Persecution of Shi’a Muslims: A Historical Perspective
Abstract:
This academic article explores the historical persecution of Shi’a Muslims over the course of 1400 years within the context of Islamic history. It delves into the theological background of Shi’a Islam, tracing its roots in the teachings of Muhammad and the Ahlu al-Bayt, and examines the political events that led to the marginalization and persecution of Shi’a communities. The article highlights key periods of persecution, including the early Islamic period, the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, and the reigns of various caliphs. It also sheds light on the strategies employed by rulers to suppress Shi’a expressions of faith and the consequences faced by Shi’a Muslims during these tumultuous times.Introduction:
Shi’a Islam, the second-largest branch of Islam after Sunni Islam, adheres to the teachings of Muhammad and the religious guidance of his family, known as the Ahlu al-Bayt, or his descendants, known as Shia Imams. This article seeks to academically examine the historical persecution of Shi’a Muslims, spanning a 1400-year history of Islam. The persecution of Shi’a Muslims is contextualized within both theological and political dimensions, highlighting key periods and the consequences faced by the Shi’a communities.Theological Context of Shi’a Islam:
Shi’a Islam, also referred to as Shi’ite Islam or Shi’ism, places particular emphasis on the descendants of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima Zahra and cousin Ali, whom they consider the true source of religious guidance. While Shi’a Islam has seen internal divisions over time, the article focuses on the three major branches with significant followings within the Shi’a tradition.Political Context of Shia Islam:
The political context of Shi’a Islam unfolds in several stages, with the first stage beginning after the death of Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE and extending until the Battle of Karbala in 680 CE. This phase coincides with the Imamah of Ali, Hasan ibn Ali, and Hussain, which is characterized by a struggle for leadership within the Muslim community. The article discusses the contested succession of leadership after Prophet Muhammad’s death, with a focus on the Saqifah incident, where Abu Bakr was appointed as the first caliph. This event led to divisions among early Muslims, with some asserting Ali’s rightful claim to leadership.The Early Persecution:
During this phase, the rejection of the consultation-based government led to persecution against those who supported Ali as the legitimate successor to Prophet Muhammad. The article discusses the burning of Fatima’s house, the suffering of early Shi’a Muslims, and the denial of inherited property, such as Fadak. It also explores historical sources and traditions that highlight the suppression of Ali’s appointment by Prophet Muhammad at Ghadeer-e-Khum.Persecution Under the Umayyad Dynasty:
Under the rule of the Umayyad Caliphate (661-680 CE), the persecution of Shi’a Muslims intensified. The article highlights the actions of Umayyad governors and military leaders, such as Zayad and Samura ibn Jundab al-Fazārī, who targeted Shi’a Muslims through violence, property confiscation, and forced cursing of Ali. Notable events like the tragedy of Karbala, where Imam Hussain and his companions were martyred, are discussed in detail.Continued Persecution Under the Abbasid Dynasty:
The article transitions to the Abbasid Dynasty, where persecution against Shi’a Muslims persisted. It elaborates on the martyrdom of key Shi’a figures, including Imam Jaffar Sadiq, Imam Musa Kazim, and Imam Ali Raza, under Abbasid rule. The Abbasids, despite their claims of proximity to the Ahlul Bayt, perpetuated brutal actions against Shi’a Muslims, leading to widespread suffering and restrictions on religious expression.Conclusion:
This academic exploration of the historical persecution of Shi’a Muslims within the Islamic context spans centuries and sheds light on the multifaceted dimensions of their struggles. From the early days of Islam to the Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties, Shi’a communities faced discrimination, violence, and suppression. The article underscores the enduring impact of these historical events on the Shi’a Muslim identity and their quest for religious freedom within the broader Islamic narrative.
Shi’a Islam in theological context:
Shi‘a Islam, also known as Shi‘ite Islam or Shi‘ism, is the second largest branch of Islam after Sunni Islam. Shias adhere to the teachings of Muhammad and the religious guidance of his family (who are referred to as the Ahlu al-Bayt) or his descendants known as Shia Imams. Muhammad’s bloodline continues only through his daughter Fatima Zahra and cousin Ali who alongside Muhammad’s grandsons comprise the Ahlu al-Bayt. Thus, Shias consider Muhammad’s descendants as the true source of guidance. Shia Islam, like Sunni Islam, has at times been divided into many branches; however, only three of these currently have a significant number of followers, and each of them has a separate trajectory.
Political context of Shia Islam:
From a political viewpoint the history of the Shia was in several stages:
1-After the death of Prophet (PBUH) to Emergence of the tragedy of Karbala
The first part was the emergence of the Shia, which starts after Muhammad’s death in 632 and lasts until Battle of Karbala in 680. This part coincides with the Imamah of Ali, Hasan ibn Ali and Hussain.
The Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) began preaching Islam at Mecca before migrating to Medina, from where he united the tribes of Arabia into a singular Arab Muslim religious polity. With the Holy Proophet Muhammad’s death in 632, disagreement broke out over who would succeed him as leader of the Muslim community. While Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib (Talib (A.S), his cousin and son-in-law, and the rest of the Holy Prophet Muhammad’s close family were washing his body for burial, the tribal leaders of Mecca and Medina held a secret gathering at Saqifah1,2,3 to decide who would succeed Muhammad as head of the Muslim state, disregarding what the earliest Muslims, the Muhajirun, regarded as Muhammad’s appointment of Ali as his successor at Ghadir Khumm4,5,6…29. Umar ibn al-Khattab, a companion of Muhammad and the first person to congratulate Ali on event of Ghadeer, nominated Abu Bakrar and (reference). Others, after initial refusal and bickering, settled on Abu Bakr who was made the first caliph. This choice was disputed by Muhammad’s earliest companions, who held that Ali had been designated his successor. Who had appointed Abu Bakar thet presented the ‘Idea of Consultaion based Caliphat, according to it,’The Holy Prophet Muhammad died without having appointed a successor, and with a need for leadership, they gathered and voted for the position of caliph’,this idea later made its place in Sunni accounts.
Many companions of the Holy Prophet rejected the said idea by asserting that the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had designated Imam Ali (A.S) as his successor on a number of occasions, including on his death bed. Ali was supported by Muhammad’s family and the majority of the Muhajirun, the initial Muslims, and was opposed by the tribal leaders of Arabia who included Muhammad’s initial enemies, including, naturally, the Banu Umayya 32(reference). Abu Bakr’s election was followed by a raid on Ali’s house led by Umar and Khalid ibn al-Walid and that group burnt the House of Fatima, the daughter of the Holy Prophet. Fatimah’s injuries during the raid directly caused the young Fatima (S.A)’s miscarriage and death, within six months of Muhammad’s demise. All those who had rejected the nomination of Abu bakar and insisted over Ali (A.S) as true successor of the Holy Prophet nominated by the Holy Prophet in his life, faced suffering, threats even torture (Ridda wars? Khalid bin Walid, MalikWalid34 reference). Many initial Muslims from Mohajir and Ansar were forced to admit Abu Bakar as the successor of the Holy Prophet. To oppose the idea of consultation based government had become inviting the anger and persecution against him/her.The daugter the Holy Prophh(S.A) was denied to hand over inherited orchad at the place of Fadak. What happened with Imam Ali (A.S), Fatima (S.A) in the sense of persecution, we find some clear indications in Imam Ali’s Sermon Al-Shiqshiqiyya Sermon (reference). There are many evidences, reporting traditions in primary sorces of the history, Tafsir, Ahadith which show that Imam Ali (A.S) and his follower Shi’a Muslims (who were initial the Migrants & the Helpers of Madina) were silenced by force not to mention the story of appointing the Ali Ibne Abi Talib by the Holy Prophet Muhammad as his successor, Amir (The commander) of all believers at the place of Ghadeer-e-Khum while returning after fermoring the Haj to Mecca(We have given the many Sunni references in support of Ghadeer Khum in Reference Sheet given in the last). In the regin of three Caliph efforts were made to forget the said story of appointing the Imam Ali his successor by the Holy Prophet at Ghadeer-e-Khum and the idea that the Holy Prophet had died without appoining his successor and consultation-based method of choosing the Amir (the commander) of the believers from just only initial theMigrants from the Qureash tribe presented as only legal and true Islamic faith.
