2. Pronouncements of the Shia Scholars and Authorities[1] on Cursing and Excommunicating the Righteous Khalifas

Section One – The Influence of their Concept of Takfir in dealing with the Sahabah of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, especially the Khulafa’ Rashidun – 1. The Narrations which excommunicated and cursed the Khulafa’ Rashidun emphatically, with their names
September 19, 2022
The accusations against al ‘Alqami
October 13, 2022

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

2. Pronouncements of the Shia Scholars and Authorities[1] on Cursing and Excommunicating the Righteous Khalifas

1. Sheikh al Mufid (d. 413 AH)

He states:

 

القول في المتقدمين على أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام واتفقت الإمامية وكثير من الزيدية على أن المتقدمين على أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام ضلال فاسقون وأنهم بتأخيرهم أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام عن مقام رسول الله صلوات الله عليه وآله عصاة ظالمون وفي النار بظلمهم مخلدون

The view on those who preceded Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam: The Imamiyyah unanimously agree and majority of the Zaidiyyah agree that those who preceded Amir al Mu’minin[2] ‘alayh al Salam are deviant transgressors and due to their suspending Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam from the station of Rasulullah—may the salutations of Allah be upon him and his family—are sinful, oppressors, and doomed to Hell for eternity due to their tyranny.[3]

 

He says:

 

القول في تسمية جاحدي الإمامة ومنكري ما أوجب الله تعالى للأئمة من فرض الطاعة واتفقت الإمامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد الأئمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار

The view on naming the rejecters of Imamah and negaters of the mandatory obedience Allahsubhanahu wa ta ‘ala obliged for the Imams: The Imamiyyah are unanimous that one who rejects the Imamah of one of the Imams and negates the mandatory obedience that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala placed upon him is a disbeliever, deviant, and deserving of eternity in Hell.[4]

 

2. ‘Ali ibn Yunus al ‘Amili al Bayadi (d. 877 AH)

 

a. He comments on the Faruq of the Ummah, the Righteous Khalifah ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

كلام في خساسته وخبث سريرته ذكر الحنبلي في كتاب نهاية الطلب أن عمر بن الخطاب كان قبل الإسلام نخاس الحمير … وفي الفصل الرابع من الجزء الأول من الإحياء للغزالي أن عمر سأل حذيفة هل هو من المنافقين أم لا ولولا أنه علم من نفسه صفات تناسب صفات المنافقين لم يشك فيها وتقدم على فضيحتها

Discussion on his meanness and wicked heart. Al Hanbali mentioned in Nihayat al Talab that ‘Umar ibn al Khattab was a donkey dealer. The fourth section of the first part of al Ghazali’s al Ihya’ contains that ‘Umar asked Hudhayfah whether he was among the hypocrites or not. Had he known of his qualities not matching the qualities of the hypocrites, he would not doubt it and progressed to expose it.[5]

 

The author describes the Faruq of the Ummah radiya Llahu ‘anhu with meanness and a wicked heart and then goes on to accuse him of hypocrisy.

 

b. Al Bayadi al ‘Amili comments on the three Khalifas viz. Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum:

 

ورووا أنه لم يحفظ القرآن أحد من الخلفاء فهذه نبذة من مخازي الثلاثة … تدل بأدنى فكر على عدم استحقاقهم الخلافة

They report that none of the Khalifas memorised the Qur’an. This is fraction of the Three’s shameful acts… which indicate with the least reflection on their unworthiness to the Caliphate.[6]

 

He attributes shameful acts to them—may Allah humiliate him in the world and the Hereafter—and their unworthiness of the Caliphate as if he is more knowledgeable than the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in this field.

 

c. He levels many accusations against ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan radiya Llahu ‘anhu, which are shocking and which the pen refrains from writing. Had it not been for the necessity of warning the Muslims of what the hearts of the Shia harbour against the Khalifas, I would not have cited it. He accuses him of the following:

 

i. He had intercourse with an adulteress before stoning her. The author slurs:

 

إنه أتي بالمرأة لتحد فقاربها ثم أمر برجمها

A woman was brought to him for hadd. He had intercourse with her and then ordered her stoning.[7]

 

ii. He was effeminate. The author—may Allah curse him—smears:

 

قال الكلبي في كتاب المثالب كان عثمان ممن يلعب به ويتخنث وكان يضرب بالدف

Al Kalbi says in Kitab al Mathalib: ‘Uthman would be played with and displayed effeminate manners. He would play the tambourine.[8]

 

3. ‘Ali ibn ‘Abdul ‘Ali al Karki (d. 940 AH)

 

a. The author[9] writes:

 

وقد روى الشيخ في التهذيب أن الصادق كان ينصرف من الصلاة بلعن أربعة من الرجال منهم أبو بكر وعمر

Al Sheikh reports in al Tahdhib that al Sadiq ‘alayh al Salam would complete his salah by cursing four men among whom were Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.[10]

 

b. He says:

 

وليتأمل العاقل المنصف أنه هل يجوز أن يتولى منصب الخلافة الذي هو معظم منصب النبوة مثل شيخ تيم الجاهل بأمور الدين ومثل عتل عدي الزنيم ذي الفظاظة الغلظة والمكر والخديعة ومثل ثور بني أمية الذي حملهم على أعناق الناس

Let an intelligent, just person consider whether it is permissible for a person to assume the seat of Caliphate like the old man of Taym who is ignorant of religious affairs, like the cruel man of ‘Adi, the illegitimate pretender, hard-hearted, harsh, cunning, and deceitful, and like the ox of Banu Umayyah who burdened the necks of people with them.[11]

 

c. He writes:

وقد وقع كل من الأمرين من أبي بكر وعمر عليهما اللعنة

Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are guilty of both these matters, may curses be upon them.[12]

 

وقد وقع من عثمان لعنه الله

‘Uthman, may Allah curse him, is guilty of it.[13]

 

عثمان بن عفان لعنه الله

‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, may Allah curse him.[14]

 

d. He writes in section five:

بعث أول في نبذة من الأحكام التي صدرت من أبي بكر لعنه الله

Discussion 1: section on verdicts passed by Abu Bakr, may Allah curse him.[15]

 

بحث ثاني في نبذة من مخالفة عمر لعنه الله

Discussion 2: section on the contradiction of ‘Umar, may Allah curse him.[16]

 

بحث ثالث نبذة من مخالفات عثمان لعنه الله

Discussion 3: section on the contradictions of ‘Uthman, may Allah curse him.[17]

 

ومن أدل دليل على كفر عثمان واستحقاقه اللعن

The most evident proof of the disbelief of ‘Uthman and he being deserving of curse …[18]

 

