Chapter 2 – Study of the Beliefs of the Shia – Section 1: Past and present beliefs of the Shia,

Section 4 – Iran in the Era of the Pahlavi (Bahlawi) Family

September 25, 2025

Section 2 – Khomeini between Extremism and Moderation

September 26, 2025

Table of Contents

▲

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

Chapter 2 Study of the Beliefs of the Shia

In this chapter, we will study the beliefs of the Shia as follows:

Section 1: Past and present beliefs of the Shia,
Section 2: Khomeini between extremism and moderation.

Section 1 Past and Present Beliefs of the Shia

Glimpses into the Iranian Revolution and the stance adopted by the Muslims
Our differences with the Shia in the principles as well as secondary aspects of creed
What the scholars of al Jarh wa al Ta’dil have said regarding the Shia
The Shia of today pose a greater danger to Islam than the Shia of the past
Khomeini, the leader of the Shia, a zealot in his creed

Glimpses into the Iranian Revolution and the stance adopted by the Muslims

Glory be to You, my Lord. You honour whomsoever You wish and disgrace whomsoever You wish. You have full control of Your bondsmen. Nothing escapes You. When You intend a matter, You say, “Be,” and it is.

Yesterday, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi was egotistical, making headway into developing nuclear weapons and planning to establish a military presence in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. The Shah put his faith in his army, who possessed the latest weaponry of the era, and in his intelligence service—the SAVAK—who had advanced spyware. Members of the intelligence service were placed in every city, town, and Iranian institution.

In the outer rim, the Shah relied on his ally, the United States, who were industrious in plotting schemes which solved the Shah’s issues with his neighbours, thus securing him from them and them from him. He was therefore under the impression that his road in restoring the splendour of Khosrow I Anushirvan had been paved for him.

Peril struck from an avenue he did not consider; the Iranian streets had blown up after the events that occurred in Tabriz and Isfahan six months prior.^[1] Protests spread across the cities and despite divisions among different groups; they were united in sentiment. A single slogan resounded everywhere, “Remove the autocracy, and establish democracy.”

The citizens paid no heed to the Shah and his monarchy. They turned their attention to Khomeini, who was at the time residing in France.

The tyrant of Tehran thought that it would be easy to put an end to the protests, so he resorted at times to enticement and at other times to intimidation. He even brought people from his inner circle to trial on charges of corruption, and he promised to hold elections to institute a democracy. Yet, none of this availed him anything.

Then martial law was declared, and the authorities resorted to methods of violence, repression, and coercion. But this only strengthened the resolve of the opposition, making them more defiant, obstinate, and resistant; creating a greater threat to him. His advisors began suggesting of possible recourse to India and of establishing a guardian council to administer the nations matters.

At this point, people started looking towards Khomeini, who began talking of an Islamic Republic and its merits in various fields. He spoke of its possible relationship with other great nations and those that neighboured Iran. His advisors convened seminars and plainly outlined the blueprint, which spread over 200 pages, they had devised to govern Iran.

Such dialogue no doubt attracted the attention of international media corporations. This was because the land of Iran had been blessed with certain specialities. It held a strategic location in international waters and it neighboured superpowers; the Soviet Union to the north and the Gulf States together with Iraq to the west. It was also a global figure in oil production and export, which was of vital interest to America, the West, and the Jews. This is why several accords were in place between Iran and these nations.

These protests occurred after the Afghan coup d’état, after the events in the horn of Africa, and after the fighting that had erupted between the North and South of Yemen.

The Shah had warm relations with the Zionist regime and therefore the keen attention of the world to the happenings of Iran was no surprise.

For more than six months, the events of Iranians continued to make headlines in the majority of the global press. An outline of what was said can be summarised in the following points:

Imam Ruhollah Khomeini is the leader of an Islamic Revolution. Interviews were conducted with him which spoke of his piety and abstinence, that he intends to establish Islamic rule, and that he will not assume power alone if his revolution succeeds. The Shia covered their Khomeini with an aura of greatness and attributed miracles and supernatural occurrences to him.
The Islamic Revolution in Iran is an extension of the Islamic Brotherhood movement in Arab lands, the Mawdudi and Jamaat-e-Islami movement in Pakistan and India, and the Islamic movement in Indonesia.
Islamic movements have adopted violence and the global media houses have taken an alarmist stance, inciting fear and warning of the dangers they pose.
The media also assumed that contemporary Islamic groups were incapable of governing, regarding them to be right-wing factions drawing on Islamist theory.

The falsities of the media seeped into the minds of the general Muslim populace. They were influenced by what had been said regarding Khomeini and his name became synonymous with the greats of the Ahlus Sunnah in the modern era.

The ideas perpetuated by Muslims regarding Khomeini and his acts pained us. We waited for the Islamic media to issue a statement refuting the falsities of the national and international media; however, our hopes faded when the 30^th issue of the Majallat al Da’wah al Qahirah was published in the beginning of Dhu al Hijjah 1398 AH. We were shocked by what it said regarding Khomeini and his advances.

It spoke of the Shia in Iran from 1954 just as it spoke of the Muslim Brotherhood. When it mentioned Khomeini, it read, ‘al Imam Ruh Allah Khomeini’ and claimed that behind the Shah’s media attack on Khomeini were the Jews and Baha’is.

In response to the Shah’s accusation of the demonstrators being Marxist and others, the magazine stated, “However, events have proven that the movement is carried out by a Muslim people preserving their identity and striving to return to their origins.” It added, “Do Khomeini’s calls to the Iranian people to cling to their Islam and to fight foreign influence, along with his invitation to intellectuals and Muslim scholars to defend their religion and to work on destroying the foundations of tyranny and oppression, align with Marxism?”

It then sought to connect the Shia uprising to the actions of the Ahlus Sunnah by stating:

They say it is dark Marxist forces or Marxian Muslims… and this is not surprising as Islam was viewed by the Indonesian Suharto as an extremist ideology which the law should punish. Further, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt 1954-1965 were accused of cooperating with the British, Communists, Zionists, America, and other such elements. It, however, brought on governance systems in our Muslim world together with its media, politics, and orientations.^[2]

May Allah guide those of al Da’wah. How was it possible for the Jews and the Baha’is to be behind the bad state press against Khomeini? Anyone with some sense will know that the Jews were part of the initial Shia movement, ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’^[3]—and continue to be so—whilst the Baha’is are a sect borne of the extremist Shia.

How did those at al Da’wah connect the Shia to the actions of the Ahlus Sunnah, whereas it is clear as day that whenever a branch of disbelief emerged in our Muslim World, it grew from the ideologies of Shi’ism?

What evidence did those at al Da’wah rely on when reporting that the Khomeini movement was upheld by the Muslim population in order to preserve his identity?

After al Da’wah, we received al Ra’id, published in Aachen, German. We found it to have taken a keen interest in the Shia revolution. Notably, some of its readers were opposed to such a notion of confidence in the Shia, and so the magazine refuted them saying:

We once again affirm here our stance with the Muslim warriors in Iran who are fighting against the Shah and his corrupt system as well as against the worship of America and the West. We call upon the Muslims in every area to adopt this stance and pursue it. At our paper al Ra’id, we present greetings of all the Islamic vanguards to those fighting there.^[4]

In the same edition, it spoke of Iran at three other places. If it points to anything, it points to al Ra’id having placed high hopes in the Khomeini movement.

The opinion of al Ra’id regarding the Shah of Iran is true. As for them calling the Shias warriors, it is an opinion we shall expand on further.

The admirers of both magazines, al Da’wah and al Ra’id, took to the views published with acceptance and appreciation. This became the de-facto political view of many Muslims who did not worry themselves to study the Shia creed. It is quite evident that al Da’wah and al Ra’id furthered the Shia uprising. The result of this is that one young lecturer climbed the pulpit of a grand Masjid in one of the Gulf states and addressed the Sunni congregation:

Fear Allah regarding our Shia brothers. Probably, the return of the Islamic Caliphate will be at their hands. I do not know why some inflate our dispute with them whereas it does not transgress secondary aspects of the religion. Our dispute with them is over making masah over leather socks and Mut’ah marriage. And we will not fail to advise them and explain their mistakes with wisdom and good counsel.

Based on the above-mentioned factors, we deem it necessary to pen down the following in the paragraphs below:

Our differences with the Shia in the principle as well as secondary aspects of creed.
What the scholars of al Jarh wa al Ta’dil have said regarding the Shia.
The Shia of today pose a greater danger to Islam than the Shia of the past.
The opinion of contemporary scholars.

We will ensure that our discussion is based on evidence. Further, the subject of our discussion is the Imami Jafari Shia to whom Khomeini and his supporters affiliate themselves. As for the other fringe groups, our stance regarding them will be penned in another discussion. Error is from us while ability and correctness is by the grace of Allah.

Our Lord, let not our hearts deviate after You have guided us and grant us from Yourself mercy. Indeed, You are the Bestower.^[5]

Our differences with the Shia in the principles as well as secondary aspects of creed

Unity of the Muslim Ummah is the ultimate goal of every Muslim:

ﮮ ﮯ ﮰ ﮱ ﯓ ﯔ ﯕ ﯖ

And indeed this, your religion, is one religion, and I am your Lord, so fear Me.^[6]

The Ahlus Sunnah have made tireless efforts in order to achieve this unity. Consider the fact that they seek closeness to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala through loving the Ahlul Bayt, consider ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu more virtuous than Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Hussain more virtuous than Yazid, and believe that the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are all ‘udul (integrous) and therefore it is not permissible to doubt them or attack their honour.

If the differences with the Shia were solely based on the conflict of ‘Ali and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, a resolve would have been simpler. However, the reality is far more grave as will be outlined below. Hereunder is a summary of the points of differences:

1. The Qur’an

We differ with the Shia regarding the Qur’an. One of the senior scholars of Najaf, al Hajj Mirza ibn Muhammad Taqi al Nuri al Tabarsi, authored a book titled Fasl al Khitab fi Ithbat Tahrif Kitab Rabb al Arbab (The definitive conclusion in proving the distortion of the book of the absolute Lord of the lords). In this book, he gathered the statements of the Shia of various eras that depict their belief regarding the distortion of the Qur’an; namely, that additions have been made to it and some portions deleted. This book was published in Iran in 1289 AH.

In their book, al Kafi, the following is related from Abu Basir:

دخلت على أبي عبد الله إلى أن قال أبو عبد الله أي جعفر الصادق وإن عندنا لمصحف فاطمة عليها السلام قال وما مصحف فاطمة قال مصحف فيه مثل قرآنكم هذا ثلاث مرات والله ما فيه من قرآنكم حرف واحد

I went to visit Abu ‘Abdullah… Abu ‘Abdullah [Jafar al Sadiq] said, “And we possess the mushaf of Fatimah ‘alayha al Salam.”

The narrator says that he asked, “What is the mushaf of Fatimah?”

He replied, “A mushaf wherein there is thrice the amount of what is in your Qur’an but it does not have a single letter that appears in your Qur’an.”^[7]

Some people argue that these are the old opinions of the Shia and we do not believe that they hold these today, especially since their recent books deny these opinions and emphasise that the Qur’an is free from addition and subtraction.

We argue that the Shia of today ascribe to these beliefs and views, especially since they have published books that reaffirm these. In 1394 AH, a book was published by one of their scholars in Kuwait which he named, al Din Bayn al Sa’il wa al Mujib. Mirza Hasan al Ha’iri, the author, poses the following question and answer on page 89 of his book:

المعروف أن القرآن الكريم قد نزل على رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على شكل آیات مفردة فكيف جمعت سور ومن أول من جمع القرآن وهل القرآن الذي نقرأه اليوم يحوي كل الآيات التي نزلت على الرسول الأكرم محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم أم أن هناك زيادة ونقصانا.. وماذا عن مصحف فاطمة الزهراء عليها السلام؟

نعم إن القرآن نزل من عند الله تبارك وتعالى على رسول الله محمد بن عبد الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم في23 سنة يعني من أول بعثته إلى حين وفاته فأول من جمعه وجعله بين دفتين كتابا هو أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وورث هذا القرآن إمام بعد إمام من أبنائه المعصومين عليهم السلام وسوف يظهره الإمام المنتظر المهدي إذا ظهر عجل الله فرجه وسهل مخرجه ثم جمعه عثمان في زمان خلافته وهذا هو الذي جمعه من صدور الأصحاب أو مما كتبوا وهو الذي بين أيدينا والأصحاب هم الذين سمعوا الأيات والسور من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأما مصحف فاطمة فهو مثل القرآن ثلاث مرات وهو شيء أملاه الله وأوحاه إليها

Question:

It is well known that the Noble Qur’an was revealed to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the form of separate verses, so how were the chapters gathered and who was the first to gather the Qur’an? Does the Qur’an we recite today include all the verses revealed to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, or are there some additions and deletions? And what is the reality of the mushaf of Fatimah al Zahra’ radiya Llahu ‘anha?

Answer:

Yes, the Qur’an was revealed from Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala upon Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam over a period of 23 years, i.e. from the beginning of prophethood to his passing. The first to gather it and compile it in book form was Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam. The infallible Imams from his progeny inherited this Qur’an one after another. Soon the awaited al Imam al Mahdi will display it when he shows himself, may Allah quicken and ease his coming. Then ‘Uthman gathered it during his reign of Caliphate relying on the memory of the Sahabah and that which was written down. This is the copy of the Qur’an that we have today. The Sahabah were the ones who heard the verses and chapters from Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. As for the mushaf of Fatimah, it is three times the size of the Qur’an, and it was dictated to her and revealed to her by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.^[8]

This book was published in Kuwait 5 years ago and we have not heard of a single scholar of theirs refuting al Ha’iri, indicating their tacit approval. Al Ha’iri promoted his book in a city whose residents are known to be part of the Ahlus Sunnah. The question then is, who are the ones causing dissention and lighting the fire of fitnah? Without doubt, it is al Ha’iri and his people.

Those amongst them who nowadays state that the Qur’an is free from distortion [we believe] are observing Taqiyyah. This is quite evident as they all form a consensus on the treachery of the Sahabah. How can one believe in the veracity of the Qur’an if they believe that those who compiled it are untrustworthy? How can we attest to their statements when on the other hand they ardently proclaim prayers of mercy when mentioning the names of al Tabarsi and al Kulayni, whereas they are disbelievers by the consensus of the Muslims?

If we hypothetically agree that they do believe in the Qur’an, their belief is superficial, as they interpret the Qur’an according to their own desires, in ways the Shari’ah does not recognise and is not supported by any proof. Consider the following examples:

1. Under the commentary of the verse:

ﯾ ﯿ ﰀ ﰁ ﰂ ﰃ ﰄ ﰆ ﰇ ﰈ ﰉ

Then Adam received from his Lord [some] words, and He accepted his repentance. Indeed, it is He who is the Acceptor of repentance, the Merciful.^[9]

They state:

سئل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الكلمات التي تلقاها آدم عليه السلام من ربه فتاب عليه قال قد سأله بحق محمد وعلي وفاطمة والحسين إلا تبت فتاب عليه

The Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was asked regarding the words received by Adam ‘alayh al Salam from his Lord by which He accepted his repentance.

He said, “He asked Him by virtue of Muhammad, ‘Ali, Fatimah, and Hussain for forgiveness and was forgiven.”^[10]

2. Under the commentary of the verse:

ﮏ ﮐ ﮑﮒ ﮓ ﮔ ﮕ ﮖ ﮗ

Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree.^[11]

Although they claim that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are from the participants in the Pledge of al Ridwan—regarding whom divine pleasure is emphatic—they believe that they are not included in the divine pleasure as the verse only includes pleasure with the sincere believers, and not every individual who participated in the Pledge.^[12]

3. Under the commentary of the verse:

ﭺﭻ ﭼ ﭽ ﭾ ﭿ ﮀ ﮁ ﮃ ﮄ ﮅ ﮆ ﮇ ﮈ ﮊﮋ ﮌ ﮍ ﮏ ﮐ ﮑ گ ﮓ ﮔ

O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people.^[13]

It appears in Tafsir al Tha’labi that when this verse was revealed, the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam held ‘Ali’s hand and announced, “Whoever’s mawla I am, ‘Ali is his mawla.” The Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is the mawla of Abu Bakr and the Sahabah by consensus, so ‘Ali is their mawla, making him their Imam. Al Tha’labi then cites a narration that al Harith ibn al No’man al Fihri came to the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and questioned him about ‘Ali’s Wilayah, to which the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam replied, “Yes, by Allah, it is from Allah’s command.” When al Harith left, without believing in this report, Allah threw a stone upon him which hit his head and came out from his rear, killing him.^[14]

In the Shia’s commentary of these verses, they do not rely on any academic proof. Rather, they cite odd, fabricated reports. The most sound of these reports is a fabrication quoted by Abu Nuaim in al Hilyah and al Tha’labi in his Tafsir. While commenting on these verses, they deny iman for the Companions of the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and fall into the abyss of shirk.

The summary is that some of them think that they believe in the Glorious Qur’an; however, they fail to understand its meaning and commentary. Hence, they lie against Allah and His trustworthy messenger and declare such views that are contrary to the fundamentals of Islam and the consensus of the Muslims. Their belief in the Qur’an from another angle is not different from the belief of the Mu’tazilah. They believe that the Qur’an is created and not eternal.

2. The Sunnah

We differ with the Rawafid in this second principle of the Islamic creed, the Sunnah. The Shia do not believe in the ahadith recorded in Sahih al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, the Masanid, and Sunan. When they approach the general masses of the Ahlus Sunnah, they begin by questioning the reliability of Sahih al Bukhari first and then the reliability of the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam after that.

The Shia are ignorant of the sciences of Hadith. Only a little is taught in their universities. When you ask them of the chain of narration of any hadith, they will attribute it to al Hussain, Muhammad al Baqir, Musa al Kazim, or another Imam, without any academic evidence to support them.

The ‘Ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah combed through the ahadith of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and sifted the fabrications and weak from the sound. They established the science of al Jarh wa al Ta’dil. The science of principles of Hadith remains a formidable peak, leaving the scholars of the world humbled before it.

If the Shia were to have it their way with the Sunnah, the loss to the Muslims will be immeasurable. It is solely through the Sunnah that we have understood the Noble Qur’an; it is through the Sunnah that we have learnt the method and injunctions of Salah, Zakat, Sawm, and Hajj. The destruction of the Sunnah is the destruction of the entire Din.

The Rawafid only cite the narrations of al Bukhari and Muslim to serve their own purposes. They will narrate from these books if they believe a narration is in line with their cause against the Ahlus Sunnah or it coincides with a narration from their books.

Since we differ with the Shia in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, it is quite evident that we would differ with them on the issues of Ijma’ and Qiyas.

3. Imamah

The Shia believe in the infallibility of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the eleven Imams from his progeny—from the sons of al Hussain. They regard them to be more virtuous than all the Prophets besides the seal of the Prophets, Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They believe that they never err, they know the unseen, and they do not die except at their will.

They believe that their twelfth Imam, their Awaited Mahdi, is alive now. When he emerges, Allah will give life to all the Muslim leaders for him and his forefathers and judge them before taking vengeance from them. He will order the killing of 500 of them at once until he completes the killing of 3000 rulers of the various eras of Islam. This will happen in the world before the final Resurrection on the Day of Judgement. They term this as al Raj’ah (the Return).

4. Apostasy of the Sahabah

The Shia hold the view that all the Sahabah turned apostate expect for five; ‘Ali, al Miqdad, Salman al Farisi, Abu Dharr, and ‘Ammar ibn Yasir. When they speak of:

الجبت والطاغوت

Superstition and false objects.

they refer to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.^[15]

Some of them observe Taqiyyah when mentioning the Sahabah. They record in these very books that the Sahabah failed to fulfil the Messenger’s salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam bequest to appoint ‘Ali and his infallible offspring as rulers after him. In this manner, they accuse the Sahabah of treachery and they lie against the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

When the fundamentals of our religion have reached us through these Sahabah, this creates doubt about the entire Din, as we highlighted before.

5. Taqiyyah

The Shia believe in the doctrine of Taqiyyah (subterfuge). They attribute the following statement to Jafar al Sadiq:

التقية دیني ودين آبائي

Taqiyyah is my doctrine and the doctrine of my forefathers.^[16]

When one asks them the reason behind ‘Ali pledging allegiance to the Khalifas before him and marrying his and Fatimah’s daughter [Umm Kulthum] to ‘Umar? They reply by saying, “Taqiyyah.” Such heinous character cannot be attributed to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He was a brave soul who did not fear anything or anyone besides Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.

The doctrine of Taqiyyah is a scourge against the Muslims. It was a crutch of the Batiniyyah sect; a branch of the Shia like the Qaramitah, Zanadiqah, Nusayris, and Druze.

They observed Taqiyyah in their collusion with disbelieving rulers to usurp Muslim lands, spill their blood, loot their wealth, and violate their honour while pretending to be loyal to the Sunni Muslims. According to them, Taqiyyah means to lie and to reveal contrary to what one conceals.

6. Glorifying graves and shrines

The Shia travel to the battlefields and graves at Karbala’ and Najaf. They circumambulate these graves, offer animal sacrifices there, and supplicate to the inmates of these graves for matters over which only Allah has power.

Al Mufid, one of their scholars, has authored a book titled Manasik Hajj al Mashahid.^[17] Muhibb al Din al Khatib says:

I once read on the 10^th of Muharram in the Thursday edition of their Iranian newspaper Barjam al Islam published by ‘Abdul Karim Shirazi. I saw in this edition some Arabic couplets; the opening lines of the poem were as follows:

فما لمكة معنى مثل معناها	هي الطفوف فطف سبعا بمغناها
دانت وطاطأ أعلاها لأدناها	أرض ولكنما السبع الشداد لها

It is Karbala’: circumambulate its treasures seven times.

For Makkah itself has not what this place has.

Earth it is, but before it the seven heavens submit,

Bringing their highest level on par with their lowest.^[18]

Bear in mind that these graves they sing of and travel to have no legitimacy. They revere these places and graves, build golden domes atop them, and spend millions on them. It is as though their only effort is to turn people away from monotheism.

7. Mut’ah

Mut’ah is the permissibility of union between a man and a woman for a stipulated period of time and for a stipulated amount of money after which there is separation without any right of inheritance to either party.

Mut’ah was permitted in the early stages of Jihad and was thereafter abrogated by irrefutable proofs, amongst them the narration of Salamah ibn al Akwa’ recorded by Muslim and the narration of ‘Ali recorded by al Bukhari and Muslim.

These are some of the points of differences between us and the Shia. We have not looked at our differences with them in all matters, like Bada’, Allah’s Being and Qualities, destiny, and the various aspects of worship. We have simply surveyed a small sample of our differences with them which should be sufficient for our brothers of the Ahlus Sunnah who hold them in high esteem and consider our differences with them to be in the secondary matters of faith and not in the primary matters of creed.

What the Scholars of al Jarh wa al Ta’dil have said regarding the Shia

Our contention with the Shia began halfway through the 1st century Hijri. Our pious predecessors had several encounters with the founders of the Shia creed.

Imam Malik rahimahu Llah was asked about the Shia. He said:

لا تكلمهم ولا ترو عنهم فإنهم يكذبون

Do not speak with them and do not narrate from them as they are liars.^[19]

Imam al Shafi’i rahimahu Llah said:

ما رأيت في أهل الأهواء قوما أشد بالزور من الرافضة

I have not seen amongst the innovators a people more dishonest than the Rafidah^[20].^[21]

Sharik ibn ‘Abdullah al Qadi, who was known for moderate Tashayyu’, stated:

احمل عن كل من لقيت إلا الرافضة فإنهم يضعون الحديث ويتخذونه دينا

Learn from whomever you meet, besides the Rawafid as they fabricate Hadith and adopt this as religion.^[22]

Hammad ibn Salamah rahimahu Llah said:

حدثني شيخ لهم يعني الرافضة قال كنا اذا اجتمعنا فاستحسنا شيئا جعلناه حديثا

One of the Rafidah leaders said to me, “When we converge and take a liking to something, we transmit it as a hadith.”^[23]

Yazid ibn Harun affirmed:

يكتب عن كل مبتدع إلا الرافضة فإنهم يكذبون

Hadith will be written from every innovator besides the Rafidah as they lie.^[24]

Al A’mash declared:

أدركت الناس وما يسمونهم إلا الكذابين

I found the people [scholars] calling them liars.

The scholars are unanimous that lying is much more common and normalised amongst the Shia compared to any other sect. This is established in the books of Yahya ibn Sa’id al Qattan, ‘Ali ibn al Madini, Yahya ibn Ma’in, al Bukhari, Abu Zur’ah, Abu Hatim al Razi, al Nasa’i, Ibn Hibban, Abu Ahmed ibn ‘Adi, al Daraqutni, al Juzajani, al Fasawi, al ‘Ijli, al ‘Uqayli, al Mawsili, al Hakim al Naysaburi, al Hafiz ibn ‘Abdul Ghani, and other similar master critics.^[25]

Ibn al Mubarak rahimahu Llah observes:

الدين لأهل الحديث والكلام والحيل لأهل الرأي والكذب للرافضة

Din is the salient feature of the masters of Hadith, arguing and cunningness is the salient feature of the Ahl al Ra’y, and lying is the salient feature of the Rafidah.^[26]

Many of the early scholars and hadith masters took to refuting the Shia falsities and uncovering their lies. Amongst them was Ibn Taymiyyah in al Minhaj, al Dhahabi in al Muntaqa, Ibn al Qayyim in most of his works, Ibn Kathir in his Tarikh, Abu Bakr al Baqillani, Muhammad ibn Malik, al Hammad al Yamani, al Baghdadi in al Farq Bayn al Firaq, Ibn al Jawzi, al Qadi Ibn al ‘Arabi, and Ibn Hazm in al Fasl.

The books of history are filled with evidence that proves the treachery of the Shia, their baiting ‘Ali, and disgracing al Hussain ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.

‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu once addressed them:

يا أشباه الرجال ولارجال حلوم الأطفال وعقول وربات الحجال لوددت أني لم أركم ولم أعرفكم معرفة والله جرأت ندما وأعقبت سدما قاتلكم الله لقد ملأتم قلبي قيحا وشحنتم صدري غيظا وجرعتموني نغب التهمام أنفاسا وأفسدتم علي رأيي بالعصيان والخذلان

O those who resemble men but are not really men! Your intelligence is that of children and your wit is that of the occupants of the curtained canopies (women kept in seclusion from the outside world). I hoped I had not seen you and I had not known you. Your acquaintance has brought regret and followed it up with grief.

Indeed, you have filled my heart with pus, and filled my chest with anger, and made me swallow gulps of grief, and you have spoiled my opinion through your disobedience and disgrace.^[27]

Al Kulayni reports from Abu al Hasan Musa:

لو ميزت شيعتي ما وجدتهم إلا واصفة ولو امتحنتهم لما وجدتهم إلا مرتدين

If you were to distinguish my followers, you would find them nothing but hypocrites, and if you were to test them, you would find them nothing but apostates.^[28]

Al Hasan ibn ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhuma mentioned regarding his partisans:

أرى والله معاوية خيرا لي من هؤلاء يزعمون أنهم لي شيعة وقد ابتغوا قتلي وأخذوا مالي

By Allah, I believe that Muawiyah is better for me than these people who claim to be my Shia (partisans) whereas they tried to kill me and loot my wealth.^[29]

His brother al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu told them when they gathered against him instead of supporting him after inviting him to Kufah and pledging allegiance to Muslim ibn ‘Aqil as his representative:

تبا لكم أيتها الجماعة وترحا وبؤسا لكم وتعسًا حين استصرختمونا والهين فأصرخناكم موجفين فشحذتم علينا سيفًا كان في أيدينا وحششتم علينا نارًا أضرمناها على عدوكم وعدونا فأصبحتم ألبًا على أوليائكم ويدًا على أعدائكم، من غير عدل أفشوه فيكم ولا أمل أصبح لكم فيهم ولا ذنب كان منا فيكم فهلا لكم الويلات إذ كرهتمونا والسيف مشيم والجأش طامن والرأي مستخصف ولكنكم استسرعتم إلى بيعتنا كطيرة الدبا وتهافتم إليها كتهافت الفراش ثم نقضتموها سفهًا وضلة، بعدًا وسحقًا لطواغيت هذه الأمة

Woe to you, O assembly! Woe and misery upon you! Woe when you called upon us and we responded to you, you turned a sword against us, and you ignited a fire against us, which we kindled against your enemy and our enemy. You have become deaf to your allies and a hand against your enemies, without any justice spread among you, nor any hope for you in them, and there was no sin from us towards you. So woe upon you, as you coerced us while the sword was unsheathed, our hearts were calm, and our opinion was well-considered. Yet you rushed into our allegiance like a flock of locusts and flocked to it like moths to a flame, then you betrayed us foolishly. Curse be upon the tyrants of this nation.^[30]

The Shia of today pose a greater danger to Islam than the Shia of the past

One might say that the Shia of today are dismissive of the ancient differences that were between their predecessors and the Ahlus Sunnah, eager to unite the Muslims and pained by their disunity.

Seeking the assistance of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, we reply by saying: The Shia of today are worse than the Shia of old. Their religion was only established to break the noose of Islam, shake the pillars of Din, and disunite the Muslims. There can never be any unity and understanding between us and them except after they return to the truth and detach from their shirk activities and idols. We say this after having studied much of their works for half a century.

Consider the following:

We reproduced the words of Mirza Hasan al Ha’iri from his book al Din Bayn al Sa’il wa al Mujib wherein he ascribes to the belief of distortion of the Qur’an and the mushaf of Fatimah which is other than the Qur’an, in fact three times more voluminous; and this book of his was published five years back.

We have quoted the work published from Dar al Tawhid, Kuwait. This work was distributed in various cities of the Islamic world. From the same publishing house, another work emerged titled, Mabadi’ Awwaliyah. On page 14, the following can be found, “The second pillar of Islam is to believe in Nubuwwah and Imamah, i.e. belief in the twelve infallible Imams.” Linking Nubuwwah to Imamah is misguidance. In their other books, they mention the doctrine of Imamah separately. Amongst these books are:

Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar: ‘Aqa’id al Imamiyyah, pg. 65, published in 1370 AH and reprinted in 1380 AH.
Al Salah. The author states that it is in line with the legal rulings issued by their senior Marja’, al Khoei.

In these two and other books, they opine that belief in the infallible Imams forms part of the pillars of Islam. This means that we, the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah, are not Muslims in their sight as we do not believe in the infallible Imams and we have thus rejected one of the pillars of Islam.

The salient feature of the books of the Shia is falsehood, their external is fitnah, while their internal is hypocrisy and conspiracy. Proof for their falsehood is the following:

Maktabat al Hayat in Beirut published a book titled al Qawl al Qayyim fima Yarwihi Ibn Taymiyyah wa Ibn al Qayyim. The author did not reveal his name. He quoted plenty texts from the books of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al Qayyim affirming the correctness of the beliefs of the Shia and the soundness of their fundamentals, with full knowledge that these luminaries are at the forefront in exposing the evil and lies of the Shia. Had he chosen others, possibly his lies would have deceived the populace. He either outrightly fabricated these texts or reproduced the texts of the Shia quoted by Ibn Taymiyyah or Ibn al Qayyim to refute them, conveniently leaving out the refutation. This is their conduct.
Amongst their most important contemporary books is al Muraja’at of ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din al Musawi. The author opines that this was a dialogue that occurred between himself and the Sheikh of Al Azhar, Salim al Bishri.

The fabrications in this book are self-evident. The Sheikh of Al Azhar is presented as a student asking questions, with al Musawi answering. The book portrays the latter convincing the former to adopt his view in every correspondence till the end of the book. Why then did al Bishri not become a Shia after being convinced of the principle and secondary aspects of the creed? Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala exposed al Musawi and he himself admitted to adding much into the dialogue that never happened. Further, the book al Muraja’at was published 25 years after the death of the Sheikh al Azhar Salim al Bishri, as acknowledged by the author in the foreword to the book.^[31] Why did he not publicise his book during the life of al Bishri? Salim’s son was asked about the truth of al Muraja’at. He answered that he does not know of al Musawi and does not recall any communication or dialogue between him and his father.

The book is replete with fabrications against the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. Al Musawi attributed plenty views to them, of which they are innocent. Would a grand scholar like al Bishri accept a Shia attributing such views to the luminaries of Islam?

While discussing the lies of the Shia, it is appropriate to indicate to a book titled al Mut’ah min Mutatallabat al ‘Asr penned by Hasan Muhammad published in Beirut in 1392 AH. The author claims that the proof of the Ahlus Sunnah for the prohibition of Mut’ah is ‘Umar ibn al Khattab’s rejection of it. He does not limit himself to this falsehood. He directs his poisonous arrows towards the second rightly-guided Khalifah. We indicated a few pages back that Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself prohibited Mut’ah and many authentic narrations are reported from him regarding it. One is recorded by Muslim while the second is recorded by al Bukhari and Muslim on the authority of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
In their recent books, they invite towards worshiping graves and travelling to them. One of the most significant reasons behind their hatred for those handling the affairs of the Haramayn is their prohibiting people from building domes upon the graves of the Sahabah. See page 12 of Waqi’ al Shia of author Muhammad al Mahdi al Shirazi published in 1387 AH and page 20 of ‘Aqa’id al Shia. The author of this book, coupled with discussing worshipping graves, discusses their belief in Taqiyyah, Raj’ah, al Mahdi, and all the infallible Imams. Thus, he mixes up tashbih and establishing what Allah established for Himself. He claims that believing that Allah has a yad which befits His Majesty—and our minds are incapable of fathoming it—and it does not resemble a human hand, has committed disbelief. The Ahlus Sunnah believe in this, hence they are all disbelievers according to the Shia.
They pretend to wail over the disunity between Muslims and thus establish committees for this purpose. This is only a smokescreen behind which they carry out their dangerous conspiracies in the Islamic world, the least being disseminating their creed among the Ahlus Sunnah under the guise of unity and love for the family of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They contract the services of weak authors of the Ahlus Sunnah to write articles and books which support their creed. Our readers will be able to find examples of these authors and books in the introductions of Shia books.
In Iran, Dar al Tabligh published a journal named al Hadi. The journal was published under the pretence of bridging the gap between Islamic sects. It appears as though some of the Ahlus Sunnah became involved with them as well. In Jumada al Ula 1393 AH, the Mufti of Lebanon, Sheikh Hasan Khalid, and a delegation of scholars visited them after the Islamic solidarity conference and in the same month Ustadh Salih Abu Rafiq visited the publishers of the journal. He authored a piece in the journal titled, Tahtim al Iman fi Qulub al Muslimin and the Mufti of Lebanon spoke at the event that took place for him. In his speech he said, “Dissension and division has ended, never to return.”^[32]

