, however, decided to interpolate it through injecting into it the heritage of the Persian state so as to secure instability within the Muslim Ummah. They kept a low profile, while Al-Talibiyyu maintained the high profile. Bearing in mind that Al-Talibiyyun are affiliated to `Ali bin Abu Talib, are a part of the Prophet’s Household and thus held in a high esteem by people, such people secured continuation of there mission. Thus, attempts of Persophils united with those of Al-Talibiyyun belonging to the Prophet’s Household to form a new independent, not only political but also religious, entity. Back to Al-Talibiyyun, we can see that after the death of `Ali Al-Rida whom Abbasid Caliph Al-Ma’mun nominated as the crown prince, he was succeeded by his son Mohammed Al-Jawad who died in 220 A.H. The latter was also succeeded by his son `Ali bin Mohammed Al-Hadi who died in 254 A.H. Finally, the latter was succeeded by Al-Hassan bin `Ali called Al-`Askary who also died suddenly in 260 A.H. leaving behind a young 5-year-old son, Mohammed. Throughout previous years, separatist movements, which consisted of some of the Prophet’s Household and Persophils, would swear allegiance to the elder son of Al-Talibiyyun’s leader, starting with `Ali Al-Rida and ending with Al-Hassan Al-`Askary. Concerning the ascendants of `Ali Al-Rida, such as his father Musa Al-Kazim or his grandfather Ja`far Al-Sadik or his grandfather’s father Mohammed Al-Baqir, they did not assume the revolutionary leadership against Umayyad or Abbasid rule. However, after Al-Hassan Al-`Askary had died in 260 A.H., revolutionists got totally confused as to who is to assume leadership when Al-Hassan Al-`Askary left behind a young son. They even got more confused after the sudden death of that young son. This resulted in dividing such revolutionary groups into many sects each different from the other in terms of principles and ideas as well as even in laws and beliefs. The most famous among such sects is Ithna `Ashriyyah (Imamiyyah), now prevailing in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. It is the biggest Shiite sect at present. The leaders of this sect started to add to Islam ideas that would work best for situations they are exposed to currently and that may ensure the continuation of their sect despite the absence of their leader. They added many serious Bid’ahs (innovations in religion) to the religion of Islam, claiming them to be part and parcel of Islam. Thus, such Bid’ahs, with the passage of time, became a key component of their ideology and thought. Some of such Bid’ahs relate to Imamate (caliphate). Seeking a justification for the lack of a current imam, they argued that Imams are twelve only, arranging them in the following order: 1- `Ali bin Abu Talib, 2- Al-Hassan bin `Ali, 3- Al-Hussein bin `Ali, 4- `Ali Zainul-`Abidin bin Al-Hussein, 5- Mohammed Al-Baqir bin Zainul-`Abidin, 6- Ja`far Al-Sadik bin Mohammed Al-Baqir, 7- Musa Al-Kazim, 8- `Ali Al-Rida, 9- Mohammed Al-Jawad, 10- `Ali Al-Hadi, 11- Mohammed Al-Mahdi and 12- Al-Hassan Al-`Askary. That is why this sect is called Ithna `Ashriyyah. Seeking to justify why the Imam succession came to an end, they claimed that the young child Muhammad bin Al-Hassan Al-`Askary has not died yet, and that, according to them, he has disappeared in a mountain cave and that he is still alive (over one thousand years now). They further claim that he will be back one day to rule the world. They also believe him to be the Awaited Mahdi (Righteous Imam). They also claimed that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) bequeathed Imamate to those twelve names but Companions withheld such information. This is why they judge Companions in general to be disbelievers (however, some of them judge Companions to be only profligate) as they concealed such a bequeath. Influenced by the Persian system of rule, they introduced the inevitability of the monarchical system believing that the Imam must be the elder son of `Ali bin Abu Talib and likewise all succeeding Imams. As known to all, this notion is not Islamic at all. Even Sunni Islamic states based on a monarchical system, such as Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Ayyubi and Ottoman caliphates, never considered the monarchical system to be a part of religion or that ruling must be on a dynasty basis. Influenced also by Persia, they introduced sanctification of the ruling dynasty. Accordingly, they believed in the infallibility of the aforementioned Imams and thus considered their sayings to be as holy as the Qur’an and Prophetic Hadith. Moreover, most of their Fiqhi (jurisprudential) rules are even derived from the sayings of Imams, regardless of whether these sayings are authentically or falsely attributed to them. Furthermore, in his book “Islamic Government”, Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, stated, “One of the