Chapter Three – The Shia Creed

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

Chapter Three

 

Introduction

Of the various names for the Shia creed is the name al Imamiyyah, and this is due to their belief, “Appointing an Imam is from the fundamentals of Iman”. Hence, they have been named al Ithna ‘Ashariyyah due to their belief in Twelve infallible Imams.

The driving factor of this creed is the declaration to establish the leadership of ‘Ali ibn Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the leadership of his eleven sons subsequently.

 

Inception of the Shia Creed

The Shia creed has been through many stages historically and ideologically, the first being the controversy between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu.

It was a mere difference of opinion concerning the assassins of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu, not an ideological dispute. The dispute continued and ideological opinions began gradually infiltrating the Shia until it formed such beliefs that had no affiliation to Islam whatsoever, like declaring the Sahabah apostates, Bada’, believing the Qur’an has been adulterated, exceeding the bounds in relation to scholars, and so forth.

In this chapter, we will mention their existing and adopted beliefs together with those that have a connection to our discussion.

 

Beliefs of the Shia regarding the Ahlus Sunnah and others

We repeatedly come across the statements of selected Shia figures of our country and abroad regarding the need for unity and elimination of conflicts, these are in fact things every rational person would aspire for; however, do their claims have any practical support to it? Why then the annual enactment of self-flagellation and other acts? Why are the emotions of the commonality spurred to hate the so-called enemies of the Ahlul Bayt? Then—we ask—who are the enemies of the Ahlul Bayt at present to whom this hatred is directed? The only response we get are generalisations; should this then not be regarded as Taqiyyah?

If you look attentively at the narrations of the creed and the statements of its scholars, you will realise that this concealed ranker and enmity is in actual fact directed towards the Ahlus Sunnah.

Another matter worthy of mention is that if they are truthful to their claim of unity, then their stances should be clear from the narrations and the statements of their scholars regarding that which causes disunity in the Ummah and plants the seeds of hostility, as will be discussed in this chapter. Among the vague general responses that they give the closest which may be deemed to be a firm clear position or dissociation from it is their statement:

 

ليس كل رواياتنا صحيحة

Not every narration of ours is authentic.

 

Apart from this we have not come across any warning to abstain from those narrations that advocate disunity.

This opinion is an individual opinion, subject to scholarly discretion. Furthermore, we then witness those declaring the Ummah to be apostate and creating disunity being honoured and respected in Shia circles. So, if they were true to their word, they would have removed all the narrations and statements that were causing the disunity, they would have established its inaccuracy and challenged those who followed it.

Prior to discussing their opinion regarding the Ahlus Sunnah, it is imperative to clarify some of the terminologies used by the Shia in their writings and in their opinions of the Ahlus Sunnah.

The terminologies are as follows:

1. Al Nawasib
2. Al ‘Ammah
3. Al Mukhalif

 

Who are the al Nawasib according to the terminology of the Shia?

Al Nawasib is actually a name found in books of history and religious fundamentals of the Ahlus Sunnah, Shia, and others. According to the Ahlus Sunnah, it refers to people who harbour hatred for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and belittle him. So, in light of this definition the Ahlus Sunnah are not Nawasib, rather they consider Nasb to be a disparagement and smear upon a person for he denies the known virtues and truth about the personality of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. However, is this the definition of Nawasib according to the Shia? I will present statements of their scholars to manifest the reality.

Al Kulayni narrates on the authority of Muhammad ibn Muslim:

 

دخلت على أبي عبد الله وعنده أبو حنيفة فقلت له جعلت فداك رأيت رؤيا عجيبة قال لي يا ابن مسلم ها تها فإن العالم بها جالس وأومأ بيده إلى أبي حنيفة قال فقلت رأيت كأني دخلت داري وإذا أهلي قد خرجت علي فكسرت جوزا كثيرا ونثرته علي فتعجبت من هذه الرؤيا فقال أبو حنيفة أنت رجل تخاصم وتجادل لئاما في مواريث أهلك فبعد نصب شديد تنال حاجتك منها إن اء الله فقال أبو عبد الله أصبت والله يا أبا حنيفة قال ثم خرج أبو حنيفة من عنده فقلت جعلت فداك أني كرهت تعبير هذا الناصب فقال يا ابن مسلم لا يسوؤك الله فما يواطئ تعبيرهم تعبيرنا ولا تعبيرنا تعبيرهم وليس التعبير كما عبره قال فقلت له جعلت فداك فقولك أصبت وتحلف عليه وهو مخطئ قال نعم حلفت عليه أنه أصاب الخطأ قال فقلت له فما تأويلها قال يا ابن مسلم إنك تتمتع بإمرأة فتعلم بها اهلك فتمزق عليك ثيابا

I visited Abu ‘Abdullah [Imam Jafar al Sadiq] and Abu Hanifah was sitting with him.

I said to him, “May I be sacrificed for you, I have seen a strange dream.”

Abu ‘Abdullah replied, “What is it, O Ibn Muslim, certainly the one who can interpret it is sitting right here,” as he pointed to Abu Hanifah.

So I said, “I saw myself about to enter my home but my wife came out to me and she began crushing walnuts and throwing them on me. I am astonished at the nature of this dream.”

Abu Hanifah replied, “You are an evil person who will argue and dispute with your family regarding inheritance, if Allah wills, you will attain what you will fight for after enduring a great deal of hardship.”

Abu ‘Abdullah remarked, “By Allah, your interpretation is correct.”

Abu Hanifah then departed, so I said, “May I be sacrificed for you, I detest the interpretation of this Nasib.”

He replied, “O Ibn Muslim, may Allah protect you! Their interpretation will never concur with ours nor will ours ever concur with theirs and the correct interpretation is not what he explained.”

So, I said, “May I be sacrificed for you, you concurred with him and took an oath upon it whereas he was incorrect?”

He replied, “Yes! I actually took an oath that he was incorrect.”

I said, “So what is the interpretation?”

He replied, “O Ibn Muslim, you will enjoy companionship with a woman but your wife will find out and tear your clothing …”[1]

 

Similarly, their scholar Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al No’man who is given the title of al Mufid, has called Abu Hanifah radiya Llahu ‘anhu a Nasibi in his book ‘Iddah Rasa’il Fasl al Masa’il al Saghaniyyah.[2]

Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri mentions his opinion:

 

ويؤيد هذا المعنى أن الأ ئمة عليهم السلام وخواصهم أطلقوا لفظ الناصبي على أبي حنيفة وأمثاله مع أن ابا حنيفة لم يكن ممن نصب العداوة لأهل البيت عليهم السلام بل كان له انقطاع إليهم وكان يظهر لهم التودد

What endorses this meaning is that the Imams together with their selected ones would call Abu Hanifah and those similar to him “Nasibi”, even though Abu Hanifah was not among those who incited hatred for the Ahlul Bayt and rather distanced himself from them. He would in fact exhibit his love for the Ahlul Bayt.[3]

 

If according to them, Nasb isn’t having enmity for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, then what is it?

One of their scholars, Hussain ibn al Sheikh Muhammad Al ‘Usfur provides the answer to this:

 

على أنك قد عرفت سابقا أنه ليس الناصب إلا عبارة عن التقديم على علي غيره

As you may have previously noticed, al Nasib is a term which means to give precedence to someone over ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.[4]

 

Therefore, due to the Ahlus Sunnah giving the three Khalifas precedence over ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, they have also been labelled as Nawasib by the Shia. This hasn’t been deduced just from his statement above, rather he has clarified it is his following statement:

 

بل أخبارهم عليهم السلام تنادي بأن الناصب هو ما يقال له عندهم سنيا

The narrations of the Imams suggest that al Nasib refers to all those who are classified as Sunni.[5]

 

Al Darazi mentions the same regarding this:

 

ولا كلام في أن المراد بالناصبة هم أهل التسنن

It is quite obvious that al Nasibah refers to the Ahlus Sunnah.

 

This is the actual meaning of Nasibi according to them. Soon, if Allah wills, there will be more clarity regarding their opinions about the Ahlus Sunnah from their own statements, other than what we have mentioned.

 

Who are the ‘Ammah according to the terminology of the Shia?

Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhsin al Amin mentions:

 

الخاصة وهذا يطلقه أصحابنا على أنفسهم مقابل العامة الذين يسمون بأهل السنة والجماعة

Al Khassah refers to our companions whilst al ‘Ammah refers to those classified as Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah.[6]

 

Their scholar Sheikh Hussain ibn Shihab al Din al Karaki al ‘Amili who died in 1076 mentions:

 

فذهب إلى الأول جماعة من العامة كالمزني الغزالي والصيرفي ومن الخاصة كالعلامة في أحد قوليه …

The first opinion has been preferred by a group of scholars made up of the ‘Ammah, like al Muzani, al Ghazali and al Sayrafi, and from the Khassah, like al ‘Allamah according to one of his opinions….[7]

 

The above mentioned ‘Ammah are famous Sunni scholars.

Ayatollah al ‘Uzma al Sheikh Fath Allah al Namazi al Shirazi mentions:

 

وأما الحديث من طرق العامة فقد روى كثير من محدثيهم كالبخاري ومسلم

As for hadith from the chains of transmission of the ‘Ammah, many have narrated from their Muhaddithin, like al Bukhari and Muslim.[8]

 

Considering all of the above, ‘Ammah refers to the Ahlus Sunnah.

 

Who are the Mukhalif according to the terminology of the Shia?

Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Tusi mentions:

 

وأما ما يتضمن من الأربع تكبيرات محمول على التقية لأنه مذهب المخالفين

With regards to the narrations that include four takbirs, they are subject to Taqiyyah, as it is the opinion of the Mukhalifin.[9]

 

Take cognisance of the fact that he did not mention “the belief of some Mukhalifin”, indicating that Mukhalifin refers to the Ahlus Sunnah.

Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri cites his explanation:

 

أقول هذا يكشف لك عن أمور كثيرة منها بطلان عبادة المخالفين وذلك أنهم وإن صاموا وصلوا وحجوا وزكوا وأتوا من العبادات والطاعات وزادوا على غيرهم إلا أتوا إلى الله تعالى من غير الأبواب التي أمر بالدخول منها …وقد جعلوا المذاهب الأربعة وسائط وأبوابا بينهم وبين ربهم وأخذوا الأحكام عنهم وهم أخذوها عن القياسات والاستنباطات والآراء والاجتهاد الذي نهى الله سبحانه عن أخذ الأحكام عنها وطعن عليهم من دخل في الدين منها

I will mention something that will shed light on many matters. The futility of the worship of the Mukhalifin: It is such that even if they fast, perform salah, perform hajj, discharge zakat, or even exert themselves in worship and good deeds more than others, but due to them performing these deeds in a way other than the way Allah commanded to…

Their initiation of the four Mazahib: They have made the Mazahib as mediums and gateways between them and their Lord. They derive rulings from them, whilst its rulings are derived from analogies, deductions, opinions, and individual judgements; all of which Allah has forbidden that rulings be derived from and refuted those who follow the religion via it.[10]

 

So, Mukhalifin refers to the adherents of the four Mazahib, the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah.

Since the meanings of their terminologies have been discussed, O brother seeking the truth, let us study their verdict regarding the Muslims, so that it becomes apparent whether it is possible for a man affiliated to this creed to betray the Ahlus Sunnah, and does he believe that following the Shia creed prevents him from betraying the Sunni ruler. This allegation will then be substantiated.

 

1. The one who rejects the authority of the Twelve Imams is a disbeliever

The Shia believe that Imamah is one of the fundamentals of Din. They believe Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam appointed Twelve Imams after him. They believe them to be infallible. They consider obedience to them and acceptance of their teachings to be compulsory. They consider rejection of the Imams to be tantamount to rejection of the Rasul of Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

So, what is their opinion regarding those who are not of the same belief and only honour these twelve individuals, as they recognise the status of their lineage without considering them to be infallible and obedience to them compulsory?

Before mentioning the statements of the Shia scholars regarding the disbelief of Ahlus Sunnah, I present to you the opinion of one of the two individuals connected to this topic, and it is the opinion of Khawajah al Tusi in the words of al Mahuzi:

 

In al Kafi, Thiqat al Islam reports from Zurarah who narrates that al Baqir ‘alayh al Salam said, “If a person has to spend his night in prayer and day in fasting, give all his wealth in charity, and perform Haj every year but did not recognise the Wilayah of the Wali of Allah thereby not devoting himself and all his actions to him, he therefore has no right upon Allah that he rewards him nor is he from the people of iman.” This meaning was determined by the great philosopher, greatest leader of the latter scholars, Nasir al Din Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Tusi. May Allah honour his soul and please him with the gardens of Jannat.[11]

 

He rendered the following:

 

If a servant has to come with righteous deeds tomorrow,

From visiting every messenger sent and pious person,

And fasting excessively without becoming tired,

And abundant prayer without getting lazy,

And performing compulsory Hajj for Allah,

And circumambulating the Ka’bah without shoes,

And flying into the air without the assistance of anyone,

And diving into the ocean without getting wet,

And clothing the orphans with silk,

And feeding them delicious wheat with honey,

And living amongst thousands people,

Distanced from sin and saved from error,

But none will be of assistance to him on the Day of judgement,

Except great love for Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali.[12]

 

There is also a statement of al Tusi regarding ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu mentioned in A’yan al Shia:

 

When the trumpet is blown then approach ‘Ali,

For the sincerity of allegiance will be of aid.

That Imam who if a person rejected his rank,

Then his neither his Hajj or ‘Umrah will be of help to him.[13]

 

Look at the extremism of their scholars, let alone their general masses.

Extremism in loving ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as demanded by al Tusi above such that neither Hajj or ‘Umrah will be of assistance, is contrary to our understanding and belief. We are the Ahlus Sunnah. There is actually another method of differentiation according to al Tusi which al Mahuzi al Shia has informed us of:

 

It is narrated that al Muhaqqiq Nasir al Millah wa al Din Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Tusi, may Allah honour his soul, established proof of the hate of Ahlus Sunnah towards the Ahlul Bayt. His proof is as follows:

The Mukhalifun have hatred for all those who harbour enmity towards Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman irrespective of who they may be, or whether they are familiar with their name and lineage. Our Imams, however, openly express hatred towards Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman, and attribute to them all the evil and shameful incidents that occurred in the Ummah therefore resulting in the Mukhalifun showing hatred to our Imams. The first opinion isn’t incorrect while the second is the absolute truth although the opposition rejected it. Certainly, truth does not lose credibility by being rejected. They have now become disbelievers. We have discussed it in length in our mentioned writing. Allah is the true guider.[14]

 

And just like that, the entire Ahlus Sunnah are considered disbelievers in the eyes of al Tusi who was the reviver of their creed in the seventh century!

This is not just the opinion of al Tusi, rather it is the famous view of their creed and the statements of their scholars are in accordance to it.

Their leader of their Muhaddithin, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain ibn Babawayh who they have titled al Saduq mentions his opinion:

 

واعتقادنا فيمن جحد إمامه أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب والأ ئمة من بعده عليهم السلام أنه كمن جحد نبوة جميع الأنبياء واعتقادنا فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الأ ئمة أنه بمنزلة من أقر بجميع الأنبياء وأنكر نبوة نبينا محمد صلى الله عليه وآله

According to our belief, the one who rejects the Imamah of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the Imams after him is like he who has rejected the Nubuwwah of all the Prophets, and the one who accepts Amir al Mu’minin but rejects any one of the Imams after him is similar to he who accepted the Nubuwwah of all the Prophets but rejected the Nubuwwah of our Messenger, Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[15]

 

They also attribute the following statement to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:

 

الأ ئمة من بعدي اثنى عشر أولهم أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب وآخرهم القائم طاعتهم طاعتي ومعصيتهم معصيتي من أنكر واحدا منهم قد أنكرني

There will be twelve Imams after me, the first of them is Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the last is al Mahdi, obeying them is like obeying me and disobeying them is like disobeying me, whosoever rejects anyone of them then he has certainly rejected me.[16]

 

Their greatest scholar, Jamal al Din al Hassan Yusuf ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli mentions:

 

الإمامة لطف عام والنبوة لطف خاص لإمكان خلو الزمان من نبي حي بخلاف الإمام لما سيأتي وإنكار اللطف العام شر من إنكار اللطف الخاص وإلى هذا أشار الصادق بقوله عن منكر الإمامة أصلا ورأسا وهوشرهم

Imamah is a universal grace while Nubuwwah is a special grace, because it is possible that a specific period in time can be void of a living Nabi, while the same is not true for the Imam. To reject the universal grace is worse than to reject the special grace. Al Sadiq indicated towards this by calling a person who denies Imamah in all totality “the worst of them”.[17]

 

Their scholar and Muhaddith, Yusuf al Bahrani mentions:

 

وليت شعري أي فرق بين من كفر بالله سبحانه وتعالى ورسوله وبين من كفر بالأئمة عليهم السلام مع ثبوت كون الإمامة من أصول الدين

What difference is there between the one who disbelieves in Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and his Rasul, and the one who rejects the Imams ‘alayhim al Salam when it is proven to be of the fundamentals of Din.[18]

 

Their Hakim, Muhaqqiq and Philosopher, Muhammad Muhsin al Ma’ruf commonly known as Fayd al Kashani mentions:

 

ومن جحد إمامه أحدهم أي الأ ئمة الاثنى عشر فهو بمنزلة من جحد نبوة جميع الأنبياء عليهم السلام

A person who rejects one of the Imams is similar to he who has rejected the Nubuwwah of all the Prophets ‘alayhim al Salam.[19]

 

Mulla Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi mentions:

 

إعلم أن إطلاق لفظ الشرك والكفر على من لم يعتقد إمامة أمير المؤمنين والأ ئمة من ولده عليهم السلام وفضل عليهم غيرهم يدل أم مخلدون في النار

Be informed that usage of the words of Shirk and Kufr for those who don’t believe in the Imamah of Amir al Mu’minin and the Imams of his progeny ‘alayhim al Salam and their superiority over others indicates that they will abide forever in Hell.[20]

 

Considering the above, they believe that Ahlus Sunnah will be sentenced to Jahannam eternally!

Their scholar Muhammad Hassan al Najfi mentions:

 

والمخالف لأهل الحق كافر بلا خلاف بيننا .. كالمحكي عن الفاضل محمد صالح في شرح أصول الكافي بل والشريف القاضي نور الله في إحقاق الحق من الحكم بكفر منكري الولاية لأ نها أصل من أصول الدين

A person who contradicts the people of truth is considered a disbeliever amongst us unanimously. Similarly, the statement of al Fadil Muhammad Salih in Sharh Usul al Kafi and that of al Sharif al Qadi Nur Allah in Ihqaq al Haqq is regarding the ruling of kufr upon the one who rejects Wilayah, as it is from the fundamentals of Din.[21]

 

Take note that the one who rejects Imamah is unanimously considered a disbeliever in their eyes indicating to all the Ahlus Sunnah being unanimously considered disbelievers.

Ayatollah al Sheikh ‘Abdullah al Mamaqani who they have titled al ‘Allamah al Thani (the second ‘Allamah) mentions:

 

وغاية مايستفاد من الأخبار جريان حكم الكافر والمشرك في الآخرة على كل من لم يكن اثنى عشري

The objective to be understood from these statements is that all those who are not Ithna ‘Ashari will be labelled Kafir and Mushrik in the hereafter.[22]

 

Khomeini narrates from Muhammad ibn Muslim al Thaqafi who mentioned:

 

سألت أبا جعفر محمد بن علي عليهما السلام عن قول الله عز وجل: فأولئك يبدل الله  سيئاتهم حسنات وكان الله غفورا رحيما(الفرقان: ٧٠ ). فقال : “يؤتى بالمؤمن المذنب يوم القيامة حتى يقام بموقف الحساب فيكون الله تعالى هو الذي يتولى حسابه لا يطلع على حسابه أحدا من الناس فيعرفه ذنوبه حتى إذا أقر بسيئاته قال الله عز وجل للكتبة: بدلوها حسنات وأظهروها للناس فيقول الناس حينئذ ما كان لهذا العبد سيئة واحدة ! ثم يأمر الله به إلى الجنة فهذا تأويل الآية وهي في المذنبين من شيعتنا خاصة”

I asked Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali regarding the Qur’anic verse, “They are those people whom Allah will change their evil deeds into good deeds, and Allah is most forgiving most merciful.”[23]

He replied, “A sinner will be brought on the Day of Qiyamah to the place of reckoning where he will be discreetly reckoned by Allah alone. He will recognise and confess to his wrongs. Allah will then say to the scribes, ‘Convert all his deeds into good deeds and reveal it to the people.’ The people in shock will say, ‘Wow, this person has not committed even a single wrong!’ Allah will then usher him into Jannat. This is the interpretation of the verse, and it only refers to the sinners of the Shia.”[24]

 

Khomeini has commented as follows regarding this narration:

 

ومن المعلوم أن هذا الأمر يختص بشيعة أهل البيت ويحرم عنه الناس الآخرون لأن الإيمان لا يحصل إلا بواسطة ولاية علي وأوصيائه من المعصومين الطاهرين عليهم السلام بل لا يقبل الإيمان بالله ورسوله من دون الولاية كما نذكر ذلك في الفصل التالي

It is obvious that this favour is exclusive to the sect of the Ahlul Bayt and forbidden for others as iman can only be attained via the Wilayah of ‘Ali and his pure and infallible heirs ‘alayhim al Salam. In fact, iman in Allah and his Messenger is not acceptable without belief in Wilayah as we will expound on in the coming chapter.[25]

 

Khomeini further mentions:

 

إن ما مر في ذيل الحديث الشريف من أن ولاية أهل البيت ومعرفتهم شرط في قبول الأعمال يعتبر من الأمور المسلمة بل تكون من ضروريات مذهب التشيع المقدس وتكون الأخبار في هذا الموضوع أكبر من طاقة مثل هذه الكتب المختصرة على استيعابها وأكثر من حجم التواتر ويتبرك هذا الكتاب بذكر بعض تلك الأخبار

As mentioned in the latter portion of the previous hadith that the matter of Wilayah of Ahlul Bayt and recognising their status is a condition for acceptance of actions in the matters of Din; however, it is in reality a requisite of the sanctified Shia creed. Information of this topic exceeds the capacity of this concise booklet and surpasses the definition of uninterrupted transmission, although this booklet is now blessed due to some of this information being incorporated.[26]

 

Take note, the Wilayah which the Shia are devoted to is a fundamental belief which they will never shift from, due to their belief in it having surpassed the definition of uninterrupted transmission as attested to by Khomeini. They consider it not only to be a condition of acceptance for actions but also a requisite for iman in Allah and his Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

Look carefully at this statement of Khomeini as he clearly attests to it:

 

والأخبار في هذا الموضوع وبهذا المضمون كثيرة ويستفاد من مجموعها أن ولاية أهل البيت عليهم السلام شرط في قبول الأعمال عند الله سبحانه بل هو شرط في قبول الأيمان بالله والنبي الأكرم صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم

There is plenty of information on and about this subject. The essence of it is that the Wilayah of Ahlul Bayt is not just a condition of the validity of actions in the court of Allah but rather it is a requisite of the validity of iman in Allah and Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[27]

 

Their scholar ‘Abdullah Shubbar who is titled the greatest leader, the strongest support, the greatest scholar and crown of the jurists, the leader of the creed, the compiler of transmitted knowledge and rational sciences, the educator of practical and fundamental laws, mentions:

 

وأما سائر المخالفين ممن لم ينصب ولم يعاند ولم يتعصب فالذي عليه جملة من الإمامية كالسيد المرتضي أ نهم كفار في الدنيا والآخرة والذي عليه الأكثر الأشهر أنهم كفار مخلدون في الآخرة

As for all of the Mukhalifin, those who are not guilty of Nasb, nor have they opposed, or conspired against, then according to a group of Shia which includes Sayed al Murtada, “They are disbelievers in this world and the next”; however according to the majority, “They are disbelievers who will remain in hell eternally.”.[28]

 

Al Mufid mentions in al Masa’il:

 

اتفقت الإمامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الأ ئمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار

All the Shia are of the opinion regarding a person who rejects the Imamah of any of the Imams and rejects what Allah has made binding upon him of compulsory obedience that he is a misguided disbeliever who is worthy of remaining in hell forever.[29]

 

2. Permissibility of shedding the blood of Ahlus Sunnah

We begin explaining their belief regarding the blood of Muslims by mentioning the view of none other than al Tusi himself. His previous statement is regarding the disbelief of the Ahlus Sunnah. He declares the blood of Ahlus Sunnah to be permissible in such a distinct manner that it leaves no room for dispute.

One of their scholars, al Jawahiri, mentioned the following in a dispute with someone who did not deem the slaying of the opposition to be permissible:

 

وما أبعد ما بينه وبين الخاجا نصير الدين الطوسي والعلامة الحلي وغيرهم ممن يرى قتلهم ونحوه من أحوال الكفار حتى وقع منهم ما وقع في بغداد ونواحيها وبالجملة طول الكلام في ذلك كما فعله في الحدائق من تضييع العمر في الواضحات …..

There is not any difference between Khajah Nasir al Din al Tusi or ‘Allamah al Hilli and those who are of the opinion of killing and its likes in respect of the disbelievers, to the extent of perpetrating what occurred in Baghdad and its surroundings. In short, discussing this matter in length as he has done in al Hada’iq is spending time discussing the obvious.[30]

 

The followed scholar as they call him, al Mirza Muhammad Baqir al Musawi al Khuwanasari al Asbahani mentions his view in the biography of Nasir al Din al Tusi:

 

هو المحقق المتكلم الحكيم المتبحر الجليل… ومن جملة أمره المشهور المعروف المنقول حكاية استيزار للسلطان المحتشم في محروسة إيران هولاكو خان بن تولي جنكيز خان من عظماء سلاطين التاتارية وأتراك المغول ومجيئه في موكب السلطان المؤيد مع كمال الاستعداد إلى دار السلام بغداد لإرشاد العباد وإصلاح البلاد وقطع دابر سلسلة البغي والفساد وإخماد دائرة الجور والإلباس بإبداد دائرة ملك بني العباس وإيقاع القتل العام من أتباع اولئك الطغاة إلى أن أسال من دمائهم الأقذار كأمثال الانهار فأنهار بها في ماء دجلة ومنها إلى نار جهنم دار البوار و محل الأشقياء والأشرار

He was an eloquent, wise, profound and powerful scholar … In a nutshell, the famous recognised… From the famous reported incidents that are known is his appointment to act as Vizier for the reticent ruler of the guarded domains of Iran, Halaku Khan ibn Tolui Genghis Khan, who was at the time a powerful king of the Tartars and Mongol Turks. He joined the convoy of the powerful king with absolute propensity towards Baghdad the city of peace with the purpose of guiding the people, improving the city, eradicating the ongoing tyranny and corruption together with its headquarters, by destroying the empire of Abbasids and openly killing the followers of those oppressors until their dirty blood flowed like rivers into the Tigris River, and from there into the fire of Jahannum the place of ruin, hardships, and evils.[31]

 

May Allah save the Muslims from ever being ruled by them.

 

Statements of their scholars:

Their scholar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Babawayh al Qummi narrates the following from Dawood ibn Farqad:

 

قلت لأبي عبد الله ما تقول في قتل الناصب قال حلال الدم ولكني أتقى عليك فإن قدرت أن تقلب عليه حا ئطا أو تغرقه في ماء لكيلا يشهد به عليك فافعل، قلت فما ترى في ماله قال توَّه ما قدرت عليه

I enquired from Abu ‘Abdullah, “What is your opinion regarding the slaying of a Nasib?”

He replied, “Killing them is permissible; however, I fear for you, it would be better if you could drop a wall on him or drown him in water so that nobody can testify against you.”

I then said, “What is your opinion regarding his wealth?”

He replied, “Deceive him as much as you can.”[32]

 

This repulsive narration has also been mentioned by their scholar al Hurr al ‘Amili in Wasa’il al Shia and by Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri in al Anwar al No’maniyyah under the following statement:

 

جواز قتلهم (أي النواصب) واستباحة أمواله

Permissibility of killing them and usurping their wealth.[33]

 

So, the only problem with it is a manner needs to be adopted to absolve the Shia from being subjected to the penalty for murder.

Yusuf al Bahrani mentions that the permissibility to take the wealth and lives of Ahlus Sunnah is the view of the former and latter Shia. He mentions the following:

 

إن إطلاق المسلم على الناصب وأنه لا يجوز أخذ ماله من حيث الإسلام خلاف ما عليه الطا ئفة المحقة سلفا وخلفا من الحكم بكفر الناصب ونجاسته وجواز أخذ ماله بل قتله

Muslims are referred to as Nasib. According to Islam, it is impermissible to usurp their wealth. But former and latter scholars are of the opinion that a Nasib is a disbeliever and an impure person whose wealth cannot only be usurped, but he can also be killed.[34]

 

Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri mentions:

 

يجوز قتلهم (أي النواصب) واستباحة أموالهم

Killing them and usurping their wealth are both permissible.[35]

 

Yusuf al Bahrani mentions:

 

وإلى هذا القول ذهب أبو الصلاح ، وابن إدريس، وسلار ، وهو الحق الظاهر بل الصريح من الأخبار لاستفاضتها وتكاثرها بكفر المخالف ونصبه و شركه وحل ماله ودمه كما بسطنا عليه الكلام بما لا يحوم حوله  شبهة النقض والإبرام في كتاب الشهاب الثاقب في بيان معنى الناصب وما يترتب عليه من المطالب

Abu al Salah, Ibn Idris, and Salar are all of the above opinion. It is apparent and rather obvious considering the abundance of statements that consider the opposition to be a disbeliever, Nasib, Mushrik and consider his wealth and blood permissible. We have explained at length in Kitab al Shihab al Thaqib under the explanation of Nasib and what is he held accountable for, in a manner that prevents the possibility of contradiction or obscurity arising.[36]

 

Sheikh ‘Abdul Mun’im al Nimr mentions in his book Al Shia al Mahdi al Daruz Tarikh wa Watha’iq that he faced many threats from the Shia at the time of writing about them.[37]

The Shia harbour hatred, enmity and aversion to the Ahlus Sunnah, but based on their abhorrent belief of Taqiyya, they conceal it by means of civility towards Ahlul Bayt and expressing false love. This has, however, blinded the Ahlus Sunnah from seeing their actual stance. ‘Abdul Mun’im al Nimr mentions the following:

 

ولكننا نحن العرب السنيين لا نفطن إلى هذا بل ظننا أن السنين الطويلة قد تكفلت مع الإسلام بمحوه وإزالته فلم يخطر لنا على بال فشاركنا الإيرانيين فرحهم واعتقدنا أن الخميني سيتجاوز أو ينسى مثلنا كل هذه المسائل التاريخية ويؤدي دوره كزعيم إسلامي لأمة إسلامية يقود الصحوة الإسلامية منها وذلك لصالح الإسلام والمسلمين جميعا لا فرق بين فارسي وعربي ولا بين شيعي وسني ولكن اظهرت الأحداث بعد ذلك أننا كنا غارقين في أحلام وردية أو في بحر آمالنا مما لا يزال بعض  شبابنا ورجالنا غارقين فيها حتى الآن برغم الأحداث المزعجة

We the Sunni Arabs do not realise this, rather we are of the opinion that the many years of Islam acts as a security from its destruction or eradication. It has not occurred to us, so we became part of Iranian festivals and began believing that Khomeini will soon disregard or forget like us all these historic matters, and he will rule like an Islamic ruler of an Islamic nation who will awaken consciousness to Islam which will be to the advantage of Islam and the Muslims altogether, as there will be no difference between a Persian and an Arab or between a Shia and a Sunni. However the incidents thereafter proved to us that we were drowning in rosy dreams or in the ocean of our hopes which some of our youngsters and grownups continue drowning in until now, despite the unpleasant incidents.

 

The massacre of Sheikh Ihsan Ilahi Zahir together with eighteen other Muslims that occurred on 23 July 1407 in the midst of the conference for ‘Ulama’ of Hadith was due to the blood of those who oppose them or refute their baseless claims to be permissible.

 

3. Permissibility to usurp the wealth of Ahlus Sunnah

There has already been mentioned regarding the permissibility to usurp the wealth of the Ahlus Sunnah in the discussion regarding their ruling regarding the blood of Muslims. However, the following statements also appear.

The statement Abu ‘Abdullah:

 

خذ مال الناصب حيث ما وجدته وادفع إلينا الخمس

Usurp the wealth of the Nasib no matter where you find it and give us a fifth of it.

 

Sheikh al Ta’ifah Abu Jafar al Tusi mentions this narration in Tahdhib al Ahkam[38], al Fayd al Kashani mentions it in al Wafi[39], whilst their Sheikh al Darazi al Bahrani quotes it in al Mahasin al Nafsaniyyah[40] and explains it elaborately.

Their great authority, Ruh Allah Khomeini ruled the following regarding this matter:

 

والأقوى إلحاق الناصب بأهل الحرب في إباحة ما اغتنم منهم وتعلق الخمس به بل الظاهر جواز أخذ ماله أين وجد وبأي نحو كان ووجوب إخراج خمسه

According to the most authentic narration, a Nasib is similar to a disbelieving enemy in regards to the permissibility of usurping wealth from him, and the law of Khumus applies. It is evident that it is permissible to usurp his wealth wherever it is found and by any means as long as a fifth is taken out.[41]

 

Muhsin al Mu’allim also quotes this narration in his book al Nasb wa al Nawasib gathering from it the permissibility of usurping the wealth of Ahlus Sunnah as they are Nawasib considering this misguidance.[42]

Certainly the methods of deceit, stealing, trickery, fraud and other impermissible means are considered permissible to the Ahlus Sunnah according to Khomeini by means of his statement:

 

…وبأي نحو كان…

And by any means possible.

 

4. Impurity of Ahlus Sunnah according to the Shia

Their former authority, Muhammad Kazim al Tabataba’i mentions:

 

لا إ شكال في نجاسة الغلاة والخوارج والنواصب

There is not any ambiguity in the fact that the Ghulat, Khawarij, and Nawasib are considered impure.[43]

 

Their definition of Nawasib has been explained previously.

Their learned scholar, Ayatollah al Hassan ibn Yusuf ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli mentions:

 

والخوارج والغلاة والناصب وهو الذي يتظاهر بعداوة أهل البيت عليهم السلام أنجاس

The Khawarij, Ghulat, Nasib and those who display hatred for the Ahlul Bayt are all considered impure.[44]

 

Khomeini mentions:

 

وأما النواصب والخوارج لعنهم الله تعالى فهما نجسان من غير توقف

As for the Nawasib and Khawarij, may the curse of Allah be on them, they are without a doubt considered impure.[45]

 

Khomeini also mentions:

 

غير الاثنى عشرية من فرق الشيعة أذ لم يظهر منهم نصب ومعاداة وسب لسائر الأمة الذين لا يعتقدون بإمامتهم طاهرون وأما مع ظهور ذلك منهم فهم مثل سائر النواصب

The Shia of sects other than the sect of the Ithna Ashariyyah are considered pure as long as they are not harbouring any Nasb, animosity or vituperation towards the Imams they have no belief in. However, if they begin displaying the above, then they are no different to the Nawasib.[46]

 

O beloved reader, take note of the above that sects other than Ithna ‘Ashariyyah are still considered to be pure, whereas mention of the Ahlus Sunnah has not even been made as they are considered impure without a doubt.

Al Saduq narrates on the authority of Abu Basir who narrates from Abu ‘Abdullah saying:

 

إن نوح احمل في السفينة الكلب والخنزير ولم يحمل فيها ولد الزنا والناصب ر من ولد الزنا

Nuh ‘alayh al Salam took a dog and a pig along into the ark; however, he did not take along an illegitimate child, and a Nasib is considered to be worse than an illegitimate child.[47]

 

Their great symbol, al Hajj al Sayed Muhammad Rida Golpaygani mentions:

 

ناصب العداوة لأحد من المعصومين الأربعة عشر سلام الله عليهم أو الساب له نجس وإن أظهر الإسلام ولا إشكال في كفر الغلاة ونجاستهم وهم المعتقدون بألوهيته أمير المؤمنين وكذا الخوارج والنواصب

A person who has hatred for any of the fourteen infallible personalities—may Allah shower them with peace—or reviles them, is considered impure even though he may proclaim Islam. There is no ambiguity regarding the disbelief of the Ghulat and their impurity as they believe in the divinity of Amir al Mu’minin. Similar are the Khawarij and the Nawasib.[48]

 

Take note that the mention of Nasb which means hatred for the Ahlul Bayt and reviling them refer to the Nawasib of previous times who do not exist today. There is another classification of Nawasib which according to their terminology, the Ahlus Sunnah belong to. It has been mentioned previously that according to them, a Sunni is referred to as Nasib.

Their scholar Yusuf al Bahrani mentions:

 

ولا يخفى ما في هذا الاستدلال من الضعف والوهن لدلالة الأخبار المستفيضة بل المتواترة معنى كما أوضحناه في الرسالة المشار إليها على كفر المخالف الغير مستضعف ونصبه ونجاسته ولاريب أن هذين الخبرين يقصران عن معارضة تلك الأخبار سندا وعددا ودلالة فالواجب حملها إما على التقية وهو الأظهر بقرينة الرواة فيهما أو تخصيصها بما عدا المخالف كما أنه يجب تخصيصها بما عدا الغالي والخوارج والنواصب بالمعنى المشهور بين الأصحاب فإنهم لا يختلفون في كفر الجميع

The deficiency and inadequacy of this deduction is apparent due to the indication of extensive or rather uninterrupted explanations as we have shed light on it in the aforementioned booklet regarding the disbelief of the other opposition being deemed weak, their Nasb, and their impurity. There is no doubt in these two matters being inadequate in contradicting these claims from the aspect of ascription, number, and semantics. Therefore, understanding it as Taqiyyah is clearly the only option considering the connection of narrators in them both or specifying it by excluding the opposition just as it is necessary to exclude the extremist, Khawarij, and Nawasib according to the famous interpretation of the scholars, as they do not differ regarding the disbelief of the masses.[49]

 

In that case, the narrations and statements that do not attest to the disbelief and impurity of the opposition will be understood as Taqiyyah and this is probably not heard from them nowadays due to the same reason. I do not intend generalising, as there are some who are truthful; however, a truthful Shia will become apparent in his firm stances against those statements which create disunity in the Ummah.

Ni’mah Allah al Jaza’iri mentions:

 

وأما الناصب وأحواله، فهو بما يتم ببيان أمرين. الاول: في بيان معنى الناصبي الذي ورد في الأخبار أنه نجس، وأنه أشر من اليهودي والنصراني وا لمجوسي وأنه كافر نجس بإجماع علماء الإمامية رضوان الله عليهم

The matter of the Nasib and his position can be understood by explaining two matters:

1. 1. Explaining the meaning of Nasib that appears in the narrations that he is impure, worse than a Jew, Christian or Fire worshipper and he is considered an impure disbeliever according to the consensus of the Shia scholars, may Allah be pleased with them…[50]

 

5. Their ruling with regards to living under the rule of Ahlus Sunnah

We have noticed from the previous statements of the Shia that the Ahlus Sunnah are disbelievers due to their famous rejection of the necessary beliefs, according to the Shia. This also includes their governors and rulers; however, the matter concerning the rulers is greater, as they have usurped the position from the very Imam who was the reason why they were ruled disbelievers in the first place; so, what would the ruling regarding the one who usurped his position unrightfully be and what would be the ruling regarding living under such a ruler?

Muhaqqiq al Bahrani explains this ruling and the statements related to it:

 

المسألة الثالثة في معونة الظالمين والمشهور في كلام الأصحاب تقييدها بما يحرم و أما ما لا يحرم كالخياطة لهم والبناء ونحو ذلك فانه لا بأس به قال في الكفاية ومن ذلك معونة الظالمين بما يحرم أما ما لا يحرم كالخياطة وغيرها فالظاهر جوازه لكن الأحوط الاحتراز عنه لبعض الأخبار الدالة على المنع وقوله تعالى ولا تركنوا إلى الذين ظلموا فتمسكم النار قال في مجمع البيان فقيل معناه ولا تميلوا إلى المشركين في شئ من دينكم عن ابن عباس وقيل لا تداهنوا الظلمة عن السدي وابن زيد قيل إن الركون إلى الظالمين المنهي عنه هو الدخول معهم في ظلمهم وإظهار موالاتهم و أما الدخول عليهم ومعاشرتهم دفعا لشرهم فجائز عن القاضي وقريب منه ما روى عنهم عليهم السلام إن الركون هو المودة والنصيحة والطاعة لهم انتهى

The third ruling with regards to assisting the oppressors which is famous amongst the statements of the scholars is restricted to that which is impermissible. As for that which is permissible like sewing for them, building, and similar, then there is no objection to it. He mentions in al Kifayah, “It only includes assisting the oppressors in that which is impermissible, whereas permissible things like tailoring or similar are clearly permissible. However, the more precautionary measure would be to refrain altogether considering the few statements which condemn it. Allah mentions in the Qur’an, “And incline not to those who are sinners, lest the fire afflicts you.”

It is mentioned in Majma’ al Bayan, “The interpretation of the verse is, “And do not side with the polytheists in any aspect of your religion”, attributed to Ibn ‘Abbas. And it is said, “Do not treat a transgressor with kindness,” from al Suddi and Ibn Zaid. It has been said that the inclination towards the transgressors which is prohibited is being part of their transgression and expressing love for them. It is, however, permissible to have dealings with them to prevent their evil, from al Qadi. Close to that is what has been narrated from them ‘alayh al Salam, “Inclining refers to having love, wishing well, and obeying them.”[51]

 

The abovementioned statements regarding this discussion clearly indicates to the impermissibility of their assistance in general, whether in impermissible or permissible instances.

Muhaqqiq al Bahrani then provides proofs for the statements:

 

أقول لا يخفى ما في هذه الأخبار باعتبار ضم بعضها إلى بعض من التدافع والتمانع ومجمل القول فيها أنه لا شك أنه قد علم من الأخبار المتقدمة حرمة الدخول في أعما لهم على اوكد وجه بل مجرد محبتهم والركون إليهم وحب بقائهم فضلا عن مساعدتهم وأعانتهم بالاعمال إلا أن الأخبار الدالة على الجواز ظاهرة فيه بالقيود المذكورة فيها والتحقيق في ذلك أن هنا مقامات ثلاثة (الأول) أن يدخل في أعما لهم لحب الدنيا وتحصيل لذة الرياسة والأمر والنهى وهو الذي يحمل عليه أخبار المنع (الثاني) أن يكون كذلك ولكن يمزجه بفعل الطاعات وقضاء حوائج المؤمنين وفعل الخيرات وهذا هو الذي أشير إليه في الأخبار المتقدمة كما عرفت من قوله عليه السلام ذا بذا وقوله واحدة بواحدة وقوله وهو أقلهم حظا ونحو ذلك (الثالث) أن يكون قصده من الدخول فيها إنما هو محض فعل الخير و دفع الأذى عن المؤمنين واصطناع المعروف إليهم وهو الفرد النادر وأقل قليل حتى قيل إنه من قبيل إخراج اللبن الخالص من بين فرث ودم ويشير إلى هذا الفرد عجز حديث السرائر المتقدم وعلى هذا يحمل دخول مثل الثقة الجليل على بن يقطين ومحمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع و أمثالهما من إجلاء الرواة عنهم النجاشي المتقدم ذكره وكذلك جملة من علما ئنا الأعلام كالمرتضى والمحقق الخواجه نصير الدين والملة وآية الله العلامة الحلي ومن المتأخرين المحقق الثاني في سلطنة الشاه إسماعيل و شيخنا البهائي و شيخنا المجلسي و نحوهم عطر الله مراقدهم مع تسليم دعوى العموم وبذلك يزول الإ شكال والله العالم.

