4. Al-Fisal fil Milal wan Nihal1
The foremost condition of writing about sects is that the writer should
possess absolute accuracy and honesty, but regrettably, Ibne Hazm (author of this
book) is lacking these qualities; on the contrary, he has observed their opposites
in writing the book.
Following are some examples of his false statements:
1. First objection
He says: Shia are not Muslims; due to the fact that their first group appeared
twenty-five years after the passing away of Prophet and their origin was response
to a hypocritical call, which God humiliated. In lying and disbelief, they are like
Jews and Christians.2
Reply to the first objection
By God, these are regretful statements, which shame the face of humanity.
I don’t know how he denies the Islam of a group, which prays facing the Qibla, recites the dual testimony of faith, reads and acts on Quran, and follows
the Sunnah of Prophet; and their books on beliefs and laws have filled the world?
How can he issue such a verdict, while thousands of teachers (Mashayakh)
of narrators of Sihah Sitta and Ahle Sunnat Musnad books, were Shia; they were
points of reference for beliefs and Islamic laws, like Aban bin Taghlib Kufi,
Thabit Abu Hamza Thumali, Tawus bin Keesan Hamadani, Atiyya bin Saad
Kufi, Maroof Kharrabooz Karkhi, Hisham bin Ziyad Basri, Hisham bin Ammaar
Damishqi3 and so on…
And if the Shia – according to the allegations of Ibne Hazm – are outside the
pale of Islam, then what is the value of their Sihah Sitta and Musnad books?
Yes, the unforgivable sin of the Shia according to Ibne Hazm is that they act
according to commands of Quran and Sunnah, are followers of Imams, who are
security for the folks of the earth; that is Ali and his descendants.
As for what he says that Shia religion was originated by a deceitful person
whom Almighty Allah degraded, he implies Abdullah bin Saba, famous as Ibne
Sauda; but what connection he has with the Alawite party?
Is it not that Ali (a.s.), due to his heretical statements, threw him into the
fire? And the Shia also, on the basis of emulating Ali (a.s.), have cursed Abdullah
and declared immunity from him?
In that case, how it can be said that Abdullah bin Saba was the originator of
Shia? Throughout the history of Shia was it ever seen that they attributed their
origin to him? If he looks at the reality with open eyes, he would certainty
understand that the seed of Shiaism was sown by Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) himself
on the day he named the loyalists of Ali as Shia and urged people to his
mastership (Wilayat) and obedience.
2. Second objection
He says:4 “One who says: ‘Ali is most knowledgeable than other
companions of the Prophet,’ has lied.”
Then in proving the knowledge and precedence of Abu Bakr with relation to
Ali, he has issued a detailed and illogical statement; so much so that he said:
“One, who has a part of knowledge knows that knowledge and wisdom
possessed by Abu Bakr was many times that of Ali.”
And with regard to precedence of Umar with relation to Ali, he says:
“Every person having perception, knows that knowledge and wisdom of Umar was many times that of Ali.”