فلعنة الله عليه وعلى صاحبيه وأشياعهم وأتباعهم إلى يوم الدين

The curse of Allah be upon him and his two companions[19] as well as their supporters and followers[20] till the Day of Qiyamah.[21]

 

e. He claims:

 

وقد اشتهر أن أمير المؤمنين كان يقنت في الوتر بلعن صنمي قريش يريد بهما أبا بكر وعمر

It is famous that Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam would recite qunut in Witr by cursing the two idols of Quraysh, intending thereby Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.[22]

 

f. He claims:

 

فنقول لا ريب في عداوة أبي بكر بن أبي قحافة التيمي لأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وبقدمه وعداوته لكافة أهل البيت عليهم السلام وكتب الحديث والتاريخ مشحونة بذلك من طرق المؤمنين والمخالفين وكذا ابن عمه طلحة بن عبيد الله التيمي وهو ممن ظاهر عثمان على أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام يوم الشورى وقد قال بعض المحققين إن أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام عناه بقوله في الخطبة الشقشقية فصعا رجل منهم لضغنه فجعله صاحب ضغن وحقد وعداوة لأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وقد كمل ذلك بمحاربته إياه يوم الجمل مع عائشة لا يلوي ولا يرعوي ومن رءوس أعدائه عمر بن الخطاب  العدوي القرشي وهو الفظ الغليظ الجأش الجاني وأمر عداوته وإيذائه لعلي وفاطمة وأهل البيت عليهم السلام أشهر من الشمس من تابعيه على ذلك ابنه عبيد الله وكذا ابنه عبد الله وإن ستر عداوته ببعض الستر ومن رءوس أعدائه عثمان بن عفان الأموي

We thus state: There is no doubt of the enmity of Abu Bakr ibn Abi Quhafah al Taymi for Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam and his precedence and enmity for all the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam. The books of hadith and history are replete with this from the chains of the believers and opposition. Similarly, his cousin Talhah ibn ‘Ubaidullah al Taymi. He is one of those who supported ‘Uthman against Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam on the Day of Shura (Council). Some researchers have said: Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam hinted to him with his statement in the Shaqshaqiyyah address, “A man among them ascended due to his malice.” He determined him as a man of malice, rancour, and enmity for Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam. This culminated in him waging war against him [Amir al Mu’minin] on the Day of Jamal with Aisha; he never turned around nor desisted.

Among the leaders of his enemies is ‘Umar ibn al Khattab al ‘Adawi al Qurashi, the hard-hearted, harsh, criminal at heart. His enmity and harming of ‘Ali, Fatimah, and the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam is more evident than the sun. Among those who followed him in this is his son ‘Ubaidullah, as well as his son ‘Abdullah—although he hid his enmity somewhat.

Among the leaders of his enemies is ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan al Umawi.[23]

 

g. He asserts:

 

وأي عاقل يعتقد تقديم ابن أبي قحافة وابن الخطاب وابن عفان الأدنياء في النسب والصعاب الذين لا يعرف لهم تقدم ولا سبق في علم ولا جهاد وقد عبدوا الأصنام مدة طويلة وفروا من الزحف في أحد وحنين وأحجموا يوم الأحزاب ونكست رءوسهم الراية وبراءة وظلموا الزهراء بمنع إرثها ونحلتها وألبسوا أشياء أقلها يوجب الكفر فعليهم وعلى محبيهم لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين

Which intelligent person will believe in the precedence of Ibn Abi Quhafah, Ibn al Khattab, and Ibn ‘Affan—inferior in lineage, obstinate, who are not known to have any precedence, nor superiority in knowledge or jihad. They worshipped idols for a lengthy period, fled from the battlefields in Uhud and Hunayn, retreated on the Day of Ahzab, who were humiliated with the flag [at Khaybar] and Bara’ah, oppressed al Zahra’ by depriving her of her inheritance and gift, and are guilty of many other crimes—the least of which necessitates disbelief. Thus, may the curse of Allah, his angels, and all humankind be upon them and their lovers.[24]

 

4. Muhammad ibn Tahir al Qummi al Shirazi (d. 1098 AH)

 

a. He says:

 

وسنذكر إن شاء الله الأخبار الدالة على بغض خلفائهم الثلاثة لعلي أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام ليظهر لك أنهم رءوس المنافقين وأعداء دين سيد المرسلين وسيجيء إن شاء الله في الدليل الثامن والعشرين عدة قرائن دالة على نفاقهم

We will list—Allah willing—the narrations indicating to the hatred of the three Khalifas for ‘Ali Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam so it becomes clear to you that they are the leaders of the hypocrites and enemies of the din of the chief of the Messengers. Allah willing, proof twenty-eight will contain plenty evidences to their hypocrisy.[25]

 

b. He writes:

إن عثمان الملقب بنعثل الذي هو ثالث خلفاء المخالفين كان ظالما فاسقا

Indeed, ‘Uthman—who is titled Na’thal and who is the third of the Khalifas of the opposition (referring to the Ahlus Sunnah)—was an oppressor, transgressor.[26]

 

c. He says:

 

إن أول خلفائهم كان ظالما فاسقا والظالم والفاسق لا يستحق الخلافة لقوله تعالى لَا يَنَالُ عَهْدِي الظَّالِمِيْنَ ولقوله تعالى وَلَا تَرْكَنُوْا إِلَى الَّذِيْنَ ظَلَمُوْا ولقوله تعالى إِنْ جَاءَكُمْ فَاسِقٌ بِنَبَإٍ فَتَبَيَّنُوْا فإذا بطل إمامة أبي بكر بطل إمامة الآخرين أيضا فإذا بطل إمامة أئمة النواصب ثبت إمامة إئمتنا الاثني عشر

Their first Khalifah was an oppressor, transgressor. An oppressor and transgressor is not worthy of caliphate owing to Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statements: My covenant does not include the wrongdoers,[27] and His statement: And do not incline toward those who do wrong, [28]and His statement: If there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate.[29]

When Abu Bakr’s Imamah is invalid, the Imamah of the others are also invalid. Once the caliphate of the leaders of the Nawasib[30] is invalid, the Imamah of our twelve Imams is established.[31]

 

d. He asserts:

 

إن عمر ثاني خلفائهم كان ظالما فاسقا لا يستحق الخلافة وأيضا قد دل على إثمه وفسقه وغدره ما قدمناه من حكاية ارتفاع علي والعباس إلى عمر وتخلفه عن جيش أسامة

‘Umar—their second Khalifah—was an oppressor, transgressor and not worthy of caliphate. Moreover, what we previously mentioned, the story of ‘Ali and ‘Abbas raising the case to ‘Umar and his lagging behind the army of Usamah, point out his sin, transgression, and deception.[32]

 

5. Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi (d. 1111 AH):

