Renegades Hiding under the banner of Ali (r.a.) ibn Abi Talib

While the Muslim world is bleeding under Zionist, Imperialist and Brahmin assault, sectarians have taken the opportunity to spread their vile doctrines in an attempt to undermine the foundations of Islam. Like the munkareene Hadith, the sectarians attack the Sahaba (companions) of Muhammad (pbuh) through whom both the Qur'an and the Hadith were transmitted.

Munkareene Hadith claimed that they were proving their allegiance to the Qur'an by attacking the Hadith. Similarly, the sectarians try to make the claim that they are attacking Muhammad's (pbuh) sahaba (companions) because they love Ali (r.a.) so much. This sectarian facade needs to be demolished so that the ummah can see that these sectarians are enemies of Islam and renegades hiding under the banner of Ali (r.a.)

In my rebuttal I tried to make the sectarians see sense by pointing out that the people whom they take as their Imams, and who got their wisdom from hadith coming down from Ali, NEVER ABUSED, INSULTED or DENIGRATED the first three rightly guided Caliphs (r.a) or hazrat ‘Ayesha (r.a.). I quoted from Imam Baqir and Imam Jafar to show that they not only respected Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman (Allah be pleased with all three) but despised all those misled agents of satan who insulted these three among the most pious servants of Allah.

I thought that if these sectarians are the true followers of Ali (r.a.), they would rein in their egos and repent of the blasphemies they have been distributing over the internet. Instead I got this message from one of this group of satans who calls himself Dr. Masood Zaidi. He claims that the hadith which show respect that the line of Ali (r.a.) had for the greats of Islam are fabricated! Of course, he gives no proof for his assertion. This is what he says:

"your accusation against what you call secterians is garbagge that does not deserve a response. What is the source for what you quote from our Imams? These are obvious fabrications."

Hence I want to bring more evidence which would confirm that these abusive persons are renegades. They do not respect even their own imams and they violate the example which was set by Ali (r.a.) himself.

First there is the prima facie evidence itself: the behavior of Ali (r.a.). One thing on which all Muslims are agreed is that Ali (r.a.) was fearless and brave. He could face up to and defeat the strongest and most ferocious of the unbelievers. His sword zulfiqar has become famous because no one could withstand it.

This brave and fearless person took the oath of allegiance first to Abu Bakr (r.a.), then to ‘Umar (r.a.) and then to ‘Usman (r.a.). He worked with them and on occasion gave advice. He prayed behind them in the mosque of the Prophet (pbuh) for 24 years. When some misled elements attacked ‘Usman (r.a.), Ali (r.a.) and his sons defended the Caliph.

Never was there any abuse, insult or questioning the credibility of the three greats coming from Ali (r.a.) while they were alive. (The renegades claim that later, after they died, Ali, r.a., started attacking the Caliphs which amounts to a deadly form of backbiting, insulting the dead, which goes against the character of Ali, r.a.)

The question arises, are the narrations from imams Baqir and Jafar fabrications or authentic. Sectarians like Dr. Masood Zaidi say they are fabrications, which means Ali (r.a.) and those in his line did not respect the three Caliphs. Thus Zaidi is making Ali (r.a.) into a hypocrite who considered the first three Caliphs no good but took the oath of allegiance to them and prayed behind them. Hence my assertion that these sectarians are not followers of Ali (r.a) but enemies of Islam trying to create fitna and fasad among the Muslim ranks in the manner of the Jew Ibn Saba who first tried these tactics.

Let us look at what a Shi'ite (a follower of Ali) scholar has to say about the imams in the line of Ali (r.a.):

"Zayn al-‘Abidin himself never spoke against the first two caliphs, but during al-Baqir's lifetime some of the extremists who sided themselves with him started asking this question among the legitimist section of the Shi'a. Al-Baqir was thus asked time and again what he thought of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, but he did not publicly discredit them and rather confirmed that they were caliphs." (The Origins and Early development of Shi'a Islam by Syed Husain M. Jafri, published from Iran by The Group of Muslims, Qum, page 252. He extensively documents this point.)

He goes on to show that there were fringe elements (whom he calls "extremists") who were constantly trying to get their imams to speak against the greats of Islam.

Sectarianism as we know it now is product of historical issues emanating from tragedies like Kerbala and the coming to power of the Abbasids who stole the Alawi rhetoric to gain support for the line of Abbas (r.a.).

Dr. Masood Zaidi should be ashamed of calling himself "Zaidi" when he is openly flouting the teachings of Zaid bin Zayn al-‘Abidin. Zaid or Zayd (more correctly) wanted to gain the support of the Muslim ummah against the kingship. Zayd found a compromise formula to bring together the line of Ali (r.a.) and the rest of the Islamic community. According to Jafri:

"Zayd, agreeing with the Mu'tazilites, held that the first two caliphs had been legally elected Imams, though Ali was the preferable candidate ..." (Ibid)

Jafri is very cynical about Zayd's intentions but he does concede the basic issue:

"Zayd realized the fact that in order to run for the caliphate, he must have the main body of Muslim opinion behind him, and must, therefore, accept the main body of Islamic traditions. Thus he expressed this attitude by declaring his acceptance of Abu Bakr and Umar as legally elected caliphs..."

We don't need to agree with Jafri but his scholarship is honest enough to indicate that the way sectarians look at things NOWADAYS is the product of nothing original in Islam but a reaction to historical events. With Jafar as-Sadiq, according to Jafri, the doctrine of Shi'ism was developed in a more symmetrical way. The ideas of taqiyya (dissimulation ) arose in response to the fear of the power of the Abbasids (Jafri p.298) and the idea of the Mahdi who will supposedly return has similar origin.

Perhaps total frustration of the sectarians with the rest of the Muslim world (which smiled at Alawi claims but would not accept them) led to the "re-writing" of history in order to attack not the Abbasids but the greats of Islam, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, Uthman, ‘Ayesha (Allah be pleased with them) the people of paradise.

2002-09-22 Sun 16:59ct