Imam Ibne Abi Talib had asked Abu Bakar and others who had presented the conslutation based principle at Saqifah for choosing the Amir-ul-Momineen (The commander of the believers), how they did so while they all were present at the place Ghadeer-e-Khum,where he was appointed the Imam and sucessor of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)? According to many reliable reported traditions exist in primary sources of the Ahadith that Abu Bakr felt remorse and promised to appoint Amir al-mu’minin after him, and he wept on this occasion. But when his time drew near, he appointed Omar as caliph. Ali Ibne Abi Talib (A.S) reminded that thing in his famous Shaqshaqia sermon: “It is strange that during his lifetime he wished to be released from the caliphate but he confirmed it for the other one after his death.”Imam Ali Ibne Abi Talib Ali would remind the companions of the tradition of Ghadir over 10 years later in the courtyard of the mosque in Kufa in a tradition known as Yawm al Ruhba. 35(reference).
In the regin of monarchy of Moavia (661-680) we see him persecuting the Shi’a Muslims with full force. According to Tabari and other historian his appointed governor of Kufa Zayad and Deputy Governor Samura ibn Jundab al-Fazārī killed more than 0ne hundred thousandlac Shi’a Muslims till the martyrdom of Imam Hasan bin Ali Ibne Abi Talib (A.S). Shi’a Muslims were deprived their agrilands, monthly stipends due to their love for the House of Muhammad including Imam Ali (A.S). They were asked to curse Ali Ibne Abi Talib (reference) and over denial they were tortured, thrown behind the bars, were forced to be exiled. Great companions of the Holy Prophet like Hujar bin Adi were slaghtered over denial to curse Ali Ibne Abi Talib (A.S) in that period. After his death, there was emerged the great tragedy of Karbala, where Imam Hussain, his sons, maternal and parental nephews, brother and faithful comrades were slaghteredslaughtered and mishandeledmishandled the women members of the House of Muhammad (PBUH).36,37
After the tragedy of Karbala:
During the Uamyyad Dynasty (661-778), Shi’a Muslim community was the most persecqueted community. Every form of the persecution, of oppression, of suppression was faced by the Shi’a Muslim community.Exception was the period of rule of Umar bin Abdul Aziz , evenbut in that period it was not too allowed for Shi’a Muslims to express their religious faith freely among the people. It was crime to reject the conslutation based selection of Amir-ul-Momineen (The Commander/Caliph of Muslim Commuinty) idea while declaring it great deviation from the advice of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (A.S). Appointed Aiyima Ahulbayat in the eyes of Shi’a Muslims including Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain, Imam Ali bin Hussain was martyred by Umayyad rulers at that time. Another big incident of tyranny occurred in the rule of Hisham bin Abudl Malik in 740 AD, when Zayd bin Ali bin Hussain and his fellow fighters were martyred brutally in Kufa.38
Abbasid Dynasty and Shi’a Muslims
As regarding to Imams of Aiyima-Ahul-bayat and their Shi’as Abbasid dynasty was not different from Umayyad dynasty. Imam Jaffar Sadiq, Imam Musa Kazim, Imam Ali Raza, Imam Muhammad Taqi, Imam Ali Naqi and Imam Hasan bin Ali Askari (6 Aiyima Ahul-bayt) were martyred (All were poisioned to death) references. Hundreds of Syeds (Progeny of Muhammad), thousands of Shi’as were killed. Shi’a Muslims were not free to express their faith and to practic their religion without fear.
Yet, the Abbasids assumed a garb of the Khilafah indirectly from Abu Hashim bin Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya, the grand son of Imam Ali (a.s.). In order to pretend a proximity to Imam Ali (a.s.), the Abbasids created a legend saying that Abu Hashim al-Alawi appointed Muhammad bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas as his successor (Khalifa) at the place called Hamiya (reference). The Abbasids claimed that Abu Hashim was the Khalifa of Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya, who in turn got to the Khilafah from Imam Ali (a.s.). The Abbasids also claimed that Abu Hashim had a great following of the Shia of Khurasan. Based on the above assumption, Ibn Khaldun, Ibnul Athir, Abul Faraj al-Isfahani, and some other writers state that the Abbasids invited people towards the ‘contentment of Aal Muhammad’. (This is for English audience my suggestion will be it stick to Ahul-Bayat or desendents of Prophet (pbuhp) or use common terms and spelling’s introduction of new terms like Aal Muhammad will not be searchable) The Abbasids claimed that before he died, Muhammad bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas appointed his son Ibrahim, and when Ibrahim was arrested by Marwan al-Himar, he appointed his younger brother Abul Abbas Abdullah as-Saffah as his successor.
Abul Abbas as-Saffah became the first Abbasid Caliph in 133 AH, who controlled Asia, Egypt and West Africa. The truth is that having gained power in the name of (progeny of Muhammad?)Aal Muhammad, the Abbasids turned to be their tormentors.In order to establish his reign, Abul Abbas indiscriminately killed the Shia (Even Non-Shi’a muslims who didn’t accept him as legitimate ruler of Muslim community.)
“The Abbasids were always suspicious that they might be dethroned, particularly by the Imams of the Shia. They also realized that unless held on a tight leash the public might see through their game and demand that an Alawid be invested with the Caliphate. For these reasons, they perpetrated untold hardships against anyone suspected to be a sympathiser with the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). K. Ali, a Sunni present-day historian, wrote, “The murder of Abu Muslim and Abdullah who helped him greatly to raise the Abbasids to power and prestige, and his treatment toward the descendants of Ali, the fourth Caliph, are the darkest records in the Abbasid history.”3 It was actually as-Saffah’s younger brother, al-Mansur who was responsible for the murder of Abu Salama and Abu Muslim. The only reason behind the murder was that people such as Abu Salama Hafs bin Sulaiman in Kufa and Abu Muslim in Khurasan, were supporters of the Ahlul Bayt. Most of them were also greatly disappointed by the character of as-Saffah.”
Al-Mansur ordered that the progeny of Imam Hasan (a.s.) should be gathered in one place. He got them chained and threw them into a dark cell. As they could not make out day from night, and the times for prayers, the prisoners divided the Qur’an into five parts in order to approximate the time of prayer and after finishing each part they offered prayers. There was no sanitation due to which they fell sick. When one died, the corpse was left to rot. Soon all of them died.Frequently, the progeny of Ali and Fatima and their sympathisers were gathered and al-Mansur ordered to be flogged so severely that the victims soon died.
Al-Mansur arrested Ibrahim bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin Ali ibn Abi Talib along with Abdullah bin al-Hasan, Abu Bakr bin al-Hasan, and his brothers Abbas, Abdullah, Hasan, and Ja’far, and Hamza bin Ishaq bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Ja’far. They were kept in confinement in Medina for three years. Thereafter, they were shifted to a dark dungeon in az-Zabadah where they all died one after another.Allama Muhammad Jawad wrote, “According to al-Mansur’s own admission, he had killed more than a thousand persons who were from the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.). He killed innumerable Shia and invented new and outrageous methods of torture and ultimate death.”
Martydom of Imam Jaffar Al-Sadiq
Though several persons wrote to Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) asking him to accept the leadership of the Muslims, he refused. He was content to preach Islam at Medina. It is said that he had as many as six thousand students studying various sciences at his hand. Despite his noninterference with politics, Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) was always looked upon with suspicion by al-Mansur. (reference)
Al-Mansur often used to send for the Imam with the intention of killing him, but he always lost his nerve at the last moment. At-Tabari records in his Tarikhul Umam wal Muluk that the Imam demanded that al-Mansur should return the properties confiscated from him (the Imam).
Al-Mansur ordered the Imam to be poisoned.
