With the name of Allah, and may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon our master al-Mustafa, his wives, progeny, companions and all those who follow them with righteousness until the Day of Judgment.
Imam ‘Ali b. Musa al-Rida (148 AH – 203 AH), was a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad (عليه الصلاة و السلام), son of Imam Musa al-Kadhim son of Ja’far al-Sadiq son of Muhammad al-Baqir son of ‘Ali Zayn al-‘Abidin son of Hussein al-Shahid son of al-Hassan al-Mujtaba son of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, the lion of Allah. Imam al-Rida is highly respected by Sunni scholars (as righteous scholar and Imam from the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt of the Salaf era) and Zaydi Shias alike (who reject extreme Rafidi views such as infallibility and divine appointment) and of course revered as a demi-God like holy saint and (8th) Imam by the Twelver Shias, the Rafidah (Extremist Rejectionists of the truth) . He lived in a period when Abbasid caliphs were facing numerous difficulties, the most important of which was Shia revolts.
Al-Rida was born one month after the death of his grandfather, Ja’far as-Sadiq, and brought up in Madinah under the direction of his father Musa al-Kadhim (whom the Rafidah believe to be the “7th infallible Imam”). His mother was originally a Berber slave from Northwest Africa (according to Shia sources, although some sources state she was Nubian i.e. Eastern African, the people of southern Egypt and norhtern Sudan. In any case, there is no doubt that he had African ancestry, this is because his forefathers married Nubians).
Al-Rida in the eyes of Sunni scholars
الإمام السيد ، أبو الحسن ، علي الرضى بن موسى الكاظم بن جعفر الصادق بن محمد الباقر بن علي بن الحسين ، الهاشمي العلوي المدني ، وأمه نوبية اسمها سكينة .
“The Imam, the Sayyid, Abul-Hassan ‘Ali al-Rida b. Musa al-Kadhim b. Ja’far al-Sadiq b. Muhammad al-Baqir b. ‘Ali b. al-Hussein, the Hashimite, ‘Alid of Madinah […].” [“Siyar a’lam al-Nubala` by al-Dhahabi]
Al-Hakim is quoted in Tarikh Nishabur as saying that the Imam ‘Ali al-Rida used to issue religious verdicts when he was a little more then twenty years old.
In Ibn Maja’s Sunan, in the chapter on “Summary Of Cultivating Perfection,” he is described as “the master of Banu Hashim” (of his time).
قال أحمد بن خالد الذهلي الأمير : صليت خلف علي الرضى بنيسابور ، فجهر ببسم الله الرحمن الرحيم في كل سورة .
Ahmad b. Khalid al-Dhihli (major Persian Sunni scholar and muhaddith of the 2nd century AH) said: “I prayed behind ‘Ali al-Rida in Nishabur (Khorasan, modern day Iran) when he recited the Basmalah of each Surah out loud.” [Siyar ‘alam al-Nubala’ by al-Dhahabi]
(Reciting the Basmalah out loud is an opinion hold by many of the Salaf and Sunni scholars throughout history, in fact it is the position of the Shafi’is. Even those who do not recite it out loud don’t deem it as a bid’ah, they merely argue that the Prophet recited it mostly silent and sometimes out loud)
The following is a dissertation by a Saudi scholars (about the Hadithists Ibn Hibban). Imam al-Rida is also mentioned in there. This “evil Wahhabi-Nasibi-Yazidi” must definately be busy cursing or at least degrading the Ahl al-Bayt some might think. Well, let’s find out.
(Author quotes Ibn Hibban):
“‘Ali b. Musa b. Ja’far (al-Sadiq) al-Hashimite, Abu al-Hassan from the chiefs and scholars of the Ahl al-Bayt, from the noble ones of them. His narration are accepted if they are narrated by other then his children and (alleged) followers and Abu al-Salt in particular (who lied upon him) […]”
Yes, (some) of his children used to lie upon him, this is nothing new and even Shias believe this with regards to the lives of many of “their” Imams (Imam al-‘Askari’s own brother denying his brother having a son i.e. the 12th Imam, sons of al-Sadiq and other Imams claiming Imam etc. there are plenty of examples), a notorious liar was Abu al-Salt, he is the main culprit for the heretical Shia version of al-Rida.
In the footnotes, the author mentions the brothers and sisters of ‘Ali b. Musa al-Rida i.e. the children of Musa al-Kadhim. Let’s see what names the Ahl al-Bayt liked to give to their children (for whatever reason, point is they did give them and some so called followers wouldn’t do that in a million years):
[…] Musa b. Ja’far b. Muhammad children were:
‘Ali (al-Rida), ‘Ayyash, al-Qassim, Isma’il, Ja’far, Harun, Hassan, Ahmad, Muhammad, ‘‘Ubaydallah, Hamzah, Zayd, ‘ Abdallah, Ishaq, Hussein, al-Fadhl, Sulayman, Hakimah, Fatimah, Umm al-Bahaa`, ‘Abbasah, Qassimah, Umm Farwah, Asma’, Ruqayyah, Kulthum, Umm Ja’far, Lubabah, Zayndab, Khadijah, ‘Aliyyah, Aminah, Husnah, Barihah, Umm Salamah, ‘Aishah, Fatimah, Maymunah, Umm Kulthum.”
One of the most open Anti-Sunni Ayatullats of the Rafidah, Shaytan al-Milani (not from Italy though) also confirms the above:
There is disagreement about the exact number of children ‘Ali b. Musa al-Rida had, but interestingly, historians mention that he had only one daughter, guess which name al-Rida chose (out of all names) for his one and only daughter:
محمد القانع، حسن، جعفر، إبراهيم، حسين وعائشة
Muhammad al-Qani’, Hassan, Ja’far, Ibrahim, Hussein and ‘Aishah.
Interesting isn’t it? It is established that his father gave his children names that are strongly hated by Shia, in fact you’ll hardly will find any Shia – scholar and layman alike – who carries the following names (all children of al-Rida’s father, Musa al-Kadhim):
Harun: Despite being mentioned in the Qur’an, yet they detest this beautiful name due to their hatred for the ‘Abbasid caliph Harun al-Rashid!
”Ubaydullah (and to a lesser extent Abdallah): Although you might find Shias who carry the name ‘Abdallah (although it’s a rarity compared to Sunnis, since Shias prefer names ilke ‘Abdul-Hussein, ‘Abdul-Zahra`, Abdul-Rida, Ghulam Hussein and even Kalb (dog of) Hussein etc.), you will certainly not find a single one who carries the beautiful name of ‘Ubaydallah. They seem to be allergic to names that have a clear monotheistic message. The reason they detest such beautiful name (that the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt themselves loved) is due to their hatred for ‘Ubaydallah b. Ziad who was one of the leaders of the army of Yazid I during the Battle of Karbala.
