Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'shia'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Reception Lounge
    • Introduce Yourself
    • All-in-one Forum
    • Comments & Suggestions
    • How to use this forum
    • Forum Announcements
  • Islamic Forums
    • Islamic Discussions
    • Refuting non-Muslims
    • Islamic-Western Dialogue
    • Islam Q&A
    • Islam In Your Country
    • I've Just Reverted (Converted) to Islam
    • Islamic hOt ContEstS!
    • Islamic Video & Audio
    • Short Fatwa
    • Ramadan, Eids, Hajj seasons
  • Islamic Forums in Other Languages
    • Islam auf Deutsch - Islamisches Forum
    • Islam en Español - Foro Islámico
    • المنتدى الإسلامى
    • Islam en Français - Forum Islamique
    • Islam på Svenska - Islamisk Forum
    • Islam in het Nederlands - Islamitisch Forum
    • 伊斯兰教在中国 - 伊斯兰论坛
  • General Forums
    • Political Front
    • News Room
    • Sisters' Room
    • Brothers' Room
    • General Chat
    • Counselling Room
    • Polling Station
    • Just for Fun
    • Sports
    • Competitions
  • IF Library - Islamic Section
    • Islamic Download - Free eBooks!
    • The Greatest Book on Earth!
    • Prophet Muhammad
    • Prophets, Biographies, and Islamic History
    • Avoid All Sects and Cults
    • Jihad & Misconceptions
    • Islamic Readings
    • Islamic Friday Sermons
    • Islamic Book Club
    • Islamic Gallery
    • Islamic Locations
    • Stories Of The Prophets
  • IF Community
    • Dua Corner
    • Personal Announcements
    • Coming Events
    • For Sale
    • Wanted
    • Shopping tips
    • Job Market
    • Blog archive
    • Islamic Workshop
  • IF Library - General Section
    • Learn Arabic
    • Islamic Kitchen
    • Islam & Your Health
    • Poems and Stories
    • Islamic Songs
    • Computer Room
    • Study Room
    • Islamic Link Exchange
    • Handy Web Pages
  • Muslim Webmaster
    • Free Islamic Webmasters' Services
    • Contact us
  • Stuff

Found 11 results

  1. People across the globe believe that shia and sunni are the two different sects. Both of the sects have different religious beliefs, therefore it has been understood by people that they cannot come under the same umbrella ‘Islam’. Many people have this faith that due to the entirely different conduct of life, shia and sunni cannot marry with each other. However, before making such bold claims, complete research is very important to know the reality. So, before marrying with a shia man or woman, one must know that there are two types of shias: One of the types of shia holds disbeliefs (kufr), that the Quran has been altered, Hazrat Ali (R.A) is worthy to worship and here Shirk (to worship someone other than Allah) occurs, the angel Jibril made an error in descending the revelation on the Messenger of Allah (P.B.U.H) in place of Hazrat Ali (R.A), accusations on Hazrat Aisha (R.A) of committing adultery or denying the Companionship Hazrat Abu Bakr (R.A). However, the another type of shias are those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr, such as believing that Hazrat Ali (R.A) was the rightful first Caliph after the demise of the Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H), belief in the twelve Imams, and all those beliefs which the first type of shias put faith in. A true Muslim has asked by Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H) that before marrying, Muslim must need to check the religious beliefs, and religious practices in his/her partner. There is a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari that Messenger of Allah has said: "A woman is married for four reasons, her wealth, lineage, status and Deen. Choose the one who is religious." (Sahih Bukhari) Even then we being humans do not know that what faiths are hidden in the chest of people and what they are pretending, indeed! Allah knows the truth only. And so, we should avoid those things where we find doubts or dissatisfaction. If we go for things which are doubtful then we are tangling ourselves deliberately in the chaos.
  2. It is indeed that Mosul is bleeding and surrounded by Shia militias from Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Everyone blamed the killing on Islamic State only as they think Shia militias are god sent angels to protect the people of Mosul who are Sunnis.
  3. More than 70 Shia died today after Islamic state bombing inside the heart of Sadr City
  4. Sunnis Vs Shia

    What is the difference Sunnis and Shia? Why do Shia hate Sunni so much?
  5. Hadith of Ghadir Khumm [A Sunni Perspective] Introduction It is impossible to discuss the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm without first understanding the specific context in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) said what he said. This is a general rule of thumb pertaining to the Islamic canon as a whole: it is important to know the background in which a Quranic verse was revealed or a certain Hadith was said. For example, the Quranic verse “slay them wherever you find them” is often used by Orientalists to wrongfully make it appear as if Islam advocates the slaying of people wherever you find them all the time. Of course, if we look at when this verse was revealed, we find that it was specifically revealed during a battle between the Muslims and the Quraish Mushriks; this makes us realize that it is not a general ruling to slay people but rather it was a verse revealed in a specific situation. Likewise, the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm can only be understood in the context in which it was said: A group of soldiers were severely criticizing Ali ibn Abi Talib (رضّى الله عنه) over a certain matter, and this news reached the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), who then said what he said in the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm. Like the Orientalists, the Shia propagandists attempt to remove this background context in which the Hadith was said in order to paint a totally different (and misleading) picture. The Prophet’s intention behind saying what he said at Ghadir Khumm was not at all to nominate Ali (رضّى الله عنه) as Caliph but rather it was only to defend Ali (رضّى الله عنه) against the slander being said against him. It is only by removing the background context that it is possible to render a Shia understanding of the text; it is for this reason that we should always remind our Shia brothers of the background context in which the Hadith of Ghadir Khumm was said. The Importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia The Shia claim that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) divinely appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor at a place called Ghadir Khumm. Before we discuss the event of Ghadir Khumm with our Shia brothers, we should first define the parameters of such a debate. In other words, we should “set the stakes”: (1) If the Shia can prove their version of Ghadir Khumm, then definitely Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was divinely appointed by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and the Shia creed is correct. (2) If, however, the Sunnis disprove the idea that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at Ghadir Khumm, then our Shia brothers should be willing to accept the fact that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was never appointed at all by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and therefore the entire Shia creed is invalid. The reason we need to make this very clear from the outset is that the Shia propagandists have this uncanny ability to move the goalposts whenever they lose a debate. They will jump from one topic to another; if they lose the debate over Ghadir Khumm, then they will bring up the Incident of the Door, or Saqifah, or Fadak, or who knows what else. The entire foundation of Shi’ism rests on the event of Ghadir Khumm, because it is here that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) supposedly nominated Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to be his successor. If this event did not take place as the Shia claim, then the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) never appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and the Shia must abandon all of their claims, such as the idea that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) usurped the God-appointed Caliphate of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). Indeed, the event of Ghadir Khumm is so central to the Shia paradigm–and so important to the Shia theology–that the Shia masses have a yearly celebration known as “Eid-e-Ghadir”. Based on what supposedly happened at Ghadir Khumm, the Shia reject the Caliphate of Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه), split away from the mainstream Muslims, and declare that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) was the first of the divinely appointed Imams. The Shia website, Al-Islam.org, refers to Ghadir Khumm as a “momentous event” and the basis for the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). Amaana.org says “Eid-e Gadhir is celebrated with great rejoicing by Shia Muslims where they remember Prophet Muhammad’s last instructions to the believers. Eid-e-Ghadir is one of the most important days of rejoicing for Shia Muslims around the world as that was the day our beloved Prophet Muhammad (s.a.s.) declared Hazrat Ali’s vicegerency at Ghadir e Khumm on his return from his last pilgrimage… source: http://www.amaana.org/gadhir/gadhir1.htm ” The reason it is neccessary to strongly emphasize the importance of Ghadir Khumm to the Shia is that we will show how the supposedly strongest ‘weapon’ in the arsenal of the Shia propaganda is actually very weak. If this is the very basis of Shi’ism, then indeed Shi’ism is a very weak doctrine. The Shia say that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) at Ghadir Khumm but simple logic dictates otherwise. What the Shia Claim Happened Al-Islam.org says “After completing his last pilgrimage (Hajjatul-Wada’), Prophet was leaving Makkah toward Madinah, where he and the crowd of people reached a place called Ghadir Khumm (which is close to today’s al-Juhfah). It was a place where people from different provinces used to greet each other before taking different routes for their homes. In this place, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed: “O Apostle! Deliver what has been sent down to you from your Lord; and if you don’t do it, you have not delivered His message (at all); and Allah will protect you from the people …” (Qur’an 5:67) The last sentence in the above verse indicates that the Prophet was mindful of the reaction of his people in delivering that message but Allah informs him not to worry, for He will protect His Messenger from people. Then followed the key sentence denoting the clear designation of ‘Ali as the leader of the Muslim ummah. The Prophet held up the hand of ‘Ali and said: “For whoever I am his Leader (mawla), ‘Ali is his Leader (mawla).” Immediately after the Prophet finished his speech, the following verse of the Qur’an was revealed: “Today I have perfected your religion and completed my favour upon you, and I was satisfied that Islam be your religion.” (Qur’an 5:3) The above verse clearly indicates that Islam without clearing up matter of leadership after Prophet was not complete, and completion of religion was due to announcement of the Prophet’s immediate successor.
