Beliefs of Shi’a Ar-Raafidah :
There are the ones who go to extremes with regard to the Members of the Household (Aali Bait). They declare the companions that opposed them as being disbelievers or they accuse them of evil. They are divided into many sects, among which are the extremists, who claim that ‘Alee is god, and among which are other than them. Their innovation first appeared during the Khilafah of ‘Alee bin Abee Taalib when ‘Abdullah bin Saba’ said to him: “You are God.” Due to this, ‘Alee commanded that they be set on fire. However, their leader, ‘Abdullah bin Saba’, escaped to another city.
They hold various views concerning the Attributes of Allaah, so among them are those who perform tashbeeh, those who perform ta’teel and those who are in conformity (with the correct view of the attributes). They are called the Raafidah because they rejected Zayd bin ‘Alee Ibnul-Husayn bin ‘Alee bin Abee Taalib, when they asked him about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and so he said “rahimahullaah” for both of them.
So they rejected him and distanced themselves from him. And they named themselves Shee’ah because of their claim and notion that they are taking sides (tashayu’) with the Aali Bait and that they support them and that they are reclaiming their right to Imaamship.
They allege that ‘Alee (radyAllaahu ‘anhu) deserved to be commissioned with the Khilafah after the Messenger, and that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and the Companions (in general) oppressed ‘Alee, usurping the Khilafah from him.
This is what they claim. But they are lying in this matter since the Companions unanimously agreed on giving the pledge of allegiance (bay’ah) to Abu Bakr. And amongst these Companions was ‘Alee himself, who pledged his allegiance to Abu Bakr, and thereafter to ‘Umar and then ‘Uthman. So this means that in reality, they (i.e. the Shee’ah) hold ‘Alee to be deceitful!
They also deem all of the Companions to be disbelievers except for a few amongst them. And they have turned to invoking curses on Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, labeling them as the “Two idols of Quraish”
From their beliefs and practices is that: They go to extremes with regard to the Imams from the Members of the Household, giving them the right to legislate laws and abrogate rulings (in Islam) because they claim that the Qur’aan is distorted and deficient.
This is to the point that they have resorted to taking their Imams as lords besides Allaah. So they have built tombs over their graves and erected shrines for them, making Tawaaf around them, presenting sacrificial animals to them and swearing oaths to them!
The Shee’ah have split up into further denominations, some less dangerous than others and some worse than others. Amongst these denominations are the Zaydees, the Raafidees, the Isma’eelis, the Faatimees, and the Qaraamitees and so on and so forth – a large amount of groups and numerous denominations.
So it is like this – everyone who abandons the truth will not cease to be upon differing and division. Allaah says:
“So if they believe in the same thing you believe (i.e. Prophet and Companions), then they are rightly-guided. But if they turn away, then they are only in divided opposition (amongst themselves). So Allaah will suffice for you against them. And He is the All-Hearer, the All-Knower.”
So whoever abandons the truth will be tested with falling into falsehood, deviation and division, which all lead to no other result except destruction, and we seek refuge in Allaah!
The Shee’ah have split up amongst themselves into numerous sects and denominations, and likewise the Qadariyyah. The Khawaarij have also split up into various denominations (amongst themselves), such as: The Azaariqah, the Hurooriyyah, the Najdaat, the Safriyyah and the Ibaadiyyah. Amongst them are those who are extreme in their beliefs and amongst them are those who are less than that.
Prominent Features of Their Deviation:
Erros of Rafidiayah with Qur’an:
Likewise, the Rafidah have gone astray concerning some issues associated with the noble Qur’an, and from them: First: the belief of the Rafidah in the change and alteration of the Qur’an: We believe that all of the Qur’an is preserved in its wordings and meanings. Nothing has been added to or taken away from it, confirming the statement of the Most High (which translated means): “Verily We have sent down the Reminder and verily We will preserve it.” However, according to the Rafidah, they believe that the noble Qur’an which is in our hands is an altered book, which has been added to and taken away from. Here are some of their statements said by Ibrahim al-Qami, who died in the year 307 AH, in the introduction to his Tafsir, “the Qur’an has that which abrogates and that which was abrogated, and it has that which is clear and that which is ambiguous in meaning, and it has the general and the specific, and it has that which sends forward and that which holds back, and it has that which is cut off and that which is joined together, and it has letters in place of other letters, and it has that which is against what Allah has sent down,” then he struck an example of this blasphemy of his, saying, “the statement of Allah Most High ‘O Maryam, submit yourself with obedience to your Lord and prostrate yourself, and bow down,’ is also ‘bow down and prostrate’… and as for what is against what Allah has sent down, then it is His statement: ‘You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind; you enjoin good and forbid evil.’ Abu Abdullah, upon him be peace, said to the reciter of this verse: ‘the best of peoples,’ killing the leader of the believers, and al-Hasan, and Hussein the son of Ali, upon him be peace!? Then it was said to him: how was it sent down, O son of the messenger of Allah? So he said: it was only sent down as: ‘you are the best of imams ever raised up for mankind,’ then he said: and as for what was distorted from it, then it is His statement: ‘but Allah bears witness to what He sent down to you in Ali. He sent him down with knowledge and the angels bear witness’” Tafsir al-Qami (10-1/5). And in al-Kaafee, on the authority of Abu Abdullah, upon him be peace, saying “verily the Qur’an which Jibreel came with, upon him be peace, to Muhammad is seventeen thousand verses.” al-Kaafee (2/634). And al-Majlisee ruled in Maraah al-Uqool (2/563) that it is authentic. I say that the number of verses in the Qur’an which is in our hands is 6,236 verses, counted according to the method of the people of Kufa, on the authority of Abu Abdur-Rahman As-Sulami, on the authority of Ali ibn Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, as is found in the book “Nadhimat-uz-Zuhur” (The Ordering of the Flowers) by Imam ash-Shatibi, and others from the books written on the science of divisions. So in this view, the verses that have been removed from the Qur’an, in this lie, reaches 10,674 verses, and with Allah we seek refuge. And they have a famous publication asserting the distortion of the Qur’an, and behold, it is the book “The Decisive Word on Confirming the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords,” (TN: it appears the author is quoting here from the source) written by the scholar al-Najafi al-Haaj Mirza Husain ibn Muhammad Taqee al-Noori al-Tabarsi al-Matufi, d. 1320 AH, who printed the book in Iran in the year 1289 AH, and the Shia rewarded him for writing this by burying him in the building, al-Mashhad al-Murtadawi, in Al-Najaf in the hall of the Banu al-Adhami room, daughter of the ruler, defender of the religion of Allah, in the south office, on the right, inside the courtyard of alMurtadawi, coming from the southern gate into Najaf al-Ashraf, in the holiest site, according to them. (Al-Khutoot al-‘Areedah al-Wasa’il wa Mustanbat al-Masa’il, p. 10). Refer to his biography in the introduction of his book “Mustadrak al-Wasa’il wa Mustanbat al-Masa’il,” by his student Aga Baazarak al-Tehraani. Verily Allah Most High sent down the Qur’an as a guide and a mercy for the believers, and for them to worship with what it contains, until the Hour is established. So if any distortion happens to it, or change, or loss, then this would be loss of it all. So then how is it true that a book remains as guidance, mercy, light, and healing? So here I will pose a question only for the intelligent ones. If the Rafidah had zeal for the Qur’an, and exalted it, then why did they give the distorters – according to their claim – a chance to distort the Qur’an and change it, and waste it? Where are those who they claim are their imams, at their head Ali ibn Abi Talib, radi Allahu anhu, and those who came after him, them being free from what is associated with them? Where are they concerning this distortion and playing games, while they have, according to your claims, the keys to the heavens and the earth, the worldly life and afterlife, all of this being at their disposal? Secondly: the issue of the sending of revelation to other than the Prophet: We believe that the noble Qur’an is the last of the heavenly books, after which no book will be sent down, because prophet hood has been cut off and revelation has ended with the death of the Prophet. In Sahih Muslim, on the authority of Anas, who said: “Abu Bakr, radi Allahu anhu, said after the death of the Messenger of Allah , to Umar: come with us to visit Umm Aiman like the Messenger of Allah used to visit her. When we reached her, she cried, so they (both) said to her, ‘what has made you cry? What is with Allah is better for His messenger.’ So she said, ‘I am not crying because I don’t know that what is with Allah is better for His messenger, but I cry because the revelation has been cut off from the heavens.’ And she moved them both to tears and they began to cry with her.” This is as we believe, that the revelation was only sent down to the Prophet, and it wasn’t sent down to anyone else. As for the Rafidah, then they believe that revelation was sent down upon other than him, . For that reason, they have Mus-haf (written scripture) other than the noble Qur’an. Rather, our Qur’an is uncountable compared to the number of these Mus-haf. It is said in al-Kaafee: “Chapter: mentioning the papers and al-Jafr, and al-Jami’ah, and the Mus-haf of Fatimah, upon her be peace”: “Many of our companions, from Ahmad ibn Muhammad, from Abdullah al-Hijal, from Ahmad ibn Umar al-Halabi, from Abu Baseer said: ‘I entered upon Abu Abdullah, alaihi as-salaam, and said to him: may I be made your ransom, I ask you a question on a matter. Is there one to hear my speech?’ He said: ‘so Abu Abdullah, alaihi as salaam, raised up a cover between himself and the others so I could get into it, then said: O Abu Muhammad, ask on what seems good to you.’ He said: ‘I said, may I be made your ransom, verily your sect is saying that the Messenger of Allah taught Ali, alaihi as salaam, a gate, by which a thousand gates were opened for him, each of which opened a thousand gates.’ He said: ‘I said: This, by Allah, is knowledge.’ He said: ‘So he scratched in the dirt for a while, then said: verily it is knowledge, but what is that?’ He said: ‘then he said: O Abu Muhammad! Verily, with us is Al-Jami’ah! And what will let them know what the Jami’ah is?’ He said: ‘I said: may I be made as a ransom for you, what is AlJami’ah? He said: the page whose length is seventy arm-spans of the messenger of Allah, its splitting, and written by the right hand of Ali, in which is every halal and haram and everything the people need, even the blood money for a scratch. And he moved his hand toward me and said: do you permit me, O Abu Muhammad?’ He said: ‘I said: May I be made your ransom, I am for you only, so do whatever you wish.’ He said: ‘So he felt me with his hand and said: even the blood money for this – as if he was angry.’ He said: ‘I said: this, by Allah, is knowledge. He said: verily, it is knowledge, but that’s not it. Then he was silent for some time, then said: and verily, with us is al-Jafar. And what will let them know what al-Jafar is?’ He said: ‘I said: and what is al-Jafar? He said: a container from Adam, which holds knowledge of the prophets and teachers, knowledge of the scholars who passed away from the children of Israa’il.’ He said: ‘I said: verily this is knowledge. He said: verily it is knowledge, but that’s not it. Then he was silent for some time, then said: and verily, with us is the Mus-haf of Fatimah, upon her be peace, and what will let them know what is the Mus-haf of Fatimah, upon her be peace?’ He said: ‘I said: and what is the Mus-haf of Fatimah, upon her be peace? He said: a Mus-haf which has the like of this, your Qur’an, three times over. By Allah, there is not even one letter in it from your Qur’an.’ He said: ‘I said: this, by Allah, is knowledge. He said: verily it is knowledge, but it’s not it. Then he was silent for a time, then said: verily, with us is knowledge of what has been and knowledge of what will be, until the Hour is established.’ He said: ‘I said: may I be made your ransom, this by Allah, is knowledge. He said: verily it is knowledge, but it’s not it.’ He said: ‘I said: May I be made your ransom, what, then, is knowledge? He said: verily it is what occurs by night and by day, event after event, thing after thing, until the Day of Judgment.’” al-Kaafee (1/239). And I have only quoted the report in full so the reader can study these mockeries and falsehoods in order to increase in insight concerning the Rafidah and their religion. And in the current era, Khomeini has confirmed this belief, the Mus-haf of Fatimah, when he said while counting some of their bragging points and achievements: “we brag over the salvation of our Sha’bani Imams, and in calling upon Hussein the son of Ali at Arafah, and the Sajadi Paper, ‘Zaboor of the Family of Muhammad,’ and the paper of Fatimah – the book inspired before Allah Most High to the Shining, Pleased One,” the last address on page 5, and the last address is “The Commandment of Divine Politics” by Khomeini. We seek refuge with Allah from the astray ones and those who lie on Him. Ahl us Sunnah wal Jamaah believe that the Qur’an is the speech of Allah Most High, which He truly spoke in a way that befits the Majesty of Allah and His Perfection, as Allah the Exalted, Most High states (what translated means): “and if one of the polytheists seeks protection from you then give him protection, so he may hear the speech of Allah.” But the Rafidah negate this truth and believe that the Qur’an is created like the rest of the creation which Allah Most High created, like the sky, the earth, the mountains, and other creations like them. And this corrupt creed is what the righteous predecessors waged war against on the day the Mutazilah came out with it and burdened the people with it using the influence of the ruler, while a small number of the authorities on the Sunnah stood firm, at their head the venerable Imam, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him. For verily, he was firm until the affliction was removed and the trial was extinguished. Al-Majlisee composed, in “Bihaar al-Anwaar,” a chapter with the title “Chapter: that the Qur’an is created” (Bihaar al-Anwaar, 121-117/92), and says that the sign of the trustworthy, righteous Shi’a is: “that the Shi’a and the Mutazilah say: the Qur’an is created.” (A’yaan Ash-Shi’a 1/461). And Abu Ja’far Al-Tusi says: “and in the sign is a proof that the Qur’an is not Allah, and that Allah is its originator and controller, and in it is a proof that Allah is its controller, and whatever is included in control of something is an action, and the action cannot exist except that it was created..” (Tibyaan fee Tafseer Al-Qur’an 1/399), in the Tafseer of Allah Most High’s statement: “We bring something better than it.” And it has been reported from some of their imams that the Qur’an is not created, but they conveyed these reports either from the angle of them being taqiyah (pretending out of fear), or that the statement of the imam was carried to negate the denial of the Qur’an, because from the meanings of “makhlooq” (created) in the language is “a fabricated statement”. Like this they claim, and it is an en excuse that is ruined.
Errors of the Rafidah with Allah’s Names and Attributes:
Sheikh Ali ibn Yahya al-Haddaadee says:
The Rafidah have also deviated in tawhid of Allah’s Names and Attributes. Our creed concerning our Lord can be summarized by everything that He has described Himself with, or His Prophet sall Allahu alaihi wa sallam described Him with, without saying how, giving examples, changing letters, or negating the meanings of words, to the extent of His statement (which translated means): “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an, 42:10) However, we find that the Rafidah do not affirm this great principle, and along those lines, they have given their leaders some of the attributes of the Creator, if not all of them. From these is the attribute of perfect knowledge, as we, Ahl us Sunnah, believe that Allah has perfect knowledge which befits His Majesty — knowledge which is not preceded by ignorance, nor overtaken by forgetfulness – – knowledge which encompasses everything that has existed, exists now, or will exist in the future, and that which will never exist or would exist if things were a certain way, as Allah Most High said (what translated means); “Verily, Allah is the All-Knower of everything.” (Qur’an, 8:75) “All-Knower of the unseen and the seen.” (Qur’an, 6:73) “But if they were returned (to the world), they would certainly revert to that which they were forbidden.” (Qur’an, 6:25) “And with Him are the keys of the Ghaib (all that is hidden), none knows them but He. And He knows whatever there is in (or on) the earth and in the sea; not a leaf falls, but he knows it. There is not a grain in the darkness of the earth nor anything fresh or dry, but is written in a Clear Record.” (Qur’an, 6:59) “[Fir’aun (Pharaoh)] said: ‘What about the generations of old?’ [Musa (Moses)] said: ‘The knowledge thereof is with my Lord, in a Record. My Lord is neither unaware nor He forgets.’” (Qur’an, 20:51-2) …until the rest of them. As for the Rafidah’s view, then they have set up partners for Him in knowledge of the unseen — even knowledge of all things! In Bihar al-Anwar, by al-Majlisee, on the authority of Ja’far as-Sadiq alaihi assalaam, who said: “By Allah, I have been given knowledge of the very first and the very last. So a man from amongst his companions said: May I be made your ransom, do you have knowledge of the unseen? He said: woe be to you, I certainly know what is in the loins of men and the wombs of women… by Allah, if I wanted to count for you every pebble on it, I could certainly tell you (that).” (Bihar al-Anwar. 28, 26/27) And in al-Kaafee: “From Abdullah ibn Bashr reporting from Abu Abdullah, he said: surely, I know what is in the heavens and what is on the earth, and I know what is in Paradise and I know what is in the Fire, and I know what has been and what will be. He said: then he waited a moment and saw that this was having a major effect on those who heard it, so he said: I know all this from the Book of Allah l. Verily, Allah ta`aalaa said: in it is the explanation of all things.” (Al-Kaafee 1/261) Exalted is Allah, High and Magnificent, over what the wrong-doers say! I say: in this text is a twisting of the noble verse when he quoted the verse (which translated means): “And We have sent down to you the Book (the Quran) as an exposition of everything, a guidance, a mercy, and glad tidings for those who have submitted themselves (to Allah as Muslims).” (Qur’an, 16:89) And how amazing it is that he claims to know everything, then he does not know the text of the verse which he is trying to prove his knowledge of everything with. And I swear by Allah that Abu Abdullah is free from this slander. Rather, he rejected the Rafidah and considered them to be stupid. So let yourself be amazed at this foolishness as much as you want to be amazed! We will not fail to direct the noble reader’s attention that at the same time the Rafidah are attributing knowledge of everything to their leaders, they are also claiming that Allah is ignorant and that some affairs are hidden from Him, and that knowledge can occur to Him of what He doesn’t know. Exalted is Allah over that, High and Magnificent. This, what they call al-bidah’, is a belief of the Jews — and the Jews who distorted (the Scripture) are the first root of the tree of the Rafidah, as is known to the just — and on the issue of al-bidah’, it is reported by the author of al-Kaafee, on the authority of al-Rayan ibn al-Salat who said: “I heard al-Rida say:
“Allah never sent any prophet except that he forbade alcohol and affirmed for Allah al-bidaa’.”
(Al-Kaafee, 1/148) . Translated by Abdullah B
DEVIATION OF RAFIDAH IN THE FOUNDATION OF RELIGION:
By the Shaykh ‘Alee ibn Yahyaa al-Haddaadee Translated by Raha ‘Azeezuddeen Batts The foundation of al-Eemaan according to us is al-Eemaan in Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, the Last Day and in the Qadar, its good and its bad; as is in His, the Exalted, statement: “The Messenger (Muhammad) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord and likewise do the believers. Each of them believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers…”(al-Baqarah 2:285)And as He, the Exalted, has said: “However al-Birr(righteousness)is the one who believes in Allah, the Last Day, the Angels , the Book and the Prophets…”(al-Baqarah 2:177)He, the Exalted, has said concerning al-Qadar: “And that Allah encompasses all things by His Knowledge.”(at-Talaq 65:12); and He has said: “And we have not left anything out of the Book.”(Al-An’aam 6:38)And He, the Exalted, has said: “And you cannot will except that Allah wills.”(Al-Insaan 76:30)He, the Exalted, has said: “Verily We have created all things with Qadr.”(al-Qamar 54:49) and He said: “And Allah has created you and what you make.”(As-Saffaat 37:96)When a person utters the two testimonies then he has entered into al-Islam and safeguarded, by this statement, his blood, wealth and honor. Thereafter, he is commanded with that which this statement necessitates from its rights. So whoever actualizes this Eemaan then he is from the people of al-Jannah. As for the greatest pillar of Eemaan according to the Raafidah, it is Eemaan in the Imamate; i.e. The Imaamate of ‘Alee then the Imams after him. Al-Kulaynee narrated in al-Kaafee, the Book of al-Eemaan and al-Kufr, Chapter: The Pillars of al-Islam, on the authority of Ja’far, upon him be peace that he said: “al-Islam was built upon five: Upon the prayer, the zakah, the fast, the hajj and the wilaayah (the leadership of ‘Alee and his descendants). We were not commanded with anything the way we are commanded with the wilaayah; for the people have taken four and have left the wilaayah.”[Al-Kaafee 2/28] He also narrated on the authority of Aboo Abdillah, upon him be peace, that he explained the limits of al-Eemaan, and said: “The testimony that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, confirming that with which he has brought from Allah, the five prayers, the payment of az-Zakah, fasting in the month of Ramadaan, pilgrimage to the house, the wilaayah of our Walee(‘Alee)and enmity with our enemy, and to be from the truthful ones.”[Al-Kaafee 2/18] Zuraarah said: “I said: ‘Which of those things is best?’ So he (Aboo Abdillah) said: ‘The Wilaayah is best, because it is their key, and the Walee is the proof for them.’ I said: ‘Then which is that which follows it in virtue?’ He said: ‘The prayer.’”[AlKaafee 2/18-19] Muhammad Jawaad Mugniyah said: “We have settled upon the fact that atTashayyu’ is Eemaan in the existence of the text from the Prophet concerning ‘Alee…” [Ash-Shee’ah wal-Haakimoon pg. 12]This narration makes clear their beliefs regarding their Takfeer of most of the companions. And it is that, as they suppose, they (the companions) did not have allegiance to ‘Alee in the Khilafah. Rather, they denied his right and gave Aboo Bakr precedence over him, then ‘Umar then ‘Uthman, May Allah be pleased with them all.
The Creed Of Rafidah Regarding The Companions:
Shaykh ‘Alee Al-Haddaadee In the book of Saleem ibn Qays1 regarding ‘Alee ibn Aboo Taalib he said: “Indeed all of the people (the companions) became apostates after Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلمexcept four. Indeed the people came to be, after Allaah’s Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم ,of the status of Haaroon and those who followed him; and of the status of the calf (which they took in worship) and those who followed it. ‘Alee resembled Haaroon and ‘Ateeq (Aboo Bakr) resembles the calf, while ‘Umar resembles Saamiree.”2 At-Tustaree, one of their scholars, said: “Just as Moosaa came for guidance, and he guided a great portion of the Children of Israa’eel and other than them, but they became apostates during his lifetime so that none remained upon his faith except Haaroon, upon him be peace; likewise, Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلمcame and guided a large portion; however, after his death they turned back on their heels (as apostates).”3 Rather, they believe that most of those who openly manifested their Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمonly manifested it out of hypocrisy; and that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمonly accepted their entrance into the ranks of the believers because he was in need of large numbers so that he could be protected by them against his enemies. Hasan AshShayraazee, one of the current day Shee’ah, says: “Indeed it was not to the advantage of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلمat the inception of Al-Islam to only accept the sincere ad reject the hypocrites. It was only upon him to gather together all of the rubbish of Jaahilyah in order to place a shield (of protection) around Al-Islam by way of it from the local and international forces which were openly against him. So he would proclaim: ‘Say: None has the right to be worshipped save Allaah and you will be successful.’” Up to his (Ash-Shayraazee’s) statement: “It was not for the Prophet to reject them; otherwise there would only have remained him, ‘Alee, Salmaan, Aboo Dharr, and a small group from the chosen elite.”4 1 From those who have confirmed the book and affirmed the authenticity of its ascription to the author is AlKhaw’ee and Sharf-ud-Deen Al-Moosawee in Al-Maraaji’aat 2 The Book of Saleem ibn Qays pgs. 598-599 3 Ihqaaq Al-Haqq by Al-Tustaree pg. 316 4 Sha’aa’ir Al-Husayniyah by Hasan Ash-Shayraazee pgs. 8-9 How amazing is this! These people for whom Allaah has attested to as having faith, they (the Raafidah) attest to them as having hypocrisy! Allaah gives them glad tidings of Paradise yet these people say that they are in the fire. ل م ُ ق تُ ن َ أ أ ُم َ علَ َ م أ َ َو َم ُم ن أ ا َّللُ َ ظلَ َم م َم ن أ َكتَ َش َهادَة دَهُ ل ا َّلل َو َما ا َّللُ عن م َن ب َع َما و َن غَاف ُ تَ عَمل “Say, “Do you know better or does Allâh? And who is more unjust than he who conceals the testimony he has from Allâh? And Allâh is not unaware of what you do.” (Al-Baqarah 2:140) Translated by: Aboo Moosaa Raha ibn Donald Batts Excerpted from: Ruin not Rapprochement (Future MTWS Publication, insha-Allaah)
DEVIATION OF SHIA IN TWHEED OF Lordship:
By: Shaykh ‘Alee ibn Yahyaa al-Haddaadee Translated By: Raha ‘Azeezuddeen Batts The Raafidah deviated far astray in the sphere of Tawheed ar-Rubuubiyyah (Oneness of Allah’s Lordship) even though it is the Tawheed which all of the previous nations confirmed. What clarifies that is that we, Ahlus-Sunnah, believe that Allah the Exalted Alone is the Creator and that He Alone is the Controller of the Affairs of the whole universe; as Allah the Exalted said: “All the Praise is for Allah, Lord of the ‘Aalameen (everything that exists).”(Al-Faathihah 1:2)And as He, the Exalted, has said: “He manages and regulates every affair…”(as-Sajdah 32:5)And He, the Exalted has said: “Say: O Allah, Owner of the Dominion, You give the dominion to whom You wish and you take the dominion from whom you wish; You give honor to whom You wish and you disgrace whom you wish. In Your Hand is the good. Verily You are Able to do all things. You make the night to enter into the day and you make the day to enter into the night; You bring the living out of the dead and You bring to dead out of the living, and You provide for whom you wish without any reckoning.” And Allah said concerning the polytheists of old: “Say: Whose is the earth and whosoever is therein, if you know? They will say: ‘It is Allah’s.’ Say: Will you not then remember? Say: Who is the Lord of the seven heavens and the Lord of the Great Throne? They will say: ‘Allah.’ Say: Will you not then fear Allah? Say: In Whose Hand is the sovereignty of everything; He protects while against Him there is no protector, if you know? They will say: ‘(All that belongs) to Allah.’ Say: How then are you deluded away from the truth?”(al-Mu’minoon 23: 84-89) In spite of this, we find within the beliefs of the Raafidah, ascription of the dominion and regulation of affairs to some of the creation, such as ‘Alee ibn Abe Taalib, may Allah be pleased with him. Al-Kulaynee narrated under the Chapter: The Entire Earth Belongs to the Imaam; on the authority of Aboo Abdillah, that he said: “Do you not know that this Dunyaa and the next life (both) belong to the Imaam. He distributes it wherever he wills and he gives it to whom He wills.” [al-Kaafee 1/409] And from that which emphasizes their equating of their Imaams with Allah the Exalted and deifying them, is that which they have concocted within their books and attributed to their Imaams, from giving life to the dead. Al-Majlisee narrated in al-Bahaar on the authority of Sa’d al- Qumee that: Abool-Fadl Dukkayn said: Muhammad ibn Raashid informed me on the authority of his grandfather who said: “I questioned Ja’far ibn Muhammad (Upon them both be peace) the ‘Allaamah. He said: ‘Ask me what you wish and I shall inform you if Allah wills.’ So I said: A brother has departed. Meaning he is dead in this grave. So he commanded him to come back to life and said: ‘What is his name?’ I said: Ahmad. He said: ‘O Ahmad, stand by the permission of Allah and by the permission of Ja’far ibn Muhammad.’ So he stood up and came to him.”[Bahaar al-Anwaar 47/137] Take note of his statement in the narration: “Stand by the permission of Allah and the permission of Ja’far ibn Muhammad.” So they make Ja’far to be a rival with Allah the Exalted, who brings the dead to life by his own permission just as Allah brings the dead to life by His Permission. They have other narrations concerning their Imams bringing the dead to life wherein there is no mention of Allah at all. I have declined to mention them so as to keep the discussion short. (See: ‘Alaa Sabeelil-Mithaal Basaa’ir ad-Darajaat pg. 293, Bahaar al-Anwaar 47/111) This ‘aqeedah continues to exist amongst them to this day of ours. For al-Khomeni said: “Verily the Imaam has a praiseworthy station (Maqaaman Mahmoodan), a special rank and universal khilaafah given due to its wilaayah and rule over all the molecules in the universe.”[alHukoomah al-Islaamiyyah by: al-Khomeni pg. 52] It is correct that we should ask the Raafidah: If the Imaams are as you claim, that they have free disposal in the matter of the creation to the point that the molecules are under their will and subjected to their command, then why do they fear death; and why do they hide from their enemies; and why do their enemies rule over them oppressively; why then are they imprisoned and killed!!?? ‘Alee, may Allah be pleased with him, died as a result of murder. The hidden Imaam whom they await, nothing prevents him from coming out, according to their suppositions, except fear of being killed. So what about this contradiction which it is not possible for the intelligent person to believe!!?? And it is not possible, from another perspective, for the Raafidah to respond to it except by retracting from this lie and repenting to Allah from it and from the likes of these falsehoods.
The Devil’s Deception of the Raafidah:
By: Imam Ibn Jawzee
From them, are those who say that Aboo Bakr oppressed Faatimah out of her inheritance. It has been narrated to us from As-Saffaah that he delivered a sermon one day when a man from the descendants of ‘Alee, may Allaah be pleased with him, stood up and said: “O chief of the believers! Help me against he who has oppressed me.” He said: “Who has oppressed you?” He (the man) said: “I am from the children of ‘Alee, may Allaah be pleased with him, and the one who has oppressed me is Aboo Bakr, may Allaah be pleased with him, when he took Fadak1 from Faatimah.” He (As-Saffaah) said: “And he continued in this oppression of you?” He said: “Yes.” He said: “Who took over after him?” The man said: “’Umar, may Allaah be pleased with him.” He said: “And he continued in this oppression of you?” The man said: “Yes.” He said: “Who took over after him?” The man said: “’Uthmaan, may Allaah have mercy upon him.” He said: “And he continued in this oppression of you?” The man said: “Yes.” He said: “And who took over after him?” He began looking around here and there for a place to which he could flee. 1 Translator’s note: Fadak (Arabic: فدك (was a garden oasis in Khaybar, a tract of land in northern Arabia; it is now part of Saudi Arabia. Situated approximately thirty miles from Medina, Fadak was known for its water-wells, dates, and handicrafts. When the Muslims defeated the people of Khaybar at the Battle of Khaybar; the oasis of Fadak was part of the booty given to the Prophet Muhammad. Translator’s note: The one who took over after ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan, may Allaah be pleased with him, was ‘Alee ibn Abee Taalib, may Allaah be pleased with him. Yet, he did not restore this alleged right which was for Faatimah (according to the Raafidah) because Aboo Bakr, may Allaah be pleased with him, was correctly implementing the statement of Allaah’s Messenger َر ْكنَا َصدَقَة ال نُو َر ُث َما تَ “We (the prophets) are not inherited from. That which we leave behind is charity.” 2 The man knew this fact and hence felt foolish after it was pointed out to him. Translated by Raha ibn Donald Batts Taken from Talbees Iblees by Ibn Jawzee pg. 87
The Hadeeth “There will appear among you twelve imams coming one after another, all of them from Quraish.”:
It was narrated that Jabir ibn Samurah said: I entered upon the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) with my father, and I heard him say: “This matter will not end until there have been among them twelve caliphs.” Then he said something that I could not hear, and I said to my father: What did he say? He said: “All of them will be from Quraysh.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (no. 7222); Muslim (no. 1821).
According to other versions also narrated by Muslim:
“Islam will continue to prevail through twelve caliphs.”
“This religion will continue to prevail and be strong until there have been twelve caliphs.”
According to the version narrated by al-Bukhaari, it says: “There will be twelve rulers.” Then he said something I did not hear, and my father said that he said: “All of them will be from Quraish.”
The scholars have several approaches and interpretations as to the meaning of this hadeeth:
They said that what is meant is the fair and just caliphs; some of them have already appeared and passed on, and the number will be completed before the Hour begins.
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, quoting from al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad:
It may be that what is meant is those who are rightfully deserving of the caliphate; some of them have already come and passed on, and are known, and this number will inevitably be completed before the Hour begins. End quote.
Sharh Muslim, 12/202
This view was also favoured by Imam al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him), who said:
They are the just caliphs, such as the four (Rightly Guided) caliphs, and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez. Others who are like them will inevitably appear and support truth and justice, until this number is completed. This is the most correct of the scholarly views in my opinion. End quote.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
What this hadeeth means is giving glad tidings of the coming of twelve righteous caliphs who will support the truth and treat the people with justice. It does not necessarily mean that they will come one after another; rather four of them have already come one after another, namely the four caliphs: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan and ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with them). Another of them is ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, according to the leading scholars, and others are some of the Abbasids.
The Hour will not begin until they have all come and the number is completed. What appears to be the case is that one of them will be the Mahdi who is foretold in the hadeeths that speak of him. End quote.
Tafseer al-Qur’an al-‘Azeem, 3/65
Another view is that what is meant is that the twelve will all appear at the same time and be contemporaries of one another.
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, quoting from al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad:
It was said that what is meant is that they will all appear at the same time, and each of them will be followed by a group (among the Muslims). Al-Qaadi said: It is not far-fetched to say that this has already happened, if you examine history. In Andalusia alone at the same time, after 433 AH, there were some of them, each of them claiming to be a caliph and taking that title. At that time there was another one in Egypt, and the Abbasid caliph was in Baghdad. This is in addition to others who also claimed to be caliphs at that time in other regions.
He said: This interpretation is supported by what is said in the book of Muslim after that: “… there will be many caliphs.” They said: What do you command us to do? He said: “Fulfil the oath of allegiance to the first one, then the next.” End quote.
Sharh Muslim, 12/202
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said:
He – i.e., al-Muhallab – said: What appears most likely to be the case is that he (the Prophet – blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) foretold strange things and turmoil that would happen after he was gone, to the extent that the people would be divided among twelve rulers at the same time. If he had meant something other than that, he would have said, there will be twelve leaders who will do such and such. Because he did not tell us about them, we know that he meant that they would come at the same time. End quote from al-Muhallab.
Al-Haafiz said: This is the view of those who did not come across any of the other versions of the hadeeth except the report that appears in al-Bukhaari, which is a summarized version. It is known from the reports that I have quoted above, from Muslim and elsewhere, that he mentioned some of the characteristics of their rule, which is that Islam will be prevalent and strong during their rule. According to another report, there is another characteristic, which is that each of them will have the ummah united under his rulership, as it says in the version narrated by Abu Dawood. He narrated this hadeeth via Ismaa‘eel ibn Abi Khaalid, from his father, from Jaabir ibn Samurah, as follows: “This religion will continue to prevail until there have been twelve caliphs, behind each of whom the ummah will be united. It was also narrated by at-Tabaraani via another isnaad from al-Aswad ibn Sa‘eed, from Jaabir ibn Samurah, as follows: “They will not be harmed by the enmity of those who oppose them.” 
The third view is that what is meant is caliphs during whose reign Islam will prevail and the Ummah will unite around them, whether they are just and rule equitably or not.
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, quoting from al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad:
It may be that what is meant is the one at whose time Islam will prevail and the Muslims will unite around him, as it says in Sunan Abi Dawood: “behind each of whom the Ummah will be united.”
This happened before the decline of Banu Umayyah (the Umayyads), when their rule became unstable and divisions appeared at the time of Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, when Banu al-‘Abbaas (the Abbassds) rebelled against him.
Abu’l-‘Abbaas al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, when listing scholarly opinions concerning the Hadeeth:
This is speaking of the caliphs who would come after him and after his companions. It is as if he was referring thereby to the rule of the Umayyads, and that what was meant by “religion” (deen) was power and rulership; this was said in reference to what would be the status quo at that time (i.e., they would be stable and have a strong hold on power), and it was not said by way of praise.
The word deen (usually translated as “religion”) may be used to refer to power or kingship, as it was sometimes used in poetry.
The word is also used in this way in the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “He could not take his brother by the law [deen] of the king (as a slave)”
Then he listed their kings or rulers:
The first of them was Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyyah, then his son Mu’aawiyyah ibn Yazeed – and he did not mention Ibn az-Zubayr because he was a Sahaabi, or Marwaan because he usurped the position of Ibn az-Zubayr – then ‘Abd al-Malik, then al-Waleed, then Sulaymaan, then ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez, then Yazeed ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, then Hishaam ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, then al-Waleed ibn Yazeed, then Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, then Ibraaheem ibn al-Waleed, then Marwaan ibn Muhammad. These were twelve in number. Then their caliphate ended and the caliphate passed into the hands of Banu’l-‘Abbaas (the Abbasids).
This opinion was mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzi in Kashf al-Mushkil min Hadeeth as-Saheehayn; he also quoted it from al-Khattaabi in a lengthy discussion of which this is a summary. Perhaps al-Qurtubi was narrating it from Ibn al-Jawzi.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tamiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This is how they were; the caliphs were Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman and ‘Ali.
Then there came to power whoever the people rallied behind and were able to hold the reins of power: Mu’aawiyyah and his son Yazeed, then ‘Abd al-Malik and his four sons; and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez.
After that, the Islamic state was beset by the decline that has continued until the present. The Umayyads ruled all the Muslim lands, and during their era the Islamic state was powerful and the caliphs were called by their own names, ‘Abd al-Malik and Sulaymaan; no such titles as ‘Adad ad-Dawlah, ‘Izz ad-Deen, Baha’ ad-Deen (elaborate honorific titles given to the caliphs) were known.
One of them would be the one who led the people in offering the five daily prayers, handed out banners in the mosque (to the armies setting out on expeditions), and appoint commanders, but he would live in his own house; they did not live in palaces or remain aloof from the common people. 
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The view that is most likely to be correct is the third, because it is supported by the Prophet’s words in other versions of the saheeh hadeeth, “the ummah will be united behind all of them.” What happened was that the people united around Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthman, then ‘Ali, until the incident of the two arbitrators at Siffeen. At that time, Mu’aawiyyah was called a caliph. Then the people united around Mu’aawiyyah after he made a peace deal with al-Hasan. Then they united around his son Yazeed, and al-Husayn was not able to hold power; rather he was killed before that. Then when Yazeed died, there was some division, until they united around ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwaan after the killing of Ibn az-Zubayr. Then they united around his four sons, al-Waleed, then Sulaymaan, then Yazeed, then Hishaam; and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez came between Sulaymaan and Yazeed. These were seven caliphs after the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and the twelfth was al-Waleed ibn Yazeed ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. The people united around him when his paternal uncle Hishaam died, and he reigned for approximately four years. Then they rebelled against him and killed him, and turmoil spread far and wide, and things changed from that day on. The people did not unite behind any caliph after that, because Yazeed ibn al-Waleed, who rebelled against his cousin al-Waleed ibn Yazeed, did not rule for long; rather the son of his father’s cousin, Marwaan ibn Muhammad ibn Marwaan rebelled against him. When Yazeed died, he was succeeded by his brother Ibraaheem, but Marwaan defeated him. Then Banu’l-‘Abbaas (the Abbasids) rebelled against Marwaan, until he was killed. Then the first of the Abbasid caliphs was Abu’l-‘Abbaas al-Saffaah, whose reign did not last long because of the large numbers who rebelled against him. He was succeeded by his brother al-Mansoor whose reign lasted for a long time, but they lost the far Maghreb (Andalusia), when the Marwaanis took over Andalusia; they remained in control of it and later on began to call themselves caliphs. Then things started to decline in all regions of the Muslim world, to the point that there was nothing left of the caliphate except the name only, in some countries. Prior to that, during the era of Banu ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwaan, the khateebs had delivered their khutbahs in the name of the caliph in all regions, East and West, North and South, in all lands under Muslim control, and no one could hold any position of authority in any land except by appointment of the caliph. Whoever studies history will realise that this is true. Based on that, what is meant by the words “Then there will be harj (killing)” is the killing that results from widespread turmoil, and continues to spread and increase as time goes by, which is what happened. And Allah is the One Whose help we seek.
The fourth view is that these twelve caliphs will come after the appearance of the Mahdi at the end of time.
Ibn al-Jawzi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
With regard to the other way of interpreting the hadeeth that was mentioned by Abu’l-Husayn ibn al-Munaadi concerning this hadeeth, regarding the words “after me there will be twelve caliphs” he said: This will only take place after the death of the Mahdi who will emerge at the end of time. He said: We found in the Book of Daniel: When the Mahdi dies, there will be five rulers, who are descended from the older grandson – meaning the son of al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali – then after them there will be another five from among the descendants of the younger grandson, then the last of them will give instructions that the (next) caliph should be a man from among the descendants of the older grandson, and he will take power, then after him his son will become ruler, and that will complete twelve rulers, each of whom will be a guided leader.
Ibn al-Munaadi said: We found in the report of Abu Saalih from Ibn ‘Abbaas that he mentioned the Mahdi and said: Then after him will come twelve men, for one hundred and fifty years, six from among the descendants of al-Hasan, one from among the descendants of ‘Aqeel ibn Abi Taalib, and five from among the descendants of al-Husayn. Then he will die and mischief will become widespread and evil will return.
Ka‘b al-Ahbaar said: There will be twelve guided rulers, then the soul created by Allah (i.e., ‘Eesa) will descend and will kill the Dajjaal. 
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar quoted these words of al-Munaadi and said:
With regard to what he narrated from Abu Saalih, it is very weak, and the same applies to what he narrated from Ka‘b.
End quote from Fath al-Baari, 13/214
The fifth view is that it is to be understood as describing the ruling elite, the caliph, the viziers (advisers), governors, and so on.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tamiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Ibn Hurayrah interpreted the Hadeeth as referring to the laws of the kingdom, based on twelve, such as viziers, judges and so on.
But this is not valid; rather the Hadeeth is to be taken as it appears to be and there is no need for such a far-fetched interpretation. 
The sixth view is to refrain from interpreting the Hadeeth and leave knowledge thereof to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted.
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said, quoting from al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad:
Allah knows best what he (the Prophet – blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) meant.
Ibn Battaal narrated that al-Muhallab said:
I never met anyone who was certain about the interpretation of this Hadeeth.
Ibn Tamiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Among them were those who said that they did not understand what it meant, such as Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi.
With regard to the Shi’a quoting this Hadeeth as evidence for the belief in the imamate – which means belief that their imams are infallible rulers, and even that they have the power of issuing laws and are in control of the universe – of twelve men from the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), for whom they have a list of specific names, the last of whom is the Mahdi, this is a far-fetched and distorted understanding of the Hadeeth, based on fanatical bias, ignorance, and whims and desires.
We will explain why this view is weak from several angles:
What is mentioned in the Hadeeth is “twelve caliphs”, not “twelve imams.” There is a difference between the two. In their view imamate is more than mere caliphate and rule; according to their beliefs, imamate requires obedience, and implies that the imams are infallible in word and deed, that they act on behalf of Allah, may He be exalted, in controlling the universe, that they have absolute knowledge of the unseen, and other exaggerated notions that reached the point of kufr (disbelief that puts them beyond the pale of Islam), Allah forbid. All the Hadeeth is actually saying is that there will be twelve caliphs or, according to another report, twelve ameers (rulers). This indicates that twelve men of Quraish will be in positions of rulership.
These twelve men were all described in the Hadeeth as belonging to Quraish. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “… all of them (will be) from Quraish.” If they were from the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), he would have said “… all of them from Banu Haashim,” because identifying someone as a Haashimi is more specific than identifying him as a Quraish; the custom is to attribute a person to the closest or most specific lineage. If all of them were to be from Banu Haashim, he would not have said that they would be from Quraish. [Banu Haashim are a clan of Quraish]
The text of the Hadeeth indicates that the era of these twelve would be an era of strength, power and righteousness, in which Islam would be prevailing. This did not happen during the era of the twelve imams in whom the Shi ‘ah believe. All of them lived a life of weakness and persecution, hidden from view, so how could they have been able to contribute to the glory and strength of Islam in that situation?
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tammiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
“Whoever thinks that these twelve are the ones who the Raafidis believe are their imams is utterly ignorant, for none of them carried a sword except ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib. All the rest of the imams, apart from ‘Ali, never carried a sword, especially the Awaited One (al-Muntazar – the last imam). Rather he, according to those who believe in his imamate, is either scared and helpless or on the run, hiding for more than four hundred years.
This hidden one never guided anyone who had gone astray, he never enjoined any good, forbade any evil or supported any oppressed person; he never gave a fatwa concerning any issue, he never gave a ruling and it is not known that he even existed at all!
What benefit did he offer, even if he did exist, let alone Islam prevailing because of him?
Moreover, the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stated that Islam would remain strong and this ummah would remain in good shape until there had been twelve caliphs. If what is meant thereby is these twelve imams, the last of whom is al-Muntazar, who supposedly exists now, until he appears to them, as they believe, then Islam should still have been strong during the Umayyad and ‘Abbasid periods, and it should have prevailed when the disbelievers emerged in the East and the West (i.e., the Mongols and the Crusaders) and did what they did to the Muslims, which would take too long to describe here. Islam should have been still prevailing until today, and this is something other than what the hadeeth indicates.
Moreover, Islam – according to the Imami Shi‘ah – is what they are following, and they are the most humiliated sect of the ummah. There are no followers of whims and desires who are more lowly than the Raafidis; no group is more concealing of their beliefs than them or more assidious in practicing taqiyyah (dissimulation). They claim to be followers of the twelve imams, yet they are the most humiliated. What support of Islam was achieved by these twelve, as they claim? Many of the Jews, when they became Muslim, became Shi‘ah, because they read in the Torah mention of twelve, so they think that these are the ones. But that is not the case; rather these twelve (in the hadeeth) are the men of Quraysh who took positions of leadership and caliphate in the ummah; at their time Islam was strong, and this is well known.
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This hadeeth indicates the inevitability of there being twelve just caliphs, but they are not the twelve imams of the Shi‘ah. Many of the latter had no power at all, whereas these (caliphs mentioned in the hadeeth) will be of Quraysh, and they will have power and will be just.
Shaykh ‘Uthmaan al-Khamees (may Allah preserve him) said:
One may wonder: is it mere coincidence that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said that twelve would rule or be in charge of the Muslims, and the number of the imams of the Shi‘ah is twelve?
This is not a coincidence. The early Shi‘ah never had this idea of twelve imams. Hence the Shi‘ah divided into many sects. Some Shi‘ah believe that only ‘Ali was an imam; they are the Saba’is, who stopped at that point. Another group said that he was an imam, as were al-Hasan, al-Husayn and Muhammad ibn ‘Ali; they are the Keesaanis, and they stopped at Muhammad. Another group said that the imamate went up to Ja‘far then stopped. And another group said that al-Muntazar (the awaited one) is also an imam; they are the Ithna ‘Asharis (Twelvers). And there are other groups and many other divisions. Anyone who wishes to know more may refer to an-Noobakhti’s book on the Shi‘ah sects.
So you can see that the idea of twelve imams came very late, because this idea did not exist among the early Shi‘ah; the hadeeths they quote were fabricated after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and even after the death of most of the imams of the Shi‘ah.
Thus it will become clear to you that the Shi‘ah are the ones who made this number match the number in the hadeeth of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
Finally, I say that the sound report is the one that says “all of them from Quraysh”. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would not have mentioned this general claim if he had meant something more specific; doing so is contrary to eloquence, and the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was the most eloquent of people.
For example, I would not say, “I am going to give a hundred dinars to every Arab,” then if an Egyptian comes to me, I tell him that I meant every Syrian. Is he not going to accuse me of being foolish and unable to express myself, and tell me that in that case I should have said “every Syrian”?
If the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had meant ‘Ali and his sons, he would have said, “They are ‘Ali and his sons.” Even if he had said “All of them from Banu Haashim,” that would have been eloquent. Banu Haashim were many, and Quraish were more numerous, but the report speaks of them (Quraish). If at-Tijaani [who wrote a book in support of Shi‘i ideas] and others quote this Hadeeth as evidence because it matches the number they have, then what would they say about the Hadeeth narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh (2779), according to which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Among my Ummah there will be twelve hypocrites; they will not enter Paradise or even smell its fragrance, until the camel goes through the eye of the needle”?
The wilaayah of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him):
Was the caliph ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib Waliy-Allah, as mentioned in the hadeeth of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that ‘Ali is “your ruler (waliy) after me” or “I am of ‘Ali and ‘Ali is of me”? Are these things true?
Are ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Husayn and al-Hasan of the same status as the Prophets (not the Messengers)?
‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (praise be to Allah) – according to the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah – is one of the honored close friends (awliya’ – sing. waliy) of Allah and one of the guided leaders (imams). He is the fourth of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the fourth of the ten who were given the glad tidings of Paradise, who are the best of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them). His virtues and good qualities are too many to be counted, to such an extent that some of our scholars compiled books focusing only on them, such as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Manaaqib ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, and Imam an-Nisaa’i in Khasaa’is ‘Ali.
That is, in lineage, relationship by marriage, in seniority (in Islam), in love and in other ways.
Al- (may Allah have mercy on Haafiz Ibn Hajar him) said:
Another of these qualities was mentioned in the report narrated by ‘Imraan ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him who said:
The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent out an army and appointed ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib as their leader. He went out on the campaign, and he acquired a slave woman as booty. They objected to that, and four of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) made an agreement and said: When we meet the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), we will tell them about what ‘Ali did.
When the Muslims returned from a journey, they would start by visiting the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then they would go to their homes. When the army came back, they greeted the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and one of the four stood up and said: O Messenger of Allah, have you not seen that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib did such and such? The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) turned away from him. Then the second one stood up and said something like what he had said, and he turned away from him. Then the third one stood up and said something like what he had said, and he turned away from him. Then the fourth one stood up and said something similar to what they had said. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) turned to him, with anger visible on his face, and said:
“What do you want from ‘Ali, what do you want from ‘Ali, what do you want from ‘Ali? ‘Ali is of me and I am of him. He is the waliy of every believer after I am gone.”
Narrated by Ahmad, 33/154, Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edition; at-Tirmidhi, no 3712; and many others, all of them via Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan, who said: Yazeed ar-Rashk told me, from Mutarriq ibn ‘Abdullah, from ‘Imraan ibn Husayn. Adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said it is one of the reports narrated only by Ja‘far. End quote from Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’, 8/199
Our scholars differed concerning this hadeeth; there are two views:
The first view is that the Hadeeth is acceptable.
This Hadeeth is hasan ghareeb; we know of it only through this isnaad from the hadeeth of Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan. End quote.
It is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim. End quote. Adh-Dhahabi did not say anything about it.
It was classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan as he narrated in his Saheeh, 15/374
Ibn ‘Adiyy (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan an-Nasaa’i included it in his Sihaah, but al-Bukhaari did not include it (in his Saheeh). End quote.
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Its isnaad is qawiy. End quote.
It was classed as Saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Silsilah as-Saheehah, no. 2223
Their evidence for the soundness of this hadeeth is that many of the scholars regarded Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan ad-Dab‘i as thiqah (trustworthy) and that they found other two corroborating reports of the hadeeth, the first of which is from Ibn ‘Abbaas in Musnad Ahmad (1/330) and in Musnad at-Tayaalisi(4/470 – Hajar edn under the supervision of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Muhsin at-Turki). Its isnaad includes Abu Balj, concerning whom there is a difference of opinion. The second corroborating report is from the hadeeth of Buraydah ibn al-Husayb in Musnad Ahmad (38/118). Its isnaad includes Ajlah ibn ‘Abdullah al-Kindi, who is a Shi‘i and da‘eef. It was also narrated by more than one narrator from Buraydah with different wording; one such report appears in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, no. 4350.
The second view is that the hadeeth is da‘eef (weak).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It is false and fabricated according to the consensus of hadeeth scholars. End quote.
Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 7/385
It was classed as da‘eef by the commentators on Musnad Ahmad (Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edn.)
The reason for their describing it as da‘eef is Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan ad-Dab‘i who was the only one to narrate it. Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Qattaan regarded him as da‘eef. ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi did not feel at ease with his hadeeth. Al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Some of his hadeeth go against other scholars. ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: He narrated a great deal from Thaabit, and the rest of his hadeeth are munkar (rejected).
Ibn Sa‘d said: He was thiqah (trustworthy) but there was some weakness in him. See Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, 2/97.
As the hadeeth scholars were also unanimously agreed that he was an extreme Shi‘i who reviled Mu‘aawiyah, a number of scholars favoured the view that the hadeeths which were narrated only by him were to be regarded as da‘eef, because the hadeeth narrated only by someone like him is not to be accepted, especially since what he narrated in this case is something that supports his bid‘ah (innovation). This is the view we are inclined to favour with regard to the hadeeths which speak of virtues (of ‘Ali).
Even if we assume that the hadeeth is saheeh and acceptable, there is no evidence in it whatsoever to support what the Shi‘ah want to prove about the caliphate belonging to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). This is for a number of reasons:
The word waliy has many meanings in Arabic; what evidence do the Shi‘ah have that what it means here is caliphate? Al-Fayroozabadi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Waly may mean closeness, nearness, or rain after rain. Waliy may mean: loved one, friend, or supporter. Wilaayah may mean rulership or authority. Wala’ may mean ownership. Mawla may mean owner, slave, the one who manumits a slave, the manumitted slave, companion, relative such as a cousin and so on, neighbour, ally, son, paternal uncle, guest, partner, or sister’s son. Al-Waliy may mean the Lord, the Helper, or the Bestower of blessings; or it may mean the recipient of blessings, lover, follower or son-in-law. End quote.
Al-Qaamoos al-Muheet, p. 1732
If what is meant is rulership and caliphate, then how could the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) have said “the waliy of every believer after I am gone”, when ‘Ali was the caliph only of those who lived at his time, and he was not the leader of every believer until the Day of Resurrection?
In some versions of the hadeeth it says, “The waliy of every believer in this world and in the Hereafter.” Musnad Ahmad, 5/179. This version indicates that what is meant by waliy here is not rulership; how could he be a ruler of the believers in the Hereafter?!
We have not heard of this hadeeth being quoted by ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) or by any of his supporters or even by any of the noble Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), as evidence for the caliphate of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
The correct meaning of this word is love, help and support. Love for ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) is obligatory upon every believer, as is helping and supporting him in adhering to the truth.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The words “He is the waliy of every believer after I am gone” are falsely attributed to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Rather during his life and after his death he is the waliy of every believer, and every believer is his waliy in life and in death. Wilaayah (love, support, friendship) that is the opposite of enmity is not limited to any particular time. As for wilaayah in the sense of rulership, the word should be waali (ruler) and not waliy; thus the wording would be, “the waali (ruler) of every believer after I am gone”, as it is said that in the funeral prayer, when both the waliy (the next of kin) and the waaliy (ruler or governor) are present, the waaliy (ruler) is given precedence with regard to leading the prayer, according to the view of most scholars; others said that the waliy (next of kin) should be given precedence.
The words “ ‘Ali is the waliy of every believer after I am gone” cannot be attributed to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), because if he had meant muwaalaah (in the sense of loving ‘Ali) , he would not have needed to say “after I am gone”; if he had meant rulership, he would have said “waalin ‘ala (ruler over) every believer”. 
He (may Allah have mercy on him) also said:
There is nothing in these words to clearly suggest that what is meant is caliphate. That is because the mawla is like the waliy. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Verily, your Waliy (Protector or Helper) is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers…”
“But if you help one another against him (Muhammad SAW), then verily, Allah is his Mawla (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers”
It is clear that the Messenger is the waliy of the believers and that they are also his mawlas. It is also clear that Allah is the Waliy of the believers and that they are His awliya’ (pl. of waliy, i.e., close friends), and that the believers are awliya’ of one another. So muwaalaah (love) is the opposite of enmity and it is affirmed in the case of both parties. Because one of the two parties (namely Allah) is greater in status, His wilaayah towards them is in the sense of kindness and grace, and the wilaayah of the other party (the believers) is obedience and worship. Just as Allah loves the believers and the believers love Him, muwaalah is the opposite of enmity, war and betrayal. The disbelievers do not love Allah and His Messenger, and they fight and oppose Allah and His Messenger. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists, etc.) as friends”
And He will require them for that, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allah and His Messenger”
He is the Waliy of the believers, and He is their Mawla. He brings them forth from the depths of darkness to the light. As that is the case, then what is meant by saying that Allah is the Waliy and Mawla of the believers, and that the Messenger is their waliy and mawla, and that ‘Ali is their mawla, is that muwaalaah which is the opposite of enmity.
The believers take Allah and His Messenger as friends in the sense of muwaalaah that is the opposite of enmity. This ruling is firmly established for every believer. And ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is one of the believers whom the believers take as friends and allies (awliya’).
This hadeeth affirms that ‘Ali is a believer in the true sense and testifies that he is deserving of muwaalaah (love) both inwardly and outwardly. This is a refutation of what his enemies among the Khaarijis and Naasibis say about him, but it does not suggest that the believers do not have any mawla other than him. How can that be the case when the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) has mawaali (pl. of mawla), who are the righteous believers. Similarly, ‘Ali also has mawaali, namely the believers who take him as a friend. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Aslam, Ghifaar, Muzaynah, Juhaynah, Quraysh and the Ansaar have no mawla except Allah and His Messenger.” They are described as mawaali of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) just as the righteous believers are described as his mawaali, and Allah and His Messenger are their mawla.
To sum up, there is a difference between the waliy, mawla etc. and the waali. Wilaayah in the sense of that which is the opposite of enmity is one thing, and wilaayah in the sense of rulership is something else. The hadeeth refers only to the former, not the latter. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not say, “If I am someone’s waali (ruler), ‘Ali is also his waali”; rather the wording is: “If I am someone’s mawla (close friend), then ‘Ali is also his mawla.”
This is one of the things which indicate that he was not referring to caliphate. The fact that he is the waliy of every believer is true during the lifetime of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and is not deferred until the time after the Prophet’s death. With regard to caliphate, he could not become caliph until after the Prophet’s death. Thus it is known that this is not what is meant here.
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is closer to the believers than their own selves, during his lifetime and after his death, until the Day of Resurrection; if he appointed someone to a position of authority during his lifetime – or if we assume that he appointed someone to a position of authority matters during his lifetime, or we assume that he appointed to take charge after his death, and that person became caliph either on the basis of a text or consensus – then that person would be more entitled to the position of caliphate and he would be closer to the believers than their own selves. But no one other than the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) could ever be closer to any believer than his own self, especially during his lifetime. With regard to ‘Ali or anyone else being the mawla of every believer, this is true and applied to ‘Ali during the lifetime of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and after his death, and after the death of ‘Ali. So today ‘Ali is still the mawla of every believer, but today he is not waali (ruler, in charge) over people. The same applies to the rest of the believers; they are awliya’ of one another, in life and in death.
With regard to the claim that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Faatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them all) are of the same status as the Prophets, this is a false and invalid claim. In fact it is kufr (disbelief) that nullifies a Muslim’s ‘aqeedah (belief), because it is contrary to the consensus of the scholars that no one other than the Prophets can attain the status of the Prophets. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Allah chooses Messengers from angels and from men. Verily, Allah is All-Hearer, All-Seer”
The Messengers and Prophets are the chosen from among Allah’s creation. Anyone who claims otherwise is required to produce evidence, and no one can ever prove that ‘Ali, Fatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn are of the same status as the Prophets except by lying, distorting and fabricating Hadeeth and reports.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tamiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Whoever exaggerates about the awliya’ (close friends of Allah, “saints”), or those whom they call the awliya’ of Allah, or the “people of Allah”, or the wise, or the philosophers, and other names that they regard as akin to the title of prophet, and they regard them as being like the Prophets or better than the Prophets, should be asked to repent. If he repents, all well and good, otherwise he is to be executed.
End quote from as-Safadiyyah, 1/262
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahab (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Whoever believes that someone other than the Prophets is better than them, or equal to them, has disbelieved. Consensus on that point was narrated by more than one of the scholars. What good can there be in a people whose beliefs imply that they are disbelievers?
End quote from Risaalah fi’r-Radd ‘ala ar-Raafidah, p. 29. See also: al-Fasl fi’l-Milal wa’l-Ahwa’ an-Nihal, 4/21
And Allah knows best.
The status of the Hadeeth, “If I am someone’s mawla then ‘Ali is his mawla too” and its meaning:
This hadeeth was narrated by al-Tirmidhi, 3713; Ibn Maajah, 121. There is some difference of opinion as to its authenticity. Al-Zayla’i said in Taareekh al-Hidaayah 1/189: “How many ahaadeeth there are which have many narrators and many isnaads, but they are da’eef (weak), such as the hadeeth “If I am someone’s mawla then ‘Ali is his mawla too”.”
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
“As for his saying “If I am someone’s mawla then ‘Ali is his mawla too”, this is not in the books of Saheeh, but it is one of the reports which were narrated by the scholars and concerning whose authenticity the people disputed. It was narrated that al-Bukhaari, Ibraaheem al-Harbi and a group of scholars of hadeeth stated that it is not saheeh… As for the additional material, which is the phrase ‘O Allaah, take as friends those who take him as a friend, and take as enemies those who take him as an enemy,’ etc., this is undoubtedly false.” Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 7/319. Al-Dhahabi said: “As for the hadeeth, “If I am someone’s mawla then ‘Ali is his mawla too”, it has jayyid isnaads.” It was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in al-Silsilah al-Saheehah, 1750, and he criticized those who said that it is da’eef (weak).
The fact that this sentence has a saheeh isnaad going back to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – if it is saheeh – cannot under any circumstances be taken as evidence to support what the extremists added to the hadeeth to prove that ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) takes precedence over all the other Sahaabah, or to slander the Sahaabah and accuse them of usurping his rights. Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah] referred to some of these additions and proved them to be da’eef (weak) in ten places in Manhaaj al-Sunnah.
There is some difference of opinion as to the meaning of the hadeeth. Whatever the meaning, it does not contradict that which is proven and well-known from the saheeh ahaadeeth which state that the best of this ummah is Abu Bakr and that he was the most deserving of being the khaleefah; then he was followed by ‘Umar, then ‘Uthmaan – may Allaah be pleased with them all. Proof of the virtue of a specific Sahaabi does not means that he is the best of them, and that does not contradict the fact that Abu Bakr is the best of them as is affirmed in the chapters on ‘aqeedah.
One of the meanings that have been suggested for this hadeeth is as follows:
“It was said that its meaning is, ‘whomever I took as a friend, ‘Ali will also take him as a friend as opposed to an enemy, and whomever I used to love, ‘Ali will also love him.’ And it was said that its meaning is, ‘whoever took me as a friend, ‘Ali will also take him as a friend.’ This was quoted by al-Qaari’ from some of his scholars. Al-Jazari said in al-Nihaayah: ‘The word mawla is frequently mentioned in the hadeeth, and this is a name that is applied to many. It may refer to a lord, to an owner, to a master, to a benefactor, to one who frees a slave, to a supporter, to one who loves another, to a follower, to a neighbour, to a cousin (son of paternal uncle), to an ally, to an in-law, to a slave, to a freed slave, to one to whom one has done a favour. Most of these meanings are referred to in various ahaadeeth, so it is to be understand in the manner implied by the context of the hadeeth in which it is mentioned. Everyone who is in charge of some matter or is taking care of it is the mawla of that thing. The word mawla mentioned in this hadeeth may refer to most of the meanings indicated above. Al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: What is meant by that is the bonds of Islam, as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):
‘That is because Allaah is the Mawlaa (Lord, Master, Helper, Protector) of those who believe, and the disbelievers have no Mawlaa (lord, master, helper, protector)’
Al-Teebi said: it is incorrect to interpret the mawla as referring to the imam who conducts the affairs of the believers, because the only person who was in charge of the Muslims’ affairs during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the Prophet himself and no one else, so the word mawla must be interpreted as referring to love, the bonds of Islam and so on.”
Adapted from Tuhfat al-Ahwadhi Sharh al-Tirmidhi, Hadeeth 3713..
What is taqiyah (dissimulation)? Is it used by Ahl as-Sunnah (Sunnis)?:
Taqiyah, in the usual and well-known sense, is one of the basic principles of the Ithna-Ash‘ari Raafidis; Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah differ from them concerning it and it is something that takes them beyond the boundaries of the straight path of Allah.
Taqiyah in their religion means presenting outwardly something that is different from what one believes inwardly, as an act of religious devotion. Thus they attributed lying and deceit to the religion of Allah, wrongfully and out of enmity.
This corrupt belief has nothing to do with the beliefs (‘Aqeedah) of Ahl as-Sunnah. According to Ahl as-Sunnah, lying is one of the attributes of the hypocrites. A person may keep on lying and persist in lying until he is recorded with Allah as a liar. These people tell lies and persist in lying in all things, then they regard that as part of their beliefs and religion.
The way of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah is based on truthfulness and justice; lying is not part of their religion, praise be to Allah.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tamiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The Raafidis are the most ignorant and mendacious of sects, and the furthest removed from any knowledge of the texts or rational evidence. They regard taqiyah as one of the basic principles of their religion, and they tell lies about Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s family), the extent of which is known only to Allah. They even narrated from Ja‘far as-Sadiq that he said:
“Taqiyah is my religion and the religion of my forefathers.” But taqiyah is one of the signs of hypocrisy; in fact in their case, they say verbally that which is not in their hearts, and this is the essence of hypocrisy.
He also said:
As for the Raafidis, the basis of their innovation is heresy and the deliberate lying that is widespread among them. They affirmed that when they said: Our religion is taqiyyah. This means that one of them says verbally something other than what is in his heart, and this is lying and hypocrisy. Yet despite that they claim that they are the (true) believers, to the exclusion of other Muslims, and they describe the earliest believers as apostates and hypocrites, when they are the ones who deserve this description. There are no people among those who outwardly profess to be Muslims who are closer to hypocrisy and apostasy than them, and there is no greater number of apostates and hypocrites in any other group than in theirs.
It says in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Muyassarah (1/54), which discusses the basic beliefs of the Shi‘ah:
Taqiyyah: They – meaning the Imami Shi‘ah – regard it as one of the basic principles of their religion, and they regard the one who does not practise it as being the same as one who does not pray. It is obligatory and it is not permissible to refrain from it until the hidden imam appears. Whoever refrains from it before he appears has gone beyond the pale of the religion of Allah, may He be exalted, and the religion of the Imamis.
Dr. Naasir ibn ‘Abdullah al-Qafaari said:
Al-Mufeed defined taqiyah for them as follows: Taqiyah means concealing the truth, concealing belief in it, concealing one’s true beliefs from those who differ from one and not showing openly that which may lead to negative consequences in religious or worldly terms.
Thus al-Mufeed defined taqiyah as concealing beliefs for fear of harm from those who disagree with them – namely Ahl as-Sunnah, as is usually the case when they use this term. In other words, it means making an outward display of following the Madhhab of Ahl as-Sunnah (which they regard as false), and concealing the Raafidi madhhab, which they believe is true. Hence some Sunnis think that those who adhere to this belief are worse than the hypocrites, because the hypocrites believe that what they are concealing of disbelief is falsehood, and they make an outward display of being Muslims out of fear. But in the case of these people, they think that what they are concealing is truth, and that their path is the way of the Messengers and Imams. 
Taqiyyah – as an idea or concession to be used in extreme circumstances, on a temporary basis – is known to Ahl as-Sunnah, but it is different from the taqiyyah practised by the Raafidis in both general and specific terms. According to Ahl as-Sunnah, it is something to be resorted to when one has no other choice, and it is an extraordinary measure to be used only in times of extreme necessity.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Taqiyah means saying something contrary to what one believes, for fear of harm that may befall him if he does not resort to taqiyah.
The basis for it being permissible is the verse in which Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Awliya’ (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them”
The words “except if you indeed fear a danger from them” mean: except in the case of one who fears their evil in some countries or at some times. In that case, he may dissimulate (use taqiyah) by changing his outward behavior (to protect himself from their evil), without changing what he believes and intends in his heart. For example, al-Bukhari narrated that Abu’d-Darda’ said: We smile in the faces of some people when our hearts are cursing them (inwardly).
End quote from Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 2/30
It says in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 13/186-187
The view of the majority of Sunni scholars is that the basic principle concerning taqiyyah is that it is disallowed; it is only permissible in the case of necessity, and is permitted only to the extent that is necessary. Al-Qurtubi said: The basic principle concerning taqiyyah is that it is not permissible unless there is the fear of death, severing of a limb or extreme harm, and there is no report to the contrary as far as we know, except that which was reported from Mu‘aadh ibn Jabal among the Sahaabah and from Mujaahid among the Taabi‘een. End quote.
According to Ahl as-Sunnah, in order for taqiyyah to be permissible, there should be fear of harm and the individual should not have any other means of avoiding harm except by resorting to taqiyyah. It is also stipulated that the harm that is feared should be of a type that is extremely hard to bear. The one who resorts to taqiyyah should also note that if he has any other option that does not involve committing a haraam action, then he must choose it. He should also note that he should not indulge in the concession to such an extent that it goes beyond the limits of taqiyyah to the level of negligence by committing haraam actions after achieving what is necessary. The basic principle concerning that is what Allah, may He be exalted, said concerning the one who is forced by necessity (interpretation of the meaning): “But whosoever is forced by necessity without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits, (for him) certainly, your Lord is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful” [al-An‘aam 6:145].
Allah, may He be exalted, referred to taqiyyah when He said (interpretation of the meaning):
“Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Awliya (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His Punishment)”
Here, Allah warns of His punishment, lest the one who resorts to taqiyyah is tempted to persist in it.
He should also pay attention to his intention, and have the intention that he is only doing something haraam out of necessity; he knows that it is haraam, but he is availing himself of the concession granted by Allah. If he does it, taking the matter lightly and thinking that there is nothing wrong with it, then he will fall into sin.
See: al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 191-200
Dr. Naasir al-Qafaari said:
In Islam, taqiyyah is usually used with the disbelievers. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “except if you indeed fear a danger from them” [Aal ‘Imran 3:28]. Ibn Jareer at-Tabari said: The taqiyyah mentioned by Allah in this verse is that which is resorted to in order to protect oneself from the disbelievers, not from anyone else. Hence some of the early generations thought that there is no taqiyyah after Allah caused Islam to prevail. Mu‘aadh ibn Jabal and Mujaahid said: Taqiyyah was practiced during the early days of Islam, before the Muslims grew strong. But now Allah has caused the Muslims to prevail so there is no need for taqiyah. But the taqiyyah of the Shi’a is practiced with the Muslims, especially Ahl as-Sunnah, to the extent that they think that the best of eras was the era of taqiyyah, as was stated by their shaykh al-Mufeed. This may also be noted in the texts that they attribute to the imams, because they regard Ahl as-Sunnah as being worse in disbelief than the Jews and Christians, because the one who rejects the twelve Imams is worse than one who rejects Prophet Hood.
Taqiyyah – according to Ahl as-Sunnah – is a concession to be used in times of necessity, hence Allah – may He be glorified – exempted it from the principle that prohibits taking the disbelievers as supporters and helpers. Allah, may He be glorified, says (interpretation of the meaning): ger from them. And Allah warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allah is the final return”
Allah, may He be glorified, has forbidden taking the disbelievers as supporters and helpers, and has issued a stern warning concerning that, as He says, “and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way” i.e., and whoever transgresses the prohibition issued by Allah in this regard, has severed his connection with Allah. Then He, may He be glorified, says: “except if you indeed fear a danger from them” i.e., except for those who, in some countries or at some times, may fear their evil; in that case he may protect himself from them by his outward words and actions, not by his inward beliefs and intentions.
The scholars are unanimously agreed that taqiyah is a concession that is allowed in the case of necessity. Ibn al-Mundhir said: They are unanimously agreed that if a person is forced to say words of disbelief, to the extent that he fears for his life, and he speaks words of disbelief when his heart is content with faith, he is not to be deemed a disbeliever.
But the one who chooses to be steadfast in this situation is better. Ibn Battaal said: And they are unanimously agreed that the one who is forced to disbelieve but chooses to be killed will have the greatest reward with Allah.
But among the Shi’a, taqiyyah is something else altogether. For them it is not a concession; rather it is one of the pillars of their religion, like the prayer or greater.
End quote from Usool Madhhab ash-Shi’a al-Imamiyyah, 2/806-807.
To sum up:
There is a great difference between taqiyyah in the religion of Allah and taqiyyah in the religion of the Raafidis. In Islam it is a concession in cases of necessity, but for the Raafidis it is nine-tenths of religion, and the one who has no taqiyyah has no religion, according to them.
Ibn Baabawayh (an Shi’a scholar) said:
Our belief concerning taqiyah is that it is obligatory, and the one who gives it up is like one who gives up prayer.
As-Sadiq (one of their Imams) said:
If you said that the one who gives up taqiyah is like the one who gives up prayer, you would be right. 
What a great difference there is between the two!
What the Shi’a do on ‘Ashoorah’ is bid’ah (innovation) and misguidance:
What the Shi’a do on ‘Ashoorah’ of beating their chests, slapping their cheeks, striking their shoulders with chains and cutting their heads with swords to let the blood flow are all innovations that have no basis in Islam. These things are evils that were forbidden by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who did not prescribe for his Ummah to do any of these things or anything similar to them to mark the death of a leader or the loss of a martyr, no matter what his status. During his lifetime (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) a number of senior Sahaabah were martyred and he mourned their loss, such as Hamza ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, Zayd ibn Haarithah, Ja’far ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Rawaahah, but he did not do any of the things that these people do. If it was good, he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have done it before us.
Ya’qûb (peace be upon him) did not strike his chest or scratch his face, or shed blood or take the day of the loss of Yousuf as a festival or day of mourning. Rather he remembered his missing loved one and felt sad and distressed because of that. This is something no one can be blamed for. What is forbidden is these actions that have been inherited from the Jaahiliyyah, and which Islam forbids.
Al-Bukhaari (1294) and Muslim (103) narrated that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “He is not one of us who strikes his cheeks, rends his garment, or cries with the cry of the Jaahiliayah.”
These reprehensible actions that the Shi’ah do on the day of ‘Ashoorah’ have no basis in Islam. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not do them, nor did any of his companions. None of his companions did them when he or anyone else died, although the loss of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was greater than the death of al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with him).
Al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Every Muslim should mourn the killing of al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with him), for he is one of the leaders of the Muslims, one of the scholars of the Sahaabah, and the son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who was the best of his daughters. He was a devoted worshipper, and a courageous and generous man. But there is nothing good in what the Shi’ah do of expressing distress and grief, most of which may be done in order to show off. His father was better than him and he was killed, but they do not take his death as an anniversary as they do with the death of al-Husayn. His father was killed on a Friday as he was leaving the mosque after Fajr prayer, on the seventeenth of Ramadaan in 40 AH. ‘Uthmaan was better than ‘Ali according to Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and he was killed when he was besieged in his house during the days of al-Tashreeq in Dhu’l-Hijjah of 36 AH, with his throat cut from one jugular vein to the other, but the people did not take his death as an anniversary. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab was better than ‘Ali and ‘Uthman, and he was killed as he was standing in the mihraab, praying Fajr and reciting Qur’aan, but the people did not take his death as an anniversary. Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq was better than him but the people did not take his death as an anniversary. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is the leader of the sons of Adam in this world and the Hereafter, and Allaah took him to Him as the Prophets died before him, but no one took the dates of their deaths as anniversaries on which they do what these ignorant Raafidis do on the day that al-Husayn was killed. … The best that can be said when remembering these and similar calamities is that which ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn narrated from his grandfather the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who said: “There is no Muslim who is afflicted by a calamity and when he remembers it, even if it was in the dim and distant past, he says Inna Lillaahi wa inna ilayhi raaji’oon (verily to Allaah we belong and unto Him is our return), but Allaah will give him a reward like that of the day when it befell him.”
Narrated by Imam Ahmad and Ibn Majaah, end quote from al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (8/221).
And he said (8/220): The Raafidis went to extremes in the state of Bani Buwayh in the year 400 and thereabouts. The drums were beaten in Baghdad and other cities on the day of ‘Ashoora’, and sand and straw was strewn in the streets and marketplaces, and sackcloth was hung on the shops, and the people expressed grief and wept. Many of them did not drink water that night, in sympathy with al-Husayn, because he was killed when he was thirsty. Then the women went out barefaced, wailing and slapping their faces and chests, walking barefoot in the marketplaces, and other reprehensible innovations… What they intended by these and similar actions is to impugn the state of Banu Umayyah (the Umayyads), because he was killed during their era.
On the day of ‘Ashoora, the Naasibis of Syria do the opposite of what the Raafidis and Shi’ah do. They used to cook grains on the day of ‘Ashoora and do ghusl and perfume themselves, and wear their finest garments, and they took that day as an Eid for which they made all kinds of food, and expressed happiness and joy, intending thereby to annoy the Raafidis and be different from them.
Celebrating that day is an innovation (bid’ah), and making it an anniversary for mourning is also an innovation. Hence Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Because of the killing of al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with him), shaytaan caused the people to introduce two innovations: the innovation of mourning and wailing on the day of ‘Ashoora’, by slapping the cheeks, weeping, and reciting eulogies. … and the innovation of rejoicing and celebrating. … So some introduced mourning and others introduced celebration, so they regarded the day of ‘Ashoora’ as a day for wearing kohl, doing ghusl, spending on the family and making special foods. … And every innovation is a going astray. None of the four imams of the Muslims or any other (scholars) regarded either of these things as mustahabb. End quote from Minhaaj al-Sunnah (4/554).
It should be noted that these reprehensible actions are encouraged by the enemies of Islam, so that they can achieve their evil aims of distorting the image of Islam and its followers. Concerning this Moosa al-Musawi said in his book al-Shi’ah wa’l-Tas-heeh:
Is it permissible to say that al-Husayn died as a martyr?
Yes, al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was killed as a martyr.
That was when the people of Iraq (Kufah) wrote to him and asked him to come out to them so that they could swear allegiance to him as their ruler, which happened after the death of Mu‘aawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him), and the accession of his son Yazeed to the caliphate.
Then the people of Kufah turned against al-Husayn after ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad was appointed as governor of the city by Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah and killed Muslim ibn ‘Uqayl, who was al-Husayn’s envoy to them. The hearts of the people of Iraq were with al-Husayn, but their swords were with ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad.
al-Husayn went out to them, not knowing of the killing of Muslim ibn ‘Uqayl, or of the people’s changed attitude towards him.
Wise men who loved him had advised him not to go out to Iraq, but he insisted on going out to them. Among those who gave him this advice were: ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbaas, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, Abu Sa‘eed al-Khudri, Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah, al-Miswar ibn Makhramah, and ‘Abdullah ibn az-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with them all).
So al-Husayn travelled to Iraq, and halted at Karbala’, where he came to know that the people of Iraq had turned against him. So al-Husayn asked the army that came to fight him for one of three things: either to let him return to Makkah, or to let him go to Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah, or to let him go to the frontier to fight in jihad for the sake of Allah.
But they insisted that he should surrender to them, and al-Husayn refused, so they fought him, and he was killed wrongfully as a martyr (may Allah be pleased with him).
Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (11/473-520
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah was born during the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him) and did not meet the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). He was not one of the Sahaabah, according to scholarly consensus, and he was not one of those who were well known for religious commitment and righteousness. He was one of the Muslim youth, and he was not a disbeliever or a heretic. He became the caliph after his father died, despite the objections of some of the Muslims and with the approval of some of them. He was courageous and generous, and he did not outwardly blatantly commit immoral actions, as some of his opponents said that he did.
During his rule, a number of grievous events occurred, one of which was the killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him). Yazeed did not issue orders that al-Husayn be killed, and he did not express joy at his killing. He did not poke the severed head of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) with a stick, and the head of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was not brought to him in Syria, but he did issue instructions that al-Husayn be prevented from achieving his goal, even if that involved fighting him. But those who received his instructions went further than that.
Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) asked them to let him go to Yazeed or let him go to the border and keep watch there, or let him go back to Makah, but they insisted on taking him prisoner and ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d issued orders to fight him, and they killed him wrongfully – him and a number of his family members (may Allah be pleased with them). His killing was a major calamity, because the killing of al-Husayn, and of ‘Uthman before him, was among the main causes of turmoil in this Ummah, and their killers are among the most evil of people before Allah. 
He also said (25/302-305):
When al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was killed on the day of ‘Ashoorah’, he was killed by the transgressing, wrongdoing group. Allah honored al-Husayn with martyrdom, as He honored other members of his family; He honored Hamza and Ja‘far with martyrdom, as well as his father ‘Ali and others. His martyrdom was one of the means by which Allah raised him in status, for he and his brother al-Hasan will be the leaders of the youth among the people of Paradise, and high status is only achieved by means of trials, as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, when he was asked which of the people are most sorely tested? He said: “The Prophets, then the righteous, then the next best and the next best. A man will be tested to a degree commensurate with his level of religious commitment. If there is firmness in his religious commitment, his test will be greater, and if there is any weakness in his religious commitment, the test will be reduced for him. Trials will continue to befall the believer until he walks upon the earth with no sin on him.”
Narrated by at-Tirmidhī and others.
Al-Hasan and al-Husayn had previously been granted high status by Allah, may He be glorified, and they did not go through the same trials and hardships that had befallen their predecessors, because they were born at a time when Islam was prevalent and they had grown up with honor and dignity. The Muslims venerated them and honored them, and when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, they had not yet reached the age of discernment. The blessing that Allah bestowed upon them was that He tested them with that which caused them to join the other members of their family, just as He tested others who were better than them. ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib was better than them, and he was killed as a martyr. The killing of al-Husayn was an event that provoked turmoil among the people, just as the killing of ‘Uthman was one of the main causes of turmoil among the people, as a result of which the Ummah is still divided until the present day.
When al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) went out and saw that things had changed, he asked them to let him go back (to Makah) or to let him go to one of the border regions, or to let him go and join his paternal cousin Yazeed. But they did not let him do any of these things, unless he surrendered to them and they took him captive. They fought him, so he fought back, then they killed him and a number of those who were with him wrongfully and as martyrs. Allah honored him with martyrdom and caused him to join the pure and good members of his family, and He humiliated thereby those who wronged him and transgressed against him.
Did Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyyah issue orders that al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) be killed?:
What Zaynab bint Ali ibn abi Talib RA said in her khutba after Karbala battle in Sham in front of Yazeed RA? And why Yazeed RA did not release the family of Husayn ibn Ali RA from prison immediately when Yazeed RA did not do anything and everything whose done my his commander?
The Muslims are still faced with troubles and challenges because of the narration of fabricated reports in historical books. If the wise person reflects upon the words of Allah, may He be exalted (interpretation of the meaning): “That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do” [al-Baqarah 2:134], then holds his tongue and refrains from discussing the hadiths that speak of tribulation, disavows wrongdoing before his Lord, and believes that he should love the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and hate those who show enmity towards them, that will be better for him before his Lord and will be safer in terms of protecting his religious commitment.
Many of the reports which have been narrated about tribulations that occurred among the Muslims were narrated via single narrators (as opposed to a large number of narrators at each stage of the chain of transmission) who were either dubious, liars or unknown. It is not permissible for anyone to rely upon any of the reports narrated by such people, because they do not meet the standards of good character (that are required of narrators). Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done” [al-Hujuraat 49:6].
Among these false reports is that which was narrated by at-Tabari in his Tareekh (5/461) and Ibn ‘Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (69/176), via Abu Makhnaf, from al-Haarith ibn Ka‘b, from Faatimah bint ‘Ali, who said:
When we were brought before Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah, he felt sorry for us, issued instructions that something (food) be brought to us, and spoke gently to us. Then a ruddy-faced man from Syria stood up and said to Yazeed: O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, give me this one – meaning me, for I was a pretty young girl. I got scared, because I thought that they would not refrain from such a thing, and I held onto the garment of my sister Zaynab. My sister Zaynab was older and wiser than me, and she knew that that would not happen, so she said (to that man):
You are lying by Allah, you vile man! That is not for you or him. Yazeed got angry and said (to her): You are lying, by Allah! I may do that, and if I want to do it, I will do it. She said: No, by Allah. Allah has forbidden that for you, unless you leave our religion and follow some religion other than ours. Yazeed got angry and lost his temper, and he said: Are you speaking to me like that? Rather it is your father and your brother who have left the religion!
Zaynab said: Rather you, your father and your grandfather were guided by virtue of the religion of Allah, the religion of my father, the religion of my brother, the religion of my grandfather. He said: You are lying, O enemy of Allah! She said: You are a tyrant, who slanders people wrongfully and suppress them. By Allah, it was as if he felt ashamed, so he fell silent. Then the Syrian said again: O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, give me this girl. He said: Get out; may Allah strike you dead!
This was also narrated by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (11/562) via Abu Makhnaf.
Abu Makhnaf’s full name is Loot ibn Yahya. Adh-Dhahabi said: He is a worthless narrator of stories; he is not to be trusted; he was ignored by Abu Haatim and others. Ad-Daaraqutni said: He is weak. Ibn Ma‘een said: He is not trustworthy. And he said, on one occasion: He is nothing. Ibn ‘Adiyy said: He is a fanatical Shi‘i, a narrator of their reports.
So this report is a lie and is not sound.
The same applies to what they say about Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah poking the teeth of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) with a stick [after he had been killed and beheaded].
Zaynab said to him:
Do you think, O Yazeed, after you have gained control over us and we have ended up being driven as slave women are driven, that we are insignificant to Allah and that you are honoured by Him, and that this was because you are of high status before Him, so you began to behave in an insolent manner and began to look at yourself with jubilant self-admiration? Is it fair, O son of the freed ones [people of Quraysh who were let off by the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when they surrendered following the conquest of Makkah, despite their years of enmity towards him], to keep your womenfolk and slave women out of sight and to drive the daughters of the Messenger of Allah like prisoners of war, after you have torn their veils and forced them to show their faces, and their enemies drive them from one land to another?
This is something for which there is no basis in the books of the scholars; rather it is something that was narrated only by the Raafidis who are known for lying.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
What is proven in Saheeh al-Bukhaari is that the head of al-Husayn was brought and placed in front of ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad, who started poking at the teeth with a stick in the presence of Anas ibn Maalik.
In al-Musnad it says that this happened in the presence of Abu Barzah al-Aslami.
But some people narrated with an interrupted isnaad that this poking of the teeth happened in the presence of Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyyah. This is false. End quote.
Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (27/469)
He also said:
Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyyah was in Syria, and was not in Iraq at the time of the killing of al-Husayn. Whoever narrated that he poked his teeth with a stick in the presence of Anas and Abu Barzah, in front of Yazeed, is definitely lying, and his lie is well known on the basis of mutawaatir reports. End quote.
Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (27/4 70)
The well-known view is that Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah did not issue orders for the killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) and did not approve of it. He cursed Ibn Ziyaad for killing him, and he honoured the family of al-Husayn who had been with him during that march of his, and during their march back to Madinah. He did not detain them and keep them with him. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah was born during the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him) and was not one of those who were well-known for religious commitment and righteousness. He was one of the Muslim youth, and he became caliph after his father’s death despite the objections of some of the Muslims and with the approval of others. He was courageous and generous, and he did not openly commit shameful deeds as his opponents said concerning him. During his reign several significant events occurred, one of which was the killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him).
He did not issue orders that al-Husayn be killed, and he did not express joy at his killing, and he did not poke the teeth of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) with a stick or carry the head of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) to Syria. But he did issue orders that al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) be resisted and his efforts to become caliph were to be hindered, even if that meant fighting him.
His deputies went too far in following his commands, and ash-Shamar ibn Dhi’l-Jawshan incited ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad to kill him, so ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad attacked him. Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) asked them to let him come to Yazeed, or go and guard the Muslim border, or to go back to Makkah.
But they did not allow him (may Allah be pleased with him) to do any of these things, and the only choice they gave him was to surrender to them, and Ziyaad ordered ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d to fight him, and they killed him unlawfully, him and a number of his family members (may Allah be pleased with them).
The killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was a great calamity, for the killing of al-Husayn and of ‘Uthmaan before him were two of the greatest causes of tribulation in this ummah. They were killed by the worst of people before Allah.
When his family (may Allah be pleased with them) came to Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah, he honoured them and let them go to Madinah. It was narrated that he cursed Ibn Ziyaad for killing him and said: I would have been content with the obedience of the people of Iraq, without the killing of al-Husayn. Yet despite that, he did not take any action to show disapproval of his killing or to avenge him, when he should have done that. So the Muslims criticised him for not doing what he should have done, in addition to other things.
As for his opponents, they added other lies and fabrications about him. End quote.
Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (3/410)
It was narrated that after that he regretted the killing of al-Husayn and he used to say: What could have happened if I had put up with some annoyance and let him come to my house, and let him have what he wanted, even if that led to weakening of my power and authority, for the sake of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and in showing due respect to him and to the members of his household?
Then he would say: May Allah curse Ibn Marjaanah [i.e., ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad], for he attacked him and forced him to fight, when he had asked him to let him go and let him come to me, or to go and guard one of the borders of the Muslims until Allah, may He be exalted, took his soul in death. But he did not do that, and he refused to let him do (any of those things), and he killed him, and by killing him he made me hateful to the Muslims and instilled enmity in their hearts against me, so that both righteous and evildoers hate me, because of what people think of the seriousness of my having killed Husayn. I wish I had never had anything to do with Ibn Marjaanah, may Allah curse him and be angry with him.
Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (11/651); Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’ (4/370)
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah: the worst of his deeds for which he may be criticised is drinking alcohol and committing some shameful deeds. As for the killing of al-Husayn, he – as his grandfather Abu Sufyaan had said on the day of Uhud [regarding the mutilation of Hamzah (may Allah be pleased with him) and others who had been killed during the battle] – did not issue orders to that effect, nor did it upset him.
We have seen above that he said: If it were me, I would not have done to him what Ibn Marjaanah – meaning ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad – did. And he said to the envoys who brought al-Husayn’s head to him: Less than this would have been sufficient obedience. He did not give them any reward, and he honoured the family members of al-Husayn and restored to them everything that had been taken from them, and many times more, and he sent them back to Madinah in a very dignified and honourable manner. His family in his house mourned for al-Husayn with al-Husayn’s family – who were lodged with them – for three days. End quote.
Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (11/650)
This is not a defence of Yazeed or siding with him. The moderate view concerning him is that he comes under the same ruling as other bad and unjust rulers, so he is not to be regarded as an ally or as an enemy, and he is not to be loved or reviled.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Hence the view of those who follow the beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah and the leading scholars of the ummah is that he is not to be reviled or loved. Saalih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I said to my father: Some people say that they love Yazeed. He said: O my son, would anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day love Yazeed?
I said: O my father, why do we not curse him? He said: O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anyone? End quote.
Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (3/4 12)
He also said:
Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed – according to what I heard: He is not to be reviled or to be loved. I also heard that our grandfather Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed and he said: Do not underestimate his misdeed and do not exaggerate about it.
This is the most equitable and best of the opinions concerning him and others like him. End quote.
Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/483)
The status of the imams of the Ithna ‘Ashari Shi’ah:
The Raafidis, Imamis or Ithna ‘Asharis (“Twelvers”) are one of the branches of Shi’ism. They are called Raafidis because they rejected (rafada) most of the Sahaabah and they rejected the leadership of the two Shaykhs Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, or because they rejected the imamate of Zayd ibn ‘Ali, and deserted him. They called Imamis because they are primarily focused on the issue of imamate, and they made it a basic principle of their religion, or because they claim that the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stated that ‘Ali and his descendents would be imams. They are called Ithna ‘Asharis (“Twelvers”) because they believe in the imamate of twelve men from the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt), the first of whom was ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the last of whom was Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-‘Askari, the supposed hidden imam, who they say entered the tunnel of Samarra’ in the middle of the third century AH and he is still alive therein, and they are waiting for him to come out!
They hold beliefs and principles which are contrary to those of the people of Islam, such as the following:
They exaggerate about their imams, claiming that they are infallible, and they devote many acts of worship to them such as supplication, seeking help, offering sacrifices and tawaaf (circumambulating their tombs). This is major shirk which Allaah tells us will not be forgiven. These acts of shirk are committed by their scholars and common folk alike, without anyone among them objecting to that.
They say that the Holy Qur’aan has been distorted, and that things have been added and taken away. They have books concerning that which are known to their scholars and many of their common folk, and they even say that believing that the Qur’aan has been distorted is an essential tenet of their beliefs.
They regard most of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs, and disavow them, and they seek to draw closer to Allaah by cursing and reviling them. They claim that they apostatized after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) except very few (only seven). This is a rejection of the Qur’aan which affirms their virtue, and says that Allaah was pleased with them and chose them to accompany His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It also implies a slur against the Qur’aan itself, because it was transmitted via them; if they were kuffaar then there is no guarantee that they did not distort it or change it. This is what the Raafidis believe anyway, as stated above.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
As for the one who goes further and claims that they apostatized after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, apart from a small number, no more than ten or so, or that they became evildoers, there is no doubt that he is a kaafir, because he is rejecting what it says in the Qur’aan in more than one place, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed, the one who doubts that such a person is a kaafir is to be labelled as a kaafir himself, because what this view implies is that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kuffaar or rebellious evildoers. The verse says “You (true believers in Islamic Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and his Sunnah) are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110], and the best of them were the first generation. But according to this view, most of them were kaafirs and rebellious evildoers, and this ummah is the worst of nations and the earliest generations of this ummah were the most evil of them. The fact that this is kufr is something that no Muslim has any excuse for not knowing. End quote from al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool (p. 590).
They attribute badaa’ to Allaah, i.e., forming a new opinion that was not held before. This implies attribution of ignorance to Allaah, may He be exalted.
They believe in taqiyah (dissimulation) which means showing outwardly something other than what one feels inside. In fact this is lying and hypocrisy and skill in deceiving people. This is not something that they do at times of fear; rather they regard use of taqiyah as a religious duty for minor and major matters, at times of fear and times of safety. Whatever of truth was narrated from one of their imams, such as praise for the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or agreeing with Ahl al-Sunnah, even in matters of purification or food and drink, is rejected by the Shi’ah who say that the Imam only said that by way of taqiyah.
Belief in raja’ah, which is the belief that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the members of his household (ahl al-bayt), ‘Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and the other imams will return. At the same time, Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthmaan, Mu’aawiyah, Yazeed, Ibn Dhi’l-Jooshan and everyone who harmed Ahl al-bayt – according to their claims – will also return.
All of these people will return – according to their beliefs – to this world once more before the Day of Resurrection, when the Mahdi reappears, as the enemy of Allaah Ibn Saba’ told them; they will return in order to be punished because they harmed Ahl al-Bayt and transgressed against them and denied them their rights, so they will be severely punished, then they will all die, then they will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection for the final recompense. This is what they believe.
And there are other corrupt beliefs which one can find more details about in the following books, which explain how false they are:
The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked:
Is the Imam Shi’ah way part of Islam? Who made it up? Because they, i.e., the Shi’ah, attribute their madhhab to Sayyiduna ‘Ali (may Allaah ennoble his face).
The Imami Shi’a Madhhab is a fabricated Madhhab that has been introduced into Islam. We advise you to read the book al-Khutoot al-‘Areedah and Mukhtasir al-Tuhfah al-Ithna ‘Ashariyyah and Minhaaj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah], which will explain a lot of their innovations.
‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz, ‘Abd al-Razzaaq ‘Afeefi, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan.
From the above it is clear that this Madhhab is false and that it goes against the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and that its beliefs will not be acceptable from anyone, either from their scholars or their common folk.
As for the imams to whom they claim to belong, they are innocent of this lie and falsehood.
There follow the names of these imams:
See: al-Mawsoo’ah al-Muyassarah (1/51).
Ibn Katheer said in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (1/177):
As for what they believe about the tunnel of Samarra’, that is a myth which has no basis in reality and no proof or sound reports.
Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) divided the Imams of the Ithna ‘Ashari Shi’ah into four categories:
1 – ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with them). They are noble Sahaabah and no one doubts their virtue and leadership, but many others shared with them the virtue of being companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and among the Sahaabah there are others who were more virtuous than them, based on saheeh evidence from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
2 – ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Baaqir, Ja’far ibn Muhammad al-Saadiq and Moosa ibn Ja’far. They are among the trustworthy and reliable scholars. Manhaaj al-Sunnah (2/243, 244).
3 – ‘Ali ibn Moosa al-Rida, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Moosa al-Jawaad, ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-‘Askari, and al-Hasan ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad al-‘Askari. Concerning them, Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyah) said: They did not show a great deal of knowledge such that the ummah might benefit from them, nor did they have any authority by means of which they could help the ummah. Rather they were like any other Haashimis, they occupy a respected position, and they have sufficient knowledge of what which is needed by them and expected of people like them; it is a type is knowledge that is widely available to ordinary Muslims. But the type of knowledge that is exclusive to the scholars was not present in their case. Therefore seeks of knowledge did not receive from them what they received from the other three. Had they had that which was useful to seekers of knowledge, they would have sought it from them, as seekers of knowledge are well aware of where to go for knowledge. Minhaaj al-Sunnah(6/387).
4 – Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-‘Askari al-Muntazar (the awaited one). He did not exist at all, as stated above.
A glimpse at the ‘Ubaydi (Fatimid) state – its origins and belie
What is correct opinion about who calls for restoration of the Faatimi caliphate and the state of “Obeidis” saying: “The Faatimi state is the Islamic state that has the right solution at the current time as it had it in the past”?
This person is making a grave error when he describes the ‘Ubaydi state as being an Islamic state.
The ‘Ubaydi state – which is what they call the Fatimid state by way of deception– was founded in Tunis in 297 AH, and moved to Egypt in 362 AH, where it was firmly established, and its power spread to a large part of the Muslim world, such as Syria and the Arabian Peninsula.
Its rule began with al-Mu’izz li Deen-Allaah Mu’aadh ibn al-Mansoor al-‘Ubaydi and ended with al-‘Aadid ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Yoosuf in 567 AH.
The Sunni imams, scholars and historians spoke of the founding of this state and explained that their claims to be descended from Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) were false, and they described how it spread kufr and heresy, persecuted Ahl al-Sunnah, and supported the kuffaar and even cooperated with them against the Muslims. Among these imams and historians were: Abu Shaamah, Ibn Taghri Bardi, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Katheer, al-Dhahabi and many others.
Imam al-Dhahabi said of ‘Ubayd-Allaah al-Mahdi, who was the first ruler of that state:
There are several opinions concerning the lineage of al-Mahdi, which may be summed up by noting that he was neither Haashimi nor Faatimi [i.e., he was not descended from Banu Haashim or from Faatimah].
And he said:
The genealogists and scholars denied his claims concerning his lineage. End quote.
Tareekh al-Islam, events of 321-330 AH, p. 23
It was narrated that Abu Shaamah – who wrote a book about this state entitled Kashf ma kaana ‘alayhi Banu ‘Ubayd min al-Kufr wa’l-Kadhb wa’l-Makr wa’l-Kayd – said:
They claimed to be descendents of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), although they are descended from a Magian or Jew, until they became known as such, and their state was called al-dawlah al-‘alawiyyah (‘Alawi state – i.e., descendents of ‘Ali) or al-dawlah al-faatimiyyah (Fatimid state). But in fact it is the esoteric, heretic “Jewish state” or “Magian state”.
See: Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’ (15/213) and al-Rawdatayn fi Akhbaar al-Dawlatayn ((1/216).
Among the actions and beliefs of the rulers of that state: they claimed to have knowledge of the unseen, and they made claims of Prophethood and divinity, and they demanded that their subjects and followers prostrate to them, and they reviled the Sahaabah. There follows proof of the above and more:
1–Claims of Prophet hood and divinity:
al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) narrated that the fuqaha’ and devoted worshippers supported the Khawaarij in their war against the ‘Ubaydis because of the kufr and heresy of the latter. When Abu Yazeed Makhlad ibn Keedaad al-Khaariji wanted to fight Banu ‘Ubayd, al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
The fuqaha’ and devoted worshippers hastened to make full preparations with drums and banners. Ahmad ibn Abi’l-Waleed addressed them on Friday at Jumu’ah prayers, and he exhorted them and said: Strive against the one who disbelieves in Allaah and claims that he is a lord instead of Allaah. … And he said: O Allaah, this kaafir Qarmati who is known as Ibn ‘Ubayd-Allaah and claims to be divine is denying Your blessings, and He disbelieves in Your Lordship, slanders Your Messengers, disbelieves in Muhammad Your Prophet, and sheds blood. Curse him greatly and humiliate him deeply and send Your curse upon him morning and evening. Then he came down and led them in Jumu’ah prayer.
Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’ (15/155).
Among those who claimed divinity was the ‘Ubaydi ruler of whom al-Dhahabi said: The heretic Ismaili who claims to be divine.
He also said concerning him:
It was said that he wanted to claim to be divine and he started to do so, but the prominent figures of his state spoke to him and warned that all the people would rebel against him. End quote.
Among those who incited the ruler to make these claims was Hamzah ibn ‘Ali al-Zawzani who was one of those who claimed that the ruler was divine, and who founded the Druze sect in Syria.
Al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) also said:
The heretic Durzi was killed because of his claims that the ruler was divine, and some of the ignorant used to say when they saw the ruler: “O One, O One, O giver of life, O giver of death.”
Al-Siyar (15/180, 181).
Al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
I read in a one-volume book of history which describes what happened each year and was written by some good people around the year 630 and was given to the ruler of Egypt, al-Malik al-Saalih, in 667:
This action (i.e., putting an end to the ‘Ubaydi state) was one of the noblest of the deeds of Salaah al-Deen al-Ayyoobi. What a good thing he did, for these people were baatinis and heretics who called for belief in transmigration of souls and the belief that the divine was physically incarnated in them.
Al-Dhahabi said: al-Haakim said to his propagandist: How many do you have listed (as followers)? He said: Sixteen thousand who believe that you are god.
Their poet said:
“Rule, for you are the one, the compeller; it is what you wish and not what the divine decree wills”
May Allaah curse both the praiser and the praised, for this is no less abhorrent than when Pharaoh said, “I am your lord, most high” [al-Naaz’iaat 79:24].
One of their poets said concerning al-Mahdi in Raqqaadah:
“Adam and Nooh are there, and anything other than Allaah is nothing.
The Messiah is there in Raqqaadah, Allaah in His glory is there.”
This man is worse in his kufr than the Christians, because the Christians believe that the divine was incarnated physically in ‘Eesa only, but these people believe that He was incarnated in the bodies of Adam, Nooh, the Prophets and all the imams.
This is their creed, may Allaah curse them.
Tareekh al-Islam, events of 561-570 AH, p. 274-281.
When ‘Ubayd-Allaah claimed to be a prophet, he brought two of the faqeehs of Qayrawaan to appear before him as he was sitting on his throne, and he ordered one of his servants to say to the two Shaykhs: “Do you bear witness that this man is the messenger of Allaah?” They said: “By Allaah, if he came to us with the sun on his right and the moon on his left, both of them saying that he was a messenger of Allaah, we would not believe that.” So he ordered that they be slaughtered.
2 – Claim to have knowledge of the unseen
Ibn Khallikaan (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
They claimed to have knowledge of the unseen, and there are well known reports concerning that.
Wafiyaat al-A’yaan (5/373, 374)
3 – People prostrated for them
They ordered the people to prostrate for them. al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
In 396 AH, khutbahs were given in the two holy sanctuaries under the authority of the ruler of Egypt al-Haakim, and the people were ordered to stand up and prostrate when he was mentioned. Inna Lillaahi wa inna ilayhi raaji’oon (Verily to Allaah we belong and unto Him is our return).
Duwal al-Islam (1/350).
When al-Haakim was mentioned they would stand up and prostrate for him. Al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
They stood up and prostrated in the market place, and in their meeting places. Inna Lillaahi wa inna ilayhi raaji’oon (Verily to Allaah we belong and unto Him is our return). These ‘Ubaydis were an evil that befell Islam and the Muslims.
Al-Tareekh, events of 381-400 AH, p. 234.
4 – They killed the scholars who did not follow their beliefs
Abu’l-Hasan al-Qaabisi, the author of al-Mulakhkhas, said: The number of those killed by ‘Ubayd-Allaah and his descendents in his torture chamber was four thousand scholars and worshippers, to stop them saying “Radiya Allaah ‘anhum (may Allaah be pleased with them)” about the Sahaabah.
5 – The Qaraamitah participated in their crimes
al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
During the reign of al-Mahdi the Qaraamitah committed crimes in Bahrain. They attacked the pilgrims, killing and taking prisoners, and they violated the sanctuary of Allaah in Makkah and took away the Black Stone. ‘Ubayd-Allaah corresponded with them and incited them, may Allaah destroy him.
6 – Reviling the Sahaabah
During the reign of al-‘Azeez, the Sahaabah were reviled openly.
He ordered that words reviling the Sahaabah be written on the doors of the mosques and in the streets, and he ordered his state workers to revile them in 395 AH.
Tareekh al-Islam, events of 395 AH, p. 283.
And he said:
Reviling of the Sahaabah was widespread during his reign (i.e., al-Mustansir) and the Sunnah was unknown and hidden.
In brief, they were baatinis who changed the religion of Islam; they were outwardly Raafidis but inwardly they were heretics.
Al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
They changed the religion of Islam. They were outwardly Raafidis, but inwardly they were Ismailis.
Al-Dhahabi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
As for the baatini ‘Ubaydis, they are enemies of Allaah and His Messenger.
He also (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
How these ‘Ubaydis tampered with and changed the religion of Islam is indescribable.
Al-Qaadi ‘Iyaad (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
Abu Yoosuf al-Ra’eeni said: The scholars in Qayrawaan are unanimously agreed that Banu ‘Ubayd are apostates and heretics.
Tarteeb al-Madaarik (4/720); see also al-Siyar (15/151).
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in al-Radd ‘ala al-Bakri:
The ‘Ubaydis, who are inwardly heretics, follow the beliefs of the philosophers and Magians and have mixed them with Raafidi views. The best they show of commitment to Islam is the Raafidi way, but inwardly they are heretics, worse than the Jews and Christians.
Hence the scholars said concerning them that they are outwardly Raafidis, but inwardly their belief is pure kufr. They are among the people who venerate shrines the most, and believe in astrology, and other religious practices of the mushrikeen. They are the least likely of people to venerate the mosques which Allaah has ordered to be raised (to be cleaned, and to be honoured), in them His Name is remembered (cf. al-Noor 24:36).Their legacy in Cairo proves that. End quote.
And he said (may Allaah have mercy on him) in al-Radd ‘ala al-Mantiqiyyeen:
The ‘Ubaydis were outwardly Muslim and said that they were Shi’ah, so they appeared to be Raafidis but inwardly they were heretics as Abu Haamid al-Ghazaali said in al-Mustazhari: Outwardly they are Raafidis but inwardly their belief is pure kufr. What Abu Haamid said about them is that on which there is consensus among Muslim scholars. End quote.
He said (may Allaah have mercy on him) in Minhaaj al-Sunnah:
They (the rulers of the ‘Ubaydi state) are well known for their heresy, opposition to Allaah and His Messenger, apostasy and hypocrisy. End quote.
Ibn Katheer said in al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (11/386):
When the khateeb mentioned al-Haakim the people would all stand up out of respect. They also did that in Egypt, and in addition to that they would prostrate for him. They would prostrate when he was mentioned. So those who were praying would prostrate and those who were in the marketplace would prostrate when they prostrated. May Allaah curse him. End quote.
Such was the ‘Ubaydi state, and these are some of their evil deeds. Thus it is clear that the one who says that the ‘Ubaydi state was an Islamic state and ignores the blessed states and times in which Islam ruled, and focuses instead on the ‘Ubaydi state as the solution for our own times, is wrong. This is a bad and abhorrent statement.
The one who says that wants to repeat the spread of heresy and kufr, the reviling of the Sahaabah and the killing of the scholars!
There is no solution for the Muslims except to return to the teachings of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his noble Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them).
We ask Allaah to bring the Muslims back soundly to their religion.
See the study entitled Mawqif al-Imam al-Dhahabi min al-Dawlah al-‘Ubaydiyyah nasaban wa mu’taqadan by Dr. Sa’d ibn Moosa al-Moosa, assistant professor at the Faculty of Sharee’ah in Umm al-Qura University, which was published in Majallat Jaami’at Umm al-Qura, issue no. 24, Rabee’ al-Awwal 1423 AH/May 2002 CE.
And Allaah is the Source of strength.
Can it be understood from the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) got angry on behalf of Fatimah that she was infallible?
Raafidis usually say that Fatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was infallible, based on the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Fatimah is a part of me and whoever angers her angers me.” He said that the anger of Fatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) is part of the anger of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and the anger of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is part of the anger of Allaah, hence Fatimah could not get angry for any idle reason, i.e., she was infallible.
Praise be to Allah.
The Raafidis are a people who like to argue and stir up specious arguments which they exaggerate and present them as facts to the common folk in order to prove their point. But the one whom Allaah has blessed with understanding of His religion and the ability to ask scholars, will undoubtedly realize the falseness of their arguments and the insignificance of their evidence. That includes the specious argument mentioned by the questioner. This argument may be answered in several ways:
1 – The Raafidis quote this Hadeeth as evidence, as is mentioned by the questioner, to reach the conclusion that Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him) made Fatimah angry when he did not give her what she asked for of the inheritance of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). If that is what happened, and Abu Bakr made Faatimah angry, then he also made the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) angry, and thus made Allaah angry too! This is a sign of their ignorance and folly, for the hadeeth was originally narrated concerning ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him). Al-Bukhaari and Muslim narrated that al-Miswar ibn Makhramah said: ‘Ali proposed to the daughter of Abu Jahl. When Faatimah heard of that she came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and said to him: Your people are saying that you do not get angry for the sake of your daughters, and ‘Ali is going to marry the daughter of Abu Jahl. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stood up and I heard him when he recited the shahaadah, then he said: “I gave a daughter of mine in marriage to Abu’l-‘Aas ibn al-Rabee’, and when he spoke he told me the truth. Faatimah bint Muhammad is a part of me, and I do not like for her to be hurt. By Allaah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allaah and the daughter of the enemy of Allaah will not be joined together as wives of one man.” So ‘Ali abandoned that proposal. According to a version narrated by al-Bukhaari: “Faatimah is part of me and whoever angers her angers me.” [al-Bukhaari no. 3523 and 3556; Muslim, no. 2449].
By examining the report quoted above it will be clear that if blame were to be laid on anyone, it would be laid on ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), because the reason why this hadeeth was narrated was his wish to propose marriage to the daughter of Abu Jahl, as the result of which Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her) became angry. It is established among the scholars of Usool that what counts is the general meaning of the words, not the specific reason for them, but it is also established that the reason for the text must be taken into account first and foremost and the reason cannot be excluded at all. When the Raafidis quote this hadeeth as evidence for criticizing Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him), because of their ignorance and trickery, they conceal the fact that criticism – if there is any criticism – would be directed at ‘Ali first of all.
Secondly: The anger mentioned in the hadeeth occurred for a specific reason which is mentioned above. This indicates that the anger arose not because Faatimah was infallible or whatever claims the Raafidis make, but because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was keen to protect his daughter’s feelings, and what upset her also upset him (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is indicated by what is mentioned in the report of Muslim: “Faatimah is a part of me and what hurts her hurts me.” This was offence caused to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and it has nothing to do with the matter of infallibility as those Raafidis claim.
Thirdly: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said in other saheeh ahaadeeth: “Whoever obeys me had obeyed Allaah and whoever disobeys me has disobeyed Allaah. Whoever obeys my commander has obeyed me and whoever disobeys my commander has disobeyed me.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 6718; Muslim, no. 1835. According to consensus – even among the Raafidis – this does not mean that the commander is infallible; rather some of the commanders sent by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) made mistakes in some matters which it is known went against the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). An example of that is the proven report in which ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent out an expedition and he appointed in charge of them a man from among the Ansaar and told them to obey him. He got angry and said: Didn’t the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) tell you to obey me? They said: Yes. He said: Then gather firewood for me. So they gathered it for him and he said: Light a fire. So they lit a fire. He said: Enter it. So they thought of entering it, but some of them held others back and said: We have fled to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to escape the fire. They stayed until the fire burned out and his anger died down. News of that reached the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said: “If you had entered it you would never have come out of it until the Day of Resurrection. Obedience is only with regard to that which is right and proper.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 4085; Muslim, no. 1840. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) restricted this obedience only to that which is right and proper. So if the anger of Faatimah was part of the anger of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then according to consensus it is limited only to that which is right and proper, and if the anger of Faatimah was for reasons that were not in accordance with the law of Allaah, then what is right and proper is to implement the law of Allaah, even if it angered Faatimah. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If Faatimah the daughter of Muhammad were to steal, I would cut off her hand.” And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “O Faatimah bint Muhammad, save yourselves, for I cannot avail you anything before Allaah, ask for whatever you want of my wealth.” This implies that she was not infallible.
See Manhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, 4/250.
Ruling on hating the Sahaabah:
It is a sign of great misfortune and misguidance if a person’s faith is based on slandering the companions of the best of mankind (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or arguing about the disputes that arose among them, instead of occupying himself with doing that which will benefit him in both his worldly and spiritual affairs.
No one should have any reason to slander or hate or bear grudges against the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Their virtues are many, for they are the ones who supported Islam and spread the faith; they are the ones who fought the Muhrikeen; they are the ones who transmitted the Qur’aan, Sunnah and rulings. They sacrificed themselves, their blood and their wealth for the sake of Allaah. Allaah chose them to be the companions of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so no one slanders them or hates them except a hypocrite whose does not love Islam or believe in it.
It was narrated that al-Bara’ (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The Ansaar: no one loves them but a believer and no one hates them but a hypocrite. Whoever loves them, Allaah will love him, and whoever hates them, Allaah will hate him.”
If a man who hates the Ansaar cannot be a believer and that makes him a hypocrite, then how about one who hates the Ansaar and Muhaajireen and those who followed them in truth, and slanders them, curses them and denounces them and those who love them as kaafirs – as the Raafidis do? Undoubtedly they deserve more to be regarded as kaafirs and hypocrites, and of not being believers.
Al-Tahhaawi said, discussing the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah:
We love the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and we do not neglect to love any one of them, nor do we disavow any one of them. We hate those who hate them and who criticize them, and we only mention them in good terms. Loving them is part of religious commitment, faith and ihsaan, and hating them is kufr, hypocrisy and wrongdoing.
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:
The way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is to love the family (ahl al-bayt) of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Naasibis love the Sahaabah but hate the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), hence they were called Naasibis because they set themselves up (nasb) as enemies of the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Raafidis are the opposite: they love the Prophet’s family (ahl al-bayt) – or so they claim, but they hate the Sahaabah, whom they curse, denounce as kaafirs and criticize.
Whoever hates the Sahaabah hates Islam, because they are the bearers of Islam and the followers of the Chosen Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So whoever hates them hates Islam, and this indicates that there is no faith in the hearts of such people and that they do not love Islam.
This is an important basic principle which the Muslims should understand, namely loving and respecting the Sahaabah, because that is part of faith. Hating them or hating one of them is kufr and hypocrisy, because loving them is part of loving the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and hating them is part of hating the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah.
Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy.
This is a good explanation which does not contradict what we have mentioned above, rather it explains it further and reinforces it.
Abu Zar’ah al-Raazi said: If you see a man criticizing one of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then know that he is a heretic.
Imam Ahmad said: If you see a man mentioning one of the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in a bad way, then call his Islam into question.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tamiyah said:
If a person slanders them in a way that does not impugn their good character or religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being stingy or cowardly or lacking in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then he deserves to be rebuked and disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir because of that. This is how the words of those who were not regarded as kaafirs by the scholars are to be understood.
If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere feelings or religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they apostatized after the death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from a small group of no more than ten or so individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did evil, then there is no doubt that such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is stated in more than one place in the Qur’aan, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because this implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or evildoers and that the best of this Ummah which is described in the verse “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” – the first generation – were mostly kaafirs and hypocrites. It implies that this Ummah is the worst of nations, and that the first generations of this Ummah are the most evil. No doubt this is blatant kufr, the evidence for which is quite clear.
Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or later be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has punished some of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports that they were turned into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled such reports, such as al-Haafiz al-Saalih Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi ‘an Sabb al-Ashaab in which he narrated the punishments that befell such heretics.
In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah concerning who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be judged to be kaafirs, and others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding that.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool, p. 590-591.
Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said:
… This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders all of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he slanders one of the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is demeaning the virtue of the Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So undoubtedly the person who does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of al-Tahhaawi, “and hating them is kufr” should be understood as meaning that hating all of the Sahaabah is undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a Sahaabi but for some personal reason, and that Sahaabi was, for example, one of those who became Muslim before the Conquest of Makkah and of whose virtue we are certain – such as the Raafidis who slander the two Shaykhs [Abu Bakr and ‘Umar] – then al-Qaadi Husayn stated that the one who slanders the two Shaykhs is a kaafir.
The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly reason etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates one of the two Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the Sahaabah who was lower in status than two Shaykhs just because he was a companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also definitely kufr. 
The Rifaa’is who stab themselves with knives but are not affected by it:
Some people call themselves dervaish and stab themselves with knives, daggers, etc? Whilst they do that, before they say “Ya Allaah (O Allaah)”, they say, “Ya Rifaa’i (O Rifaa’i).” What is the shar’i view of this?.
Praise be to Allaah.
They are liars and cheats. There is no basis for their actions. In fact they are tricksters who use things to deceive the people so that the people will think that they are stabbing themselves when that is not really the case. It is a trick whereby they deceive the eye and bewitch people. This is like what Allaah said about the sorcerers of Pharaoh, that they were trying to frighten the people and that they bewitched their eyes. The point is that it is not permissible to believe in this kind of people – evildoers and deceivers – who have no basis for what they do. They are liars and tricksters who deceive people. When they call upon al-Rifaa’i, or anybody else, this is shirk Akbar (major shirk), as is the case of one who says “O Rifaa’i” or “O Messenger of Allaah, grant us victory: or “intercede for us” or “O ‘Ali” or “O Seedi” or “O Husayn” or “Ya Seedi al-Badawi” and so on. All of that is shirk Akbar and it is all worship of people or things other than Allaah. All of that is like the actions of those who worship graves, and those who worshipped al-Laat and al-‘Uzza and their ilk. It is shirk Akbar – we seek refuge in Allaah from that. When these people stab themselves with daggers and knives, it is trickery and deception which has no basis; by doing this they are liars and evildoers. The authorities – if there are Muslim rulers in their countries – have to put a stop to this, and they must punish them and discipline them until they repent from their evil actions.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li Samaahat al-Shaykh al-‘Allaamah ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 9, p. 285
The widespread belief that it is makrooh to get married in Allah’s month Muharram:
There is nothing wrong with getting married or proposing marriage in the sacred months of Allah (Muharram) which is the beginning of the lunar year. That is neither makrooh nor haraam. That is based on a great deal of evidence, including the following:
The basic principle is that things are permissible, unless there is a report to suggest otherwise. The basic shar‘i principle on which the scholars are unanimously agreed is that with regard to traditions and activities, the basic principle is that they are permissible so long as there is no evidence to suggest that they are forbidden. As there is nothing in the Qur’an or Sunnah, or scholarly consensus and analogy, or reports, to indicate that it is not allowed to get married in the month of Muharram, then our rulings and fatwas should be based on the ruling that it is basically permissible.
The scholarly consensus that it is permissible is, at the minimum, a consensus of silence, as we have not found any of the earlier or later scholars, among the Sahaabah or Taabi‘een, or among the widely accepted imams and their followers until the present day, stating that it is haraam, or even makrooh, to get married or propose marriage in the month of Muharram.
If anyone disallows that, it is sufficient evidence for rejecting his opinion to note that he has given a fatwa for which there is no evidence and which has not been suggested by any of the scholars.
The month of Muharram is one of the venerated and honourable months of Allah. Concerning its virtue, it was narrated that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The best of fasts after Ramadan is Allah’s month of Muharram.” Narrated by Muslim, 1163. It is the month that Allah has described as His, and has ordained that fasting during this month brings a greater reward than fasting in other months; therefore it is appropriate for a Muslim to seek the blessing of this month by doing such acts, and not to be sad or to fear getting married at that time, or to regard it as inauspicious, as was the custom during the Jaahiliyyah.
If anyone gives as evidence for not allowing marriage at this time the fact that the month of Muharram is the month in which al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was martyred, as some of the Raafidis do, the response to that should be as follows:
There is no doubt that the day of the martyrdom of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) is a day of great calamity in the history of Islam, but it does not mean that we should rule it to be haraam to get married or propose marriage at that time. There is nothing in Islam to suggest that we should renew sorrow and grief in annual commemorations and continue morning to the extent that we forbid any expressions of joy.
We are within our rights to ask the one who says that: Isn’t the day on which the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died the greatest calamity that befell the Muslim ummah? So why is it not also haraam to get married during that entire month, namely Rabee‘ al-Awwal? Why hasn’t that ruling that it is haraam or makrooh been narrated from any of the Sahaabah or members of the Prophet’s household (Ahl al-Bayt), or the scholars after them?
Similarly, if we were to renew our sorrow on every day on which one of the great leaders of Islam, from among the family (ahl al-bayt) of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) or others, was killed or martyred or died, there would be too many such days to ever allow any day of joy and happiness, and the people would be burdened with unbearable hardship. Undoubtedly introducing innovations into the religion of Allah is, first and foremost, going to harm the people who go against Islamic teachings, those who think that they can add something to make Islam perfect (when it is already perfect), and are not content with it as it has been prescribed by Allah for His slaves.
Some of the historians stated that the first one to introduce this opinion, and indeed the first one to introduce the innovation of renewing outward displays of mourning at the beginning of the month of Muharram was the Safavid Shah Ismaa‘eel (907-930 AH), as Dr. ‘Ali al-Wardi says in Lamahaat Ijtimaa‘iyyah min Tareekh al-Islam, 1/59:
Shah Ismaa‘eel did not only use terror as a means of spreading Shi‘ism; rather he also employed other means, namely propagation and winning over people’s hearts and minds. He issued orders that ceremonies be organised to commemorate the murder of al-Husayn in the manner that is still followed now. This way of c memoration was originally introduced by the Buwayhids in Baghdad in the fourth century AH, but those who came after them had neglected this practice. Then finally Shah Ismaa‘eel came along and developed it and added to it the gatherings for mourning, in such a manner that they had a strong impact on people’s hearts. It may be true to say that this is one of the strongest factors in the spread of Shi‘ism in Iran, because of what they involve of expressions of grief and weeping, accompanied by large numbers of flags, beating the drums and so on, which leads to instilling the belief in people’s hearts on an emotional basis. End quote.
Moreover, some historians regard it as most likely that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) married Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her) at the beginning of 3 AH.
Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Al-Bayhaqi quoted from al-Ma‘rifah by Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Mandah that ‘Ali married Faatimah one year after the Hijrah, and consummated the marriage with her one year after that. According to this view, the consummation of his marriage to her occurred at the beginning of 3 AH.
There are also other opinions concerning this issue, but the point is that none of the scholars ever objected to marriage in Muharram; rather the one who marries at that time has a good example in Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali and his marriage to as-Sayyidah Faatimah, the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
Ruling on the Husseiniyahs of the Raafidis and the sacrifices which are offered on these occasions:
This is a great evil and a reprehensible bid’ah (innovation) which should be avoided. It is not permissible to take part in it or to eat the food that is offered on these occasions, because the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his companions (may Allaah be pleased with them) of the Ahl al-Bayt and others did not do that. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever innovates something in this matter of ours (Islam) which is not part of it will have it rejected” (saheeh, agreed upon). And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever does an action that is not a part of this matter of ours (Islam) will have it rejected” (narrated by Muslim in his Saheeh, and narrated by al-Bukhaari (may Allaah have mercy on him) in his Saheeh, mu’allaq majzoom). And there are many ahaadeeth with similar meanings.
With regard to seeking the help of the dead and the Ahl al-Bayt, this is a form of major shirk, according to the consensus of the scholars, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And whoever invokes (or worships), besides Allaah, any other ilaah (god), of whom he has no proof; then his reckoning is only with his Lord. Surely, Al‑Kaafiroon (the disbelievers in Allaah and in the Oneness of Allaah, polytheists, pagans, idolaters) will not be successful”[ “And the mosques are for Allaah (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allaah”[al-Jinn 72:18]
“And who is more astray than one who calls on (invokes) besides Allaah, such as will not answer him till the Day of Resurrection, and who are (even) unaware of their calls (invocations) to them?
And when mankind are gathered (on the Day of Resurrection), they (false deities) will become their enemies and will deny their worshipping [al-Ahqaaf 46:5-6]
“He merges the night into the day (i.e. the decrease in the hours of the night is added to the hours of the day), and He merges the day into the night (i.e. the decrease in the hours of the day is added to the hours of the night). And He has subjected the sun and the moon, each runs its course for a term appointed. Such is Allaah, your Lord; His is the kingdom. And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer (the thin membrane over the date stone).
If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call; and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you. And on the Day of Resurrection, they will disown your worshipping them. And none can inform you (O Muhammad) like Him Who is the All‑Knower (of everything)
And there are many aayaat with similar meanings.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Du’aa’ (supplication) is a form of worship.” (Narrated by the four authors of Sunan with a saheeh isnaad). And Muslim narrated in his Saheeh, from Ameer al-Mu’mineen ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “He is cursed who offers sacrifices to anyone other than Allaah.”
What is obligatory upon all of the Shi’ah and on everyone else is to worship Allaah alone in sincerity, and to beware of calling upon anyone other than Allaah for help, or of praying to the dead or absent, whether they are from the Ahl al-Bayt or otherwise.
It is also obligatory to avoid praying to or seeking the help of inanimate objects such as idols, stars, etc., on the basis of the same shar’i evidence (daleel) that we have mentioned above.
The scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, of the Sahaabah and others, are unanimously agreed upon this matter.
Secondly: what is the ruling on the sacrifices which are offered in those places on these occasions? What is the ruling on the drinks that are distributed in the streets and to the general public?
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to the first question, which is that it is a reprehensible bid’ah and it is not permissible to take part in it, or to eat the meat of these sacrifices, or to drink any of these drinks. If the sacrifices have been made to anyone other than Allaah, from among the Ahl al-Bayt or anyone else, this is major shirk, because Allaah says;
“Say (O Muhammad): ‘Verily, my Salah (prayer), my sacrifice, my living, and my dying are for Allaah, the Lord of the ‘Alameen (mankind, jinn and all that exists).
He has no partner. And of this I have been commanded, and I am the first of the Muslims’”
“Verily, We have granted you (O Muhammad) Al‑Kawthar (a river in Paradise).
Therefore turn in prayer to your Lord and sacrifice (to Him only).
And there are many aayaat and ahaadeeth with similar meanings.
We ask Allaah to help us and you and all the Muslims to do all that He loves and is pleasing to Him, and to grant us and you and all of our brothers refuge from misleading temptations, for He is Ever Near and Ready to respond.
From Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li Samaahat al-Shaykh al-‘Allaamah ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 8, p. 320
Ruling on avoiding eating meat during the first ten days of Muharram:
Refraining from eating permissible things that Allah has allowed comes under the heading of monasticism that was prohibited by Allah, may He be exalted, and His Messenger. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tamiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Monasticism means giving up things that are permissible, such as marriage, eating meat, and so on. A group among the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) thought of following some monastic practices, but Allah, may He be exalted, sent down revelation forbidding them to do that, as He said (interpretation of the meaning): “O you who believe! Make not unlawful the Taiyibat (all that is good as regards foods, things, deeds, beliefs, persons, etc.) which Allah has made lawful to you, and transgress not. Verily, Allah does not like the transgressors” [al-Maa’idah 5:87]. And it is proven in as-Saheehaynthat there was a group of the Companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), one of whom said: As for me, I will fast and never not fast. Another said: As for me, I will pray qiyaam (voluntary prayers at night) and never sleep. Another said: As for me, I will not marry women. Another said: As for me, I will not eat meat. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stood up to deliver a speech and said: What is the matter with men of whom one says such and such? But I fast and do not fast, I pray qiyaam and I sleep, I marry women, and I eat meat. Whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not of me.” The saheeh texts explain that monasticism is an innovation and misguidance.
To sum up: whoever seeks to worship Allah, may He be exalted, by refraining from eating meat or from other permissible things on specific days, this comes under the heading of prescribing religious practice for which Allah has not given permission.
That applies whether this is due to a belief that these days have some special characteristic that dictates refraining from eating meat,
or because one regards it as haraam or makrooh
or because of a belief that refraining from eating meat during these days is obligatory or mustahabb
or because of a belief that one may draw closer to Allah by refraining from eating meat or from other permissible things in a particular way.
All of that comes under the heading of innovations and misguidance for which Allah has not given permission.
Ash-Shaatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Everyone who restricts himself from consuming that which Allah has permitted, without a legitimate shar‘i reason for doing so, has diverged from the Sunnah of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and the one who acts upon something other than the Sunnah by way of a religious practice is essentially an innovator.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Allah, may He be exalted, commanded mankind to worship Him alone and not to associate anything with Him in worship, and to worship Him according to what He prescribed; and He commanded that they should not worship Him by any acts of worship other than that. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“So whoever hopes for the Meeting with his Lord, let him work righteousness and associate none as a partner in the worship of his Lord”
“…that He might try you, which of you is the best in deeds”
With regard to the one who follows the path of asceticism and worship, if he appears outwardly to be following Islamic teachings, but his intention is to show off, gain a good reputation and gain people’s respect, then his good deeds are invalid and are not acceptable to Allah. It is proven in as-Saheeh that Allah says: “I am the least in need of a partner. Whoever does any deed in which he associates someone else with Me, I disavow him and all of his deeds are for the one whom he associated with Me.” And in as-Saheeh it is narrated that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever talks about his good deeds (to show off), Allah will expose him (on the Day of Resurrection), and whoever makes a (hypocritical) display, Allah will make a display of him.”
If he is sincere in his intention, but he worships Allah by doing acts of worship other than those that are prescribed, such as one who remains silent constantly, or stands in the sun or on the roof constantly, or does not wear ordinary clothes, and always wears wool or sackcloth, and the like, or covers his face, or refrains from eating bread or milk, or drinking water, and so on – these acts of worship are invalid and are to be rejected, as it is proven in as-Saheeh in a report from ‘Aa’ishah that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever introduces anything into this matter of ours that is not part of it will have it rejected.
And it is proven from him in as-Saheeh that there was a group among his Companions, one of whom said: As for me, I will fast and never not fast. Another said: As for me, I will pray qiyaam (voluntary prayers at night) and never sleep. Another said: As for me, I will not marry women. Another said: As for me, I will not eat meat. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stood up to deliver a speech and said: What is the matter with men of whom one says such and such? But I fast and do not fast, I pray qiyaam and I sleep, I marry women and I eat meat. Whoever turns away from my Sunnah is not of me.”
So this is the principle with regard to acts of worship, because fasting and prayer are both acts of worship.
Refraining from eating meat or getting married is permissible in principle, but when that went beyond the framework of the Sunnah and the individual committed himself to more than is prescribed, or committed himself to refraining from that which is permissible, as monks do, the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) disavowed those who do such things as having turned away from his Sunnah towards something else, and he said: “There is no monasticism in Islam.”
Ruling on celebrating ‘Ashoorah’ or taking it as a day of mourning:
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about this and he replied as follows:
‘Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the Worlds. Nothing to that effect has been reported in any saheeh hadeeth from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or from his Companions. None of the imaams of the Muslims encouraged or recommended such things, neither the four imaams, nor any others. No reliable scholars have narrated anything like this, neither from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), nor from the Sahaabah, nor from the Taabi’een; neither in any saheeh report or in a da’eef (weak) report; neither in the books of Saheeh, nor in al-Sunan, nor in the Musnads. No hadeeth of this nature was known during the best centuries, but some of the later narrators reported ahaadeeth like the one which says “Whoever puts kohl in his eyes on the day of ‘Aashooraa’ will not suffer from eye disease in that year, and whoever takes a bath (does ghusl) on the day of ‘Aashooraa’ will not get sick in that year, etc.” They also narrated reports concerning the supposed virtues of praying on the day of ‘Aashooraa’, and other reports saying that on the day of ‘Aashooraa’ Adam repented, the Ark settled on Mount Joodi, Yoosuf returned to Ya’qoob, Ibraaheem was saved from the fire, the ram was provided for sacrifice instead of Ismaa’eel, and so on. They also reported a fabricated hadeeth that is falsely attributed to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which says, “Whoever is generous to his family on the day of ‘Aashooraa’, Allaah will be generous to him for the rest of the year.”
(Then Ibn Taymiyah discussed the two misguided groups who were in Koofah, Iraq, both of whom took ‘Aashooraa’ as a festival because of their bid’ah). The Raafidi group made an outward show of allegiance to the Ahl al-Bayt although inwardly they were either heretics and disbelievers or ignorant and bound by whims and desires. The Naasibi group hated ‘Ali and his companions, because of the troubles and killings that had occurred. It is reported in Saheeh Muslim that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “In (the tribe of) Thaqeef there will be a liar and an oppressor [???].” The liar was al-Mukhtaar ibn Abi ‘Ubayd al-Thaqafi, who made an outward show of allegiance to and support of the Ahl al-Bayt, and killed ‘Ubayd-Allaah ibn Ziyaad, the governor of Iraq, who had equipped the party that killed al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with them both); then he (al-Mukhtaar) made it clear that he was a liar, by claiming to be a prophet and that Jibreel (peace be upon him) brought revelation to him. People told Ibn ‘Umar and Ibn ‘Abbaas about this, and said to one of them, “al-Mukhtaar ibn Abi ‘Ubayd is claiming to receive revelation [annahu yanzilu ‘alayhi].” He said, “He is telling the truth, for Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): ‘Shall I inform you (O people) upon whom the shayaateen (devils) descend [tanazzalu]? They descend upon every lying, sinful person.’ [al-Shu’ara’ 26:221].” [Translator’s note: the words translated as “receive revelation” and “descend” both come from the same root in Arabic]. They said to the other: “Al-Mukhtaar is claiming that he receives inspiration.” He said, “he is telling the truth. ‘… And certainly, the Shayaateen (devils) do inspire their friends (from mankind) to dispute with you…’ [al-An’aam 6:121 – interpretation of the meaning].” As for the oppressor , this was al-Hajjaaj ibn Yoosuf al-Thaqafi, who was opposed to ‘Ali and his companions. Al-Hajjaaj was a Naasibi and al-Mukhtaar was a Raafidi, and this Raafidi was a greater liar and more guilty of fabrication and heresy, because he claimed to be a prophet…
There was much trouble and fighting between these two groups in Kufa. When al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with them both) was killed on the day of ‘Aashooraa’, he was killed by the sinful, wrongdoing group. Allaah honored al-Husayn with martyrdom, as He honored other members of his family, and raised his status, as He honored Hamzah, Ja’far, his father ‘Ali and others. Al-Husayn and his brother al-Hasan are the leaders of the youth of Paradise. High status can only be attained through suffering, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him said, when he was asked which people suffer the most. He said, “The Prophets, then righteous people, then the next best and the next best. A man will suffer according to his level of faith. If his faith is solid, he will suffer more, but if his faith is shaky, he will suffer less. The believer will keep on suffering until he walks on the earth with no sin.” (reported by al-Tirmidhi and others). Al-Hasan and al-Husayn achieved what they achieved and reached the high status they reached by the help and decree of Allaah. They did not suffer as much as their forefathers had, for they were born and raised during the glory days of Islam, and the Muslims respected and honored them. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died when they were still young, and Allaah blessed them by testing them in such a manner that they would be able to catch up with the rest of their family members, as those who were of a higher status than them were also tested. ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib was better than them, and he was killed as a shaheed (martyr). The killing of al-Husayn was one of the things that caused fitnah (tribulation) among the people, as was the killing of ‘Uthman, which was one of the greatest causes of fitnah, because of which the Ummah is still split today. Thus the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are three things, whoever is saved from them is truly saved: my death, the killing of a patient Khaleefa, and the Dajjaal (‘antichrist’).”
Then Shaykh al-Islam (may Allaah have mercy on him) mentioned a little about the biography of al-Hasan and his just character, then he said:
“Then he died, and Allaah was pleased with him and honored him. Some groups wrote to al-Husayn and promised to support and help him if he went ahead and declared himself Khaleefa, but they were not sincere. When al-Husayn sent his cousin [son of his paternal uncle] to them, they broke their word and gave help to the one they had promised to defend him against, and fought with him against [al-Husayn’s cousin]. Those who were wise and who loved al-Husayn, such as Ibn ‘Abbaas and Ibn ‘Umar and others, advised him not to go to them, and not to accept any promises from them. They thought that his going to them served no useful interest and that the consequences would not be good. Things turned out just as they said, and this is how Allaah decreed it would happen. When al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with him) went out and saw that things were not as he had expected, he asked them to let him go back, or to let him join the army that was defending the borders of Islam, or join his cousin Yazeed, but they would not let him do any of these things unless he gave himself up to them as a prisoner. So he fought with them, and they killed him and some of those who were with him, and he was wrongfully slain so he died as a shaheed whose martyrdom brought him honour from Allaah, and so he was reunited with the good and pure members of his family. His murder brought shame on those who had wrongfully killed him, and caused much mischief among the people. An ignorant, wrongful group – who were either heretics and hypocrites, or misguided and misled – made a show of allegiance to him and the members of his household, so they took the day of ‘Aashooraa’ as a day of mourning and wailing, in which they openly displayed the rituals of jaahiliyyah such as slapping their cheeks and rending their garments, grieving in the manner of the jaahiliyyah. But what Allaah has commanded us to do when disaster strikes – when the disaster is fresh – is to bear it with patience and fortitude, and to seek reward, and to remember that all things come from Allaah and we must return to Him, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “… but give glad tidings to al-saabiroon (the patient ones), who, when afflicted with calamity, say: ‘Truly, to Allaah we belong and turly, to Him we shall return.’ They are those on whom are al-salawaat (the blessings) (i.e., who are blessed and will be forgiven) from their Lord, and (they are those who) receive His Mercy, and it is they who are the guided ones.”] .
It is reported in al-Saheeh that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “he is not one of us who strikes his cheeks, rends his garments and prays with the prayer of Jaahiliyyah.” And he said: “I have nothing to do with those who strike [their cheeks], shave [their heads] and rend [their garments].” And he said: “If the woman who wails does not repent before she dies, she will be raised up on the Day of Resurrection wearing trousers made of tar and a shirt of scabs.” In al-Musnad, it is reported from Faatimah bint al-Husayn, from her father al-Husayn, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There is no man who suffers a calamity, and when he remembers it, even if it is old, he says ‘Innaa Lillaahi wa innaa ilayhi raaji’oon (Truly, to Allaah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return),’ but Allaah will give a reward equal to the reward He gave him on the day he suffered the calamity.” This is how Allaah honours the Believers. If the disaster suffered by al-Husayn, and other disasters, are mentioned after all this time, we should say “Innaa Lillaahi wa innaa ilayhi raaji’oon (Truly, to Allaah we belong and truly, to Him we shall return),” as Allaah and His Messenger commanded, so as to be given the reward like that earned on the day of the disaster itself. If Allaah commanded us to be patient and steadfast and to seek reward at the time of the disaster, then how about after the passing of time? The Shaiytaan made this attractive to those who are misled, so they took the day of ‘Ashoorah’ as an occasion of mourning, when they grieve and wail, recite poems of grief and tell stories filled with lies. Whatever truth there may be in these stories serves no purpose other than the renewal of their grief and sectarian feeling, and the stirring up of hatred and hostility among the Muslims, which they do by cursing those who came before them, and telling many lies, and causing much trouble in the world. The various sects of Islam have never known any group tell more lies or cause more trouble or help the Kuffar against the Muslims more than this misguided and evil group. They are even worse than the Khawaarij who went beyond the pale of Islam. They are the ones of whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They will kill the people of Islam and will leave alone the people who worship idols.” This group cooperated with the Jews, Christians and Muhrikeen against the members of the Prophet’s household and his believing Ummah, and also helped the mushrik Turks and Tatars to do what they did in Baghdad and elsewhere to the descendants of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), i.e., the ‘Abbaasid rulers and others, and the believers; the Turks and Tatars killed them, enslaved their women and destroyed their homes. The evil and harm that they do to the Muslims cannot be enumerated by any man, no matter how eloquent he is. Some others – either Naasibis who oppose and have enmity towards al-Husayn and his family or ignorant people who try to fight evil with evil, corruption with corruption, lies with lies and bid’ah with bid’ah – opposed them by fabricating reports in favour of making the day of ‘Aashooraa’ a day of celebration, by wearing kohl and henna, spending money on one’s children, cooking special dishes and other things that are done on Eids and special occasions. These people took the day of ‘Aashooraa’ as a festival like Eid, whereas the others took it as a day of mourning. Both are wrong, and both go against the Sunnah, even though the other group (the Rafidis) are worse in intention and more ignorant and more plainly wrong… But Allaah commands us to be just and to treat others well. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Those of you who live after my death will see many disputes. I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the sunnah of my rightly-guided successors (al-khulafa’ al-raashidoon) who come after me. Hold onto it as if biting it with your eyeteeth. Beware of newly-innovated matters, for every innovation is a going astray.” Neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) nor his rightly-guided successors (the khulafa’ al-raashidoon) did any of these things on the day of ‘Aashooraa’, they neither made it a day of mourning nor a day of celebration.
But “when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to Madeenah, he saw the Jews fasting on the day of ‘Aashooraa’. He said, ‘What is this?’ They said, ‘This is the day when Allaah saved Moosa from drowning, so we fast on this day.’ He said, ‘We have more right to Moosa than you,’ so he fasted on that day and commanded [the Muslims] to fast on that day.”
Quraysh also used to venerate this day during the Jaahiliyyah. The day on which people were ordered to fast was just one day. When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to Madeenah it was Rabee’ al-Awwal, and the following year he fasted ‘Aashooraa’ and commanded the people to fast. Then in that year fasting in Ramadaan was made obligatory and fasting on ‘Aashooraa’ was abrogated. The scholars disputed as to whether fasting on that day (‘Aashooraa’) was waajib (obligatory) or mustahabb (encouraged). Of the two best known opinions, the more correct view is that it was waajib, then after that whoever fasted it did it because it was mustahabb. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not tell ordinary Muslims to fast on ‘Aashooraa’, but he used to say, “This is the day of ‘Aashooraa’; I am fasting on this day and whoever wishes to fast on this day may fast.” And he said: “Fasting on ‘Aashooraa’ expiates for the sins of one year and fasting on the day of ‘Arafaah expiates for the sins of two years.” When, towards the end of his life, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) heard that the Jews took the day of ‘Aashooraa’ as a festival, he said, “If I live until next year, I will certainly fast on the ninth” – to be different from the Jews, and not to resemble them in taking the day as a festival.
There were some of the Sahaabah and scholars who did not fast on this day and did not regard it as mustahabb, but thought it makrooh to single out this day for fasting. This was reported from a group of the Koofiyeen (scholars of Kufa). Some other scholars said that it was mustahabb to fast on this day. The correct view is that it is mustahabb for the one who fasts on ‘Aashooraa’ to fast on the ninth day [of Muharram] too, because this was the ultimate command of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), as he said: “If I live until next year, I will certainly fast on the ninth as well as the tenth.” This was reported with a variety of isnaads. This is what is prescribed in the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
As for the other things, such as cooking special dishes with or without grains, or wearing new clothes, or spending money on one’s family, or buying the year’s supplies on that day, or doing special acts of worship such as special prayers or deliberately slaughtering an animal on that day, or saving some of the meat of the sacrifice to cook with grains, or wearing kohl and henna, or taking a bath (ghusl), or shaking hands with one another, or visiting one another, or visiting the mosques and mashhads (shrines) and so on… all of this is reprehensible bid’ah and is wrong. None of it has anything to do with the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or the way of the Khulafa’ al-Raashidoon. It was not approved of by any of the imaams of the Muslims, not Maalik, not al-Thawri, not al-Layth ibn Sa’d, not Abu Haneefah, not al-Oozaa’i, not al-Shaafa’i, not Ahmad ibn Hanbal, not Ishaaq ibn Raahwayh, not any of the imaams and scholars of the Muslims.
The religion of Islam is based on two principles: that we should worship nothing besides Allaah Alone, and that we should worship Him in the manner that He has prescribed, not by means of bid’ah or reprehensible innovations. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… So whoever hopes for the Meeting with his Lord, let him work righteousness and associate none as a partner in the worship of his Lord.”
Righteous deeds are those which are loved by Allaah and His Messenger, those which are prescribed in Islam and in the Sunnah. Thus ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab (may Allaah be pleased with him) used to say in his du’aa’: “O Allaah, make all of my deeds righteous and make them purely for Your sake, and do not let there be any share for anyone or anything else in them.”
Ruling on gathering to read Qur’aan together on the occasion of the death of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him):
Praise be to Allaah.
This is an innovation (bid’ah), as you indicated in your question, because there is no doubt that the people who are doing this are doing it as an act of worship by which they seek to draw closer to Allaah, and every action which is done as an act of worship must have evidence from the Qur’aan or Sunnah to show that it is prescribed, otherwise it is an innovation.
With regard to those who ask, how can reciting Soorat al-Faatihah be wrong?
It should be noted that innovations in religion are of two types:
1 – New innovations which have no basis in Sharee’ah, such as those who invent a new prayer in a manner that has not been narrated in Sharee’ah. This is an innovation for which Allaah threatens the one who does it with Hell.
2 – Innovations where something new is added to an action that has a basis in Sharee’ah. For example, there are adhkaar (dhikr) which are prescribed following the prescribed prayers, which are well known, and no Muslim disagrees with this. But if a group of people comes along and says that so long as dhikr is prescribed following the prayer then we will remember Allaah together and recite dhikr in unison, this is bid’ah. We say to them, either you think that this way of reciting dhikr is better than the way of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and therefore that you are following a way that is more guided and better than his (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – which no Muslim would say who testifies that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah – or this is wrong and is an innovation, so they should give it up.
Hence it is clear that regarding this matter as bid’ah does not mean at all that reciting al-Faatihah is wrong, rather what is wrong is reciting it in the manner mentioned in the question. We do not love the Sahaabah any more than those who came after them (the Taabi’een), and the Sahaabah were the people who had the greatest love for Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it is not narrated that they did that for their Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) when he died. All goodness is to be found in following them and their way, and all evil is to be found in going against them and shunning their way. Moreover, the fact that these people single out ‘Ali and do this on the occasion of his death implies that they are exaggerating about him. This may be one of the blameworthy innovations of Shi’ism, which is to be avoided altogether.
The myth that visiting the grave of ‘Ali equals seventy Hajj:
Visiting graves is a Sunnah which provides a lesson and a reminder. If the graves are those of Muslims, one should make du’aa’ for them… The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to visit graves and make du’aa’ for the deceased, as did his companions, may Allaah be pleased with them. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Visit the graves, for they remind you of the Hereafter.” He used to teach his companions, when they visited graves, to say, “Al-salaamu ‘alayum ahl al-diyaar min al-mu’mineen wa’l-muslimeen, wa innaa in sha Allaah bikum laahiqoon. Nas’al Allaaha lana wa lakum al-‘aafiyah (Peace be upon you O inhabitants of the dwellings, believers and Muslims. If Allaah wills, we shall join you soon. We ask Allaah to keep us and you safe and sound.).”
According to the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah: “Yarham Allaah al-mustaqdimeena minna wa’l-musta’khireen(may Allaah have mercy on those of us who went first and those who will join them afterward).” According to the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Abbaas “yaghfir Allaah lana wa lakum, antum salafuna wa nahnu fi’l-athr (May Allaah forgive us and you. You are our predecessors and we are following in your footsteps).” Making du’aa’ for them in these or similar words is all good. Visiting them brings a reminder and a lesson to the believer to prepare for what has befallen them, i.e., death, for what happened to them will happen to him too. So let him make preparations and strive to obey Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and keep away from that which Allaah and His Messenger have forbidden. Let him repent from his previous shortcomings. This is how the believer is to benefit from visiting graves.
With regard to what is mentioned (in the question) about visiting the graves of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), al-Hasan, al-Husayn and others being equivalent to seventy Hajj – this is a lie and is falsely attributed to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and it has no basis. Visiting the grave of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who is the best of all, is not equivalent to one Hajj; this visit has its status and virtues, but it is not equivalent to Hajj, so how about visits to anyone else’s grave? This is a lie, as is the phrase “Whoever visits the members of my household (ahl bayti) after I die will have seventy Hajj recorded for him.” All of this has no basis at all and all of it is false. All of it is lies made up by the liars. The believer has to beware of these fabricated things that have been falsely attributed to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It is Sunnah to visit the graves whether they are graves of the members of his household (Ahl al-Bayt) or other Muslims; (it is Sunnah) to visit them, make du’aa’ for them, pray for mercy for them and then leave.
If they are the graves of kaafirs, they may be visited for the purpose of learning a lesson and being reminded, without making du’aa’ for them. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) visited his mother’s grave, but his Lord forbade him to pray for forgiveness for her. He visited her grave for the purpose of the lesson and reminder, but he did not pray for forgiveness for her. This applies to all other graves – graves of kaafirs – if a believer visits them for the purpose of the lesson and reminder, there is nothing wrong with that, but he should not greet them with salaams or pray for forgiveness for them, because they do not deserve that.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat Mutanawwi’ah li Samaahat al-Shaykh al-‘Allaamah ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him), vol. 9, p. 283
‘Ashoorah’ in Islam and previous religions, and refutation of the Raafidis claim that it is an innovation introduced by the Umayyads:
Is the day of ‘Ashoorah’ on which we fast not the correct day? Because its said that the correct day is the tenth day of the month of Tishrei in the Hebrew calendar, and that the Umayyad caliphs are the ones who changed it to the tenth day of the month of Muharram. Tishrei is the first month of the Jewish calendar.
Praise be to Allah.
The fast of ‘Aashoora’, which we observe on the tenth day of the month of Muharram, is the day on which Allah, may He be exalted, saved Moosa (peace be upon him), and it is the day on which some of the Jews in Madinah fasted because of that. It is also the day on which Allah commanded the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to fast at first, then the obligation to do so was abrogated when fasting Ramadan was made obligatory, and fasting ‘Aashoora’ became mustahabb (encouraged but not obligatory).
The claim that some of the Umayyad caliphs are the ones who put this day in Muharram is a Raafidi claim. It is one of the many lies on which their religion is based and it is part of their belief to attribute all kinds of evil to the Umayyad caliphs and their era. If the Umayyads had wanted to fabricate false hadeeths and attribute them to Islam, they would have fabricated hadeeths that made the day of ‘Aashoora’ an Eid or festival! and not a day of fasting on which a person refrains from eating, drinking and sex. Fasting is an act of worship in which one refrains from permissible things, and Eid is a celebration in which one partakes of those things.
There is no doubt that the arrival of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in Madinah, when he migrated, occurred in Rabee‘ al-Awwal, not in Muharram. He saw some of the Jews fasting, and when he asked them about this fast of theirs, they said: It is the day on which Allah saved Moosa and those who were with him from drowning, so we fast on this day in gratitude to Allah.
It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) that when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came to Madinah, he found them fasting on one day, i.e., ‘Aashoora’. They said: This is a great day; it is the day on which Allah saved Moosa and drowned the people of Pharaoh, so Moosa fasted in gratitude to Allah. He (the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) said: “I am closer to Moosa than they are.” So he fasted on that day and issued instructions to fast on that day.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3216
When he saw the Jews doing that, was it when he first came to Madinah in Rabee‘ al-Awwal, or was it later on, in the month of Muharram?
There are two scholarly views; the more correct view is that his seeing them, that discussion and that command to fast occurred in Muharram, i.e., in the second year after he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) arrived in Madinah, and from that we may conclude that the Jews followed the lunar calendar in commemorating that day.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Some people were confused by this and said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came to Madinah in the month of Rabee‘ al-Awwal, so how come Ibn ‘Abbaas said that when he came to Madinah, he found the Jews fasting on the day of ‘Aashoora’?
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
With regard to the first issue, which is that when he came to Madinah, he found them fasting on the day of ‘Aashoora’, this does not indicate that on the day of his arrival he found them observing that fast. He arrived on a Monday, the twelfth of Rabee‘ al-Awwal, but the first he knew of that was in the second year after his arrival in Madinah, and it did not happen when he was in Makkah. This is if the people of the Book worked out the date for this fast according to the lunar calendar.
Zaad al-Ma‘aad fi Hadiy Khayr al-‘Ibaad, 2/66
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The apparent meaning of the report was problematic to some people, because it appears to mean that when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) arrived in Madinah, he found the Jews fasting the day of ‘Aashoora’, but he arrived in Madinah in Rabee‘ al-Awwal. The answer to that is that what is meant is that his first knowing of that and asking about it happened after he came to Madinah; he had no knowledge of that before he came there. What the hadeeth implies is that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came to Madinah and stayed until the day of ‘Aashoora’, when he found the Jews fasting on that day.
Fath al-Baari, 4/247
Was the calendar that the Jews used for that fast of theirs based on lunar or solar months?
If we say that it was based on lunar months, as stated above, then there is no problem, because the tenth of Muharram does not change every year. But if we say that it was based on solar months, then there is a problem, because this day will change every year (in relation to the lunar calendar) and will not always coincide with the tenth day of Muharram.
Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned this difference of opinion, and explained that he was of the view that their calendar was based on the solar months, so when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) saw the Jews fasting on that day, it was in Rabee‘ al-Awwal when he first came to Madinah, and the date based on the solar calendar coincided with his arrival. With regard to the real day on which Allah saved Moosa, it was the tenth of Muharram, but because they followed a solar calendar, they got the day wrong.
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
If they followed the solar calendar, there is no confusion about the meaning of the hadeeth, and the day on which Allah saved Moosa was the day of ‘Ashoora’ in Muharram. Thus the people of the Book worked it out according to a solar calendar, and that coincided with the Prophet’s arrival in Madinah in Rabee‘ al-Awwal. The fast observed by the people of the Book was worked out according to a solar calendar, whereas the Muslims’ fast is according to the lunar calendar, as is their pilgrimage and all important occasions that are obligatory or recommended. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “We are closer to Moosa than you.” Thus it becomes clear that the Muslims should have a greater reason to venerate that day and work out when it is, and that they (the Jews) got it wrong, because they were using a solar calendar, as the Christians got it wrong with regard to their fast, when they put it in a particular season of the year, with the result that it could coincide with any lunar month.
Zaad al-Ma‘aad fi Hadiy Khayr al-‘Ibaad, 2/69, 70
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajr mentioned this possible interpretation, and refuted it, and he refuted Ibn al-Qayyim’s favouring of this view.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Some of the later scholars said: It may be that their fast was worked out according to the solar calendar, which does not rule out the possibility of ‘Ashoora’ occurring in Rabee‘ al-Awwal, which would resolve the problem (of understanding the hadeeth) altogether. This was stated by Ibn al-Qayyim in al-Hadiy, where he said: The fast observed by the people of the Book was worked out according to a solar calendar. But I say: What he claimed of the problem being resolved is strange, because it leads to another problem, which is that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) instructed the Muslims to fast ‘Ashoora’ according to the lunar calendar, and it is known how the Muslims fasted ‘Ashoora’ in all eras: it was in Muharram and not in any other month. Yes, I found a report in at-Tabaraani with a jayyid isnaad from Zayd ibn Thaabit who said: The day of ‘Ashoora’ is not the day people say it is; rather it is the day on which the cover of the Ka‘bah replaced and the Abyssinians play with swords and other tools of war, and was not fixed in one (lunar) month. The people used to go to So and so, the Jew, and ask him when it was; when he died they came to Zayd ibn Thaabit and asked him.
Based on this, the way to reconcile the reports is to say that it was originally like that (based on a solar calendar), then when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) instructed the Muslims to fast ‘Ashoora’, he based it on the shar‘i ruling, which is to base it on the lunar calendar, and the Muslims followed that. But with regard to the claim that the people of the Book based their fast on a solar calendar, that is subject to further discussion. The Jews base their fast on a lunar calendar, and this is what we have seen them do. It may be that among them were some who followed a solar calendar, but there are none who do that now, just as those of whom Allah has told us that they said that ‘Uzayr was a son of God no longer exist. Exalted be Allah far above that.
Fath al-Baari, 7/267; see also 4/247
Elsewhere in Fath al-Baari, al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar says, commenting on the report of at-Tabaraani:
I came across something similar in al-Athaar al-Qadeemah by Abu’r-Rayhaan al-Bayrooni, and what he said, in brief, was: the ignorant among the Jews base their fasts and festivals on astronomical calculations, so their year is solar, not lunar. I say: Hence they need someone who has knowledge of such calculations, so that they can rely on him for that purpose.
Fath al-Baari, 4/247, 248
With regard to the report of Zayd ibn Thaabit that was mentioned by al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him), and to which he responded, al-Haafiz Ibn Rajab (may Allah have mercy on him) has discussed its isnaad and text.
He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This suggests that ‘Ashoora’ is not in Muharram; rather its date is worked out according to the solar calendar, as the people of the Book do, and this is contrary to the practice of the Muslims in earlier times. Ibn Abi’z-Zinnaad is not to be relied on in reports that are narrated only by him. He regarded the entire hadeeth as being from Zayd ibn Thaabit, and the latter part of it is not fit to be the words of Zayd, so perhaps that is the words of another narrator. And Allah knows best.
Lataa’if al-Ma‘aarif, p. 53
One may ask: how come the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) believe what the Jews said about the day of ‘Ashoora’ being the day on which Moosa and those who were with him were saved? This is what the Raafidis ask with evil ulterior motives, so as to cast aspersions on the hadeeths which encourage fasting on the day of ‘Ashoora’, and so as to support their claim that this is one of the innovations introduced by the Umayyads!
Al-Maaziri (may Allah have mercy on him) said concerning this issue and the response to it:
What the Jews say is not to be accepted (and taken as true), so it may be that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) received revelation that confirmed what they said, or that he heard about that from many different sources, so that he concluded that it was true. End quote.
This was quoted by an-Nawawi in Sharh Muslim, 8/11
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Even though this fast was not originally intended to do the same as the people of the Book, his saying, “We are closer to Moosa than you” is a confirmation of the prescription to observe this the fast, and explaining to the Jews that what you do of expressing love for Moosa, we do too, and we are closer to Moosa than you.
Iqtida’ as-Siraat al-Mustaqeem, p. 174
It should be noted that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) liked to do the same as the people of the Book in matters concerning which he had not received any (divine) instructions; this included the fast of ‘Ashoora’.
It was narrated from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to let his hair fall over his foreheads; the mushrikeen used to part their hair and the people of the Book used to let their hair fall over their foreheads, and the Prophet (sa) liked to do the same as the people of the Book in matters concerning which he had not received any (divine) instructions. Then (later on) the Prophet (sa) parted his hair.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3728
It is a sign of Imam al-Bukhaari’s understanding of the religion that he narrated this hadeeth after the two hadeeths of Abu Moosa and Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with them) that speak of the fast of ‘Ashoora’.
Abu’l-‘Abbaas al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The fact that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) fasted it (‘Ashoora’) may have come under the heading of doing the same as them (the people of the Book) in that regard, because that was a good deed.
It may be said that Allah, may He be exalted, gave him permission to fast on that day, then when he came to Madinah, he found the Jews fasting on that day, so he asked them about what motivated them to observe that fast. They told him what Ibn ‘Abbaas mentioned, that it was a great day, on which Allah saved Moosa and his people, and drowned Pharaoh and his people, so Moosa fasted that day in gratitude, so we fast it too. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “We have more right and are closer to Moosa than you.” So at that time he fasted this day in Madinah and issued instructions to fast on that day, i.e., he made it obligatory to fast it and confirmed his instructions, to such an extent that they would make little children fast as well. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) adhered to that, as did his Companions, until the month of Ramadan was made obligatory and fasting the day of ‘Ashoora’ was abrogated. At that time he said: “Allah has not prescribed fasting this day for you.” Then he gave them the choice between fasting it or not fasting it, but the virtue attached to it remained in place, because he said “However I am fasting,” as it says in the hadeeth of Mu‘aawiyah.
Based on that, the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not fast the day of ‘Ashoora’ in emulation of the Jews, because he used to fast it before he came to them and before he knew anything about them; rather what happened was that he made it obligatory, in hope of softening the Jews’ hearts and win them over to Islam, just as was the reason for facing towards their qiblah. That period was the time when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) liked to do the same as the people of the Book in matters that he had not been forbidden to do so.
Al-Mufhim lima Ashkala min Talkhees Kitaab Muslim, 3/191-192
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Whatever the case, he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not fast it in emulation of them – i.e., the Jews – because he used to fast it before that, and that was at the time when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) liked to do the same as the people of the Book in matters that he had not been forbidden to do so.
Fath al-Baari, 4/248
We have seen above from the comments of the scholars that which indicates that the day of ‘Ashoora’ was known to Quraysh and to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in Makkah, and they used to venerate it and indeed fast it. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) fasted it with them, and on that day they used to put the new cover on the Ka‘bah. So how can anyone, after all this, falsely claim that ‘Ashoora’ is an Umayyad innovation at the time when it is clearly mentioned in the proven, saheeh hadeeths?!
It was narrated that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: Quraysh used to fast on ‘Ashoora’ during the Jaahiliyyah, and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) used to fast on (that day) too. When he migrated to Madinah, he fasted this day and ordered that this fast be observed. When the month of Ramadaan was enjoined, he said: “Whoever wishes may fast on (this day) and whoever wishes may forsake it.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (1794); Muslim (1125).
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the people of the Jaahiliyyah used to fast on the day of ‘Ashoora’, and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and the Muslims fasted it before Ramadaan was made obligatory. When the month of Ramadaan was made obligatory, the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “ ‘Ashoora’ is one of the days of Allah, so whoever wishes may fast it and whoever wishes may omit it.”
Narrated by Muslim (1126).
We have quoted the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar here so as to refute the Raafidis and those who followed them in their ignorance, who claim that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was the only one who narrated the report about the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) fasting ‘Ashoora’ in Makkah.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) a report similar to that of ‘Aa’ishah concerning this matter. It was also narrated by ‘Ubaydullah ibn ‘Umar and Ayyoob, from Naafi‘, from Ibn ‘Umar that he said concerning the fast of ‘Ashoora’: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) fasted it and instructed (the people) to fast it.
At-Tamheed lima fi’l-Muwatta’ min al-Ma‘aani wa’l-Asaaneed, 7/207
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
What we conclude from these hadeeths is that during the Jaahiliyyah, the kuffaar of Quraysh and others, and the Jews, fasted on the day of ‘Ashoora’. Islam confirmed fasting on this day, then the ruling on fasting it became less emphatic.
Sharh Muslim, 8/9, 10
Abu’l-‘Abbaas al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The words of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her): “Quryash used to fast ‘Ashoora’ during the Jaahiliyyah,” indicate that fasting on this day was known to them to be prescribed and they were aware of its virtue. Perhaps they fasted on that day on the grounds that it was part of what was prescribed to Ibraaheem and Ismaa‘eel (blessings and peace of Allah be upon them), because they claimed to be following them and they attributed many of the rulings of Hajj and so on to them.
Al-Mufhim lima Ashkala min Talkhees Kitaab Muslim, 3/190, 191
For more information on the reasons why Quraysh fasted on that day, please see al-Mufassal fi Tareekh al-‘Arab qabl al-Islam, 11/339, 340
Finally, what we have mentioned from the saheeh Sunnah about the virtues of ‘Ashoora’, and the fact that fasting it expiates for the sins of a year, and that its date is fixed, on the tenth of Muharram – all of that is not unique to Ahl as-Sunnah. Rather it is also mentioned in the main reference book of the Raafidis! So how can this be reconciled with their claims that what we have are israa’eeliyyat (stories from Jewish sources), that were taken from the Jews or invented by the Umayyads??
It was narrated from Abu ‘Abdullah (peace be upon him) from his father that ‘Ali (peace be upon him) said: Fast ‘Ashoora’ in this manner, on the ninth and the tenth, for it expiates the sins of a year.
Narrated by at-Toosi in Tahdheeb al-Ahkaam, 4/299; al-Istibsaar, 2/134; by al-Fayd al-Kaashaani in al-Waafi, 7/13; by al-Hurr al-‘Aamili in Wasaa’il ash-Shi‘ah, 7/337; by al-Buroojardi in Jaami‘ Ahaadeeth ash-Shi‘ah, 9/474, 475.
It was narrated from Abu’l-Hasan (peace be upon him) that he said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings of Allah be upon him and his family) fasted the day of ‘Ashoora’.
Tahdheeb al-Ahkaam, 4/39; al-Istibsaar, 2/134; al-Waafi, 7/13; Wasaa’il ash-Shi‘ah, 7/337; also in Jaami‘ Ahaadeeth ash-Shi‘ah, 9/475
It was narrated from Ja‘far, from his father (peace be upon him) that he said: Fasting the day of ‘Ashoora’ is an expiation for a year.
Tahdheeb al-Ahkaam,4/300; al-Istibsaar, 2/134; Jaami‘ Ahaadeeth ash-Shi‘ah, 9/475; al-Hadaa’iq an-Naadirah, 13/371; al-Waafi by al-Kaashaani,7/13; al-Hurr al-‘Aamili in Wasaa’il ash-Shi‘ah, 7/337
It was narrated that ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: Fast the day of ‘Ashoora’, the ninth and the tenth to be on the safe side, because that is expiation for the past year. If one of you did not know about it before he ate, then let him fast for the rest of the day.
This report was narrated by the Shi‘i hadeeth scholar Husayn an-Noori at-Tabrusi in Mustadrak al-Wasaa’il, 1/594; and by al-Buroojardi in Ahaadeeth ash-Shi‘ah, 9/475.
It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) said: When you see the new moon of Muharram, then count (the days), and when the ninth day comes, then fast. I – that is, the narrator – said: Is that how Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family) used to fast? He said: Yes.
This report was narrated by the Shi‘i Radiy ad-Deen Abu’l-Qaasim ‘Ali ibn Moosa ibn Ja‘far ibn Tawoos in his book Iqbaal al-A‘maal, p. 554; and by al-Hurr al-‘Aamili in Wasaa’il ash-Shi‘ah, 7/347; and by an-Noori at-Tabrusi in Mustadrak al-Wasaa’il, 1/594; and in Jaami‘ Ahaadeeth ash-Shi‘ah, 9/475.
We have quoted these reports and their sources from the book Man qatala al-Husayn (radiy Allah ‘andhu)? by ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azeez.
And Allah knows best.
Refutation of the Shi’a’s distortion of a Saheeh hadith that they use to cast aspersions upon the Mother of the Believers ‘Aa’ishah:
Perhaps one of the main confusions that control the minds of some Muslims is that of focusing on some historical events and using them as justification for altering beliefs and ideas; they become completely obsessed with these events, as if they have just happened or are happening right now, even though they are over and done with, and now we are going through major events that are no less important or significant than those historical events. So such feebleminded individuals remain prisoners of the past, and they forget the present and all that it contains of pain and hope, thus living a life that is lacking in vision and believing in a faith that is distorted, to the extent that history is subject to distortion or fabrication.
Based on the above, it is very important for us to point out to you that you should understand that it is not right to make history – even if it is real history – something that distracts you from the main aims of Islam that were brought by the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Islam is a system of aims and goals that are based on great pillars and centred on affirming the Oneness of the Creator, may He be glorified and exalted, and worshipping Him alone, within the framework of the six pillars of faith and the five pillars of practice on which Islam is based, and also on the moral and ethical values which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was sent to complete and perfect for all of humanity. All of that is the focus of the verses of the Holy Qur’an and the hadiths of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and is the purpose for which he was sent. All of that was summed up by Ja‘far ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) in his famous words before the Negus when he said to him:
“O king, we were an ignorant people, worshipping idols, eating the meat of animals found dead, committing shameful deeds, severing ties of kinship, mistreating neighbours, and the strong among us devoured the weak. We were like that until Allah sent to us a Messenger from among ourselves, whose lineage, honesty, trustworthiness and chastity we knew well. He called us to affirm Allah’s Oneness and worship Him alone, and to renounce that which we and our fathers used to worship instead of Him of stones and idols. He instructed us to speak the truth, be faithful to trusts, uphold ties of kinship, treat neighbours kindly, and to refrain from that which is prohibited and from bloodshed. And He forbade us to commit shameful deeds, speak falsehood, consume orphans’ wealth and slander chaste women. He instructed us to worship Allah alone and not ascribe anything as a partner to Him, and He instructed us to pray, give zakaah (obligatory charity) and fast – and he enumerated the commands of Islam. – So we accepted him and believed in him, and we followed him in what he had brought. So we worshipped Allah alone, not ascribing any partner to Him. We regarded as forbidden that which he forbade, and we regarded as permissible that which he permitted to us..
Narrated by Ahmad in al-Musnad (3/266) with a hasan isnaad.
Is it not a sign of failure to regard these events as a cause of division and dispute among us today, when Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has sufficed us and saved us from being present at that time of turmoil, and has spared us the great turmoil that occurred among the noble Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them all)?
Even though Ahl as-Sunnah believe that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) was in the right, yet they do not choose to join the side of those who impugned the honour of others or cast aspersions upon their religion and faith. Rather they defend the right of the one who is in the right by using gentle words, and they ask Allah to pardon and forgive those among the noble Sahaabah who made mistakes; they think positively of all of them. When the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, he was pleased with all of them. In fact Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And the first to embrace Islam of the Muhajiroon (those who migrated from Makkah to Al-Madinah) and the Ansar (the citizens of Al-Madinah who helped and gave aid to the Muhajiroon) and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well-pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success”
Today you see many significant events occurring and we cannot reach any certain conclusion about what is really happening and the details of some stories we hear, despite all these very modern means of communication and advanced ways of verifying events, and despite the fact that there are so many researchers and specialists who study these events in depth. Yet despite that we cannot come to know the true nature of some events and what really happened. So how about when we study events in the distant past having to do with the fitnah (turmoil) and the details of what exactly happened among the noble Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them)? We may note that documentation of events and writing down of details was very rare at that time, and there has been a great deal of distortion and fabrication on the part of narrators and writers later on, not to mention conflation and confusion of events. Is it rational to make the events of those days our obsession, thinking of them morning and evening, and taking them as the criterion for judging people or regarding it is permissible to speak against others, and even to regard the honour and lives of one side or another as permissible?
Nevertheless, we say clearly in response to the events mentioned in the question: it was never narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he said: “Apostasy or disbelief will emerge from my house” and he pointed to the house of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). In fact none of the scholars of hadith narrated that, and there is no known isnaad for it. This is sufficient evidence that it is false and deserves to be rejected.
But what happened is that some of those who bore resentment and hatred towards the Mother of the Believers ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) distorted the meanings of some hadith reports, and misinterpreted them in a manner that is completely baseless. The ones who were the main promoters of this fabrication were a number of Shi‘i authors, such as al-Majlisi in Bihaar al-Anwaar (31/639), Daamin al-Madani in Waq‘at al-Jamal (p. 46), ‘Abd al-Husayn in al-Muraaja‘aat (p. 424), and at-Tijaani as-Samaawi in Fas’alu Ahl adh-Dhikr (p. 105-106) and Thumma Ahtadaytu, and others.
The explanation for that is that the books of the Sunnah are filled with narrations of the hadith of Ibn ‘Umar, according to which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “O Allah, bless us in our Shaam (Greater Syria) and in our Yemen.” They said: And in our Najd? He said: “O Allah, bless us in our Shaam and in our Yemen.” They said: And in our Najd? He said: “There there are earthquakes and tribulations, and there the side of the head of the Shaytaan will emerge.”
Other saheeh reports clearly state that what he meant was the eastern direction, which is Najd or Iraq, both of which are to the east of al-Madinah al-Munawwarah.
It was narrated that ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I saw the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) point towards the east and say: “Oh, tribulation is there; oh, tribulation is there; oh, tribulation is there, from where the side of the head of the Shaytaan will appear.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3279) and Muslim (2905).
The scholars and commentators on hadith have discussed in detail the meaning of this hadith, and how the Najd of Arabia or the Najd of Iraq [Najd refers to highlands] were places of evil and turmoil. Some of them interpreted it as referring to the appearance of Musaylimah al-Kadhdhaab in Bahrain, and others interpreted it as referring to the turmoil that occurred in Iraq and the major events in which al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali and others among the noble Sahaabah were killed.
As the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was standing on the minbar, facing the noble Sahaabah, and pointing towards the east, the apartment of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) would be to his right, so it would also be towards the east. Some haters exploited this fact and distorted all the clear reports mentioned above, saying that what was meant was ‘Aa’ishah herself (may Allah be pleased with her), and that she was the cause of the turmoil and evil that would befall the people. The Shaytaan made this misguidance fair-seeming to them, by means of a report of which they failed to understand the meaning. The hadith is well-known from the narration of Naafi‘ from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him); it was taken from Naafi‘ by many of his companions, namely: ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn ‘Ata’, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Awn, ‘Ubaydullah ibn ‘Umar and al-Layth ibn Sa‘d. All of them narrated it in a context which clearly indicated that what was meant was the eastern direction, from which the side of the head of the Shaytaan would appear. For information on all these isnaads, please see al-Musnad al-Jaami‘ (10/789).
There is another report which was narrated only by Juwayriyah from Naafi‘, which says: The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stood up to address the people. He pointed in the direction of the dwelling of ‘Aa’ishah and said: “There is fitnah (turmoil) – three times – from where the side of the head of the Shaytaan will appear.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3104).
If a fair-minded, smart researcher examines this hadith, he will realise that the gesture referred to was simply pointing towards the east, but because the apartment of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was to the east, the narrator expressed it by saying that he pointed in the direction of ‘Aa’ishah’s dwelling; i.e., he meant the direction of the east, not of the Mother of the Believers ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) herself. This is supported by the fact that the report says nahwa (in the direction of, towards) and not ila (to or at) ‘Aa’ishah.
It says in the report of ‘Ubaydullah ibn ‘Umar from Naafi‘ that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) stood at Hafsah’s door and pointed towards the east – according to another version, he stood at ‘Aa’ishah’s door and pointed towards the east – as it says in Saheeh Muslim (2905). Thus it is clear that what is meant is the direction. As for the apartments (of the Prophet’s wives), it does not mean the apartments themselves.
Does it make sense to say that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would pray for blessing for Shaam (Greater Syria) and Yemen, then when the noble Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) asked him to pray for Najd, he would respond by telling them that the dwelling of ‘Aa’ishah would be a source of fitnah and the place from which the side of the head of the Shaytaan would emerge? What rational mind could accept this nonsensical idea? What connection could there be between the beginning and the end of the hadith according to this weird distortion of the meaning
Apart from Naafi‘, the hadith was also narrated by a number of the students of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), including ‘Abdullah ibn Dinar, Saalim ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, Bishr ibn Harb and others, all of whom narrated it with the wording “he pointed to the east.” This was narrated by al-Bukhaari (3274, 3511), Muslim (7400), Ahmad and others. See: al-Musnad al-Jaami‘ (10/833-834); as-Silsilah as-Saheehah (no. 2494).
Shouldn’t he – the one who understands the report in this weird manner – wonder how come none of the noble Sahaabah understood it in this distorted way, even though the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said this to them as he addressed them from the minbar.
If it was the Mother of the Believers ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) to whom the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was referring in this hadith, how could he have continued to live with her and died with his head in her lap (may Allah be pleased with her), when she was supposedly the source of turmoil and the place from which the side of the head of the Shaytaan would appear – Allah forbid?
Wasn’t the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) the most caring of people towards his ummah and the most eager to protect them from evil and turmoil? So how could he have kept quiet about what he knew of what his wife, the Mother of the Believers, ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) was supposedly going to do?
Indeed, how could the noble Sahaabah – including ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) and others of the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) – have kept quiet about that, and not questioned him (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) concerning her, or ask him for permission to rid the Muslims of the fitnah (turmoil) that would emerge from her house!
Did any historian or scholar of hadith narrate that anyone who was present at that speech understood that what was meant was ‘Aa’ishah herself (may Allah be pleased with her)?
Moreover, would any rational Muslim agree to the notion that the best of creation and leader of mankind, Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would suggest that the house of his wife, who was the dearest of his wives to him, a place which was his own home, would be a place where the side of the head of the Shaytaan would appear, instead of it being a beacon of light for all humanity until the Day of Resurrection, as indeed it truly is. Is there anything that could undermine the status of our noble Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) more than this distortion which cast aspersions on his family and his honour (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)?
The revelation used to come down in her apartment (may Allah be pleased with her), when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was with her under the same cover. Can it make sense to suggest that this apartment would become a place where the Shaytaan would emerge, on the basis of a distorted interpretation of some historical events?
Wasn’t the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) buried in that apartment, where his blessed body will remain until the Day of Resurrection, and the Prophets are alive in their graves, yet despite that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) allegedly described his resting place during his life and after his death as being a place from which fitnah and the side of the head of the Shaytaan would emerge?
‘Ammaar ibn Yaasir (may Allah be pleased with him) – who was one of the most prominent among those who fought on the side of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) – said that the Mother of the believers ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) would be the wife of our Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in Paradise, as is narrated by al-Bukhaari (3772) from al-Hakam who said: I heard Abu Waa’il say: When ‘Ali sent ‘Ammaar and al-Hasan to Kufah to seek their support, ‘Ammaar addressed them, saying: I know that she is his wife in this world and in the hereafter, but Allah is testing you to see whether you will follow Him or her. If the apartment of the Mother of the believers is the cause of turmoil, then how could ‘Ammaar ibn Yaasir have said that she would be the wife of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in Paradise?
Indeed those who narrated the hadith from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) understood the hadith correctly and interpreted it as referring to the Najd of Iraq, as in the report narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh (2905) from Saalim ibn ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, who said: O people of Iraq, how often you ask about minor issues when you are committing major sins! I heard my father, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar, say: I heard the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) say: “Tribulation will come from there,” and he pointed with his hand towards the east, “where the side of the head of the Shaytaan will appear.” And here you are now, striking one another’s necks…
Where did these distorters come up with this weird manner in which they interpret this hadith, that was not narrated from any of the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), or from any of those who fought alongside ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) when he fought ‘Aa’ishah, Talhah and az-Zubayr?
Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The versions of the hadith all indicate that the direction to which the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) pointed was the east, specifically Iraq, as I have seen in some reports that state that clearly. This hadith is one of the signs of his Prophethood (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), because the first turmoil came from the east, and that was the cause of division among the Muslims. Similarly, innovations started from the same direction, such as the innovations of the Shi‘ah, Khaarijis and others.
Al-Bukhaari (7/77) and Ahmad (2/85, 153) narrated that Ibn Abi Na‘eem said: I was with Ibn ‘Umar when a man from Iraq asked him about a muhrim (pilgrim in ihram) who kills a fly. He said: O people of Iraq, you ask me about a muhrim who kills a fly, when you killed the son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “They [al-Hasan and al-Husayn] are my two fragrant plants in this world”! Some of this turmoil is the Shi‘ah’s impugning the senior Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), such as Sayyidah ‘Aa’ishah as-Siddeeqah bint as-Siddeeq, whose innocence was revealed from heaven. The fanatical Shi‘i ‘Abd al-Husayn, in his book al-Muraaja‘aat ( p. 237), wrote several chapters impugning her and rejecting her hadiths, and accusing her of all kinds of things with all audacity and shamelessness, basing his arguments on weak and fabricated hadiths, some of which I [Shaykh al-Albaani] have highlighted in ad-Da‘eefah (4963-4970), in addition to distorting the meaning of saheeh hadiths and interpreting them in a far-fetched manner. Similarly he – may he be silenced and may his hand be paralysed – interpreted the saheeh hadith as referring to Sayyidah ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) and claimed that she is the fitnah mentioned in the hadith. “Monstrous is the word that comes out of their mouths (i.e., that He begot (took) sons and daughters). They utter nothing but a lie” [al-Kahf 18:5]. They based that on the two reports mentioned above:
The first report is the report of al-Bukhaari which says: … and he pointed in the direction of the dwelling of ‘Aa’ishah. The other report was narrated by Muslim: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came out from the house of ‘Aa’ishah and said: “The head of kufr (disbelief) is there.” This evildoer tried to give the wrong impression to his readers that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was pointing to the house of ‘Aa’ishah herself, and that what was meant by fitnah was ‘Aa’ishah herself! Our response to that that his approach is akin to what the Jews did when they distorted and twisted words. The Shi‘ah understood the words in the first report – “and he pointed in the direction of the dwelling of ‘Aa’ishah” – as it the text said “and he pointed at the dwelling of ‘Aa’ishah”! The fact that it says nahwa (in the direction of/towards) and not ila (at/to) definitively indicates that this understanding is incorrect, especially since most reports clearly state that he pointed towards the east, and in some reports it says that he pointed towards Iraq. And historical reality testifies to that.
With regard to the report of ‘Ikrimah, it is munkar (odd), as stated above. Even if it was suggested that it is sound, it has been summarised to the point of undermining its meaning, so this Shi‘i exploited it greatly, as is indicated by other versions of the hadith. What is meant is: the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came out of the house of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) and prayed Fajr, then he stood beside the minbar (or – according to one report – at ‘Aa’ishah’s door, turned to face towards the sunrise and pointed towards the east. According to a report narrated by al-Bukhaari, he pointed in the direction of the dwelling of ‘Aa’ishah. According to another report narrated by Ahmad, he pointed towards Iraq. So the fair-minded person who is free of any whims and desires with regard to all these versions of this hadith will definitely realise the falseness of the aspersions that this Shi‘i cast upon ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). May Allah deal with him as he deserves.
End quote from as-Silsilah as-Saheehah (no. 2494, 5/655)
Shaykh ‘Abd al-Qaadir Sufi said, concerning this distortion of the hadith, that it is an incorrect understanding:
It may be refuted by the fact that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was standing on his minbar, which was to the west of the houses of his wives (may Allah be pleased with them) and to the west of the house of his daughter Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her), as these houses were all to the right of the minbar, towards the east. This is something that cannot be disputed or argued about. Just as the Raafidis themselves decided to interpret the easterly direction as referring to the house of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), the Naasibis [those who oppose Ahl al-Bayt] could decide to interpret the easterly direction as referring to the house of Faatimah (may Allah be pleased with her)! That is foolishness on the part of both sides.
End quote from as-Saa‘iqah (p. 151)
Dr Ibraaheem ar-Ruhayli (may Allah preserve him) said:
Some reports mention some of the tribes who lived in the land, and described the situation of its people:
It was narrated that Ibn Mas‘ood said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) pointed with his hand towards Yemen and said: “Faith is there, and harshness and hardheartedness are among the uncouth owners of camels, where the side of the head of the Shaytaan rises, Rabee‘ah and Mudar.” These reports definitively indicate that what the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) meant when he said “Fitnah is there” was the eastern lands, as the reports clearly state that, and in some reports there is a description of the people of that land and some of its tribes are identified by name. This clearly proves the falseness of what the Raafidi claimed about him pointing to the house of ‘Aa’ishah. This is a false and invalid view; no one ever understood it in this way and no one ever said that except this hateful Raafidi.
End quote from al-Intisaar li-s’Sahb wa al-Aal min Iftiraa’aat as-Samaawi ad-Daall (p. 323)
Shaykh Shahaatah Muhammad Saqar said:
The words of the Shi‘ah can only mean one of two things:
Either they are saying that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) meant ‘Aa’ishah herself when he pointed, or they are saying that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) meant her dwelling itself.
If they are saying the former, then this is obviously false, on the basis of the linguistic usage in the hadith, because it can only refer to a specific place, not a person, such as when he said “from where” and “fitnah is there”, referring to the place where fitnah will reside.
If they are saying the latter, which is that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) meant her dwelling itself, then that could not have been the case during the lifetime of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family), because he lived there himself, and he would come to it every time it was ‘Aa’ishah’s day (may Allah be pleased with her); in fact he would come there twice as often as the houses of his other wives, because ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) had two days, her own day and that of Sawdah bint Zam‘ah (may Allah be pleased with her), as she gave her day to ‘Aa’ishah because she knew that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) loved her.
What’s more, when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) was dying, he wanted to be tended in the house of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), not in the houses of his other wives, and he stayed there until he passed away (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) in the house of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), and he was buried there even though this may annoy the Raafidis.
There is no other possible interpretation left except for them to say that what was meant was the dwelling of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) after the death of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family). If they say this, then they are calling for their own doom, because the dwelling of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) became the grave of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) after his death, and it was no longer her house that could be described as hers. How can any rational person think it possible that Allah, may He be exalted, would be pleased for His beloved slave Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) to be buried in a place from which fitnah would emerge, according to the claim of the Raafidis?!
It is indeed one of the miracles of Allah, may He be exalted, that He caused the house of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) to become the place where His slave and beloved Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him and his family) would be tended during his illness, then He caused it to become His grave, then He completed it by causing his two companions and advisers, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) to be buried beside him.
If this fabricated view propagated by the Shi‘ah was valid or possible in any way, we would have learned about someone who said it or quoted it or used it as evidence among those who differed with the Mother of the Believers ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) and were of the level of the Taabi‘een or those who came after them. As for the Sahaabah, it is definitely not possible to think that any of them held such a view. As we have not found anyone who suggested that interpretation, we may conclude that it is pure lies and fabrications against the Mother of the believers (may Allah be pleased with her) on the part of the Shi‘ah, along the same lines as what their earlier predecessors (i.e., the hypocrites) did in the case of the slander against her (al-ifk).
End quote from Ummuna ‘Aa’ishah (91-94).
The hadith about the sheep eating the page containing the verse about stoning and breastfeeding in the house of ‘Aa’ishah is not Saheeh:
Shia usually use this Hadith to manipulate the truth and misguide innocent Sunni. Lets discuss its details.
All versions of the hadith are based on the following chain of narrators:
‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr ibn Hazm, from ‘Amrah bint ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan, from ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her). The isnaad ends with her and does not go back to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah upon him).
The hadith was taken from ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr by a number of narrators and their narrations are as follows:
It was narrated by Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari. His version says: It was revealed in the Qur’an that ten definite breastfeedings are required (to establish the relationship of mahram), then it was also revealed that five definite breastfeedings are required.
This was narrated by Imam Muslim in his Saheeh (no. 1452) and others. We may note that this version does not say anything about the story of the goat or tame sheep eating any of the pages of the Holy Qur’an.
It was narrated by Imam Maalik (may Allah have mercy on him). His version says: Among that which was revealed of the Qur’an was the ruling that those ten definite breastfeedings are required to establish the relationship of mahram, then that was abrogated and replaced with five definite breastfeedings. When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, this was among the things that were recited in the Qur’an.
This was narrated by Maalik in al-Muwatta’ (Kitaab ar-Ridaa‘, hadith no. 17), and via him by Imam Muslim (1452) and others. We may note here that the report of Imam Maalik from ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr also does not include any mention of the story of the goat or tame sheep eating anything of the Mus-haf. Rather one sentence is added to it at the end: When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, this was among the things that were recited in the Qur’an.
It was narrated by Muhammad ibn Ishaaq. His version says: The verse of stoning and breastfeeding of an adult ten times was revealed, and it was written on a leaf that was kept beneath a bed in my [‘Aa’ishah’s] house. When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) fell sick, we were preoccupied with his situation, and a little animal of ours came in and ate it.
This was narrated by Imam Ahmad in al-Musnad (43/343), and Ibn Maajah in as-Sunan (no. 1944); the latter version says: When the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.
As you can see, this version does mention the odd phrase that is additional to what was narrated by the two great imams, Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari and Maalik ibn Anas (may Allah have mercy on them both). This is what the questioner referred to in his question. In this version of the hadith it says that a tame sheep – which is a sheep that people feed in their homes – came in and ate the page that contained the verse of stoning and the verse of breastfeeding an adult.
This difference was sufficient for the scholars of hadith to rule that the version narrated by Muhammad ibn Ishaaq was da‘eef (weak), and that it was to be rejected and regarded as odd. In their view, the odd hadith is any hadith in which a trustworthy narrator differed with that which was narrated by other trustworthy narrators who were more accurate than him in the narration or were greater in number. This is a sound academic principle, because how can one narrator have additional wording in a hadith that others also narrated from the original narrators, when the latter are greater in number, more accurate in memory and narration, and of higher status in knowledge of hadith? Why didn’t they also narrate this additional or different material? Is there any other way to understand what happened, except by referring to that rule in order to know where some narrators differed in their narration and included some odd material in it? If that is not the case (and you do not want to refer to that rule), then how could this debater convince us that Muhammad ibn Ishaaq learned of the hadith of ‘Aa’ishah that which both Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari and Maalik ibn Anas had forgotten, when they were both leading scholars and senior figures in their field? In fact Sufyaan ath-Thawri (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Ansaari was, in the view of the people of Madinah, of a higher standard in the field of hadith than az-Zuhri. ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni regarded him as one of the most authentic and trustworthy narrators of hadith, and one of those concerning whom one would have no sense of unease with their hadith at all. Ahmad ibn Hanbal said concerning him: He is one of the most accurate in narration. Wuhayb said: I came to Madinah and I did not see anyone but you might feel comfortable with some of what they narrated and have reservations about other reports of theirs, except Maalik and Yahya ibn Sa‘eed (i.e., all of their reports could be accepted without reservation).
See: Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (11/223)
So how about if we know that Muhammad ibn Ishaaq is criticised by some scholars of hadith, and there were some mistakes that were noted in his narrations, and it was noted that he differed in some of his narrations from the narration of some leading trustworthy scholars? We cannot accept the narration of such a person if it differs from the narration of other trustworthy narrators, and we do not accept from him any weird or odd wording that other trustworthy narrators did not narrate.
Hanbal ibn Ishaaq said: I heard Abu ‘Abdullah say: The narration of Ibn Ishaaq cannot be used as proof.
‘Abdullah ibn Ahmad said: He – i.e., Ahmad ibn Hanbal – did not use his reports as evidence when discussing what is Sunnah.
Ayyoob ibn Ishaaq said: I asked Ahmad ibn Hanbal: O Abu ‘Abdullah, if Ibn Ishaaq is the only narrator of the hadith, will you accept it? He said: No, by Allah, for I have seen him putting together the words of many narrators in a single hadith, and not separating the narration of one person from that of another.
Yahya ibn Ma‘een classed him as da‘eef in one report narrated from him. An-Nasaa’i said: He is not qawiy (strong). Ad-Daaraqutni said: The leading scholars differed concerning him, and he is not an authority; rather his narration may be taken into consideration (alongside others)
See: Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb (9/45).
What will make the matter clearer is the fact that al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad, like ‘Abdullah ibn Abi Bakr, narrated the hadith without the additional material of Muhammad ibn Ishaaq.
At-Tahhaawi narrated in Sharh Mushkil al-Athaar (11/486): Muhammad ibn Khuzaymah told us: al-Hajjaaj ibn Minhaal told us: Hammaad ibn Salamah told us, from ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn al-Qaasim, from al-Qaasim ibn Muhammad, from ‘Amrah, that ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said: Among the things that were revealed in the Qur’an, then abrogated, was that the relationship of mahram cannot be established except by ten breastfeedings, then after that it was revealed: or five breastfeedings.
To sum up, the story of the sheep eating a page of the Holy Qur’an in the house of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) is da‘eef (weak) and is not proven.
Ibn Qutaybah ad-Daynoori (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
The versions of the hadith narrated by Maalik are different to those narrated by Muhammad ibn Ishaaq, and Maalik is more accurate, according to the scholars of hadith, than Muhammad ibn Ishaaq.
End quote from Ta’weel Mukhtalif al-Hadith (p. 443)
The commentators on the Musnad of Imam Ahmad said:
Its isnaad is da‘eef because the only one who narrated it was Muhammad ibn Ishaaq, and its text contains something odd.
End quote from the Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edn (43/343)
Al-Aloosi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
With regard to the additional material having been on a page that was kept with ‘Aa’ishah and was eaten by the tame sheep, it is a fabrication and lie of the heretics that this was lost as the result of being eaten by a tame sheep without being abrogated. This is what it says in al-Kashshaaf.
End quote from Rooh al-Ma‘aani (11/140)
Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
It was proven that the wording was abrogated, but the sheet on which it was written remained, as ‘Aa’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) said – then it was eaten by the tame sheep; but no one needs it (that verse). Something similar may be said with regard to the verse on breastfeeding, and there is no difference between the two. The proof of that is that they memorised (the verse) as we have mentioned. So if it was confirmed as being part of the Qur’an, the fact that the sheep ate it would not have changed the fact that it was part of the Qur’an, based on the fact that they had memorised it.
Thus we may conclude with certainty that no two Muslims differ concerning the fact that Allah, may He be exalted, enjoined upon His Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) the conveying of the message, and that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) conveyed it as he had been instructed to do. … And we may conclude, with regard to the verses that were lost, that if the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) had been instructed to convey them, he would have done so, and if he had conveyed them they would have been memorised, and if they had been memorised then the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) would not affect the matter at all, just as the fact that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died did not affect anything else of what he had conveyed of the Qur’an.
End quote from al-Muhalla (12/177)
Al-Baaqilaani (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
There is no one on the face of the earth more ignorant than one who thinks that the Messenger and the Sahaabah were all careless with regard to the Qur’an and that they would not memorise it and learn it by heart, and that they would rely for confirming it on a sheet that was placed under the bed of ‘Aa’ishah only, a sheet that was thrown on the floor and disrespected, until the neighbourhood sheep came in and ate it, resulting in the loss of that sheet and whatever was written on it!
We wonder what it was that could have allegedly led the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to such negligence, helplessness and carelessness, when he had been entrusted with the religion and had been instructed to protect it and preserve it, and to appoint scribes to write it, as he had a large number of people who were skilled in the field of writing, whose main task was to write down the Qur’an that was revealed to him, and to write down covenants, deeds, trusts and other matters that might occur or be connected to the Messenger, especially since there was a need to keep a record of it.
The main task of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was only to explain and protect the Qur’an, and protect the religion; he had no occupation or any other worldly concerns to distract him from that, except some efforts he might undertake to support and reinforce the religion, and to promote and explain the Qur’an. Otherwise, how could it be possible that all of these people and all of the Sahaabah would not be aware of the verses about breastfeeding and stoning, so that no one would know about them or refer to them, except ‘Aa’ishah alone?
Therefore, based on what we have described about how the Messenger was devoted to conveying the message, and the Sahaabah were keen to learn and memorise it, it is not possible that they could have lost something of the Book of Allah, may He be exalted, whether it was small or great; people of such calibre should be the greatest of people in memorising it and preserving what was revealed of it and what happened concerning it, such as the dates when it was revealed, the reasons for revelation, and what abrogated and was abrogated.
End quote from al-Intisaar li’l-Qur’an (1/412-418)
Whatever the case, what the Muslim is required to do is to constantly be aware and careful, so he should not believe everyone who makes some claim, and he should not follow every rumour, myth or story that is narrated here or there, especially in Internet chat rooms and forums, because they may be visited by knowledgeable and ignorant people alike, both speakers of truth and liars, sincere people and hateful hypocrites. Such matters require investigation and verification, by asking knowledgeable people and referring to authentic Islamic books; many such resources are widely available, praise be to Allah. Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And follow not (O man i.e., say not, or do not or witness not, etc.) that of which you have no knowledge (e.g. ones saying: ‘I have seen,’ while in fact he has not seen, or ‘I have heard,’ while he has not heard). Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, of each of those you will be questioned (by Allah)” [al-Isra’ 17:36].
Mutah marriage is a common practice among Shia communities. It’s the worst degradation of women by men at the name of temporary marriage. A man can get a woman for hours or week or month or a year by paying her money without any evidence or Islamic Nikah and involvent of families in a secret manner. When the contract ends, he throws her away and gets another one and cycle of this kind of prostitution goes on and on. Man is absolutely free from any kind of responsibilities, preservation of offspring, giving her respectful status in society or taking care of her dignity and honor. Just use her for a particular time of period and discard her like a sanity Tissue. This is the mechanism of Mutah Marriage and has become breeding pool of adultery in Islamic societies. This custom transforms a woman into mistress or escort or concubine or a toy but not a respectful wife having great social, economic, emotional rights or a loving mother. Usually products of Mutah are found in garbage coz a kid born as result of secret relationship never gets recognition as his father has already ran away at the completion of contract. This cruelty is even worse than prostitution.
The basic principle concerning marriage is that it should be ongoing and permanent. Temporary marriage – i.e., mut’ah marriage – was permitted at the beginning of Islam, then it was abrogated and became haraam until the Day of Judgement.
It was narrated from ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade mut’ah marriage and the meat of domestic donkeys at the time of Khaybar. According to another report, he forbade mut’ah marriage at the time of Khaybar and he forbade the meat of tame donkeys.
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3979; Muslim, 1407.
It was narrated from al-Rabee’ ibn Sabrah al-Juhani that his father told him that he was with the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who said, “O people, I used to allow you to engage in mut’ah marriages, but now Allaah has forbidden that until the Day of Resurrection, so whoever has any wives in a mut’ah marriage, he should let her go and do not take anything of the (money) you have given them.”
Narrated by Muslim, 1406.
Allaah has made marriage one of His signs which calls us to think and ponder. He has created love and compassion between the spouses, and has made the wife a source of tranquility for the husband. He encouraged us to have children and decreed that a woman should wait out the ‘iddah period and may inherit. None of that exists in this haraam form of marriage.
A woman who is married in a mut’ah marriage, according to the Raafidis – i.e. the Shi’ah, who are the ones who say that this is permissible – is neither a wife nor a concubine. But Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who guard their chastity (i.e. private parts, from illegal sexual acts)
Except from their wives or (the slaves) that their right hands possess, for then, they are free from blame;
But whoever seeks beyond that, then those are the transgressors”
The Raafidis quote invalid evidence to support their argument that mut’ah is permissible. For example:
(a) They quote the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“…so with those of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations, give them their Mahr as prescribed…”
They say: this verse indicates that mut’ah is permissible, and the word ‘their mahr (ujoorahunna – lit. their dues or their wages)’ is evidence that what is meant by the phrase ‘you have enjoyed sexual relations’ is mut’ah.
The refutation of this is the fact that prior to this Allaah mentions the women whom a man is forbidden to marry, then he mentions what is permissible for him, and He commands the man to give to the woman he marries her mahr.
The joy of marriage is expressed here by the word enjoyment (‘of whom you have enjoyed sexual relations’). A similar instance occurs in the Sunnah, in the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah according to which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Woman is like a bent rib, if you try to straighten her you will break her. If you want to enjoy her, then enjoy her while she still has some crookedness in her.”
Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4889; Muslim, 1468.
The mahr is referred to here as ajr (lit. dues or wages), but this does not refer to the money which is paid to the woman with whom he engages in mut’ah in the contract of mut’ah. The mahr is referred to as ajr elsewhere in the Book of Allaah, where Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“O Prophet (Muhammad)! Verily, We have made lawful to you your wives, to whom you have paid their Mahr (bridal‑money given by the husband to his wife at the time of marriage)…”
Thus it becomes clear that there is no evidence in this verse to suggest that mut’ah is permissible.
Even if we were to say for argument’s sake that this verse indicates that mut’ah is permitted, we would still say that it is abrogated by the reports in the saheeh Sunnah which prove that mut’ah is forbidden until the Day of Resurrection.
(b) The reports that some of the Sahaabah regarded it as being permissible, especially Ibn ‘Abbaas.
The refutation here is the fact that the Raafidis are following their own whims and desires, because they regard the companions of the Prophet (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs, then you see them quoting their actions as permissible in this instance and in others.
With regard to those who said that it is permissible, they are among those who did not hear that it had been forbidden. The Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) – including ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and ‘Abd-Allaah ibn al-Zubayr – refuted Ibn ‘Abbaas’s view that mut’ah was permitted.
It was narrated from ‘Ali that he heard Ibn ‘Abbaas permitting mut’ah marriage, and he said, “Wait a minute, O Ibn ‘Abbaas, for the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade it on the day of Khaybar and (he also forbade) the meat of tame donkeys.”
Narrated by Muslim, 1407.
“Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Awliya (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a dan
Qadariyyah is a movement that started in 1900 CE as a plot by the British colonialists in the Indian subcontinent, with the aim of diverting Muslims away from their religion and from the obligation of jihaad in particular, so that they would not oppose colonialism in the name of Islam. The mouthpiece of this movement is the magazine Majallat Al-Adyaan (Magazine if Religions) which was published in English.
Foundation and prominent personalities:
Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiani (1839-1908 CE) was the main tool by means of which Qadianiyyah was founded. He was born in the village of Qadian, in the Punjab, in India, in 1839 CE. He came from a family that was well known for having betrayed its religion and country, so Ghulam Ahmad grew up loyal and obedient to the colonialists in every sense. Thus he was chosen for the role of a so-called prophet, so that the Muslims would gather around him and he would distract them from waging jihaad against the English colonialists. The British government did lots of favours for them, so they were loyal to the British. Ghulam Ahmad was known among his followers to be unstable, with a lot of health problems and dependent on drugs.
Among those who confronted him and his evil da’wah was Shaykh Abu’l-Wafa’ Thana’ al-Amritsari, the leader of Jama’iyyat Ahl al-Hadeeth fi ‘Umoom al-Hind (The All-India Society of Ahl al-Hadeeth). The Shaykh debated with him and refuted his arguments, revealing his ulterior motives and Kufr and the deviation of his way. When Ghulam Ahmad did not come to his senses, Shaykh Abu’l-Wafa’ challenged him to come together and invoke the curse of Allaah, such that the one who was lying would die in the lifetime of the one who was telling the truth. Only a few days passed before Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiani died, in 1908 CE, leaving behind more than fifty books, pamphlets and articles, among the most important of which are: Izaalat al-Awhaam (Dispelling illusions), I’jaaz Ahmadi (Ahmadi miracles), Baraaheen Ahmadiyyah (Ahmadi proofs), Anwaar al-Islam (Lights of Islam), I’jaaz al-Maseeh (Miracles of the Messiah), al-Tableegh (Conveying (the message))and Tajalliyyaat Ilaahiyyah (Divine manifestations).
Noor al-Deen (Nuruddin): the first Khaleefah of the Qadianis. The British put the crown of Khilaafah on his head, so the disciples (of Ghulam Ahmad) followed him. Among his books is: Fasl al-Khitaab(Definitive statement).
Muhammad Ali and Khojah Kamaal al-Deen: the two leaders of the Lahore Qadianis. They are the ones who gave the final shape to the movement. The former produced a distorted translation into English of the Qur’aan. His other works include: Haqeeqat al-Ikhtilaaf (The reality of differences), al-Nubuwwah fi’l-Islam (Prophethood in Islam) and al-Deen al-Islami (The Islamic religion). As for Khojah Kamaal al-Deen, he wrote a book called al-Mathal al-A’laa fi’l-Anbiya’ (The highest example of the Prophets), and other books. This Lahore group of Ahmadis are those who think of Ghulam Ahmad as a Mujaddid(renewer or reviver of Islam) only, but both groups are viewed as a single movement because odd ideas that are not seen in the one will surely be found in the other.
Muhammad Ali: the leader of the Lahore Qadianis. He was one of those who gave the final shape to Qadianiyyah, a colonialist spy and the person in charge of the magazine which was the voice of the Qadianiyyah. He also produced a distorted translation into English of the Qur’aan. Among his works areHaqeeqat al-Ikhtilaaf (The reality of differences), and al-Nubuwwah fi’l-Islam (Prophethood in Islam), as stated above.
Muhammad Saadiq, the mufti of the Qadianiyyah. His works include: Khatim al-Nabiyyeen The seal of the Prophets).
Basheer Ahmad ibn Ghulam. His works include: Seerat al-Mahdi (the life of the Mahdi) and Kalimat al-Fasl (Decisive word).
Mahmood Ahmad ibn Ghulam, his second Khaleefah. Among his works are: Anwaar al-Khilaafah (Lights of the caliphate), Tuhfat al-Mulook and Haqeeqat al-Nubuwwah (The reality of prophethood).
The appointment of the Qadiani Zafar-Allaah Khan as the first Foreign Minister of Pakistan had a major effect in supporting this deviant sect, as he gave them a large area in the province of the Punjab to be their world headquarters, which they named Rabwah (high ground) as in the aayah (interpretation of the meaning): “… And We gave them refuge on high ground (rabwah), a place of rest, security and flowing streams.”
Prominent Features of Their Deviation;
Ghulam Ahmad began his activities as an Islamic daa’iyah (caller to Islam) so that he could gather followers around him, then he claimed to be a mujaddid inspired by Allaah. Then he took a further step and claimed to be the Awaited Mahdi and the Promised Messiah. Then he claimed to be a Prophet and that his prophet hood was higher than that of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
The Qadianis believe that Allaah fasts, prays, sleeps, wakes up, writes, makes mistakes and has intercourse – exalted be Allaah far above all that they say.
The Qadiani believes that his god is English because he speaks to him in English.
Intellectual and ideological roots:
The westernizing movement of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan paved the way for the emergence of the Qadianiyyah, because it had already spread deviant ideas.
The British made the most of this opportunity so they started the Qadiani movement and chose a man from a family that had a history of being agents of the colonialists.
In 1953 CE, there was a popular revolution in Pakistan which demanded the removal of Zafar-Allaah Khan from the position of Foreign Minister and that the Qadiani sect should be regarded as a non-Muslim minority. In this uprising around ten thousand Muslims were martyred, and they succeeded in having the Qadiani minister removed from office.
In Rabee’ al-Awwal 1394 AH (April 1974), a major conference was held by the Muslim World League in Makkah, which was attended by representatives of Muslim organizations from around the world. This conference announced that this sect is Kaafir and is beyond the pale of Islam, and told Muslims to resist its dangers and not to cooperate with the Qadianis or bury their dead in Muslim graveyards.
The Majlis al-Ummah in Pakistan (the central parliament) debated with the Qadiani leader Mirza Naasir Ahmad, and he was refuted by Shaykh Mufti Mahmood (may Allaah have mercy on him). The debate went on for nearly thirty hours but Naasir Ahmad was unable to give answers and the Kufr of this group was exposed, so the Majlis issued a statement that the Qadianis should be regarded as a non-Muslim minority.
Among the factors that make Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an obvious Kaafir are the following:
Most of the Qadianis nowadays live in India and Pakistan, with a few in Israel and the Arab world. They are trying, with the help of the colonialists, to obtain sensitive positions in all the places where they live.
The Qadianis are very active in Africa and in some western countries. In Africa they have more than 5,000 teachers and dai’yahs working full-time to call people to Qadianiyyah. Their wide-spread activity proves that they have the support of the colonialists.
The British government is also supporting this movement and making it easy for their followers to get positions in world governments, corporate administration and consulates. Some of them are also high-ranking officers in the secret services.
In calling people to their beliefs, the Qadianis use all kinds of methods, especially educational means, because they are highly-educated and there are many scientists, engineers and doctors in their ranks. In Britain there is a satellite TV channel called Islamic TV which is run by the Qadianis.
From the above, it is clear that:
Qadianiyyah is a misguided group, which is not part of Islam at all. Its beliefs are completely contradictory to Islam, so Muslims should beware of their activities, since the ‘Ulama’ (scholars) of Islam have stated that they are Kaafirs.
For more information see: Al-Qadianiyyah by Ihsaan Ilaahi Zaheer.
(Translator’s note: this book is available in English under the title “Qadiyaniat: an analytical survey” by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer)
Reference: Al-Mawsoo’ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan al-Madhaahib wa’l-Ahzaab al-Mu’aasirah by Dr. Maani’ Hammad al-Juhani, 1/419-423
The following statement was published by the Islamic Fiqh Council (Majma’ al-Fiqh al-Islami):
After discussing the question put to the Islamic Fiqh Council in Capetown, South Africa, concerning the ruling on the Qadianis and their off-shoot which is known as Lahoriyyah, and whether they should be counted as Muslims or not, and whether a non-Muslim is qualified to examine an issue of this nature:
In the light of research and documents presented to the members of the council concerning Mirza Ghulam Ahmad al-Qadiani, who emerged in India in the last century and to whom is attributed the Qadiani and Lahori movements, and after pondering the information presented on these two groups, and after confirming that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad claimed to be a prophet who received revelation, a claim which is documented in his own writings and speeches, some of which he claimed to have received as revelation, a claim which he propagated all his life and asked people to believe in, just as it is also well-known that he denied many other things which are proven to be essential elements of the religion of Islam
in the light of the above, the Council issued the following statement:
Firstly: the claims of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be a prophet or a messenger and to receive revelation are clearly a rejection of proven and essential elements of Islam, which unequivocally states that Prophethood ended with Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and that no revelation will come to anyone after him. This claim made by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad makes him and anyone who agrees with him an apostate who is beyond the pale of Islam. As for the Lahoriyyah, they are like the Qadianiyyah: the same ruling of apostasy applies to them despite the fact that they described Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as a shadow and manifestation of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
Secondly: it is not appropriate for a non-Muslim court or judge to give a ruling on who is a Muslim and who is an apostate, especially when this goes against the consensus of the scholars and organizations of the Muslim Ummah. Rulings of this nature are not acceptable unless they are issued by a Muslim scholar who knows all the requirements for being considered a Muslim, who knows when a person may be deemed to have overstepped the mark and become an apostate, who understands the realities of Islam and kufr, and who has comprehensive knowledge of what is stated in the Qur’aan, Sunnah and scholarly consensus. The ruling of a court of that nature is invalid. And Allaah knows best.
Majma’ al-Fiqh al-Islami, p. 13
Beliefs of Farrakhanism or the Nation of Islam
The Nation of Islam was founded by Wallace D Fard who appeared suddenly in Detroit in 1930 CE, calling black people to his beliefs. He disappeared mysteriously in June 1934 CE.
He was succeeded by Elijah Poole or Elijah Muhammad (1898-1975 CE). The movement passed through distinct ideological stages, one of which was the Farrakhan stage, as we shall see below.
In al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Madhaahib wa’l-Adyaan al-Mu‘aasirah (1/360), it says:
It should be noted that the ideas of this movement developed gradually, under the influence of the leader who ran its affairs. Hence the development of the movement may be divided into three periods:
1.The era of Wallace D Fard:
From the beginning the movement was known as the Nation of Islam, and was also known by another name, the Lost and Found Nation of Islam. Its most important aims were as follows:
On November 24, 1975 CE, Warith Deen chose a new name for the organisation, which was the Bilalians, after Bilaal al-Habashi, the mu’adhdhin of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
On June 19, 1975 CE Warith Deen repealed the rule banning whites from joining the movement, and on February 25, 1976 CE, a number of whites who had joined them appeared side-by-side with blacks in the convention hall.
On August 29, 1975 CE, he issued a statement that it was required to fast Ramadan and celebrate Eid al-Fitr.
On November 14, 1975 CE, the name of the newspaper was changed from Muhammad Speaks to The Bilalian News, then it became The Muslim Journal.
He announced that his title would be Chief Imam instead of Supreme Minister, and he changed the title “minister of the temples” to “imam”. He focused his attention on religious matters, and delegated other matters to the leaders of the movement.
He prepared the temples to become suited to holding regular prayers (salaah).
On October 3, 1975 CE, he issued instructions that prayer should be offered in the correct manner as known to Muslims, five times daily.
He addressed the Islamic concepts that had been wrongly embraced by the movement since the days of Wallace D Fard and Elijah Muhammad, and tried to correct them.
The things that we have mentioned above do not indicate that the movement has taken a completely correct Islamic direction, but they do indicate that there has been an improvement in the thinking of the movement compared to how it was under previous leaders. It still needs corrections in ideological and practical terms in order to be Islamically sound. End quote.
These are the stages through which this group has passed. Undoubtedly in the second stage – the stage of Elijah Muhammad – it was a disbelieving group that was outside of the framework of Islam, because of the beliefs mentioned above.
Unfortunately Louis Farrakhan has adopted the deviant ideas of the group as they were at the time of Elijah Muhammad.
In the source quoted above – al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Muyassarah (1/368) – it says: Farrakhanism is one of the esoteric groups in the USA that still follows the way of Elijah Muhammad.
Foundation and prominent figures:
Its founder was born Louis Wolcott to a family that worked in acting and music and had roots in the Caribbean islands.
In 1956 CE he joined the group of Elijah Muhammad, who claimed to be a prophet and said that his teacher Wallace D Fard was God incarnate. When Malcolm X opened Temple Number 11 in Boston, Louis X was appointed to help him as a preacher and administrator.
When Elijah Muhammad expelled Malcolm X, he appointed Louis as the primary spokesman of the group, and gave him the title Farrakhan. Then he made him a preacher in one of the biggest and most important temples, Temple Number 7, which had been run by Malcolm X before he was expelled from the group.
The beliefs of Farrakhanism:
Farrakhan affirmed all the teachings of Elijah Muhammad, apart from a few simple changes. On the last page of every copy of the group’s newspaper, The Final Call, there is a statement under the twin titles of What Do The Muslims Want? and What Do The Muslims Believe?, which includes the aims and beliefs of Elijah’s group, exactly as they were stated in every single copy of the Muhammad Speaks newspaper at the time of Elijah, and as they are mentioned in every copy of the Statements of Elijah which are quoted from old copies of Muhammad Speaks.
Some of the basic beliefs of Elijah’s group that were revived by Farrakhan include the following:
Additions of Farrakhan:
With regard to the new beliefs of Farrakhan about Elijah, he regards Elijah as God, just as the Christians regard Jesus as God. In fact Farrakhan believes that Elijah is Jesus Christ.
He claims that Elijah did not die; rather He was resurrected and is alive, even though Elijah emphatically and absolutely denied the physical resurrection.
End quote from al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Muyassarah.
From these beliefs it is clear that these notions constitute disbelief and have nothing to do with Islam.
What must be done is to call these people to affirm Allah’s oneness and believe in Him, and that must be done by scholars and seekers of knowledge. Not everyone can expose himself to specious arguments and listening to falsehoods, when he is unable to refute them and highlight their falseness. Hence in calling these people, you must seek the help of those who can debate and argue with them, or give them books and material that explain true Islam, without indulging in argument with them when you are not skilled in arguing, for your failure to prove your point and refute their arguments could make them cling more firmly to their ideas and beliefs.
The misguided sect of al-Qur’aaniyyeen
Some people have started to claim that the Sunnah is not a source of legislation. They call themselves “al-Qur’aaniyyeen” and say that we have the Qur’aan, so we take as halaal whatever it allows and take as haraam whatever it forbids. The Sunnah, according to their claims, is full of fabricated ahaadeeth falsely attributed to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). They are the successors of other people about whom the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us. Ahmad, Abu Dawood and al-Haakim reported with a saheeh isnaad from al-Miqdaam that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Soon there will be a time when a man will be reclining on his couch, narrating a hadeeth from me, and he will say, ‘Between us and you is the Book of Allaah: what it says is halaal, we take as halaal, and what it says is haraam, we take as haraam.’ But listen! Whatever the Messenger of Allaah forbids is like what Allaah forbids.” (Al-Fath al-Kabeer, 3/438. Al-Tirmidhi reported it with different wording, and said that it is hasan saheeh. Sunan al-Tirmidhi bi Sharh Ibn al-‘Arabi, al-Saawi edn., 10/132).
The name al-Qur’aaniyyeen does not befit these people, because the Qur’aan tells us, in almost one hundred aayahs, to obey the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Obedience to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is considered in the Qur’aan to be a part of obedience to Allaah, may He be glorified. “He who obeys the Messenger, has indeed obeyed Allaah, but he who turns away, then we have not sent you (O Muhammad) as a watcher over them.” [al-Nisa’ 4:80 – interpretation of the meaning]. The Qur’aan, which they claim to follow, denies the faith of the one who refuses to obey the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and does not accept his ruling: “But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.” [ Their suggestion that the Sunnah is “contaminated” with fabricated ahaadeeth is not valid, because the scholars of this Ummah took the utmost care to purify the Sunnah from all alien elements. If they had any doubts about the truthfulness of any narrator, or there was the slightest possibility that he could have forgotten something, this would be sufficient grounds for rejecting a Hadeeth. Even the enemies of this Ummah have stated that no other nation has paid so much attention to examining its reports and their narrators, especially in the case of reports narrated from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
For it to be obligatory to follow a Hadeeth, it is sufficient for it to be known that it is a Saheeh (authentic, sound) Hadeeth narrated from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was content to convey his message by sending just one of his Companions, which proves that the Hadeeth reported by one trustworthy person must be followed.
Moreover, we would ask these people: where are the aayaat which tell us how to pray, or which tell us that the obligatory prayers are five times daily, or which tell us about the nisaab on various kinds of wealth for the purpose of zakaah, or about the details of the rituals of Hajj, and other rulings which we can only know from the Sunnah?
The relationship between Jews and baatini (esoteric) sects:
Many of the classical and contemporary scholars are of the view that Shi‘ism or partisan support for ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) began with the murder of ‘Uthmaan (may Allah be pleased with him), and that the one who planted the seed of Shi‘ism was the Jew ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, at the end of ‘Uthmaan’s caliphate. This is something that is even admitted in the books of the Shi‘ah themselves.
See, for example: al-Maqaalaat wa’l-Firaq by al-Qummi (p. 20); Firaq ash-Shi‘ah by an-Nawbakhti (p. 22); Rijaal al-Kashshi (p. 108)
‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ was an extreme heretic and was the leader of the Saba’iyyah sect which said that ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was divine.
He was the first one to state that ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) should have been the ruler on the basis of religious texts, and that he would return before the Day of Resurrection. He was also the first to openly cast aspersions upon the first three caliphs and the Sahaabah. All of these beliefs are fundamental to the view of the Raafidis.
‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ was a Jew who pretended to be Muslim. He was originally from Yemen, and travelled to spread his fitnah (turmoil) in the Hijaz, then Basra and Kufah. He went to Damascus during the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him) and was expelled by its people, then he went to Egypt and started to openly promote his bid‘ah (innovation).
The scholars, in the past and more recently, transmitted reports of his fitnah and the efforts undertaken by him and his group to conspire and cause division among the Muslims. This is discussed in detail in the books that speak of sects, history and biography, by both Sunni and Shi‘i authors.
See, for example Maqaalaat al-Islamiyyeen by Abu al-Hasan al-Ash‘ari (1/32); al-Milal wa’n-Nihal by ash-Shahrastaani (1/174); Tareekh at-Tabari (4/340); al-Maqaalaat wa’l-Firaq by the Shi‘i al-Qummi (p. 20); Firaq ash-Shi‘ah by at-Nawbakhti (p. 22)
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The first one to introduce the innovated view that ‘Ali was infallible and that he should have been the caliph on the basis of religious texts was the leader of these hypocrites, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, who was originally Jewish, then pretended to be Muslim and aimed to corrupt the Islamic religion as Paul had corrupted the Christian religion.
The view that the Jew ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ was the founder of the Raafidi sect, and that he established it in an effort to conspire against the Muslims and widen divisions among them, is a valid opinion that carries weight, with which the books of history and the study of sects and groups are filled, and it is not even denied by the Raafidis themselves.
With regard to the attempt of some of them to deny the existence of ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’, that is pure propaganda by means of which they are trying to refute what has become widely known among their opponents of the fact that this Jew was the founder of their Madhhab.
The earlier scholars among both Sunnis and Shi‘ah alike were unanimously agreed that Ibn Saba’ was a real historical figure, so how can that which is agreed upon by both sides be denied?
For more information, please see the essay ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ wa Atharuhu fi Ihdaath al-Fitnah fi Sadr al-Islam by Dr Sulayman ibn Hamad al-‘Awdah, which is one of the most important studies on this topic.
For more information, please see the book: Usool Madhhab ash-Shi‘ah al-Imaamiyyah al-Ithna ‘Ashariyyah: ‘Ard wa Naqd by Dr Naasir ibn ‘Abdullah al-Qifaari (1/71, 82)
And Allah knows best.
Beliefs OF Nursiyyah
It says in al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib wa’l-Ahzaab al-Mu‘aasirah (1/328-333):
The Nursiyyah is an Islamic religious group, which is closer in its setup to Sufi tariqahs than to organised movements. Its founder focused on calling people to the truths of faith and striving to purify the soul, creating an Islamic trend, in an attempt to stem the tide of Kemalist Masonic secularism which was sweeping Turkey following the fall of the Ottoman caliphate and the takeover by Kamal Ataturk.
The founder of this movement was Shaykh Sa‘eed an-Nursi (Said Nursi, 1873-1960 CE). He was born to Kurdish parents in the village of Nurs, close to Lake Van in the Hizan district of Bitlis province, in eastern Anatolia. His early education was in his hometown, but when he grew older he showed signs of intelligence and brilliance, to such an extent that he was given the nickname of Badee‘ az-Zamaan (“Bediuzzaman”, meaning “The most unique and superior person of the time”) and Sa‘eedi Mashhoor (the famous Sa‘eed).
At the age of eighteen years, he acquired religious knowledge and studied many philosophical fields of study. He also learned shooting, wrestling and horseback riding, in addition to memorizing the Holy Qur’an. He also adopted a lifestyle of asceticism and minimalism.
When the Allies occupied Istanbul, he was in the forefront of the mujaahideen who fought against them.
In 1908 CE, after the toppling of Sultan ‘Abd al-Hameed by the conspiracy of the Committee of Union and Progress (İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti), whose slogan was “Unity, Freedom, Reform”, behind which they concealed their evil plots and conspiracy against Islam and the Muslims, Badee‘ az-Zamaan founded the Muhammadi Union (al-Ittihaad al-Muhammadi), and used the same slogans as the Committee of Union and Progress, but with Islamic meanings, so as to expose the deceitful slogans behind which they were hiding and highlight their Masonic reality.
The secularists who ruled Turkey after the demise of the caliphate were afraid of his call and vehemently opposed it with everything they could come up with. They caused Badee‘ az-Zamaan to spend his life in prison, and tortured him; they moved him from prison to exile, and from exile to further trials in court.
He spent the end of his life in Isparta, isolated from people. Three days before his death, he went to Urfa (Şanlıurfa) without official permission, where he lived for only two days. He died on the twenty-seventh of Ramadan, 1379 AH (1960).
Badee‘ az-Zamaan told the court, when he was imprisoned in Iskashir: You wondered whether I am one of those who follow the Sufi tariqahs. I say to you: Our era is one of preserving the faith, not preserving the tariqah. There are many who will enter Paradise without a tariqah, but no one will enter Paradise without faith.
The official charges directed against Badee‘ az-Zamaan in the courts may be summed up as follows:
But he refuted all these charges on the basis of proof and evidence, to the extent that these trials became an opportunity to propagate his ideas and increase the number of his followers.
He focused all his efforts and his call on resisting the secularist tide, which had led to the following:
The young people of this group (the Nursiyyah) were distinguished by their chastity and cleanliness; they were young people who were committed to Islam at a time when there was a great deal of confusion, temptation and promiscuity.
However, there were some criticisms that could be made about this group:
Based on the above, we do not advise reading the books of this group, except for specialists and seekers of knowledge who have reached an advanced level, because of what they contain of beliefs that are contrary to the views of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah. But the efforts of their Shaykh in spreading Islam are to be praised, and we ask Allah to reward him for that. But that does not make us praise his beliefs that were contrary to the Sunnah, and we do not praise those followers of his group who came after him. His followers split into many groups, and they cannot all be regarded as being the same; rather each individual or group is to be judged on its own merits, according to what it shows of beliefs or methodology.
And Allah knows best.
Difference between Maturidis school of thought and Ahl as-Sunnah?
The Maturities are a kalaami (philosophical group) based on innovation (bid‘ah); they are named after Abu Mansoor al-Maturidis. In the beginning their main focus was on using rational and philosophical proof in disputing with their opponents, the Mu‘tazilah, Jahmis and others, in order to prove the fundamentals of Islam and Islamic beliefs.
The Maturidis went through several stages. They were not known by this name until after the death of their founder, just as the Ash‘aris were not known and did not spread until after the death of Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash‘ari. We can sum up the stages of development in the following four main stages:
The main focus at this stage was intense debates with the Mu‘tazilah. The prominent figure at this stage was Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi, whose full name was Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Mahmoud al-Maturidi as-Samarqandi; he was named after Maturid, which is a place near Samarkand in Transoxiana, where he was born.
He is regarded as one of the pioneers of the rational school; he did not acquire a great deal of knowledge of Islamic texts and the science of hadeeth, which is the case with the majority of scholars in the fields of kalaam and usool.
Abu Mansoor al-Maturidi was influenced by Jahmi beliefs in many ways, the most significant of which was: the interpretation of texts that speak of some of the divine attributes that are classed as sifaat khabariyyah (attributes that are based on texts and cannot be proven by rational thought, such as the divine Countenance, Hand and so on) in a manner other than the apparent meaning. He also came under the influence of the innovation (bid‘ah) and ideas of the Murji’ah.
He was also influenced by Ibn Kullaab (d. 240 AH) and his innovation of the concept of divine “self-talk” (al-kalaam an-nafsi)
This is the stage during which the students of al-Maturidi and those who were influenced by him developed his ideas further, and formed an independent kalaami (philosophical) group. The group first appeared in Samarkand, and worked to spread and defend the thought of their shaykh and leader, and wrote books. They followed the madhhab of Imam Abu Haneefah with regard to minor issues of Islam. Thus Maturidi beliefs became more widespread in Samarkand than elsewhere.
Among the most well-known figures during this stage were: Abu’l-Qaasim Ishaaq ibn Muhammad ibn Ismaa‘eel al-Hakeem as-Samarqandi and Abu Muhammad ‘Abd al-Kareem ibn Moosa ibn ‘Eesa al-Bazdawi.
Consolidation of Maturidi beliefs:
The main feature of this stage was prolific writing of books and compiling of evidence on which the Maturidi beliefs were based. Therefore it was the most important stage in terms of consolidating this school of thought.
Among the most important figures during this stage were: Abu’l-Ma‘een an-Nasafi and Najm ad-Deen ‘Umar an-Nasafi.
Expansion and spread:
This is regarded as one of the most important stages, in which the Maturidis reached the peak of their expansion and spread. That was due to the support of the Ottoman sultans. Maturidi dominance spread wherever Ottoman dominance reached. So they spread eastwards and westwards in the Arab lands, India, and the lands of the Turks, Persians and Byzantines.
There were many prominent scholars among them, such as al-Kamaal ibn Humaam.
The Maturidis spread and the number of followers increased in India and neighbouring Eastern countries, such as China, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan. They also spread in Turkey, the Byzantine lands, Persia and Transoxiana; they still have a strong presence in these countries.
The differences between them and Ahl as-Sunnah:
The Maturidis divided the fundamentals of Islam as follows:
“Rational theology (al-ilaahiyyaat al-‘aqliyyat)” – this refers to what can be proven by reason, and the texts are secondary to that; that includes Tawheed (the Oneness of Allah) and the divine attributes.
“Different issues of religion based on texts (sam‘iyyaat shar‘iyyaat)”– this refers to matters which, on the basis of reason, we may be certain that they are possible, but there is no rational proof to confirm them or otherwise; that includes Prophethood, the punishment of the grave, and matters pertaining to the hereafter. However it is worth noting that some of them included Prophethood under the previous heading (“rational theology”).
It is very clear that what is stated above is contrary to the way of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah, for whom the Qur’an, Sunnah and consensus of the Sahaabah are the sources of knowledge, and that applies to all issues of religion. (That is, they do not divide them into two categories as the Maturidis did.)
Moreover, they differed from Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah in the innovation of dividing the fundamentals of Islam (usool ad-deen) into those that are based on rational evidence and those that are based on texts. This idea is based on a false notion, which is that matters of religion and belief may be divided into principles that may be proven by reason and could not be proven by only; rather the textual proof with regard to these matters may be regarded as additional evidence that supplements what is indicated by rational evidence concerning these fundamental issues.
The Maturidis, like other kalaami (philosophical) groups such as the Mu‘tazilah and Ash‘aris, discussed the necessity of knowing Allah, may He be exalted, on the basis of reason before studying the texts (of Qur’an and Sunnah); they regarded that as the foremost duty of any accountable person, and said that there was no excuse for not doing that. Rather they believe that a person would be punished for not doing it, even if that was before any Prophets or Messengers were sent. Thus they were in agreement with the view of the Mu‘tazilah. This is a view that is evidently wrong, as it contradicts what is proven in the Qur’an and Sunnah, which show that reward and punishment only come into effect after the sending of Revelation, as Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger (to give warning)”
Moreover, the correct view is that the first and foremost duty of any human is to affirm the Oneness of Allah (Tawheed), may He be glorified and exalted, and to enter His religion, not to merely know that there is a Creator, because that is something which Allah has instilled in the innate nature of all creatures.
According to the Maturidis, the concept of Tawheed means affirming that Allah, may He be exalted, is One in His essence and indivisible; One in His attributes, and there is nothing like Him; and One in His actions and no one plays a part with Him in creation. Hence they did their utmost to prove this understanding of Tawheed, which is based on the idea that God, in their view, is the One Who is able to create, using the rational and philosophical arguments and analogies that were produced by the Mu‘tazilah and Jahmis. This is evidence that was refuted by the Salaf and imams (leading scholars) and their followers, and by the prominent scholars of Kalaam and philosophy, who pointed out that the proof presented in the Qur’an is sounder.
The Maturidis affirmed only eight attributes of Allah, may He be exalted, although they differed on some of the details thereof. These attributes are: life, power, knowledge, will, hearing, seeing, speech and being a Creator.
Other attributes that are indicated by the Qur’an and Sunnah, the sifaat khabariyyah (attributes that are based on texts and cannot be proven by rational thought, such as the divine Countenance, Hand and so on, that have to do with His Essence or His actions), cannot – in their view – be proven on the basis of rational thinking, therefore they denied all of them, and they misinterpreted the texts that refer to them.
Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah, on the other hand, believe in the divine names and also in the divine attributes, and they regard them all as tawqeefi (i.e., they are to be learned solely from the texts and not through rational thought). They believe in them (the divine names and attributes) by affirming what is mentioned in the texts, without likening Him to any of His creation. They declare Allah to be above any shortcomings or any similarity to His creation in any way, without denying or misinterpreting any of His names or attributes, and they delegate knowledge of the nature of these attributes to Him, affirming His attributes in a manner that befits Allah, may He be exalted. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning): “There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer”
Their (the Maturidis’) view that the true words of Allah are His “self-talk” that is ever present with Him, and that it is not heard, and that whatever is heard is nothing but an outward manifestation of His eternal self-talk led them to the conclusion that whatever Mushafs are in circulation among the people are to be regarded as created. Thus they ended up embracing the view of the Mu‘tazilah, which is contrary to scholarly consensus; there are abundant reports from the scholars that this view is wrong and, in fact, the one who says that the Qur’an is created is to be deemed a kaafir (disbeliever).
The Maturidis say concerning the definition of faith that it is belief in the heart only. Some of them added that it is verbal affirmation, but they do not believe that it may increase or decrease. They also said that it is haram to say “In sha Allah (if Allah wills)” with regard to being a believer, and that Islam and Eemaan (faith) are synonymous, with no difference between them. Thus they are in agreement with the Musji’ah on that score, and they differed with Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah, because faith, according to the latter, is belief in the heart, words on the lips and physical actions; it increases when one does acts of obedience and decreases when one sins.
They affirmed that (the believers) will see Allah, may He be exalted, in the hereafter, but they denied any direction and any face to face meeting. This is a contradictory view as it affirms something and then goes back and denies its reality.
For more information on this topic, please see:
It cannot be said regarding the follower of Maturidi ‘aqeedah that he will go to Paradise or go to Hell; rather they are like other ordinary Muslims; even though they believe in some innovated views, their innovation (bid‘ah) does not constitute kufr. Hence they are, in general terms, like other Muslims:
“It will not be in accordance with your desires (Muslims), nor those of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), whosoever works evil, will have the recompense thereof, and he will not find any protector or helper besides Allah.
And whoever does righteous good deeds, male or female, and is a true believer in the Oneness of Allah (Muslim), such will enter Paradise and not the least injustice, even to the size of a Naqeera (speck on the back of a datestone), will be done to them”
With regard to their innovation (bid‘ah), that varies from one to another of them; some base their views on misinterpretation or conclusions reached after putting in a great deal of effort, so they may be excused; others are mistaken in their approach in such a way that they may be blamed for it, so they are ultimately subject to the will of Allah – if He wills He will punish them and if He wills He will forgive them.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tamiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said, after discussing a group of leading Ash‘ari scholars:
Moreover, there is not one of those scholars but he put praiseworthy efforts into serving Islam, doing good deeds, refuting the views of many heretics and innovators, and supporting many of those who follow the Sunnah and are religiously committed, as is clear to anyone who is aware of their situation and speaks of them on the basis of knowledge, truthfulness, justice and fair-mindedness.
But because they got confused when they embraced this principle that they originally adopted from the Mu‘tazilah, even though they are virtuous and wise people, they had no choice but to persist in it and accept its implications. Thus because of that they developed views that Muslims of knowledge and religious commitment had to object to. Because of that, people divided into two groups concerning them:
Some people respected them, because of their good qualities and virtues; others condemned them because of the views that they developed on the basis of innovation and falsehood.
But the best approach in all matters is the middle approach (i.e., being fair and acknowledging both good and bad).
The errors that they fell into are not limited to these people only; other people of knowledge and religious commitment also fell into similar errors. Allah, may He be exalted, accepts good deeds from all His believing slaves, and He overlooks their bad deeds:
“Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful”
No doubt if a person tries hard to seek the truth and learn his religion on the basis of the teachings of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and makes some mistakes in that, Allah will forgive his mistakes, in fulfilment of the supplication that Allah answered for His Prophet and the believers, when they said: “Our Lord! Punish us not if we forget or fall into error”
If anyone follows his speculations and his whims and desires, then starts to condemn on that basis those who differ with him because of some matters that they got wrong, thinking that they were right after putting effort into it, and their mistake may constitute an innovation that is contrary to the Sunnah, then he should give the same treatment, or more or less, to those whom he respects and follows. It is very rare that any scholar amongst the later scholars is free of such mistakes, because there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty, and because people are (chronologically) far removed from the source of Prophetic light by means of which one attains right guidance and dispels confusion and doubt from his heart. 
And Allah knows best.
“The Qadariyyah are the Magians of this Ummah”:
This Hadeeth was narrated by Abu Dawood in his Sunan (4961), Kitaab al-Sunnah, Baab fi’l-Qadar:
It was narrated from Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) that he said: “The Qadaris (those who deny al-qadar) are the Magians of this Ummah. If they get sick, do not visit them and if they die, do not attend (their funerals).
It was also narrated by al-Haakim (286), al-Bayhaqi (21391), al-Tabaraani in al-Awsat (2494), al-Baghawi in Sharh al-Sunnah (1/78), Ibn ‘Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq (19/62), Ibn Abi ‘Aasim in al-Sunnah (268) and others, from the hadeeth of Ibn ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). It was classed as saheeh by Ibn al-Qattaan in Bayaan al-Wahm wa’l-Eehaam (5/446) and as hasan by al-Albaani in Saheeh Abi Dawood and elsewhere. Al-Safaareeni said in Lawaa’ih al-Anwaar: It is no less than hasan.
The beginning of it was narrated via numerous other isnaads. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Something similar was narrated from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) from Ibn ‘Umar, Hudhayfah, Ibn ‘Abbaas, Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allah, Abu Hurayrah, ‘Abd-Allah ibn ‘Amr ibn al-‘Aas and Raafi‘ ibn Khadeej.
Al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
They are called Qadariyyah because they affirmed al-qadar (power of decree) for themselves but they denied it for Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. They denied that He created their deeds and affirmed that for themselves. By attributing some acts of creation to Him but not others they became like the Magians in their belief in the two principles of light and darkness and that good is the action of light and evil is the action of darkness.
End quote from al-I‘tiqaad, p. 245
Al-Khattaabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) likened them to Magians because their views were similar to the views of the Magians who believe in two principles, light and darkness, and they claimed that good is the action of the light and evil is the action of darkness, so they became believers in dualism. Similarly, the Qadaris attribute good to Allah, may He be exalted, and they attribute evil to someone other than Him, but Allah, may He be glorified and exalted is the Creator of both good and evil; neither of them could happen except by His will, so they are attributed to Him in the sense that He created them and brought them into being, and they are attributed to the ones who do them of His slaves in the sense that they commit these actions. 
The true Salafis are the followers of the path of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his Companions:
The Salafis are the followers of the way of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his Companions, because they are the ones who came before us (the Salaf) and who advanced ahead of us, so their followers are the Salafis.
With regard to taking Salafiyyah as a path or methodology which a person follows and regards as misguided those Muslims who differ with him, even if they are following the truth, and taking Salafiyyah as a partisan path is undoubtedly contrary to Salafiyyah. All of the Salaf or early generations called for unity and harmony around the Sunnah of the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and did not regard as misguided those who differed with them with on the basis of their understanding and interpretation, except when it came to matters of ‘aqeedah or beliefs, because they regarded those who differed with them in these matters as misguided. But with regard to practical issues they were often easy-going.
But some of those who followed the path of Salafiyyah in modern times started to regard as misguided everyone who differed from them, even if that person was correct, and some of them adopted a partisan approach like that of other parties which claimed to belong to the religion of Islam. This is something that is to be denounced and cannot be approved of, and it should be said to these people: Look at the way of the righteous early generation (al-salaf al-saalih), what did they used to do? Look at their way and how open hearted they were in the case of differences in which ijtihaad is justified (and differences of opinion are allowed). They even used to differ concerning major issues, matters of belief and practical issues. You will find some of them, for example, denying that the Messenger (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) saw his Lord, whereas others say that he did see Him. You will see some of them saying that what will be weighed on the Day of Resurrection is deeds, whereas others will say that it is the books of deeds that will be weighed. You will also see them differing a great deal with regard to matters of fiqh having to do with marriage, shares of inheritance, buying and selling, and other issues. Yet despite all that they did not regard one another as misguided.
Salafiyyah in the sense of being a particular party with its distinguishing characteristics and in which the members regard everyone else as misguided, these people have nothing to do with Salafiyyah at all. As for the Salafiyyah which means following the path of the Salaf in belief, word and deed, in calling for unity and harmony and mutual compassion and love, as the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “The likeness of the believers in their mutual love, mercy and compassion is that of a single body; when one part of it is suffering the rest of the body joins it in fever and staying awake” — this is the true Salafiyyah. End quote.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him).
Liqaa’aat al-Baab al-Maftooh, 3/246
Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis):
The Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwaas (al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah li’l-Buhooth al-‘Ilmiyyah wa’l-Iftaa’) has received questions and requests for information concerning Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis) and about the person after whom this group is named, one ‘Abd-Allaah al-Habashi, who is based in Lebanon. This group conducts activities in various European countries, and in America and Australia. The Committee therefore examined the books and articles published by this group, in which their beliefs, thoughts and call are stated clearly. After examining this material and pondering the matter, the Committee issued the following statement to the Muslims:
It was reported in al-Saheehayn from the hadeeth of Ibn Mas’ood (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“The best of people are my generation, then the generation that follows them, then the generation that follows them.” And there are other versions of this hadeeth.
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“I advise you to fear Allaah and to listen and obey, even if a slave is appointed as your leader. Whoever among you lives after I die will see differences arise. I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the way of my rightly-guided successors (al-khulafaa’ al-raashidoon); clench your teeth on it (i.e., hold fast to it). Beware of newly invented things, for every innovation (bid’ah) is a going astray.” (Narrated by Ahmad, and Abu Dawood and al-Tirmidhi, who said, it is a saheeh hasan hadeeth).
One of the most important characteristics by which those first generations were distinguished and by which the achieved a higher level of righteousness than all other people, was the fact that they referred all their affairs to the Qur’aan and Sunnah; the Qur’aan and Sunnah were given precedence over all individual opinions, no matter whose opinion it was; they understood the texts of the two noble Revelations (i.e., the Qur’aan and Sunnah) in accordance with the principles of sharee’ah and the Arabic language; the sharee’ah was adopted in its entirety, and with regard to every single detail; ambiguous texts were referred to clear texts. Hence they upheld the sharee’ah and adhered to it, and they held fast to it. They did not add anything to it or take anything away from it. How could they add anything to it or take anything away from it when they were adhering to the divine texts which free from mistakes and errors?
Then these generations were succeeded by others among whom there were many innovations and invented matters, where everyone who had an opinion was enamoured of his opinion and forsook the texts of sharee’ah, and the texts were deliberately misinterpreted and distorted to suit people’s desires and ideas. Thus they went against the Trustworthy Messenger, and followed a way other than that of the believers. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way, We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell — what an evil destination!”
It is a part of the grace of Allaah towards this Ummah that in each age He sends to it scholars who are well versed in knowledge and who can stand up against every kind of bid’ah that distorts the beauty of the faith and contaminates its purity, and competes with or tries to destroy the Sunnah. This is the fulfilment of Allaah to protect His religion and sharee’ah, as He said (interpretation of the meaning):
“Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)”]
And according to the hadeeth narrated in the books of Saheeh, the Sunans, the Musnads and others, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:
“A group of my ummah will continue to adhere to the commands of Allaah, and they will not be harmed by those who let them down or oppose them, until the Command of Allaah comes to pass, and they will be prevailing over the people.” And there are other versions of this report.
During the last quarter of the fourteenth century AH there emerged a group led by ‘Abd-Allaah al-Habashi, who moved from Ethiopia to Syria, taking his miguidance with him, and he moved about in that region until he settled in Lebanon, where he started to call people to his way. His number of followers increased and his ideas – which are a mixture of the ideas of the Jahamiyyah [a group which misinterpreted the attributes of Allaah], the Mu’tazilah [a philosophical group many of whose ideas differ from those of Ahl al-Sunnah], grave-worshippers and Sufis – began to spread. He fanatically supported his ideas by engaging in debates and printing books and leaflets which propagate them.
Anyone who reads what has been written and published by this group will see clearly that their beliefs go beyond the pale of Islam, i.e. Jamaa’at al-Muslimeen (Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah). Among their false beliefs, for example are the following (this is not a complete list):
It is known that the belief of the Muslims, which was that followed by the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een and those who follow their path until the present day, is that faith (eemaan) is the matter of words spoken by the tongue, beliefs held in the heart and actions done by the body. Belief must be accompanied by submission to the laws of Islam, otherwise that so-called faith is not valid.
There are many reports from the Salaf which confirm this belief, for example the words of Imaam al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him): “Among the consensus of the Sahaabah and the Taabi’een and those who came after them, and those whom we have met, is that they say: faith is words, actions and intentions; one of these three will not be complete without the others.”
“And they worship besides Allaah things that harm them not, nor profit them, and they say: ‘These are our intercessors with Allaah'”
“Verily, We have sent down the Book to you (O Muhammad) in truth. So worship Allaah (Alone) by doing religious deeds sincerely for Allah’s sake only.
Surely, the religion (i.e. the worship and the obedience) is for Allaah only. And those who take Auliyaa’ (protectors, helpers, lords, gods) besides Him (say): ‘We worship them only that they may bring us near to Allaah.’ Verily, Allaah will judge between them concerning that wherein they differ. Truly, Allaah guides not him who is a liar, and a disbeliever”
“Say (O Muhammad): ‘Who rescues you from the darkness of the land and the sea (dangers like storms), (when) you call upon Him in humility and in secret (saying): If He (Allaah) only saves us from this (danger), we shall truly, be grateful.’”]
“And the mosques are for Allaah (Alone), so invoke not anyone along with Allaah” “Such is Allaah, your Lord; His is the kingdom. And those, whom you invoke or call upon instead of Him, own not even a Qitmeer (the thin membrane over the date stone). If you invoke (or call upon) them, they hear not your call; and if (in case) they were to hear, they could not grant it (your request) to you. And on the Day of Resurrection, they will disown your worshipping them. And none can inform you (O Muhammad) like Him Who is the All‑Knower (of everything)” [
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Du’aa’ (supplication) is worship.” This was narrated by the authors of Sunan with a saheeh isnaad. And there are many aayaat and ahaadeeth which say the same thing. This indicates that the earlier mushrikeen knew that Allaah was the Creator and Provider, the One Who brings benefit or causes harm, and they worshipped their gods so that they would intercede for them with Allaah and bring them closer to Him. Thus they committed shirk. Allaah ruled that they were guilty of kufr and shirk, and commanded His Prophet to fight them until all worship was for Allaah Alone, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshipping others besides Allaah), and the religion (worship) will all be for Allaah Alone”
The scholars have written many books on this topic in which they have explained clearly the true Islam with which Allaah sent His Messengers and revealed His Books. They also discussed the religion and beliefs of the people of the Jaahiliayah, and their actions which went against the laws of Allaah. One of the best writers on this topic was Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Tamiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him), in his numerous books. One of the most concise of his works is Qaa’idah Jaliyyah fi’l-Tawassul wa’l-Waseelah.
It is known from the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and by the consensus of the Muslims, that Allaah speaks whenever He wills, in a manner that befits His Majesty, may He be glorified, and that the Qur’aan, both its letters and meanings, is the word of Allaah in the true sense. Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings):
“And if anyone of the Mushrikoon (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah) seeks your protection then grant him protection so that he may hear the Word of Allaah”
“and to Moosa (Moses) Allaah spoke directly”
“And the Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and in justice” 
“a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allaah [the Tauraat (Torah)], then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?”
“They want to change Allaah’s Words. Say: ‘You shall not follow us; thus Allaah has said beforehand.’” 
And there are many well known aayaat which say the same thing. Numerous mutawaatir reports from the Salaf confirm this belief, which is stated in the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah – to Allaah be praise and blessings.
Imaam al-Shaafa’i (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “I believe in Allaah and in what has come from Allaah as Allaah meant it. I believe in the Messenger of Allaah and in what has come from the Messenger of Allaah as the Messenger of Allaah meant it.” Imaam Ahmad (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “We believe in it; we do not reject anything that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, and we do not describe Allaah with more than He has described Himself.”
The belief of the Muslims, as indicated by the verses of the Qur’aan, the ahaadeeth of the Prophet, sound human nature and clear common sense is that Allaah is above His creation, over His Throne, and nothing at all of His creatures’ affairs is hidden from Him. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“and then He rose over (Istawaa) the Throne (really in a manner that suits His Majesty)”. [al-A’raaf 7:54] – this phrase appears seven times in the Qura’aan. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“To Him ascend (all) the goodly words, and the righteous deeds exalt it (i.e. the goodly words are not accepted by Allaah unless and until they are followed by good deeds)”
“And He is the Most High, the Most Great”
“Glorify the Name of your Lord, the Most High”
“And to Allaah prostrate all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth, of the moving (living) creatures and the angels, and they are not proud [i.e. they worship their Lord (Allaah) with humility]. They fear their Lord above them, and they do what they are commanded” [And many Saheeh ahaadeeth have been narrated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) on this topic, for example: the story of the Mi’raaj (ascent into the heavens), which is mutawaatir, when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) passed through the heavens one by one, until he reached his Lord, Who brought him close or called to him, and enjoined fifty prayers upon him, then he kept going back and forth between Moosa (peace be upon him) and his Lord. He came down from the presence of his Lord to Moosa, and Moosa asked him, “How many (prayers) have been enjoined upon you?” When he told him, he said, “Go back to your Lord and ask Him to reduce them.” So he went back up to his Lord and asked Him to reduce them.
It was reported in al-Saheehayn that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “When Allaah created His creation, He wrote in a Book which is with Him, above the Throne: ‘My Mercy prevails over My wrath.’”
It was reported in al-Saheehayn from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do you not trust me, when I am the trustee of the One who is in the heaven?”
In Saheeh Ibn Khuzaymah and Sunan Abi Dawood it is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The Throne is above water, and Allaah is above the Throne, and Allaah knows what you are doing.”
In Saheeh Muslim and elsewhere it is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to the slave-girl, “Where is Allaah?” She said, “In heaven.” He said, “Who am I?” She said, “You are the Messenger of Allaah.” He said: “Set her free, for she is a believer.”
This is the pure belief which was adhered to by the Muslims: the Sahaabah, the Taabi’een and those who have followed them in truth until the present day, praise be to Allaah. Because of the great importance of this topic and the fact that so much evidence (daleel) – more than one thousand aayaat and ahaadeeth – points to it, the scholars have devoted books to it, e.g., al-Haafiz Abu ‘Abd-Allaah al-Dhahabi in al-‘Alu li’l-‘Aliy al-Ghaffaar, and al-Haafiz Ibn al-Qayyim in Ijtimaa’ al-Juyoosh al-Islaamiyyah.
An example of that is their statement that Mu’aawiyah (may Allaah be pleased with him) was a faasiq (rebellious evildoer). In this regard they go along with the Raafidis (may Allaah curse them). The Muslims should not discuss what happened among the Sahaabah, may Allaah be pleased with them all; they should refrain from speaking whilst believing that all of them were good and had the virtue of having been companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It was reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Do not slander my Companions, for even if any of you were to spend (in charity) gold equivalent to the size of Mount Uhud, he would never reach their level, not even half way.” (Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim). And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And those who came after them say: Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful.” 
This is the sound belief concerning the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). This is the belief of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah throughout the centuries. Imaam Abu Ja’faar al-Tahhaawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said, explaining the beliefs of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah:
“We love the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but we do not go to extremes in our love for any of them, and we do not disown any of them. We hate those who hate them, and we do not say anything but good about them (the companions). Love for them is true religion, faith and goodness; hatred for them is kufr, hypocrisy and transgression.”
What we may note about this group is that they follow weird fatwas, and their fatwas go against the shar’i texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. Examples of that include the following:
They permit gambling with the Kuffar in order to take away their money; they permit stealing their crops and animals, on the condition that this stealing will not cause fitnah (tribulation); they permit dealing in ribaa when dealing with the kuffaar; they permit those who are in need to buy lottery tickets, which is haraam.
Other ways in which they obviously go against the sharee’ah include:
They permit looking at a non-mahram woman in a mirror or on a screen, even with desire; they say that persisting in looking at a non-mahram woman is not haraam; they say that for a man to look at any part of a woman who is not permissible for him is not haraam; they say that if a woman goes out wearing make-up and perfume but she does not have the intention of attracting men, this is not haraam; they permit free mixing of men and women; and they have other odd and outrageous fatwas which go against sharee’ah and they consider things which are major sins to be permissible. We ask Allaah to keep us safe from that which will provoke His wrath and earn His punishment.
Some of the outrageous means they use to turn people away from the scholars who have deep knowledge, and put people off from reading their books or referring to the reports transmitted from them, include: slandering them, belittling them and undermining them, and even denouncing them as kaafirs. Chief among the scholars whom they defame in this manner is the imaam and mujaddid Shaykh al-Islam Abu’l-‘Abbaas Ahmad ibn ‘Abd al-Haleem ibn ‘Abd al-Salaam ibn Taymiyah, may Allaah have mercy on him. ‘Abd-Allaah al-Habashi even wrote a book specifically about this reforming imaam, in which he accused him of being misguided and misled; he attributed to him words that he did not say, and fabricated other lies about him. Allaah will deal with him, and it is before Allaah that all disputing parties will ultimately meet.
They also slander the reforming imaam Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab, may Allaah have mercy on him, and his call for reform which he undertook in the heart of the Arabian Peninsula, where he called people to follow Tawheed and cast aside Shirk, to honour the texts of the Qur’aan and Sunnah and to act upon them, and to uphold the Sunnah and do away with bid’ah. Through him, Allaah revived the teachings of Islam that had been forgotten, and He did away with whatever He willed of bid’ah and innovation. The effects of this call – by the grace and blessings of Allaah – spread throughout the Islamic world, and Allaah guided many people thereby. But this misguided group have directed their arrows against this call of the Sunnah and those who make this call; they have fabricated lies and propagated doubts and confusion, and they have rejected this clear call to follow the Qur’aan and Sunnah. They have done all of this to put people off the truth and to prevent them from following the straight path. We seek refuge with Allaah from that.
No doubt the hatred that this group has towards the great and blessed scholars of this ummah is indicative of the hatred that they hold in their hearts towards everyone who calls people to worship Allaah Alone and adhere to Tawheed, which was the belief and way of the people of the best generations. This group is far away from the essence of true Islam.
Based on what we have said above, and other things that we have not mentioned here, the Committee makes the following statements:
1- Jamaa’at al-Ahbaash (the Habashis) is a misguided group which is beyond the pale of the Muslim community (Jamaa’at al-Muslimeen, i.e., Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah). They must come back to the truth which was followed by the Sahaabah and Taabi’een in all aspects of religion, action and belief. This is better and more lasting for them.
2- It is not permissible to follow the fatwas of this group, because they adopt odd views which clearly contradict the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and they follow some far-fetched and corrupt interpretations of some shar’i texts. All of these are reasons why ordinary Muslims should not trust their fatwas or believe them.
3- What they say about the Ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is not to be trusted, whether it has to do with the isnaad or the meaning of a hadeeth.
4- Muslims in all places must beware of this misguided group and warn others against them. They must beware of falling into their traps under any name or banner, and they should seek reward by advising their followers who have been deceived by them, and explain the faults in their way of thinking and their beliefs.
Having stated this clearly to the people, the Committee asks Allaah, may He be exalted, by His Most Beautiful Names and Sublime Attributes to protect the Muslims from all fitnah (trials, temptations), both visible and invisible, to guide those Muslims who have gone astray, to reform their affairs, to turn the plots of the plotters against them, and to suffice the Muslims against their evil. For Allaah is Able to do all things, and He is most Generous in responding. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions, and those who follow them in truth.
The Baabis and Baha’is are not Muslims:
Baabism and Baha’ism are a movement that originated from a Shi’ah sect called the Shaykhiyyah in 1260 AH/ 1844 CE, under the protection of Russian, Jewish and English colonialism, with the aim of corrupting Islamic belief and dividing the Muslims and diverting them from their basic aims.
Origins and leading figures:
1 –Baabism was founded by al-Mirza ‘Ali Muhammad Rida al-Shiraazi who learned Shi’ah and Sufi knowledge from childhood. In 1260 AH/1844 CE al-Shiraazi announced that he was the door (al-baab) which led to divine truth. He was encouraged in that by one of the Russian spies.
Then after that he claimed to be a messenger like Moosa, ‘Eesa and Muhammad (blessings and peace be upon them all), and he even claimed to be better than them.
In 1266 AH he claimed that the divine was incarnated in him, and he was sentenced to death.
2 – Qurrat al-‘Ayn. She was a very eloquent woman who joined al-Shiraazi in learning the Shaykhi branch of Shi’i knowledge. She was permissive and immoral, and her husband divorced her and her children disowned her.
She held a conference with the Baabi leaders in Dasht, Iran, in which she announced the annulment of Islamic sharee’ah. She was executed in 1268 AH/1852 CE.
Before al-Shiraazi was killed, he appointed al-Mirza Yahya ‘Ali, who was known as Sabh Azl, as his successor, but this was contested by his brother Husayn al-Baha’. After conflicts between them in which each of them tried to kill the other, Sabh Azl was expelled to Cyprus, where he died in 1912 CE.
Husayn al-Baha’ was expelled to ‘Akka (Acre) in Palestine, where he was killed by some of his brother’s followers in 1892 CE and was buried there.
Beliefs, ideas and rituals of the Baha’is:
These are the Baha’is, and these are some of their beliefs, a mixture of some monotheistic beliefs and idolatrous ideas which al-Baha’ mixed in a strange way and called it revelation and a holy book. What is wrong with the minds of those who followed him?
The relationship of Baabism and Baha’ism to the colonialists, Jews and Christians
1 – It was a Russian spy who encouraged al-Shiraazi to claim that he was the Baab.
2 – al-Baha’ took part in the attempt to assassinate King Naasir al-Deen, the Shah of Iran, but the attempt failed and the plotters were discovered. Al-Baha’ fled to the Russian embassy which granted him full protection, and did not hand him over to the Iranian authorities until they had been given a promise that he would not be executed.
3 – When al-Baha’ fled to ‘Akka in 1285 AH/1868 CE, he was warmly welcomed by the Jews who took care of him. From that date, ‘Akka became a centre of Baha’ism and became a holy place for them.
4 – They were supported by some of the Christians. In one of the Arab states where there is a Baha’i presence, there is the head of the movement and his lawyer, who are both Christians.
5 – Reports indicate that the Israeli ambassador in one of the Arab countries visited one of their strongholds and met their leaders, and urged them to join in some political activities by forming a group or party and putting up candidates for parliament and getting involved in other political activities so as to affect the decision making process. They also promised to make it easy for them to visit Israel and perform pilgrimage to the grave of al-Baha’.
6 – This group has a number of representatives in the offices and organizations belonging to the United Nations, where there are nearly seven people.
After learning all this, you should not be surprised to find out that the Baha’is regard jihad against the enemy as haraam, and they say that the Muslims must submit to colonialism and occupation, and that in his books al-Baha’ supported the Zionist migration to Palestine.
Spread and influence of Baha’is,
The greatest number of Baha’is are found in Iran, and there are a few in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. They also have a presence in Egypt and a few followers in Ethiopia, Uganda, South Africa and Pakistan. They also have a presence in some western countries and cities, such as London, Vienna, Frankfurt and Sydney. Their largest place of worship is in Chicago.
The ruling on them and the scholars’ fatwas concerning them
From the above, it is clear that Baabism and Baha’ism are among the misguided sects that are beyond the pale of Islam.
A number of fatwas have been issued by Muslim scholars stating that they are kaafirs and that they are beyond the pale of Islam, and that we must beware of them.
Shaykh Saleem al-Bashri, the Shaykh of al-Azhar, issued a fatwa in 1910 CE stating that the Baha’is are kaafirs.
A ruling was issued on 30/6/1946 CE by the Shar’i courts in Egypt stating that a woman whose husband embraces Baha’ism is divorced and must be separated from him because he is an apostate from Islam.
In 1947 CE the Fatwa Committee in al-Azhar issued a fatwa stating that the one who embraces Baha’ism is an apostate.
This was in addition to a fatwa issued in 1939 CE by the Egyptian Daar al-Ifta’ stating that the Baha’i is an apostate.
There is another fatwa issued by the Egyptian Daar al-Ifta’ in 1968 CE, in which it says: Whoever embraces the Baha’i religion is an apostate from the religion of Islam, and the ruling on the apostate in Islam is that he should be asked to repent and Islam should be presented to him, and his doubts should be discussed if he has any. If he repents, all well and good, otherwise he should be executed according to sharee’ah. End quote from Fataawa Daar al-Ifta’ (6/2138).
In 2003 CE, the Islamic Research Council in al-Azhar issued a fatwa in which it says: The Baha’i school of thought and its ilk are a lethal intellectual epidemic which the state must to its utmost to eradicate.
Shaykh Ibraaheem al-Fayyoomi, the head of the Islamic Research Committee, confirmed that the Baha’is are a sect that is beyond the pale of Islam and that has rebelled against Islam, and it is one of the most dangerous forces that are opposed to Islam. It developed under the care of the Zionist colonialists and is still supported by the enemies of Islam. The Baha’is have a project called “the political project against the Muslim Ummah.” Their primary aim is to strike against Islam and create political and spiritual instability in Muslim societies. They also reject many verses of the Qur’aan because they believe that the Muslims have distorted them. They also reject Hajj and want to destroy the Kabah and distribute its rubble throughout the world.
The former Shaykh of al-Azhar, Jaad al-Haqq (may Allaah have mercy on him) issued a fatwa stating that the Baha’is are kaafirs and apostates from Islam, which was approved by the Islamic Research Committee. In it he said: Baabism or Baha’ism is a system of thought mixed with philosophy and various religions, and there is nothing new in it that the Muslim Ummah needs to set its affairs straight and unite it, rather it is clear that it (Baha’ism) is working in the interests of the Zionists and colonialists, and it is akin to ideas and ways that have been inflicted on the Muslim Ummah as an act of war against Islam in the name of religion. End quote.
Jamaa’at al-Tableegh – pros and cons:
“Jamaa’at al-Tableegh” is one of the groups that are working for Islam. Their efforts in calling people to Allaah (da’wah) cannot be denied. But like many other groups they make some mistakes, and some points should be noted concerning them. These points may be summed up as follows, noting that these mistakes may vary within this group, depending on the environment and society in which they find themselves. In societies in which knowledge and scholars are prevalent and the Madhhab of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah is widespread, the mistakes are much less; in other societies these mistakes may be greater. Some of their mistakes are:
We should not keep the people away from them altogether, rather we must try to correct their mistakes and advise them so that their efforts will continue and they will be correct according to the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
There follow the fatwas of some of the scholars concerning Jamaa’at al-Tableegh:
1 – Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz said:
Jamaa’at al-Tableegh do not have proper understanding of the issues of ‘aqeedah, so it is not permissible to go out with them, except for one who has knowledge and understanding of the correct ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, so that he can guide them and advise them, and cooperate with them in doing good, because they are very active, but they need more knowledge and someone who can guide them of those who have knowledge of Tawheed and the Sunnah. May Allaah bless us all with proper understanding of Islam and make us steadfast in adhering to it.
Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 8/331
2 – Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said:
Going out for the sake of Allaah does not refer to the kind of going out that they mean nowadays. Going out for the sake of Allaah means going out to fight. What they call going out nowadays is a bid’ah (innovation) that was not narrated from the salaf.
Going out to call people to Allaah cannot be limited to a certain number of days, rather one should call people to Allaah according to one’s abilities, without limiting that to a group or to forty days or more or less than that.
Similarly the daa’iyah must have knowledge. It is not permissible for a person to call people to Allaah when he is ignorant. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“Say (O Muhammad): This is my way; I invite unto Allaah (i.e. to the Oneness of Allaah — Islamic Monotheism) with sure knowledge”
i.e., with knowledge, because the caller must know that to which he calls people, what is obligatory, mustahab, haraam and makrooh. He has to know what shirk, sin, kufr, immorality and disobedience are; he has to know the degrees of denouncing evil and how to do it.
The kind of going out that distracts people from seeking knowledge is wrong, because seeking knowledge is an obligation, and it can only be achieved by learning, not by inspiration. This is one of the misguided Sufi myths, because action without knowledge is misguidance, and hoping to acquire knowledge without learning is an illusion.
From Thalaath Mihaadaraat fi’l-‘Ilm wa’l-Da’wah.
Belief Of Naasibis ;
In al-Qaamoos it says that the Naasibis (al-nawaasib, al-naasibah and ahl al-nasb) are those whose religious beliefs include hating ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) because they set themselves up against him, i.e. took a hostile stance against him.
Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The Naasibis are those who set themselves up against Ahl al-Bayt (the members of the Prophet’s household) and hated them and slandered them. They are diametrically opposed to the Raafidis (Shi’ah). Sharh al-Waasitiyyah, 2/283.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said, explaining the ‘aqeedah of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah: They (i.e., the Sunnis) love the people of the household of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); they regard them with love and loyalty, and they heed the command of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) concerning them… but they reject the way of the Raafidis who hate the Sahaabah and slander them, and they reject the way of the Naasibis who insult Ahl al-Bayt in words and deed. Ahl al-Sunnah do not indulge in discussions about the disputes that took place among the Sahaabah.
Al-‘Aqeedah al-Waasitiyyah, Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 3/154.
So the Naasibis are those who hate Ahl al-Bayt, especially ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), and some of them slander him and some accuse him of being a rebellious evildoer, and some of them regard him as a kaafir, as was referred to by Shaykh al-Islam (Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 7/339).
One of the most well-known groups who emerged from among the Naasibis were the Khaarijis who rebelled against ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and regarded him as a kaafir, and they added other innovations to that.
Undoubtedly rebelling and hating the Ahl al-Bayt and other Sahaabah is a serious kind of bid’ah (innovation) that implies slandering this religion which was transmitted to us via the Sahaabah, the Ahl al-Bayt and others.
With regard to whether they are to be regarded as kaafirs, this varies according to the level of hatred for the Sahaabah, and their motives. In brief, if they hate them for some worldly reason then that does not mean that they are kaafirs or hypocrites, but if it is for a religious reason, because they are the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr. Anything in between that is an area of scholarly dispute in general.
With regard to the ruling on the Khaarijis – who have a similar mentality to the Shi’ah and added to that hatred of the Sahaabah, regarding the one who commits a major sin as a kaafir, and other kinds of bid’ah – there is some difference of opinion among the scholars. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
The ummah is agreed on condemning of the Khaarijis and regarding them as having gone astray, but they dispute as to whether they are to be regarded as kaafirs. There are two well-known views in the Madhhabs of Maalik and Ahmad. In the madhhab of al-Shaafa’i there is also a dispute as to whether they are kaafirs. Hence there are two views in the madhhab of Ahmad.
The first is that they are wrongdoers, and the second is that they are kaafirs like the apostates, so it is permissible to kill them first, to kill those taken prisoner, and to pursue those who run away. If possible they should be asked to repent as in the case of apostates: if they repent all well and good, otherwise they are to be executed.
Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/518.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: With regard to viewing them as kaafirs and stating that they will abide in Hell for eternity, there are also two well-known scholarly views, which were both narrated from Ahmad. The two views apply to the Khaarijis and those who went astray such as the Harooris, Raafidis and others. The most correct of these views is that their beliefs which are well known to go against what the Messenger brought constitute kufr. Similarly their actions which are like the actions of the kuffaar against the Muslims are also kufr. I have mentioned the evidence for that elsewhere. But to declare a specific individual among them to be a kaafir and to judge that he will abide in Hell forever is dependent upon the conditions for declaring a person to be a kaafir being met and the impediments to so doing being absent.
When we quote the verses and reports which speak of promises and warnings, and who is a kaafir and a faasiq, we should quote them in a general sense. We cannot judge that any specific individual is included in the general meaning of those texts, unless one of the conditions is met with no impediment. We have already discussed this principle in Qaa’idat al-Takfeer. (Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/500). And Allaah knows best.
The questioner should note that in their books the Raafidis who go to extremes with regard to ‘Ali and the Ahl al-Bayt, and slander the Sahaabah and regard them as kaafirs, often accuse those who disagreed with their falsehood of being Naasibis, but by Naasibis they mean Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. They do this to express their dislike of them for going against their falsehood and following the way of truth. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: “With regard to Ahl al-Sunnah, they regard as friends all the believers. When they speak it is on the basis of knowledge and fairness, unlike those who are ignorant or follow their whims and desires; they reject the way of both the Raafidis and the Naasibis and they hold all of the early generations in high esteem, and they recognize status and virtue of the Sahaabah and respect the rights of Ahl al-Bayt as prescribed by Allaah. They also recognize the varying status of members of the early generation, and they recognize that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar enjoyed precedence and had virtues that were not shared by anyone else among the Sahaabah. Manhaaj al-Sunnah, 2/71
Based on this, we have to know who uses this word and who they are referring to by that, lest we reject the truth, because of their describing the people of truth in an incorrect manner. Because one of the characteristics of the people who follow innovation is to attack Ahl al-Sunnah and describe them in offputting terms. What counts is that which is in accordance with the Qur’aan and Sunnah and the way of the earliest generations of this ummah, no matter how much the followers of falsehood try to distort it.
Among the books which speak of the Naasibis and refute them and their ideas, and discussed those who went to the other extreme, namely the Raafidis, is Manhaaj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah. You can refer to this book or some of its abridged editions.
We ask Allaah to guide us and you to follow His Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and to protect us from misguidance and temptations both obvious and subtle.
Beliefs of the Druze:
The Druze originated as a secret sect among the esoteric (baatini) groups that appear outwardly to be Muslim and who sometimes pretend to be religious, ascetic and pious. They make an outward show of false pride in religion, pretending to be various kinds of Shi’ahs, Sufis and lovers of Ahl al-Bayt (the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)). They claim to carry the banner of peace and reconciliation amongst people, and they talk about uniting people in order to deceive them and lead them astray from their religion. When the opportunity arises, when they become stronger and find supporters among the ruling classes, they show their true colors and proclaim their real beliefs and aims, and they start to promote evil and corruption, and try to destroy religious teachings, sound beliefs and morals.
This is clear to anyone who studies their history and follows their progress from the day the Jew ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Saba’ lay the foundations and planted the seed, a legacy which has been handed down from one generation to another, as they have tried hard to implement these principles, and this has continued until the present day.
Although the Druze are one of these esoteric groups, they have their own characteristics as regards their origins and the time when they emerged, and the circumstances which helped them to become established. We will mention some brief details concerning that and the rulings of the scholars concerning them.
1 – The Druze are named after Durzi, whose full name was Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Durzi. His name is also given as ‘Abd-Allaah al-Durzi and Durzi ibn Muhammad. It was said that Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Durzi was Tashtakeen or Hashtakeen al-Durzi. It was also said that they are named after Tayrooz, a city in Persia. Al-Zubaydi narrated that the correct form of the name is Darzi, based on the phrase “awlaad darzah” meaning those who are base and vile.
2 – Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Durzi appeared at the time of al-Haakim bi Amrihi, Abu ‘Ali al-Mansoor ibn al-‘Azeez, one of the ‘Ubaydi kings (known in the west as Fatimids) who ruled Egypt for nearly two hundred years and who falsely claimed to be descended from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) though Faatimah (may Allaah be pleased with her).
Muhammad ibn Ismaa’eel al-Durzi was originally a follower of the esoteric Ismaili sect who claim to be the followers of Muhammad ibn Isma’eel ibn Ja’far al-Saadiq. Then he left this group and contacted the ‘Ubaydi al-Haakim, approving of his claim to divinity, and he called the people to worship him alone. He claimed that God had become incarnate in ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, and that the soul of ‘Ali has migrated to his sons one after another, until it reached al-Haakim. Al-Haakim gave him authority in Egypt so that the people would obey him in his call. When his true intentions became clear, the Muslims in Egypt rebelled against him and killed some of his supporters. When they wanted to kill him, he escaped and fled to al-Haakim, who gave him some money and told him to go to Syria to spread his call there. So he went there and stopped in Waadi Taym-Allaah ibn Tha’labah, to the west of Damascus, where he called them to deify al-Haakim and spread the principles of the Druze among them, and distributed money to them, and they responded to his call.
Another man also spread the call of the deification of al-Haakim, a Persian man whose name was Hamzah ibn ‘Ali ibn Ahmad al-Haakimi al-Durzi, one of the leading baatinis. He had contacted the leaders of the secret call of al-Haakim’s party, and he called for his deification in secret until he became one of their main leaders. Then he proclaimed that openly and claimed that he was the messenger of al-Haakim, and al-Haakim supported him in that. When al-Haakim died and was succeeded by his son who was known as Al-Zaahir li I’zaaz Deen Allaah (the supporter of the religion of Allaah), and he disavowed himself of his father’s claim to divinity, this call was chased out of Egypt. Hamzah fled to Syria and was followed by some of those who had responded to his call. Most of them settled in the region that later came to be known as Jebel el Druze in Syria.
Their principles are as follows:
(a) Incarnation. They believe that Allaah was incarnated in ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), then in his sons after him, one after another, until He was incarnated in the Faatimid al-Haakim Abu ‘Ali al-Mansoor ibn al-‘Azeez. They believe that al-Haakim will return and that he disappears and reappears.
(b) Dissimulation (taqiyah) – i.e., hypocrisy and concealment. They do not tell anyone their real beliefs except those who are of their number. Indeed they do not disclose their secrets to anyone except those whom they trust from among their own group.
(c) Infallibility of their imams. They think that their imams are infallible and protected from sin. Indeed, they deified them and worshipped them instead of Allaah, as they did with al-Haakim.
(d) Esotericism (baatiniyyah). They claim that the texts of sharee’ah have an esoteric or secret meaning other than the apparent meaning. They based their heresy concerning the texts on this, and distorted the meanings of the reports, commands and prohibitions.
With regard to their heresy concerning the reports, they deny the perfect attributes of Allaah and they deny the Day of Resurrection with its reckoning and recompense of Paradise and Hell. They replaced that with something that they call the transmigration of souls, the belief that the soul of a person or animal moves, when he or it dies, to the body of another person or animal when he or it is born, to dwell therein being either blessed or tormented. They believe that the universe is eternal and is no more than wombs giving birth and the earth swallowing the bodies of the deceased (i.e., a never-ending cycle of birth and death). They do not believe in the angels or the message of the Prophets, and they follow the philosophers who followed their own whims and desires and the principles and theories of Aristotle.
With regard to their heresy concerning the texts which stipulate commands and prohibitions, they distort them. They say that salaah (prayer) really means knowledge of their secrets, not the five daily prayers; siyaam (fasting) means concealing their secrets, not refraining from things that break the fast from dawn until sunset; and that Hajj (pilgrimage) means visiting the shaykhs whom they venerate. They regard immoral actions, both outward and inward, as permissible, and they allow marriage to daughters and mothers, and other kinds of tinkering with the texts and denying things that are clearly known to be the laws of Allaah that He has enjoined upon His slaves. Hence Abu Haamid al-Ghazaali and others said concerning them: outwardly their madhhab is Raafidi (Shi’ism) but inwardly it is pure kufr.
(e) Hypocrisy and deceit in their call. They make an outward display of being Shi’ah and of loving Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s household) to those whom they call. When they respond to them, they call them to Shi’ism and openly criticize the Sahaabah and slander them. If they accept that then they disclose to them the alleged faults of ‘Ali and slander him. If they accept that, then they go on to slander the Prophets and say that they have secrets that go against the message to which they called their nations; they say that they were smart and devised new laws for their nations for them to achieve worldly interests, and so on.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah was asked about how the Druze and Nusairis should be judged. He replied:
These Druze and Nusairis are kaafirs, according to the consensus of the Muslims. It is not permissible to eat the meat they slaughter, or to marry their womenfolk. They do not agree to pay the jizyah, so they are apostates from the religion of Islam and are not Muslims, nor are they Jews or Christians. They do not agree that the five daily prayers are obligatory, or that fasting Ramadaan is obligatory, or that Hajj is obligatory. They do not regard as haraam that which Allaah and His Messenger have forbidden of dead meat or wine, etc. Even if they pronounce the Shahaadatayn, with these beliefs they are kaafirs according to the consensus of the Muslims. As for the Nusairis, they are the followers of Abu Shu’ayb Muhammad ibn Naseer, who was one of the extremists who say that ‘Ali is a god, and they recite these words:
With regard to the Druze, the followers of Hashtakeen al-Durzi, who was one of the freed slaves of al-Haakim whom he sent to the people of Wadi Taym-Allaah ibn Tha’labah and he called them to believe in the divinity of al-Haakim and they call him “the creator, the all-knowing”, and swear by him, they are among the Ismailis who believe that Muhammad ibn Isma’eel abrogated the law of Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allaah. They are worse kaafirs than many other extremist groups. They believe that this universe has no creator and they deny the resurrection and the duties and prohibitions of Islam. They are among the esoteric Qarmatians (al-Qaraamitah) who are worse kaafirs than the Jews, Christians and mushrik Arabs. Basically they follow the philosophy of Aristotle and his ilk, or the Magians. Their ideas are a mixture of Magian philosophy but they make an outward, hypocritical display of being Shi’ah. And Allaah knows best.
Shaykh al-Islam also said, refuting the ideas of some sects of Druze:
The fact that these groups are kaafirs is something concerning which there is no dispute among the Muslims. Rather whoever doubts that they are kaafirs is a kaafir like them. They do not have a status like that of the People of the Book or of the mushrikeen, rather they are misguided kaafirs and it is not permissible to eat their food, their women may be taken captive and their wealth may be confiscated. They are heretics and apostates whose repentance cannot be accepted, rather they should be killed wherever they are found, and they may be cursed because of what they are. It is not permissible to employ them as guards and gatekeepers. Their scholars and leaders must be killed, lest they lead others astray. It is haraam to sleep with them in their houses or to be friends with them, or to walk with them or to attend their funerals, if their death is announced. It is haraam for the Muslim authorities to neglect to carry out the hadd punishment that Allaah has enjoined by whatever means they see fit. And Allaah is the One Whose help we seek and in Whom we put our trust.
From the fatwas of the Standing Committee for Academic Research and Issuing Fatwas.
Majallat al-Buhooth al-Islamiyyah, 36/85-89.
The Ibaadis are a group of Khaarijis who are named after their founder, ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ibaad al-Tameemi. They claim that they are not Khaarijis, and they deny this origin. But the truth is that they are not extreme Khaarijis like the Azraqis, but they agree with the Khaarijis in many issues such as denying the divine attributes, saying that the Qur’aan is created, and allowing rebellion against oppressive rulers.
2 – After whom are the Ibaadis named?
Their first founder was ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ibaad from the tribe of Banu Murrah ibn ‘Ubayd ibn Tameem. He was named after Ibaad which is a village in al-Yamaamah known nowadays as al-‘Aarid. ‘Abd-Allaah was a contemporary of Mu’aawiyah and died at the end of the reign of ‘Abd al-Maalik ibn Marwaan.
3 – Their most important beliefs:
– People who have affirmed belief in Tawheed and Islam, but who do not adhere to its practices and acts of worship, so they are not mushriks because they have affirmed belief in Tawheed, but they are not believers either because they do not adhere to the requirements of faith. So they are included with the Muslims in rulings having to do with this world, because of their affirmation of Tawheed, and they are included with the mushriks in rulings having to do with the Hereafter because they were not sincere in their faith and they went against the requirements of Tawheed.
Mawsoo’ah al-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah, 1/63.
Beliefs Of Zaahiri:
The Zaahiri madhhab is well known. It is the madhhab followed by Dawood ibn ‘Ali al-Zaahiri and Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm and those who follow their line of thought.
What it means is following the apparent meaning of the texts and not looking at the basis of rulings, and they do not believe in making analogies. Rather they go by the apparent meaning of commands and prohibitions and they do not pay attention to the basis and reasons behind these rulings. They are called Zaahiris (literalists) for this reason, because they go by the apparent meaning and do not pay attention to shar’i bases, wisdom and analogies which are indicated by the Qur’aan and Sunnah. But in general their way is better than the way of those who only refer to reasoning, analogy and arguments, and who do not pay much attention to the shar’i evidence of the Qur’aan and Sunnah. But they are falling short and are to be criticized for focusing only on the apparent meanings of the texts and not paying enough attention to the bases, wisdom and reasoning which the Lawgiver referred to and the objects which sharee’ah aimed to achieve, hence they made mistakes with regard to many issues which are referred to by the Qur’aan and Sunnah.
And Allaah is the Source of strength.
Majmoo’ Fataawa wa Maqaalaat li’l-Shaykh Ibn Baz, 6/218
Philosophy OF … ilm ul kalaam
It should be understood what philosophy is and what its principles are, before stating what the ruling on studying it is, because passing a ruling on something is usually based on the way it is viewed.
Al-Ghazaali said in al-Ihya’ (1/22): Philosophy is not one branch of knowledge, it is actually four:
1 – Geometry and mathematics: these are permissible as stated above, and there is no reason why they should not be studied unless there is the fear that one may overstep the mark and indulge in forbidden branches of knowledge, because most of those who study them overstep the mark and go on to innovations, thus the weak should be protected from them.
2 – Logic, which deals with the way in which evidence is to be used, the conditions of evidence being valid, the definition of what constitutes evidence and guidelines on the use of evidence. These come under the heading of ‘ilm al-kalaam.
3 – Theology, which is discussion of the essence and attributes of Allaah, which also comes under the heading of ‘ilm al-kalaam. The philosophers did not have any other kind of knowledge that was unique to them, rather they had some views and ideas which were unique to them, some of which constitute kufr and some bid’ah (innovation).
4 – Natural sciences, some of which go against sharee’ah, Islam and truth, so it is ignorance, not knowledge that may be mentioned alongside the other branches of knowledge. Some of it involves the discussion of the attributes of different elements and how one can be changed to another. This is similar to the way in which doctors examine the human body in particular, from the point of view of what makes it sick and what makes it healthy. They look at all the elements to see how they change and move. But medicine has an edge over the physical body in that it is needed, but there is no need for the study of nature. End quote.
In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Muyassarah fi’l-Adyaan wa’l-Madhaahib al-Mu’aasirah (2/1118-1121) it says:
Philosophy is a Greek word composed of two words. Philo originally meant selflessness, but Pythagoras turned it to mean love; and sophia which means wisdom. The word philosopher is derived from philosophy and means the lover of wisdom. But the meaning changed and came to mean wisdom.
Then the philosopher came to be called a wise man (hakeem). In the past the word philosophy referred to study of the basic principles, viewing knowledge as something based on rationality, the goal of which was the search for truth. For its supporters, philosophy is, as Dr. Tawfeeq al-Taweel described it: Rational examination, free from any restrictions and authority imposed on it from outside, and with the ability to go all the way on the basis of logic, propagating his view regardless of the difference between these (philosophical) views and what is customarily known, religious beliefs and the dictates of tradition, without being confronted or resisted or punished by any authority. In Aristotle’s view, the philosopher is of a higher status than a prophet, because the prophet understands things by means of imagination whereas the philosopher understands things by means of reason and contemplation. In their view, imagination is of a lower status than contemplation. Al-Faraabi agreed with Aristotle in viewing the philosopher as being of higher status than a prophet.
In this sense philosophy is opposed to wisdom, which in Islamic terminology refers to the Sunnah as defined by the majority of muhadditheen and fuqaha’, and in the sense of judgement, knowledge and proficiency, alongside moral guidelines which control the whims and desires of the self and keep it from doing haraam things. The wise man is the one who has these characteristics, hence philosophy, as defined by the philosophers, is one of the most dangerous falsehoods and most vicious in fighting faith and religion on the basis of logic, which it is very easy to use to confuse people in the name of reason, interpretation and metaphor that distort the religious texts.
Imam al-Shaafa’i said: The people did not become ignorant and begin to differ until they abandoned Arabic terminology and adopted the terminology of Aristotle. Even though philosophy existed in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, India and Persia, it became most famous in Greece and became synonymous with that land, the reason being that the Greek philosophers were interested in transmitting it from the legacy of idolatrous peoples and the remnants of the divinely-revealed religions, benefiting from the scriptures of Ibraaheem and Moosa (peace be upon them) after the Greek victory over the Hebrews after the captivity in Babylon, and benefiting from the religion of Luqmaan the Wise. So there was a mixture of views that confirmed the divinity and Lordship of the Creator that was contaminated with idolatry. Therefore the Greek philosophy was in some ways a revival more than an innovation.
Ibn Abi’l-‘Izz, the commentator on al-Tahhaawiyyah, summed up the schools of philosophical thought about the five basic principles of religion in their view, as follows:
That God does exist but He has no reality or essence, and He does not know the details of His creation, but He does know about its general terms, thus they denied that He creates the deeds of His slaves. They also did not believe in His Books, as in their view God does not speak or talk, and the Qur’aan is just something that shines from active reasons into purified human hearts. Exalted be Allaah far above what they ascribe to Him. There is no separate entity that ascends or descends, rather in their view it is all ideas in the mind that do not exist in reality. The philosophers are the one who most deny the Last Day and its events. In their view Paradise and Hell are no more than parables for the masses to understand, but they have no reality beyond people’s minds.
The Greek philosophers still have an impact on all western philosophies and ideologies, ancient and modern. Indeed, most of the Islamic kalaami groups were influenced by them. The terminology of Islamic philosophy did not emerge as a branch of knowledge that is taught in the curriculum of Islamic studies until it was introduced by Shaykh Mustafa ‘Abd al-Razzaaq – the Shaykh of al-Azhar – as a reaction to western attacks on Islam based on the idea that Islam has no philosophy. But the fact of the matter is that philosophy is an alien entity in the body of Islam. There is no philosophy in Islam and there are no philosophers among Muslims in this deviant sense. Rather in Islam there is certain knowledge and prominent scholars who examine matters. Among the most famous philosophers who were nominally Muslims were al-Kindi, al-Faraabi, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and Ibn Rushd (Averroes). End quote.
The majority of Fuqha’ have stated that it is haraam to study philosophy. Among their comments on that are the following:
1 – Ibn Nujaym (Hanafi) said in al-Ashbaah wa’l-Nazaa’im: Acquiring knowledge may be an individual obligation, which is as much as one needs for religious commitment to be sound; or it may be a communal obligation, which is in addition to the previous and is done for the benefit of others; or it may be recommended, which is studying fiqh and ‘ilm al-qalb (purification of the heart) in depth; or it may be haraam, which is learning philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology, geomancy, natural science and witchcraft. End quote from al-Ashbaah wa’l-Nazaa’ir ma’a Sharhiha: Ghamaz ‘Ayoon al-Basaa’ir by al-Hamawi (4/125).
2 – al-Dardeer (Maliki) said in al-Sharh al-Kabeer, discussing the kind of knowledge which is a communal obligation: Such as studying sharee’ah, which is not an individual obligation, and which includes fiqh, Tafseer, hadeeth and ‘aqeedah, and things that help with that such as (Arabic) grammar and literature, Tafseer, mathematics and usool al-fiqh – not philosophy, astrology or ‘ilm al-kalaam, according to the most sound opinion.
Al-Dasooqi said in his Haashiyah (2/174): His phrase “according to the most sound opinion” means that it is forbidden to read the books of al-Baaji, Ibn al-‘Arabi and ‘Iyaad, unlike the one who says that it is essential to learn it in order to understand ‘aqeedah and basic religious issues. But al-Ghazaali said that the one who has knowledge of ‘ilm al-kalaam knows nothing of religious beliefs except the beliefs that the common people share, but they are distinguished by their ability to argue and debate.
3 – Zakariya al-Ansaari (Shafi’i) said in Asna al-Mataalib (4/182): As for learning philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology, geomancy, natural science and witchcraft, it is haraam. End quote.
4 – al-Bahooti (Hanbali) said in Kashshaaf al-Qinaa’ (3/34): The opposite of shar’i knowledge is knowledge that is haraam or makrooh. Haraam knowledge is like ‘ilm al-kalaam in which they argue on the basis of pure reason or speak in a manner that contradicts sound, unambiguous reports. If they speak on the basis of reports only or on the basis of texts and rational thought that is in accordance with them, then this is the basis of religion and the way of ahl al-sunnah. This is what is meant by the words of Shaykh Taqiy al-Deen. In his commentary he explains that even better. [Haraam knowledge also includes] philosophy, magic (sleight of hand), astrology and geomancy, as well as alchemy and natural sciences. End quote.
It should be noted that an exception from this prohibition is made for those who study it as a specialty in order to explain its deviations and refute the falsehoods that they stir up.
If studying philosophy is compulsory, then you must beware of believing in any of its falsehoods or admiring its people. You should strive hard to acquire shar’i knowledge, especially that which has to do with ‘aqeedah (belief), so that you will develop immunity and resistance to specious arguments.
Foot Notes :
 Surah Al-Baqarah: 137]
 Fath al-Baari, 13/211
 Sharh Muslim, 12/202-203
 [Yoosuf 12:76].
 Minhaaj as-Sunnah, 8/170
 Fath al-Baari, 13/214
 Kashf al-Mushkil min Hadeeth as-Saheehayn, 1/292-293.
 Minhaj as-Sunnah, 8/173
 Sharh Muslim, 12/203
 Fath al-Baari, 13/211
 Minhaaj as-Sunnah, 8/173
 Minhaaj as-Sunnah, 8/173-174
 Tafseer al-Qur’an al-‘Azeem, 6/78
 Kashf al- Among his virtues are the following:
Muhammad at-Tijaani (a refutation of at-Tijaani’s book), p. 75 ff
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “You are of me and I am of you.” Narrated
 Fath al-Baari, 7/507
 Minhaaj as-Sunnah, 7/278
 [al-Maa’idah 5:55]
 [at-Tahreem 66:4].
 [al-Mumtahanah 60:1].
 [al-Baqarah 2:279].
 Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 7/322-325
 [al-Hajj 22:75].
 [Muhammad 47:11]
 Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa, 13/263
 Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/30
 Usool Madhhab ash-Shi‘ah al-Imaamiyyah, 2/805
 Ahkaam Ahl adh-Dhimmah, 2/1038
 [Aal ‘Imraan 3:28].
 [Aal ‘Imraan 3:28].
 Aal ‘Imraan 3:28].
 al-I‘tiqaadaat, p. 114
 Jaami‘ al-Akhbaar, p. 110; Bahaar al-Anwaar, 75/414, 412
 Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (3/410-413)
 Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah (2/377).
 Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’ (15/151).
 Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3672; Muslim, 75.
 [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110 –
 Fataawa al-Subki, 2/575.
 End quote from al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah, 3/419.
 al-Mu’minoon 23:117]
 [Faatir 35:13-14]
 [al-An’aam 6:162-163]
 [al-Kawthar 108:1-2]
 al-Jawaab as-Saheeh (2/194-197)
 End quote from al-I‘tisaam (p. 59)
 [al-Kahf 18:110]
 [Hood 11:7].
 Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (11/612-614)
 [al-Baqarah 2:155-157
 [al-Kahf 18:110].
 [at-Tawbah 9:100].
 Narrated by al-Bukhaari (1037) and Muslim (2905).
 [al-Mu’minoon 23:5-7]
 [al-Mu’minoon 23:50].
 al-Nisa’ 4:65 – interpretation of the meaning]
 Al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah, 1/44
 End quote from Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (4/518)
 [al-Isra’ 17:15].
 [ash-Shoora 42:11].
 [an-Nisa’ 4:123-124].
 [al-Hashr 59:10].
 [al-Baqarah 2:286].
 Dar’ Ta‘aarud al-‘Aql wa’n-Naql, 2/102-103
 Tahdheeb Sunan Abi Dawood, 2/347
 Sharh Muslim, 1/154
 [al-Nisaa’ 4:115]
 [al-Hijr 15:9
 [Yoonus 10:18]
 [al-Zumar 39:2-3]
 [al-An’aam 6:63
 [al-Jinn 72;18]
 Faatir 35:13-14]
 [al-Anfaal 8:39]
 [al-Tawbah 9:6]
 [al-Nisaa’ 4:164]
 al-An’aam 6:115]
 [al-Baqarah 2:75]
 al-Fath 48:15]
 [Faatir 35:10]
 [al-Baqarah 2:255]
 [al-A’laa 87:1]
 al-Nahl 16:49-50] –
 [al-Hashr 59:10]
 Fataawaa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 12/323
 [Aal ‘Imraan 3:104 –
 [Yoosuf 12:108]