The Rafidah are the MOST LYING of all groups and sects:
Shaykh allama Fawzaan said in his book “Sharhul aqidatool Imam al-Mujadid Mohammad ibn Abdulwahab” (p 68, Maktabatus Sunnah): Continue reading
Shaykh al-Barrak said in his commentary of Nawaqid al-Islam:
“Their condition regarding Shirk and Innovation is worse than condition of Soofiyah. They are worse between groups of this (Islamic) nation. They gathered evil of all sects in themselves”.
Sharhul Nawaqid al-Islam (p 55, printed with two other commentaries by Daru Tawhid wa Sunnah)
Following are excerpts from a TV program hosted by Egyptian cleric Hassan Abu Al-Ashbal, which aired on Al-Nas TV on March 19, 2009: Continue reading
Following are excerpts of an address by Egyptian cleric Galal Al-Khatib, which aired on Al-Rahma TV on October 10, 2010.
Galal Al-Khatib: The Shiite serpent has begun to hiss at the Muslims, even through the Koran Radio. This serpent has reached all the way here. Let us return to our topic. As I said in the last show, there is a complete identity – not merely a similarity – between the beliefs of the Jews and those of the Rafidite Shiites.
As I’ve said, one aspect of this similarity is that the Jews accuse all their enemies of being infidels and so do the Shiites. The Jews believe that all non-Jews will end up in the Hellfire for all eternity, and the Shiites believe that everybody else will be in the Hellfire forever.
Both the Jews and the Shiites sanction the killing of those who disagree with them. Like the Jews, the Shiites employ treachery and deception to kill those who disagree with them. They use the same methods to get rid of their opponents. The Jews allow the plundering of their opponents’ property, and the Shiites allow the plundering of the property of the Muslims, and they try to get their hands on it by any possible means – by theft, usury, robbery, and so on. The Jews forbid usury among Jews, but permit it in transactions with Muslims, pagans, Christians, and others. The same is true of the Shiites, who forbid usury among themselves, but permit it in transactions with others.
Following are excerpts from a sermon delivered by Sheik Yousuf Al-Qaradhawi, chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, which aired on Qatar TV on March 18, 2011: Continue reading
Fatawaa from the Scholars to Aid the Jihad in Damaj against the Hoothi Raafidah Continue reading
Bismillah, link to audio file:
Question: Is it permitted to give salam to rafida?
This has to do with the view regarding Rafidha in general, whether they are Muslims orkafir. Whoever sees them as Muslim, he would give salam to them, and would respond to them if they gave salam. As for those that see them as kuffar he should not give salam to them, but should return the salam if they start, in the known detailed way, but this is not the time for me to go into details. As for me personally, I do not see takfeer in the whole of a nation, or group, or people, if we know for sure that they bear witness in La ilaha illa Allah – Mohammed rasool Allah. I am not one who sees it encouraging in takfeeras a group. However, takfeer, if one has to do it, it should be done per individual if we see evidence of theirkufur and after evidence has been proven upon him. Also, and I feel that you agree with me on this point, it isn’t easy to be sure of this, and the practical way is that it is permissible to give salam upon them and return the salam with the intention of uniting the hearts, due to not knowing as to whether or not theshari’ee evidence has been established on them due for their supposed kufur.
I, at work, have some of them with me, and let’s say that I have established upon him the hujjah, then it is permissible at that (to make takfeer), right?
In his commentary on Saheeh al-Bukhari – Faydh al-Bari, Imam Anwar Shah Kashmiri said:
ثم إنهم اختلفوا في إكفار الروافض، ولم يكفرهم ابن عابدين رضي الله عنه. وأكفرهم الشاه عبد العزيز رحمه الله تعالى، وقال: إن من لم يكفرهم لم يدر عقائدهم.
Then they differ in regarding takfir of rafidah. And ibn Abidin, may Allah be pleased with him, didn’t make takfir upon them, and Shah Abdulaziz, may Allah forgive him, did takfir upon them, and said: Those who didn’t make takfir upon them doesn’t know their beliefs.
Quoting “The Letter of Imaam Ahmad to Musaddad ibn Musarhad”, which was narrated by Qaadhi Abu Ya’la Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn Khalf al-Farraa’ narrates in at-Tabaqaat [At-Tabaqaat : 1/342.] and Abu al-Faraj Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Ali ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali in his book Manaaqib al-Imaam Ahmad [Al-Manaaqib p. 217.] and al-Qaadhi Burhan ad-Deen Ibraaheem ibn Muflih mentioned in his book Al-Maqsad al-Arshad from Abu Bakr Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Burda’i at-Tameemi .
Some have challenged the authenticity of attributing this treatise to Imaam Ahmad on the grounds that Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Burda’i at-Tameemi is unknown. However Shaykh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyyah has lifted any doubt surrounding its reliability:
“As for the Letter of Ahmad ibn Hanbal to Musaddad ibn Musarhad, it is well known to the People of Hadeeth and Sunnah from amongst the companions of Ahmad and other than them, they took it with acceptance. And Abu Abdullaah ibn Battah mentioned it in his book al-Ibaanah and more than one has relied upon it such as al-Qaadhi Abu Ya’laa and he wrote it by his own hand.” Majmoo’ al-Fatawaa , vol. 5, p. 396. For the full discussion surrounding this letter, see Majmoo’ al-Fataawaa, vol. 5, pp. 375-377, 380-396.
So in this letter imam Ahmad said:
And as for the Raafidhah : then those whom we have met from the people of knowledge are in agreement that they say: Ali ibn Abu Taalib is more virtuous than Abu Bakr as-Siddeeq, and that the (conversion to) Islaam of Ali was older than the (conversion to) Islaam of Abu Bakr, so whoever claims that Ali ibn Abu Taalib is more virtuous than Abu Bakr, then he has rejected the Book and the Sunnah. Allaah, the Most High, states: “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah and those who are with him…” al-ayah 
So Allaah gave precedence to Abu Bakr after the Prophet, not Ali, and the Prophet, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, said: “If I was going to take a khaleel , I would have taken Abu Bakr as a khaleel , however, Allaah has taken your companion as a khaleel – that is, himself- and there is no prophet after me.” 
And whoever claims that the Islaam of Ali was before the Islaam of Abu Bakr, then he is mistaken for Abu Bakr converted and he was at that time thirty-five years of age, while Ali was at that time seven years of age, and the commands and punishments and obligations did not yet apply to him.
1) The rest of the verse states, “… are severe with the disbelievers, merciful amongst themselves. You see them bowing and prostrating, seeking bounty from Allaah and His Pleasure. Their mark (of their faith) is in their Faces from the traces of prostration. This is their description in the Torah, and their description in the Gospel is like a (sown) seed which sends forth its shoot, then makes it strong, and becomes thick and it stands straight on its stem, delighting the sowers, that he may enrage the disbelievers with them. Allaah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness and a great reward.” [al-Fath (48):29] It was a common practice in the works of classical scholars to simply quote part of a verse and then simply state “al-ayah” to indicate the rest of the ayah as it was understood that the reading audience would generally be acquainted with the rest of the verse.
2) Muslim reported it (no. 2383) – in Virtues of the Companions – from the hadeeth of ibn Mas’ood with the wording, “If I was going to take a khaleel , I would have taken Abu Bakr as a khaleel , but he is my brother and my companion, and Allaah, Azza wa Jall, has taken your companion as a khaleel .” And concerning the topic there is a narration from Jundub ibn Abdullaah (no. 532) and from Ibn Abbaas with Bukhaari (7/15) and from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri with Bukhaari (7/10-11) and Muslim (2382) and at-Tirmidhi (3661).
Sheikh Yusuf ibn Ismail an-Nabhani in his book “Ash-Sharaful Muabad li ali Muhammad” (p 178) said:
اطلعت للحافظ السيوطي علي رسالة سماها ” إلقام الحجر لمن زكي ساب أبي بكر وعمر ” نقل فيها الاتفاق علي فسق ساب مطلق الصحابة إذا لم يستحل ذلك وإذا استحله فهو كافر .
I came across with risala of al-Hafidh as-Suyuti, which he entitled “Al-Iqama al-Hajr zakie sabban Abu Bakr and Umar”, where he reported agreement (between scholars) upon fisq of person who would abuse (absolutely? (all) companions, if he wouldn’t think that it’s permitted. And if he think it’s permitted, he’s kaafir.
And it the same book, at page 179, sheikh Nabhani wrote:
ورأيت الشيخ تقي الدين السبكي صنف كتابا سماه ” خيرة الإيمان الجلي لأبي بكر وعمر وعثمان وعليّ ” بسبب رافضي وقف في الملأ وسب الشيخين وعثمان وجماعة من الصحابة , فاستتيب فلم يتب , فحكم المالكي بقتله وصوبه السبكي فيما فعل وألف في تصويبه الكتاب المذكور وذكر فيه عن القاضي حسين من أصحابنا وجهين فيمن سب أحد الشيخين أو الختنين : يكفر وإن لم يستحل لأن الأمة أجمعت علي إمامتهم والثاني : يفسق ولا يكفر , ثم نقل عن الحنفية نقولا كثيرة بعضها بالتكفير , وبعضها بالتضليل ثم مال السبكي إلي تصحيح التكفير لمآخذ ذكرها ثم نقل عن المالكية والحنابلة نقول كذلك ا هـ . ولنكتف بهذا هنا .
And I have seen sheikh Taqiatdin as-Subki wrote a book entitled “Hiyratul Imaan al-jali Abu Bakr wa Umar wa Uthman wa Ali”. (He wrote it) due to a rafidi stood up in the public and abused two sheikhs (Abu Bakr and Umar), Uthman and some other companions. He was called for repentance, but he refused. Maliki (most likely here should be imam Malik and not malikiya) ruled that he should be killed, and Subki seen such decision as a correct one. And he wrote a mentioned book for supporting his view. And he mentioned there two views from Qadi al-Hussain from our companions regarding those who abuse two sheikhs, or two son-in-laws. First view: Such person disbelieved even if he don’t see (abusing of them) as permitted. Because nation agreed upon their imamate. Second: He is sinner and not disbelieved, then he (Subki) narrated a lot of opinion of hanafiyah, some of them in takfir, others that (such person) gone astray. Then Subki (himself) incline to takfir by taking (opinions) that he mentioned. Then he narrated opinion from Malikiyah and Hanabila in this (takfir). And it’s enough by this here.
Alim of rijal, Ahmad ibn Abdullah ibn Salih ibn Moslem al-Ijli, author of book “Thiqat”, said: “Whoever would believe in return of Ali ibn Abu Talib, is disbeliever, and whoever would believe that Quran has been created, is disbeliever”. (“al-Athar al-waradat an aimmatu sunnah fi abwabil itikadat min siyar alamun nubala” p 404)
When Hasan ibn Ali heard that shias claimed Ali would come back before doomsday, he said: “They lied by Allah! They are not (our) shias. If we would know that he would come back, we wouldn’t give his wifes in the marriage or divide his property”. (“Atharul waradat min aimmatul sunna fi abwabil itikadat” p 592).
Verdict from imam al-Barbahare
Imaam, the example, the Mujaahid, the Shaikh of the Hanbalee scholars and greatest of them in his time: Abu Muhammad Al-Hasan Ibn ‘Alee Ibn Khalf Al-Barbahaaree – an ascription to Barbahaar, which were medicines imported from India.
Ibn Abee Ya’laa said: “Shaikh of the Community in his time and the foremost of them in censuring the people of innovation and in opposing them with his hand and tongue. And he had renown with the ruler and prominence amongst those of knowledge. And he was one of the wise scholars, great and precise memorizers of the texts and one of the reliable believers”
Adh-Dhahabee said in Al-‘Ibar: “…the exemplary scholar, Shaikh of the Hanbalees in ‘Iraaq in speech, action and sticking to what is lawful. He had great renown and total respect.”
Ibn Al-Jawzee said: “…He gathered knowledge and abstention form this world (zuhd) and was strong against the people of innovation.”
Ibn Katheer said: “The abstemious, man of knowledge, the Hanbalee scholar, the admonisher – and he was strict against the people of innovation and sin. He had great standing and was respected by the elite and by the common people.”
In his book “Sharhus sunnah” he said:
“And that’s apparent innovation, it’s kufr in Allah al-Azim, and whoever would say that he’s disbeliever in Allah, not doubt in that. Who would believe in rajah (returning) and would say that Ali ibn Abi Talib is alive, and he would be back before doomsday (and he would believe in the same about) Muhammad ibn Ali, and Jafar ibn Muhammad, and Musa ibn Jafar, and would exalt imams, and would claim that they know unseen, beware of them! THEY ARE DISBELIEVERS IN ALAAH, THE SUBLIME”.
Source: Irshadu Sare fi sharh Sunnah lil Barbahare p 245.