The attempt to advocate it is clear from these statements considering its link to one another. The synopsis is as follows; There is no doubt that the previous statements strongly emphasise the impermissibility in entering into dealings with them, rather mere love, inclination towards them and loving their existence [is impermissible], more than assisting them and helping them in dealings except that the statement indicating towards permissibility clearly has conditions which are mentioned in it. In reality, there are three levels:

1. 1. Entering into dealings with them due to love of the world, to attain the enjoyment of leadership and to command with good and forbid evil. The statements of prohibition are referring to this level.
   2. Same as the above but coupled with acts of obedience, fulfilling the needs of the believers and good deeds. The previous statements are referring to this level. Similar is the words of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, “This for this”, “One for one” and “Even though his share is the least” and so forth.
   3. Entering into dealings with the primary objective of initiating good, preventing the believers from harm and making good reach them. This is, however, such a rare phenomenon that it is likened to the act of removing pure milk from amidst dung and blood. The latter part of the aforementioned narration on secrets indicates to this level.

This is the opinion of the great expert ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin, Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Bazigh, other great narrators of their likenesses, al Najashi mentioned previously, and similarly a group of our great scholars like al Murtada, Muhaqqiq Khawajah Nasir al Din wa al Millah, ‘Allamah al Hilli and some latter scholars like Muhaqqiq al Thani in the rule of Shah Ismail, Sheikh al Baha’i, Sheikh al Majlisi and their likenesses, may Allah make their abodes a place of comfort, while excepting the claim of generality.

 

Khomeini mentions:

 

ونتيجة هذه الطوائف أن التولي وتقلد الأمر من أعظم المحرمات الإلهية التي لا تترخص إلا في مواقف التقية والضرورة مع لزوم جبر المفسدة الواقعة فيها بالأعمال الصالحة وقضاء حوا ئج الشيعة ف (إن الحسنات يذهبن السيئات) كما في واية مفضل بن مريم وكفارة عمل السلطان قضاء حوا ئج الإخوان كما في الفقيه وما ورد في ترخيص الدخول في ولاياتهم ومناصبهم كثيرا على مبنى التقية حتى عن مثل زرارة كما في صحيحة الوليد بن صبيح ولاسيما إن المسألة في نهاية الدقة في الحفظ على دمائهم ودماء أصحابهم ودخول مثل علي بن يقطين للإذن الخاص ولمصالح عالية مؤقتة وبالجملة تصدي أمور الممالك محرم والإعانة على هذا الظلم العظيم محرم بأن يتصدى الولايات والمناصب حتى على الشيعة والاستثناء ينحصر بصورة التقية والضرورة راعيا مصالح الأمة حال الا شتغال ولا معنى لان يكون المستثنى في المقام مستحبا لما تقرر أن الاستثناء عن العناوين المقبحة لا يعقل إلا فيما زاحم الملاك الأقوى البالغ حد الإيجاب والسر كل السر أن الشقاوة والسعادة الدنيوية والأخروية تنشأ عن الخلافة الصحيحة والسلطنة العادلة والفاسدة الظلمة وجميع الخيرات والشرور مربوطة بهما وعند ئذ يجب بحكم العقل إيجاد هذه واقتناء ذاك ولو بالسياسة المنفية التي هي المنساق من مآثير المسألة بعد التدبر والتأمل هذا كله حول السلطان الجائر المدعي للخلافة الإسلامية الذي هو القدر المتيقن من الأدلة حسب زمان صدورها وأما من يتصدى الممالك الاسلامية من غير الادعاء المذكور فهو عندي أيضا من الفساق في تقلده لما تقرر منا أنه حق الفقهاء

The result of these divisions is that leadership and taking control of matters is the most heinous of that which has been prohibited, which does not have any scope for practice except in situations of Taqiyyah and necessity where there is a dire need to replace evil with good and fulfilling the needs of the Shia. This is because “good deeds take away evil deeds,” as appears in the narration of Mufaddal ibn Maryam. The atonement for the actions of the ruler is fulfilling the needs of the Shia, as it is mentioned in al Faqih.

And what has been reported about the concession of taking up their authoritative positions is primarily upon the basis of Taqiyyah, even from the likes of Zurarah, as appears in the Sahihah of al Walid ibn Sabih, especially considering the matter to be extremely complex due to it pertaining to the protection of their blood and the blood of their companions. The participation of the likes of ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin was on account of special permission [from the Imam] and for higher circumstantial interests.

So, in essence, occupying oneself with the matters of the state is forbidden, and assisting in this grave oppression is also disallowed, even if it be assuming leadership over the Shia. The exception is restricted to instances of Taqiyyah and dire need, and that also with due consideration to the interests of the Ummah.

And there is no meaning in the excluded being desirable, due to what has been established that making exclusions from reprehensible matters is illogical, but in the instance where the sovereign authority is contested and that reaches the extent of compulsion. And the actual secret is that worldly and otherworldly wretchedness and good fortune is a result of a correct Khilafah and a just rulership or an illegitimate khilafah and an oppressive rulership respectively. Hence, all good and bad are linked to them. That being the case it will be necessary to bring such a rulership about and achieve it even if it be by way of the less-than-ideal political framework.

This is all regarding an oppressive ruler who claims an Islamic Khilafah. And this is absolute from the evidences as per the time of their emergence.

As for the one who assumes authority without the aforementioned claim, he also is a from the sinful according to me in his rule, due to the established fact that rulership is the right of the jurists.[52]

 

Al Hurr al ‘Amili has devoted many chapters to this theory in his book Wasa’il al Shia, some of which are as follows:

 

Chapter 45: Impermissibility of being in a position of authority under the rule of a transgressor unless in a case of exception. He presents herein 12 narrations.

Chapter 46: Permissibility of being in a position of authority under the rule of a transgressor to bring benefit to the believers and save them from harm. He mentions herein 17 narrations.

Chapter 47: Compulsion of returning that which was oppressively taken to those from whom if was taken if they are known or else it be given in charity. He presents herein 1 narration.

Chapter 48: Permissibility of accepting a position of authority under the rule of a transgressor due to need and fear. He mentions herein 10 narrations.[53]

 

Take note from the aforementioned that the primary rule is that of non-involvement, as the Ahlus Sunnah and their rulers are disbelievers. This is due to the fact that the Caliphate is an undisputable right of the Imam. Therefore, whoever assumes its responsibility or is pleased with someone other than the Imam who has assumed its responsibility is considered a disbeliever, as previously mentioned in the discussion regarding their belief of Ahlus Sunnah being disbelievers. For this reason, assuming positions in their country is impermissible unless in the cases of exception which have been mentioned. They are as follows:

• Fear of their creed being exposed regarding excommunication of the state, like he who conceals his Shi’ism due to fear of the Khalifah.
• Obtaining benefit for the believers—referring to only the adherents of their creed—just as Ibn Yaqtin had by returning the wealth of the Shia after it was usurped.
• Inflicting harm to the Ahlus Sunnah and more especially their leaders similar to the previous statement regarding the person who sought permission to satisfy his thirst for revenge by usurping the wealth of the Ahlus Sunnah.

Observe how al Bahrani mentioned that al Tusi was among those who assumed a position in the service of Halaku due to the interests of his creed. Someone could possibly claim that he was compelled, but this would be an answer to that claim. However, what answer can be given regarding Ibn al ‘Alqami and why did he assume the position of vizier? Was he compelled by the Khalifah, although this hasn’t been mentioned by anyone, and why did the Khalifah detest his position as vizier? Or was his position a mere service to his creed?

Before ending this chapter, I would like to cite an example of one of these viziers who gained such approval among the scholars of the Shia thereby being cited as an example of a righteous vizier, he is none other than ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin.

 

‘Ali ibn Yaqtin

He was the vizier of the Abbasid Khalifah Harun al Rashid radiya Llahu ‘anhu. Al Bahrani mentions regarding his status amongst the Shia:

 

ومنها الأخبار ما يدل على إنه ينال بذلك الحظ الأوفر والمنزلة العليا كما يدل عليه كلام الرضا عليه السلام في رواية الكشي وأخبار على بن يقطين وعلو مرتبته عند الكاظم عليه السلام ويؤيده خبر منع الكاظم عليه السلام لعلى بن يقطين عن الخروج من أعمالهم.

There are statements which indicate that a great fortune and lofty position is attained by means of it, as indicated to by the statement of al Rida in the narration mentioned by al Kashshi. The statements regarding ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin and his lofty status in the eyes of al Kazim. The command of al Kazim to ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin preventing him from giving up his post attests to it.[54]

 

Al Bahrani also mentions:

 

وعلى هذا الذين قصدهم في العمل لسلاطين أهل السنة الخير لمذهبهم فقط يحمل دخول مثل الثقة الجليل على بن يقطين ومحمد بن إسماعيل بن بزيع و أمثا لهما من إجلاء الرواة…

Regarding their objective of working under the rulers of Ahlus Sunnah merely for the benefit of their creed, the participation of the likenesses of ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin, Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Bazi’ and other famous scholars of their stature is narrated.[55]

 

It appears in the foreword of al Rasa’il al ‘Ashr of Sheikh al Tusi:

 

إن المكانة التي أحرزها الشيعة في بغداد كان الفضل يعود فيها بشكل أساسي إلى رجال كانت لهم منزلة وشأن من أمثال علي بن يقطين

As for the position attained by the Shia in Baghdad, al Fadl would be referred to as a chief by those of position and honour from the likenesses of ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin.[56]

 

Khomeini mentions his opinion:

 

وإذا كانت ظروف التقية تلزم أحدا منا بالدخول في ركب السلاطين فهنا يجب الامتناع عن ذلك حتى لو أدى الامتناع إلى قتله إلا أن يكون في دخوله الشكلي نصر حقيقي للإسلام والمسلمين مثل دخول علي بن يقطين ونصير الدين الطوسي رحمهما الله

When the circumstances of Taqiyyah demand one of us to enter into the cavalry of the rulers, then in this case it is compulsory to desist from this Taqiyyah even if it may lead to being slain, except in the situation where outward participation will bring true assistance to Islam and the Muslims like it was in the case of ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin and Nasir al Din al Tusi.[57]

 

Al Hurr al ‘Amili narrates from ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin who mentioned:

 

قال قلت لأبي الحسن عليه السلام ما تقول في أعمال هؤلاء قال إن كنت لابد فاعلا فاتق أموال الشيعة قال فاخبرني على انه كان يجبيها من الشيعة علانية ويردها عليهم في السر

I said to Abu al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam, “What is your opinion regarding taking up a position under these people?”

He replied, “Do it if you have to, but do not take the wealth of the Shia.”

Ibn Yaqtin then said, “I would accept the wealth from the Shia in public and return it to them secretly.”[58]

 

As we can see, he would return the wealth of the Rafidah back to them whilst he would deal with the Ahlus Sunnah differently. This is one of the reasons for permissibility in participating according to them as previously mentioned. Here is another duty from the duties of this great vizier featuring a great and righteous example to the one who wishes to be in the service of the rulers of the Ahlus Sunnah.

Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri mentions:

 

وفي الروايات أن علي بن يقطين وهو وزير الرشيد فد اجتمع في حبسه جماعة من المخالفين وكان من خواص الشيعة فأمر غلمانه وهدموا سقف الحبس على المحبوسين فماتوا كلهم وكانوا خمسمائة رجل تقريبا فأراد الخلاص من تبعات دما ئهم فأرسل إلى الإمام مولانا الكاظم فكتب عليه السلام إليه جواب كتابه بأنك لو كنت تقدمت إلي قبل قتلهم لما كان عليك شيء من دمائهم وحيث أنك لم تتقدم إلي فكفرعن كل رجل قتلته منهم بتيس والتيس خير منه فانظر إلى هذه الدية الجزيلة التي لا تعادل دية أخيهم الأصغر وهو كلب الصيد فإن ديته عشرون درهما ولا دية أخيهم الأكبر وهواليهودي أو المجوسي فإنها ثمانمائة درهم وحالهم في الآخرة أخس وابخس

It is narrated regarding ‘Ali ibn Yaqtin, whilst the vizier of Harun al Rashid, that he once imprisoned a group of the opposition. Being a leader of the Shia, he commanded some youngsters to cause the roof of the prison to fall onto the inmates killing them all. The prisoners amounted to approximately 500 men. To be absolved from any responsibility, he wrote to Imam Mawlana al Kazim who in turn replied to his letter saying, “Had you had come to me prior to killing them, you would have been totally absolved. Since you hadn’t come to prior, you should give one goat as compensation for each person you slain, although a goat is more valuable than any of them.” Just look at the amount of this blood money, it is not even equivalent to that of their [referring to the Ahlus Sunnah] smallest brother which is a hunting dog, as the blood money for it is 20 silver coins, neither is it equal to the blood money of their eldest brother who is either a Jew or Fire-worshipper, as their compensation is 800 silver coins and an evil punishment in the hereafter.[59]

 

Muhsin al Mu’allim also quoted this narration.[60] With actions such as these is he still regarded as a trustworthy righteous vizier? Is the trustworthiness and piety Ibn al ‘Alqami the same as this?

 

6. The Shia belief of Taqiyyah and the aspect of concealing their beliefs

Why should we discuss Taqiyyah? Studying the beliefs and principles of the Shia creed has revealed many inconsistencies present therein, which not only weakens the foundation upon which the creed stands, but rather affects majority of the creed. This is a statement made by the most reputed scholars of the Shia. Some of the confessions are as follows:

The statement of Dildar ‘Ali:

 

إن الأحاديث المأثورة عن الأ ئمة مختلفة جدا لا يكاد يوجد حديث إلا وفي مقابله ما ينافيه ولا يتفق خبر إلا وبإزائه ما يضاده حتى صار ذلك سببا لرجوع بعض الناقصين عن اعتقاد الحق

The narrations attributed to the Imams are divergent to such as extent that it is almost impossible to find a narration that doesn’t have another contradicting it. There isn’t any statement that isn’t contradicted by another, such that it became a reason for a number of the weak abandoning the true faith.[61]

 

Al Tusi has also mentioned:

 

ذاكرني بعض الأصدقاء بأحاديث أصحابنا وما وقع فيها من الاختلاف والتباين والتضاد حتى لا يكاد يسلم خبر إلا وبإزائه ما يضاده ولا يسلم حديث إلا وفي مقابله ما ينافيه حتى جعل مخالفونا ذلك من أعظم الطعون على مذهبنا

Some friends have mentioned to me regarding the narrations of our scholars and the contradictions, disparities, and opposition in them to such an extent that there will not be a narration, except that another narration will contradict it. There is no narration that is not opposed by another narration. Such that this has become the greatest accusation of our opposition against our creed.[62]

 

Upon looking into the things that kept these discrepancies hidden, Taqiyyah is the most apparent of them from an ideological perspective. There are other reasons but these explanations are not the purpose of discussion here, although they should be discussed.

So, what is this Taqiyyah all about?

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says in the noble Qur’an:

 

لا يتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاء مِن دُوْنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَمَن يفَعَلْ ذَلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللّهِ فِي شيءٍ إِلا أَن تَتَّقُواْ مِنْهُمْ تقاة وَيُحَذِّركُمُ اللّه نفَسَه وَإِلَى اللّهِ الْمَصِيرُ قُلْ إِن تُخْفُواْ مَا فِي صُدُوركمْ أَوْتُبدوه يعلَمْه اللّه وَيعلَمُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَمَا فِي الأرضْ وَاللّه عَلَى كُلِّ شيَءٍ قَدِيرٌ

Believers shall not take disbelievers as allies instead of believers. And whoever does that has nothing to do with Allah unless he does so in order to protect himself from them, and Allah warns you of himself and to Allah is the final abode. Say, whether you hide what is in your hearts or reveal it, Allah is aware of it, and he knows that which is in the heavens and on the earth, and Allah has power over everything.[63]

 

Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala also says in the noble Qur’an:

 

مَن كَفَرَ بِاللّهِ مِن بعدِ إيمَانِهِ إِلا مَنْ أكره وَقَلْبهُ مُطْمَئِنٌّ بِالإِيمَانِ وَلَكِن مَّن شرَح بِالْكُفْر صَدْراً فَعَلَيْهِمْ غَضَبٌ مِّنَ اللّهِ وَ لهمَ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ

Whosoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief except for the one who is forced while his heart is secure in faith, but those who open their hearts to disbelief then upon them is the wrath of Allah and they will face a great punishment.[64]

 

It is clear from the above verses that the Taqiyyah referred to as permissible by Allah has a specific limit to the extent that it came in the form of dispraise for the one who forms allies with the disbelievers. It did not appear independently indicating to its restricted scope, therefore it is impossible for Taqiyyah to be a general constant for a Muslim in his life, such that its requisite is continuous without clarity of truth. In that case, the purpose for sending Messengers cannot be ascertained and it is not possible for anyone to call towards Islam, as it is known that every call of this sort will definitely be responded to with war and rejection. So, when will the truth become apparent and earn standing when the callers are making Taqiyyah for every fear he faces from transgressors and general masses. In connection with this, I call unto the heedful, educated youth of the Shia, those who are seeking the truth in following the creed of the Ahlul Bayt and those who are not prompted by desire position, wealth, fame or even due to prejudice to blindly accept what is falsely and deceptively attributed to the Ahlul Bayt. I invite them to a critical and thorough study of the relied upon books of the creed and of its statements and beliefs, but in particular, a complete introspection into the answers of the scholars of the creed regarding its discrepancies and the extent of its clarity and symmetry to the Qur’an, intellect and historical events regarding which there is no contradiction. In this way my brothers, true unity can be achieved.

We are aware of the Taqiyyah mentioned in the Qur’an; however, what does Taqiyyah of the Shia constitute?

 

Taqiyyah of the Shia

It refers to demonstrating the opposite of reality, and it allows a Shia to deceive others. So based on this Taqiyyah, a Shia can reject outwardly what he believes inwardly, and it allows him to demonstrate beliefs other than his inward beliefs. For this reason, you will find the Shia rejecting many of their beliefs in front of the Ahlus Sunnah. Like their stance regarding the lives of the Ahlus Sunnah, them being apostates, and the ruling of cooperating with their rulers.

Sheikh Muhibb al Din al Khatib mentions:

 

وأول موانع التجاوب الصادق بإخلاص بيننا وبينهم ما يسمونه التقية فإنها عقيدة دينية تبيح لهم التظاهر لنا بغير ما يبطنون فينخدع سليم القلب منا بما يتظاهرون له به من رغبتهم في التفاهم والتقارب وهم لا يريدون ذلك ولا يرضون به ولا يعلمون له إلا على أن يبقى من الطرف الواحد مع بقاء الطرف الآخر في عزلته لا يتزحزح عنها قيد شعرة

The first prevention of true and sincere unity between us and them is what is known as Taqiyyah, for it is a religious belief which allows them to demonstrate to us other than what they conceal, therefore causing a clean hearted one of us to be misled by their portrayal of zeal for concurrence and mutual approximation whereas they have no desire for it, they are not pleased by it nor are they aware of its reality, except that it should be from one side whereas the other side remain in their position without even moving a hair breath.[65]

 

I present the following to explain its reality and importance in their belief:

Their Sheikh and chief of their Muhaddithin, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn al Hussain—who is titled al Saduq—mentions:

 

واعتقادنا في التقية أنها واجبة من تركها كان بمنزلة من ترك الصلاة والتقية واجبة لا يجوز رفعها إلى أن يخرج القائم فمن تركها قبل خروجه فقد خرج من دين الله وعن دين الإمامية وخالف الله ورسوله والأ ئمة

Taqiyyah is compulsory in our belief. The one who abandons it is similar to he who has abandoned salah. Taqiyyah is compulsory and it will not be waived until the Qa’im emerges. Whosoever abandons it before his emergence, then he has left the religion of Allah and the Imamiyyah, and went against Allah, His Messenger and the Imams.[66]

 

The narration of al Kulayni where he narrates from Ma’mar ibn Khallad who says:

 

سألت أبا الحسن عن القيام للولاة فقال قال أبو جعفرالتقية من ديني ودين آبا ي ولا إيمان لمن لا تقية له

I asked Abu al Hassan regarding rising for the leaders, he replied, “Abu Jafar has said, ‘Taqiyyah is part of my religion and the religion of my forefathers, and Iman is incomplete without Taqiyyah.’”[67]

 

It is narrated in al Usul of al Kafi from Abu ‘Abdullah, who mentioned:

 

يا أبا عمر إن تسعة أعشا ر الدين في التقية ولا دين لمن لا تقية له والتقية في كل شيء إلا في النبيذ والمسح على الخفين

O Abu Umar, certainly nine tenths of religion is in Taqiyyah, and religion is incomplete without Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is permissible in everything except Nabidh and Masah on Khuffayn.[68]

 

Al Kulayni also narrates from al Sadiq saying:

 

سمعت أبي يقول لا والله ما على وجه الأرض شيء أحب إليَّ من التقية يا حبيب إنه من كانت له تقية رفعه الله يا حبيب من لم تكن له تقية وضعه الله يا حبيب إن الناس إنما هم في هدنة فلو قد كان ذلك كان هذا

I heard my father saying, “By Allah, there is nothing on the surface of this earth more beloved to me than Taqiyyah.” O Habib, Allah honours a person who adopts Taqiyyah and disgraces the one who abandons it. O Habib, indeed people are in a truce, had there been anything, it would have been this.[69]

 

The following is narrated from Abu ‘Abdullah:

 

التقية ترس الله بينه وبين خلقه

Taqiyyah is a shield between Allah and his creation.[70]

 

The following is narrated from Abu ‘Abdullah:

 

أبى الله عز وجل لنا ولكم في دينه إلا التقية

Allah only accepted Taqiyyah as part of his religion for us all.[71]

 

The following is narrated from Abu ‘Abdullah:

 

كان أ بي يقول أي شيء أقر لعيني من التقية إن التقية جُنة المؤمن

My father would say: There is nothing more beloved to me than Taqiyyah. Taqiyyah is definitely the shield of a believer.[72]

 

Al Kulayni and al Fayd al Kashani narrate from Abu ‘Abdullah saying:

 

من استفتح نهاره بإذاعة سرنا سلط عليه حر الحديد و ضيق ا لمجالس

He who begins his morning by proclaiming our secret, will be inflicted with the heat of iron and confinement of company.[73]

 

It is mentioned in al Kafi and al Rasa’il of Khomeini from Sulaiman ibn Khalid who mentions:

 

يا سليمان إنكم على دين من كتمه أعزه الله ومن أذاعه أذله الله

O Sulaiman, you are an adherent of a religion of which a person is honoured by concealing it and disgraced by exposing it.[74]

 

Al Hurr al ‘Amili narrates from Amir al Mu’minin saying:

 

التقية من أفضل أعمال المؤمنين

Taqiyyah is from the greatest actions of a believer.[75]

 

The following is mentioned in Wasa’il al Shia from ‘Ali ibn al Hussain:

 

يغفر الله للمؤمن كل ذنب ويطهره منه في الدنيا والآخرة ما خلا ذنبين ترك التقية وتضييع حقوق الإخوان

Allah forgives all sins of a believer and purifies him from it as long as he isn’t a perpetrator of two things: Abandoning Taqiyyah and not fulfilling the rights of people.[76]

 

It appears in Jami’ al Akhbar of Sheikh Taj al Din Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Sha’iri attributed to Nabi:

 

تارك التقية التقية كتارك الصلاة

A person who abandons Taqiyyah is similar to he who has abandoned salah.[77]

 

It is narrated is Wasa’il al Shia from al Sadiq who said:

 

ليس منا من لم يلزم التقية

The one who abandons Taqiyyah is not from us.[78]

 

Khomeini mentions:

 

فتارة تكون التقية خوفا وأخرى تكون مداراة والمراد بالمدارة أن يكون المطلوب فيها نفس شمل الكلمة ووحدتها بتحبيب المخالفين وجر مودتهم من غير خوف ضرر كما في التقية خوفا وسيأتي التعرض لها وأيضا قد تكون التقية مطلوبة لغيرها وقد تكون مطلوبة لذاتها وهي التي بمعنى الكتمان في مقابل الإذاعة على تأمل فيه

Sometimes Taqiyyah is due to fear whilst other times it is to be polite. The object of this type of Taqiyyah is to unite the different sects of the faith by showing love to the opposition and to achieve their love without the fear of harm, as in Taqiyyah done due to fear, regarding which an explanation will be presented shortly. Taqiyyah is sometimes desired for another reason besides this and sometimes it is in itself desired, and that is that Taqiyyah which refers to concealment as opposed to publicising upon contemplating on it.[79]

 

Look at the hypocrisy of this man in his following statement, “by showing love to the opposition and to achieve their love without the fear of harm.” Look at how he made it permissible in this instance without the fear of harm, and if the opposition are his brothers in Din, then why is he practicing Taqiyyah with them?

Khomeini also mentions:

 

و منها ما شرعت لأجل مداراة الناس وجلب محبتهم ومودتهم … ومنها التقسيم بحسب المتقي منه فتارة تكون التقية من الكفار وغير المعتقدين بالإسلام سواء كانوا من قبل السلاطين أو الرعية وأخرى تكون من سلاطين العامة وأمرائهم وثالثة من فقهائهم وقضاتهم ورابعة من عوامهم … ثم إن التقية من الكفار وغيرهم قد تكون في إتيان عمل موافقا للعامة كما لو فرض أن السلطان ألزم المسلمين بفتوى أبي حنيفة وقد تكون في غيره

One of the purposes for its initiation is for the purpose of uniting people and earning their love and proximity. There are levels in accordance to the person upon which Taqiyyah is being adopted. Taqiyyah is either done to disbelievers and those who do not believe in Islam whether they are leaders or laymen, or to rulers in general and their governors, or to their jurists and their judges and lastly to general people. Taqiyyah to disbelievers and others constitutes doing actions in accordance to the general masses. For example, the ruler obligates the Muslims to adhere to the ruling of Abu Hanifah, whereas you follow another.[80]

 

Khomeini also mentions:

 

وليعلم أن المستفاد من تلك الروايات صحة العمل الذي يؤتى به تقية سواء كانت التقية لاختلاف بيننا وبينهم في الحكم كما في المسح على الخفين والإفطار لدى السقوط أو في ثبوت الموضوع الخارجي كالوقوف بعرفات اليوم الثامن لأجل ثبوت الهلال عندهم

The validity of actions that are carried out as Taqiyyah is deduced from these narrations, whether the Taqiyyah is due to difference in ruling between us and them like that of Masah on Khuffayn and by abandoning fasting, or establishment of an outward act, like performing the Wuquf in ‘Arafah on the eight day of Hajj due to the crescent proven to be sighted according to them.[81]

 

Khomeini also mentions:

 

ثم إنه لا يتوقف جواز هذه التقية بل وجوبها عل الخوف على نفسه أو غيره بل الظاهر أو المصالح النوعية صارت سببا لإيجاب التقية من المخالفين فتجب التقية وكتمان السر لو كان مأمونا وغير خائف على نفسه

The permissibility of this Taqiyyah is not dependant on fearing for oneself or for another; however, the evident or specific benefit is a reason for the compulsion of Taqiyyah with the opposition. Thus, Taqiyyah and Kitman (concealing one’s beliefs) is compulsory although the person may be safe and not in any personal danger.[82]

 

The following can also be found when looking at the statements of Khomeini regarding Taqiyyah:

 

ومنها ما تكون واجبة لنفسها وهي ما تكون مقابلة للإذاعة فتكون بمعنى التحفظ عن إفشاء المذهب وعن إفشاء سر أهل البيت فيظهر من كثير من الروايات أن التقية التي بالغ الأ ئمة عليهم السلام في شأنها هي هذه التقية فنفس إخفاء الحق في دولة الباطل واجبة وتكون المصلحة فيها جهات سياسية دينية ولولا التقية لصار المذهب في معرض الزوال والانقراض

The type of taqiyyah which is compulsory in itself is what is referred to as concealment. It constitutes not divulging information of the creed and not divulging the secrets of the Ahlul Bayt. It is apparent from many narrations that it is this type of Taqiyyah that was emphasised by the Imams. Concealing the truth in a disbelieving state is compulsory, which has benefits from a religious and political perspective. If it was not for Taqiyyah, the creed would have become extinct.[83]

 

Their scholars would frequently travel to Sunni states where they would manifest Taqiyyah and mislead the Ahlus Sunnah by pretending to be from the Ahlus Sunnah. This was a plot to gather information about them and to closely follow their errors and oversights. Among them was their scholar by the name of Muhammad ibn al Hussain ibn ‘Abdul Samad commonly known as Sheikh al Baha’i who died in 1031 AH. He mentions, “I was in Sham pretending to be an adherent of the Shafi’i mazhab.” His Taqiyyah and story is narrated by their scholar Muhammad Muhammadi al Ashtahardi in his book Ajwad al Munazarat.[84]

Their scholar, al Shahrastani mentions his view regarding what they have narrated:

 

لذلك أضحت شيعة الأ ئمة من آل البيت تضطر في أكثر الأحيان إلى كتمان ما تختص به من عادة أو عقيدة أو فتوى أو كتاب أو غير ذلك.. لهذا الغايات النزيهة كانت الشيعة تستعمل التقية وتحافظ على وفاقها في الظواهر مع الطوائف الأخرى متبعة في ذلك سيرة الأئمة من آل محمد وأحكامهم الصارمة حول وجوب التقية من قبل التقية ديني ودين آبائي ومن لا تقية له لا دين له إذ أن دين الله يمشي على سنة التقية

For this reason, the followers of the Imams from the Ahlul Bayt are most of the time forced to conceal the peculiar customs, beliefs, rulings, books, and other things. Due to these pure goals, the Shia began utilising Taqiyyah to maintain an apparent united front with other groups, in so doing adhering to the practice of the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt and their strict instructions concerning the compulsion of Taqiyyah, such as, “Taqiyyah is my Din and the Din of my forefathers,” and, “The one who has not adopted Taqiyyah is deprived of Din as the Din of Allah is dependent upon Taqiyyah.”[85]

 

Ponder over his statement “to maintain an apparent united front,” while what is concealed opposes it. This is why we remain sceptical of those who claim to desire unity. Our analysis is summed up below:

1. Taqiyyah in the opinion of the Shia is not to save lives, but in reality is to conceal the infamies of the creed and its hostile stance towards the Ahlus Sunnah.
2. Taqiyyah is an intrinsic methodology to Shia life which is contrary to the definition of the Qur’an which restricts it to specific situations, thereby making it similar to Salah in their opinion. Al Hurr al ‘Amili narrates the following from ‘Ali ibn Muhammad:

 

يا داود لو قلت إن تارك التقية كتارك الصلاة لكنت صادقا

O Dawood, If you were to say that the one who abandons Taqiyyah is like one who has abandoned salah then you would be truthful.[86]

 

The following appears in Wasa’il al Shia attributed to al Sadiq:

 

عليكم بالتقية فإنه ليس منا من لم يجعلها شعاره ودثاره مع من يأمنه لتكون سجية مع من يحذره

Hold onto Taqiyyah, for verily there isn’t anyone of us who has not made it his motto and mantle with those who he trusts as a practice for those whom he fears.[87]

 

Their scholar Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Sadiq al Sadr al Musawi mentions his opinion:

 

الأمر بالتقية في عصر الغيبة الكبرى وهذا المضمون مما اقتصرت عليه أخبار الإمامية دون غيرهم فقد أخرج الصدوق في إكمال الدين والشيخ الحر في وسا ل الشيعة والطبرسي في إعلام الورى عن الإمام الرضا أنه قال لا دين لمن لا ورع له ولا إيمان لمن لا تقية له وإن أكرمكم عند الله أعملكم بالتقية فمن ترك التقية قبل خروج قائمنا فليس منا

The matter of Taqiyyah during the era of the major occultation is a subject regarding which the statements of Imamah are more substantial than others. Al Saduq in Ikmal al Din, Sheikh al Hurr in Wasa’il al Shia, and al Tabarsi in ‘I’lam al Wara narrate the following from Imam al Rida, “One who does not have piety has no Din and the one who hasn’t adopted Taqiyyah has no iman; and certainly, the most honourable in the court of Allah is one who has the most knowledge regarding Taqiyyah. The one who abandons Taqiyyah before the appearance of our Imam is not from us.”[88]

 

So, Taqiyyah will remain with them until the appearance of their Imam who currently is in the cave.

 

Ruling regarding Taqiyyah with the Ahlus Sunnah

The following is just to emphasise what has passed and to explain that those who are the primary focus of this evil practice are the Ahlus Sunnah. To the extent that it cannot be claimed that the previously mentioned statements is refers to other than the Ahlus Sunnah such as the extremists, Khawarij, and Nawasib.

Al Asfahani mentions a narration attributed to Imam ‘Ali which he himself authenticates:

 

فلا تغرنكم كثرة المساجد وأجساد قوم مختلفة قيل يا أمير المؤمنين كيف العيش في ذلك الزمان فقالخالطوهم بالبرانية يعني في الظاهر وخالفوهم في الباطن للمرء ما اكتسب وهو مع من أحب وانتظروا مع ذلك الفرج من الله عز وجل وقال بعدها والأخبار في هذا الباب كثيرة ذكرت في مكيال المكارم جملة منها ولا يعرف مذهب هو أكثر مساجدا من الشيعة غير السنة

“The multitude of their Masajid and diversity of their followers should not deceive you.”

It was asked, O Amir al Mu’minin, how should a person live in such an era?”

