Allama Ehsan Elahi Zaheer Language: English | Format: PDF | Pages: 210 | Size: 2 MB
Before I touch on the topic, I would like
to unveil the facts which are hidden not only from the common run of
people, but also from the will-informed persons. One of the facts is
that ‘suppressio veri’, suppression of truth or lying is a Shia way of
life. They have elevated ‘suggestio falsi’ to the level of a
full-fledged faith. They have sanctified a mere tissue of lies by
conferring on it the label of “Taqiyyah”; but a lie is always a le
whether one presents it baldly or wraps it up in multi-coloured gift
paper. To identify a self-concocted prescription with divine revelation
is simply inconceivable and only a psoturemaster or a Jack pudding could
conceive such an equation. No sensible or sensitive person or group of
people can transform sheer flap-doodle into religious faith because it
lacks both divine sanction and rational expectance. But the Shias have
performed this impossible feat by turning their Punic faith into a
divinely guaranteed philosophy of life which relies mainly on the
projection of lies and ‘supercherie’, quackery and charlatanism, bluff
and mummery. Their attitude towards “Taqiyyah” is characteristic of
their whole mentality: it is a reflection of the collective Shia psyche
which is suffering from a chronic moral and spiritual jaundice. The
Shias observe (any one who does not observe Taqiyyah – adopts
dissimulation as a way of life – is not a believer). And the painful
irony of it is that, as a practical demonstration of their penchant for
dissimulation, these stool-pigeons have imputed the statement to Imam
Muhammad Baqir.
Hadhrat Ali and his family members
protested almost invariably against the Shia propensity towards
falsification and equivocation. These Imams expressed their displeasure
at the Shia habit of misrepresenting facts and always complained against
their clap-trap charlatanism. Kashi, one of the most distinguished Shia
experts of human psychology, has related on the authority of Ibn Sanam:
“Abu Abdullah remarked that there is no
doubt that we Ahl-i-Bait are in the right but we are not immune against
the lies of the impostors who may impute some bouncer to us and damage
our veracity by spreading humbug about us as the Prophet (peace be upon
him) was the most truthful among mankind but Musailmah Kazab attributed
lies to him. Similarly, after him, Hadhrat Ali was the most truthful
among mankind but Abu Abdullah Hussain bin Ali. Then he mentioned Harith
Shami and Banan and pointed out that they blurted lies about Ale bin
Hussain. Then he cursed Mughirah bin S’aid, Bazigha, Siri, Abul Khatab,
Mu’amar, Bashar-ul-Ashari, Hamza Yazidi, and S’aid Nahdi and said: we
are not immune against these liars; they impute fabrications to us. May
God protect us against the evil of each liar and send him to hell”.
The other fact is that he people, who
roll the rosary of allegations and accusations against Hadhrat Uthman,
were in fact the people who caused his martyrdom and flung open the gate
of dissension among the Muslims. The majority of these traditionalists
are Shias. They have magnified microscopic details and transformed
Lillipution realties into Brobdignaggian monsters, and the historians
have further doubled up the confusion by uncritically accepting the
packet of lies handed down to them through the prejudiced traditionists.
The result is that it is almost a Sisyphian labour to sort out fact
from fiction and reality from phantasy. The writers and historians have
followed a highly whimsical line of action; they have included every
insignificant and cooked-up detail genuineness of their borrowed plumes;
but they have ignored and excluded even the significant details that
clash with their highly volatile priorities and scoff at their spurious
thesis.
The third fact is that these
traditionists have not based their perverse findings on the evidence of
the direct or firsthand witnesses. They are mostly based on derivative
evidence and they have reproduced mere hear-say and baseless
observations without caring to test their veracity, creating a jumble of
unassorted evidence. Some of the examples are glaring violations of ten
years between the events and the reporters of these events. The matter
will be discussed at length in the subsequent pages.
The fourth fact is that these impassioned
blankety-blank defenders of their putid faith make no effort to hide
their partisan stance in the projection of events. They ignore the
claims of truth and side with the group of people who set ablaze the
fires of dissension among the Muslims by blowing into the ash of
half-dead embers. It is clear that these people are working for the
mission of the rebel group and are actively engaged in keeping alive the
flames of disunity flared up initially by their forefathers. Therefore
it is morally binding on every person who likes to dig out truth that he
should not accept their statements blindly and uncritically. He should
especially find out for himself if these statements are also endorsed by
more trustworthy and reliable reporters which is not unanimously
supported by Abu Mikhnaf, Waqdi and the two Kalbis.
It is, however, unfortunate, that their
account of companions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is generally
considered reliable through they are the worst successors of their
ancestors. They were leaders of the rebels and agents of Judaism and
Zoroastrianism. It is possible that they had fallen into their trap
against their better judgement and had adopted their convictions as a
consequence of unconscious deception. They were thoroughly steeped in
their scampish beliefs. They strictly followed the strategy practised by
Goebbles in the last days: they juggled and embroidered facts in such a
shameless manner and they increased the volume and quantum of lies to
such a stupendous degree that people almost quantum of lies to such a
stupendous degree that people almost started lapping up their spoofy
interpretations as unvarnished truth. They in fact crossed all bounds
and limits of exaggeration and misrepresentation and out-heroded Herod
in their wily and devilish misprojectiosn.
Since my ‘modus operandi’ is to rely on
facts alone, and to prove my point of view on the basis of logical
reasoning and substantive evidence and to quote only those sources whose
authenticity is irreproachable, therefore I would like to substantiate
my statements with the help of following arguments.
Abu Mikhnaf: Mohsin writes in his book
“Ayyan-ush-Shia” in a chapter on Shia writers: “Abu Mikhnaf is Lut bin
Yahya Azdi Ghamidi. Najashi believes that he was one of the historians
of Kufah. He complied a number of books. The most noteworthy books are
the ones dealing with the conquests of Syria, Iraq, Khorasan, Jamal,
Safin, Nahr and Gharat and the book dealing with the murder of Hussain.
Ibn Nadim in “Al- Fehrist” has recorded the comments of Ahmad bin Harith
Khazzaz who thinks that Abu Mikhnaf is more will-in-formed than others
about the conquest of Iraq, Madaini is more well-informed about
Kharasan, India and Persia while Waqidi excels them in his grasp of
facts about Hijaz and a psychological understanding of people. The
information about Syria is evenly distributed among them and they can
not claim any edge over one another. But it should be noted that two of
these three i.e., Abu Mikhnaf and Waqidi are Shias”.
As is well known, Najashi has rated him
among the Shia authors and, besides the list furnished by Mohsin, he is
also supposed to have complied the following books: “Kitab-us-Saqifah”,
the book of Shura, the book on the murder of Uthman, Kitab-ul- Hikmin,
the murder of Amir-ul-Momini, the murder of Hussain, the murder of Hajr
bin Adi, Akhbareul-Mukhtar, Akhbar-uz-Ziyat, Akhbar Muhammad bin abi
Bakr and the murder of Muhammad etc. He has also mentioned that he was
one of the distinguished historians and writers of Kufah. He derived a
great deal of consolation from relating his traditions. He has also
borrowed a number of traditions from Jafar bin Muhammad.
–
Contents:
• The Origin of Shiaism
• Shiaism and Sabai
• Shia’s Allegations on Caliph
• The Sabai’s Period
• Shia Sects
• Shia’s of Ithna-e-Ashriyya
• Ithna-e-Ashriyya and Sabai’s Belief
Post a Comment