Shias and Sunnis, The Difference

Question ?

Doctor kaleem siddiqui of london claims that the differences between shia and muslims are only secondary. The shia are not out of the fold of islam. On the other hand , doctor alawi syays that the shia are out of fold of islam because of their belief that all the sahabah (radiallahu anhu) (except for a few) are kaafir and that the differences between them and muslims are not secondary but fundamental. Based on the quran, it is necessary to regard the sahabah (radiallahu anhu) to be the best of the ummah and to believe that they are on haqq. Doctor siddiqui says that despite my being a siddiqui (descendant of hadhrat abu bakr siddiq (radiallahu anhu), i definitely consider iran to be the source of guidance. On the other hand doctor alawi says that despite my being an alawi ( descent of hadhrat ali “( radiallahu anhu )”, i consider all the sahabah to befitting of the title of “( radiallahu anhu )” and i believe that they all earned the pleasure of allah. I have this belief with regards to each and every sahabi that allah was pleased with him, and he with allah.

Between these two doctors of england , who is on haqq ? Please explain.

May you be rewarded.

Muhammad bilal, lancashire.

answer:

Our differences with the ithna ashari shia are on fundamental pronciples and not merely on secondary or practical aspects. Allamah taajud deen subki (777 a.h.) has fulfilled the responsibility of tacking this question many years ago. He says :

“the error of the mu’tazilah and shia is with regards to the clear-cut matters of islam and their difference with the ahlus sunnah is definite ( and not mere conjecture). 1

Because of their (shia) al-aqaa’idus sab’ah – seven basic tenets, the scholars have always considered them to be out of the fold of islam. The scholars did not remove them from the fold of islam – when were they ever in the fold of islam that they could be removed ? If a person is within the fold of islam , no one can remove him from it. Confession and accusation is one aspect and strictly adhering to kufr and admitting it is something else. In these diffferent cases , the rule will also change. The kufr beliefs of the shia have been confirmed by them time and again and they continue confessing them openly. The seven basic tenets on account of which the scholars have considered them to be out of the fold of islam are as follows:

Rejection of the belief that the present quran is free from any blemish (alteration, interpolation, omissions, etc.).

Rejection of the finality of prophethood (khatmun nubuwwah) in the sense that this divine chain of commissioned souls (prophets) has come to an end.

The belief that the imaam is superior the the prophets.

Rejection of the imaan of hadhrat abu bakr and hadhrat umar ( radiallahu anhu ). The fact that both of them are sahabis, both of them have acquired the pleasure of allah and his rasul sallaliahu alayhi wosallam and the fact that both of them are jannatis (dwellers of paradise) is definite (established by clear proofs).

Holding the belief of accusation (of adultery) against ummul mu’mineen hadhrat a’ishah radiallahu anho.

Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was not successful in his mission during his era

Allah’s promise of establishing a khilaafah that continued immediately after rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was not fulfilled.

If some of the ulama at any time condidered them to be muslims, then the reason for this is that the word “shia” has several meanings. Their definitions are different and so are the different groups of shia. In the first twelve centuries of islam, there was no different of opinion with regards to the ithna ashari shia. If at any time any of them rejected their accepted beliefs, then this was done through the principle of “taqiyyah “. This is something that is not unknown to any learned person (aalim).

Those scholars who have not studied the beliefs of the ithna ashari shia from their original source books and merely issue a fatwa after reading (the above-quoted) question, then such a fatwa cannot be considered to be valid with regard to them. Questions of this nature should be referred to those ulama who have made an in-depth study of the shiah, or , who have some knowledge of the original sources.

The answer to your question is that doctor kaleem siddiqi may be a siddiqi in the very same sense that he is from the progeny of muhammad bin abi bakr who had attacked hadrat uthman ( radiallahu anhu ) and who upon being put shame, retracted. As for doctor alawi, he must be really from the progeny of hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ) who, in following the path of hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ), always considered hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) as his guides and belove persons and even named his children after them.

Among the early scholars, the opinions of the following with regards to the shia can be considered to be reliable. These scholars are : imam abu hanifah rahmatullahi alayh, imam thauri rahmatullahi alayh, imam auzaa’ee rahmatullahi alayh, imam malik rahmatullahi alayh, imam layth bin sa’d rahmatullahi alayh, imam abu yusuf rahmatullahi alayh, imam shafi’ee rahmatullahi alayh, imam ahmad rahmatullahi alayh, imam tahawi rahmatullahi alayh and imam abul hasan ash-sha’rani rahmatllahi alayh.

The ithna ashari sect of the shia hadn’t been established till the. This sect established itself after the disappearance of its twelfth imam (who was born in 256 a.h. and disappeared in the year 260 a.h.). They formulated their sect in the beginning of the fourth century hijri. Although the tafseer of ali bin ibrahim al-qummi (307 a.h.) . Which is the basis of this sect, was written at the end of the third century , it remained concealed until the middle of the fourth century. Thereafter , the student of ali bin ibrahim al-qummi , muhammad bin ya’qub al-kulayni (328 a.h.) , compiled the first book of hadith of this sect. Initially , this book also remained concealed later , it made its appearance.

In those days , shi’ism was known only from this aspect that few persons, under the influence of jews and sabeans, bore hatred towards all the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m. Because it has been established from the quran and other absolute proofs that the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m have earned the pleasure of allah and that they are the best of the ummah and the best of all eras (khayrul qureen), bearing any hatred towards them was always considered to be something that necessitated kufr.

From thet very beginning allamah sha’bee rahmatullahi alayh did not even consider them to be muslims. He did not take them out of the fold of islam. Instead , he used to say that when did these people ever enter islam that we can remove them from its fold ? They hadn’t entered islam considering it to be a true religion. From the very beginning , their goal was to create internal strife. Hafiz ibn taymiyyah rahmatullahi alayh (728 a.h.) quotes from allamah sha’bee rahmatullahi alayh:

” sha’bee said : ‘i warn you of those lead astray from among the ahlul bid’ah . The worst among them are the rawaafid. They did not enter islam on account of seeking the truth, nor out of fear of allah, but on account of their enmity and hatred towards the muslims.” 2

In this book , tanbeehul wulaat wal hukkaam, hadrat allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh (1253 a.h.) quotes from allamah abus sa’ud (982 a.h.) the fatwa of imam abu hanifah , imam sufyaan thauri and imam auzaa’ee rahmatullahi alayhim :

” if these people repent and enter islam , they will not be killed . Just like the other kuffaar , they will be forgiven after they repent.”

Based on this, the fatwa of imam abu hanifah rahmatullahi alayh : ” kill the unbeliever secretly because his repentance is not known, ” will mean that if you arrest him prior to him repenting , his repentance at that time will not be accepted and that punishment for disbelief will be meted out to him.

Imam malik (rm) has issued a fatwa in which he states that based on the quran , all those who bear any hatred towards the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m are kaafir. In the verse of the quran ” it fills the unbelievers with rage at them. ” (surah al-fath, verse 29), the reason for regarding the shia as kaafir is mentioned . Let alone the a’immah mujtahideen, even imam ibn hazm zaahiri rahmatullahi alayh (456 a.h.) has stated the same fact :

” the shia is a group which has treaded the path of the jews and christians in lying and kufr. The shia are certainly not muslims. 3

This is something that was uttered in the fifth century. Is there any uncertainty in it ? Is there any difference of opinion with regared to the kufr of the ithna ashari shia ? Imam malik rahmatullahi alayh has also issued a fatwa that if any wealth comes into the hands of the muslims as booty, the shia will not receicve any share of it . The famous maliki muhaddith and jurist, qadi iyaad maliki (524 a.h.), writes :

” imam malik says:’whoever has degraded any one of the companions of the prophet sallahu alayhi wa sallam has no claim in the booty. 4

What other reason could there be apart from the fact that such a person is not a muslim and therfore does not receive any share from the wealth of the muslims. When he issued this fatwa , none of his contemporary ulama, mujtahideen and students (such as imam muhammad and imam shafi’ee rahmatullahi alayhima) rejected this fatwa . Instead , one group of ulama openly supported him. Haafiz ibn kathir rahmatullahi alayh (774 a.h.) writes:

” a group of ulama agreed with him in this matter , may allah be pleased with all of them for this .5

At another place , allamah qadi iyaad rahmatullahi alayhi writes:

” we certainly regard such a person to be a kaafir who considers the entire ummah to be astray and all the sahabah to be kaafir.6

With regards to the sahabah, whose being jannatis has been established by tawaaturand certainty, allamah sarakhsi rahmatullahi alayh (483 a.h.) writes the following:

” whoever defames the sahabah is a heretic. He has cast aside the sheet of islam. If he does not repent, the treatment for him is the sword.” 7

Imam fahkrud deen razi razi rahmatullahi alayh (606 a.h) is a respected scholar of the sixth century. He also writes:

” the claim of the shia that additions, subtractions, alterations and interpolations entered the quran is such a belief that it renders their islam null and void.”8 (it is not correct to say that our previous scholars did not know about their beliefs regarding the quran).

The following with regards to rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has been established by tawatur:

He was successful in his mission and allah completed his favours upon him.

Truth prevailed in makkah and falsehood vanished. And the sovereignty of islam was established there.

People entered the religion of allah in large numbers.

This success did not cease with the demise of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Instead, it continued and allah’s promise of khilaafah was fulfilled.

The first three khulafaa’ (i.e. hadrat abu bakr, hadrat umar and hadrat uthman ( radiallahu anhu )m) were believers and they had enjoyed the full confidence of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

The fourth khalifah, hadrat ali al-murtada ( radiallahu anhu ), became a khalifah in succession to them and maintained his khilaafah on the basis of his predecessors.