 

a. He writes in Mir’at al ‘Uqul[33], his commentary of Rawdat al Kafi, commenting on hadith 16:

 

قوله مع فلان يعني أبا بكر عليه اللعنة

His statement: with so and so refers to Abu Bakr, may he be cursed.[34]

 

b. He writes in the commentary of hadith 18:

 

قوله فغضب الأعرابيان أي أبو بكر وعمر إذ هما لم يهاجرا إلى الإسلام وكانا على كفرهما وكان إسلامهما نفاقا وهجرتهما شقاقا فهما داخلان في قوله تعالى الْأَعْرَابُ أَشَدُّ كُفْرًا وَنِفَاقًا

His statement, “The two Bedouins became angry,” refers to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar as they did not emigrate to Islam and were upon their disbelief. Their Islam was hypocrisy and their hijrah was disunity. They are included in Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement: The bedouins are stronger in disbelief and hypocrisy.[35]

 

c. In his commentary on hadith 21, he writes:

 

قوله وأمرت بإحلال المتعتين أي متعة النساء ومتعة الحج اللتين حرمهما عمر عليه اللعنة

His statement, “I have been commanded to permit the two mut’ahs,” refers to Mut’ah of women and Mut’ah of Hajj, both which ‘Umar prohibited, may he be cursed.

 

d. He comments on hadith 23:

 

قوله وأمات هامان أي عمر وأهلك فرعون يعني أبا بكر ويحتمل العكس ويدل على أن المراد هذان الأشقيان قوله وقد قتل عثمان

His statement, “He killed Haman,” that is ‘Umar, “and destroyed Firoun,” referring to Abu Bakr. The opposite is also likely. What indicates that these two wicked men are meant is his statement, “and ‘Uthman was killed.”

 

e. He comments on hadith 95:

 

قوله أي موسى الكاظم وسألت عن رجلين يعني أبا بكر وعمر عليهما اللعنة اغتصبا رجلا يعني أمير المؤمنين مالا يعني الخلافة

His statement, referring to Musa al Kazim, “I was asked about two men,” referring to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may they be cursed. “They snatched wealth,” that is the caliphate, “from a man,” referring to Amir al Mu’minin.

 

f. He writes in Bihar al Anwar:

 

أقول الأخبار الدالة على كفر أبي بكر وعمر وأضرابهما وثواب لعنهم والبراءة منهم وما يتضمن بدعهم أكثر من أن يذكر في هذا المجلد أو في مجلدات شتى وفيما أوردناه كفاية لمن أراد الله هدايته إلى الصراط المستقيم

I say: The narrations indicating the disbelief of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and their like, the reward of cursing them and dissociating from them, and those containing their innovations are more than can be cited in this volume or scattered volumes. What we have cited is sufficient for one whom Allah wishes to guide to the straight path.[36]

 

g. He asserts in the article al ‘Aqa’id:

 

ومن ضروريات دين الإمامية البراءة من أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان ومعاوية

Dissociation from Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and Muawiyah is from the essentials of the Imamiyyah religion.[37]

 

h. He quotes a fabrication, the gist of which is that an argument broke out between Sayyidina ‘Ali and Sayyidina ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, which led to cursing and insulting. One of the things ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu said to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was, “Sand is in your mouth.” He begins insulting and cursing ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and accusing his mother of adultery. He goes on to cursing those who love and associate with ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The author says in Bihar al Anwar:

 

قوله لعنه الله الترباء في فيك يا علي الترباء بالفتح أو بضم التاء وفتح الراء لغتان في التراب انظر هذا الذي خانت أمه أباه كيف شتم وعق مولاه لعنة الله عليه وعلى من والاه

His [‘Uthman’s]—may he be cursed—statement, “Sand in your mouth, O ‘Ali.” Al Tarba’ with a fathah or a dammah on the ta’ and fathah on the ra’—two pronunciations of al turab (sand).

Look at this individual whose mother deceived his father. Look at how he swears and is recalcitrant towards his master. May the curse of Allah be upon him and those who associate with him.[38]

 

7. Nur Allah al Tustari (d. 1019 AH)

Some of his statements are quoted hereunder:

a. He says:

 

فلما لم يظهر منهم المسابقة والمسارعة في تلك المشاهد لنصرة الدين علم أن مسابقتهم يوم السقيفة إنما كانت لنيل الرياسة طلبا للجاه وحبا للدنيا وحسدا لآل محمد عليهم السلام وذلك موجب لخروجهم بالكلية عن دين الإسلام

When precedence and antecedence is not manifest from them in these instances to assist the din, it is realised that their rushing on the Day of al Saqifah was only to attain leadership for fame, love for the world, and jealousy for the family of Muhammad ‘alayhim al Salam. This necessitates their expulsion wholly from the din of Islam.[39]

 

b. He states:

 

فبايعوا أبا بكر بحضوره وعقدوا البيعة الفلتة الفاسدة لأبي بكر بعد إعمال وجوه أخرى من التلبيس وتطميع الناس واستمالتهم بتفويض إمارة البلاد ونحوها

They pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr in his presence and concluded an unexpected imperfect Bay’ah for Abu Bakr, after adopting other means of deception, enticing people, and attracting them by commissioning them with governorship of the cities and its like.[40]

 

7. Shia Muhaddith Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri (d. 1112 AH)

a. He says:

 

كما نقل في الأخبار أن الخليفة الأول قد كان مع النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وصنمه الذي كان يعبده زمن الجاهلية معلق بخيط في عنقه ساتره بثيابه وكان يسجد ويقصد أن سجوده لذلك الصنم إلى أن مات النبي صلى الله عليه وآله فأظهروا ما كان في قلوبهم وقد تقدم مجمل أحوالهم

As quoted in the reports that the first Khalifah was in the company of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with his idol—which he used to worship during the Jahiliyyah period—attached to a string on his neck, concealed with his clothes. When prostrating, he would intend that his prostration was for that idol until the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away after which they exposed what was in their hearts. The synopsis of their condition has passed.[41]

 

b. He emphasises the same point:

 

فإنه قد روي في الأخبار الخاصة أن أبا بكر كان يصلي خلف رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله والصنم معلق في عنقه وسجوده له

It has been reported in special reports that Abu Bakr would pray behind Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam while an idol was hanging from his neck and his prostration was for it.[42]

 

c. He writes:

 

وطول مدة خلافتها هو أن مدة خلافة أبي بكر سنتان وستة أشهر وأيام ومدة خلافة الثاني عشر سنين فصبر عليها فلما أراد الله أن يقبضه إلى ما هيأ من أليم العذاب جعل عمر الخلافة في ستة رجال وجعل عليا عليه السلام منهم

The prolongation of the period of caliphate is that the period of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr was two years, six months, and few days and the period of the second Khalifah was ten years in which he [‘Ali] observed patience. When Allah intended to seize him for the painful punishment He prepared for him, ‘Umar placed the Caliphate among six men and listed ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam one of them.[43]

 

d. He writes:

 

وحاصله أنا لم نجتمع معهم على إله ولا على نبي ولا على إمام وذلك لأنهم يقولون أن ربهم هو الذي كان محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبيه وخليفته بعده أبو بكر ونحن لا نقول بهذا الرب ولا بذلك النبي بل نقول أن الرب الذي خليفة نبيه أبو بكر ليس ربنا ولا ذلك النبي نبينا

The gist of it is that we do not concur with them on a deity, nor a nabi, nor an imam. This is because they claim that their Rabb is the one whose Nabi is Muhammad and the khalifah after him is Abu Bakr. We do not agree with such a rabb, nor such a nabi. We state that the Rabb whose Nabi’s khalifah is Abu Bakr is not our Rabb, nor is that Nabi our nabi.[44]

 

a. He writes in his book al Shihab al Thaqib:

 

إن بعض الشافعية استدل بهذه الواقعة على جواز الكلام قبل التسليم في الصلاة للضرورة اعتمادا على فعل أبي بكر لعنه الله

Some Shafi’iyyah cite this incident as proof for the permissibility of speaking before making salam in salah out of necessity, relying on the action of Abu Bakr—may he be cursed.[45]

 

b. He also writes:

ثم أورده الرواية المذكورة وأورد بعدها رواية تزويج عمر لعنه الله بأم كلثوم

He then cited the above-mentioned narration after which he cited the report of ‘Umar’s—may he be cursed—marriage to Umm Kulthum.[46]

 

9. ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din (d. 1377 AH)

a. He says in a letter trying to explain away the non-manifestation of explicit texts on Imamah and their lucidity:

 

إما عدم إخراج تلك النصوص فإنما هو لشنشنة نعرفها لكل من أضمر لآل محمد حسيكة وأبطن لهم الغل من حزب الفراعنة في الصدر الأول وعبدة أولي السلطة والتغلب الذين بذلوا في إخفاء فضل أهل البيت وإطفاء نورهم كل حول وكل طول وكل ما لديهم من قوة وجبروت وحملوا الناس كافة على مصادرة مناقبهم وخصائصهم بكل ترغيب وترهيب وأجلبوا على ذلك تارة بدراهمهم ودنانيرهم وأخرى بوظائفهم ومناصبهم ومرة بسياطهم وسيوفهم يدنون من كذب بها ويقصون من صدق بها أو ينفونه أو يقتلونه وأنت تعلم أن نصوص الإمامة وعهود الخلافة لمما يخشى الظالمون منها أن تدمر عروشهم وتنقض أساس ملكهم

The reason why those texts were not included is due to the prejudice, with which we are familiar, of those who concealed their grudge, and hid their animosity, from the party of Pharaoh during the early epoch of Islam, worshippers of authority and domination who spent everything they possessed of might and means to hide the contributions of Ahlul Bayt and put out their light in every land.

They forced people to deny their feats and attributes through means and methods of both tempting and terrorizing, through their wealth once, and through their positions and political stature another. They bestowed their favours upon those who denied these merits, dismissing, banishing or even murdering those who believed in them.

You know that the texts related to the Imamah, and the promises of Caliphate, are held with apprehension by those who fear that such texts may jeopardize their thrones or undermine the very foundations of their governments.[47]

 

This is a criticism of the Sahabah, subtle and devious. Let us scrutinise:

  • He accuses the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum of stealing and usurping the Caliphate.
  • He accuses the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum of malice and rancour for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his household.
  • He describes the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as transgressors and disbelievers by labelling them the party of Pharaohs of the first era, likening them to Firoun and his supporters who were ruled despotically and with disbelief.
  • He described the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as worshippers of men of authority and dominance. These are insults upon insults for those who fought and presented themselves for death, in anticipation of the pleasure of Allah and the abode of the Hereafter. As Allahsubhanahu wa ta ‘ala states:

 

فَلْيُقَاتِلْ فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللهِ الَّذِيْنَ يَشْرُونَ الْحَيَاةَ الدُّنْيَا بِالْآخِرَةِ وَمَنْ يُقَاتِلْ فِيْ سَبِيْلِ اللهِ فَيُقْتَلْ أَوْ يَغْلِبْ فَسَوْفَ نُؤْتِيْهِ أَجْرًا عَظِيْمًا

So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory – We will bestow upon him a great reward.[48]

 

  • The Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum utilised power and threatened everyone who spoke of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu

 

b. He describes the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in letter 84:

 

أما الخلفاء الثلاثة وأولياؤهم فقد تأولوا النص عليه بالخلافة للأسباب التي قدمناها ولا عجب منهم في ذلك بعد الذي نبهناك إليه من تأويلهم واجتهادهم في كل ما كان من نصوصه صلى الله عليه وآله متعلقا بالسياسات والتأميرات وتدبير قواعد الدولة وتقرير شئون المملكة ولعلهم لم يعتبروها كأمور دينية فهان عليهم مخالفته فيها وحين تم لهم الأمر أخذوا بالحزم في تناسي تلك النصوص وأعلنوا الشدة على من يذكرها أو يشير إليها

As regarding the three caliphs and their supporters, these have interpreted the text regarding his succession in the manner which we have indicated above. This should not surprise us at all once we come to know how they interpret and personally comprehend other texts of the Prophet, peace be upon him and his progeny, regarding issues such as succession, government, administration, legislation, etc. They probably did not consider them to be religious issues; so, it was easy for them to practically oppose them. When they finally took charge, they stuck to a policy of overlooking such texts, promising to punish those who would mention or even allude to them.[49]

 

This declaration of his contains a number of attacks against the three Khalifas, viz. Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum:

  • He accuses the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum of not conforming to the directives of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam when it conflicted their interests, especially those concerning governance and running the state. In this, they did not fulfil his commands. Rather, they discarded them and acted upon those things in which their interests were vested. This is a distressing criticism of them.
  • He accuses the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum of using force and duress in order to conceal the explicit declaration of ‘Ali’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Caliphate that they usurped. They strongly threatened to punish those who mention or indicate toward the declaration. In his description, they are a bunch of cunning thieves[50], despite them being the leaders of Islam and the builders of its majesty.

 

c. He mentions in letter 84:

 

وأيضا فإن قريشا وسائر العرب كانوا قد تشوقوا إلى تداول الخلافة في قبائلهم واشرأبت إلى ذلك أطماعهم فأمضوا نياتهم على نكث العهد ووجهوا عزائمهم إلى نقض العهد فتصافقوا على تناسي النص وتبايعوا على أن لا يذكر بالمرة وأجمعوا على صرف الخلافة من أول أيامها عن وليها المنصوص عليه من نبيها فجعلوها بالانتخاب والاختيار ولو تعبدوا بالنص فقدموا عليا بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله لما خرجت الخلافة من عترته الطاهرة

Also, Quraysh and all other Arabs had by then coveted political dominance for their own respective tribes, and their ambition extended thereto. For this reason, they decided to discard the covenant and were determined to ignore the will. So, they all collaborated to forget the text, pledging not to mention it at all. They all agreed to divert the caliphate, since its inception, from its rightful candidate, who was assigned to it by their Prophet, and make it through election and choice, so that each one of their quarters might have a justification for hoping to attain it, though after a while. Had they followed the text and advanced ‘Ali to succeed the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his progeny, such caliphate would never have left his purified progeny.[51]

 

10. Muhammad Mahdi al Khalisi (d. 1383 AH, 1963)

Al Khalisi attempts to disprove the evidence of the Ahlus Sunnah upon Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala pleasure with Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as they are from those who pledged allegiance under the tree, which Allahsubhanahu wa ta ‘ala refers to in His statement:

 

لَقَدْ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُوْنَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ

Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you [O Prophet] under the tree.[52]

 

He attempts to create an escape so that he does not have to attest to Allah’s pleasure with them as it is too cumbersome for them to acknowledge the excellence of the Khalifas. He thus claims that the pleasure did not include all those who pledged allegiance, and only includes the believers among them. He alleges that there is no proof (in his thought) that the three Khalifas were from the believers. He thus asserts:

 

وإن قالوا أن أبا بكر وعمر من أهل بيعة الرضوان الذين نص الله على الرضا عنهم في القرآن لَقَدْ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُوْنَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ قلنا لو قال لقد رضي الله عن الذين يبايعونك تحت الشجرة أو عن الذين بايعوك لكان في الآية دلالة على الرضا عن كل من بايعه ولكن لما قال لَقَدْ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُوْنَكَ فلا دلالة فيه على الرضا إلا عمن محض الإيمان

If they say that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar were from the participants of Bay’at al Ridwan, for whom Allah categorically declared happiness in the glorious Qur’an: Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you [O Prophet] under the tree. We say that had Allah said: Allah was certainly pleased with those who pledged allegiance to you under the tree or those who pledged allegiance to you, there would be indication in the verse towards happiness with all those who pledged allegiance. However, since Allah said Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you [O Prophet] under the tree. There is no indication to happiness except with the sincere in faith.[53]

 

He casts doubts on the Khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum being among the believers, and thus does not regard them as being encompassed in the pleasure of Allah, which is reserved for the believers. What does he intend by excluding them from the believers? He only intends to accuse them of hypocrisy and place them in the hypocrite camp, since all those who pledged allegiance beneath the tree are from the followers of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. If he is a believer, then he is a Companion who believes in him. If he is not a believer yet follows him externally, he is a hypocrite. No third group of followers is found. Once he excluded them from the believers, he definitely includes them among the hypocrites. Unquestionably, evil is that which they fabricate.

 

11. Ayat Allah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Baqir al Sadr (d. 1402 AH, 1982)

He discloses his malice and hatred for them in his book Fadak fi al Tarikh:

a. He describes al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu as a timid coward for he—in his belief—did not choose to stay with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in al ‘Arish except for guarantee of protection from being killed, as it is the furthest location from the enemies and fighting them. He writes:

 

وأن الصديق رضي الله عنه هو الذي التجأ إلى مركز القيادة العليا الذي كان محاطا بعدة من أبطال الأنصار لحمايته حتى يطمئن بذلك من غوائل الحرب

Al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu is the one who sought refuge in the centre of high leadership, which was surrounded with a number of heroes of the Ansar, to protect him so he might feel safe with this from the disasters of war.[54]

 

He writes:

 

وليس لدي من تفسير معقول للموقف إلا أن يكون قد وقف إلى جوار رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وكسب بذلك موقفا هو في طبيعته أبعد نقاط المعركة عن الخطر لاحتفاف العدد المخلص في الجهاد يومئذ برسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم وليس هذا ببعيد لأننا عرفنا من ذوق الصديق أنه كان يحب أن يكون إلى جانب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم في الحرب لأن مركز النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم هو المركز المصون الذي تتوفر جميع القوى الإسلامية على حراسته والذب عنه

I do not have any sensible explanation for the stance except that he stationed himself in the company of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and acquired through this a position, which according to his nature is the furthest battle location from danger owing to the surrounding of a sincere number in Jihad at that time with Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This is not at all far-fetched, as we know the taste of al Siddiq that he would love to be at the side of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in battle, as the position of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the protected hub at which all Islamic powers abound to protect and defend him[55].[56]

 

He comments on al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu:

 

وشخصية اكتفت من الجهاد المقدس بالوقوف في الخط الحربي الأخير العريش

A personality who sufficed from the holy Jihad by standing at the last line of war—al ‘Arish[57].[58]

 

b. He accuses al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu of buying the protection of the Sahabah in lieu of wealth to establish his Caliphate. He claims:

 

فلا غرابة في أن ينتزع من أهل البيت أموالهم المهمة ليركز بذلك حكومته أو أن يخشى من علي عليه السلام أن يصرف حاصلات فدك وغير فدك على الدعوة إلى نفسه وكيف نستغرب ذلك من رجل كالصديق وهو الذي قد اتخذ المال وسيلة من وسائل الإغراء واكتساب الأصوات

There is no oddness in him snatching away from the Ahlul Bayt their significant wealth so that his governorship be rooted or that he feared that ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam might spend the produce of Fadak and other lands to call towards himself. How can we find this unusual from a man like al Siddiq whereas he employed wealth as a means to entice and to earn voices[59].[60]

 

c. He describes al Siddiq’s caliphate as one devoid of blessings from the sky and with which the Muslims were unpleased. He writes:

 

ومعنى هذه أن الحاكمين زفوا إلى المسلمين خلافة لم تباركها السماء ولا رضي بها المسلمون

The meaning of this is that the leaders hurried to the Muslims a caliphate, which the sky did not bless and with which the Muslims were unhappy.

 

Here, he refers to al Siddiq’s caliphate as he wrote a few lines before that:

 

تلك هي خلافة الصديق رضي الله تعالى عنه عندما خرج من السقيفة

This is al Siddiq’s radiya Llahu ‘anhu Caliphate after he exited Saqifah.[61]

 

d. After claiming that al Siddiq’s Caliphate was not divinely blessed, he emphatically states that the Caliphate had no Shar’i influence. He writes:

 

والنقطة الأولى التي نؤاخذ الصديق عليها هو وقوفه موقف الحاكم في المسألة مع أن خلافته لم تكتسب لونا شرعيا

The first point we take al Siddiq to task for is his stance as a ruler in matters, despite his caliphate not taking on a religious connotation.[62]

 

12. Khomeini[63] (d. 1409 AH, 1989)

He insults al Faruq ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu with a nasty, atrocious, malicious insult when he says in Kashf al Asrar:

 

وهذا يؤكد أن هذه الفرية صدرت من ابن الخطاب المفتري ويعتبر خير دليل لدى المسلم الغيور والواقع أنهم (أي الصحابة) ما أعطوا الرسول حق قدره الرسول الذي جد وكد وتحمل المصائب من أجل إرشادهم وهدايتهم وأغمض عينيه وفي أذنيه ترن كلمات ابن الخطاب القائمة على الفرية والنابعة من أعمال الكفر والزندقة

This emphasises that this lie emanated from Ibn al Khattab, the fabricator. It is considered the best proof by a Muslim with self-honour. The reality is that they (the Sahabah) did not award the Messenger his due right. The Messenger who strove and struggled and bore hardships to direct and guide them. He closed his eyes and, in his ears, ran the words of Ibn al Khattab based on lies and stemming from actions of disbelief and heresy.[64]

 

13. Ayat Allah al ‘Uzma al Wahid al Khurasani[65]

He delivered live lectures before a gathering of their jurists and students of knowledge. They were compiled in a book titled: Muqtatafat Wala’iyyah, in which he mentioned that the foundational task of a Shia towards his family and adherents of his creed are two:

Firstly, to plant in their hearts an extreme level of love for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Secondly, to plant in their hearts an extreme level of hatred for the usurpers of his right to Caliphate (his target being the three Khalifas and the remainder of the senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum). He did not suffice on merely planting hatred for the Khalifas. He stipulated that it ought to be on an extreme level just as love for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu ought to be on an extreme level. He warned them that if hatred is less than love, even by an atom’s weight, the Ummah will be afflicted with curse.

Glory be to Allah! He warns them that hatred for the Khalifas, if it decreases by an atom’s weight, then a curse will befall them. After this, how can we hope for them to love the Khalifas, be pleased with them, and testify in their favour of virtue and Jannat? Here he is spewing the malice and hatred he harbours in his heart for the Khalifas radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The reader should not be surprised at all at the emphasis, as he is among adherents of his creed, in Qum of Iran, where there is no Taqiyyah, nor any social interaction with the Ahlus Sunnah. Have a look at his exact words in the sixth lecture under the title: oppression against ‘Ali, delivered on the 12th of Rajab, 1411 AH corresponding to 28.01.1991 in the grand Masjid of Qum:

 

ومن هنا ليتعرف الحضور في هذا المجلس وهم من طبقة الفقهاء أو المتفقهين الذين هم في سبيل الفقاهة على وظيفتهم بعد هذا إن وظيفتكم الأساسية تتلخص في أمرين غرس بذرة محبة علي في القلوب وأن نعمل وبنفس المستوى والمقدار ودون قيد أنملة من فارق أو تفاوت مع الأمر الأول (غرس الولاية والمحبة) على زرع بذرة بغض غاصبي حقه في قلوب الأمة واعلموا أن الأمة جمعاء ستبلى بلعنة ونقمة شاملة لا يعلم ما وراءها إذا ظهر بين التولي والتبرئ تفاوت ما أو برز شيء من الفارق بينهما ولو بقدر مثقال ذرة

From here, those present in this gathering—they are from the ranks of the jurists or those seeking to be jurists—should be fully aware of their task after this. Indeed, your foundational task after this is summed up in two matters:

    • Planting the seed of ‘Ali’s love in the hearts.
    • We strive, with the same effort and amount, without a fingertip difference or inconsistency with the first matter (i.e. planting friendship and love) to plant the seed of hatred for the usurpers of his right in the hearts of the nation.

Know well that the entire nation will be afflicted with all-inclusive curse and misfortune, what is beyond it is unknown, if the slightest difference between association and dissociation becomes apparent or a difference between the two becomes clear, even to the extent of an atom.[66]

 

14. Contemporary[67] Shia Sheikh Abu ‘Ali al Asfahani[68]

He is from the contemporary scholars of the Shia who criticised, cursed, and excommunicated the Righteous Khalifas in many clear, atrocious, texts highlighting their reality, hidden from the minds of many of the Muslims. The reality is the Concept of Takfir is well-grounded in Shi’ism, deeply imbedded in their veins, without the slightest difference between their early and latter scholars. Read through a small amount of his declarations which he penned in his book Farhat al Zahra’:

a. He says:

 

إذن عدو أمير المؤمنين من؟ … ومثل هذا الشخص لا يكون غير الخبيثين الملعونين أبو بكر وعمر اللهم عذبهما عذابا يستغيث منه أهل النار

Who then is the enemy of Amir al Mu’minin? The like of this individual cannot be except the two wicked, accursed: Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. O Allah, punish them with such a punishment, from which the inmates of Hell will seek refuge.[69]

 

b. He writes under the heading: the disbelief of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar:

 

وأما مسألة إثبات كفرهما فهو من الأمور المسلمة المتضافرة في الروايات الكثيرة التي نذكر بعضا منها تبركا وتيمنا

The issue of establishing their disbelief is from the affairs that are well accepted, replete in abundant narrations, some of which we will mention for blessings and good fortune.[70]

 

c. He writes:

 

كما أن فرعون لم يؤمن بالله وعاش بالكفر والشرك وآذى حجة الله موسى عليه السلام وأتعبه لذا عذب الله فرعون وأنصاره وكذلك أبو بكر الملعون فهو لم يؤمن بالله وكان كافرا مشركا وآذى حجة الله أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام وأرهقه لذا فإن الله سوف يأخذه بأشد العذاب ومن يتبعه سوف يحشر معه وينال أشد العذاب

Just as Firoun did not believe in Allah, lived with disbelief and polytheism, and harmed and persecuted the Proof of Allah, Musa ‘alayh al Salam—that is why Allah punished Firoun and his helpers, similarly, Abu Bakr the accursed did not believe in Allah and was a disbeliever, polytheist, and he harmed and burdened the Proof of Allah, Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam. Thus, Allah will soon seize him with the severest of punishments and those who follow him will be resurrected with him and attain the severest punishment.[71]

 

d. He asserts:

 

أهل البيت عليهم السلام إضافة إلى لعنهم الأعداء خصوصا أبا بكر وعمر أمروا محبيهم وشيعتهم بالتبري منهم ونحن في عهدنا هذا نقطع بضرس قاطع أن إمام زماننا بقية الله الأعظم عجل الله فرجه الشريف يريدنا أن نعاديهما قلبا ولسانا

The Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam, coupled with their cursing of the enemies especially Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, commanded their lovers and partisans to dissociate from them. In this era of ours, we state unequivocally that the Imam of our time, the greatest remnant of Allah—may Allah hasten his noble emergence—wants us to hate them with heart and tongue.[72]

 

e. He affirms:

 

البراءة من أعداء أهل البيت عليهم السلام خصوصا أبا بكر وعمر ليس منحصرا بأهل هذا العالم بل كل العوالم الأخرى في الأرضين والسماوات يلعنون أعداء أهل البيت عليهم السلام فمن خلال الكثير من الروايات يعلم أن هناك موجودات أخر في سائر العوالم الأخرى لا عمل لها إلا لعن أولئك والتبري منهم

Dissociation from the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam, especially Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, is not confined to the inhabitants of this universe. Rather, all other inhabitants of the earths and heavens curse the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam. It is deduced from many narrations that there are other existences in all the other universes who have no other task except cursing and dissociating from these people.[73]

 

f. He writes:

 

ولا يخفى أن اللعن والتبري من أبي بكر وعمر منتشر في هذا العالم بحيث غير ذوي العقول وبعض الحيوانات أيضا يلعنونهما بلغتهم الخاصة ينفرون منهما بدرجة أن النفرة تبدو ظاهرة جلية

It is not hidden that cursing and dissociation from Abu Bakr and ‘Umar is widespread in this universe, in the sense that those without intelligence and some animals also curse them in their respective language, and hate them to the extent that hatred becomes apparent, manifest.[74]

 

g. He writes:

 

عائشة وحفصة مثل أبويهما كانتا موجودات خبيثة وسببتا كثيرا من الفتن والتي من جملتها إعطاء السم لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله … وعندما نقف أمام هذه النتيجة لا بد لنا من بغض هاتين الخبيثتين النجستين ولعنهما

Aisha and Hafsah are like their fathers. Both of them were wicked existences and they initiated plenty trials. Poisoning Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is one of these… When we reach this outcome, it is necessary for us to hate and curse these two wicked impure individuals.[75]

 

h. He says:

 

أن أبا بكر وعمر أصل الشرور وانتساب الشرور إليهما

Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are the basis of all evils. Attribution of evil is to them.[76]

 

i. He claims:

 

وأما بدع عمر وتشريعاته الضالة … وبالطبع إن فتن عمر لم تقتصر على ذلك فحسب بل بلغ من مساوئه ما ملأ الخافقين

With regards to ‘Umar’s innovations and deviate ordinances … Naturally, the trials of ‘Umar were not confined only to this. Rather, his evils reached a level that would fill the East and West.[77]

 

j. He writes under the heading: ‘Umar’s intense hatred for the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam:

 

أنه لا يوجد أحد أظلم من عمر فقد كان هذا اللعين يصب حقده وضغائنه على أهل البيت عليهم السلام أولا وبالذات على شيعتهم ومواليهم ثانيا بالتبع وقد طغت جسارة هذه اللعين على ذات الله عز وجل بحيث أن بدعه وفتنه الكثيرة سرت بين الناس مما أدى إلى انحرافهم عن المسيرة الصحيحة ووقوعهم في الضلال

No one more oppressive than ‘Umar can be found. This accursed individual would pour his malice and rancour on the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam firstly and mainly and on their partisans and supporters secondly. The audacity of this accursed man transgressed against the Being of Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—in the sense that his innovations and plenty tribulations spread among people which led them off the correct path into deviation.[78]

 

k. He writes:

 

حب أبي بكر وعمر وكل من تبعهما عقوبته كبيرة جدا … فأي شخص عنده حبهما ولو كان في أي منصب ولو كان المريد لهما ملك إلهي مقرب أو لا فسوف يكون موردا للغضب الإلهي سوف يعذب في يوم الحساب بأشد العذاب

The punishment for loving Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and all those who follow them is extremely grave. Whichever individual has love for them, no matter what position he is at and even if the one who desires them is a divine close angel or not, he will soon become the target of divine wrath; soon will he be punished on the Day of Reckoning with the severest punishment.[79]

 

l. He supposes:

 

وعمر في نظر أهل كاشان مثل أبي بكر في نظر أهل سبزوار حقير لا اعتبار له

‘Umar in the eyes of the people of Kashan is like Abu Bakr in the sight of the people of Sabzwar— ignoble, no consideration is given to him.[80]

 

m. He believes:

 

أبو بكر وعمر في النار

Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are in Hell.[81]

 

n. He devotes an entire discussion exclusively to the killing of ‘Umar in which he praises his killer, Abu Lu’lu’ah al Majusi:

 

فيا ترى من هو أبو لؤلؤة أبو لؤلؤة رجل من إيران واسمه فارسي (فيروز) كان من عظماء المسلمين والمجاهدين بل من الشيعة المخلصين لأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام لقد حاز هذا الرجل العظيم على السعادة الكبرى إذ أن دعاء الصديقة الزهراء عليها السلام وأراح البشرية من شره وبلائه … ونحن بعد هذه السنين الطوال نقول قولا صادقا رحمك الله تعالى يا أبا لؤلؤة فقد أدخلت البهجة على قلوب أولاد الزهراء المحزونة … والمأمول من شيعة أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام أن يزوروا صاحب ذلك المرقد المملوء بالصفاء في كاشان رحمة الله عليه

Oh! Do you know who is Abu Lu’lu’ah? Abu Lu’lu’ah is a man from Iran. His name is Persian (Fayruz). He was among the grand Muslims and warriors. In fact, from the sincere partisans of Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam. This great man stumbled upon the greatest fortune, for the du’a’ of al Siddiqah al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam was accepted at his blessed hands. He killed the killer of al Zahra’ ‘alayha al Salam and brought comfort to the humans from his evil and calamity. We, after all these long years, assert truthfully: May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala have mercy upon you, O Abu Lu’lu’ah, for you have placed happiness in the hearts of the grieved al Zahra’s children. It is hoped from the partisans of Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam to visit the inmate of that resting place filled with purity in Kashan, may Allah’s mercy be upon him.[82]

 

 

 


[1] I refrained from mentioning the biographies of the Shia authorities and experts from whom I quoted cursing and excommunicating the Righteous Khalifas in this treatise fearing prolongation. One who wishes may consult our source treatise, with the title: Mawqif al Shia al Imamiyyah min Baqi Firaq al Muslimin.

[2] He intends those who preceded ‘Ali (in the position of Caliphate viz. Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman.)

[3] Al Mufid: Awa’il al Maqalat, pg. 41, 42.

[4] Al Mufid: Awa’il al Maqalat, pg. 44.

[5] Al Sirat al Mustaqim, vol. 3 pg. 28 onwards.

[6] Al Sirat al Mustaqim, vol. 3 pg. 28.

[7] Al Sirat al Mustaqim, vol. 3 pg. 30.

[8] Al Sirat al Mustaqim, vol. 3 pg. 30.

[9] This book Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut from which I quoted the first five statements is a manuscript in Da’irat al Athar wa al Turath in Baghdad. I have relied on it in referencing the page numbers found in it, and not on the printed copy as the latter was not available to me.

[10] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 12.

[11] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 5.

[12] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 82.

[13] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 85.

[14] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 86.

[15] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 105.

[16] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 113.

[17] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 135.

[18] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 162.

[19] I.e. Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

[20] I.e. The Ahlus Sunnah with all their various sects and schools of thought.

[21] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 191.

[22] Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 192.

[23] Rasa’il al Karki, vol. 2 pg. 226 – 227.

[24] Rasa’il al Karki, vol. 1 pg. 62.

[25] Kitab al Arba’in fi Imamat al A’immah al Tahirin, pg. 140.

[26] Kitab al Arba’in fi Imamat al A’immah al Tahirin, pg. 579.

[27] Surah al Baqarah: 124.

[28] Surah Hud: 113.

[29] Surah al Hujurat: 6.

[30] He accuses all the Ahlus Sunnah of being Nawasib and that our leader in this is Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. May Allah deal with him befittingly.

[31] Kitab al Arba’in fi Imamat al A’immah al Tahirin, pg. 509 – 510.

[32] Kitab al Arba’in fi Imamat al A’immah al Tahirin, pg. 533 – 534.

[33] The copy from which I quoted the texts is a manuscript in Da’irat al Athar wa al Turath in Baghdad, number 27099. The reason I quoted it from there is that when I checked the printed copy, I found that they deleted the texts containing clear cursing.

[34] Mir’at al ‘Uqul, Hadith: 27099.

[35] Mir’at al ‘Uqul, vol. 25 pg. 125.

[36] Bihar al Anwar, vol. 30 pg. 399.

[37] Al ‘Aqa’id, 17.

[38] Bihar al Anwar, vol. 31 pg. 313.

[39] Al Sawarim al Muhriqah, pg. 35 – 36.

[40] Al Sawarim al Muhriqah, pg. 40.

[41] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 2 pg. 111.

[42] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 1 pg. 53.

[43] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 1 pg. 116.

[44] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 2 pg. 278.

[45] Al Shihab al Thaqib, pg. 232.

[46] Al Shihab al Thaqib, pg. 251.

[47] Al Muraja’at, Letter: 64. Translation taken from Al Muraja’at: A Shi’i-Sunni dialogue, translated by Yasin T. al Jibouri.

[48] Surah al Nisa’: 74.

[49] Al Muraja’at, Letter: 84.

[50] Yes, what ‘Abdul Hussain hints to (describing the Sahabah as cunning thieves), al Mazindarani emphatically declares in his commentary on Usul al Kafi, vol. 5 pg. 112. He says:

 

فقلدها صلى الله عليه وسلم عليا أي الخلافة بأمر الله تعالى فصارت في ذريته الأصفياء الأتقياء البررة الكرماء الذي هم أولو الأمر كما قال تعالى يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِيْنَ آمَنُوا أَطِيْعُوا اللهَ وَأَطِيْعُوا الرَّسُوْلَ وَأُولِي الْأَمْرِ مِنْكُمْ ثم طائفة من اللصوص المتغلبة الذين نشأت عقولهم وعظامهم ولحومهم في عبادة الأوثان غصبوها من أهل الصفوة فضلوا وأضلوا كثيرا

He garlanded ‘Ali with Caliphate by the command of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. It thus remained in his progeny—the pure, godly, pious, devout who are the men of authority as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala declared, O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. [Surah al Nisa’: 59] Then, a bunch of overpowering thieves whose brains, bones, and flesh were nurtured in worshipping idols usurped it from the men of excellence. They went astray and led many astray.

 

[51] Al Muraja’at, Letter: 84.

[52] Surah al Fath: 18.

[53] Ihya’ al Shari’ah, vol. 1 pg. 86.

[54] Fadak fi al Tarikh, pg. 127.

[55] We do not know! Was al Siddiq’s happiness in the company of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the Cave journey due to the abounding of the assumed reason (i.e. it being the furthest station from danger!!!) They are the worst creatures in the sight of Allah

[56] Fadak fi al Tarikh, pg. 128.

[57] With the esteemed Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

[58] Fadak fi al Tarikh, pg. 125.

[59] He does not stop here in slandering al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He transgresses further to defame the image of the senior Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum of them being sell-outs who sold their din and supported falsehood for a few pennies. To Allah do we belong and to Him is our return.

[60] Fadak fi al Tarikh, pg. 89.

[61] Fadak fi al Tarikh, pg. 138.

[62] Fadak fi al Tarikh, pg. 186.

[63] One of the most prominent Maraji’ (religious authorities) of the Shia and the leader of their new state (Republic of the Shia Imamiyyah Iran). I have written extensively on his stance on the Ahlus Sunnah in my book Mawqif al Shia al Imamiyyah and I have an intention to write on his stance exclusively in a short booklet with the title: Hadha huwa al Tashayyu’ bi Lisan al Khumayni.

[64] Kashf al Asrar, pg. 113.

[65] He is one of the adherents to the Khomeini Thought, adhering religiously to his texts.

[66] Muqtatafat Wala’iyyah, pg. 79 – 80.

[67] After al Asfahani completed writing the foreword to his book, he documented the date it was written on, the year 1418 AH i.e. approximately 1998. This is an important point, clarifying to the reader that the author is from the contemporaries.

[68] I turned the attention of the reader to him being among the contemporary scholars so that it becomes certain that the concept of Takfir is not restricted to the early scholars like al Mufid, al Majlisi, al Karki, al Jaza’iri, and al Bahrani. Rather, it is a firmly imbedded belief of all their scholars, with differences in expressing it either clearly or dubiously—according to the demand of Taqiyyah so that the Ahlus Sunnah do not pounce upon them. This is one of their contemporary scholars—who is alive till now, and Allah knows best—who unequivocally states his concept of Takfir in the most expressive ways by swearing and cursing the best of humans after the Prophets, the two khalifahs of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

[69] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 9 – 10.

[70] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 33.

[71] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 34.

[72] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 64.

[73] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 70.

[74] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 71.

[75] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 98 – 99.

[76] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 101.

[77] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 105 – 106.

[78] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 115.

[79] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 119.

[80] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 125.

[81] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 137.

[82] Farhat al Zahra’, pg. 123 – 125.