Imams of “Ahl
al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a”
"Ahl al-Sunnah wal
Jama‘a” have followed the four Imams after whom their sects are known,
namely Abu Hanifah, Malik, al-Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
These four Imams were
never among the sahaba of the Messenger of Allah, nor did they know him, nor
did he see them, nor did they ever see him. Their senior in age is Abu
Hanifah whose time is separated from that of the Prophet by more than a
hundred years: he was born in 80
A.H./699 A.D. and died in 160 A.H./777 A.D. Their youngest is Ahmad ibn
Hanbal: he was born in 165 and died in 241 A.H. (782 - 855 A.D.). All this
is in reference to the religion’s branches (furoo‘ al-deen). As for the
roots of the creed (usool al-deen), “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” refer to Imam
Abul-Hasan Ali ibn Isma‘eel al-Ash‘ari who was born in 270 A.H. and died in
335 A.H. (883 - 946 A.D.)
These are the Imams of
“Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” to whom the latter refer with regard to the roots
and branches of their creed. Do you find any of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt
among them? Or do you find among them anyone who was a companion of the
Messenger of Allah, or about whom the Messenger of Allah said that he is the
most wise person to lead the nation? Of course not! There is nothing like
that at all.
If “Ahl al-Sunnah wal
Jama‘a” claim that they uphold the Prophet’s Sunnah, why did these sects
appear so late in time after the Prophet’s demise, and where were “Ahl
al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” before the existence of these sects, and what religion
were they following, and to whom were they referring?!
Having asked these
questions, let us add this one:
can they be so dedicated to men who were neither contemporary to the Prophet
nor did they ever know him but who were born after the dissension had
already taken place, and after the companions fought and killed one another,
charging one another with apostacy, and after the caliphs treated the Holy
Qur’an and the Sunnah according to their own ijtihad, their own personal
Having taken control of
the reins of government, Yazid violated the sanctity of sacred Medina,
giving his army permission to wreak whatever havoc it desired in it, so the
said army inflicted death and destruction in it, killing the best among the
sahaba who refused to swear the oath of allegiance to him, raping chaste
women to the extent that there were many who were born thus illegitimately.
How can any wise person
place his trust in these imams who belong to such type of human beings who
waded in the mud of dissension, who were colored by its various hues, who
grew up mastering its cunning and cunniving, vesting upon themselves the
false medals of knowledge and scholarship? Indeed, no scholar ever rose to
distinction except one with whom the government was pleased and who was
pleased with the government.
How can anyone who
claims to adhere to the Sunnah forsake Imam Ali, the gate of knowledge, or
Imams al-Hasan and al-Husayn, masters of the youths of Paradise, or other
purified Imams from the progeny of the Prophet who had inherited the
knowledge of the Messenger of Allah, and prefer to follow “Imams” who were
not knowledgeable of the Prophetic Sunnah but were the product of Umayyad
How can “Ahl al-Sunnah
wal Jama‘a” claim that they follow the Prophetic Sunnah while neglecting
those who safeguard it? How can they abandon the recommendations and
explicit orders of the Prophet to uphold the Purified Progeny then claim to
be the ones who follow the Sunnah?!
Can any Muslim
individual who is familiar with the Islamic history, the Holy Qur’an, and
the Sunnah, doubt the fact that “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a” are followers of
the Umayyads and Abbasides?
And can any Muslim who
is familiar with the Holy Qur’an and Sunnah, and who has come to know the
Islamic history, deny the fact that the Shi‘as who emulate and pay homage to
the Progeny of the Prophet are, indeed, followers of the Prophetic Sunnah,
whereas nobody else can claim to do so?
Have you seen, dear
reader, how politics turns matters upside down, making right look wrong and
vice versa?! Those who remained loyal to the Prophet and his Progeny came
to be called Rafidis and people of innovations, while those who excelled in
inventing innovations and renounced the Sunnah of the Prophet and his
Progeny, following the ijtihad of their oppressive rulers, came to be called
“Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘a”?! This is truly strange.
As for me, I firmly
believe that Quraysh was behind this label, and it is one of its secrets and
We have already come to
know that Quraysh was the one that prohibited Abdullah ibn Umar from writing
the Prophetic Sunnah down in the pretext that the Prophet was not
infallible. Quraysh, in fact, is comprised of specific individuals who
weilded a great deal of influence, and who were known for their fanaticism
and powerful influence over Arab tribes. Some historians call them “the most
shrewd Arabs” due to their reputation in cunning and conniving and
superiority in managing the affairs, whereas others call them “the people
who tie and untie.”
Among them are: Abu Bakr,
Umar, Uthman, Abu Sufyan and his son Mu‘awiyah, Amr ibn al-As, al-Mugheerah
ibn Shu‘bah, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, Talhah ibn Ubaydullah, Abdul-Rahman ibn
Awf, Abu Ubaydah Amir ibn al-Jarrah, and many others.
