The narrators and books of the numerous sects of Shi`ism are abundant. Since, the Ithna Ashris (those believing in 12 Imaams)are predominant today, this chapter will discuss the kitaabs and Raawis (narrators) of only this sect.

In terms of the consensus of the Ithna Ahsris, among all Shi`i books of religion, four are described as “the most authentic”. These are:
(1) Kaafi, better known as Kaafi Kulaini
(2). Man La Yahdhurul faqeeh,
(3). Tahzeeb,
(4).Istibsaar.

Shiah authorities have emphasised the incumbency (wujoob) of practising in accordance with everything in these four books of fundamental importance. These four books are collectively known as Usool-e-Arba`ah (the four principles). According to some Shiah priests, Kaafi is the ‘most authentic’ of the four. Others say that Man La Yahdhurul faqeeh is the ‘most authentic’ of the four.

The Ithna Ashri Shiahs obtain all their Fiqhi masaa`il (Rules of Jurisprudence), Usool-e-Aqaa`id (principles of Beliefs) and their views on Imaamat from these four fundamental books.

Among the narrators of so-called Ahaadith in these ‘most authentic’ books of the Shiahs are the following:

a. Hishaamain Maithami, and the author of Taaq. They were of the Mujassamah sect, believing that Allah Ta`ala is a three-dimensional physical body. Among the Mujassamah are those who believe that Allah’s body is hollow until the navel and solid from below the navel. Hishaam bin Saalim and Maithami belong to this group. Kulaini narrates the following in this regard:

“..............Verily, Hishaam Bin Saalim, Maithami and the author of Taaq say that Allah Ta`ala is hollow until the navel and the remainder is solid.”“

Kulaini also narrates from Ali Bin Hamzah who said:

“I said to Abu Abdullah - alaihi salaam- ‘I heard Hishaam Ibnul Hakam narrating from you(Imaams) that Allah Ta`ala is a solid body of Noor............”

b. Zuraarah Bin A`yun Bukhair Bin A`yun, Ahwalain, Sulaimaan Ja`fari, Muhammad Bin Aslam, etc. They ascribed to the belief that Allah Ta`ala at one stage in eternity was jaahil (ignorant). He gained knowledge only at a later stage.

c. Bani Fudhail, Ibn Bukhair, etc. were of corrupt math-hab even according to Shi`i principles because they either rejected the Imaamat of the Imaam of their time or they refuted the entire concept of Imaamat, i.e. they did not believe in any Imaam.

A denier of Imaamat is a Kaafir according to Shi`ism. Yet, Shiah authorities unhesitatingly narrate the narratives of such Kaafirs and base their religious teachings thereon.

d. Ja`far Muraadi, Ibn Ayyash, etc. Even Shiahs brand these narrators as Wadh-dhaa` (fabricators).

e. Muhammad Bin Isaa, etc. Even Shiahs brand him and others as Kath-thaab (Liars).

f. Ibn Ammaar, Ibn Miskaan, Ibn Sakar, Zaid Yamaami, etc. They are classified as Dhuafaa (weak narrators) and Majaaheel (unknown entities).

g. Taflisi, Qaasim Khazaaz, Ibn Farqad, etc. They are classified Mast_rul Haal (i.e. their state is hidden).

The four ‘most authentic’ books of Shi`ism are cluttered with narrations of these fabricators, liars and frauds. Invariably the chains of transmission (Asaaneed) of these frauds terminate on such persons who were perpetrators of major sins, eg. those anarchists who had infiltrated the army of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

The book of Kulaini, i.e. Kaafi, known as ‘the most authentic’ book of the four fundamental books of Ithna Ahsris contains numerous narrations of Ibn Ayyaash who is a fabricator and a liar by the consensus of Shi`i sects.

Abu Ja`far Tusi narrates simply from anyone who claims to have been a companion of an Imaam inspite of the close associates of the Imaam branding him a liar and categorically refuting his claim of companionship of the Imaam. For example, Ibn Miskaan claimed companionship with Hadhrat Ja`far Saadiq. But the close companions of Hadhrat Ja`far Saadiq refute this contention.

GLOWING QUR`AANIC PRAISE FOR SAHAABAH

THIS IS WHAT ALLAH TA`ALA SAYS ABOUT THE SAHAABAH:

“MUHAMMAD, THE RASOOL OF ALLAH AND THOSE WITH HIM ARE MOST STERN ON THE KUFFAAR AND MOST MERCIFUL AMONG THEMSELVES. YOU WILL SEE THEM IN RUKU’ AND SAJDAH SEARCHING FOR THE GRACE OF ALLAH AND (HIS) PLEASURE. THEIR MARKS (OF NOBILITY) ARE ON THEIR FACES AS A RESULT OF THEIR (ABUNDANT) PROSTRATIONS (SAJDAH).” [SURAH FATAH]

CLASSIFICATION OF NARRATIONS

According to Shiahs there are four classifications of narrations:

(1) Saheeh, (2) Hasan, (3) Mauthaq, (4) Dhaeef.

SAHEEH

The Shi`i definition of Saheeh (Authentic) is that the narration should be an uninterrupted chain of transmission linked to an infallible Imaam through the medium of uprighteous narrators.

In terms of this definition a narration in which there is an interruption (or a missing link) will not be Saheeh. However, inspite of their own definition, Shiahs do classify narrations with missing links as Saheeh, eg.“Ibn Abi Ameer narrated in the Saheeh like this...” or “In the Saheeh of Ibn Ameer it is like this....”

Although, the Shi`i definition of Saheeh stipulates the condition of Adal (Uprighteous, etc.) in practice this condition is ignored and narrations in which the narrator/s is/are not Aadil are also classified as Saheeh. Example: Hussein Bin Hasan Bin Hasan. He is described by the Shi`i, Hilli, in Muntaha as Majhulul Haal.

Shiahs classify the narrations of Hasan Bin Samaa-ah as Saheeh inspite of him being of the Waaqifiyyah sect. He refuted the Imaamat of the contemporary Imaam. Such a person is not an Aadil according to the principles of Shi`ism.

The narrations of Abaan Bin Uthmaan are classified as Saheeh inspite of him being an Aftahi. He refuted the contemporary Imaam and accepted another person as the Imaam. He is, therefore, not Aadil in terms of Shi`ism.

The narrations of Ali Bin Fudhaal and Abdullah Bin Bukhair are said to be Saheeh although the math-hab of both was Faasid (corrupt) according to Shiahs. Indeed, it is most surprising because their experts have recorded this information in their own writings. Inspite of this, they classify the narrations of such persons as Saheeh. The definition for Saheeh according to Shi`ism requires that the narrator be an Imaami (a follower of an infallible Imaam). Uprighteousness and expert knowledge are insufficient.

Even the narrations of persons cursed by an ‘infallible’ (Ma`soom) Imaam are accorded the status of Saheeh.

The narrations of members of the Mujassamah sect, who believe that Allah Ta`ala is a three-dimensional body with physical anthromorphical features, are also classified as Saheeh inspite of such narrators being Kaafir even according the Shiahs.

The narrations of persons who believe that Allah Ta`ala at one stage was ignorant and devoid of His Sifaat (Attributes), are also classified as Saheeh.

The narrations of those who exposed the secrets of the Imaams and betrayed their trust, eg. Abu Baseer, are also classified as Saheeh.

The narrations of also Kath-thaabeen (Liars) - on their own admission - are also accepted as Saheeh. Narrations of Majhulul Haal persons are also described as Saheeh, eg. Hasan Bin Abaan. Narrations of exceptionally weak (Dhaeef) narrators such as Mukhbir Ibn Sanaan, are likewise assigned the category of Saheeh.

Ja`far Bin Muhammad Bin Isaa Bin Shaapur Qawaari who is better known as Abu Abdullah was a great fabricator of Hadith. Inspite of this, Shi`i authorities narrate his fabrications. In regard to this fraud, Najaashi says:

“Abu Abdullah was dhaeef in Hadith. Ahmad Bin Hussein said: ‘He fabricated Hadith.. He was most cunning, narrating from unknown entities. I have heard it being said that he was of corrupt Math-hab. Nevertheless, Abu Ja`far Tusi, the Sheikh of the group (of experts) narrated from him and relied on his narration.”

“Hasan Bin Ayyaash Bin Jareesh Raazi, who narrated from Ja`far Thaani is extremely weak. He has (written) a kitaab, Inna Anzalna hu fi Lailatil Qadr, in which is narrated Ahaadith of dubious words. Nevertheless, Kulaini narrated from him many Ahaadith. And his kitaab according to them is the most authentic of the authentic books.”

“Ali Bin Hussaan is a great fabricator (of Hadith). Najaashi said that he is extremely weak. Some of our Ulama say that he was of the Ghullaat (Extremists) of corrupt beliefs. He has a kitaab (called) Tafseerul Baatin, the whole of which is a concoction. Nevertheless, Kulaini narrates from him in his (Kulaini’s) Saheeh (i.e.Kaafi).”

“Muhammad Bin Isaa - said Nasr Bin Sabbaah: ‘He is a Kath-thaab (Great Liar). Inspite of this, Abu Amr Al-Kashi and others narrate from him.”

“Najaashi said: ‘Our Ulama have condemned Abdur Rahmaan Bin Katheer Haashimi, saying that he fabricated Hadith. Nevertheless, their (Shi`i Ulama) experts narrate from him - experts such as Hasan Bin Ali Bin Fadh-dhal, etc. And, Kulaini, Ibn Baabawayh and Muhammad Bin Hasan Tusi also narrated from him.”

The list of fabricators, frauds and liars, i.e. even according to Shiahs, is extremely lengthy. Nevertheless, Shiah authorities narrate ‘Hadith’ from them. Such fabrications clutter the ‘most authentic’ books of theology of the Shiahs.

From the aforegoing discussion, the fallacy of Shi`ism with it’s corrupt basis of falsehood is conspicuously established.

Since the state of their ‘Saheeh’ ‘Ahaadith’ is absolutely putrid and false, discussion on the other three categories, viz. Hasan, Mauthiq and Dha-eef, is superfluous.

The incongruency of Shi`i scholars, i.e. their acceptance of narrators whom they themselves condemn, is imposed on them by the following factors:

1. Their inherent kufr which has mentally deranged them.

2. Their theology being absolutely bankrupt, lacking entirely in truthful narrators in view of Shi`ism having discarded and condemned the whole glorious Body of Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

THE MAJAAHIL

The unknown entities from whom Shiah authorities narrate so-called Ahaadith constitute a formidable list. Such unknown narrators - dubious, ambiguous and of illegitimate spiritual and moral fibre, characters and origin - are technically termed MAJHOOL.

The names of some of these Majaahil (plural of Majhool) will now be presented -

Hasan Bin Ahbaan, Qaasim Bin Sulaimaan, Amr Bin Hanzalah, Amr Bin Abaan, Hussein Bin Alaa, Ibn Abi Alaa, Abbaas Bin Amr Qaq`ami, Fadhl Bin Sakan, Ali Bin Uqbah Bin Qais Bin Sam`aan, Haashim Bin Abi Ammaar Husseini, Basheer Bin Yasaaril Yasaaree, Musaa Bin Ja`far, Fadhl Bin Sakrah, Zaidul Yamaani, Saeed Bin Zaid, Abdur Rahmaan Bin Abi Haashim, Bakaar Bin Abi Bakr, Fulaih Bin Zaid, Muhammad Bin Sulaih, Abdulah Bin Yazeed, Ghaalib Bin Uthmaan, Ubay Habibul Asadi, Ubay Saeedul Makaari, Rikaaz Bin Farqad, Hasan Tifleesi, Qaasim Bin Khazaaz, Saalih Sa`di, Ali Bin Duqail, Hasan Bin Ali Bin Ibraheem, Ibraheem Bin Muhammad , Hasan Ibn Ali, Ibnul Ishaaq Al-Hawi, Uthmaan Bin Abdul Malik, Uthmaan Bin Abdullah, Isaa Bin Amr, Maulal Ansaar, Rabi Bin Muhammad Salmi, Ali Bin Sa`d As-Sa`di, Muhammad Bin Yusuf Bin Ibraheem, Mahmood Bin Maimoon, Ja`far Bin Suwaid, Ja`far Bin Kilaab.

About all these unknown entities, scholars and authorities pass the following judgement:

“Therefore, all of them are Majaahil (unknown entities) along with another group (of narrators) who cannot be enumerated (on account of their abundance). However, their Shuyookh (seniors) such as Ali Bin Ibraheem, his son Ibraheem, Muhammad Bin Yaqoob Kulaini, Ibn Baabawayh, Abu Ja`far Tusi and his Sheikh Abu Abdullah whose title is Mufeed, narrate from them (the Majaahil) in their Sihah (i.e. authentic books). Their Mujtahids have made compulsory practising in accordance with whatever appears in these Sihah. They think that these (Sihah) produce absolute knowledge (Ilmul Qat`i). Murtadha, Tusi and Hilli have explicitly declared this.” [Hadyah Majeediyah]

UTHMAAN AND ALI

Shiahs claim that Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) was the enemy of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu). In reality, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) had the utmost respect and reverence for Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu). Even according to Shiah accounts, Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) named one of his sons, Uthmaan. [Al-Mufeed-Al Irshaad].

THE SHIAH RELIGION

The two main deviated groups of Shiah in the initial stage were the Tabarraai Shiah and the Ghaali. The Tabarraai Shiah slandered and abused the Sahaabah, believing them to be Munaafiqeen and Kaafir. The Ghaali Shiah believed in the divinity of Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

There are several factors which gave ascendency and impetus to the beliefs of the Tabarraai sect of Shiahs. These are as follows:

THE TABARRAAI

Unfortunately, by the accident of the Munaafiqeen conspiracy the Battle of Jamal took place with Hadhrat Aishah, Hadhrat Talhah and Hadhrat Zubair (radhiallahu anhum)–-top ranking Sahaabah. They all had close ties with the first Khalifah, Hadhrat Abu Bakr Siddique (radhiallahu anhu) and all three were demanding that the murderers of Hadhrat Uthmaan (radhiallahu anhu) be apprehended and punished. It was therefore only natural for the Tabarraai Shiah to harbour hatred for both Khulafa. In fact, according to them the chosen path for Shi’ism consisted of only hatred for the Sahaabah. All statements of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) made in praise of the Khulafa who preceded him were interpreted by the Tabarraai Shiah as the products of political expediency calculated to appease the followers of these illustrious Khulafa. In other words, circumstances constrained Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) to perpetrate such deception which they justified on the basis of political expediency. They fabricated the doctrine of holy falsehood (Taqiyah) to justify deception.

Hatred for the first Khalifah led the Tabarraai Shiah to harbour hatred for the second Khalifah, Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu) as well. In fact, hatred for the second Khalifah was a necessary corollary of the hatred for the first Khalifah because the Khilaafat (reign) of the second Khalifah was in subservience to the Khilaafat of the first Khalifah. The second Khalifah was appointed by the first Khalifah and the reign and life-style of both Khulafa were identical. Furthermore, during the reign of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiallahu anhu), his chief advisor and minister was Hadhrat Umar (radhiallahu anhu).

The hatred and malice which the Tabarraai Shiah harboured for the first two Khulafa was so intense that they were blind to even the reality of Hadhrat Umar’s close connection and tie with Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhum). They deliberately overlooked the facts that Hadhrat Ali’s daughter was married to Hadhrat Umar; that they were related; that Hadhrat Umar would seek the advice of Hadhrat Ali in important affairs of the Khilaafat. They attributed these facts to the Shiah belief of Taqiyah (holy hypocrisy) and Hadhrat Ali’s weakness.

The vilification of this group of the Shiahs was not confined to these few high- ranking Sahaabah, but was directed to the majority of the Muhaajireen and Ansaar who followed Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) so devotedly. They all were made targets for abuse, slander and criticism.

THE KHAWAARIJ

There prevailed constant conflict between Hadhrat Ali, Hadhrat Hasan. Hussein and other members of the family (on the one side), with the Khawaarij (an evil breakaway group–-the first sect in Islam). Some of these Khawaarij for political ends degenerated to a very low ebb in their slander and criticism of Hadhrat Ali and nd his family while they went to great lengths in praising the fist three Khulafa. The Tabarraai Shiah responded with hatred for Hadhrat Muawiyyah, the first three Khulafa and their associates. They left no stone unturned in their process of slander and vituperation.

HADHRAT ALI’S ATTITUDE

Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) would often criticize the evil and the mischief spread by the Khawaarij without mentioning them by name. He would highlight their cruelty, their bid’ah and their hatred for the Ahl-e-Bait. The Tabarraai Shiah propagated that this criticism of Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) was in reality directed against the Azwaj-e- Mutahharaat (the Holy Wives of Rasulullah–-sallallahu alaihi wasallam)and the other Sahaabah. When questioned as to why Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu) refrained from mentioning the names of the Sahaabah whom he allegedly criticized, the Tabarraai Shiah always had the stock answer of Taqiyah. Expediency warranted the employment of Taqiyah, according to these Shiah.

CONSTANT CHANGES

After the birth of Shi’ism and its splitting into four sects initially, the Shi’i religion underwent constant change. With every political change, this religion acquired new traits and beliefs. Such transformation usually occurred when the Imaams were martyred .

During the reign of Yazid, the anarchists of Iraq, incited by Ziyaad martyred Hadhrat Hussein (radhiallahu anhu). At this juncture a man by the name of Keesaan appeared and claimed that he was appointed to avenge the death of Hadhrat Hussein (radhiallahu anhu). Keesaan was a follower of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiallahu anhu). After Hadhrat Hasan’s demise, he stayed in the company of Muhammad bin Ali, the son of Hadhrat Ali, who was well known by the name Mohammad Ibn Hanifah (radhiallahu anhu). Keesaan exhorted people to join him in the mission to avenge the murder of Hadhrat Hussein (radhiallahu anhu). Some prominent persons among the Shiaan-e-Ula (the sincere supporters of Hadhrat Ali) joined him. Among the prominent persons who joined Keesaan were Sulaimaan Bin Sirr, Khazaai and Rufaa-ah. Some Tabarraai Shiah also joined him. They formed into an army and clashed with Ibn Ziyaad who defeated Keesaan.

MUKHTAAR SAQAFI

After the defeat of Keesaan, the Tabarraai sect appointed Mukhtaar Saqafi as its leader. Mukhtaar was an expert at warfare and politics. In deception and conspiracy he compared with Ibn Sabâ. Several battles took place between Mukhtaar and Ibn Ziyaad. Finally, Ibn Ziyaad was killed at the hands of Mukhtaar. After this victory, Mukhtaar embraced the religion of Keesaan. In the beginning, Keesaan did not subscribe to the Imaamat of Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussein (radhiallahu anhuma). According to him, Hadhrat Ali’s immediate successor to the Imaamat was Muhammad Ibn Hanifah. Keesaan believed that Hadhrat Hasan (radhiallahu anhu) lost the right of Imaamat on account of the peace treaty with Hadhrat Muawiyyah (radhiallahu anhu) and since Hadhrat Hussein (radhiallahu anhu) had supported his elder brother in the treaty, he too lost the entitlement to Imaamat. He thus proclaimed Muhammad Bin Ali (radhiallahu anhuma) to be the standard-bearer of the Imaamat which is the pivotal doctrine of all Shiah sects. He propagated that Muhammad Bin Ali ( Muhammad Ibn Hanifah) acquired wonderful mystical knowledge and the power of miracles from Hadhrat Ali (radhiallahu anhu).

Mukhtaar had now tasted the pleasure of power and he turned his gaze towards Iraq. Being the master of deception he was, political expediency quickly constrained him to abandon the beliefs of Keesaan. Since the Iraqis were staunch supporters of Hadhrat Hasan and Hussein (radhiallahu anhuma), Mukhtaar was not able to distance himself from their belief. He now propagated that after Hadhrat Hussein’s shahaadat, the Imaamat was transferred to Muhammad Bin Ali who had appointed him (Mukhtaar) to avenge the killing of Hadhrat Hussein and to wage war against the Khawaarij. In support of his claims he produced fraudulent letters supposedly signed by Muhammad Bin Ali (radhiallahu anhu) . Mukhtaar succeeded in this conspiracy and numerous people joined his ranks. He managed to establish his control over a number of Iraqi cities.

MUKHTAAR’S END

The reign of terror and oppression unleashed by Mukhtaar was finally brought to an end by Hadhrat Mus’ab Bin Zubair (radhiallahu anhu), the brother of Hadhrat Abdullah bin Zubair (radhiallahu anhu). He was also the son-in-law of Hadhrat Hussein (radhiallahu anhu). Hadhrat Mus’ab, in a battle finally killed Mukhtaar.

MUKHTAARIYAH SECT

Mukhtaar had chosen the name Mukhtaariyah for his followers although he had formally adopted the name, Keesaaniyyah after its founder, Keesaan. When the evil beliefs of Mukhtaar became known and criticism and curses showered on him from all sides, his followers renounced the name, Mukhtaariyah and reverted to the earlier name, Keesaaniyyah.

In Deeni matters Mukhtaar had exceeded all limits in evil beliefs. Finally, he had even laid claim to Nubuwwat . He had even claimed that Hadhrat Jibraeel (alayhis salaam) would appear to him

MOURNING OF AASHURA

Mukhtaar was the first one to introduce the custom of mourning and wailing on the Day of Aashura. The aim of his scheme was to incite the people of Kufa against the people of Shaam. In this he kept them mobilized in order to maintain political control. Under guise of being a devoted supporter of Hadhrat Husein (radhiallahu anhu) he deluded the people. In actual fact, he had no relationship with Hadhrat Husein. What relationship could he have had with Hadhrat Husein when he (Mukhtaar) himself laid a claim to Nubuwwat and publicly reviled the Sahaabah?

MORE SCHISMS

After the death of Hadhrat Muhammad Bin Ali (radhiallahu anhu), the Keesaaniyyah religion split up into further schisms. Differences arose among them regarding the appointment of an Imaam.

Upon the death of Muhammad Bin Ali (radhiallahu anhu), the Keesaaniyyah sect fell into disarray regarding the appointment of an Imaam. Abu Kuraib who was the leader of this sect at the time, declared that Muhammad Bin Ali is Khaatamul A-immah (the Seal of the Imaams) and that he has not died. He propagated that Muhammad Bin Ali (radhiallahu anhu) went into concealment to escape his enemies and that after a time he will again emerge from occultation. The motive underlying this propagation was to entrench his own position of leadership. In view of this belief his followers would not elect another leader.

In opposition to Abu Kuraib another leader by the name, Ishaaq claimed that Abu Haashim Bin Muhammad Bin Al Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh) was the new Imaam. Letters and messengers were dispatched to various quarters propagating this view. He claimed that this new Imaam had appointed him (Ishaaq) as his representative. After the demise of Abu Haashim (rahmatullah alayh) the Ishaaqiyyah sect believed that the Imaamat was transferred to his (Abu Haashim’s) children. Meanwhile Ibn Harb who was the leader of the Ishaaqiyyah sect at that time, claimed the Imaamat for himself.

Another group under the leadership of Abdullah Bin Ja’far while also a sub-division of the Ishaaqiyyah sect, asserted that after the death of Abu Haashim (rahmatullah alayh), the Imaam was Abdullah Bin Muawiyyah Bin Abdullah Bin Ja’far. A great majority of the Shiahs of Kufa followed him.

A group in the Keesaaniyyah propagated that after the demise of Abu Haashim (rahmatullah alayh),the Imaaamat was transferred from the Children of Abu Taalib to the Children of Abbas (radhiallahu anhu). They, therefore, proclaimed as their Imaam, Ali Bin Abdullah Bin Abbas. After him they continued with the belief of the Imaamat being in his family. This continued until the time of Mansur Daranqi Abbaasi when this line of Imaamat withered away.

DISSOCIATION

These holy personages who are publicised and proclaimed as the Imaams by the Shiahs, very clearly and fully announced their dissociation from these wild and baseless beliefs. But, the shameless Shiahs for the realisation of their political end explained such dissociation on the basis of their concocted belief of Taqiyah and fear of enemies. It was during this age–the reign of the Marwaanis –that the doctrine of Taqiyah (holy hypocrisy) was formulated to explain to their followers the public pronouncements of dissociation and rejection made by the persons who had been proclaimed as Imaams.

SHIAH SCHISMS

During this age, the Shiah religion consisted of two sects: Keesaaniyyah and Mukhtaariyah. These were the two main branches which split up into sub-divisions. The Ghaali and the Tafdheeli groups were small minorities which were held in contempt by the other main Shiah groups.

ZAID SHAHEED

After the demise of Hadhrat Zainul Aabideen (radhiallahu anhu), a great transformation occurred in the Shiah movement. Zaid Bin Ali Bin Hussein (radhiallahu anhum) raised the banner of revolt against the then Khalifah, Hishaam Bin Abdul Malik Bin Marwaan. On entering the precincts of Iraq, Zaid, known as Zaid Shaheed, was joined by a group of sincere Shiah supporters. Apart from the sincere supporters, 30,000 Tabarraai Shiahs joined under the banner of Zaid Shaheed to confront the Khalifah. The majority of the Tabarraai Shiahs consisted of the followers of the Keesaaniyyah and Mukhtaariyah sects. This army departed to give battle to Yusuf Bin Umar Thaqafi who was appointed the Ameer of Iraq by Hishaam, the Khalifah.

When Hadhrat Zaid Shaheed learnt of the Tabarraai abuse and slander of the Sahaabah, he severely reprimanded them and emphasised on their leaders to restrain their followers from their evil behaviour. Great dissension resulted in the camp of Zaid Shaheed and swords were drawn. In consequence of this strife the entire Tabarraai Shiah group withdrew and betook themselves to their homes. They justified their betrayal of Zaid Shaheed on the grounds that he restrained them from reviling the Sahaabah. Such vilification constituted an act of merit and worship for the Tabarraai Shiahs. Thus history repeated itself. The very same treatment of betrayal which the evil people of Kufa had meted out to Hadhrat Hussein (radhiallahu anhu) was displayed on this occasion to Zaid Shaheed by these Shiah Keesaaniyyah and Mukhtaariyah. In the battle Hadhrat Zaid was martyred.

AN IMPORTANT CHANGE

After the martyrdom of Hadhrat Zaid Shaheed a significant transformation took place in the Shiah religion. The group of supporters which had remained attached to Zaid Shaheed proclaimed themselves as Shiah Khaalis (Pure Shiahs). They believed that after Hadhrat Husein (radhiallahu anhu) the true Imaam was Hadhrat Zaid Shaheed. They further believed that Shahaadat (martyrdom) was the inheritance from his ancestors. They branded those who deserted Hadhrat Zaid Shaheed as theRawaafidh. In fact, Zaid Shaheed himself has said with regard to these traitors:

“They have left us and have become the Rawaafidh (the deserters).”

After the martyrdom of Zaid Shaheed, his sincere supporters were faced with the problem of electing an Imaam. This group chose for itself the designation, Imaamiyyah. A minority in this group appointed Hasan Muthanna Bin Hasan Mujtaba as their Imaam while the majority nominated as their Imaam, Hadhrat Muhammad Baaqir ( rahmatullah alayh) who was at that time the noblest member of the Ahl-e-Bait. He was a great Aalim and the most pious member.

IMAAM BAAQIR’S DEMISE

After the demise of Hadhrat Baaqir, further differences arose among the Shiah. Some held the belief that he did not die. Another group believed that he had died and they proclaimed his son, Hadhrat Zakariyyah (rahmatullah alayh) as the Imaam. They fabricated the belief that he will not die.

Another group proclaimed Hadhrat Ja’far Saadiq (rahmatullah alayh) as the Imaam. This group increased in majority. This group propagated that the designation Imaamiyyah belonged exclusively to its members. The Imaamiyyah gave the name Zaidiyyah to the followers of Hadhrat Zaid Shaheed.

RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES

At this stage, a new development occurred. In view of the preponderance of leaders in the Imaamiyyah sect, religious differences arose. Every leader embarked on the task of fabricating a new religion for himself and his followers. With his new religion he separated his followers from the rest of the sect. Several sects named after their leaders thus sprang up. These were known as Hishaamiyyah, Saalimiyyah, Sheetaaniyyah, Hasheemiyyah and Zaraariyyah. This split was a majordevelopment in Shi’ism which occurred after the death of Hadhrat Ja’far Saadiq (rahmatullah alayh).

A group propagated that Hadhrat Ja`far Saadiq had not died, but that he was alive in occultation and will appear again. Another group accepting his death proclaimed his son, Kaazim Musa Bin Ja’far (rahmatullah alayh) as their Imaam. This group became known as the Ismailis.

The Ismaili sect also split up. Some said that Ismail bin Ja’far was the final Imaam. They fabricated the doctrine of ‘Hayyun Laa Yamutu’ (He is alive and will not die) in regard to their Imaam. Some other Ismailis again accepted his death and considered his son, Muhammad Bin Ismail as their Imaam.

The group who had proclaimed Muhammad Bin Ismail as its Imaam also split up. The cause of the split was that Ismail Bin Ja’far had died during the lifetime of Hadhrat Ja’far. He (Ismail Bin Ja’far) had left behind his son, Muhammad who accompanied his grandfather, Hadhrat Ja’far to Baghdad. Muhammad died in Baghdad and was buried in the Cemetery of the Quraish. Muhammad Bin Ismail had a slave by the name of Mubaarak. Mubaarak was an expert calligraphist and engraver. One Abdullah Bin Maimoon, Aqdaah Ahwaaz, a great conspirator, came to meet Mubaarak, the slave. After the demise of Hadhrat Ja’far Saadiq (rahmatullah alayh), Ahwaaz informed Mubaarak: “ I am the Shiah of your master Hadhrat Muhammad.” He created a friendship with the slave. After gaining Mubaarak’s confidence, he told him that he had acquired such secrets and mysteries from Muhammad Bin Ismail (the slaves master) which were not known to anyone but himself. He then started to present philosophical expositions on the Muqatta -aat of the Qur’aan (the letters appearing at the beginning of some Surahs). He also demonstrated to Mubaarak some acts of magic. Ahwaazi was in fact a mulhid, zindeeq and a man of evil beliefs. He was a great enemy of Islam and conspired to create dissension and spread fitnah and fasaad in the ranks of Muslims. Hitherto, he had not gained the opportunity. Now, after having the confidence of Mubaarak, he formulated the conspiracy for the realization of his pernicious plot. Ahwaazi and Mubaarak, after entering into a pact of some sort, went in different directions. Mubaarak betook himself to Kufa and invited people there to the Ismaili religion. Abdullah Bin Maimoon Ahwaazi reached the mountainous region of Iraq and succeeded in deceiving the simple folk there to accept his religion. A cardinal article of his faith was his instruction:

“Conceal your gold, your travel and your religion.”