fundamentals of our ideology is that our Imams are higher in rank than devoted angels and prophets.” Hence, this explains their bitter hostility to all Companions (except for a few of them who do not exceed thirteen). They also show hostility to even some of the Prophet’s Household, such as Al-`Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Allah’s Messenger’s uncle, and his son Abdullah bin `Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), the great scholar of the Ummah. Unarguably, hostility to these two figures and judging them to be disbelievers is due to the historical conflict between Ithna `Ashriyyah and Abbasid caliphate. Among their Bid`ahs also is that they consider most Muslim countries to be Darul-Kufr (House of disbelief). They also judge the people of Medina, Mecca, Egypt and Levant to be disbelievers, falsely reporting the Messenger of Allah to have said something in this regard and thus believe it to be a part of their religion. You can refer to such ideas in their original resources, such as Al-Kafy, Bihar Al-Anwar and Tafsir Al-Qummi, Tafsir Al-`Ayyashi, Al-Burhan and other books. Consequently, they do not acknowledge any Sunni scholars and all the authentic Hadith books, such as Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Nasa’i. They also deny the authority of Abu Hanifah, Malik, Al-Shafi`i and Ibn Hanbal. They also do not admit the excellence of Khalid bin Al-Walid or Sa`d bin Abu Waqqas, `Umar bin Abdul-`Aziz,, Musa bin Nusair, Nourul-Din Mahmoud, Salahud-Din, Qutuz and Muhammad Al-Fatih. As a result of their non-recognition of Companions, Successors and books of Hadith and Tafsir (exegesis of the Qur’an), they depended largely on sayings attributed to their Imams through very weak chains of narrators. Consequently, many abhorred Bid’ahs took place regarding their doctrines, acts of worship, transactions and other wakes of life. In this article, I do not intend to give a list of their Bid’ahs; actually, such a goal requires composing many books. I only refer here to the origin of the problem so that we may understand its consequences. However, it requires a lengthy talk to speak about such Bid’ahs as Taqiyyah (a dispensation allowing Shiites to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion) and Raj’a (the second coming or the return to life of their Imams after death), viewing that the Qur’an was interpolated, misbelieving in Allah, Bid’ahs committed at the shrines, building such shrines in mosques, abhorred Bid’ahs committed on the anniversary of Al-Hussein’s Martyrdom and thousands of other Bid’ahs that became key pillars in religion according to Ithna `Ashriyyah. All that I have mentioned so far is only a part of the ideology of Ithna `Ashriyyah. However, there are several other sects that rose during the same period in history, especially during the period known in history as the period of “Shia Bewilderment”, which started as early as the middle of the third century A.H. following the death of Al-Hassan Al-`Askary (the twelfth and last Imam according to them). From this period on, literature and books that plant their ideology and doctrines were composed. Their methodologies spread widely in the Persian region in particular and in the Muslim world in general. However, till then no state was established to officially adopt such ideologies. Anyway, by the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century A.H., serious developments took place that led to Shia assuming power in some areas, which had serious repercussions on the entire Muslim Ummah. This is what I will deal with in the next article, if Allah so wills. However, I have to repeat the rule that “one cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it”. Thus, if we are to take a decision regarding a specific matter or issue, we have to have knowledge about it first. In other words, we can judge something to be right or wrong or say that it is better to do so-and-so only when authentic information is available. Undoubtedly, judgments based of passions and on no study leads certainly to evil consequences. We ask Allah to glorify Islam Muslims. By: Dr. Ragheb El Sergani The Story of Houthis April 27, 2010 at 1:36 am | Posted in History, Uncategorized | Leave a comment
i
Rate This