These “shrewd men” used
to meet to discuss and decide something upon which they would eventually
agree, then they would make up their mind to propagate it among the people
so that it might become thereafter a matter of fact and a followed reality,
without most people kowing how it came to be. One such scheme, which they
plotted, was their claim that Muhammad was not infallible, and that he was
as human as anyone else: he could err, they claimed, so they would belittle
him and argue with him about the truth while fully knowing it. And among
such schemes was their cursing Ali ibn Abu Talib and using a misnomer for
him, calling him “Abu Turab” (father of dust), portraying him to people as
the enemy of Allah and His Messenger.
Another is their
taunting and cursing the highly respected sahabi Ammar ibn Yasir, using for
him a borrowed name: “Abdullah ibn Saba’” simply because Ammar opposed the
caliphs and was calling people to the Imamate of Ali ibn Abu Talib.
Another was their
calling the Shi‘as who were loyal to Ali “Rafidis” in order to mislead the
public by giving them the impression that the latter had rejected Muhammad
and followed Ali.
Another is calling
themselves “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘ah” in order to mislead sincere believers
into thinking that only they are the ones who uphold the Prophet’s Sunnah
versus the Rafidis who reject it. They, in fact, mean by their “Sunnah” the
infamous innovation which they invented: the custom of cursing and
condemning the Commander of the Faithful and the Prophet’s Progeny from the
pulpits in every mosque throughout the Muslim world and in all other lands,
cities, and villages where Muslims lived. This innovation lasted for eighty
years. Whenever one of their preachers descended from the pulpit before
leading the prayers, he would curse Ali ibn Abu Talib, and if he did not,
everyone at the mosque would yell at him: Tarakatal Sunnah! Tarakatal
Sunnah! (“You left out the Sunnah!).
When caliph Umar ibn Abd
al-Aziz wanted to change that “Sunnah” with the Qur’anic verse saying,
“Surely Allah enjoins the effecting of equity and of goodness (to others)
and the giving (in charity) to the kindred” (Holy Quran, 16:90), they
plotted against him and killed him for killing their “Sunnah” and taking
lightly the statements of his predecessors who had brought him to caliphate.
They poisoned him when he was only thirty-eight years old, having ruled no
more than two years. He became the victim of his reform because his cousins,
the Umayyads, did not agree to his laying their
"Sunnah” to rest and thus raising the status of “Abu Turab” and the
Imams among his offspring.
After the fall of the
Umayyad government, the Abbasides came and persecuted the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt
and their followers till the reign of Ja‘far son of al-Mu‘tasim, who was
titled “al-Mutawakkil,” came, and he proved to be the most bitter enemy of
Ali and his offspring. His hatred and animosity caused him to desecrate the
grave of Imam Husayn in Karbala. He prohibited people from visiting it,
and he never gave anything nor was he generous to anyone except to those who
cursed Ali and his offspring.
The incident involving
al-Mutawakkil and the famous scholar of linguistics ‘allama Ibn al-Sikkeet
is well known; he killed him in the very worst manner, cutting his tongue
off when he discovered that he was a follower of Ali and his Ahl al-Bayt,
although he was the tutor of both of his [al-Mutawakkil’s] sons.
animosity towards Ali and his adherence to Nasibism went as far as killing
any new born named “Ali” because it was the most hateful name to him. When
Ali ibn al-Jahm, the poet, met al-Mutawakkil, he said, “O commander of the
faithful! My parents have done me a great deal of injustice.” Al-Mutawakkil
asked him, “How so?” He said, “They named me Ali although I hate this name
and anyone named by it.” Al-Mutawakkil laughed and ordered him to be richly
One man used to live
inside al-Mutawakkil’s meeting house. He was an etertaining buffoon who used
to mimick Ali ibn Abu Talib and thus make fun of him.
Upon seeing him, people
would laugh and say, “Here comes the bald man, the man with the big
stomach!” So he would be ridiculed by everyone meeting there to the delight
and amusement of the caliph.
We must not forget in
this regard to point out to the fact that this al-Mutawakkil, whose
animosity towards Ali revealed his hypocrisy and promiscuity, was very much
loved by the scholars of hadith who vested upon him the title of “Muhyyi
al-Sunnah,” the one who revived the Sunnah. And since those scholars of
hadith were themselves “Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jama‘ah,” it is proven by the
evidence which has no room for any doubt that what they meant by the
“Sunnah” was simply hating Ali ibn Abu Talib and cursing him and
dissociating themselves from him; it is, in a word, Nasibism.
What makes this matter
more clear is that al-Khawarizmi says the following on p. 135 of his book:
Haroun ibn al-Khayzaran and Ja‘far al-Mutawakkil alal-shaitan (the one who
relies on Satan), rather than on al-Rahman (the Merciful One), used not to
give any money or wealth except to those who cursed the family of Abu Talib
and who supported the sect of the Nasibis.”