Hadrat hasan’s ( radiallahu anhu ) handing over of the khilaafah to hadrat mu’aawiyah ( radiallahu anhu ) was done on the basis that the former considered the latter to be a muslim. He was not handing over the affairs of the muslims to any kaafir.

These seven factors constitute a part of the fundamental treasures of the muslims and they have been established by a consecutive and unbroken chain of narrators. Can any learned person have any doubt regarding the kufr of those who reject these factors unhesitatingly and hold the belief that after the demise of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam all the sahabah, apart from a few became murtad? Apart from this, isn’t the person who has a doubt regarding them (shia) being kaafir also guilty of having evil thoughts about the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m? You have learnt the opinion of the muslims of the sixth century in the words of allamah qadi lyaad rahmatullahi alayh. Now let us learn the opinions of the seventh century by haafiz ibn humaam rahmatullahi alayh (861 a.h). He writes:

” the person who considers hadrat ali to be better then the (preceding) three khulafaa’ is a bid’atee. If such a person rejects the khilaafah of hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) (which has been promised in the quran), then he is a kaafir.”9 (if this is the ruling with regards to such a person, what will the ruling be with regards to the person who considers hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ) to be superior than the previous prophets?)

Shaykhul islam haafiz ibn taymiyyah rahmatullahi alayh (728 a.h.) is a great scholar of the seventh century. He has written on each of the groups that are opposed to the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m. With regards to the shia, he has the following to say:

” there is no doubt in the kufr of the opinion that all the sahabah except for a few whose number does not even reach ten had become murtad, or that the general masses had all become faasiq. The reason for this is that such a person is rejecting that portion of the quran in which they (the sahabah) have been praised (this does not appear in one place but in several plaes in the quran). In fact, kufr has found a place in one who doubts the kufr of such kuffaar (i.e. the shia).” 10

Ibn taymiyyah rahmatullahi alayh quotes the following from qadi abu ya’la:

“all the jurists agree that it is kufr to speak ill of the sahabah if this (speaking) is considered to be permissible.”11

Let us now go to the eight century. The fatwa of imam malik ( rahmatullahi alayh ) is being echoed over here as well. The commentator of the quran. Hafiz ibn kathir ( rahmatullahi alayh ) (774. A.h.) writes:

“based on this verse, according to one narration , imam malik has passed a ruling of kufr on the shia because they bear malice towards the sahabah. He said this because the shia hate the sahabah. And whoever hates the sahabah is a kaafir, on thebasis of this verse. “12

This is not the evidence of any ordinary mufassir or jurist. Instead , it is the evidence of imam malik ( rahmatullahi alayh ) who is a mujtahid-e-mutlaq. His conclusion from this verse that those who bear enmity and malice towards the sahabah is a kaafir is a very fundamental and weighty conclusion.

The only reason for the shia being regarded as separate from the muslims and being the snemies of islam in the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries was that under the shade of malice towards the sahabah, they were enemies of the political power of the muslims. Just as the jews and christians hoped for the upheavel of the khilaaf, the shia from within the ranks of the muslims also hoped for this . They always looked for the opportunity to destroy the muslims in whcihever way possible. The shia assistant governor of the khalifa mu’tasim billah (656 a.h.) whose name was mu’ayyidud deen muhammad bin muhammad ali al-alqami , played a major role in the destruction of the khilaafah in baghdad . As a result of this invasion by the tartars, approximately i 600 000 muslims were martyred . Despite this , ibn alqami;s fervour of revenge did not subside. (for further details, refer to tarikh ibn khaldun, vol.3. P.537) .

Allamah taajud deen as-subki (777 a.h.) has the following to say with regards to ibn alqami :

” he was great scholar of arabicv literature and he was a rafidi shia. His heart was filled with hatred towards islam and the muslims.” 13

You can gauge by yourself the opinion of allamah subki ( rahmatullahi alayh ) with regards to the shia – are they muslims or are they enemies of islam ? This is the voice of the eight century .

Fthermore, hakim naseerud deen tusi (672 a.h), the author of tajreedul i’tiqaad 9the commentary of which is kashful muraad by allamah ibn mutahhir halli shi’ee) is the person who had ruled that the khalifah musta’sim should be killed . Concerning him ( naseerud deen) . Allamah subki ( rahmatullahi alayh ) alayh writes :

” naseer was from among the seveest persons against the muslims. 14

During the christian crusades in syris , the shia sided with the christians. Shaykhul islam haafiz ibn taymiyyah 9rah) writes :

“you will find them (the shia) helping the mushrikeen and ahlul kitaab against the muslims who believe in the quran . The people have experienced this several times in the past . They (the shia) helped the tartars against the muslims in khurasan, iraq, jazirah, syria and other places. They helped the christians against the muslims in syria, egypt and other places several times the greatest of which occurred in the fourth and seventh centuries . When the tartars 9under the leadership of hulagu khan) invaded the islamic lands and killed many muslims , the number of which is known only to allah , they (the shia) were from the severst of people in enmity towards the muslims and in aiding the kuffaar.” 15

Prior to this . Haafiz ibn taymiyyah ( rahmatullahi alayh ) had also written the following :

” in them you will find ignorance and oppression , especially in the shia , from among those who follow their passions and desires. They (the shia) are the greatest in ignorance and oppression . They bear enmity towards the closest friends of allah after the prophets, i.e. The first and foremost from among the muhajireen and ansaar and those who followed them in good , may allah be pleased with them and they with him . They (the shia) befriend the kuffaar and the munaafiqeen from among the jews, christians, polytheists, various types of heretics like the naseeriyyah, isma’eeliyyah and other groups that are astray.”

Now you decide for yourself that when such people sided openly with the kuffaar, who utter words of hatred all the time against the first muslims, i.e. The sahabah, when the muslims have to face any great danger from the kuffaar, they side with the kuffaar, when the historical destruction of the muslims at the hands of the tartars came into effect on account of their help, when the khilaafah at baghdad was wiped out through them – then based on all this , can any thinking person have any doubt or hesitance in the kufr and heresy of these people ? No. Now take this verse of the quran and decide for yourself whether they could be considered to be muslims :

” and whoever from among you (muslims) befriends them , he is considered to be of them .” 16

Haafiz ibn taymiyyah ( rahmatullahi alayh ) was not unaware of the fact that these people also held the belief that the present quran has certain additions and omissions. This despite the fact that upto this time their hatred and malice was diredted more towards the sahabah (( radiallahu anhu )m). Ibn taymiyyah ( rahmatullahi alayh ) writes in another book of his :

” the person whose belief is that many verses have been reduced from the present quran 9by humans) and that they have been concealed ….. And those who have gone futher and hold the belief that after rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, apart from a few , all became renegades or that most of the muslims became faasiq , then there is no doubt in the kufr of such a person . This is because he is rejecting the several verses of the quran wherein allah mentions that he is pleased with them (the sahabah) and wherein he praises them . In fact , the person who doubts the kufr of these people (the shia) , his kufr itself has been established . This is because the crux ofthis opinion is that all those who conveyed the quran and sunnah to the ummah were either kuffaar or faasiq , allah says : ” you are the best ummah created for the people “. And we known that the best ummah is the first era . When they regarded all of them to be kuffaar or faasiq , it would mean that they regard this verse to mean : ” you are the worst ummah” and that those people of the ummah who remained are also evil – then it has become obviously apparent that this belief in the religion of islam is nothing but kufr . Therefor you will find that generally , the heresy of those who hold this belief will be apparent . You will find the general heretics always concealing themselves under their 9the shia ) garb .”17

Now you see for yourself that the beliefs of the shia which ibn taymiyyah ( rahmatullahi alayh ) has considered to be kufr , are they the beliefs of the ithna ashari shias or not ? If these are really are really the belief of the ithna ashari shia, isn’t there consensus on their kufr ? Hasn’t the evidence of kufr been established against them ? Son’t they hold each of these kufr beliefs ? The ithna ashari scholars are also not unaware of this bitter reality that this verse : ” you are the best ummah created for the people ” has become a big joke in their circles . It is obvious that the person who reaches such a level of mockery towards the quran as the ithna ashari beliefs have reached with regards to this verse , can in no way remain a muslim . And that the person who regards them as muslims despite all this , has also established kufr for himself .

The belief of the ithna ashari shia with regards to the present quran

The celebrated ithna ashari scholar of the sixth century , abu mansur ahmad at-tabresi, writes :

“if i were to show you everything that has been removed from the quran , all the interpolations that have taken placeand all the words that have been changed ; then it would become very lengthy and that which taqiyyah prevents from exposing will become exposed .” 18

After quoting the above –mentioned words of allanah tabresi , the scholar of the eleventh century , mulla hasan kaashaani , writes :

” after studying all these ahadith and the various narrations of the ahlul bayt , it becomes established that this quran which is in front of us is not complete as it had been revealed to muhammad sallallahu alayh wa sallam . Instead, it contains many things which are contrary to what allah had revealed , many things which have been changed and interpolated , and many things which have been removed . Among the things which have been removed is the name of ali several times and the word aal muhammad at several places. At many places the namesof the hypocrites were also mentioned 9 these have been removed) and several other things ( have been removed0 . Futhermore , its arrangement is not in accordance with that acceptable to allah and his messendger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. This has been mentioned by ali bin ibrahim at-lqummi.” 20

The ithna ashari shia belief with regards to distortions in the quran cannot be denied in any way . The four early scholars of their claimed that the quran is correct 9and intact in its present form) . However , this claim has been rejected by all the shia scholars right from kulayni (328 a.h.) upto and including khomeini . They all hold the belief that there are omissions in the present quran and that it is definitely not in accordance with the prophetic sequence. If someone does not accept this on the basis of taqiyyah , then this is another matter . The famous ithna ashari scholar of al-jazaa’ir . Tayyib al-musawi writes from najaf ashrai :

” apart from these four , it is apparent from all the early scholars and muhaddithin, and the latter scholars are with then – that there are definitely omissions in the quran . Some of these scholars are : al-kulayni , al-ayashi , an-nu’mani . Furaat bin ibrahim . Ahamd bin abi taalib at-tabres ( the author of al-ihtijaaj ) , al-majlisi, as-sayyid al-jazaa’iri, al-hurr al-aamili, allamah al-futuni and as –sayyid al-bahrani. In order to substanitate their , they have produced verses and narrations which cannot be overlooked .”21

Allamah tayyib al-musawi al-jazaa’iri has enumerated those senior names who hold the belief that interpolations have taken place in the quran and who are of the opinion that there are omissions in it. Allamah khomeini considers all these scholars to be his reliable elders.

