This is the view that majority of the great Muslim scholars have held throughout history, the likes of Imam Malik, Ahmed, al Bukhari, etc.
Hereunder I will present the exact quotations of the great scholars of Islam regarding the Rawafid who are otherwise known as the Twelvers and the Jafariyyah.
I will start with the mention of the Fatwa of Imam Malik which I will follow up with the Fatwas of Imam Ahmed and Imam Bukhari. Thereafter I will present the Fatwas of the other scholars in accordance with their dates of death. I have chosen the Fatwas of only the eminent scholars of Islam, of scholars who lived with the Shia in one town or those who studied their dogma and wrote regarding them from the scholars of the Muslims.
Al Khallal narrates from Abu Bakr al Marwadhi that he said:
سمعت أبا عبد الله يقول قال مالك: الذي يشتم أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ليس لهم اسم أو قال، نصيب في الإسلام
Ibn Kathir mentions under the verse:
مُحَمَّدٌ رَّسُولُ اللَّهِ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَشِدَّاءُ عَلَى الْكُفَّارِ رُحَمَاءُ بَيْنَهُمْ تَرَاهُمْ رُكَّعًا سُجَّدًا يَبْتَغُونَ فَضْلًا مِّنَ اللَّهِ وَرِضْوَانًا سِيمَاهُمْ فِي وُجُوهِهِم مِّنْ أَثَرِ السُّجُودِ ذٰلِكَ مَثَلُهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَمَثَلُهُمْ فِي الْإِنجِيلِ كَزَرْعٍ أَخْرَجَ شَطْأَهُ فَآزَرَهُ فَاسْتَغْلَظَ فَاسْتَوَىٰ عَلَىٰ سُوقِهِ يُعْجِبُ الزُّرَّاعَ لِيَغِيظَ بِهِمُ الْكُفَّارَ
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 [i.e., Allah] may enrage by them the disbelievers…
ومن هذه الآية انتزع الإمام مالك رحمة الله عليه في رواية عنه بتكفير الروافض الذين يبغضون الصحابة رضي الله عنهم، قال: لأنهم يغيظونهم ومن غاظ الصحابة رضي الله عنهم فهو كافر لهذه الآية، ووافقه طائفة من العلماء رضي الله عنهم على ذلك
Imam Malik radiya Llahu ‘anhu has deduced from this verse that the Rawafid who hate the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum are disbelievers, according one narration from him. He says, “Because they hate the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, and whoever hates the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum is a Kafir because of this verse.” A group of scholars have agreed with him in this regard.
Al Qurtubi says:
لقد أحسن مالك في مقالته وأصاب في تأويله، فمن نقص واحدا منهم أو طعن عليه في روايته فقد رد على الله رب العالمين وأبطل شرائع الإسلام
Imam Malik has made a profound statement and is indeed correct in his interpretation. Hence whoever denigrates any of them or criticises him in his narrations has indeed rejected what Allah has said and has nullified the Shari’ah of Islam.
Several narrations have been narrated from him regarding their excommunication…
Al Khallal narrates from Abu Bakr al Marwadhi:
سألت أبا عبد الله عمن يشتم أبابكر وعمر وعائشة؟ قال: ما أراه على الإسلام
I asked Abu ‘Abdullah regarding a person who reviles Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Aisha. He replied, “I don’t see him to be on Islam.”
Al Khallal also says that ‘Abdul Malik ibn ‘Abdul Hamid informed him:
من شتم أخاف عليه الكفر مثل الروافض، ثم قال: من شتم أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا نأمن أن يكون قد مرق من الدين
He who reviles, we fear disbelief upon him, like the Rawafid. He then said, “Whoever reviles the Companions of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam we fear regarding him leaving the fold of Islam.
He also says that ‘Abdullah ibn Ahmed ibn Hanbal informed him that:
سألت أبي عن رجل شتم رجلا من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: ما أراه على الإسلام
I asked my father regarding a person who reviles an individual from the Sahabah of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He replied, “I do not consider him to be upon Islam.”
Likewise the following appears in Kitab al Sunnah of Imam Ahmed regarding the Rafidah:
هم الذين يتبرأون من أصحاب النبي محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم يسبونهم وينتقصونهم ويكفرون ألأئمة إلا أربعة: علي وعمار والمقداد وسلمان وليست الرافضة من الإسلام في شيء
They are the people who disassociate themselves from the Sahabah of Nabi Muhammad salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, revile them, and excommunicate all the leaders besides four: ‘Ali, ‘Ammar, Miqdad and Salman. The Rafidah have nothing to do with Islam.
As has passed, the Twelvers excommunicate all the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum besides a few who do not amount to the fingers of the hand. They curse them in their prayers and their visitations of the shrines, holy sites, and in their canonical books. They also excommunicate all those who follow them till the Day of Judgment.
Ibn ‘Abdul Qawi mentions:
وكان الإمام أحمد يكفر من تبرأ منهم (أي الصحابة) ومن سب عائشة أم المؤمنين ورماها مما برأها الله منه وكان يقرأ يَعِظُكُمُ اللَّهُ أَن تَعُودُوا لِمِثْلِهِ أَبَدًا إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِين
Imam Ahmed would excommunicate any person who disassociated himself from the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and reviled ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha, the Mother of the Believers, and accused her of what Allah has exonerated her from. He would often read the verse: Allah warns you against returning to the likes of this [conduct], ever, if you should be believers.
Ibn Taymiyyah has, however, mentioned in his Majmu’ al Fatawa that there is difference of opinion regarding the excommunication of the Rawafid reported from Imam Ahmed and others. But the citations from Imam Ahmed that have passed are explicit regarding his excommunication of the Shia.
Ibn Taymiyyah has alluded to the reason why some scholars have not excommunicated those who revile the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum which maybe resolves the apparent contradiction in the statements of Imam Ahmed:
وأما من سبهم سبا لا يقدح في عدالتهم ولا في دينهم مثل وصف بعضهم بالبخل أو الجبن أو قلة العلم أو عدم الزهد ونحو ذلك فهذا هو الذي يستحق التأديب والتعزير، ولا نحكم بكفره بمجرد ذلك، وعلى هذا يحمل كلام من لم يكفرهم من أهل العلم
As for those who revile them in ways which do not tarnish their integrity and their Din, for example, by describing some of them with miserliness, cowardice, lack of knowledge and lack of disinclination from this world, etc., they deserve to be disciplined and punished. But we will not excommunicate them merely because of that. The statements of those who do not excommunicate them from the people of knowledge will be interpreted in this light.
In other words those who revile them in ways that tarnish their integrity and Din will be considered a disbeliever according to the people of knowledge.
ما أبالي صليت خلف الجهمي والرافضي أم صليت خلف اليهود والنصارى، ولا يسلم عليهم ولا يعادون ولايناكحون ولا يشهدون ولا تؤكل ذبائحهم
I do not bother whether I read Salah behind a Jahmi and a Rafidi or behind the Jews and the Christians. They will not be greeted, they will not be visited, marriages cannot be contracted with them, they cannot testify and their slaughtered animals cannot be eaten.
ليس لرافضي شفعة إلا لمسلم
Al Bukhari says that ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi said:
هما ملتان الجهمية والرافضية
They are two distinct religions: the Jahmiyyah and the Rafidiyyah.
Al Khallal has narrated:
أخبرني حرب بن إسماعيل الكرماني، قال: حدثنا موسى بن هارون بن زياد قال: سمعت الفريابي ورجل يسأله عمن شتم أبا بكر قال: كافر، قال: فيصلى عليه، قال: لا. سألته كيف يصنع به وهو يقول لا إله إلا الله، قال: لا تمسوه بأيديكم ارفعوه بالخشب حتى تواروه في حفرته
Harb ibn Ismail al Kirmani informed me — Musa ibn Harun narrated to us, “I heard al Firyabi saying when a person asked him regarding someone who reviles Abu Bakr, ‘He is a disbeliever.’ He further asked, “Will his funeral prayer be performed?” to which he replied, “No.” I then asked him what should be done with him when he professes that there is none worthy of worship besides Allah?” He replied, “Do not touch him with your hands, raise him with a stick till you cover him in a whole.”
لو أن يهوديا ذبح شاة وذبح رافضي شاة لأكلت ذبيحة اليهودي ولم آكل ذبيحة الرافضي لأنه مرتد عن الإسلام
If a Jew slaughters an animal and a Shia slaughters an animal, I would rather eat the slaughtered animal of the Jew and not eat the slaughtered animal of the Shia, because he is an apostate.
إذا رأيت الرجل ينتقص أحدا من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فاعلم أنه زنديق، لأن مؤدى قوله إلى إبطال القرآن والسنة
If you see a person denigrating any of the Companions of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam then know that he is a heretic, because the implication of his statement is rendering the Qur’an and the Sunnah false.
بأن غلو الرافضة في حب علي المتمثل في تقديمه على من قدمه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وصحابته عليه، وادعائهم له شركة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في نبوته، وعلم الغيب للأئمة من ولده وتلك الأقاويل والأمور السرية قد جمعت إلى الكذب والكفر أفراط الجهل والغباوة
The fanaticism of the Rafidah in the love of ‘Ali which is represented in giving him preference over those to whom Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Companions gave preference, their claim that he shared prophethood with Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, their claim that knowledge of the unseen was accorded to the Imams of his progeny, and all those other eerie views and clandestine matters, have gathered ignorance and foolishness coupled with lies and Kufr, disbelief.
وأما أهل الأهواء من الجارودية والهشامية والجهمية والإمامية الذين أكفروا خيار الصحابة… فإنا نكفرها ولا تجوز الصلاة عليهم عندنا ولا الصلاة خلفهم
As for the heretics, i.e. the Jarudiyyah, the Hishamiyyah, the Jahmiyyah and the Imamiyyah who excommunicate the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, we excommunicate them. It is not permissible to perform their funeral prayers nor is it permissible to read Salah behind them.
He also says:
وتكفير هؤلاء واجب في إجازتهم على الله البداء، وقولهم بأنه قد يريد شيئا ثم يبدو له، وقد زعموا أنه إذا أمربشيء ثم نسخه فإنما نسخه لأنه بدا له فيه. وما رأينا ولا سمعنا بنوع من الكفر إلا وجدنا شعبة منه في مذهب الرافضة
Excommunicating these people is compulsory because of their belief of Bada’, i.e. their belief that he at times can intend something and subsequently otherwise can occur to him; they claim that when he issues an order regarding something and thereafter abrogates it he abrogates it because otherwise occurred to him. We have not seen or heard of any type of disbelief but that we have found a portion of it in the dogma of the Rafidah.
وأما الرافضة فالحكم فيهم.. إن كفر الصحابة أو فسقهم بمعنى يستوجب به النار فهو كافر
As for the Rafidah, the ruling regarding them… is that if he excommunicates the Sahabah or impugns them in a way that necessitates Hell-fire; he is a disbeliever.
وأما قولهم (يعني النصارى) في دعوى الروافض بتديل القرآن فإن الروافض ليسوا من المسلمين، إنما هي فرقة حدث أولها بعد موت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم بخمس وعشرين سنة… وهي طائفة تجري مجرى اليهود والنصارى في الكذب والكفر
As for their claim (the Christians) regarding the belief of the Rafidah regarding the distortion of the Qur’an, the Rawafid are not Muslims; their spearheaders emerged twenty five years after the demise of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. They are a sect like the Jews and the Christians in falsehood and disbelief.
He also says:
ومن قول الإمامية قديما وحديثا أن القرآن مبدل
The Imamiyyah in the past and present aver that the Qur’an is distorted.
Thereafter he says:
القول بأن بين اللوحين تبديلا كفر صريح وتكذيب لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
The view that distortion occurred between the two covers is emphatic disbelief and a refutation of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
He also says:
ولا خلاف بين أحد من الفرق المنتمية إلى المسلمين من أهل السنة والمعتزلة والخوارج والمرجئة والزيدية في وجوب الأخذ بما في القرآن وأنه المتلو عندنا… وإنما خالف في ذلك قوم من غلاة الروافض وهم كفار بذلك مشركون عند جميع أهل الإسلام وليس كلامنا مع هؤلاء وإنما كلامنا مع أهل ملتنا
There is no dispute between the various subsects which subscribe to Islam, viz. the Ahlus Sunnah, the Mu’tazilah, the Khawarij, the Murji’ah and the Zaidiyyah that it is compulsory to latch onto whatever is in the Qur’an and that it will be recited. Only the extremist Rawafid have differed in this regard. But they are disbelievers and polytheist according to all the Muslims and hence our discussion is not with these people, it is rather with the people of our religion.
He also says:
واعلموا أن رسول الله لم يكتم من الشريعة كلمة فما فوقها، ولا أطلع أخص الناس به من ابنة أو ابن عم أو زوجة أو صاحب على شيء من الشريعة كتمه عن الأحمر والأسود ورعاة الغنم، ولا كان عنده عليه السلام سر ولا رمز ولا باطن غير ما دعا الناس كلهم إليه، فلو كتمهم شيئا لما بلغ كما أمر، ومن قال هذا فهو كافر
Know well that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has not concealed a word or even less of the Shari’ah, nor did he impart to the closest of people to him, his daughter, son-in-law, wife or any other Companion for that matter, any aspect of the Shari’ah which he concealed from the red skinned, the black-skinned, and the shepherds. He likewise did not have any secret, sign or esoteric knowledge other than what he invited the people to. Had he concealed anything from them he would not have failed to convey as he was ordered to. And whoever says this is a disbeliever…
After citing various beliefs of the Rawafid, like the excommunication of the Sahabah, the interpolation of the Qur’an, and their anticipation of the advent of the Mahdi who will come out to them and teach them Shari’ah and thereafter asserting that all the sects of the Imamiyyah unanimously believe in all these beliefs; he says:
وليسوا في الحال على شيء من الدين، ولا مزيد على هذا النوع من الكفر إذ لا بقاء فيه على شيء من الدين
At the moment they are not upon anything of Din. And there is no extent of disbelief which is worse than this type of disbelief, for with it there is no remaining upon Din whatsoever.
ولأجل قصور فهم الروافض عنه ارتكبوا البداء ونقلوا عن علي رضي الله عنه أنه كان لا يخبر عن الغيب مخافة أن يبدو له تعالى فيه فيغيره. وحكوا عن جعفر بن محمد أنه قال: ما بدا لله في شيء كما بدا له في إسماعيل أي في أمره بذبحه… وهذا هو الكفر الصريح، ونسبة الإله تعالى إلى الجهل والتغير ويدل على استحالته ما دل على أنه محيط بكل شيء علما
Due to the Rawafid not being able to fully grasp this concept they invented the idea of Bada’. Hence they narrate from ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu that he would not give information regarding the matters of the unseen due to the fear that otherwise could occur to Allah due to which he would change a particular matter. Likewise they have narrated from Jafar ibn Muhammad that he said, “In nothing has otherwise occurred to Allah as it occurred to him regarding Ismail, i.e. his order to slaughter him…” This is outright disbelief and attribution of ignorance and change to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. The impossibility of this is clearly indicated in the verse which states that he has encompassed everything in terms of knowledge.
He likewise says:
فلو صرح مصرح بكفر أبي بكر وعمر رضي الله عنهما فقد خالف الإجماع وخرقه، ورد ما جاء في حقهم من الوعد بالجنة والثناء عليهم والحكم بصحة دينهم وثبات يقينهم وتقدمهم على سائر الخلق في أخبار كثيرة… فقائل ذلك إن بلغته الأخبار واعتقد مع ذلك كفرهم فهو كافر. بتكذيبه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فمن كذبه بكلمة من أقاويله فهو كافر بالإجماع
If someone unambiguously asserts the disbelief of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, then he has indeed violated the consensus of the Ummah and opposed it. He has rejected all the merits that have been reported regarding them deserving Jannat, regarding their praises, the validity of their Din, the firmness of their faith and their excellence over the rest of the creation, amidst other narrations. Hence if the narrations reach a person who holds this view and despite that he still avers that they are disbelievers, then he is a disbeliever due to him belying Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; any person who belies even a word of the statements of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam is a disbeliever according to the consensus of the Ummah.
نقطع بتكفير غلاة الرافضة في قولهم إن الأئمة أفضل من الأنبياء
We definitively excommunicate the extremist Rafidah who aver that the Imams are better than the Ambiya’.
He also says:
وكذلك يحكم بكفر من قال: بمشاركة علي في الرسالة للنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وبعده، وأن كل إمام يقوم مقام النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم في النبوة والحجة، وأشار بأن هذا مذهب أكثر الرافضة. وكذلك من ادعى منهم أنه يوحى إليه وإن لم يدع النبوة
وقال: وكذلك نكفر من أنكر القرآن او حرفا منه، أو غير شيئا منه أو زاد فيه كفعل الباطنية والإسماعيلية
Likewise the ruling of excommunication will be issued regarding a person who says that ‘Ali shared prophethood with Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and (enjoys prophethood) after him as well, and that every Imam is equal to Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in prophethood and authority (he has indicated that this is the viewpoint of most of the Rafidah). Likewise a person who claims that revelation is sent to him will also be excommunicated even though he does not claim Nubuwwah.
We also excommunicate anyone who rejects the Qur’an or even a letter thereof, distorts anything therein or adds to it, as is the doings of the Batiniyyah and the Ismailiyyah.
He has said:
واجتمعت الأمة على تكفير الإمامية، لأنهم يعتقدون تضليل الصحابة وينكرون إجماعهم وينسبوهنهم إلى ما يليق بهم
The Ummah has concurred upon the excommunication of the Imamiyyah; because they believe in the deviance of the Sahabah, deny their consensus, and attribute to them what fits their (the Shia) profile.
Al Razi states that the Asha’irah excommunicate the Rawafid for three reasons:
أولها: أنهم كفروا سادات المسلمين، وكل من كفر مسلما فهو كافر لقوله عليه السلام: من قال لأخيه يا كافر فقد باء به أحدهما. فإذن يجب تكفيرهم
وثانيها: أنهم كفروا قوما نص الرسول عليه السلام بالثناء عليهم وتعظيم شأنهم، فيكون تكفيرهم تكذيبا للرسول عليه السلام
وثالثها: إجماع الأمة على تكفير من كفر سادات الصحابة
Firstly, because they excommunicate eminent figures of the Muslims, and any person who excommunicates a Muslim is a disbeliever due to the hadith of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, “Whoever tells his brother, O Kafir, then one of them will return with it.” Hence it is compulsory to excommunicate them.
Secondly, because they excommunicate a people whom Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam has emphatically praised and extolled. Their excommunication (of these people) thus is a refutation of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
Thirdly, the consensus of the Ummah upon the excommunication of all those who excommunicate the noble Sahabah.
من زعم أن القرآن نقص منه آيات وكتمت، أو زعم أن له تأويلات باطنة تسقط الأعمال المشروعة، فلا خلاف في كفرهم. ومن زعم أن الصحابة ارتدوا بعد رسول الله عليه الصلاة والسلام فهذا لا ريب أيضا في كفره، لأنه مكذب لما نصه القرآن في غير موضع من الرضى عنهم والثناء عليهم. بل من يشكك في كفر مثل هذا فإن كفره متعين، فإن مضمون هذه المقالة أن نقلة الكتاب والسنة كفارا أو فساق، وإن هذه الآية التي هي كُنْتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ وخيرها هو القرن الأول، كان عامتهم كفارا أو فساقا، ومضمونها أن هذه الأمة شر الأمم وأن سابقي هذه الأمة هم شرارها وكفر هذا مما يعلم بالإضطرار من دين الإسلام.
He who claims that verses of the Qur’an were omitted or concealed, or claims that they have esoteric interpretations which drop all Shar’i obligations, there is no doubt regarding their disbelief. Likewise, he who claims that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum apostatised after Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, there is no doubt regarding his disbelief as well; because he is thereby refuting the praises and the announcements of pleasure emphatically stated regarding them in the Qur’an in several places. In fact a person who doubts the disbelief of such a person his disbelief is definite. This is because this view implies that the transmitters of Qur’an and the Sunnah were either disbelievers or imposters; the verse, ‘you are the best of nations taken out for the benefit of men’ suggests that the best thereof was the first generation, but (according to this view) majority of them were either disbelievers or imposters, which implies that this Ummah is the worst of nations and that the first generation therein are the worst among them. The disbelief contained therein is obvious in the Din of Islam.
He also says:
إنهم شر من عامة أهل الأهواء، وأحق بالقتال من الخوارج
They are worse than most of the heterodoxies and more deserving of being combatted than even the Khawarij.
Thereafter he says that they have disbelieved in what Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam came with in ways which are innumerable but by Allah.
At times they belie the traditions which are authentically reported from him and at times they deny the meanings and implications of the Qur’an.
This is so because of the following:
Ibn Taymiyyah then says:
ومن اعتقد من المنتسبين إلى العلم أو غيره أن قتال هؤلاء بمنزلة قتال البغاة الخارجين على الإمام بتأويل سائغ… فهو غالط جاهل بحقيقة شريعة الإسلام… لأن هؤلاء خارجون عن نفس شريعة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وسنته شرا من خروج الخوارج الحرورية، وليس لهم تأويل سائغ، فإن تأويل السائغ هو الجائز الذي يقر صاحبه عليه إذا لم يكن فيه جواب كتأويل العلماء المنتازعين في موارد الاجتهاد. وهؤلاء ليس لهم ذلك بالكتاب والسنة والإجماع، ولكن لهم تأويل من جنس تأويل اليهود والنصارى، وتأويلهم شر تأويلات أهل الأهواء.
Whoever from the people of knowledge avers that fighting these people is just like fighting those who rebel against the ruler due to an allowable interpretation, is indeed mistaken and ignorant of the Shari’ah of Islam; because these people have departed from the Shari’ah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his Sunnah in ways which are more reprehensible than the departure of the Khawarij; they have no allowable interpretation. An allowable interpretation is one which is inherently permissible and the proponent thereof is left (to act upon it) if there is no counterargument. But these people do not have any such interpretations, as can be established from the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Ummah; their interpretations are like the interpretations of the Jews and the Christians and are the worst of interpretations propounded by the heterodox sects.
However, although Ibn Taymiyyah excommunicates the bearers of these views, but his excommunication of a specific individual is dependent upon the establishment of evidence and the reaching of the message. Hence he gave the following Fatwa when the Muslims captured the Shia in Sham:
وقد علم أنه كان بساحل الشام جبل كبير فيه ألوف من الرافضة يسفكون دماء الناس ويأخذون أموالهم، وقتلوا خلقا عظيما وأخذوا أموالهم ولما انكسر المسلمون سنة غازان أخذوا الخيل والسلاح والأسارى وباعوهم للكفار والنصارى بقبرص، وأخذوا من مر بهم من الجند وكانوا أضر على المسلمين من جميع الأعداء، وحمل بعض أمرائهم راية النصارى، وقالوا له: إيما خير المسلمون أو النصارى؟ فقال: بل النصارى، فقالوا له: مع من تحشر يوم القيامة؟ فقال: مع النصارى وسلموا إليهم بعض بلاد المسلمين
ومع هذا فلما استشار بعض ولاة الأمر في غزوهم وكتبت جوابا مبسوطا في غزوهم… وذهبنا إلى ناحيتهم، وحضر عندي جماعة منهم وجرت بيني وبينهم مناظرات ومفاوضات يطول وصفها، فلما فتح المسلمون بلدهم، وتمكن المسلمون منهم نهيتهم عن قتلهم، وعن سبيهم وأنزلناهم في بلاد المسلمين متفرقين لئلا يجتمعوا
It is well-established that at the seaside of Sham there was a big mountain which was inhabited by thousands of Rafidah who went about shedding the blood of people and usurping their wealth; they killed a great amount of people and took their belongings. When the Muslims were defeated in the year of Ghazan they took the horses, weaponry, and prisoners and sold them to the disbelievers and the Christians in Cyprus. They also took whoever of the Muslims passed by them from the army and proved more harmful for the Muslims that all other enemies. One of their leaders even went to the extent of carrying the flag of the Christians who asked him, “Who is better, the Muslims or the Christians? To which he replied, “The Christians.” They thereafter asked, “With whom will you be raised on the Day of Judgment? He said, “With the Christians.” They handed over to them the lands of the Muslims.
Despite all of this when one of the governors consulted me regarding waging war against them, I wrote a detailed answer regarding fighting them… Subsequently we went to them and a group of their scholars visited me and debates and negotiations took place, which is too much to describe. And when the Muslims conquered their town and the Muslims had full control over them I prevented them from killing them and taking them as captives. Hence we made them settle in various parts of the Muslim lands so that they are not able to reunite.
This Fatwa of a leading scholar of the Ahlus Sunnah in his time reveals that the Ahlus Sunnah follow the truth which Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam brought to them from his lord. They do not excommunicate everyone who opposes them, rather they know the truth better and are more merciful to the bondsmen. As opposed to the various heterodoxies who invent views and ideas and excommunicate anyone who opposes them in those ideas.
After citing a few narrations which are well-established in the Sunnah and which entail a refutation of Nass (emphatic appointment), Wasiyyah (bequest), which the Shia claim for ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu he mentions the following:
ولو كان الأمر كما زعموا لما رد ذلك أحد من الصحابة فإنهم كانوا أطوع لله ولرسوله في حياته وبعد وفاته، من أن يفتاتوا عليه فيقدموا غير من قدمه، ويؤخروا من قدمه بنصه، حاشا وكلا. ومن ظن بالصحابة رضوان الله عليهم ذلك فقد نسبهم بإجمعهم إلى الفجور، والتواطؤ على معاندة الرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم ومضادتهم في حكمه ونصه، ومن وصل من الناس إلى هذا المقام فقد خلع ربقة الإسلام وكفر بإجماع الأئمة الإعلام، وكان إراقة دمه أحل من إراقة المدام.
Had the matter been as they claim, none of the Sahabah would reject that; because they were more obedient to Allah and his Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, during his lifetime and after his demise, than would invent lies against him and push forth a person other than the one whom he put forward with his emphatic appointment. This is never possible. Whoever thinks of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum in this way has indeed tainted all of them with transgression, agreeing upon opposing Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and contradicting him in his orders and emphatic appointment. And hence whoever reaches this extent has indeed renounced his allegiance to Islam and is a disbeliever according to the consensus of the eminent scholars, owing to which shedding his blood is more admissible than the spilling of wine.
It has passed already that the Rafidah claim that Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam emphatically nominated ‘Ali and that the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum rejected that appointment as a result of which they apostatised. This is unanimously propounded by their ancient and contemporary scholars.
After discussing the various sects of the Shia and their beliefs he concludes:
لايخفى على كل ذي بصيرة وفهم من المسلمين أن أكثر ما قدمناه في الباب قبله من عقائد هذه الطائفة الرافضة على اختلاف اصنافها كفر صريح، وعناد مع جهل قبيح لا يتوقف الواقف عليه من تكفيرهم والحكم عليهم بالمروق من دين الإسلام
It is not unclear to any person of insight and understanding from amongst the Muslims that most of what we presented in the previous chapter regarding the beliefs of this Rafidah cult, with all the variances, is open disbelief, obstinateness, and despicable ignorance. A person who comes to learn of them will not hesitate in excommunicating them and issuing a ruling of them departing from the Din of Islam.
He mentions a few reasons why they should be excommunicated. Amongst them are the following:
إنهم يكفرون بتكفيرهم لصحابة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الثابت تعديلهم وتزكيتهم في القرآن بقوله تعالى: لِتَكُوْنُوْا شُهَدَاءَ عَلى النَّاسِ وبشهادة الله تعالى لهم أنهم لا يكفرون بفوله تعالى: فَإِنْ يَكْفُرْ بِها هَؤُلاءِ فَقَدْ وَكَّلْنَا بِها قَوْمًا لَيْسُوْا بِهَا بِكَفِرِيْنَ.
ويكفرون باستغنائهم عن حج بيت الله الحرام بزيارة قبر الحسين لزعمهم أنهاتغفر الذنوب وتسميتهم لها الحج الأكبر، ومن ذلك انهم يكفرون بترك جهاد الكفار والغزو لهم الذي يزعمون أنه لا يجوز إلا مع الإمام المعصوم وهو غائب.
وأنهم يكفرون بإعابتهم السنن المتواتر فعلها عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من الجماعة والضحى والوتر والرواتب قبل المكتوبات من الصلوات الخمس وبعدها، وغير ذلك من السنن المؤكدات.
They are to be excommunicated due to them excommunicating the Sahabah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam whose integrity is established in the Qur’an in the verse ‘so that you may be witnesses upon the people’ and by the testimony of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala that they are not disbelievers in the verse ‘But if they [i.e., the disbelievers] deny it, then We have entrusted it to a people who are not therein disbelievers.’
They are likewise to be excommunicated on the basis that they display independence from doing Hajj to the House of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala due to replacing it with visiting the grave of Hussain, which according to them is a source of forgiveness of sins and which they deem the al Hajj al Akbar, the great Hajj.
They will also be excommunicated due to them leaving Jihad against the enemy and waging war against them which according to them is not permissible but with an infallible Imam who is absent.
Similarly they will be excommunicated due to them criticising the Sunnah of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam which are diffusely transmitted from him, for example adherence to congregational prayer, prayer of forenoon, emphasised Sunnah prayers which are to be performed before the five Salahs and after them, amongst other emphasised Sunnahs.
وأما من سب أحدا من الصحابة فهو فاسق ومبتدع بالإجماع إلا إذا اعتقد أنه مباح كما عليه الشيعة وأصحابهم أو يترتب عليه ثواب كما هو دأب كلامهم أو اعتقد كفر الصحابة وأهل السنة فأنه كافر بالإجماع
As for the one who swears any of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum he is a sinner and an innovator according to the consensus of the Ummah, unless he considers doing so to be permissible, as is the view of the Shia and their ilk, deems it to be yielding of reward, or believes in the disbelief of the Sahabah and the Ahlus Sunnah. Such a person will then be a disbeliever according to the consensus of the Ummah.
He goes on to mention several evidences from the Qur’an and the Sunnah which extoll the virtues of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and thereafter deduces therefrom the disbelief of the Shia due to their belief regarding them.
He also mentions that one of the reasons the Shia are excommunicated is because they claim that omissions and distortions have taken place in the Qur’an and presents some of their views in that regard.
Imam Muhammad ibn ‘Abdul Wahhab has issued the ruling of several doctrines of the Shia equating to disbelief. Hence after presenting the belief of the Twelvers regarding the denigration of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and cursing them, and presenting what Allah and his Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam have said regarding them, he says:
فإذا عرفت أن آيات القرآن تكاثرت في فضلهم، والأحاديث المتواترة بمجموعها ناصة على كمالهم، فمن اعتقد فسقهم أو فسق مجموعهم وارتدادهم وارتدادهم وارتداد معظمهم أو اعتقد حقية سبهم وإباحته، أو سبهم مع اعتقاد حقية سبهم أو حليته فقد كفر بالله تعالى ورسوله… والجهل بالتواتر القاطع ليس بعذر، وتأويله وصرفه عن غير دليل معتبر غير مفيد، كمن أنكر فرضية الصلوات الخمس جهلا لفرضيتها، فإنه بهذا الجهل يصير كافرا، وكذا لو أولها على غير المعنى الذي نعرفه فقد كفر، لأن العلم الحاصل من نصوص القرآن والأحاديث الدالة على فضلهم قطعي.
ومن خص بعضهم بالسب فأن كان ممن تواتر النقل في فضله وكماله كالخلفاء فإن اعتقد حقية سبه أو إباحته فقد كفر لتكذيبه ما ثبت قطعا عن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم ومكذبه كافر، وإن سبه من غير اعتقاد حقية سبه أو إباحته فقد تفسق، لأن سباب المسلم فسوق، وقد حكم بعض فيمن سب الشيخين بالكفر مطلقا. وإن كان ممن لم يتواتر النقل في فضله وكماله، فالظاهر أن سابه فاسق إلا أن يسبه من حيث صحبته لرسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فإن ذلك كفر.
وغالب هؤلاء الرافضة الذين يسبون الصحابة يعتقدون حقية سبهم أو إباحته بل وجوبه، لأنهم يتقربون بذلك إلى الله تعالى ويرون ذلك من أجل أمور دينهم
Now you have learnt that the verses of the Qur’an regarding their virtues are abundant, and the diffusely transmitted narrations are all emphatic regarding their perfection. Hence any person who believes that they were sinners/their entire group was sinful, that they apostatised/their entire group apostatised, that it is correct and permissible to denigrate them, or denigrates them considering it to be correct or permissible; has indeed disbelieved in Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. Being unware of a categorically established phenomenon of Din is no excuse; likewise interpreting such a phenomenon with an interpretation which is not backed by evidence or diverting it from its established meaning is useless. For example, a person who rejects the obligation of the five daily Salahs due to not being aware of its obligatory status, because of his unawareness he will become a disbeliever; similarly if he interprets it with an interpretation other than the one we know he will become a disbeliever. The reason being that the knowledge which we draw from the verses of the Qur’an and from the Sunnah which extoll their virtues is definitive.
Whoever denigrates a specific individual from among them, if his virtue and nobility is established through diffuse transmissions, like the Khulafa’, and the denigrator considers it correct or permissible to denigrate him, then he becomes a disbeliever, due to him belying that which is categorically established from Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; and any person who denies such an aspect is a disbeliever. However if he reviles him not considering it to be correct or permissible then he is a sinner; because reviling a believer is a sin. Some have, however, unconditionally considered a person who reviles Abu Bakr and ‘Umar to be a disbeliever.
And if he is such that his virtue is not definitively established, then apparently the one who denigrates him is a sinner, unless he reviles him due to him being a Sahabi of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam; for that is disbelief.
Most of these Rafidah who revile the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum consider it correct or permissible, in fact even compulsory to do so, because they aspire to seek closeness to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala by doing so and consider it to be the greatest aspect of their dogma.
Thereafter he says:
وما صح عن العلماء من أنه لا يكفر أهل القبلة فمحمول على من لم بدعته مكفرة… ولاشك أن تكذيب رسول الله فيما ثبت عنه قطعا كفر، والجهل في مثل ذلك ليس بعذر
And what is authentically established from the scholars regarding not excommunicating people of the Qiblah is based upon people whose innovations do not result in disbelief. It is without doubt that belying Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam in aspects which are categorically established from him is disbelief. And ignorance in such aspect is no excuse.
After presenting what features in their books regarding the interpolation of the Qur’an and omission occurring therein he says the following:
يلزم من هذا تكفير الصحابة حتى علي حيث رضوا بذلك… وتكذيب قوله تعالى: لَّا يَأْتِيهِ الْبَاطِلُ مِن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَلَا مِنْ خَلْفِهِ ۖ تَنزِيلٌ مِّنْ حَكِيمٍ حَمِيدٍ وقوله: إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ ومن اعتقد عدم صحة حفظه من الإسقاط واعتقد ما ليس منه أنه منه فقد كفر
This necessitates the excommunication of the Sahabah including ‘Ali (due to it implying) that they were ‘pleased’ with it… It also necessitates rejecting the verse: ‘Falsehood cannot approach it from before it or from behind. Indeed it is a revelation from a [Lord who is] Wise and Praiseworthy,’ and the verse: ‘it is we who sent down the message [i.e., the Qur’an], and indeed, we will be its guardian.’ Hence, any person who believes that the Qur’an was not preserved from omissions and believes what is not actually part of it to be part of it has indeed disbelieved.
He likewise says the following regarding those who beseech others as intermediaries besides Allah, as is the case of the Shia with their Imams:
ومن جعل بينه وبين الله وسائط يدعوهم يسألهم الشفاعة ويتوكل عليهم كفر إجماعا
Whoever believes in intermediaries between him and Allah, whom he asks, seeks intercession from and relies upon, he has disbelieved according to the consensus of the Ummah.
He has also said that whoever gives preference to the Imams over the Ambiya’ he has disbelieved according to the consensus of the Ummah, as is reported by several scholars.
After doing a comprehensive study of the Twelver dogma from their reliable sources he concludes thus:
ومن استكشف عقائدهم الخبيثة وما انطووا عليه، علم أن ليس لهم في الإسلام نصيب وتحقق كفرهم لديه
A person who discovers their despicable beliefs and what they entail will realise that they have no share in Islam and their disbelief will become evident to him.
إن أصل دعوة الروافض كياد الدين ومخالفة شريعة المسلمين. والعجب كل العجب من علماء الإسلام وسلاطين الدين كيف تركوهم على هذا المنكر البالغ في القبح إلى غايته ونهايته، فإن هؤلاء المخذولين لما أرادوا رد هذه الشريعة المطهرة ومخالفتها طعنوا في أعراض العقول الضعيفة بهذه الذريعة الملعونة، والوسيلة الشيطانية. فهم يظهرون السب واللعن لخير الخليقة ويضمرون العناد للشريعة ورفع أحكامها عن العباد. وليس في الكبائر أشنع من هذه الوسيلة بها إليه، فإنه أقبح منها، لأنه عناد لله عزوجل ولرسوله ولشريعته.
فكان حاصل ما هم فيه من ذلك أربع كبائر كل واحدة منها كفر بواح: الأولى: العناد لله عزوجل، والثانية: العناد لرسوله صلى الله عليه وسلم، والثالثة العناد لشريعته المطهرة ومحاولة أبطالها، والرابعة تكفير الصحابة رضي الله عنهم الموصوفين في كتاب الله بأنهم أشداء على الكفار، وإن الله تعالى يغيظ بهم الكفار، وأنه قد رضي عنهم مع أنه قد ثبت في هذه الشريعة المطهرة أن كفر مسلما كفر كما في الصحيحين وغيرهما من حديث ابن عمر أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم قال: إذا قال الرجل لأخيه يا كافر فقد باء به أحدهما، فإن كان كما قال وإلا رجعت عليه.
وبهذا يتبين أن كل رافضي خبيث يصير كافرا بتكفيره لصحابي واحد، فكيف بمن كفر كل الصحابة، واستثنى أفرادا يسيرة تغطية لما هو فيه من الضلال على الطغام الذين لا يعقلون الحجج.
The very basis of the Rafidi propagation is a plot against the Din and an opposition of the Shari’ah of the Muslims.
Astonishing indeed is the case of the scholars of Islam and the rulers of Din. How did they leave these people upon this vice which has reached its furthest extent in despicableness? When these losers intended to reject the pristine Shari’ah and oppose it, they tarnished the reputations of the bearers thereof, without whom we have no other way of accessing it. They misled people with weak minds by way of this accursed ploy and satanic means. Hence they openly revile and curse the best of creation and inwardly they bear enmity for the Shari’ah and desire to lift it away from the bondsmen.
In the major violations there is not any means more reprehensible than the means they have adopted, due to it being outright rebellion against Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, His Rasul salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and the Shari’ah. Hence the crux of what they are steeped in is four major violations, each of which is open disbelief:
1) Rebellion against Allah.
2) Rebellion against His Rasul.
3) Rebellion against His pristine Shari’ah and an attempt to discard it.
4) Excommunication of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala has described in the Qur’an by saying that they are stern against the disbelievers, that He enrages the disbeliever by way of them and that He is pleased with them.
This is besides the fact that it is well established in this pristine Shari’ah that whoever excommunicates a Muslim himself enters disbelief, as is established in the narration of Ibn ‘Umar which appear in Sahihayn wherein Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam says: “When a person says to his brother, O disbeliever, one of them returns with it; if he is the way he said (then the pronouncer will be free), or else it will return to him (the pronouncer).”
From this it is evident that every Rafidi is wicked and enters disbelief because of excommunicating even one Sahabi. What would the status of a person who excommunicates all the Sahabah and excludes only a few individuals in order to conceal his misguidance from the riffraff who do not fathom evidences, be?
Zayn al ‘Abidin ibn Yusuf al Askuni has reported in his book which he wrote during the reign of the Ottoman Sultan Muhammad Khan ibn Sultan Ibrahim Khan that the later scholars of the empire all unanimously issued Fatwas of their disbelief.
Alusi the author of the Tafsir mentions:
ذهب معظم علماء ما وراء النهر إلى كفر الإثني عشرية وحكموا بإباحة دمائهم وأموالهم وفروج نسائهم، حيث إنهم يسبون الصحابة رضي الله عنهم لا سيما الشيخين وهما السمع والبصر منه عليه الصلاة والسلام، وينكرون خلافة الصديق ويقذفون عائشة أم المؤمنين رضي الله عنها مما برأها الله تعالى منه، يفضلون بأسرهم عليا كرم الله وجهه على غير أولي العزم من المرسلين، ومنهم من يفضله عليه أيضا… ويجحدون سلامة القرآن العظيم من الزيادة والنقص
Majority of the Ma Wara’ al Nahr scholars have opined that the Twelvers are disbelievers. They have issued the ruling of their blood, wealth, and women being permissible. This is because they revile the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum, especially Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma who were like the ears and eyes of Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, they reject the Khilafah of al Siddiq and accuse ‘Aisha radiya Llahu ‘anha of that from which Allah has exonerated her, they give preference to ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu over the prophets besides the Ulu al ‘Azm, some amongst them give preference to him over them as well; and they deny the preservation of the Qur’an from additions and omissions.
These are some of the Fatwas of the scholars of Islam and their leaders in this regard. I will suffice on this amount.
In the books of Fiqh there are many more views regarding their disbelief which one can very easily refer to, and thus there is no need for mentioning them here.
Important Points worth Consideration:
Firstly, these are the rulings of the scholars before the proliferation of the books of the Rawafid and their open disclosure of their beliefs which we see today. That is why the pages of this study include some beliefs of the Twelvers which the scholars of Islam previously attributed to the Batiniyyah Qaramitah, like the issue of the omissions and distortions in the Qur’an which is well-recorded in their books; just as it includes a fair amount of their beliefs regarding the principles of Din. Over and above that, some of their beliefs which were not commonly known, like the belief of Tinah and others, were also included in this discussion.
All of this implies that the ruling regarding them today should be more hard and stern.
Secondly, the later Rafidah and the contemporaries among them have gathered the worst of ideas and the most reprehensible of them; they have adopted the idea of the Qadariyyah regarding the denial of Qadr, the ideas of the Jahmiyyah regarding the denial of the attributes of Allah and the Qur’an being created, the viewpoint of the Sufis, in the view of some of their eminent scholars, regarding the deviance of Wahdah (singularity of existence) and Ittihad (annihilation into the creator), the view of the Saba’iyyah regarding the deification of ‘Ali, the view of the Khawarij regarding the excommunication of the Muslims, and the view of the Murji’ah in asserting that with the love of ‘Ali no sin is harmful. Rather they have even treaded the path of the polytheists in venerating graves, going around them, performing Salah towards them with the Qiblah behind them, and all other actions which are purely from the religion of the polytheists.
After all of this, does there remain any doubt in this that this cult has chosen for itself a religion other than the religion of the Muslims? Although they have professed the Shahadatan but they have violated them with many a violations, as you can see.
However, it is important to consider, according to the approach of the Ahlus Sunnah regarding excommunication that these ideas which they hold, which are in complete contrast with the teachings of Rasul Allah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, are surely disbelief; likewise their actions which are akin to the actions of the disbelievers are also disbelief. But excommunicating a specific individual from those who acknowledge the same Qiblah and issuing a ruling of him being doomed to Jahannam forever is dependent upon the conditions of excommunication being met and all impediments thereof being absent. That is to say that we will make general statements based on the proof-texts pertaining to promises, warnings, impugning, and excommunicating, but a ruling regarding a specific person falling part of those generalisations will be suspended until evidence demanding that is found and is not contradicted. That is why the scholars do not excommunicate a person who, due to newly accepting Islam or due to growing up in a very distant village, considers any of the forbidden acts to be permissible; because the ruling of disbelief can only be issued after the reaching of the message, and probably amongst these people there are those whom the texts which are contrary to what they believe have not reached and therefore does not know that Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam was sent with them. Hence it will be said that a particular view constitutes disbelief, but only those people will be excommunicated against who such evidence is established that the denier thereof is rendered a disbeliever and not anyone else.
 Refer to these links:
 In the previous discussions which have passed earlier (Click Here), that the Shia consider it part of their Din to curse the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum and excommunicate them, with the exception of individuals who barely amount to the amount of fingers on the hand.
 Al Khallal: al Sunnah 2/557. The annotator of the text says that the chain or transmission is authentic.
 Surah al Fath: 29.
 Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4/219; Ruh al Ma’ani: 26/116; al Sarim al Maslul p. 579.
 The quote of one of the contemporary authorities regarding the narrations of Abu Hurairah, ‘Amr ibn al ‘As, and Samurah ibn Jundub not equating even to the wing of a mosquito has passed already. Click Here
 Tafsir al Qurtubi 16/297.
 Al Khallal: al Sunnah 2/557. The annotator says that the narration is authentic; also see: Ibn Battah: Sharh al Sunnah p. 161; al Sarim al Maslul p. 571.
 Al Khallal: al Sunnah 2/558. The annotator of the book says that the narration is authentic.
 Al Khallal: al Sunnah 2/558. See: Manaqib al Imam Ahmed of Ibn al Jawzi: p. 214.
 Imam Ahmed: al Sunnah p. 82. With the annotations of Ismail al Ansari.
 Verse no. 17 of Surah al Nur. This text appears in the book: Abu Muhammad Rizq Allah ibn ‘Abdul Qawi al Tamimi d. 480 A.H.: Ma Yadhhab Ilayh al Imam Ahmed p. 21 (manuscript).
 Al Fatawa 3/352.
 Al Sarim al Maslul p. 586; also refer to p. 571 to see the explanation given by Abu Ya’la for the narrations of non-excommunication.
 Al Bukhari: Khalq Af’al al ‘Ibad p. 125.
 ‘Abdullah ibn Idris ibn Yazid ibn ‘Abdul Rahman al Awdi. Abu Hatim said about him, “An authority who can be cited as evidence, a leader from the leader of the Muslims.” And Imam Ahmed said, “He was unique.” Ibn Sa’d said, “He was reliable, trustworthy, a narrator of many narrations, an authority and an adherent of the Sunnah and the majority.” He passed away in 192 A.H. (See: Tahdhib al Tahdhib 5/144-145; al Jarh wa al Ta’dil of Ibn Abi Hatim 5/8-9). He was from the prominent scholars of Kufah (al Sarim al Maslul p. 570) and Kufah was the hub of Shi’ism. He thus knew them and their dogma very well because every resident of the house knows better of its contents.
 Right of buying the house for the neighbour.
 Al Sarim al Maslul p. 570; ‘Ali ‘Abdul Kafi al Subki: al Saif al Maslul ‘ala man Sabb al Rasul p. 71 (of the manuscript).
 The great retainer of knowledge ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Mahdi ibn Hassan ibn ‘Abdul Rahman al ‘Anbari al Basri. Passed away in 197 A.H. (Tahdhib al Tahdhib 6/279-281).
 Khalq Af’al al ‘Ibad p. 125; Majmu’ Fatawa Sheikh al Islam 35/415.
 Muhammad ibn Yusuf al Firyabi: Al Bukhari has narrated twenty six narrations from him. He was the most virtuous of people in his time. He passed away in 212 A.H. (Tahdhib al Tahdhib 9/535).
 Al Khallal: al Sunnah 2/577. The annotator of the book says, “In its transmission is Musa ibn Harun who I could not trace.”
 Ahmed ibn Yunus ibn ‘Abdullah, attributed to his grandfather. He is one of the Imams of the Ahlus Sunnah and is from Kufah the hub of Shi’ism. Hence he would know them and their dogma better than anyone else. Ahmed ibn Hanbal said to a person, “Go to Ahmed ibn Yunus because he is the Sheikh of Islam.” The authors of the six canonical compilations have narrated from him. Abu Hatim says, “He was a reliable and proficient narrator.” Al Nasa’i says, “He was reliable.” Ibn Sa’d says, “He was reliable, truthful and an adherent of the Sunnah and the majority.” Ibn Hajar has mentioned that Ibn Yunus said, “I came to Hammad ibn Zaid and asked him to dictate to me some of the merits of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu. He asked, “Who are you?” I told him that I am from Kufah. He thus said, “A Kufi seeking the merits of ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu! By Allah I will not dictate them to you except that I will stand and you will sit.” He passed away in 227 A.H. (Tahdhib al Tahdhib 1/50; Taqrib al Tahdhib 1/29).
 Al Sarim al Maslul p. 570. The same is reported from Abu Bakr ibn Hani’ (ibid); also see: al Saif al Maslul ‘ala man Sabb al Rasul page no. 71 (manuscript).
 ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abdul Karim ibn Yazid ibn Farrukh al Makhzumi (by way of the contract of Wala’, clientage) al Razi. One of the great scholars of hadith and eminent scholars. He knew a million hadith and thus it used to be said that any hadith which Abu Zur’ah does not know has no basis. He passed away in 264 A.H.
 Abu Muhammad ‘Abdullah ibn Muslim ibn Qutaybah al Dinawari, the author of sterling books which consist of immense knowledge, as described by Ibn Kathir. He passed away in 276 A.H. (Wafayat al A’yan 2/42-44; Tarikh Baghdad 10/170-171; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 11/48).
 Al Ikhtilaf fi al Lafz wa al Radd ‘ala al Jahmiyyah wa al Mushabbihah (published by Matba’ah al Sa’adah in Egypt in the year 1349 A.H.) p.47.
 ‘Abdul Qahir ibn Tahir ibn Muhammad al Baghdadi al Tamimi al Isfara’ini Abu Mansur. He was accorded the title Sadr al Islam, the heart of Islam, during his time. He would teach seventeen different sciences. He passed away in 429 A.H. (al Subki: Tabaqat al Shafi’iyyah 5/136-145; al Qifti: Inbah al Ruwat 2/185, 86; al Suyuti: Bughyah al Wu’ah 2/105).
 Al Farq Bayn al Firaq p. 357.
 Al Milal wa al Nihal p. 52-53.
 Muhammad ibn al Hussain ibn Muhammad ibn Khalaf ibn al Farra’ Abu Ya’la. The eminent scholar of his time in the principles of Shari’ah and the secondary matters thereof. He passed away in 458 A.H.
 Al Mu’tamad p. 267.
 Al Fasl 2/213.
 Al Fasl 5/40.
 He has excluded three individuals from them, as has passed.
 Al Ihkam fi Usul al Ahkam 1/96.
 Al Fasl 2/274-275. This belief based on which Ibn Hazm is excommunicating the one who holds it has become one of the principle beliefs of the Twelvers; their contemporary and ancient scholars assert this in their books. Click Here
 Abu al Muzaffar Shahfur ibn Tahir ibn Muhammad al Isfara’ini. The great jurist, exegete and master of the principles of Shari’ah. He has written several books, two among them being al Tafsir al Kabir and al Tabsir fi al Din. He passed away in 471 A.H.
 Al Tabsir fi al Din p. 24-25.
 Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmed al Tusi al Ghazali. Ibn Kathir has said, “One of the masters of this world in any topic that is discussed. He has extensive works on various subjects. From his books are Fada’ih al Batiniyyah. He passed away in 505 A.H. (al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 12/173-174; Mir’at al Jinan 3/177-192).
 The person who studies the doctrine of Bada’ according to the Rafidah will realise that it is not a result of their lack of understanding, but that it is a well-established position to which their fanaticism regarding their Imams have driven them. This statement of al Ghazali is similar to the statement of al Amidi in Ihkam 3/109 wherein he says, “The difference between Naskh, abrogation, and Bada’ was unclear to the Rafidah.”
Commenting upon this, Sheikh ‘Abdul Razzaq al ‘Afifi says, “Whoever knows the reality of the Rafidah, is aware of their innovations and heretical nature of hiding disbelief and displaying Islam, is aware of the fact that they inherited their principles from the Jews and that they tread their path in plotting against Islam, will know that whatever lies they have contrived and espoused in the belief of Bada’ were all due to sinister motives and hate for the truth and its people; they are a sect driven by the passion to infuse falsehood, deceive and deploy the hammers of destruction secretively and openly to destroy the Shari’ah and all those countries which are governed by it. (Al Ihkam fi Usul al Ahkam 3/109-110: footnotes).
 This narration is found in the Bihar of al Majlisi (with reference to the book Qurb al Isnad) 4/97. In another narration they attribute this statement to ‘Ali ibn al Hussain (Tafsir al ‘Ayyashi 2/215; Bihar al Anwar 4/118; al Burhan 2/299; Tafsir al Safi 3/75).
 See this narration in Kitab al Tawhid of Ibn Babawayh al Qummi p. 336.
 Al Mustasfa 1/110.
 Fada’ih al Batiniyyah p. 149.
 ‘Ayad ibn Musa ibn ‘Ayad ibn ‘Amr al Yahsubi. The prominent scholar of the Andalusia and the leader of the hadith scholars of his time. He passed away in 544 A.H. (Wafayat al A’yan 3/483; al Dhahabi: al ‘Ibar 2/467; al Dabbi: Bughyah al Multamis p. 437; al Nabahi: Tarikh Qudat Andalus p. 101).
 Refer to: https://mahajjah.com/their-belief-regarding-the-fundamentals-of-iman-part-2/#section-holding-the-imams-in-higher-esteem-than-the-prophets. The contemporary Shia consider this doctrine which is steeped in disbelief to be one of the categorically established aspects of their dogma, of which a denier is considered to be disbeliever according to them (Refer to: https://mahajjah.com/discussion-7-rajah-the-return/).
Their scholar al Mamiqani says:
ومن ضروريات مذهبنا أن الأئمة عليهم السلام أفضل من أنبياء بني إسرائيل كما نطقت بذلك النصوص المتواترة… ولا شبهة عند كل ممارس لأخبار أهل البيت عليهم السلام (يعني أئمته الإثني عشر) أنه كان يصدر من الأئمة عليهم السلام خوارق للعادة نظير ما كان يصدر من الأنبياء بل أزيد، وأن الأنبياء والسلف انفتحت باب أو بابان من العلم وانفتحت للأئمة عليهم السلام بسبب العبادة والطاعة التي تذر العبد مثل الله إذا قال لشيء كن فيكون جميع الأبواب
From the categorically established aspects of our dogma is that the Imams ‘alayh al Salam are more virtuous than the Ambiya’ of Bani Isra’il, as is diffusely narrated in the narrations. For a person who studies the narrations of the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayh al Salam there remains no doubt that supernatural phenomena like those which would come forth at the hands of the Ambiya’ would occur for the Imams, in fact even more; also that for the Ambiya’ and the pious predecessors only one or two doors of worship would open, whereas for the Imams, due to their worship and diligence, such doors opened which leave a servant like Allah in that when he says to something be, it becomes. Hence that would mean all the doors. (Tanqih al Maqal 3/232.)
See how initially their virtue is equivalent to that of the Ambiya’ and however thereafter it ends with them being like Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. Pure is Allah from what the transgressors say.
 The Twelvers assert that the Imamah is higher than Nubuwwah in rank (Refer to: https://mahajjah.com/section-three-4-the-concept-of-imamah-according-to-the-shia-and-its-inception/#section-the-position-of-imamah-according-to-them). Likewise they assert that the Imam is the evidence of Allah against the people just like the Ambiya’ (Click Here)
 It is important to note that although some scholars attribute the view of the interpolation of the Qur’an to the Ismailiyyah, but it is the view of the Twelvers. The Ismailiyyah have merely adopted the position of esoteric interpretation.
 The Imam, the preserver and great scholar of hadith Abu Sa’d ‘Abdul Karim ibn Muhammad ibn Mansur al Tamimi al Sam’ani. The author of the book al Ansab amongst others. He travelled and studied hadith under four thousand scholars. Ibn Kathir mentions, “Ibn Khallikan has mentioned several of his books, amongst them is a book wherein he compiled a thousand narrations from a hundred scholars and analysed them in terms of their chains of transmission and their wordings, a very beneficial book indeed.” He passed away in 562 A.H. (Wafayat al A’yan 3/209; al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 12/175).
 إلى ما يليق بهم This is how the text appears in the actual book. If the pronoun is referring to the Shia, then it is correct; because it would then translate as ‘they attribute to the Sahabah that which is only characteristic of them. But if the pronoun is referring to the Sahabah, then probably there is a mistake and the more accurate sentence would be إلى ما لا يليق بهم (that which not behoving of them).
 Al Ansab 6/341.
 Muhammad ibn ‘Umar ibn al Hussain, also well known as ‘al Fakhr al Razi. He was an exegete, a theologian, a jurist and a master in the principles of Fiqh. He wrote al Tafsir al Kabir, al Mahsul, etc. a light extent of Shiasm is attributed to him. He passed away in 606 A.H. (Lisan al Mizan 4/426; al Suyuti: Tabaqat al Mufassirin p. 115; ‘Uyun al Anba’ p. 414-427).
 The reference will come ahead.
 Al Razi: Nihayah al ‘Uqul (manuscript) p. 212.
 Surah Al ‘Imran: 110.
 Al Sarim al Maslul p. 586-587.
 Majmu’ Fatawa Sheikh al Islam 28/482.
 Al Fatawa 28/484-485
 Al Fatawa 28/486.
 Probably it appears in his Fatawa 28/398.
 Minhaj al Sunnah 3/39.
 The Imam, hadith scholar and expert Mufti, as described by al Dhahabi. Abu al Fida’ Ismail ibn ‘Umar ibn Kathir. Al Shawkani has said, “He has written many beneficial books, among them is his work on Qur’anic exegesis which is from the best of works if not the best itself. He passed away in 774 A.H. (Ibn Hajar: al Durar al Kaminah 1/373-374; al Shawkani: al Badr al Tali’ 1/153).
 Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah 5/252.
 Muhammad ibn Khalil ibn Yusuf al Ramali al Maqdisi. From the Jurists of the Shafi’is. He passed away in 888 A.H. (al Sakhawi: al Daw’ al Lami’ 7/234; al Badr al Tali’ 2/169).
 Risalah fi al Radd ‘ala al Rafidah p. 200.
 Yusuf al Jamal Abu al Mahasin al Wasiti. A scholar of the ninth century. (Al Daw’ al Lami’ 10/338-339).
 Surah al Baqarah: 143.
 Surah al An’am: 89.
 Al Munazarah Bayn Ahlus Sunnah wa al Rafidah (manuscript) p. 66.
 Ibid. p. 67.
 ‘Ali ibn Sultan ibn Muhammad al Harawi, well known as al Qari. A Hanafi scholar, one of the retainers of immense knowledge. He wrote many beneficial books amongst which is his commentary on Mishkat al Masabih which is the biggest of them, Sharh al Shifa’, al Nukhbah etc. He passed away in 1014 A.H. (Khulasah al Athar 3/185-186; al Badr al Tali’ 1/445-446).
 Shamm al ‘Awarid fi Dhamm al Rawafid (manuscript) p. 6.
 Ibid. p. 252-254.
 Ibid. p. 259.
 They have actually surpassed the limits of reviling and have steeped into excommunicating them. In fact they even say that whoever considers Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma to be Muslims Allah will not look at him and will talk to him and for him will be a server punishment. (Click Here). Their evils regarding the Sahabah have always increased and become more extreme with the passage of time until they have now settled upon extremism after which there is no extremism.
 Risalah fi al Radd ‘ala al Rawafid p. 18-19.
 Risalah fi al Radd ‘ala al Rafidah p. 14-15.
 Risalah fi al Radd ‘ala al Rawafid p. 14-15.
 Risalah Nawaqid al Islam p. 283. (Incorporated in al Jami’ al Farid which is published by Jumaih).
 ‘Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Ahmed (Waliullah) ibn ‘Abdul Rahim al ‘Umari al Faruqi, accorded the title the lantern of India. Muhibb al Din al Khatib says, “He was a leading scholar of India and had thorough knowledge of the books of the Shia.” He passed away in 1239 A.H. (al A’lam 4/138; Muqaddamah Mukhtasar al Tuhfah al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah of Muhibb al Din al Khatib).
 Mukhtasar al Tuhfah al Ithnay ‘Ashariyyah p. 300.
 Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abdullah al Shawkani, the great scholar of Yemen and the author of Fath al Qadir and Nayl al Awtar, amongst other beneficial works. He passed away in 1250 A.H. (al Badr al Tali’ 2/214-225).
 The narration appears with similar wording in Sahih al Bukhari: Chapter of etiquette: sub-chapter regarding a person who excommunicates his brother without a valid reason being as he said: 7/ 96; Sahih Muslim: Chapter of Iman: sub-chapter regarding the Iman of a person who says to his Muslim brother ‘oh Kafir’: 1/79; Sunan Abi Dawood: chapter of Sunnah: sub-chapter regarding the increasing and decreasing of Iman: 5/64; Sunan al Tirmidhi: chapter of Iman: sub-chapter regarding a person who accuses his brother of disbelief: 5/22; Muwatta’ Malik: Chapter of speech: sub-chapter regarding disliked speech: p. 984; Musnad Ahmed 2/18, 23, 44, 47; Musnad al Tayalisi p. 252.
 Al Shawkani: Nathr al Jawhar ‘ala Hadith Abi Dhar (manuscript) p. 15-16.
 Al Askuni: al Radd ‘ala al Shia (manuscript) p. 5.
 Ma Wara’ al Nahr refers to the areas after the Amu Darya which is in Khorasan. Whatever is to the east of the river was known as the lands of Hayatilah and after Islam it was termed Ma Wara’ al Nahr. And whatever is to the west of it is Khorasan and Khwarazm.
 Ambiya’ endowed with earnestness and patience, refers to: Muhammad, Ibrahim, Musa, Nuh and ‘Isa ‘alayh al Salam.
 Nahj al Salamah (manuscript) p. 29-30.
 See for example: al ‘Uqud al Durriyyah fi Tanqih al Fatawa al Hamidiyyah of Ibn ‘Abidin wherein he cites the Fatwa of Sheikh Nuh al Hanafi who has excommunicated them for many reasons. It is a long fatwa (al ‘Uqud al Durriyyah p. 92). Therein he also cites what the exegete Abu al Sa’ud has said and has also reported the consensus of the scholars on their excommunication (ibid. p. 93).
Likewise the author of al Fatawa al Bazzaziyyah Muhammad ibn Shihab, known as Ibn al Bazzaz and passed away in 827 A.H., says, “It is necessary to excommunicate the Kaysaniyyah because of them allowing Bada’ for Allah. And it is necessary to excommunicate the Rawafid due to them believing in the Raj’ah of the dead…” (Al Fatawa al Bazzaziyyah which is printed in the footnotes of al Fatawa al Hindiyyah 6/318).
And al Ashbah wa al Naza’ir Ibn Nujaym mentions, “Reviling Abu Bakr and ‘Umar and cursing them is disbelief. (Al Ashbah wa al Naza’ir p. 190).
Also see: Nawaqid al Rawafid (manuscript) of Makhdum al Shirazi who has compiled the views of the scholars of the various schools regarding the excommunication of the Shia: p. 187, onwards; Takfir al Shia (manuscript) of Mutahhar ibn ‘Abdul Rahman ibn Ismail p. 51.
 Al Fatawa 28/500-501; also see for the details of this issue: al Fatawa 12/466, onwards; 23/345, onwards.Back to top