Maymunah: The mother of the believers, unknown to many, she is also hated by the Rafidah. She is regarded as untrustworthy and an accomplice of the mother of the believers ‘Aisha. No Shia will ever name his daughter her or just give that name without the intention of naming her after Maymunah, the wive of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), yet Imam Musa al-Kadhim (father of Imam al-Rida) named his daughter after two of the mothers of the believers, among them Maymunah and …
‘Aisha: Imam Musa al-Kadhim and his son obviously liked the name ‘Aisha. Both named their daughters after her, in the case of al-Rida it is even more delicate (for the Shia) as he is reported by historians of having had only one daughter. Imagine having only one daughter and naming her ‘Aishah. Is this what a Rafidi would do? If the Shias resort to their pathetic excuses to somehow explain why the Ahl al-Bayt were fond on all these so called Nasibi names (“these names were common back then” etc.) then we remind them that we answered all their doubts here. Point is, the Ahl al-Bayt liked and loved names such as ‘Aisha (and ‘Omar, ‘Othman etc.), these names were good enough for their children but not good enough for their so called followers children. Truly, the Sunnis are from the Ahl al-Bayt and vice versa, as it is the Sunnis who give to their children Sahabah and Ahl al-Bayt names, with no discrimination and no biased approach towards history (where tyrants happened to carry certain names, such as Yazid, ‘Ubaydallah etc.).
Saudi “Wahhabi” praises al-Rida and declares him innocent of the lies of the Rafidah
What is the position of the scholars of al-Jarh and al-Ta’dil (the Islaamic science of determining whose reports and testimonies are to be accepted and whose are not):
al-Dhahabi says: “‘Ali al-Rida, a great personality and suitable for the caliphate, however those surrounding him used to lie upon him, amongst them the Rafidah […]. They attributed infallibility (‘Ismah) to him and went into extremes (Ghuluww) with him […] He is innocent of such a fabricated portrayal (by the Rafidah).”
He also said:
“[…] they (Rafidah) used to lie upon him and made up a fabricated a version of him, just like they used to lie about his grandfather, Ja’far al-Sadiq.”
Ibn Hajar said: “He (al-Rida) is trustworthy (Saduq), the defect (in his narrations) stems from those who narrated from him (i.e. Rawafid who lied upon him).”
Al-Rida’s image was tarnished just as our master Jesus the son of Mary (peace be upon them) has been tarnished to this very day by pagan polytheists who claim to be upon his path and his lovers. Al-Rida’s images was tarnished just like his great-grandfathers’ image ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (peace be upon him) by the Sabaites, the Rafidah of his time and Ja’far al-Sadiq’s (peace be upn him):
The Hadith master Ibn Shahin al-Hanbali (d. 385) said: “Two righteous men have been tried because of evil people: Ja’far ibn Muhammad and Ahmad ibn Hanbal.” [Narrated by Ibn ‘Asakir in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari, p. 164-165]
Similarly Ibn al-Salah الله (d. 643) said: “Two Imams have been afflicted because of their followers although they are innocent of them: Ahmad ibn Hanbal was tried with the anthropomorphists (al-Mujassima), and Ja’far al-Sadiq with the Rejectionists (al-Rafidah).” [Cited by Ibn al-Subki in his Qa’ida fil-Jarh wal-Ta’dil, p. 43, cf. his Tabaqat al-Shaf’iyya al-Kubra 2:17]
And as mentioned before, one of the main culprits responsible for most of the lies (Shia narrations) in the name of al-Rida was a narrator called Abu al-Salt. He is a fabricator and made up many narration in excessive praise and veneration of ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hussein etc. and attributed them to al-Rida.
Al-Rida’s was from Ahl al-Sunnah beyond doubt
Imam Ahmad reports in his Musnad on the authority of his Shaykh ‘Ali b. Musa, from Ibn al-Mubarak, from ‘Omar b. Abi Wahb that ‘Aishah said:
“The Messenger of Allah would run his fingers through his beard, while making ablution (Wudhu).” [Musnad al-Imam Ahmad 234/6]
The author comments:
“This hadith is Sahih (authentic) and has many shawahid (supportive evidence) from the hadith of ‘Othman and others and it is from the narrations of ‘Ali b. Musa on the authority of ‘Abdallah b. al-Mubarak and ‘Omar b. Abi Wahb. The narration goes back to al-Rida with a very strong chain of transmission. It is from the narrations of Imam Ahmad that goes back to him (al-Rida).”
A similar Sahih narration has indeed been narrated by others:
Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Wa’il said, “I saw ‘Othman when he was performing Wudu’… When he washed his face, he passed his fingers through his beard three times. He said, `I saw the Messenger of Allah do what you saw me doing.”’ [al-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah also recorded this Hadith. At-Tirmidhi said “Hasan Sahih.” while Al-Bukhari graded it Hasan]
The question arises: Why on earth did Imam al-Rida narrate from a bunch of fallibles, in fact very hated so called Nasibi ones (the likes of Ibn al-Mubarak are major Sunni Tabi’is, i.e. students of the Sahabah)? In fact, the alleged infallible narrated a narration that goes back to the mother of the believers ‘Aishah. Al-Rida also didn’t believe in the superstition of taking religious knowledge from 12 Imams only, let alone him being an infallible Imam who possess the knowledge of all Prophets and the unseen!
ِWudu can be done by wiping and washing (just as Sunnis believe)
(Screenshot taken from the the famous Shiite Alkafeel wesbite)
Translation (marked part):
Imam [‘Ali al-Rida] says: “If you wash your feet and forgot to wipe over them, know this is permissible. This is because you would have done more than necessary. Verily, Allah has mentioned all of it in the Qur’an; The wiping and washing, when He said: ( وأرجلكم الى الكعبين ) with nasb (نصب) of the laam (ل), he intended the washing of the feet. And when He said: ( وأرجلكم ) with kasr (كسر) of the laam (ل), he intended the wiping of the feet. Both are permissible the washing and wiping.” [Fiqh al-Radawi or al-Rida which translated to al-Rida’s Jurisprudence, Wudhu chapter, #79 by ‘Ali b. Ibrahim al-Qummi “al-Saduq”]
The same narration can be found in one of the most authentic Shia hadith books (as can be seen in the small print under the covered text of the screenshot):
- Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih 89/28 and 90/29
- Tahdhib al-Ahkam 251/97, 253, 252, 180/64, 181 and 187/66
- al-Istibsar 223/73 and 224, 225, 227 and 228
Ibn Babawiyeh al-Qummi (al-Kadhub) comments on the narration of al-Rida by saying:
وهذه الأحاديث محمولة على التقية، أو ورد فيها تأويل، مع العلم ان الاحاديث الواردة في المسح أكثر عدداً، وأشهر رواية، وأصح سنداً، وأوضح دلالة، وقرر الشيخ الطوسي قول الامامية بالمسح، حيث صرح في جملة كلام له:
« فان قيل: فأين انتم عن القراءة بنصب الأرجل، وعليها اكثر القراءة وهي موجبة للغسل ولا يحتمل سواه؟ قلنا: « أول ما في ذلك ان القراءة بالجر مجمع عليها والقراءة بالنصب مختلف فيها، لأنّا نقول: ان القراءة بالنصب غير جائزة، وإنما القراءة المنزلة هي القراءة بالجر.. ».
