Shi’ism has left its effects in the economical sphere of the Muslims’ lives in different ways. One among them is that Shia figures have since the bygone eras taken the wealth of the Muslims under the deceiving pretext of the ‘right of the Ahlul Bayt’, for which Allah has revealed no evidence. This wealth was always utilised in fulfilling their personal motives and exploited to conspire against the Ummah and plot against it.
The books of the Shia say:
مات أبو الحسن (ع) وليس من قوامه أحد إلا وعنده المال الكثير،فكان ذلك سبب وقوفهم وجحودهم موته، وكان ع زياد القندي سبعون ألف دينار، وعند علي بن أبي حمزة ثلاثون ألف دينار، وكان أحد القوام عثمان بن عيسى وكان يكون في مصر وكان عنده مال كثير وست جواري. قال: فبعث إليه أبو الحسن الرضا عليه السلام فيهن وفي المال. فكتب إليه: إن أباك لم يمت فكتب إليه: أن أبي قد مات وقد اقتسمنا ميراثه وقد صحت الأخبار بموته، فكتب إليه: إن لم يكن أبوك مات فليس لك من ذلك شيء وإن كان مات فلم يأمرني بدفع شيء إليك وقد اعتقت الجواري وتزوجتهن
Abu al Hassan ‘alayh al Salam passed away and there was none among the caretakers of his wealth but that they had a lot of wealth, and thus that served as the cause for their hesitation and denial of his death. Ziyad al Qandi had seventy thousand Dirhams and ‘Ali ibn Hamzah had thirty thousand Dirhams. One of the caretakers, whose name was ‘Uthman ibn ‘Isa and who was based in Egypt, had a lot of wealth and six slave girls. Abu al Hassan al Rida wrote to him regarding the money and the slave girls. In response he wrote, “Your father has not died.” To which Abu al Hassan responded by saying, “My father has passed away, we have distributed his inheritance and the reports of his death are credible.
He responded, “If your father did not die than there is no share for you in the wealth, and if he has died, then he has not ordered me to give anything to you. As for the slave girls I have freed them and married them.”
This report is taken from the books of the Twelvers. We will leave that aspect of this narration for which they advance this narration, i.e. to establish the invalidity of suspending ruling regarding the death of the Imam by drawing evidence from the response of their Imam al Rida, and will rather focus on the disclosure the narration gives us regarding the greed for wealth which underpins their activities. This narration reveals that the only motive all those people who traversed the lands and claimed to be representative of an Imam from the Imams had in mind was securing the biggest possible amount of wealth for themselves.
Hence by way of these false claims for the Imams they would gather huge sums of money and which these clandestine elements would share amongst themselves.
Any person who considers the abundant Shia movements which emerged throughout the history of the Muslim Ummah, which distracted the Ummah from its enemies and which diverted its energies away from constructing the greatest Muslim empire should not be oblivious of the fact that all the funding for these movements was collected from the gullible followers in the name of the Ahlul Bayt and their right of Khums, one fifth.
In fact, the Shia movements of the present age still solicit all their funding from this avenue. And the scholars of the Shia are thus considered to be from the prominent capitalists of the world. Therefore the position of being a scholar or a Marji’ is a position which the hearts yearn for and which the gazes look up to, i.e. due to them being positions upon which heaps of golds and silver are poured.
Similarly, this avenue of income is what sustained and continues to sustain all the publishing houses which publish hundreds of publications and books which are replete with content against the Ummah and its Din.
Furthermore, this immense wealth which is poured upon the Ayat, scholars, and Maraji’, authorities, of the Shia from the side of the beguiled followers is what has made the matter of the Shia progress and their threat intensify. Hence, the scholars of the Shia and their authorities began directing their fatwas to the ordinary people on the streets and concealed the realities and facts from them in order to conform to the populist information they were already exposed to.
The scholars of the Shia have lent a lot of importance to the issue of wealth which they usurp from people in the name of Khums. To the extent that they consider a person who considers it permissible to withhold one Dirham to be a disbeliever.
A person who studies Islamic jurisprudence will not find a single chapter which is dedicated solely to the topic of Khums. All that he will find is narrations regarding the Khums retrieved from booty in the chapter of Jihad. Likewise he will find a narration regarding the Khums which is to be paid upon certain minerals.
But the matter is completely different according to the Shia. For in their books there is a chapter which is dedicated to Khums. Hereunder are some of their rulings regarding Khums:
فيما يفضل عن مؤونة السنة من أرباح التجارات ومن سائر التكسبات من الصناعات، والزراعات والإيجارات حتى الخياطة والكتابة والنجارة والصيد وحيازة المباحات وأجرة العبادات الاستيجارية من الحج والصوم والصلاة-كذا- والزيارات وتعليم الأطفال وغير ذلك من الأعمال التي لها أجرة.
Khums will be taken out of whatever surplus remains after the expenses of the year are settled from the revenues of businesses and all other types of earnings, viz. occupations, farming, lease agreements, even sewing of clothes, writing, carpentry, hunting, the securing of things which are permissible by default and the wages paid for acts of worship for which wages are normally given: like Hajj, fasting, Salah, visitations, teaching children and all other actions for which wages are paid.
They even say:
بل الأحوط ثبوته في مطلق الفائدة، وإن لم تحصل بالإكتساب كالهبة والهدية والجائزة والمال الموصى به ونحوها.
It is rather safer that Khums be established in any benefit even though it is not procured through earning, likes gifts, presents, allowances and wealth which is bequeathed, etc.
They have also considered it safer to take out Khums from the capital itself and from all the instruments and tools which are used, like a carpenter’s instruments of carpentry, a weaver’s instruments of weaving and a farmer’s instruments of farming. Hence it is safer to take out Khums for them as well in advance.
They even go to the extent of saying:
لو زاد ما اشتراه وادخره للمؤنة من مثل الحنطة والشعير ونحوها مما يصرف عينه فيها يجب إخراج خمسه عند تمام الحول… ولو استغنى عن الفرش والأواني والألبسة والعبد والفرس والكتب وما كان مبناه على بقاء عينه فالأحوط إخراج الخمس
If there is surplus in what he has bought and stored for seeing to expenses like wheat, barely and things of their kind which are used, it will be compulsory to take out one Khums from them as well at the end of the year… And if he does not require the spreads, utensils, clothing, the servant, the horse, the books and whatever else is itself required, then it is safer to take out one Khums from them as well.
All this wealth is spent on whom?
The Shia say that in the period of the occultation it will be granted to the Shia jurist. Hence those who takeout Khums spend it upon the Shia jurists.
To explain, their scholars assert that the Khums will be distributed into six shares:
سهم لله، وسهم للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وسهم للإمام. وهذه الثلاثة الآن لصاحب الزمان
A share for Allah, a share for Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and a share for the Imam. All these shares are now the right of the man of the time. 
I.e. for the awaited Mahdi who is absent and will never return from his occultation due to him never coming into existence. Hence in his absence the Shia jurist becomes deserving of his share. The Shia say:
النصف من الخمس الذي للإمام أمره في زمان الغيبة راجع إلى نائبه وهو المجتهد الجامع للشرائط
Half of the Khums which is the share of the Imam will be entrusted to his representative during the era of occultation, i.e. to the Mujtahid, the supreme jurist, who possesses all the requirements.
The other three shares are for the orphans, the poor and the travellers, on condition that they have faith, i.e. they adhere to the Shia dogma due to faith only being exclusive to them, as they allege. Regarding these three shares which they aver should be spent upon these classes of people they say that it is safer to submit them to the Shia jurist as well.
The conclusion, therefore, is that the Khums in its entirety is given to the scholars of the Shia so that they may utilise it to spend upon themselves and upon the latter three categories. In the book al Nur al Sati’ the following appears:
إن الفقيه يأخذ نصف الخمس لنفسه، ويقسم النصف الآخر منه على قدر الكفاية، فإن فضل كان له وإن أعوز أتمه من نصيبه
The Shia jurist will take half of the Khums for himself and will distribute the remaining half of it as required. If anything remains it will be for him and if it falls short he will complete it from his share.
Professor ‘Ali al Salus says:
ومن واقع الجعفرية في هذه الأيام نجد أن من أراد أن يحج يقوم كل ممتلكاته جميعا ثم يدفع خمس قيمتها إلى الفقهاء الذين أفتوا بوجوب هذا الخمس وعدم قبول حج من لم يدفع. واستحل هؤلاء الفقهاء أموال الناس بالباطل.
The reality of the Shia today is that we find that whoever intends to perform Hajj evaluates all his assets and thereafter takes out Khums from it and gives it to the Jurists who have issued the fatwa of Khums being compulsory and of the Hajj of the one who does not submit it not being accepted. They have thereby made the wealth of people lawful by way of falsehood.
I would add that probably this is the reason why the state of the scholars wants an increase in the quota of the pilgrims every year.
This belief regarding Khums is from a result of the many results of the belief of Imamah. The idea that all the wealth belongs to the Imam was contrived by the heretics of the bygone centuries and since then it has continued till today. Whereas the idea of Khums is an innovation which was innovated by these people and was not found in the time of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the rightly guided Khulafa’, in fact not even during the reign of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali whose lovers and partisans they claim to be.
Ibn Taymiyah mentions:
وأما ما تقوله الرافضة من أن خمس مكاسب المسلمين يؤخذ منهم، ويصرف إلى من يرونه هو نائب الإمام المعصوم أو إلى غيره، فهذا قول لم يقله قط أحد من الصحابة لا علي ولاغيره ولا أحد التابعين لهم بإحسان ولا أحد من القرابة لا بني هاشم ولا غيرهم. وكل من نقل هذا عن علي أو علماء أهل بيته كالحسن والحسين وعلي بن الحسين وأبي جعفر الباقر وجعفر بن محمد فقد كذب عليهم. فإن هذا خلاف المتواتر من سيرة علي رضي الله عنه، فإنه قد تولى الخلافة أربع سنين وبعض أخرى ولم يأخذ من المسلمين من أموالهم شيئا، بل لم يكن في ولايته قط خمس مقسوم. وأما المسلمون فما خمس لا هو ولا غيره أموالهم. وأما الكفار فمتى عنمت منهم أموال خمست بالكتاب والسنة، ولكن في عهده لم يتفرغ المسلمون لقتال الكفار بسبب ما وقع بينهم من الفتنة والاختلاف. وكذلك من المعلوم بالضرورة أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يخمس أموال المسلمين ولا طلب أحدا قط من المسلمين بخمس ماله
As for the claim of the Shia that one fifth of the earnings of the Muslims will be taken from them and spent on whom they consider the representative of the infallible Imam or others besides him, it is a claim that none of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum ever made, not ‘Ali and not anyone besides him, nor the subsequent generation who followed them meticulously. Likewise this claim was not made by any of the family members of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Banu Hashim or anyone else.
Furthermore, whoever has reported this from ‘Ali and the scholars of the Ahlul Bayt, the likes of Hassan, Hussain, ‘Ali ibn Hussain, Abu Jafar al Baqir, and Jafar ibn Muhammad has indeed lied against them. Because this is against what is categorically known regarding the life of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu; he remained the Khalifah of the Muslims for four odd years and did not claim anything from the wealth of the Muslims. Rather in his time there was never Khums which was to be distributed.
As for the Muslims, neither did he nor anyone else take Khums from their wealth. Yes when the wealth of the disbelievers was captured as booty Khums was taken therefrom in accordance with the Qur’an and the Sunnah. But it should be noted that the Muslims were preoccupied with civil strife and internal conflict and thus did not have the time to wage war against the disbelievers during his reign. Likewise, it is a well-established fact that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam did not take Khums from the wealth of the Muslims, nor did he ask any Muslim for Khums from his wealth.
Nonetheless, this wealth which the scholars of the Shia take under the pretext of it being an Islamic obligation and a right from the rights of the Ahlul Bayt, owing to which wealth abundantly flows toward them from every direction like a deluge, is probably the greatest reasons for the subsistence of the Twelver dogma till today; to it can be attributed the animated defence of the Shia scholars of their dogma. Because they consider any person who targets their dogma as a person who is trying to deprive them of this wealth which is granted to them.
Hence professor ‘Ali al Salus says:
وأعتقد أنه لولا هذه الأموال لما ظل الخلاف قائما بين الجعفرية وسائر الأمة الإسلامية إلى هذا الحد، فكثير من فقهائهم يحرصون على إذكاء هذا الخلاف حرصهم على هذه الأموال
I presume that had it not been for these sums of wealth, the dispute between the Shia and the rest of the Muslim Ummah would not have remained to this extent. For many of their jurists desire the instigation of disputes as much as they desire these moneys.
Moving on, from their obvious influences another is that they try to capture most of the business enterprises, companies and avenues of revenue in the cities they reside in in order to manipulate the provisions of people and their needs. The reality on the ground is the biggest attestation to this.
Likewise, from the other obvious influences that they have had upon the economy of this Ummah is those surreptitious movements whose motive is to destroy the economy of the Muslim state. This is due to the fact that the wealth of the Muslims holds no sanctity according to them and therefore is violable without the slightest of doubt.
Their narrations order them to do so. One narration states:
خذ مال الناصب حيثما وجدته وادفع إلينا الخمس
Take the wealth of a Nasib wherever you find it and submit a Khums of it to us.
Likewise Abu ‘Abdullah is reported to have said, as they allege:
مال الناصب وكل شيء يملكه حلال
The wealth of a Nasib and whatever he owns is violable.
It should be noted that the scholars of the Shia have broadened the implication of “Nasib” and have included everyone besides the Twelvers therein.
Similarly their books of jurisprudence mention:
إذا أغار المسلمون على الكفار فأخذوا أموالهم فالأحوط بل الأقوى إخراج خمسها من حيث كونها غنيمة ولو في زمن الغيبة وكذا إذا أخذوا بالسرقة والغيلة
If the Muslims attack the disbeliever and take their assets, then it is safer rather more preferred to take out its Khums due to it being booty, even if it be during the era of occultation. Similar will be the ruling if they capture wealth by stealing or murdering.
Also the following:
ولو أخذوا منهم بالربا أو بالدعوى الباطلة فالأقوى إلحاقه بالفوائد المكتسبة فيعتبر فيه الزيادة عن مؤنة السنة وإن كان الأحوط إخراج خمسه مطلقا
And if they take from them by way of usury or false claims, then the stronger position is that it be treated like the earned profits. Hence the surplus which remains after the expenses of the year will be taken into consideration. Although it is still safer to take out Khums therefrom unconditionally.
The term ‘disbeliever’ according to the Shia applies to majority of the Muslims, rather to all of them besides their cult, as has passed already. This implies that they consider it permissible to capture the wealth of the Muslims by attacking them, stealing from them and murdering them. Likewise they consider it permissible to take the wealth of Muslims by way of usury and false claims. This is clearly illustrated in the historical incidents which the Shia were instrumental in. The theft which the state of the scholars exercises in the Arabian Gulf and the threat which its poses to the freedom of shipping therein, also, their capture over some of the steamships which pass in its waters considering them to be booty despite them being the property of Muslims are all attestations to this as well.
In conclusion, these are the influences and the ill-effects of the Shia. But do they have any positives and good influences which they have left in the history of the Ummah?
A precise and in-depth academic answer to this question demands a rigorous and comprehensive study of their circumstances, mannerisms and the details of their history. Fortunately, the scholars of Islam have spared us the task of doing so and have drawn the following conclusions:
There is not a single Shia Rafidi scholar amongst the high ranking scholars of jurisprudence who are considered authorities in the field. Amongst the kings of the Muslims who served Islam, established it and strove against its enemies there is not a single Shia Rafidi. Likewise, amidst the ministers who were exemplars in their conduct we do not find anyone who was a Shia Rafidi.
Most of the Shia are found either amongst the hypocrites and heretics, amidst the ignoramuses who have no knowledge of the sciences based on reason or those based on revelation; they are people who grew up in villages and mountains and were thus aloof from the Muslims, owing to which they did not intermingle with and benefit from the people of knowledge and piety. Or they are from those driven by their personal motives and desires owing to which they procure leadership and wealth, or from those who have a pedigree to which they are obstinately loyal like the people of Jahiliyyah. There is not one Rafidi amidst those whom the Muslims consider to be people of knowledge and Din.
The question still lingers, however, that they have written works in Qur’anic exegesis, the sciences of hadith, and jurisprudence; is that not considered to be a commendable contribution to the Islamic thought? I say a person who studies these collections will conclude that the good therein is taken from the books of the Ahlus Sunnah. Hence whoever has written in the field of Qur’anic exegesis, for example, has drawn from the exegesis works of the Ahlus Sunnah, and whatever they narrate from their people therein is darknesses enveloped in one another, like is clear from the Tafsir al Qummi and Tafsir al Burhan, etc.
As for hadith, they are the most distant people from having knowledge regarding its chains of transmission and its texts. In whichever book they find what suits their fancies they quote it without any knowledge.
As to Fiqh, jurisprudence, they are the furthest people therefrom. Whatever little benefit there is in their books is not originally from their scholars due to them being dependent upon the Ahlus Sunnah in this regard. In Taymiyyah has revealed to us the ways in which they plagiarise the academic content from the books of the Jurists of the Muslims. He says:
وإذا صنف واحد منهم كتابا في الخلاف أخذوا حجة من يوافقهم، واحتجوا مما احتج به أولئك، وأجابوا عما يعارضهم بما يجيب به أولئك، فيظن الجاهل أن هذا قد صنف كتابا عظيما في الخلاف والفقه والأصول، ولا يدري الجاهل أن عامته استعارة من كلام علماء أهل السنة الذين يكفرونهم ويعادونهم وما انفردوا به، فلا يساوي مداده فإن المداد ينفع ويضر وهذا يضر ولا ينفع
And when any of them writes a book regarding differences of the scholars or the principles of Fiqh, then if in a particular issue there is a dispute amongst the scholars they take the viewpoint of those who agree with them. They will use the evidences advanced by those scholars and will respond to counter arguments with their responses. Hence an ignorant person assume that so and so wrote a great work regarding the differences of scholars and the principles of Fiqh, but without realising that most of the content is plagiarised from the works of the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah who oppose them. As for their isolated views, they are not even equal to ink; because ink is beneficial and harmful whereas this is only harmful.
 ‘Ali ibn al Husain ibn Babawayh: al Imamah p. 75; Rijal al Kashshi p. 43 (no. 946), p. 598 (no. 1120; Bihar al Anwar 48/253; al Tusi: al Ghaybah p. 43.
 They say, “A person who withholds one Dirham or less will be included in those who oppress them (i.e. the Ahlul Bayt) and usurp their rights. Rather a person who considers that to be permissible is from the disbelievers. Abu Basir narrates:
قلت لأبي جعفر عليه السلام: ما أيسر ما يدخل به العبد النار؟ قال: من أكل من مال اليتيم درهما ونحن اليتيم
I asked Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam, “What is the lowest action due to which a servant will enter the fire?”
He said, “Eating the wealth of an orphan and we are the orphans.”
(Al Yazdi: al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa 2/366. In the footnotes are the annotations of their contemporary scholars)
Professor ‘Ali al Salus whilst mocking this principle says that if the Muslims of today want that the Shia do not excommunicate them they should send one fifth of their earnings and capitals to the scholars of the Shia. (See: Athar al Imamah fi al Fiqh al Jafari p. 394 (footnote).
 Al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa 2/389.
 Al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa 2/394-395.
 Ibid. 2/395-396.
 ‘Al Kashif al Ghitaʾ: al Nur al Sati’: the chapter regarding the necessity of giving the Khums to the jurist in the era of occultation: 1/439.
 Al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa 2/403; Hidayah al ‘Ibad p. 178.
 Al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa 2/405; Hidayah al ‘Ibad p. 179.
 Al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa 2/403; Hidayah al ‘Ibad p. 179.
 Al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa 2/405; Hidayah al ‘Ibad p. 179.
 Al Nur al Sati’ 1/439.
 Athar al Imamah fi al Fiqh al Jafari p. 391.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/154.
 Athar al Imamah p. 408.
 Wa Jaʾ Dawr al Majus p. 312, onwards.
 Tahdhib al Ahkam 1/384; Ibn Idris: al Saraʾir p. 484; Wasaʾil al Shia 6/340.
 Tahdhib al Ahkam 2/48; Wasaʾil al Shia 11/60.
 Their narration explicitly state that Nasb is giving preference to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma over ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. See: al Saraʾir p. 471; Wasaʾil al Shia 6/341-342; Basharah al Mustafa p. 51; al Mahasin al Nafsaniyyah fi Ajwibah al Masaʾil al Khurasaniyyah p. 138, onwards.
 Al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa (with the footnotes of their leading scholar of this age) 2/367, 368.
 Ibid. p. 368; Hidayah al ‘Ibad p. 168.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 1/223.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/246.
 Ibid.Back to top