History of Islam is full of Persecutions, exterminations, Purges, Pogroms, slow-genocide of Shi’a Muslims community. Ideological foundation of such disgusting things was the ‘Tendency of Nasibism’ emerged in the history of Islam after the Murder of Uthman Ibn Affan (assassinated in June 17, 656 AD) and then Nasibism was adopted by Umayyad dynasty as official policy.1
Terms like “Nasb” and “Nasabi” in Islamic literature applies on those people who hate Ali Ibn Abi Talib (A.S), the cousin and Son-in-Law of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (A.S).
In fact, Umayyads and old Meccan Quraysh elite had primary germs of Nasibism/Rigorousness. Majority of them had accepted Islam reluctantly after conquest of Mecca and they were declared Muallaf-al-Qulub (those Meccan who had converted to Islam reluctantly after conquest of Mecca were titled fixed stipends to remain in the orbit of Islam).
Not only in contemporary Sunni circles of writers but majority Western authors of the history of Early Islam, it is accepted that antagonism toward the legacy of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (A.S) was flounced with it as Umayyads’ rule declined and Abbasids era antagonism was replaced with veneration. Nebil Husyan has deconstructed this assumption in detail in his well-researched and deeply investigated work “Opposing the Imam: The Legacy of the Nawa¯s˙ib in Islamic Literature.”
In proto-Sunni and classical Sunni literature we find many Anti-Alids and antagonists toward Ali Ibn Abi Talib along with their beliefs. That thing provided the way for Nasibism in the name of Sunni literature.
Nebil Husyan identifies those anti-Alids and the ways in which their beliefs have impacted Sunni Islam in that work.
Nebil Husyan writes:
“The Umayyads (r. 40–132/661–750) were! Ali’s political rivals and staunchly denounced him, his legacy, his descendants, and his partisans as criminals, both in his lifetime and after his death. Shortly after his assassination, they succeeded in obtaining the reins of the caliphate and establishing a dynasty based in Syria that lasted close to a century. Medieval sources indicate that rhetoric and propaganda hostile to! Ali Ibn Abi Talib once permeated all public discourse. When the Umayyad state fell, it is generally assumed that hostility to the legacy of Ali was swept away with it as the Umayyads were replaced by a new dynasty, the! Abbasids, that venerated him. The real story, of course, is not so simple. There was the enduring legacy of early Muslims who were hostile to Ali Ibn Abi Talib and his descendants, the Alids. Later Muslim authors acknowledged the existence of such figures associated with “anti-Alid sentiment” (nasb) up to the ninth century. Later representatives of both Sunni and Shi’i orthodoxy condemned anti- Alid sentiment but often contemporary Sunni authors obfuscated the existence of Anti Ali Ibn Abi Talib, his descendants and the Alid in the Companions of the Holy prophet (A.S) and in the disciples of the Companions. Because many of these anti- Alids nonetheless became revered figures in majority sub-sects of Sunni Islam. They made literary contributions that subsequent Sunni authorities transmitted, and circulated views about Ali Ibn Abi Talib that later some Sunnis partially accepted as accurate.
He writes:
“Anti-Alid sentiment has received little scholarly attention for a number of reasons. First, unlike pro-Alid sentiment, which found intellectual backing in Shiism, anti-Alid sentiment in its most radical form was not represented by a parallel independent and enduring sect. Radical anti-Alids participated in a variety of ideological and political circles, but it seems that the sects that flourished did not fully embrace their doctrines. Some Sunnis adopted only the more moderate beliefs espoused by anti-Alids active in pro-Umayyad and Uthmanı circles. The same can be said about Ibadism, the sole surviving branch of the Kharihis community that once encompassed numerous rival factions. The Ibadis denounced other, now extinct Kharijı sects as extremists and hence did not preserve the literary works of their rivals. Although Ibadis today mildly condemn! Ali and reject any veneration of him, Khariji anti- Alidism was much more pronounced in previous centuries. Consequently, heresiographers writing in later centuries did not dedicate separate chapters to anti-Alids.
There was a sectarian incentive for Sunnıs to deny the existence of anti- Alid sentiment among the leading personalities who were popularly depicted as harboring such beliefs. The acknowledgment of anti-Alid feelings on the part of any Companion of Muhammad were irreconcilable with belief in the righteousness of all Companions and in the superiority of the earliest generations of Muslims, positions that became orthodox in Sunnism. Certain historical precedents, such as the ritual cursing of Ali from Umayyad pulpits, were undeniably anti Alid. In these cases, many Sunnis advised against discussing the problematic events altogether.2
Scholars argued that such discussions were divisive and had the potential to lead Muslims astray by causing them to dislike some Companions and other venerable predecessors. This kind of history fell under the rubric of fitna (civil war: lit., “sedition”) and was best avoided. An obvious source of concern for anti-Shi’i polemicists was that the Sunni hadith corpus,occasionally validated Shi’i arguments about the sinfulness of some Companions and other early authorities.”2
He further added:
“Sunni historiography preserves accounts in which Companions, Followers (ta¯bi”u¯n), caliphs, and other respected authorities appear hostile to! Ali Ibn Abi Talib. The Ansa¯bal-ashra¯f of al-Bala¯dhurı¯(d. 279/892), for example, includes numerous reports depicting Ali Ibn Abi Talib ’s pro-Umayyad and !Uthma¯nı¯ rivals as anti-Alid. The transmitters of these reports likely did not deem it necessary to interpret conflicts between Companions charitably so as to make all of the participants appear righteous. In these sources, Companions are capable of sins and crimes.3 Loathing Ali is one sin among others that include the sale and consumption of intoxicants,4 lying,5 adultery,6 and mass murder.7 But by the end of the ninth century, proto-Sunnis had generall come to reject or reinterpret such reports to avoid identifying their own religious and political authorities as anti-! Alid.8 Such identification would have not only validated the complaints of! Alid insurrectionists, who wereconsidered enemies of the state, but also vindicated the claims of thempartisans (Shı¯! ı¯s), who believed that non-Shı¯!ı¯s persistently ignored the rights of! Alids and treated them unjustly. Thus, Sunnis had an incentive t0 deny the historicity of accounts that depicted certain Companions as anti- Ali Ibn Abi Talibds. Whenever possible, Sunni biographers and theologians interpreted reports about anti-! Alids so that their actions did not entail animosity for ! Ali¯. For example, they portray the rebellion of! AlI’s most famous antagonist, m the future Umayyad caliph Mu!a¯wiya b. Abı¯Sufya¯n (r. 41–60/661–80), as prompted by a simple misunderstanding between the two.9 In other reports, Mu!a¯wiya is described as openly admiring andweeping for Ali Ibn Abi Talib .10 As a result, anti-! Alid sentiment came to possess an erased history in Sunni Islam.”11 The absence of anti-Alidism as an independent sect in heresiographies explains the fact that secondary literature generally contains only brief, tangential notes about individuals accused of anti-Alid sentimentwithout providing a framework to contextualize and judge such claims.”
Nebil Husyan reveals that Asma Afsaruddin, Abbas Barzegar, Patricia Crone, Wilferd Madelung, Christopher Melchert, and Muhammad Qasim Zaman have all commented on early anti-Alid attitudes in the nascent Sunni community, but they have offered neither a comprehensive rubric nor a chronological narrative for understanding the phenomenon.12
Nebil Husyan surveyed medieval Muslim literature (from the eighth to the thirteenth centuries) across a number of genres, including h˙adı¯th, biographical, historical, and theological works. References to anti-Alids are frequently elusive and brief. Nonetheless, the diversity of the sources provides rich portrayals of a few key anti-Alid figures and their alleged beliefs. He considers common themes in those texts and the reception of that literature among prominent medieval Muslim scholars who discussed them.
Nasibism tried much to distort the character of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and presented much disgraced portrayal in the history:
“Stories that some Muslims shared about a respected caliph in Islamic history, Alı¯ b. Abı¯ T˙a¯lib (d. 40/661). The unique aspect of this study is that none of these tales come from his admirers. Rather, our informants will be individuals who considered him a man prone to error and misguidance. Evidently, from the example above, some portrayed him as a peeping Tom.” (See Nebil Husyan’s book, P.23 Introduction)
For an introduction to the literal meaning of Nasibi we have relied on the definitions stipulated by several recognised Ahl’ul Sunnah scholars:
Qamus, page 53, Chapter
Taj al Uroos, Volume 4 page 277
Lisan al Arab, page 762
Hadiya al Sahil ay adalta al Masail, page 96
Tadrib al-Rawi, Volume 1 page 328
Akrab al Muwarid, page 2
Siyar Alam al-Nubala, Vol 4 page 37 & vol 18 page 201
Al-Talimaat Al-Mukhtasar Ala Matan Al-Aqida al-Tahawiyah, vol 1 page 203
Ibn Manzur states in In Lisan al Arab:
والنَّواصِبُ قومٌ يَتَدَيَّنُونَ ببِغْضَةِ عليّ عليه السلام
“Nawasib are those who embrace the hate of Ali (as) as part of their faith”
May Allah’s curse be upon such people!
In Taj al Uroos, we read:
النَّوَاصِبُ والنّاصِبيَّةُ وأَهْلُ النَّصْبِ : وهم المُتَدَيِّنُون بِبغْضَةِ سيّدِنا أَميرِ المُؤْمنينَ ويَعْسُوب المُسْلِمينَ أَبي الحسنِ عَلِيّ بْنِ أَبي طالبٍ رضِيَ الله تعالى عَنْهُ وكَرَّم وجْهَهُ
Nawasib: “Are those who hate the commander of believers and the leader of Muslims Abu al-Hassan Ali bin Abi Talib [ra]“.
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti states in Tadrib al-Rawi:
بالنصب وهو بغض علي رضي الله عنه وتقديم غيره
“Nasb is hating Ali [ra] preferring the others”
We read the following in the margin of Imam Dhahabi’s famed book Siyar Alam al-Nubala (Vol 4 page 37) by Shaykh Shu’aib al-Arnaout:
من الناصبية وهم المنافقون المتدينون ببغضة علي رضي الله عنه ، سموا بذلك لأنهم نصبوا له وعادوه
“From Nasibiyah, there comes Nasibi and they are hypocrites, they have made the hate of Ali as their religion. This name was given to them because they have made the hate of Ali as their aim of life (Nasbu) and had enmity for him”
In volume 18 page 201 we read:
والنصب هو: بغض علي رضي الله عنه، وموالاة معاوية.
“Nasb means to have grudge against Ali (ra) and love Muawiya”
One of the famous Wahabi scholars from Saudi Arabia namely Shaykh Saleh al-Fawzan stated in his book ‘Al-Talimaat Al-Mukhtasar Ala Matan Al-Aqida al-Tahawiyah’:
وأما النواصب: فيوالون الصحابة، ويبغضون بيت النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام، ولذلك سموا بالنواصب؛ لنصبهم العداوة لأهل بيت النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام.
“The Nawasib, befriend the Sahaba and hate the family of the prophet (pbuh), therefore they have been called Nawasib for hating Ahlulbayt of the prophet (pbuh)”.
Hadiya al Sahil elaborates yet further:
“Nasibi ideology is a type of flawed character that is very bad, in its worst form is has a hatred for the Imam of Guidance Ali, and takes this as part of its Deen / Iman”.
Note that we have proven the definition by faithfully translating the works of Ahl’ul Sunnah and we invite our Sunni brothers and sisters to ponder. Do not be fooled by these long beards because among these are the enemies of Imam ‘Ali (as). Their enmity is evident from their speeches, but is disguised in such a way that the ordinary man would not recognise it. Their methodology is just like that of hypocrites. They read the Kalima with their tongues but their hearts are polluted with hatred and the proof is their animosity towards ‘Ali (as). Just like a bad foot odour they carry the stench of Nasibi thought everywhere they go – seeking to deceive the majority by proclaiming that this is the correct faith of Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaa.
To recognise the Nasibi let us investigate the matter further.
Pinpointing the Nasibi founding forefathers
Whilst defining a Nasibi the pen of the Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema has been somewhat reluctant to pinpoint where Nasibis existed in history and who their Imams were.
Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz makes two interesting comments in his Hidayatul Majeediyah, page 813:
“One who fights Ali [r] with enmity is a kaffir according to the ijma of Ahl’ul Sunnah.”
“Whoever deems Ali [r] to be a kaffir or opposes his khilafath is a kaffir, this trait was evident amongst the Khawaarij at Naharwaan”.
Haddeeya Mujedeeya by Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi page 813
On the same page Shah Abdul Aziz seeks to protect Mu’awiya by pointing out that Mu’awiya does NOT come within this definition since:
“Mu’awiya and the people of Syria sought revenge for the killing of Uthman”.
Unfortunately Shah’s efforts to protect Mu’awiya and his supporters are in vain because it is an established fact that Mu’awiya and his clansmen:
Opposed the khilafath of Imam Ali (as)
Bore enmity to Imam Ali (as) by cursing him
Fought him
All of these points have been discussed at length in our refutation of Ansar’s defence of Mu’awiya.
Hence we have pinpointed those that first wore the Nasibi garb, now let us delve further.
Identifying and recognising Nasibi ideology
Several authoritative Sunni works are being relied on for this section. Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz stated in Tauhfa Ithna Ashari:
Tuhfa Isna Ashriya, Page 97, By Shah Abdul Aziz
Tuhfa Isna Ashriya, Page 97, By Shah Abdul Aziz
“Hadith narrated by M
arwan can be found in al Bukhari, even though he was a Nasibi, in fact he was leader of that wicked cult.”
Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari attributes a different name as the actual Imam of the Nasibis, he writes:
“The founder of Nasibi ideology was Mu’awiya”.
Isthakhlaaf ai Yazid by Maulana Sayyid Lal Shah Bukhari page 216
In Al-Bidayah al-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 259 Ibn Kathir states:
ولما كان متوليا على المدينة لمعاوية كان يسب عليا كل جمعة على المنبر،
“When Marwan was a governor of Mu’awiya in Madina, he used to curse Ali on each Friday from the pulpit” .
In Fatwa Azizi by Shah Abdul Aziz we read that::
“Mu’awiya would curse Ali (as)”.
Fatwa Azizi by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, page 123
Hence Marwan and Mu’awiya were both Nasibis. They were enemies of Ali and embraced this as part of their faith. Their followers are also Nawasib. Their hatred takes numerous guises. In their lectures and writings their Nasibi thought becomes evident as does their hatred for the Shi’a of Ali. This party who pass fatwas of Kufr upon the Shi’a are in fact the spiritual descendants of Marwan and Mu’awiya and thus they adhere to an illegitimate belief formulated in the minds of the enemies of Ali (as).
From the outside one might mistakenly assume that Nasibis are pious adherents of the Sunnah. In their speeches they advocate the importance of adhering to the Sunnah, they wear long caftans, carry miswak, grow long beards, and lick their fingers after a meal – why? Because they will tell you that this was the Sunnah of the Prophet (s). It is curious that they adhere to such minute details, mimicking the Prophet (s) even in his dress sense and yet the important Sunnah, namely that of loving and adhering to the teachings of his Ahl’ul bayt (as) is rejected by them. What is even worse is the fact that they display hatred towards Ahl’ul bayt (as), evident from the fact that they regard their enemies as their Imams.
The casual observer may indeed be taken in by their acts of charity, Islamic circles, lengthy prayers etc – but the reality is these deeds are of no avail, for Rasulullah (s) declared:
“Hatred of Ali is such a thing that no good deeds will benefit, whilst love of ‘Ali is such a thing that no bad deeds will harm you”
al-Nasa’ih al-Kaafiyah page 67
Mu’awiya and Yazid were the Founding Forefathers of Nasibi ideology
A peculiarity of the Nasibis is the immense love they hold for Mu’awiya, the enemy of Ali. The reason is due the fact that the Nasibis owe their religious ideology to him. In the same way a child seeks to cover up the sins of his father, the Nasibis try their utmost to conceal the actions of their father Mu’awiya in hope that the cat is not let out of the bag and their hypocrisy is not publicly unveiled. They will try to convince their faithful that Mu’awiya was a pious man who never hated Ali (as) who fought him for the pleasure of Allah (swt). Alas the Nasibis can continue to deceive their flock but the classical works of the Ahl’ul Sunnah do not tally up with their lies, and as we shall prove the origin of the Nasibi movement in fact lies at the door of their beloved Imam Mu’awiya. We have again relied on two recognised Sunni sources for this section.
In Al-Bidayah al Nihayah, Volume 7 page 341, Ibn Kathir records that Saad bin Abi Waqqas said to Mu’awiya:
‘You brought me to your house and made me sit on your sofa and then you began to curse Ali?’
This demonstrates that Mu’awiya used to curse Ali (as).
Allamah Ibn al-Emaad al-Hanbali (d. 1089 H) in his book Shadharat al Dhahab, Volume 1 page 69 quoted Imam Dhahabi:
وقال الذهبي فيه كان ناصبياً فظاً غليظاً يتناول المسكر ويفعل المنكر
“Al-Dhahabi said about him (Yazeed) that he was Nasibi, rude, harsh, used to drink alcohol and committed evil deeds.”
Mu’awiya and Yazid were hence both Nasibi and were the worst enemies of Ali (as) and their adherents follow the same principle; carrying this banner of hypocrisy everywhere they go. The contemporary Nawasib love these characters and praise the Banu Ummayya rule. Relevent are the following words of Ibn Kathir who himself had Nasibi tendencies:
قلت: الناس في يزيد بن معاوية أقسام فمنهم من يحبه ويتولاه، وهم طائفة من أهل الشام، من النواصب
“I say: The people are divided into groups about Yazid bin Mu’awyia, some of them love him and befriend him and they are the Nawasib from the people of Syria”.
Al-Bidayah al Nihayah, Volume 6 page 256
The founding fathers of the Nasibi cult used to hate and curse Ahlulbayt (as) while the former passed on this evil concept to their adherents and thus we see that the later Nawasib began to oppose the followers of Ahlulbayt (as) as well. For example, Ibn Kathir records:
وقد عاكس الرافضة والشيعة يوم عاشوراء النواصب من أهل الشام، فكانوا إلى يوم عاشوراء يطبخون الحبوب ويغتسلون ويتطيبون ويلبسون أفخر ثيابهم ويتخذون ذلك اليوم عيدا
“The Nawasib of Syria used to contradict the Rafidha and Shia on the Day of Ashura, they (Nawasib) used to bake, bath, use perfumes, wearing their best clothes and consider that day as feast”.
Al-Bidayah al Nihayah, Volume 8 page 220
The modern day Nawasib may not like the name for themselves and may try their best to hide amongst the title of ‘Ahle Sunnah wal Jamah’ but their approach towards Ahlulbayt (as) and their (as) adherents sometimes serve as a sign to mark them as Nawasib. Ansar.org;’s Abu Sulaiman is the perfect example, who has written an entire article extolling the merits of Nasibi Mu’awiya and portraying Yazeed as a pious Muslim. We have refuted his defence in our article on Mu’awiya. This should not come as much of a surprise after all – this was an era when Imam Ali (as) was openly cursed on the Mosque pulpits – and yet you never hear self-declared defenders of the companions such as the Nasibi Bilal Philips ever mention this. Philips will write emphatically that the Shi’a do not respect the first three Khalifa’s – and he seeks maximum publicity to exploit this in hope that people attack innocent Shi’as and call them kaffir. His hypocrisy is quite evident from the respect he gives to those who cursed Imam Ali (as). It was Mu’awiya that introduced the cursing of Imam Ali throughout his kingdom, a tradition that continued for 90 years of Banu Ummayya rule. Does Philips criticise / condemn / heap scorn on the perpetrator of such an action? Certainly not, how can a Nasibi criticise his father? Philips pen tactically gleans over this period he fails to pass any comment whatsoever – on the contrary Philips and his Nasibi contemporaries praise Mu’awiya calling him radiallahu ‘anhu. This is clear evidence of his being a Nasibi disrespecting the three Khalifa’s is an outrage and makes you a kaffir, cursing Imam Ali (as) is okay and whoever did it – Allah is pleased with him.
The Nawasib are the bitterest enemies of the family of the Prophet (s). Those who call Shi’as Kafirs are the illegitimate descendants of these Nasibis and to extinguish the flames of animosity they pass kufr fatwas on Shi’as. We of course are aware that barking dogs have no bite.
By extolling Mu’awiya the Nawasib have opposed Allah (swt) and his beloved Prophet (S)
Such is their love for Mu’awiya these Nasibis go to huge lengths in extolling his virtues and his reign. They are only harming themselves, by saying Mu’awiya – May Allah be pleased with him, they are further pining their caftans to the gates of hell. This is because they have opposed the words of the Prophet:
“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 the Hell-fire”.
Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 6 page 33
We also read the following words of Prophet (s):
من سب علي فقد سبني
“Whoever abuses Ali, has abused me”
Al-Suyuti has declared it ‘Sahih’ in his Jami al-Saghir, page 529, No. 8736. Al-Munawi also declared it ‘Sahih’ in his Sharh Jami al-Saghir, Volume 2 page 817.
Nasibis know very well that their Imam Mu’awiya started the tradition of cursing Ali (we have highlighted this fact in our rebuttal of Ansar Nasibis’ defence of Muawiya bin Hind). In doing so as the hadith testifies he was cursing Allah. And yet the Nasibis insist on the title Ameer Mu’awiya may Allah be pleased with him. Is Allah (swt) pleased with someone that curses him? – Astaghfirullah the Nasibis are opposing the words of the Prophet (s), and he who does so intentionally is a kaffir!
The position of the Imam of the Nawasib Ibn Tamiyah
In the same way an illegitimate child yearns for acceptance from the hostile world around it – and searches out for a father to adopt it – the early Nawasib who were rejected by the majority, walked the wilderness desirous of a father to codify their hypocrisy into aqeedah. The Devil provided for them, by introducing them to Ibn Tamiyah – and their central source of deviancy comes from him. Revered to the point of Sainthood by the Nawasib, it is interesting to note that his contemporaries didn’t ascribe to the same view; on the contrary they vilified him. We have already written a complete article on Ibn Tamiyah thus here we will cite a few of evidences of his being a Nasibi.
Imam Ibn Hajr al Asqalani in his biography of Ibn Tamiyah while listing the differing views amongst the Ahl’ul Sunnah scholars, recorded:
“Others considered him a hypocrite [Munafiq] because of what he said about Ali… that he had been forsaken (makhdhoolan) everywhere he went, had repeatedly tried to acquire the Khilafah and never attained it, fought out of lust for power rather than religion, and said that “he loved authority while Uthman loved money.” He would say that Abu Bakr had declared Islam in his old age, fully aware of what he said, while Ali had declared Islam as a boy, and the boy’s Islam is not considered sound upon his mere word… In sum he said ugly things such as these, and it was said against him that he was a hypocrite, in view of the Prophet’s (s) saying (to Ali): “Only a hypocrite would show you hatred”.
al-durar al-Kamina, Volume 1 page 153
Deobandi scholar Shaykh Ahmed Raza Bijnawri in his book Anwar al-Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6 pages 221-222, in which he collected the statements of his master Shaykh Imam Anwar Sah Kashmiri, gave a caption ‘The authentication of Hadith Rad al-Shams by Imam Tahawi and its criticism by Hafiz Ibn Taimiyah’ under which Shaykh Bijnawri recorded:
“Ibn Taimiyah’s point of view represents Khariji tendencies”
‘Radd al Shams’ is the tradition in which Imam Ali (as) returned the sunset via the pointing of his finger. Similarly Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari al-Hanafi (d. 1371 H) records in al-Hawi fi Sirat al-Tahawi, page 27:
فتراه يحكم عليه هذا الحكم القاسي لأنه صحح حديث رد الشمس لعلي كرم الله وجهه. فيكون الاعتراف بصحة هذا الحديث ينافي انحرافه عن علي رضي الله عنه. وتبدو على كلامه آثار بغضه لعلي عليه السلام في كل خطوة من خطوات تحدثه
“You see him (Ibn Tamiyah) ruled on him (Tahawi) with this tough judgment simply because he (Tahawi) authenticated the tradition of returning the sun to Ali may Allah honor him. Therefore, affirming the authenticity of this tradition contradicted his (Ibn Tamiyah’s) deviation from Ali may Allah be pleased with. The signs of hatred against Ali peace be upon him appears in his (Ibn Tamiyah’s) words appear in every line of his statement”.
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehalwi stated in Fatawa Azizi, Volume 2 page 79 (Published in Deoband):
“At times, the text of Ibn Taimiyah in books such as ‘Minhaaj as Sunnah’ and others has been too atrocious. It has been very belittling particularly against Ahlulbayt, he prohibits visiting the tomb of Rasulullah (s), rejects the Ghauth, Qutub and Abdaal and disparages the Sufies … According to the views of Ahlul Sunnah, his text is cursed. Therefore Ahlul Sunnah can not be criticized on account of his writings”.
Sunni scholar from Morocco Hafiz Ahmad bin Sidiq (d. 1354 H) while talking on Nawasib included Ibn Tamiyah amog them. He records in ‘Fath al-Malik al-Ali’ page 109:
“The extremist Nawasib such as ibn Tamiyah and whoever is similar to him.”
Allamah Hasan bin Ali al-Saqqaf (born in 1961) is a contemporary Sunni scholar of modern day, he is the chief of Imam Nawawi center in Jordon, he has been student of some esteemed Sunni scholars such as al-Azeemi (the margin writter of the book Sahih Ibn Khuzaima), Hafiz Ghemari and Sheikh Bouti. Allamah Saqqaf in the margin of the book ‘Sahih Sharh Aqida Tahawya’ page 651 states:
“From those who followed the path of Bani Ummaya practiced Nasb against Ali, lady Fatima, Alulbayt and assaulting them is Ibn Tamiyah al-Harani and his Nasibi companions.”
This is the position of the Imam of the Nasibi cult deemed a hypocrite by the Ahl’ul Sunnah scholars on account of his enmity towards Maula Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and yet revered by his Salafi/Wahabi adherents as ‘Shaykh-ul-Islam’! They cling to his every word in the same way that a fly sticks to faeces. If their Imam was a hypocrite on account of his hatred of Ali (as), what should be the verdict of his beloved followers?
It is indeed unfortunate to see that common Sunni’s are being taken in by Nasibi propaganda about Ibn Tamiyah with many feeling that he was a defender of the Sunnah. Had anyone actually looked deep into his writing it becomes quite evident that he was a Nasibi with a deep hatred of Ali bin Abi Talib (as), dedicating his life to playing down his virtues.
Ibn Tamiyah ‘s student Ibn Katheer was also a Nasibi
Another esteemed Imam of the Nawasib is Ibn Katheer Al-Damishqi and today’s Salafi will only deem his version of history (as set out in his book al Bidayah wa al Nihaya) as ‘the truth’.
Before analysing Ibn Katheer’s comments let us provide a quick overview of the city where Ibn Katheer resided. Damascus was the hub of Nasibi aqeedah, since it was the home of the Banu Umayya Kingdom from where the practice of cursing Imam Ali (as) was first introduced by Mu’awiya – a practice that was continued by his successors for a further ninety years. This was the same Damascus where the women of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) were walked through following the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as). Before being show pieced before Nasibi Yazeed, the women were marched threw the market streets where the Syrians threw stones, dirt and abuse at them. Damascus was the city in which Yazeed imprisoned the women of Ahl’ul bayt (as). Hatred towards the Ahl’ul bayt (as) was imbedded in the people’s hearts, so much so that Ibn Khallikan narrates in Wafiyat al-Ayan that when Imam Nasai saw that the people of Damascus had turned away from Imam Ali (as) – he decided to write his book “al Khasais”. Damascus was the city of Ibn Katheer, a die-hard supporter of the Banu Umayya, whose writings are filled with appraisals and fabricated traditions extolling Mu’awiya, Yazeed and their Nasibi successors.
No doubt our opponents shall point out that Ibn Katheer (as shall be cited later) condemned the Nasibi as did Ibn Tamiyah – our reply is that both of these Nawasib were great politicians. If one analyses the politics of the West today, we see the increased presence of Far Right Nationalist Politicians. These fascists vigorously deny that that they are racists, but their ‘actual viewpoints’ can be ascertained via their speeches / writings. The same can be said of these two Salafi Imams, who despite their lip service condemnation of Nawasib made comments in their writings that serve as clear proof that they were die hard enemies of Ahl’ul bayt (as). We have already proven this with regards to Ibn Tamiyah, now let us see how Ibn Katheer respected the Ahl’ul bayt (as).
Ibn Katheer’s attack on Sayyida Fatima (as)’s character
In al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 5 page 289, Ibn Katheer makes the following comment:
“If by denying Rasulullah (s)’s inheritance and the Estate of Fadak, Fatima became angry, one should point out that Fatima was just an ordinary woman, and she got angry in the same way that ordinary women do, after all she was not infallible”.
These type of comments clearly point to Ibn Katheer’s enmity towards Sayyida Fatima (as), to the point that he was willing to lower her esteemed status so as to protect Abu Bakr. This Nasibi claimed that Sayyida Fatima (as)’s anger was just like that of any ordinary woman, when we read in Sahih al Bukhari Volume 5 hadith 61
“Allah’s Apostle said, “Fatima is a part of me, and he who makes her angry, makes me angry.”
When Sayyida Fatima (as)’s anger is on par with Rasulullah (s)’s anger then can we really deem her anger to be that of ‘ordinary’ woman?
Whilst Ibn Katheer’s Nasibi thinking was cemented yet further under the guidance of his teacher Ibn Tamiyah , his glaring support for the Nasibi Banu Umayya regime is also established in his writings. In al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 11 page 192, whilst attacking the renowned Maliki author of Iqd al Fareed Ibn Abd Rabbah, Ibn Katheer states:
“His pen clearly proves that he was Shi’a, as he sought to lower the position of the Banu Umayya, it is ironic that he was their Servant and yet despite this fact, he was their enemy”.
So according to Ibn Katheer this famous Sunni historian was Shi’a because he criticised the Banu Umayya – a fact that Ibn Katheer deemed as unacceptable. We should point out to our readers that the Sahabi Imran bin Husayn narrated that:
“…Rasulullah (s) at the time of his death disliked three tribes: Thaqif, the Banu Hanifah and the Banu Umayyah”. (Mishkat al-Masabih, by Khatib al-Tabrizi, English Version, Tradition number 5983, taken from Tirmidhi).
Rasulullah (s) died hating the Banu Umayya and Ibn Katheer was expressing regret that Ibn Abd Rabbah bore hatred towards them. These comments of Ibn Katheer serve as clear proof that he was a Nasibi supporter of the Banu Umayya.
The traits of a contemporary Nasibi
Remaining faithful to their Nasibi Imam, the Salafis and Deobandis have continued this anti Ali movement, seeking to mislead the majority by proclaiming that they respect Ali (as) whilst at the same time they try their utmost to belittle his rank. They for example will try to convince the majority that authentic hadith such as “I am the City of Knowledge and Ali is its Gate” is a forgery, and in doing so reject the verdicts of countless renowned Sunni Ulema. They deny that the Prophet (s) declared Ali (as) his brother on the Day of Brotherhood – despite irrefutable evidence to the contrary. The sermon at Ghadhir Khumm when the Prophet (s) declared, “Of whomsoever I am Mawla, Ali is his Mawla” is an undisputed fact, it is Mutawatir narrated by 110 companions. Despite this, in his book “The Evolution of Fiqh” we find the modern day Nasibi par excellence Shaykh Abu Ameenah Bilal Phillips describing the event as a Shi’a fabrication! His contradiction and intentional deception is quite clear for he in the same book declares Dhahabi as a great scholar of hadith – it was this great scholar who narrated this hadith from 30 companions. Is this not clear evidence of dishonesty on the part of this Nasibi?
These sorts of reactions are of course displays of the natural human characteristic of jealousy and hatred. When an individual hates a respected figure, the typical reaction will be to downplay or deny his virtues in hope of lowering their status in the eyes of others.
Another method is to side with that person’s opponents praising them- as the Nawasib do whilst downplaying Ali (as)’s role the Nawasib revere his enemies praising Mu’awiya and Marwan who cursed him, and encouraged others to do likewise.
Consider this logic of the Nawasib:
Cursing the Sahaba is kufr and hence makes you a kaffir, Mu’awiya cursed Imam Ali (as) and is a pious believer should be called radhinathallanho.
Abu Sufyan who fought the Prophet (s) is a Momin; Abu Talib the Protector of the Prophet was a kaffir!
Those who mourn for Imam Husayn (as) are kaffir, the killers of Imam Husayn (as) are Muslim!
It is haraam to marry a Shi’a due to the fact they have beliefs that diametrically oppose Sunni Islam, but it is permissible to marry Christians and Jews (because they are Ahl’ul Kitab!).
Their hypocrisy is as clear as day when one recounts Imam Ali (as)’s virtues in front of them – their faces will immediately exhibit symptoms of discomfort. There reactions are the same as the hypocrites who sat in the presence of Rasulullah (s), Allah (swt) says in Surah Nisa verse 61:
When it is said to them: “Come to what Allah hath revealed and to the Apostle”: thou seest the Hypocrites avert their faces from thee in disgust.
Once confronted with the hadith the next tactic will be deny the virtue, downplay it or counter it by extolling the virtues of others.
Whereas the sun characteristics can be identified by its appearance, hypocrisy needs a physical example to identify it – for the Muslims that identification can be located by pointing to the Nawasib. They hide behind their filthy caftans seeking to convince the Muslims that they are the true adherents of the Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaa – but when the virtues of Imam Ali (as) are aired in their presence they become perturbed, the words of the great Sahabi Jabir are just as relevant today:
Abi al-Zubair said: ‘I asked Jabir: ‘How was Ali’s status amongst you?’ He replied: ‘He was amongst the best of mankind; we used to recognize the hypocrites through their hatred of him.’
Fadhail al-Sahaba, Volume 2, page 639 hadith number 1086
It is with pride that despite all the lies of the Nawasib, their slurs that we are Kaffirs, the descendants of Jews, even they have never deemed as hypocrites for they know that hypocrites hate Imam (as) even they would never claim this! On the contrary we, according Shaykh-ul Shaytan Bilal Philips have “an inordinate obsession with the Prophets descendents”.
Tafseer Surah al Hujuraat by Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, page 19
Nawasib are those who write passionate defences for the enemies of Ahl’ul bayt (as) who fought, cursed and killed them. They seek to portray the enemies of Ahl’ul bayt (as) as fine upstanding Muslims, in their writings they tirelessly defend the actions of Mu’awiya and Yazeed and cover up their sins. They defend the actions of Mu’awiya in Sifeen, and deem his deeds against Imam Ali (as) as legitimate. When they discuss the Caliphate of Yazeed, they try to avoid any mention of Karbala, and when they do make comment they seek to defend Yazeed as the rightful Imam (as) who was within his rights to quash the ‘rebellion’ of Imam Husayn. Nasibi Bilal Philips in his Tafseer Surah Hujuraath specifically refers to Imam Husayn (as) actions as ‘rebellion’. Sunnis and Shi’a both deem Imam Husayn (as)’s position as rightful, but these Nasibi deem Imam Husayn (as) to be a baghi – this is significant as in Sunni aqeedah you cannot even read the funeral prayers of a slain baghi (Sharh Muslim Vol 1 page 314 by Nawawi; Dural Mukhtar, Volume 1 page 70 ). When these Nawasib relay Karbala, they try their utmost to defend Yazeed, whilst Sunni and Shi’a hate and curse Yazeed for his killing of Imam Husayn (as), these Nawasib try and protect their Imam, stating that he had no desire to kill Imam Husayn (as) and that he was kind and courteous to the Ahl’ul bayt (as). Bilal Philips is the perfect example of this type of Nasibi advocacy. In footnote 76, page 79 of his translation of Ibn Jauzi’s “The Devils Deception” he states:
“The Prophet’s grandson fell dead on the 10th of Muharram (October 10, 680 CE), and his head was severed and sent to Caliph Yazeed in Damascus. The Caliph deplored this horrible ending which he had neither desired nor ordered. His instructions had been to secure the person of al-Husayn, to prevent him from prolonging a dangerous agitation. He gave the head back to al-Husayn’s sister, Fatimah and son, Alee, Zain al-’Aabideen, who buried it with body in Karbala. Yazeed treated the Alids who survived with honour, providing generously for their needs, and have then an escort back to Madinah”.
