Whoever abuses Mu’awiyyah, is a dog from the dogs of hell

‘Allamah Shihab al-Din Khaffaji (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Nasim al-Riyadh Sharh al-Shifa‘ regarding those who abuse Sayyiduna Mu’awiyyah (may Allah be pleased with him):

ومن يكن يطعن فى معاوية

فذاك كلب من كلاب الهاويه

“Whoever abuses Mu’awiyyah, is a dog from the dogs of hell”.

Verdict of Ibn Kamal Pasha on shias

Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Sulayman ibn Kamal Pasha (d. 940H / may Allah have mercy on him) write in his treatise Risalah fi takfir al-Rawafid,

“It says in Fatawa Bazazziyyah that whoever rejects the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr is a kafir, according to the correct view. And whoever rejects the caliphate of Sayyiduna ‘Umar then he is also a kafir according to the most correct view. It is also necessary to declare the Khawarij kafir because they declared Sayyiduna ‘Uthman kafir. It says in Fatawa Tatarkhaniyyah: ‘Verily, whoever rejects the caliphate of Abu Bakr then he is a kafir according to the correct view, and the same ruling applies to the caliphate of ‘Umar, and this is the most correct view. And whoever abuses the Shaykhayn is also a kafir’.”

Ruling on the Nusayri/Alawi Sect

What follows is Imam ibn Taymiyyah’s, may Allah have mercy on him, answer to a question posed to him about the sect called an-Nusayriyyah (in English they are also known as Alawis/Alawite sect).

The question is very long, as it mentions many Nusayri beliefs and practices, and most of it is not translated for the sake of brevity.

Those who want to see the question in full, they can refer to Ibn Taymiyyah’s Fatawa 35/145. In summary, the questioner mentioned, among other things their legalization of intoxicants, belief in reincarnation; disbelief in resurrection, Paradise and Hellfire; belief that “Five Prayers” (as-Salawat al-Khams) is an expression referring to five names: “`Ali, Hasan, Husayn, Muhsin and Fatimah”, and that mentioning these five names suffices one instead of making ghusl from major impurity, or ablution, or fulfilling other conditions and obligatory actions of the five daily prayers; that `Ali is the creator of the heavens and the earth, and that he is their god in heavens and imam on the earth etc.

What follows is the end of the question and Ibn Tayiyyah’s answer.


“…Is it permissible for a Muslim (man or woman) to marry them (Nusayris)? Is it permissible to eat the meat of cattle they slaughter? What is the ruling on eating the cheese made from the rennet of their sacrificed animals? What is the ruling on using their dishes and clothes? Is it permissible to bury them with Muslims? Is it permissible to employ them in Muslim ports and handing the ports over to them? Or is it obligatory upon the ruler to cut them off and employ others from among qualified Muslim men; and is there a sin in delaying their explusion?”


All Praise is for Allah, Lord of all worlds. These people named “Al-Nusayriyyah”, and other groups from among the Qaraamitah and Baatiniyyah, are greater disbelievers than the Jews and Christians. Nay, they are greater disbelievers than most of the mushrikeen (polytheists from other than Ahl ul-Kitab), and their harm to the Ummah of Muhammad, sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, is greater than the harm of the disbelievers who are in war with Muslims, such as at-Tatar, disbelieving Europeans and others.

For they present themselves in front of ignorant Muslims as supporters and advocates of Ahl ul Bayt, while in reality they do not believe in Allah, or the Messenger, or the Book, or [Allah’s] orders, or prohibitions, or reward, or punishment, or Paradise, or Fire, or in one of the Messengers before Muhammad, sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam, or in a religion from among previous religions. Rather, they take the words of Allah and His Messenger, known to the scholars of Muslims, and they interpret them based on their fabrications, claiming that their interpretations are “hidden knowledge (“ilm `ul-baatin”), such as what the questioner mentioned and more. They have no limit in their unbelief with regards to Allah’s Names, His verses, and their distortion of the Speech of Allah, the Most High, and His Messenger from their proper places [usages]. Their aim is repudiation of Islamic Beliefs and Laws in every possible way, trying to make it appear that these matters have realities that they know, like those mentioned by the questioner and others, such as that “five prayers” means knowledge of their secrets, “obligatory fast” hiding of their secrets, and “pilgrimage to Bayt al-`Atiq” visit to their shaikhs, and that the two hands of Abu Lahab represent Abu Bakr and Umar, and that “the great news and the manifest imam” (an naba’ul `adheem wal imaamul mubin) is `Ali ibn Abi Talib.