Al-Mahdi was as cruel as his father al-Mansur. He bore an unabated hatred toward the Shia and Sayyids. When he found that his father had hundreds of tagged bodies of the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.) stored in a house, as we saw above, he ordered all the bodies to be buried in a common ditch and a shop to be erected upon the ditch. He spared no effort to trace Ali and Fatima’s progeny and to incarcerate them until their death or to have them beheaded. Any person least suspected of harbouring good will towards the Ahlul Bayt was unceremoniously killed without trial. So ferocious was al-Mahdi that people concealed their identity for fear of being persecuted for being the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.). The Shia concealed their faith and preferred to be branded as zindiq (atheists) rather than to be known as Shia. (reference)
Though he ruled for a short period of one year, he became as notorious as his father was for his cruelty and persecution toward the Sayyids and the Shia. He imposed restrictions on the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.) who lived in Medina, and made them stand surety for each other. He made it obligatory on them to report every morning to the local authority. Often, they were made to wait for long hours just to insult them. The insults led to altercations. Being unable to bear the insults and harassment, al-Husayn bin Ali bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin Ali ibn Abi Talib called for the progeny of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the following persons gathered around him; Yahya, Sulaiman, and Idris the sons of Abdullah bin al-Hasan, Abdullah bin al-Hasan al-Aftas, Ibrahim bin Isma’eel, Umar bin al-Hasan, Abdullah bin Isma’eel, and Abdullah bin Ja’far. These ten persons were proceeding on their pilgrimage. They were joined by thirty-six persons who were the progeny of Ali (a.s.) and a few bondsmen. They went to the governor’s house early in the morning. On seeing them, the governor ran away. However, they were soon surrounded by the army of al-Hadi the Abbasid king and were massacred. The bodies remained lying on the ground for three days.11 Six persons were taken prisoners and were brought before al-Hadi who beheaded them.
Haroon ar-Rashid was the first to order to demolish and remove Imam Husayn’s Shrinetomb (reference). Before him, neither the Umayyads nor the Abbasids, though they desired, never dared to destroy the tomb of Imam Husayn (a.s.). However, they imposed severe restrictions on visiting the Shrinetomb.
Martyrdom of Imam Mosa Kazim
Imam Musa al-Kadhim (a.s.) was living in Medina. When Haroon visited the holy city, he went to the Prophet’s Shrinetomb and in order to show his proximity to the Prophet (S), he saluted the Shrinetomb saying ‘Peace be upon my cousin’. Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.), who was present at that time, humiliatedput down Haroon ar-Rashid by saluting the Prophet’s tomb saying:‘Peace be upon my (grand) father.’ (reference)Thus, the Imam proved that if proximity in relationship was what would count, Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) was closer to the Prophet (S) than Haroon was. Due to the above incident, Haroon felt so insecure that on several occasions, he made Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) travel from Medina to Baghdad to kill him, but, whenever he met the Imam, he was scared to take any precipitate action. Instead, on several occasions, Haroon imprisoned Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) for long periods. Seeing the piety of Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.), who was in prison for over a year, the jailor, at Basra, Eesa bin Ja’far bin Mansur wrote to Haroon ar-Rashid asking him to transfer the Imam to some other jail; otherwise, he would himself release the pious Imam. Haroon sent Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) from Basra to Baghdad and kept him imprisoned under al-Fadhl bin ar-Rabee’.(reference) Soon, al-Fadhl found that Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) was innocent and that he was being unjustly persecuted. Haroon learnt that Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) was living a relatively comfortable life. He sent his confident Masrur to spy upon al-Fadhl. Haroon gave two letters, one addressed to Abbas bin Muhammad and another one addressed to Sindi bin Hashak asking him to follow the instruction of Abbas bin Muhammad. Accordingly, Abbas inflicted one hundred whips on al-Fadhl bin ar-Rabee’ and handed over Imam al-Kadhim to the custody of Sindi bin Hashak. Sindi bin Hashak asked Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) to lie on the floor and he made some Christian wrestlers to sit on, due to which the Imam died. According to Ardabili, Sindi bin Hashak inserted poison and martyred Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) Haroon’s jealousy of the infallible Imams of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was so intense that he closed down the university run by Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) at Medina (reference). He frequently ordered Imam as-Sadiq to leave Medina and travel to Baghdad just to disturb the Imam’s teaching of his students who were said to be more than four thousand ones.
After Rashid Mamoon had no exception.There is an unending list of people who were martyred under al-Ma’mun’s orders. The well-known among them are: Al-Hasan al-Harsh, al-Hasan bin Zaid, al-Hasan bin al-Husayn bin Zaid, al-Hasan bin Ishaq, Ali bin Abdullah, Abu Sara bin Mansur, Muhammad bin al-Husayn bin al-Hasan, Muhammad bin Zaid bin Ali, Muhammad bin Ja’far, Abdullah bin Ja’far, Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al-Hasan, etc., in addition to thousands of their supporters.
Persecution of Shi’a Muslim continued in the reign of Al-Mua’tasim Billah . Thus, Imam al-Jawad (a.s.) was martyred by poison inserted to him by Ummul Fadhl at the behest of al-Mu’tasim. (reference)
Al-Mutawakkil Allah was the cruelest of all the Abbasid kings. He bore great ill will towards the progeny of Imam Ali and Fatima (a.s.) and their Shia. He used to abuse and tell lies against Imam Ali (a.s.) in the open court. His clown Ibadah, who was a eunuch, pretended to imitate Imam Ali (a.s.). When al-Mutawakkil’s son al-Muntasir Billah saw this, he chided his father saying that Imam Ali (a.s.) was the nephew of their grandfather Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and allowing a clown to imitate him was the worst thing. Al-Mutawakkil was given to heavy drinking and was always surrounded by dancing girlsfemale dancers. (Here can we speak about homosexuality? Not necessarily too negatively but just as a matter of fact? Maybe we leave that part alone?)
Al-Mutawakkil had abdicated his authority to the Turkish slaves who were whimsically running the administration of the state. Al-Mantasir Billah, with some disgruntled persons, killed his father al-Mutawakkil in 247 AH, when he heard him abusing Imam Ali and Fatima az-Zahra’ (a.s.). Al-Mutawakkil not only bore ill will, but he also hated the popularity of Imam Husayn’s Shrinetomb at Karbala to which millions flocked as pilgrims. Al-Mutawakkil wanted to erase the Shrinetomb completely. He destroyed the tomb seventeen times during his rule of fifteen years, but there is a record of four times; in the years 233, 236, 237 and 247 AH.18 Every time the tomb was erased a new and more magnificent structure was put up by the Shia(reference).19 By al-Mutawakkil’s orders, anyone attempting to visit the tomb of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was arrested and sent to the governor of Kufa who either killed or punished him severely. Every time the tomb of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was demolished, the surrounding houses and shops of the Shia were demolished too. On four occasions, the entire town of Karbala was demolished. Umar bin Faraj, the governor of Medina and Mecca, looted the properties of the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.) and harassed the Shia in all possible manners. Similarly, the governors of Egypt and Kufa used to arrest the Shia on false allegations and they punished them unjustly. From the progeny of Imam Ali and Fatima (a.s.) al-Mutawakkil killed the following well-known and learned persons:al-Qasim bin Abdullah, Ya’qub bin Ishaq, Ahmed bin Isa, and Abdullah bin Musa. The ideological reasons for Abbasid sacking Karbala?39,40
https://www.al-islam.org/hidden-truth-about-karbala-ak-ahmed-bsc-bl/part-c-persecution-shia-abbasid-kings
Prior to the Fatimid rise to power, a large part of the Maghreb including Ifriqiya (roughly present-day Tunisia) was under the control of the Aghlabids, an Arab dynasty who ruled nominally on behalf the Abbasids but were de facto independent. Under Aghlabids Shi’a Muslims were persecuted community. It was not allowed to live while declaring himself as ‘Shi’a Muslim’. In that era a large of Shi’a Muslims in Maghreb including Ifriqiya were slaughtered.41
Shi’as Muslims under Seljuk Empire (1037-1043)
The Seljuk empire was founded in 1037 by Tughril (990–1063) and his brother Chaghri (989–1060). Seljuk Empire was a high medieval Turko-Persian Sunni Muslim empire, originating from the Qiniq branch of Oghuz Turks. At the time of its greatest extent, the Seljuk Empire controlled a vast area, stretching from western Anatolia and the Levant in the west to the Hindu Kush in the east, and from Central Asia in the north to the Persian Gulf in the south.
