It is one of the fundamentals of Islam according to them, Kashif al Ghita’ says:
إن الشيعة زادوا في أركان الإسلام ركنا آخر وهو الإمامة
The Shia have added one more pillar to the pillars of Islam, and that is Imamah.
I did not find anything different in their position regarding Imamah from the extremist position which was previously discussed. However, there are new claims regarding three pertinent issues in their books which they publish for the consumption of the Muslim world. These three issues are: their excommunication of the one who rejects Imamah, their stance regarding Muslim governments, and their excommunication of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.
You will find two outwardly divergent views among the contemporaries regarding this issue. They can easily be considered as two views by someone who is not aware of their heritage (but in actual fact they are one and the same).
The first view says that the denier of Imamah does not leave the fold of Islam. It condemns those who say that the Shia excommunicate those besides them.
And the second view openly excommunicates without any Taqiyyah or compunction.
As with regard to the first view, when Musa Jar Allah made the following claim:
إن كتب الشيعة صرحت أن كل الفرق كافرة وأهلها نواصب
The books of the Shia unequivocally state that all the sects are disbelievers and that their adherents are haters of the Ahlul Bayt.
Muhsin al Amin responded by saying:
سبحانك اللهم هذا بهتان عظيم، ولا يعتقد أحد من الشيعة بذلك، بل هي متفقة على أن الإسلام هو ما عليه جميع فرق المسلمين من الإقرار بالشهادتين إلا من أنكر ضروريا من ضروريات الدين كوجوب الصلوة وحرمة الخمر وغير ذلك، وعمدة الخلاف بين المسلمين هو في أمر الخلافة، وهي ليست من ضروريات الدين بالبديهة، لأن ضروري الدين ما يكون ضروريا عند جميع المسلمين وهو ليست كذلك
Pure are you, O my Lord. This is indeed a great accusation. None of the Shia believe this. Rather all of them unanimously agree that Islam is what is embodied by all the sects of the Muslims, i.e. the confession of the Shahadatayn, yes with the exclusion of a person who rejects an aspect of Din which is categorically established like the obligation of salah and the prohibition of consuming wine, etc. The issue of Khilafah is the crux of the dispute which exists between the Muslims. And it is obviously not from the categorically established aspects of Din. This is owing to the fact that an article of faith is only classed as categorical if it is incontrovertibly established according to all the Muslims and Khilafah fails to meet this requirement.
And Muhammad Hussain Al Kashif al Ghita’ says the following:
ومن لم يؤمن بالإمامة فهو مسلم ومؤمن بالمعنى الأعم، تترتب عليه جميع أحكام الإسلام من حرمة دمه وماله وعرضه، ووجوب حفظه وحرمة غيبته وغير ذلك، لا أنه بعدم الاعتقاد بالإمامة يخرج من كونه مسلما-معاذ الله- نعم يظهر أثر التدين بالإمامة في منازل القرب والكرامة يوم القيامة
And a person who does not believe in Imamah is a Muslim and a believer in the general sense of these terms. All the rulings of Islam will apply to him in terms of his life, his property and his dignity being sacred, and in terms of amnesty being necessary for him and the impermissibility of backbiting regarding him; the implication is not that due to not believing in Imamah he no more remains a Muslim. Yes of course the benefits of believing in Imamah will become evident on the Day of Judgement in the form of attaining proximity to Allah and dignity.
Similar statements have been made by other contemporary Shia as well.
And as with regard to the second view, there still remains amongst their scholars and Ayat those who blurt this misguidance and openly excommunicate the Muslims, like ‘Ali al Yazdi al Ha’iri, ‘Abdul Hussain al Rashati and ‘Abdul Hadi al Fadali.
Then sometimes some of their scholars tread both paths, i.e. they at times emerge with the view of excommunication and at times with the contrary, given various situations and conditions, thanks to the flexibility Taqiyyah allows. One such scholar is Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar who in his book ‘Aqa’id al Imamiyyah suggests that a Muslim is the one who concedes the Shahadatayn irrespective of which denomination he belongs to. But, in his other book al Saqifah he excommunicates all the Muslims from after the demise of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He says:
مات النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ولا بد أن يكون المسلمون كلهم-لا أدري الآن- قد انقلبوا على أعقابهم
Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away and all the Muslim back then –I do not know of today- turned away on their heels.
See how he passes the ruling of apostasy upon the Sahabah, the Ahlul Bayt and the entire Ummah, and how he expresses doubt regarding any of them having iman. With the exception of what is attributed to the Kamiliyyah, none of the Shia ever took on this extreme in the past. The Kamiliyyah excommunicated ‘Ali for not demanding his right just as they excommunicated the Sahabah for not pledging their allegiance to him. But this sect does not exist with this name today, and one would think that no one bears any of their views in this time and that its ideology has seized to continue. But then we are appalled to find that it is still alive and kicking in the dogma of the Twelvers and that some of their senior scholars still openly subscribe to it.
This is not surprising, because the Twelver dogma has the ability to bring to the fore many of the extremist sects of the past with its books and collections all of which are filled with all types of anomalies to the greatest possible extent.
This type of approach is adopted by other contemporary Shia scholars as well.
These are the two approaches which seemingly are different, but in actual fact they are the same; for those who consider the Ummah Muslims are no different from those who excommunicate them. Here under we will explain why.
Those who consider the people Muslims only outwardly consider them to be so. As for covertly, they likewise consider them disbelievers and doomed to Jahannam forever as per the consensus of their cult.
This stance has been proclaimed by their early scholars and their contemporaries. And if you ponder well enough you will find subtle indications toward this in the verdicts of those who do not excommunicate the Muslims; a person who is aware of their belief in this regard and is acquainted with their ways of practicing Taqiyyah will pick this up.
One of their early scholars who has made mention of this is Zayn al Din ibn ‘Ali al ‘Amili, ‘al Shahid al Thani’ (the second martyr), who died in 966 A.H. He says:
إن القائلين بإسلام أهل الخلاف (يعني أهل السنة وسائر المسلمين من غير طائفتهم) يريدون.. صحة جريان أحكام المسلمين عليهم في الظاهر، لا أنهم مسلمون في نفس الأمر، ولذا نقلوا الإجماع على دخولهم النار.
The intent of those who hold the opinion of the Islam of the opposition (i.e. the Ahlus Sunnah and the rest of the Muslims beside their cult) is that the rules of Muslims are applicable to them outwardly; not that they are Muslims in reality. That is why the Shia are unanimous that they will enter Jahannam.
He further says:
كأن الحكمة في ذلك هو التخفيف عن المؤمنين لمسيس الحاجة إلي مخالطتهم في أكثر الأزمنة الأمكنة
And their scholar al Majlisi says;
ويظهر من بعض الأخبار بل كثير منها أنهم في الدنيا أيضا في حكم الكفار، لكن لما علم الله أن أئمة الجور وأتباعهم يستولون على الشيعة وهم يبتلون بمعاشرتهم… أجرى الله عليهم حكم الإسلام توسعة، فإذا ظهر القائم يجري عليهم حكم سائر الكفار في جميع الأمور، وفي الآخرة يدخلون النار ماكثين فيها أبدا مع الكفار. وبه يجمع بين الأخبار كما أشار إليه المفيد والشهيد الثاني
What seems apparent from some narrations, actually from many of them, is that even in this world they hold the status of disbelievers. But because Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knew that tyrant rulers and their followers will rule over the Shia and that the latter will be tested with socialising with the former, out of His mercy He made the rules of Islam applicable to the former. Hence when the Mahdi will emerge he will enforce upon them all the rules of the disbelievers. And in the hereafter they will enter Jahannam forever with the disbelievers. This is how the contradictory narrations can be reconciled, as is suggested by al Mufid and al Shahid al Thani.
As for the views of the contemporaries in this regard, their supreme authority Shihab al Din al Hussaini al Mar’ashi al Najafi says that the fundamentals of Din are of two types:
قسم يترتب عليه جريان حكم المسلم وهو الشهادة بالوحدانية والشهادة بالرسالة. وقسم يترتب عليه النجاة في الآخرة، والتخلص من عذاب الله والفوز برضوانه والدخول في الجنة، فيحرم دخولها على من لم يعترف به ويساق إلى النار في زمرة الكافرين ويسمى هذا القسم بأصول الإيمان
One type is those fundamentals upon the existence of which the rules which apply to a Muslim become applicable, and they are: testifying to the Oneness of Allah and testifying to the Prophethood of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The other is those fundamentals whereupon is based salvation in the afterlife, attaining the pleasure of Allah and gaining admission into Jannat. Hence a person who does not acknowledge them will be deprived from entry therein. He will be dragged to Jahannam with the band of disbelievers. This type is known as the fundamentals of iman.
He further goes on to mention examples of the second type. He says:
الاعتقاد بالإمامة، والاعتراف بالإمام
Believing in Imamah and acknowledging the Imam.
He then says:
إن الدليل على ذلك هو ارتداد جماعة من الصحابة بعد ارتحال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، إلى الكفر، ومن المعلوم أنه لم يصدر بعد ارتحال من الصحابة ما يصلح أن يكون موجبا للارتداد إلى الكفر، ولم يعدلوا عن الشهادة بالوحدانية والنبوة غير أنهم أنكروا الإمامة
The proof for this is the apostasy of a group of the Sahabah after the demise of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. For it is a known fact that no such action occurred on the path of the Sahabah which would necessitate apostasy; they did not turn away from their confession of the Oneness of Allah and Nubuwwah but they rejected Imamah.
From these quotes the smokescreen of Taqiyyah dissipates and it becomes clear that when some of their scholars consider their opponents Muslims what they actually mean is ‘outward Islam’ according to the definition they have invented. If you deliberate on their statements you will surely grasp their intent. For example, consider the statement of Al Kashif al Ghita’ and you will notice that he has alluded to this in his words:
نعم يظهر أثر التدين بالإمامة في منازل القرب والكرامة يوم القيامة
Yes of course the benefits of believing in Imamah will become evident on the Day of Judgement in the form of attaining proximity to Allah and dignity.
In spite of this, some affiliates of the Ahlus Sunnah still gave credence to his statement.
As for Muhsin al Amin, he has also alluded to this erroneous position in a number of sentences in his speech. Consider:
إلا من أنكر ضروريا من ضروريات الدين كوجوب الصلوة وحرمة الخمر
Yes a person who rejects an aspect of Din which is categorically established, for example the obligation of salah, the prohibition of consuming wine, etc., (will be out of the fold of Islam).
And as is obvious, Imamah is greater than the obligation of salah and the prohibition of wine without any dispute between them. He thus alluded to the superior by invoking the inferior.
وعمدة الخلاف بين المسلمين هو في أمر الخلافة، وهي ليست من ضروريات الدين بالبديهة
The crux of the dispute between the Muslims is the issue of Khilafah. And it is obviously not from the categorically established aspects of Din.
The Taqiyyah hidden herein is not easily discernible by those who are not aware of their style. Hence some people did not pick it up and were deceived by it.
His intention here is Khilafah according to the Muslims, not the doctrine of Imamah which they believe in, which is why he used the word ‘Khilafah’.
According to them they are two completely different concepts. One of their scholars says:
الإمامة تعني رئاسة الدين، والخلافة رئاسة دولة كما فهم من النصوص الواردة
Imamah means providing leadership in Din whilst Khilafah means leadership of a dynasty, as is understood from the relevant texts.
When Sheikh Musa Jar Allah said:
إن الشيعة تعتبر الحكومات الإسلامية وقضاتها طواغيت
The Shia consider Muslim governments and their judges to be Tawaghit (devils or idols).
One of the Shia scholars responded thus:
الطواغيت من الحكومات وقضاتها عند الشيعة إنما هم الظالمون الغاشمون المستحلون من آل محمد ما حرم الله ورسوله… أما غيرهم من حكومات الإسلام فأن من مذهب الشيعة وجوب مؤازرتهم في أمر يتوقف عليه عز الإسلام ومنعته، وحماية ثغوره حفظ بيضته. ولا يجوز عندهم شق عصا المسلمين وتفريق جماعتهم بمخالفته. بل يجب أن تعامل سلطانها القائم بأمورها والحامي لثغورها معاملة الخلفاء بالحق
According to the Shia only those governments and their judges are devils who are oppressors of the household of Muhammad and who desacralize what Allah has rendered sacred of their rights… As for all other Islamic governments, the stance of the Shia regarding them is that it is compulsory to support them in matters which are prerequisites for the glory of Islam, its might, the safety of its borders and the preservation of its territory. It is not permissible according to them to split asunder the unity of the Muslims and divide them by opposing any such government. Rather it is compulsory for them to treat its ruler and the protector of its boundaries in a like manner that just rulers are treated.
A similar stance is adopted by other Shia scholars.
Does this stance represent the detraction of the contemporaries from the default position of their dogma in this regard which we have discussed already in the previous chapters? Or is it tainted with Taqiyyah and manipulation due to the addressee being a Sunni and the address being directed to the Ahlus Sunnah, for whenever there is dialogue of this nature Taqiyyah is always part of it.
In answering this I say the following:
A group of their contemporary scholars still continue to proclaim that their dogma only acknowledges the rulership of the Twelve Imams; they proclaim this without suggesting that there is a divergent view.
Their scholar Muhammad Jawwad Mughniyah says:
إن شروط الإمامة لم تتوافر في واحد ممن تولى الخلافة غير الإمام علي وولده الحسن بخاصة من جاء بعدهما-كذا- فمن الطبيعي إذن-كما يقول- أن لا يعترفوا بإمامة أي حاكم غير علي وأبنائه، وإن ينظروا إليه نظرهم إلى من غصب أهل البيت حقهم الإلهي ودفعهم عن مقامهم ومراتبهم التي رتبهم الله فيها، وكان الحاكم يرى في الشيعة العدو اللدود والحزب المعارض لحكمه
With the exception of Imam ‘Ali and his son Hassan, the conditions of Imamah were not found in any of those who assumed the Khilafah, and more so in those who came after them. It is thus natural that the Shia did not concede the rulership of any ruler besides ‘Ali and his children. Likewise it is normal that they viewed them as those who usurped the divine right of the Ahlul Bayt and repelled them from the positions which Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had accorded them. On the flip side, the rulers would also see in the Shia an ardent enemy and a threat to their rule.
He further says:
فمبدأ التشيع لا ينفصل بحال عن معارضة الحاكم إذا لم تتوفر فيه الشروط. وهي النص والحكمة، والأفضلية… ومن هنا كانوا يمثلون الحزب المعارض دينا وإيمانا
The concept of Shi’ism then is inseparable from the idea of opposing the ruler if he does not embody the necessary prerequisites. Which are: divine appointment, wisdom and virtue. They have always, therefore, represented the opposing side in creed and in faith.
As you can see, he attributes the disavowing of every rulership with the exception of the rulership of the ‘divinely appointed Imams’ to all the Shia. And that is why they hold a similar stance regarding the righteous Khilafah, the Khilafah of Nubuwwah. Their scholar al Sadiqi says:
الخلفاء الثلاثة شركاء في التآمر على الإسلام
The three Khulafa’ were partners in conspiring against Islam.
And another of their scholars says:
تلاعبت الأيادي الأثيمة بالإسلام والمسلمين من الحكام والحاكمين منذ وفاة النبي الكريم صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم
The sinful hands of the rulers have manipulated Islam and the Muslims since the demise of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Similarly, they aver that the rulership of the Muslim Ummah is the sole prerogative of the Hidden Mahdi, and thus whoever else assumes it besides him is a usurper. Some of them, however, do exclude Wilayah al Faqih (the authority of the jurist) due to him having the right of representation. Their scholar ‘Abdul Hadi al Fadali says:
إن دولة المنتظر هي دولة الإسلام
The empire of the awaited is the empire of Islam.
And besides his empire no empire is truly an Islamic one. He says:
إن علينا أن نعيش في فترة الغيبة مترقبين لليوم الموعود الذي يبدؤه الإمام المنتظر عليه السلام بالقضاء على الكفر
We should live in the era of occultation with anticipation of the promised day which the awaited Imam ‘alayh al Salam will commence with putting an end to disbelief.
However, the anticipation for the Mahdi does not entail having peaceful relations with Muslims governments, as he says:
إن الذي يفاد من الروايات في هذا المجال هو أن المراد من الانتظار هو وجوب التمهيد والتوطئة بظهور الإمام المنتظر
What is deduced from the narrations on this topic is that anticipation means paving the way and setting the scene for the appearance of the Mahdi.
What does paving the way mean? He explains:
إن التوطئة لظهور الإمام المنتظر تكون بالعمل السياسي عن طريق إثارة الوعي السياسي والقيام بالثورة المسلحة
Paving the way for the emergence of the awaited Imam will be by way of political activism, i.e. by way of instigating the political conscience and giving rise to an armed revolution.
After studying all these statements you will notice that they disavow any Muslim government with the exception of a Shia government. And that they intend to prepare the masses to accept their revolts via the medium of spreading their dogma with the various platforms. This is what al Fadali deems the political conscience.
It is not unclear that this approach to which the Twelver scholars have inclined is not in harmony with the approach of the Twelvers of past. Hence the following appears in al Ghaybah of al Nu’mani:
عن أبي الجارود عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام: قال: قلت له عليه السلام: أوصني، فقال: أوصيك بتقوى الله، وأن تلزم بيتك، وإياك والخوارج منا، فإنهم ليسوا على شيء ولا إلى شيء
Abu al Jarud says that he asked Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam, “Advise me.”
He said, “I advise you to fear Allah and to cling on to your house. And beware of the rebels amongst us, for they are not upon any foundation nor will their end result be anything substantial.”
Al Majlisi explains:
والخوارج منا أي مثل زيد وبني الحسن
The rebels amongst us, i.e. Zaid and the children of Hassan.
Their narration thus prevents them from revolting even if it be by following the Ahlul Bayt. What then would be the ruling of revolting by following those besides them?
Abu ‘Abdullah likewise ordered them, as appears in their narrations, to refrain from giving rise to upheavals after the occultation of the Mahdi:
كونوا أحلاس بيوتكم فإن الفتنة على من أثارها
Become the doormats of your homes, for indeed the onus of the fitnah is upon the one who instigates it.
And al Baqir is similarly reported to have said:
اسكنوا ما سكنت السماوات والأرض، أي ولا تخرجوا على أحد
Remain calm as long as the heavens and the earth remain calm, i.e. and do not revolt against anyone.
Their scholar al Nu’mani has established a chapter on this topic by the title chapter regarding those narrations which order the Shia to exercise patience, withhold, anticipate during the occultation and to not hasten in seeking the decree of Allah and his plan. In this chapter he cites multiple narrations and thereafter makes the following comment:
انظروا رحمكم الله إلى هذا التأديب من الأئمة عليهم السلام إلى أمرهم ورسمهم في الصبر والكف، والانتظار للفرج، وذكرهم هلاك المستعجلين
Look, may Allah have mercy on you, at the disciplining of the Imams, at their order and directive to be patient, withhold and anticipate the opening, and at their mention of the destruction of the impatient.
This is what the scholars of the third century had endorsed, so either the contemporaries do not know of their stance, or they no more lend any importance to the occultation due to them knowing that the awaited will never emerge due to him not being born. And maybe that is why they are calling for revolutions and for giving shape to an empire.
This is what the contemporaries proclaim. Over and above the excommunication of the Muslims governments which already existed, they added the call for revolutions against them before the emergence of the Mahdi. In fact their scholar Khomeini asserted that it is not permissible to initiate a Jihad until the awaited Mahdi appears, but he himself opposed his assertion by initiating the revolution with force, as will come. This is because their dogma changes with fluctuating conditions and situations due to it being subjugated to the fancies of their scholars. And also because the door of interpretation is very wide for them, rather it has no limits and contours.
Furthermore, it is owing to this stance that they consider the reign of disbelievers over Muslim lands to be better than the reign of Muslims. Sheikh Rashid al Rida thus quotes the Shia scholar Abu Bakr al ‘Attas saying:
إنه يفضل أن يكون الانكليز حكاما في الأراضي المقدسة على ابن سعود
He prefers that the English rule over the blessed lands instead of the son of Sa’ud.
Likewise their scholar Hussain al Khurasani has revealed to us that every Shia yearns for the conquest of Makkah and Madinah and for eliminating the Wahhabi rule therein. He says:
إن طوائف الشيعة يترقبون من حين وآخر أن يوما قريبا يفتح الله لهم تلك الأراضي المقدسة لمرة أخرى –كذا- ليدخلوها آمنين مطمئنين فيطوفوا بيت ربهم، ويؤدوا مناسكهم، ويزوروا قبور ساداتهم ومشايخهم… ولا يكون هناك سلطان جائر يتجاوز عليهم بهتك أعراضهم، وذهاب حرمة إسلامهم، وسفك دمائهم المحقونة ونهب أموالهم المحترمة ظلما وعدوانا حقق الله تعالى أمانينا
The various sects of the Shia anticipate every now and then the coming of a day wherein Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will conquer for them the blessed lands for a second time so that they may enter them with peace and serenity. And so that they may circumambulate around the house of their Lord, fulfil the rituals of their pilgrimage, and visit the graves of their masters and scholars. All of this without a tyrant ruler who will wrong them by defaming them, disenchanting their Islam, shedding their blood which is preserved and usurping their respected properties oppressively. May Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala make our wishes come true.
This is how this Rafidi desires that the blessed lands be conquered, as if currently they are under the reign of the disbelievers. The reasoning he gives for this desire is that he intends to perform Hajj and do visitations, as if he and his cult are barred from doing so. In reality what he desires is to establish shirk and destroy Tawhid in the two pure Harams.
Moving on, if this is what their scholars openly proclaim, and if upon this their seminal works are unanimous, then what is the reality of the stance of ‘Abdul Hussain and his likes?
In reality his stance is not unlike the stance of the scholars whose statements we just cited. The only difference is that he phrased his position with the disguise of dissimulation and in a way that deceives those who are not aware of their strategies in practicing Taqiyyah. Consider the following:
الطواغيت من الحكومات وقضاتها عند الشيعة إنما هم الظالمون لآل محمد
According to the Shia only those governments and their judges are devils who are oppressors of the household of Muhammad.
He has not parted from the default position of his dogma by making this statement, because according to them any person who assumes rulership besides ‘Ali Amir al Mu’minin and Hassan is an oppressor, because Imamah is their exclusive privilege and their right in which no one has any share. And thus whoever besides them will assume rulership will necessarily be a tyrant. Hence Ibn Babawayh says:
فمن ادعى الإمامة وهو غير إمام فهو الظالم الملعون
Whoever lays claim to Imamah without actually being eligible to be one is indeed the oppressor, the accursed.
And that is exactly why they deem Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu to be the first oppressor.
فأن الشيعة ترى وجوب مؤازرتهم في أمر يتوقف عليه عز الإسلام
The Shia consider it compulsory to support them in matters which are prerequisites for the glory of Islam.
Here also he has not in any way parted with position of the Shia, because what he means by the ‘glory of Islam’ is the victory of his dogma and his cult. This statement would thus purport the following: being part of Muslim governments in order to destroy them and give authority to the Shia to implement their dogma, or squander their assets and channel them in their activities. And this why you will find that Khomeini endorsed what al Nasir al Tusi had done when he when assumed office as minister of Hulagu in order to destroy the Islamic Khilafah and glorify Shi’ism. He says:
إن من باب التقية الجائزة دخول الشيعي في ركب السلاطين، إذ كان من دخوله الشكلي نصر الإسلام والمسلمين مثل دخول نصير الدين الطوسي
Part of permissible Taqiyyah is that a Shia joins the court of the monarch when by him outwardly doing so there is hope of victory for Islam and the Muslims. Like how Nasir al Din al Tusi had joined.
In conclusion, as you can see, their dogma did not increase but in its extremism and radicalism.
Has anything changed in the dogma of this cult regarding the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum from what we have presented previously in light of their seminal works? Especially after the rise of calls for common understanding and unity, the pouncing of the infidel enemy upon the Ummah from every possible direction, and the passage of many centuries wherein the Ummah has not witnessed a generation nobler and more virtuous than that unique Qur’anic generation, the generation of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum?
Have the minds of the Shia and their hearts opened to the reality? Have they finally realised the gravity of the fables which their ancient books carry regarding the apostasy of the Sahabah and the alleged clash between them and the Ahlul Bayt? Has not the time come for them to believe in the divine revelation, the pristine Sunnah, the unanimity of the Ummah and the incontrovertible facts of Din and history? Has not the time come for them to make a choice between latching on to that and between remaining beguiled by the reports of a bunch of liars who are infamous for their iniquity and their lies? Can sound reason ever accept the narrations of a band of liars and belie all the Sahabah who were pleased with Allah and with whom in turn he was pleased?
All those dark pages which contain the denigration, cursing and excommunication of the Sahabah, who transmitted this Din and passed it on to us, in actual fact entail criticising the religion of Islam and its Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. And therefore it is the obligation of the earnest and honest Shia to announce their disapproval of all those anomalous and heretical views which target the noble Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with curses and excommunication, especially if they want to form unity with the Muslims. They should inform their followership first and the rest of the Muslims thereafter that these narrations and views belong to some heretical and misguided sects of the past and that these sects will carry the blame thereof and the blame of all those who will follow them till the Day of Judgment. They should do this in order to alleviate the hatred which has long settled in the hearts of the Ahlus Sunnah from the bygone centuries up until now. And the best way to remove this hatred is that they clarify that they do not believe in the validity of all those views which cause a believer to recoil with indignance in whichever part of the world he may be. Because no sincere believer will ever be open to studying the beliefs of a sect, unless he is gifted with special mental abilities, if he learns that it considers cursing Abu Bakr al Siddiq radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whose iman if weighed with the iman of the rest of the Ummah will outweigh it, or cursing ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, whose contributions to Islam are unmatched by that of anyone else, an act of worship? Likewise he will never trust the views of this sect if he comes to learn that it considers these curses to be devotions? Doing away with these defilements and anathemas is from the foundations of building common grounds and unity. If they are really sincere in uniting with the Muslims, then they should openly announce this disapproval and change. They should not merely do so in order to spread their beliefs in the lands of the Ahlus Sunnah deceptively.
Nonetheless, what do the contemporary Shia say on this topic? One of the people who emerged in the present age is a person by the name Ahmed al Kisrawi. Professor Mahmud al Mallah says the following regarding him:
لم يظهر في عالم الشيعة أحد في عياره منذ ظهر اسم شيعي على وجه الأرض
He worked as a lecturer in the University of Tehran and likewise presided over several judicial positions.
Al Kisrawi discovered the falsity of the stance of the Shia regarding the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. He disavowed all those fables which were fabricated by the haters regarding them turning apostate due to opposing ‘the emphatic nomination of ‘Ali’, as they allege, and expounded upon the deviance of the Shia in this regard. He says:
وأما ما قالوا عن ارتداد المسلمين بعد موت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إلا ثلاثة أو أربعة منهم فاجتراء منهم على الكذب البهتان، فلقائل أن يقول: كيف ارتدوا وهم كانوا أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم آمنوا به حين كذبه الآخرون ودافعوا عنه، واحتملوا الأذى في سبيله ثم ناصروه في حروبه ولم يرغبوا عنه بأنفسهم. ثم أي نفع لهم في خلافة أبي بكر ليرتدوا عن دينهم لأجله، فأي الأمرين اسهل احتمالا: أكذب رجل أو رجلين من ذوي الأغراض الفاسدة، أو ارتداد بضع مئات من خلص المسلمين. فأجيبونا إن كان لكم جواب
As for their assertion that, besides three or four individuals, all the Muslims apostatised after the demise of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, it is based upon their boldness to lie and calumniate. For someone can object that how could they have apostatised when they were the Companions of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who believed in him when everyone else belied him; who defended him and bore difficulties for his cause; and who stood by his side in all his campaigns and did not give preference to themselves over him? Furthermore, was there really any benefit for them in the Khilafah of Abu Bakr owing to which they would abandon Islam? Which of the two is more likely: the lying of one or two people who had ulterior motives or the apostasy of hundreds of sincere Muslims? Give us an answer if you have any.
This stance of al Kisrawi played a very pivotal role in some erudite members of the Shia and their youth being attracted to him. Hence thousands of people followed him and took up the task of aiding him and propagating his views and his books.
However, he was killed by his Shia counterparts before his views could become widely known.
Moving on, the books of some contemporary Shia scholars who outwardly advocate unity have surfaced of recent. And the actual objective of these books is to defend the dogma of the Shia and proselytise for them in the lands of the Ahlus Sunnah. In these books is contained the view that the Shia do not revile the Sahabah, let alone excommunicate the three Khulafa’, and that they revere the Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Thus al Khunayzi says the following in his book al Da’wah al Islamiyyah ila Wahdah Ahlus Sunnah wa al Imamiyyah:
بأن الإمامية- في هذا العصر- لا تمس كرامة الخلفاء البتة فهذه كتاباتهم، وهذه كتبهم تنفي علنا السب عن الخلفاء وتثني عليهم
The Imamiyyah, of this era, do not target the probity of the Khulafa’ at all. Here are their writings and here are their books, they openly deny the denigration of the Khulafa’, in fact they praise them.