  6. The Quran Challenge Crux of the Sunni/Shia Divide The center of the debate between the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia revolves around the issue of Imamah (i.e. Aimmatal Masoomeen). The importance of Imamah is so great that the Shia Ulema consider those who reject Imamah to be Kaffir. Likewise, the Sunni Ulema consider those who accept (in toto) the Shia doctrine of Imamah to be Kaffir. Most of the polemical debate between Sunni and Shia revolves around peripheral issues such as Mutah, Matam, Saqifah, Ghadeer Khumm, Fadak, and other such side issues. However, the fundamental issue of debate–namely Imamah–is oftentimes ignored. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih: Every other disagreement the Shia have with the Sunnis [other than Imamah] has its roots in the Shia insistence on Imamah as a principle of Islam, both in belief and practise. From differing views and interpretations of history, entirely different systems of Hadith collection and authentication, and divergent manners of performing Islamic practises, all these dissimilarities can be traced back to Imamah as a doctrine in Shia faith. It is therefore only reasonable that the focus of any serious quest for truth would begin and end with the principle of Imamah in the mind of the truth-seeker. Trying to research about the differences between Shia and Sunni without considering the dogma of Imamah as a main sticking point will lead to dead ends and fruitless arguments. I have personally witnessed a number of [sunni-Shia] discussions that quickly descend into chaos because one side or the other wishes to discuss a subject of peripheral importance. Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.5; Download book here It is safe to say that if the Shia did not believe in the concept of Imamah, then they would not be considered a separate sect. The other issues of contention between Sunni and Shia are simply a consequence of Imamah. Hence, Imamah and its validity in the Quran is the main issue of contention between the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah and their Shia brothers. Imamah Before we proceed, it is important to state what exactly is the Shia doctrine of Imamah. The Shia doctrine of Imamah: Apart from the Prophets, there are another group of God-appointed persons called Imams. These are people who possess Ismah (infallibility) and have access to a knowledge that is not accessible by ordinary people. The world cannot be empty of an Imam otherwise it will be destroyed. In the Islamic context, these individuals are twelve people among the descendants of the Holy Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) who are appointed by nobody except Allah (عز و جل) alone to lead the Muslims. Anyone who chooses a leader other than these twelve is misguided and not a complete believer. The twelvth (last) of the Imams is the Mehdi and, although he has been in occultation for more than one thousand years, he will return when Allah (عز و جل) wishes and then justice will prevail. Importance of Imamah The above stated doctrine of Imamah is the core belief of the Shia. The Shia consider five articles of belief as fundamentals of religion. These are: 1. Tawheed (Oneness of God) 2. Nabuwwah (Prophethood) 3. Ma’ad (Day of Judgement) 4. Adl (Justice of God) 5. Imamah (the above stated doctrine) Imamah is considered by the Shia to be one of the Usool-e-Deen [fundamentals of religion]. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih: In Shi’ism, the matters of religion are divided into Usool-e-Deen and Furoo-e-Deen. The Usool-e-Deen are the principles of belief in the religion, analogous to the Pillars of Faith in Sunnism. The Furoo-e-Deen relates to the practises in the religion, such as prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and so on. To introduce the reader to what constitutes the Usool-e-Deen in Shi’ism, I will quote the following tract from Allamah Muhammad Husayn al-Kashiful Ghita’s book “The Origin of Shi’ite Islam and its Principles” (Asl ash-Shi’ah wa Usuluha): “Those matters which concern knowledge or wisdom, are called Usool-e-Deen (fundamentals of religion) and they are five: Tawheed, Nabuwwah, Imamah, Adl, and Ma’ad.” [“The Origin of Shiite Islam and its Principles, Part II: Fundamentals of the Religion”, Part II: The Fundmentals of the Religion, Section The Fundamental Beliefs, p.218] In similar fashion, the Shia scholar Muhammad Ridha Muzaffar states: “We believe that the Imamah is one of the fundamentals of Islam (Usool-e-Deen), and that man’s faith can never be complete without belief in it.” …The [only] real issue of contention [between Sunni and Shia] is with respect to [the belief in] Imamah. As [the Shia scholar] Allamah Kashiful Ghita mentions: “It is the question of the Imamah which distinguishes the Shia sect from all other sects. Other differences are not fundamental; they are furoo’i (i.e. secondary)” [Asl-ul-Shia wa Usuluha, p.221] Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.7; Download book here Thus, the importance of Imamah in Shi’ism is more than the importance of Salat (prayer); Imamah is considered Usool-e-Deen [i.e. fundamental] whereas Salat is Furoo-e-Deen [i.e. secondary]. It would be accurate to say that the Furoo-e-Deen are a direct consequence of the Usool-e-Deen. Imamah is considered the most important pillar of Islam. And by Imamah, we do not mean “leadership” since even the Sunni–as well as any group of people–consider leadership to be an important issue. When we refer to “Imamah” we are referring to the specific Shia doctrine of God-appointed infallible leaders who must be followed. Denying Imamah The sheer importance that the Shia scholars give to Imamah can be seen by their views on those who reject Imamah. Let us see what the popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has to say about this: Al-Shia.com says “:“فيمن جحد إمامة أمير المؤمنين والائمة من بعده عليهم السلام بمنزلة ( 6 ) من جحد نبوة الانبياء عليهم السلام . واعتقادنا ” “فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الائمة عليهم السلام أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع الانبياء ثم أنكر بنبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وآله “ Translation: Imam Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imamah of Ameer al Mumineen [Ali] and the Aimmah (Imams) after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets.” Further, he states: “And our belief is that the one who accepts Ameer al Mumineen [Ali] but rejects a single Imam after him, has the same position like the one who believes in all of the Prophets and then rejects the Prophethood of Muhammad (saws).” source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar27/a7.html ” Al-Shia.com says “Shaikh Mufid declared: “اتفقت الامامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الائمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار” Translation: “The Imamiyyah [shia] are in agreement (’Ijma) that the one who rejects the Imamah of one Imam and rejects the obedience to them which Allah ordered is a misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire forever.” source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar23/a39.html” Therefore, we see that this issue of Imamah is not one to be taken lightly. On the one side, the Shia scholars say that those who reject Imamah are misguided and deserving of Hell-Fire. On the other hand, the Sunni scholars say that those who accept the Shia doctrine of Imamah in toto [i.e. in totality] are guilty of believing in false prophethood (i.e. Dajjals). Where is the Doctrine of Imamah in the Quran? We ask the reader: where is the doctrine of Imamah in the Quran? This is a very sound question. The Quran is the book of guidance and we have been told by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) that whenever we feel lost, we can consult the Quran and it will never betray us. The Shia doctrine of Imamah is not a minor issue, but rather it is very important and it is the core belief of the Shia. Its importance is to the extent that the Shia Ulema hold that because of disbelief in this doctrine, 80% of Muslims are misguided and in fact not true believers. If this is the case, then we ask the reader: which verses of the Quran have given us this “all-important” doctrine of Imamah? If Imamah is central to Islam, and the Quran is the central book of Islam, then surely the Quran should have the belief of Imamah in it. And yet, for hundreds of years, the Shia scholars have not been able to answer the “Quran Challenge.” The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah has repeatedly challenged the Shia to produce even one single verse in the Quran that outlines the Shia concept of Imamah. Time and time again, anyone who tries to seek proof for Imamah from the Quran fails to do so. The Quran Challenge This is an open challenge for the Shia to give Quranic verses which outline and justify the Shia concept of Imamah. Can the Shia produce even a single verse outlining Imamah, without any additions to the translation, without parenthetical insertions to the translation, without Hadith to “support” their interpretation, without Tafseer, and without their own personal commentaries leading us from verse to verse? When the Shia is forced to produce the Quranic verses without any additions, he will find it impossible to even come close to fulfilling the “Quran Challenge.” Not a single verse in the Quran says anything even remotely close to “O believers, after the Prophet, there will be twelve Imams chosen by Allah and you should follow them.” The Shia can never produce a single verse in the Quran that shows anything even similar to this. In fact, the Shia will be forced to produce long Tafseer and circuitious arguments involving certain verses with added meanings to them; but if we ask the Shia to simply read the verse without any insertions, then suddenly they cannot produce even a single verse in the Quran to justify Imamah. Suffice to say that the Shia becomes polemically incapacitated if he is forced to use the Quran and Quran alone. The Shia have stated that Imamah is the fundamental of faith, and so there should thus be many verses in the Quran on this topic. Yet, the “Quran Challenge” only asks for the Shia to produce even a couple of verses from the Quran, yet even this is not possible. Not a single verse in the Quran mentions the names of their Infallible Imams; not even Ali’s name (رضّى الله عنه) is ever mentioned in the Quran. But more importantly than this, there is not a single mention of the very concept of Imamah. This is peculiar, to say the least; how can Imamah be part of Usool-e-Deen (a fundamental pillar of faith) and yet not be mentioned even a single time in the Quran? The truth is that the Quran mentions all the fundamentals of belief, and if something is not in the Quran, then that “thing” cannot possibly be a fundamental of belief. Imamah Not Mentioned in Quran Every single fundamental of Islam is mentioned in the Quran numerous times. Tawheed and the concept of Allah (عز و جل) are mentioned over two thousand times. The concept of Messengers and Prophets [Risalah and Nabuwwah] is mentioned repeatedly; in fact, the words “Rasool” and “Nabi” is used over four hundred times. All of the other Usool-e-Deen (fundamental of religion), other than Imamah, are mentioned hundreds of times in the Quran. Yet, the Quran remains completely silent on the issue of Imamah. The Shia say that Imamah is one of the Usool-e-Deen, but we see that even the Furoo-e-Deen (the subsidiary and secondary parts of religion) are mentioned much more than Imamah is (which is actually never mentioned). Salat (prayer), the second pillar of Islam, is mentioned 700 times in the Quran. Zakat (charity), the third pillar of Islam, has been mentioned over 150 times. And yet, where is Imamah? The Quran is the complete guide for humanity, and yet the Shia are saying that the fundamental core belief (i.e. Imamah) is not in it. The Quran clearly says that Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) is divinely appointed as the the Messenger of Allah (عز و جل) and that we should follow him. If there was another divinely appointed person we were supposed to follow after him, shouldn’t his name also be mentioned in the Quran? Why is it too much to ask that the twelve Imams be named in the Quran? Or how about even one of them? Not even Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is named in the Quran. For argument sake, we will not even demand names; what about even the very concept of divinely appointed Imams that will come after the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and that we must follow them? We would argue that Allah (عز و جل) should have included the names of such people for the book to really be complete, yet we are unable to find even a single verse in the Quran which describes even the concept of Imamah. Not a single verse can the Shia produce in this regard. The Quran is the ultimate guide for humanity. It contains all the fundamental beliefs of our faith. If Imamah was really a part of our faith, then it would be in the Quran. But Imamah is not in the Quran and we reject whatever belief is not justified in the Quran. There are many verses in the Quran that say that the believers are those who pray, give alms to the poor, do good deeds, and other such things; but why is it that not a single verse says the believers are those who follow and obey the Infallible Imam? Conclusion Both Sunni and Shia, as well as all other Islamic-oriented sects, have their own set of Hadith, Tafseer, historical accounts, and rituals. However, the Quran should be mutually agreed upon by both sides as being an authentic guide to the truth. In the words of Sidi Abu Salih, in order for a dialogue between Sunni and Shia to be fruitful, …the Lowest Common Denominator should be found, a work that will be accepted as fully authentic in terms of its message and its integriy by both the Sunni and Shia sides. This book is, of course, the Noble Quran. Therefore, the first and most important place to look for resolving big differences of doctrine such as those between the Sunni and Shia sects should be the Quran. Source: Sidi Abu Salih, Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective, p.14; Download book here Thus, whichever group has basis for its beliefs in the Quran, it is this group that we should adhere to. A group whose beliefs are not in the Quran cannot be followed as this would be refuting the Word of Allah (عز و جل). The Quran is complete in its guidance; Allah Almighty (عز و جل) says: “We have left nothing out of the Book.” (Quran, 6:38) In Nahjul Balagha, which the Shia believe are Ali’s sermons and letters, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) says: “The Quran is the Hujjat (Proof) of Allah for his servants…it is the basis of Islam…and the guidance for anyone who follows it and justification for anyone who takes it as his approach and the evidence for anyone who takes it as his supporter in his discussions and winner for anyone who uses it for making his arguments.” [Nahjul Balagha, Sermon 198] Imam Sadiq is reported to have said in Shia Hadith: “Anyone who comes to recognize the truth from any sources other than the Quran will not be saved from Fitnah.” The importance of the Quran is stated clearly by the Infallible Imams of the Shia: “If you come across two Hadiths narrated from us [imams] then compare them with the Book of Allah; what is in accordance then take it and what is in disagreement then reject it.” (Al-Istibsar, Volume 1, p.190) And again: “Whatever comes to you related from us [imams] then compare it with the Book of Allah; whatever is in accordance with it then accept it and whatever contradicts it then reject it.” (Al-Istibsar, Volume 3, p.158) The realization that Imamah does not appear in the Quran may come as a shock to our Shia brothers. We encourage them to look in the Quran for verses about the twelve Infallible Imams, and surely they will not find any. As stated by one brother: “I did not find Shi’ism in the Quran.” Article Written By: Owais Muhammad Edited By: Ibn al-Hashimi, www.ahlelbayt.com Special thanks to the author of the following book “Imaamah and the Quran: An Objective Perspective” By: Abu Salih Synopsis: Imamah is one of the fundamental beliefs of the Shia, and it is the major difference between the Shia and mainstream Muslims. The Quran is the central book of Islam, and hence, it contains all of the major beliefs of the Muslims. In the book “Imaamah and the Quran”, the author analyzes how Imamah, the major belief of the Shia, is absent from the Quran. This book was instrumental in the creation of this website, and it can be purchased here.