The belief that after the demise of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam the entire ummah went astray.

In giving the reasons with regards to the kufr of the ithna ashari shia , haafiz ibn taymiyyah ( rahmatullahi alayh ) has also mentioned the shia belief of astrness of the entire ummah of muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam . This ummah has been referred to as ” the best ummah” in the quran whereby testimony is given to the sincerity of the people. However , the shia are of the opinion that all the people went astray . They do this in thefollowing manner : the most respected muhaddith of their . Mulla muhammad ya’qub (328 a.h.) explains this belief in the following manner :

” after rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, all the people , apart from three persons, had become apostates. ” (furu-e-kaafi . Kitaabur raduah. P. 115. Published in lucknow.)

Thereafter , he writes the names of these three persons : miqdaad bin al-aswad, abu zarr ghifari, salmaan al-faarsi ( radiallahu anhu ) .

Is this “the best ummah” which became murtad after rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam ? Now look at the mockery and the ridicule with which the ithna ashari shia display towards this verse : ” you are the best ummah created for the people “. With regards to this verse, their translator of the quran, mulla maqbool dehlawi writes:

Someone read the verse ” you are the best ummah” in the presence of imam ja’far saadiq . So he said : ” can that ummah be the best ummah when it killed ameerul mu’mineen and hasanuayn ?” the person who was reciting said : ” may i be sacrificed for you ! ( tell me) how was this verse revealed ? ” he replied : ” it was revealed in this manner : ” you are the best imams created for the people .” (translation of mulla maqbool dehlawi. P75.)

The ithna ashari commentator , ali bin ibrahim al-qummi (307 a.h.) also writes the same thing :

” so abu abdullah said : ‘can that ummah be the best ummah when it killedameerrul mu’mineen and hasan and hysayn ?” the person who was reciting said : ‘may i be sacrificed for yo ! (tell me) how was this verse revealed ?” he replied : ‘it was revealed in this manner : you are the best imams created for the people. ” ( tafseer qummi, vol. 1. P. 110, beirut.)

(in orther words) how can they be the best ummah ? Can that ummah be the best ummah which kills the imams ? Definitely not . It is actually the worst ummah . ( nastaghfirullah)

Hadhrat ali’s (radiallahu anhu) opinion with regards to the belief in the astrayness of the entire ummah

The opinion of hadhrat ali-al-murtada 9rz) with regards to the belief in the astrayness of the entire ummah is even worse than considering him to be astray ( ma’azallah). This is an open conflict with the quran . When the khaqaarij insisted that hadhrat ali (radiallahu anhu) was wrong in accepting the arbitration and they openly announced that he was astray , he left his personal feelings aside and made a very emotional appeal to them by saying that on account of me , you should not label the entire ummah as being astray . Why are you regarding the entire ummah to be astray because of me ? . Theastrayness of the entire ummah is not any minor sin.

Can that ummah which allah has referred to as ” the best ummah” fall into the pit of astrayness ? Can the question of khilaafah go contrary to the will of prophethood ? At least ponder over the direction you are taking . In addressing them ( the khawwaarij), he said :

” if you are not prepared to accept anything except that i have erred and that i have gone astray from the staight path , then why are you redarding the general ummah of muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam as being astray on acccount of me ? On account of my mistakes , why are you considering the ummah of muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam to be kuffaar ?.” ( nahjuk balaaghah , vol, p. 242. Egypt)

We can gauge from this that accrding to hadhrat ali (radiallahu anhu), the belief in the astrayness of the entire ummah is more dangerous than considering him to be astray and that because this belief is in direct conflict with the verse ” you are the best ummah “, this is therefore definite kufr .

After the belief in the distortions in the quran , this is the second belief which has effected a definite dividing line between imaan and kufr between the muslims and the ithna ash’ari shia. The belief in the astrayness of the entire ummah is no less a crime than the belief in the distortion of the quran . After these two beliefs, they have also fallen very deeply in the belief that the status of the twelve imams is superior and greater than the prophets.

” the group that believes that certain verses have been omitted in the quran or that certain verses have been concealed or that after rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam the entire ummah , except for a few persons, had become murtad or that they had become faasiq – then there is no doubt in the kufr of such a group . In fact , kufr will be applied to those wh doubt in their kufr as well. ” ( as-saarimul maslul. P. 586)

The belief in the distortion of the quran and the astrayness of the entire ummah are in themselves cause of kufr. However, the shia have been populary portrayed from the aspect of their ridiculing the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m. We find that aspect causes a greater uproar as opposed to the other causes of kufr. Their scholar, mulla baaquir majlisi, who is considered to be one of the respected and senior ulama by allamah khoomeini writes:

“after every salaat, the following dua should be made: ‘o allah! Curse abu bakr, umar, uthman, mu’aawiyah, a’ishah, hafsah, hind and ummul hakm.’

All ithna ashari literature is filled with this type of curses. The muslims of the first era made many endeavours in praise of the sahabah in opposition to these curses. In those days, the other belies of theirs were not so well known. But it is incorrect to say that their beliefs with regard to the distortion of the quran was unknown to the ulama, in the eighth century haafiz ibn taymiyyah rahmatullahi alayh clearly mentions this beliefs of theirs. We learn from this that this kufr belifs of thiers was known to the senior ulama of that time. It is true that in the presence of the general masses among the muslims they considered the shia to be enmies on account of the malice that they bore towards the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m. Until then, their other kufr beliefs has not come to the fore. At that time they were not considered to be a muslims only on the basis that they rejected the fact that allah will pleased with the sahabah because this elevated status of the sahabah and their being ” the best ummah” are considered to be part of the mutawaatiraat of the islam and rejecting the mutawaatiraat of islam is considered to be kufr , therefore they were also labelled as kaafirs . It is also for this reason that they are considered to be the most bitter political enemies of the muslims and are considered to be the agents of the jews and christians.

Side by side with this, their seven basic tenets were making their appearance gradually and this fact was becoming more well known that these people hold the belief that distortions took place in the present quran. Until now, their books were not fully exposed to the muslims. Apart from a few senior ulama, even the general ulama did not know much about them.

This was the situation of the shia from the fourth to the eighth centuries. Now let us go to the ninth century. Let alone ridiculing and labelling the sahabah as kaafir, those who did not believe in the superiority of hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) were also not considered to be muslims in those days. Shaykhul islam haafiz ibn hajar asqalani (852 a.h.)writes:

” the person who holds such a belief is not form the ahlus sunnah. In fact, he is not even from the ahlul imaan.” (i.e. he is not considered to be a muslims). (fathul baari. Vol.14. P.152).

All the ulama are are of the opinion that the person who speaks evil of the sahabah will be lashed. Some of the malikies are of the opinion that such a person should be killed. Some of the shafiees do not consider this fatwa to be general. Instead they have applied it specifically to hadhrat abu bakr and hadhrat umar (( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) . In other words , the person who speaks evil of these two sahabies will deserve to be killed . Qaadi husayn has also quoted these two opinions . Allamah subki rahmatullahi alayh has also supported this opinion that the person who labels these two sahabies as being kaafir definitely does not remain a muslim . Haafiz ibn hajar asqalani rahmatullahi alayh writes :

” subki has fully supported the fatwa of kufr with regards to the person who considers hadhrat abu bakr and hadhrat umat radiallahu anhuma to be kaafir. And likewise such a person is a kaafir if he regards any other sahabi to be a kaafir regarding whom rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has informed that he is a believer or a jannati – and this information has come to us through tawaatur . The reason for this is that if such a person is not considered to be a kaafir , this would amount to making rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam a liar .”

It is obvious that making rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam a liar amounts to rejectiong the kalimah ” muhammadur rasulullah.” rejecting anyone or anything of islam which has been established by absolute proofs actually renders one’s kalimah null and void . And this is absolute kufr.

In order to grasp the full reality of the shia, these nine centuries are not sufficients . It was towards the end of the tenth century and the beginning of the eleventh century that these people came into the open and their seven basic tenets no longer remained behind the veil of the academic level .

Let us look at the fatwa of the famous scholar of the tenth century allamah abus sa’ad (982. A.h.) . He had issued this fatwah when he was quesioned by the uthmani khalifah of that time . Allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh has quoted this entire fatwa in his works. The question was : could fighting the shia be considered to be a jihad or not ? Will those who die while fighting against them be considered to be martyrs or not ? In answer to this , he writes :

” fighting against them is jihaad-e-akbar. The person from among us who dies while fighting against them is a martyr. Because of their disobedience to the imam30, these people (the shia) are traitors. And due to several others reason, they are kaafirs. They are also out of the fold of the 73 different islamic groups. This is becausethey have opted for all that kufr and astrayness which is a conglomeration of all those groups. Their (the shia) kufr is not stagnant on the basis of just one kufr. Instead, it is increasing gradually. Among their acts of kufr is that they always despise and ridicule the shariah. Based on all this , the ulama of every era have unanimously agreed upon the permissibility of killing them. They have also agreed upon the fact that the one who doubts their kufr is also a kaafir. There is no doubt that fighting against them is more important than fighting against all the other kuffaar. There is also no doubt that the person who is kikked in fighting against them is a martyr.”31

Futher on he also writes the following :

“the radical shia , who are regarded to be kaafir , never shift away from their distorted beliefs. Together with this , they also read the kalimah shahaadah and ( to a certain extent) also follow the rules of the shariah such as fasting and salaat . Despite this , they are kaaafir ( and not muslims ) . “32

According to the ahlus sunnah , the khilaafah is part of the furu’aat ( secondary things) and not the usul ( fundamentals) . It is actually a practical organization ( of affairs) . The concept of government is a constitutional affair . However , believing in the khilaafah of hadhrat abu bakr and hadhrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) is not on the basis of it being a consitutional affair. Believing in them to be muslim personalities is fard on the muslims . Their being sahabahs , their imaan, their islam , and their piety and purity has been established from rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam through tawaatur . Futhermore , the entire ummah has consensus ( ijmaa’) with regards to their khilaafah . This consensus reaches the stage of qat ‘ tyyah . Therefore , rejecting it is kufr . Based on this , rejecting the khilaafah from the khilaafah point of view is not kufr . But rejecting it because of hadhrat abu bakr and hadhrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) is kufr . Hadhrat mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayh ( 1014 a.h.) cosiders rejection of the khilaafah of hadhrat abu bakr and hadhrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) on this basis to be kufr . He writes :

” if anyone rejects hadhrat abu bakr and hadhrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) in being the khalifahs of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, he would be considered to be a kaafir . The reason for this is that their khilaafah was established through consensus of opinion without any dispute. ” 33

Labelling all the sahabah as kaafir is another distinct reason for regarding the shia to be kaafir . This is because it has been established from the quran that the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m have attained the pleasure of allah . Hadhrat mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayh writes :

” let alone the entire ahlus sunnah wal jamaa’ah , they ( the shia) hold the belief of kufr with regards to most of the sahabah . So they ( the shia) are kaafir through consensus of opinion without any dispute. ” 34

At another place he writes :

” similarly , we can say with certainly that the fanatical shia are kaafir on the basis of their statement that the ” sinless ” imams are superior to the prophets and messenger. This is absolute kufr .35

From here we also learn who the fanatical shia are . They are not only those who utter obscenities against the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m . Instead , those who regard their imams to be superior to the previous prophets and messengers are also fanatical shia . And this is not any disputed kufr – it is absolute kufr . Hadhrat mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayhi a scholar of the tenth century . When he issued this fatwa of kufr , no one opposed him . Everyone unanilously agreed with him .

This is not the only reason for labelling them kaafir . From among the seven basic tents , their belief with regards to the distortion of the quran is also a reason for their kufr . Mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayh writes :

” similarly , such a person is a kaafir who rejects the quran or a single letter of 39it , or changed something in it , or added something to it . ( in the sense that he believes that additions and omissions took place in it ).36

This is not confined to the letters and words alone . Instead , excesses in its present arrangement ( arrangement of words , verses , chapters ) and its injunctions ( distortions in the meanings of the quran ) is also a cause of kufr .

” excesses in the words and injunctions of the quran is also – kufr .”37

This is not the belief of a few shia only . Instead , all the shia are unanimous in this regard . Ibn hazm ( 456 a.h.) has already said this in the fifth century .

” it is the unanimous belief of all the shia , irrespective of whether they are old or new , that the present quran has been changed . ( it is their belief that ) additions have been made to it , omissions have also been made to it . And many parts have been changed .”38

This is the voice of the fifth century with regards to the shia belief of distortions in the quran . The book of their first senior muhaddith , mulla muhammad bin ya’qub al-kulayni ( 329 a.h.) , al-kaafi , made its appearance in the fourth century . In the fifth century , the ulama of islam found each and every shia to be a rejector of the quran . Now you see for yourself , is this belief in the distortion of the quran disputed among them or is it a unanimous opinion ? In those days , the ithna ashari shia beliefs were known in this very manner that they do not believe in the present quran . The explanation of kitaabul fasl illustrates that in those days this belief of their was well known and that no other aalim of deen had a contradictory opinion in this mas’alah . Nor did any aalim of deen hesitate in regarding the belief n the distortion of the quran to be kufr .

We have been continuously hearing this voice from the fifht to the tenth centuries . The above mentioned quotations from sharh shifaa’ and sharh miskkaat of mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayh amply illustrate the fact that right untill the end of the tenth century , the world of islam held on firmly to the opinion that the shia belive the present quran to be distorted and altered . It is obviously apparent that those who do not belief in the quran were never ever considered to be muslims. It is also an indisputable fact that there is only one quran and not two . And that only one is the present quran . There is no such thing as another quran which it was revealed and that such a quran is concealed in a certain cave . Such a belief can mever be of any muslim . If together with their belief in the distortion of the quran , we had to add their doctrine of imaamat 39and their doctrine of astrayness of the entire ummah. 40 ; then which aalim can give them any place in islam ?

In sharh shifaa , mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayh has included their doctrine of astrayness of the entire ummah with those kufr beliefs which are considered to be absolute kufr . Every truth-seeking aalim has to opt for this stand with regards to the ithna ashari shia . It seems that the shia doctrine of distortion of the quran had become quite well known in the tenth century . It had also become well known that the shia hold the belief that after rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam , the entire ummah had gone astray . Mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayh writes :

“similarly , we definitely regard such a person to be a kaafi who says something which results in making the entire ummah astray and all the sahabah kaafir . Similarly , such a person will also be considered to be a kaafir by the ahlus sunnah wal jamaa’sh if he considers a few sahabah to be kaafir .”41

As for that person who considers all the sahabah to be kaafir , there should be no doubt whatsoever in his kufr . This is because he is going contrary to the explicit text of the quran . When allah said : ‘ the early and foremost from the muhajireen and ansaar’ and he said : ‘ allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged their allegiance to you ( o muhammad) under the tree … ‘ the explanation of this is that these verses are explicit . So any false interpretation which has no basis from the traditions nor on the basis of intellect , cannot render it null and void .” 42

” we do not label all the ahlul bid’ah and the ahlul hawaa as kaafirs until they commit an act of absolute kufr and not when they commit something that is not kufr in itself but it exigents kufr . In this case we do not label them kaafir . This is the correct opinion because the exigency of something does not necessarily mean that it would definitely occur .”43

” you should know that uttering obscenities against the sahabah is haraam. It is from among the major atrocities. According to our mazhab and the mazhab of all the scholars, such as person should be reprimanded. Some of the malikis say that he should be killed. Qadi iyaad says that uttering obsecenities against any of them (the sahabah) is from the major sins. Some of our ulama have stated that the one who utters obscenities against hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) should be killed. In allamah ibn nujayam’s book, al-ashbaah wan nazaa’ir, in kitaabus siyar, it is stated that the taubah of a kaafir is accepted in this world and in the hereafter.however those who have became kaafir on account of uttering obscenities against the prohet sallallahu alayhhi wa sallam and abu bakr and umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) or one of them,or on account of involving in magic or on account of atheism even though such a person may be a woman; then in all these cases if the person is captured prior to making taubah, his taubah will not be accepted. Uttering obscenities against hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar radiallahu or cursing them is kufr. If a person gives preferance to hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ) over them, such a person is considered to be a bid’atee. This is also written in al-khulasah.”44

This is the voice of the tenth century. Thereafter, the shia came out even more into the open. From the tenth to the fourteenth centuries their explicit kufr beliefs became even more exposed. During all these times, the ulama if the ahlus sunnah remained united against them and none of them gave the shia any place inn the fold of islam.

From the fourth to the ninth centuries, the shia remained slightly concealed with their kufr beliefs. During this time, they were considered to be enemies of muslims. Whenever they found the opportunity, they devastated the political power of the muslims. With regards to those times, hadrat allamah anwar shah kashmiri rahatullahi alayh writes:

“the destruction of mostof the islamic states took place at the hands of the shia.

May allah disgrace them.”45

Towards the end of the tenth century, the shia came out into the open. Now they began pouring their hatred against the ahlus sunnah. In mentioning the agony of that century, mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alahy writes:

“the shia who made their apperance in our time.”

On one hand they made their apperance and on the other hand it was the wisdom of allah ta’ala that the mujaddid of the eleventh century be such a person who waves the flag of imman malik’s rahmatullahi alahy fatwa and clearly announces that the shia are not muslims. Consequently, allah raised mujahid and mujaddid of the eleventh century in the form of hadrat shatkh ahmad sarhindi rahmatullahi alahy (1034 a.h.) (popularly known as mujaddid alfe thani). He openly announced and categorically stated that the shia are kaafir.