Under Seljuk dynasty Nishapur (1037–1043) Ray (1043–1051) Isfahan (1051–1118) Merv, Eastern capital (1118–1153) and Hamadan, Western capital (1118–1194) remained the capital cities of the Seljuk Empire. Seljuk dynasty too didn’t spare the Shia’s Muslim community. Twelver and IsmailIsma’iliite Shi’a Muslims were both suppressed and oppressed not only in the capital cities of Seljuk Empire but other areas where Shi’a Muslims were in thousands of numbers. Under Alp Arslan’s successor, Malik Shah, and his two Persian viziers, Nizām al-Mulk and Tāj al-Mulk, the Seljuk state persecuted the Shi’a Muslim community (particularly Nizari Shi’as) in Rudbarin Rudbar , Quhistan in 1o92. From 1093 to1095 Shi’a Muslim came under attack in many cities of Syria at that time, they were suppressed brutally. In 1095, the Seljuk vizier al-Balasani who was a Twelver Shia, entrusted the Iraqi citadel of Takrit to the officer Kayqubad Daylami, an Ismaili. The citadel, one of the few open Nizari strongholds, remained in their hands for 12 years (al-Balasani was later lynched by the Seljuks).42,43,
Mongol Empire and Persecution of Shi’a Muslims:
One cliché is that Shia Muslims were safe from prosecution during the Mongol era. Historical facts do not confirm this. For example, Under Mongol Empire, The Sunni Orthodox Muslims from Qazvin denounced the Nizari Ismaili Shia’s, a well-known sect of Shiites. The Mongol Naiman commander Kitbuqa began to assault several Ismaili fortresses in 1253, before Hulagu advanced in 1256. Ismaili Grand Master Rukn al-Din Khurshah surrendered in 1257 and was executed. All of the Ismaili strongholds in Persia were destroyed by Hulagu’s army in 1257, except for Girdkuh which held out until 1271.44
Ayyubid dynasty (1173-1254) and Persecution of Shi’a Muslims:
Salah al-Din was an orthodox Sunni Muslim, who viewed Shia Islam as an abominable heresy. He destroyed the Fatimid Caliphate and ordered all Egyptian imams to recognize the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad. There followed a brutal persecution of the Fatimid’s supporters.
Saladin’s biographer Andre Ehrenkreuz describes the suppression of the Shias in Egypt as follows:
“While the mosques of the capital proclaimed the restoration of Sunni supremacy, Saladin’s forces were taking over the palace grounds. They rounded up the deceased caliph’s family and their retinue and committed them to protective custody…The members of the new regime then divided their houses, slaves and treasures. The purge was not limited to the living. On that same Friday, the corpses of a brother of Shawar, of al-Kamil, and his brother, were exhumed and taken away from the palace burial place. In the meantime, a real anti-Fatimid persecution was in progress in the Cairo streets. The Sunnis were out to settle accounts with the people of the establishment. The Ismaili Shi’a Muslims were so hounded and abused that they did not their abodes. Whenever they were apprehended by Turkish soldiers, they were stripped of their clothes. So great was their misfortune that most sought refuge in the countryside….”
Mamluk Dynasty and Shi’a Muslims
Mamluk, also spelled Mameluke, slave soldier, a member of one of the armies of slaves established during the Abbasid era that later won political control of several Muslim states. Under the Ayyubid sultanate, Mamluk generals used their power to establish a dynasty that ruled Egypt and Syria from 1250 to 1517.
Mamluk rulers in Egypt committed ethnic cleansing of Ismaili Shi’a Muslims and in Syria not only Ismaili Shi’a but Twelver Shi’a Muslims were persecuted also. In that era individual and groups were subjects to persecution. Violence against individual Shi’as tended to come in the form of spontaneous and “populist outbreak rather than systemic inquisition. Many Shi’a scholars were put on trials on vituperation of companions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), when the said scholars had described the deviations committed by some of initial Muslims in Medina during selecting their Amir after death o f the Holy Prophet (PBUH). We saw even lynching the Shi’a Muslim scholars in Syria due to just preaching of the teaching of Shi’i’s faith. Shi’a Muslim scholars and common Shi’a persons came under attack by private military militias led by Sunni mercenaries like Ibne Taymiyya, When Al-Allama Ibne Al-Mithahhar Al-Hilli compiled a book: “Miinhaj al-Kirama fi marafat al-imama or Minhaj al-karama fi ithbat al-imama” at the request of the Mongol IIkhan Oljeitii in 710/1311. In that era scholarly work authored by renowned Shi’a scholars began to be popular among the Muslims then it was Ibne Taymiyya, who declared not only Shi’a Muslim as heterodox community but similar to Jews and Christians.reference to fatwa of taymiyya where he says kill Sufi and Shia, this Genocidal maniac is still celeberted as Sheikh of Islam. He should be condemned like Goebels or Hitler.
This is the point we want liberal Western non Muslimsnon-Muslims to bring up that Muslims (sunni) have to condemn these Goebels like figures instead they praise them and keep generating more ISIS type warriors.
In 700/1300 Mamluk authorities undertook expedition against Shi’a Muslims in Kasarwan, a highland region to the north-east of Beirut. Shi’a Muslims in Kasarwan of Beirut were slaughtered. Ibne Taymiyya also participated in second expedition in same area in 704/1305. In connection with these campaigns Ibne Taymiyya also produced a fatwa condemning the Shi’a of Kasrawan, in which he declared the Shi’a Muslims apostates deserved to be killed. During Ibne Taymiyya’s life time, the Mamluk regime took concrete steps to curb the power and influence of Shi’a Muslim in Medina and those steps were called ‘forced sunnification’ of Medina. Manluk Sultans devised anti- Shi’a military and political policies under influence of teachings of radical Sunni scholars like of Ibne Taymiyya in Syria and Al-Hijaz. Even demography changes were being brought while sending a large numbers of Sunnis immigrants in Shi’s Muslim majority areas like in Kasrawan and Medina.
In Mamluk era Sheikh Abu Abdullah Muhammad Jamal Ad-Deen Al-Makki Al-Amili Al-Jizzeeni, ash-Shahid al-Awwal was killed on Thursday the ninth of Jumada al-awwal, 786 A.H. (ca. 1385) during the reign of Sultan Barquq. His death was in accordance with the fatwa of a jurist from the Maliki madhab, which was endorsed by a jurisprudent of the Shaf’i madhab under false Accusations against him.
Zayn al-Din al-Juba’i al’Amili (1506–1558), Shahid al Thani was beheaded on his way to see the sultan and a shrine was built by some Turkmens on the site as they realised his stature in Rajab of 965 A.H. (1558).45
Ottoman Empire and Shi’a Muslims:
In response to the growth of Shiism, the Ottoman Empire killed Shias in Anatolia. Hundreds of thousands of Shias were killed in the Ottoman Empire, including the Alevis in Turkey, the Alawis in Syria and the Shi’a of Lebanon.
In the 15th century, Ottoman campaigns against Shiites in Eastern Anatolia had left over 40,000 dead as a result. Shi’a Muslims in Mount Lebanon, Bekaa Valley, Jabal Amel, and other regions under the rule of Ottoman empire considered Heretics and persecuted again again.46
Safavid Era:
The Sack of Shamakhi took place on 18 August 1721, when 15,000 Sunni Lezgins, of the Safavid Empire, attacked the capital of Shirvan province, Shamakhi (in present-day Azerbaijan Republic), massacred between 4,000 and 5,000 of its Shia population and ransacked the city.47
Pre-Colonial & Colonial Eras and Shi’a Muslim in Indian Subcontinent:
A large numbers of Shi’a Muslims were inhibited in Aror(Sind) under rule of Raja Dahir. Raja Dahir was the last Hindu ruler of Sindh in the western region of the Indian subcontinent. He had allowed to live in his country a large number of Shia’s Muslims including many families from progeny of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), who had migrated from cities of Iraq, Iran and Al-Hijaz under rule of Umayyad ruler Walid bin Abdul Malik. Hajaj bin Yousaf was governor of Iraq, blue-eyed of the king Walid bin Abdul Malik, he demanded Raja Dahir to return back the Shi’a Muslims and families belonged to progeny of Muhammad (PBUH) as rebellions. Raja Dahir refused to do so. Due to denial from him, Maharaja Dahir had to face invasions from Ummayad Caliphate which had grown quite powerful by that time. Hajaj’s final campaign was launched under the aegis of Muhammad bin Qasim. He was killed at the Battle of Aror which took place between his dynasty and the Arabs at the banks of the Indus River, near modern-day Nawabshah at the hands of the Arab general Muhammad bin Qasim. His body was then decapitated and his head was sent to the governor of Basra, Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf. After victory of Umayyad’s armies, a new wave of persecution started in Sind against Shi’a Muslims.48
In Abbasid Period of rule in Indian Subcontinent individuals and groups of Shi’a Muslims face suppression and oppressions by different governors appointed by Abbasid rulers.
Five dynasties ruled Delhi before mughals. 1. The mamluk dynasty 2. Khiljidynasty 3. Tugluq dynasty 4. Sayyaid dynasty 5. Lodhi dynasty.
Tughlaq dynasty (1320-1398) Shi’a Muslims lived in peaceful environment except in the rule of Feroz Shah Tughlaq (1351-1388) who persecuted Shi’a Muslims along with Hindus too. Grand Mosque of Shi’a Muslims was attacked by Firuz Shah Tughlaq’s army and killed Shi’a Muslims while they were offering Prayer. Firuz Shah Tughlaq wrote himself that he had put many Shi’aShi’as Muslims to the death due to their faith.
Except in the rule of Firuz Shah Tughlaq, we don’t find any incident of persecution of Shi’a Muslims in the recorded histories of five dynasties before the Mughal dynasty.
Shi’a Muslims along with Hindu and believers of other than Islam religions were crushed brutally by Mehmud Ghazanvi in Multan on 965 AD. He and his successors after his death never allowed Shi’a Muslims to practice their religion freely in the territories conquered by him and his successors in Indian Subcontinent.
Mughal Dynasty and aftermath: Shi’a Persecution:
During 5 dynasties before the Mughal dynasty in Indian subcontinent primary germs of composite culture and seed of idea of Suleh-e-Kul (Peace for all) had been sown. Shia, Sunni, Hindu all were living in peace in Indian subcontinent. In Akbar’s reign composite culture and Idea of Suleh-e-Kul were fully groomed. Akbar the Great Emperor had appointed Qazi Noor ullah Shustari the Chief Justice although we see some radical clerics in his court to oppose his ‘Peace for All’ Policy. Mullah Abdul Qadir Badayuni (1540–1615) was one of them and then we see arising of Syed Ahmed Sirhindi (1564-1624). From Akbar to Jahangir Mughal Empire tolerated the Shi’a Muslim he rejected the Sirhindi’s Anti-Shi’a Muslims, Anti-Hindu, Anti-Suleh-e-Kul ideas even he prisoned the Syed Ahmad Sirhindi, while rejecting his ideas rubbish. Although we see one or two incidents of violence. One was Murder of Qazi Nurullah Shustri Shahid al Thalith (the third martyr of five martyrs of Shi’a Muslims. Other was murder of Mirza Muhammad Kamil Dehlavi was the Fourth Martyr and the author of Nuzhat-e-Isna Ashariya (نزھۃ اثنا عشريۃ). This book was a complete response to Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi’s Tauhfa Ithna Ashari. It was due to this book that he was poisoned by the Ruler of Indian state of Jhajhar and that was very problematic not only for Shi’a Muslims but for Hindu and Sikh also. It all has been started from Aurangzeb Alamgir, who was had imposed Fiqh-i-Hanafi’s very conservative and extremist in some way interpretation in the courts, where he had introduced the book having Fatawa according to Fiqh-i-Hanafi called ‘Fatawa-i-Alamgiri’. Shi’a Muslim population was marginalized in that era. Even moderate Sufi groups who would not call Shi’a Muslims heretic community they were persecuted. No sect, no religion was spared in Aurangzeb era except anti-composite-culture and anti-Peace-For-All groups. In the decline period of Mughal dynasty more anti- Shia militant groups and Rajaware came into being like Hafiz Rahmat-ullah Rhilla’s anti-Shia drive in the state of Awadh. Later we saw so called Tehreek-i-Jihad led by Shah Ismail of Delhi and Syed Ahmad of Braille. It sowed the seeds of anti-Shia takfiri ideology in India which later turned into Shia prosecution.
While Shias and Sunnis have lived side by side in the subcontinent for almost fifteen centuries, anti-Shia violence has been growing consistently for the past three centuries. Anti-Shi’ism has two aspects: shiaphobic literature and hate-crimes. The anti-Shia literature that portrays Shias as religiously heretic, morally corrupt, politically traitors and lesser human beings sets the ideological framework for the violence against them. In the medieval period, the Middle East saw bloody clashes between both sects but the Indian subcontinent remained safe and peaceful because of the secular policy of Mughals. Until the end of the seventeenth century AD, only two anti-Shia books were written in India: Minhaj al-Din by Makhdoom-ul Mulk Mullah Abdullah Sultanpuri and Radd-e Rawafiz by Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi.49Sirhindi also wrote this treatise in order to justify the slaughter of shias by Abdullah Khan Uzbek in Mashhad. In this he argues:
“Since the Shia permit cursing Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman which in itself constitutes infidelity, it is incumbent upon the Muslim ruler, nay upon all people, in compliance with the command of the Omniscient King (Allah), to kill them and to oppress them in order to elevate the true religion. It is permissible to destroy their buildings and to seize their property and belongings.”
As far as armed violence is concerned, the medieval period has only few examples of Shias being killed for their beliefs, most notable incidents are the killing of Abdullah Shah Ghazi in 769 AD,51the destruction of Multan in 1005 AD, the persecution of Shias at the hands of Sultan Feroz Shah (1351–1388 AD),52] and the target killing of Mullah Ahmad Thathavi in 1589 AD.53However, the killer of Mulla Ahmad Thathavi was served justice by Emperor Akbar.[19] The death of Syed Nurullah Shushtari seems to be politically motivated as Emperor Jahangir disliked his father who did not consider him suitable for the throne, and persecuted men of his court, as an eighteenth century editor of Jahangirnama puts it, “the new sovereign possibly wished to draw a line under the rule of his father and all those associated needed to be sidelined”.52The region of Srinagar in Kashmir is an exception in Middle Ages with ten bloody Taraaj-e Shia campaigns.53Shias faced severe persecution in India in Kashmir for centuries, by the Sunni invaders of the region which resulted in the killing of many Shias and as a result most of them had to flee the region.54Plunder, looting and killing virtually devastated the community. History records 10 such Taraajs between 15th to 19th century in 1548, 1585, 1635, 1686, 1719, 1741, 1762, 1801, 1830, and 1872, during which the Shia habitations were plundered, people killed, libraries burnt and their sacred sites desecrated. The community, due to their difficulties, went into the practice of Taqya in order to preserve their lives.55
However, in the eighteenth-century AD, the number of polemical writings started to increase.56 It started with Aurangzeb’s discrimination against the Shias. The sixth Mughal emperor Aurangzeb Alamgir hated the Shias; he abolished the secular policy of Akbar and tried to establish the superiority of the Sunni sect. He supervised the compilation of an encyclopaedia of religious rulings, called fatawa Alamgiri, in which Shias were said to be heretics. The spiritual leader of Bohra Shias, Sayyid Qutb-ud-din, along with his 700 followers were massacred on the orders of Aurangzeb. He banned the tazia processions57 in the century following his death, polemical literature and sectarian killings increased.
