Allama Ehsan Elahi Zaheer
Language: English | Format: PDF | Pages: 210 | Size: 2 MB
Before I touch on the topic, I would like to unveil the facts which are hidden not only from the common run of people, but also from the will-informed persons. One of the facts is that ‘suppressio veri’, suppression of truth or lying is a Shia way of life. They have elevated ‘suggestio falsi’ to the level of a full-fledged faith. They have sanctified a mere tissue of lies by conferring on it the label of “Taqiyyah”; but a lie is always a le whether one presents it baldly or wraps it up in multi-coloured gift paper. To identify a self-concocted prescription with divine revelation is simply inconceivable and only a psoturemaster or a Jack pudding could conceive such an equation. No sensible or sensitive person or group of people can transform sheer flap-doodle into religious faith because it lacks both divine sanction and rational expectance. But the Shias have performed this impossible feat by turning their Punic faith into a divinely guaranteed philosophy of life which relies mainly on the projection of lies and ‘supercherie’, quackery and charlatanism, bluff and mummery. Their attitude towards “Taqiyyah” is characteristic of their whole mentality: it is a reflection of the collective Shia psyche which is suffering from a chronic moral and spiritual jaundice. The Shias observe (any one who does not observe Taqiyyah – adopts dissimulation as a way of life – is not a believer). And the painful irony of it is that, as a practical demonstration of their penchant for dissimulation, these stool-pigeons have imputed the statement to Imam Muhammad Baqir.
Hadhrat Ali and his family members protested almost invariably against the Shia propensity towards falsification and equivocation. These Imams expressed their displeasure at the Shia habit of misrepresenting facts and always complained against their clap-trap charlatanism. Kashi, one of the most distinguished Shia experts of human psychology, has related on the authority of Ibn Sanam:
“Abu Abdullah remarked that there is no doubt that we Ahl-i-Bait are in the right but we are not immune against the lies of the impostors who may impute some bouncer to us and damage our veracity by spreading humbug about us as the Prophet (peace be upon him) was the most truthful among mankind but Musailmah Kazab attributed lies to him. Similarly, after him, Hadhrat Ali was the most truthful among mankind but Abu Abdullah Hussain bin Ali. Then he mentioned Harith Shami and Banan and pointed out that they blurted lies about Ale bin Hussain. Then he cursed Mughirah bin S’aid, Bazigha, Siri, Abul Khatab, Mu’amar, Bashar-ul-Ashari, Hamza Yazidi, and S’aid Nahdi and said: we are not immune against these liars; they impute fabrications to us. May God protect us against the evil of each liar and send him to hell”.
The other fact is that he people, who roll the rosary of allegations and accusations against Hadhrat Uthman, were in fact the people who caused his martyrdom and flung open the gate of dissension among the Muslims. The majority of these traditionalists are Shias. They have magnified microscopic details and transformed Lillipution realties into Brobdignaggian monsters, and the historians have further doubled up the confusion by uncritically accepting the packet of lies handed down to them through the prejudiced traditionists. The result is that it is almost a Sisyphian labour to sort out fact from fiction and reality from phantasy. The writers and historians have followed a highly whimsical line of action; they have included every insignificant and cooked-up detail genuineness of their borrowed plumes; but they have ignored and excluded even the significant details that clash with their highly volatile priorities and scoff at their spurious thesis.
The third fact is that these traditionists have not based their perverse findings on the evidence of the direct or firsthand witnesses. They are mostly based on derivative evidence and they have reproduced mere hear-say and baseless observations without caring to test their veracity, creating a jumble of unassorted evidence. Some of the examples are glaring violations of ten years between the events and the reporters of these events. The matter will be discussed at length in the subsequent pages. Continue reading