Historic Background of Shiism

Defining the
word Shi''a

The writer states:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"Shie''ah", "Shi''ah":
a singular Arabic noun means group, party, sect, supporter".

After citing the verses where Shi''a is mentioned the unnamed author writes:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"During the conflict between Hazrat
Ali bin Abu Tleb (Karramallah wajhah) and Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan (Radhi
Allahu Anh), both groups were referred to as Shi''atu Ali and Shi''atu
Muawiyah. Hence, its early usage in the conflict between the two great
companions Ali & Muawiyah [ra-both] was to denote who "sided"
with who in its political context".

It should be stressed that this was far more than just a political difference
over the breakfast table. This WAS a difference that lead to civil war.

Rather than watering the matter down to who "sided" with who, perhaps
the writer should explain which ''side'' was right and which ''side'' was wrong.
Were the Sahaba who ''sided'' with Mu''awiya against Ali correct to do so?

It is indeed wrong to just water it down to a difference of opinion - this
political context clearly had religious ramifications, because Allah (swt) says
clearly in the Holy Qur''an "Obey Allah, his Prophet and those in authority
among you".

Rasulullah (s) also said:

"After
me people shall experience fitna, you will split in to groups, he then pointed
at ''Ali and said Ali and his companions shall be on the right path" [Kanz
ul Ummal hadith number 33016].

This is an absolutely clear hadith pointing to where the truth lay, again there
is no room for the excuse that those who fought ''Ali would also receive a
reward as they thought they were on the right path!

The problem here is the writer is REFUSING to distinguish truth from falsehood. He is happy to portray an image that
everything was rosy in the garden and there was a political dispute, but fails
to pass comment on which party was right and which party was in the wrong.

The dispute
between Mu''awiya and Maula ''Ali (as)

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"Was the dispute between Ali and
Mu''awiyah religious in nature?

Absolutely not. The conflict started after the murder of the 3rd Khalif,
Hazrat Uthman ibn ''Affan (Radhi Allahu Anh), and the existence of the
murderers in the camp of Sayyidina Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh). However, to answer
this question, we''ll explore Nahjul Balaghah to see what Sayyidina Ali (Radhi
Allahu Anh) himself had to say about it, contrary to what the Shi''ah wish to
present:

"The thing began in this way: We and the Syrians were facing each other
while we had common faith in one Allah, in the same Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi
wa Sallam) and on the same principles and canons of religion. So far as faith
in Allah and the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam) was concerned we
never wanted them (the Syrians) to believe in anything over and above or
other than what they were believing in and they did not want us to change our
faith. Both of us were united on these principles. The point of contention
between us was the question of the murder of Uthman. It had created the
split. They wanted to lay the murder at my door while I am actually innocent
of it."

Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 58, p. 474

If anything Imam Ali (as) is expressing, is his concern at the mentality of the
people of the time, both believed in the principles of Deen and yet they sought
fit to rebel against the Ul''il Umr whilst such an act contradicts the Qur''an.
Whilst the spilt was over Uthman''s killers, there is no edict in Islam for an
individual to rebel against the rightful Khalifa in order to get his own way.

Just a
political dispute?

For the writer to assert that the matter
was ''political'' and not ''religious'' in nature demonstrates his complete
ignorance of even basic understanding of what Deen is. Islam is a complete
ideology, political, judicial, economic etc, you CANNOT separate politics from
Islam; it IS a part of Deen.

Had the writer actually sought to use logic rather than blindness, he would
have been manifestly obvious that to deem the difference as political NOT
religious carries serious ramifications for both sides. If it was not religious
and political then he is in fact suggesting that both sides instigated fitnah based
on personal enmity, leading to a 110-day battle in which thousands of people
needlessly lost their lives. If these acts were based on political differences
and NOT based on upholding religious rites then the end for both parties is the
fire (astaghfirullah).

This is absolutely clear from the verses of Qur''an and hadith.

