A critical refutation of the claim: “Tashayyu appeared only after Siffin and was only political”
The article’s main argument is:
“Shiism did not exist in the time of the Prophet ﷺ. The Prophet ﷺ only called to Tawhid and unity. Early Shia were merely a political party supporting Ali against Muawiya. Later Shia doctrines were inserted later.”
This argument is weak because it is built on a false separation between Tawhid and obedience to the Prophet ﷺ regarding Ali and Ahl al-Bayt.
Nobody says the Prophet ﷺ came only to preach Ali. The Prophet ﷺ came with Tawhid, Qur’an, Sunnah, prayer, zakat, jihad, justice, and obedience to Allah. But if the same Prophet ﷺ gave Ali and Ahl al-Bayt a special religious status, then accepting that status is not sectarianism. It is obedience to the Prophet ﷺ.
The word “Shia” is Qur’anic Arabic, not a later invention.
Arabic:
وَإِنَّ مِن شِيعَتِهِ لَإِبْرَاهِيمَ
Translation:
“And indeed, among his Shia/followers was Abraham.”
Reference:
Qur’an, Surah As-Saffat 37:83
Arabic:
هَٰذَا مِن شِيعَتِهِ وَهَٰذَا مِنْ عَدُوِّهِ
Translation:
“This one was from his Shia/followers, and this one was from his enemy.”
Reference:
Qur’an, Surah al-Qasas 28:15
So the word “Shia” simply means follower/supporter. The word itself is Qur’anic Arabic. Therefore, attacking the word “Shia” as if it is suspicious or foreign is already weak.
The article itself admits that tashayyu as love/support of Ali existed before Siffin.
The article says:
Arabic:
لا مانع أن يوجد التشيع بمعنى الميل والمناصرة والمحبة للإمام علي وأهل بيته قبل ذلك
Translation:
“There is no problem in saying that tashayyu, in the meaning of inclination, support, and love for Imam Ali and his Ahl al-Bayt, existed before that.”
This is a huge admission.
Because Shia are not saying that the full later institutional sect-name developed on day one. The real point is that the root of tashayyu is love, support, loyalty, and attachment to Ali and Ahl al-Bayt.
The article admits this meaning could exist before Siffin. So its own argument becomes weaker.
The Prophet ﷺ gave Ahl al-Bayt a special religious status in Sahih Muslim.
Hadith al-Kisa:
Arabic:
خَرَجَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ غَدَاةً وَعَلَيْهِ مِرْطٌ مُرَحَّلٌ مِنْ شَعْرٍ أَسْوَدَ، فَجَاءَ الْحَسَنُ بْنُ عَلِيٍّ فَأَدْخَلَهُ، ثُمَّ جَاءَ الْحُسَيْنُ فَدَخَلَ مَعَهُ، ثُمَّ جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ فَأَدْخَلَهَا، ثُمَّ جَاءَ عَلِيٌّ فَأَدْخَلَهُ، ثُمَّ قَالَ:
إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا
Translation:
“The Prophet ﷺ went out one morning wearing a black cloak. Hasan came and he admitted him under it, then Husayn came and entered with him, then Fatimah came and he admitted her, then Ali came and he admitted him. Then he said: ‘Allah only intends to remove impurity from you, O Ahl al-Bayt, and purify you completely.’”
Reference:
Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2424, Book of the Merits of the Companions, Chapter: Virtues of the Household of the Prophet ﷺ.
Sanad:
Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah / Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Numayr → Muhammad ibn Bishr → Zakariyya → Mus‘ab ibn Shaybah → Safiyyah bint Shaybah → Aisha رضي الله عنها.
Point:
This is not Shia exaggeration. This is Sahih Muslim. Ali, Fatimah, Hasan, and Husayn were singled out by the Prophet ﷺ under Qur’an 33:33. This is religious status, not politics.
The Prophet ﷺ publicly reminded the Ummah about Ahl al-Bayt at Khumm.
Arabic:
وَأَنَا تَارِكٌ فِيكُمْ ثَقَلَيْنِ، أَوَّلُهُمَا كِتَابُ اللَّهِ فِيهِ الْهُدَى وَالنُّورُ، فَخُذُوا بِكِتَابِ اللَّهِ وَاسْتَمْسِكُوا بِهِ
ثُمَّ قَالَ:
وَأَهْلُ بَيْتِي، أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي، أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي، أُذَكِّرُكُمُ اللَّهَ فِي أَهْلِ بَيْتِي
Translation:
“I am leaving among you two weighty things. The first is the Book of Allah, in it is guidance and light, so hold fast to the Book of Allah and adhere to it... Then he said: And my Ahl al-Bayt. I remind you by Allah regarding my Ahl al-Bayt. I remind you by Allah regarding my Ahl al-Bayt. I remind you by Allah regarding my Ahl al-Bayt.”
Reference:
Sahih Muslim, Hadith 2408a, Book of the Merits of the Companions.
Sanad:
Zuhayr ibn Harb / Shuja‘ ibn Makhlad → Isma‘il ibn Ibrahim Ibn ‘Ulayyah → Abu Hayyan → Yazid ibn Hayyan → Zayd ibn Arqam رضي الله عنه.
