The Role of Zoroastrianism in the Development of Shi’ism
September 2, 2011 § 2 Comments
As Iranian Sunnah we declare what every sincere Iranian researcher already knows, be he Muslim, non-Muslim, Sunnah or Shi’ite. Today’s Tashayyu’ (Shi’ism) is heavily influenced by the late Safavid reign and thus contains many pre-Islamic Persian elements. And there is nothing to be proud of i.e. of this sort of historical and religious heritage and “achievement”, for heritage is not good in and of itself, rather it must be upon the truth not based on nationlist fanatism, racism (arab hatred), the superiority of race and more important than that FABRICATION (i.e. Shi’ism i.e. superstition).
The arab Muslims, or precisely the Arab and Non-Arab Muslims in the time of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) i.e. his companions (among them were Persians, Africans, Europeans) would have rejected the man called Mohammad who came to CHANGE their FALSE beliefs, ARAB customs, basically their “culture” and would have sticked to their “own” Arab religion (which was by then paganism and not the religion of their forefather Ibrahim i.e. Islam). Indeed, the companions of the Messenger of Allah (SAWS) rejected all false religions, starting from their arab religion in their own time, up to corrupted Christianity, Judaism and Majoosism (Zoroastrianism). As Iranian Muslims, calling the baby by its name is not a crime or attack one ones own heritage, for twelver Shi’ism after the Safavids is the most corrupted form of Shi’ism ever, and it is definitely filled with pagan persian elements. Shi’ism started as a supporting group, NOT a seperated sect. It is therefore that Ali Ibn Abi Talib (RA) himself confessed that those who he had disagreed with (in the battles of Siffin, Jamal etc.) are upon the VERY same creed as him. There was the Shia (group, supporters) of Ali and of Mu’awiyah and it was all about ONE difference only (the blood of the assassinated Othman, according to Ali himself). The followers of Ali back then were orthodox Muslims i.e. Sunnah and never seperated from the Muslims in terms of beliefs as the Rafidah Shia extremists have done. That is why one can see that the books of the Sunnah are filled with “Shi’ite” narrators and Shi’ite personalities, for Shia back then only meant the belief of believing in the superiority of Ali over the rest of the Sahaba, THIS was Shi’ism, unlike today were it’s a seperate sect, in fact a seperate religion which changed during the centuries and especially after the Safavids.
So rejecting Shi’ism and calling it a Persian (influenced) cult is calling the baby by its name, it is simply saying the truth, just like an Arab would call Abu Jahl a Kafir upon the fake Pagan-Arab religion of the Quraysh, or just like a Pakistani or Indian who would not be ashamed to declare that Qadiyanism (“Ahmadis”) is in fact a sub-indian/Pakistani sect, filled with paganism from this part of the world and emerged from that part of the world. The religion of mankind, i.e. Arabs, Persians, whites, blacks, Indians etc. is Islam, the Islam based on the book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Messenger peace be upon him, and Rafidite-Safavid Shi’ism is a Persian cult, those who seek falsehood and nationalism will always defend the falsehood, no matter how false it is, but those who seek the truth, reject the falsehood, just like the companions of the Messenger who rejected the falshood of their fathers and forefathers for the sake of truth.
[We don't even need to comment on the widespread lie by Anti-Islam Iranians who claim that authentic Islam i.e. Sunnah is not compatible with the Iranian people and their mentality, for there is not ONE remarkable personality in the PRE-ISLAMIC era of Iran i.e. the SASSANID era, yet all those scientists i.e. those who the Iranian nationalists boast with were SUNNAH Iranians, and in fact the majority of Iranian poets like Saadi, OMAR Khayyam, Ferdowsi etc. were all Sunnah (their divans are filled with praises of Abu Bakr, Omar etc.!), they all studied under the Islamic Shari'ah, which was a golden age, they talked arabic and had pride in their religion which was Islam upon the Sunnah. Iran is 500 years Shi'ite now, yet it was 900 years Sunni, so the real heritage of Iran is the Islam, the Sunnah Iran and it was the Islamic era of Iran that produced men like Sibawayh, Saadi, Farabi etc. and not the pre-Islamic Sassanid Iran, and how can maen like Sibawayh, Saadi, Firdowsi, Farabi dedicate their life to Islam and Sunnah and compile their works in Arabic if their religion was against their race? Man can not achieve anything without passion, even falsehood is done with passion so no doubt, the Iranian Sunni personalities of Irans history were not hypocrites, they did not praise Islam, the Prophet and his companions out of "deception" rather it was their creed, just as it is the creed of Sunni Iranians of today.]