“there is no doubt whatsoever that hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) are amoung the senior sahabah. In fact, they are the most senior. Regarding these two persons to be kaafir or lowering their status will status will necessitate kufr, atheism and explicit astrayness.”46

In other words, there is no doubt whatsoever in the kufr, atheism and astrayness of the person who considers them (abu bakr and umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma )) to be disbelievers or reduces their status in any way. Shaykh abdul haq dehlawi rahmatullahi anayh (1152 a.h.). He did not oppose this stand of hadrat mujaddid alfe thani. Instead, he fully agreed with him.

The mujaddideen puify the deen from all the filth and grime which the people of desires, apostates and bid’atees add into the deen. The mujaddid of the time purifies the deen of all this filth. History bares this testimony to the fact that the mujaddid of the tenth century, mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayh (1014 a.h.) and mujaddid of the eleventh century, hadrat mujaddid alfe thani rahmatullah alayh (1034 a.h.)of the twelfth century, hadrat imam shah wali allah muhaddith dehlawi rahmatullahi alayh (1239 a.h.) have all done sterling work in this regard. Whenever you wish to learn about the shia, look at them in the light of these four centuries. When hadrat shah adbul aziz rahmatullahi alayh was writing this book tuhfah ithna ashariyyah in delhi aganisst the shia, nuri (1320 a.h.) was writing his book faslul fi tahreef kitaab distortions have taken place in the quran.

Most of the shia scholar of iran also made their apperarance in these times and the book of the shia made their full apperarance in these time as well. Muhammad bin ali musa (1009 a.h.), qadi nurullah shaushtari (1019 a.h.), zaynud deen bahrani (1021 a.h.), mir muhammad baaqir daamaad (1041 a.h.), muhammad bin hussan al-aamili (1104 a.h.), mulla muhammad baaqir al-majlisi (1110 a.h.), mulla fayd kaashaani (1112 a.h.), ni’matullah al-jaza’iri (1112 a.h.) and muhammad diya tabrezi made their apperarance in those very times.

Towards the end of the eleventh century, the fataawa aalamgiri was prepared under the supervision of the aurangzeb aalamgir rahmatullah alayh (1118 a.h.) and constitutonally the shia were considered to be non-muslims. Thsy were not given a minority status because minorities receive legal protection. If you find any other ruling with regards of the shia in this regard then it is probably a fatwa and an academic opinion. But when this subject is found in the fataawa aalamgriri, then their being non- muslims is a judgement passed by the islamic state which later states could adopt without them going into futher deliberations. Fataawa aalamgiri is not a book written by one aalim. Instead, it is the result of the national assembly of all the ulama of that time.

“if a raafidi utters obscenities against shaykhayn47 or curses them (and we seek refuge in allah from this), then he is a kaafir… if he accuses a’ishah radiallahu anhoof adultery, he also becomes a kaafir. The person who refects the imaamat of abu bakr ( radiallahu anhu ) is also a kaafir. According to others, he is a bid’atee and not a kaafir. But the correct opinion is that he is a kaafir. Similar is the case of that person who rejects the khilaafah of umar ( radiallahu anhu ), according to the correct opinion (that such a person is a kaafir). This is how it has been mentioned in zaheeriyyah. It is wajib to sonsider them to be kaafir by them regarding uthman, ali, talhah and a’ishah ( radiallahu anhu )m to be kaafir. It is also wajih to refard the rawaafid to be kaafir on account of their belief in the return of the dead to this world… they are all out of the fold of islam and the rules that apply to them are the same as those that apply to renegades. This is how it has been mentioned in zaheeriyyah.”48

This is not only the judgement of india or of the indo-pak subcontinent. Rather it is the judgement of the entire islamic world.

The beliefs of the ithna ashariyyah concerning ummul mu’mineen hadrat a’ishah (radiallahu anha)

He hypocrites accused ummul mu’mineen hadrat a’ishah radiallahu anha of adultery. Allah ta’ala proclaimed her innocence in the quran:

“why do not the believing men and women, whenever such (a rumour) is heard, think the best of their own people and say: ‘this is an obvious falsehood.”49

Who are those who think good of their own people? The believing men and the believing women. Who can be the own people of the believing people except that person who is a veliever himself? Together with refecting this slander, the quran openly testifies to the imaan of ummul mu’mineen. Based on this, it is an indisputable islamic tenet that hadrat ummul mu’mineen is pure from this accusation. Therefore, the person who holds a belief that is contrary to this is definitely a kaafir and out of the fold of islam. The following is mentioned in fataawa shaami:

“there is no doubt in the kufr of that person who accuses hadrat a’ishah radiallahu anha (of adultery) or rejects the companionship of (abu bakr) as-siddeeq ( radiallahu anhu ).”50

Hadrat maulana mufti muhammad shafee’ rahmatullahi alayh writes:

“there days, the shia are generally those who frject the absolute facts of islam such as accusing hadrat a’ishah siddeeqah radiallahu anha of adultery or believe in the distortion of the quran, etc. Those who hold such beliefs are kaafir according to the consensus of the ummah (ijmaa’ul ummah).”51

The shia who hold this belief are known as ithna ashari shia. This is their belief with regards to hadrat ummul mu’mineen:

“when imam mahdi will appear, he will revive a’ishah so that he may institute the hadd52 against her and also take revenge on behalf of faatimah.”53

Haqqul yaqeen is a book of the ithna ashari shia. Allamah khomeini regards the author of this book, mulla baaqir majlisi, to be from among his senior and respected ulama. The word “hadd” is a juristic term. It is instituted for those crimes which have been pre-determined by islam. It is not left to the opinion of the judge. Revenge does not come into the hudud (pl. Of hadd) laws. Therefore, majlisi has mentioned it (revenge) with the conjunction “waw” (and). Punishing on the basis of hadd clearly demonstrates the ithna ashari belief of accusing hadrat a’ishah radiallahu anha of adultery. Based on what shaami has said previously, there remains no doubt in the kufr on the ithna ashari shia.

Now judge for yourself, after holding such a belief, are the ithna ashari shia, muslims or not? And that person who regards the ithna asharis to be muslim, how far away has he gone from the muslims!

Allamah ala’addeen rahmatullahi alayh (1088 a.h.), the author of durre mukhtaar, who was a great muhaddith, jurist,grammarian and orator of his time,writes the following:

“the person who utters obscenities against abu bakr and umar ( ( radiallahu anhu ) or defames them becomes a kaafir. His taubah will not be accepted. This is also the opinion of ad-dabusi and abul layth. The fatwa is also on this opinion. This is what has been authoritatively relied upon in al-ashbaah and the author has attested to this. Both of them say that this ipinion supports the view that the person who utters obscenities against rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam – his taubah will also not be accepted. This is what should be relied upon when issuing fatwas or passing judgements.”54

This voice of fataawa aalamgiri was heard right upto iran. This is not merely a fatwa but a judgement of an islamic state. The famous shia scholar from bahrain, ni’matullah al-jaza’iri (112 a.h.), commands a phenomenal status in inran. Now let us hear from him as to how the muslims regarded the shia:

“many people from among the ahlus sunnah consider the jews and christians to be better tean us. When we travel with them, they collect taxes from us.”55

Collecting the jizyah from the shia clearly illustrates that this (conflict with the shia) was not merely an academic matter. Instead, it was a governmental judgement whereby the muslims were affected by this wherever they were and the shia began to be regarded in this fashion that these people (i.e. the shia) also adhere to a far off religion similar to that of the jews and christians.

This image of the shia was found in the minds of the ahlus sunnah wal jamaa’ah even in the eleventh century. Whether it be hadrat mujaddid alfe thani rahmatullahi alayh (1034 a.h.), or aurangzeb aalamgiri rahmatullahi alayh (1118 a.h.) – they all were of the same opinion. Let us now go to the twelfth century. The contribution of the mujaddid of this century, hadrat shah waliyullah muhaddith dehlawi rahmatullahi alayh (1172 a.h.) , in this regard is a very rejuvenated contribution. His magnum ipus, izaalatul khifaa’ an khilaafatil khulafaa’ forms a foundation stone in this regard. After mentioning the different types of kuffaar, he writes that the person who follows islam outwardly, but explains certain fundamentals of religion that were contrary to that of the shahbah ( radiallahu anhu )m, contrary to those who followed them (i.e. the sahabh) and contrary to the consensus of the ummah, then such a person is a zindeeq. It is obvious that a zindeeq is more dangerous than an open kaafir. He writes the following in his commentary of muwatta:

“if a person testifies to islam outwardly but explains certain fundamentals of religion contrary to that of the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m, the taabi’een rahmatullahi alayhim and the consensus of the ummah, then such a person is a zindeeq.”

Shah waliyullah rahmatullahi alayh writes that the person who does not consider abu bakr and umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) to be jannatis despite there being mutawaatir ahadith (ahadith in which there can be no doubt whatsoever) in this regard, then such a person is a zindeeq.

Similarly, the person who testifies of the finality of prophethood but regrads the concept of prophethood to be continuous after rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam among the imams of the ahlul bayt and says that after rasulullah alayhi wa sallam there is the concept of imaamat, that the imamis commanded by allah and that he is sinless (ma’soom) – then in reality this is a rejection of the islamic concept of prophetbood and the person who holds such a belief is also a zindeeq.now listen to the judgement of shah waliyullah rahmatullahi alayh with regards to the shia:

” such a person is a zindeeq and all the latter scholars , irrespective of whether they be hanafis or shafi’ees , are of the opinion that the person who holds such a belief should be killed .”56

Shah waliyullah rahmatullahi alayh has written a book titled qurratul aynayn fi tafdeelish shaykhayn . Hw writes in this book that at persent the shia are of three types :

Ismailiyah , (2) imaamiyah , (3) zaydiyah :

” the ismailiyah are absolute zindeeqs . The imaamiyah are in reality rejectors of the finality of prophethood. And the zaydiyah are those who always bear enmity towards the muslims .”57

Further on he writes the following :

” among them you will also find the shia imaamiyah .

According to them , the quran has not been handed down to us by rliable narrators . This is because the narrationof the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m or that of the seven qaaris is not worthy of consideration according to them . The narration of the quran by their imams has not even been established . Similarly , they do not posses ahadith-e-marfoo’ah 9those ahadith that have come down to us from rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). As for khabar-e-mustafeed , they have no concept of this whatsoever . As for the principle of finality of prophethood , they have treaded the path of zandaqah .” 58

He write the following in tafheemaar :

” in their defination , the imam is a sinless personality who is muftaridut taa’ah (i.e. It is fard to obey him ) who has been appointed for the guidance for the imam to reveive minor wahi (revelation) . In reality , they reject the concept of finality of prophethood although they may verbally ( on the basis of taqiyyah) refer to rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam as the seal of prophets.”59

The definition of an imam which shah waliyullah rahmatullahi alayh has mentioned could also be seen in the book hayaatul quloob of mulla baaqir majlisi ( a shia scholar ) :

” the truth of the matter is that in his beauties, prerequisties and characteristics ; there is no difference betwwen a prophet and an imam .”60 ” in fact , imaamat is superior to prophethood . Allah ta’ala had given hadhrat ibrahim alayhis salaam the status of imaamat after prophethood .61

Note the lack of knowledge and understanding of mulla baaqir . Here the subject under discussion is that of imaamat ( i.e. The imaamat of hadhrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ) and the other eleven imams ) which is without prophethood. While mulla baaqir brings the imaamat that is with prophethood as a proof. So there is no concordance between his claim and his proof . On the academic level , the proofs of the shia scholars are generally of this nature .

From the above-mentioned quotations of hayaatul quloob , it becomes apparent that according to the shia the concept of imaamat is superior to that of prophethood . Based on this , according to them the meaning of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam being the seal of prophets is that the word ” nabi” is not used for an imam . If not all the characteristics of prophethood – the prophet being commanded by allah , him being sinless , him being a proof for the people , obedience to him being fard on the people , him being the one who conveys that which is halaal and that which is haraam – are found in an imam . When taking the concept of prophethood into consideration , it is apparent ( thet according to them ) prophethood is continuous . It is only in name that the chain of prophethood has come to an end . Mulla baaqir majlisi writes :

” solely in honour of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and because he is the deal of prophets , the word ‘nabi’ or its synonym cannot be applied to anyone else .”62

At another place he also writers the following:

“without doubt, the imamiyah (shia) reject the khilaafah of hadrat abu bakr ( radiallahu anhu ). It is mentioned in the books of jurisprudence that the person who rejects the khilaafah of hadrat abu bakr ( radiallahu anhu ) actually rejects the consensus of the ummah and becomes a kaafir.”

Allamah mahumd aalusi rahmatullahi alayh (1270 a.h.) has joined the thirteenth century to the second century by reiterating the fatwa of imam malik rahmatullahi alayh (179 a.h.) which he had issued with regards to the shia. This clearly portrays that during these thirteen centuries, the muslim ummah always had consensus in regarding those who bore enmity towards the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m as being kaafir:

This has not only come down to us form imam malik rahmatullahi alayh, prior to him, hadrat anas bin malik radiallahy anhu, who was the special assistant fo rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and whom imam abu hanifah rahmatullahi alayh (150 a.h.) had met, has clearly stated this. Qadi thanaa’ullah panipati rahmatullahi alayh (1225 a.h.) writes:

“this verse applies to the person who bears any hatred or anger towards the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu ).”65

Thereafter he writes the following:

“it is the consensus of the ahlus sunnah that all the sahabah were just (none form among them was a faasiq nor was anyone of then impious). All of them were protected (allah had forgiven all of them).”66

At another place he writes the following

“the mutawaatir texts of the quran and hadith are filled with praises of the sahabah. It is mentioned in the qurran that they all had love and affection for each other and that they were very unyedlding against the kuffaar. The person who believes that they bore enmity towards each other is actually refecting an explicit text of the bears anger or enmity towards them. The sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m are the bearers of the quran and they are the ones who handed it down to us. If a person rejects them, it is not possible for him to have iman on the quran and other fundamental tenets.”67

He also quotes the following form fataawa burhaani:

“a person becomes a kaafir by uttering obscenites aganinst hadrsat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ).”

This is the voice of the thirteenth century. Hadrat allamah ibnul aabideen ash-shaami rahmatullahi alayh (1253 a.h.) is also of the same era. He has considered the shia to be kaafir on the same basis that other ulama considered them to be kaafir. He writes:

“yes, there is no doubt in the kufr of that person who accuses hadrat a’ishah radiallahu anha of adultery, or rejects hadrat abu bakr ( radiallahu anhu ) .to being a sahabi, or believes in the divinity of hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ), or that jidra’eel made a mistake in bringing wahi (i.e. he did not convey it completely) or similar factors to these which constitute absolute kufr (for example the belief in additions and omissions in the quran) which is contrary to the quran. Yes, if such a person makes taubah (before he can convicted), it will be accepted.”68

Some people seem to think that allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh was not of the opinion that all the shia are kaafir. The reality of the situation is that he did not study them very closely. Nor had the original source books of the shia reached syria by that time. Allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh was under the influence of muhammad ali pasha. It is also correct to say that at that time shi’ism was considered to be illegal under turkish law. Initially, all that the turks knew about shi’ism was that there are a few persons who utter obscenities against the sahabah ( radiallahu anhum) and do not consider the khilaafah of hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu ) to be valid. All that they knew was that such persons call themselves the party of ali and nothing else. The other kufr beliefs of the shia – such as holding the belief that

The present quran is distorted, the imams of the ahlul bayt are superior to the previous prophets, rejecting the concept of finality of prophethood through their belief of imaamat, holding the belief that a person will return to this world prior to rising on the day of resurrection, the beief that rasulullah sallallahu alahyi wa sallam was unsuccessful in his mission, etc. Etc. – were not well known over their, nor were the seven basic tenets of the shia known.

Is it an act of kufr to utter obscenities against the sahabah ( radiallahu anhum )or not? This subject appeared before allamah shaami in the light of the subject on the khawaarij who used to utter obscenities against hadrat ali, hadrat mu’aawiyah and hadrat amr bin al-aas ( radiallahu anhu ) . The question arose as to whether the khawaarij could be called kaafirbecause of this error or not? Allamah ibn humaam’s rahmatullahi alayh fatwa was that the majority of the jurists and muhadditheen consider the khawaarij to be insurgents and not kaafir. However, some of the muhadditheen were of the opinion that they are kaafir.

Allamh ibn humaam rahmatullahi alayh issued a fatwa that uttering obscenities against any sahabi because of some doubt or misunderstanding is astrayness but not kufr. So if a person speaks ill of any sahabi on account of some external act, then such a person is a bid’atee and he is astray. This does not apply to those people who “burn” the moment they hear the name of a sahabi – such persons are undoubtedly kaafirs. “in order for the kuffaar to bear anger against them” is a verse in the quran. In no way did allamah ibn humaam rahmatullahi alayh infer that rejecting the fundamentals of islam is not kufr. In al-masaa’irah, he has very clearly explained that if a person rejects even a single fundamental of islam he does not remain a muslim.

This means that the person who doubts hadrat abu bakr ( radiallahu anhu ) being a sahabi of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and being his companion cannot remain a muslim. This is because his being a sahabi of rasullullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has been established from an explicit verse of the quran. Hadrat abu bakr’s, hadrat umar’s, hadrat uthman’s and hrat ali’s ( radiallahu anhu )m having attained the pleasure of allah and his rasul sallallahu alayhi wa sallam had been established by tawaatur and with certainty. Their being jannatis has also been established by tawaatur. Hadrat abu bakr’s ( radiallahu anhu ) leading the muslims in prayer during rasulullah’s sallallahu alayhi wa sallam illness and his taking up this position through the approval of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam is from among the mutawaatiraat of islam. Similarly, ummul mu’mineen hadrat a’ishah’s radiallahu anha chastity is present in the verses of the quran. The person who considers all these personalities to be kaafir or any one of them to be kaafir, then according to allamah ibn humaam rahmatullahi alayh he is definitely a kaafir and out of the fold of islam. This is because by him making such a statement he is actually belying rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. If allah and his rasul sallallahu alayhi wa alam state that a certain person is a jannati and that he has acquired the pleasure of allah and someone else states that such a person is a jahannami, then isn’t this rejection of the mutawaatiraat of islam ? Isn’t this kufr ?

The caution that allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh adopted was in the light of what allamah ibn humaam rahmatullahi alayh had mentioned in fathul qadeer. However, when the former saw the latter’s book, al-masaa’irah, wherein he mentioned that rejection of the explicit teachings of islam is kufr, then he too openly stated that such persons are kaafir who accuse hadrat a’ishah radiallahu anha of adultery, or reject hadrat abu bakr ( radiallahu anhu ) of being a sahabi, or believe in the distortions of the quran, etc.

If a person says that despite hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) being jannatis and despite them having acquired the pleasure of allah and his rasul sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, they were not the rightful khalifahs, that a junior prson can be given leadership in the presence of a senior preson just as rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam had appiinted zayd bin haarithah ( radiallahu anhu ) as the commander over the army of usaamah ( radiallahu anhu ) despite hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ) being present. So rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam had given the khilaafah to hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ) and he had announced this at a place called chadeer khum (although this never happened); then such a person is a bid’atee, he is astray and a rejector of the consensus of the sahabah ( radiallahu anhu )m. However, some jurists do not consider such a person to be a kaafir. Instead, they deliberate over the point as to whether such a person has rejected the explicit teachings of islam and the necessities of deen or not. Now if there is any differences of opinion in this regard and allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh does not consider such a person to be a kaafir, then in no way does this mean that he does not consider the ithna ashari shia to be kaafir.

All the reasons on account of which hadrat shah abdul aziz muhaddith dehlawi rahmatullahi alayh issued a fatwa wherein he stated that the shia are kaafir, these very same reasons are found in the lthna ashari shia. It is on account of these very reasons that allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh boldly states that they are kaafir. He never ever doubted these factors to be kufr. As for those shia regarding whom allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh stated that they are not kaafir, such a shia hasn’t been seen anywhere in the world. He has openly stated in fataawa shaami that the shia are kaafir:

“yes, there is no doubt in the kufr of that person who accuses hadrat a’ishah radiallahu anha of adultery, or rejects hadrat abu bakr ( radiallahu anhu ) of being a sahabi, or believes in the divinity of hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ), or that jibra’eel made a mistake in bringing wahi (i.e. he did not convey it completely).”69

Hadrat abu bakr and hadrat umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ) being sahabis has been narrated from rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam through tawaatur. And it is kufr to reject something that is mutawaatir. Mulla ali qaari rahmatullahi alayh writes:

“his being a sahabi has been established through tawaatur, for example abu bakr and umar ( ( radiallahu anhu )ma ).”70

We now wish to answer two questions:

Question: what proof is there that the ithna ashari shia accuse hadrat a’ishah radiallahu anha of adultery and that they do not believe in the quran’s disassociating her from this accusation (and proving her not guilty)?

Answer: mulla baaqir majlisi, a scholar who is highly respected by khomeini as being a mujtahid and a muhaddith, writes in his book, haqqul yaqeen which is a book of ithna ashari beliefs:

“when the representative of the aal muhammad (i.e. the twelfth imam al-mahdi) will appear, he will revive a’ishah and institute the hadd on her.”71

The hadd is applied for a few crimes. But he has not sufficed with this. He also adds that he will take revenge from her on behalf of hadrat faatimah radiallahu anha. How will this revenge be taken? This is actually a reference to mutilation of the corpse. It is extremely sad that even after the battle of jamal. Hadrat ali ( radiallahu anhu ) said: “her respect is the same as it had been previous to this.” (nahjul balaaghah) but the ithna ashari shia are such that their fire of revengte has not cooled as yet.

Question: if a person believes in the entire quran but rejects a particular verse and says that this particular verse was not present previously as the shia say with regard to the verse which mentions the chastity of the pure wives of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, then will the ruling of kufr be issued even on this single dispute?

Answer: yes, rejecting a single verse of the quran (irrespective of whether the actual verse is rejected, its position is rejected, or its meaning is rejected) is also kufr. Haafiz abu bakr jassaas raazi rahmatullahi alayh writes:

“the person who rejects a single verse of the quran has rejected the entire quran.”72

Qadi lyaad maliki rahmatullahi alayh (544 a.h.) says:

“and similar is the situation of that person who rejects the quran or a single letter of it. Or changes any word of it, or adds anything to it.”73

“the person who rejects the quran, i.e. the entire quran, a surah of it, or a verse of it.”74

The caution which allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh exercised in labelling the shia as kaafir applies only to those imaginary persons who cannot be practically found in the world. The ithna ashari shia have gone far beyond uttering obscenities against the sahabah and they nowhold all those beliefs which necessitate rejection of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam or belying him. Each of their seven basic tenets is explicit kufr. If a person holds the belief that the hadd should be instituted on hadrat a’ishah radiallahu anha, or does not regard hadrat abu bakr ( radiallahu anhu ) to be a sahabi but a hypocrite, or believes that additions and omissions took place in the present quran – then which aalim of deen cannot regard such a person as a kaafir ? Upto now, no reputable aalim of deen doubted the kufr of the lthna ashari shia. Nor did allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh have any doubt in this regard.

However, if someone says that allamah ibn aabideen shaami did not regard all shia to be kaafir but used to explicitly issude the fatwa of kufr against the ithna ashari shia, then this could be correct. The words of hadrat maulana anwar shah sahib rahmatullahi alayh have a similar import. Hadrat shah abdul aziz muhaddith dehlawi rahmatullahi alayh, a scholar who has studied the shia from very close quarters and who also studied their original sources, was of the opinion that all the shia are kaafir. Hadrat shah sahib rahmatullahi alayh writes:

“there was difference of opinion in labelling the shia as kaafir. Ibn aabideen (shaami) did not consider them to be kaafir. But shah abdul aziz considered them to be kaafir and he says: ‘the one who does not regard them to be kaafir hasn’t grasped their beliefs as yet.’…and my fatwa is that they are kaafir.”75

From this we can clearly gauge that there was no difference between these two personalities in the actual mas’ala itself. The difference was in the reality of the situation – in the sense that they were on different levels with regards to knowledge about the kufr beliefs of the ithna ashari shia. There is no doubt whatsoever that with regards to the shia, hadrat shah abdul aziz rahmatullahi alayh was more knowledgeable.

As for those shia regarding whom allamah shaami said that they are not kaafir, no where in the world are there such shia today. As for the islamaili shia and the ithna ashari shia, their kufr beliefs are not restricted to uttering obscenities against the sahabah. Instead, their beliefs comprise of rejection of the quran and explicit rejection of rasulullah sallallahu alalhi wa sallam. In the eleventh century, the judgement of the national assembly of ulama is found in fataawa aalamgiri. It clearly states that they are kaafir. You have already read this.

We have presented to you the cruz of the opinions of the thirteenth century from the writing of qadi thanna’ullah panipati rahmatullah alalhy (1225 a.h.), hadrat shah abdul aziz muhaddith dehlawi rahmatullah alalyh (1239 a.h.), hadrat allamah shaami rahmatullah alalyh (1253 a.h.) and hadrat allamah mahmud aalusi ramatullah alalyh (1270 a.h.) – the author of tafseer ruhul ma’aani. Now let us take you to the fourteenth century.

The fourteenth century was a ver important century in the indo-pak subcontinent. Many movements against the english rule came to the fore. Among these momements, there were many that were solely of the muslim. In order to raise this political leadership to a national level, many of them wanted to move forward without bothering about shia-sunni differences. Despite all these political necessities, in fact, despite this combined political effort; the reputable ulama of the ahlus sunnah always remained aloof from the shia in principle. They did not give any platform to the seven basic tenets of the shia. If they met anyone from the shia, it was merely for the purposes of reconciling his heart – that pershaps the truth will dawn upon him. At no time was his religious leadership compromised in the name of islam.

It is also in this century that mirza ghulam ahmad (1840-1908 c.e.) made his appearance in india. Under the influence of the british, he claimed to be the promised messiah and thereafter claimed prophethood. Having full knowledge that this qadianism is a seed planted by the british in order to fulfil their political aims, the sunnis and shia began working against qadianism at several places. This unity between sunni and shia was effected in order to fulfil their political aims and to work against the british. It was not on the basis that the sunnis regarded the shia to be muslims. At no time did the sunni muslims accept a person to be muslim if he upheld even a single belief of the seven basic tenets of the shia. From this background, if it was possible for the ahlus sunnah to adopt any leniency towards the ithna ashari shia, it would have been in this century. However, we see that despite political demands and expediencies, the ulama of this century were in total concordance with the judgement that was passed by the national assembly of the ulama under the auspices of aurangzeb aalamgir rahmatullahi alayh. Throughout the fourteen centuries of islam, no true aalim could raise the banner “sunnis and shia are brothers” . As for the masses, on account of their ignorance, they cannot be brought into this discussion.

The ulama who testified to the kufr of the ithna ashari shia in the first half of the fourteenth century and from among those who made a tremendous contribution in this regard in the latter half of the fourteenth century, is none other than hadrat maulana abdush shakoor lucknowi rahmatullahi alayh. His valuable works with regards to the shia, are an extremely reliable academic treasure of the ahlus sunnah wal jamaa’ah. The founder of the barelwi school of though, maulana ahmad raza khan wrote “raddur rafadah” (refutation of the shia) and fully supported the views of hadrat abdush shakoor rahmatullahi alayh.

The belief in faj’at is also a distinct cause of kufr

From among the many beliefs of the ithna ashari shia, the belief in raj’at also forms a fundamental belief. It is their belief that prior to the day of resurrection, the dead person has to come back into the world. The pious persons of the highest category will be brought of life again and their enemies will also be brought to life. Both these groups will come back into this world (raj’at) and the pious persons will take full revenge from their opponents. Mulla baaqir majlisi commences the second volume of his book, haqqul yaqeen, in the following manner:

“know that raj’at is from among the unanimous decisions of the shia, in fact it is from among the fundamental truths of the true mazhab. In other words, prior to the day of resurrection, during the time of hadrat (imam mahdi), there will be a group of pious persons who will be extremely pious, and a group of evil person who will be extremely evil…(the evil ones will be raised) in order to mete out worldly punishment and torment to them…and so that the shia can take revenge from them.”76

According to muslims, this belief is kufr. The ulama-e-haqq have been aware of this belief of the shia from the very beginning. The scholar of the fifth century, shaykh allamah abu shakoor muhammad bin abdus sa’eed shagheeb al-kabshi as-saalimi rahmatullahi alayh writes:

“the person who believes that ali, his children and his companions will return to the world and take revenge from their enemies – then this belief is kufr because he is rejecting the text (of the quran) and the day of resurrection.”77

The text of the quran is that there is no returning to this world, that qiyaamalis at the end of this world, and that it is the place of compensation. This world is not the place of return, it is the hereafter that we will return to.