Aurengzeb heavily persecuted many Shi‘a communities. ‘Ali Muhammad Khan, whose father accompanied Aurengzeb during his Deccan campaigns, reports:
During the reign of the late emperor, tremendous emphasis was placed on matters of the shari‘a and on refuting various [non-Sunni] schools of thought. No efforts were spared in this regard. Many people thus emerged who maintained that, for God’s sake, their very salvation lay in this. Because of religious bigotry, which is the bane of humankind, they placed a group under suspicion of Shi‘ism (rafḍ), thus destroying the very ramparts of the castle of their existence [i.e., having them killed], while others were thrown into prison.58
Shah Waliullah (1703–1762 AD) was among those Sunni clerics who were patronized by the Sunni elite. He started his career by translating the anti-Shia track of Shaikh Ahmad Sirhindi, radd-e-rawafiz, into Arabic under the title of al-muqaddima tus-saniyyah fil intisar al-firqa te-sunniya (المقدمۃ الثانیہ فی الانتصار للفرقۃ السنیہ). He continued to criticise the Shias in his books like Qurat-ul Ainain (قراۃ العینین), Azalah-tul Khafa (ازالۃ الخفا), Fayyuz-ul Haramain (فیوض الحرمین), etc59,60 Other Sunni polemics include Najat al-Muminin (نجات المومنین) by Muhammad Mohsin Kashmiri, and Durr-ut Tahqiq (درالتحقیق) by Muhammad Fakhir Allahabadi.61 In a letter to Sunni nawabs, Shah Waliullah said:
Strict orders should be issued in all Islamic towns forbidding religious ceremonies publicly practised by Hindus such as the performance of Holi and ritual bathing in the Ganges. On the tenth of Muharram, the Shias should not be allowed to go beyond the bounds of moderation, neither should they be rude nor repeat stupid things in the streets or bazars.62
When on his and Rohilla’s invitation, Ahmad Shah Abdali Durrani conquered Delhi, he expelled Shias.63 Shias of Kashmir were also massacred in an organised campaign after Afghans took power. In Multan, under the Durrani rule, Shia were not allowed to practise their religion.64
Shah Waliullah’s eldest son, Shah Abd al-Aziz (1746–1823 AD), hated Shias the most. He compiled most of the anti-Shia books available to him, albeit in his own language and after adding his own ideas, in a single book Tuhfa Asna Ashariya (تحفہ اثنا عشریہ). Although he did not declare them apostates or non-Muslims, but he considered them lesser human beings just like what he would think about Hindus or other non-Muslims. In a letter he advises Sunnis to not greet Shias first, and if a Shia greets them first, their response should be cold. In his view, Sunnis should not marry Shias, avoid eating their food and the animals slaughtered by a Shia.65
Syed Ahmad Barelvi and Shah Ismail Dihlavi took up arms to enforce their puritanical views and migrated to Peshawar region to establish an Islamic Caliphate. They were the pioneers of anti-Shia terrorism in the subcontinent. Barbara Metcalf says:
“A second group of Abuses Syed Ahmad held were those that originated from Shi’i influence. He particularly urged Muslims to give up the keeping of ta’ziyahs. The replicas of the tombs of the martyrs of Karbala taken in procession during the mourning ceremony of Muharram. Muhammad Isma’il wrote,
‘a true believer should regard the breaking of a tazia by force to be as virtuous an action as destroying idols. If he cannot break them himself, let him order others to do so. If this even be out of his power, let him at least detest and abhor them with his whole heart and soul’.
Sayyid Ahmad himself is said, no doubt with considerable exaggeration, to have torn down thousands of imambaras, the building that house the taziyahs”.66
These attacks were carried out between 1818 and 1820. Rizvi has given more details about time, places and circumstances in which these attacks were carried out.67
With the start of direct Crown control after 1857, religious institutions and scholars lost most of the financial support they enjoyed previously. They now had to rely on public funding, the chanda. Secondly, when the colonial government decided to introduce modern societal reforms, and everybody became ascribed to a singular identity in census and politically importance in voting. Thus, politicisation of religion and marking boundaries of the spheres of influence became a financial need of the religious leaders. They started to describe everybody belonging to their sect or religion as one monolithic group of people whose religion was in danger. The third important social change was the printing press which made writing and publishing pamphlets and books easy and cheap. The fourth factor was the railways and postal service; it became easy for communal leaders to travel, communicate and build networks beyond their place of residence. This changed the religious discourse drastically and gave birth to communal and sectarian violence. The puritanical wahhabists had already excluded Azadari from the Sunni Islam, and Arya Samaj and Shudhis started to ask Hindus to refrain from Azadari.
By the start of the 1900s, the majority of Sunnis still observed Muharram. Molana Abdul Shakoor Lakhnavi devised a clever plan to widen the gulf between the Shias and Sunnis. He started to advocate a celebration of victory of Imam Hussain over Yazid. He established a separate Sunni Imambargah at Phul Katora and asked Sunnis to wear red or yellow dress instead of black, and carry a decorated charyari flag instead of the traditional black alam-e-Abbas. Instead of honouring the Sahaba on their birthdays, he started to arrange public meetings under the banner of bazm-e-siddiqi, bazm-e-farooqi and bazm-e-usmani, in the first ten days of Muharram to revere the first three Caliphs and named it Madh-e-Sahaba. He would discuss the lives of the first three Caliphs and attack Shia beliefs. Shias saw it an attempt to sabotage the remembrance of the tragedy of Karbala and started to recite tabarra in response.68
After the failure of the Khilafat movement in the 1920s, the political ulema had lost their support in public and Muslims started to follow modern minds like Muhammad Ali Jinnah. To keep themselves relevant, the ulema established a militant Deobandi organisation, Majlis Ahrar-e-Islam, in 1931. They came from neighbouring Malihabad, Kanpur, Delhi, Meerut and from as far as Peshawar.68 This organisation can be considered as predecessor of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP). They first agitated against the Ahmedis in Kashmir and now they were looking for an opportunity. It was provided by Molana Abdul shakoor Lakhnavi’s son Molana Abdul Shakoor Farooqi. He was a graduate of Darul Uloom Deoband and he had established a seminary in Lucknow in 1931 right on the route of Azadari, called Dar-ul-Muballighin.69 Molana Abdul Shakoor Farooqi wrote many books and pamphlets. Shias responded by writing rejoinders. As paper had become available in plenty, these writings spread all over subcontinent and caused incidents of violence, though negligible compared to what was happening in UP. Dhulipala says:
The problem broke out with renewed vigour in 1936 on Ashura day when two Sunnis disobeyed orders and publicly recited Charyari in the city centre of Lucknow. They were arrested and prosecuted, but then on Chhelum day more Sunnis took part in reciting Charyari and fourteen were arrested. This led to a new agitation by the Lucknow Sunnis in favour of reciting these verses publicly, which came to be known as Madhe Sahaba.[38]
Azadari in UP was no more peaceful; it would never be the same again. Violence went so far that on Ashura 1940, a Deobandi terrorist attacked the Ashura procession with a bomb. Hollister writes:
“Conflicts between Sunnis and Shias at Muharram are not infrequent. Processions in the cities are accompanied by police along fixed lines of march. The following quotations from a single newspaper are not usual. They indicate what might happen if government did not keep the situation under control: ‘adequate measures avert incidents’, ‘Muharram passed off peacefully’, ‘All shops remained closed in … in order to avoid incidents’, ‘Several women offered satyagraha in front of the final procession … about twenty miles from Allahabad. They object to the passing of the procession through their fields’, ‘the police took great precautions to prevent a breach of the peace’, ‘as a sequel to the cane charge by the police on a Mehndi procession the Moslems … did not celebrate the Muharram today. No ta’zia processions were taken out … Business was transacted as usual in the Hindu localities’, ‘Bomb thrown on procession’. Not all of these disturbances spring from sectarian differences, but those differences actuate many fracases. Birdwood says that, in Bombay, where the first four days of Muharram are likely to be devoted to visiting each other’s tabut khanas, women and children as well as men are admitted, and members of other communities – only the Sunnies are denied ‘simply as a police precaution”.70,71,72,73,74
CONCLUSION:
We can conclude from the above summary: Ibn Taymiyyah during the reign of the Mamluk Sultans, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab in Arabian Peninsula during the decline of the Ottomans, and Shah Waliullah during the decline of the Mughals, all three of them ideologically and intellectually turned the anti-Shia Muslim trend into a Takfiri trends. Modern Takfiri-Salafi-Deobandi trends have their roots in that Takfiri trend which was founded by Ibne Taymiyyah, Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab and Shah Waliullah.