Ibn Hajar has quoted
Abdullah ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal saying, “When Nasr ibn Ali ibn Sahban narrated
a tradition saying that the Messenger of Allah took the hand of al-Hasan and
al-Husayn and said, ‘Whoever loves me and loves both of these men and their
parents will be in my level on the Day of Judgment,’ al-Mutawakkil ordered
him to be whipped one thousand lashes. He almost died had Ja‘far ibn Abd
al-Wahid not kept interceding on his behalf with al-Mutawakkil, saying to
him, ‘O commander of the faithful! He is one of Ahl al-Sunnah,’ and he
persisted in doing so till he (Nasr) was left alone.”
Any wise person will
understand the statement made by Ja‘far ibn Abd al-Wahid to al-Mutawakkil
that Nasr was among “Ahl al-Sunnah,” in order to save his life, to be an
additional testimony to the fact that “Ahl al-Sunnah” are the enemies of Ahl
al-Bayt who are hated by al-Mutawakkil. The latter used to kill anyone who
mentioned even one of their merits even if he was not a Shi‘a.
Ibn Hajar indicates in
the same book that Abdullah ibn Idris al-Azdi was a man of “al-Sunnah wal
Jama‘ah,” that he was very strict in upholding the “Sunnah,” pleasing
others, and that he sympathized with Uthman.
About Abdullah ibn Awn
al-Basri, the [same Sunni] author says: “He is held as reliable, and he used
to be consistent in his worship, very firm in upholding the Sunnah, and in
being tough against the people who invent innovations; Ibn Sa‘d says that he
was a supporter of Uthman.” He has also indicated that
Ibrahim ibn Ya‘qub al-Jawzjani
used to follow the Hareezi sect (i.e. the sect founded by Hareez ibn Uthman
al-Dimashqi), who was well known for adhering to the beliefs of the Nasibis,
and Ibn Hayyan has said, "He was very
zealous in adhering to the Sunnah.”
All this makes us draw
the conclusion that Nasibism and hatred towards Ali and his offspring, the
cursing of the descendants of Abu Talib, the condemning of Ahl al-Bayt...,
is regarded by them as “zeal in adhering to the Sunnah.” We have also come
to know so far that the supporters of Uthman are the ones who promoted
Nasibism and hatred towards Ahl al-Bayt, and they are the ones who were very
tough with anyone who was loyal to Ali and his offspring.
The label of
“innovators” was attached by them to the Shi‘as who called for the Imamate
of Ali because, to them, that was an innovation, since it disagreed with the
policies of the “righteous caliphs” and the “good predecessors,” the policy
of expelling the Imam and not recognizing his Imamate and Wisayat.
Historical facts supporting this statement are quite abundant, but what we
have already stated here should suffice those who wish to research this
issue further and investigate it on their own. We have, as has always been
our habit, tried to be brief, and researchers have to keep in mind that they
can find many times this much if they wish.
(As for) those who
struggle hard for Us, We will most certainly guide them in Our ways, and
Allah is most surely with the doers of good. (Holy Qur’an, 29:69)
 In the
coming researches, you will Insha-Allah come to find out that Umayyad and
‘Abbaside rulers were the very people who brought those sects to existence
and forced people to follow them. 
We have excluded from this list Imam Ali because
he distinguished between shrewd judgment and good management, between the
shrewdness of cunning,
deception and hypocrisy.
He has said more than once, "Had it not
been for deception and hypocrisy, I would have been ranked the most shrewd
person among the Arabs,” as stated in the Holy Qur’an: “They plan, and Allah
plans, and surely Allah is the best of planners.” Allah’s plans mean wisdom
and good management. As for the polytheists’ plans, they are nothing but
deception, hypocrisy, swindling, forgery, and falsehood.
 For more
details, refer to Al-Sila bayn al-Tasawwuf wal Tashayyu‘ by Dr. Mustafa
Kamil al-Shibeebi, an Egyptian author. By bringing ten strong arguments, al-Shibeebi
proves that Abdullah ibn Saba’, the Jew, or "Ibn
al-Sawdaa’” (son of the black woman) was a pseydonym and title maliciously
given to Ammar ibn Yasir because he was a follower of Imam Ali.
 If the
caliph went that far in meanness and lowliness to the extent that he dug up
the graves of the Imams from Ahl al-Bayt , especially that of the master of
the youths of Paradise, do not ask beyond that what they did to the Shi‘as
who used to seek Allah’s blessings by visiting that grave. The Shi‘as
suffered the ultimate pain and tribulation.
 This is
quoted in Ibn Hajar’s Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, in his biography of Nasr ibn Ali
 Ibn Hajar,
Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vo. 5, p. 145. It is a well known fact that those who
sympathized with Uthman used to curse Ali and accuse him of killing Uthman
 Ibn Hajar,
Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, Vol. 8, p. 348.
 Ibid., Vol.
1, p. 82.
Extracted from the book "The Shi'ah
are (the real) Ahl al-Sunnah" by Dr. Muhammad Al-Tijani Al Samawi.