However, it appears that dissention and division did make a return. Our evidence for this claim is that in the very same edition of the journal which spoke of his visit—Jumada al Ula 1393 AH—there was severe criticism of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu and ‘Abdullah ibn Sa’d ibn Abi Sarh. The journal also vilified Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu on page 20-21. So where is the truth in calling to rapprochement by the publishers of the journal?

Khomeini, the leader of the Shia, a zealot in his creed

We have before us three books of Khomeini^[33]:

Wilayat al Faqih or al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, published in 1389 AH.
Min Huna al Muntalaq: A collection of the chapters from his book, Tahrir al Wasilah, published in 1394 AH.
Jihad al Nafs aw al Jihad al Akbar, published in 1394 AH.

Based on these books we may determine his views as they capture the essence of his ideologies. Further, we have no evidence that he retracted from his views and beliefs. Based on this, we conclude the following observations:

Firstly, all his writings touch on the subject of governance, especially Iranian governance. On this matter he calls for an Islamic Shia government, not once talking of collaborating with the Ahlus Sunnah. He says, “The Shia sect started from scratch and their numbers are still increasing to the point that today there are approximately two hundred million Shia.”^[34]

The governance system that he speaks of assumes responsibility on behalf of the hidden infallible Imam, whilst viewing all other governance systems as unjust. He also opines that a true representation of Islamic governance was during the era of the Prophet and that of ‘Ali. He skips the time period of the Khulafa’ Rashidun by

which he refuses to acknowledge their rule, stating this plainly at times without mentioning their names.^[35]

When he speaks of Islamic principles, he only cites Shia sources. He never ever quotes the sources or references of the Ahlus Sunnah or the prophetic ahadith documented in the authentic books—without which our Din will be wasted. In fact, there are indications in his book that he does not acknowledge them.^[36]

Khomeini pronounces that Islamic unity can only be achieved through adopting their dogma and principles; the Ahlus Sunnah must become Shia and accept the infallibility of the Imams. He cites as proof a statement attributed to Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha:

وطاعتنا نظاما للملة وإمامتنا أمانا من الفرقة

Our obedience is a system for the religion, and our leadership is a safeguard against division.^[37]

Regarding their Imams he says:

وان من ضروریات مذهبنا أن لأئمتنا مقاما لا يبلغه ملك مقرب، ولا ينبی مرسل

Amongst the fundamental beliefs of our creed is that our Imams hold a position not attained by a close Angel nor Prophet.^[38]

Some contemporary Shia reject that their Imams have superiority over the Messengers, observing Taqiyyah. Khomeini declares his belief clearly without Taqiyyah.

Secondly, in his book Jihad al Nafs aw al Jihad al Akbar he speaks of virtues, exemplary character, and the necessity of fighting the base desires. Within this framework, he brings up the name of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu as though he is an accursed devil. Consider the following statement of his:

ومعاوية ترأس قومه أربعين عاما ولكنه لم يكسب لنفسه سوى لعنة الدنيا وعذاب الآخرة

Muawiyah governed for forty years. In this time, he only attained the curse of this world and punishment of the Hereafter for himself.^[39]

How did Khomeini dare to insult such a revered Sahabi, a writer of revelation? How could he make such impudent claims on Allah, pronouncing that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu would be punished in the Hereafter? Has he looked into the unseen or has he taken from the Most Merciful a promise?

We, the Ahlus Sunnah, believe that Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu is better than thousands of the so-called Ayatollahs and Ruhollahs whom the Shia have elevated and attributed undue religious authority. Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has stated:

لا تسبوا أصحابي فوالذي نفسي بیدة لو أنفق أحدكم مثل أحد ذهبا ما أدرك مد أحدهم ولا نصيفه

Do not revile my Companions; by Him in whose hand my soul is, if one of you gave in charity the amount of gold equivalent to Uhud, it would not amount to as much as the mudd^[40] of one of them, or half of it.^[41]

Lastly, Khomeini launched an attack against the scholars. He also attacked some of those Shia scholars who cooperated with the government of the Shah. He states:

وبالطبع فقهاؤنا کما تعرفون من صدر الإسلام وإلى يومنا هذا أجل من أن ينزلوا إلى ذلك المستوى الوضيع وفقهاء السلاطين كانوا دائما من غير جماعتنا وعلى غير رأينا

And of course, our jurists from the early Islamic times to now are far removed from stooping to such a low level. The jurists of the Sultans, however, have always ascribed to a creed other than ours and adopted a view opposing ours.

What he intends by this, is that they are the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah. And by the Sultans, he intends all the Muslims leaders besides ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. He does though exclude from this attack the Tatar agent thug, Nasir al Din al Tusi. He states:

إلا أن یکون دخوله الشكلي نصر حقيقي للإسلام والمسلمين مثل دخول علي بن يقطين ونصير الدين الطوسي رحمهما الله

Except for those who appeared to be amongst them but were in reality supporters of the Muslims and the Islamic cause, such as ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin and Nasir al Din al Tusi.^[42]

On page 128 of al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, he joins al Tusi’s name with al Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhu and claims that he carried out great services for Islam. Nasir al Din al Tusi, Ibn al ‘Alqami, and Ibn Abi al Hadid were allies of Halaku Tatari when he entered Baghdad and spilled the blood of the Ahlus Sunnah. Al Tusi served as a minister for the Tatars. Aforetime, he was a heretic from the Ismailiyyah. Since, al Tusi carried out a bloody massacre of the Muslims, Khomeini takes him as his leader. This makes it evident that he plans to follow in the footsteps of al Tusi. Why do the simple-minded Muslims not take heed?

Thus, according to Khomeini cooperating with the Khulafa’ Rashidun is impermissible whilst al Tusi’s cooperation with the Tatars is permissible!

What our scholars of hadith have said regarding the Shia:

1. Al Alusi

Under the commentary of verse 29 of Surah al Fath, he passes the judgment of disbelief against the Shia based on their dislike for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. He relies on the views of the predecessors of the Ummah in the passing of this verdict. He says:

وفي المواهب أن مالكا قد استنبط من هذه الآية تكفير الروافض الذين يبغضون الصحابة رضي الله عنهم فإنهم يغيظونهم ومن غاظ الصحابة فهو كافر ووافقه كثير من العلماء

It is mentioned in al Mawahib that Malik deduced from this verse, the disbelief of the Rawafid who hate the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. They spite the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and whoever does so is a disbeliever. Many of the scholars concur with him.^[43]

2. Muhibb al Din al Khatib

He is from amongst those scholars who stood up to the Shia deluge and left behind many important works on this topic, most notably:

Al Khutut al ‘Aridah
Hashiyat al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal
Hashiyat al ‘Awasim min al Qawasim

In the introduction to al Muntaqa, he summarised his stance and the stance of many early scholars regarding the Shia. He says about the Sahabah:

ولا يغمط جيل الصحابة فيما قاموا به للإنسانية من ذلك إلا ظالم يغالط في الحق إن كان غير مسلم أو زنديق يبطن للإسلام غير الذي يظهره لأهله إن كان من المنتسبين إليه

No one is ungrateful to the generation of the Companions for what they did for humanity, except a wrongdoer who contradicts the truth, if he is a non-Muslim; or a heretic who conceals from Islam contrary to what he reveals to his people, if he is among those who claim to belong to it.

He cites the following narration as evidence:

يوم كنا لا نزال أصحاب السلطان على إسبانيا كان أحبار النصارى من الإسبانيين يحتجون على الإمام ابن حزم بدعوى الروافض تحريف القرآن فكان يضطر عند رده عليهم أن يقول ما ذكره في كتاب الفصل وأما قولهم في دعوى الراوفض تبديل القرآن فإن الروافض ليسوا من المسلمين

When we were still the rulers of Spain, the clergy of the Christians of Spain protested against Imam Ibn Hazm with the claim of the Shia of the distortion of the Qur’an. He was compelled, in his response to them, to mention what he stated in his book al Fasl, “As for their statement that the Shia claim the distortion of the Qur’an, the Shia are not among the Muslims.”^[44]

Al Khatib concludes that it is impossible to unite with the Shia as the foundation of their creed differs to the foundation of ours; the differences run deep and are not superficial. He lists the difference from their creed regarding the Qur’an, the prophetic ahadith, the infallibility of the Imams, and Ijma’. He cites the following statement of Abu Zur’ah al Razi as evidence to their disbelief:

إذا رأيت الرجل ينتقص أحدا من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاعلم أنه زنديق وذلك أن الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم عندنا حق والقرآن حق وإنما أدى إلينا هذا القرآن والسنن أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وإنما يريدون أن يجرحوا شهودنا ليبطلوا الكتاب والسنة والجرح بهم أولى وهم زنادقة

When you see a man disparaging any of the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, then realise he is a heretic^[45]. This is because Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is true according to us and the Qur’an is true. Only and only the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam transmitted the Qur’an and Sunnah practices to us. They (those who disparage the Sahabah) only seek to declare our witnesses unreliable so that they may abolish the Book and Sunnah. Declaring them (those who disparage the Sahabah) unreliable is more befitting and they are heretics.^[46]

These statements of Muhibb al Din al Khatib is the best summary of Minhaj al Sunnah authored by Ibn Taymiyyah and al Muntaqa authored by al Dhahabi.

3. Al Baytar

Sheikh Muhammad Bahjah al Baytar writes in criticism of the Shia scholars and books, “I read Awa’il al Maqalat of Sheikh al Mufid, d. 413, and Sharh al ‘Aqa’id of his teacher Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, commonly known as al Saduq, d. 381. I noticed in them some of which other books like al Kafi, al Tahdhib, and al Wafi did not contain—cursing, excommunicating, and declaring eternity to Hell for those to whom Allah gave authority on earth.”

I say: Undoubtedly, these books create malice and hatred in the readers and allow the worst of profanities to flow off their tongues for the men of the first generation and those after them—at the forefront of whom are the Khulafa’ Rashidun, some of the Ummahat al Mu’minin, and the Muhajirin and Ansar with them—whom Allah is pleased with and they are pleased with Him by the emphatic declaration of the Glorious Qur’an. We did not see any refutation or objection to the first two books by those who authenticated them, whereas they are the prominent mujtahids of the Shia in our current time. Rather, we noticed that publication had increased in Iraq, Iran, and Syria and in the last years many books have been issued, all are refutations of the Sunnis and a disparagement of the prominent men of Islam.

Sheikh al Baytar regards al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal to be the best refutation against the Shia, as it is a summary of Minhaj al Sunnah with beneficial additions of al Khatib. For this reason, the Sheikh submitted a study on the book, which was published in Majallat al Majma’ al ‘Ilmi of Damascus, of which he was a member, and adopted everything mentioned in this book. It is known that in the book al Muntaqa there is conclusive evidence that proves the Shia’s beliefs of kufr and heresy.

4. Al Hilali

He travelled between India, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula where he lived in close proximity with the Shia. In one of his works, he has recorded dialogues that transpired between him and some of their scholars. This work of his is titled Munazaratan Bayn Rajul Sunni wa Huwa al Duktur Muhammad Taqi al Din al Hilali al Hussaini wa Imamayn Mujtahidayn Shi’iyyayn.

This work of al Hilali stands to pass a verdict of disbelief against the Shia starting with their names the likes of; ‘Abdul Hussain, ‘Abd ‘Ali, ‘Abdul Zahra’, and ‘Abdul Amir.

He then discusses the dialogue between him and their Sheikh, ‘Abdul Muhsin al Kazimi at al Mahmarah, a leader of over 300 Shia. Al Hilali states he heard them addressing ‘Aishah radiya Llahu ‘anha as ya mal’unah (O accursed one). He also heard from al Kazimi heinous profanities aimed at Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu, and also him holding the view that the Quraysh erased much from the Qur’an.

He then notes a debate that happened between him and al Sheikh Mahdi al Qazwini who repudiated the statement of al Kazimi regarding the distortion of the Qur’an. However, this repudiation of his was merely Taqiyyah; a claim supported by the fact that he had authored a book in which he incorporated a refutation of al Hilali and his article in Majallat al Manar under the title al Qadi al ‘Adl fi Hukm al Bina’ ‘ala al Qubur.

Other scholars who hold similar strong views regarding the Shia are:

Muhammad Rashid Rida
Mustafa al Siba’i
‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Baz
Muhammad Amin al Shinqiti
Muhammad Nasir al Din al Albani.

Note:

Some students of knowledge today find it difficult to palate these ruling of kufr against the Shia, based on the fact that the early scholars only cited Kufr against the extremists amongst the Shia, while labelling the rest as innovators.

This is undoubtedly true; it is not permitted to put a blanket ruling of disbelief against the Shia as there are many groups that fall under this designation:

Those Sahabah and Tabi’un who stood with ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and a great number of Tabi’un who were from the ‘Shia’ of al Hussain. We speak only good of them.
The Zaidiyyah. The followers of Zaid ibn ‘Ali. They consider ‘Ali to be more virtuous, whilst still acknowledging the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum.
In every era we find individuals who widely proclaim their support to the Ahlul Bayt. This does not remove them from the faith.

As for the Imamiyyah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah Jafariyyah who revile the Companions of the Prophet, deny the Sunnah, believe that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum removed even a single verse Qur’an, believe in the infallibility of their Imams and that they are superior to the Ambiya’ and have knowledge of the unseen; we have no doubt about their disbelief. They are far removed from Islam, further than the heavens from the earth, especially if they believe in their famous books: al Kafi, Fasl al Khitab, Fiqh Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih, al Tahdhib, al Istibsar, etc.

Can we unite with them when:

We differ with the Shia in the primary and secondary aspects of faith.
The eminent scholars of the best of generations consider them to be the greatest of liars and furthest from the faith.
The contemporary Shia pose a greater danger to Islam than the Shia of before.
The contemporary erudite scholars share the same views regarding the Shia of today that the early scholars had.

How is it possible that some orators have taken to including the Imamiyyah Shia under the umbrella of the Ahlus Sunnah in the Islamic world? How can they opine them to be Muslim warriors and Islamic stalwarts, further encouraging Muslims to assist them and stand with them? We cannot fathom how they have adopted such a stance. Is it possible to keep our political opinions separate from the principles of the Shari’ah; is it possible to dismember Islam in this manner?

Do we have greater understanding and possessiveness for Din and are more eager to unite the Muslims than Malik, al Shafi’i, al Bukhari, Ibn Ma’in, Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyyah, and al Dhahabi? Are these who support the Shia more knowledgeable than al Alusi, al Qasimi, al Baytar, al Hilali, al Khatib, and Rashid Rida?

Does Islamic unity mean we should sell our faith for petty change? May such unity be cursed that comes with reviling the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and does not lay on the pristine foundations of the Islamic faith.

What did they rely upon in praising Khomeini? These are Khomeini’s books before us; look at the disrespect he shows to the Companions of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam or his praise for the criminal, heretic Nasir al Din al Tusi.

Khomeini does not put a single word in his books showing enthusiasm to cooperate with the Ahlus Sunnah. He does not envisage an Islamic government except through his creed, with his extremism, and under the banner of his absent Imam—whose absence has exceeded a thousand years.

If they accuse us of extremism and fanaticism, we say: Here are the clear texts between us. Islam is not a monetary or a personal right that we bargain over. We will not sell it for political benefit devoid of evidence or proof. Our strength lies in our religion and our belief, not in our few or great numbers.

If they tell us: Haven’t you seen Khomeini’s courage, boldness, and ability to mobilise the street in Iran? We say: This, by Allah, is the very calamity. How can we hesitate to sacrifice and take the initiative when we are advocates of truth, while others are rampant and roaming around while they are people of falsehood? As for courage, it is nothing but adherence to the Islamic faith and carrying it to the worlds with sincerity and devotion.

NEXT⇒ Section 2 – Khomeini between Extremism and Moderation

^[1] This was written in the early part of 1979 whilst Khomeini was in Paris and before the Shah left Tehran. The events of Tabriz occurred in the middle of 1978. The chapter was then slightly amended.

^[2] Al Da’wah, issue 30, 01/12/1398 AH, under the title, ‘Abdul Mun’im Jabarah: Uprising in Iran, dark Marxist or Iranian Muslims?

^[3] ‘Abdullah ibn Saba’ is the leader of the Saba’iyyah sect which believed in the divinity of ‘Ali. Ibn Saba’ was a Jew who outwardly embraced Islam and died in the year 40 AH. (Al Zirkili: Al A’lam.)

^[4] Al Ra’id, issue 34, Dhu al Hijjah 1398 AH.

^[5] Surah Al ‘Imran: 8.

^[6] Surah al Mu’minun: 52.

^[7] Al Kafi, vol. 1 pg. 239, Tehran, Dar al Kutub al Islamiyyah. The narration of Abu Basir is lengthy which contains their belief that the Imams have knowledge of the unseen.

^[8] Sahifat al Abrar, pg. 27, quoting from Basa’ir al Sighar.

^[9] Surah al Baqarah: 37.

^[10] See Minhaj al Sunnah of Ibn Taymiyyah with the annotations of Dr. Muhammad Rashad Salim, vol. 1 pg. 154, quoting from their book Minhaj al Karamah fi Ma’rifat al Imamah of Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli.

^[11] Surah al Fath: 18.

^[12] Ihya’ al Shari’ah fi Madhhab al Shia, pg. 63-66.

^[13] Surah al Ma’idah: 67.

^[14] Al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal, pg. 422.

^[15] Al Kulayni: Al Kafi, vol. 1 pg. 227-258.

^[16] Al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal, pg. 68.

^[17] Al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal, pg. 159.

^[18] Annotations on al Muntaqa of Muhibb al Din al Khatib, pg. 51.

^[19] Minhaj al Sunnah with the annotations of Dr Muhammad Rashad Salim, vol. 1 pg. 37.

^[20] Rafidi (plural: Rawafid) and Rafidah is a name which pejoratively refers to the Shia.

^[21] Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 1 pg. 39; al Ba’ith al Hathith, pg. 109.

^[22] Minhaj al Sunnah, vol. 1 pg. 38.

^[23] Mustafa al Siba’i: Al Sunnah wa Makanatuha fi al Tashri’, pg. 79.

^[24] Al Dhahabi: Al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal, pg. 22.

^[25] Minhaj al Sunnah, pg. 42.

^[26] Al Muntaqa min Minhaj al I’tidal, pg. 480.

^[27] Al Sunnah wa al Shia from Nahj al Balaghah, pg. 70-71.

^[28] Al Sunnah wa al Shia from Kitab al Rawdah, pg. 107.

^[29] Al Sunnah wa al Shia from Kitab al Ihtijaj of al Tabarsi, pg. 148.

^[30] Al Sunnah wa al Shia from Kitab al Ihtijaj of al Tabarsi, pg. 145.

^[31] Muqaddamat al Muraja’at, pg. 32. The book was first published in 1355.

^[32] Majallat al Hadi, pg. 107.

^[33] When we wrote this discussion, the books of Khomeini were not well-known in the markets. Rather, people were taken by surprise by Khomeini’s personality. We, by the grace of Allah, were searching for these books and we knew that the Shia were playing a dirty game in the Islamic world.

^[34] Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, pg. 132.

^[35] Ibid., pg. 25-27.

^[36] Ibid., pg. 27 onwards.

^[37] Ibid., pg. 35.

^[38] Ibid., pg. 52.

^[39] Jihad al Nafs aw al Jihad al Akbar, pg. 18.

^[40] A unit of measurement equivalent to approximately 750 ml.

^[41] Sahih Muslim, Hadith: 2540.

^[42] Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, pg. 142.

^[43] Ruh al Ma’ani, vol. 26 pg. 116. Al Alusi passed away in 1270 AH.

^[44] Al Fasl, vol. 2 pg. 78.

^[45] One who adheres to beliefs which are unanimously branded as disbelieve in the Shari’ah.

^[46] Muqaddamah Minhaj al I’tidal, pg. 6-10.