The story of Houthis is widely circulated in mass media during the last five years. It is a confusing story regarding which there are many conflicting analyses and variant explanations. Actually, the truth is lost between proponents and opponents, advocates and critics. Who are Houthis? When did they rise? What do they target? Why are they fought against by the Yemenite government? To what extent does the influence of universal external powers affect the course of events there? Answer to these question will be the focus of our article which I hope to clear up the mystery of such a complicated story. In the previous article, “The Story of Yemen”, I dealt briefly with the history of rule in Yemen. Through the article, we could know that Zaidi Shiites had authority for as very long period as many centuries and that they remained in authority till 1962 when the Yemen Revolution was staged. We highlighted the difference between Zaidi Shiism widespread in Yemen and Twelver Shiism widespread in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. (We have dealt with it at length in many previous articles such as “Origins of Shia”, “Shia’s Dominance”, “Shia’s Peril” and “Our Attitude Toward Shia”.) Moreover, we spot light in the previous article on the fact that Zaidi Shiites have more in common with Sunnis than with Twelver Shiites. Furthermore, Twelver Shiites do not at all recognize the Imamate of Zaid bin Ali, the founder of Zaidism. On the other hand, Zaidis do not recognize the tremendous theological deviations of Twelver Shiites and do not consent to naming specified twelve Imams. Moreover, they do not agree with them on the claim that Imams are infallible or on their beliefs regarding Taqiyyah (according to Shia, a dispensation allowing Shiites to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion), Raj’ah (refers to the Shia doctrine that certain people will return back to life before thene th Day of Judgement), Bada’ah (the belief that sometimes Almighty Allah gives a command and then finds that it is not appropriate, and he then regrets giving this command), insulting Companions and all other Bid’ahs. We also stated that Twelver Shiites had no existence along the history of Yemen, a situation which only changed during the last few years, which has a direct impact on the story of Houthis. Roots of the story The story began in Sa’dah governorate (240 km northern Sana‘a), where most Zaidi population settle. In 1986, Ittihad Al-Shabab, was formed with the aim of teaching the Zaidi school of thought to its adherents. Badreddin Al-Houthi was a teacher in such an authority. In 1990, Yemen was united and the door was wide open before partisan pluralism. Therefore, Ittihad Al-Shabab turned into Hizbul-Haq (Party of Truth) representing the Zaidi sect in Yemen. Hussein bin Badreddin Al-Houthi rose to be a prominent political leader in the party, who was elected as a parliament member in 1993 and in 1997 AD. Badreddin Al-Houthi These events concurred with the rise of a great disagreement between Badreddin Al-Houthi and other Zaidi scholars in Yemen in view of a historic fatwa approved of by Yemenite Zaidi scholars, foremost of whom is the authority Majd Al-Din Al-Mu’ayyidi. The fatwa was to the effect that it should be no more stipulated for the Imam to be a Hashimite descendant, for such a condition was based on certain historical circumstances. The fatwa also provided that people can choose the ruler they deem fit who does not have to be a descendant of Al-Hassan or Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with both of them). Badreddin Al-Houthi strongly opposed to the fatwa, bearing in mind that he belongs to the Jarudiyyah sect (a Zaidi branch which held beliefs close to those of Twelver Shiites). The situation aggravated when Badreddin Al-Houthi started to publicly propagate the Twlever Shiite thought. In this regard, he composed a book called “Zaidis in Yemen”, in which he highlighted points of resemblance between Zaidi and Twelver Shiites. Strongly opposed because of his thought that is absolutely deviated from Zaidism, he had to immigrate to Tehran where he lived for a number of years. Although Badreddin Al-Houthi left the Yemenite arena, his Twelver-oriented thoughts began to spread especially in the region of Sa’dah and surrounding areas by the end of the 1990s and definitely since 1997 AD. Meanwhile, his son Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi dissented from Hizbul-Haq to form his own group, which at the beginning took the form of a cultural, religious and intellectual group. Moreover, the group also cooperated with the government in resisting the Sunni Islamic current represented in the Yemeni Gathering for Reform party. However, it did not take long before the group has joined the opposition since 2002 AD. Yemenite president: Ali Abdullah Salih Meanwhile, some Yemenite scholars mediated to have Yemenite president Ali Abdullah Salih allow Badreddin Al-Houthi back to Yemen. Al-Houthi returned to Yemen to re-propagate his ideas among his students and disciples. It seems that the Yemenite government underestimated the danger of the newly formed group and the contingent problems it might cause. Fierce Houthis demonstrations marking the beginning of war In 2004, a serious development took place; Houthis led by Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi staged huge demonstrations in the streets of Yemen opposing the American occupation of Iraq. The government reacted violently to these demonstrations on the pretext that Al-Houthi claims to be an Imam, Al-Mahdi and even to be a prophet. This was followed by an open war launched by the government against Shiite Houthis, during which 30,000 Yemenite soldiers were employed in addition to warplanes and artillery. Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi The confront ended up with the group leader Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi killed and a good number of Houthis arrested. The situation ultimately then aggravated. After the death of Hussein, Houthis were led by his father Badreddin Al-Houthi. It came obviously to be known that the Shiite group had long ago been well-armed, bearing in mind that it could stand war against the Yemenite army for years. Thereafter, the Qatari government mediated between Houthis and the Yemenite government in 2008 by virtue of which a peace treaty was convened to the effect of moving Yahia Al-Houthi and Abdul-Karim Al-Houthis, Hussein’s brothers, to Qatar after they surrender their weapons to the Yemenite government. Soon after, the treaty was breached to announce a fresh beginning of war. It even happened that Houthis could expand their dominance to Sa’dah’s neighboring governorates and even try to dominate a seaport which can guarantee a safe reception of reinforcements from abroad. Actually, they now practice their mission and declare confront openly. In fact, it is more a threat to the whole Yemenite regime than an attempt to establish a separate Shiite state. Yemen map Why are Houthis powerful? The question that should arise is: how could such a newly formed group confront the Yemenite government for such so long period? The answer is more urgent bearing in mind that it propagates a Twelver-Shiite thought, which is not prevalent in Yemen in general and thus its adherents constitute, supposedly, a minority. Actually, there are many answers that enlighten our understanding of the issue, including the following: First: It is incomprehensible that a minority group in a Yemenite governorate remains steadfast for such a long period without a constant external help. Analyzing the situation, we can find out that the only country that benefits from the increasing power of the Houthi rebellion is Iran. In fact, it is a Shiite-oriented state which does its best to spread its thought. It will be a glorious victory for Iran if she can help Houthis take power in Yemen, bearing in mind that, by doing so, she will be surrounding one of its archenemies, i.e. KSA. Were this to happen, KSA would be besieged by Houthis in Yemen Iraqi Shia to the north, Shia of the Eastern Region, Kuwait and Bahrain to the east and Shia of Yemen to the south, which will give Iran innumerable pressure points whether in her relation with the Sunni Muslim world or with the US. Actually, this is a more realistic evidence-based than merely a theoretical supposition. An evidence is the amazing conversion of Badreddin Al-Houthi from the moderate Zaidi thought to the deviated Twelver thought although the Yemenite atmosphere has never been influenced by the Twelver thought along the history of Yemen. Moreover, Iran nursed him very passionately and hosted him in Tehran for a number of years. Badreddin Al-Houthi found the doctrine of Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists a KSA besieged by Shia from all directions suitable means to assume power although he is not a descendant of Fatimah (may Allah be pleased with her), a prerequisite of a ruler stipulated by the Zaidi thought. Moreover, Iran is a powerful state which is capable of giving political and economical help to rebels. An evidence of Iran’s support of Houthis is the fact that Iranian Shiite mass media, including such satellite channels of theirs as Al-’Alam, Al-Kawthar and others, adopt the Houthi cause. Moreover, Houthis themselves asked before for the mediation of the Shiite authority Ali Husaini Sistani the Grand Ayatollah in Iraq. Although he is a Twelver Shiite who may be thought of as a stranger by Yemenites, rebels did so to make clear their school-of-thought adherence. In addition, the Yemenite government announced confiscation of many Houthi Iran-made weapons. Furthermore, the Yemenite government constantly give implicit, not explicit, reference to Iran’s support of Houthis. Of course, Iran in turn denied such a support, an easily-grasped political device, especially in the light of the Twelver-based doctrine of Taqiyyah (dispensation allowing Shiites to limitlessly lie). Iran arms Houthis Second: Another factor that gave Houthis the power to remain steadfast is the public sympathy relatively shown by the inhabitants of the region toward rebels, although locals do not tend to believe in their deviated thought. This is due to the very bad economic and social circumstances the locals suffer from. Although Yemen in general has a very poor infrastructure and most Yemenites