“These narrations have to be understand in the light of taqiyyah, or they must be interpreted differently for the narrations about wiping are more in number and more famous and stronger in their chains of narration” (he then goes on, explaining how the Rafidah reject the different Qira’at of the Qur’an!
Subhanallah, this is the escape door that they always keep open and ready for themselves. As can be seen, the narration has no defects (otherwise al-Qummi would have weakened it), in fact it is authentic (like many other narrations of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt who also prove the validity of washing the feet), this is why al-Qummi resorted to his taqiyyah (which is different to the Sunni understanding of Taqiyyah) acrobatics, claiming that al-Rida had to conceal the truth (by telling and teaching falsehood!).
Shia scholars have always found ways to make the Ahl al-Bayt believe as they wish (and not the other way around!). Whenever they are faced with ahadith that prove the Sunnism of the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt, they try their utmost to water down such narrations, arguing that they have to be understood in the light of taqiyyah i.e. as in the case of al-Rida’s Wudu narration, accusing al-Rida of having been scared for his life, scared of a bunch fallible men and hence he resorted to teach others (read as: confuse others) that washing (absolutely impermissible according to the Rafidi religion) the feet is just as permissible as wiping them, based on the Qur’an! Now this makes absolutely no sense for the following reasons:
- Al-Rida is clearly teaching wudhu, he is not under surveillance, being recorded by audio and video. If it was dangerous to reject “Sunni” wudu, he could have just stayed silent.
- He was not asked nor forced by someone to explain the way of Wudu, he just taught it as he believed it to be correct.
- The opinion of prefering wiping over washing was hold by other scholars of the Salaf, it was not an alien opinion, so why would al-Rida be scared to express and teach it if he believed in it?
As you can see, the accusation of Taqiyyah (dissimulation) doesn’t make sense at all. The truth is that the Ahl al-Bayt, such as al-Rida, were truthful and never scared of the tyrant. Yes, the one who possesses wisdom and intelect knows when and under what circumstance to express the truth, however, in the case of al-Rida explaining ablution (wudhu) there is no reason to believe that he was scared for his life to perform a simple Wudhu. He clearly stated that washing and wiping (which is exactly the Sunni opinion) are both permissible. The Rafidah who accuse him of Taqiyyah (concealing the truth) are thus insulting and degrading this great Imam. It is as Dr. Naasir ibn ‘Abdullah al-Qafaari said:
Al-Mufid defined taqiyyah for them as follows: Taqiyyah means concealing the truth, concealing belief in it, concealing one’s true beliefs from those who differ from one and not showing openly that which may lead to negative consequences in religious or worldly terms.
“Thus al-Mufid defined taqiyyah as concealing beliefs for fear of harm from those who disagree with them – namely Ahl as-Sunnah, as is usually the case when they use this term. In other words, it means making an outward display of following the madhhab of Ahl as-Sunnah (which they regard as false), and concealing the Rafidi madhhab, which they believe is true. Hence some Sunnis think that those who adhere to this belief are worse than the hypocrites, because the hypocrites believe that what they are concealing of disbelief is falsehood, and they make an outward display of being Muslims out of fear. But in the case of these people, they think that what they are concealing is truth, and that their path is the way of the Messengers and Imams.” [End quote from Usul Madhhab al-Shi‘ah al-Imamiyyah, 2/805]
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The Rafidis are the most ignorant and mendacious of sects, and the furthest removed from any knowledge of the texts or rational evidence. They regard taqiyyah as one of the basic principles of their religion, and they tell lies about Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s family), the extent of which is known only to Allah. They even narrated from Ja‘far al-Sadiq that he said: “Taqiyyah is my religion and the religion of my forefathers.” But taqiyyah is one of the signs of hypocrisy; in fact in their case, they say verbally that which is not in their hearts, and this is the essence of hypocrisy.” [End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa, 13/263]
Sunan (pl. of Sunnah) that were strongly encouraged by al-Rida, uphold by Ahl al-Sunnah and barely practiced by the Rafidah
فقال: منّ عليهم بالمعرفة، ومنّ عليهم بالثواب (2)، ( ثم مكّتهم ) (3) من الحنيفية التي قال الله تعالى لنبيه صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم: ( واتبع ملة إبراهيم حنيفا ) (4) فهي عشر سنن: خمس في الرأس، وخمس في الجسد، فأما التي في الرأس: فالفرق، والمضمضة ، والاستنشاق، وقص الشارب، والسواك، وأما التي في الجسد فنتف (5) الابط، وتقليم الأضافير، وحلق العانة، والإستنجاء، والختان (6).
[After mentioning various Sunan,] al-Rida says:
[…] “and rinsing the mouth (al-Madmadah), snuffing water (al-Istinshaq), shortening the mustache and the siwak” […] [Fiqh al-Radawi or al-Rida which translated to al-Rida’s Jurisprudence, p. 66 by ‘Ali b. Ibrahim al-Qummi “al-Saduq”]
There is no doubt that all the above Sunan (especially shortening the beard and carrying siwak) are uphold by none other than the Ahl al-Sunnah, in fact they have become trademarks of Sunnism.
[…] As for the days one can chose (or abstain from) fasting; The fast of Friday, Thursday, the second and the days of al-Bayd, the Fast of the 6 days of Shawwal, a day after al-Fitr, the day of ‘Arafa, the day of ‘Ashura. On all of these days, one can chose to fast or to abstain.” [Fiqh al-Radawi or al-Rida which translated to al-Rida’s Jurisprudence, chapter of fasting, by ‘Ali b. Ibrahim al-Qummi “al-Saduq”]
The Rafidah have gone as far as to accuse the Ahl al-Sunnah of being Nasibi (enemies of Ahl al-Bayt) for upholding the Sunnah of fasting the day of ‘Ashura. A Sunnah that preceeds the tragedy of Karbala’, however, the Rafidah do not view the completion of the Deen with the demise of the Prophet (صل الله عليه وسلم), otherwise they would not have prefered wailing and self-flagellation rituals over an established Sunnah, nor would they dismiss the narrations of the Ahl al-Bayt in support of the fast.
“The woman who stands up for prayer shall close her the gaps between her two feet and put her two hands on her chest, where the breasts are.” [Fiqh al-Radawi or al-Rida which translated to al-Rida’s Jurisprudence, chapter of the obligatory prayers, by ‘Ali b. Ibrahim al-Qummi “al-Saduq”]
Placing the the hands upon their chest / breast during Salah (at least for women) has clearly an origin in the Sunnah (even according to classical Shia scholars), yet we see modern day Rafidis not just having abondened it, but accusing Sunnis of following the “Majoosi” (the irony …) innovation of ‘Omar b. al-Khattab (رضي الله عنه). This blessed Sunnah is far from being an innovation, and again only uphold by the Sunnis.
Note: Although the authenticity of the book is questioned by (some) modern day Shia scholars, however, their top hadithists insisted that it not just authentic, rather it is written by al-Rida himself!
Al-Majjlisi continues to say: “I heard my father, may Allah have mercy on him, saying that it was written in the handwriting of al-Rida`, the blessings of Allah be upon him, and a large group of the dignitaries testified to the same.’
Al Rida and and the the Mu’tazili-Shi’ite caliph
Abu Jaʿfar al-Ma’mun al-‘Abbasi (786-833 AD) was the seventh Abbasid caliph, the son of an ethnic Persian concubine from modern day Afghanistan (Badghis) and Harun al-Rashid al-‘Abbasi.
Unlike Shia myths that portray all caliphs as zealous Sunnis who had nothing better to do but to praise Abu Bakr, ‘Omar, Mu’awiyah etc, al-Ma’mun was actually not a Sunni, rather he was the opposite of of what Sunni orthodoxy constitutes.
Whereas most learned students of knowledge are aware of the Bid’ah of the creation of the Qur’an that was propagated by al-Ma’mun, yet many (let alone Shias) are aware of his pro-Shia stances.
قال الحافظ ابن كثير رحمه الله تعالى – في ترجمة المأمون ( وقد كان فيه تشيع واعتزال وجهل بالسنة الصحيحة ، وقد بايع في سنة 201 بولاية العهد من بعده لعلي الرضى بن موسى الكاظم بن جعفر الصادق ) البداية والنهاية 10 / 275
al-Hafidh b. al-Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) says in the Tarjumah (biography) of al-Ma’mun:
“He had Shiite and Mu’tazilite tendencies and was ignorant of the authentic Sunnah […]” [al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah 275/10 by Ibn Kathir al-Dimashqi]
Imam al-Dhahabi says in his Siyar a’laam al-Nubalaa`:
إن المأمون لتشيعه أمر بالنداء بإباحة المتعة -متعة النساء- فدخل عليه يحيى بن أكثم ، فذكر له حديث علي -رضي الله عنه- بتحريمها ، فلما علم بصحة الحديث ، رجع إلى الحق ، وأمر بالنداء بتحريمها
“ِAl-Ma’mun, legalised the Mut’ah marriage due to his Shiite tendencies. Yayha b. Aktham entered upon him and mentioned ‘Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) hadith with regards to the prohibition of Mut’ah. When he (al-Ma’mun) became aware of the authenticity of the hadith he came back to the truth and declared Mut’ah marriage as haram.”
We also read in his Siyar:
وكان شيعيا .
قال نفطويه : بعث المأمون مناديا ، فنادى في الناس ببراءة الذمة ممن ترحم على معاوية ، أو ذكره بخير . وكان كلامه في القرآن سنة اثنتي عشرة ومائتين ، فأنكر الناس ذلك ، واضطربوا ، ولم ينل مقصوده ، ففتر إلى وقت .
He [al-Ma’mun] was a Shiite. al-Naftawiyeh says: “al-Ma’mun sent a caller who called out to the people declaring that there will be no pardon (i.e. for ones life) for anyone who asks for Allah’s mercy for Mu’awiyah or speaks of him well […]
Translation (orange marked part):
“In the year 210, AH al-Ma’mun declard that the protection for anyone who speaks well of Mu’awiyah will be revoked. He also declared that the best creation after the Messenger of Allah is ‘Ali b. Abi Talib.” [al-Suyuti’s “Tarikh al-Khulafa`. Also in many other sources, including Shia ones such as: al-Tabari’s “Tarikh”, Ibn al-Athir’s “al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh”, Ibn A’tham the Shi’ite in his “Tarikh”, and also narrated by Mas’udi the Shi’ite]
(it further states that in the next year al-Ma’mun declared that the Qur’an is created and that ‘Ali is superior to Abu Bakr and ‘Omar)
وقد أوصى في وصيته بالإحسان إلى العلويين
“He (al-Ma’mun) stated in his will that the ‘Alid (Hashimite descendants of ‘Ali) shall be treated well …”
Al-Ma’mun, in fact, sincerely felt guilty about the supression of his predecessors towards the ‘Alids. In a letter he wrote to some Hashimites: “The Umayyads killed anyone (among the ‘Alidss) who unsheathed a sword, while we, the ‘Abbasids, have been killing them en masse; so, ask the great souls of the Hashimites what sin they committed, and ask the souls of those who were buried in Baghdad and Kufa alive…” [Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 49, p. 210 as quoted in Ibn Maskawayhi’s book Nadeem al-Farid]
The likes of al-Ma’mun were some weird form of “Nasibis” (Sunnis who equal enemies of Ahl al-Bayt according to classcial Shia scholarship) who hated Mu’awiyah (رضي الله عنه) to the extent that one could risk his life for just asking Allah’s mercy for him. And since when do Nasibis declare that ‘Ali (رضي الله عنه) is the best creation after the Messenger of Allah (صل الله عليه وسلم)? All these historical facts prove yet again how shallow the Shi’i understanding is of history.
The Mihna (trial) – Persecution of Sunni orthodoxy – A comparison between alleged infallibles and real Imams
The ‘mihna’ (trial or testing) was comparable to Medieval European inquisitions in the sense that it involved imprisonment, a religious test, and a loyalty oath. During the second century, Hellenistic thought began to seep into Muslim lands through the availability of Greek works translated into Arabic. The supposed rationality of these treatises appealed to a faction of the Muslims, as they attempted to ‘reconcile’ Islamic doctrine with philosophical supposition. At the forefront were the Mu’tazilites, who advocated a belief that the Qur’an – the eternal word of God – was created (a heretical belief also shared by Jahmis and various Shia sects, including Twelver Rafidah).
The Qur’an being uncreated is a fundamental Sunni belief. Imam Ahmad once explained to his student Imam al-Tirmidhi that God is uncreated, therefore anything of him is uncreated. Thus, His speech is uncreated. The Qur’an is God’s speech, therefore, the Qur’an cannot be created. This is a fundamental of Sunni Creed the violation of which the early scholars declared tantamount to disbelief. However, the demagogues of the “Created Qur’an” movement gained favor with the `Abbasid Caliph al-Ma’mun and convinced him to commence a violent inquisition forcing scholars to renounce their belief in the Qur’an as God’s uncreated speech. This continued under his successors al-Mu`tasim and al-Wathiq after him. The champion against this was none other than the Imam of Ahl al-Sunnah, Imam Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Hanbal. As a result, sadly, he was the most severely tortured for it. It is said that he was beaten so severely that his ligaments became gelatinous and he was barely able to even hold himself up much less stand.
قال الحاكم : حدثنا إسحاق بن محمد الهاشمي بالكوفة ، حدثنا القاسم بن أحمد العلوي ، حدثنا أبو الصلت الهروي ، حدثني علي بن موسى الرضى قال : من قال : القرآن مخلوق ، فهو كافر .
Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (164-241 AH/780-855 CE) became famous for his opposition to the mihna. Tusi (major Rafidi scholar) considers him among the students (in the sense of those who took knowledge from him) of Imam al-Rida (al-Rijal, p. 367, also refer to Abu al-Qasim al-Khu’i: Mu‘jam Rijal al-Hadith, vol. 2, p. 260) which of course proves that Sunnis did take knowledge from the Ahl al-Bayt (a point Shias miss when they mockingly state that many Sunni Imams learnt under Muhammad al-Baqir, Ja’far al-Sadiq etc. not realising that this makes the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt Sunnis themselves as it is never reported that they taught anything opposed to fundamental Sunni beliefs).
“I left Baghdad and did not leave behind me anyone more virtuous, more learned, more knowledgeable than Ahmad ibn Hanbal.” – Imam al-Shafi`i
“The true Shaykh of Islam and leader of the Muslims in his time, the hadith master and proof of the Religion.” – Imam al-Dhahabi
The mihna continued by al-Ma’muns successor al-Mu’tassim. Through the support of the Abbasid regime, this belief was imposed upon Muslims as state doctrine. Many scholars at the time ceded to this belief either due to convenience or fearing persecution and torture from tyrannical governors. The execution of many scholars who maintained the orthodox stance only emphasised the scourge engulfing the Muslims at the time. Meanwhile, the great Imam was not executed, but his courage against the heretics culminated in his imprisonment and torture. The oppressors fettered Imam Ahmad in shackles and whipped him relentlessly as they urged him to retract the orthodox view of the Muslims. Imam Ahmad, whilst in the state of fasting, was implored by those who witnessed his torture to retract his view and profess the Mu’tazilite doctrine to save himself (as it is advised to save one’s life in such a situation).
تقدم إليه ابن أبي دؤاد، وقال له: يا أحمد قل في أذني القرآن مخلوق حتى أخلصك من يد الخليفة؛ فقال له الإمام أحمد: يا بن أبي دؤاد قل في أذني القرآن كلام الله وليس بمخلوق حتى أخلصك من عذاب الله عز وجل
Ibn Abi Du’ad came to him and said, ‘O Ahmad, say in my ear: ‘The Qur’an is created,’ so that I may save you from the hand of the Caliph.’ So Imam Ahmad said to him, “O Ibn Abi Du’ad, say in my ear: ‘The Qur’an is the Speech of Allaah, it is not created,’ so that I save you from the punishment of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic!”
Al-Mu’tassim removed him from his post, imprisoned him, and had him flogged until he was unconscious and almost died.
Shabat (one of Ahmad’s torturers who later repented) said:
“I whipped Ahmad b. Hanbal with over eighty lashes. If I had struck an elephant with these lashes, they would have caused it to collapse.” [‘Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad’; p. 157]
Ultimately, Imam Ahmad remained steadfast, as he had a greater concern for the Ummah and what would happen if he surrendered to the deviants. Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal stood up for the good and well-being of all Muslims, he did not stay silent when the truth was mixed with falsehood and kufr being propagated, this had cost him all his positions and (nearly) his life, yet he did not resort to any from of Taqiyyah whatsover, he did not compromise his beliefs whatsoever, he did not hide them or taught them to a selected group of people (a despicable and humiliating narrative the Rafidah attribute to the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt), he famously stated:
“If I were to remain silent, how would the ignorant masses know the truth from falsehood?” [Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa 28/231-232]
Yes, there are different ways to stand up to a tyrant, the Sirah of the Salaf prove that, however, the weak ones (and the cowards) were the ones who constantly had to resort to Taqiyyah (the Imams of the Ahl al-Bayt are innocent and free of this narrative, it is the Shias who accuse them of that) in order to save their own lives, the real scholars and role models on the other hand, starting from the Prophet (peace be upon him) himself and his family and companions (who migrated to far away cities and lands, instead of being involved in lifetime Taqiyyah, confusing everybody) and their students and the students of their students etc.
Ibn al-Jawzi says:
“And the people are still being put to trial for the Sake of Allah, and being patient upon that. For example, the Prophets would be killed, and the righteous people of the previous nations would be killed and burned alive. One of them would even have his flesh combed off of his body with a metal comb, and he would remain upon his religion, despite this.
The Messenger of Allah was poisoned, ‘Omar, ‘Othman, and ‘Ali were all killed. al-Hassan was poisoned, and al-Hussein was killed. ad-Dahhak bin Qays, and an-Nu’man bin Bashir were also all killed, and Khubayb bin ‘Udayy was crucified.
al-Hajjaj killed ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Layla, ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Ghalib al-Hidani, Sa’id b. Jubayr, Abu al-Bukhtari al-Ta’i, Kumayl b. Ziyad, and crucified Mahan al-Hanafi. He had also crucified ‘Abdullah bin al-Zubayr beforehand.
al-Wathiq (al-‘Abbasi) killed Ahmad bin Nasr al-Khuza’i and crucified him.
As for those who were persecuted from the major scholars: ‘Abd ar-Rahman bin Abi Layla; he was whipped by al-Hajjaj over four hundred lashes, then al-Hajjaj killed him.
Abu az-Zinad was whipped by Banu Umayyah, and Abu ‘Amr bin al-‘Ala’ was whipped by Banu Umayyah over five hundred lashes, and Rabi’ah ar-Ra’i was also whipped by Banu Umayyah.
‘Atiyyah al-‘Awfi was whipped by al-Hajjaj over four hundred lashes, and Yazid ad-Dabiyy was also whipped over four hundred lashes by al-Hajjaj.
Thabit al-Binani was whipped by al-Jarud (the successor of Ibn Ziyad), and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Awn was whipped over seven hundred lashes by Bilal bin Abi Bardah.
al-Imam Malik bin Anas was whipped by al-Mansur over seventy lashes, and Abu as-Sawwar al-‘Adawi and ‘Uqbah bin ‘Abd al-Ghafir were also lashed several times.
[‘Manaqib al-Imam Ahmad’; p. 322]
Yes, the above is how real Imams and scholars dealt with injustice, especially the worse form of injustice wich is kufr with Allah. The Sahabah themselves were supressed by some Umayyads, yet they were known for always speaking the truth, they even prevented people to saying salam to those who deny al-Qadr, one of the early heresies that emerged in their times. Even random Yemeni pilgrims were brave enough to speak the truth in the face of the tyrants of their times. The exaggerated Shia narrative that concentrates of the oppression of the Ahl al-Bayt makes it look as if nobody but the Prophet’s Household (عليهم السلام) were oppressed, a biased and shallow examination of history that does not hold up to historical scrutiny.
What makes it worse is that the great Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (who have never, not even according to fabricated narrations in the books of history preach the alleged truth which is their divine Imamite according to the Shia) are portrayed as mystery and Taqiyyah mongering deviants who (despite their alleged super powers) never bothered to do hijrah (as the Sahabah and all righteous did) nor to riks their own lifes by expressing the so called truth (Rafidi beliefs) in the face of the tyrants (as Imam Ahmad and others did). They rather preferred to stay silent and not preach the truth to the masses (and by this misguiding the masses). This is of course is nothing but an insult towards the Ahl al-Bayt and strongly rejected by Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah who do not believe in the Rafidi narrative and version of the Ahl al-Bayt in the first place.
Usurping the right of infalliblee divenly appointed Imams constitutes blatant kufr according to the consensus of all Shia scholars. This is what makes Abu Bakr, ‘Omar and ever other caliph as disbelievers to them, so how could al-Rida stay silent with regards to usurpation of his rights and not inform the masses of it? Was he not brave enough, brave like an Imam Ahmad b. Hanbal (or Ibn Taymiyyah who spent half his life in prison for not compromising his beliefs) who couldn’t bare watching the authorities propagating kufr beliefs (after al-Rida’s demise)? If the Imamah is such an essential belief and the vast majority of Muslims misguided, wasn’t it al-Rida’s duty to expose falsehood and declare the truth, even if he would cost his own life (he did quite young anyway!)? Certainly it would, however, these are questions that Shias have to ask themselves in order to reach the truth, as to Sunnis, the answers are clear; Al-Rida had never been a Rafidi in the first place, he did not hold any Twelver beliefs nor he did he believe that he had a divine right to rule (let alone Abu Bakr and ‘Omar being usurpers) over the Ummah. Of course there is no doubt that Imam al-Rida was more worthy of ruling the nation than a Mu’tazili Shi’ite heretic like al-Ma’mun but so was Imam Ahmad in the time of al-Mu’tasim (successor of al-Ma’mun), however, none of them were divinely appointed, neither al-Rida nor Ahmad b. Hanbal and as long as they have not witnessed blatant kufr (like in Imam Ahmad’s time) they abstained from revolting and fighting the Muslim rulers.
Al-Rida pledged allegiance to the ‘Abbasis, obeyed them and opposed revolts of the ‘Alids!
This is such a well recorded fact that even Shia thinkers (the likes of Ayatollah Montazeri and Tabatabai) had a hard time to water it down. A number of mere assumptions were offered by them in order to explain how a so called infallible Imam could possibily not just stay silent under tyrannical rule, but also actively oppose any revolt against it, including revolts by his own kin, the ‘Alids (descendants of ‘Ali who in huge number, ever since the rise of the Umayyads started revolts after revolts).
Al-Rida never revoked his pledge of allegiance to the caliph of his time, in fact he constantly advised him and even supported him in the suppression of Zayd b. Musa b. Ja’far (a son of Imam Musa al-Kadhim), his very own flesh and brother’s revolt. Zayd had revolted and brought about a riot during the lifetime of Imam ‘Ali al-Rida when one day, ‘Ali al-Rida addressed him with the following words (which by the way is yet another prove from Shia sources that al-Rida was innocent of Rafdi beliefs such as “infallibility”, “divine Imamite” etc.):
“O Zayd, have you trusted upon the words of the grocers of Kufa and are conveying them to the people? What kind of things are you talking about? The sons of Ali ibn Abi Talib and Fatimah Zahra are worthy and outstanding only when they obey the command of Allah, and keep themselves away from sin and blunder. You think you are like Musa al-Kadhim, Ali b.al-Hussein, and other Imams? Whereas, they took pains and bore hardships on the way to Allah and prayed to Allah day and night. Do you think you will gain without pain? Be aware, that if a person out of us the Ahl al-Bayt performs a good deed, he gets twice the reward. Because not only he performed good deeds like others but also that he has maintained the honor of Muhammad. If he practices something bad and does a sin, he has performed two sins. One is that he performed a bad act like the rest of the people and the other one is that he has negated the honor of Muhammad. O brother! The one who obeys Allah is from us the Ahl al-Bayt and the one who is a sinner is not ours. Allah said about the son of Noah who cut the spiritual bondage with his father, “He is not out of your lineage; if he was out of your lineage, I would have (saved) and granted him salvation.” [Shia source: ‘Uyun akhbar al-Rida, The Source of Traditions on Imam Reza (a.s.) (Vol. 2) (first ed.). Qom: Ansariyan Publications. p. 520]
Basically, Imam al-Rida with his public oppostion to Zayd (and any ‘Alid revolt for that matter) had strengthened the ‘Abbasid rule. al-Ma’mun kept Zayd free as an honor to Ali al-Ridha and overlooked his punishment.
‘Ali b. al-Rida, the appointed successor by al-Ma’mun
As it’s clear by now, al-Ma’mun (what no hidden intention, as his exreme Shiism was enforced on Sunnis!) used to hold Imam al-Rida in high esteem and surround him with utmost respect, and he even made him his successor and secured the oath of allegiance for him. In his discourse regarding the issue of succession, al-Ma’mun said: “I do not know any man on the face of earth who is more suited (to be heir to the throne) than this man.” [Al Irshad by al-Mufid, p. 291].
Ibn al-Athir writes: “He (al-Ma’mun) discerned the descendants of Banu al-Abbas and Banu Ali and did not find anyone more than him (ar-Ridha’, A.S.) in accomplishments, piety and knowledge.” [al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, by Ibn al-Athir, Vol. 5, p. 183]
Finally, in the year A.H. 201 (817 AD) al-Ma’mun declared Imam al-Rida as his successor.
Important points (Roughly translated from the scan above which is taken from the aqaed Shia research center).
al-Suyuti states in his Tarikh that in the year 201 AH (and the following years):
- Al-Ma’mun removed his own brother al-Mu’tamin as his heir and appointed ‘Ali al-Rida as his successor.
- His extremism with regards to Shi’ism lead him to that, to the extent that he was about to remove himself and hand over all power to al-Rida.
- In fact, it al-Ma’mun who give ‘Ali b. Musa the title of al-Rida (i.e. he wasn’t known by that before the ‘Abbasid caliph gave him this title!)
- He also ordered to mint coins with names of ‘Ali al-Rida as the the new heir
- He married his own daughter Umm Habibah to al-Rida (and another daughter, Umm al-Fadl to one of al-Rida’s sons).
- He changed the black flags and attiresof the ‘Abbasids from black to green (ironically black has become the predominent symbol of Rafidis and many Kharijis alike).
- He participated at the funerals of several high figures of the ‘Alids, he even prayed the Janazah prayer for Yahyah b. al-Hussein b. Zayd and was always seen shedding tears and showing sorrow at their funerals.
- He believed that ‘Ali b. Abi Talib (رضي الله عنه) was superior to all caliphs who preceeded him and more worthy of being the direct successor of the Prophet (عليه الصلاة و السلام)
- He publicly disavowed Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan (رضي الله عنه) and proclaimed ‘Ali’s superiority to Mu’awiyah.
Important to note is that al-Rida never declined the offer of being the future heir, not even according to Shia sources that try explain the acceptance of al-Ridah saying that he accepted it merely with the condition of becoming the Crown Prince in name only i.e. not an actual ruler. The question arises: Why would a true infallible Imam who allegedly believes that his and his forefathers rights were usurped accept becoming the prince of a so called evil Nasibi tyrant. Would any such individual with an atom of honour accept such position? Of course not, but then again, al-Rida was anything but a Rafidi, he was an orthodox Sunni and despite his possible distrust of al-Ma’mun, he nonetheless regarded him as a Muslim and the rightful (albeit not most deserving) ruler of his time.
Al-Rida passes way in Tus (Persia, Khorasan)
The ‘Abbasids in Baghdad were furious when they heard that al-Ma’mun not only appointed the al-Rida as his successor, but sent out commands that the Abbasid’s black flag should be changed to green in honor of the Imam. They were afraid that the empire would be taken from them. They got together, therefore, to depose Ma’mun and give allegiance to Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi, who was the uncle of Ma’mun. When Ma’mun heard this, the Imam advised him (instead of letting the ‘Abbasids destroy one another) to solve the problem by dismissing him from his position but he did not heed (which proves that he was genuine in his support of al-Rida) and decided to return to Baghdad and assert his rights. However, when they reached the town of Sarakhs, his vizier was assassinated, and when they reached Tus (modern day Mashad/Iran) al-Rida passed away (he was in his early 50’s).
Al-Rida died in 203 AH and was buried right next to Harun al-Rashid, al-Ma’mun’s father in Persia, in a village (near Tus) in the province of Khorasan which afterwards gained the name Mashhad, meaning the place of martyrdom. Al-Ma’mun showed extreme sorrow in the funeral ritual and stayed for three days at the place.
It is very unlikely that al-Ma’mun killed al-Rida, this was probably done by the ‘Abbasids of Iraq who wanted to get get of al-Ma’mun and al-Rida. Al-Ma’mun admired al-Rida and granted him the highest posts and even some Shia scholars doubt that al-Ma’mun was involved in the murder (however, the standard narrative repeated by Shi’ites is that al-Ma’mun was responsible, however they can not produce a single strong evidence for that).
Even some renowned and major scholars of the Shia expressed their doubts on the involvement of al-Ma’mun in al-Rida’s death.
، ونقل عن صاحب كشف الغمة أنه قال : بلغني ممن أثق به أن السيد رضي الدين علي بن طاووس ( رحمه الله ) كان لا يوافق على أن المأمون سم علي بن موسى عليهما السلام ولا يعتقده – شرح أصول الكافي – مولي محمد صالح المازندراني – ج 7 – ص 273
“And it was narrated by the author of “Kashf al-Ghummah” who said: I was informed by the truthful, al-Sayyid Radi al-Din ‘Ali b. Tawuds, may Allah have mercy upon him, that he did not agree that al-Ma’mun poisoned ‘Ali b. Musa, peace be upon him. He didn’t believe in that ” [“Sharh Usul al-Kafi” by Mawla Muhammad Salih al-Mazandarani, vol. 7, p. 273]
Al-Rida is buried right next to Harun al-Rashid
No sane Muslim (let alone an alleged infallible) states in his will his wish to be buried next to a tyrant Nasibi (kafir enemy of the Ahl al-Bayt, as this is who Harun al-Rashid is to Twelverism), yet this is exactly what Imam al-Rida did. We read in al-Kamil (history) by Ibn al-Athir:
Translation (marked part):
“‘Ali b. Musa al-Rida, peace be upon him, died in this year (203 AH) of grapes overload. It was a sudden death […]. He passed away in the city of Tus. Al-Ma’mun prayed the Janazah for him and buried him next to his father al-Rashid […]. [al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh vo. 4, p.5 by Ibn al-Athir].
(he goes on explaining how al-Rida loved grapes and how it is claimed that al-Ma’mun murdered him by poisoning the grapes and how far-fetched this accusation is to him, as al-Ma’mun had admired al-Rida very passionately and how his death was a tragedy for al-Ma’mun etc.)
Now one would assume (considering the propaganda of Shiite about Imam al-Rida) that he was buried against his will yet astonishingly, al-Rida was buried next to Harun based on his own will.
و في الخرائج روي عن الحسن بن عباد و كان كاتب الرضا ع قال دخلت عليه و قد عزم المأمون بالمسير إلى بغداد فقال يا ابن عباس ما ندخل العراق و لا نراه فبكيت و قلت فآيستني أن آتي أهلي و ولدي قال ع أما أنت فستدخلها و إنما عنيت نفسي فاعتل و توفي في قرية من قرى طوس و قد كان تقدم في وصيته أن يحفر قبره مما يلي الحائط بينه و بين قبر هارون ثلاث أذرع – بحارالأنوار ج : 48 ص : 324
[…] al-Hassan b. al-‘Abbad was a scribe of al-Rida (ع). He said: “I entered upon him while al-Ma’mun preparing himself for his journey to Baghdad. He (al-Rida) told me: “O son of ‘Abbas (al-Hassan b. al-‘Abbad)! We are not going to Iraq nor have we seen him.” Thereupon I (al-Hassan b al-‘Abbad) started crying and said: “Allow me to go to my wive and son (who were in Iraq).” He (al-Rida) said: “As for you, you shall enter her (Baghdad), I was only referring to myself.” So he (al-Rida) became sick and died in a village from the villages of Tus. He had stated in his will that his grave should be dug next to the wall between him and the grave of Harun [al-Rashid], three arms length.” [Bihar al-Anwar by al-Majlisi, vol. 48, p. 324]
What a dilemma for the Rafidah. Harun al-Rashid (of course the tomb obsessed Rafidis defiled his grave, making sure no sign of it is left) is buried right next to al-Rida, under the same dome and under the same shrine that the Rafidah venerate and worship like a golden calf.
The Ayatullats who have mastered the profession of grave worship and business have turned the once simple and modest grave of al-Rida into a gigantic money machine that rather resembles the palaces of ancient Zoroastrian kings than the tomb of a humble servant of Allah are well aware of this fact.
َAyatullats entering their gigantic money machine (that resembles a palace of a Zoroastrian king more than a muslim grave)
smooching and adorning it …
… to get the most out of it …
While it is true that the average Shia layman has no clue that Harun al-Rashid is buried right next to al-Rida, yet, this wasn’t the case in the past (where the shrines was way smaller).
Translation (of the marked part):
“And next to that (Imam al-Rida’s) grave is the grave of the chief of the believers Harun al-Rashid, may Allah be pleased with him […] When a Rafidi comes for Ziyarah (tomb pilgrimage) he kicks al-Rashid’s grave with his feet and greets al-Rida.” [رحلة ابن بطوطة Riḥlat Ibn Baṭūṭah, “Journey of Ibn Battuta” by the Moroccan scholar Ibn Battuta of the 14th-century]
Shias might argue that the righteous (the Prophet and al-Rida) are not harmed by being buried next to the wretched (Abu Bakr, ‘Omar, al-Rashid) nor will the wretched benefit by being buried next to the righteous. What they don’t seem to realise (due to their bias and hatred) is:
- In the case of Abu Bakr and ‘Omar (who are buried next to the best of mankind): Not a single member of the Hashimites uttered a single word of opposition of them being buried next to the final Messenger of Allah (عليه الصلاة و السلام). Neither ‘Ali nor anybody else. It was the decree of Allah and a sign for the believers and sight that will make Rafidi furious till the day of Judgement.
- In the case of al-Rida and Harun: It was al-Rida himself who stated in his will that he wants to be buried next Harun al-Rashid, so did he asked to be buried next to impurity, next to a wretched Nasibi? If the Rafidah say he wasn’t aware that Harun’s grave was next to his, their whole religion falls apart, for it is them who attribute the knowledge of unseen to the Imams. And if they say he was aware, then again, their entire religion crumbles for why would an alleged infallible wish to be buried next to an impure usurper?
Al-Rida: The entombed Persianised deity of the Rafidah
Although all 12 Imams are portrayed with one and the same (usually mystical feminine Persian) facial features, yet since al-Rida is the only Imam who is buried in Iran, he has been given an extra Persian touch, resembling traditional mysticial Persian drawings of wine drinking Sufis/Darvishs/Zoroastrian demi-god like creatures, as can be see in many classical Persian art work which to this day has had a huge influence on Shia culture (these despicable idols are spread all over the Shia world, from Arab lands to India, none of them realising that they are venerating mystical looking Zoroastrians). On the following picture you can see the smilarity between Shia drawings of their entombed deity (Imams) and classical Persian paintings.
The scam of the Ayatullats is so gross, they have literally turned an Arab-African male into a pale skinned looking mystical Persian deity with feminine facial features (plucked eyebrows etc.)
The Rafidah don’t seek Tawassul as they claim, they literally pray to the Imams, asking them directly for all their needs, exactly as Catholics (or Orthodox Christians) do with regards to the various saints of the church.
Khamenei and a bunch of other Rafidah “scholars” and shrine servants prostrating on al-Rida’s tomb:
These brazen polytheists have taken it to the next level, making their shirk not just despicable but absurd and a mocking of the Imam’s of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Even man made objects, like the green flag that is flying on top of the dome are exploited to misguide the masses and make them dependend on Imams instead of Allah.
The green flag of the dome is carried around like an idol, encouraging the deluded and deceived Shiites to seek blessings and ask al-Rida for health:
Now just imagine what is actually going on near and around (as they do Tawaf!) the grave of Imam al-Rida, pardon his shrine and the million dollar Zoroastrian king looking palace. Scenes of despicable paganism that one would expect seeing at a Hindu shrine, and to Allah we complain and seek his help.
The Ahl al-Bayt are highly respected by Sunnis. That’s not just a lip service, this claim is proven by actions, and nobody is following the grandfather of al-Rida (and has not fallen in exaggeration with regards to him and other members of the Ahl al-Bayt) than the Ahl al-Sunnah, the people of the middle path. The Christians have exaggerated with Jesus (peace be upon) while claiming to be his lovers and followers. Same with the Rafidah, they claim to love and follow the Ahl al-Bayt, both of there claims are rejected as far as Muslims are concerned.
The Ahl al-Sunnah prove their love and loyalty not just by narrating from the Ahl al-Bayt, rather by purifying them (their names) from the lies of the Rafidah. As you can see from this article, this isn’t done just recently, but rather since hundreds and thousands of years where Sunni scholarship constantly declared the Ahl al-Bayt innocent of the Rafidah while firmly affirming the lofty status of the Ahl al-Bayt at the same time. Imam al-Rida and his legacy is just one of many whom the Rafidah have tarnished and misrepresented.
They celebrate his birthday (having innovated a whole list of births and death anniversaries to the religion making it look like joke), take his the dust of his grave (and the dust from the grave of Harun al-Rashid, although without realising) and even the man made flag on his dome, carry it around (like con artists or pagan trinitarians who walks around with various blessed objects) in order to “heal” the sick. His shrine has been turned into a gigantic money machine for the clergy, who basically are running their own “mini Hajj” in the name of al-Rida, attracting millions of deceived Shiites based on fabricated narrations that promise rewards bigger than the reward for the pilgrimage to the House of Allah.
They extremists do not just claim that al-Rida is infallible and their 8th Imam, they have even gone as far as to attribute to him unique divine attributes (such as the knower of the hearts), these are not things we make up, these are (unfortunately) kufriyat and heresies that are openly thought by the “Ayatullahs”.
Little do they know that al-Rida was neither infallible nor did he had anything to do with Twelverism and the kufr that stems from this madhhab. In fact Imam al-Rida was a Sunni (hence Sunni scholars showered him with praise and absolved him from the Rafidah). He married from Sunnis and not from Shias and taught people to invoke Allah only:
If you would like to learn more about him minus the annoying wailing and exaggerations of the Rafidah, listen to this lecture by this very eloquent and knowledgable Saudi scholar (who happens to be a pilot at the same time) who hold a PhD and has a whole series on the merits and lives of the Ahl al-Bayt. Yes, this is what so called “Nasibi Wahhabis” in Saudi Arabia do in their freetime, teaching their next generation about the lofty status of Ahl al-Bayt, inserting the love of them in their hearts and making them despise the hatred and Ghuluww (extremism) of the Rafidah. This is how you educate and teach the people, not with wailing, self-beating or Christian-like birthday parties.
Finally Gift2Shias highly recommends the following lecture about Imam al-Rida’s life, by a Saudi scholar (yes, those evil Wahhabi Saudis hate the Ahl al-Bayt so much that they educate the masses about them, whilst being recorded …) of profound histrorical knowledge. For all those who are fed up of lies, exaggerations and wailings and crododile tears in the name of the Ahl al-Bayt, peace be upon him.