ভূমিকা

Shiavault - a Vault of Shia Islamic Books Explanation to the Belief of Mahdism in Shi'a Imamia Division of Groups ====================== Regarding the Imam after the martyrdom of Imam Hasan Askari a man by the name of Nou Bakhati had written a book under the title “Freq Al-Shia” (sects of Shia). This man says strange things never heard before nor will be heard anymore. A few examples of his findings: After the martyrdom of Imam Hasan Askari the Shia divided into groups and sects.

They split into fourteen sects although it is not a fact he says. His book gives a wide range of sections, groups, and divisions. As one goes further into this book he sees that the word Group cannot be applied at all since there was none. A sect cannot be called a sect since that sect did not exist at all. A division cannot be named a division since there were not one or two persons who differed or said anything different.

But all such trifles and superfluous conjectures have gone a great deal to give bulk to the book. In what times they existed; he does not say. What were the names of those divisions or sects or groups; he himself knows not because he does not say. How long did they remain in their difference? Why didn’t their group or their division gain ground so as to attract followers? Who was their leader or chief? All these and such questions remain without answer. There is nothing real in the hook.

The great scholars Sheikh Mufeed and Sheikh Akbar Tusi have rejected the existence of divisions. They replied in “A story of Nou Bakhti” it was “Al- Fosool Al-Mukhtara” (The selected chapters). In a book by Sheikh Mufeed he says in its second volume, “There is no sect, no group in existence.

In our times till the year 372 there has been no sect other than the twelve Shia Imamiah.” This is an introduction for our readers to form a background for themselves, for their own judgment or opinion because the writer has brought forward Nou Bakhti’s book in his argument. There are books written about nations, creeds, and so on. But these books were written under a prejudice of exaggeration and not on fact.

Whatever one sees in print does not mean it has authority behind it therefore be accepted. History can not show any trace of any of those sects. No date can be fixed as to when; no location can be pointed to as to where; then the very debate on it is of no sense nor of any use discussing. Probabilities do not become facts.