"And whoever kills a
believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein
and God''s wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is
prepared for him a great torment" (Surah Nisa, v 93)

Further, Abdullah Ibne Umar narrates he heard Rasulullah (s) say:

"Do not revert to disbelief
after me by striking (cutting) the necks of one another".
Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9 hadith number 198

The Holy Prophet said "Your
blood, property, honour and skin (i.e. body) are sacred to one another" Sahih al Bukhari Arabic-English Volume 9
hadith number 199

It is narrated on the authority of ''Abdullah b. Mas''ud that

The Prophet, said, "Abusing
a Muslim is Fusuq (evil doing) and killing him is Kufr (disbelief)."
[Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 197]

So these ahadith and verse make it clear:

To kill a Muslim
is an act of kufr

The intentional
killing of a momin places the perpetrator in hell

Now with these facts in mind we should ask ''how many momins were intentionally
killed at Sifeen?''

The ONLY way that these actions can be defended is if there is a clear
provision in Islam that entitles an individual to fight and kill his Muslim
brother. If no such provision exists and we accept Maulana''s preposterous
notion that the differences were NOT religious then in light of the Qur''an and
hadith ALL the participants committed kufr, they are murderers and are
therefore in hell. (astaghfirullah)

It was
incumbent to obey Imam ''Ali (as)

To prove the religious dimension, we have
the hadith of Rasulullah (s):

"Whoever obeys ''Ali, obeys
me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys ''Ali, disobeys me, whoever
disobeys me, disobeys Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973]

This hadith is absolutely explicit, obedience to Hadhrath ''Ali (as) is
unconditional, it is on par with obedience to Rasulullah (s) and Allah (swt).
Hence any disobedience to him, IS RELIGIOUS because it is deemed disobedience
to Allah (swt).

Rasulullah (s) said:

"''Ali is with the Qur''an and
the Qur''an is with ''Ali, the two shall not separate until they meet me at the
Fountain of Kauthar" [Kanz ul Ummal hadith number 32912].

"''Ali is with the Truth and the Truth is with ''Ali" [Kanz ul Ummal
hadith number 33018].

These two ahadith make it clear that every decision that Imam Ali (as) takes is
Haqq and is supported by the Holy Qur''an and hence will ALWAYS be a religious
decision. In other words if he declares war on Mu''awiya, it is the truth
supported by the Qur''an, not influenced by political decision making.

If these hadith are not sufficient then we also have this clear hadith of
Rasulullah (s) who said to his companions:

"Verily among you will be
one who will fight for the meaning of the Qur''an in the same way that I fought
for its revelation. People asked will that be Abu Bakr or Umar? Rasulullah (s)
replied ''No, but he who is mending my shoes, that person was ''Ali" [Kanz
ul Ummal hadith number 32967].

This hadith is absolutely explicit every Jihad of Hardhat ''Ali (as)''s is in
defence of the Qur''an, to protect it from misinterpretation.

Mu''awiya''s
opposition to the Imam made him a baghi

Mu''awiya''s opposition was clearly religious
because it was a direct challenge the Head of the State. This can be proven
from the hadith of Rasulullah (s):

"O Ali! Soon a rebellious
group will fight against you, you will be on the truth. Whoever does not
support you on that day will not be from us" [Kanz al Ummal, by Ali
Muttaqi al Hind quoting Ibn Asakir, hadith number 32970]style=''mso-bidi-font-weight:normal''>

The very fact that Mu''awiya rebelled against the Ul IL Umr Ali (as) (you deem
to be the 4th Rightly Guided Khalifa) clearly proves that it therefore was a
religious dimension, hence Rasulullah (s)''s referral to this group as
"Baghi".

Mu''awiya''s open rebellion to the Khalifa in violation to the Qur''an clearly
proves this was a religious matter, and Imam Ali (as) was entitled as Ul il
Umar to quash his insurgency. Imam Ali (as)''s actions were religious and in
accordance with the dictates of the Holy Qur''an (Yusuf Ali''s translation):

"[al-Hujurat 49:9] If two
parties among the believers fall into a fight, make ye peace between them: but
if one of them transgresses beyond bounds against the other, then fight ye
(all) against the one that transgresses until it complies with the command of
Allah; But if it complies, then make peace between them with justice, and be
fair: For Allah loves those who are fair (and just)".

This verse is absolutely clear that it is a religious duty to fight baghis
(rebels), of which Mu''awiya was the Head. So Imam Ali (as)''s decision to fight
Mu''awiya was RELIGIOUS and was supported by the Qur''an.

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"Therefore, if Hazrat Ali bin Abu
Tleb (Radhi Allahu Anh) himself does not see the conflict religious nor his
political opponents as Kafirs, then the love which Shi''ah claim to have for
him and the claim that they follow him, is an unproven Chapter from their own
sources. For if they do indeed love Hazrat Ali (Radhi Allahu Anh) they will
hold his views in this matter too, but they are people of no
understanding".

Fighting Imam
''Ali (as) is on par with fighting Rasulullah (s)

The unnamed writer is absolutely right.
Imam Ali (as) did not call them kaffirs, but fighting Imam Ali (as) is on par
with fighting Rasulullah (s). This is proven by the testimony of Rasulullah
(s):

Zaid bin Arqam narrates:

"Allah''s Messenger (peace
and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding ''Ali, Fatima, Hasan and
Husain (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you
make peace and I am at war with those whom you make war" (Sunan
Ibn-I-Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81;
Fada''il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350;
al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p149)

Perhaps we should ask the author:

1. What is your opinion about this hadith?

2. What is his position of one who is at war with the
Prophet, Muslim or Kaafir?

Rasulullah (s) said:

"Ali is the door of
forgiveness, whoever enters it is a momin, whoever leaves it is a kaafir"
[Kanz ul Ummal, Ali Muttaqi al Hind hadith number 32910]style=''mso-bidi-font-weight:normal''>

This being the case what opinion should I hold on one who rather than enter the
Gate turns his back on it and attacks it?

Abusing Imam
''Ali (as)''s opponents

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

Furthermore, Sayyidina Ali (Radhi Allahu
Anh) instructed his men as follows:

"I dislike you starting to abuse them, but if you describe their deeds
and recount their situations that would be a better mode of speaking and a
more convincing way of arguing. Instead of abusing them you should say,
"O'' Allah! save our blood and their blood, produce reconciliation
between us and them, and lead them out of their misguidance so that he who is
ignorant of the truth may know it, and he who inclines towards rebellion and
revolt may turn away from it."

Nahjul-Balaghah, Sermon 205

Are the Shi''ah in anyway, form or manner following the instructions of the
one whom they hold dearest to them, Sayyidina Ali bin Abu Tleb (Radhi Allahu
Anh)? Most certainly not. All we hear from them is slandering and cursing to
the best men honored and chosen by Allah Ta''ala to be the Companions of His
Holy Last Messenger, Sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi wa Sallam".

Imam ''Ali (as) is telling his followers not to ABUSE his opponents, in that
there is no doubt. The Shi''a don''t use swear words, we distance ourselves
(Tabarra) from the enemies of the Ahl''ul bayt (as). As for abuse, it is haraam
to use swear words. The followers of Imam Ali (as) don''t stoop to that depth
because we follow those who never used abuse. Interestingly, abuse is the
methodology of their beloved Imam Mu''awiya.

The late Deobandi scholar, Sayyid Abu''l Ala Maudoodi records this fact in his
"Khilafath aur Muluiqeyath". On page 79 he writes:

"Ibn Kathir in al Bidayah
records that one unlawful and outrageous practice started by Mu''awiya was that
he and his governors would curse Hadhrath ''Ali during the Friday sermon from
the Imam''s position. This took such an extreme that this practice even took
place in the Mosque of the Prophet, in front of the grave of the Prophet
(saws), the cursing of the most beloved relative would take place, in the
presence of Hadhrath ''Ali''s family who would hear this abuse with their own
ears (Tabari Volume 4 page 188, Ibn Athir Volume 3" page 234, al Bidayah
Volume 8 page 259 and Volume 9 page 80).

An Invitation
to Ahl''ul Sunnah to ponder and think

Now the question we would like to ask the
author is:

"Are the Sunnis in anyway, form or
manner following the instructions of the one whom they hold dearest to them.
Are you following the words of Rasulullah (s)?"

You see these are the words of Rasulullah (s):

"Loving Ali is the sign of
belief, and hating Ali is the sign of hypocrisy"

1. Sahih Muslim, v1, p48;

2. Sahih Tirmidhi, v5, p643;

3. Sunan Ibn Majah, v1, p142;

4. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v1, pp 84,95,128

5. Tarikh al-Kabir, by al-Bukhari (the author of Sahih),
v1, part 1, p202

6. Hilyatul Awliya'', by Abu Nu''aym, v4, p185

7. Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v14, p462

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever hurts Ali, has hurt
me"

Sunni references:

1. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v3, p483

2. Fada''il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p580,
Tradition #981

3. Majma'' al-Zawa''id, by al-Haythami, v9, p129

4. al-Sawa''iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, Ch.
11, section 1, p263

5. Ibn Habban, Ibn Abd al-Barr, etc.

"Whoever reviles/curses Ali,
has reviled/cursed me"

1. al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v3, p121, who mentioned
this tradition is Authentic -

2. Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p323

3. Fada''il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, p594,
Tradition #1011

4. Majma'' al-Zawa''id, by al-Haythami, v9, p130

5. Mishkat al-Masabih, English version, Tradition #6092

6. Tarikh al-Khulafa, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, p173

7. and many others such as Tabarani, Abu Ya''la, etc.

The Messenger of Allah said:

"Whoever curses (or verbally
abuses) Ali, he has, in fact, cursed me, and whoever has cursed me, he has
cursed Allah, and whoever has cursed Allah, then Allah will throw him into he
Hell-fire."

Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v6, p33

Rasulullah (s) said:

"Whoever leaves Ali, leaves
me, whoever leaves me, leaves Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32974
- 32976, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar {through two chains} and Abu Dharr
Ghaffari (ra).

As we have already cited earlier, Rasulullah (s) also said:

"Whoever obeys ''Ali, obeys
me, whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, whoever disobeys ''Ali, disobeys me, whoever
disobeys me, disobeys Allah" [Kanz ul Ummal, hadith numbers 32973]

So these hadith tell us:

1. The sign of a Munafiq is hatred of Ali (as)

2. Whoever leaves, disobeys and curses ''Ali - in fact
leaves, disobeys and curses Allah (swt)

Now we would like to ask this writer:

1. Did Mu''awiya curse ''Ali?

2. Is an individual who leaves, disobeys and curses Allah
(swt) a Muslim?

This being the case, could the author of this ''masterpiece'' kindly explain why
it is that he (and his Ahl''ul Sunnah brethren) insist on giving Mu''awiya the
title (ra)? Is Allah (swt) pleased with someone that curses him?

Hadith praising
the Shi''a of ''Ali (as)

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

3 - Did the word Shi''ah (Sh''atu-''Ali)
exist during the era of Muhammad [saw]? "Anyone who claims that the word
Shi''ah or Shi''ites was used by Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram (Sallallahu alayhi wa
Salla) or during his era is a liar, and no proof whatsoever exists to support
this claim".

Hadith in which Rasulullah (s) praised Ali and his Shi''a can be found in many
classical Ahl''ul Sunnah texts, and have even been recorded by Ulema like Ibn
Hajar al Makki in their books written against the Shi''a. For the sake of
brevity we will cite just a handful of traditions to prove our point.

It is in praise of the Shi''a of Ali that Allah (swt) sent down the following
revelation:

"Those who believe and do
righteous deeds are the best of the creatures. Their reward from their Lord
shall be everlasting gardens, below which flow rivers, they will abide there
forever. Well pleased is God with them and they are well pleased with Him"
(Qur''an 98:7)".

Muhammad bin Ali narrates in Tafsir ibne Jarir, Volume 33 page 146 (Cairo
edition) that the Prophet (s) said "The
best of creations are you Ali and your Shi''as."

Jalaladin Suyuti, (849 - 911 AH) is one of the highest ranked Sunni scholars of
all time. In his commentary of this verse, he records through 3 asnad (chains)
of narrators, that the Prophet (s) told his companions that the verse referred
to Ali and his Shi''a:

"I swear by the one who
controls my life that this man (Ali) and his Shi''a shall secure deliverance on
the day of resurrection".

(Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition)

The 3 Sahaba who narrated this hadith are (1) Ali (as) himself (2) Jabir bin
Abdullah Ansari (ra) (3) Abdullah ibne Abbas (ra). The majority school
acknowledges them as truthful narrators of hadith. Had this been in a Shi''a
book, you would have deemed it a forgery, but it''s presence in your books has
really confused your Ulema.

There are no hadith in which the Prophet (s) guaranteed paradise for a specific
Sahabi and his
followers, with the sole exception of Ali (as) and his Shi''a.

Other Sunni scholars have also recorded this hadith from Jabir bin Abdullah
Ansari in their commentaries of the above verse.

[Tafsir Fatha ul bayan Volume 10 page 333 (Egypt edition) & Tafsir Fatha ul
Qadir, Volume 5 page 477]

Hadhrath Abdullah ibne Abbas narrates "that
when this verse descended the Prophet (s) said, Ali you and your Shi''a will be
joyful on the Day of Judgement" (Tafseer Durre Manthur
Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition)

Ahmad ibn Hajr al Makki quotes from Imam Dar Qatany in his al Sawaiqh al
Muhrriqa page 159 (Cairo edition) "O
Abul Hasan, you and you Shi''a will attain paradise".

Ibn Hajr al Makki in his anti Shia book, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, records this
tradition from Imam Tabarani:

"O Ali four people will
enter heaven first of all. Me, You, Hasan, and Hussain, your descendants will
follow us and our wives will follow our descendants and our Shi''a will be to
the left and right of us".

Hadhrath Ali narrates in Tafsir Durre Mansur, Volume 6 page 379 (Cairo edition)
that Rasulullah (s) said to him:

"Have you not heard this
verse "Their reward from their Lord shall be everlasting gardens, below
which flow rivers, they will abide there forever"? This verse refers to
you and you Shi''a, I promise you that I will be meet you at the Fountain of
Kawthur".

The classical Shafii scholar al Maghazli records a tradition from Anas bin
Malik that he heard the Prophet (s) say:

"Seventy thousand people will
go to heaven without questions, the Prophet then turned to Ali and said ''they
will be from among your Shi''a and you will be their Imam"style=''mso-bidi-font-weight:normal''>

Manaqib Ali al Murtaza, page 184 by
al Maghazli al Shafii

We could cite more traditions if the author so wishes, let us remind ourselves
about the writers confident proclamation:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"Anyone who claims that the word
Shi''ah or Shi''ites was used by Sayyidina Rasul-e-Akram (Sallallahu alayhi wa
Salla) or during his era is a liar".

Are the traditions of Ibn Hajar, Maghazli, Suyuti sufficient as proof or would
you like us to present some more?

The origin of
Hadith Compilation

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"It is no wonder that Ibn
Abil-Hadeed, an extremist Shi''i clergyman, admitingly writes in his Sharh
Nahjul-Balaghah:

"The origin of lies in Ahadith of virtues, started with the Shi''ah who
fabricated various Ahadith in the virtues of their Aimmah. It was the enmity
they held against their adversaries that drove them to fabricate them"
[Sharh Nahujul-Balaghah, vol.1, p.783 (Quoting from ash-Shi''a wat-Tashayyu'',
p.19)]"

This proves that this alleged scholar does NOT even know basic facts. Ibn Abil
Hadeed was NOT a Shi''a he was a Mutazzali scholar, throughout the book he cites
the works of grand Mutazzali teachers like ''Abu Bakr Jahuri! It is indeed sad
that when a Sunni praises Imam Ali (as) he is automatically labelled a Shi''a,
if we follow this flawed premise then I guess the only Sunnis in the world
would be Nasibis. Moreover the fact that he was not Shi''a is so obvious from
the very quotation you cited, tell us if he was an extreme Shi''a why would he
shoot himself in the foot by stating as follows:

"The origin of lies in
Ahadith of virtues, started with the Shi''ah who fabricated various Ahadith in
the virtues of their Aimmah".

Would a Shi''a write this about himself? What utter nonsense. Now to counter Ibn
al Hadid allow us to present the true facts re: the origin of hadith
fabrication to you, from one of your own Sunni Ulema Shams al Hind Allamah
Shibli Numani:

"Traditions were first
formed in book form in the days of Ummayads, who, for about 90 years,
throughout their vast dominions stretching from the Indus in India to Asia
Minor and Spain, insulted the descendents of Fatima and got Ali openly censured
in Friday sermons at the mosques. They had hundreds of saying coined to
eulogize Amir Muawiya (taken from Siratun Nabi, By Allamah Shibli Numani
English translation, Volume 1 page 60).

Now, lets see who started this tradition of writing:

"Amir Muawiya was the first
to encourage writings"
(taken from Siratun Nabi, By Allamah Shibli Numani English translation, Vol
1 page 18).

Now let me present to you the type of writings that he encouraged:

al-Tabari reported:

When Muawiyah Ibn Abi Sufyan put
al-Mughairah Ibn Shubah in charge of Kufah in Jumada 41 (September 2- October
30, 661), he summoned him. After praising and glorifying God, he said:"Now
then, indeed a forbearing person has been admonished in the past... The wise might
do what you want without instruction. Although I have wanted to advise you
about many things, I left them alone, trusting in your discernment of what
pleases me, what helps my regime and what sets my subjects [raiyyah] on the
right path. I would continue to advise you about a quality of yours- do not
refrain from ABUSING Ali and criticizing him, not from asking God''s mercy upon
Uthman and His forgiveness for him. Continue to shame the companions of Ali,
keep at a distance, and don''t listen to them. Praise the faction of Uthman,
bring them near, and listen to them." (See History of Tabari, English
version, events of year 51 AH, Execution of Hujr Ibn Adi, v18, pp 122-123

The modern day Hanafi scholar Mufti Ghulam Rasul also makes this admission is
his autobiography on the life of Imam Jafar Sadiq (as):

"During the Banu Umayya
reign there was a complete prohibition on hadith and fatwas narrated by Ali
(as)".

[Taken
from Subhai Sadiq by Mufti Ghulam Rasul, page 355).

So what what do we learn from these narrations:

1. Mu''awiya encouraged people to curse Ali (as)

2. The tradition of cursing ''Ali was practiced throughout
the Banu Ummaya Empire.

3. At the same time hadith were first collected

4. Hadith narrated by ''Ali were prohibited

This is the ''love'' that the khalifas of the Jamaah had for Ahl''ul bayt (as).

The development
of Shi''a Islam

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"So when did Shi''ism evolve as a
political party?

"Actually, neither the Shi''ah historians nor the Shi''ah clergymen have a
consensus on the evolution of Shi''ism".

Now if the Shi''a emerged as a purely political party, why is it Rasulullah (s)
said that Ali and his Shi''a will attain Paradise (see Reply 6)?

The author cites the leading Nasibi Ehsan Ellahi for his references. Let us
analyse these ''alleged'' inconsistencies:
name="_Toc884130">

6.1 First
alleged contradiction

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

In his Firaq
al-Shi''ah (The Shi''ah Groups), Abu Muhammad al-Hasan bin Musa al-Nubakhti,
one of the foremost known Shi''i historians, believes that Shi''ism did not start
until the demise of the Holy Rasul, Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam:

"The Messenger [sawa] died in the month of Rabi'' al-Awwal, in the year
10 of Hijra at age 63 and the duration of his prophethood was for 23 years,
and his mother is Aaminah bint Wahab bin Abdi Manaaf bin Zuhra bin Kilaab bin
Murra bin Ka''b bin Lu''ay bin Ghaalib. (At his death) The Ummah was divided
into three groups. One group was called the Shi''ites, who were the Shi''ites
of Ali bin Abi Taleb [as] and from them all Shi''i sects broke away. Another
(group) claimed the right of succession, i.e., al-Ansaar, who called for the
inauguration of Sa''d bin Ubadah al-Khazraji. A (Third) group tilted toward
giving the Bay''ah (allegiance) to Abu Bakr bin Abi Qahaafah, with an excuse
that the Messenger [sawa] did not name a particular successor rather left it
for the Ummah to chose whom it wills...." [Firaq ash-Shi''ah: pp. 23-24]

So al-Nubakhti is stating:

Shia''ism was
formed upon the death of Rasulullah (s)

Shi''as were those
individuals who attached themselves to Hadhrath ''Ali (as)

Remember Rasulullah (s) had already said that ''Ali and his Shi''a would attain
Paradise. Clearly during the life of Rasulullah (s) there was no reason for a
separate group to call itself the Shi''a of ''Ali. The Shi''as were those who
right from the beginning viewed Imam Ali (as) the rightful successor of
Rasulullah (s) and attached themselves to him. Hence that group that deemed
Imam Ali (as) to be rightful successor of Rasulullah (s) and affiliated
themselves with his cause were indeed his supporters - his Shi''a.
name="_Toc884131">

6.2 Second
alleged contradiction

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"Muhammad Hussain al-Muzaffari
believes it was started by the Holy Nabi (Sallallahu alayhi wa Sallam)
himself, he thus wrote in his Tareekh al-Shi''ah (History of the
Shi''ah):"The call for Shi''asm started with the day when Grand Savior
Muhammad [sawa] shouted the word La Ilaha illallah in Makka''s sections and
mountains....and hence, the call to become a Shi''ite for Abu al-Hasan [as]
(Ali) by the Prophet [sawa] went side by side with the call for the two
testimonies" [Tareekh ash-Shi''ah, pp. 8-9, printed in Qum, Iran.]

so al-Muzzafari is stating:

The ''call'' for Shi''aism started at the beginning of the Prophetic mission.

The ''call'' for Shi''aism did indeed begin here. The writer is stating that the
root of Shi''a aqeedah, namely that Ali ibne abi Talib (as) is the wasi and
khalifa of Rasulullah (s) began right at the beginning of the Prophetic
Mission.

The first command ordering the Messenger (s) to first proclaim Islam was to his
close relatives:

"And warn your tribe of near
kindred..." (The
Qur''an 26: 214)

In accordance with the verse Rasulullah (s) summoned his close relatives and
delivered this speech, the first call to Islam:

"Banu Abd-al Muttalib, I
don''t know of any young man among the Arabs who has brought for his people
something better than what I have. I bring the best of this world and the world
after, since God has commanded me to summon you. Which of you will aid me in
this matter, so that he will be my brother, my Wasi (trustee, caretaker) and
successor (Khalifa) among you?" They all held back, and although I was the
youngest and the most bleary eyed, pot bellied and spindly legged of them I
said "I will be your helper Oh Prophet of God". The Holy Prophet then
put his hand on the back of my neck and said "This is my brother,
caretaker and successor among you. Listen to him and obey him".

This occasion is called the event of Dawath zula-e-shira and countless Sunni
scholars have narrated it, in a similar way.

1. Tarikh, by al Tabari, Vol 2 p 217 and in the English
translation by W.M.Watt, Vol 6 pp 90-91

2. Tafsir, by al Tabari, Vol 19, p 121

3. Tarikh, by Ibn Athir, Vol 2 p 62

4. Musnad, bu Ahmed Ibn Hanbal, Vol 1 p 159

5. Kifayat al Talib, by al Ganji p 89

6. Khasais, by al Nasai, p 18

7. Sharh Nahjul Balagha, by Ibn Abi''l Hadid Muttazali,
Vol 3 p 255

8. Sharh al Shifa, by al Khifaji, Vol 3 p 37

9. Tarikh, by Abul Fida, Vol 1 p 116

10. Tarikh, by Ibn Asakir, Vol 1 p 85

11. Durre Manthur, by Jalaladdin Suyuti, Vol 5 p 97

12. Jamial Jawami, by Suyuti, Vol 7 p 392

13. Tafsir, by Al Khazzin Alauddin Baghdadi, p 390

14. Tafsir al Khazin, by Alauddin al-Shafii, Vol 3 p 371

15. Shawahid al Tanzil, by al Hasakani, Vol p 371

16. Kanz al Ummal, bu al Muttaqi al hindi Vol 15, p 15

17. al Sirah al Halabiya, Vol 1 p 311

18. Dalail al Nabawiyyah, by al Baiyhaqi, Vol 1, p 428

19. al Mukhtasar, by al Fida, Vol 1 p 116

20. Life of Muhummud, by Husnain Haykal, p 104 (1st Arabic
edition, mysteriously deleted in the second edition!)

21. Tadhib al Athar, Vol 4 p 62

22. Muhummud from the earliest sources, by Marin Lings, p
51

It was right at the beginning of his mission that Hadhrath Muhammad (sa) set
out three guiding principles, that al-Muzzafari had correctly described as "the call for Shi''asm"
namely that:

1. There is only one God

2. Hadhrath Muhammad (s) is God''s Messenger

3. Ali is the brother, wasi and khalifa of Rasulullah (s)

In other words Shi''aism existed in all but name. The seed of Shi''a aqeedah was
''planted'' at the Dawat as is stated by al-Muzzafari and blossomed as a clear
group with the name Shi''a after the death of Rasulullah (s) as commented on by
al-Nubakhti.

So (1) and (2) rather than contradict, in fact compliment one another.
name="_Toc884132">

6.3 Third
alleged contradiction

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"Abu Ishaq Ibn al-Nadim, a famous
Shi''i writer, did not agree to neither of the above theories and wrote in his
al-Fihrist that Shi''ism started at the Battle of Jamel"

Now these are the comments of Ehsan Ellahi NOT al-Nadim. Did he state he DID
not agree with the above named scholars? He continues:

Ahlisunnah.org/ahlibayt states:

"thus explained: "When Talha
and Az-Zubair disagreed with Ali and accepted no less than the revenge for
the blood of Othman, and Ali mobilized his forces to fight them, those who
followed him were then given the title, Shi''ites." [al-Fihrist, Ibn
al-Nadim: p.249, from Ash-Shi''ati wat-Tashayyu'' by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer, p.25

Nadim is stating:

Those that sided with Ali (as) at Jamal were called Shi''a

Since Elahi is deceased could the scholar who copied this unashamedly show us
the words where the author states that this was the FIRST time that the words
Shi''a was used? Nadim is stating that during the period leading up to the
Battle of Jamal, the word Shi''a of ''Ali became absolutely prevalent, not
according to divine sanction but according to the opinions of the people. Hence
this was based on political affiliation, those that sided with Ali were his
Shi''a - his political allies, it DOES NOT mean that Shi''as never existed before
that! It was here that the title became absolutely clear cut, those individuals
who fought with khalifa Ali (as) were called his Shi''a. How is this
inconsistent with the previous narrations?