They call the Sahaba who overrun the Sassanid Empire as uncivilized Bedouins.
Al-Ihqaqi said, “The catastrophes that befell both the Iranian and Roman Empires were because of the Muslim invasion and the Arab treatment. The newly converts who were not accustomed much with the spirit of Islam, had implanted in their hearts hate to the Arabs and to their customs. This was because the conquerors were uncivilized Bedouins who ravaged and destroyed their beautiful cities and cultivated lands, in the east and the west. The thirsty worshippers of carnal desires raided the chastity and honour of these two empires…… (Risalatul Emaan,p.323, Mirza Hasan al Haieeri al-Ihqaqi, As Sadiq library, Kuwait)
According to this Shiite al-Ihqaqi, the noble companions who conquered Persia ,the superpower of the time, with zeal and faith were early Bedouins, who worshipped their carnal desires and they spread havoc and destruction. And this is the main reason why many Shiite Iranians have hatred towards Umar ibn al-Khattab because the later overrun the mighty and arrogant Persian Empire.
In the Iranian city of Keyshan, there is a street by the name of Firouzi. By the side of this road lies the ground of Firouzi which holds the tomb of Abu Lu’lu al-Majusi the killer of Umar. The Shiite Iranians call him “Baba Shujahudeen” or the “brave of religion” and they present their respect and condolences to him on the day he died. By giving the attribute of “Baba Shujahudeen” to Abu lu’lu leaves two impressions:
Firstly it makes it clear the Abu Lu’Lu is the spiritual father of the Shiites.
Secondly the attribution of “Shujahudeen” shows that the Zoroastrian religion is the real religion for them. Thus the religion of the Rawafid is a mere Magian sect.
The same is the reason behind the exaltation of the descendents of Imam Hussein solely, and not of the progeny of Imam Hassan(RA). This is because the descendents of Hussein are their own Persian brethren as Imam Hussein(ra) was married to ShahrBano the daughter of Yazgard who was the last Persian Empire. [Shiite source: Bihaarul Anwar 45:329]
One is amazed to see that the Shiites weep over the martyrdom of Imam Hussein(ra) whereas they never weep over the martyrdom of his brother Abu Bakr ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib and over the martyrdom of his son Abu Bakr. Those who bear those names are from the Ahlul Bayt also.
Is it because they have names which are disliked by the Rafadhis and by announcing it to their Shiite listeners would expose the love of the Ahlul Bayt to the companions especially to Abu Bakr and Umar?
Shiite muhaditeen like Abu Faraj al-Isfahani in his Muqatil at-Talibeen-p.88,142,188; Al-Arbali in his Kashful Ghumamah vol.2,p.64; and Majlisi in Jila el-ou’ioun 582[/COLOR] stated that amongst those who were martyred with Hussein in Karbala were Abu Bakr ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib and Abu Bakr ibn Hussein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Why doesn’t the ceremonies held during Ashoora not mention the names of the following who were martyred with Hussein:
Umar ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib
Abu Bakr ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib
Uthman ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib
Abu Bakr ibn Hassan ibn Ali
Umar ibn Hassan ibn Ali
Abu Bakr ibn Hussein ibn Ali
Umar ibn Hussein ibn Ali
Uthman ibn Hussein ibn Ali.
Is it because that the likes of Abu Bakr and Umar wiped out the Sassanid arrogance and for this reason mentioning their names are unbearable?
Muhammad Ali Mu’zi, an Iranian Shiite researcher in France has stated with pride: “The basic fundamentals of the Zoroastrian religion has entered into Shiaism even in some minute issues. The marriage of Imam Hussein with the daughter of the last Sassanid Empire is a symbol of ancient Iran as Shahrbano became the first mother or lady for the Iranian nation. And this relationship marked the brotherhood between Shiaism and the ancient Magian Iran.”
For this reason they exalt Salman al-Farsi regardless of the other companions in so much that they claimed about him that he used to receive revelations because he was a “Persian”. (Shiite source: Rijaal Kashshi)
For this reason we see in their works that Ali ibn Abi Talib said with respect to Kisraa: “God has saved him (Kisraa) from the punishment of hell fire, and hell is made forbidden for him.” [Shiite source: Bihaarul Anwar 41:14]
But the conspiracy runs much deeper than this.I have tried to unravel some of it
1) Hatred for Omar
Umar was the Faatih (opener) of Persia so naturally Persians (nationalists, i.e. those who preferred nationalism over the truth which is Islam) hated him. Shia hate no one more than they hate Umar and try to place every blame on his head.This hatred is only due to his conquering the Persians.
The role of killer of Umar is also a mystery. He was a Persian who Martyred him the way of a suicide killer. So in his robe he wrapped his two-headed dagger, the grip of which was in the middle, and hid himself in a corner of the Medina mosque.] When Umar went to wake up those sleeping in the mosque for morning prayers, Abu Lu’lu’ah leaped upon him and stabbed Umar six times [three times, according to Ibn Sa'd]. He attempted to make his way out of the mosque, slashing at the bystanders [11 men besides 'Umar, according to Ibn Sa'd] as he fled, but was eventually overpowered. He turned his knife upon himself and committed suicide.
Rule of Persians in this conspiracy of murder becomes very clear when you consider that they gave his murderer Abu Lu’lu’ah Al-Majoosi the title `’Baba Shujaa’ud-Din” (the one who is brave in the cause of religion
2) Murder of Hassan
.It is not logical that Mauwiyah will order a murder of Hassan who alleged his alliance or atleast signed a pact.According to shias the pact included the clause that khilafat will go to descendants of Ali if hassan died.So Mauwiyah had more than enough reasons to keep Hassan alive.
Than there is a strange story that hassan did nothing although he knew his wife is slow poisoning him.All of this is explained if we consider the murder of hassan as the conspiracy of the non-Muslim Persians to make Hussein the next Khalif.
Non-Muslim Persians were only interested to make Hussein the khalif as he married a Persian princess Shahrbano.The Persians conspirators and his shias led him to kufa and when their treachery was revealed and imam wanted to return to Yazid they killed him during the night.The only witness to karbala was a slave who was lying due to bribe or fear of his life.It is not logical that Imam will jeopardize his own family to fight a whole army.Also if the army was so savage as to kill an infant,what was stopping them from killing a sick imam Zain?
And than the commemorations of karbala in Muharram cannot be for the reason to exhibit their sorrow.People don’t hurt themselves in sorrow.Self flagellation is only done as repentance for some great sin committed.And what can be greater than the sin of killing the Imam and his family?
Arabs supported Nestorian christanity in Persia. So their opponents naturally supported the Catholic church.which was against Nestorian. Although modern popes don’t claim infallibility as freedom from sins or mistake, but this was the case at the time of conquest of Persia. . For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, “Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 , 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, “Rome has spoken; the case is concluded” (Sermons 131, 10Abraham religion emphasize purity of the body but Zoroastrian religion also preached the purity of soul,Fire was the symbol of purification for Zoroastrian Persians. ALL ZOROASTRIANS do undergo the ablution on entering the premises of a fire-temple, to ensure that every religious act they perform is done so in the state of purity of body and soul. The Padyab-Kushti ritual, because it involves the performance of a purification rite, differs from the simple Kushti ceremony, in which a ritually clean person unties and reties the KUSHTI(a thread) without first performing ablutions.
This infallibility,purity and taweez was foreign to Islam.These were combined by shias to form the isma theory of infallibility of imams.
have adopted many beliefs of the Zoroastrian Sassanids:
- the Sassanids claimed to be devine. Today, Shias claim that the Imams were devine with “supernatural powers and universal knowledge”.
- the Sassanids were considered “holy” kings, chosen by God to rule the world. Today, Shias believe that the Imams were chosen by God to lead the Islamic community (which is supposed to rule the world).
- the Sassanids were fierced enemies of the Khalifs. Especially Omar Ibn Al-Khattab, for under his Caliphate Persia was opened to Islam. The Shias today continue this hate toward the Khalifs, especially against Omar.
- in no other Islamic community, “Sayeds” have more authority than in Iran or other parts of the “Iranian world” (Afghanistan, Central Asia) where Shias live.
Nevertheless, there are many true Persian muslims that did good work for Islam and muslims such as Bukhari and many good Persian who converted to Islam by their choice . But there were Persians who became muslims and they didn’t want to be true muslims during the time of Omar Cliph. They wanted to just detroy Islam since Islam destroyed their Empire.
The ORIGINAL (Tashayyu’) Shi’ism, the ORIGINAL PARTY of Ali, was DEFINITLY the right way (for it was a group of one Sahabi, not a seperated sect, with alien belief). If one studies Islamic history, then it is VERY obvious that Ali was betrayed. This is not about the question of Khalifat, but about Ali himself. There was something about Ali that all others were lacking.
However, MODERn Shiism has NOTHING to do with the original movement supporting Ali. Today, it is a mix of ancient Iranian beliefs and Arab politics of 1400 years ago.