In fact, Ibne Taymiyyah founded his anti-Shi’a Muslim ideas over those propagated efforts which had been made by Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties to provide legitimacy for persecuting Shi’a Muslims in the name purifying the Islam. And Muhammad bin Abul Wahhab, Shah Waliullah, his sons and founding fathers of Seminary at Deoband revived his ideology. All modern Kharjites, Salafi-Deobandi Takfiri terrorist organizations use that revived Takfiri Ideology against Shi’a, Sufi, Ahmadiyya, and all other Muslim sects and groups who don’t agree with them. In Pakistan such Deobandi Takfiri terrorist organizations had committed brutal terrorist attacks against Shi’a, Christians, Sikh, Sufis,Ahmadiyya, Hindus and even against those moderate Deobandi and Salafis who don’t support the Fawta of killing the Shi’a Muslims while declaring them Infidels in the garb of Muslims.
In 1984 Anjuman-e-Sipah-i-Sahaba -SSP was founded by a Takfiri-Deobandi cleric from Jhang , district of Punjab,Pakistan. This organization has support of all takfiri forces either they belong to Deobandi sub-sect of Sunni-Hanafi, or belong to Sunni- Beralvis or belong to Salafi Sunni sect. This organizations first drove anti-Shi’a Muslim campaign for declaring them apostate community on state level, then it started terrorist attack on Shi’a Muslims. In 90s Lashkar-i-Jhanghvi -LJ as militant wing of SSP began to target to death enlightened brains including distinguished Shi’a Scholars, Doctors, Engineers, Business men, Student leaders, political workers, industrialists, Bankers, CEOs. Ethnic cleansing and forced migrations were seen in those areas where Shi’a Muslim were ethnically distinguished community like in Gilgit-Baltistan and in Baluchistan. That was state-sponsored terrorist wave against the Shi’a Muslims in 80s and 90s because under Zia-ul-Haq dictatorship state’s security policy was run under the ‘strategic Depth Policy’ and organization like LeJ, Jaish-i-Muhammad, HarkAt-ul-Ansar, Taliban and others were taken as strategic assets, and Anti-Shi’a Takfiri-Jihadist network was being built to use them as proxies in India and Afghanistan. After 9/11 Another Pakistan’s dictator General Musharraf’s dual policy of distinguishing so called Good and Bad Taliban provided the Takfiri- Jihadist remnants of Ziaulhaqi-Generals provided the chance of using Takfiri network agaist Shi’a Muslims in Pakistan. Shi’a Muslims in Pakistan faced brutal genocide-campaign in Pakistan. From 2002 to 2015 more than 25’000 Pakistan’s citizens were killed in different types of attacks including suicide-bombings by Takfiri-Deobandi militant organizations. Their Imambargahs, Mosques, Processions of Ashura, Mourning commemorations of Imam-e-Hussain and other Martyrs of Karbala came under attacks, even Shi’a women and children were not spared. Persecution of Shi’a-Muslims in Pakistan continues. Organizations like SSP/LeJ, TTP banned just in papers are free to spread hatred and registered cases under blasphemy laws against Shi’a Muslims due to practice their faith. From 2020 to 2021, according to Additional Inspector General South Punjab Dr, Ihsan Sadiq, 21o cases have been registered in three divisions Multan, Bahawalpur and Dera Ghazi Khan of Southern Punjab against Shi’a Muslims under 295,295A,295B and 295C of Pakistan Penal Code -PPC. Shi’a Muslims face cases under blasphemy laws, other articles dealing with hate-speech just over organizing Mourning gathering to commemorate the Imam Husain, over wavering the black flag in the memory of martyrdom of Ghazi Abbas, Brother of Imam Hussain (Flag-holder from Imam Husain’s camp against the Armies of Yazid), even over chanting a slogan ‘Ya Ali’. Atttacks on Karbala or attempts to ban Arbaeen. Let’s talk about a patter on behavior and machine of Genocide created over 14 centuries. Current manifestations maybe ISIS or Sipah Sahaba AKA Lashkar e Jhangvi, etc.
P.S: From Reference No 4 to 30 are about the historical gathering of the companions of the Holy Prophet at Ghadeer-e-Khum , where the Holy Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وآلہ وسلم had appointed his cousin and son-in-law Ali Ibne Abi Talib the commander of all Muslims.
References:
1-Esposito, John. “What Everyone Needs to Know about Islam”. Oxford University Press, 2002 | ISBN 978-0-19-515713-0. p. 40
2-Tarikh Tabari (vol. 3, the events of the eleventh year)
3-Al-Emamat Bab Al-Syasat, written by Ibn Qotayebah Dinbary (vol. 1) and Sharh Ibn Abi Al-Hadid (vol.2, pp. 22-60).
4-(1) Sahih Tirmidhi, v2, p298, v5, p63
5-(2) Sunan Ibn Maja, v1, pp 12,43
6-(3) Khasa’is, by al-Nisa’i, pp 4,21
7-(4) al-Mustadrak, by al-Hakim, v2, p129, v3, pp 109-110,116,371
8-(5) Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v1, pp 84,118,119,152,330, v4, pp 281,368,370, 372,378, v5, pp 35,347,358,361,366,419 (from 40 chains of narrators)
9-(6) Fada’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Hanbal, v2, pp 563,572
10-(7) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v9, p103 (from several transmitters)
11-(8) Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50
12-(9) Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthur, by al-Hafiz Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v3, p19
13-(10) Tarikh al-Khulafa, by al-Suyuti, pp 169,173
14-(11) al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v3, p213, v5, p208
15-(12) Usdul Ghabah, by Ibn Athir, v4, p114
16-(13) Mushkil al-Athar, by al-Tahawi, v2, pp 307-308
17-(14) Habib al-Siyar, by Mir Khand, v1, part 3, p144
18-(15) Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, p26
19-(16) al-Isabah, by Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, v2, p509; v1, part1, p319, v2, part1, p57, v3, part1, p29, v4, part 1, pp 14,16,143
20-(17) Tabarani, who narrated from companions such as Ibn Umar, Malik Ibn al-Hawirath, Habashi Ibn Junadah, Jari, Sa’d Ibn Abi Waqqas, Anas Ibn Malik, Ibn Abbas, Amarah,Buraydah,…
21-(18) Tarikh, by al-Khatib Baghdadi, v8, p290
22-(19) Hilyatul Awliya’, by al-Hafiz Abu Nu’aym, v4, p23, v5, pp26-27
23-(20) al-Istiab, by Ibn Abd al-Barr, Chapter of word “ayn”(‘Ali), v2, p462
24-(21) Kanzul Ummal, by al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, v6, pp 154,397
25-(22) al-Mirqat, v5, p568
26-(23) al-Riyad al-Nadirah, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, v2, p172
27-(24) Dhaka’ir al-Uqba, by al-Muhib al-Tabari, p68
28-(25) Faydh al-Qadir, by al-Manawi, v6, p217
29-(26) Yanabi’ al-Mawaddah, by al-Qudoozi al-Hanafi, p297 … And hundreds more. Please see part 3 for more classified references (traditionists, historians, and commentators).
30-Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v4, p281, Tafsir al-Kabir, by Fakhr al-Razi, v12, pp 49-50, Mishkat al-Masabih, by al-Khatib al-Tabrizi, p557, Habib al-Siyar, by Mir Khand, v1, part3, p144, Kitabul Wilayah, by Ibn Jarir al-Tabari al-Musannaf, by Ibn Abi Shaybah, al-Musnad, by Abu Ya’ala Hadith al-Wilayah, by Ahmad Ibn `Uqdah
31-Tarikh, by Khatib al-Baghdadi, v8, pp 290,596 from Abu Hurayra
32-BN 9789382573470.