There are well known incidents and books they have written with regards to their enmity to Islam and its people. When they have an opportunity, they spill the blood of Muslims, such as when they once killed pilgrims and threw them into the well of Zamzam. Once they took the black stone and it stayed with them for a period of time, and they have killed so many Muslim scholars and elders that only Allah knows their number. They wrote many books, such as what the questioner mentioned, and others.

Muslim scholars have written books, unveiling their secrets, exposing their veils, explaining what they are upon from disbelief, infidelity and atheism, by which they are greater disbelievers than the Jews, Christians, and Indian idol-worshipping Brahmans.

What the questioner mentioned as their description is a little from a great deal that is known to the scholars regarding their characteristics. It is known to us that the coast of Sham was only taken over by the Christians from their (Nusayri) side. And also that they are always on the side of every enemy against Muslims, so [you find that] they are with Christians against Muslims.

From the greatest afflictions that have befallen them are Muslims’ opening conquest of the coast (of Sham) and defeat of the Christians. Nay, one of the greatest afflictions that has befallen them is Muslims’ victory over Tatar, and from the greatest holidays for them is the Christians conquest – and refuge is sought with Allah the Most High – of Muslim ports.

They don’t admit that this world has a Creator that created it, or that He has a religion that he orders with, or that He has a place with which He will reward people for their deeds, other than this place (in this world).

[Majmoo` al-Faatwaa 35/145]


Nikah with shia: Mufti Ebrahim Desai

Q: My question in regards to nikah. I am a sunni (hanafi) and my wife to be is a shia (twelver imami). Is there a difference in conducting the nikah when it comes to the two different schools of thought? My fiances’ family insist that it would make them happy if the imam from their local mosque performs the nikah (this imam is obviously a shia – twelver imami). I do not have any personal problems or preferences as long as my nikah is done in Allahs way, however I am concerned that the two schools of thought might have differing views on nikah and marriage. I am also concerned that my family and friends might think I am neglecting our school of thought if I do not have a sunni hanafi imam perform the nikah. Please advise. Thank you.


In the name of Allāh, Most Gracious, Most Merciful

Assalāmu ῾alaykum wa Rahmatullāhi Wabarakātuh

There are many sects of Shiism and each sect holds a different belief, therefore not all Shias can be classified as non-believers.  Furthermore, one of the fundamental beliefs of Shiism is taqiyyah i.e. to conceal your belief and this is regarded as an act of virtue to them. It is for this reason our Ulema have requested us to exercise caution in these matters as one will never know the true belief and understanding of a Shīa. If the Shia does not believe in completeness of the Qur’an, chastity of Ā’isha (Radhiyallahu Anha), Imaan of the Sahaba (Radhiyallahu Anhum), etc., then he/she is out of the fold of Islam and is a disbeliever. The Ithna Ashariyyah sect holds these views, as a result they will not be considered to be Muslims.  Nikāh between such Shias and a Muslim is not valid, regardless if the Shia is a male or a female.

The issue at hand is not only about the nikāh. It is also about ones aqīdah and expressing self-satisfaction to the Shīa aqīdah. We advise you to remain firm on your belief.

And Allāh Ta῾āla Knows Best
Wassalāmu ῾alaykum

Ml. Ebrahim Desai,
Student Dārul Iftā

Checked and Approved by:
Mufti Ebrahim Desai
Dārul Iftā, Madrasah In῾āmiyyah

Scholars of hanafiya on rafida

Salam alaikum.

Article taken from net:

It is evident that those Rafidis [tabarra’i] who insult Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma – even if they deny them being Imams and Khulafa – are definitely Kafirs according to relied upon books of the Hanafi school and the explicit writings of the jurists. It is in Durr al-Mukhtar that:
If he is a denier of any necessity of faith, then he is a Kafir. Such as saying that Allah has a body or denies that Abu Bakr Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is a companion [Durr al-Mukhtar, 1:83].

Tahtawi, commentary of Durr adds:
And denying his Khilafah is also Kufr [Tahtawi, 1:244].

Fatawa Khulasa and Khazanat al-Muftin mention that:
If Rafidis consider Mawla ‘Ali radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu to be greater than all the companions; then they are innovators and astray. If they deny the Khilafah of Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu; then they are Kafir [Khazanat al-Muftin, 1:28].

It is in Fath al-Qadir and Hashiya Tabyeen that:
If any Rafidi considers Mawla ‘Ali radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu to be Afdal [greater] than the first three Khulafa; then he is astray and if he denies the Khilafah of Siddiq or Faruq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma, then he is a Kafir [Hashiya Shalbi ‘ala Tabyeen al-Haqayiq, 1:135].

It is in Wajiz of Imam Kardari that:
The denier of the Khilafah of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is a Kafir, this is authentic. The denier of the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is also a Kafir. This is most authentic [Fatawa Bazzaziya, 6:318].

It is in Tabyeen al-Haqayiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqayiq that:
Imam Mirghinani said that salah behind an innovator will be valid but not valid behind a Rafidi, Jahmi, Qadari, Tashbahi. It is gathered from this that if someone’s innovation is not to the extent that he is a Kafir, then salah behind him will be valid but Makruh and if it does reach Kufr, then it is not valid at all [Tabyeen al-Haqayiq, 1:134].

It is in Fatawa Hindiya that:
The same is in Tabyeen al-Haqayiq and Khulasa and it is authentic. The same is in Badayi’ [Fatawa Hindiya, 1:84].

Also in Hindiya [3:264], Bazzaziya [3:319], al-Ashbah [Kitab al-Siyar], Ithaf al-Absar wa’l Basayir [p.187], Fatawa Anqarwiya [1:25]and Waqiyat al-Muftin [p.13]that:
Rafidis that speak ill of Shaykhayn radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma [al ‘ayadhu billah] are Kafir. If they consider Mawla ‘Ali radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu to be greater than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma, then he is an innovator and not a Kafir.

It is on the same page of Bazzaziya and in Barjandi Sharh Nuqaya [4:21] from Fatawa Zahiriya that:
The denier of the Imamah of Abu Bakr Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is a kafir. Some said he is an innovator and not a Kafir; but the authentic position is that he is a Kafir. Similarly, the denier of the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is also a Kafir according to the authentic narrations.

Bazzaziya also has that:
It is Wajib [necessary] to call Rafidis, Nasibis and Kharijis as Kafir because they say Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Uthman, Mawla ‘Ali, Talha, Zubair and Sayyida ‘Aisha were all Kafirs [Bazzaziya, 6:318].

It is in Bahr al-Rayiq that:
The most authentic position is that the denier of the Khilafah and Imamah of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma is a Kafir [Bahr al-Rayiq, 5:121].

It is in Majma’ al-Anhur Sharh Multaqa al-Abhur that:
If Rafidis are only Tafdilis, then they are innovators and if they deny the Khilafah of Siddiq, they are Kafir [Majma’ al-Anhar, 1:108].

From the same book:
Whoever denies the companionship of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is a Kafir. Likewise, whoever denies that he is the rightful Imam, he is a Kafir according to the most authentic position. Similarly, whoever denies the companionship of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is a Kafir in the most authentic reports [Majma’ al-Anhar, 1:631].

It is in Ghunya Sharh Munya that:
An innovator is someone who holds any belief that contradicts the Ahlu’s Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah. Praying behind him valid whilst being Makruh until his belief does not reach Kufr according to the Ahlu’s Sunnah. If it does, then praying behind him is invalid. Such as the Rafidis who say Mawla’ Ali is God or that prophethood was for ‘Ali and Jibra’il made a mistake. Such beliefs are Kufr and so is accusing Sayyida ‘Aisha or to deny the companionship and Khilafah of Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu or to speak ill of Shaykhayn radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma [Ghunyat al-Musalli, p.515].

It is in Kifaya Sharh Hidaya [1:305] and Mustakhlas al-Haqayiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqayiq that:
If a Kafir innovates, such as a Jahmi or Qadari who say the Qur’an is created or a Rafidi who denies the Khilafah of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu, then praying behind him is not allowed [Mustakhlas al-Haqayiq, 1:202].

It is in Sharh Kanz ‘ala Fath al-Muyin that:
It is in Khulasa that salah is valid behind innovators apart from the Jahmiya, Jabriya, QaDurriya, Rafidi Ghali, those who believe the Qur’an is created and the Mushabbiha. Salah is valid, but Makruh, behind the Ahl Qibla as long as their innovation does not reach Kufr such that they are not Ghali. And a Rafidi Ghali is someone who denies the Khilafah of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu [Sharh Kanz ‘ala Fath al-Muyin, 1:208].

It is n Tahtawi ‘ala Maraqi al-Falah that:
The denier of the Khilafah of Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is a Kafir. And Fath al-Qadir says the same for the denier of the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu. Burhan Sharh Mawahib al-Rahman says the same for the denier of the Khilafah of ‘Uthman and salah behind someone who denies the wiping of the socks or the companionship of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu or speaks ill of Shaykhayn or accuses ‘Aisha Siddiqq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anha and is also invalid behind anyone who denies any necessity of faith as he is Kafir. His explanation will not be heard nor will his excuse that he said so due to a mistaken opinion [Tahtawi ‘ala Maraqi al-Falah, p.168].

It is in Nazm al-Farayid of ‘Allama ibn Wahban that:
Whoever curses or speaks ill of Shaykhayn is a Kafir. An even greater Kafir is someone who says that Yadullah means ‘hand’. The most accurate opinion for someone who denies the Khilafah of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is Takfir and this is the same for the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu.

It is in Tayseer al-Maqasid that:
If a Rafidi speaks ill of Shaykhayn radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma and curses them will become a Kafir. If he believes that Mawla ‘Ali radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is greater than them, then he is not a Kafir but astray and an innovator.

It continues:
According to the most authentic way, the denier of the Khilafah of Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is a Kafir. And the same is for the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu.

It is in Fatwa ‘Allama Nuh Afandi, Majmu’a Shaykh al-Islam ‘Ubaid Allah Afandi, Mughni al-Mustafti ‘an Su’al al-Mufti and ‘Uqud al-Durriya that:
Rafidis are Kafirs. They hold many beliefs of Kufr. They deny the Khilafah of Shaykhayn and speak ill of them. May Allah blacken their faces in both worlds. Whoever has any of their characteristics is a Kafir [‘Uqud al-Durriya, 1:103].

It continues:
To speak ill of Shaykhayn radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma is the same as disrespecting RasulAllah sallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam. Imam Sadr Shaheed said: Whoever speaks ill or curses Shaykhayn is a Kafir [‘Uqud al-Durriya, 1:104].

It also has that:
The scholars of the ‘Uthmani era always had divine help with them. Whoever among them was the Akabir Shaykh al-Islam wrote fatawa against the Shi’a. Many of them wrote extensively and compiled monographs. It was the Muhaqqiq and Mufassir, Abu Mas’ud Afandi ‘Imadi [leading Mufti, ‘Uthmani era], who gave the fatwa of the Rafidis’ Kufr and apostacy. His fatwa has been recorded by ‘Allama Kawakibi Halabi in his commentary of Farayid Sunniya [‘Uqud al-Durriya, 1:105].

Ashbah, Ithaf [p.187], Anqarwi [p.25] and Waqiyat al-Muftin [p.13] all have it from Manaqib Karwari that:
Whoever denies the Khilafah of Shaykhayn or has hatred for them is a Kafir because Shaykhayn are beloved to RasulAllah sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam [Waqiyat al-Muftin, p.13].

Moreover, many of the Akabir have explained that the Kufr of the Rafidis is such that even their repentance is not accepted. Tanweer al-Absar has it that:
The repentance of any apostate is accepted except for him who insults a Prophet or any or both of the Shaykhayn [Durr al-Mukhtar, 1:356].

It is in Ashbah wa’l Nadhayir, Fatawa Khayriya [1:94] and Ithaf al-Absar wa’l Basayir [p.186] that:
The repentance of a Kafir is accepted in both worlds but there are some Kafirs whose repentance is not accepted. One of these is someone becomes a Kafir due to insulting our Prophet or any Prophet. Another is he who becomes Kafir after speaking ill of one or both of Shaykhayn radiyallahu ta’ala ‘anhuma.

It is in Durr al-Mukhtar that:
It is in Bahr al-Rayiq from Jawhara Nayyara Sharh Mukhtasar Quduri that Imam Sadr Shaheed said that whoever speaks ill of Shaykhayn radiyallahu ta’ala ‘anhuma or curses them is a Kafir. His repentance is not accepted and the fatwa of Imam Dabbusi and Faqih Abu’l Laith Samarqandi is on this. And fatwa should be on this opinion. This is what is decided in Ashbah and ‘Allama Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah Ghazi Tamartashi maintained this [Durr al-Mukhtar, 1:357].

Verdicts of early Imams on rafidah

Verdicts of early Imams

“Imam Muhammad bin Yusuf Faryabi was asked about the individual that abuses Abu Bakr? He replied, ‘Kafir’. He was asked, ‘should we read his janazah Salat?’ He replied, ‘no’. He was asked ‘what should be done with him because he declares ‘laa ilaha il Allahu’? He replied, ‘Don’t touch him with your hands, and push him into his grave with a pole’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 2:566)

“Harb mentions that Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Rahman Al-Jufi narrates that Hussain bin Ali narrates from Hani bin Ayyub that he asked Muharib bin Disaar concerning backbiting the Rawafid . He mentioned (sarcastically) ‘they are a very truthful nation’. Hussein mentions that it seems that he saw no problem with backbiting the Rawafid.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:495)

“Similarly, Abu Bakr bin Hani has mentioned, ‘the slaughtered animal of the Qadariyyah and the Rawafid are not to be eaten as the slaughtered animal of any Murtad (apostate) with the fact that the slaughtered animal of the people of the book because they take the position of an apostate whereas the People of the Book who live in Islamic lands remain practicing on their religions and they pay jizya.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:495)

“Imam Ahmad bin Yunus said, ‘If a Jew was to sacrifice a lamb and a Rafidi were to sacrifice, I would surely eat the sacrifice of the Jew. And I would not eat the sacrifice of the Rafidi because he is an apostate from Islam’.” (Al-Sarim al-Maslul, p.570)

Verdicts of Shah ‘Abd al-Aziz & Imam Kashmiri on rafidah

Imam Sayyid Anwar Shah Kashmiri (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

“Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz declared Ithna ‘Ashari Shias as kafir and said, ‘Those who don’t declare them kafirare not aware of their beliefs’, and my fatwa is that they are kafir.” (Faid al-Bari, 1:104)

Imam Shah ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Muhaddith Dahlawi (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Fatawa Azizi:

“The Imamiyyah reject the Khilafah of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and it is mentioned in the books of fiqh that anyone who rejects the Khilafah of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr rejectsijma’ and becomes a kafir…According to the Hanafi fiqh the Shar’i (legal) ruling of Imami Shias is that of murtads (apostates).” (Fatawa ‘Azizi, 358)

Imam Kashmiri further writes,
“Majority have declared kafir those who deny the Khilafah of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr…There is no difference that denier of Khilafah of either Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, Sayyiduna ‘Umar or Sayyiduna ‘Usman (may Allah be pleased with them) is a kafir.” (Ikfar al-Mulhidin, p.51)

Verdict of Mulla ‘Ali Qari on rafidah

Mulla Ali Qari (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote extensively refuting Shias. He writes at one place:

“According to me, this is not the case with the Rawafid who emerged in our time, since they believe that most of the Sahabah were kafir let alone the Ahl al-Sunnah wal Jam’ah, as they [Rawafid] arekafir unanimously (ijma’) without any dissent.” (Mirqat, 9:137)

He also stated:

“If anyone rejects Sayyiduna Abu Bakar and Sayyiduna ‘Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with them)khilafah, he would be considered a kafir. The reason for this is that their khilafah was established through consensus (ijma’) without any dispute.” (Sharah Fiqh al-Akbar, p.198)

And he said,

“A wali cannot reach the status of a prophet. This is because the prophets are: (1) sinless (ma’sum), (2) protected from an evil death, (3) honored with revelation to the extent that their dreams are also revelations, (4) they are able to see angels, and (5) commanded to propagate the injunctions [of Allah]. That which has been narrated regarding the Karramiyyah that it is possible for a wali to be superior to a prophet is kufr, astrayness, heresy and ignorance.”
(From Shias and Sunnis, The Difference -Dr. ‘Allamah Khalid Mahmud)

Verdict of Abu Hamid Muhammad al-Maqdisi

‘Allamah Maqdisi (d: 888H / may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

“It is not hidden from anyone who possesses insight and understanding from amongst the Muslims that most of what we have discussed previously from the topic of the beliefs of this group, the Rafidah, along with their various groupings, is clear disbelief () and stubborn rejection along with disgraceful ignorance. The careful one will not hesitate in takfir of them and judging them to have become apostates from the Religion of Islam.”