He replied, “Pretend to concur with them in the open while opposing them secretly. Every person is rewarded according to his actions and will be with whom he loves, so act upon what has been said and wait for a way out from Allah.”

There are many statements regarding this topic some of which I have mentioned in Mikyal al Makarim. There isn’t any sect  who has more Masajid than the Shia other than the Ahlus Sunnah.[89]

 

Their great scholar Abu al Qasim al Khu’i mentions regarding Taqiyyah:

 

وذلك لأن المستفاد من الأخبار الواردة في التقية إنما شرعت لأجل أن تختفي الشيعة عن المخالفين وألا يشتهروا بالتشيع أو الرفض ولاجل المداراة والمجاملة معهم ومن البين أن المكلف إذا أظهر مذهب الحنابلة عند الحنفي مثلا أو بالعكس حصل بذلك التخفي وعدم الا شتهار بالرفض والتشيع و تحققت المداراة والمجاملة معهم فإذا صلى في مسجد الحنيفة مطابقا لمذهب الحنابلة صدق أنه صلى في مساجدهم أو معهم والسر في ذلك أن الواجب إنما هو التقية من العامة والمجاملة والمداراة معهم ولم يرد في شيء من الادلة المتقدمة وجوب  إتباع أصنافهم المختلفة ولا دليل على وجوب إتباع من يتقي منه في مذهبه وإنما اللازم هو المداراة والمجاملة مع العامة وإخفاء التشيع عندهم

It has been deduced from the present narrations that Taqiyyah was initiated to veil the Shia from the opposition, so that they would not be known for their Tashayyu’ or Rafd and to initiate love and unity with them. Evidently, if a person pretends to adhere to the Hanbali Mazhab in front of Hanafi’s for example or vice versa, he would achieve disguise and nonconformity to Rafd and Tashayyu’ together with love and unity being established with them. Therefore, when he performs Salah in a Hanafi Musjid according to the Hanbali Mazhab, he is believed to have performed Salah in their Masajid or with them. The secret, however, is that the compulsory aspect is Taqiyyah from the general masses whilst establishing love and unity with them. There isn’t any compulsion in following their different sects mentioned in the previous proofs nor is there any proof regarding the compulsion of following the one who he fears in his religion. However, the compulsion is of establishing love and unity with the masses and concealing Tashayyu’ from them.[90]

 

Their scholar Murtada al Ansari, who is titled Sheikh al Fuqaha’ wa al Mujtahidin, mentions:

 

ويشترط في الأول أن تكون التقية من مذهب المخالفين لأنه المتقين من الأدلة الواردة في الأذن في العبادات على وجه التقية لأن المتبادر التقية من مذهب المخالفين فلا يجري في التقية عن الكفار أو ظلمة الشيعة

Firstly, it is a condition that the Taqiyyah be from the creed of the opposition; as it is confirmed from the reported evidences that worshipping while employing Taqiyyah is permitted. Due to the first thing coming to mind is Taqiyyah from the creed of the opposition. Therefore, it will not apply to Taqiyyah from the Kuffar or the oppressors of the Shia.[91]

 

Who is left besides the Kuffar and oppressors of the Shia? Take note of the fact that there are proofs which determine that according to them Taqiyyah needs to be adopted from the Ahlus Sunnah only, not from the Kuffar and neither from the oppressors of the Shia.

Al Khu’i mentions:

 

وأما التقية بالمعنى الأخص أعني التقية من العامة فهي في الأصل واجبة وذلك للاخبار الكثيرة الدالة على وجوبها بل دعوى تواترها الإجمالي

As for the specific form of Taqiyyah which is Taqiyyah from the ‘Ammah [Ahlus Sunnah], it is compulsory in itself. This is on account of the multiple reports that deem it obligatory. Rather their has been a subtle claim of it being Mutawatir, “  comprehensive claim of its authenticity. As for the general form of Taqiyyah, it is in reality considered permissible and lawful.[92]

 

And:

وأما التقية بالمعنى الأعم فهي في الأصل محكومة بالجواز والحلية

As for the general form of Taqiyyah, it is in reality considered permissible and lawful.[93]

 

The Taqiyyah which is considered compulsory in the opinion of al Khu’i is the specific form of Taqiyyah which is adopted from the Ahlus Sunnah, and the general form of Taqiyyah which is adopted from the disbelievers, other than the Ahlus Sunnah, is considered permissible. Can there be unity in the Ummah with these statements and from those of the greatest contemporary authority of the Shia. This is proof that the Ahlus Sunnah are considered worse than Jews, Christians, and Polytheists in the eyes of the Shia, therefore Taqiyyah from the Ahlus Sunnah is compulsory, but from disbelievers merely permissible and lawful!

 

Taqiyyah is so ingrained withing them that they utilise it among themselves also

As previously mentioned from al Sadiq:

 

عليكم بالتقية فإنه ليس منا من لم يجعلها شعاره ودثاره مع من يأمنه لتكون سجية مع من يحذره

Hold onto Taqiyyah, for verily there isn’t anyone of us who hasn’t made it his motto and mantle with those who he trusts as a practice for those whom he fears.

 

In addition to this is the answer which some Shia scholars who rejected the marriage of ‘Umar ibn al Khattab to the daughter of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, Umm Kulthum. They say in response to what has been falsely attributed to the Imam of the Ahlul Bayt regarding this marriage—“This woman was forcefully taken from us,”—amongst them Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri:

 

محمول على التقية و الاتقاء من عوام الشيعة كما لا يخفي

It is obvious that it is based on Taqiyyah and concealment from the Shia masses.[94]

 

Look at the words, “concealment from the Shia masses,” meaning it is obvious that it was to practice Taqiyyah from his own Shia; and if this is the case with their own, that what about the so called opposition?

 

NEXT⇒ Chapter 4 – The accusations against al Tusi and Ibn al ‘Alqami

---

[1] Al Kafi, 8/292.

[2] ‘Iddah Rasa’il Fasl al Masa’il al Saghaniyyah, pg. 253, 263, 265, 268, 270.

[3] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, 2/307.

[4] Al Muhasin al Nafsaniyyah fi Ajwibah al Masa’il al Khurasaniyyah, pg. 157.

[5] Al Muhasin al Nafsaniyyah fi Ajwibah al Masa’il al Khurasaniyyah, pg. 147.

[6] A’yan al Shia, 1/21.

[7] Hidayah al Abrar ila Tariq al A’immah al Athar, pg. 264.

[8] Qa’idah La Darara wa La Dirar, pg. 21.

[9] Al Tahdhib, 3/316.

[10] Qisas al Ambiya’, pg. 347.

[11] Al Arba’in, pg. 98.

[12] A’yan al Shia, 9/419 with the variance of some words; Book of ‘Arif Ta’mur about al Tusi, pg. 67, from an Ismaili author of the 7th century by the name Nur al Din Ahmed who mentions it in his book Fusul wa Akhbar.

[13] A’yan al Shia, 9/419.

[14] Al Arba’in, pg. 99.

[15] Risalah al I’tiqadat, pg. 103.

[16] Bihar al Anwar, 27/61, 62.

[17] Al Alfayn fi Imamah Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib, pg. 13.

[18] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah fi Ahkam al ‘Atarah al Tahirah, 18/153.

[19] Minhaj al Najah, pg. 48.

[20] Bihar al Anwar, 23/390.

[21] Jawahir al Kalam, 6/62.

[22] Tanqih al Maqal, 1/208.

[23] Surah al Furqan: 70.

[24] Al Arb’un Hadithan, pg. 510, 511.

[25] Al Arb’un Hadithan, pg. 511.

[26] Al Arb’un Hadithan, pg. 512.

[27] Al Arb’un Hadithan, pg. 513.

[28] Haq al Yaqin fi Ma’rifah Usul al Din, 2/188.

[29] Bihar al Anwar, 23/391.

[30] Jawahir al ‘Ilm, 22/62.

[31] Rawdat al Jannat fi Ahwal al ‘Ulama’ wa al Sadat, 1/300-301.

[32] ‘Ilal al Sharayi’, pg. 601.

[33] Wasa’il al Shia, 18/463; al Anwar al No’maniyyah, 2/307.

[34] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah fi Ahkam al ‘Atarah al Tahirah, 12/323-324.

[35] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, 2/307.

[36] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah fi Ahkam al ‘Atarah al Tahirah, 10/360.

[37] Al Shia al Mahdi al Daruz Tarikh wa Watha’iq, pg. 10.

[38] Tahdhib al Ahkam, 4/122.

[39] Al Wafi, 6/43.

[40] Al Mahasin al Nafsaniyyah, pg. 167.

[41] Tahrir al Wasilah, 1/352.

[42] Al Nasb wa al Nawasib, pg. 615.

[43] Al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, 1/68.

[44] Nihayah al Ahkam fi Ma’rifah al Ahkam, 1/274.

[45] Tahrir al Wasilah, 1/118.

[46] Tahrir al Wasilah, 1/119.

[47] Tahrir al Wasilah, 1/119.

[48] Mukhtasar al Ahkam, pg. 9.

[49] Sharh al Risalah al Salatiyyah, pg. 334.

[50] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, 2/306.

[51] Kitab al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 18/118.

[52] Musnad Tahrir al Wasilah, 1/488,496.

[53] Wasa’il al Shia, 12/135.

[54] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 18/132.

[55] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, 18/133.

[56] Al Rasa’il al ‘Ashr, pg. 19.

[57] Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah, pg. 142.

[58] Wasa’il al Shia, 12/140.

[59] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, 2/308.

[60] Al Nasb wa al Nawasib, pg. 622.

[61] Haqiqah al Shia, pg. 36.

[62] Muqaddamah Tahdhib al Ahkam.

[63] Surah Al ‘Imran: 29.

[64] Surah al Nahl: 106.

[65] Al Khutut al ‘Aridah, pg. 10.

[66] Risalah al I’tiqadat, pg. 104.

[67] Al Kafi, 2/219.

[68] Al Kafi, 2/217.

[69] Al Kafi, 2/217.

[70] Al Kafi, 2/220.

[71] Al Kafi, 2/218.

[72] Al Kafi, 2/220.

[73] Al Kafi, 2/372; Al Wafi, 3/159.

[74] Al Kafi, 2/222; Al Rasa’il, 2/185.

[75] Wasa’il al Shia, 11/473.

[76] Wasa’il al Shia, 11/474.

[77] Jami’ al Akhbar, pg. 95.

[78] Wasa’il al Shia, 11/466.

[79] Al Rasa’il, 2/174.

[80] Al Rasa’il, 2/175.

[81] Al Rasa’il, 2/196.

[82] Al Rasa’il, 2/201.

[83] Al Rasa’il, 2/185.

[84] Ajwad al Munazarat, pg. 188.

[85] Footnote of Awa’il al Maqalat, pg. 138.

[86] Wasa’il al Shia, 11/466.

[87] Wasa’il al Shia, 11/466.

[88] Tarikh al Ghaybah al Kubra, pg. 352.

[89] Wazifah al ’Anam fi Zaman Ghaybah al Imam, pg. 44.

[90] Al Tanqih Sharh al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, 4/332,333.

[91] Risalah al Taqiyyah, pg. 53.

[92] Al Tanqih Sharh al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, 4/254.

[93] Ibid.

[94] Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, 1/84.