The word  'Shia' is applied to the workers of a political party . In Arabic language there is an expression

It means that such man is a follower or supporter of such and such man. Allama Zubaidi *is of opinion that the word Shia stands for all those people who evolve a consensus on a particular issue and for any person who joins the group or party of another person as a token of support and assistance. He is included among his Shias. The word shia in fact derives from which menas obedience and submission.*    In Islam the word was employed in its real and actual sense. It was also applied to those political groups and parties that entertained a difference of opinion on differentmartyrdom of Hardhrat U thman when serious differences devloped between Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and Hadrat Mu' awiyyah. The people who belonged to the party of Hadrat Ali were known as 'Shia of Ali'. They believed that Hadrat Ali was the fourth Caliph and had a better claim over the Caliphate as compared to Hadrat Mu' awiyyah. Therefore they supported Ali during the battle waged between him and mu' awiyyah. The Shia and Mu' awiyyah held a diametrically oppisite opinion. They believed that the murderers of Caliph Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) had joines Ali's party and secured asylum under his strong wing. Besides, the Shias of Mu' awiyyah did not recoginze the claim of Hadrat Ali over Khilafat. However, they promised to return to Ali and acknowledge him as the Caliph if he avenged the murder of Hadrat Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) by executing his murderers. The hisorians have reported that when Hadrat Ali sent 'Adi bin Ziyyad bin Hifsa to persuade Mu' awiyyah to pledge his surrender and submission, he replied:    "you have invited me to join the party and pledge my submission (to him).  As far as the party is concerned I have no reservations about its support for me.  But as far as submission is concerned, (tell me) how can I submit myself to a person who is accused s an accomplice in the murder of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu).  He denies his involve-ment in the murder and I do not accuse him of murder* either.   But he has furnished refuge to the murderers of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu).  If this is not so, he should hand over the murders of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) to use so that we may take our revenge by putting them to death.  If he is willing to agree to our proposal, we are also willing to obey him and to join his party".*

Mu'awiyyah had given the same reply to Abu Aldarda and Hadhrat Abu Imamah when Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) despatched them on a similar mission:

    "Go and tell Mr. Ali that he should take revenge from the murderers of Hadhrat Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) and impose Qisas on them.  Then I'll be the first among the Syrians to pledge fealty to him".*

    At the early stage of negotiations Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) had sent Jarir bin Abdullah to invite Mu'awiyyah to take the oath of allegiance at his hand.  Hadharat MU'awiyyah called for Hadhrat Umro bin As and other Prominent Syrians to seek their advice on the matter.  They refused to acknowledge the over-lordship of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) until he excuted the murderers of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) or handed the killers over to them.*

   The historians also report that on their return hadhrat Abu Aldarda and Hadhrat Abu Imamha conveyed Mu'awiyyah's message to Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu).  He replied:

    "Both of you can see these people-he pointed towards a number of people who had gathered there-All of them acknowdedge that they are the murderers of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu).  If any one has the might, ( I challenge him ) to take Qisas".*

   But the object in hand is not to ennemerate the factors that precipitated a chain of wars between Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and hadharat Mu'awiyyah.  The main object is that these two grand parties of the Muslims-the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) had described these parties grand in the context of Praising Hadhrat Hassan-had developed a serious cleavage of opinion and ipenly supported one or the other personage.  Their loyalties were clearly divided and they made no effort to hide their preferences.  And they never doubted for a second that they were in the wrong.  Each party insisted on its correct and righteous stand.   One of these parties was called the 'Shias of Ali' and the other party was called 'Shias of Mu'awiyyah.  The difference between these parties was purely of a political nature.  One of them believed in the Khilafat of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu).  They considered him the lawful Caliph because he had been elected through the mutual consultations of the refugees (Muhajirin) and the natives (Ansar).*  The other believed that Khilafat was the inalienable right of Hadhrat Mu'awiyyah (Radiallahu Anhu) bin abi Sufiyan because he wanted to avenge the blood of the persecuted Imam, the Imam who was the son-in-law of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Khalifah of the Muslims.  The Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had secured the pledge from the people to avenge his murder.  The pledge later on acquired the epithet.  "Bait-i-Ridhwan" and God Himself had concurred with those who had pledged at the hand of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him) to take revenge for the murder of Hadhrat Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu).*

Shias of the house of Muhammad and Shias of the house of Umayyah

    The word Shia in the phrasal construction "Shia Al-i-Muhammad" is applied to an exclusively political party which had emerged through the combined efforts of Banu Ali and Banu Abbas and which was opposed mainly to Bani Ummayyah. The actually referred to the expression of political opinion. It related to the current debate among the supporters of the two main contestants for the Khilafat. The debate boiled down to the fundamentle issue:

who should rule the state or who has a better claim to be the ruler of the state? A Shia writer Sajstani has cited an excerpt from "Kitab-uz-Zinah" to dispel the clouds of confusion and ambiguity:

    "When Hadhrat Mu 'awiyyah and his companions pressed Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) for the revange of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu)'s murder after his martyrdom and gained the sympathies of a large party of Muslims, his followers were known as "Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu)iyyah" and the followers of Hardhart Ali were know as "Alviyyah" while each one of them also carried the epithet Shia. This convention was widely observed even during the Banu Ummayyah rule".

The writer has also quoted from the Shia heralsd of Halab:

    "Any nation that develops consenus on a specific issue and its members display mutual respect towards one another is called a Shia.The Shias of a person are his followers and supporters.When the Shias suppported these people and held specfic views about them, they came to be known as the Shias. When Kailafat passed on from Banu Hashim to Banu Ummayyah, any Hadrat mu'awiyyah occupied the Khilafat one after the other in linear succession, a large number of refugees and natives had a better claim over Khilfat as compared to Banu Ummayyah, and when they reserved their support and friendship only for them, they came to be known as "Shian-i-Al-Muhammad". At that time there was no opinionative or relifious difference between Banu Abbas. But when Banu Ummayyah, the devil created a rift between Banu Abbas and Banu Ali. Banu Abbas committed certain lapses Banu Ali which turned a group of the Shias aaganist them."

Nature of their difference:

    I have consciously stressed the word politics again and again. Actually i mean to drive home the fact that no serious religious difference exited between them that could be dubbed a difference between belief and disbelief. Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) himself acknowledged the abence of a religious difference between the two parties. He had addressed his army to enlighten them to Mu'awiyyah and his army:

    "O creature of the Lord! I exhort you to cultivate piety. The best counsel we can give one another is that we should continue to fear God. Piety is ultimately the best of all acts in the eyes of Gods. I regret to say that war has started between the "Ahl-i-Qibla" (followers of the same direction).

    Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) had explained the matter at greater length and with sharper clarity in a letter that was widely ciculated in all the cities. He gave details of what had transpired between him and the resident of Safin. He also issued a clear verdict about those who had indulged in swor-playing and arrowshooting against him. He observes in defence ofhis stand on the issue:

    "We and the residents of Syria waged wars against each other in this world. But we in the same God, we follow the same prophet and we extend the same invitation to people about Islam.Ww have faith in Allah and His Prophet. Nither they claim to have stronger faith than us nor do we claim to be superior Muslims to them. We have consensus on all issues. The only difference id about the muder of Hadhrat Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) but we are absolved from it".

    This is the reason that during the days of the battle of Safin Hadhtat Ali had ticked off his companions and strictly forbidden them to lampoon the residents of Syria and the companions of Hadhrat Mu'awiyyah (Radiallahu Anhu). He said:

   "I dislike youto become abusers and lampooners. If you can't help talking about them, you should talk about thier acts and deeds-that is, you should say that they are unjustified in fighting with us. This is both nearer to virtue and justice . Therfore, instead of induling in invective, you should say: Oh Allah! protect us against mutual blood shedding and straighten out our affairs" ( Ibid, p. 323.) .These words are reinforced by a Shia Hadith recorded by Kulayni in his 'Al-Kafi' which he attributes to J'afer bin Muhammad Baqir who is the sixth innocent Imam of the Shias. He observes: "In the early part of the day a drummer drums oout that verily Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and the Shias of Ali and the Shias if Ali are the victorious and the elvated; (al-kamil fil furu vol. 8, p.209)

    Abu al-Aliyyag had  embraced Islam during the reign of Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique though he had directly withnessed the prophetic era during his adolescence. Abu Khaldah has reported from him : I was young during the reigns of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and Hadhrat Mu'awiyyah (Radiallahu Anhu), I preferred brave feats on the battlefield to delicius food ( on the table). I thoroughly prepared myself for jihad and i went over to them. I saw that there were two giant parties which were immeasurably stretched across the battlefield. When one party came out with the slogan of  'God is great' , the other party retaliated with the articulation of the same slogan, and when one party chanted out 'there is no God but Allah', the other party chanted back the same words with the same intensity. When I witnessed the spectacle I wondered which party should I pronounce to be a party of disbelievers, and who has forced me to participate in the battle ? So before evening I left them and returned home ". ( sair ' alam-un-nabla' by zahabi, vol. 4, p. 210, tabaqat ibn saad: vol, 7, p.114.)

    I also do not deny the fact that there were people who had been influenced by Jewish perversities and un-Islamic idelolgies. They had strayed away from the stright path and, in thier state of perversion, they had launched a compaign to put a relious conplexion on this fundamentally non-religious difference. Amoung them the Sabais were in the fore-front who had fallen into the trap of anti-Islamic Judaism. These were the people who never allowed the fires of war to be extinguished; Whennever the flames of war died down, they agian prodded the half-dead ambers and fanned them into a bright blaze. This matter shall be discussed at lenghth in the appropriat context. However it was an exception rather than a rule because the comman people did not confrom to this pattern of behaviour.

    Shias of Ali:

    I have traced the origin of the word Shia and explained its genesis. Origirally its application was general and its range was wide. But subsequently its sense was restricted and it was applied to a person who was a helper and a supporter of Had Ali and his children and who held beliefs and convictions derived from the perverse parctices of Abdullah bin Saba and his Jewish acconplices wanted to demolish the structure of Ialam and to disfigure Islamic beliefs and convictions, as is endorsed by Ibn Athir in "Nihayah".

    The word Shia actually used for a specfic group of people. It carries the same meaning, irrespective of number and gender. Later on, its use was restriced to a person who was a helper and a supporter of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and his family until it came to be exclusively reserved for them. Now when we say that such and person is from among the Shias,                                           when we refer to an issue in the Shia religion, we mean by it the Shias of Ali. The plural of the word is and it is derived from and it means obedience and submission".(Ibn Kathir:An-Nihayah:Vol.2,P.244) Anyone who insists on the currency of the word 'Shia' in the Prophetic era has no evidence to support his claim. Muhammad Hussain oberves in his book "Asl-ush-Shia wa Usuluha":

    "It was the Prophet himself who first sowed the seed of Shiaism on the soil of Islam, i.e, the origin of Shiaism coincided with the origin of Islam. The one who had sown(the seed of) Shiaism kept on nourishing and guarding it until the seed transformed itself into a towering tree during his very life. ( They have tried to argue on the basis of some weak and false traditions. Not one of these traditions. Not one of these traditions carries the stamp of authenticity. For example, (Verily Ali and the Shia of Ali are triumphant.) The most highly regarded Shia Ibn-ul-Hadid has publicly affirmed that the false traditions have been fabricated by the Shias and therefore lack the insignia of reliabilty. Intially they had to coin these traditions to gloify their Imams and downgrade their ememies(Sarah Nahj-ul-Balaghah:Vol. 1, P.783). The most amazing thing is that even a man of his stature is blurting out a lie without being embrrassed and is putting a geniune comlexion on a false tradition. The fact is that this tradition has no existence. Muhammad Amin, Muhammad Hussain Zayn and Al-i-Kashif Ghata are guilty of the same mis-statement. They affirm that the companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him)were regarded as the Shias of Ali during Prophet (peace be upon him). I don't know how they react to the traditions recorded in their own bokks which they prove that, beside Salman, abu Zar and Miqdad and all the companions of the Prophet(may God forbid)had turned apostate the situationamusing. It mean that they were apostates and the Shias of Ali at the same time. One may also ask why did Hadrat Salman accept the offer of an office from Hadrat Umar (Majlisi: Hayat-ul-Qulub:Vol.2,P.780). It may be noted that Hadrat Salman was one of the army commanders despatched by HAdrat Umar to conquer Madain.(Ibn Kathir: Vol.7,P.67). However, it bore fruit after his death.(Asl-ush-Shia wa Usuluha: P.87.)

    Another writer also toes his line:

    "The emergence of Shiaism materializedin the Prophetic era. The Prophet (peace be upon him) , Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and the Ahl-i-bait nourished it with their words. They often insisted on strengthening the belief in the hearts and minds of Muslims and to act according to it ". (Muhammad Hussain Zayn: Ash-Shia fit Tarikh.)

    The Shia author Al-Muzfari remarks:

    " The invitation to Shiaism was launched on the day when hadhrat Muhammad, the greatest liberator of mankind had proclaimed   'Kalima Tayyabah'  among the hills and valleys of Makka. He had invited people not only to witness the presence of God but also to endorse the Shiaism of Ali." (Muhammad Hussain Muzfari: Tarikh-ush-Shia, pp.8-0 published in Qum.)

    The absurdity in this statement is obvious to any person who possesses even a grain of rationality. It implies that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had not invited people to Islam, unity of God, his prophethood, love and brotherhood, but he had invited them to grouping, sectariamsim and the Shiaism of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu). On the basis of Muzfari's claim, the Prophet (peace be upon him)  had made Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) a regular partner in his prophethood and apostlehood, though there is not a shred of evidence in the divine revelation to support this perverse claim. On the contrary, Quran enjoins upon the people to obey God and His Prophet (peace be upon him) and to act according to the Quran (perhaps this the main reason that the Shias deny the             ) and the Sunnah and to eschew all other epithet except the word Muslim as a token of thier indentity. The authentic ahadith also comprise similar injunctions and Quran has based a number of its observations on the clarification and confirmaton fo htese Ahadith. (It is highly amazing that the Shias denied the most authentic traditions simply because they come direclty from the Prophetic companions who, in their view, had one to all turend apostate; but they also seem to believe in thier traditions. It is a strange and obvious contradiction. I don't know that these are the figments of their own diseased imagiation. Their motive is only to confuse people and to drag them into the mire of darkness in which they themselves are stuck. Surah Al-Anfal: 20. Surach Muhammad: 33.

    "Obey Allah and the Messenger that you may be shown mercy" (Surah Al-i-Imran:132.)

    "Take what the Apostle assints to you, and deny yourselves that whcih the withholds from you" (Surah Hashr:7.)

    "If anyone contends with the Apostle even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men of faith, we shall leave him in the path he has chosen and land him in hell what an evel refugel". (Surah An-Nisa:15)

    "It is not open to a believing man or a believing women, when Allah and his Messenger have decided a matter, to exercise their own choice in deciding it". (Surah Al-Ahzab:36.)

    " But by your Lord, they can have no (real) faith until they make you judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against your decisions, but accpet them with unqualified conviction". (Surah An-Nisa:65.)

    "And hold fast all together by the rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude God's favour on you; for you were enemies and he joined your hearts in love, so that by his grace you became brothers". (Surah Al-i-Imran:103.)

    "And fall into no disputes, lest you lose heart and are stripped of your glory". (Surah Al-Anfal:46.)

    "And verily this brotherhood fo yours is a single brotherhood, and I am your Lord and cherissher: therefore fear me (and no other)". (Surah Al-Mominun:52.)

   "And be not fo those who ascribe partners to Allah, those who split up their religion and became divided into sects". (Surah Al-Rum:32.)

    "Surely the true religion in the estimation of Allah is islam, that is, complete submission to him, and those who were given the book disagreed only, out of mutual envy, after knowledge had come to them. Whoso rejects the signs of Allah should remember that Allah is swift at reckoning". (Surah Al-e-Imran)

    "If anyone desires a religion other than islam (submission to god), never will it be accepted of him, and in the hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost (all spiritual goods). (Surah Al-i-Imran)

    In the end god has informaed the people the people that he has blessed his last prophet (peace be upon him) with the same message that he ahd transmitted through other prophets and messengers. Therefore God commanded him to declare on His behalf:

    "Tell them: I am no innovatior among messengers, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I only follow that which is revealed to me; and I am but a plain warner" (Surah Al-Ahgaf)

    " He has prescribed for you the rligion wich he enjoined on Noah, and which we have revealed to you and wich we enjoined on Abraham, and Moses and jesus, that is: be who worship other things than god, hard is the way to which you call them. God chooses to himself those he please adn guides to himself those who trun (to Him)" (Surach Shura):

    "God explains the purpose of revelation through teh manifestative presence of his messengers:

    "Not an Apostle did we send before you without this inspiration sent y us to him: that there is no god but I; therefore worship and serve Me" (Surah Al-Anbiya)

    God has referred to the apostlehood of each prophet at various places in the holy Quran which has been endorsed by the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him) As well.

    "But what God has declared and his Messenger has endorsed go against the grain fo the Shia psyche.The shias hold a contray opinion. They believe they each messenger was sent to invite people to accept Ali as a partner in divinity and tis was their main assignment though they were assigned and this was their main assignment though they were assigned certain secondary roles as well. The traditions which the Shias adduce to support their contention are baseless both in terms of their historcial relevance and logical validity. They are historicaly irelevant because the reporters of these traditions are all Shias who are notorious for telling lies and twisting facts; they are logically invalid because they not only flout the basic principles of logic and human reasoning but also clash with the fundamental tenets of Quran and Sunnah. they also lack rational cogency because human reson belives in the formulation fo general principles human reason belies in the formulation fo general principles to evaluate human conduct and not in the projecton of certain individuals by elevating them to teh positon fo demi-gods, by declaring them superior to other people demi-gods, by declaring them superior to other people without any rational justification, and by treating them  as the arbiters of hell and heaven. Theis amounts to a usurpation to divin attributes and is therefore a clear violation fo quranic injunctions. Quran categorically affirms that love of the Lord alnoe is not enough to ensure success and victory:

    'Announce: if you love Allah then follow me, allah will then love you and forginve you your faults" (Surah Al-i-Imran)

    Virtuous acts are those which conforms to the general pattern laid donw by god and his prophet (peace by uupon him) and acts which violate this pattern can not, by ansy stretch of imagination, be called virtuous acts: God has declared:

    "Those who believe and work righteousness will be guided by their Lord because of their faith. Rivers Shall flow calling: O Allah! You are the Holiest; and their greething will be; peace. The end of their prayer will be: all praise belongs to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds:(Surah Younis).

    He further declares:

    "Those who believe and work righteousness will have gardens beneath which rivers flow. That is the great triumph." (Surah Al-Buruj:11.)

    The opinion of the Shias themselves is divided on the origin and development of Shiaism . Imam Nau Bakhti believes that Shiaism originated after the death of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him ) . H e writes:

    "The prophet (peace be upon him) diewd at the age of sixtythree in the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal, 10.A.H. The period of his prohethood stretched over twenty-three years. His mother is Amina bint Wahb bin Munaf bin Zahra   bin Katab bin Murrah bin K'aab bin Lo'wi. The Muslim community split up into three sects: One sect was known as 'Shia' sect. The Shia are in fact the Shia of Ali bin abi Talib. The other sects of Shias have also sprouted fromthis origion sect. One of the sect claimed the right to rule and demanded the appointment od S'aad bin Ubadah Khazraji as their ruler. This sect comprised the natives. The other sect wasinclined towards Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) bin abi Qahafah and wanted to pledge fealty as his hand. They argued that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had not specified any particular person to replace him as his successor but left it entirely to the Muslim community to elect his successor. One of the groups in this sect also bolsters up its argument with the fact that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had commanded hadhrat Aby Bakr to lead the prayers during the night of his death. This phenomenon furnishes a direct proof of Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu)   superiority over others and establishes his claim to khilafat. Since the Prophet (peace be upon him) had chosen him to perform a religious act, they also choose him to manage their worldly affairs. When this sect clashed with a sect of the natives on the issue, they all went over to Thaqifah bani sa'idah. hadhrat Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat  Abu Ubaidah bin jarrah and Hadhrat Mughirah Shobi Thaqafi also accompanied them. the natives invited the people to pledge fealty at the hand of S'aad bin Ubadah Khazrafi and asserted that he had a better claim to Khilafat. When the conflict intensified between the Quraish and the Ansar, the Ansar put forward that one Amir should be elected from each sect but the Quraish did not concur with the proposal and refuted it with the argument that the Prophet (peace be upon him) had stated:

i.e., the Imam and the Khalifahs will be from among the Quraish. Some of them supplied another version of the Prophetic statement :

    "Only the Quraish are suited to Imamat".

    In the light of these reasonings the Ansar and their supporters acknowledged the Khilafat of hadhrat Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu), But S'aad bin Ubadah and some of his family members did not acknowledge him as the Khalifah and left for Syria. The Romans killed hadhrat S'aad bin Ubadah at Huran in Syria while some of the people belived that he had been killed by the Jinns. They have reasoned on the basis of a verse supposedly composed bu a Jinn:

(We have killed S'aad bin Ubadah, the cheif of Khazraj and the two arrows we shot at him stuck in his heart and did not miss the heart as their target).

    This statement borders on absurdity because normally the Jinns do not kill human beings with the help of arrows. But what the apparent absurdity seems to pin-point is the reality that the majority of peole sided with Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) . After him, hadhrat Umar also enjoyed the support of the people. The masses evolved a consensus around these twi honourable men and all of these people were pleased with them". (Ibn Nadim is actully Muhammad bin Ishaq Nadim who was an extremist Imami Shia scholar and the author of "Kitab-ul-Fehrist". He was born in 297 A.H. and died in 385 A.H. (Qummi: Al-Kina wal-Alqab: Vol. 1.pp. 425-426) MY learned friend Maulana Muhammad Ishaq Bhatti who is associated with the islamic culture Institute, lahore has translated "Kitab -ul- Fehrist" into Urdu.) 

Ibn Nadim Sh'i-i (Ibn-un-Nadim:Al-Fehrist p.249.) believes that Shiaism popped its head on the day of the battle of Jamal The details furnished by him are as follows:

    "When Talha and Zubair opposed Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and insisted on the revenge of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu)'s blood (to the total exclusion of all other concessions), Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) decided to fight against them till they returned to the divine command. Accordingly, the people who supported the contention of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) on that day were known as the Shias". ( khuwansari: Raudhat-ul-Jannat, p.88.).

    Some other Shia writers hold the opinion that the term Shiaism gained currency on the day of the battle of Safin (Al-Fasal fil Malal wal Ahwawan nahi, Vol. 4, p.79.) . The Shia historians ibn Hamza and Abu Hatim also share the same opinion. It also reinforces my stand on the issue. Imam Ibn Hazm among the early Shias in Al-Fasl (Faj-rul-islam, p.266. eight edition.) and Ahmad Amin among the later Shias, in addition to a host of other scholars, have attested the veracity of the statement . A contemporary shia author observes:

   " the martyrdom of hadhrat Hussain stablized the term arguing the origin of Shiaism becuase, after the martyrdom of Hussain, Shiaism had emerged prominently with all its distinctionsand peculiarities". (Mustafa Shaybi:As-Shlah bayn-ut-Tasaqqaf wat- Tashi-ul-kamil: p23.)

    This is perhaps the reason that Mohsin Amin was forced to state: "whether the term was applied during the life of the Prophet (peace be upon him) or after the battle of Jamalm, one factor remains constant-the superiority and support of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu)-and this is what Shiaism means.

    The  concept prevailed during the Prophetic period and it has continued to prevail down to the present times:. (Ayyan-ush-Shia: section one, part one, p.13.).

    Muzfari is also compelled to acknowledge: " Shiaism was publicly proclaimed during the days of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu)". ( Muhammad Hussain Muzfari; Tarikh-ush-hia, p.15.)

    And this is the correct position because labels do not precede the phenomena they serve to depict. the phenomena appear first and the labels follow them, Similarly the parties don not precede the differences which ultimately split them .When differences develop, and different views contened with one another over a specific issue, a particul party takesup the gauntlet of challenge which is obviously prejudiced against the other parties. This prejudiced party activates the emergance of other parties which are equally adamant to establish their own identity and challenge the bona fides of the other pary. before the martyrdom of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) no fifferences prevailed among the Muslims, nor was there any group prejudice among them. But the martyrdom of hadhrat Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu), the consequences that followed in its wake and after the appointment of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) as Amir-ul-Mominin, frictions appeared among the Muslims. Some people were on the side of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and his companions, while others supported talah and Zubair and later on Hadhrat Mu'awiyyah (Radiallahu Anhu) and his companions. This was the time when two grand political parties emerged among the Muslims. One of them was known as the 'Shias of Ali' and the other was known as the 'Shias of Mu'awiyyah'. yhey held divergent views about the state and the khilafat though they practised the same faith and shared the same beliefs as has already been stated.

DIFFERENCES BEFORE THE MARTYRDOM OF HADHRAT Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu)

   Some differences prevailed before the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu). As a matter of fact, his martyrdom was a logical climax of these spats. But this tiff operated mainly between the jewish and the gullible people who had fallen into the trap of jewish deceit, or it operated between the Muslims and their Imam as will be subsequently explained in another chapter. Besides, there were some other petty snip-snaps but they were of a transient nature and disappeared as soon as they appeared. When the second sect, as announced in the Holy Quran:

    " Then if you differ in any thing refer it to Allah and His messenger if you believe in Allah and the last day. That is the best and most commendable in the end." (                                               ) referred to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) their difference evaporated . for instance, a difference had cropped up between the natives and the refugees on the day of saqfah, but the natives discarded their opinion and acknowledged the refugees' stand as valid and reasonable, and all the Muslims collectively and unitedly took the oath  of allegiance at the hand of hadhrat Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique. This fact is acknowledged by the Shias themselves. There was no other party to the tangle except the natives and the refugees and no other name for the candidature of Khilafat had floated about except the names of hadhrat Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) and Hadhrat S'aad bin Ubadah. When the natives and the refugees had resolved the matter between themselves, no vestige or trace of any conflict or disagreement was left behind ( to mar their lives). Therefore Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) had also witnessed it when he looked dejected after the conquest of Egypt and 'Umro bin hamaq, Hajr bin 'Adi, hubbah 'Arni, harith Aor, and Abdullah bin Saba had come to see him and , according to tradition, Abdur Rehman bin Jandab had asked him : " tell us frankly what is your opinion about Abu bakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) and Umar" ? he replied " Do you have time for these things ? We have conquered Egypt no doubt, but so many of my Shias have been killed. I place before you a letter which will contain a reply to your question, and I beg you to protect my right which you are squandering aimlessly. Read out this letter of mine to the " Shias of Ali' and be the helpers and supporters of what is right . "

    The letter was addressed from Amir-ul-Mominin Ali, the creature of God, to each and every believer and Muslimwho happened to read it. The letter ran as follows:

    ' Please accept my salutations. First of all I praise the Lord who has no rival, and after praising Him, I submit that God had made Hadhrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) the model of excellence for both worlds, the bearer of divine revelation and a manifestaton of the will of God (to steer the Muslim community). O Arabs ! at the juncture of his apostlehood your fatith was in a sorry state and your country was in moral decay ; you used to kneal before statues of wood and stone, snakes and serpents, and the thorns scattered haphazardly on the footpaths. You sipped dirty water and guzzled impure food. You shed blood, butchered your children and executed your near and dear ones most ruthlessly. Youmisappropriated one another's goods. The paths were dangerous . Staues were installed every  where. Sin was in your blood. Most of the people attributed partners to God even when they believed in His unity. God was kind to you as he sent hadhrat Muhammad (peace be upon him) to you His messenger, as God has  

    " It is His (God) who raised Muhammad as a Prophet among them, who recites His verses and purifies them and teaches them the Book (of God) and wisdom, and before this, they were completely in the dark". he further declares :

    " A Prophethas come to you (O people) from among yourselves. Your is a burdon on him and he desires your welfare . He is very kind and affectionate toward the believers".

    He declares again :

    " God has been very kinf to the believers : He has raised a Prophet from among them ". he adds :

    " This is Allah's blessing and He confers it on whosoever He pleases ; and his blessings are many ".

    Thus God raised the Prophet (peace be upon him) from among his own people , and he spoke the language they spoke. They are the first Muslims . The Prophet (peace be upon him) taught them the Book of Allah and instilled in them an awareness of their and obligations. He told  them to show mercy, stop shedding blood, improve their conduct, return the trust to their owners, keep promises, stick to their oaths and patronize love, goodness, affection and mercy. he futher prohibited them to loot (property), indulge in cruelty and jealousy, drink liqur, give short measure, commit adultery, change interest 9on money), appropriate the goods of the orphans, create dissonance on earth, follow the path of the rebel because God does not like the rebels and insurgents. each good deed brings you close to paradise and takes you away from hell: God has therefore exhorted you to perform good deeds. each evil deed takes you away from paradise and brings you to hell :God has , therefore, exhorted you to eschew evil.

    When the Prophet (peace be upon him) parted from this mortal world, a clash of opinion developed among the Muslims over the issue of the Khilafat. By God ! I could not even imagine for the flash od a second that the Arabs, afterthe death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) , would elevate any one to the position of a Caliph except those who belonged to the House of Muhammad (peace be upon him) . But when I saw people rallying round Hadhrat Abu BThaqafi :Alakr Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) in increasing numbers and taking the oath of allegiance at his hand, I did not pledge fealty to him because I believed I had a better claim to it. I remained in this state of psychic shock for some time . But when i saw that people were turning apostate and were active in dismantling the foundation of the divine  faith and the religion of Muhammad (peace be upon him) , I had apprehensions that if I did not extend the helping hand to the Muslims at that time, the structure od islam will simply collapse 9and the debris of its past glory will evoke only importent nostalgia). The khilafat was only a temporary affair and it ends like an optical mirage or simply rolls away like dense clouds. Under the circimstances, i went over to see Abu Bake Siddique (Radiallahu Anhu) and took the oath of allegiance at his hand  and participated in quashing rebellion. it liquidated the evil and added to the glory and eminence of the divine faith .

    Hadhrat Abu Bakr (rz) discharged his duties as a Caliph and he administered the country moderately and eleganitly . Out of a feeling of sheet good will I kept up my association with him and spared no effort whatsoever to extend him unqualifiled submission and obedience ". ( Thaqafi: Al-Gharat,Vol.1, pp.302-307. It is also recorded in Sharh Nahj-ul-Balaghah and Majma-ul-Bahar by Majlisi: For details on the relevant issue see my book "Shias and the House of Ali").

    Abul Hassan Ash'ari has raised a similar issue in his book "Maqalat-il-Islamiyyin": He observes that the first difference that emerged between the Muslims after the death of the Prophet(peace be apon him) related to Imamat.When the Prophet (peace be apon him) died,the natives gathered at Saqifah Bani Sa 'idah and decided to make Hadhrat S' aad bin Ubadah thier Imam. When Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar came to knoe about thier decision,they also joined thier meeting along with a group of the refugees.Hadhrat Abu Bakr explaained that only the Quraish were suited to Imamat, as the Prophet (peace be apon him) himself had stated:

    When the natives came to know about the Prophetic saying, they gaveup thier stand  and acknowledged the truth . Only sometime back they had been insisting :

Hadharat Abu Bakr discharged his duties as a Caliph and he administered the country moderately and elegantly. Out of a feeling of sheer good will I kept up my associartion with him and spared no effort whatsoever to extend him unqualified submission and obedience".

Abul Hassan Ash'ari has raised a similar issue in his book "Maqalat-il-islamiyyin": He observed that the first difference that emerged between the Muslim after the death of the Prophet (peace by upon him) related to Imamat. When the Prophet (peace by upon him) died, the natives gathered at Saqifah Bani Sa'idah and decided to make hadhrat S'aad bin Ubadah their imaim. When hadhrat abu bakr and hadhrat Umar came to know about

Their meeting along their decision, they also joined their meeting along with a group of the refugees. Hadhrat Abu Bakr explained that only the quraish were suited to Imamat, as the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself had stated:

When the natives came to know about the Prophetic saying, they gave up their stand and acknowledged the truth. Only sometime back they had been insisting: if you do not acknowledge the imamat of saad bin ubadah, then Ubadah, then you should at least concede our demand that one amir should be elected from among us and the other amir should be elected form among you. Similarly hubab in Munzir taking his sword out of the sheath and brandishing it in the air, had said: I am a perfect swordsman, is there any one who would dare to fight with me? In order to support S'aad bin ubadah, his son Qais bin S'aad also stood up but umar faruq snubbed and silenced him. However, whien the natives heard the Prophetic decree, they bowed their heads in submission and then all of them unanimously placed the crown of khilafat on the head fo hadhrat siddique akbar, pledged fealty at his hand and assured him of their loyalty.

The ws the prophet (peace be upon him) had launched jehad aginst the disbelives, hadhrat abu baker lanuched the against the apostates in the same spirtit. God blessed him victory the apostates who're-embrced islam. In this way the victory of the right was insured.

After the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him) the only sore spot between the muslim related to the khilafat issue. No other difference raised its ugly head during the period of siddique and faruq. But in the last days of uthman some of the people had unnecssarily criticized a few of his acts. The dissension still persists in the muslim world but it is all due to some of the evil geniuses who wanted to reduce to shreds thesplendour of islam. Hadhrat utman received maryrodom on account of conspiracy among the muslims.. the contention of the sunnis is that the deeds of hadhrat uthman sere acts of piety. The cruel people shed his ohly bollod without any justification. Other people held a different opinion, and this difference still persists among the muslims.

After the martyrdom of uthman people pledged fealty at the hand fo hadhrat ali. Some of them were deadly against hadhrat uthman. They denied his Imamat and khilafat. But there were others who were his staunch supporters. The schim has persisted through history down to the present times.

Opinion was divided on the war between hadhrat ali and talha and zubair; and opinion was equaily divided on the war between hadhrat ali hadhrat muawiyyah at safin.

Besides, a number of other petty differences leapt to the eye. For example, people disagreed about the burial place of the prophet and a rift between the Muslims showed its colours on the issue of jehad but these differences were amicably resoled in the light of the evidence furnishred by Quran and sunnah. But the difference that persisted, like the over-stay of an unwelcome guest, and the clash of opinion that smashed the mushlim community into bits and pieces and pulverized its unity countless particles and established a permanent 'brouillerie' among the Muslims in the form of two equally formidable parties, was the difference between Hadrat Ali and Hadrat muawiyyah. But I would like to re-emphasize my point that these two personalities neither founded a new religion rotted in new convictions nor denied the straight path charted out by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) and after him kept in good gear by his pious Caliphs Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. None of the two parties carried any particle of jealousy or malice aganisst the early natives and refugees as is reflected in the conduct of the present-day Shias, nor did they fan the flames of racial and tribal prrejudice. I would like to point out with due apology that Hadrat Ali and his companions did not hold the views and beliefs held by our contempoary Shias, on the basis of which Shias have cultivated a deeply-ingrained feeling of spite against the pious Caliphs and the pure wives of the Prophet (peace be upon him); on the same basis they deny the Quran in its present form and they also deny the Sunnah of the prophet of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Shia have actually borrowed all these beliefs either from Adbullah bin Saba or from the cursed Judaism as I propose to discuss at length in a subequent chapter and sort out the chaff from the grain.

The companions fo hadhrat ali loved the native companions of the prophet (peace be upon him)--- who included hadhrat abu bakr umar, hadhrat uthman and the pure wives of the prophet. They obeyed them and followed in their footsteps. Hadhrat ali, the fourth pious caliph, also loved them form the core of his heart. Whenever any of the companions died, hadhrat ali looked a picture of agony. He always tried to follow the companions; he did not like a person who differed with them; he punished anyone who ridiculed or insulted them. He was also actively engaged in liquidating the ingredients of judaism and sabaism that were making deep inroads into the heats and minds of his companions and friends and he never willingly south the company of a person whom he suspected of entertaining and practising these devilish beliefs and convictions.

The Shias themselves have attested to the fact that hadhrat ali also named his sons after the three pious caliphs: abu bakr, umar, and uthman. His sons hassan and hussain too, kept up the practice of their father and named their sons as abu bakr umar. Similarly hadhrat ali's other sons and sons of hadhart hussain gave these pious names to their sons and practically demonstrated their love and regard for the hallowed companions of the prophet (peace be upon him).

As far as their love and obedience of these people are concerned, I have already discurssed the matter in detail in my book "shias and the house of ali" and to repeat it would be an exercise in sheer tautology. Any one who is interested in the details is advised to trun to the relevant book. But here I would like to cite an excerpt form a book by mulla baqir majlist iran, who is the worst enemy of the sunnis and who Is notorious among the shias for possessing the viest tongue and the filthiest mouth, on whom the shias have conferred the title of khatimatul-muhaddithin and who has compiled the most voluminous collection of ahadith in shia literature. He writes in his book "jila'ul-"uyyun fi hayat wa masaib "arba" ashr masuma". Hadhrat hassan bin ali bin abi talib has patched up with hadhrat muawiyyah bin abi sugiyan on the condition that he will deal with the people in the light of qurna and sunnah and the practice of the pious caliphs, that he will not appointany caliph after him (as his sucessor), that he will let the people live in peace whether they were form syri, iraq, arab or yemen, and that he will protect and afegurad the life, property, wives and children of the companions and the shias fo ali bin abi talib. Hadhrat Hassan had signed a contract on oath for the fulfilment of these conditions⁶⁰.

This clearly indicates that one of the conditions of the of the contract spelled out by Hadhrat Hassan was that Hadhrat Muawiyyah will follow the practice of the pious Caliphs and it is obvious that the pious Caliphs are no other than Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman. He had imposed this condition simply because he had great faith in their inherent decency, virtue and piety and because he believed that the lives of these people were unconditionally modelled on the life of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).

This is only one example of its kind, but one con gather a number of these examples⁶¹ through a detailed study of the lives of hadhrat ali and his sons. I may point out again that difference between hadhrat ali and hadhrat muawiyyah was not a religious difference nor did it lead to a permanent incision in their mutual relations nor were they the victims of mutual spite and animus. The myths the shias have concocted in this connexion are baseles. The facts do not support them; in fact alone carry enough dynamite to explode these myths. Each one of the two groups was deeply convinced of the religious sincerity and intergrity of the other group. Each group placed the maximum premium on peace; peace group sincerely craved unity and premium on peace; each group sincerely craved unity and solidarity. This is the reason that hadhrat hassan had patched up with hadhart Muwiyyah and had pledged fealty to him. Had hadhrat hassan considered hadhrat muawiyyah outside the fold of islam, he would never have seen eye to eye with him, patched up with him and pledged fealy to him nor would he have commanded his brother hadhrat hussain nad qais bin S’aad, the commander of his army, take the oath of allegiance at his hand. All these facts are narrated in the books by shia scholars as well: kashi writes: "jibra’il bin ahmad and abu ishaq hamdoya and ibrahimboth are the sons of nasir-said that they had been told by muhammad bin abdul hamid al-atar al-kufi through younits bin y’aqub through fazal ghulam muhammad bin rashid that I heard abu abdullah saying: hadhrat muawiyyah despatched a letter to hassan bin ali, inviting him, his brother hussain and the companions of ali, inviting him, his brother hussain and the companions of ali. Accordingly all of them reached syria. Qais bin s’aad bin ubadah ansari also accompanied them. As they landed in syria, hadhrat muawiyyah immediately sent for them. (when they arrived there) hadhrat hassan addressed qais: qais! Get up and pledge fealty (to him). On hearing this qais looked towards hadhrat hussain: what is you command for me? He replied: qais hassan is my leader"⁶²

His father, hadhrat ali bin abi talib-who is regarded as the first innocednt imam by the shias-had also despatched a letter to hadhrat mu’aiyyah on similar lines:

We had developed close links with you on basis of traditional superiority and impregnable prestige and hounour and we gorged inter-marital ties on the basis of equal status"⁶³

Had there existed a religious difference between them, hadhrat ali would never have married sayyidah rimaly to mu’awiyyah binmarvan bin hukm.⁶⁴rimlah bint ali was the mother of s’aid bin urwah bin mas’ud thaqafi.⁶⁵khadijah, another daughter of Ali, was married to Abdur Rahman bin Amir Amwi.⁶⁶Abdur Rahman’s father Amir bin Kuraiz Amwi was the governor of Basra appointed by Muawiyyah and had sided with Talha and Zubair against Hadhrat Ali in the battle of Jamal. Hadhrat Khadijah was the daughter of a slavemaid as has been referred to by Tabrisi in "Al-‘llam"⁶⁷and by Mufid in Al-Irshad".⁶⁸ Similary another daughter of Hadrat Ali had entered into wed-lock with Amwi Caliph Abdul Malik bin Marwan.⁶⁹

Similarly, the daughters of hadhrat hassan and hussain entered into marital contracts with the amwis and the daughters of amwis married the hashmis, especially the children of hadhrat ali. Details of the inter-martial ties between banu ummayyah and banu hashim ar4e given in my book "shias and the house of ali". For example, among the daughters of hadhrat hassan and hussain, and number of them were married to non-hashmis. The daughter of hadhrat hussain and the grand-daughter of hadhrat ali, sakinah was married to zaid bin "Umro bin uthman, the grandson of hadhrat uthman, hadhrat skina was still in his wed-lock when he died. She received her share of the heritage.⁷⁰ similarly the daughter of zaid bin hassan bin ali, hadhrat nafisha, married walid bin malik bin marwan, the amwi caliph. A famous shia geneologist has referred to this marriage but has clamped a lousy interpretation on it.

"Nafisah was on of the daughters of zaid bin hassan bin ali. She had eloped with walid bin abdul malik bin marwan and gave birth to his children. She passed away in Eqypt. Zaid used to visit walid frequently. Walid held him in great reverence and made him sit on his bed beside himself. He revered him because his dughter was living with him. Once walid had paid in great reverence and make him sit on his bed beside himself. He revered him because his daughter was living with him. Once walid had paid him thirty thousand dinar"⁷¹

it is notwworthy that this zaid bin hassan ws also present at karbala with his uncle hadhrat hussain was also present at karbala with his uncle hadhrat hussain. Similarly zainab binhassan mithna, the grand daughter of hadhrat hassan, was also in the wedlock of of walid bin abdul malik amwi her father hassan mithna was present at karbala with his uncle and father-in-law hadhrat hussain where he was seriously wounded. I would like to stress the point that the serioulsy wounded. I would like to stress the point that the six grand-daughters of hadhrat hassan, who were the children of his different sons, had married amwi chief and leaders of his different sons, had married amwi chiefs and leaders when the geneologist made a count of such relationships, their number exceeded even the figure of twenty. And the interesting pat of it is that all these weddings were solemnized after differences⁷² had peeped out between hadhrat ali and amir muawiyyah and after the wars of jamal and safin.⁷³similarly a number of hashimis also married amwi girls. Hashmis and amwi visited one another frequently and exchanged gifts as well. The imams and their families had established extremely pleasant relations with the amwis. With the sole exception of hadhrat hussain, none of them had ever waged a war against the amwis or tried to wrest power form them. Of course, tehwars between his father hadhrat ali and hadhrat muawiyyah are to well-know to be glossed over, and the matter of hadhrat hassan’s patch-up withhim is equally famous and no one in his senses has the audacity or the stubborness to deny it.

Kulaini,--who possesses the staatus of imam bukhari among the shias-has imputed a tradition in his "sahih’ to ali bin hussain (imam zain-ul-abindin). Muhaddith sha nuri tabrisi comments on kulaini’s book:

"it is one of the four books which see as the ful-crum of the imamiyyah sect. The workth of "kafi" among these books is like the worth of the sum among the stars. Whenever a just man examines its contents, he will derive a rare sattisfaction form them. Their very incorporation in "kafi’ is the greatest proof of their validity"⁷⁴

it is recorded in this top-ranking book of the shias that ali bin hussain (imam zain-ul-abidin) asid to Yazid bin muawiyyah:

"I am a helpless slave: you can keep me with you if it pleases you, or you can sell me out if it pleases you"⁷⁵

other people who lived in the ummayyah period shared the same propensities pople who lived in the abbasi period shared the same propensities people who lived abbasi period did not press a different button either: they just followed the ruts of precedent. But there were poser form people who waged wars and also tried to wrest poser form the incumbents but victory never kissed their feet. They faced either defeat or martyrdom on the battle-field: there was no third option for them.The Shias also had ruptured relations with their Imams, because they not only had given them up but hurled allegations of apostasy at them. The poor Imams were, therefore, sandwiched between two layers of hostility: on the one hand were the disbelievers with whom they had to fight; on the other hand were their own friends who levelled allegations of disbelief against them. The Shias believed that:

"A man who claims Imamat and does not deserve it is a disbeliever"⁷⁶

Hussain bin Mukhtar has reported: I asked Abu: Abdullah: who are the referents of the verse?

(And on that you shall see the people who imputed lies to God). He replied: it means any person who claims to be an Imam but, in fact, is not an Imam. I inquried even if he is a Fatimi or an Alvi? He replied : yes, even if he is a Fatimi or an Alvi.

The gist of the entire discussion is that early Shiaism had not yet evolved a set or system of specific beliefs and ideas and the early Shias served only as the agents only as the agents of a political party. The Shias served Hadhrat Ali against Muawiyyah during his Caliphate, switched their sympathies towards Muawiyyah after the martyrodom of Hadhrat Ali and the abdication of Hadhrat Hassan. They even pledged fealty readily readily to Hadhrat Muawiyyah (As readily as Hamlet’s mother Gertrude marries his uncle Claudius and her brother-in-law after the mysterious death of his father). Their conscience never pricked them because they did not have a conscience the way they buttoned off their loyalties proved that they had no convictions because people with convictions do not change in such a melodramatic manner. Their Imam Hassan his brother Hadhrat Hussain and the leader of the army Qais bin S’add also pledge fealty to Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah. There was no relious religious clash between them, nor did they have a dispute about Qibla. No racial or tribal prejudice splite them nor did they have a dispute about Qibla visits between them and even prayed behind one another. Hadhrat Hassan and Hussain who were the sons of Hadhrat Ali and Fatima and the grandson of the prophet often visited Hadhrat Muawiyyah who always wel-comed them with open hands as is attested by Hafiz IbnKathir:

"When Hadhrat Muawiyyah ruled the roost Hadhrat Hassan often visted him with with his brother Hadhrat Hussain. Hadhrat often Mu’awiyyah made every effort to accord them a red-carpet tretment. At every and loaded he gave them twolac dinar in lump and said to them please accept it from Ibn Hind. No one has ever made you the present of such a huge amount and no one shall ever do so after. Hadhrat Hussain replied By God! You the the people who preceded you and the people who will follow you will never come across a person whose worth exceeds ours. After the death of Hadhtat Hassan Hadhrat Hussain kept up the round of his visits to Mu’awiyyah. Every year he gave him present and always treated him with great reverence".

In the same vein Majlisi has reported from J’afar bin Baqir,(who is the sixith innocent Imam of the Shias) that Imam Hassan once told Imam Hussain and Abdullah bin J’afar

That they willl receive some presents form Mu’awiyyah on the first day of the next month. The goods arrived precisely on the specified day. Hadhrart hassan was under heavy debt. First of all he paid his family, his relatives and his workers. Imam hussain, after the payment of debts, divided the goods into portions. He distributed one portion among his close friends and associates and gave the other two portions to his family and relatives. Abdullah bin J’afar also followed the same practice"⁷⁸

Kulaini reports that marwan bin hukm has also fixed a stipend for ali bin hussain (imam zain-ul-abioin) as it was fixed for other young people of madinah, kulayni says:

"mu’awyyah appointed marwan bin hukm the governor of madinah and ordered him to fix stipends for the young people. Imam zain-ul-abidin syas that when he went over to see him in this connexion he asked: you name? I replied: ali bin hussain! And he fixed my stipend also"⁷⁹

Similary Hussain’s uncle and Hadhrat Ali’s brother Hadhrat Aqil bin abi Talib also frequently visited Hadhrat Muawiyyah and accepted gifts and presents from him. Once he made him a present of one lac dirham".⁸⁰

The famous Shia scholar Ibn abl al-Hadid has acknowledged this fact. He says:

"Mu’awiyyyah is the first person on earth who disbursed millions of presents. His son Yazid is the first man who doubled the number of presents (his father gave).He used to pay one lac dirham to Hassan and Hussain individually. Similarly he paid the same amount to Abdullah bin Abbas and Abdullah bin J’afar".⁸¹

Abuu Mikhnaf, a staunch Shia writer, admites:

"Hadrat Mu’awiyyah, besides assorted presents, used to send Hadrat Hussain one million dinar every year."⁸²
 

These hallowed figures of the Quraish tribe also offered their prayers behind Mu’awiyyah’s officials. J’afar bin Muhammad Baqir related on the authority of Imam Zain-ul-Abdin that Hadrat Hassan and Hussair used to offer their prayers behind Marwan and did not repeat them; on the contrary they regared them flawless."⁸³

Abban bin Uthman was the governor of Madina appointed by Abdul Malik bin Marwan Amwi. Once he arrived for prayer before Ali who was also known as Muhammad bin Hanafiyya. Abu Hashim bin Muhammad bin Ali said to him:

"We are well aware that the Imam has a better claim to lead prayer. If this were not so, we would never have asked you to lead us. So he moved forward and led the prayer."⁸⁴

He also led the funeral prayer of Abdullah bin J’afar Tayyar, the nephew of Hadrat Ali.⁸⁵

Similarly his father led the funeral prayer of Hadrat Abbas bin Abdul Mutlib, his grandfather and the uncle of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and the Prophet (peace be upon him ). Hadhrat Abbas died on Friday, 12^th Rajib, 32 A.H. Some traditions make in the month of Ramadhan in place of Rajb. He had stepped into the eighty year of his life at that time . Hadhrat Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) bin affan had led his funeral prayer and he was buried in Baqi." Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) and the Prophet (peace be upon him ). Hadhrat Abbas died on Friday, 12^th Rajib, 32 A.H. Some traditions make in the month of Ramadhan in place of Rajb. He had stepped into the eighty year of his life at that time . Hadhrat Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) bin affan had led his funeral prayer and he was buried in Baqi."

(Al-Bidayah Wan Nahayah Vol. 7, p. 162 , Al-istiyyab, vol. 3, p. 100.)

Innumarable example support the enviable bonds of mutual relationship that existed between the Amwis and the Hashmis. But after the passage of the early era, the Shias exprerienced a seachange: A radical change marred the complexion of Shiaism as it was deeply influenced by the speculative encroachments of judaism, zoroastrianism and christianity. The Shias fell into the subtle traps laid by jewish conspiracies and zoroastrain perversities. They were easily annoyed with the Muslim officials but were gullibly impressed by those who had donned islamic robes as a cover-up for their lousy plans and unholy practices. One factor that accomplished this ugly transformation of the Shia psyche was their free mixing with the persians and the Babylonians as well as their informal association with the slaves who disliked the Arabs because they had conquered their territories and were lording over as their masters. The ring leader of this consspiracy and the chief preacher and propagator of these beliefs and ideas was Abdullah bin Saba who was the jewish spy and agent with the Islamic badge and whose main mission was to sow the seeds of ‘shemozzle’ among the Muslims in the grab of a Muslim. He fanned the flames of rebellion against the Amir-ul-mominin-who was unanimously elected and who was the companion of the prophet (peace be upon him), the husband of two of his daughters, the Prophet'’ cousin and a mountain of charity and generosity. This issue shall be discussed in detail and with illustration in the next chapter.

There is no doubt that a large number of sabais, zoroastrians, jews and christian had penetrated the ranks of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu)’s army under false labels as their undisguised entry could have been easily detected. Some of these people had also wangled their way into the army of Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah, though they were , in fact, neither the Shias of Ali nor the Shias of Mu’awiyyah. On the other hand, they were the agents of an intractable rebel group which had its own specific convictions and objectives. Whenever the parties came on the verge of reconciliation, they stared a fresh rumpus and fanned the flames of war. Kharjis were an off-shoot of this group who treated Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu), Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) and Mu’awiyyah as infidels. Their object was much more heinous. They, in fact, wanted to decimate the Islamic empire by snapping away the almost seamless chain of Muslim conquests. This is the reason that when they had achieved success in provoking the masses, in created fracas among the Muslims and in being instrumental in shedding the blood of the third pious Caliph, they had created almost identical circumstances during the reian of Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu), a fact which only a stubborn person can deny, or one who lacks knowledge and insight and has strayed away from the path of virtue and justice.

There is also absolutely no doubt that the early sincere Sahias of Ali were exempt from the provocative stance which was adopted by the later Shias. Their leader was also exculpated from the burden of guilt . On the contrary he snubbed them and even executed them for their heretic approach towards religion. But it is almost certain that the Shias of Ali were victims of chronic lethargy, cowardice, lack of determination, stability and ingratitude but the Shias of Hadhrat Uthman (Radiallahu Anhu) and Mu’awiyyah were made of a sterner stuff. Similarly the Shias of Ali were also deficient in loyalty, sincerity, trust and truthfulness. Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) always complained against them and suffered heavily at their hands on account of his immeasurable strength and lengendary bravery and valour. He often snubbed them in words which no man with even a grain of self-respect could stand and which had little effect on his followers:

"O you who resemble men, though you are not men ! you are immature as far as your reason is concerned. You argue and think like women. I wish I had not seen you and recognized you. By God ! I repent it. May God ruin you ! You have saddened my heart and you have filled my chest with anger.

You disobeyed me and always differed with my opinion. The Quraish even said that ibn abi Talib does not know how to fight. May God bless them ! is there any one who exceeds me in the art of fighting, in courage and valour ? I was hardly twenty years of age when I had the first taste of war and now I am in my sixties, Yes a person who is disobeyed is supposed to have no opinion." ( Nahj-ul-Balaghah, p-67.)

By comparing his Shias with the Shias of Mu’awiyyah, he said :

"I swear by Him who has my life in His hands ! These people will surely prevail over you, not because their stand is more righteous than yours, but because they do not hesitate to approve and support even the false contention of their companions but you hesitate to support even my true contention. The nations (usually) fear persecution at the hands of their rulers: but I am a ruler who fears persecution at the hand of his nation. I told you to come out for jehad but you stayed put. I want to communicate to you what I thought and felt but you paid no attention. I called you out secretly and openly but you cared two hoots (for may call). I had your welfare on my mind but you declined my offer. Can presence be like absence and can slaves be like master ? I read out to you my command but you take to your heels. I exhort you and admonish you but you don’t budge. I try to prepare you for jehad against the rebels but you disperse even before I wind up my speech. You retirn to your meetings and do not listen to advice. I pack you off in the morning but you return by the evening.

"O people you are present here with your bodies but your minds are absent. Your desire are different. Your officers and leaders are victims of tension and on account of you. Your Amir obeys Allah but you disobey him. The Amir of the syrians disobeys Allah but they obey Him. By God ! I would like Mu’awiyyah to exchange our companions at the rate that exists between a dinar and dirham : He should take away ten of my companions and give me in return one of his copanions.

"O residents of Kufa ! I have twenty three complaints against you. You can hear but you are deaf; you can speak but you are dumb you have eyes but you are blind. During war you are false and fickle fighters and during adversity you are unreliable brothers. Alas ! you are like the camels whose shephered has disappeared and if they are humped in at one end, they hump out at the other end. By God ! when the fire is raging you will leave me and keep aside as a woman (leaves her man)".

The way the Shias of Ali disgraced and humiliated Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) has no precedent in islamic history. One is almost compelled to believe that they held an ingrained grudge against him. Perhaps Ali’s extraordinary valour and super-human feats of bravery made his shias conscious of their inferiorty and worthless-ness. Ali’s bluntness and candidness only served to place under an unfavourable spot their cringing diplomacy. The malingering slobs can hardly appreciate the eagle-like flight of their great leaders and, instead of flapping their wings to fly towards them, they try to bring them down. The great man, therefore, invariably negotiates a solo flight as is proved in the case of Hadhart Ali. The Shias not only tortured and humiliated him but left him on all vital occasions. The worst example of this treatment is that Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu)’s own brother and one of his most trustworthy companions Hadhrat Aqil, left him and joined hands with Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah and even fought against Hadhrat Ali (Radiallahu Anhu) under his banner. This fact is attested by a reliable Shia historian.

"Aqil left his real brother Ali during his caliphate and ran away to Hadhrat Mu’awiyyah and he was with him during the war of Safin." (Umdaht-ul-talib fi Ansab Ali-I-Talib, p. 15, published in )

The treatment the Shias of Ali had extended to Hadhrat HASAN AND Hadhrat Hussain is a historical reality which can not be smudged with the smong of islam justification and misguided interpretation. The discussion will become unnecessarily long if I go into all the glaring details. Imam J’afar bin baqir has himself admitted (and he has a reputation for can didness and truthfulness) that the Shias of Ali were depleted of trust, truthfulness and sincerity. When one of his pupils referred to Abdullah bin Yafur, he commented:

" I submitted to Abu Abdullah that I survey the situation by mixing with the people . I am surprised to learn that some persons who are not your friends but are the friends of such and such person possess trust, truthfulness and loyalty, but those persons who claim to be your friends, are drained of these attributes. On hearing this Abu Abdullah sat up in his seat and accosted me in a state of anger : a person has no faith who obeys an Imam not sent by God is immune to all punishment". (Usul Kafi, vol. 1,p.237.)

Since the object of this chapter is rather limited, the details will follow in the next chapter.