33-المصباح المنير في تهذيب تفسير ابن كثير:(abridged). Darussalam. 2003. ISBN 9789960892757.
34-Tarikh al Tabari 2 p. 274
35-Ḥilabī al-Shāfiʿī, ʿAlī b. Burhān. Al-Sīra al-Ḥalabīyya. Cairo, [n.p], 1353 AH, Madanī, ʿAlī Khān b. Aḥmad. Al-Ṭarāz al-awwal. Mashhad: Muʾassisat Āl al-Bayt li-Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth, 1384 Sh. Ḥilabī al-Shāfiʿī, ʿAlī b. Burhān. Al-Sīra al-Ḥalabīyya. Cairo, [n.p], 1353 AH.
36-Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 18 Between Civil Wars: The Caliphate of Mu’awiyah 40 A.H., 66 A.D.-60 A.H., 680 A.D. (Michael G. Morony) SUNY Press: History of al-Tabari
37-Vol. 19 The Caliphate of Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, A. D. 680-683 – A. H. 60-64 (I.K.A. Howard)
38-See Volume 21 to 26 of History of Prophets and the Kings (Tarikh Tabari)
39-To read in-detail about Shi’a persecution by Abbasi Dynasty, see: Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 93 quoting al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 1 p. 41. Some detail we found in History of Kings and the Prophets Volum No:24 to Volume 29, Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 93 quoting al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 1 p. 41.
40-Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 6 p. 186-199. Ibid., p. 186. Ibid., p.101-102 quoting Muruj ath-Thahab..Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 103, quoting at-Tabari’s Tarikh.Ibid., p. 104 quoting al-Mas’udi’s Muruj ath-Thahab. vol. 2 p. 171. Ibid., p. 114-115 & 119 quoting Maqatil at-Talibiyin.Ibid., p. 146 quoting ash-Shia wal Hakimun. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 125-127 quoting at-Tabari’s Tarikhul Umam wal Muluk. .Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 187-199 quoting al-Mas’udi’s Muruj ath-Thahab, vol. 3, p. 336..Ibid., vol. 6 p. 46 quoting from ‘History & Geography of Karbala. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 6 p. 69-71. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 6 p. 79 quoting Shibli Nomani’s ‘Al-Ma’mun’. p. 127.Ibid., p. 128.Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 6 p. 164-171 quoting at-Tarikh al-Kamil, vol. 7 p. 20, Muruju ath-Thahab, vol. 2, ash-Shia wal Hakimun, p. 169…etc
41-Aghlabids and their Neighbors: Art and Material Culture in Ninth-Century”. Aghlabids and North Africa. Mariam Rosser Owen edit by Glaire D. Anderson and Corisande Fenwick
42-Mirza, Nasseh Ahmad (1997). Syrian Ismailism: The Ever-Living Line of the Imamate, AD 1100-1260. Psychology Press. p. 8-12. ISBN 9780700705054.
43-Daftary, Farhad (2007). The Isma’ilis: Their History and Doctrines (2nd, revised ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-46578-6.
44-Virani, Shafique (2007). The Ismailis in the Middle Ages: A History of Survival, a Search for Salvation: A History of Survival, a Search for Salvation. Oxford University Press, USA. ISBN 978-0-19-804259-4.
45-Ibne Taymiyya And His Times, pp232-236
46-Nasr, Vali (2006). The Shia Revival: How Conflicts Within Islam Will Shape the Future. W.W. Norton & Compan. Page:65-66
47-Kazemzadeh, Firuz (1991). “Iranian relations with Russia and the Soviet Union, to 1921”. In Avery, Peter; Hambly, Gavin; Melville, Charles (eds.). The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 7. Cambridge University Press. p. 316. ISBN 978-0-521-20095-0. , Mikaberidze, Alexander, ed. (2011). “Russo-Iranian Wars”. Conflict and Conquest in the Islamic World: A Historical Encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 761. ISBN 978-1-59884-336-1.
48- Yohanan Friedmann, “Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi”, Chapter 5(3), p. 79, PhD
49-S. A. A. Rizvi, “Shah Abd al-Aziz”, p. 253, Ma’rifat Publishing House, Canberra, (1982)
50-Yohanan Friedmann, “Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi”, Chapter 5(3), p. 74, PhD Thesis, Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, Montreal, (1967).
51-Sirat-i Firozshahi, facsimile ed. of Patna MS, 1999, pp. 117–22. As cited in: S. A. N. Rezavi, “The Shia Muslims”, in History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization, Vol. 2, Part. 2: “Religious Movements and Institutions in Medieval India”, Chapter 13, Oxford University Press (2006).
52-S. A. A. Rizvi, “A Socio-Intellectual History of Isna Ashari Shi’is in India”, Vol. I, pp. 233–234, Mar’ifat Publishing House, Canberra (1986).
53- S. A. N. Rezavi, “The State, Shia’s and Shi’ism in Medieval India “, Studies in People’s History, 4, 1, p. 32–45, SAGE (2017).
54- Sajjad Rizvi, “Shi’i Polemics at the Mughal Court: The Case of Qazi Nurullah Shushtari”, Studies in People’s History, 4, 1, pp. 53–67, SAGE (2017).
55- Zaheen, “Shi’ism in Kashmir, 1477–1885”, International Research Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4(4), 74–80, April (2015).
56- “Shias of Kashmir – Socio Political Dilemmas”. Kashmir Observer. Archived from the original on 25 June 2010. Retrieved 1 July 2010.
57- “Shias of Kashmir: Socio-Political Dilemmas”. Kashmir Observer. Archived from the original on 4 January 2013. Retrieved 6 January 2013.
58- S. A. A. Rizvi, “Shah Abd al-Aziz”, p. 255, Ma’rifat Publishing House, Canberra, (1982).
59- A. Truschke, “Aurangzeb: The Man and The Myth”, Penguin, (2017).
60-Virani, Shafique N. (2011). “Taqiyya and Identity in a South Asian Community”. The Journal of Asian Studies. 70 (1): 99–139. doi:10.1017/S0021911810002974. ISSN 0021-9118. S2CID 143431047.
61- Khaled Ahmed, “Sectarian War”, pp. 12 – 14, Oxford University press, (2012).
62- S. A. A. Rizvi, “Shah Waliullah and His Times”, pp. 249 – 256, Ma’rifat Publishing House, Canberra, (1980).
63- S. A. A. Rizvi, Shah Waliullah and His Times, p. 227, Ma’rifat Publishing House, Canberra, (1980).
64- S. A. A. Rizvi, “A Socio-Intellectual History of Isna Ashari Shi’is in India”, Vol. 2, pp. 55–60, Mar’ifat Publishing House, Canberra (1986).
65- Gazetteer of the Multan District, p. 120, (1924).
66- S. A. A. Rizvi, “Shah Abd al-Aziz”, pp. 207 – 208, Ma’rifat Publishing House, Canberra, (1982).
67- B. Metcalf, “Islamic revival in British India: Deoband, 1860–1900”, p. 58, Princeton University Press (1982).
68-S. A. A. Rizvi, “A Socio-Intellectual History of Isna Ashari Shi’is in India”, Vol. 2, pp. 306 – 308, Mar’ifat Publishing House, Canberra (1986).
69- J. Jones, “Shi’a Islam in Colonial India”, pp. 100 – 105, Cambridge University Press, (2012).
70-Mushirul Hasan, “Traditional Rites and Contested Meanings: Sectarian Strife in Colonial Lucknow”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31, No. 9, pp. 543 – 550 (1996).
71- J. Jones, “Shi’a Islam in Colonial India”, pp. 188 – 199, Cambridge University Press, (2012).
72- V. Dhulipala, “Rallying the Qaum: The Muslim League in the United Provinces, 1937 – 1939 Archived 2020-03-25 at the Wayback Machine”, pp. 603 – 640, Modern Asian Studies 44, 3 (2010).
73- J. N. Hollister, “The Shi’a of India”, p. 178, Luzac and Co, London, (1953).
74- Bellér-Hann, Ildikó (2007). Situating the Uyghurs Between China and Central Asia. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. pp. 20–21. ISBN 978-0-7546-7041-4.