In the above quotation, the belief in raj’at is regarded as a distinct cause of kufr. The person who holds such a belief is actually rejecting the mutawaaitrtexts of the quran and sunnah and is a kaafir. We learn from this that the ulama from those early times have been regarding this belief to be kufr. The following is mentioned in fataawa aalamgiri:

“it is wajib to consider the shia as kaafir on account of their belief in the return of the dead to this world.”78

These kufr beliefs of the shia are also being heard in our times.

Believing the imams to be superior to the prophets and messengers of allah is also a distinct cause of kufr

In his book al-hukumatul islamiyyah, khomeini writes:

“among the necessities of our mazhab (shi’ism) is that the status of our ( twelve ) imams is so elevated that neighter the close angels nor the prophets can attain it (that status).”79

The karramiyyah (a deviant sect) did not hold the belief of distortion of the quran nor did they believe in the continuity of divine messengership. However, solely because they considered certain auliyaa’ to be superior to the prophet, the ulama of islam issued a fatwa of kufr against them. We learn from this that to regard the imams, who according to muslims, can reach the status of auliyaa’ at most, to be superior to the prophets and messengers is in itself a distinct cause of kufr. This is not applied to the shia alone (but to the karramiyyah as well).

The mujaddid of the tenth century, hadrat mulla ali qari rahmatullahi alayh writes:

“a wali cannot reach the status of a prophet. This is because the prophets are: (1) sinless (ma’soom), (2) protected from an evil death, (3) honoured with revelation to the extent that their dreams are also revelations, (4) they are able to see angels, (5) commanded to propagate the injunctions (of allah), and (6) guiding the masses after being granted the great qualities of the auliyaa’. That which has been narrated regarding the karramiyyah that it is possible for a wali to be superior to a prophet is kufr, astrayness, heresy and ignorance.”80

It is extremely sad that khomeini considers this kufr belief to be a necessity of his mazhab. Now think for yourself how can the ithna ashari shia be considered to be muslims despite this explicit kufr ?

This seventh belief of the lthna ashari shia beliefs has been written so explicitly be khomeini that no one has written it more explicitly than him in the last 1200 years of shia history. How can we accept the claim that the previous ithna ashari shia were certainly in kufr but that khomeini has given them a new perception in present times ? This can never be accepted. Read the following words of khomeini and decide for yourself that is it through this perception that khomeini is being regarded the leader of an islamic revolution ?

“every prophet came for the establishment of justice. His goal was also that justice pervades the entire world. However, he was not successful. To the extent that the seal of prophets (muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), who was a human and who came to establish justice – he too was not successful in his time.”81

How did he have the audacity to say that rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was unsuccessful in his mission? This was only possible because the shia wish to place the honour of the success of this mission on the head of their twelfth imam, imam mahdi. If this is how they regard rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, how despicable the muslims must be in their eyes? Only that person who has been blessed with the wealth of imaan will be able to perceive this.

A practical example of seeking assistance from the kuffaar against the kuffaar

The kuffaar are of two types: (1) the open kuffaar, (2) the hypocrite kuffaar.

The open kuffaar are those who openly call themselves the opponents of islam. The hypocrite kuffaar are those who, despite having explicit kufr beliefs, do not consider themselves out of the fold of islam. Under certain circumstances and for certain expediencies, the second type of kuffaar can be reconciled for a specific perion of time on condition that during that time they do not propagate their kufr in our circles. Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam himself did not remove such persons upto a certain time. He was also questioned regarding them, upon which he replied:

“allah has stopped me (at present) from doing anything to them.”

the purpose of this was probably so that they do not go and join the open kuffaar. Alternatively, it is possible that (if they were removed), the masses at that time might feel that islam is very stric. At present we do not wish to delve into those expediencies as to why he kept them with him upto a certain time. All we wish to demonstrate over here is that at times the hypocrite kuffaar can be joined in opposition to the open kuffaar.

Who is unaware of the fact that our senior ulama had joined allamah kifaayat husayn during the khatme nubuwwat movement ? ! At the same time everyone knows that this injurious modus operandi which has come to the fore under the leadership of khomeini was also not present at that time. Nor did he at that time raise the fiery slogans of instituting ja’fari fiqh82 in those countries in which the ahlus sunnah wal jamaa’ah are in the majority (as is the practice of khomeini).

At this point, every conscious muslim is forced into thinking that way shouldn’t we regard them (the shia) to be open kuffaar? And why shouldn’t we remove the veil of expediency which had previously separated the open kuffaar from the hypocrite kuffaar?

Furthermore, it is also not an unknown fact that whenever some of our senior ulama joined them, then in the consequent unity, authority or dominance always remained in the hands of the muslims. They (the shia) never had the courage to announce their kufr beliefs in these meetings and gatherings as is present today. When comparing those cricumstances with the present circumstances, the leadership of khomeini and his announcement for the promulgation of ja’fari fiqh is now a dividing line whereby the ruling concerning them is now different from before. (in other words, we can no longer work with them under the assumption that they are hypocrite kuffaar. Instead, we will have to regard them tobe open kuffaar.)

After this explanation, it may have become clear to you that the stand adopted by dr. Alawi is correct as opposed to that of dr. Kalim siddiqi as for dr. Siddiqi, it seems that he is not speaking on his own autherity. Rather, he is a representative of iran in england who is speaking in defence of the present revolution.

( dr. ) khalid mahmood siddiqi

Islamic academy, manchester.

(explanation of certain arabic and islamic terms)

aalim : a person who has proficient knowledge of islam,

Ahlul bayt: literally means ” people of the house” . In islamic terminology this refers to the family of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

Ahlul bid’ah: refers to those persons who introduce certain things into islam which have no basis in the quran or sunnah . Futhermore , they believe that carrying out these things entails reward .

Ahlul hawaa: refers to those persons who follow their whims and fancies in matters of religion . They do not subjugate themselves to the injunctions of islam .

Ahlul kitaab: literally means “people of the book”. In islam it generally refers to the jews and christians.

A’immah

Mujtahideen: refers to those persons who have attained proficiency in islamic jurisprudence. Generally, this term applies to the leaders of the four schools of jurisprudence, viz. Imam abu hanifah, imam malik, imam shafi’ee and imam ahmad bin hambal rahmatullahi alayhim.

Ansaar: literally means “helpers” . In islam it refers to the muslim residents of madinah who had given refuge to the muslims of makkah when the latter migrated to madinah.

Bid’atee: refer to “ahlul bid’ah”.

Faasiq: a flagrant sinner.

Fard: that which is compulsory or incumbent.

Fatwa: a legal verdict.

Haqq: turth.

Imaamat: literally means “leadership”. When discussing shia-sunni differences, it refers to the shia belief in divinely ordained imams who have to be followed at all times.

Imaan: faith.

Imam: a leader.

Ijmaa’: consensus of opinion. The concept of ijmaa’ is also a source of islamic law.

Jannati: a dweller of paradise.

Jizyah: a tax paid by non-muslims in an islamic state in return for protection of their lives, wealth and honour.

Kaafir: a disbeliever.

Khabar-e-Mustafeed: refers to a hadith which is well-known and whose authenticity is not doubted.

Khalifah: arabic transliteration of the word “caliph”. A khalifah is the leader of the islamic state.

Khilaafah: arabic transliteration of the word “caliphate”. Refers to the system of the government under the leadership of a khalifah.

Khulafaa’: plural of khalifah.

Kuffaar: plural of kaafir.

Kufr: disbelief.

Mazhab: school of thought.

Mufassir: a commentator of the quran.

Muhaddith: a scholar of hadith.

Muhajireen: refers to those muslims who had migrated from makkah to madinah during the prophetic era.

Mujaddid: a person who revives and revitalises the deen.

Mujaddideen: plural of mujaddid.

Mujtahid-e-Mutlaq: a person who is fully qualified to make ijtihaad. Furthermore, he is not bound by his mazhab in making ijtihaad. All the a’immah mujtahideen are considered to be mujtahid-e-mutlaq.

Munafiqeen: hypocrites.

Murtad: a rangade – one who has forsaken islam.

Mushrikeen: the polytheists or those who ascribe partners to allah.

Mutawaatir: a term used to describe a hadith which has come down to us through an unbroken chain of narrators whose numbers are so great that it is impossible for such a large number of narrators to have fabricated that particular hadith.

Mutawaatiraat: refers to those things which have come down to us through an unbroken chain of narrators whose numbers are so great that it is impossible for such a large number of narrators to have concocted that particular thing.

Qat’iyyah: with absoluteness – without a shadow of doubt.

Raafidi: another name for the shia.

Rawaafid: plural of raafidi.

Sanad: chain of narrators.

Shariah: islamic law.

Tafseer: commentary or exegesis of the quran.

Taqiyyah: the shia concept of speaking a lie or concealing the truth. This is a form of worship according to the shia. It warrants great reward according to them.

Taubah: repentance.

Tawaatur: refer to mutawaatiraat.

Ulama: plural of aalim.

Ummah: community, people, or nation.

Wajib: obligatory.

Zandaqah: atheism.

Zindeeq: an atheist or freethinker.

Advertisements

One thought on “Shias and Sunnis, The Difference

Add yours

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: