Examining Some Contents of the Book Kashf al Litham which He Praised

The book Kashf al Litham ‘an Qawa’id al Ahkam is considered one of the most important jurisprudential books in the Imamiyyah sect. Although it is a legal book, I found sections in it that embodied malice and excommunication towards all other Muslims. This is clear evidence and definitive proof of harbouring malice and excommunication towards other Muslims, as it is not a book of narrations subject to scrutiny and verification but a book where he established the legal rulings he believes in and considers as a binding proof between him and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, which he worships by, and which the Shia follow in their worship. Before presenting some of the sections I found, I deemed it necessary to clarify the term “opponent” included in those malicious excommunicating rulings. By reviewing the scholars’ texts to clarify its meaning, it became clear that it refers to all Muslims except the Imamiyyah Shia.

Those who explicitly stated this include:

1. Muhammad Kalantar, the editor of the book al Lum’ah al Dimashqiyyah, says:

المخالف وهو غير الاثني عشري من فرق المسلمين

The opponent is anyone who is not a Twelver Shia from among the Muslim sects.^[1]

2. Their contemporary Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sa’id al Hakim, residing in Najaf, clarified the terms ‘general public’ and ‘opponents’ as those who follow Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, and believe in the legitimacy of their Caliphate. In other words, the opponents and the general public are all Sunni Muslims with all their sects and doctrines. He said:

الظاهر أن المراد بالعامة المخالفون الذين يتولون الشيخين ويرون شرعية خلافتهما على اختلاف فرقهم لأن ذلك هو المنصرف إليه العناوين المذكورة في النصوص

It appears that the general public means the opponents who follow the two Sheikhs (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) and consider their Caliphate legitimate, regardless of their various sects, as this is what the mentioned titles in the texts refer to.^[2]

3. Their Ayatollah al ‘Uzma and leader of their scholarly seminary, Muhammad Rida al Kalibayikani, responded to a question as follows:

من هو المخالف هل هو من خالف معتقد الشيعة في الإمامة أو من خالف بعض الأئمة ووقف على بعضهم فيدخل في ذلك الزيدية وغيرهم وهل حكم المخالف حكم الخارج والناصب والغالي أم لا

Who is considered an opponent? Is it someone who disagrees with the Shia belief in Imamah or someone who disagrees with some of the Imams and only accepts a few of them, including the Zaidis and others? Does the ruling on an opponent match that of a Khariji, Nasibi, or Ghali, or not?

باسمه تعالى المخالف في لساننا يطلق على منكر خلافة أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام بلا فصل وأما الواقف على بعض اللأئمة عليهم السلام فهو وإن كان معدودا من فرق الشيعة إلا أن أحكام الاثني عشرية لا تجري في حقه

In the name of Allah. The opponent in our terminology refers to one who denies the immediate^[3] Caliphate of Amir al Mu’minin, peace be upon him. As for someone who accepts some of the Imams, peace be upon them, while rejecting others, even though he is considered a Shia sect member, the rulings of the Twelvers do not apply to him.^[4]

After understanding their definition of the opponent as all Muslims except the Imami Shia, we can examine some instances where he explicitly expressed his excommunicating belief towards all Muslims:

1. He dismissed the Adhan by non-Twelver Muslims because they are deemed untrustworthy and unrighteous by their excommunicating belief. He said:

قلت ويشترط الإيمان فلا عبرة بأذان غير الاثني عشري وإن وافق أذانهم لأنهم ليس أمينا ولا من الخيار

I say: Faith is a condition, so the Adhan by non-Twelvers, even if it matches their Adhan, is not considered because they are not trustworthy nor righteous.^[5]

2. He explained their method of praying over the dead differentiating between an Imami, whom he referred to as a believer, and other Muslims, suggesting they pray for the Shia Imami and curse the hypocrite, defining hypocrites as their opponents among other Muslims. He said:

ثم الدعاء للميت إذا كان مؤمنا ولعنه إن كان منافقا أي مخالفا كما في المنتهي والسرائر والكافي والجامع وبمعناه في الغنية والإشارة من الدعاء على المخالف

Then praying for the deceased if he is a believer and cursing him if he is a hypocrite, meaning an opponent, as stated in al Muntaha, al Sara’ir, al Kafi, and al Jami’. This is also mentioned in al Ghunyah and al Isharah in terms of cursing the opponent.^[6]

Thus, he reveals his dark excommunication belief by cursing the deceased Muslims in funeral prayers.

3. The discussion on washing the dead of opponents, using the most abominable and dreadful terms against them. Here are statements in several paragraphs:

A. He mentioned the disagreement on the obligation to wash the body of an opponent and then leaned towards the view that it is prohibited if the intention is to honour them. He said:

ويجب تغسيل كل مظهر للشهادتين وإن كان مخالفا للحق عدا الخوارج والغلاة كذا في التحرير والإرشاد أيضا ولم أر موافقا له في التنصيق على وجوب تغسيل المخالف ونص المفيد على الحرمة لغير تقية وهو الوجه عندي إذا قصد إكرامه لنحلته أو لإسلامه وحينئذ لا استثناء لتقية أو غيرها

It is obligatory to wash the body of anyone who professes the two testimonies, even if they are opponents of the truth, except for the Khawarij and the Ghulat, as stated in al Tahrir and al Irshad as well. However, I have not seen anyone agreeing on the obligation to wash the opponent. Al Mufid explicitly stated that it is prohibited unless for the sake of Taqiyyah (dissimulation), and this is my view if the intention is to honour their belief or their Islam. In such cases, there is no exception for dissimulation or otherwise.

Meaning that he sees the prohibition of washing the body of an opponent if the intention is to honour them. By Allah, what rights of brotherhood are left for them?

B. He explained the most important reasons that permit washing their bodies after declaring its prohibition, which is in the presence of opponents so they would know that the Imamiyyah wash their dead, thus alienating them from them. He said:

ومن التقية هنا حضور أحد من أهل نحلته فإن الغسل كرامة للميت ولا يصلح لها غير المؤمن وإنما يجب إذا حضر أحد من أهل نحلته لئلا يشيع عندهم أنا لا نغسل موتاهم فيدعو ذلك إلى تعسر تغسيلنا موتانا أو تعذره

Among the reasons for dissimulation here is the presence of someone from their sect because washing is an honour for the deceased, and it is not suitable for anyone other than a believer. It is obligatory if someone from their sect is present so that it does not become widely known among them that we do not wash their dead, which would lead to difficulty or impossibility in washing our dead.

C. He mentioned the intentions under which washing is permissible, disliked, or prohibited. He said:

وبالجملة فجسد المخالف كالجماد حرمة له عندنا فإن غسل كغسل الجمادات من غير إرادة إكرام ويكن به بأس وعسى أن يكون مكروها لتشبيهه بالمؤمن وكذا إن أريد إكرامه لرحم أو صداقة ومحبة وإن أريد إكرامه لكونه أهلا له لخصوص نحلته أو لأنها لا تخرجه عن الإسلام والناجين حقيقة فهو حرام وإن أريد إكرامه لإقراره بالشهادتين احتمل الجواز

In general, the body of an opponent is like an inanimate object, having no sanctity according to us. If it is washed like washing inanimate objects without the intention of honouring them, then there is no harm in it^[7]. It might be Makruh (disliked) for comparing him to a believer. Similarly, if the intention is to honour them due to kinship, friendship, or love, it is disliked. If the intention is to honour them because they deserve it for their specific belief or because it does not exclude them from Islam and the truly saved, it is prohibited. If the intention is to honour them for their acknowledgment of the two testimonies, permissibility is possible.

Reflect, may Allah guide you, on how he expressed all this malice and misguidance against the deceased Sunnis, considering their bodies in light of his excommunicating belief like inanimate objects with no sanctity, so they should not be washed with the intention of honouring them. Instead, it is permissible if the washing is done with the intention like washing inanimate objects like a house or a car.

So, is there any hope left for rapprochement and brotherhood when they do not see any sanctity for our bodies?