He further says:
وممن صرح بنفي السب محمد باقر أحد مشاهير المجتهدين في كربلاء في منظومته المطبوعة في بمبي قال:
|عثمان والذي تولى أولا||فلا نسب عمرا كلا ولا|
|حكم به قضى الإمام الصادق||ومن تولى سبهم ففاسق|
Amongst those who have denied the denigration is one of the prominent Mujtahids of Karbala’ Muhammad Baqir. He says the following in his poetry which was published in Mumbai:
We do not revile ‘Umar. Never. Nor ‘Uthman and the one who assumed the Khilafah first.
Whoever bears the onus of reviling them is an open sinner. This is a judgement passed by Imam al Sadiq.
Al Khunayzi then adds:
|ونحن أيم الله لا نسب||وعندنا فلا يحل السب|
And according to us as well it is not permissible to revile. And by the oath of Allah we do not revile.
We also find that al Khunayzi accords ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu the title ‘Amir al Mu’minin’ and supplicates for him. Likewise he uses the title ‘Ummhat al Mu’minin’ for Aisha and Hafsah, and the title ‘Amir al Mu’minin’ for Abu Bakr.
He also says:
إن جعفر الصادق يقول مفتخرا ولدني أبو بكر مرتين، لأن أمه أم فروة بنت القاسم بن محمد بن أبي بكر وأمها بنت عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر، فهي بكرية أما وأبا.
Jafar al Sadiq would say with pride, “Abu Bakr gave birth to me twice.” This is because his mother was Umm Farwah the daughter of al Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr. And her mother was the daughter of ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr. Hence she belonged to the pedigree of Abu Bakr both paternally and maternally.
He likewise says:
إن من قضاء جعفر الصادق فسق من سب الثلاثة
Among the verdicts of Jafar al Sadiq is that a person who reviles the three Khulafa’ is an open sinner.
Similarly, Ahmed Mughniyah opines that the Shia extol the virtues of ‘Umar and pray for the pleasure of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to descend upon him. And to say that the Shia vilify ‘Umar, he says, is the most despicable of plots. He then reveals the reason for the existence of this attribution to the Shia by saying:
إن المفرقين وجدوا في اتفاق الاسمين: عمر بن الخطاب الخليفة العظيم، عمر بن سعد قاتل الحسين ميدانا واسعا يتسابقون فيه في تشويه الحقيقة والدس على الشيعة بأحط أنواع الدس… وكان طبيعيا أن يكون لعنة اللعنات عمر بن سعد، لأنه بطل الجريمة وقائد المجرمين الجبناء، ومن من المسلمين لا يلعن عمر بن سعد قاتل ابن بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.
إن اولئك الآثمين المفرقين استغلوا كلمة عمر وقالوا: إن الشيعة تنال من خليفة النبي عمر بن الخطاب-رضي الله عنه- وإني في الوقت أثور فيه على الدساسين التجار أصحاب الغايات والمصالح الرخيصة لا أنكر وجود أفراد بالأمس من سواد الشيعة وبسطائها لا يفرقون بين هذين الاسمين، بل لا يعرفون أن في دنيا التاريخ الإسلامي عمرين تقيا شقيا.
The differentiators found very wide scope for excelling in distorting the reality and plotting against the Shia in the most despicable of ways in the similarity of the names: ‘Umar ibn al Khattab the great Khalifah and ‘Umar ibn Sa’d the murderer of al Hussain. Naturally the one upon who immense curses should descend is ‘Umar ibn Sa’d due to him being the infamous hero of the crime and the commander of the cowardly perpetrators; for is there anyone among the Muslims who does not curse ‘Umar ibn Sa’d the murderer of the son of the daughter of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam?
These sinful differentiators exploited the word ‘‘Umar’ and claimed that the Shia vilify the Khalifah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu. And whilst I am raging at these plotters and people driven by worthless motives and objectives, I do not deny that in the past there were some people from the community of the Shia and their laity who did not differentiate between these two names, instead they did not even know that in the history of Islam there lived two ‘Umars: the pious and the wretched.
Hence he feels that the similarity in names, the exploitation of the differentiating enemies of that and the existence of some ignorant Shia in the past who did not differentiate between the two ‘Umars all were instrumental in the attribution of the denigration of ‘Umar to the Shia. As for the books of the Shia and their scholars, they have nothing to do with this accusation due to them seeing in him as the great and pure Khalifah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Furthermore, a Shia scholar of Iraq migrated to Egypt in order to propagate Shi’ism. For this purpose he opened a centre by the name ‘Jam’iyyah Ahlul Bayt’ and accorded himself the title ‘Imam of the Shia in the republic of Egypt’, notwithstanding that Shia had no presence in Egypt after the efforts of the great commander Salah al Din al Ayubi. Nonetheless, he published a book with the title Taqdir al Imamiyyah li al Sahabah (the veneration of the Imamiyyah for the Sahabah) and therein he rejects the attributing cursing, vilifying and excommunicating Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and those followed them to the Shia.
إن الشيعة لو كفرتهما لكفرت عليا، لأنه بايعهما، ولكفرت سلمان وعمارا لأنهما بايعوهما، بل إن سلمان تولى على المدائن لعمر. فكيف يتصور منه أن يلي لعمر لو كان يرى كفره.
The Shia would be necessarily excommunicating ‘Ali if they excommunicated them due to him pledging his allegiance to them. Likewise they would be automatically excommunicating Salman and ‘Ammar due to them pledging allegiance as well. In fact Salman assumed the governance of Mada’in for ‘Umar. Hence how can it be perceived that he accepted this position for ‘Umar if he considered him to be a disbeliever?
He further says that the Shia believe in the Qur’an and that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum have been praised in the Qur’an. He then presents verse no. 100 of Surah Tawbah and verse no. 29 of Surah al Fath as evidence. Thereafter, he presents some excerpts from Nahj al Balaghah and al Sahifah al Sajjadiyyah wherein the virtues of the Sahabah are mentioned. He then goes on to present the statements of some of their contemporary scholars wherein they praise the Sahabah and draw evidence from the following statement of Baqir al Sadr:
إن الصحابة بوصفهم الطليعة المؤمنة والمستنيرة كانوا أفضل وأصلح بذرة لنشوء أمة رسالية، حتى إن تاريخ الإنسان لم يشهد جيلا عقائديا أروع وأنبل وأطهر من الجيل الذي أنشأه الرسول القائد
The Sahabah, in terms of them being the first batch of believers and seekers of light, were the best and most capable seed for the emergence of a nation purely based upon revelation. To the extent that the history of humanity has not witnessed a generation based on doctrinal foundations better and nobler than the generation prepared by the great commanding Messenger.
And finally he ends of his discussion by saying:
إن من ينسب إليهم ذلك (سب الصحابة) فهو إما أن يكون خصما سيء النية، وإما لم يطلع على مذهب الشيعة إلا من خلال كتب خصومها ولم يتمكن من الاطلاع على كتب أصحاب المذهب نفسه
The person who attributes this (the denigration of the Sahabah) to the Shia is one of two people: either he is an opponent who has sinister motives, or he is someone who did not come to learn of the dogma of the Shia but from the books of their opponents without having any recourse to the books of the adherents of the dogma themselves.
Likewise Muhammad Jawwad Mugniyyah, the head of the Jafari tribunal, say in Tafsir al Kashif that the Shia do not denigrate the Sahabah, and in substantiation presents the following prayer (which is regarding the followers of the prophets) of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain Zayn al ‘Abidin which appears in al Sahifah al Sajjadiyyah:
اللهم وأصحاب محمد خاصة الذين أحسنوا الصحبة والذين أبلوا البلاء الحسن في نصره… وفارقوا الأزواج والأولاد في إظهار كلمته، وقاتلوا الآباء والأبناء في تثبيت نبوته
O Allah! And the Companions of Muhammad, especially those among them who were loyal in their companionship and strove passionately in supporting him. They parted with their spouses and children in order to uplift his message, and they fought against their fathers and sons in establishing his prophethood.
Commenting on this he says:
هذه المناجاة جاءت في الصحيفة السجادية التي تعظمها الشيعة وتقدس كل حرف منها، وهي رد مفحم لمن قال: إن الشيعة ينالون من مقام الصحابة
This prayer appears in al Sahifah al Sajjadiyyah which the Shia hold in great esteem and every letter of which they sanctify. It is indeed an unequivocal refutation of those who claim that the Shia belittle the status of the Sahabah.
Many other contemporaries have expressed similar positions on this topic.
Has the stance of the contemporary Shia changed regarding the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum?
Is what was presented reality or is it just another manifestation of Taqiyyah and superfluous flattery?
We say to al Khunayzi, Ahmed Mugniyyah, al Rifa’i, Muhammad Jawwad Mugniyyah, and all those who display their veneration for the Sahabah, do not vilify them, and supplicate for them that those are very pleasant words which shower on our hearts coolness and serenity. We are always open to this unifying and consolidating spirit among the Muslims, and thus our hearts are always open to every word which unites and does not divide. We express our jubilation at all those honest attempts which aim at eliminating all those blasphemies and dark records heaped against the Sahabah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
But, at the same time, is al Khunayzi and the others not aware that the present libraries of the Shia have published books which are filled with the denigration, criticism, and excommunication of the noblest Companions of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? Why do they still assert that the Shia of today do not revile and that they consider reviling Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to be a sin?
Here we have before us a Shia scholar Hussain al Khurasani who wrote the book al Islam ‘ala Daw’ al Tashayyu’ and gifted it to Dar al Taqrib in Cairo. Upon the jacket of the book it is stated that it has been translated in three languages: Arabic, Persian, and English and that it received the approbation of the Iranian ministry of education. In this book he mentions:
تجويز الشيعة لعن الشيخين أبي بكر وعمر وأتباعهما، فإنما فعلوا ذلك أسوة لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم واقتفاء لأثره فإنهم ولا شك-كما يفتري- قد أصبحوا مطرودين من حضرة النبوي –كذا- وملعونين من الله تعالى بواسطة سفيره
The Shia have, in allowing the cursing of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and their followers, followed the precedent of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and treaded his path. For Indeed they were banished from the presence of the Prophet and were cursed by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala via his Messenger.
See how, not one of their laity, but one of their Ayat openly proclaims that the position of Shia is cursing and excommunicating the two greatest individuals of this Ummah and the most virtuous of people after the Ambiya’; and that it is based upon the directive of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to his Ummah to follow him; and that they consider cursing them to be endorsed by Din and Shari’ah. So how can these scholars deny the existence of such denigration despite it containing emphatic curses and excommunication and being published in various languages?
Furthermore, I came across a supplication book of theirs which has been sanctioned by six of their scholars, each of who describe the book as ‘a great sign’, among them is al Khu’i, Khomeini, and Shari’atmadari. In this book is contained a supplication in Arabic which is two pages long and in it you will find curses upon Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and their daughters—the honourable mothers of the believers—Aisha and Hafsah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. A portion of this supplication reads as follows:
اللهم العن صنمي قريش وجبتيها وطاغوتيها، وإفكيها، وابنتيهما الذين خالفا أمرك وأنكرا وحيك وجحدا إنعامك وعصيا رسولك وقلبا دينك وحرفا كتابك وأحبا أعدائك وجحدا آلائك-كذا- وعطلا أحكامك، وألحدا في آياتك
O Allah curse the two people who were the idols of Quraysh, their devils and their lies. And (Curse) their daughters. They opposed Your command, rejected Your revelation, denied Your bounty, disobeyed Your Prophet, altered Your Din, distorted Your book, befriended Your enemies, rejected Your boons, destroyed Your injunctions and perpetrated blasphemies in your verses.
This is how these scholars encourage every Shia upon the face of the earth to make this supplication and deem it an act of devotion before Allah in order to implant hatred and malice in his heart against the best generations of humans and their followers till the Day of Judgment; and in order to place as many obstacles and hindrances as they can in the way of mutual agreement and unity; And in order to assure that their falsity does not become exposed, which is why they continue to deceive themselves and others by claiming that they do not vilify and by saying “let’s unite and support each other”!
Thus the Shia have not given up reviling and cursing the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. A group of their scholars still continue to proclaim this misguidance and in following them the commonality also continue to revile and excommunicate.
After having visited the lands of the Shia in Iran and Iraq, and after having attended their gatherings and circles of learning which they form in their houses, Masjids and seminaries, and learning of what really happens in the real world of the Shia, Sheikh Musa Jar Allah has revealed to us the following:
كان أول شيء سمعته وأنكرته هو لعن الصديق والفاروق وأمهات المؤمنين السيدة عائشة والسيدة حفصة ولعن العصر الأول كافة. وكنت أسمع هذا في كل خطبة وفي كل حفلة ومجلس في البداية والنهاية وأقرأه في ديابيج الكتب والرسائل وفي أدعية الزيارات كلها حتى في ألاسقية ما كان يسق ساق إلا ويلعن، وما كان يشرب شارب إلا ويلعن. وأول كل حركة وكل عمل هو الصلاة على محمد وآل محمد واللعن على الصديق والقاروق وعثمان الذين غصبوا حق علي وظلموه، حتى أصبح السب واللعن عندهم أعرف معروف يلتذ به الخطيب ويفرح عند السامع وترتاح إليه الجماعة.
The first thing I heard and despised was the curses against al Siddiq, al Faruq, the Mothers of the Believers, Aisha and Hafsah, and the all the people of the first century. I used to hear this in the beginning and the end of every sermon, gathering and circle. And I used to read this in the prefaces of books, in small booklets, and in the prayers offered upon all the visitations (of the tombs and shrines). Even where water was being served, a server would not serve but after cursing and a consumer would consume but with cursing. At the beginning of every activity and action is sending salutation upon Muhammad and his household, and cursing Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman who usurped the right of ‘Ali and wronged him. Hence cursing has become the most ‘well-known good’, which the lecturer enjoys, the listeners enjoy and with which the congregation is at ease.
This dark reality wherein curses and statements of excommunication flow from the tongues of those who love it, is not surprising regarding a person who has fed upon the hatred of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum from his very childhood, and who is taught that whatever difficulties he encounters are all because of them. This is further entrenched in him with the processions and plays which take place every year wherein the ‘oppression that the Ahlul Bayt’ which they suffered at the hands of Sahabah, as they allege, is depicted. The author of al Washia has alluded to some of what he saw in this regard and thereafter concluded that these processions and plays are filled with inciting hatred and enmity, in fact they are a locus for implanting ill feelings and dislike for the people of the best century and their followers.
This is not from the doings of their simpletons, but from that of their scholars and Ayat who instigate their followers to do so and propel them to it by using different incentives. In this regard, the following question was posed to their scholar Muhammad Hussain Al Kashif al Ghita’:
ما يقول مولانا حجة الإسلام… في المواكب المشجية التي اعتاد الجعفريون اتخاذها في العشر من المحرم تمثيلا لفاجعة الطف وإعلاما لما انتهك فيها من حرمة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم في عترته المجاهدين بالتمثيل للشهداء وجهادهم، وما جرى على الأطفال من القتل والقسوة، وبإعلانهم الحزن لذلك بأنواعه من ندب، ونداء، وعويل، وبكاء، وضرب بالأكف على الصدور وبالسلاسل على الظهور. فهل هذه الأعمال مباحة في الشرع أم لا أفتونا مأجورين
What is the view of our master, the evidence of Islam… regarding the sorrowful processions which the Jafaris routinely lead in the ten days of Muharram in order to: mimic the tragedy of Taf (Karbala’); to provide information regarding the sanctity of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which was desecrated by ill-treating his striving family and their efforts, and regarding the massacre and atrocities which befell them and their children; and to express their grief upon all that by mourning, shouting, screaming, wailing, and flagellating oneself with the hands upon the chest and with chains upon the backs. Are these actions permissible in Shari’ah or not. Please give us a fatwa, may you be rewarded.
And he responded with the following:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ذٰلِكَ وَمَن يُعَظِّمْ شَعَائِرَ اللَّهِ فَإِنَّهَا مِن تَقْوَى الْقُلُوبِ لَكُمْ فِيهَا مَنَافِعُ إِلَىٰ أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ولا ريب أن تلك المواكب المحزنة وتمثيل هاتيك الفاجعة المشجية من شعائر الفرقة الجعفرية
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Berciful. That [is so]. And whoever honours the symbols [i.e., rites] of Allah – indeed, it is from the piety of hearts. For you therein are benefits for a specified term. Indeed these sorrowful processions and the personification of that catastrophic tragedy are from the greatest symbols of the Jafari sect.
Hence he considers this grave innovation, which is characteristic of the greatest falsehood, to be from the symbols of Allah. If this is the view of their eminent scholar then what do you think will be the view of those inferior to him? Notwithstanding that in it is contained: punishing oneself, killing, excommunicating the Muslims—specifically the Sahabah and their successors—wailing, slapping the cheeks, ascribing partners to Allah by calling on to the creation, etc., all of which are categorically known to be false in Islam.
Despite all of this, their scholar Muhsin al Amin boasts that he established a gathering of condolences in Damascus which was attended by a large amount of people and was terminated with very effective and inductive slapping.
These actions which they perform every year in the month of Muharram have no other theme besides reviling the Sahabah and openly ascribing partners to Allah. Hence you will hear them chanting: “O Hussain, O Hussain”. And you will hear them showering curses upon the first generation in general and the first three Khulafa’ in specific. As a result, such hatred is implanted in their hearts which knows no bounds. It is for this reason that you will see their contemporaries writing about the alleged clash between the Ahlul Bayt and the Sahabah, they write about it as though it is occurring at this very moment and as though it is a danger which has engulfed the Ummah and threatens its existence.
Having said this, besides the aforementioned, there are other avenues and sources through which the Shia incessantly revile the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and excommunicate them. And their scholars support them in this deviance and encourage them without any shortfall. Hence from among these current avenues and sources which do not give birth but to the colocynth plants and do not implant but disunity, hatred and ill feelings are the following:
Firstly, up to the present moment there is an active Shia movement which aims at rediscovering the lost Shia heritage, publishing it, and making it popular amidst the people. This heritage is filled with cursing, excommunicating, and dooming to hell the Muhajirin and the Ansar with whom Allah was pleased and who were happy with Allah, especially the three Khulafa’ and the remaining ‘Asharah Mubashshrah, with the exception of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali.
So how can it be claimed that the Shia of today do not revile the Sahabah when they have revived those dark pages in a new form and spread them among their followers without any analyses or criticism?
Secondly, there still remains among their contemporaries a group of scholars which has dedicated itself to this falsehood. Hence their only concern in whatever they write and publish is to revile the men of the first generation and impugn them as though the Shia of this time have no other concern. There are thus books dedicated to this topic which, in their crudeness and vulgarity, have surpassed what appears in their ancient books. For example, the book al Ghadir of their contemporary scholar ‘Abdul Hussain al Amini al Najafi. This book is filled with accusations, lies, and criticisms regarding those who were pleased with Allah and with whom Allah was pleased. And many of their scholars have written positive reviews on it.
His attack on the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and specifically on the rightly guided Khalifah ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu attained the admiration of some of the enemies of the Ummah. So for example you will notice this in the words of Bolas Salamah, a Christian poet, who this Shia requested to write a review in the introduction of the seventh volume of his book. He thus wrote such words wherein he expresses his admiration and envy at what this liar drummed up against the Ummah and its Din. Just as he expresses his support for his inflammatory attack against the Faruq of this Ummah and its great and guided Khalifah ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu whose conquests and accomplishments in spreading Islam agonized the enemies of Islam and remained a source of their perturbation up to the present day.
Another example is the book Abu Hurairah of their scholar ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din al Musawi wherein he accuses the greatest narrator of Islam Abu Hurairah radiya Llahu ‘anhu with lying and hypocrisy, whereas at the same time he defends liars and fabricators like Jabir al Ju’fi and others.
Likewise the book al Saqifah of their scholar Muhammad Rida al Muzaffar wherein he portrays the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum as a group of people who have no aim but to conspire against Islam. So much so that he says:
مات النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم و لا بد أن يكون المسلمون كلهم (لا أدري الآن) قد انقلبوا على أعقابهم
Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away and all the Muslims necessarily (I don’t know of the present) turned back on their heels.
And there are many other books of this nature.
Thirdly, all those supplications which the Shia repeat on a daily basis. They are not empty of curses against the best of this Ummah, its leaders, the beloveds of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his relatives in law, and some of his wives—the Mothers of the Believers. Their books which have been written recently on this topic are not unlike their ancient books, as you will find in the book Mafatih al Jinan of the contemporary scholar ‘Abbas al Qummi and Diya’ al Salihin of Muhammad al Jawhari, amongst others.
Having studied all of this, is there any room for any other interpretation of the denial of these deniers other than Taqiyyah and lying.
Is al Khunayzi who claims that the Shia do not revile thus unaware of what their early and contemporary scholars have written on this topic? Al Khunayzi himself has perpetrated the crime of reviling the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum; he impugns Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and thereafter claims that the excommunication and denigration of the Sahabah which features in Usul al Kafi is closely matched with what appears in Sahih al Bukhari. Indeed a claim which has no basis apart from the fact that he is just trying to look for some opening to justify their stance regarding the Sahabah. Had there really been in Sahih al Bukhari narrations similar to those found in Usul all-Kafi there would have been among the Ahlus Sunnah those who would revile and excommunicate like the Shia. But the man is desperate to prove his false belief in whichever way possible.
As for Sheikh Ahmed Mugniyyah who avers that the Shia curse ‘Umar ibn Sa’d and not ‘Umar ibn al Khattab and that the confusion is due to the similarity in their names, is he unaware of the fact that ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a victim of curses and excommunication in the reliable books of the Shia, at the forefront of which is al Kafi, al Bihar, Tafsir al Qummi, Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, etc. as has passed already.
And has it slipped his attention that the Shia of the present still follow this pattern deviating in it without realising, as we seen in the case of the authors of al Ghadir, al Saqifah and al Islam ‘ala Daw’ al Tashayyu’?
In fact some of their scholars, who advocate Islamic unity are still steeped in this deviance and they still calumniate and utter these hurtful statements. Hence their scholar Muhammad al Khalisi, one of the senior authorities of the Shia in Iraq and one of those who spearheads the calls for Islamic unity, creates suspicion and doubt regarding the iman of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma; he says:
وإن قالوا إن أبابكر وعمر من أهل بيعة الرضوان الذين نص على الرضى عنهم القرآن في قوله لَّقَدْ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُونَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ. قلنا لو أنه قال: لقد رضي عن الذين يبايعونك تحت الشجرة لكان في الآية دلالة على الرضى عن كل من بايع. ولكن لما قال: لقد رضي الله عن المؤمنين إذ يبايعونك فلا دلالة فيها إلا على الرضى عمن محض الإيمان
And if they say that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are from the people of Bay’ah al Ridwan and the Qur’an has emphatically announced the pleasure of Allah for them in the verse: “Indeed Allah was pleased with the believers when pledged to you under the tree.” We will say, “Had Allah said that he was pleased with all those who pledged to you under the tree, then the pleasure in the verse would be inclusive of all those who pledged. But the fact that he says, “Allah was pleased with the believers when they pledged to you, it only suggests being pleased with those who had pure iman.”
This implies that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were not from those who had pure iman and thus the pleasure of Allah did not include them according to this Rafidi. Can there be a greater ill understanding than the one proposed here, i.e. the description of the Sahabah with iman being evidence of the best among them not having iman?
There are many other Shia who are just like al Khalisi in the present era.
So was all of this unknown to Ahmed Mugniyyah, or he intended to deceive the Ahlus Sunnah? Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala knows best of the reality. And Taqiyyah has always been the problem of the Shia.
As for al Rifa’i who claims that the Shia revere the Sahabah and that whoever attributes otherwise to them is an opponent with evil intent, is it hidden from him that it is their books which attribute this position to them, and that it is their scholars like al Kulayni, al Qummi, al ‘Ayyashi, al Majlisi, and others who have documented this shameful position, not any opponent with evil intent or a person who is unaware of what appears in their books?
Furthermore, al Rifa’i himself has referred to the Bihar of al Majlisi when writing his book Taqdir al Imamiyyah li al Sahabah; that Bihar which contains such denigration, cursing, and excommunication of the Sahabah that it causes the skin of the believers to shiver; that Bihar in which the author establishes a chapter with the title Chapter regarding the disbelief of the three, i.e. the three Khulafa’ before ‘Ali. How can he then claim that the Shia revere the Sahabah? If he really believes in revering the Sahabah, he should propagate that in the circles of the Shia, not in Cairo. And he should strive to convince his Imami friends to change this problem which has pervaded all their books, or at least shun them and announce that they are baseless. As for rejecting that which exists, it does not serve any purpose in defending the Shia dogma due to it inevitably smacking off the conclusion of Taqiyyah for the Shia and for those non-Shia who have access to their books.
Likewise this al Rifa’i, who writes his book Taqdir al Imamiyyah li al Sahabah amidst the Ahlus Sunnah in Cairo and outwardly displays ignorance for what appears in their ancient and contemporary works and for what actually happens in the real world of the laity and learned of Shia, himself reviles prominent Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Hence he says what he does not do and he denies what he knows. He accuses ‘Umar, the Faruq of this Ummah of conspiring against Islam and of being the first person to hold the view of Raj’ah. He likewise denigrates Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and Abu ‘Ubaidah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.
What is further astonishing is that he draws evidence from the booklet al Tashayyu’ Zahirah Tabi’iyyah fi Itar al Da’wah al Islamiyyah of Muhammad Baqir al Sadr despite it being an unfruitful attempt to prove a legitimate foundation for the Rafidi dogma. And despite it proposing the idea that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were not eligible for carrying and conveying the message of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Shari’ah, and that ‘Ali alone was eligible for bearing them and conveying them. This idea, aside from it impugning the Sahabah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, is a foolish and ignorant idea, or at least it is a spiteful one which endeavours to attack the pristine Sunnah and the Tawatur (mass transmission in all generations) of this Din. This idea proposes that the transmission of an individual is superior to the transmission of an entire group. This is in a way endorses the doctrine of the infallibility of the Imams and the excommunication of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum.
As for the alleged praise for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum which he quotes from the booklet of al Sadr, it was actually said by al Sadr in order to mislead the reader into accepting what he was to forge against them thereafter. Al Rifa’i thus very cunningly omits the opening and the end of his statement due to it debunking his substantiation therefrom. Hereunder is what al Sadr says:
وبالرغم من أن الصحابة بوصفهم الطليعة المؤمنة كانوا أفضل وأصلح بذرة لنشوء أمة رسالية… بالرغم من ذلك نجد من الضروري التسليم بوجود اتجاه واسع منذ كان النبي حيا يميل إلى تقديم الاجتهاد في تقدير المصلحة واستنتاجها من الظروف على التعبد بحرفية النص الديني، وقد تحمل الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم المرارة في كثير من الحالات بسبب هذا الاتجاه
Despite the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, in terms of them being the first generation of believers, being the best and the most capable seed for laying the foundation of a nation based on the message of Risalah… despite this, it is important to acknowledge that there was during the lifetime of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam a widespread notion which inclined toward giving credence to Ijtihad in ascertaining benefit and deducing it from the situations over rigidly following the religious text. It was owing to this that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had to suffer much of its bitterness in many conditions.
Do you see any praise in this text? He claims that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum would give preference to Ijtihad despite the existence of emphatic religious texts; rather they would abandon the orders of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and would follow their own interests. Is this venerating the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum? It is a well-established principle that it is not permissible to do Ijtihad in the presence of emphatic texts and that opposing Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is a major crime. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
فَلْيَحْذَرِ الَّذِيْنَ يُخَالِفُوْنَ عَنْ أَمْرِهِ أَن تُصِيْبَهُمْ فِتْنَةٌ أَوْ يُصِيْبَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيْمٌ
So let those beware who dissent from his [i.e., the Prophet’s] order lest fitnah strike them or a painful punishment.
All these claims of this Rafidi are thus in order to support his false assertions, i.e. the assertion that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was emphatically nominated as the successor and that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum shunned adhering to that due to their personal interest. But really, was there any benefit for them in pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu?
This Rifa’i does not merely suffice on quoting from the booklet of al Sadr, but he spreads the falsehood contained therein and adorns it with his supportive review. He then writes in another book that the Imamiyyah revere the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. What reverence is this? Unless reverence according to them entails reviling, cursing and excommunicating.
How bold are these people in speaking lies!
As for Muhammad Jawwad Mugniyyah who claims that the Shia do not disrespect the Sahabah and substantiates his claim with the verdict of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, to him I say that you people did not follow the advice dispensed by ‘Ali ibn al Hussain. Because he, as you acknowledge and report from him, would invoke the mercy of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala for the Sahabah, may Allah be pleased with them all; but you have not followed your Imam, nor did you prove to be true and consistent in your speech. This Mugniyyah who writes these words is the very same person who, in his book Fi Zilal Nahj al Balaghah, says the following regarding the guided Khalifah Dhu al Nurayn, the generous, the modest, the son-in-law of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam due to marrying his two daughters, the one who prepared the Jaysh al ‘Usrah (the army of poverty), the one who emigrated in both the emigrations, and the one who was given glad tidings of Jannat from Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
إن عثمان انحرف عن سنة الرسول وخالف شريعة الإسلام، واستأثر هو وذووه بأموال المسلمين فامتلكوا القصور والمزارع والرياش والخيول والعبيد والإماء ومن حولهم ملايين الجياع والمعدمين
Surely ‘Uthman deviated from the Sunnah of Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and opposed the Shari’ah of Islam. He gave preference to himself and his associates in the wealth of the Muslims, hence they took possession of palaces, orchards, furniture, horses, slaves and concubines whilst around them were millions of hungry and impoverished people.
He also says:
وكان الزبير وطلحة وعائشة وراء ما حدث لعثمان وعليهم تقع التبعة في دمه
And Zubair, Talhah, and Aisha were behind what happened to ‘Uthman; upon them is the blame of his blood.
He also accuses ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the members of the Shura to whom ‘Umar had accorded the prerogative of nominating the next Khalifah after him of deception and conspiracy.
Where is the respect for the status of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum when this speech which is filled with hatred is directed toward the best among them? And can Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam be more offended than by offending him due to denigrating his wives, his relatives-in-law, and his prominent Companions?
After all of this, how do we interpret this glaring contradiction of the Shia? Is it a result of Taqiyyah for Taqiyyah according to them constitutes nine tenths of Din, and a person who does not practice it has no Din, or is it all just a ploy to proselytise Shi’ism?
Before ending off this discussion, I shall endeavour to disclose some crucial realities and some hidden secrets regarding their praise for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum; they are of such a nature that a person who does not consistently study their works and does not ponder over their ways and terms will never be able to pick them up.
These Shia claim that they love the Ahlul Bayt and are loyal to them but in reality only intend their Twelve Imams. As for the others, especially those who revolted against the rulers in order to attain rulership, they disrespect them and even denigrate them, impugn them, and consider them doomed to Jahannam. In a like manner, they claim at times that they respect the Sahabah but they actually only intend three, four or seven amongst them who did not turn renegade according to their fables.
A person who does not know this reality will probably be deceived by their words and will never think that they hold a specific meaning for the term ‘Sahabah’.
Then there is another meaning of the term ‘Sahabah’ according to them and this meaning appears in some of their narrations. After praising the Sahabah and instructing the Ummah to refer to their views and consensus, their narrations mention that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was asked, “Who are your Companions?” to which he responded, “My Ahlul Bayt.” Hence they interpret the term ‘Sahabah’ to mean ‘Ahlul Bayt’.
There is also another approach which they adopt when praising the Sahabah, and that is Taqiyyah. Their scholar al Tusi has alluded to this, he says the following after denigrating Umm al Mu’minin Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha:
فإن قيل أليس قد روي عن أبي جعفر محمد بن علي الباقر أن سائلا سأله عن عائشة وعن مسيرها في تلك الحرب، فاستغفر لها وقال له الراوي: تستغفر لها وتتولاها فقال: نعم، أما علمت ما كانت تقول يا ليتني كنت شجرة ليتني كنت مدرة. قال الطوسي: لا حجة في ذلك على مذاهبنا لأنا نجيز عليه صلوات الله عليه التورية، ويجوز أن يكون السائل من أهل العداوة واتقاه بهذا القول وروى فيه تورية يخرجه من أن يكون كذبا، وبعد فإنه علق توبتها بتمنيها أن تكون شجرة ومدرة وقد بينا أن ذلك لا يكون توبة وهو عليه السلام بهذا أعلم
If it is said, “Has it not been narrated from Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al Baqir that when a questioner asked him regarding Aisha and her participation in that battle he sought forgiveness for her? And when the narrator asked him, ‘Do you seek forgiveness for her and associate with her?’ He replied in the affirmative and said, ‘Do you not know what she would say: ‘I wish I was a tree, I wish I was a piece of clay’.” [Al Tusi says,] There is no evidence in this against out dogma. Because we consider it possible for him ‘alayh al Salam to have practiced dissimulation. And likewise it is possible that the questioner was from the enemy owing to which the Imam defended himself with this statement and narrated therein a narration under Taqiyyah without speaking a lie. After all, he suspended her repentance upon her desire to be a tree and a piece of clay, and, as we have mentioned, that is not enough for repentance and he ‘alayh al Salam is more aware of that.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of those who claim that the Shia venerate the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum to openly mention the errant nature of these approaches, acknowledge the falsity of those evil narrations, speak the truth and not contradict themselves in order for their position to be accepted from them.
Furthermore, why do these people go about rejecting the claims of the Ahlus Sunnah when they say that the position of the Shia is to impugn the Sahabah and excommunicate them, but they do not refute themselves, their books, and their contemporary scholars who still blurt this deviance.
And what benefit remains today in cursing, reviling, and excommunicating the Sahabah, with which they have filled their books, their market places, and their shrines; when the first era has passed already with everything that it entailed? The only apparent reason is to attack the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Din in general; and to instigate mayhem and disunite the Ummah.
And what remains of our history and our glories if that first generation of pious, selected, and loyal leaders who spread Islam, established its empire, conquered lands, guided the bondsmen, erected a civilisation unprecedented in the history of humanity, and spearheaded all efforts of goodness, justice, and virtue; deserve to be cursed by their successive generations, and if their history is distorted, whereas they are the people who Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam have praised and their merits and accolades honest history has documented with ink of light. Is there anyone then who deserves praise and acknowledgement? And what would be our history and our glory if this is their condition?
Asl al Shia wa Usuluha p. 58; Khalil Yasin: al Imam ‘Ali p. 327; Baqir al Qurashi: al Rasul al A’zam ma’ Khulafa’ihi p. 18.
 Al Muzaffar: ‘Aqa’id al Imamiyyah p. 94.
 Al Samawi: al Imamah 1/65.
 Asl al Shia wa Usuluha p. 58. This is a clear confession that the Shia added a pillar to the pillars of Islam.
 Muhsin al Amin: al Shia Bayn al Haqa’iq wa al Awham p. 176; A’yan al Shia 1/457.
 Why do you revile the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum then if according to your confession they were only opposers of Imamah?
 Asl al Shia p. 58-59.
 ‘Abdul Hussain al Musawi: Ajwibah Masa’il Jar Allah p. 39; Muhammad Hussain al Zayn al ‘Amili: al Shia fi al Tarikh p. 32; al Khunaizi: al Da’wah al Islamiyyah 2/260; Muhammad Jawwad Mughniyah: al Shia Fi al Mizan p. 269; Lutf Allah al Safi: Ma’ Muhibb al Din Fi Khututihi al ‘Aridah p. 95.
 Whom they describe as ‘the senior of the jurists and the Mujtahidin, the evidence of Islam and the Muslims, and the greatest sign of Allah in the universe’, whereas Islam is free from him. One of his books is: Ilzam al Nasib Fi Ithbat al Hujjah al Gha’ib. According to him the Ahlus Sunnah and all the Muslims who do not believe in their fictitious Mahdi are Nawasib, haters of the Ahlul Bayt. He died in 1333 A.H.
 He openly excommunicates the entire Ummah to the exclusion of his cult. And he opines that the cause of the disbelief of the Ummah is Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. He says:
إن أبابكر وعمر هم السببان لإضلال هذه الإمة إلي يوم القيامة
Abu Bakr and ‘Umar are the cause of the deviance of this Ummah till the Day of Judgement. (Kashf al Ishtibah p. 98.)
See how these scholars remain victims of the ideologies of the heretics of the bygone era. Nonetheless, he writes this view which he openly claims in response to some of the Ahlus Sunnah, Sheikh Musa Jar Allah. This implies that Taqiyyah has various levels and shades and that what is concealed from us is even more severe.
 He acknowledges that Imamah is a pillar from the pillars of Din (al Tarbiyah al Diniyyah p. 63), which implies that a person who rejects Imamah in actual fact rejects a pillar of Din and thus is from the disbelievers. He contrives this ill whilst he stays amidst the Ahlus Sunnah and benefits from their bounties after having lived as an exile (for his is originally from Iraq but now stays in Saudi and works in some of its universities).
 ‘Aqa’id al Imamiyyah p. 155.
 Al Saqifah p. 19.
 Consider for example ‘Abdul Hussain al Musawi. He claims in a number of his books that the Shia do not excommunicate the Muslims (see: his letter to the academy of Arabic knowledge, situated in Damascus which was published in Najaf in the year 1387 A.H.; Ajwibah Masa’il Jar Allah p. 39, etc.). But on the other hand he excommunicates the great Sahabi and the most prolific narrator of hadith Abu Hurairah. In fact he even excommunicates any person who does not believe in his Twelve Imams because he claims that Imamah according to them is from the pillars of Din (see: al Fusul al Muhimmah p. 32). He likewise asserts that narrations which talk of the general iman of the believers have to be qualified with belief in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams because they are the door of forgiveness and only the one who enters it will be forgiven (Ibid. p. 32). And finally he says that a person who gives an alternate interpretation of Imamah or errs regarding it will not be excused according to their consensus (Ibid. p. 45).
 Bihar al Anwar 8/368.
 i.e. the wisdom behind outwardly considering them Muslims
 Referring to his cult. Because they consider iman to be their exclusive quality.
 Bihar al Anwar 8/368.
 Ibid. 8/369-370.
 Shihab al Najafi: in his annotations upon the book Ihqaq al Haqq of al Tusturi 2/294-295.
 Fathi ‘Abdul ‘Aziz: al Khumaini al Hall al Islami al Badil p. 58-59.
 Al Zu’bi: La Sunnah wa la Shia p. 84.
 Muhammad ‘Ali al Hassani: Fi Zilal al Tashayyu’ p. 38.
 Al Sadiqi: ‘Ali wa al Hakimun p. 83.
 Ajwibah Masa’il Jar Allah p. 38-39.
 See: Lutf Allah al Safi: Ma’ Muhibb al Din Fi Khututihi al ‘Aridah p. 89-90.
 Al Shia wa al Hakimun p. 24.
 The representative of the academic seminary in Najaf, as he describes himself.
 ‘Ali wa al Hakimun p. 78. Also see p. 83.
 Muhammad ‘Ali al Hassani: Fi Zilal al Tashayyu’ p. 558.
 Fi Intizar al Imam p. 57.
 Ibid. 67.
 Ibid. 69.
 Ibid. 70.
 Al Nu’mani: al Ghaybah p. 129; Bihar al Anwar 52/136.
 Bihar al Anwar 52/136.
 Al Ghaybah p. 131.
 Ibid. 134.
 Ibid. 129.
 Ibid. 134.
 Tahrir al Wasilah 1/482.
 See the chapter regarding the empire of the Ayat: p. 1172. (Add page number later) ###
 Al Manar vol. 9 p. 605.
 Al Islam ‘ala Daw’ al Tashayyu’ p. 132-133.
 Al I’tiqadat p. 112.
 Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah p. 142.
 Muhammad Abu Zuhrah: al Imam al Sadiq p. 12.
 What he intends by ‘Shia’ and ‘Shia’ is ‘Rafidah’ and ‘Rafidi’, not Shia in general, otherwise this generalisation would not be correct.
 Mahmud al Mallah: al Wajiz ‘ala al Wajiz p. 278.
 For his biography see: Yahya Dhaka’: Karwand Kisrawi (introduction); al Tashayyu’ wa al Shia (Introduction); Mujam al Mu’allifin 2/53.
 Al Tashayyu’ wa al Shia p. 66. This was cited previously but I recited here because of its importance and relevance.
 See the references cited above regarding his biography. Someone informed me that he had some heretical views, I, however, did not come across substantial evidence that affirmed this. Probably this accusation was due to the propaganda of some of the Shia against him. A person is judged by the books and works he has left behind, and I did not see in his books which I came across any manifestation of heresy. And his journals and papers did not reach me based on which I could have come to learn of that… Previously I cited the praise al Mallah has showered him with… And I did not cite here only that which is Haqq and which gained a lot of support in the Shia circles.
 Al Da’wah al Islamiyyah 1/256-257.
 Al Da’wah al Islamiyyah 1/8.
 Ibid. 1/9.
 Ahmed Mugniyyah: al Imam Jafar al Sadiq p. 113-114.
 Taqdir al Imamiyyah li al Sahabah p. 36.
 Ibid. p. 37-39.
 Ibid. 39-42.
 Ibid. p. 43-46. He gives reference to the book of Baqir al Sadr: al Tashayyu’ Zahirah Tabi’iyyah p. 80.
 Ibid. 46-47.
 Al Sahifah al Sajjadiyyah p. 43-44.
 Ibn Taymiyyah has said that most of this alleged al Sahifah, which they attribute to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain and every letter whereof they sanctify, are lies forged upon him. (Minhaj al Sunnah 3/209).
 Tafsir al Kashif 10/515.
 Like Hussain Yusuf Makki al ‘Amili who says:
لا نسوغ لأحد أن يسبهما (يعني الشيخين) ولا أن يتحامل على مقامهما، ولا أفتينا لأحد بجواز سبهما. فلهما عندنا من المقام ما يقتضي الإحلال والاحترام، وإننا نحرص كل الحرص على تدعيم قواعد المودة والإلفة بين المسلمين
We do not allow anyone to revile them (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) nor to attack their integrity. We have similarly not issued a Fatwa of it being permissible to revile them. For they hold such high status as to be deserving of respect. And we are always desirous of strengthening the bonds of love and unity among the Muslims. (‘Aqidah al Shia fi al Imam al Sadiq [Beirut: Dar Al Andalus, first edition] p. 19. Also see p. 30 of the previous reference).
And Muhammad Hussain Al Kashif al Ghita’ says:
وصحابة النبي الكرام أسمى من أن تحلق إلى أوج مقامهم بغاث الأوهام
And the status of the noble Sahabah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is loftier than can be reached by the birds of assumptions. (Asl al Shia p. 113).
 Al Islam ‘ala Daw’ al Tashayyu’ p. 88 (footnote).
 Ibid. p. 88.
 Mansur Hussain: Tuhfah al ‘Awwam Maqbul p. 423-424. You can find the entire supplication in my book Fikrah al Taqrib under the addendum of documents.
 Musa Jar Allah: al Washia p. 27.
 Ibid. p. 26.
 Surah al Hajj: 32, 33.
 Al Ayat al Bayyinat p. 5.
 Rasa’il al Tanzih li A’mal al Shabih p. 30.
 Whereas indirectly Amir al Mu’minin has also become a victim of many of those accusations, as is clear to one who contemplates over their texts.
 This Rafidi commenced the seventh volume of his book with the remarks of this Christian. In response the latter wrote to him:
وقد شرفتموني بإدراج رسالتي في المقدمة. وقد اطلعت على هذا السفر النفيس فحسبت أن لآل البحار قد اجتمعت في غديركم… ولقد لفت نظري على الأخص ما ذكرتموه بشأن الخليفة الثاني. فلله دركم ما أقوى حجتكم
You have honoured me by including my letter in the introduction. And I came to learn of this valuable book and it occurred to me that the pearls of al Bihar (ocean) have gathered in your Ghadir (pond)…
And what specifically caught my attention is what you have mentioned regarding the second Khalifah. For Allah is your goodness, how strong are your proofs. (al Ghadir vol. 7: p. ح)
And this simple-minded Rafidi, or rather this heretic who masquerades as a Muslim was misled by the praise of this disbeliever and thus returned his praise by saying the following regarding his letter:
أتانا من بحاثة المسيحيين القاضي الحر والشاعر النبيل الأستاذ بولس سلامة… الخالد الذكر فشكرا له ثم شكرا
A letter has come to us from the research scholar of the Christians, the lofty judge and the noble poet, professor Bolas Salamah… whose praise will remain forever. Thanks to him and thanks to him again. (Al Ghadir 7: p. ح).
See how this Rafidi on the one hand virulently attacks the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum with all sorts of flaws and criticisms and how on the other hand he praises the disbelievers and seeks to draw near to them. This has always been the way of the Shia from the bygone eras.
 Al Muraja’at p. 75.
 Like Hisham ibn al Hakam, see al Muraja’at p. 312, 313.
 Al Saqifah p. 19. And he describes the senior Sahabah as conspirators against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, see al Saqifah p. 85.
 Like the book al Nass wa al Ijtihad of ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din al Musawi. In this book he tries to provide an excuse for the Sahabah in their opposition of the emphatic appointment of ‘Ali, but in doing so he presents an excuse filled with deceit and evil. He claims that they believed in the principle of segregating religion from the state and thus they did not adhere to the appointment. This is an open lie the falsity whereof is exposed by the praise of Allah and his Rasul for them, their piety, their asceticism and their striving…
Another book is al Imam al Sadiq wa al Mazahib al Arba’ah of Asad Haydar wherein he denigrates the Khulafa’ of the Muslims and forges lies against prominent scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah like Imam Ahmed in order to support his dogma. He also discusses the alleged tragedies of the Ahlul Bayt.
Similarly, another book is ‘Ali wa Munawi’uhu of Professor Nuri Jafar. In the book he concocts a clash between ‘Ali and the Sahabah and alleges that it was a clash akin to the one that existed between Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Quraysh. He then says:
وإذا كان النصر قد كتب للنبي في نزاعه مع مناوئيه لاعتصامهم بالأوثان، فإن النصر لم يكن في متناول الإمام لتقمص مناوئيه رداء الإسلام
And whilst victory was destined for Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in his struggle with his opponents due to them latching on to idols, victory was not achievable for the Imam due to his opponents disguising themselves with the garb of Islam. (‘Ali wa Munawi’uhu p. 12)
As you can see, their thinking has not changed from that of the heretics of the past even though the author holds a high qualification.
One of their strange publications is the book al Rasul al A’dham ma’ Khulafa’ihi of their scholar Mahdi al Qurashi. In this book the author depicts, according to his imaginations and beliefs what will happen to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and the Sahabah on Judgement Day. He likewise concocts conversations and claims that they will take place between Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Sahabah and in them he will take them to task regarding not pledging their allegiance to ‘Ali.
 Al Da’wah al Islamiyyah 1/12.
 Ibid. 1/5-14.
 See p. 723, onwards (add page number)
 Surah al Fath: p. 18.
 Al Khalisi: Ihya’ al Shari’ah fi Mazhab al Shia 1/63-64.
 Shihab al Din ak-Najafi: in his footnotes on Ihqaq al Haqq of al Shustari 2/ 291, and other sections.
 See p. 15, 17, 19.
 Bihar al Anwar 2/208-252.
 See his footnotes on the book al Tashayyu’ of Muhammad Baqir al Sadr: p. 30-31.
 Ibid. p. 46.
 Al Tashayyu’ p. 80.
 Surah al Nur: 63.
 Fi Zilal Nahj al Balaghah 2/264.
 Ibid. 1/292-293.
 Ibid. 2/ 2-3.
 See p. 762 (add page number)
 Al Tusi: al Istifa’ fi al Imamah p. 288 (of the manuscript).