  7. Slander Against Prophet’s Wives The Shia scholars slander the Prophet’s wives, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها). They do not have a good opinion of Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) because she was the daughter of the first Caliph (Abu Bakr [رضّى الله عنه]), and they do not speak well of Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها) because she was the daughter of the second Caliph (Umar bin Khattab [رضّى الله عنه]). The Shia believe that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was a Munafiqh (hypocrite) and Kaffir (disbeliever), and we see this allegation in the well-known books of the Shia: “Aisha was an infidel woman (Kaffir).” (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 726) It is further stated: “Aisha was a hypocrite (Munafiqh).” (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Page No. 867) And again: “Aisha and Hafsa were hypocrite and infidel women.” (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 900) The famous Ayatollah, Mullah Baqir Majlisi, states: “She [Aisha] was a traitor.” (Mullah Baqir Majlisi, Tadhkiratul Aimmah, p. 66) The Shia argue that whoever denies the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) is considered a Kaffir, and they say that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is one of the leaders (along with Muawiyya [رضّى الله عنه]) in the opposition against Ali’s Imamah (رضّى الله عنه). Let us see what the popular Shia website, Al-Shia.com, has to say about this: :”فيمن جحد إمامة أمير المؤمنين والائمة من بعده عليهم السلام بمنزلة ( 6 ) من جحد نبوة الانبياء عليهم السلام . واعتقادنا ” “فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الائمة عليهم السلام أنه بمنزلة من آمن بجميع الانبياء ثم أنكر بنبوة محمد صلى الله عليه وآله “ Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar27/a7.html Translation: Al-Saduk says, “Our belief is that the one who rejects the Imaamat of Ameer ul Mu’mineen [Ali] and the Aimmah after him, has the same position like the one who rejects the Prophethood of the Prophets.” . Further, he states: “And our belief is that the one who accepts Ameer ul Mu’mineen but rejects a single Imaam after him, has the same position like the one who believes in all the Prophets and then rejects the Prophethood of Muhammad (saws).” . Sheykh Mufid declared: “اتفقت الامامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الائمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار” Source: http://www.al-shia.com/html/ara/books/behar/behar23/a39.html Translation: “The Imamiyya is in agreement that the one who rejects the Imaamat of one Imaam and rejects the obedience to them which Allah (t) ordered is a misguided Kaffir deserving to remain in Hell-Fire forever.” . Hence, there should be no confusion on this matter that the Shia believe Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is a disbeliever (Kaffir) destined for Hell-Fire. In fact, the Shia Tafseer on Al-Islam.org declares that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is not only a Kaffir but rather she is the very leader of the Kufaar [imam al-Kufr]. Al-Islam.org quotes the Shia Tafseer for verse 9:12 as: “According to the Holy Prophet, a-immatal kufr (leaders of infidelity) are also those who opposed and fought against the divinely commissioned Imams of the Ahl ul Bayt…Ali ibn abi Talib had recited this verse at the battle of Jamal and quoted the above noted prophecy of the Holy Prophet.” [Pooya/M.A. Ali 9:12, http://www.al-Islam.org/quran/] . In Tafseer Al-Qumi (which is perhaps the most classical of Shia Tafseer), it is said that it is the people whom Ali (رضّى الله عنه) fought in the Battle of Jamal including Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), Talha (رضّى الله عنه), and Zubair (رضّى الله عنه) who are being referred to in this Verse as the “Leaders of Kufr.” This view is also the position of Kashani in his Tafseer Al-Safi, and in other Shia interpretations. The Majma ul Bayan Tafseer also includes Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) as one of the “Aimmatul Kufr” (Imams of Kufr) along with the Quraish polythiests, the Persian Magians, and the Byzantine Christians. . Oftentimes one will find Shias who use Taqiyyah (deception to protect one’s religion) when they debate with the Ahlus Sunnah, and they claim that they don’t say that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is a Kaffir. How is this possible when Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) supposedly fought against the so-called Infallible Imam of the Shia? Not only this, but Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was the sole reason that the Ahlus Sunnah believe Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to be the first Caliph and not Ali (رضّى الله عنه). To the Shia, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) thus represents the leader of the enemies of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), a chronic liar and fabricator of Hadith. Let us now examine what Al-Tijani (a popular Shia scholar) said about Aisha: “…she [Aisha] tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings [Hadith].” (Then I was Guided, p.141). Here, Al-Tijani is accusing the Prophet’s wife of being a liar. It is well accepted that fabricating Hadith is Kufr (disbelief) both in Shia and Sunni schools of thought. The Shia call Aisha “the horn of Shaitan” and they claim that the Prophet said this. Al-Tijani alleges in his book: “Once the Prophet (saw) was giving a speech, and he pointed towards the house where Aishah was living, then said, ‘There is the trouble … there is the trouble … there is the trouble … from where the devil’s horns come out.’” (Then I was Guided, p.119) The accusations by the Shia scholars do not stop there. To create a diabolical mystique around Aisha (رضّى الله عنها), they accuse her of hating to even mention the name of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and that she celebrated on the day that Ali (رضّى الله عنه) died. Al-Tijani says: “she [Aisha] did not like mentioning his [Ali’s] name, and when she learnt of his death she knelt and thanked Allah.” (Then I was Guided, p.117-118) The Shia scholars even accuse Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) of being an accomplice to murder. They say that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) advocated the murder of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), and they quote her as saying “Kill the old fool [uthman].” Not only did she advocate the murder of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه), but the Shia also say that she then used the murder of Uthman (رضّى الله عنه) as an excuse to wage war against Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and kill even more Muslims. Al-Tijani claims: “she permitted the killing of innocent people and started a war against the commander of the believers and the Companions who voted for him, and she caused the deaths of thousands of Muslims, according to the historians. She did all that because she did not like Ali who advised the Prophet to divorce her.” (Then I was Guided, p.117) Not only this, but the Shia scholars also add that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was responsible for the murder of Muawiyya (رضّى الله عنه). There are even Shia scholars who argue that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها) attempted to murder the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) himself: “Aisha and Hafsa poisioned the Prophet.” (Jila-ul-Ayoun, Page No. 118) This is voiced by one of the Shia Maraje, namely Mullah Baqir Majlisi: “Aisha and Hafsa tried to martyr Rasulullaah by giving him poison.” (Vol. 2, Hayat-ul-quloob, page #870, Mullah Baqir Majlisi) And again: “…those two female munafiqs (referring to Aisha and Hafsa) agreed to martyr Rasulullah by administering poison to him.” (Hayatul Quloob, page 745, Vol 2, Mullah Baqir Majlisi) Some of the more liberal Shia will deny that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) poisioned the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم), but they will not deem it blasphemous to argue this point; in fact, we noticed an entire thread about this topic on Shia-Chat, where poster after poster was arguing that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) had attempted to poison the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). We hope it is becoming more and more apparent that the accusations levied at Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) seem to stem more from emotions, rhetoric, and inherent bias rather than reliable and referenced historical facts. Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها) are portrayed as being demonically bad people; these being two of the women whom the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) remained married to and loved for his entire life. The Shia cleric Mutahhiri was quoted in the Tehran Times as saying: “Now that we see Ali, and Ammaar, Uways al-Qarani and others face to face with Aisha and az-Zubayr and Talhah, we do not feel any hesitation, for we see the second group as people with the look of criminals, that is, the effects of evil and treachery are evident on their faces: and when we look at their faces and their treacherous characters we guess that they are people of the Fire.” (Shia cleric Mutahhiri, Tehran Times, 25th August, 1982) This is voiced again in this Shia book: “…Muawiyya and Aisha were worst people of all times.” (Makalmaat-e-husainia, page #59). And Mullah Baqir Majlisi said: “They [Aisha and Hafsa] were both hypocrites [Munafiqeen].” (Mullah Baqir Majlisi, Hayatul Quloob, 2:745) And there are even Shia scholars who go to the extreme of saying that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها) were indecent women: “Hafsa was an indecent women.” (Tohfa-e-Hanfia Dar Jawab Tohfa-e-Jaffria, Page No. 123) And: “Aisha was charged of committing open vulgarity.” (Quran Majeed by Maqbool Hussain Dehlevi, Page No. 840) Al-Tijani says in his book: “How could Umm al-Mu’mineen Aishah leave her house in which Allah had ordered her to stay, when the most High said: ‘And stay in your houses and do not display your finery like the displaying of the ignorance of yours.’” Is Al-Tijani accusing the Prophet’s own wife of displaying her finery [i.e. showing her breasts, body, etc] to everyone? The Shia scholars believe that the Mehdi will come and exhume the body of Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) in order to flog her for her sins: “When the Twelvth Imam returns, Aisha will be raised from the dead so as to be whipped as due punishment.” (Al Shafi, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 108) And: “When the Twelvth Imam returns, he will bring Aisha to life so as to torment her.” (Haq-ul-Yaqeen, Page No. 139) As well as: “Imam Mehdi will punish Aisha with stripes.” (Hayat-ul-Quloob, Vol. No. 2, Page No. 901) Mullah Baqir Majlisi says: “When Imam Mahdi arrives, Aisha will be resurrected so that she may be given a prescribed punishment and that Fatima be vindicated.” (Mullah Baqir Majlisi, Haqqul Yaqeen, p. 347) The Shia accusations against Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) range from the absurd [i.e. that she gave poison to the Prophet] to the outright childish; for example, Al-Islam.org dedicates so much of its webspace to discuss how Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was an imprudent, rude, and “jealous woman.” Stories will then be cited about how Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) was so jealous and vengeful towards her co-wives and step-child Ibrahim (رضّى الله عنه); the way the Shia describe her makes her sound diabolical, more like the wicked stepmother in the Disney movie “Cinderella” than a real life person. In fact, the Shia will never even name their daughter “Aisha” because to them this name is a cursed and wretched name; this shows the depth of their hatred for Aisha (رضّى الله عنها). The Shia scholars will belittle Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) by saying that she was barren and infertile, citing this as a reason that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) hated her co-wives and was jealous of Fatima (رضّى الله عنها). The entire faith of Shi’ism is based upon calling Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) a liar and a fabricator of Hadith. To the Shia, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is the chief rejector of the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه), because of whom the entire Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah supposedly abandoned the Imamah of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). We wonder why then the Shia scholars say that they are the “followers of Ahlel Bayt” since Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and her co-wives are the Ahlel Bayt! Allah Himself addresses them in the Quran as such. The Quran specifically refers to the wives of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) as Ahlel Bayt in the following verse: “O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless.” (Quran, 33:32-33) The transliteration reads: “Ya nisa al-nabiyi lastuna kahadin mina alnisa-i ini itaqaytuna fala takhdaAAna bialqawli fayatmaAAa allathee fee qalbihi maradun waqulna qawlan maAAroofan Waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa Ahlul Bayt-i wayutahhirakum tatheeran” (Quran, 33:32-33) We ask Allah to shower His infinite blessings upon Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها), the Mothers of the Believers, and to protect them from the slander of the Nasibis who, while proclaiming what has been mentioned above, can not possibly claim to love the Ahlel Bayt of Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) despite whatever they claim of the Ahlel Bayt of Ali (رضّى الله عنه). In future articles, we shall Insha-Allah refute this malicious slander against our beloved Mothers, Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and Hafsa (رضّى الله عنها).
  8. Shi’Ism And Nasibi

    Foundation of Shi’ism is Nasibi We hope that, here, we have proven beyond a doubt that the Prophet’s wives are indeed part of Ahlel Bayt. The Quran specifically refers to the wives of the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) as Ahlel Bayt in the following verse: “O wives of the Prophet! You are not like any other of the women; If you will be on your guard, then be not soft in your speech, lest he in whose heart is a disease yearn; and speak a good word. And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, you Ahlel Bayt (People of the House), and to make you pure and spotless.” (Quran, 33:32-33) The transliteration reads: “Ya nisa al-nabiyi lastuna kahadin mina alnisa-i ini itaqaytuna fala takhdaAAna bialqawli fayatmaAAa allathee fee qalbihi maradun waqulna qawlan maAAroofan Waqarna fee buyootikunna wala tabarrajna tabarruja aljahiliyyati al-oola waaqimna alssalata waateena alzzakata waatiAAna Allaha warasoolahu innama yureedu Allahu liyuthhiba AAankumu alrrijsa Ahlul Bayt-i wayutahhirakum tatheeran” (Quran, 33:32-33) Thus we hope that it has become clear that whoever slanders the Prophet’s wives and talks ill of them can be considered a Nasibi (hater of the Ahlel Bayt). The most beloved of the Prophet’s wives was Aisha (رضّى الله عنها). However, it, unfortunately, appears that a very important premise of Shi’ism is based upon slander against her, the Mother of the Believers and rightful member of the Ahlel Bayt. Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) narrated a Hadith in which the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) specifically appointed Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to lead the prayers as Imam during the Prophet’s sickness at the end of his life. The Sahabah (رضّى الله عنهم) and the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah rightfully interpreted this appointment to mean that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) appointed Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as his successor, not Ali (رضّى الله عنه). The majority of the Shia admit that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) was the Imam of the prayers during the Prophet’s last few days of life; however, they argue that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had really appointed Ali (رضّى الله عنه) to lead the prayers, but that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) lied to the people by claiming that the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) had appointed Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) to lead the prayers. Recently, there have been some Shia who have even gone to the extreme of denying known historical events by saying that Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) never led the prayers as Imam; they again accuse Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) of being a liar, and say that the Hadith about Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) leading the prayers were fabricated by Aisha (رضّى الله عنها). Al-Tijani is a very popular Shia scholar and writer who recently published his best-selling book “Then I was Guided.” In this book, he says: “…either by his [Abu Bakr’s] daughter Aisha, whose position vis-a-vis Ali is well documented, and she tried hard to support her father, even by fabricating sayings [Hadith].” (Then I was Guided, p.141) Al-Tijani futher says: “…she [Aisha] played an important role in the denial of the Prophet’s will for Ali…” (Then I was Guided, p.119-120) This book can be found referenced on the popular Shia website Al-Islam.org, and it is at the forefront of the Shia dialogue with the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah; this viewpoint that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) fabricated Hadith to prove her father’s claim to Caliphate is accepted by Ijma (consensus) of all the Shia Ayatollahs and Maraje’ (high scholars). Based on this, it is our understanding that the Shia opposition to Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) cannot be understated. It is the foundation block of Shi’ism that Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) is a liar and a fabricator of Hadith. Without believing in this, the Shia would be forced to accept Abu Bakr’s (رضّى الله عنه) appointment as successor Imam and the entire belief of Ali (رضّى الله عنه) being the first Infallible Imam becomes implausible. Thus, the Shia are faced with two options: either they slander Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and call her a liar, or they accept Aisha (رضّى الله عنها) and then rescind their claims that it was Ali (رضّى الله عنه) who was appointed as successor Imam by the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم). The Shia claim to be the “followers of the Ahlel Bayt,” but the reality is apparently otherwise; had they followed the Ahlel Bayt (i.e. the Prophet’s wives), then they would have accepted Abu Bakr (رضّى الله عنه) as the successor Imam to the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) and the Muslim Ummah would have remained united. The truth of the matter is that it is the Shia who are the Nasibis, because they hate the Prophet’s wives. The Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah loves the entire Ahlel Bayt, including the Prophet’s wives, all his children, Ali (رضّى الله عنه) and his family, etc., whereas the Shia only love one segment of the Ahlel Bayt and despise other parts of it.
  9. Taqiyyah Modern day Shi’ism is a branch of the Saba’ite cult which was founded by Abdullah Ibn Saba. The Saba’ites used the tactic of Taqiyyah in order to avoid persecution and to avoid detection from the authorities. They were a secret society much like the Free Masons, Illuminati, and other such cults. Throughout history, the Shia have used Taqiyyah in order to avoid persecution and to avoid detection. The practise of Taqiyyah allowed the Shia cult to spread and grow. According to one Shia scholar: “Shi’ism would not have spread if it wasn’t for Taqiyyah.” (“Tarikhush Shi’ah” by Muhammad Husain Jafari Sahiwal, p.230) Taqiyya (التقية) is translated literally as “speaking contrary to one’s inner beliefs.” It is often translated by the Shia propagandists as “dissimulation” and in fact this definition of Taqiyyah is a sort of Taqiyyah in and of itself! The Shia use the word “dissimulation” only because nobody really knows what the word means, and it is a euphemism for the word “deceit.” The Shia propagandists are hiding behind the word “dissimulation” in the hopes that nobody will take the time to look up this word in the dictionary. According to http://www.dictionary.com/, the word “dissimulation” translates to: Dissimulation: n., the act of deceiving [synonyms: deception, deceit, dissembling] Thus, let us be honest when we discuss Taqiyyah and use words that the common man will understand. Taqiyyah translates to “the act of deceiving.” An explanation of Taqiyyah was given by the Infallible Imam of the Shia as recorded in Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith: The Imam said that Taqiyyah is to say one thing outwardly but to believe another inwardly. There is another term for this: lying. It is a very odd faith that allows for lying, and not only allows for it, but commands it! The Shia have gone on to say that Taqiyyah is a virtuous act and a highly encouraged act. It is classed as Mustahabb (highly recommended). The Shia propagandists will use Taqiyyah when they explain what Taqiyyah is. They will argue that Taqiyyah is allowed when one’s life is in danger. However, this is not the only time in which Taqiyyah is observed by the Shia! We read on Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s official website the following Fatwa: Question: What are the kinds of Taqiyah (dissimulation) and when is it obligatory? Answer: There are different types of Taqiyah: 1) Taqiyah is done for safety reasons. For example, a person fears that he might be killed or harmed, if he does not observe Taqiyah. In this case, it is obligatory to observe Taqiyah. 2) Reconciliatory Taqiyah. This type of Taqiyah is done when a person intends to reconcile with the other side or when he intends to soften their hearts. This kind of Taqiyah is permissible but not obligatory. 3) Sometimes, Taqiyah may cause a more important obligation to be lost or missed, if so it is forbidden… 4) Sometimes, Taqiyah may lead to the death of an innocent person. If so, it is not permissible. It is therefore haram (forbidden) to kill another person to save your own life. (source: Grand Ayatollah Sistani’s official website, http://www.sistani.org/html/eng/menu/4/?lang=eng&view=d&code=36&page=1) In other words, Taqiyyah is permitted to: 1. Save oneself (mandatory) 2. Reconciliatory Taqiyyah: Softening hearts (permissible, not mandatory) 3. To escape an obligation such as speaking out against oppression or infidelity (forbidden) 4. To preserve one’s life if it means someone else may die (forbidden) Firstly, we see that there are different types of Taqiyyah. What the Shia propagandists do is that they simply talk about the first type mentioned above (i.e. to save one’s life) but they do not discuss the second type of Taqiyyah mentioned. It is the second type of Taqiyyah–reconciliatory Taqiyyah–which interests us. It can better be explained by none other than the Infallible Imam of the Shia. According to the Shia’s Al-Kafi, Imam Sadiq is reported to have said in an authentic narration: “Mix with them (i.e.non-shia) outwardly but oppose them inwardly.” (Al-Kafi, vol.9, p.116) Thus, there should be no confusion as to the intent of Taqiyyah. Softening the hearts is an attempt to weaken the enemy’s defenses against an imminent and clandestine attack by the Shia. The claim by the Shia propagandists that Taqiyyah is only permissible to save one’s life is false. It is also permissible to do Taqiyyah in order to save one’s religion, as this is considered more sacred than one’s life. In order to further Shi’ism, it is permissible to lie. This falls under the category of “softening hearts” (i.e. softening their hearts to the call of Shi’ism). Thus, the Shia are allowed to lie when they discuss their faith with others. For example, we will see that that the Shia will oftentimes avoid insulting the Sahabah and Wives of the Prophet in front of the followers of the Ahlus Sunnah. If we ask them why they hate the friends and wives of the Prophet, they will feel no qualms in lying to us and saying that they don’t hate them at all. But when they are alone with their fellow Shia, they will insult and degrade the Sahabah and the Wives of the Prophet. The Shia will raise their children with malicious fairy-tales designed to malign these people, calling them murderers and fabricators. According to the rightly guided Ahlus Sunnah, Taqiyyah of the Shia is none other than Nifaq (hypocrisy). The Imam of the Shia has said that Taqiyyah is to: “Mix with them (i.e.non-shia) outwardly but oppose them inwardly.” (Al-Kafi, vol.9, p.116) Allah describes the Munafiqoon (hypocrites) in the Quran: “When they [hypocrites] meet those who believe, they say: ‘We believe.’ But when they are alone with their evil ones, they say: ‘We are really with you, we (were) only jesting.’” (Quran, 2:14) When the Shia meet with the mainstream Muslims, they will say “We don’t hate the Sahabah and the wives of the Prophet;” but when they are in their own Shia circles, they spend all their time spewing forth hatred and slander against them. Taqiyyah is a most peculiar institution. No other religion in the world advocates its followers to lie. Lying is considered a sin in all other religions. Lying about one’s religion is especially heinous but it is a must for the Shia. The Shia also believe in the concept of Kitman. Kitman means hiding one’s faith from non-Shias. It is considered necessary in the Shia doctrine to hide certain aspects of one’s faith from non-Shias, as well as ignorant Shia who don’t really know their faith. Taqiyyah and Kitman are one of the reasons that the Shia have so many beliefs (presented in this site) that the Shia masses are ignorant about. They are purposefully hidden and kept secret; as can be seen, Shi’ism has the characteristics of a secret cult, no doubt a reflection of its Saba’ite origins. Taqiyyah is considered obligatory on the Shia up until the day Imam Mehdi (al Qa’im) returns. According to Shaykh Saduq ibn Babawayhi, who is considered one of the foremost authorties of Shi’ism: “Our belief concerning taqiya (permissible dissimulation) is that it is obligatory, and he who forsakes it is in the same position as he who forsakes prayer…Now until the Imam al-Qa’im appears, taqiya is obligatory and it is not permissible to dispense with it. He, who abandons it before the appearance of the Qa’im, has verily gone out of the religion of Allah, Exalted is He, and the religion of the Imams, and disobeys Allah and His Messenger and the Imams. “Imam Ja’far was asked concerning the Word of Allah, Mighty and Glorious is He: ‘Verily the noblest among you, in the sight of Allah, is the most pious’ [49, 13]. He said: ‘(It means) he who adheres most scrupulously to the practice of taqiya.‘” (source: “On The Beliefs of the Shi’a Imamiya“, as reproduced on the official website of the “Shia Ithna Ashari Community of Middlesex”, http://www.sicm.org.uk/index.php?page=suduk/Suduk39) The importance of Taqiyyah cannot be understated. The Infallible Imam of the Shia has said: “He who conceals his religion has saved it, and he who makes it public has destroyed it.” The Shia scholars have written about the many virtues of Taqiyyah so that their followers can use this weapon to the utmost. They say: “He who conceals his religion has saved it, and he who makes it public has destroyed it.” In Al-Kafi, the most reliable of the Shia books of Hadith, it is narrated: “From ten parts of Deen, nine parts depend upon Taqiyyah.” (Usool-e Kafi, part 2, Kitaabul Imaan wal Kufr, Babut Taqiyyah, line 5) We wonder: if 90% of the Shia religion is based on lies, what else do we expect from them than being chronically lying deviants? In another troublesome narration in Al-Kafi, we read: “The Imam mentioned that the most beloved thing on the surface of earth is Taqiyyah.” (Usool-e Kafi, part 2, Kitaabul Imaan wal Kufr, Babut Taqiyyah, line 12, Riwayah 4, p.217) “The Imam has mentioned that Taqiyyah is the coolness of his eyes.” (Usool-e Kafi, part 2, Kitaabul Imaan wal Kufr, Babut Taqiyyah, line 1, Riwayah 14, p.217) The fifth Infallible Imam of the Shia, Abu Jafar, says: “Taqiyyah is from my religion and the religion of my fathers; whoever doesn’t have Taqiyyah doesn’t have Iman.” (Al-Kafi, Chapter Taqiyyah, Vol. 2, p.219) The corollary of this would be that the one who prefers to always stick to the truth cannot have Iman, and thus must be a disbeliever. This is a truly troublesome belief, and completely counter-intuitive. Imam Abu Abdullah is narrated to have said: “O Sulaiman, you are on a religion that he who hides it is honored by Allah, and the one who propagates it [openly] will be humiliated!” (Al-Kafi, Vol. 2, p.217) This is in direct contradiction to what Allah says in the Quran: “Surely those who hide from people the clear proofs and guidance, which We clarified in the Book (the Quran), will be cursed by Allah…” (Quran, 2:159) In Tafseer al-Askari which the Shia adhere to, we read the following commentary: “Taqiyyah is a distinguishing factor between a Shia and a Sunni…one who abstains from Taqiyyah has commited an unforgiveable sin…A believer who does not do Taqiyyah is like a body without a head…Taqiyyah is the best amongst all deeds…A Shia, acting upon Taqiyyah, performed Salah behind a hypocrite (Sunni) Imam upon which the Imam commented that the angels of the seven planets and skies are sending salutations upon you and curses upon the Imam behind whom you performed Salah. A reward of 700 Salah will be recorded for the one Salah which you performed through Taqiyyah.” (Tafseer al-Askari) In Tafseer-e Safi, we read: “He who does not act upon Taqiyyah is void of faith.” (Tafseer-e Safi, Part 1, Faiz Kashani, p.253) A confusing aspect of Shi’ism is that their Infallible Imams even would answer with Taqiyyah when asked questions by their followers. We read in Al-Kafi: “Three people questioned Imam Baqir about an issue and the Imam replied to each person differently acting upon Taqiyyah and he said that if any person hears from us [imams] such a thing which is against the Law of Allah then he should remember that we have acted upon Taqiyyah.” (Usool-e Kafi) This really destroys the foundation of the belief: how does one determine which sayings of the Imams are correct and which were simply said under Taqiyyah? Perhaps every saying of the Imam against the first Three Caliphs was Taqiyyah? Conclusion Lying is a big sin in Islam, and the best believer is the one who always tells the truth. The Shia faith is a deranged ideology, one which advocates cussing (Tabarra), prostitution (Mutah), self-flagellation (Matam), and deceit (Taqiyyah). It is not possible that the Deen of Haqq (the Religion of Truth) would advocate deceit, lying, and hiding. Taqiyyah is a practise of a cult or a secret society, and it is not used by those who follow the Religion of God. Declared one Imam of the Shia: “…Taqiyyah is the distinctive feature of the Shia.” We would have to agree with him on this point. Article Written By: Ibn al-Hashimi, http://www.ahlelbayt.com/
  10. Are the Shia Considered Muslims? A Balanced Answer This question–about whether or not the Imami Shia are Muslim–is a very emotional one. The humble author of this article is not qualified to pass verdicts on such matters; however, this article will merely serve as a purview of all the various opinions cited by qualified Sunni scholarship, and to hopefully make sense of it all in a constructive manner. The truth of the matter is that the answer to this question cannot be a simple “yes” or a “no.” Unfortunately, some “conservative” Sunnis will jump to declare all Shia to be Kufaar (disbelievers) and engage in Takfeer of all Shia they come in contact with. On the other hand, some “liberal” Sunnis will reflexively defend all Shia no matter how odious or deviant their beliefs are, including even their Ayatollahs and leaders. Indeed, to draw a hasty conclusion is not appropriate; Imam Ibn Abidin states: “It is difficult to make a general statement and judge all the Shia to be disbelievers.” (Radd al-Muhtar, 4/453) Some Shia are considered Muslims, and some Shia are considered Kufaar. Various Shia have different beliefs: some have beliefs which constitute Kufr, whereas others do not. Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says: According to the classical and the majority of contemporary scholars, there are two types of Shi’as: a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)…shi’as that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam. b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr…Such Shi’as can not be termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely deviated and transgressors (fisq). source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164 Shaikh Abdul Wahab al-Turayree, a professor of Al-Imam University, says: We cannot say that all the Shî`ah are unbelievers. On the other hand, there are many sects of the Shî`ah who advance claims that are tantamount to unbelief. Anyone who believes such things would be an unbeliever. source: IslamToday.com, http://www.islamtoday.com/show_detail_section.cfm?q_id=274&main_cat_id=37 Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of Islam-qa.com says: What we say about interacting with the Shi’ah depends on the situation. The innovated beliefs of the Shi’ah vary. If it [their belief] is something that does not put them beyond the pale of Islam…[it] is rather regarded [merely] as drifting away from the right path [as opposed to Kufr]…[in such a case] they are Muslims who have committed acts of innovation and sin that do not put them beyond the pale of Islam. source: Islam-qa.com, http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=48984&ln=eng&txt=shia Therefore, depending on his beliefs, a Shia person can be Muslim or Kaafir. What then are the beliefs which constitute Kufr? There are quite a few beliefs which constitute Kufr that would take one outside the folds of Islam, but we shall herein only discuss those relevant to the Sunni-Shia dialogue. (1) The superiority of the Imams over the Prophets. This is perhaps the most important issue. It is in fact the crux of the debate between Sunni and Shia. The doctrine of Imamah (i.e. belief in twelve Infallible Imams) is what separates the Shia from mainstream Islam. Too often than not, Sunnis will argue that Shia are disbelievers because they curse the Sahabah or something else along those lines, but in reality, the focus of the debate should be around the issue of Imamah. Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan quoted by Sunni Path states: Shi`ah fall into three categories: 1. ghâli (ghulât): they repudiate the necessities of religion…[They are Kaafir because they] elevate Sayyiduna Ali and other Imams above the Prophets…[They are Kaafir even] if these Imams are held to be higher than even ONE prophet…. Those who hold the above and other such statements that amount to disbelief are Kaafirs by Ijma (consensus). All dealings with them are similar to those with apostates. It is in fatawa Dharhiriyyah, Fatawa Hindiyyah, Hadiqatun Nadiyyah: they are to be dealt with as apostates. Nowadays, most of the Rafidhis (i.e. Shia) fall into this category. Their scholars and commoners, men and woman–all of them seem to profess the aforementioned beliefs–except Allâh willing–otherwise. source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=598&CATE=10 Shaikh Ahmad Rida Khan has hereby stated that–according to him–most of the Shia alive today possess this belief and are therefore Kufaar. The author of this article agrees with him, but would like to point out that this may not be the case in the West: it seems that most Shia commoners living in North America and Europe have a more “filtered” version of Shi’ism, so whereas most Shia worldwide may hold such a belief, the Western Shia may differ in this. In any case, what we have established thus far is the fact that the belief that any of the Imams are superior to even one Prophet is Kufr. It should be noted that this concept is not peculiar or particular to the Shia, but rather to any person in general. If, for example, a Sunni were to claim that Abu Bakr was equal to or superior to Prophet Musa, then this would be grounds for Kufr. Muslims believe that the Prophets and Messengers are the highest in ranks amongst humanity, and that no person can rival them in this honor, neither can they be superior to them nor can they even equal them in status. It is, after all, for this reason that the Ahmadis are declared to be Kufaar, namely because they believe in a person who has a rank equal to or higher than the Prophets. It should be noted that all the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) are agreed upon the fact that the Imams are superior to the Prophets, aside from Prophet Muhammad. For an indepth analysis of this Shia belief, please read this article: Imams Superior to Prophets. However, although the Shia scholarship is agreed upon this doctrine, the laity amongst the Shia (i.e. the masses) may be unaware of this. In fact, it has been my observation that most Shia lay-persons and commoners in the West have no idea at all about this belief. Many of them are even shocked if someone were to claim that the Imams are superior to Prophets. It has happened on numerous occassions that a Shia lay-person would accuse a Sunni of lying if the latter were to state that the Shia believe that Imamah is superior to Prophethood. Indeed, I have no doubt that most Shia lay-persons who read this article will themselves deny this fact, and therefore I strongly urge them to read the link above so that they can have the definitive proof of the beliefs of the Shia scholarship. In conclusion, the Shia scholars are Kufaar because they believe that their Imams are superior to the Prophets. This includes their Ayatollahs, such as Khomeini, Khameini, Sistani, etc. It should be noted that these Shia scholars base this position on the Shia religious texts, which are very clear on this matter. The Shia Hadith literature and classical books state–in no uncertain terms–that their twelve Imams are superior to the Prophets (aside from Prophet Muhammad). However, the lay-persons, commoners, and masses of Shia–especially in the West–may not be aware of these religious texts, nor are they aware of the position of the scholars whom they supposedly do Taqleed upon. In a way, this ignorance is understandable. The masses of any faith are oftentimes not in tune with the actual beliefs written in the religious texts and held by the classical scholars. This holds true for Sunnis as well. For example, most Sunni lay-persons are completely unaware of the fact that music is Haram. However, the Sunni texts are clear on this matter and clearly state that music is Haram, and this is the view held by the Sunni scholars. In other words, just because the Sunni masses believe one thing, this does not mean that this conforms to what the Sunni religious texts say or what the Sunni scholars believe. Likewise, just because the Shia masses in the West may not believe that their Imams are superior to the Prophets does not mean that this is what Shi’ism itself says. Most Muslim lay-persons may say one thing, but Islam can say another thing. Like I mentioned earlier, most Muslim lay-persons would say that music is Halal, but Islam actually says that music is Haram. Similarly, most Shia lay-persons would say that their Imams are not superior to Prophets, but Shi’ism actually says otherwise. Any Shia person who understands this belief and adheres to it (i.e. the superiority of Imams over Prophets) is a Kaafir. It would not be an over-exaggeration to say that a Shia lay-person could become a Kaafir simply by reading this article and the one I gave the link to. The reason I make such a bold claim is that prior to reading these two articles, a Shia person may not have been aware of the fact that Shi’ism holds that Imams are superior to Prophets. But now I have shown him that indeed this is what Shi’ism says about this matter. If such a Shia reader were to now adopt this viewpoint, then indeed he would become a Kaafir. In other words, a Shia person’s ignorance of his own faith could serve as a protection in the sense that such a person is not a Kaafir because he does not believe in those parts of his religion which constitute Kufr. I would say that the masses of Shia in the West are unaware of this belief of theirs, and are therefore considered to be Muslims. It is only those who are aware of such a belief and adhere to it that would be outside the folds of Islam. The Shia scholarship are Kufaar but we do not say that the Shia masses are. (2) Claiming that a person after Prophet Muhammad received revelation from Allah like a Prophet. This is another belief which constitutes Kufr. Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbi was asked what were the agreed upon acts which would constitute exiting the faith. To this, he stated: “Claiming that a person after the time of Prophet Muhammad ibn Abdullah is a real Prophet from Allah…Included in this is claiming that one has received revelation from Allah like a Prophet.” source: Guiding Helper, www.guidinghelper.com The reality is that the Shia believe that their Imams received revelation from Allah like Prophets. However, they will not readily admit this fact and will in fact seek out loopholes to defend their beliefs, playing word games, and such stuff. Hence, I do not find any need to dwell on this matter, since it is much easier to prove the first belief above. The only reason I am mentioning this here is that it should be established firmly that it is a belief of the Muslims that no divinely appointed figure exists after Prophet Muhammad, and the belief in Imams is in contradiction to this. (3) The Quran is incomplete. Publically, the Shia will vehemently deny that they believe that the Quran is incomplete. The truth of the matter is that many of the Shia Maraje’ (top scholars) do believe in Tahreef (tampering) of the Quran, but they hide this fact due to Taqiyyah and Kitman. And there may be many Shia people who do indeed hold such a belief but they hide this fact. If this is the case, then we cannot declare them to be Kufaar, as we were not sent to judge what is in the hearts and only Allah knows what are the true intentions of people. Shaikh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari says: It should be remarked here that some members of the Shi’a community display outwardly not to have believes that constitute Kufr, but keep these beliefs in their heart, which they call Taqiyya. The case with such people is that if they did have such beliefs that constitute Kufr in their heart but outwardly denied them, then even though according to Allah and in hereafter they will be regarded as non-Muslims, but we will judge them according to their outward statements and actions. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) is reported to have said: “I have been ordered to judge people according to their outward condition” source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164 In common discourse, the Shia polemicists will vehemently deny such a belief, and it is only through a very tiresome process that we prove to them that Tahreef is a part of their faith. Therefore, once again, I would not advise bringing up this topic when discussing whether or not Shia are Muslim or not. Since the vast majority of Shia do not adhere to this belief, discussing this issue will only cause digression and tangential argumentation. (4) Cursing the Sahabah. Many hold the belief that cursing the Sahabah constitutes Kufr. However, this is an oversimplification of the issue, one which in fact weakens the position of the Ahlus Sunnah. A Shia propagandist would be very quick to show that in fact the Sahabah did fight amongst each other and one Sahabah would sometimes call another by a name, or the Prophet’s wives might do such a thing, etc. Therefore, we should be clearer and more specific instead of simply saying that cursing the Sahabah constitutes Kufr. Mufti Ebrahim Desai’s student says the following: The issue of abusing the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) takes on various forms. Hereunder follows some related points. 1. It is Haraam to abuse the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) 2. Normally, a person who does so is sinning, but would not be a Kaafir. 3. If, Allah forbid, a person falsely accuses Hadhrat Aaisha (Radhiyallahu anha) or any of the other Ummahaatul Mu’mineen of Zinaa, he is a Kaafir. 4. If, Allah forbid, a person says that most or all of the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum) became murtad (renegade) after Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), or become sinners after him, such a person is a Kaafir. 5. If one considers it permissible to abuse the Sahabah(Radhiyallahu anhum), such a person is Kaafir. 6. If one regards it as a light matter to abuse the Sahabah (Radhiyallahu anhum), such a person is a kaafir. We trust this answers your question. And Allah Ta’ala knows best Was Salaam E. Vawda for Daarul Iftaa CHECKED & APPROVED: Mufti Ebrahim Desai source: Ask-Imam, http://www.Islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=14285 Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of Islam-qa.com says: Some of the scholars explained in detail what is meant by hating the Sahaabah. They said: If a person hates some of them for some worldly reason, then that is not kufr and hypocrisy, but if it is for a religious reason, because they were the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then undoubtedly this is hypocrisy. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said: If a person slanders them [i.e. the Sahaabah] in a way that does not impugn their good character or religious commitment, such as describing one of them as being stingy or cowardly or lacking in knowledge or not being an ascetic and so on, then he deserves to be rebuked and disciplined, but we do not rule him to be a kaafir because of that. This is how the words of those who were not regarded as kaafirs by the scholars are to be understood. If a person curses them and slanders them in general terms, this is an area of scholarly dispute, depending on whether this cursing is motivated by mere feelings or religious doctrines. If a person goes beyond that and claims that they apostatized after the death of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), apart from a small group of no more than ten or so individuals, or that most of them rebelled and did evil, then there is no doubt that such a person is a kaafir, because he has denied what is stated in more than one place in the Qur’aan, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised them. Indeed whoever doubts that such a person is a kaafir is himself a kaafir, because this implies that those who transmitted the Qur’aan and Sunnah were kaafirs or evildoers and that the best of this ummah which is described in the verse “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” [Aal ‘Imraan 3:110 – interpretation of the meaning] – the first generation – were mostly kaafirs and hypocrites. It implies that this ummah is the worst of nations, and that the first generations of this ummah are the most evil. No doubt this is blatant kufr, the evidence for which is quite clear. Hence you will find that most of those who proclaim such views will sooner or later be shown to be heretics. Heretics usually conceal their views, but Allaah has punished some of them to make an example of them, and there are many reports that they were turned into pigs in life and in death. The scholars have compiled such reports, such as al-Haafiz al-Saalih Abu ‘Abd-Allaah Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Waahid al-Maqdisi, in his book al-Nahi ‘an Sabb al-Ashaab in which he narrated the punishments that befell such heretics. In conclusion, there are some groups of those who slander the Sahaabah concerning who them is no doubt that they are kaafirs, others who cannot be judged to be kaafirs, and others concerning whom there is some doubt regarding that. source: Al-Saarim al-Maslool ‘ala Shaatim al-Rasool, p. 590-591. Taqiy al-Deen al-Subki said: … This refers to one who slanders some of the Sahaabah. But if a person slanders all of the Sahaabah, then he is undoubtedly a kaafir. The same applies if he slanders one of the Sahaabah just because he is a Sahaabi, because this is demeaning the virtue of the Sahaabah and indirectly slandering the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). So undoubtedly the person who does this is a kaafir. Based on this, the words of al-Tahhaawi, “and hating them is kufr” should be understood as meaning that hating all of the Sahaabah is undoubtedly kufr, but if a person slanders a Sahaabi not because he is a Sahaabi but for some personal reason… The reason for the scholarly dispute on this issue is if a person slanders a specific person it may be for some personal reason, or he may hate someone for a worldly reason etc. This does not imply that he is a kaafir. But undoubtedly if he hates one of the two Shaykhs because he was a companion of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), then this is kufr, and indeed hating any of the Sahaabah who was lower in status than two Shaykhs just because he was a companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is also definitely kufr. source: Fataawa al-Subki, 2/575. In fact, this has always been the position of the Ahlus Sunnah on the matter. Therefore, we should not misrepresent ourselves when we state that cursing the Sahabah is Kufr, but rather we should clarify this position and make it clear. Based on the above, we see that it is Kufr to hate the Sahabah if any of the following conditions are met: (a) One hates all of the Sahabah or at least the vast majority of them. (This could apply to the Shia, many of whom claim that the vast majority of the Sahabah apostatized.) (b) One hates a Sahabi for the fact that he is a Companion of the Prophet. (This could apply to Non-Muslims, such as Abu Jahl, who would hate anyone who became one of the Prophet’s friends.) © One hates a Sahabi for some religious reason such as believing that he usurped the divinely appointed role of Imamah. (This no doubt applies to the Ithna Ashari Shia. Notice how the Zaidis believe that Ali was better suited to be the Caliph than Abu Bakr, but they do not believe that this is a religious difference but rather a political one. Therefore, we do not pass a verdict of Kufr on them for this. The Ithna Ashari, on the other hand, claims that this is a religious issue, one decided upon by Allah Himself.) (d) One who curses a Sahabi is sinning, but the one who thinks that it is permissible to curse Sahabah is Kaafir irrespective of if he himself does that or not. (This most definitely applies to the Shia, who believe that it is permissible to curse the Sahabah.) The reason that these things constitute Kufr is because they are disbelieving in the verse in the Quran in which Allah says “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind” (Quran, 3:110) and “And the first to embrace Islam, of the Muhajirs and the Ansars, and also those who followed them exactly (in Faith). Allah is well-pleased with them as they are well pleased with Him. He has prepared for them Gardens under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever.” (Quran, 9:100) And many other such verses. Because these verses are stated in the general sense, we only say that it is Kufr to make general condemnations of the Sahabah. However, Abu Bakr and Aisha were mentioned in the Quran specifically, in verse 9:40 and verses 24:11-26 respectively. Abu Bakr was declared the companion of the Prophet, and Aisha was declared innocent of adultery. Imam Ibn Abidin states: “There is no doubt in the disbelief (kufr) of those that falsely accuse Sayyida Aisha (Allah be pleased with her) of adultery, deny the Companionship of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr (Allah be pleased with him)…” And some scholars extend these verses to encompass other beliefs, such as negating those who say that Abu Bakr was evil or sinful (as the Prophet says in that verse that “Allah is with us”) or accusing Aisha of other things (because Allah says “Allah warns you not to repeat the like of it again”). This debate is beyond the scope of this article and the abilities of this humble author. Indeed, I am simply trying to prove the point that it is a much more involved topic than simply saying “whoever curses the Sahabah is Kaafir.” Having said that, realistically the Shia scholars would be Kufaar based on their slander of the Prophet’s wives and Sahabah based on the above conditions. However, it is unclear as to what the average Shia lay-person believes on such a matter and whether or not he understands the gravity of his belief. It is likely that the average Shia lay-person will deny having hatred for the Sahabah in general, and therefore, this is a dead-end issue to debate. (5) Other strange beliefs. Historically, various Shia sects have held many strange beliefs, such as that Ali is God, or that Angel Jibraeel made a mistake, or that Allah lies, etc. However, because the mainstream Shia do not believe in these things any more, it serves no point to dwell on these matters. And there are many other beliefs which the Shia do believe in which commonly come up in this debate. However, I strongly believe that none of them are important to discuss except the first issue which I stated, namely the superiority of Imams over Prophets. The Ruling The question about Shia and their position as Muslims (or not) is a multi-factorial issue. The crux of the issue, however, is the matter of Imamah and its superiority over Risalah (Prophethood). This is the one issue that the Shia scholars do not shy away from. They will do Taqiyyah when it comes to Tahreef of the Quran, they will obfuscate when it comes to Imams receiving revelation, they will become catty when it comes to hating the Sahabah, play word games on other issues, etc. But the issue about Imamah is one that the Shia scholarship has clearly stated, and it is this issue which casts out the Shia scholars into the realm of Kufr. Having said that, the bulk of the Shia lay-persons (at least in the West) are unaware of this belief and therefore do not believe in it. As such, they are not disbelievers and we should regard them as Muslims. Fatwa of Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot There is one fatwa that has become notorious in the Sunni-Shia dialogue, namely the religious edict passed by Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot of Al-Azhar who claimed that the Jaffari Madhab was an acceptable “fifth Madhab.” Invariably, this fatwa will be recycled in the Sunni-Shia debates. However, this fatwa has absolutely no value because it was categorically denounced by the Sunni scholarship en masse. One scholar’s errant opinion cannot refute the Ijma (consensus) of the scholars, but rather it is disregarded as baseless. Shaikh Faraz Rabbani responded to this claim of a “fifth Madhab” by saying: “Jafari fiqh is not accepted as a sound school of law by Sunni scholarship.” souce: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=6020&CATE=3400 Sidi Musa wrote a refutation of this bogus fatwa entitled “Myth of the Fifth Madhab”, saying: “There is no fifth madhhab in addition to the four madhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah…there is no madhhab in addition to the four madhhahib of Ahl Al-Sunnah that is permissible for Muslims to follow…Can one, for example, follow the madhhab of Twelver Shi`a? …The answer is, quite clearly, no.” In the second introduction to “The Reliance Of The Traveler” it is stated in regards to any so-called “fifth Madhab”: “Ibn Salah reports that there is scholarly consensus on its [sic] being unlawful to follow” The Shia propagandists will chime in that the fatwa advocating the “fifth Madhab” was passed by the prestigious Al-Azhar University. What they fail to mention is that after that errant fatwa passed by that one Shaikh, Al-Azhar University passed another fatwa many years later rebuffing the earlier fatwa. In fact, it is well-known that Shaikh Mahmood Shaltoot was influenced by a Shia lobbyist of Dar al-Taqrib named Muhammad Taqi al-Qummi; although we respect the scholars, everyone makes mistakes and it is not acceptable to follow a scholar who has an errant opinion on a matter. Shaikh Nuh Keller called it “madness” to follow such a fatwa advocating a “fifth Madhab”. Disbelievers or People of Deviation There is no valid opinion amongst the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah that would place the Shia in any fifth Madhab, but rather there are only two opinions on the matter. Each and every Shia person is either part of the : 1) Kufaar (disbelievers) or 2) Ahlul Bidah (People of Innovation or Deviation) There is no other option. It should be noted that Ahlul Bidah can be broken down further into two arbitrary groups, namely: 1) Those members of Ahlul Bidah who are simply ignorant. and 2) Those members of Ahlul Bidah who are obstinate in their deviation. The second group should be shunned. As for the first group, however, we should seek to soften their hearts so that they educate themselves about the Straight Path and they abandon the Deviated Path. Shaikh Muhammad Salih Al-Munajjid of Islam-qa.com says: Softening the hearts of some people is more effective than shunning… shunning may make a person more rebellious and stubborn, and prevent further opportunities to advise and call him; in that case it should not be done…Do not forget to advise him (the sinner or innovator)…Seeking to soften his heart with gifts, smiling at him and speaking kindly to him may be more effective than shunning him, so do that. If he refuses that from you, and does not respond to you, then there is no sin on you and you are not to blame for that…The believer looks at what is in the best interests (of Islam). This does not contradict the idea of hating the kaafirs, innovators and sinners for the sake of Allaah and loving the Muslims for the sake of Allaah. Attention must be paid to what is in the general interest; if shunning is better then they should be shunned, but if the objectives of Islam dictate that ongoing da’wah efforts should be made rather than shunning, then that is what should be done, following the teaching of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). And Allaah is the Source of strength. Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said: Softening people’s hearts may be more beneficial in some cases than shunning. And shunning is more beneficial in some cases then softening hearts. Hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) softened the hearts of some people and shunned others. source: Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 28/206 Therefore, the former group (the ignorant) should be softened and the second group (the obstinate) shunned. Clarification Amongst the Ahlus Sunnah, three opinions exist amongst the scholarship: 1) Those who say: “The Shia are Kufaar.” 2) Those who say: “The Shia are Muslim.” 3) Those who say: “Some Shia are Muslim and others are Kufaar.” However, the reality is that all three opinions are basically saying the same thing, and the difference in opinion is only lexical. It depends on how one defines the word “Shia.” For example, Opinion 1 is held by Mufti Ebrahim Desai of Darul Iftaa who says: “Shi’as are not Muslims.” (www.ask-imam.com) Mufti Ebrahim Desai defines the word “Shia” as a hypothetical and conceptual entity, as one who followsthe beliefs of Shi’ism based upon their texts and the opinions of their classical scholars. In other words, XYZ beliefs are Kufr, and XYZ beliefs are a part of the faith of Shi’ism; therefore, anyone who does not accept the XYZ beliefs is not a real Shia. Opinion 2 is held by Shaikh Faraz Rabbani: “Notwithstanding the known disagreements between Sunnis and Shia, traditional Sunni scholarship has considered the Shia to be Muslim” (www.SunniPath.com) Shaikh Faraz Rabbani is defining the “Shia” in a practical and worldly sense, referring to anyone who calls himself a Shia. This particular fatwa was “politically correct” and in fact Shaikh Faraz Rabani’s disciple, Sidi Salman Younas, clarified: “Shaykh Faraz’s position is that a Shi`a is a disbeliever if he denies any of the necessary aspects of the religion, without sufficient shubha. Otherwise, he will not be considered as such.” (Sidi Salman Younas) In fact, the Sunni Path website clarifies elsewhere: According to the classical and the majority of contemporary scholars, there are two types of Shi’as: a)Those that hold beliefs that constitute disbelief (kufr)…shi’as that hold such beliefs are without a doubt out of the fold of Islam. b)Those who do not hold beliefs that constitute Kufr…Such Shi’as can not be termed as out of the fold of Islam, rather they are considered to be severely deviated and transgressors (fisq). source: Sunni Path, http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=1898&CATE=164 In other words, the difference of opinion is simply lexical, revolving around how the term Shia is used. Even those who declare that “Shia are Kufaar” are simply using a different definition of the word “Shia.” For example, above we have seen how the Ask Imam site says that “Shia are Kufaar” in one fatwa, but we find in another fatwa on the same site that the clarification is given: “All the Shiites are not regarded as Kaafir…If a Shiite does not believe in the above (beliefs) and respects all the Sahabah, then he will not be regarded as a Kaafir. source: Ask Imam, http://www.Islam.tc/ask-imam/view.php?q=8649 And this is also the opinion of Mufti Taqi Usmani, who–like Mufti Ebrahim Desai–is Deobandi. Mufti Taqi Usmani is quite explicit in his fatawa Uthmani that the way of the scholars of Dar ul Uloom is to consider a Shia to be Muslim unless he holds certain beliefs which constitute Kufr. Therefore, the most appropriate way to phrase the position of the Shia is the third way, which is to refrain from blanket statements and to say that some Shia are Muslim and others are Kufaar. This removes ambiguity and is most precise. Blanket statements such as “the Shia are Kaafir” or “the Shia are Muslim” cause confusion; even though the person who says such statements might know what he is really saying, the reader will be confused into thinking something else. Furthermore, such a person risks the chances of being misquoted. Some people mistakenly bring up quotes from past scholars and take them out of context in order to somehow prove that certain classical scholars passed blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Indeed, these quotes are using the word “Shia” in the same way as Mufti Ebrahim Desai used it, namely as one who adheres to the tenets of Shi’ism which includes XYZ beliefs. Oftentimes, when the context of the quote is shown, then this will clear up the matter. Many people have falsely claimed that all four Imams have passed Takfeer on the Shia, but this is not a blanket Takfeer and is only in regards to those who hold XYZ beliefs. Indeed, Ibn Abidin stated in his Radd Al Muhtar, which is the central reference for fatwas in the Hanafi Madhab, that none of the four Imams passed blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah is known as being one of the harshest against the Shia, and indeed he did justifiably criticize those Shia who have beliefs which constitute Kufr. And yet, Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah refrained from doing blanket Takfeer on the Shia. Unknowingly, many persons pass around the following quote: Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said about the Raafidah, “They are more evil than most of the people of desires, and they are more deserving of being killed than the Khawaarij.” [Refer to Majmoo’ul-Fataawaa (28/482) of Ibn Taymiyyah] And yet, this is taking the quote out of context, because what Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah said is not in regards to all Shia or even all Rafidhis, but only those who have specific beliefs which he mentions: “Whosoever claims that the Sahabah became apostates after the Messenger of Allah (except for a small group that did not reach ten odd people in number) or that they majority of them were disobedient sinners, then there is also no doubt about the Kufr of this one.” It is not a blanket Takfeer of all Shia but rather of “this one” with those beliefs. Indeed, in no uncertain terms, Shaikh Ibn Taymiyyah says: “And regarding the Salaf and Imams, they did not sway from their rejection of Takfeer upon the Murjiah and Shia and others like them. Nor do the texts of (Imam) Ahmad (bin Hanbal) differ in that he did not make Takfeer upon them…and regarding the Khawarij and the (Shia) Rawafid, there is dispute and hesitation regarding Takfeer upon them from (Imam) Ahmad (bin Hanbal) and others besides him.” source: Majmoo` Fatawa Sidi Salman Younas, a disciple of Shaikh Faraz Rabbani, says the following when someone asked if Shia are Muslim or Kaafir: “We asked Mufti Abdur Rahman ibn Yusuf about this question and he pointed out the things Shias do that make them Kaffir, and he followed up with how we have Shias here in the U.S who are utterly unaware of major Shia beliefs (such as cursing the Khulafa); thus this fatwa (of Kufr) will not apply to them. Whether you label this Taqiyya or not, the point still remains that we do not judge their inner (selves).” The Dangers of the First Way The First Way, which is to make general statements like “the Shia are Kufaar”, is dangerous because it hardens the hearts of the Shia lay-persons, many of whom are genuinely good people and may just be ignorant. They need Dawah and Naseeha, which require softness. Condeming them as Kufaar will only make their hearts turn harder and they will turn away from us. The truth is that they are not Kufaar, but rather only misguided by their Kaafir scholars. We should differentiate between the ignorant masses and the evil Shia leaders. By distinguishing the masses from their Ayatollahs, we are driving a wedge between the two groups. And this is what we want to do: our Shia bretheren have been under the brain-washing and programming of their Ayatollahs, and we have to save them from that. If we group them both together as Kufaar, then we are increasing the love between the two and increasing the power and status of the Ayatollahs. In reality, we should create disunity and disharmony in their ranks, driving the people away from the Shia leaders. It is the Shia leaders, not the masses, who propagate such deviant beliefs, who hate the Sahabah, who organize Shia death squads in Iraq, etc. Many people have criticized the Ahlel Bayt website for the fact that we refer to the Shia as “brothers” but there is nothing wrong in this, because we are addressing the lay-persons and the commoners from amongst them, not their leaders. We seek to soften their hearts so they harken to the truth and reject their blasphemous leaders. The Dangers of the Second Way The Second Way, of making general statements like “the Shia are Muslim”, is obfuscation of the truth. It denies the reality that in fact we believe that Shi’ism is Kufr, all of the scholars of Shi’ism are Kufaar,and that even the remaining group are Ahlul Bidah. This confusion will cause problems, such as Sunnis marrying Shia, or Sunnis thinking that they can adopt Shi’ism as a possible “Fifth Madhab”, or the Shia feeling that their way is approved by the Muslims. On the Day of Judgement, these same Shia will point fingers at us and ask us why we did not warn them of the Kufr of their beliefs. Furthermore, it is very necessary to expose the Kufr of the leaders of Shi’ism. They have declared war on the true Islam, both by pen and by sword. Unity with them is not possible, and it is a part of their creed to accept the Ahlus Sunnah externally but to oppose us internally. If we allow ourselves to be fooled by false slogans of “Muslim unity”, we will only be left to one day deal with the Shia leaders stabbing us in the back, as has been the case historically and even today in Iraq. The Third Way There is much confusion as to the correct position of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah with regards to the Shia, and a lot of this has to do with the lexical distinctions made by various scholars. However, despite the seemingly contradictory statements, almost everyone (apart from some exceptions) is saying the same thing. I believe that the third way is the best way, and that the first two ways cause confusion. The third way, of saying that some Shia are Muslim and others are Kaafir, is the best methodology. One should be clear that Shi’ism is Kufr, and that some Shia are not Kufaar simply because they are ignorant of the beliefs of Shi’ism which constitute Kufr. In “Hayate Shaikh” by Sayyid Muhammad Shahid Saharanfuri, we read: “Hazrat Gangohi used to say that because of the ignorance of the masses, they are (only) faasiq (sinful), (even though) their Ulama are kaafir.” Yet, despite our lenience towards the masses, we should be very clear in saying that Shi’ism is Kufr and call the people away from it and those who propagate such Kufr. The principle of the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama’ah is to pass condemnation in general terms, refraining from passing condemnation on people in specific. Therefore, we should make the general statement that “Shi’ism is Kufr”, but we should refrain from saying “that Shia person is Kaafir.” This is stated by Shaikh Al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah: “With regard to a specific evildoer, we should not curse him, because the Prophet forbade cursing ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Himaar who used to drink wine, even though he had cursed the wine-drinkers in general; however cursing a specific person if he is an evildoer or promoter of bid’ah is a point of dispute among the scholars.” Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen said: The difference between cursing a specific person and cursing those who commit sin in general is that the former (cursing a specific person) is not allowed, and the latter (cursing the people who commit sin in general) is allowed. So if you see an innovator, you do not say, ‘May Allaah curse you,’ rather say, ‘May the curse of Allaah be upon those who introduce innovations,’ in general terms. The evidence for that is the fact that when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) cursed some people among the mushrikeen and followers of jaahiliyyah and said: “O Allaah, curse So and so, and So and so, and So and so,” he was told not to do that when Allaah said (interpretation of the meaning): “Not for you (O Muhammad, but for Allaah) is the decision; whether He turns in mercy to (pardons) them or punishes them; verily, they are the Zaalimoon (polytheists, disobedients and wrongdoers)” [Quran, 3:128] source: al-Qawl al-Mufeed, 1/226. Therefore, we should say that “Shi’ism is Kufr” (general statement) instead of pointing to individual Shia lay-persons and saying “you are Kaafir” (specific statement). The exception to this, of course, are those Shia leaders who propagate their views; it becomes necessary to condemn them publically so that people are warned to stay away from them. This condemnation would also apply to those non-scholars who become their foremost propagandists and who debate with us in an obstinate way, exceeding the limits. Mufti Mohammad Sajjad stated: Q. Is there any difference between scholars of Imami Shias and their laymen, as Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Ludhanvi (rahimuhullah) didn’t distinguish between them? A. If they, the laymen, hold the same beliefs as their scholars then there is no difference between them and their ruling is the same [i.e. they are disbelievers]. Therefore, it is important to notify the people of the Kufr of these Shia scholars, leaders, and self-appointed propagandists. We read: Question: Is it permissible to mention peoples’ names and characters when one wants to criticise them and their thinking? Response: If someone writes something that contradicts the pure Sharee’ah, and distributes that material, or if he propagates that view in the media, it becomes compulsory to refute him and expose the falsehood of what he says. There is nothing wrong in mentioning that person’s name or in warning people about him if he calls to innovation, shirk, or if he calls people to what Allaah has prohibited or to disobedience. Until this day, there are knowledgeable and believing people from the callers to the truth and bearers of the Sharee’ah fulfilling this obligation, sincerely for Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta’aala) and for the benefit of His servants, rebuking the wrong, inviting to the truth, warning others against those who propagate falsehood and destructive rhetoric. And Allaah is the Expounder of (all) success. Shaykh Ibn Baaz Fataawa Islaamiyyah - Volume 4, Page 279 Conclusion A very clear explanation of the status of the Imami Shia has been given by a student of Mufti Ebrahim Desai, who said: Question: Are all shia Kafir? If not what makes them kafir or how can i identify if he is kafir? Answer: Firstly, hereunder are the criteria for declaring someone a non-Muslim: –When a person openly calls himself a non-Muslim, i.e. he accepts that he is a Christian, Jew, Hindu, etc. –When a person negates, through his words or actions, something unanimously proven through Quran and Hadith. He will not be regarded a Muslim even though he claims to be one. Jawahirul Fiqh Vol:1 Pg:23 (Maktabah Darul Uloom Karachi) Secondly, although the Shias claim that they are Muslims, most of them have beliefs that negate the clear cut principles of Islam…[such as] they regard the status of their twelve Imams to be higher than the status of the Ambiya (Alaihim Assalaatu Wassalaam). Aaapke Masaail aur Unka Hal Vol:1 Pg:188 (Maktabah Bayyinat) Thereafter, Shias are categorised into three groups in regards to the ruling they fall under: (1) Those about whom it is certain that they negate the principles of Islam. Such Shias will be regarded as non-Muslims even if they do claim otherwise… (2) Those who do not negate any principles of Islam, but have a difference of opinion with the Muslims on saying that Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) was the most superior amongst all the Sahabah (Radiyallahu Anhum). Such Shias will not be regarded as non-Muslims, but they will still be regarded as fasiqs (those who transgress the laws of Islam openly)… (3) Those whose beliefs cannot be confirmed. They will not be regarded as Muslims nor will they be regarded as non-Muslims. As a matter of precaution, inter-marriages with them will not be permissible and the meat from the animals slaughtered by them will not be Halal. Jawaahirul Fiqh Vol:1 Pg:59-63 (Maktabah Darul Uloom Karachi) As far as ties with Shias are concerned, it is not permissible to have close friendship with them. However, Islam encourages Muslims to have good conduct with them, and show good character. And Allah knows best Ml. M. Jawed Iqbal, Student Darul Iftaa Checked and Approved by: Mufti Ebrahim Desai Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah source: Ask-Imam, http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=b51e3af653960ec458e93c62cbbad9c8 In conclusion, we say that Shi’ism is Kufr, and there is no doubt about this; if one properly follows Shia doctrine, then such a person is a Kaafir. Based on this, we say that the Shia leaders, scholars, and learned ones–including their propagandists–are Kufaar. As for the Shia lay-persons, then we generally refrain from passing Takfeer on them as a matter of precaution due to their ignorance which oftentimes saves them from Kufr. Therefore, we should make general statements such as “Shi’ism is Kufr” and “the Shia leaders, scholars, and learned ones (including their propagandists) are Kufaar” but refrain from specifically condemning individual lay-persons who are ignorant of certain Shia doctrines. We should shun the former (i.e. the learned ones) but we should soften the latter (i.e. the ignorant ones).