We have cited this reference to show the extreme lengths that these Nasibi go to protect Yazeed. Philips seeks to reinvent history and cover up the sins of his Imam and instead seeks to present him in a kind favourable light, a man who had no desire to kill Imam Husayn (as) and was kind to his family. Not only does such a claim fly in the face of established historical facts this is the clearest proof that Salafis such as Philips are a sham, claiming they are Sunnis, they are in fact Nasibis who love Yazeed and seek to defend him (We Inshallah intend on refuting this Nasibis claim and similar passionate defences for Yazeed in a future article). These Nasibi deem the Imam’s position to be one of ‘dangerous agitation’ – if anything is said to counter such a claim they become outraged.
These are the same Nasibi that refuse to recite greetings on the family of the Prophet (s) when saying Rasulullah’s name, they love and support Mu’awiya and Yazeed and refrain from making any comment with regards to the faults of the Banu Umayya regime.
A further distinguishing characteristic of a contemporary Nasibi
We have again relied on the advocate of Mu’awiya and highly reputed alleged Sunni scholar Ibn Kathir’s work for this section.
He writes:
“I say: The people are divided into groups about Yazid bin Mu’awyia, some of them love him and befriend him and they are the Nawasib from the people of Syria”.
Al-Bidayah al Nihayah, Volume 6 page 256
He further comments:
“The Nawasib of Syria used to contradic the Rafidha and Shia on the day of Ashura, they (Nawasib) used to bake, bath, use perfumes, wearing their best clothes and consider that day as feast”.
Al-Bidayah al Nihayah, Volume 8 page 220
Nasibi sign is to love Yazid and to celebrate on the 10th of Muharram rather than mourn. Take a look at how these Salafi and Deobandi behave on the 10 of Muharram. You will see them going about their own daily business without a care in the world, deeming mourning for Imam Husayn (as) to be a bidah, and actions such as refraining from marriage on that day to be based on custom that should be abandoned. These Nawasib even lead by example and have no shame of even marrying on the 10th of Muharram. Our recommendation to these Nawasib is to refrain from marrying on the day that Imam Husayn (as) died. If you really are desirous to seek pleasure on a solemn occasion, we suggest that you set aside a special day called “Uthman al Affan day” – as you are the adherents of that individual who spent the night having sex, on the same evening that his wife had died.
This is clearly proven from Sahih Bukhari, Volume 2, Book 23, Number 374:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
We were (in the funeral procession) of one of the daughters of the Prophet and he was sitting by the side of the grave. I saw his eyes shedding tears. He said, “Is there anyone among you who did not have sexual relations with his wife last night?” Abu Talha replied in the affirmative. And so the Prophet told him to get down in the grave. And so he got down in her grave.
Ahl’ul Sunnah believe that Rasulullah (s) had three daughters, two were allegedly married to Uthman. If Uthman had NOT had sex on the same night that his wife had died, then why he did he not get down in the grave? Nawasib should take note of this tradition and take the example of Uthman, who rather than mourn a deceased wife preferred to spend the night having sex.
The striking similarity between Nasibi thought and Neo Darwinism
The Nawasib are like the Neo-Darwinists. Like them they claim to follow the teachings of a great man of truth, and to revive and propagate his teachings – neo Darwinism is disseminated like neo Islam or Wahabi’ism. But like Darwin, Ibn Tamiyah was profoundly misguided. Both noticed material facts, and both drew an implausible reason for them, and both downgrade orthodox religion.
The Holy Prophet (s) is revered, so to prevent worship of him he has been downgraded by the Nawasib. That is their logic. Yet there exists no man who has worshipped the Holy Prophet (s). Nasibi ideology attracts men who are perceptive enough to see anomalies or links in the world around them, but fall into the quagmire of drawing the wrong conclusions to piece them together, laughing at the believers in the process, when the intellectual defect and the arrogance is in them themselves.
Their beliefs attract men who are perceptive enough to see anomalies or links in the world around them, but fall into the quagmire of drawing the wrong conclusions to piece them together, laughing at the believers in the process, when the intellectual defect and the arrogance is in them themselves.
In the same way that neo Darwinism, took its teachings of a certain Cambridge scholar and under the influence of the materialists and masons made it a religion – the Nasibis took the teachings of a certain Ibn Tamiyah and with the British pulling the strings, the Wahabi movement was formulated in its bid to throw off the power of the Turkish Uthmani Khalifas.
The teachings of Ibn Tamiyah were themselves manifestations of a certain peculiar type of deviancy that had existed in Islam since the earliest days. In the same way that the musings of Charles Darwin were the result of a diseased mind that drew sharp observations but which was infected with hatred for the established religion and his own arrogance- Darwin, like Ibn Tamiyah , was a partially trained, failed and frustrated former theologian. The corruption in the mind of Ibn Tamiyah came this time not from his humiliation at the hands of the established Church as had Darwin’s, but from the viciously anti-’Alid sentiments of the Banu Ummayya and many of the early Muhajirs who resented the Banu Hashim, the Holy Prophet (s) and Imam Ali (as).
Umar sought to reflect a general opinion that it was felt the Prophethood and the khilafat should not be combined in the Banu Hashim.
History of al-Tabari, Volume 14 page 136 -137, English translation, by G. Rex Smith
Mu’awiya said that it was intolerable to him that he had to hear the name of Muhammad (saws) in the Adhaan in the kingdom that he ruled.
Sharh Nahj-ul Balagha, Volume 5 page 130 by Ibn al Hadid
Yazid said that by slaying Imam Husayn (as) he had taken revenge for the slaying of his family at the hands of the Banu Hashim.
Al Iqdul Fareed, page 125
These three viewpoints essentially formulate the thinking of the Nasibi – keep Ahl’ulbayt on the sidelines, mock the Prophet (s) by narrating lies about him and shower praise on the killers of Imam Hussain (as).
The development of the Nasibi school of thought
In the same way that the Ahl’ul Sunnah scholars record that four people claimed to be Mu’awiya’s father when he was born, all four having slept with his prostitute mother, the Nasibis are also the sons of four fathers (we have discussed this in detail in our rebuttal of Ansar’s defence of Mu’awiya).
The family of the Banu Ummayya perpetrated the first entry, Islamic Burgos, (40AH till their end). King Mu’awiya the son of four fathers led this party, with help rendered by his squire Marwan who was exiled by the Holy Prophet. Additional support came from Mu’awiya’s bastard half-brother Ibn Ziyad and his beloved Crown Prince and Crown Pervert HRH Yazid, Prince of Darkness. This line of deviance culminated in Walid, a young man of high spirits – who Dhahabi has called a “fajir, fasiq and homosexual”.
Tarikh al Khulafa chapter “Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan”
The seeds of Nasibi ideology began to blossom the perfect time for the second entry to occur – it was time for Ibn Taymiyyah of the Syrian School of Najd to enter the scene. Now the Devil’s Deception was nearly complete, Ibn Taymiyyah and his sidekick Ibn Kathir then legitimised the Nasibi thinking in print – just like some mediaeval Hugh Heffner, whose books with their pages stuck together are masturbated over many years later by frustrated Nasibi / Salafi men.
Swapping religion with Arab nationalism brought about the third and entry. The honorary coconut Sir Abdul Wahab flew the British Empire’s flag.
With the British product ‘Wahabi thought’ cemented in the hearts of the Nasibis the fourth and final entry was made by Laurence of Arabia who like his personal preferences attached himself to the Nasibi male folk taking the rear guard, infiltrating the Muslims from behind. Mission accomplished Nasibi ideology finally had a homeland / base to carry out their fitnah activities, the Nasibis had a King to Crown it, this school of thought continues to be propagated by King Fahad.
This is the esteemed history of the Nawasib. They would have of course not had gained credence had it not been for the legitimising of it by their adopted father Ibn Tamiyah , the high priest of Wahabi’ism, foremost, and propagated by Saudi petrodollars.
Notes:
Nebil Husayn is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Miami, where his research considers the development of Islamic theology, historiography, and debates on the caliphate. Husayn obtained his Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from Princeton University.
References:
1-Kawtharī, Barrasī rīshiha-yi tārīkhi-yi naṣibīgarī, p. 99.
2- Opposing the Imam: The Legacy of the Nawasib in Islamic Literature, Nebil Huysan, P.3,4 Ibn Abı¯ ’l-Hadı¯d, Sharh, 20:10–12; al-Qurtubı¯, Tafsı ¯r, 16:321–322.
3 -One example is al-Bala¯dhurı¯’s treatment of! Uthma¯n: see Keaney, Medieval Islamic Historiography, 30
4 -For reports about Samura b. Jundab selling intoxicants andMu!a¯wiya serving intoxicants to
guests, see Ahmad b.Hanbal, al-Musnad, 1:25, 5:347. For a report about Mu!a¯wiya selling
them during the caliphate of! Uthma¯n, see Abu¯ Nu!aym al-Is baha¯nı¯, Ma”rifat al-saha¯ba,
4:828. In later sources, Mu!a¯wiya’s name is omitted so that the owner of the alcohol remains anonymous: see Ibn! Asa¯kir, Ta!rı ¯kh, 34:420; Ibn al-Athı¯r, Usd al-gha¯ba, 3:299
5- Talha and al-Zubayr pledge allegiance to! Alı¯ and ask him permission to leave Medina for pilgrimage when their real intentions are to launch a rebellion: see Ibn Abı¯’l-Hadı¯d, Sharh
˙10:248. The two are described as swearing false oaths to! A¯ “isha in the course of their
rebellion: see ibid., 9:311; al-Iska¯fı¯, al-Mi”ya¯r, 56; al-Mas!u¯dı¯, Muru¯j al-dhahab, 2:358. For a report about Ibn al-Zubayr doing the same, see Abu¯ ’l-Fida¯”, Ta¯rı ¯kh, 1:173; Ibn A!tham al- Ku¯fı¯, al-Futu¯h, 2:458; al-Sam!a¯nı¯, al-Ansa¯b, 2:286.
6- For the case involving al-Mughı¯ra b. Shu!ba and Umm Jamı¯l, see !Abd al-Razza¯q al-S ˙an!a¯nı¯, al-Musannaf, 7:384; al-Bayhaqı¯, al-Sunan al-kubra¯, 8:234–235; Ibn Abı¯ Shayba, al- Musannaf, 6:560; Ibn H˙ajar al-! Asqala¯nı¯, Fath˙al-ba¯rı ¯, 5:187
7- EI2, s.v. “Ima¯ma” (W. Madelung), “!Uthma¯niyya” (P. Crone); Afsaruddin, Excellence,
14–23; Barzegar, “Remembering Community”; Crone, God’s Rule, 20–32; Melchert,
“The Rightly Guided Caliphs,” 65–68; Zaman, Religion and Politics, 49–63
8- Busr b. Abı¯Arta¯t is infamous for the murderous raids he led near the end of Ali Ibn Abi Talib ’s caliphate: see Madelung, Succession, 299–307.
9- One can compare portrayals of Ali Ibn Abi Talib ’s political rivals in al-Bala¯dhurı¯’s Ansa¯b al-ashra¯f (or
Madelung’s The Succession to Muh˙ammad) to their presentation in Ah˙mad b. H˙anbal,Kita¯b Fad˙a¯!il al-s˙aha¯ba. For a passionate defense of the righteousness of Companions and
a refutation of their alleged sins, see Ibn al-!Arabı¯, al-“Awa¯sim, 280–281, 289, 340. For studies on the historiography of Companions, see Lucas, Constructive Critics, 221–285; Osman, “!Ada¯lat al-S˙ah˙a¯ba.”10- According to these Sunnis, Mu!a¯wiya and other rebels wanted to punish !Uthma¯n’s murderers right away, while Ali Ibn Abi Talib desired to delay such action until civil strife had subsided. Some Sunnis speculated that Mu!a¯wiya believed that the punishment of murderers was a collective obligation (fard˙kafa¯!ı ¯) that anyone could carry out independent of a ruling authority, while Ali Ibn Abi Talib believed otherwise: see Amah˙zu¯n, Tah˙qı ¯q mawa¯qif al-s˙ah˙a¯ba fı ¯ ’l-fitna, 454; al-Khamı¯s,H˙iqba min al-ta¯rı ¯kh, 117–120.
11- Ibn !Asa¯kir, Ta!rı ¯kh, 24:401–402.
12- On erased histories, identity politics, and their relationship to memories of pain, seeBrown, “Wounded Attachments.”