(Risalah fi-Radd ‘alal-Rafidah, p. 200)

Verdict from Qadi Iyad on people who claims that imams are better than prophets

Qadi Iyad Maliki (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Al-Shifa:

و كذلك نقطع بتكفير غلاة الرافضة في قولهم : إن الأئمة أفضل من الأنبياء

“And similarly we declare the extremist Rawafid kafir upon their statement that the imams are superior to the prophets.”

(Al-Shifa, 2:286)

Verdict of ‘Allamah Abu Sa’ud

Following is the fatwa of Shaykh al-Islam of Ottoman Empire, Allamah Abu Sa’ud, as quoted by ‘Allamah ibn ‘Abidin in his Rasa’il. (may Allah have mercy on them)

“Someone asked ‘Allamah Abu Sa’ud about the Shia whether it was permissible to fight with them and will our people killed be regarded as martyrs as they claim that their leader is from the progeny of Rasul Allah and how is it permissible when they recite the kalima ‘la ilaha ilal lahu’. He answered by giving the following fatwa, ‘fighting against them is regarded as Jihad Akbar and those who are killed in battle against them are declared Shuhada (martyrs). They are renegades against the Imam and are kafir because of many reasons. They are not included in the seventy three groups [of Islam]. They have openly innovated many acts of kufr and falsehood in following their whims and fancies. The decision of their kufr is not based on one issue but daily it increases. Therefore the ‘ulama of our times have made ijma that it is permissible to kill them. Those who doubt their kufr becomes a kafir. According to Imam al-Azam Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam Sufyan and Imam Auwzai if they repent then their repentance will be accepted like the rest of the kuffar. Imam Malik, Imam Shafi, Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Layth bin Saad said that their repentance will not be accepted…”

(Rasa’il ibn ‘Abidin, 1:368:369)

Verdicts from 4 imams on rafidah

Verdict of imam Shafei:

“Yusuf ibn Yahya al-Buwayti said, ‘I asked al-Shaf’i (may Allah have mercy on him), ‘Can I pray behind a Rafidhi?’ He said, ‘Do not pray behind the Rafidhi, nor the Qadari, nor the Murjiyi’. I said, ‘describe them to me.’ He said, `The one who says that Iman is statement [only], then he is Murjiyi`. And whosoever says that Abu Bakr and ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) are not the two imams, then he is a Rafidhi. And whosoever places the Will for himself, he is Qadari.”

(Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’, 10:31)

Verdict of imam Malik.

Hafiz ibn Hajar Makki (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, p.294:

“And from this verse, Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), as reported from him, had deduced the verdict of kufr of Rawafid as they show hatred towards the Sahabah. He further states because the Sahabah causes them anger and every individual who is angered by the Sahabah is a kafir. This extraction is excellent as the verse in itself bears testimony to it. Therefore Imam Shafi (may Allah have mercy on him) has agreed with him (Imam Malik) on the verdict of declaring them [Rawafid]kafir and a large group of Imams agreed with him too.”

Imam Qurtubi al-Maliki (d: 671H / may Allah have mercy on him) comments after producing the fatwa of Imam Malik:

“Indeed, Malik did well in his statement and he reached the correct explanation. So whoever belittles a single one of them or reviles him in his narration, then he has rejected Allah, the Lord of the worlds and he has nullified the Shari’ah of the Muslims.”(Tafsir Qurtubi, 16:297)

This fatwa of Imam Malik was also quoted by:

1. Imam Al-Khilaal
2. Hafiz ibn Kathir
3. Imam Sayyid Alusi
4. Hafiz ibn Taymiyyah
5. Qadi ‘Iyad Maliki
6. ‘Allamah Abu Nu’aym

and others (may Allah have mercy on them).

Verdict from imam Ahmad:

“Imam al-Khilaal said: ‘Abd al-Malik ibn ‘Abd al-Hamid informed me saying: I heard Abu ‘Abd Allah [Imam Ahmad] say: ‘Whosoever reviles the Companions, then I fear disbelief for him like the Rawafid’. Then he said, ‘Whosoever reviles the Companions of the Prophet, then we do not believe he is safe from having rejected the Religion’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)

“Abu Bakr mentions I asked Abu ‘Abd Allah concerning the individual that verbally abuses Abu Bakr, Umar and A’ishah. He replied ‘I do not regard them to be Muslim.’ He further says ‘I have heard Malik say, ‘Whoever verbally abuses the Sahabah of Rasul Allah he has no share in Islam’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)

“Zakariyya bin Yahya mentions he has heard Abu Talib mention that he mentioned to Abu ‘Abd Allah concerning an individual who verbally abuses Uthman and people have mentioned this fact to me that he speaks ill of Uthman. He replied they [he ones who speak ill] are zindiqs.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)

“Yusuf bin Musa mentions that Abu ‘Abd Allah was asked – this was mentioned to me by Ali bin ‘Abd al-Samad – He replied I asked Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal concerning a Rafidi neighbor who greats me , should I answer his Salam? He replied ‘No’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:493)

“Muhammad bin al-Hussain mentions Fadhal bin Ziyad narrates that Abu ‘Abd Allah said, ‘Don’t speak to Rawafid’.” (Sunnah lil-Khilaal, 3:494)

Verdict from Abu Hanifah and imam Muhammad:

Hafiz ibn Hajar Makki (may Allah have mercy on him) writes in Al-Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, p.362-363:

“It was already mentioned that the Hanafi scholars condemned one with kufr who denies the caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and Sayyiduna ‘Umar (may Allah be pleased with them). This ruling is mentioned in their books with detail as it is mentioned in Al-Asl by Imam Muhammad bin al-Hassan al-Shaybani (may Allah have mercy upon him). It is obvious that they have inherited it from their Imam Abu Hanifah (may Allah be pleased with him) and he knows more about the Rawafid as he is from Kufa and Kufa was the origin and headquarter of the Rawafid. Among the Rawafid, there are many groups, some must be condemned with kufr while some not. So, when Imam Abu Hanifah regards the denier of caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) as kafir, so one who curses him will necessarily be called kafir except that if one makes some difference. As it is clear that the reason of declaring him as kafir is his opposition to the ijma’ (consensus) based upon the ruling that one who denies a unanimous matter (of religion) will be called kafir. This is a general rule among the theologians. The caliphate of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) is a unanimous matter from the time when Sayyiduna Umar came forward for his ba’yah (solemn pledge of obedience), but it cannot be contradicted with the delay made by some Sahabah; since those who delayed in ba’yah they did not delay due to any disagreement about his eligibility of caliphate, therefore they used to take his bestowals and used to take their issues to him. So, ba’yah is something and ijma’ is something else, and one is not necessary for the other. You should understand this point, as some people commit mistake therein. If you object that calling anyone withkafir is conditioned with the rejection of a matter categorized as ‘necessary in religion’. I will say that the matter of his caliphate falls in the same category; since it is proved from widely reported traditions to the extent of ‘being necessary’ that the Sahabah took oath of allegiance (bayah) with him, so this matter turned like a unanimous matter known ‘necessarily’. And there is no doubt in the matter and there was no Rafidhi in the period of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, neither in the reign of Sayyiduna ‘Umar nor Sayyiduna ‘Uthman (may Allah be pleased with them) rather they emerged later on.”

PS: By brother Saad.

Ijma in issue of takfir

Imam Abu Saad Sam’ani al-Shafi (d: 498H / may Allah have mercy on him) has quoted Ijma on the takfir of Isna Asharis in his Kitab-al-Ansab.

He writes,

واجتمعت الامة على تكفير الامامية لانهم يعتقدون تضليل
الصحابة وينكرون إجماعهم وينسبونهم إلى مالا يليق بهم

The Ummah has a consensus (ijma) on the takfir of the Imamiyah, because they believe the Companions are misguided, they reject their consensus and they attribute to them that which does not befit them.”

[Al-Ansab, vol.3 p.188]

This scholar wasn’t wahabi or salafi or saudi.  He was known imam in shafei school.

Mullah ‘Alee Ibn Sultaan al-Qaaree al-Hanafi (d.1014H) said:

“As for whoever reviles one of the Companions, then he is a disobedient sinner and an innovator by consensus (ijmaa’), except if he believes this to be, permissible, as some of the Shee’ah and their companions do; or if they believe that he is rewarded for it as is persistent in their speech, or he believes in the disbelief of the Companions and Ahlus-Sunnah, then he is a disbeliever by consensus.”

[Refer to Shammul-‘Awaaridh fee Dhammir-Rawaafid (p. 6) of ‘Alee al-Qaaree and it is in manuscript form]

Also visit this link: