According to the Shia Imamah is equivalent to Nubuwwah (prophethood) or even greater. And it is the most crucial principle of din.
The ruling of the Shia regarding a person who denies the Imamah of one of the twelve Imams further asserts this extremism. For they excommunicate such a person and aver that he is deserving of everlasting punishment in the fire of Jahannam.
Ibn Babawayh says:
واعتقادنا فيمن جحد إمامة أمير المؤمنين والأئمة من بعده أنه بمنزلة من جحد النبوة الأنبياء.واعتقادنا فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الأئمة أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع الأنبياء ثم أنكر نبوة الأنبياء
It is our belief that a person who denies the Imamah of Amir al Mu’minin and the subsequent Imams is like a person who denies the prophethood of the Ambiyaʼ. We likewise assert that a person who believes in the Imamah of Amir al Mu’minin, but denies the Imamah of any of the subsequent Imams is like a person who believes in all the Ambiya’ and then denies the prophethood of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
This text suggests that the Shia excommunicate all the denominations of the Muslims, including the variant sects of the Shia which existed throughout history, notwithstanding the fact that they have received their legacy from them. Because many of their narrators are members of those sects.
Their scholar al Tusi mentions:
و دفع الإمامة كفر، كما أن دفع النبوة كفر، لأن الجهل بهما علي حد واحد
The denial of Imamah is disbelief just as the denial of Nubuwwah is disbelief, because ignorance regarding them is of the same level.
This verdict apparently, was not sufficient to satisfy Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli who asserted that the denial of Imamah is even graver than the denial of Nubuwwah. He thus says:
الإمامة لطف عام، والنبوة لطف خاص لإمكان خلو الزمان من نبي حي بخلاف الإمام، و إنكار اللطف العام شر من إنكار اللطف خاص
Imamah is a general mercy and Nubuwwah is a special mercy. This is because of the possibility of an era being empty of a Nabi but not of an Imam. And the denial of the general mercy is graver than the denial of the special mercy.
So he has deemed a person who does not believe in their Imams to be worse than the Jews and the Christians, based on the fact that no era will ever be empty of an Imam. This is an indication to their belief regarding the existence of the awaited ‘Hidden Imam’ whose existence many Shia sects have denied and regarding who the genealogists and the historians assert that he was never born. But this scholar of the Shia asserts that his denial is the worst form of disbelief.
Their scholar al Mufid has written that the excommunication of the Muslim Ummah is their unanimous stance. He says:
اتفقت الإمامية علي أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الأئمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالي له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار
The Imamiyyah unanimously agree that a person who denies the Imamah of one of the Imams and denies the obedience that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has ordained for them is a deviant Kafir (disbeliever) who deserves everlasting punishment in the fire of Jahannam.
This reached a stage where their scholar Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri openly announced the detraction of the Shia from the Muslim Ummah due to the doctrine of Imamah. He says:
لم نجتمع معهم علي إله ولا نبي ولا علي إمام،وذلك أنهم يقولون إن ربهم هو الذي كان محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم نبيه، و خليفته بعده أبو بكر و نحن لا نقول بهذا الرب ولا بذلك النبي،بل نقول:إن الرب الذي خليفة نبيه أبو بكر ليس ربنا ولا ذلك النبي نبينا
We do not concur with them on the same deity, the same Nabi, and the same Imam. This is because they believe that their Lord is the one whose Nabi was Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, who was succeeded by Abu Bakr, whereas we do not believe in such a Lord and such a Nabi; instead we say, “The deity whose Nabi was succeeded by Abu Bakr is not our deity and that Nabi is not our Nabi.”
After this blanket excommunication of all the Muslims they have specifically issued rulings of apostasy regarding all the categories of the Muslims besides the Twelvers; hence their excommunication includes the following categories:
In the coming pages I shall discuss their assertions regarding all these categories.
The books of the Shia are replete with curses and rulings of apostasy regarding those whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was pleased with and who were pleased with him, i.e. the Muhajirin, the Ansar, the veterans of Badr, the people of the pledge of Ridwan, and all the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Besides a few Sahabah who do not amount to even the of fingers on the hand, they have not spared anybody.
After the disclosure of their books this issue no more remained one which could be hidden by way of Taqiyyah, even though previously it might have been unclear to many of the scholars of Islam. Therefore, we find that in his commentary of Sahih Muslim al Nawawi mentions that the Imamiyyah maintain that the Sahabah erred in giving precedence to others over ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu but they do not dub them disbelievers.
However, from among the scholars and the heresiographers there were some who were aware of the issue; al Qadi ‘Abd al Jabbar states:
و أما الإمامية فقد ذهبت إلي أن الطريق إلي إمامة اثني عشر النص الجلي،الذي يكفر منن أنكره، و يجب تكفيره، فكفروا لذلك صحابة النبي عليه السلام
As for the Imamiyyah, they assert that the Twelve Imams assumed the position of Imamah through Nass Jali (explicit nomination) the denier of which is dubbed an apostate whose excommunication is obligatory. It is on this basis that they have excommunicated the Sahabah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
But I have not found a scholar from among them who has mentioned the correct amount of Sahabah which the Shia exclude from their blanket excommunication which is in harmony with that which appears in their books. Hence ‘Abd al Qadir al Baghdadi says:
و أما الإمامية فقد زعم أكثرهم أن الصحابة ارتدت بعد النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم سوي علي وابنيه و مقدارثلاثة عشر منهم
As for the Imamiyyah, most of them believe that all the Sahabah turned apostate after the demise of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam with the exception of ‘Ali, his two sons, and thirteen other individuals.
And Ibn Taymiyyah says:
إن الرافضة تقول:إن المهاجرين والأنصار كتموا النص،فكفروا إلا نفرا قليلا..إما بضعة عشر أو أكثر ثم يقولون إن أبا بكر و عمر و نحوهما ما زالا منافقين. وقد يقولون بل آمنوا ثم كفرا
The Shia say that the Muhajirin and the Ansar concealed the Nass. They have, therefore, excommunicated all of them besides a few, roughly thirteen or more. They then at times claim that Abu Bakr ‘Umar and their likes were always hypocrites. And at times they say that they brought faith but subsequently disbelieved.
You will see that the number they exclude is far less than what these scholars have mentioned.
This is what appears in the books of the Ahlus Sunnah and the others about the stance of the Shia regarding the Sahabah. Henceforth you will see their actual stance in light of what appears in their seminal works.
The books of the Twelvers state that, besides three people, all the Sahabah turned apostate due to nominating Abu Bakr as their ruler. Some narrations make an addition of another three or four people who later conceded the rulership of ‘Ali. Which makes the sum total seven. They do not go beyond that.
The Shia have documented this fallacy in the most authentic of their books. They have documented it in their first book which came to the fore, i.e. the book of Sulaim ibn Qais. Subsequently, the books that followed consistently affirmed it and promoted it. Foremost among them is al Kafi, which is considered the most authentic of the four early canonical works, Rijal al Kashshi, their primary work in transmitter biographies, and their other works; Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi, al Burhan, al Safi,Tafsir Nur al Thaqalayn, al Ikhtisas, al Sara’ir, and Bihar al Anwar.
The contents of these books are not just views which some of their scholars held, rather they are narrations which are reported from their infallible Imams who carry the merit of ‘sacredness’ and ‘infallibility’.
As for reviling the Sahabah, that unique generation which is lauded in the Qur’an, their scholars have blackened the pages of their books with it.
If I were to present to the reader everything I read in this regard it would require many volumes. Hence I will suffice on citing those narrations which clearly excommunicate the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, for they will expose the nature of the remaining revilements and criticisms.
Al Kulayni narrates in al Kafi:
عن حمران بن أعين قال: قلت لأبي جعفر عليه السلام:جعلت فداك ما أقلنا لو اجتمعنا علي شاة ما أفنيناها؟فقال:ألا أحدثك بأعجب من ذلك،المهاجرين والأنصار ذهبوا إلا- وأشار بيده- ثلاثة
Hamran ibn A’yan reports, “I asked Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam thus, ‘May I be sacrificed for thee! How few are we in number; if we all gather to eat a lamb we will not be able to finish it.’”
This narration as it stands, includes the most virtuous of the companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, i.e. the Muhajirin and the Ansar. It also mentions that in the era of Abu Jafar the Shia, in comparison to the broader Muslim community, were so few in number that if they were to gather to eat a lamb they would not be able to finish it, of which they complained to their Imam. And in order to console them, the Imam told them that even the Shia of the bygone era did not exceed more than three individuals because the rest of the people back then had turned apostate.
The purport of this narration also tells us of the Shia being a few in number in the era of Abu Jafar Muhammad al Baqir, of their movement not gaining much momentum and popularity, their survival in the dungeons of Taqiyyah and concealment, and that they would comfort their followers by forging and ascribing narrations of its kind to the Ahlul Bayt.
This narration does not disclose the names of the three Sahabah who were allegedly free from ‘apostasy’ due to them concurring with the stance of the Shia. In another narration, however, there names are explicitly mentioned:
عن حنان بن سدير عن أبيه عن أبي جعفرعليه السلام قال:;كان الناس أهل ردة بعد النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم إلا ثلاثة. فقلت: ومن الثلاثة؟ قال: المقداد بن الأسود، و أبو ذر الغفاري، و سلمان الفارسي، ثم عرف الناس بعد يسير، وقال: هؤلاء الذين دارت عليهم الرحا و أبوا أن يبايعوا لأبي بكر حتي جاؤا بأمير المؤمنين مكرها فبايع
Hannan ibn Sadir narrates from his father who narrates from Abu Jafar that he said, “The people renounced Islam after the demise of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam besides three people.”
I asked, “Who are these three people?”
He said, “Miqdad ibn Aswad, Abu Dhar al Ghifari, and Salman al Farisi. And then after a while the people realised.”
He further said, “Upon these people does the mill spin; they were the ones who refused to pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr until Amir al Mu’minin was brought and forced to pledge his allegiance.”
Furthermore, with the exception of one, the other two were not safe from doubt concerning the Imam, which according to them is the basis of Iman. Hence when Abu Jafar said that all the people turned apostate besides three, he followed it by saying:
إن أردت الذي لم يشك، و لم يدخله شيء فالمقداد، فأما سلمان فإنه عرض في قلبه عارض أن عند أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام اسم الله الأعظم لو تكلم به لأخذتهم الارض، وهو هكذا، فلبب ووجئت عنقه حتي تركت كالسلقة، فمر به أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فقال له:يا أبا عبدالله هذا من ذاك، بايع، و أما أبو ذر فأمر أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام بالسكوت، ولم يأخذه في الله لومة لائم، فأبي إلا أن يتكلم فمر به عثمان فأمر به
If you want to know the one who did not doubt and who had no suspicion, it was Miqdad. As for Salman it occurred to him that why is Amir al Mu’minin acting in this manner when he knows the Ism A’zam (greatest name) of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala which if he was to utter the earth would grip its people. Hence he was pulled by his collar and his neck was beaten till looked as it he had been burnt.
Amir al Mu’minin passed by him and said, “O Abu ‘Abdullah! This is because of that. Pledge (allegiance).”
Subsequently, he pledged.
And as for Abu Dhar, he ordered Amir al Mu’minin to keep quiet and did not fear the criticism of anyone regarding the commands of Allah. However, Amir al Mu’minin refused but to speak. So when ‘Uthman passed Abu Dhar gave him an order regarding him…
Furthermore, these three individuals who were safe from apostasy were not safe from the criticisms of the Shia. Hence their narrations mention that the relationship between them was outwardly a pleasant one. But if each one of them were to know what was in the heart of the other he would have killed him or at least made a supplication of mercy for the one who killed him. This is because each one of them was a stranger to the other in terms of his beliefs and ideas. The following narration appears in Rijal al Kashshi:
قال أمير المؤمنين: يا أبا ذر إن سلمان لو حدثك بما يعلم لقلت رحم الله قاتل سلمان
Amir al Mu’minin says, “O Abu Dhar if Salman were to tell you what he knows you will say, ‘May Allah have mercy on the killer of Salman.’”
Abu Basir narrates:
و عن أبي بصير قال: سمعت أبا عبد الله رضي الله عنه يقول: قال رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم يا سلمان لو عرض علمك علي مقداد لكفر،يا مقداد لو عرض علمك علي سلمان لكفر
I heard Abu ‘Abdullah saying, “Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “O Salman if your knowledge is presented to Miqdad he will kill you. And O Miqdad if your knowledge is presented to Salman he will consider you an apostate.”
This suggests that the communication which existed between these three, whom the Shia consider to be the pure Shia, was based on Taqiyyah and concealment. To further prove this, Abu Jafar narrates from his father that he said:
ذكرت التقية يوما عند علي عليه السلام فقال: إن علم أبو ذر ما في قلب سلمان لقتله، و قد آخي رسول الله بينهما فما ظنك بساير الخلق
One day I made mention of Taqiyyah to Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali and he said, “If Abu Dhar learns of what is in the heart of Salman he will kill him. The brotherhood that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had established between them notwithstanding. So what do you think would be the case of the rest of the creation?
These narrations portray the characteristics of the people of innovation and disbelief, for you will consider them to be united but their hearts will be disunited; the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were free from these traits.
But from these texts we gather that the Shia excommunicate the Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. We, likewise, learn of the true image of the Shia, one which is not easily known of them, in terms of their numbers, the disunity of their hearts, the malicious intentions they harboured against each other, and their belief that no one is upon iman besides them. These were distinctive characteristics of their first generation, so you can well imagine what would be the condition of those who followed.
Nonetheless, the narrations of the Shia assert that these three individuals were later joined by another four, which makes the total number of believers (or Shia) in the era of the Sahabah seven. They have not exceeded this number. This is what their narrations mention:
عن حارث بن المغيرة النسري، قال:سمعت عبد الملك بن أعين يسأل أبا عبد الله رضي الله عنه فلم يزل يسأله حتي قال له:فهلك الناس إذا؟ فقال:إي والله يا ابن أعين هلك الناس أجمعون،قلت:من في الشرق و من في الغرب؟قال، فقال:إنها فتحت علي الضلال إي والله هلكوا إلا ثلاثة ثم لحق ابو ساسان،وعمار، وشتيرة، وأبو عمرة وصاروا سبعة
Harith ibn Mughirah al Nasari said that he heard ‘Abd al Malik ibn A’yan continuously asking Abu ‘Abdullah questions. He eventually asked him, “Were all the people doomed to destruction then?”
Whereupon Abu ‘Abdullah said, “Yes, O son of A’yan! They were all doomed to destruction.”
I said, “Those in the east and those in the west?”
He said, “Their lands were conquered with misguidance and, therefore, by the oath of Allah they were doomed to destruction besides three individuals. They were later joined by Abu Sasan, ‘Ammar, Shatirah, and Abu ‘Amrah. They thus became seven.
Many of their narrations assert that the number of individuals did not increase more than this. Abu Jafar says:
وكانوا سبعة، فلم يكن يعرف حق أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام إلا هؤلاء السبعة
They were seven. Besides these seven no one acknowledged the right of Amir al Mu’minin.
Abu ‘Abdullah used to actually take an oath and say:
فوالله ما وفي بها إلا سبعة نفر
By the oath of Allah! No one besides these seven fulfilled its right.
Their narrations differ as to the specification of some of these seven. This difference is apparently because of the views of the various Shia sects about their personalities; every sect includes its own persons. Or maybe it is just due to contradiction and incoherence being the natural result of lying.
Nonetheless, these narrations still affirm the wholesale excommunication of the Sahabah and the possibility that these seven people (who were actually extremist deviants who adopted the names of these noble companions) were the first conspirators who spearheaded the movement of Shi’ism. Because their attributes, mutual relationships and stances have no similarity with that of the Sahabah.
Moving on, the Shia at times interpret the verses of the Qur’an which laud the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum to refer to the three individuals whom they exclude from their blanket excommunication. Hence in Tafsir al Qummi, under the commentary of the verse:
إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ الَّذِيْنَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ اللّٰهُ وَجِلَتْ قُلُوْبُهُمْ وَإِذَا تُلِيَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتُهُ زَادَتْهُمْ إِيْمَانًا وَعَلٰى رَبِّهِمْ يَتَوَكَّلُوْنَ الَّذِيْنَ يُقِيْمُوْنَ الصَّلَاةَ وَمِمَّا رَزَقْنَاهُمْ يُنفِقُوْنَ أُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُوْنَ حَقًّا ۚ لَّهُمْ دَرَجَاتٌ عِنْدَ رَبِّهِمْ وَمَغْفِرَةٌ وَّرِزْقٌ كَرِيْمٌ
The believers are only those who, when God is mentioned, their hearts become fearful, and when His verses are recited to them, it increases them in faith; and upon their Lord they rely. The ones who establish prayer, and from what we have provided them, they spend.
The following is mentioned:
فإنها نزلت في أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام، و أبي ذر و سلمان و المقداد
It was revealed regarding Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam, Abu Dhar, Salman, and al Miqdad.
But it did not occur to them that the Shia commend these three individuals and consider them believers not because of the aforementioned attributes but because of their acknowledgement of the Imamah of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the denial of the Imamah of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This factor, which differentiated them from the rest, is not mentioned in the verse which they claim is an attestation to their faith. Likewise is the case of all the other verses of the Qur’an. They are thus a proof against them and not for them.
Conversely, all the verses which contain the mention of disbelief, disbelievers, polytheism, and polytheists according to them refer to the rest of the Sahabah, as is mentioned in a number of chapters in al Kafi and Bihar al Anwar.
In spite of this blanket ruling regarding the apostasy of the Sahabah of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his helpers, and his bosom friends; they specifically revile and excommunicate the seniors among them. Their narrations in this regard are such that they leave the hair of the believers standing on ends.
Hence they have allotted the largest share of their onslaught to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum—the ministers of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his relatives by law. In his Bihar al Anwar, which one of their contemporary scholars has regarded to be the only reliable source for understanding the different aspects of their dogma, al Majlisi has established a chapter by the title, Chapter regarding the disbelief of the Three, their hypocrisy and their disgraceful actions. Likewise their scholar al Bahrani has also established many chapters on this topic:
Chapter no. 97: The sins of the Two who preceded Amir al Mu’minin are like that of all the sins of the Believers till the Day of Judgment, and
Chapter no. 98: Regarding Iblis having a higher rank than ‘Umar in Jahannam and that Iblis has been given preference over him in the fire of Jahannam.
Their narrations on this topic are steeped in disbelief. Hence at times they do not just excommunicate the Sheikhayn (Abu Bakr and ‘Umar) but assert that the greatest form of disbelief is to consider them Muslims. The author of al Kafi narrates:
ثلاثة لايكلمهم الله يوم القيامة ولا يزكيهم ولهم عذاب أليم: من ادعي إمامة من الله ليست له و من جحد إماما من الله، و من زعم أن لهما في الإسلام نصيبا.
Allah will not talk to and will not purify three people on the Day of Judgement and they will receive a very painful punishment:
And at times they describe them as the Jibt (superstition) and Taghut (idols). They at times curse them intensively, especially in the supplications which are rendered when visiting the shrines. They have similarly replaced the devotions to be made after salah with cursing the Sheikhayn and all the Muslims.
Some contemporary scholars who have written on the Shia have disclosed some of their appalling traits with regards to the excommunication of the Siddiq, the most truthful, of this Ummah and its Faruq, the most apt differentiator between truth and falsehood. But I would like to add that in the writings of the scholars of the Safawid era the excommunication of the Sahabah is emphatic and clear. And in the writings of the earlier scholars who lived in the era of al Kulayni and thereafter it was subtle and euphemistic; the later Shia scholars removed the ambiguity of these euphemistic claims when to a certain extent the law of Taqiyyah was suspended (due to living under the Safawid rule) and the Twelver dogma came to the fore in its true colours.
For example, one of their special terms was naming the Sheikhayn, al Fasil and Ram’. They did this because they did not have the courage to emphatically mention the names due to being under the mighty empire of Islam. The following appears In Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi:
قلت(الراوي يقول لإمامهم) ومن أعداء الله أصلحك الله؟قال: الأوثان الأربعة، قال:قلت:من هم؟ قال: أبو الفصيل، ورمع،و نعثل،و معاوية و من دان دينهم، فمن عادي هؤلاء فقد عادي أعداء الله
I said (the narrator), “Who are the enemies of Allah, may Allah keep you sound?”
He replied, “The four idols.”
I asked, “Who are they?”
He said, “Abu al Fasil, Ram’, Na’thal, and Muawiyah. Likewise every person who treads their path. Whoever opposes them has indeed opposed the enemies of Allah.”
Their scholar, al Majlisi, whilst explaining these terms says:
أبو الفصيل أبو بكر، لأن الفصيل و البكر متقاربان في المعني، و رمع مقلوب عمر، ونعثل هو عثمان
Likewise under the commentary of the verse:
لَهَا سَبْعَةُ أَبْوَابٍ لِّكُلِّ بَابٍ مِّنْهُمْ جُزْءٌ مَّقْسُوْمٌ
It has seven gates; for every gate is of them [i.e., Satan’s followers] a portion designated.
Al ‘Ayyashi has narrated the following from Abu Basir who narrates from Abu Jafar ibn Muhammad:
يؤتي بجهنم لها سبعة أبواب، بابها الاول للظالم و هو زريق، و بابها الثاني لحبتر، و الباب الثالث للثالث، و الرابع لمعاوية،و الباب الخامس لعبد الملك،و الباب السادس لعسكر بن هوسر،و الباب السابع لأبي سلامة فهم أبواب لمن اتبعهم
Jahannam will be brought and it will have seven doors. The first door is for the oppressor who is Zurayq. The second is for Habtar, the third for the third, the forth for Muawiyah, the fifth for ‘Abd al Malik, the sixth for ‘Askar ibn Hawsar, and the seventh for Abu Salamah. Hence they are the doors to Jahannam for whoever follows them.
Al Majlisi in explicating this narration mentions:
زريق كناية عن الأول، لأن العرب تتشاءم بزرقة العين، و الحبتر هو الثعلب، و لعله إنما كني عنه لحيلته و مكره، و في غيره من الأخبار وقع بالعكس و هو أظهر، إذ الحبتر بالأول أنسب و يمكن أن يكون هنا أيضا المراد ذلك، و إنما قدم الثاني لأنه أشقي و أفظ و اغلظ، و عسكر ابن هوسر كناية عن بعض خلفاء بني أمية أو بني العباس، وكذا سلامة كناية عن أبي جعفر الدوانيقي، ويحتمل أن يكون عسكر كناية عن عائشة وساير أهل الجمل إذ كان اسم جمل عائشة عسكرا وروي أنه كان شيطانا
“Zurayq” refers to the first one because the Arabs augur evil in the blueness of the eye. “Habtar” means fox. Possibly he referred to the second one in this manner because of his cunningness and plotting. In some narrations the sequence is opposite, which is more correct because the title Habtar suites the first one better. And possibly this is what is intended in this narration as well. However, the second one is mentioned first because of him being more wretched, callous, and staunch. “‘Askar ibn Hawsar” refers to one of the Umayyad or Abbasid rulers. Abu Salamah refers to Abu Jafar al Dawaniqi. It is also possible that ‘Askar refers to Aisha and all the participants of Battle of Jamal due to Aisha’s camel’s name being ‘Askar. One narration mentions that it was a devil.
Similarly, many of the narrations refer to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma as ‘so and so’ and ‘so and so’, as in the following narration which is narrated from Abu ‘Abdullah regarding the verse:
لَا تَتَّبِعُوْا خُطُوَاتِ الشَّيْطَانِ
Do not follow the footsteps of Satan.
وخطوات الشيطان والله ولاية فلان وفلان
He said, “The footsteps of Shaitan by the oath of Allah was the rulership of ‘so and so’ and ‘so and so’.
Likewise regarding the verse:
أَوْ كَظُلُمَاتٍ فِي بَحْرٍ لُّجِّيٍّ يَغْشَاهُ مَوْجٌ مِّن فَوْقِهِ مَوْجٌ مِّن فَوْقِهِ سَحَابٌ ۚ ظُلُمَاتٌ بَعْضُهَا فَوْقَ بَعْضٍ
Or [they are] like darknesses within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves, upon which are waves, over which are clouds — darknesses, some of them upon others.
They say that “darknesses” refers to “so and so” and “so and so”, “within an unfathomable sea which is covered by waves” refers to Na’thal, “upon which are waves” refers to Talhah and Zubair, and “darknesses some of them upon the others” refers to Muawiyah.
Al Majlisi says that “so and so” and “so and so” refers to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma and “Na’thal” refers to ‘Uthman.
Similarly, another set of titles which they use to refer to the Sheikhayn is what appears in the commentary of the verses:
وَالنَّهَارِ إِذَا جَلَّاهَا. وَاللَّيْلِ إِذَا يَغْشَاهَا
And [by] the day when it displays it. And [by] the night when it covers [i.e., conceals] it.
The narration states that “and by the day when it displays it” refers to the emergence of the Mahdi and “and by the night when it covers it” refers to ‘Habtar’ and ‘Dalam’ who covered the truth from him.
Al Majlisi, the grand scholar of Safawid Iran in his time, says that ‘Habtar’ and ‘Dalam’ refer to Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.
You will similarly find that when the later scholars narrated the reports of the early scholars’ books which contained subtle indications to the Sheikhayn, they changed the subtle indications with emphatic names.
They have likewise levelled apostasy and criticism against many other Sahabah and, in doing so, they always targeted the best among them and the most virtuous. So just as they revile and excommunicate the three Khulafa’, they likewise do the same regarding the other virtuous and elite Sahabah, like ‘Abd al Rahman ibn ‘Awf, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Abu ‘Ubaidah ibn Jarrah, and Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah. The following narration appears in Tafsir al Qummi and Tafsir al Safi:
عن الصادق لما أقام رسول الله صلي الله عليه و آله وسلم يوم غدير خم كان بحذائه سبعة نفر من المنافقين و هم:أبو بكر،و عمر، و عبد الرحمان بن عوف، و سعد بن أبي وقاص، و أبو عبيدة،و سالم مولي أبي حذيفة، و المغيرة بن شعبة قال عمر:أما ترون عينه كأنما عين مجنون يعني النبي. الساعة يقوم و يقول قال: لي ربي فلما قام قال: أيها الناس من أولي بكم من أنفسكم قالوا: الله و رسوله قال: اللهم فاشهد، ثم قال: ألا من كنت مولاه فعلي مولاه، و سلموا عليه بإمرة أمير المؤمنين فنزل جبرائيل و أعلم رسول الله بمقاله القوم فدعاهم و سألهم فأنكروا و حلفوا فأنزل الله يَحْلِفُونَ بِاللَّهِ مَا قَالُوا وَلَقَدْ قَالُوا كَلِمَةَ الْكُفْرِ
When Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam halted at Ghadir Khum there were seven hypocrites by his side: Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Abd al Rahman ibn ‘Awf, Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas, Abu ‘Ubaidah, Salim Mawla Abi Hudhayfah, and Mughirah ibn Shu’bah.
Subsequent to that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam stood up and said, “O people! Who is more deserving of you than yourselves?”
They replied, “Allah and his Rasul.”
Whereupon he said, “Behold! Whoever’s mawla I am ‘Ali is his mawla.”
The people thus acknowledged his message regarding the rule of Amir al Mu’minin. Thereafter Jibril descended and informed Rasul Allah of what the hypocrites had said. He thus called them and asked them. But they denied and took false oaths due to which Allah revealed the verse: They swear by God that they did not say [anything against the Prophet] while they had said the word of disbelief.
Similar to the attacks they have launched against these Sahabah, they have launched attacks against the other meritorious transmitters of Shari’ah, like that of Abu Hurairah, Anas ibn Malik, al Bara’ ibn ‘Azib, Talhah, and Zubair ibn al ‘Awwam, etc.
As for the comments and the remarks which their scholars have passed regarding these luminaries, they have blackened the pages. For you will not find a single book of theirs which deals with Imamah or any issue of its sort void of excommunication of the Sahabah, their criticism, and curses upon them; such that no Muslim can ever fathom. This is obviously because they do not consider the Sahabah to be Muslims at all, and take them to be the most ardent enemies who oppressed them by pledging allegiance to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum. And because they were united in their times, they were brothers owing to the bounty of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, they established the Islamic empire, they conquered lands, they spread Islam among the people, they distinguished the fire of fire worship, they destroyed the devil of idol worship, and they took the people out from the worship of servants to the worship of the Lord of the servants and their Creator. Their superiority and sovereignty thus incited the heretics and haters of those conquered lands, and the adherents of those false religions to conspire against the Ummah and destroy it under the disguise of Tashayyu’, partisanship for the Ahlul Bayt. And naturally, due to the nature of their plot, the issue of Imamah was their main target and what kept them continuously busy. Thereafter what ever happened, happened. Subsequent to that, their main strategy and the crux of their ploys formed the basis of the belief of the Shia who, based on it, excommunicated the rulers and subjects. Ibn Babawayh says:
فمن أدعي الإمامة و ليس بإمام فهو الظالم الملعون، و من وضع الإمامة في غيرأهلها فهو ظالم ملعون
That person who claims leadership in spite of not being a leader is an accursed oppressor. Likewise a person who chooses anyone else besides the rightful is also an accursed oppressor.
So this is a blanket excommunication of all the rulers and their subjects throughout the ages (with the exception of ‘Ali and Hassan of course).
When their scholar al Mufid, whom they accord the titles Rukn al Islam (the pillar of Islam) and Ayatollah al Malik al ‘Allam (the proof of Allah, the Owner the All Knowing) was asked regarding the narration which states that Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu said, “If any person who gives preference to me over Abu Bakr and ‘Umar is brought to me, I will punish him with the punishment of a calumniator.”, he said:
إن الوجه فيه أن المفاضل بينه و بين الرجلين إنما وجب عليه حد المفتري، لأن المفاضلة لا تكون إلا بين متقاربين في الفضل، و كان الرجلان بجحدهما النص قد خرجا عن الإيمان بطل أن يكون لهما فضل في الإسلام فكيف يحصل لهما من الفضل ما يقارب فضل أمير المؤمنين، و متي فضل إنسان أمير المؤمنين عليهما فقد إفتري باالتفضيل لأمير المؤمنين عليهما، من حيث كذب في إثبات فضل لهم في الدين،و جري في هذا الباب مجري من فضل المسلم البر التقي علي الكافر المرتد، و مجري من فضل جبرائبل علي إبليس، و رسول الله علي أبي جهل بن هشام
The reason why a person who draws a comparison between him and the two men is punished is that usually comparisons are only drawn between two people who are almost equal in virtue. But the two men, due to their denial of the Nass, turned apostate and it is thus invalid to assert that they enjoyed any merit in Islam. Therefore, how can a comparison be drawn between them and Amir al Mu’minin in terms of merit. So when a person gives preference to Amir al Mu’minin over them he, by doing so, lies in terms of according merit to them in din. He is thus like a person who gives preference to a noble Allah-conscious Muslim over an apostate disbeliever, and like a person who gives preference to Jibril over Iblis, and Rasul Allah over Abu Jahl ibn Hisham.
Consider, how he has equated the best individuals of this Ummah after its Nabi to Shaitan and Abu Jahl. This surprisingly is the consensus of their scholars; he says:
فقد حصل الإجماع علي كفره (يعني عمر)بعد إظهاره الإيمان
Consensus has occurred regarding his apostasy (i.e. ‘Umar) after he had outwardly expressed iman.
Likewise, al Majlisi says:
و مما عد من ضروريات دين الإمامية استحلال المتعة، و حج التمتع، و البراءة من أبي بكر و عمر و عثمان و معاوية
Among those aspects which are considered to be categorically established in the din of the Imamiyyah is to believe in the permissibility of Mut’ah, Hajj al Tamattu’, and to disassociate oneself from Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and Muawiyah.
They also say that:
و من لم يبرأ من أبي بكر و عمر و عثمان فهو عدو و إن أحب عليا
A person who does not disassociate himself from Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman is an enemy even if he loves ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu.
This is exactly why they consider cursing the three Khulafa’, the other luminaries among the Sahabah, and some of the mothers of the believers; after every salah to be an act of worship. Al Hurr al ‘Amili has established a chapter by the name, Chapter regarding the desirability of cursing the enemies of din after every salah with their names. Therein he cites the narration which al Kulayni reports on the authority of Thuwayr and Siraj which reads as follows:
سمعنا أبا عبد الله رضي الله عنه و هو يلعن في دبر كل مكتوبة أربعة من الرجال و أربعا من النساء،فلانا و فلانا و فلانا (الخلفاء الثلاثة)و يسميهم و معاوية ،و فلانة و فلانة (عائشة و حفضة رضي الله عنهما)و هندا و أم الجكم أخت معاوية
We heard Abu ‘Abdullah cursing four men and four women after every salah: so and so, so and so, so and so (i.e. the three Khulafa’), he would take their names, Muawiyah, so and so lady, so and so lady (referring to Aisha and Hafsah), Hind, and Umm al Hakam—the sister of Muawiyah.
In Mustadrak al Wasa’il their scholar al Nuri al Tabarsi has established a chapter named, Chapter regarding the desirability of cursing the enemies of din after salah with their names. Therein he cites many of their narrations, one them being the following:
إن من حقنا علي أوليائنا و أشياعنا أن لا ينصرف الرجل فيهم حتي يدعو بهذا الدعاء: اللهم…ضاعف لعنتك و بأسك و نكالك و عذابك علي اللذين كفرا نعمتك، و خوفا رسولك،و حلا عقده في وصيه، و نبذا عهده في خليفته من بعده، وادعيا مقامه، و غيرا أحكامه، و بدلا سنته، و قلبا دينه،و صغرا قدرحجتك و حججك، و بدءا بظلمهم،و طرقا طريق الغدر عليهم، و الخلاف عن أمرهم، و القتل لهم…و منعا خليفتك من سد الثلم، وتقو يم العوج، و إمضاء الأحكام، و إظهار دين الإسلام، و إقامة حدود القرآن، اللهم العنهما، و ابنتيهما، و كل من مال ميلهم، و حذا حذوهم، و سلك طريقبهم و تصدر ببدعتهم لعنا لا يخطر علي البال، و يستعيذ منه أهل النار، العن اللهم من دان بقولهم، و أتبع أمرهم، و دعا إلي ولايتهم، و شك في كفرهم من الأولين و الآخرين
Abu ‘Abdullah said, “It is our right upon our partisans and associates that none of them should leave until he supplicates thus, ‘O Allah, double your curse, your grip, your exemplary punishment, and your chastisement upon the two who denied your bounty, threatened your prophet, breached his bequest regarding his successor, did away with his order regarding the Khalifah after him, wrongly assumed his space, adulterated his decisions, changed his ways, interpolated his din, underestimated your evidence and proofs, oppressed them, treaded the path of violence, opposition, and murder against them. They stopped your Khalifah from blocking the cracks, straightening the crookedness, establishing the commands, expressing the din of Islam, and reviving the injunctions of the Qur’an. O Allah, curse them, their daughters, and every person who has the same tendencies, who treads their path, follows them in their ways, and openly proclaims their innovations. Curse them in a manner that the mind cannot fathom and wherefrom the people of Jahannam seek refuge. Curse every person from the first and the last who accepts their views, follows their orders, advocates their leadership, and doubts their disbelief.
See how they, by means of these wretched words, curse all the Muslims from the first to the last, and how they specifically curse and excommunicate the two individuals who established the din of Islam after Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and spread the din of Allah far and wide. Notice how they consider them and whoever followed them to be the enemies of din. So which din do these people, who regard the Sahabah and those who meticulously followed them the enemies of din, follow? It can be any other din but not the din of Islam. These curses approve the fact that the one who forged them was one of the followers of those ancient religions which Islam destroyed under the rule of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and their brothers in Islam.
Likewise, through these prayers, the planting of hatred, the spreading of acrimony and the provocation of enmity take place regularly in their shrines in the form of continuously cursing the people of the best era. Hence when visiting the grave of Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anha they curse Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the rest of the Sahabah saying:
السلام عليك يا فاطمة، يا سيدة نساء العالمين! لعن الله مانعك إرثك ودافعك عن حقك، والراد عليك قولك. لعن الله أشياعهم وأتباعهم وألحقهم بدرك الجحيم
Pease be upon you, O Fatimah, O the queen of the women of the world. May Allah curse the one who deprived you of your inheritance, prevented you from your right, and rejected what you had to say. May Allah curse their supporters and their followers. May Allah make them reach the Fire of Jahannam.
It should be noted that the person who fabricated this prayer intended to curse the most truthful of the Ummah and then all his followers by extension. Hence Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is also implicated, because he was definitely from the supporters of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his helpers, which was certainly not unknown to the fabricator of this prayer. However he is an enemy of all of them who feigns partisanship of the Ahlul Bayt. Because the Shia easily buy into such narrations due to the absence of reason and intellect as a result of their overwhelming emotions (mostly based on lies) regarding the sufferings of the Ahlul Bayt, the oppression they underwent, the discarding of their rights, and their continuous conflict with the Sahabah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. In this regard they have compiled a huge amount of stories which leave the heart of a believer filled with hatred, the desire for vengeance, and the thirst for spilling blood; as is apparent from their current condition.
Together with the excommunication and the cursing of the Sahabah they have filled their books with the alleged shortcomings of the Sahabah as well. Some scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah have busied themselves in countering them, but what is important to understand in this regard is that the Shia use all of these accusations as a cover for the underlying reason for their stance regarding the Sahabah. This is because even if the Sahabah were hypothetically infallible and indifferent to vice and evil, the Shia would still not be pleased with them. Because their greatest crime was their allegiance to Abu Bakr and not to ‘Ali. And every crime can be forgiven but not this one. Just as they aver that a person who has sins equal to the earth will be forgiven if he believes in Imamah.
Al Qadi ‘Abd al Jabbar realised this and therefore advised:
و كثيرا تسأل الإمامية عما كان من عثمان في تولية أقاربه و غير ذلك، و في سير طلحة و الزبير و عائشة إلي البصرة،و ما ذاك إلا لضعفهم و انقطاعهم، لأن عثمان لو لم يول أقاربه و لم يصنع ما صنع لكان كافرا مشركا عندهم بادعائه الإمامة لنفسه، ولأبي بكر و عمر، و لو كان طلحة و الزبير و عائشة في عسكر أمير المؤمنين و في المحاربين معه ما كانوا إلا مشركين باعتقادهم إمامة أبي بكر و عمر و عثمان، فمن يكلم الإمامية في إثارتهم لهذه المسائل كمن يكلم اليهود في وجوب النية في الطهارة، أو يكلم النصاري في استحلالهم الخمر، و إنما يكلم في هذا من قال لا ذنب لعثمان إلا ما أتاه من الحمي، وتولية الأقارب، و لولا ذلك لكان مثل عمر، و من قال لا ذنب لطلحة و الزبير و عائشة إلا مسيرهم إلي البصرة، و لولا ذلك لكان مثل أبي عبيدة و عبد الرحمان و ابن مسعود.فاعرف هذا ولا تكلمهم فيه البتة، و كلمهم فيها يدعونه من النص فهو الأصل
Many a times the Imamiyyah ask regarding ‘Uthman appointing his relatives, and regarding Talhah, Zubair, and Aisha going to Basrah. They ask regarding these aspects because of their weakness and inability. Even if ‘Uthman did not appoint his relatives and he did not do what he did, he would still have been considered a disbeliever and a polytheist because of claiming leadership for himself and for Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. And even if Talhah, Zubair, and Aisha were part of the army of Amir al Mu’minin and were among those who fought with him, they would have still been polytheists because of them believing in the leadership of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. So a person who debates the Imamiyyah in these issues is like a person who debates a Jew in the issue of intention being compulsory when doing ablution, or like a person who debates a Christian regarding the permissibility of wine. Therefore, a person should only debate a person who claims that the only mistakes ‘Uthman made were the designation of a sanctuary and the appointment of his relatives to government offices; if it was not for these issues he would have been like ‘Umar. Or a person who claims that the only wrong that Talhah, Zubair, and Aisha committed was their going to Basrah, otherwise they would have been like Abu ‘Ubaidah, ‘Abd al Rahman, and Ibn Mas’ud. So do not talk to them regarding these issues. But talk to them regarding the Nass that they claim, for that is the basis of their dogma.
The aforementioned narrations which explicitly excommunicate the unique and exemplary generation (and which do not exclude more than seven people in their estimates), do not exclude as part of these seven any of the members of the household of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Besides one narration which exclude ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu only. This is the narration of Fudayl ibn Yasar which he narrates from Abu Jafar:
قال: صار الناس كلهم أهل جاهلية إلا أربعة: علي، و المقداد، و سلمان، و أبو ذر فقلت: فعمار، فقال: إن كنت تريد الذين لم يدخلهم شيء فهؤلاء الثلاثة
All the people reverted to ignorance besides four: ‘Ali, Miqdad, Salman, and Abu Dhar.
[The narrator says,] I asked, “What about ‘Ammar?”
He said, “If you want to know those people who did not have any doubt, then they are these three.”
Hence, the ruling of apostasy is inclusive of the Sahabah and the household of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which comprised of his wives and his relatives, yet the fabricator of this narration claims to be a supporter of the household of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam notwithstanding. So is this not evidence of the fact that the ‘partisanship’ for the Ahlul Bayt is just a pretext which is being exploited in order to accomplish malicious objectives against Islam and its adherents? And of the fact that the fabricators of these narrations are the enemies of both the Sahabah and the Household of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam? It is not far-fetched to assume that the names which are excluded do not really have personalities behind them, rather they were assumed by the first conspirators and spearheaders of Shi’ism; they do not in any way refer to the Sahabah. Why then were the members of the Ahlul Bayt not mentioned with them? And why are any of these Sahabah not reported to have remonstrated and boycotted the first two Khulafa’, but rather are reported to have supported them and loved them?
Based on the aforementioned narrations, they have passed the ruling of apostasy regarding Hassan, Hussain, the family of ‘Aqil, the family of Jafar, the family of ‘Abbas, the consorts of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam—the mothers of the believers.
Instead the Shia have made specific members of the Ahlul Bayt targets of their criticism and excommunication, like the uncle of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam ‘Abbas, for they say that the following verse was revealed regarding him:
وَمَنْ كَانَ فِيْ هٰذِهِ أَعْمٰى فَهُوَ فِي الْآخِرَةِ أَعْمٰى وَأَضَلُّ سَبِيْلًا
And whoever is blind in this [life] will be blind in the Hereafter and more astray in way.
And like his son, ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas, the great scholar of this Ummah and the interpreter of the Qur‘an. The narration of al Kafi suggests his excommunication and that he was an ignorant and obtuse person. The narration of Rijal a-Kashshi reads as follows:
اللهم العن ابني فلان واعم أبصارهما، كما عميت قلوبهما.واجعل عمي أبصارهم دليلا علي عمي قلوبهما
O Allah curse the two sons of so and so and blind their vision just as you have blinded their hearts, and make the blindness of their eyes a proof of the blindness of their hearts.
Their scholar Hassan al Mustafawi has commented on this narration thus:
هما عبد الله بن عباس و عبيدة بن عباس
This refers to ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas and ‘Ubaidullah ibn ‘Abbas.
The daughters of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam are likewise victims of the anger of the Shia and their hatred, for they are also not mentioned amongst those who are excluded from the blanket excommunication. Instead some have even gone to the extent of saying that besides Fatimah, the others were not the daughters of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.  Is it really possible for someone who makes such claims regarding the daughters of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to love him?
The author of al Kafi has very explicitly mentioned that whoever does not believe in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams is a disbeliever even if he be from the family of ‘Ali and Fatimah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma. This verdict in reality entails the excommunication of the first generation which comprised of both the Sahabah and the Ahlul Bayt. Because none of them had knowledge about the doctrine of the Twelve Imams which only came into existence after the year 260 A.H.
They have also excommunicated all the wives of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, for they have not excluded any of them as well in their narrations. But from among all of them they specifically target Aisha and Hafsah radiya Llahu ‘anhuma with criticisms, curses, and apostasy. Hence their scholar al Majlisi has established a chapter titled, Chapter regarding the conditions of Aisha and Hafsah. Therein he cites seventeen narrations and for the rest of them he refers the reader to the other chapters. They have caused a great deal of pain to Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in these narrations.
They have gone to the extent of accusing of adultery the one whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala vindicated from above the seven heavens, Aisha—the truthful, the daughter of the truthful. This repugnant allegation features in their most canonical work on Qur’anic exegesis (the exegesis of al Qummi) which implies the refutation of the Qur’an. In his exegesis of Surah al Nur, Ibn Kathir mentions the following:
أجمع أهل العلم-رحمهم الله- قاطبة علي أن من سبها ورماها بما رماها به بعد هذا الذي ذكر في الآية فإنه كافر، لأنه معاند للقرآن
The people of knowledge unanimously conquer that a person who accuses her of what he (the leader of the hypocrites Ibn Salul) accused her of after the revelation of these verses is a disbeliever. Because he is opposing the Qur’an.
And al Qurtubi says:
فكل من سبها مما برأها الله منه مكذب لله، و من كذب الله فهو كافر
Anyone who accuses her of that which Allah exonerated her from has belied Allah, and whoever belies Allah is a disbeliever.
Nonetheless, the phenomenon of excommunication is not restricted to the Sahabah even though they were the first victims thereof due to them being the bearers of the Shari’ah, the transmitters of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and the conveyers of the din on behalf of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Hence reviling them is in actual fact reviling din; this was the goal of the heretics in attacking them. And to date, excommunication continues unabated in their circles.
According to the Twelver dogma every government besides the government of the Twelvers is invalid and the ruler thereof is a tyrant and an idol who has been deified. Likewise, whoever pledges allegiance to him is an idolater who worships others besides Allah.
Al Kulayni has established this in many chapters, for example, Chapter regarding a person who claims Imamah for himself without being worthy, regarding a person who denies the Imams or some of them and regarding a person who affirms Imamah for someone who is not eligible. In this chapter he cites twelve narrations from their Imams. Likewise, Chapter regarding a person who adheres to the commands of Allah without an appointed Imam from him. Therein there are five narrations. In Bihar al Anwar the following chapter features, Chapter regarding the punishment for a person who claims Imamah unrightfully, who raises the banner of tyranny or adheres to a tyrant ruler.
So all the rulers of the Muslims, with the exception of ‘Ali and Hassan, are idols (according to their belief) even though they called toward the truth, revered the Ahlul Bayt, and established the din of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. For as they allege:
كل راية قبل راية القائم رضي الله عنه صاحبها طاغوت
Every flag which is raised before the flag of the Mahdi, the raiser thereof is an idol.
The commentator of al Kafi comments thus:
و إن كان رافعها يدعو إلي الحق
Even though the raises thereof calls toward the truth.
And al Majlisi has classed this narration ‘authentic’ according to their principles.
As for those rulers who ruled before the year 260 A.H, al Majlisi says the following regarding the al Khulafa’ al Rashidun, the rightly guided successors of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam:
إنهم لم يكونوا إلا غصبين جائرين مرتدين عن الدين لعنة الله عليهم وعلي من اتنعهم في ظلم أهل البيت من الأولين و الآخرين
They were not but usurpers, tyrants, and renegades. May the curse of Allah be upon them and upon those who followed them in their oppression against the Ahlul Bayt from the first and the last.
In many of their narrations the excommunication of many of the Muslim cities features. They specifically target those cities the inhabitants of which are devout Muslim who adhere to the Sunnah. Hence, they have excommunicated the people of Makkah and the people of Madinah in the golden eras. Jafar al Sadiq is reported to have said the following regarding the people of Makkah and Madinah:
أهل الشام شر من أهل الروم (يعني شر من النصاري) و أهل المدينة شر من أهل مكة، و أهل مكة يكفرون بالله جهرة
The people of Syria are worse than the people of Rome (i.e. worse than the Christians). And the people of Madinah are worse than the people of Makkah, and the people of Makkah openly disbelieve in Allah.
Abu Basir narrates from one of the two Imams that he said:
إن أهل مكة ليكفرون بالله جهرة وإن أهل المدينة أخبث من أهل مكة،أخبث منهم سبعين ضعفا
The people of Makkah openly disbelieve in Allah and the people of Madinah are worse than the people of Makkah by seventy times.
It is a known fact that the people of Madinah, especially in the golden eras, abided more to the teachings of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam than the people of any other city. This is exactly why one of the scholars of Islam considered the consensus of the people of Madinah to be evidence upon those besides them.
The people of Madinah adhered to their ancient school of thought by remaining affiliated to the school of thought of Imam Malik till the beginning of the sixth century or some time before that or some time after that. Till eventually the Shia from the east infiltrated them and corrupted many of them.
This adherence to Islam enraged many of the heretics due to which they expressed their hatred in these kinds of words. And history repeats itself. So we find that one of their scholars said that Makkah is governed by a group of people who are worse than the Jews.
One of their contemporary scholars has disclosed and explicated the reason behind the aforementioned narrations in his footnotes on al Kafi. He says:
لعل هذا الكلام في زمن بني أمية وأتباعهم،كانوا منافقين يظهرون الإسلام و يبطنون الكفر،والمنافقون شر من الكفار وهم في الدرك الأسفل من النار..و يحتمل أن يكون هذا مبنيا علي أن المخالفين غير المستضعفين مطلقا شر من سائر الكفار كما يظهر من كثير من الاخبار
This possibly refers to the era of the Umayyads who outwardly expressed iman but inwardly concealed disbelief. And hypocrites are worse than disbelievers and they deserve the lower most section of Jahannam… It is also possible that it based on the fact that the opposition (besides the weak) in general is far worse than the disbelievers, as is understood from many of the narrations.
So according to him, he feels that this excommunication is correct and concludes that they are worse than the believers for one of two reasons: either because of their submission to the Umayyads i.e. because of them pledging allegiance to the Muslim Umayyad rulers which according to them is the greatest hypocrisy. Or because, as a matter of fact, the opposition (of the Shia) are according to them worse than the disbelievers. Based on this explanation, the excommunication becomes inclusive of all the Muslim lands throughout the ages.
They also say the following regarding Egypt and its people:
أبناء مصر لعنوا علي لسان داود عليه السلام،فجعل الله منهم القردة والخنازير و ما غضب الله علي بني إسرائيل إلا أدخلهم مصر، ولا رضي عنهم إلا أخرجهم منها إلي غيرها
The people of Egypt were cursed upon the tongue Dawood ‘alayh al Salam, hence Allah disfigured them into monkeys and pigs. Whenever Allah was displeased with Bani Isra’il, he took them to Egypt, and whenever he was pleased with them he removed them from there to another place.
Consider the following two narrations as well:
بئس البلاد مصر أما إنها سجن من سخط الله عليه من بني اسرائيل
The worst of cities is Egypt. It is a prison of the wrath of Allah for the Bani Isra’il.
انتهوا مصر ولا تطلبوا المكث فيها لأنه يورث الدياثة
Stay away from Egypt and do not desire to stay there. Because staying there breeds indecency.
They have many other narrations of this nature wherein they talk evil of Egypt, criticise its people, and warn others from residing in it. They have attributed these narrations to Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, Muhammad al Baqir, and ‘Ali al Rida. This is how the Shia view the Egypt of the glorious days of Islam. Hence after citing these narrations, al Majlisi comments thus:
بأن مصر صارت من شر البلاد في تلك الأزمنة، لأن أهلها صاروا من أشقي الناس و أكفرهم
Egypt became the worst of places in those times. Because its people became the most wretched of people and the most ungrateful.
All of this venting is because its people did not buy into Shi’ism. And it is possible that these narrations were forged before or after the Ismaili government in Egypt. Because the Twelvers will never oppose anyone who is like them in Shi’ism, or who establishes an empire wherein their disbelief will be tolerated.
It is not likewise far-fetched to assume that these narrations are a reflection of the hatred and the acrimony the Shia harbour for Egypt due to the fall of the Ismaili rule therein at the hands of the great general Salah al Din, who purified the land of Kinanah from their defilement and impurities. Furthermore, do a comparison between these narrations and the narrations which Imam Muslim has cited in his book under the chapter, The bequest of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding the people of Egypt.
Nonetheless, they have made disparaging remarks regarding many of the cities of Islam and their inhabitants. With the exception of a very few cities which hold the Shia viewpoint, they have not excluded any other city. Hence they say:
إن الله عرض ولايتنا علي أهل الأمصار فلم يقبلها إلا أهل الكوفة
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala presented our allegiance to the people of the cities but no one besides the people of Kufah accepted.
Their narrations consider the Muslim judges as transgressors because of their association with illegitimate governments as they allege. In al Kafi the following narration is narrated from ‘Umar ibn Hanzalah.
سألت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام عن رجلين من أصحابنا بينهما منازعة في دين أو ميراث فتحاكما إلي السلطان و إلي القضاة أيحل ذلك؟ قال: من تحاكم إليهم في حق أو باطل فإنما تحاكم إلي الطاغوت، وما يحكم له فإنما يأخذ سحتا، و إن كان حقا ثابتا له، لأنه أخذ بحكم الطاغوت،و قد أمر الله أن يكفر به. قال تعالي: يُرِيدُونَ أَن يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِ وَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَن يَكْفُرُوا بِهِ
He says, “I asked Abu ‘Abdullah regarding two people from our community who due to a dispute in a matter of religion or inheritance referred to the ruler and the judges; I asked that is it permissible for them to do so?”
He said, “Whoever goes to them for a judgement in reality is going to the Taghut. And whatever right he acquires due to the ruling being passed in his favour is impermissible for him even though it be his established right. This is because he took it with the judgement of the Taghut whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has ordered not to believe. Allah says, ‘They wish to refer legislation to the Taghut while they were commanded to reject it.’”
So as you can see, they consider the Muslim judges to be idols or devils, and their rulings to be invalid; to the extent that a person who procures his right through them is procuring Haram. This ruling is general regarding all the Muslims throughout the centuries and across all generations. Hence it necessarily includes the judges in the time of Jafar al Sadiq, as is clear from their attribution of the narration to Jafar. So if this is their opinion regarding the judges of the best generations, then what would the status of the judges that followed thereafter be?
It seems as though they all exalt only those judges who pass judgements based on the tales of al Riqa’, the huge lamb-skin, the Jami’ah (which according to them encompasses the knowledge of everything), the Mushaf of Fatimah, and the rulings of the family of Dawood. They are not required to provide evidence as appears in their narrations. They do not exalt judges who issue rulings in accordance with the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Ummah. Hence they themselves are the purport of this verse which they use to substantiate their case, for it was revealed regarding some hypocrites who gave preference to the judgement of the Taghut over the judgement of Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Which is not unusual, because these Shia belong to the category of the hypocrites.
The stance of their scholars has not changed in the least in these times. Hence after the aforementioned narration Khomeini comments thus:
الإمام عليه السلام نفسه ينعي عن الرجوع إلي السلاطين و قضاتهما و يعتبر الرجوع إليهم رجوعا إلي الطاغوت
The Imam prohibits going to their rulers and judges. And considers their rulings to be the rulings of the devil.
And the commentator of al Kafi mentions:
والآية بتأييد الخبر تدل علي عدم الترافع إلي حكم الجور مطلقا، و ربما قيل بجواز التوسل بهم إلي أخذ الحق المعلوك، اضطرارا مع عدم إمكان الترافع إلي الفقيه العدل
The verse together with the support of the narration posits that one should not take his case to the oppressive rulers at all. However, at times permission is granted to procure one’s right through their medium when it is not possible to take the case to an upstanding jurist.
However, it seems as if these principles, which were concocted by the heretics, did not gain acceptance by many of their followers. Because they find such justice by the Muslim judges which they do not find by their people. Some have even acknowledged before Ibn Taymiyyah that:
أنتم (يعني أهل السنة) تنصفوننا ما لا ينصف بعضنا بعضا
You people are more just to us than we are to each other.
Some of their men likewise complained to the Imam that they find more trustworthiness, good character, and decorum by the Ahlus Sunnah and find the opposite traits in the Shia which makes them grieve.
They have prevented their people from acquiring knowledge from the scholars of the Muslims and they have considered them to be like the people of Shirk:
عن هارون بن خارجة قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام : إنا نأتي هؤلاء المخالفين فنسمع منهم الحديث يكون حجة لنا عليهم؟ قال: لا تأتهم ولا تسمع منهم بعنهم الله، و لعن ملكهم المشركة
[Harun ibn Kharijah says,] I said to Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam, “We go to our opponents and we hear such narrations from them which are evidence for us against them.”
He said, “Do not go to them and do not listen to their traditions. May Allah curse them and their polytheist religions.”
And in al Kafi the following narration appears on the authority of Sadir who narrates from Abu Jafar:
يا سدير فأريك الصادين عن دين الله ثم نظر إلي أبي حنيفة وسفيان الثوري في ذلك الزمان و هم حلق في المسجد، فقال: هؤلاء الصادون عن دين الله بلا هدي من الله ولا كتاب مبين، إن هؤلاء الأخابث لو جلسوا في بيوتهم فجال الناس، فلم يجدوا أحدا يخبرهم عن الله تبارك و تعالي و عن رسوله صلي الله عليه و آله
“O Sadir should I not show you the people who have become an obstacle for the din of Allah?”
He then looked at Abu Hanifah and Sufyan al Thawri who were present in some gatherings in the Masjid and said, “These are the people who prevent others from the din of Allah without any guidance from Allah or the Qur’an. If only these filthy people remained in their homes. The people would then go around and they would not find anyone to tell them about Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and his Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, hence they would come to us and we would tell them of Allah and his Rasul.”
This narration shows that these people became filled with fury when they saw the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah teaching the Qur’an and the Sunnah to the people, calling them to the din of Allah, them being the centre of attraction the dissemination of knowledge; their gatherings would populate the masjid, be packed with people and adorned with knowledge. Tranquillity would cover them, mercy would enshroud them, and the angels would surround them. These scholars were the leaders of the pious and their role-models. On the other hand, these haters were confined to their homes. No one would give them attention. Disgrace and neediness had become their hallmark and they became deserving of the anger of the people and their ridicule. Hence they forged these narrations and attributed them to the Ahlul Bayt in order to mislead their gullible followers and create enmity between the Ahlul Bayt and the scholars of the Muslims. Their plan was to excommunicate the scholars of the Muslims and empty the land of them so that they would then get the chance to carry out their agenda.
They have targeted many Muslim denominations with excommunication and revilement, specifically the Ahlus Sunnah; who they at times call the Nawasib (enemies of the Ahlul Bayt) and at times the Murji’ah (postponers). In al Kafi the following narration appears:
عن أبي مسروق قال: سألني ابو عبد الله عن أهل البصرة ما هم؟ فقلت: مرجئة و قدرية، و حرورية فقال: لعن الله تلك الملل الكافرة المشركة التي لا تعبد الله علي شيء
Abu Masruq says that Abu ‘Abdullah asked him regarding the creed of the people of Basrah, to which he responded by saying, “They are Murji’ah (the postponers), Qadariyyah (the deniers of pre-destiny) and Haruriyyah (the faction which rebelled against ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu).”
Thereupon Abu ‘Abdullah said, “May Allah curse these deviant and polytheist sects which do not worship Allah on the basis of any sound evidence.”
Their intention when using the term Murji’ah is the Ahlus Sunnah. Hence, al Majlisi, explaining this narration mentions the following:
اللهم العن المرجئة فهم أعداؤنا في الدنيا و الآخرة
O Allah curse the Murji’ah, for they are our enemies in this world and the hereafter.
He thereafter explains that the Irja’ which is mentioned in the narration refers to postponing the ruling of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to the fourth level.
It should also be noted that the Zaidiyyah were likewise not spared from the criticism of the Twelvers. Hence a narration which is narrated form ‘Umar ibn Yazid reads as follows:
سألت أبا عبد الله عن الصدقة علي الناصب و علي الزيدية قال: لا تصدق عليهم بشيء ولا تسقهم من الماء إن استطعت، وقال لي: الزيدية هم النصاب
I asked Abu ‘Abdullah regarding giving charity to the Nawasib and the Zaidiyyah, to which he responded saying, “Do not give them charity at all and do not give them any water to drink.”
He then said, “The Zaidiyyah are the actual Nawasib.”
Another narration in al Kafi states the following:
عن عبد الله بن المغيرة قال: قلت لأبي الحسن رضي الله عنه: إن لي جارين أحدهما ناصب و الآخر زيدي ولا بد من معاشرتهما فمن أعاشر؟ فقال: هما سيان من كذب بآية من كتاب الله فقد نبذ الإسلام وراء ظهره و هو المكذب بجميع القرآن و الأنبياء والمرسلين،ثم قال: إن هذا نصب لك،رو هذا الزيديي نصب لنا
[‘Abdullah ibn al Mughirah states,] I asked Abu al Hassan, “I have two neighbours, one is a Nasibi and the other is a Zaidi. And I have to interact with either of them, so who should I interact with?”
He said, “They are the same; a person who denies even a verse of the Book of Allah has left the fold of Islam and has belied the entire Qur’an and all the messengers and prophets.”
He then said, “He (the Nasibi) is your opponent and the Zaidi is our opponent.”
The fact that the Zaidiyyah promulgated the right of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to rule and were his partisans was not good enough according to the Twelvers because of them also acceding the rule of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, which according to them is a sin that cannot be pardoned. Instead mere love for Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu according to them is disbelief. In Bihar al Anwar the following narration appears:
عن أبي علي الخرساني عن مولي لعلي بن الحسين عليه السلام قال: كنت معه عليه السلام في بعض خلواته فقلت: إن لي عليك حقا ألا تخبرني عن هذين الرجلين: عن أبي بكر و عمر؟فقال:كافران كافرمن أحبهما
[Abu ‘Ali al Khurasani narrates from a slave of Abu al Hassan,] I was with him in privacy and I asked him, “I have a right upon you that you tell me about these two men: Abu Bakr and ‘Umar.”
He said, “They are both disbelievers and whoever loves them is also a disbeliever.”
They have likewise considered the mere acknowledgement of the rule of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to be enmity for the Ahlul Bayt which according to them is the worst type of disbelief. Al Majlisi therefore says:
قد يطلق الناصب علي مطلق المخالف غيرالمستضعف كما هو ظاهر من كثير من الأخبار
The word Nasib (enemy) is at times used only for a person who is merely an opponent and is not weak, as is obvious from many narrations.
He also says:
لا تجوز الصلاة علي المخالف لجبر أو تشبيه أو اعتزال أو خارجية أو أنكار إمامة إلا للتقية، فإن فعل لعنه بعد الرابعة
It is not permissible to read the salah of a person who opposes Jabr (the idea that men do not have freewill), anthropomorphism, rationality, extremism or a person who does not belief in Imamah, unless he does so by way of Taqiyyah. If he does so (i.e. reads the salah of such a person by way of Taqiyyah) he should curse him after the fourth Takbir. 
Al Mufid has likewise mentioned that all the people of innovation are disbelievers. And that is exactly why al Majlisi established a chapter by the title, Chapter regarding the Disbelief of the opponents and the Nawasib.
Al Majlisi further says:
كتب أخبارنا مشحونة بالأخبار الدالة علي كفر الزيدية و أمثالهم من الفطحية،و الواقفة
The books of our tradition are filled with narrations which suggest that the Zaidiyyah and their likes, like that of the Fathiyyah and the Waqifah are disbelievers.
The aforementioned sects are all denominations of the Shia themselves. If this is the ruling regarding them then what would the status of the rest besides them be?
We in fact also find that the Twelvers among themselves excommunicate one another. Study what al Kashshi has narrated, upon which Sheikh al Ta’ifah (the leader of their group) is in agreement with him, regarding their excommunication and bickering among themselves; he mentions that in the year 190 A.H sixteen people convened at the house of Abu al Hassan al Rida. One of them whose name was Jafar ibn ‘Isa said to him:
يا سيدي نشكوا إلي الله و إليك ما نحن فيه من أصحابنا،فقال وما أنتم فيه منهم؟ فقال جعفر: هم والله يزندقونا و يكفرونا و يتبرؤون منا، فقال: هكذا كان أصحاب علي بن الحسين، و محمد بن علي ، وأصحاب جعفر و موسي:صلوات الله عليهم و لقد كان أصحاب زرارة يكفرون غيرهم، و كذالك غيرهم كانويكفرونهم..وقال يونس:جعلت فداك إنهم يزعمون أنا زنادقة
Jafar said, “O my master I complain to Allah and to you regarding the state of our companions.”
He asked, “What is the matter?”
Jafar said, “They call us heretics, excommunicate us, and disassociate themselves from us.”
He replied, “This was the condition of the followers of ‘Ali ibn al Hussain, Muhammad ibn ‘Ali, Jafar, and Musa—may the peace of Allah descend upon them. Likewise the students of Zurarah would also excommunicate others, just as the others would excommunicate them as well…”
And Yunus said, “They claim that we are heretics.
This is the condition of the first generation among them who would falsely fabricate lies and attribute them to the Ahlul Bayt. One can well imagine what the condition of those who succeeded them would be.
Cursing the Ummah and excommunicating it in its entirety is something very commonly found in the books of the Shia. That is why all the prayers that the Shia offer and often repeat at the tombs and holy sites are filled with curses upon this blessed Ummah whose hallmark is moderation.
Hence when visiting the grave of Amir al Mu’minin they supplicate thus:
لعن الله من خالفك و لعن الله من افتري عليك و ظلمك، و لعن الله من غصبك، و لعن الله من بلغه ذلك فرضي به،أنا إلي الله منهم بريء، لعن الله أمة خالفتك و أمة جحدتك، و جحدت ولايتك، و أمة تظاهرت عليك، و أمة حادت عنك و خذلتك، اللهم العن الجوابيت و الطواغيت و الفراعنة، واللات و العزي، و كل ند يدعي دون الله،و كل مفتر، اللهم و أشياعهم و أتباعهم، و أولياءهم، و أعوانهم، و محبيهم لعنا كثيرا
May Allah curse the one who opposed you. May he curse the one who forged lies against you and oppressed you. May he curse the one who usurped your right. And may he curse the one who received the news of this and was fine with it. I disassociate myself from them before Allah. May Allah curse the Ummah which opposed you, the Ummah which belied you and your rulership, the Ummah which collaborated against you, the Ummah which abandoned and forsook you. All praise belongs to Allah who has made hell-fire their final abode; indeed a very bad abode and indeed bad will be its incumbents… O Allah curse the devils, the idols, and the pharaohs, Lat and ‘Uzza, any equal who is worshiped besides Allah, and every liar. O Allah curse them, their partisans, their followers, their allies, their helpers, and their lovers; excessively.
These curses which incessantly flow from the tongues of these people instead of the glorification of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and his praises have their effect in filling their hearts with malice and hatred for the Ummah and its din.
Furthermore, the Twelvers have accorded such despicable titles to the Ummah which are not found in the books of any other denomination besides them. Not for any other reason, but because the Ummah was happy with those whom the Muhajirin and the Ansar chose as their rulers.
Hence at times they accuse the entire Ummah of debauchery.  At times they claim that the entire Ummah is the illegitimate children of adultery owing to which they will be called with the names of their mothers on the Day of Judgement. And at times they claim that all the individuals of the Ummah are disfigured, they are not humans, rather they are monkeys and pigs. And the list of curses and accusations goes on…
It is clear from the details that have passed that the Shia have not spared anybody of this Ummah from their criticism and excommunication. They have specifically targeted the companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Muhajirin and Ansar, the household of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, the Muslim metropolises and their inhabitants, the Islamic denominations and the entire Ummah at large. They curse all the aforementioned categories in their supplications, prayers and when visiting their holy sites. Have they excluded anybody? Yes they have excluded the following group and have supported them and praised them…
The group which the Shia Exclude from their Blanket Excommunication and Curses
After excommunicating the Sahabah, the Ahlul Bayt, the rulers, the judges, the scholars, and all the denominations—which include some Shia denominations as well—it would be interesting to see who they exclude.
In my readings of their literature I have found that they extol the scum of this Ummah and the worst of humans. In fact I have found that they praise and support outright disbelievers, hypocrites, and heretics (after all the souls are all categorised into clusters. Those among them who recognise each other tend to bond with one another).
Therefore we see that the Shia defend the integrity of renegades like Musaylamah the liar, heretics like Mukhtar ibn Abi ‘Ubaid and Nasir al Tusi, liars like Jabir al Ju’fi and Zurarah ibn A’yan, and fire worshippers who were the ardent enemies of Islam like Abu Lu’lu’ al Majusi—the murderer of ‘Umar ibn al Khattab—whom they title Baba Shuja’ al Din (the brave hero of din).
Similarly, they have received their legacy from disbelievers who believed in the interpolation of the Qur’an and considered the companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam to be renegades and disbelievers, like that of Ibrahim al Qummi, al Kulayni and their likes whom they consider reliable transmitters of their din and the cornerstone of their legacy.
Does this stance, the blanket excommunication of the entire Ummah without any exception, require any analyses? Its invalidity is so obvious that it does not have to be mentioned, and its falsity is so apparent that it does not have to be highlighted. In essence, the excommunication of the Ummah is an extension of the excommunication of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum; the reason is the same in both cases.
A person who hates the Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, reviles them, and excommunicates them will naturally hate the Ummah and excommunicate it as well, as is mentioned by one of the pious predecessors:
لا يغل قلب أحد علي أحد من أصحاب رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم إلا كان قلبه علي المسلمين أغل
No person’s heart will be filled with rancour for the Sahabah except that his heart will be filled with more rancour for the Muslims in general.
Can a person who is not pleased with Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, the veterans of Badr, the participants of the pledge of Ridwan, the Muhajirin and the Ansar, who had attained the highest levels of piety and virtue; ever be pleased with anyone after them?
The basis of this stance is the claim of the Shia that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum rejected the emphatic nomination of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and pledged their allegiance to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. The refutation of this baseless claim in light of the Qur’an, the Sunnah, reason, and the categorical aspects of din has passed already. And whatever is based upon a baseless precept is baseless itself.
The mere fact that the Shia excommunicate the unique generation which is extolled in the Qur’an is enough evidence of the falsehood of their dogma and of the fact that its very basis was laid down by a group of heretics. The invalidity of this stance of theirs is very clear. Ahmed al Kisrawi, an Iranian and a Shia by origin, therefore, mentions the following:
و أما ما قالوا من ارتداد المسلمين بعد موت النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم فاجتراءمنهم علي الكذب و البهتان،فلقائل أن يقول: كيف ارتدوا و هم كانوا أصحاب النبي آمنوا به حين كذبه الآخرون، و دافعوا عنه واحتملوا الأذي في سبيله ثم ناصروه في حروبه، ولم يرغبوا عنه بأنفسهم،ثم أي نفع لهم في خلافة ابي بكر ليرتدوا عن دينهم لأجله؟!فأي الأمرين أسهل احتمالا: أكذب رجلا أو رجلين من ذوي الأغراض الفاسدة أو ارتداد بضع مآت من خلص المسلمين؟ فأجيبونا إن كان لكم جواب
As for their claim that the Muslims turned renegade after the demise of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, it stems from their boldness in speaking lies and casting allegations. For it is possible for someone to say: Why would they turn renegade when they were the Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who embraced his faith when others rejected it, who defended him and underwent difficulties in supporting his cause, who stood by his side in all his battles and who did not give preference to themselves over him. What benefit really was there for them in the rulership of Abu Bakr due to which they were willing to leave the fold of Islam? Which of the two are more likely: I belie one or two people who had ulterior motives or the apostasy of a few hundred Muslims? Give us an answer if you have any.
Nonetheless, even though their dogma rests on no solid grounding, due to it being contrary to Shari’ah, reason, history, and those aspects which are categorically considered to be part of Islam, it is still necessary for us to halt here—even for a little while—to refute it. Because there were many people in the past and there are many people currently who are unaware of the proofs in this regard. It is sufficient for you to know that one of their contemporary scholars, Muhammad al Khalisi, who is known for advocating the slogans of unity of the Ummah and continuously highlighting them in his publications, speeches, and journeys; wrote the following letter to Sheikh Muhammad Bahjah al Baytar on the 26th of Rabi’ al Awwal 1382 A.H. It reads as follows:
لم أذكر الصحابة بخير لأني لا أريد أن أتعرض لعذاب الله و سخطه بمخالفتي كتابه و سنته في مدح من ذمه الكتاب و السنة، و الإطراء علي من قبح أعماله القرآن المجيد، والأحاديث المتواتر عن النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم و غاية ما كنت أكتبه و أقوله هو أن كتاب الله و سنته لم تذكر الصحابة بخير ولا تدل علي فضل لهم لأنهم صحابة
I have not mentioned the Sahabah in good light because I do not want to become a victim of the punishment of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and his displeasure by going against His Book and the Sunnah in praising those whom they both have condemned, and in extolling those whose actions have been condemned in the Qur’an and the widespread traditions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. All I can say is that the Qur’an and the Sunnah have not highlighted the Sahabah positively. And the fact that they were Sahabah is not sufficient to prove their virtue.
As you have noticed, al Khalisi does not wish to speak favourably of the Sahabah despite the fact that their virtue is very well established in the holy texts. Conversely, he asserts regarding the Twelve Imams that they are the pillars of iman and that Allah will not accept the actions of men but after their allegiance to them. Whereas in the Qur’an there features no mention whatsoever of the Twelve Imams, nor their respective rulerships. Notice how they belie clear-cut realities and how they believe in outright lies. If this is the case, then it is our duty to refute their claims and establish the virtue of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in light of the Qur’an, the Sunnah, the verdicts of the Imams, history, reason and the categorically established aspects of Din. In doing so, we will also expose the person who invented this belief and introduced it to the Shia dogma.
This will simultaneously serve as a refutation of their excommunication of the rest of the Ummah, because they excommunicate the Ummah for the very same reason that they excommunicate the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The only difference is that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum were attacked more than the others by the Shia with the sole purpose of invalidating the Shari’ah which they transmitted.
The verses of the Qur’an bear testimony to the fact that the Sahabah were people of upstanding character and that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was pleased with them and praised them in many emphatic and clear verses. We do not require any esoteric interpretations to realise this, as is the method of the Twelvers in interpreting the verses of the Qur’an.
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ
You are the best nation which has been taken out for the benefit of people.
It is sufficient an honour for them that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has addressed by the “the best of people,” for they were most certainly the first addressees of this verse. And there can be no status loftier than the status of a people whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala chose for the company of his beloved and his support.
The Salaf have interpreted this verse in various ways all of which eventually conclude that this verse was revealed regarding the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala told them that they are the best of people.
Likewise Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
وَالسَّابِقُوْنَ الْأَوَّلُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِيْنَ وَالْأَنصَارِ وَالَّذِيْنَ اتَّبَعُوْهُم بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِيْ تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِيْنَ فِيْهَا أَبَدًا ۚ ذٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيْمُ
And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajirin and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct — Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.
This verse very clearly states that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala was pleased with the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them meticulously. It promises them great success and everlasting bliss in Jannat. Ibn Kathir radiya Llahu ‘anhu therefore says:
فيا ويل من أبغضهم أو سبهم، أو أبغض أو سب بعضهم ولا سيما سيد الصحابة بعد الرسول و خيرهم و أفضلهم أعني الصديق الأكبر و الخليفة الأعظم أبا بكر بن أبي قحافة رضي الله عنه، فإن طائفة المخذولة من الرافضة يعادون أفضل الصحابة ويبغضونهم ويسبونهم عياذا بالله من ذلك. وهذا يدل علي أن عقولهم معكوسة وقلوبهم منكوسة. فأين هؤلاء من الإيمان بالقرآن إذ يسبون من رضي الله عنهم.
So woe be to the one who hates them and reviles them, or hates and reviles some of them, especially the leader of the Sahabah, the best among them, and the most virtuous after Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, i.e. al Siddiq the great successor. The Shia harbour enmity against the best among the Sahabah, they oppose them and revile them. May Allah save us from that. This is evidence of the fact that their intelligence is reversed and their hearts are inverted. Can they possibly have any faith in the Qur’an if they revile the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum?
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala also says:
لَّقَدْ رَضِيَ اللّٰهُ عَنِ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ إِذْ يُبَايِعُوْنَكَ تَحْتَ الشَّجَرَةِ فَعَلِمَ مَا فِيْ قُلُوْبِهِمْ فَأَنزَلَ السَّكِيْنَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ وَأَثَابَهُمْ فَتْحًا قَرِيْبًا
Certainly was Allah pleased with the believers when they pledged allegiance to you, [O Muhammad], under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquillity upon them and rewarded them with an imminent conquest.
Ibn Hazm says:
فمن أخبرنا الله سبحانه أنه علم ما في قلوبهم، و رضي عنهم، و أنزل السكينة عليهم فلا يحل لأحد التوقف في أمرهم ولا الشك فيهم البتة
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala is informing us that he knew what is in their hearts, he was pleased with them and that he send down tranquillity upon them. Hence, after this it is not permissible for any person to remain hesitant in their matter and doubt their integrity.
Those who pledged their allegiance to Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam under the tree at the mountain of Tan’im, were in total more than 1400 Sahabah. They pledged their allegiance to him when the polytheists barred him from performing ‘Umrah.
These were the very same people, as Ibn Taymiyah mentions, who pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum.
A person who denies the proclamation of his Lord that He was pleased with those who pledged their allegiance under the tree is indeed a loser. Any person who has a little knowledge knows without any doubt that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Ali, Talhah, Zubair, ‘Ammar, and Mughirah ibn Shu’bah were all part of this glad-tiding. The Khawarij and the Shia on the other hand have obstinately disassociated themselves from them, opposing Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala.
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala likewise says:
مُّحَمَّدٌ رَّسُوْلُ اللّٰهِِ وَالَّذِيْنَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعًا سُجَّدًا يَّبْتَغُوْنَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَرِضْوَانًا سِيْمَاهُمْ فِيْ وُجُوْهِهِمْ مِّنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُوْدِ ذٰلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِي الْإِنجِيْلِ كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهُ فَآزَرَهُ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوٰى عَلٰى سُوْقِهِ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيْظَ بِهِمُ الْكُفَّارَ وَعَدَ اللّٰهُ الَّذِيْنَ آمَنُوْا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ مِنْهُمْ مَّغْفِرَةً وَْأَجْرًا عَظِيْمًا
Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; and those with him are forceful against the disbelievers, merciful among themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating [in prayer], seeking bounty from Allah and [His] pleasure. Their mark [i.e. sign] is on their faces [i.e. foreheads] from the trace of prostration. That is their description in the Torah. And their description in the Gospel is as a plant which produces its offshoots and strengthens them so they grow firm and stand upon their stalks, delighting the sowers so that He may enrage by them the disbelievers. Allah has promised those who believe and do righteous deeds among them forgiveness and a great reward.
Ponder over the great status of the Sahabah, for Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has praised them with these great qualities and has informed us that they are described in this manner in the Torah and the Injil. Some scholars are of the opinion that the purport of this verse implies that the Shia are disbelievers. Because they harbour enmity for the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala in the verse mentions, “So that He may enrage by them the disbelievers.” Hence the conclusion is that whoever harbours enmity for them is from the disbelievers.
Furthermore, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says:
لَا يَسْتَوِيْ مِنْكُمْ مَّنْ أَنفَقَ مِنْ قَبْلِ الْفَتْحِ وَقَاتَلَ أُولٰئِكَ أَعْظَمُ دَرَجَةً مِّنَ الَّذِيْنَ أَنفَقُوْا مِنْۢ بَعْدُ وَقَاتَلُوْا وَكُلًّا وَعَدَ اللّٰهُ الْحُسْنٰى
Not equal among you are those who spent before the conquest [of Makkah] and fought [and those who did so after it]. Those are greater in degree than they who spent afterwards and fought. But to all God has promised Husna, the best [reward].
And Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala mentions the following regarding all those whom he has promised Husna:
إِنَّ الَّذِيْنَ سَبَقَتْ لَهُم مِّنَّا الْحُسْنٰى أُولٰئِكَ عَنْهَا مُبْعَدُوْنَ لَا يَسْمَعُوْنَ حَسِيْسَهَا وَهُمْ فِيْ مَا اشْتَهَتْ أَنفُسُهُمْ خَالِدُوْنَ.لَا يَحْزُنُهُمُ الْفَزَعُ الْأَكْبَرُ
Indeed, those for whom Husna, the best [reward] has preceded from us – they are from it far removed. They will not hear its sound, while they are, in that which their souls desire, abiding eternally. They will not be grieved by the greatest terror.
Understanding both these verses comprehensively proves that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has promised Husna for anyone who accompanied Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. And Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala says that he does not go against his promises. Likewise Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala clearly mentions that any person who has been promised Husna will be kept so far from the fire of Jahannam that he will not even hear its sound, he will remain forever in Jannat fulfilling all his desires and the horror of the great day will not grieve him. And the hypocrites and disbelievers are not from the Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala also says:
لِلْفُقَرَاءِ الْمُهَاجِرِيْنَ الَّذِيْنَ أُخْرِجُوْا مِنْ دِيَارِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ يَبْتَغُوْنَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللّٰهِ وَرِضْوَانًا وَّيَنصُرُوْنَ اللّٰهَ وَرَسُوْلَهُ أُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الصَّادِقُوْنَ وَالَّذِيْنَ تَبَوَّءُوا الدَّارَ وَالْإِيْمَانَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْ يُحِبُّوْنَ مَنْ هَاجَرَ إِلَيْهِمْ وَلَا يَجِدُوْنَ فِيْ صُدُوْرِهِمْ حَاجَةً مِّمَّا أُوْتُوْا وَيُؤْثِرُوْنَ عَلٰى أَنفُسِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَ بِهِمْ خَصَاصَةٌ وَمَنْ يُّوْقَ شُحَّ نَفْسِهِ فَأُولٰئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُوْنَ وَالَّذِيْنَ جَاءُوْا مِنْۢ بَعْدِهِمْ يَقُوْلُوْنَ رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لَنَا وَلِإِخْوَانِنَا الَّذِيْنَ سَبَقُوْنَا بِالْإِيْمَانِ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ فِيْ قُلُوْبِنَا غِلًّا لِّلَّذِيْنَ آمَنُوْا رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ رَءُوْفٌ رَّحِيْمٌ
For the poor emigrants who were expelled from their homes and their properties, seeking bounty from Allah and [His] approval and supporting Allah and His Messenger, [there is also a share]. Those are the truthful. And [also for] those who were settled in the Home [i.e. al Madinah] and [adopted] the faith before them. They love those who emigrated to them and find not any want in their breasts of what they [i.e. the emigrants] were given but give [them] preference over themselves, even though they are in privation. And whoever is protected from the stinginess of his soul – it is those who will be the successful. And [there is a share for] those who came after them, saying, “Our Lord, forgive us and our brothers who preceded us in faith and put not in our hearts [any] resentment toward those who have believed. Our Lord, indeed you are Kind and Merciful.”
This verse comprises of praises for the Muhajirin, the Ansar, and those who succeed them and seek forgiveness for them; asking Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to create no resentment in their hearts for them. It also mentions that these three categories are the people who are deserving of Fay’. It goes without doubt that the Shia are not part of any of these three categories. Because they do not seek forgiveness for the predecessors, rather they harbour enmity against them. In essence, the verse praises the Sahabah and the Ahlus Sunnah who befriend them, and it necessarily excludes the Shia. This itself is enough to debunk the Shia dogma.
There are many more verses related to this topic, but have sufficed with the boave in proving our point.
The books of Sunnah are filled with the praises of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and the mention of their merits by Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Some narrations praise the entire fraternity of Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. For example the narration:
لا تسبوا أصحابي، لا تسبوا أصحابي، فوالذي نفسي بيده لو أن أحدكم أنفق مثل أحد ذهبا ما أدرك مد أحدهم ولا نصيفه
Do not revile my Companions, do not revile my Companions. For By Allah, if any of you were to spend gold equivalent to the mountain of Uhud as charity it would not equate to the Mudd of any of them or even half its amount.
And the narration:
خير الناس قرني، ثم الذين يلونهم، ثم الذين يلونهم، قال عمران: فلا أدري أذكر بعد قرنه قرنين أو ثلاثة
The best of people are the people of my generation, then those who succeed them, and then those who succeed them.
‘Imran says, “I do not know whether he made mention of two generations after his or three.
Some narrations extoll the virtues of specific groups among them. For example Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said the following regarding the participants of Badr:
وما يدريك لعل الله اطلع علي أهل بدر فقال: اعملو ما شئتم فقد غفرت لكم
And don’t you know that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala gazed at the people of Badr and said, “Do what you want for I have forgiven you.”
Likewise the narrations which comprise of the merits of the participants of the pledge of Ridwan. Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
لا يدخل النار من أصحاب الشجرة أحد، الذين بايعوا تحتها
None of those who pledged allegiance beneath the tree will enter hell-fire.
Whilst there are other narrations which specifically extoll the virtues of individuals amongst the Sahabah. They are numerous and are documented in the Sihah, Sunan, and the Masanid.
However, the Shia have opted to distance themselves from this vast resource of knowledge. For they do not draw evidence from it. Hence, it is meaningless for us to marshal evidence from our narrations against them because they will not accept them. Likewise, it is meaningless for them to marshal evidence against us from their legacy because we will not accept it. Hence it will only be appropriate for each of the parties to furnish such evidence which the opposite party will be willing to accept and concede, whether the furnishing party believes in its validity or not.
I have therefore sufficed at this juncture on referring to the seminal works of Sunnah which contain the merits of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. For in them is contained a vast amount of traditions regarding the virtues of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, their praise, and the impermissibility of reviling them. Subsequently, I shall try to establish inculpatory evidence against them from their books and from the narrations of their Imams which they treat as equal to the traditions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
In his al Khisal Ibn Babawayh has cited the following narration:
كان أصحاب رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم اثني عشر ألفا، ثمانية آلاف من المدينة و ألفان من أهل مكة، و الفان من الطلقاء لم ير فيهم قدري، ولا مرجي، ولا حروري، ولا معتزلي، ولا صاحب رأي كانوا يبكون الليل والنهار
The Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam were twelve thousand in total, eight thousand belonged to Madinah, two thousand belonged to Makkah, and two thousand were those who were released (at the Conquest of Makkah). Not one amongst them was known to be a Qadari (denier of pre-destiny), a Murji’ (postponer), a Haruri (an extremist), a Mu’tazili (rationalist) and a follower of his own views. They were people who cried day and night.
And in Bihar al Anwar the following narration in narrated from al Sadiq who narrates it from his forefathers who narrate it from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
أوصيكم بأصحاب نبيكم لا تسبوهم الذين لم يحدثوا بعده حدثا و لم يؤوا محدثا، فإن رسول الله صلي الله عليه بهم الخير
I emphasise upon you regarding the Companions of your Nabi. Do not revile them. For indeed they did not bring about innovations into the din after him, nor did they give amnesty to an innovator. Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam also bequeathed that they should be treated amiably.
The following narration also appears in Bihar al Anwar:
طوبي لمن رآني، و طوبي لمن رأي من رآني، و طوبي لمن رأي من رأي من رآني
Fortunate is the person who saw me. Fortunate is the person who saw the person who saw me. And fortunate is the person who saw the one who saw the one who saw me.
Their seventh Imam, Musa ibn Jafar, narrates that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:
أنا أمنة لأصحابي، فإذا قبضت دنا من أصحابي ما يوعدون، و أصحابي أمنة لأمتي، فإذا قبض أصحابي دنا من أمتي ما يوعدون ولا يزال هذا الذين ظاهرا علي الأديان كلها ما دام فيهم من قد رآني
I am a source of security for my companions; when I pass away that which my Companions are promised will come their way. My Companions are likewise a source of security for my Ummah; when they are taken away that which the Ummah is promised will come their way. As long as there remains amongst you one person who saw me, this din will reign supreme over all other religions.
Similarly, Ibn Babawayh al Qummi has narrated the following in his book Ma’ani al Akhbar:
عن جعفر بن محمد عن آبائه عليهم السلام قال: قال رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم: ما وجدتم في كتاب الله عز وجل فالعمل لكم به لا عذر لكم في تركه، وما لم يكن في كتاب الله عز و جل، و كانت فيه سنة مني فلا عذر لكم في ترك سنتي، وما لم يكن فيه سنة مني فما قال أصحابي فقولوا به، فإنما مثل أصحابي فيكم كمثل النجوم بأيها أخذ اهتدي، وبأي أقاويل أصحابي أخذتم اهتديتم(ثم زاد دعاة التفرقة علي هذا النص الزيادة التالية) فقيل يا رسول الله و من أصحابك؟ قال: أهل بيتي
Jafar ibn Muhammad narrates from his forefathers that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said, “Whatever you find in the Book of Allah, practicing it is your duty; you have no excuse to abandon it. And that which you do not find in the Book of Allah and find in my Sunnah, you have no excuse not to practice upon it. And in aspects for which you do not find guidance in my Sunnah, follow that which my Companions say. For my Companions are like the stars, whichever one you will follow you will attain guidance; likewise whichever of the views of my Companions you will follow you will attain guidance. (The portion which follows is of course the addition of those who desire to disunite the Ummah). It was then asked, “Who are your companions oh Rasul Allah?” He said, “My Household.”
It is very clear that interpreting “Companions” as “Household” is completely far-fetched. Their scholar al Saduq realised the far-fetched nature of this interpretation and therefore commented:
إن أهل البيت لا يختلفون، و لكن يفتون الشيعة بمر الحق، وربما أفتوهم بالتقية فما يختلف من قولهم فهو للتقية و التقية رحمة للشيعة
The Ahlul Bayt do not have differences amongst themselves, rather they always tell the Shia to follow the truth even if it be bitter. And at times they order them to practice Taqiyyah. Hence those statements which are contrary to their usual statements are based on Taqiyyah and Taqiyyah is a mercy for the Shia.
In this comment he concludes that the commendation of the Sahabah was based on Taqiyyah. Whereas logic and reason reject this interpretation completely. For how can praising the Sahabah whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and his Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam praised and to whose merits and efforts history has attested, be by way of Taqiyyah? And how can reviling them be based on reality and the stance of the Imams? They have no evidence for this besides the fact that it resonates well with the enemies of the Ummah.
Furthermore, the aforementioned text is narrated by Jafar al Sadiq from Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. So is it possible to aver that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, out of Taqiyyah, spoke a lie to the Ummah, or that Jafar fabricated a lie and attributed it Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Whichever of the two is asserted, it is an indictment to Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the Ahlul Bayt and a clear rejection of the texts.
Nonetheless, in Nahj al Balaghah ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is reported to have made the following remarks regarding Abu Bakr or ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, based on the variant views of the Shia scholars in this regard:
لله بلاء فلان فلقد قوم الأود وداوي العمد، و أقام السنة..و خلف الفتنة، ذهب تقي الثوب، قليل العيب أصاب خيرها و سبق شرها أدي إلي الله طاعته واتقاه بحقه
To Allah belongs the credit for the efforts of so and so. He straightened the crookedness, cured the maladies, established the Sunnah, and left the Fitnah (trial) behind. He departed from this world with a clean garment and with very few faults. He partook of the good of this world and avoided its evil. He fulfilled the right of the obedience of Allah and feared as he was required to.
This is a very crucial text which debunks all their alleged claims regarding the enmity and tension which existed between ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu and Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.
Narrations of this nature have always baffled the Shia. This one has in particular because it appears in Nahj al Balaghah, which according to them is a categorically established book. Maytham al Bahrani has sketched the nature of this confusion, he says:
واعلم أن الشيعة قد أوردوا هنا سؤالا فقالوا: إن هذه الممادح التي ذكرها في حق أحد الرجلين تنافي ما أجمعنا عليه من تخطئتهم وأخذهما لمنصب الخلافة، فإما أن لا يكون هذا الكلام من كلامه رضي الله عنه وإما أن يكون أجماعنا خطأ.
Know well that the Shia have raised a question at this point. They say: These feats which are mentioned in praise of one of the two men violate our consensus regarding considering them wrong and believing that they usurped the Khilafah. Hence either these words are not the words of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu or our consensus is invalid.
They try to resolve this conundrum by asserting that these words were said by way of Taqiyyah, i.e. he only made mention of these praises in order to rehabilitate the people who believed in the legitimacy of the rule of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and attract their hearts. In other words, according to them, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu intended to deceive the Sahabah. He thus expressed sentiments which he did not really hold and he lied in front of the people when delivering the sermon. This is the answer those who claim to be the partisan of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu give. I do not think any intelligent person will treat it as a satisfactory answer. We, therefore, assert that the consensus of the Shia is based on deviation and the statement of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is based on the truth and the reality, for indeed he was a person who did not fear the criticism of the critics when it came to the din of Allah.
Someone could possibly say: The aforementioned narrations are in complete contrast to the previously cited narrations regarding how the Shia excommunicate the Sahabah and revile them. In response I say: Yes. Because the very nature of the legacy of the Shia dogma is contradiction. And their scholars have put a few principles in place in order to do away with such narrations and in order to find a niche out of these contradictions. For example, one of their principles is that this contradiction is actually required in order to conceal the reality of the dogma, thereby not allowing the commonality (the Ahlus Sunnah) to annihilate it completely.
When narrations are in conflict with each other they say:
خذوا بما خالف العامة فإن فيه الرشاد
Practice upon that which opposes the commonality, for in it lies guidance.
It is for this reason that their scholars assert that these positive narrations were articulated by way of Taqiyyah. And also because they are far less than the narrations which contain the excommunication and curses. They thus do not regard them acceptable. Al Mufid says:
ما خرج للتقية لا يكثر روايته عنهم كما تكثر روايات المعمول به.
Those narrations which were said by way of Taqiyyah are not as many in number as are the narrations which are implemented.
That is why you will find that the comments of Ibn Babawayh after the narration which entails the praises of the Sahabah suggest that it was said by way of Taqiyyah. Similarly you will notice the same in the comments of Maytham al Bahrani.
This being the case, I have only cited these narrations here in order to show the contradictory nature of the Shia dogma to the people of intellect. And in order to guide a person who is in search of the truth that these narrations are based on reality and not on Taqiyyah because of their coherence with the Qur’an and the consensus of the Ummah. Furthermore, to demonstrate that the doctrine of Taqiyyah has made the dogma a toy in the hands of their scholars which they can use to twist the traditions in any which way they desire. With the result that it has no more remained the religion of the Ahlul Bayt, but rather the religion of al Kulayni, al Qummi, al Majlisi, and their likes.
Firstly, it is a very well-known fact which is known to the commonality and the erudite that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum had a very special relationship with Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. In fact they were the closest to him in terms of spending time in his company and always being around him. Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had, through the medium of marriage, developed a relationship with them (they were all his family by law). He loved them immensely and praised them often. Now, they were either upstanding people internally and externally during his lifetime and after his demise, or, conversely, they were not people of upstanding character during his lifetime or after his demise. If we postulate that they were not people of upstanding character despite enjoying such proximity to Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then one of two conclusions are inevitable. Either Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was not aware of their actual condition or he compromised his principles for their sake. Whichever of the two is regarded, it tarnishes the reputation of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. As the poet says:
فإن كنت لا تدري فتلك مصيبة وإن كنت تدري فالمصيبة أعظم
If you do not know, it is a problem and if you know, the problem is even greater.
And if we postulate that they had deviated after previously having upright conduct, then it is a sign of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala leaving his Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam helpless by leaving his bosom associates and his elite Companions to go astray. Whereas Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala had promised him that he will make his religion reign supreme over all other religions. So how is it possible for his special and elite Companions to go astray? The Shia thus again are severely tarnishing the reputation of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, as Malik and others have mentioned:
إنما أراد هؤلاء الرافضة الطعن في رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم ليقول قائل: رجل سوء كان له أصحاب سوء، ولو كان رجلا صالحا لكان أصحابه صالحين ولهذا قال أهل العلم: إن الرافضة دسيسة الزنادقة.
The intention of the Shia is to tarnish the reputation of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. So that a person can claim that he was a bad person who had bad Companions. Had he been a good person, his Companions would have also been good people. Therefore the scholars say that the Shia are planted by the heretics.
Secondly, an apostate only turns apostate due to doubts or temptations. It is a known fact that in the initial stages of Islam the doubts and temptations were much more overwhelming, for the Muslims were very few at that time and the disbelievers were dominant on majority of the land; the Muslims suffered a great deal of hardship, only known to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, in Makkah at the hands of their polytheist relatives and others which they bore patiently despite its bitterness. They followed Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who was alone and poor, lowly and fearful, overpowered and dominated and in whose opposition the entire peninsula had united; despite this they sacrificed their homes and belongings and bid farewell to their social standing and popularity all out of the love of Allah and His Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
They did all of this willingly. If this was the condition of their iman in the very initial stages of Islam, then one can well imagine what the strength thereof would have been after the realisation of its signs and evidences. Especially when the reason owing to which the Shia excommunicate them, i.e. the allegiance to Abu Bakr instead of ‘Ali, did not entail anything so enticing that would prompt them to abandon their faith, lose all their previous feats and sacrifices, and trade the afterlife for this world just because of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu. What made them do so? Especially when they allegedly knew that it was disbelief in their Lord and turning away from their din. And what made them not obey the alleged order of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding the rulership of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu when they knew that doing so was a means of obeying Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and steadfastness upon their faith. Is it really possible to conceive that the Muhajirin and the Ansar disbelieved in Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala due to their loyalty to Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu? Or that they preferred not to abide by the order of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam regarding the right of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to leadership? Whereas they were the same people who initially sacrificed their homes in search of the grace of Allah and his mercy, and who aided the din of Allah and His Rasul and who were truthful and honest.
Thirdly, the stance of the Shia regarding the excommunication of the Sahabah necessarily implies the excommunication of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu also because of his failure to uphold the injunctions of Allah. Likewise it necessitates the invalidity and the unauthenticity of the Shari’ah because of its transmitters being apostates. It leads to criticising the Qur’an because it reached us through the medium of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and their brothers. Accomplishing this was the objective of the concocter of this ideology. Hence Abu Zur’ah says:
إذا رأيت الرجل ينتقص أحد من أصحاب رسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم فاعلم أنه زنديق، وذلك أن الرسول صلي الله عليه وسلم حق والقرآن حق، وإنما أدي إلينا هذا القرآن والسنن أصحاب رسول الله، وإنما يريدون أن يجرحوا شهودنا ليبطلوا الكتاب والسنة. والجرح بهم أولي وهم الزنادقة.
If you see anyone reviling the Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam know that he is heretic. This is because Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is true and the Qur’an is true. It was the Companions of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who conveyed his teachings and the Qur’an to us. Hence they intend to discredit our traditional legacy of the Qur’an and the Sunnah by discrediting the transmitters thereof. They therefore are more deserving of criticism and they are heretics.
The books of the Shia thus also concede that the first person to concoct this ideology was Ibn Saba’. They say:
أول من أظهر الطعن في أبي بكر وعمر وعثمان الصحابة، وتبرأ منهم، وادعي أن عليا عليه السلام أمره بذلك.
He was the first one to revile Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and the Sahabah and the first to disassociate himself from them and the first to claim that ‘Ali ordered him to do so.
Fourthly, ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not excommunicate anyone who opposed him or fought against him, not even the Khawarij. He did not even imprison their children and take their belongings as spoils. This is vastly different to the stance of the Sahabah regarding the the people of Banu Hanifah and their likes, who they pronounced as apostates. ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu did not pass a ruling of apostasy against those who fought against him but instead would supplicate that the pleasure of Allah descend upon Talhah and Zubair radiya Llahu ‘anhuma even though they fought him. And he considered them and the people of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu Muslims. It is authentically established that his announcer had announced on the day of Jamal that no fleeing person should be followed, no wounded person should be killed, and no belongings should be taken as booty. And there are many widespread narrations which prove that he said the following regarding the army of Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu:
إنهم جميعا مسلمون، ليسوا كفارا ولا منافقين
They are all Muslims. They are not disbelievers or hypocrites.
This is also established in the books of the Shia. Hence it is narrated in their reliable books that Jafar narrates from his father that his father ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu would not ascribe disbelief or hypocrisy to anyone who fought against him. But he would say, “They have rebelled against us.”
However, the belief of Taqiyyah which they hold makes their dogma the religion of their scholars and not of the Imams. Al Hurr al ‘Amili has thus commented with the following remarks after this narration:
أقول هذا محمول علي التقية.
I say that this was by way of Taqiyyah.
In the letter which ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu wrote to the people of the various cities he depicts what had transpired between him and the people of Siffin. He writes:
وكان بدأ أمرنا التقينا والقوم من أهل الشام، والظاهر أن ربنا واحد ودعوتنا إلي الإسلام واحدة، ولا نستزيدهم في الإيمان بالله والتصديق برسوله، ولا يستزيدوننا. والأمر واحد إلا ما اختلفنا فيه من دم عثمان ونحن منه براء.
It all started when we and the people of Syria confronted one another. Obviously our Lord is one and our propagation of Islam is the same. We were not confronting them to increase them in their faith in Allah and in the affirmation of his Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Nor were they confronting us for that. The conflict was for one reason, viz. the blood of ‘Uthman in which we are completely innocent.
He likewise reproached those who criticised Muawiyah radiya Llahu ‘anhu and his comrades. He said:
إني أكره لكم أن تكونوا سبابين، ولو وصفتم إعمالهم وذكرتم حالهم كان أصوب في القول وأبلغ في العذر، وقلتم مكان سبكم إياهم: اللهم احقن دماءنا ودماءهم أصلح ذات بيننا وبينهم.
I dislike that you criticise excessively. But if you describe their crimes and state their condition, that would be more accurate in terms of speech and more effective in absolving you of your responsibility. Likewise it would be better for you to say, “O Allah safeguard our blood and their blood and resolve the differences between us and them.”
Hence, based on what features in their most authentic books, the tendency of reviling and criticising was not the way of Amir al Mu’minin.
Fifthly, those whom the Shia exclude from their blanket ruling of apostasy, like Salman, ‘Ammar, and Miqdad, they only exclude them assuming that they had the Shia tendencies of excommunicating Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and of considering their rule to be illegitimate. This again is one of the many ploys of the Shia. For no one is known to have struggled for authority against Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma during their rule; not these people and not anyone else. Salman radiya Llahu ‘anhu was in fact appointed as the governor of Mada’in by ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu and he would invite the people to be loyal and obedient to him. Likewise ‘Ammar radiya Llahu ‘anhu was appointed as the governor of Kufah by ‘Uthman. And Miqdad radiya Llahu ‘anhu and the other Sahabah participated in the expeditions in their eras. So can the deceit of the Shia be successful?
Sixthly, the condition of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum is very clear from history and its famous incidents i.e. they did not give preference to anything over Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala even when they were confronted with the most difficult of conditions. They sacrificed their lives for Allah and Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala aided them with his Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and utilised them for the propagation of His din. So how can a person who barely knows Allah revile them? Or how can someone who claims to be a Muslim have the audacity to revile and belittle them? Al Khatib al Baghdadi, therefore, says:
علي أنه لو لم يرد من الله عزوجل فيهم شيء مما ذكرناه لأوجبت الحال التي كانوا عليها من الهجرة الجهاد والنصرة وبذل المهج والأموال وقتل الآباء والأولاد والمناصحة في الدين وقوة الإيمان واليقين القطع علي عدالتهم والإعتقاد بنزاهتم.
Even if hypothetically the previously mentioned commendations by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala were not revealed regarding them, their migration, striving, helping the din of Allah, sacrificing their lives and belongings, claiming the lives of their fathers and children, well-wishing for the din and strong iman all demand that we conclusively decide that they were people of upstanding conduct and innocent.
A person who will study the incidents of the life of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the difficulties and harassments which he and his Companions underwent when the Arabs all united in their attack against them, and the manner in which they bore the persecution of Quraysh in Makkah, persevered the harshness of the boycott in the valley, left their mother-land, families and tribes and migrated to Abyssinia and Madinah, took up the task of striving in the path of Allah and sacrificed therein, fought their own families and tribes, etc.; I say, if a person studies all of this he will appreciate the value of this unique generation, its strong faith, and its loyalty for the cause of din.
Seventhly, there are many academic evidences and hard historical facts from the life of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu which establish the true affinity and close relationship which he had with Abu Bakr ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman the elite among the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. The strongest of evidence in this regard is the wedding of Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu of his daughter Umm Kulthum to ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu. So if ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, according to the Twelvers was worst in his disbelief then even Shaitan, why do they not for a while reflect over their stance and why do they not realise the falsity of their dogma. For if Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma were really disbelievers, then for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu to get his daughter Umm Kulthum married to a disbeliever and an imposter like ‘Umar would be making his daughter vulnerable to adultery, for a disbelieving man to have conjugal relations with a Muslim women cannot be termed as anything but adultery.
An intelligent person who is impartial, free from ulterior motives and is sincere in his partisanship to the Ahlul Bayt cannot deny this fact, i.e. the fact that there existed amiable relationships, love and respect among the four Khulafa’. Hence when Mu’izz al Dawlah, Ahmed ibn Buwayh who was staunch Shia who would revile the Sahabah, was told that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu wed his daughter to ‘Umar ibn al Khattab radiya Llahu ‘anhu he was immediately gripped with compunction and he said, “I did not know of this.” He then repented and gave charity of most of his wealth and freed his slaves. He thereafter desisted from much of his oppression and he cried till he fell unconscious. This was because he realised the severity of his crime which made him revile and criticise these poor people after being influenced by the Shia.
And as usual, the scholars of the Shia have again tried to curb the impact of this evidence by forging narrations which state that:
هذا فرج غصبناه
This is the first of our women who was forcibly taken from us.
They without realising, made the problem even more complicated. For by the aforementioned assertion the have portrayed Amir al Mu’minin to be a pander who was unable to defend the honour of his family and allowed adultery. Can someone perceive this regarding Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali, may Allah be pleased with him and elevate his status? The lowest of Arabs in stature will defend his integrity and will fight on behalf of the womenfolk of his household, so how can they prove this type of shortfall regarding Amir al Mu’minin who was bold, valiant, the lion of Banu Hashim, and the lion of Allah among the people of the east and west.
Hence, ostensibly some of their scholars were not satisfied with this interpretation of the incident so they tried to do away with it by an even more weird assertion; they asserted that Umm Kulthum was not the daughter of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu but she was a Jinniyyah (a female jinn) who took the form of Umm Kulthum.
Lastly, another very strong proof is the kinship, and the expression of love which existed between them. For ‘Ali, Hassan, and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum named some of their children with the names Abu Bakr and ‘Umar. Will someone ever name his children after his most ardent enemies in terms of hate and disbelief? And can he bear the names of these enemies being continuously repeated in his home multiple times?
 Al I’tiqadat p.111; Bihar al Anwar 27/62.
 Al Tusi: Talkhis al Shafi 4/131; Bihar al Anwar 8/368.
 Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli: al Alfayn p. 3
 Al Mufid: al Masa’il. Al Majlisi also cites this verdict of his in Bihar al Anwar 8/366.
 Al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 2/279.
Al Nawawi: Sharh Muslim 15/174.
 Sharh al Usul al Kahmsah p. 761.
 Al Farq bayn al Firaq p. 321.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/128.
 Al Bazdawi: Usul al Din p. 247-248.
 Note that ‘Abd al Qahir does generalise this stance for all the Imamiyyah; al Ash’ari thus alludes to the fact that there are two sects among them in this regard (see: Maqalat al Islamiyyin 1/128-129).
 Majmu’ Fatawa Sheikh al Islam 3/356.
 Book of Sulaim ibn Qais p. 74-75.
 Al Kulayni: al Kafi 2/244.
 Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 1/199.
 Hashim al Bahrani: al Burhan 1/319.
 Muhsin al Kashani: al Safi 1/389.
 Al Huwayzini: Nur al Thaqalayn 1/396.
 Al Mufid: al Ikhtisas p. 4-5.
 Ibn Idris: al Sara’ir p. 468
 Bihar al Anwar 22/245, 351, 352, 440.
 One of their contemporaries, ‘Ali Akbar al Ghafari commenting upon this narration states, “Meaning that he indicated with three fingers of his hand. He meant Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad. (al Kafi 2-244: footnotes). As you can see this fallacious belief did not leave the minds of their scholars till these times. More details will appear in the Chapter regarding the contemporary Shia.
 Usul al Kafi: Chapter regarding belief and disbelief: Sub-chapter regarding the meagre number of the believers: 2/244; Rijal al Kashshi p. 7; Bihar al Anwar 22/345.
 Rijal al Kashshi p. 6; al Kafi (with the commentary of al Mazindarani): Chapter regarding the Orchard: 12/321-322
 Talbib means to gather the clothes by the neck and then pull them (Rijal al Kashshi p. 11).
 Waja’a in the Arabic language means to strike with the hand or the knife (Ibid.)
 Rijal al Kashshi p. 11; Bihar al Anwar 22/440.
 Ibid. p. 15.
 Ibid. p. 11.
 Ibid. p. 17.
 Meaning after the demise of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the allegiance of the people to Abu Bakr (according to the Shia).
 Their scholar al Ardabili says, “Abu Sasan’s name was Hussain ibn Mundhir. It also said that his name was Abu Sinan.” He then cites the narration of al Kashshi (Jami’ al Ruwat 2/387). Ibn Hajar has mentioned that he was rather known as Hudayn ibn al Mundhir ibn al Harith al Raqqashi. He further says that he was one of the commanders of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu in the Battle of Siffin. He was a reliable transmitter who passed away at the beginning of the second century. (Taqrib al Tahdhib 1/185).
 Referring to ‘Ammar ibn Yasir.
 Al Ardabili says that Shatirah was one of the companions of Amir al Mu’minin. He then cites the narration of al Kashshi for a second time. (Jami’ al Ruwat 1/398)
 Al Ardabili says, “Abu ‘Amrah al Ansari’s name was Tha’labah ibn ‘Amr. He was from the elite companions of Amir al Mu’minin. (Jami’ al Ruwat 2/408). Ibn ‘Abd al Barr says, “Abu ‘Amrah al Ansari, there is difference of opinion regarding his name. Some say: ‘Amr ibn Muhsan; some; Tha’labah ibn ‘Amr ibn Muhsan; some; Bashir ibn ‘Amr ibn Muhsan ibn ‘Atik which is the correct name (if Allah wills). He was martyred in the Battle of Siffin whilst fighting alongside Amir al Mu’minin ‘Ali.” (Al Isti’ab 4/133-134; al Isabah 4/441; Usd al Ghabah 5/263).
 Rijal al Kashshi p. 7.
 Ibid. p. 11-12.
 Al Ikhtisas p. 63; al Himyari: Qurb al Isnad p. 38; Bihar al Anwar 22/322.
 Do a comparison between this narration which I have cited here with reference to al Kashshi and al Tusi and the narration which features in Qurb al Isnad of al Himyari. It reads as follows:
فوالله ما وفي بها إلا سبعة: سلمان و أبو ذر، وعمار، والمقداد بن الأسود، والكندي، وجابر بن عبد الله، ومولي لرسول الله صلي الله عليه وسلم يدعي ثبيتا، وزيد بن أرقم
By Allah only seven people fulfilled its right viz. Salman, Abu Dhar, ‘Ammar, al Miqdad ibn al Aswad, al Kindi, Jabir ibn ‘Abdullah al Ansari, a slave of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam who was known as Thubayt, and Zaid ibn Arqam.” (Qurb al Isnad p. 38; Bihar al Anwar 22/322).
 Because at other times they interpret them to mean their Imams.
 Surah al Anfal: 2, 3.
 Tafsir al Qummi 1/255; Bihar al Anwar 22/322.
 See for example al Kafi: Chapter regarding the subtle indications to Wilayah: 1/412-436: therein there are ninety two narrations. And also refer to b) Their Belief that Most of the Qur’an was Revealed Regarding them and Their Enemies
 Al Bahbudi: Muqaddamah al Bihar p. 19.
 Bihar al Anwar 8/208-252.
 Al Ma’alim al Zulfa 324.
 Ibid. p.325.
 This narration clearly excommunicates all the Muslim rulers till the Day of Judgment.
 This is the excommunication of any person who does not believe in the Twelve Imams which entails the excommunication of all the Muslims from the first to the last.
 Usul al Kafi 1/373-374; al Nu’mani: al Ghaybah p. 70; Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 1/178; Bihar al Anwar 25/111.
 Usul al Kafi 1/354.
 Man La Yahduruhu al Faqih 2/354.
 Mustadrak al Wasa’il 10/354.
 Like the writings of Musa Jar Allah in his book al WaShia and that of Ihsan Ilahi Zahir in his book al Sunnah wa al Shia.
 Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 2/116; Bihar al Anwar 27/58.
 Both mean ‘young camel’.
 Bihar al Anwar 27/58.
 Surah al Hijr: 44
 Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 2/243; al Burhan 2/345.
 Bihar al Anwar 4/378, 8/220.
 Surah al Nur: 21.
 Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 1/102; al Burhan 1/208; Tafsir al Safi 1/242.
 Surah al Nur: 40.
 Tafsir al Qummi 2/106; Bihar al Anwar 23/304-305.
 Bihar al Anwar 23/306.
 Surah al Shams: 3, 4.
 Kanz al Fawa’id p. 389-390; Bihar al Anwar 24/72-73.
 Bihar al Anwar 24/73.
 See: Tafsir al Qummi 1/301. He subtly indicates to the Sheikhayn with the titles ‘so and so’ and ‘so and so’. But when al Kashani reports the narration from him he rather emphatically mentions the names (Tafsir al Safi 2/359).
 This is the wording of Tafsir al Safi. And in Tafsir al Qummi the wording is ‘the second said’.
 It is not unclear to an intelligent person that the fabricator of this statement intended to attack the integrity of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam himself before anyone else. Because he wants the people to assume that if his close associates did not accept his message despite living with him and seeing his miracles then others would more so not accept his message. He likewise wants them to assume that he was an evil person who had evil companions, as was previously elucidated by the pious predecessors. The Shia thus criticise Islam itself in a very deceitful and surreptitious way in order to misguide the gullible, i.e. by criticising the transmitter in order to discredit the transmitted.
 Tafsir al Safi 2/359; Tafsir al Qummi 1/301.
 Bihar al Anwar 22/242; al Khisal 1/190. A contemporary Shia scholar by the name of ‘Abd al Hussain al Musawi has written a book regarding Abu Hurairah. Therein he concludes that he was a hypocrite and a disbeliever (See: Abu Hurairah). And likewise study the responses written in the following: Muhammad ‘Ajaj al Khatib p. 601; ‘Abd al Mun’im al ‘Azzi: Difa’ ‘an Abi Hurairah; ‘Abd al Rahman al Zar’i: Abu Hurairah wa Aqlam al Haqidin.
 Rijal al Kashshi p. 45.
 They have said regarding the two of them, “They were both leaders from the leaders of disbelief.” (See: Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 2/77-78; al Burhan 2/107; Tafsir al Safi 2/324).
 Al I’tiqadat p. 112-113, Bihar al Anwar 27/62.
Al ‘Uyun wa al Mahasin 2/122-123.
 Ibid. 1/9.
 See how he uses the word ‘Din’. It indicates that the “din” of the Imamiyyah is a din by itself which is different than the din of Islam. And without a doubt, based on what al Majlisi has documented in his Bihar, it is a din by itself which has nothing to do with din of Islam.
 Al Majlisi: al I’tiqadat p. 90-91.
 Wasa’il al Shia 5/389.
 Furu’ al Kafi 1/95; al Tusi: Tahdhib 1/227; Wasa’il al Shia 4/1037.
 Mustadrak al Wasa’il 1/342.
 Bihar al Anwar: Chapter regarding visiting Fatimah 100/197. Also refer to p. 198 and p. 200 of the same volume.
 See for example some of their fallacious narrations regarding the alleged conflict with regards to the bequest of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which they attribute to al Mas’udi (Muruj al Dhahab p. 122, onwards).
 Ibn Mutahhar al Hilli: Minhaj al Karamah p. 132.
 Ibn Taymiyah has answered all the allegations that the Shia raise on this topic in detail. He also gives a brief answer which can be summarised thus:
Even if we hypothetically consider those actions to be outright evil, they do not in any way taint their virtues, feats, and the aspect of them being from the people of Jannat. Because the punishment of a confirmed sin can be lifted in the Hereafter for many reasons, some being: repentance, good deeds which wipe out evil deeds, and calamities which expiate the sins of a person. (Minhaj al Sunnah 3/19).
 Tathbit Dala’il al Nubuwwah 1/294.
 Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 1/199; al Burhan 1/319; Tafsir al Safi 1/389.
 Rijal al Kashshi p. 53. And the verse is verse no. 72 of Surah al Isra’.
 Usul al Kafi 1/247.
 Rijal al Kashshi p. 53.
 Jafar al Najafi: Kashf al Ghita’ p. 5; Hassan al Amin: Da’irat Ma’arif al Shia 1/27.
 Al Kafi: Chapter regarding a person who claims Imamah without being deserving thereof, and a person who denies all the Imams or some of them, and a person who concedes it for someone who is not rightful: 1/372-374.
 Usul al Kafi 1/300; Rijal al Kashshi p. 57-60; Bihar al Anwar 53/90.
 Bihar al Anwar 22/246.
 Bihar al Anwar 22/227-247.
 He says, “Some of the incidents of Aisha have passed in the chapters regarding the marriage of Khadijah, and the children of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the narration which states that she accused Mariyah due to which the verse of Ifk were revealed (see how they distort the reality). The rest of her incidents will come in the narrations of the Battle of Jamal.” (Bihar al Anwar 22: 245).
 The text reads as follows:
قال علي بن أبراهيم في قوله (وضرب الله مثلا) ثم ضرب الله فيهما (يعني عائشة و حفصة زوجتي رسول الله صلي الله وسلم) مثلا فقال:ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا لِّلَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا امْرَأَتَ نُوحٍ وَامْرَأَتَ لُوطٍ ۖ كَانَتَا تَحْتَ عَبْدَيْنِ مِنْ عِبَادِنَا صَالِحَيْنِ فَخَانَتَاهُما. قال: والله ما عني بقوله فخانتاهما إلا الفاحشة، وليقيمن الحد علي فلانة فيما أتت في طريق البصرة، وكان فلان يحبها، فلما أرادت أن تخرج إلي البصرة قال لها فلان: لا يحل لك أن تخرجين-كذا- من غير محرم. فزوجت نفسها من فلان
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim al Qummi mentions regarding the verse, and Allah presents an example of those who disbelieved, “Then Allah presents an example regarding the two of them (i.e. Aisha and Hafsah, the wives of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), hence he says, “And Allah presents an example of those who disbelieved: the wife of Nuh and the wife of Lut. They were under two of our righteous servants but betrayed them…” By Allah he did not intend anyone but the obscene lady in “but they betrayed them”. He will most certainly establish the punishment upon so and so for the crime she perpetrated on the way to Basrah. So and so used to love her, so when she wanted to leave for Basrah then so and so said to her, “You cannot leave without a Mahram.” So she married herself to him…
(This is the text of al Qummi as documented by al Majlisi in Bihar al Anwar 22/240. As for the text from the exegesis of al Qummi itself, the text does feature there. But the person who revised the book omitted the word Basrah which appears twice and replaced it with dots. (See: Tafsir al Qummi 2/377).
This text does not explicitly mention names. So who is meant in the statement, “Hhe will most certainly establish the punishment,” and who are meant by ‘so and so lady’ and ‘so and so man’? The Sheikh of the Shia, al Majlisi, due to living under the Safawid rule, has removed the veil of Taqiyyah and has explicitly mentioned the names. He says, “He will most certainly establish the punishment upon her refers to the Mahdi when he will return, as will be mention ahead (I have cited the text he is referring to under the discussion of Ghaybah. Therein he explicitly mentions the name of Aisha. However, he alleges that the reason for her punishment is the accusation she levelled against Mariyah; he does not boldly accuse her there of that which he accuses her of here). And ‘so and so man’ refers to Talhah. (Bihar al Anwar 22/241).
This text as you have seen, appears in the exegesis of al Qummi which is classed a reliable source by their contemporary scholars. The reviser thereof does not critique his exegesis in any way. Hence this an indictment to them and their predecessors. The reviser of Bihar al Anwar has, however, commented upon this text but in defence of their scholar al Qummi and not in defence of Aisha the mother of the believers. She does not require the testification of anyone to her chastity after the testification of Allah in her favour, but I am just mentioning this to show the gravity of their slander.
 Tafsir ibn Kathir 3/289-290. Also see: Ibn Taymiyah: al Sarim al Maslul p. 571.
 Tafsir al Qurtubi 12/206.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 1/5.
 Al Kafi: 1/372-374.
 Al Kafi: 1/274-276.
 Bihar al Anwar 25/110, onwards.
 Al Kafi with the commentary of al Mazindarani 12/371; Bihar al Anwar 25/113.
 Al Mazindarani: Sharh al Jami’ 12/371; Bihar al Anwar 25/113.
 Mir’at al ‘Uqul 4: 378.
 Bihar al Anwar 4: 385.
 Usul al Kafi 2/409.
 Ibid. 2/410.
 It is famous regarding Malik and his students that they would consider the consensus of the people of Madinah to be evidence. The other scholars have disputed this stance of theirs. However, it is only the consensus of those golden ages which is evidence. As for the times that followed, all the scholars are unanimous that the consensus of the people thereof is not evidence. (Majmu’ Fatawa Sheikh al Islam 20/300)
 Al Fatawa 20/299-300.
 The mention of this will come ahead under the topic of the empire of the Ayatollahs. In the fourth section of the book.
 ‘Ali Akbar al Ghifari: Usul al Kafi 2/409-410 (footnote).
 Bihar al Anwar 60/208; Tafsir al Qummi p. 596.
 Bihar al Anwar 60/208-209; Qurb al Isnad p. 220; Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 1/304; al Burhan 1/456.
 Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 1/305; Bihar al Anwar 60/210; al Burhan 1/457.
 Bihar al Anwar 60/211.
 Bihar al Anwar 2/2970.
 Sahih Muslim 2/2970.
 Bihar al Anwar 60/209 (with reference to Basa’ir al Darajat)
 Transgressor, devil, idol.
 Surah al Nisa’: 60. And the narration appears in Usul al Kafi 1/67.
 See: Chapter regarding Sunnah and the discussion regarding belief in the books. Likewise see the chapter regarding occultation.
 Tafsir al Tabari 8/507; Tafsir al Baghawi 1/446.
 Al Hukumah al Islamiyyah p. 74.
 Usul al Kafi 1/67 (footnotes)
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/39. A judge from the Ahlus Sunnah who is appointed as a judge in an area which is populated by the Shia told me that the Shia are keen on bringing their cases to the Ahlus Sunnah in order to procure their rights; they prefer not going to their own scholars. Ostensibly, they only go to their scholars when they are forced to do by way of threats and warnings of depravation and Jahannam.
 Usul al Kafi 2/4.
 This is the title they normally use for the Ahlus Sunnah. It can also include everyone who opposes them.
 Bihar al Anwar 2/216. He attributes the narration to al Sara’ir of Ibn Idris.
 Usul al Kafi 1/392-393; Tafsir al Thaqalayn 4/132.
 It has passed already that the later generations of the Shia also denied pre-destiny. Hence this curse encompasses them as well.
 Usul al Kafi 2/387, 409.
 Furu’ al Kafi (with the commentary Mir’at al ‘Uqul) 4/371
 Mir’at al ‘Uqul 4/371.
 Rijal al Kashshi p. 199; Bihar al Anwar 72/179.
 Al Kafi (with the commentary of al Mazindarani): Kitab al Rawdah 12/304; Miftah Kutub al Arba’ah 8/76.
 Bihar al Anwar 72/181.
 Bihar al Anwar 72/181.
 Bihar al Anwar 72/137-138.
 Mir’at al ‘Uqul 4/72.
 Ibid. 4/72-73.
 Awa’il al Maqalat p. 15.
 Bihar al Anwar 72/131.
 Because he refined Rijal al Kashshi and chose to work on it.
 To phrase the sentence in this way is prohibited due to it polytheistic implication. It should rather be said, “We complain to Allah first and then to you.” But the deviance of the Shia is way beyond this one point. However, I mentioned this for the benefit of the reader.
 Rijal al Kashshi 498-499.
 Oppression and usurpation according to them is the rulership of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman. (See: al I’tiqadat p. 112-113).
 I.e. was happy with the rulership of Abu Bakr. Because according to them it was based on oppression and usurpation. In this way this curse includes the entire Ummah with the exception of the extremist Shia of course.
 By appointing Abu Bakr.
 The Wilayah of ‘Ali starts from the time of the demise of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Hence whoever concedes the rulership of the first three Khulafa’ according to them denies the rulership of ‘Ali. (See: al Irshad p. 13)
 From Jawabit, onwards, according to them these terms refer to the Muslim rulers, especially the first three rulers, and the Umayyad rulers. And the equal who is worshipped besides Allah is an Imam or leader who people give their allegiance to other than the Twelve Imams. (Refer back to their belief regarding the oneness of Allah in terms of him being the deity who is worthy of worship).
 Man la Yahduruhu al Faqih 2/354.
 They say that at the birth of every child a devil comes to him in order to incite him to do evil. And no one besides the Shia according to them is safe from this. Their narrations and citations in this regard have passed – Footnote 71 of Earlier post – Click here
 This is one of the Chapters of Bihar al Anwar 7/237.
 One such example is the following narration which is narrated from Abu Basir, “I asked Abu Jafar thus, “I am your supporter and your friend. And I have weak vision, so can you promise me Jannat?”
He said, “Should I not show a sign of the truthfulness of the Imams?”
I said, “You will not suffer any loss if you have to do so.”
He thus said, “Do you really want to see it?”
I said, “Why not?”
Hence he rubbed his hand over my eyes and suddenly I was able to see the entire orchard wherein he was sitting.
He then said, “O Abu Muhammad! This is your vision, so see what you can see.”
I thus looked around and I could not see anything besides dogs, pigs, and monkeys, so I asked, “What is this disfigured creation?”
He said, “This is the majority of this Ummah. If the veils were raised, the Shia would not see the people who oppose them in any other condition besides this condition.”
He then asked, “O Abu Muhammad! If you want I can leave you as you are and Allah will take you to task. And if you want I can guarantee you Jannat and change your condition to what it was previously.”
I told him, “I have no need to see this disfigured creation. Reinstate my previous condition, for Jannat is invaluable.”
He thus rubbed his hand on my eye and I became as I was. (Bihar al Anwar 27/30. He has sourced the narration from al Khara’ij wa al Jara’ih of al Rawandi).
 See: ‘Abdullah al ‘Alayili: al Imam al Husain (the preface of the second edition) p. 3, 4, 19; al Muntaqa p. 271-273.
 Ibn Idris: al Sara’ir p. 475; Hussain al Barqi: Tarikh al Kufah p. 62.
 Al Khawansari: Rawdat al Jannat 6/300-301; al Khumaini: al Hukumah al Islamiyyah p. 128.
 ‘Abbas al Qummi: al Kuna wa al Alqab 2/55. The day of the assassination of ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is considered a day of great celebration according to them. Hence they say, “This is a day of celebration and it is one of our best celebrations.” (See: al Jaza’iri: al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah: Chapter regarding a divine light which reveals the reward for the day ‘Umar was killed: 1/108, onwards. This the belief they hold regarding one of the giants of Islam. The reason why they harbour this malice against ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu is that he was the one who conquered the lands of Persia and annexed them to the Muslim empire. Therefore, they respect his killer and celebrate the day of his murder.
 Ibn Battah: al Ibanah p. 41.
 Al Shia wa al Tashayyu’ p. 66.
 See, for example, al Islam Fawq Kull Shay’ p. 65.
 Muhammad Bahjah al Baytar: Risalah al Islam wa al Sahabah al Kiram Bayn al Sunnah wa al Shia p. 6.
 Al Khalisi: al I’tisam bi Habl Allah p. 42.
 Surah Al ‘Imran: 110.
 Ibn Hajar al Haythami: al Sawa’iq al Muhriqah p. 7
 Ibn ‘Attiyah: al Muharrar al Wajiz: 3/193. Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al Wazir, one of the senior scholars of the Zaidiyyah, mentions the following after shedding some light on the lives of these illustrious companions the likes of who no nation on earth has ever seen before: “These feats caution an unwary person and they increase the insight of an intelligent person. Otherwise the verse, ‘You are the best of nations’ is sufficient a proof of their virtue. (Al Rawd al Basim 1/56-57. See also: Muhibb al Din al Khatib: al Jil al Thani p. 19.
 Surah al Tawbah: 100.
 Instead they have taken it a step ahead and have dubbed them disbelievers and renegades.
 Tafsir ibn Kathir 2/410.
 Al Fath: 18
 Al Fasl: 4/225.
 The mountain of Tan’im is situated at a distance of three to four miles from Makkah. This name was given because on its right is the Nuaim and on its left is the Na’im Mountains. And the valley’s name is Na’man.
 Minhaj al Sunnah (the revised version of Rashad Salim) 2/15-16.
 Ibid. 1/206.
 Al Fasl 4/226.
 Surah al Fath: 29
 Al Asfara’ini: al Tabsir fi al Din p. 25; Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4/219; Tafsir al Qasimi 15/104.
 Surah al Hadid: 10
 Surah al Ambiya’: 101, 102, 103.
 Surah Al ‘Imran: 9.
 Al Muhalla 1/42.
 Surah al Hashr: 8, 9, 10.
 Booty acquired without battle.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 1/204.
 A special measurement used in those days.
 Sahih al Bukhari: Chapter regarding the merits of the Sahabah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: 4/195; Sahih Muslim: Chapter regarding the merits of the Sahabah: Sub-chapter regarding the impermissibility of reviling the Sahabah: 2/1967; Sunan Abi Dawood: Chapter regarding Sunnah: Sub-chapter regarding the prohibition of swearing the Sahabah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam: 5/45; Sunan al Tirmidhi: Chapter of Merits: Sub-chapter no. 59: 5/695-696.
 Sahih al Bukhari: Chapter regarding testimonies: Sub-chapter regarding not falsely testifying…: 3/151; Sahih Muslim: Chapter regarding the merits of the Sahabah: Sub-Chapter regarding the virtues of the Sahabah and those who succeeded them, and those who succeeded them: 2/1962 (with similar wording).
 Sahih Muslim: Chapter regarding the merits of the Sahabah: Sub-chapter regarding the virtue of the people of Badr: 2/1941.
 Sahih Muslim: Chapter regarding the merits of the Sahabah: Sub-chapter regarding the virtue of the people of the tree: 2/1942.
 Refer to Jami’ al Usul: the fourth chapter regarding the merits and virtues of Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. Therein there are five chapters: 8/547, onwards; Imam Ahmed: Fada’il al Sahabah; al Nasa’i: Fada’il al Sahabah; al Shawkani: Durr al Sahabah fi Manaqib al Qarabah wa al Sahabah; al Kaysi: Sahabah Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam fi al Kitab wa al Sunnah p. 161.
 Al Fasl 4/159.
 This is a fabrication of ignorant people. Because the amount of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum who participated with Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in the Battle of Hunayn itself was twelve thousand, and that also was without those who tagged along by the way and the women. Thereafter the people of Hawazin came to him and embraced Islam. And Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam had left Makkah filled with people. Very similar to this was the case of Madinah. Similarly all the tribes that he passed had accepted Islam. All of the aforementioned were thus Muslims. Subsequent to that, in the Battle of Tabuk so many people were with him that a register could not encompass them. The crowds were similar in his farewell Hajj as well. And all these people without doubt were honoured with Suhbah (his companionship) (see: Ibn al Athir: Usd al Ghabah 1/12). Abu Zur’ah asserts that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam passed away and the amount of people who saw him and heard from him were more than a hundred thousand, males and females. (See: Taqrib al Rawi 2/221; al Isabah p. 4; al Dhahabi: Tajrid Asma’ al Sahabah P. ب. The most reliable stance in this regard is that their accurate amount is not known. (See: Fath al Mughith 3/111).
 Ibn Babawayh al Qummi: al Khisal p. 639-640. See also: Bihar al Anwar 22/305.
 Bihar al Anwar 22/305, 306.
 Bihar al Anwar 22/305; Amali al Saduq p. 240-241.
 Bihar al Anwar 22/309-310 (with reference to: Nawadir al Rawandi p. 23).
 Ma’ani al Ahbar p. 156- 157; Bihar al Anwar 22/307.
 Maytham al Bahrani: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah 4/97.
 Meaning his efforts for the path of Allah (see: Maytham al Bahrani: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah 4/97).
 Translation is taken from the commentary given in the above mentioned reference.
 See: The notes of Subhi Salih on Nahj al Balaghah p. 671.
 I.e. he left the Fitnah behind; he did not reach it, nor did it reach him. (Ibid.)
 Nahj al Balaghah (the revised version of Subhi al Salih) p. 350.
 Maytham al Bahrani (Kamal al Din) is one of the scholars of the Twelvers from Bahrayn. Amongst his works are: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah and Tawaffi al Bahrayn. He died in 679 A.H. (See: Mujam al Mu’allifin 13/55).
 Maytham al Bahrani: Sharh Nahj al Balaghah 4/98.
 Usul al Kafi 1/65.
 Tashih al I’tiqad p. 71.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/122.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/128.
 Al Kifayah p. 49.
 Al Qummi: al Maqalat wa al Firaq p. 20; al Nawbakhti: Firaq al Shia p. 19-20.
 This is what the Khawarij disagreed with when Ibn ‘Abbas radiya Llahu ‘anhuma debated with them (Minhaj al Sunnah 4/181).
 Minhaj al Sunnah 4/181.
 Qurb al Isnad p. 62; Wasa’il al Shia 11/62.
 Wasa’il al Shia 11/62.
 Nahj al Balaghah p. 448.
 Ibid. p. 323.
 Al Tanbih wa al Radd p. 10- 11.
 Al Kifayah p. 49. See also: al Iji: al Mawaqif p. 413.
 See: al Shaikh al Faruqi: ‘Aqd Umm Kulthum; Muhammad Siddiq: al Tahqiq al Jali fi Tazwij Umm Kulthum Bint ‘Ali.
 Al Sam’ani: al Ansab 1/347.
 Ibn al Jawzi: al Muntazam 7/38-39.
 Furu’ al Kafi 2/10; Wasa’il al Shia 7/434-435.
 Al Suwaidi: Mu’tamar al Najaf p. 86.
 Al Anwar al Nu’maniyyah 1/83-84. A similar interpretation is mentioned in the books of the Ismailiyyah (see: al Haft al Sharif p. 84).
 For details in this regard read the book of Muhibb al Din al Khatib. He has made mention of the marital relations which existed between the Ahlul Bayt and the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. And of the children of the Ahlul Bayt who were named after the three Khulafa’ and others among the Sahabah. (Hamalah Risalah al Islam al Awwalun wa ma Kanu ‘Alayhi min al Mahabbah wa al Ta’awun p. 11, onwards; Nash’ah al Shia wa Tatawwuruhu p. 12, onwards. Also refer to what Ihsan Ilahi Zahir has written in this regard in his book al Shia wa Ahlul Bayt. There is no need for repetition here.