web analytics

Featured Posts

Did all the Companions of The Holy Prophet become apostate... Question: There are narrations in Shia books that all companions had become MURTAD (apostate) after the Holy Prophet (pbuh) except three. What is the Shia’s belief about it? (Imam) Abu Ja'far [as]said:...

Read more

The Iranians Gave The World The True Spirit Of Christmas... Unfortunately, most American Christians have been duped by the Jewish controlled media into believing that the greatest threat to their survival and that of their most "precious ally", the ursurping...

Read more

SABROSKY : Endgame In The Syrian Crisis   Obama’s “interesting times” (in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse) are upon him. For two decades, the US has been working its way around the Middle East, attempting to crush Israel’s...

Read more

Everything Is A Lie: The Deliberate Intent To Deceive... editors note:  A tradition from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.s) declares, "Beware I inform you regarding the greatest of the mortal sins:  1. Associating anything with Allah, 2. Disobeying parents and...

Read more

Christians In The Arab World: A Guide As Islamists come to power across much of the Middle East, Christians are facing growing persecution   Editors Note: The author(s) of this article, unwittingly, did a great service to the cause...

Read more

Did all the Companions of The Holy Prophet become apostate except three?

Category : World Affairs

Question: There are narrations in Shia books that all companions had become MURTAD (apostate) after the Holy Prophet (pbuh) except three. What is the Shia’s belief about it?

(Imam) Abu Ja’far [as]said: The people were people of apostacy after the Prophet save three. I said (the narrator): Who are these three? He said: al-Miqdad bin al-Aswad, Abu Tharr al-Ghafari and Salmaan the Persian….and that is the meaning of His saying: 3:144. Muhammad is no more than a Messenger: many were the Messengers that passed away before him. If he died or were slain, will ye then turn back on your heels?

Answer: Shias have some principles about their narrations. Shias do not announce that all narrations are true in all of their books of hadith.

One has to check the chain of narrators to determine if any hadith is trust worthy or not. Even if the chain of narrators seems fine but the contents of that hadith contradicts with Quran we must reject that hadith.  One should also  check to see if the narration is supported by the strength of history, logic and reason.  On must also check to see if that a narration can be supported by other sound before reaching a conclusion about it’s genuineness.

Shias do not have such belief at all that all the companions of Holy Prophet (pbuh) become apostate of Islam except three.  Some Sunnis erroneously reach this conclusion by themselves as part of their on-going attempts to discredit the entire institution of Shi’ite ideology and thus discourage others from undertaking an objective study of the truth as taught in the Shia School of Thought.

Even if we considered this narration to be true, it would contradict with other strong narrations that are universally accepted by all Islamic Schools of Thought.

We can safely say that during the famous, celebrated event at Ghadir e Khum, companions gave their oath of allegiance to Imam Ali, congratulated him with words acknowledging that Ali is their master after the Holy Prophet (pbuh).  (See Mishkaat, in the chapter virtues of Companions, Musnad of Ahmad bin Hunbal and others as sources of confirmation). Unfortunately, after the death of the Holy Prophet (pbuh), most of the companions failed to honor their oaths and thus became opponents or, at best, indifferent towards the Holy Prophet’s (pbuh) commandment to follow only Ali as your Khalifa and Imam after me.

Sheikh e Sadooq is said to have written a narration in his book AL-KHASAL chapter 12, siting that the 12 companions from Mohajreen and Ansar came to Imam Ali (as). They wanted to fight with Abu Bakr for usurping the Caliphate. Imam Ali stopped them for doing so. Instead, Imam Ali advised them to remind Abu Bakar about the Hadith of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) concerning the legitimate legitimate leadership of Imam Ali and condemn Abu Bakr’s illegal seizure of that office. Those companions whom Imam Ali (as) were Khalid Ibn e Saeed, Miqdad ibn e Aswad, Abbi ibn e Ka,ab, Ammar ibn e Yasir, Abu Zar Ghaffari, Soliman Farsi, Abdullah ibn e Masood, Buraida Aslami, Khuzaima ibn e Sabat, Sahal Ibn e Hanif, Abu Ayoub Ansai, Abul Haitham.

We want to mention another true narration from Imam Ali (as) that is recorded in the book Al-Khasal by Sheikh Sadooq (ra) page 639-640. There were 12,000 good companions praised by Imam Ali.

“Narrated Ahmed ibn ziad al-hamadani ra narrated Ali ibn Ibrahim ibn hashim narrated his father from ibn abi umair from hishem ibn Salem from abi abdilleh AS he said: the companions of rasool Allah (saww) were twelve thousand : eight thousand in medina and two thousand in Mecca and two thousand from “tulaqa”(those who became Muslim in “Fatah” mecca . There was no “qadri” or “morj’i” or “huroori” or “mutazili” or “people of opinion”

We have reported narrations from Imam Mohammad Baqir (as) and also Imam Jaafar e Sadiq (as) suggesting that no one can love Ahlalbait without loving the following 13 personalities among companions of the Prophet: Soliman, Abu zar, Miqdad, Ammar, Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, Hudhaifa Yamani, Abu Maitham, Abu Ayoub Ansari, Ebadah bin Saamat, Sohaib bin Hanif, Abdullah bin Saamat, Abu Saeed Khudari, Khuzaima bin Saamat (May Allah bless them all).  In addition, there is also a long list of faithful companions which is too lengthy to mention here.

In conclusion, we want to mention the following excerpt from a famous supplication of our beloved 4th Imam Zainul Aabideen (as) from the famous and authentic book, Sahihfa SajjadiyaThe Pslams of Islam, supplication number 4. This is very long supplication. We cannot paste all but still we are sharing some words of our holy Imam

“O God, as for the Companions of Muhammad (pbuh) specifically, those who did well in companionship, who stood the good test in helping him, responded to him when he made them hear his messages’ argument, separated from mates and children in manifesting his word, fought against fathers and sons in strengthening his prophecy, and through him gained victory; those who were wrapped in affection for him, hoping for a commerce that comes not to naught in love for him; those who were left by their clans when they clung to his handhold and denied by their kinsfolk when they rested in the shadow of his kinship;

Hopefully, this short commentary will be sufficient to dispel the disinformation about Shias declaring all of the companions of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) to be apostates except three.  It is nothing but false propaganda from the misguided leadership of Ahlul Sunnah. You have the obligation to do your own independent, objective research if you are truly interested in arriving at the truth.

The Iranians Gave The World The True Spirit Of Christmas Celebration

Category : World Affairs

Unfortunately, most American Christians have been duped by the Jewish controlled media into believing that the greatest threat to their survival and that of their most “precious ally”, the ursurping Jewish entity in the Middle East, is the Iranians.  This is a very sad commentary about those who claim to be the true followers of Jesus Christ.  In reality, they have unwittingly substituted their unquestioned faith and loyal devotion to the propaganda of their modern-day false deity for the immaculate,  life-saving guidance of the Jewish messiah.  The journey of the Three Wise Men from Persia bearing gifts to the purified, messianic, holy child born of his purified and holy mother, began the tradition of christmas that continues to impact the lives of countless people today.  Contrary to popular belief among Western parishiners, the Iranian Muslims, the ethnic descendants of the Three Wise Men, excercise a stronger belief in and exhibit more respect and profound love and reverence for Jesus and his mother Mary than do the majority of believers who proudly call themselves born-again Christians.  Contrast this noble example with the way those leaders whom Christ denounced in John 8:44They have nothing but utter contempt for both Jesus and his mother and refer to them in most filthy manner from the pages of their revered scriptures. Yet they are praised and given reverence to by many gullible Christians.  Their departure from Christ’s true teachings and their brazen acts of idolatry, born out of their unbridled reverence for the Synagog of Satan, have become the hallmark of the Christian Evangelical movement. Perhaps this is what compelled Jesus to proclaim in the New Testament, “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.  Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’  And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” Matthew 7:21-23.  The question of why Iran should be attacked can best be summed up in the words of writer and political commentator Mark Glenn.  On commenting on why the Jews want Iran destroyed, he observed that they, the Three Wise Kings from Iran, were (literally) the FIRST people to pay homage to Jesus Christ, the sworn enemy of Rabbinical Judaism and its political offshoot, Zionism.

Introduction: The Three Wise Men were always a part of the Nativity scene. Here is the story of Bible, as appeared in St. Matthew 2:1, about the visit of wise men to the new born Jesus:

In the time of King Herod, after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem, asking, “Where is the child who has been born king of the Jews? For we observed his star at its rising, and have come to pay him homage.” When King Herod heard this, he was frightened, and all Jerusalem with him; and calling together the entire chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born. They told him, “In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it has been written by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who is to shepherd my people Israel.'” Then Herod secretly called for the wise men and learned from them the exact time when the star had appeared. Then he sent them to Bethlehem, saying, “Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage.” When they had heard the king, they set out; and there, ahead of them, went the star that they had seen at its rising, until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw that the star had stopped, they were overwhelmed with joy. On entering the house, they saw the child with Mary his mother; and they knelt down and paid him homage. Then, opening their treasure chests, they offered him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to return to Herod, they left for their own country by another path.


This Bible story does not tell how many wise men actually came from the east nor does it mention their names or their method of travel. It is only assumed they traveled by horse and they could have easily traveled by foot. The Bible doesn’t claim these men to be kings. Their identification as kings in later Christian writings is linked to Old Testament prophesies such as that in Isaiah 60:3, Psalm 72:10, and Psalm 68:29, which describe the Messiah being worshipped by kings. This interpretation was however challenged by the Protestant Reformation.


The Conventional Version of the Bible Story: In the conventional version of the Bible story, the three wise men or magi (Magi is a term derived from Greek meaning a Zoroastrian priest) who were named as Gaspar (aka Caspar, Gathaspa, Jaspar, Jaspas), Melchior (aka Melichior, Melchyor), and Balthazar (aka Balthasar Bithisarea, Balthassar) started the gift-giving custom of Christmas by bringing gold, frankincense, and myrrh to the Christ child on Epiphany, the day on which the infant was presented. The three magi have been described not only as wise men, but also as Iranian kings or Persian priests or Iranian astrologers. It should be noted that the visit of the Magi is commemorated in most Western Christian churches by the observance of Epiphany, 6 January. The Eastern Orthodox celebrates the visit of the Magi on 25 December.


The Tomb of Three Wise Men in Iran: Marco Polo claimed that he was shown the three tombs of the Magi at Saveh south of Tehran in the 1270s. Marco Polo was a Christian merchant from the Venetian Republic who wrote the book of Il Milione, in which he introduced Europeans to the Middle East, Central Asia and China. In his book, he wrote that, “In Persia is the city of Saba, from which the Three Magi set out and in this city they are buried, in three very large and beautiful monuments, side by side. And above them there is a square building, beautifully kept. The bodies are still interred there, with hair and beard remaining”.


The Bible Story in Persian Poetry: As already noted, according to the Gospel of Matthew, the Magi found Jesus by following his star, which thus traditionally became known as the Star of Bethlehem. In his poem entitled as the Birth of Jesus Christ (in Persian: Milaad-e Isaa Masih), the late Iranian poet Mehdi Hamidi Shirazi (1914-1986) referred to that star and the visit of three Wise Men to the new born Jesus. The Persian Text of that poem reads as follows:

میلاد عیسی مسیح و دیدار سه ایرانی

به فرمان خدا از دختر بکر

هویدا گشت نوری ، شادی افزا


درخشان کوکبی از زادن او

به بام آسمان ، برداشت آوا


چو ایرانی بدید آن اختر پاک

فراز چرخ چون خورشید عذرا


دوید آن سو، که آنجا شاد و خندان

بدارد هدیه های خویش اهدا: دکتر مهدی حمیدی شیرازی

Originally published online on 23 December 2010


Epilogues (Posted December 24, 2012):

1. The historian of Christianity, Sebastian Brock, has said: “It was no doubt among converts from Zoroastrianism that… certain legends were developed around the Magi of the Gospels”. And Anders Hutgård concluded that the Gospel story of the Magi was influenced by an Iranian legend concerning magi and a star, which was connected with Persian beliefs in the rise of a star predicting the birth of a ruler and with myths describing the manifestation of a divine figure in fire and light (View here).

2. It should be also noted that there is not any significant supportive evidence for the claim that those Magi were Chinese. It sounds also nonsense as other sources on the Internet claiming the Magi were Arabs and traveled by camels!


Merry Xmas & Happy New Year!


Brown, R. E. (1977): The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in Matthew and Luke. London: G. Chapman, UK

Powell, M. A. (2000): “The Magi as Wise Men: Re-examining a Basic Supposition”, New Testament Studies. Vol. 46

Saadat Noury, M. (2010): Various Articles on the History of Iran and First Iranians.

Wikipedia Encyclopedia (2010): Online Articles on Biblical Magi.



Manouchehr Saadat Noury, PhD


SABROSKY : Endgame In The Syrian Crisis

Category : World Affairs


Obama’s “interesting times” (in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse) are upon him.

For two decades, the US has been working its way around the Middle East, attempting to crush Israel’s enemies, with Syria and Iran bringing the two remaining outliers in late 2013.

But No one anticipated the huge groundswell in public opposition to an attack on Syria by the US virtually alone, and that opposition spanned the political and partisan spectrum. Every single senator and representative was deluged with emails, phone calls & office visits by their constituents, sometimes running 10-to-1 against the resolution.

The latest and most dangerous phase in the Syrian civil war began with a chemical attack on a residential neighborhood of Damascus during the night of August 21, 2013. That a chemical attack of some kind took place was quickly self-evident. What was not were the casualties, ranging from an estimate in the low hundreds to a preposterously precise 1,429 – a number the US government seemed to accept without reservation, even though none of the groups reporting it could substantiate. 

Opening Moves

What was interesting was the rapidity with which the US and many other Western governments accepted without question the complicity of the Syrian government in the attack, even though no one to my knowledge has ever indicated just why that government –- which is finally winning its civil war -– would effectively snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by doing something so self-defeating, for no discernible military or political purpose.

At least as interesting was the unwillingness of the US and its allies to officially consider the possibility that one or more of the rebel groups (there being so single unified rebel command) might itself have made the attack, simply to precipitate outside intervention and avert defeat. Unlike the Syrian government, which had nothing to gain and everything to lose from such an atrocity, the rebels –- all of them –- had everything to gain and nothing to lose. Compounding this exercise in official self-deception or duplicity (the latter more likely) was a great reluctance on the part of official Washington to acknowledge publicly the brutal character of all sides in this civil war, and the unpleasant fact that the Syrian opposition included elements of Al-Qaeda –- supposedly our great enemy in the misbegotten “global war on terror” for twelve years, but in Syria the indirect recipient of weapons, training and other assistance from the US and others.

Middle Game

The crisis quickly assumed a military nature, with many in the Obama administration and others declaring that this atrocity required some type of punitive action for a variety of reasons. As at the beginning, the action was consistently attributed to the Syrian government without a shred of hard evidence of that, other than the identification of the chemical used as Sarin, something readily available on the clandestine international arms market as well as from many intelligence agencies – just as (e.g.) the US CIA provided sophisticated “Stinger” SAMs to Afghan insurgents fighting the USSR. The principal military option discussed was using naval and air forces to launch cruise missiles against selected Syrian targets from a distance, presumably in a limited strike (whatever “limited” means in a practical sense) without any need for ground troops to be introduced. President Obama’s speech on July 31, 2013 declaring both his intention to strike Syria and his referral of that action to the Congress for its endorsement, seemed to set everything in motion.

Something of this type had been in the making for some time, awaiting only a useful provocation, real or contrived. For two decades, the US has been working its way around the Middle East, beating up on Israel’s enemies, with Syria and Iran bringing the two remaining outliers in late 2013. In this context, an attack on Syria would be sort of a “consolation prize” for Israel, which wants both Syria and Iran hit, but would like more to see Iran taken out –- an attack on Syria perhaps opening the way for one later on Iran. It seems that the Obama administration expected active support from a number of traditional US allies, especially in NATO. And Obama genuinely appears to have thought that Congressional approval would be a “done deal,” once he had the leadership of both parties in both houses on board — and he got that quickly — with AIPAC doing a full-court press telling the Hill just how important it was to Israel that the US do this.

Things didn’t work out that way. Britain’s Parliament voted against participating in a military strike against Syria, thus depriving the US of its most steadfast past ally and the legitimizer of so many of its military interventions. Only a handful of other countries expressed support for the US position. Russia and China adamantly opposed the use of force against Syria and dismissed what the US government called “evidence” as “nonsense,” which made it effectively impossible for the US to go to the United Nations for support.

I have nonetheless been intrigued by the White House’s portrayal of its refusal to go to the UN Security Council because that body is supposedly hamstrung by a Russian veto, for three reasons: First, it would not be only Russia but also China, with Britain abstaining and only France backing the US, among the permanent members. Second, even without the veto, the US would lose — and lose badly — in a straight majority vote, given the declared positions on an attack on Syria voiced by the 10 non-permanent members of the UNSC. And third, the US position is something between laughable and pitiful, given the dozens of times it has used its own veto to shield Israel — many times on 14-to-1 votes, with all of our allies against it. The US position is essentially akin to a thief crying out, “I wuz robbed!”

Even worse news for Obama came from the public and from Capitol Hill. No one anticipated the huge groundswell in public opposition to an attack on Syria by the US virtually alone, and that opposition spanned the political and partisan spectrum. Every single senator and representative was deluged with emails, phone calls & office visits by their constituents, sometimes running 10-to-1 against the resolution. The leadership in the Congress had all said that a vote on this resolution was a “conscience issue,” which meant that there would be, and could be, no attempt to impose party discipline (even as that is defined loosely in the US). And an especially devastating public relations blow came on September 5, 2013, when the New York Times carried a front-page story of rebel atrocities with a graphic picture, and the major TV news services covered that story all day and the next – making “are those the barbarians Obama wants us to support?” a compelling and all but unanswerable question.

End Game 

The effect of this decision, plus an unusual degree of public input into the process and adverse media publicity, is crushing to Administration hopes for Congressional support. The latest “head count” on Capitol Hill has a majority (246) of the Representatives voting “no” or leaning that way with 161 more undecided, and only 217 votes “no” are needed to kill the Syria war resolution. The Senate has 33 “no” or leaning that way and only 25 in favor, with 42 undecided — but their 41 “no” votes suffice to keep the measure from being put to a vote.

Moreover, this has also turned unintentionally into a test case of how Americans and the Congress react when the dynamic shifts from “this [Iranian nuclear ambitions, Syrian chemical munitions — forget for now the veracity of both] is bad and something needs to be done” to “it is bad and we alone, or mostly so, will deal with it.”

Both Israel and its lobby here cannot like what is unfolding, because absent UN endorsement and a cobbled-together coalition, a large majority of the public and therefore members at least of the House of Representatives are saying, in effect, “hell, no, we won’t go.”

One way or the other, what happens will be settled within two weeks or less. A “no” from the Congress after the very public position Obama has taken would be politically catastrophic for him. This is not a parliamentary system. If he acceded, he would stand as a fool; if he attacked anyway, he would be impeached and his agenda in ruins.

Complicating things internationally, within 10 days, if news reports are correct, several additional Russian warships — including a powerful missile cruiser named the Moskva — will reach the Eastern Mediterranean, as will at least one Chinese warship now transiting the Red Sea (there are some reports of others, including at least one submarine, but I cannot say for certain). Probably the only possible “out” for Obama is a Russian proposal for Syria to relinquish its chemical munitions under international supervision, which might be the straw Obama grabs to avert other and (for him politically, at least) far worse alternatives.

So here is how it is shaping up as we enter the end game. Obama simply has to avoid a crushing “no” vote in the House of Representatives and nothing better than stalemate in the Senate, or his political goose is cooked & carved for dinner the remainder of his time in office.

So does he declare defeat in advance of the vote? I doubt it. Does he accept the Russian proposal? I hope so, because the only alternative left is a strike before Congress votes, and especially before Russian and Chinese warships assemble off Syria, after which he cannot attack without courting absolute disaster or humiliation if those warships simply shot down the incoming cruise missiles, which would have to pass over the warships en route to targets in Syria — and what could be more humiliating to Obama than to order a missile strike launched that then went missing? So any attack would have to come on or immediately after the 9/11 memorials to rally support or at least to mute opposition, a dicey proposition at best. Obama’s “interesting times” (in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse) are upon him.


Dr. Alan Sabrosky (Ph.D, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran and a 1986 graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net