  11. Article No. 1 Taqiyya: The Ultimate Intellectual Cop-out Posted on 15 August 2010 by Inconnu This is Inoconnu’s refutation of Chapter 6 of Robert Spencer’s book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). After reading this, check out Danios’ article at SpencerWatch, which analyzes the concept of taqiyya in great detail.. An oft-used intellectual cop-out by many Islam-haters is the so-called doctrine of taqiyya. The Islam-haters, such as Robert Spencer, claim taqiyya is the willful deception of Muslims towards non-Muslims. Whenever a Muslim would say or write something positive about Islam, it is all taqiyya. This is what Spencer has to say in his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades): Muhammad minced no words about the necessity of telling the truth…However, as with so many other Islamic principles, this is largely a matter between believers. When it comes to unbelievers–particularly those who are at war with Muslims–Muhammad enunciated a quite different principle: “War is deceit.” Specifically, he taught that lying was permissible in battle… When Shi’ite Muslims were persecuted by Sunnis, they developed the doctrine of taqiyya, or concealment: They could lie about what they believed, denying aspects of their faith that were offensive to Sunnis…Closely related to this is the doctrine of kitman, or mental reservation, which is telling the truth, but not the whole truth, with an intention to mislead…Remember that the next time you see a Muslim spokesman on television professing his friendship with non-Muslim Americans and his loyalty to the United States. Of course, he may be telling the truth–but he may not be telling the whole truth or he may be just lying. (pp.79-81) Clearly, his implication is the latter, not the former: the Muslim is not telling the whole truth or “may be just lying.” Yet, it is necessary to begin with the principle of truthfulness in Islam, which Spencer himself admitted the Prophet Muhammad stressed. Many thanks to Sheila Musaji for compiling the following verses and Prophetic traditions, of which are posted a few: “And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is). (Qur’an, 2:42)” “If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, Let the trustee (Faithfully) discharge His trust, and let him fear his Lord. Conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it,- His heart is tainted with sin. And God Knoweth all that ye do. (Qur’an, 2:283)” “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (Qur’an, 4:135)” [...] Abdullah bin Mas`ud (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Prophet (PBUH) said, “Truth leads to piety and piety leads to Jannah. A man persists in speaking the truth till he is enrolled with Allah as a truthful. Falsehood leads to vice and vice leads to the Fire (Hell), and a person persists on telling lies until he is enrolled as a liar”.’ It was narrated from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “The signs of the hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted with something, he betrays that trust.” (Narrated by al-Bukhari, 33; Muslim, 59) Hasan bin `Ali (May Allah be pleased with them) said: I remember (these words) from Messenger of Allah (PBUH): “Give up what is doubtful to you for that which is not doubtful; for truth is peace of mind and falsehood is doubt”. [At-Tirmidhi]. Hakim bin Hizam (May Allah be pleased with him) reported that: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “Both parties in a business transaction have a right to annul it so long as they have not separated; and if they tell the truth and make everything clear to each other (i.e., the seller and the buyer speak the truth, the seller with regard to what is purchased, and the buyer with regard to the money) they will be blessed in their transaction, but if they conceal anything and lie, the blessing on their transaction will be eliminated.’‘ [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]. It is clear that Islam (and its Prophet) stresses the utmost importance of speaking the truth and being as truthful as possible. Spencer himself admits this, but he inserts a (huge) caveat that it is only “between believers.” As will be seen, this is completely untrue. Let us begin with Spencer’s first indictment of the Prophet: “War is deceit.” This statement comes from the Battle of the Trench. After the siege of the city of Medina had lasted for almost 30 days, and the Muslims were in dire straits. The Prophet Muhammad asked a man named Nuaym ibn Masud to break the deadly siege somehow. Nuaym said he could do this but that “this requires me to lie.” Let’s stop here. Why did he ask this permission from the Prophet Muhammad if, according to Spencer, lying to non-believers is standard practice? Because, as noted above, the principle in Islam is honesty. The Prophet gave him specific permission to lie saying, “War is deceit.” This is the context of the Prophet’s statement, “War is deceit.” Spencer, however, claims that this phrase, “War is deceit,” gives Muslims carte blance to lie to all non-Muslims all the time. Logically, it is pure rubbish. Yet, when one thinks of it, is not good policy to deceive one’s enemy during war? Is it not good strategy to decieve the enemy in order to defeat him? What is wrong with saying, “War is deceit”? Yet, are there others that have said the same thing? Of course! In fact, “War is deceit” is one of the oldest military principles in history. It is found in none other than The Art of Warby Sun Tzu, a Chinese strategist from the Sixth Century B.C. This book is the oldest military treatise in the world. In Part I, principle No. 18 says: All warfare is based on deception. Was Sun Tzu advocating Taqiyya? Is this something to be condemned, as Spencer condemns the Prophet? How about the Trojan Horse, a story from one of the oldest poems in Western Civilization? Still seeking to gain entrance into Troy, clever Odysseus (some say with the aid of Athena) ordered a large wooden horse to be built. Its insides were to be hollow so that soldiers could hide within it. Once the statue had been built by the artist Epeius, a number of the Greek warriors, along with Odysseus, climbed inside. The rest of the Greek fleet sailed away, so as to deceive the Trojans. One man, Sinon, was left behind. When the Trojans came to marvel at the huge creation, Sinon pretended to be angry with the Greeks, stating that they had deserted him. He assured the Trojans that the wooden horse was safe and would bring luck to the Trojans. Only two people, Laocoon and Cassandra, spoke out against the horse, but they were ignored. The Trojans celebrated what they thought was their victory, and dragged the wooden horse into Troy. That night, after most of Troy was asleep or in a drunken stupor, Sinon let the Greek warriors out from the horse, and they slaughtered the Trojans. Were the Greeks also practicing Taqiyya? Why doesn’t Spencer condemn the Greeks, the Fathers of Western Civilization, for practicing deceit in times of war? Not only did Sun Tzu write of deception in warfare, but Italian Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelliwrote: Though fraud in other activities may be detestable, in the management of war it is laudable and glorious, and he who overcomes the enemy by fraud is as much to be praised as he who does by force. How about more recent times? During World War II, there was a military operation called “Operation Fortitude.” It was a disinformation campaign to deceive the Germans about the Normandy invasion: “Fortitude” was the codename given to the decoy (or disinformation) mission mounted by the Allies to deceive the Germans about the date and above all the place of the landings. The latter were convinced that the British and American attack would come in the Pas-de-Calais area and it was important not to disillusion them. They therefore had to be made to think that a whole group of armies was present in Kent, opposite the Pas-de-Calais. To deceive the German observation planes, which their antiaircraft defences did their best to avoid, the local estuaries, creeks and harbours were crammed with dummy landing craft, made out of bits and bobs. A giant oil pumping head for PLUTO (made from papier mâché) was erected near Dover, while large numbers of inflatable rubber tanks were positioned in the fields. Plywood vehicles and guns lined the roadsides. At night, convoys of lorries ‑ always the same ones – drove back and forth across the region. For the benefit of the Germans, a team of technicians maintained constant radio traffic between totally fictitious units. Fortitude succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams. Long after June 6th, Hitler remained convinced that the Normandy Landings were a diversionary tactic to induce him to move his troops away from the Pas-de-Calais, so that a decisive attack could then be launched there. He therefore kept his best units in readiness there, until the end of July, desperately scanning an empty horizon, while the fate of the war was being decided in Normandy. Dr. Joseph Caddell, Lecturer on Military History at North Carolina State University, wrote in 2004: Deception in warfare is probably as old as armed conflict itself. The logic of confusing an adversary is obvious, and the rewards can be realized very quickly. On the website of the Air University, the military education system for the United States Air Force, there is a list of numerous books, documents, and periodicals that chronicle deception in WW I and WW II. Here is just some of the examples of the books written about deception in warfare: Barros, James and Gregor, James. Double Deception: Stalin, Hitler, and the Invasion of Russia. DeKalb, IL, Northern Illinois University Press, 1995. 307 p. Book call no.: 940.532247 B277d Basic Deception and the Normandy Invasion. New York, Garland, 1989. 1 vol. Book call no.: 940.5485 C873 v.15 Breuer, William B. Hoodwinking Hitler: The Normandy Deception. Westport, CT, Praeger, 1993. 263 p. Book call no.: 940.54 B846h Breuer, William B. The Secret War with Germany: Deception, Espionage, and Dirty Tricks 1939-1945. Novato, CA, 1988. 318 p. Book call no.: 940.5485 B846s As is quite clear, deception during times of warfare is not only standard procedure, but is a laudable and necessary tactic. Our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan use deception every single day to try to defeat the enemy. They would be blameworthy if they did not do so. Why doesn’t Robert Spencer condemn Sun Tzu, or the Greeks, or Allied Forces in WW II, or the U.S. Air Force for advocating deception in warfare? After all, all of these people also believe, as the Prophet Muhammad did, that “war is deceit.” Robert Spencer’s claim that “war is deceit” to impugn the Prophet Muhammad and Islam is another case of Spenceritis. It is logical rubbish, and makes a mockery of the claim that Robert Spencer is any sort of “scholar” about Islam. Also check out Danios’ excellent article on the same topic available on SpencerWatch.com. He refutes every single argument the Islamophobes raise about taqiyya (SEE NEXT POST FOR THAT ARTICLE) Source: Loonwatch -----------------------End of Article 1----------------------