Point:
The Prophet ﷺ did not say this at a private family gathering. He said it publicly at Khumm. Therefore, loyalty and concern for Ahl al-Bayt is not a later political invention.
Love of Ali is part of iman in Sahih Muslim.
Arabic:
وَالَّذِي فَلَقَ الْحَبَّةَ وَبَرَأَ النَّسَمَةَ، إِنَّهُ لَعَهْدُ النَّبِيِّ الأُمِّيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ إِلَيَّ أَنْ لَا يُحِبَّنِي إِلَّا مُؤْمِنٌ وَلَا يُبْغِضَنِي إِلَّا مُنَافِقٌ
Translation:
“By the One who split the seed and created the soul, it is the covenant of the unlettered Prophet ﷺ to me that none loves me except a believer, and none hates me except a hypocrite.”
Reference:
Sahih Muslim, Hadith 78, Book of Faith.
Sanad:
Abu Bakr ibn Abi Shaybah → Waki‘ / Abu Mu‘awiyah → al-A‘mash → Adi ibn Thabit → Zirr → Ali رضي الله عنه.
Point:
If love of Ali is a sign of iman and hatred of Ali is a sign of nifaq, then Ali’s status is not merely political. It is connected to faith itself.
This single Sahih Muslim hadith refutes the claim that attachment to Ali was only a political party issue.
The Prophet ﷺ declared Ali’s Mawla status.
Arabic:
مَنْ كُنْتُ مَوْلَاهُ فَعَلِيٌّ مَوْلَاهُ
Translation:
“For whomever I am his Mawla, Ali is his Mawla.”
Reference:
Jami‘ al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 3713, Virtues of Ali ibn Abi Talib.
Sanad:
Muhammad ibn Bashshar → Muhammad ibn Ja‘far → Shu‘bah → Salamah ibn Kuhayl → Abu al-Tufayl → Abu Sarihah or Zayd ibn Arqam → Prophet ﷺ.
Grading:
Al-Tirmidhi said:
هَذَا حَدِيثٌ حَسَنٌ غَرِيبٌ
Translation:
“This hadith is Hasan Gharib.”
Point:
Even if Sunnis and Shias debate the exact meaning of Mawla, the Prophet ﷺ still gave Ali a special public status. That is not “later politics.”
Ali’s side at Siffin cannot be reduced to “just politics.”
Sahih al-Bukhari records the Prophet ﷺ saying about Ammar ibn Yasir رضي الله عنه:
Arabic:
وَيْحَ عَمَّارٍ، تَقْتُلُهُ الْفِئَةُ الْبَاغِيَةُ، عَمَّارٌ يَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَيَدْعُونَهُ إِلَى النَّارِ
Translation:
“Alas for Ammar! He will be killed by the rebellious group. Ammar will invite them to Allah, and they will invite him to the Fire.”
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 2812, Book of Jihad.
Sanad:
Ibrahim ibn Musa → Abd al-Wahhab → Khalid → Ikrimah → Ibn Abbas / Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri رضي الله عنهم.
Historical fact:
Ammar was killed at Siffin while fighting on Ali’s side.
Point:
The article says the early Shia were only a political party supporting Ali’s opinion against Muawiya. But Sahih al-Bukhari says Ammar was calling the other side to Allah, while they were calling him to the Fire.
So Ali’s side had religious and moral weight. It was not simply “two equal political opinions.”
The article misuses Qur’anic unity verses.
The article quotes verses like:
Arabic:
وَاعْتَصِمُوا بِحَبْلِ اللَّهِ جَمِيعًا وَلَا تَفَرَّقُوا
Translation:
“Hold firmly to the rope of Allah all together and do not divide.”
Reference:
Qur’an, Surah Aal Imran 3:103
We accept this verse.
But unity does not mean ignoring the Prophet’s instructions.
If the Prophet ﷺ says:
Remember my Ahl al-Bayt.
Love of Ali is iman.
Ali is Mawla of whoever I am Mawla.
Ali is to me like Harun was to Musa.
Then following these instructions is not division. Rejecting or minimizing them is the real problem.
The “Ali and his Shia” reports are not the foundation, but they still matter historically.
Tafsir al-Tabari records under Qur’an 98:7:
Arabic:
أَنْتَ يَا عَلِيُّ وَشِيعَتُكَ
Translation:
“You, O Ali, and your Shia.”
Reference:
Tafsir al-Tabari, under Surah al-Bayyinah 98:7.
Sanad:
Ibn Humayd → Isa ibn Farqad → Abu al-Jarud → Muhammad ibn Ali.
Grading note:
This chain is weak/disputed in Sunni hadith standards, so I do not use it as decisive proof.
But the point remains:
The phrase “Ali and his Shia” exists in Sunni tafsir literature. It is not a modern invention.
The stronger proof is not this weak report. The stronger proof is Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, and Tirmidhi.
The article’s logic would also damage Sunni labels.
The article says: “Names do not exist before the groups.”
Fine.
But then be consistent.
The formal label “Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama‘ah” was also historically developed later as a group identity. Does that mean Sunnah itself did not exist in the Prophet’s time?
Of course not.
Likewise, the formal label “Shia” may have become more visible after Saqifah, Jamal, Siffin, or Karbala. But the root of tashayyu — loyalty, love, support, and attachment to Ali and Ahl al-Bayt — existed in the Prophet’s own teachings.
The development of a label does not disprove the Prophetic root of the principle.
The article tries to make “early Shia” only political, but Ali was not merely political.
Ali was:
The one included in Hadith al-Kisa in Sahih Muslim.
The one whose love is iman and hatred is nifaq in Sahih Muslim.
The one declared Mawla in Tirmidhi.
The one compared to Harun in Sahih Muslim and Bukhari.
The one whose side included Ammar, whom Bukhari says would be killed by the rebellious group.
So supporting Ali was not like supporting a normal political candidate. It had religious meaning.
The Ibn Saba claim is not a serious explanation for the origin of tashayyu.
Anti-Shia polemicists often say:
“Shiism came from Abdullah ibn Saba the Jew.”
But the detailed historical stories about Ibn Saba and the early fitnah rely heavily on Sayf ibn Umar, who was severely weakened by Sunni rijal scholars.
Abu Hatim said:
متروك الحديث
Translation:
“Abandoned in hadith.”
Abu Dawud said:
ليس بشيء
Translation:
“He is nothing.”
Ibn Hibban said:
يروي الموضوعات عن الأثبات
Translation:
“He narrates fabricated reports from reliable narrators.”
Ibn Hajar said:
ضعيف الحديث
Translation:
“Weak in hadith.”
References:
Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa al-Ta‘dil, vol. 4, p. 278.
Al-Mizzi, Tahdhib al-Kamal, vol. 12, p. 324.
Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-Tahdhib, vol. 2, p. 144.
Ibn Hajar, Taqrib al-Tahdhib, entry of Sayf ibn Umar.
Point:
You cannot build the origin of an entire Islamic school on reports transmitted through a narrator whom Sunni scholars call abandoned, weak, and unreliable.
Shia sources themselves reject Ibn Saba.
Rijal al-Kashi records:
Arabic:
حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ قُولَوَيْهِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي سَعْدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا يَعْقُوبُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ وَمُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عِيسَى، عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي عُمَيْرٍ، عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبَا عَبْدِ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ يَقُولُ وَهُوَ يُحَدِّثُ أَصْحَابَهُ بِحَدِيثِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ سَبَأٍ وَمَا ادَّعَى مِنَ الرُّبُوبِيَّةِ فِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، فَقَالَ: إِنَّهُ لَمَّا ادَّعَى ذَلِكَ فِيهِ اسْتَتَابَهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ فَأَبَى أَنْ يَتُوبَ فَأَحْرَقَهُ بِالنَّارِ
Translation:
“Muhammad ibn Qulawayh narrated to me: Sa‘d ibn Abdullah narrated to me: Ya‘qub ibn Yazid and Muhammad ibn Isa narrated to us, from Ibn Abi Umayr, from Hisham ibn Salim, who said: I heard Abu Abdullah عليه السلام speaking to his companions about Abdullah ibn Saba and what he claimed of lordship regarding Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib. He said: When he made that claim about him, Amir al-Mu’minin عليه السلام asked him to repent, but he refused to repent, so he burned him with fire.”
Reference:
Rijal al-Kashi / Ikhtiyar Ma‘rifat al-Rijal, vol. 1, p. 323, report no. 171.
Sanad:
Muhammad ibn Qulawayh → Sa‘d ibn Abdullah → Ya‘qub ibn Yazid and Muhammad ibn Isa → Ibn Abi Umayr → Hisham ibn Salim → Imam Ja‘far al-Sadiq عليه السلام.
Point:
Shia sources present Ibn Saba as a rejected ghali extremist, not as the founder of tashayyu.
Final conclusion
The article’s conclusion is:
“Early tashayyu was only a political party and not religious.”
This is misleading.
The correct conclusion is:
The word Shia is Qur’anic Arabic and means follower/supporter.
The formal group label may have become more visible after the Prophet ﷺ.
But the religious root of loyalty to Ali and Ahl al-Bayt is found in the Prophet’s own words.
Sahih Muslim, Sahih Bukhari, and Tirmidhi prove Ali and Ahl al-Bayt had special religious status.
Therefore, supporting Ali was not merely politics.
Ibn Saba was a rejected extremist, not the founder of loyalty to Ahl al-Bayt.
So yes, the label “Shia” may have developed historically.
But the foundation of tashayyu — love, loyalty, support, and attachment to Ali and Ahl al-Bayt — is rooted in Qur’an and Sunnah.
Saying “early Shia were only political” is an oversimplification.
Saying “tashayyu has no Prophetic root” is false.
Saying “Shiism was invented by Ibn Saba” is polemics, not scholarship.
Did Tashayyu Begin Only After Siffin as a Political Movement?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...