Dr. Nāsir Qaffārī, the hard-line Wahhābī author who calls the Shī‘ah unbelievers, gives an interesting account of sharp conflicts between the Wahhābīs and Sunnīs. He says, “The bulky case of the disputes among the contemporary writers on Imāmiyyah attrac

Dr. Nāsir Qaffārī, the hard-line Wahhābī author who calls the Shī‘ah unbelievers, gives an interesting account of sharp conflicts between the Wahhābīs and Sunnīs. He says, “The bulky case of the disputes among the contemporary writers on Imāmiyyah attracted my attention. A group of writers such as Muhibb al-Dīn Khatīb, Ihsān Ilāhī Zahīr, and Ibrāhīm Jibhān call the Imāmiyyah, the unbelievers who are pushed out of the Islamic bounds by their extremist convictions. Others such as Nashār, Sulaymān Dunyā and Mustafā Shak‘ah consider the Imāmiyyah as those that take the middle course, the moderate, with no inclination towards Bātinīs. Still others such as Bihinsāwī having been doubtful (about the reality) corresponded with the Shī‘ah scholars on the issues Muhibb al-Dīn Khatīb and Ihsān Ilāhī Zahīr had raised. In a whirlpool like this, truth will either disappear or lose colour.”[1]

My persistence in getting to the roots made me write my doctorate dissertation on “The Wahhābīs’ Problems Arising from Confusing the Shī‘ahs with the Ghulāts”, where I explained that these problems arise from the differences in study methods.

After lengthy analyses of the Shī‘ah research methods, I realized that the Wahhābī method can never be adopted to know the Shī‘ahs, in particular because the Wahhābīs and Sunnīs extensively differ in their knowledge of the Imāmiyyah. The Wahhābīs’ methods of Shī‘ah studies, if applied, will produce nothing except the mutilation of the research topic—the realities of the Shī‘ism—because it is thought that the followers of the Household of the Prophet (s) have no (sound) method of explaining their doctrine. One cannot help referring to the comments and explanations the Imāmiyyah themselves offer, if he does not want to get involved in the crucial conflict between the Sunnīs and Wahhābīs on the significance of the Imāmiyyah doctrine. This is exactly what Dr. Qaffārī reported concerning Sālim Bihansāwī.

“Having seen the difference of opinion between Ihsān Ilāhī Zahīr and Mustafā Shak‘ah on the Ithnā ‘Ashariyyah Shī‘ism, Bihansāwī referred to the Imāmiyyah ‘ulamā’ in order to discover the reality. He wrote the book, al-Sunnat al-Muftarā ‘Alayhā, in which he collected the outcome of the dialogues he had had with these scholars. It was then that he realized the Sunnī’s study method on the Shī‘ah realities was closer to the truth.”

We also see that Dr. Hāmid Hafnī Dāwūd, the great Sunnī thinker, demands that the (Sunnī) writers should abandon the Wahhābī’s method and stick to the Imāmiyyah’s approach in the exposition of their ideas.

In a prelude to the late Muzaffar’s book ‘Aqā’id al-Imāmiyyah, he writes, “Those who imagine that they can understand the Shī‘ahs’ beliefs, sciences, and social culture by studying what the Shī‘ahs opponents have written, are in manifest error no matter how knowledgeable these writers are, how well they know the ideas, and how impartial and just they are in quoting the thoughts and ideas.”

I would like to say, explicitly, that although I spent a long time studying the beliefs of the Imāms of the Ahl al-Bayt (‘a), in general, and the Shī‘ah doctrine, in particular, by going through what the historians and the critics had written concerning the Imāmiyyah, I was unable to gain anything worthwhile. My extensive research and my zeal to understand the nuances of the Imāmiyyah produced nothing worthwhile, but pushed me still further away from the truth of the beliefs of the Shī‘ahs. This was because I had trusted the writings of the Shī‘ah opponents, and had left my work incomplete and barren. In lieu of my burning desire to search for the truth—wherever it might be—I had to open my Shī‘ah study folder in a different way; that is, I made up my mind to familiarize myself with this school through the works of its scholars because it is evident that the scientists of any school are better acquainted with their own beliefs than are their opponents, however eloquent these antagonists might be in rhetoric.

Being scientifically honest, one of the most important foundations of a scientific research that makes one take the most care, is what I had set myself to follow in all the investigations I was to do and all the papers I was to write. How can a researcher be sure that his citations are true if he does not refer directly to Shī‘ah sources however sharp he may be in understanding the issues? He will be basing his argument on an unscientific foundation if he does not.

All these made me concentrate my Shī‘ah studies on their books and quote their beliefs from their own works and statements—without the least alteration—so as to keep away from the error others had made when judging the Shī‘ahs.

A researcher, desiring to acquire facts from a source other than the original, will have been unfaithful to realities and will have done an unscientific job as did Dr. Ahmad Amīn, from Egypt, when he was studying the Shī‘ism. Trying to bring to light certain parts of the Shī‘ah doctrine, he went to extremes presenting the Shī‘ism as a manifestation of the Judaism in Islam and a fabrication by ‘Abd Allāh ibn Sabā. This is certainly a false claim, one that the Shī‘ahs hate and against which their scholars have written books, an example of which is ‘Allāmah Muhammad Husayn Kāshif al-Qitā’s comprehensive research work “Al-Shī‘ah wa Usūluhā”.[2]

An example will illustrate the problem. The Wahhābīs have said, in their books, that according to the Shī‘ahs, Imām ‘Alī (‘a) is in the clouds, and the Shī‘ahs will not help any of his sons to rise up unless the Imām (‘a) himself calls out from the sky inviting people to help that person. Evidently, this is an idea of the extremists who believe that Imām ‘Alī (‘a) is in the clouds whence he talks to the people. Having studied the issue and discussed it with eminent Shī‘ah ‘ulamā’ in the city of Qum, their greatest center of learning, I realized that they resent these words. What they take as certain is the issue of which the Sunnīs, too, are sure: “When Imām Mahdī, may God’s blessing be upon him, whose rising is accepted by both the Sunnīs and Shī‘ahs, reappears, an angel, high up in the sky, will call out his name inviting people to help him.” The Wahhābī writing, as you see, cannot be trusted.