suffer from extreme poverty, these regions suffer more than other regions and are paid much less attention than other greater Yemenite cities. An indication of this is the fact that the peace treaty concluded between the Yemenite government and Houthis under a Qatari mediation in 2008 provided that the Yemenite government is to undertake a reconstruction plan of Sa’dah, which will be funded by Qatar. However, all reconstruction plans were halted due to the war. What I want to infer is that marginalized and neglected peoples are likely to rise and rebel even in partnership with people form whom they are radically and doctrinally different. Yemenite tribes Third: Rebellion also continued because of the tribal system dominating Yemen. In fact, Yemen consists of tribes and clans which imposes certain important balances of power between different tribes. Many information sources say Houthis receive support from tribes opposing the ruling regime against a background of problems between them and the government that have nothing to do with religion or school of thought. Fourth: Another factor is the mountainous nature of Yemen making it difficult for regular armies to take control. This is because of difficulty of movement among mountains in addition to the multiplicity of caves and grottos and the unavailability of scientific research regarding the roads among such mountains. Moreover, there are no scientific equipments or satellites to observe accurately movement among mountains. Mountainous nature difficult for regular armies Fifth: The problem continued to exist also because the Yemenite government is busy dealing with the call of separating southern Yemen from northern Yemen. Many demonstrations demanded separation which was also demanded by Ali Salim Al-Beidh the former President of South Yemen, who, in a televised speech from Germany, called for a return of South Yemen. Actually, such a situation distracted the Yemenite government, army and intelligence, which had the effect of weakening their grasp over Houthis. Sixth: Some analytics explain the continuation of rebellion in the context that the Yemenite government itself wants it to continue. This is because it considers the existence of rebellion Demonstrations demanding South Yemen separation a pressure point that it can use to achieve international gains, most important of which is cooperation with the US in the so-called war on terrorism. In fact, the US alludes to a relationship between Houthis and Al-Qaedah organization. However, I view this supposition very unlikely as the school of thought adhered to by Al-Qaedah organization is entirely different from that of Twelver Shiites. Nevertheless, the US wants to poke its nose in all the regions of the Muslim world based on a variety of justifications in order to achieve her objectives. On the other hand, Yemen likes to make use of such a relationship in order to gain political and economical support or at least have the US overlook human rights, dictatorship and other files Westerners want to open. Apart from the benefits awaited from the Yemen’s relationship with the US, other benefits are still to be reaped from the KSA. In fact, the KSA considers supporting Yemen politically and economically in order to resist the Shiite agenda of Houthis. In this regard, continuation of the problem provides a constant source of support for Yemen, not only from the KSA but also from such other countries as Qatar and UAE. Ali Salim Al-Beidh Regardless of what reasons are, the problem is still in effect, which represents, in my opinion, a serious situation. Accordingly, Yemen has to adopt a serious stance toward the events and to spread the sound Islamic thought in order to face such deviated thoughts. She has also to pay a special attention to and care for the inhabitants of such regions so that their loyalty might be guaranteed in a natural manner to Yemen and its government. Moreover, the Muslim world has to help Yemen get out of such a crisis. Otherwise, the Shiite agenda will encompass the Muslim world from all directions. More importantly, the Yemenite people have to reconsider the whole matte taking into account the interest of Yemen, which entails unity, sound thought and rallying around the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Only by doing so, we will find ways out of our crises and work out solutions for our problems. I ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims. Dr. Ragheb ElSergany Story of Hezbollat March 3, 2010 at 4:17 pm | Posted in History | Leave a comment
i
1 Votes
Hezbollah is one of the most impressive examples to Muslims in the past few years. Likewise, its leader Hassan Nasrallah is, according to the US Newsweek, the most charismatic character in the Muslim world and the most impressive to all Muslim masses. However, Muslim scholars and intellectuals differ on a great sclae on estimating Hezbollah as well as its leader Nasrallah. Some of them overestimate him to the extent of regarding him as the caliph of Muslims. On the other extreme, there are others who judge them to be disbelievers. However, there are many other opinions between the two extremes. Where is the truth about this issue? Is it permissible for us to be that impressed with Hezbollah’s achievements? Which is proper; to consider it a symbol that is to be highlighted or a danger that is to be warned against? Is it permissible to keep silent as observed by many Muslims who view it is better not tackle such an issue at the present? Actually, keeping silent is meaningless in view of the continuous succession of events and aggravation of problems. In this regard, you certainly know that to refrain from saying the truth is satanic. As we stressed in our previous articles, to understand the truth about something, we have to explore its very roots. Thus, we should understand the story from the beginning, i.e. how and in what surrounding circumstances Hezbollah rose. Moreover, we should understand the story of its founders, their beliefs, ideology, ambitions, objectives and means. By doing so, many ambiguous facts will become clear and we will be able to use our mental ability to control our emotions, for emotions speak so differently from reason. The rise of Hezbollah Hezbollah rose in Lebanon, a country of a unique nature that is totally different from all world countries. It is an amazingly sectarian country consisting of 18 acknowledged cults. Maybe its mountainous nature made it a resort of outlawed sects. Therefore, Christians of different sects, Shia, Druze and other sects found refuge therein. It is conventionally acknowledged among the Lebanese that Sunnis, Shiites belonging to the Twelver (Ithna ‘Ashriyyah) or Imami Shiism and Christian Maronites are the largest three sects in Lebanon. Next to them, but very less in number, are Druze, who are conventionally recognized as Muslims although not really so. French colonizers, who invaded Lebanon in 1920 A.D., were keen to reinforce sectarianism by conferring authority on their Maronite allies. Anyway, after gaining independence in 1943, the Lebanese constitution was formed providing that the president be a Maronite, the premier be a Sunni and the parliament speaker be a Shiite. Furthermore, such a constitution provision was only put into practice in 1959, before which all positions of power were assumed by Maonites. On account of such sensible sectarianism, the Lebanese entirely overlooked conducting an overwhelming census so as to state accurately the ratio of each sect. However, most trustworthy analyses state that Sunnis constitute 26%, Shia constitute 26%, Maronites constitute 22% and Druze constitute 5.6% of the total population. As a matter of fact, each sect sought to centralize in a certain place so as to constitute an influential power. Thus, Shia centralize in the South Lebanon and in Al-Biqa valley, Sunnis centralize in the North and Middle Lebanon and in coastal cities such as Beirut, Tripoli and Sidon (Saida), while Maronites centralize in Jabal Lubnan and Eastern Beirut. Shia’s locating in the south explains to us their conflict with Jews during the last decades. Actually, it was not that creed-based conflict that is for the sake of Allah or for liberating Palestine; rather, it took place as they wanted to defend principal regions they control and, therefore, had to resist. Otherwise, their whole existence would be exposed to danger. Moreover, we should know that they would not certainly move a hairbreadth to resist in case Sunni areas were attacked. Musa Al-Sadr and the roots of the story Let us go back to the roots of our story. Sunnis and Shiites were marginalized to a great extent if compared to Maronites who were supported by France and the international community. However, Sunnis and Shiites started Self-actualization and proving existence especially in the late fifties of the past century. Meanwhile, there was no one to support the Sunni Cause or adopt its project bearing in mind the spread of nationalist Communism all over the Arab world at that time. In the same time, Shia found it opportune to rise and grow. Thus, an influential Shiite who left his imprint on Lebanon’s map, Musa Al-Sadr settled in Lebanon in 1959. Al-Sadr was born in Iran’s holy city of Qom in 1928, where he studied the Twelver School of thought. He was then appointed as a lecturer in the University of Qom where he taught Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and Logic. He then moved to the Iraqi city of Najaf, where he studied under great Shiite authorities such as Ayatullah Muhsin Al-Hakim and Abul-Qasim Khu’i. He then moved to Lebanon where he settled for the rest of his life. Al-Sadr came to Lebanon for two major missions:
Yüklə 1,23 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