D. He explicitly declared their abhorrent excommunication belief towards all Muslims with clarity to silence the deceitful tongues that deny the Shia’s excommunication of other Muslims. Here are some of his statements:

i. He confirmed that the disbelief of other Muslims is established by both rational and textual evidence, saying:

ودلالة عقلا ونقلا على أن غير الإمامية الاثني عشرية كفار لكن أجري عليهم أحكام المسلمين تفضلا علينا كالمنافقين

The rational and textual evidence indicates that non-Twelver Imamis are infidels, but the rulings of Muslims are applied to them as a favour to us, like hypocrites.^[8]

ii. He narrated a tradition commenting that the purity of other Muslims is a concession for the Shia, while considering them infidels in reality. He said:

سألوا الباقر عليه السلام عن شراء اللحم من الأسواق ولا يدرون ما صنع القصابون فقال كل إذا كان في سوق المسلمين ولا تسأل عنه مع أن عامة أهل الأسواق في تلك الزمان كانوا من العامة… ويمكن أن يكون الإباحة من السوق تخفيفا من الشارع وامتنانا على المؤمنين كما حكم بطهارة العامة مع كونهم من المنافقين الذين هم أشد الكفار كفرا لذلك

They asked al Baqir, peace be upon him, about buying meat from the markets without knowing what the butchers did. He replied, “If it is in a Muslim market, do not ask about it.” Although the majority of people in the markets at that time were from the Commonalty [Ahlus Sunnah]… It can be considered that the permission from the market is a concession from the legislator and a favour to the believers, just as the ruling of the purity of the Commonalty, despite being hypocrites who are the worst infidels, was decreed for the same reason.^[9]

iii. He reiterated their excommunication belief towards all Muslims, comparing their treatment to that of hypocrites who disbelieved in Allah and His Messenger. He said:

والمسلمون يتوارثون وإن اختلفوا في المذاهب لعموم الأدلة والاشتراك في الإقرار بالشهادتين الموجب للمعاملة معهم كما يعامل مع المسلمين وإن كانوا منافقين

Muslims inherit from each other even if they differ in sects due to the general evidence and the common acknowledgment of the two testimonies, which necessitates dealing with them as Muslims, even though they are hypocrites.^[10]

After this brief overview of the book^[11], which is replete with hatred and excommunication towards all Muslims, let us reconsider the praise given by Jafar al Subhani, who poses as a promoter of Islamic unity, for both the author and the book. Here are the relevant points:

1. He states:

قام بشرح القصيدة العينية نابغة عصره وفريد دهره أبو الفضل بهاء الدين محمد بن الحسن الأصفهاني المشهور بالفاضل الهندي 1062 – 1137ه مؤلف الموسوعة الفقهية الضخمة المسماة بكشف اللثام عن قواعد الأحكام إلى غير ذلك من الآثار العلمية

The prodigy of his time and the unique of his era, Abu al Fadl Baha’ al Din Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Asbahani known as al Fadil al Hindi (1062-1137 AH), provided an explanation of al Qasidah al ‘Ayniyyah. He is the author of the massive juridical encyclopaedia titled Kashf al Litham ‘an Qawa’id al Ahkam, in addition to other academic works.^[12]

2. He says:

إلى أن وصلت النوبة إلى الشارح تاج المحققين والفقهاء فخر المدققين والعلماء الفاضل الهندي وبكتابه هذا حفظ التراث الفقهي الاجتهادي

By the time the task reached the commentator, he had become the crown jewel of researchers and scholars, the pride of examiners and ‘Ulama’, al Fadil al Hindi. Through this book, he preserved the jurisprudential heritage of independent reasoning.^[13]

3. He says:

وقبل أن ننوه بهذا الشرح ومميزاته أود أن أُشير إلى بعض الكلمات التي قيلت في حقه من قبل العلماء يقول المحقق الشيخ أسد الله التستري المتوفي عام 1237 ومنهم الأصفهاني المحقق المدقق التحرير الفقيه الحكيم المتكلم المولى بهاء الدين محمد بن الحسن الأصفهاني الشهير بالفاضل الهندي… وكان مولده سنة بعد الألف ونشؤه في بدو حاله وصغره في بلاد الهند ولذا نُسب إليها وجرت له فيها مع المخالفين مناظرة في الإمامة معروفة على اللسنة

Before highlighting the features and merits of this explanation, I would like to mention some words said by scholars about him: The investigator Sheikh Asad Allah al Tustari, who died in 1237 AH, said, “Among them is al Asbahani, the scrutinising investigator, the jurist of liberation, the wise theologian, Mawla Baha’ al Din Muhammad ibn al Hassan al Asfahani, known as al Fadil al Hindi… He was born in 1062 AH and spent his early years in India, hence the attribution.”^[14]

4. He says:

إن الآثار الجلائل التي تركها شيخنا المؤلف تعرب عن تضلعه في أكثر العلوم الإسلامية لا سيما في الفقه والأصول والأدب العربي

The grand contributions left by our author reveal his deep understanding of most Islamic sciences, especially in jurisprudence, principles of jurisprudence, and Arabic literature.^[15]

5. He states:

هذا ولكن الذي يدل على نبوغ مؤلفنا الشارح هي الآثار العلمية التي تركها للأجيال الآتية فإن كتابه كشف اللثام آية نبوغه في الفقه وبراعته في الاستنباط ويكفي في قيمة هذا الكتاب ما نقله المحدث القمي عن أُستاذه المحدث النوري عن شيخه الشيخ عبد الحسين أن صاحب الجواهر كان يعتمد على كتاب كشف اللثام على نحو يكتب شيئا من موسوعته إلا بعد الرجوع إلى ذلك الكتاب

What demonstrates the brilliance of our author, the commentator, are the academic impacts he left for future generations. His book Kashf al Litham stands as a testament to his jurisprudential acumen and deductive skills. Sufficient in demonstrating the value of this book is what al Muhaddith al Qummi conveyed from his teacher al Muhaddith al Nuri, from his Sheikh, al Sheikh ‘Abdul Hussain, that the author of al Jawahir relied on Kashf al Litham, to the extent that he did not include anything in his encyclopedia except after referring to that book.^[16]

Thus, the false claims of Shia proponents for unity are exposed by the mask that conceals the defamation, hatred, and excommunication directed at the prominent Companions of our Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the best figures of our Islamic Ummah, such as Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, and others radiya Llahu ‘anhum.

This is expressed implicitly, reminding us of the words of our Rabb subhanahu wa ta ‘ala:

أَمۡ حَسِبَ ٱلَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِم مَّرَضٌ أَن لَّن يُخۡرِجَ ٱللَّهُ أَضۡغَٰنَهُمۡ

Or do those with sickness in their hearts think that Allah will not expose their malice?^[17]

NEXT⇒ Conclusion

^[1] Al Shahid al Thani: Al Lum’ah al Dimashqiyyah, 1/248.

^[2] Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sa’id al Hakim: Al Muhkam fi Usul al Fiqh.

^[3] By this definition, ‘immediate’ in his description of the opponent implies that the Imami Shia believe ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is the immediate Caliphate after the Prophet salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, meaning he is the first Khalifah after the Prophet. This negates the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, who assumed the role directly after the Prophet. Sunnis believe ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, is the Khalifah after the Prophet but the fourth Khalifah after the three Khalifahs (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum, not the first.

^[4] Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Rida al Kalibayikani: Irshad al Sa’il, pg. 199, Question number 842.

^[5] Al Fadil al Hindi: Kashf al Litham, 3/364.

^[6] Kashf al Litham, 2/353.

^[7] And therefore, let the Sunnis in the East and West know that their esteemed scholar, al Hindi, and his group wash our dead, but treat our bodies as they would treat inanimate objects, seeing no sanctity in them. Verily, we belong to Allah and to Him we shall return.

^[8] Kashf al Litham, 2/225-226.

^[9] Kashf al Litham, 2/226.

^[10] Kashf al Litham, 2/226.

^[11] And I believe their scholar, al Hindi, was accurate in naming his book Kashf al Litham (Unveiling the Veil), as it unveiled the hideous, Takfiri face of their beliefs.

^[12] Al La’ali’ al ‘Abqariyyah, pg. 43.

^[13] Al La’ali’ al ‘Abqariyyah, pg. 46.

^[14] Al La’ali’ al ‘Abqariyyah, pg. 47.

^[15] Al La’ali’ al ‘Abqariyyah, pg.46.

^[16] Al La’ali’ al ‘Abqariyyah, pg. 45-46.

^[17] Surah al Muhammad: 29.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents