Sheikh Yasir Qadhi on Shi'ah belief

[Brother_Mujahid]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LzUrXZCWFTk&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LzUrXZCWFTk&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Abuz Zubair]

JK...

Al-Lajna al-Da’ima is asked about the Ja’faris who call upon ‘Ali and Husayn, etc, and they respond, “If the situation is as the questioner mentioned that a group of people that are around him are from the Ja’fari sect who call upon ‘Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and their leaders then they are Mushriks and apostates from Islam – and Allah’s refuge is sought. It is impermissible to eat their slaughtered meat because it is considered dead (unslaughtered) meat, even if Allah’s name was mentioned during the slaughter.” Fatawa al-Lajna al-Da’ima 2/372

In a similar Fatwa al-Lajna al-Da’ima says about the Shi’as, “If the reality is as you have mentioned, that they call upon ‘Ali, al-Hasan and al-Husayn and so on, then they are Mushriks, guilty of major Shirk which expels one from Islam. On this basis, it is not permissible to allow them to marry Muslim women, nor is it permissible for us to marry their women. It is similarly not permissible to eat their slaughtered meat, for Allah has said: And do not marry Al-Mushrikat (idolatresses, etc.) till they believe (worship Allah Alone). And indeed a slave woman who believes is better than a (free) Mushrikah (idolatress, etc.), even though she pleases you. And give not (your daughters) in marriage to Al-Mushrikun till they believe (in Allah Alone) and verily, a believing slave is better than a (free) Mushrik (idolater, etc.), even though he pleases you. Those (Al- Mushrikun) invite you to the Fire, but Allah invites (you) to Paradise and Forgiveness by His Leave, and makes His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to mankind that they may remember” Fatawa al-Lajna al-Da’ima 2/373

Al-Lajna al-Da’ima is asked about the laymen followers of the Rafidi-Imami sect, as to whether or not they are Muslims. They reply, “Whoever from amongst the laity follows an Imam from the Imams of Kufr and misguidance, supports their leaders and great men, rebelliously and out of transgression, he is given the same ruling as his leaders, that of kufr and fisq. Allah has said: They ask you about the hour – to His words – And they will say: ‘Our Lord! Verily, we obeyed our chiefs and our great ones, and they misled us from the (Right) Way. Our Lord! give them double torment and curse them with a mighty curse. Read the verses 165-167 from Surah al-Baqarah; verses 37-39 from Surah al-A’raf; verses 21-22 from Surah Ibrahim; verses 28-29 from Surah al-Furqan; verses 62-64 from Surah al-Qasas; verses 31-33 from Surah Saba; verses 20-36 from Surah al-Saffat; verses 47-50 from Surah Ghafir, and plenty other texts from the Book and the Sunnah. Another proof is that the Prophet SAW fought the leaders of the Mushriks along with their followers, and his companions did the same without distinguishing between the leaders and the followers.” Fatawa al-Lajna al-Da’ima 2/377.

‘Abdullah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Jibrin says, “The Rafida are Kuffar. We say so because they attack the Quran, the Sunnah and the companions. They are not to be prayed over because they are guilty of that which makes them disbelievers, especially those who commit Shirk and call upon Ahl al-Bayt in times of need and calamity and so on. Hence, the Mushrik whose Shirk is noticeable, regardless of whether he is a grave-worshipper or a Sufi, he is considered by his (Shirki) actions a non-Muslim and not a monotheist. Therefore, he is not to be prayed over.” Sharh Usul al-Sunnah p. 30

Aba Butayn says, “If a person were to say about the Rafida today that they are excused for cursing Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Aisha because they are ignorant muqallids, everyone from the laity and clergy would rebuke him.” Al-Durar al-Saniya 10/393

Aba Butayn quotes Ibn Taymiyya saying, “Whoever claims that the companions became apostates after the Messenger of Allah SAW except a few – not more than ten odd, or that they became sinners, then there is no doubt in the kufr of the one who says it. In fact, whoever doubts his kufr is also a kafir.” Aba Butayn then comments, “Notice how he made takfeer of the doubter, even though it is known for certain that one only doubts due to ignorance, and despite of that he said what he said, with full knowledge that most if not all of these people (i.e. the Rafida) are ignorant and do not know what they say is kufr.” Al-Durar al-Saniya 10/358.

[Salahadeen]

What exactly is Al-Lajna al-Da’ima ?

[abu_ibrahim]

What exactly is Al-Lajna al-Da’ima ?

Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Fataawa. It had 6 scholars, but since Shaykh Bakr Abu Zaid has passed away, its 5 left.

[leo]

JazakAllah. The Muslims have no doubt about Rafida kufria beliefs, only deviant brelvis have certain doubts in their minds, so therefore they should also be treated at par with Rafida.

[Adnan Jalaal]

Permanent Committee for Islamic Research and Fataawa. It had 6 scholars, but since Shaykh Bakr Abu Zaid has passed away, its 5 left.

Who are the other five, bro?

[abu_ibrahim]

Who are the other five, bro?

The Head is Abdul Aziz Aal ash-Shaykh, the Deputy is Abdullah Ibn Ghudayyan. The other three are Abdullah Ibn Qu'ood, Abdullah Ibn Munay and Salih Ibn Fawzaan.

[Abu Ma'mar]

If im not mistaken i think Abdulah ibn Qu'ood died in 2005 and i belive the other shaykh is too.

The new fatwa's only have Mufti, Fawzan and Ghudayan. Maybe the second shaykh retired from it Allahu A'lam.


Abu Zubayr, i dont see what was wrong with Yasir Qadhi's statement.

He said that if you know a Shi'i has those beliefs then he's a kaafir, but if he just calls himself a shi'i then you cant make takfir of him.

We should also bare in mind that this tape was made in 1999 and Yasir was a Super Salafi back in those days.

[Abuz Zubair]

Abu Zubayr, i dont see what was wrong with Yasir Qadhi's statement.

He said that if you know a Shi'i has those beliefs then he's a kaafir, but if he just calls himself a shi'i then you cant make takfir of him.

I didn't comment on his words.... I just copied and pasted a few fatwas to highlight something else, that the Rafida as a genre are Mushriks, the scholars and the layman. The default about a Rafidi is that he practises Shirk and holds kufri beliefs, until proven otherwise... and even that cannot be proven since they all practise taqiya.

Also, the difference between the deed and the doer doesn't apply to major shirk and outright kufr of rafida. This is something worth pointing out, so a person shouldn't hesitate making takfir on every individual rafidi.

We should also bare in mind that this tape was made in 1999 and Yasir was a Super Salafi back in those days.

Yes, I thought so...

[C47]

I was just wondering, does Yasir Qadhi have the credentials to be called a "Sheikh", coz i though he's just a da'ee like Yusuf Estes or something

[Brother_Mujahid]

I was just wondering, does Yasir Qadhi have the credentials to be called a "Sheikh", coz i though he's just a da'ee like Yusuf Estes or something

I just copied the title of the video, it isn't my own.

[C47]

oh.... that was not the problem though.....does anyone know of YQ's educational background (in term of Islamic education)?

[Brother_Mujahid]

oh.... that was not the problem though.....does anyone know of YQ's educational background (in term of Islamic education)?

He has a B.A. from College of Hadith and Islamic Sciences at the Univesity of Madina, as well as a M.A. in Islamic theology from the College of Da'wa at the U. of Madina. (He also has a B.Sc. in chemical engineering from the University of Houston.)

[Ibn Jafar]

For us here in the US, he is a Sheikh.

[Brother_Mujahid]

I am confused still though, at this point, about the status of the rawafid. I hear two different things, some scholars and people of knowledge say that ALL the rejectionist Shi'ites, including the laymen, are pagans, apostates, and hypocrites; while others say that the laymen as a group are excused by ignorance. Which is it?

[Abuz Zubair]

I am confused still though, at this point, about the status of the rawafid. I hear two different things, some scholars and people of knowledge say that ALL the rejectionist Shi'ites, including the laymen, are pagans, apostates, and hypocrites; while others say that the laymen as a group are excused by ignorance. Which is it?
The first is the correct position as held by the mainstream Hanbali scholars of Najd, as well as the Hanafi scholars of Pak. Post-modernist Azharis can't be asked about these issues to begin with.

Those who excuse the layman for Shirk and the very fundamentals of faith, basically, I see them as revisionists who have opposed the consensus ofthe scholars that ignorance is not an excuse in matters known from the deen by necessity.

As for issues that fundamentally change the DNA of a Muslim, so to speak, such as believing that Allah is some man on earth, then no two Muslims should dispute that the person who believes this is a kafir and not excused for ignorance. This is one issue where the revisionists collapse since they cannot abide by their principle of excusing the layman for ignorance.

[Abu Maryam PK]

As for issues that fundamentally change the DNA of a Muslim, so to speak, such as believing that Allah is some man on earth, then no two Muslims should dispute that the person who believes this is a kafir and not excused for ignorance. This is one issue where the revisionists collapse since they cannot abide by their principle of excusing the layman for ignorance.
i.e. a good litmus test i must say. we may add to it what if this person is told that the proof that this man is Allah is in some fabricated narration, will they still hold him a muslim, if he believes these narrations, given his intellect and level? or will they not?i daresay not.

i am not sure whether this qualifies as an evidence, the night of hudaybia the Prophet sallallaho'alaihiwasallam said one man has believed and another disbelieved bcoz of the cause of rain. he did not talk about the level of understanding ...Allahu a'alam

[Abu Ma'mar]

For us here in the US, he is a Sheikh.


I think this is totally wrong sorry bro.

I never had a problem with people calling their teachers their shaykh's, nothing wrong with that but if you say " He's acting like a scholar to us in the west" then this is when silly stuff happens.

With Yasir Qadhi modernizing day by day(this Asha'ari pact stuff is nothing compared to other things he says) and people go to him for fatawa then people's aqeeda becomes destroyed.

Before on big issues Yasir Qadhi would quote scholars now he is giving verdicts that scholars would probably slap him for.

Just Ask Yasir qadhi live face to face

" Is it allowed for me to hate the average kaafir because disbelieves in Allah"

Im not talking about being unjust with them or oppressing kuffar.

Just ask him that and see what he says, you would be suprized at what he says at some lectueres that are not on the internet and are smaller scale.

Weve spoken to him on issues like this and he doenst listen, its like in madina it was " but the fuqaha say this, the Lajna say this" now he's in USA its like " What do these old timers know".

we have spoken to him on these issues and other stupid things he's said, so i don't like people thinking he is a " Their scholar in the west" and take his veiws over scholars.

[Ibn Jafar]

This topic hits home to me...(half) my family is Shia (Iranian). The other half is Catholic. There is ALOT in common between the two faiths. I mean ALOT. Just look at the icons of Jesus compaired to Ali... My Father's side is Shia, hence Ibn Jafar. And from what he tells me about the country, and what I know, I don't know how any so called person of knowledge could consider the Shias Muslims. Competely different religion. You see, in Islam, we believe in tawheed, were you direct all (yes all) your acts of whorship to Allah alone. Especially duaa. I don't know about anyone else, but the first thing I learned and loved about Islam was that there is one God and you worship him alone without any intermediaries. Growing up Catholic, this was a breath of fresh air. BUT, the shia on the other hand, don't believe this. They believe you can indeed pray to various people for various things. Just like Catholics.

If my Catholic family is not excused cause thier ignorant, why would my Shia family be? Is that fair? Cause they say the shahada? Well this goes back to a thread on here about the basics of faith. Now, lets go back to the basics, if someone says the shahada but has no clue what it means, are they Muslim? This is stuff that should be learnt at the start of ones Islam. Really basic stuff. Like haveing knowledge of what Islam means and intails is a condition of your shahada! This is not an attack on anyone here.......just venting.

[Abuz Zubair]

If my Catholic family is not excused cause thier ignorant, why would my Shia family be? Is that fair? Cause they say the shahada? Well this goes back to a thread on here about the basics of faith. Now, lets go back to the basics, if someone says the shahada but has no clue what it means, are they Muslim? This is stuff that should be learnt at the start of ones Islam. Really basic stuff. Like haveing knowledge of what Islam means and intails is a condition of your shahada! This is not an attack on anyone here.......just venting.

This is fitra and common sense speaking.

[abu_ibrahim]

“If the situation is as the questioner mentioned that a group of people that are around him are from the Ja’fari sect who call upon ‘Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and their leaders then they are Mushriks and apostates from Islam.

Why are they referred to as "apostates" by the Lajnah? I thought the 12 Imam Shia were considered to be from the original disbelievers with the Christians and the Jews. The Barelwis would also be part of that group. As to have belief in Allah, one must reject all Tawagheet firstly. As the Shia are Mushrik to begin with, their Shahada is invalid.

[Ibn Jafar]

To Abdlhakim
Bro...I agree 100%. 100%. When I say,or hear, shaykh I think/mean a knowledgeable person, who should be shown some respect. Thats all. As many mistakes as Yasir may have, I still think he has some knowledge and should be shown respect. That being said, what you have said is NOT, of course, disrespect. It is truth and I agree.

And it needs to be known that people like Yasir, Anwar, B. Phillips,Zarabozo, and especially H. Yusef and Zaid, are NOT scholars. Not even close. Now the thing is, they never say they are.BUT when the youth treat them like ulema they never object. Come to think of it, we shouldn't even call them shaykhs maybe, cause most people hear that and think scholar.

BTW, I was schocked when I heard Y.Q's lecture on shirk, from a AlMaghrib class. Talk about revisionist! My post in this thread is in direct contradiction to what I heard in that talk!

[Brother_Mujahid]

Abuz-Zubayr, I ask because even brothers like Sh. Ali al-Timimi, who is certainly no modernist or one to accommodate heretics, said in his lecture on Shi'ism that the laymen are excused due to ignorance. Hence my confusion on this issue.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Why are they referred to as "apostates" by the Lajnah? I thought the 12 Imam Shia were considered to be from the original disbelievers with the Christians and the Jews. The Barelwis would also be part of that group. As to have belief in Allah, one must reject all Tawagheet firstly. As the Shia are Mushrik to begin with, their Shahada is invalid.

I think groups like the rawafid renegades and the satanic Qadiani sect are referred to as apostates because they claim to be Muslims, as opposed to the Christians and Jews who make no such claim. That is what has been explained to me, wa Allah u'Alim.

[Abuz Zubair]

Why are they referred to as "apostates" by the Lajnah? I thought the 12 Imam Shia were considered to be from the original disbelievers with the Christians and the Jews. The Barelwis would also be part of that group. As to have belief in Allah, one must reject all Tawagheet firstly. As the Shia are Mushrik to begin with, their Shahada is invalid.
You have a valid objection. Perhaps, what they mean is that they are a people who attribute themselves to Islam and do things that expel them from it, which makes them apostates.

But yes, if you go into further details, perhaps they too will concede that the one who is brought up on this belief all his life is a kafir by origin, whilst the one who falls into shirk later is an apostate.

Here is an interesting fatwa from one of Sh Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab's students:

Hamad b. Nasir b. Mu’ammar is asked, “Concerning the words of the jurists that the apostate neither inherits nor is his wealth inherited; Are the Kuffar of our time apostates? Or are they idol worshippers and Mushriks?” He replied, “Whoever enters into Islam and then leaves, then he is an apostate, and their condition to you is clear. As for the one who does not enter into the religion of Islam, rather the Islamic call reaches him but he remains on his kufr, like the idol worshippers, then the ruling on him is that he is a kafir from origin, because we do not say that their origin is Islam and Kufr is what they fall into later. Rather, we say that those who were raised amongst the Kuffar and they found their forefathers on Shirk, they are like their forefathers, as the authentic hadeeth has indicated, ‘It is the parents that make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian.’ If the religion of their forefathers was Shirk, and they were raised up, and remained on that Shirk, then we cannot say that Islam was their origin and they fell into Kufr later. Rather, we say that they are Kuffar by origin. This does not necessitate that we make Takfeer of all those who died in Jahiliyya before this religion prevailed, for we do not make general Takfeer on all the people, just as we do not make general Takfeer on all the people today. Rather, we say whoever was from the people of Jahiliyya acting in accordance with Islam and abandoning Shirk, then he is a Muslim. But as for the one who used to worship the idols, and died upon it before this religion prevailed, then the apparent state of this person is kufr. Even though, it is possible that proofs were not established against him due to his ignorance and the lack of someone to inform him, we only give ruling according to the apparent condition of a person. As for giving a ruling on his inner state, then that is up to Allah, for Allah does not punish a person except after establishing the proofs against him, as He has said: We do not punish until we send a Messenger. As for those who died whilst their state remains unknown, then we do not speak about him, and neither declare his kufr nor his Islam. This is not what we have been made responsible for. As Allah says: That was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used to do. So whoever of them was a Muslim, Allah will send him into paradise, and whoever of them was a Kafir, Allah will send him into Hell. As for those among them to whom the Da’wah did not reach, then his affair is up to Allah. You already know the difference of opinion concerning the people of Fatra to whom the proofs have not reached.” Al-Durar al-Saniya 10/336

Abuz-Zubayr, I ask because even brothers like Sh. Ali al-Timimi, who is certainly no modernist or one to accommodate heretics, said in his lecture on Shi'ism that the laymen are excused due to ignorance. Hence my confusion on this issue.


Most probably, yes... I think he too belonged to the revisionist camp. In fact, at one point he was 100% with Sh al-Albani on these issues. I spoke to him once for about two hours in a private sitting about these issues and he told me that when he did his Sharh of Wasitiyya he was on Sh al-Albani tip on the issue, but then he changed.

Don't be surprised though since there is a HUGE number of very popular scholars today who are on the revisionist tip, and that includes Sh Salah al-Sawi, probably Sh Safar, too, definitely Sh 'Abdullah al-Qarni and MANY, MANY others...

Some of these people very well aware of what actually exists in al-durar al-saniya and fatawa al-lajna al-da'ima, but many of them aren't even aware of this issue. They have just accepted revisionism at face value and think that this is the only valid Salafi opinion, whereas the truth is, not only it isn't the only opinion amongst the Salafis, not only it is a weak opinion amongst the salafis, but also it goes against the Ijma of the four schools on this issue.

The traditionalists now are gaining ground rapidly, it seems. We had Sh Madhat Aal-Farraj writings works on this issue for a long time. Sh Ibn Baz was also actively promoting the traditionalist view and forwarding works written on the topic. Sh Salih al-Fawzan is also actively championing the traditionalist opinion and forwarding many books on the topic. I think, inshaAllah, it is a matter of time that the revisionists view is defeated. I for one would like to bring the traditionalist opinion to the Western audience who have been kept in the dark about the other opinion for decades.

A brother in Umm al-Qura once told me that he had a discussion with his teacher about this issue and he was VERY adamant on the revisionist approach. He even said that even if a layman says the Quran is corrupted, you cannot make takfeer on him except after establishing proofs. The brother then got him a book on this issue called 'Aridh al-Jahl forwarded by Sh Salih al-Fawzan. To the brother's and my surprise, the Sh hadn't even heard of the book, yet, it is one of the best recent books on the topic.

So many of these mashaykh aren't even aware of the conflicting views, unfortunately. They just accept the revisionist view at face value.

SO DON'T BE SURPRISED IF I EVER GET FIERCELY CRITICISED BY THE REVISIONISTS IN THE WEST! :)

Hopefully, when my document is finished, it should suffice, since most of it is really quotes which speak for themselves.

[Brother_Mujahid]

Abuz-Zubayr, I know that Sh. Nasir al-'Umar said that the rawafid in Saudi Arabia should either be forced to convert to Islam or killed. As for Sh. Safar al-Hawali, I know he is very harsh on the rejectionist Shi'ites, in fact one brother told me he would refer to them as mushrikun as a group. Though I could be wrong, I don't think he is in favor of the revisionist approach.

Another question, since you brought these statements by the senior scholars, how could someone like 'Abd al-Aziz Aal ash-Shaykh, the mufti, openly frolic around with extremist rafid'i criminals like Rasfanjani?

[Abuz Zubair]

Perhaps, they may say these statements every now and then, since the revisionists are very contradictory. As for Aal al-Shaykh and Rafsanjani, well it is all politics from both sides. Rafsanjani believes we are all kuffar as Aal Shaykh believes they are all kuffar.

[Salahadeen]

Abu Z, what of this quote from Sh. al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah:

“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

[Abuz Zubair]

Abu Z, what of this quote from Sh. al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah:

“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

This is right. This only applies to issues that are not clear cut to everyone, and not about issues that are known to be from the religion by necessity, praying to Allah alone being the foremost of those issues. As for the Rafida he is talking about, they are not the ones that exist today. The Rafida he is talking about are those who simply reject Abu Bakr and Umar.

As far as the Rafida today are concerned, then he has explicitly stated that whoever says that all the companions became apostates is a kafir, and whoever doubts his kufr is also a kafir, and surely, no one doubts their kufr except an ignorant person.

Ibn Taymiyya says whilst discussing Ahl al-Kalam, “This is only in issues that are not so clear, so it may be said that the person has erred and is misguided, even though the proofs against him have not been established, the rejection of which renders him a disbeliever. However, sometimes kufr occurs from some of them in clear cut matters which the commoners and the scholars know to be from religion of the Muslims. In fact, even the Jews and the Christians know that Muhammad SAW was sent with this message and declared as disbelievers those who opposed it, such as his command to worship Allah alone, and his prohibition of worshipping anyone besides Him from the angels, prophets, the sun, the moon, the stars and the idols and so on. No doubt this is from the clearest of all matters in religion. Similar is the case with his command to pray five times, considering them obligatory, recognising its importance. Likewise, the disavowal of the Jews, the Christians and the Mushriks, the Sabians and the Magians, and likewise, the prohibition of vulgarity, usury, alcohol, gambling, etc. You then find many of their leaders falling into these enormities and thereby becoming apostates.” (Majmu’ al-Fatawa 4/54)

Ibn Taymiyya says of supplications consisting of Shirk, “To call upon other than Allah whilst he is either dead or absent, regardless of whether he was from the prophets or the righteous or others. He says, ‘O Sidi so-and-so, help me! I seek your refuge! I seek your aid! Aid me against my enemy!’ and so on, then this is to commit shirk with Allah. Even worse than that is for him to say, ‘forgive me and accept my repentance,’ as a group of ignorant Mushriks say.” Majmu’ al-Fatawa 1/305-351.

Ibn Taymiyya says of al-Fakhr al-Razi, “And even worse is the fact that from them are those who author works in favour of the pagan religion and apostasy from Islam, as al-Razi wrote a book on worshipping the stars and demonstrated proofs approving thereof and arguing for in its favour. This is apostasy from Islam by agreement of the Muslims.” Majmu’ al-Fatawa 18/53.

Ibn Taymiyya says, “To worship other than Allah is worse of a kufr than seeking help from other than Allah. Hence, if a person slaughters for other than Allah in order to get closer to him, the meat becomes Haram, even if he says ‘Bismillah’, as a group of hypocrites from this Ummah do. Even though they are apostates whose slaughtered meat is not Halal, there are still two reasons why their slaughtered meat is prohibited. The like of this happens in Makkah and other places, such as slaughtering for the Jinn.” Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab says commenting on the above statement, “Yet, he is the one to whom the enemies of religion attribute that he does not make takfeer on an individual. Notice – may Allah guide you –his takfeer on whoever slaughters for other than Allah from this Ummah, and his explicit declaration that he is a hypocrite who becomes an apostate by doing so. This is concerning a particular individual, since one cannot envisage by this anything except the prohibition of meat slaughtered by an individual.” (al-Durar al-Saniya 9/402)

Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab says commenting on such statements of Ibn Taymiyya, “Ibn Taymiyya, never mentions the lack of takfeer on a person except that he also says that which clarifies what he means; that he only desists from takfeer when the proofs haven’t reached a person. But when the proofs reach a person, he is ruled against in accordance to whatever the issue dictates, i.e. takfeer, tafseeq or sinfulness. He has also explicitly stated that his words are [I]not concerning clear cut matters, thus he said clearly in refutation of Mutakallimun that some of their Imams have been found to have fallen into apostasy many times.”

Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab also says commenting on Ibn Taymiyya’s statement, “Note his words that he differentiates between unclear matters and what we are discussing here, regarding takfeer on a particular person.” (al-Durar al-Saniya 10/72)

Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab says in agreement with Ibn Taymiyya, “If a particular person says something that necessitates kufr, then he is not to be declared a disbeliever until proofs are established against him, the rejection of which makes him a disbeliever. But this is only in unclear matters where proofs may not be so obvious to some people. But as for those of them who fall into clear cut enormities, or matters that are known from the religion by necessity, then one should not desist in declaring such person as a disbeliever.” Al-Durar al-Saniya 8/244.

Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab says while clarifying Ibn Taymiyya’s position on the issue, “I would mention the words of Ibn Taymiyya they use to justify their misguidance. He says: I am from the foremost of people forbidding others from imputing kufr, bid’a or fisq on a person... – till the end of his words.” Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab then says, “This is what he says, that takfeer is not made until proofs reach the person. But when the proofs reach a person, he is ruled against in accordance to whatever the issue dictates, i.e. takfeer, tafseeq or sinfulness. He has also explicitly stated that his speech is not concerning clear cut matters.” Jami’ al-Masa’il 3/151.

Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab says commenting on Ibn Taymiyya’s words, “These are his words quoted verbatim. Notice the fact that he differentiates between unclear matters and what we are discussing here with respect to making takfeer on an individual. Also notice his takfeer on their leaders, mentioning each individual by name, and explicitly stating consensus over the apostasy of al-Fakhr al-Razi from Islam, even though he is from the greatest of Shafi’i scholars. Can it then be deduced from his words that an individual is not to be declared a disbeliever if he prays to ‘Abd al-Qadir in ease and hardship?! ” Fatawa al-A’imma al-Najdiyya 3/120-124

Aba Butayn says commenting on Ibn Taymiyya’s words, “As for your claim that the Shaykh (i.e. Ibn Taymiyya) believes that whoever does anything from these acts of Shirk is not to be declared a Mushrik and a Kafir until proofs are established against him, then he did not say that with respect to major Shirk, worshipping other than Allah, and other such acts of kufr. He only said it with respect to unclear matters as we have already shown from his words: ‘This is only true with regards to unclear matters...’” al-Durar al-Saniya 10/388-390.

Aba Butayn also says commenting on Ibn Taymiyya’s words, “Notice that he distinguishes between clear cut matters and unclear matters. He says with regards to unclear matters that are considered kufr that the one who utters such words, ‘it may be said about him that he erred and he is misguided, against whom proofs have not been established, the rejection of which makes a person a disbeliever.’ He did not say this with regards to clear cut matters. Rather, he said, ‘You find that many of their leaders have fallen into that, and thereby, have become apostates’ He ruled with their apostasy in absolute terms, and did not hesitate with respect to the ignorant person. Therefore, his words are very clear with respect to distinguishing between unclear matters.” Al-Durar al-Saniya 10/355

Shaykh Hamad b. ‘Atiq says commenting on the words of Ibn Taymiyya, “The issue of making takfeer on an individual is well known. If a person utters words of kufr, then it is said: Whoever says this is a kafir. However, if a particular individual says it, he is not to be declared a kafir until proofs are established against him, the rejection of which would make him a kafir. This is only applicable to unclear matters where the proofs are unclear to some people, such as the issues of Qadr, Irja and so on. This is because some of their statements necessitate Kufr due to rejection of the proofs from the Book or the Mutawatir Sunnah. In that sense, to utter words that necessitate the rejection of some legal texts would be kufr. However, the one who utters such words is not to be declared a kafir for a possibility of a preventative factor such as ignorance, and the lack of knowledge with respect to the actual legal text or what it indicates. This is because one is not obliged to follow aspects of Sharia the knowledge of which hasn’t even reached him. This was mentioned by Ibn Taymiyya – may Allah sanctify his soul – in many of his works. He also mentioned the takfeer of particular individuals from the Mutakallimin after speaking about this issue in detail, and said: ‘This is only true with regards to unclear matters.’ This is where one may desist from Takfeer. But as for those of them who fall into enormities concerning clear cut matters, or that which is known from the religion by necessity, then here one cannot desist from making takfeer on the one who utters such kufr.” Al-Durar al-Saniya 10/433.

Sulayman b. Sahman says, “The words of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya and his likes are not concerning the grave-worshippers and Mushriks. His words are specifically about those heretics who oppose Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah. This is known from the words of the Shaykh. Once you know that the words of Ibn Taymiyya are about the heretics, such as the Qadariyya, the Khawarij and so on, save the extremists among them, it becomes clear to you that the grave-worshippers are beyond this category of people. His words regarding the lack of takfeer are only intended for certain matters the proofs for which are not so clear to some people, such as the matters of Qadr, Irja, and the like of it from what the heretics have said.” Al-Dhiya al-Shariq 168-169

Sulayman b. Sahman, ‘Abdullah b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab, Ibrahim b. Muhammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab and ‘Abd al-Latif b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hasan, they all stated in refutation of those who desist from takfeer mu’ayyan – declaring a particular individual as a disbeliever, “As for his comment: We say that the utterance is kufr, but we do not declare the person to be a disbeliever; then to say this is pure ignorance. This is because the expression can only be applied to an individual. The issue of takfeer on a particular person is a well-known issue, that if a person says something which is kufr, then it is said: Whoever says this is a kafir. However, if a particular individual says it he is not declared a disbeliever, until the proofs are established against him, the rejection of which renders a persona disbeliever. This is only applicable in matters that are unclear, the proofs of which are not so obvious to some people, such as in the issues of Qadr, Irja and the like of which the heretics have said.”

Ishaq b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hasan says, “The issue that we are discussing here concerns worshipping Allah alone who has no partner and freeing oneself from whatever is worshipped besides Allah, and that whoever worships anyone else besides Allah has committed major Shirk which expels a person from the religion. This is the most basic aspect of all our principles, and it is with this message that Allah sent the messengers, revealed the books, and thereafter proofs were established against the people by the Messenger and the Quran. This is how you will find the Imams responding to questions in relation to such fundamental issues while making takfeer of the one who commits Shirk with Allah. They say that one’s repentance must be sought, and if he does not repent, he is to be executed. They do not mention the need for the person to be informed in fundamental issues. They only mention the need to inform the person in unclear matters where the proofs might be obscure to some Muslims, such as the issues in which some of the heretics have disputed, like the Qadariya and the Murjia, or unclear matters like al-Sarf and al-‘Atf (white magic).” Fatawa al-A’imma al-Najdiyya 3/115-119

‘Abdullah and Ibrahim, the two sons of ‘Abd al-Latif, and Sulayman b. Sahman say in a Fatwa, “Shaykh al-Islam and his student Ibn al-Qayyim have mentioned in many places that the lack of takfeer in words and deeds of kufr is only concerning issues where the proofs are not so obvious, and when the proofs have not been established against the doer. The lack of takfeer only refers to the lack of takfeer on the doer and the punishment before establishing the proofs against him; and also that the lack of takfeer particularly refers to issues that are disputed over amongst the Imams.” Al-Durar al-Saniya 10/438

‘Abd al-Latif b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Hasan says, “These two Shaykhs – Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim – declare that whoever does an action which is kufr or apostasy, he is to be ruled with accordingly, and in according to whatever he did from Kufr, Shirk or Fisq, unless there happens to be a preventative factor preventing one from declaring such ruling. This is only applicable to certain cases and does not apply to the one who worships an idol, a grave, a man or a city, because the proofs have already become manifest due to the proofs established by the messengers.” Fatawa al-A’imma al-Najdiyya 3/300.

Muhammad Hamid al-Faqi says while commenting on Ibn Taymiyya’s words, “This detailed explanation – and Allah knows best – is with respect to innovators about whom there is not text from the Book and the Sunnah that the person guilty of it is a kafir. But as for the innovations about which there are clear cut texts then neither Shaykh al-Islam or anyone else from the Salaf would desist in making takfeer on such people. For example, those who openly proclaim Shirk and paganism by praying to the dead and seeking their help, making tawaf around them, and make i’tikaf with the idols which they have erected in the name of those they worship, spending money for their pleasure and to avert their anger, holding Shirki festivals in their name, all the while they recite the Quran where it explicitly states that this is Shirk. They deem the verses to be inapplicable to them. In this case, all of the works of Shaykh al-Islam explicitly declare their kufr.” Al-Masa’il al-Mardaniya’s footnote p.76

Muhammad b. Ibrahim says, “With respect to takfeer on an individual, then there are those who say that a person is never declared to be a disbeliever. They justify their view by using some words of Ibn Taymiyya which they have erred in understanding thereof. I think they do not make takfeer of anyone except whom the Quran has explicitly stated their takfeer, such as the Pharaoh. The texts obviously cannot mention the takfeer of everyone. Also, those who desisted from making takfeer on a person only did so in matters that are unclear. In such cases, one is not declared a disbeliever until proofs against him are established, in terms of certainty of the text and certainty of meaning. So when you clarify sufficiently to him, he disbelieves whether he understands or not, or simply rejects. Not every kufr perpetrated by the kuffar is due to obstinacy. As for that which is known by necessity that the Messenger of Allah SAW came with it, if a person opposes that then he disbelieves merely by doing so, and he is not in need of being informed, regardless of whether the matter is related to beliefs or jurisprudence, so long as he is not a new Muslim.” (Fatawa al-Shaykh Muhammad b. Ibrahim 1/73)

[Salahadeen]

This is right. This only applies to issues that are not clear cut to everyone, and not about issues that are known to be from the religion by necessity, praying to Allah alone being the foremost of those issues. As for the Rafida he is talking about, they are not the ones that exist today. The Rafida he is talking about are those who simply reject Abu Bakr and Umar.

As far as the Rafida today are concerned, then he has explicitly stated that whoever says that all the companions became apostates is a kafir, and whoever doubts his kufr is also a kafir, and surely, no one doubts their kufr except an ignorant person.

Yes, but not all Shias today say that the companions became apostates. A lot of them in the West--who are ignorant of these views--even say that Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] are Muslims.

[Abuz Zubair]

Yes, but not all Shias today say that the companions became apostates. A lot of them in the West--who are ignorant of these views--even say that Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] are Muslims.
So long as they attribute themselves to the Rafida, they remain kuffar. It doesn't matter what they say, anyway, because lying is their deen. We know what Rafidism stands for today. For instance, you have the Lahori Qadiyanis who do not believe that Mr. Qadiani was a Prophet after him. In fact, some Ahmadis may not even know their beliefs, especially those of them who are not even practising. However, the mere fact that they call themselves Qadiyanis is enough for them to be considered beyond the pale of Islam.

Obviously, we are talking about the Rafida, Ja'fariya, Ithna 'Ashariya here and not the Zaydis or others.

Ismai'lis are outright kuffar and I don't think ANYONE would dispute that, I hope!

[Brother_Mujahid]

Yes, but not all Shias today say that the companions became apostates. A lot of them in the West--who are ignorant of these views--even say that Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] are Muslims.

Well, I have seen one Pakistani rafid'i practicing taqiyya, pretending to be a Sunni, but he was finally exposed and was claiming that he had no problem saying that companions were hypocrites, or that the 12 imams were infallible, invoking the imams, and other kufri and shriki doctrines. The problem is that many will feign ignorance, but are just practicing taqiyya.

[Abuz Zubair]

وأنت خبير بأن الصحيح في المعتزلة والرافضة وغيرهم من المبتدعة أنه لا يحكم بكفرهم وإن سبوا الصحابة أو استحلوا قتلنا بشبهة دليل كالخوارج الذين استحلوا قتل الصحابة بخلاف الغلاة منهم كالقائلين بالنبوة لعلي والقاذفين للصديقة فإنه ليس لهم شبهة دليل فهم كفار كالفلاسفة
Ibn 'Abidin says in Hashiya 5/11:

"As you are aware that the correct view with regards to the Mu'tazila, the Rafida and their likes from the heretics, is that they are not declared to be disbelievers, even if they insult the companions and deem it permissible to kill us, since they have a similar misconception to that of the Khawarij who deem permissible to kill the companions; as opposed to the extremists amongst them who believe in the prophethood of 'Ali, or those who slander 'Aisha, for on such issues they have no (excusable) misconception, and hence, they are considered to be disbelievers, just like the philosophers."

[Ibn Jafar]

Yes, but not all Shias today say that the companions became apostates. A lot of them in the West--who are ignorant of these views--even say that Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] are Muslims.

It is not just about Abu Bakr and Umar. That's the least of thier problems. The way they understand tawheed is just different.

[Brother_Mujahid]

It is not just about Abu Bakr and Umar. That's the least of thier problems. The way they understand tawheed is just different.

Yes, a central part of their religion involves invoking 'Ali, al-Husayn, and others that they claim are infallible imams, who they say control the affairs of the universe. Hence you will see layman saying "Ya 'Ali!," or "Ya al-Husayn!"

[Bilal]

an interesting thread, jazakumallahu khair

[Ibn Jafar]

Some of these people very well aware of what actually exists in al-durar al-saniya and fatawa al-lajna al-da'ima, but many of them aren't even aware of this issue. They have just accepted revisionism at face value and think that this is the only valid Salafi opinion, whereas the truth is, not only it isn't the only opinion amongst the Salafis, not only it is a weak opinion amongst the salafis, but also it goes against the Ijma of the four schools on this issue.

.

This whole Salafi label was/is a disaster. The people who scream salafiyah the most are the furthest from the Salaf. The Ulema made a big mistake in promoting that word.

[Salahadeen]

Ibn 'Abidin says in Hashiya 5/11:

"As you are aware that the correct view with regards to the Mu'tazila, the Rafida and their likes from the heretics, is that they are not declared to be disbelievers, even if they insult the companions and deem it permissible to kill us, since they have a similar misconception to that of the Khawarij who deem permissible to kill the companions; as opposed to the extremists amongst them who believe in the prophethood of 'Ali, or those who slander 'Aisha, for on such issues they have no (excusable) misconception, and hence, they are considered to be disbelievers, just like the philosophers."

I don't see how this quote supports your viewpoint? It seems to negate it, saying that only those who believe that Ali [ra] was a prophet, or those that slander Aisha [ra], etc. are kaafiroon.

There are many Shias who are so dumb that they don't know that Imaamah is superior to Risaalah, or that their religion demands sending curses on Aisha [ra], etc. So instead of doing wholesale takfeer on the Shias, we say that whoever holds certain beliefs is a kaafir. And this means that all the knowledgeable ones from amongst them are kufaar, but the ignorant laity may not be.

You are saying that at the time of Sh. Ibn Taymiyyah [ra], the Rawaafidh back then were different from now. But this does not seem right, since the Shia laity in the West now is probably MORE watered down today than it was in the time of Ibn Taymiyyah [ra].

[Abuz Zubair]

I don't see how this quote supports your viewpoint? It seems to negate it, saying that only those who believe that Ali [ra] was a prophet, or those that slander Aisha [ra], etc. are kaafiroon.

To the contrary. It says that the Rafida who are not declared as disbelievers are those who curse the companions. But as for those who slander 'Aisha or believe that Ali was a prophet are kuffar. Both of these beliefs are far too insignificant when compared to declaring that all companions were apostates - their current belief - and even more insignificant to the fact that they pray to other than Allah.

The point you need to bear in mind is that the scholars in classical works do not give a blanket ruling on the rafida. They distinguish between those who only curse the companions, and those who who clearly apostated from Islam by slandering 'Aisha, for instance, or other such factors. They are particular speaking about kufri bid'a and non-kufri bid'a. They do not make takfeer on the basis of non-kufri bid'a, and hence, they don't make takfeer of the khawarij, etc. But they make takfeer on those guilty of kufri bid'a, whom they refer to as the rafida extremists. The bulk of the rafida today are extremists since they don't just limit their rafd to insulting the companions.

Hence:


"As you are aware that the correct view with regards to the Mu'tazila, the Rafida and their likes from the heretics, is that they are not declared to be disbelievers, even if they insult the companions and deem it permissible to kill us, since they have a similar misconception to that of the Khawarij who deem permissible to kill the companions; as opposed to the extremists amongst them who believe in the prophethood of 'Ali, or those who slander 'Aisha, for on such issues they have no (excusable) misconception, and hence, they are considered to be disbelievers, just like the philosophers."

Do the Rafida today slander 'Aisha unanimously or not?

There are many Shias who are so dumb that they don't know that Imaamah is superior to Risaalah, or that their religion demands sending curses on Aisha [ra], etc. So instead of doing wholesale takfeer on the Shias, we say that whoever holds certain beliefs is a kaafir. And this means that all the knowledgeable ones from amongst them are kufaar, but the ignorant laity may not be.

The Rafida today have kufri beliefs which expels them from Islam. Anyone who attributes himself to Rafidism is like a person who attributes himself to Judaism and Christianity, even if he doesn't know what he is supposed to believe. I gave you example of the Qadiyanis today. They are declared to be kuffar wholesale, even if someone amongst them doesn't know about his own belief because Qadiyanism itself is not Islam. Similarly, those who attribute themselves today to Rafd, not knowing that rafd today only exists in its extremist form, actually belong to a different religion, just like the Qadiyanis. If anything, Qadiyanis are closer to Islam and Sunnah than the Rafida. The Lahori Qadiyanis don't even believe in the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and despite of that we perform wholesale takfeer on them. In Pakistan, you cannot declare your Islam except by making wholesale takfeer on the Lahoris and the Ahmadis categorically. Thanks to the Pak scholars for taking the stand.

You are saying that at the time of Sh. Ibn Taymiyyah [ra], the Rawaafidh back then were different from now. But this does not seem right, since the Shia laity in the West now is probably MORE watered down today than it was in the time of Ibn Taymiyyah [ra].

At the time of Ibn Taymiyya there were mixture of rafida. This is why he categorically states that if a person believes that all the companions are apostates, he is a kafir, and whoever doesn't make takfeer on his is also a kafir. The version of rafd which spread in Iran WAY AFTER Ibn Taymiyya was the most extremist of Rafd, and that became the standard rafd today. So you don't get a rafidi today who simply curses the companions and doesn't consider them disbelievers. Now you have the whole rafidi madhab consolidated and established as a seperate religion, and anyone who belongs to that religion is like any Jew or a Christian who belongs to a religion other than Islam. Those born in Rafidi families are kuffar by origin, and those who turn to rafidism today are apostates.

Remember what I quoted to you from the Mufti of Najd, Aba Butayn al-Hanbali:

Aba Butayn says, “If a person were to say about the Rafida today that they are excused for cursing Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Aisha because they are ignorant muqallids, everyone from the laity and clergy would rebuke him.” Al-Durar al-Saniya 10/393

[Um Abdullah M.]

So long as they attribute themselves to the Rafida, they remain kuffar. It doesn't matter what they say, anyway, because lying is their deen. We know what Rafidism stands for today. For instance, you have the Lahori Qadiyanis who do not believe that Mr. Qadiani was a Prophet after him. In fact, some Ahmadis may not even know their beliefs, especially those of them who are not even practising. However, the mere fact that they call themselves Qadiyanis is enough for them to be considered beyond the pale of Islam.


are we talking about very ignorant shia laymen?
many shia laymen are very ignorant about details of their deen like many sunni laymen are very ignorant about many mtters of deen.
so waht do we say about a shia person who does not really know mucha bout his deen except that they love ahl albayt and respect them and believe in their imamah.
and that Imam Ali was teh rightful one to take khilafah after the PRophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam and that Abu Bakr and Umar were wrong in taking it from him.
and dont' know very much more than that.

I mean there are shia Lebanese laymen who take their little kids to sunni schools in USA, where they learn sunni beliefs, and doesn't seem to bother that shia and I believe it is because they are so ignorant they think there isn't much difference between shia and sunni.

I know 2 Muslim teenage girls (highschool age at the time) who were teachers for some shia girls, their families had them teach their daughters, and they told me that their daughters have chosen to be sunni (I believe their daughters were around 9 and 12 yrs of age)


Ismai'lis are outright kuffar and I don't think ANYONE would dispute that, I hope!

When I was in highschool in US, there was a Pakistinian girl attending same school I was, and I was told she was Muslim, so I sat with her one time in Library and she said she was Isma'ili, and at the time I did not know what Isma'ili was, but since she said she is Muslim I thought it wasnt' much different than my beliefs.

while we were in the library, we were looking in a book and came across Taj Mahal, and she said that she is an incarnation of the woman barried there (the girl's name was Mumtaz), so I laughed, I thought she was joking, so she said that she was serious and the other people also laugh when she says that, but she isn't joking, she really believed that, she said that her family told her that.

she also told me that they pray 3 times a day, and they don't fast Ramadan ? (correct me if I am mistaken), and that they cover their heads when they hear athan, then take it off.

yah, I don't believe they are Muslim, that is way far away from Islam, sounds to me like they mix hinduism with Islam.


May Allah guide her to Islam

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

As for issues that fundamentally change the DNA of a Muslim, so to speak, such as believing that Allah is some man on earth, then no two Muslims should dispute that the person who believes this is a kafir and not excused for ignorance. This is one issue where the revisionists collapse since they cannot abide by their principle of excusing the layman for ignorance.

The modernists/revisionists (i mean secularists) they give excuses for all types of kufr from dismantaling the shari'ah and eradicating it from all aspects of life except personal worship to calling upon the dead, however there is no such excuse for those who say you should work to establish Islam completly in your life, to them that person is a kafir.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

This topic hits home to me...(half) my family is Shia (Iranian). The other half is Catholic. There is ALOT in common between the two faiths. I mean ALOT. Just look at the icons of Jesus compaired to Ali... My Father's side is Shia, hence Ibn Jafar. And from what he tells me about the country, and what I know, I don't know how any so called person of knowledge could consider the Shias Muslims. Competely different religion. You see, in Islam, we believe in tawheed, were you direct all (yes all) your acts of whorship to Allah alone. Especially duaa. I don't know about anyone else, but the first thing I learned and loved about Islam was that there is one God and you worship him alone without any intermediaries. Growing up Catholic, this was a breath of fresh air. BUT, the shia on the other hand, don't believe this. They believe you can indeed pray to various people for various things. Just like Catholics.

If my Catholic family is not excused cause thier ignorant, why would my Shia family be? Is that fair? Cause they say the shahada? Well this goes back to a thread on here about the basics of faith. Now, lets go back to the basics, if someone says the shahada but has no clue what it means, are they Muslim? This is stuff that should be learnt at the start of ones Islam. Really basic stuff. Like haveing knowledge of what Islam means and intails is a condition of your shahada! This is not an attack on anyone here.......just venting.

So brother your a revert? maasha'ALLAH, so you were originally shi'i?

[Abu Maryam PK]

The modernists/revisionists they give excuses for all types of kufr from dismantaling the shari'ah and eradicating it from all aspects of life except personal worship to calling upon the dead, however there is no such excuse for those who say you should work to establish Islam completly in your life, to them that person is a kafir.
that is an exaggeration, IMHO. Az already pointed out that senior scholars have also been afflicted by this. Unless u r pointing to those who say alqaeda r kawarij and it is permissible to kill them. i myself heard a bro say that musharraf was ok to kill the lal masjid boys since the Prophet sallallaho'alaiohiwasallam said "if i catch them i will kill them like the slaughter of 'aad and thamood"! . [the bro in question is an arab]

[Salahadeen]

OK thanks for clarifying, bro Abu az-Zubayr.

I see what you are saying, but I do think there is a difference between someone who adheres to Judaism or Christianity and an ignorant Shia layperson. The average Jew and Christian rejects Prophet Muhammad [s], and the ignorant Christian says God is three. The average Qadiani believes in Mirza Ghulam; even the Lahori Qadianis accept Mirza Ghulam, although they do not say he was a prophet.

On the other hand, an ignorant Shia layperson does not have any of these beliefs. He does not reject Prophet Muhammad [s], nor does he believe in Mirza Ghulam, nor does he say God is three.

In fact, a really super ignorant Shia may be exactly like a really super ignorant Sunni. And I think this is why scholars differentiate between an ignorant Shia and an ignorant Christian.

One brother here (Ibn Jafar) said why should an ignorant Shia be excused and not his ignorant Catholic family members. Yet, his ignorant Shia family members believe in the kalima, whereas the ignorant Catholic members don't! This is why there is a difference! Ask the ignorant Shia family member: "Do you believe that there is no god except Allah [swt] and Muhammad [s] is His Messenger" and that person would say 'yes!' On the other hand, ask this to the ignorant Catholic, and he would say "Jesus is God, one of three, and Muhammad was a false imposter" (naudhobillah)

Anyways, bro Abu az-Zubayr, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that I think there are two views on the issue, and it seems the majority view is that we do NOT do takfeer wholesale, although it might be true that experts on Shi'ism lean towards your minority opinion, namely of doing wholesale takfeer.

I just think you are being too quick to call the first view as "revisionist". You tend to accuse people of this a lot, and I think you should be a bit more cautious before using it. Wallahu Aalim. May Allah [swt] reward you.

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

I just don't get how this revisionist movement want to disregard certain fundamentals which are on issues of kufr and Imaan. If it was issues of fiqh and ijtihadat then fair enough (and even that within its limits right) but its so dangerous subhanullah.

also with regards the rafidah they make takfeer on us for not believing in what they believe anyways

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

that is an exaggeration, IMHO. Az already pointed out that senior scholars have also been afflicted by this. Unless u r pointing to those who say alqaeda r kawarij and it is permissible to kill them. i myself heard a bro say that musharraf was ok to kill the lal masjid boys since the Prophet sallallaho'alaiohiwasallam said "if i catch them i will kill them like the slaughter of 'aad and thamood"! . [the bro in question is an arab]

sorry brother your right I only realised now what was mean't by revisionist, what I mean was the modernist secularist, apologies, I'm gonna edit my post ;)

[Abu Maryam PK]

hmm...makes sense now

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

To the contrary. It says that the Rafida who are not declared as disbelievers are those who curse the companions. But as for those who slander 'Aisha or believe that Ali was a prophet are kuffar. Both of these beliefs are far too insignificant when compared to declaring that all companions were apostates - their current belief - and even more insignificant to the fact that they pray to other than Allah.

The point you need to bear in mind is that the scholars in classical works do not give a blanket ruling on the rafida. They distinguish between those who only curse the companions, and those who who clearly apostated from Islam by slandering 'Aisha, for instance, or other such factors. They are particular speaking about kufri bid'a and non-kufri bid'a. They do not make takfeer on the basis of non-kufri bid'a, and hence, they don't make takfeer of the khawarij, etc. But they make takfeer on those guilty of kufri bid'a, whom they refer to as the rafida extremists. The bulk of the rafida today are extremists since they don't just limit their rafd to insulting the companions.

Hence:



Do the Rafida today slander 'Aisha unanimously or not?



The Rafida today have kufri beliefs which expels them from Islam. Anyone who attributes himself to Rafidism is like a person who attributes himself to Judaism and Christianity, even if he doesn't know what he is supposed to believe. I gave you example of the Qadiyanis today. They are declared to be kuffar wholesale, even if someone amongst them doesn't know about his own belief because Qadiyanism itself is not Islam. Similarly, those who attribute themselves today to Rafd, not knowing that rafd today only exists in its extremist form, actually belong to a different religion, just like the Qadiyanis. If anything, Qadiyanis are closer to Islam and Sunnah than the Rafida. The Lahori Qadiyanis don't even believe in the prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and despite of that we perform wholesale takfeer on them. In Pakistan, you cannot declare your Islam except by making wholesale takfeer on the Lahoris and the Ahmadis categorically. Thanks to the Pak scholars for taking the stand.



At the time of Ibn Taymiyya there were mixture of rafida. This is why he categorically states that if a person believes that all the companions are apostates, he is a kafir, and whoever doesn't make takfeer on his is also a kafir. The version of rafd which spread in Iran WAY AFTER Ibn Taymiyya was the most extremist of Rafd, and that became the standard rafd today. So you don't get a rafidi today who simply curses the companions and doesn't consider them disbelievers. Now you have the whole rafidi madhab consolidated and established as a seperate religion, and anyone who belongs to that religion is like any Jew or a Christian who belongs to a religion other than Islam. Those born in Rafidi families are kuffar by origin, and those who turn to rafidism today are apostates.

Remember what I quoted to you from the Mufti of Najd, Aba Butayn al-Hanbali:


jazakALLAHU khairan akhee for your extensive quotations and clarifications here, I think everyone will agree they have benefitted from these points.

with regards Ibn 'Abideen some people use him to actually say the layperson from the shi'ah are muslims but as you have rightly pointed out there were different types at different times. subhanullah something we miss out on

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

hmm...makes sense now

you know like that ed husain guy, he turns a blind eye to those who do all sorts but if you call for shari'ah he himself has said he wouldn't call them muslims!

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

thread moved

[leo]

Yes, but not all Shias today say that the companions became apostates. A lot of them in the West--who are ignorant of these views--even say that Abu Bakr [ra] and Umar [ra] are Muslims.

That is not enough, if they don't believe in the caliphate of shaikhain (RA), then they are non-Muslims, because rejection of their caliphate is considered a major deviation. This is Hanafi position. As already said by brother AZ, all the learned scholars of Hanafi school hailing from Pakistan have declared shias as non-Muslims basing on their kufria beliefs. This viewpoint is valid for all 12ers.

[leo]

I do think there is a difference between someone who adheres to Judaism or Christianity and an ignorant Shia layperson. The average Jew and Christian rejects Prophet Muhammad [s], and the ignorant Christian says God is three. The average Qadiani believes in Mirza Ghulam; even the Lahori Qadianis accept Mirza Ghulam, although they do not say he was a prophet.

On the other hand, an ignorant Shia layperson does not have any of these beliefs. He does not reject Prophet Muhammad [s], nor does he believe in Mirza Ghulam, nor does he say God is three.

Again we have to analyse their existing beliefs in totality. One or two points regarding aqeeda are insufficient to be taken as a requisite podium for giving them benefit of doubt.

1. Their belief about incompleteness of Holy Quran.

2. Rejection and cursing of companions and mothers of believers.

3. Imams being superior to prophets (pbuh).


These three major deviations take them outside the fold of Islam. So therefore there is no difference amongst Jews, Christians and 12ers. The 12ers are even worst amongst all non-Muslim catgories, since they believed and then deviated at a later stage.

[Abuz Zubair]

are we talking about very ignorant shia laymen?
many shia laymen are very ignorant about details of their deen like many sunni laymen are very ignorant about many mtters of deen.

I want to know this:

If a person who calls himself a Qadiyani but doesn't know anything about the Prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani, is he considered to be a Muslim or a Kafir?

If you say he is considered a Muslim still, then I would assume you would have contradicted the Ijma of the Muslims today.

If you say he is still a Kafir, like all those who call themselves Isma'ilis irrespective of what they know or don't know about Islam, then I want to know, why excuse a person who attributes himself to contemporary rafd?

The same question goes to you, Salahuddin...

The average Qadiani believes in Mirza Ghulam; even the Lahori Qadianis accept Mirza Ghulam, although they do not say he was a prophet.

Right, but accepting Qadiyani as a mujaddid and believing his other statements about prophethood to be allegorical might not itself be kufr. But they are still declared to be kuffar, even if they categorical deny the so-called prophethood of Qadiyani.

The question is, why are they not exempted from Takfeer?

One brother here (Ibn Jafar) said why should an ignorant Shia be excused and not his ignorant Catholic family members. Yet, his ignorant Shia family members believe in the kalima, whereas the ignorant Catholic members don't!

The Christians also consider themselves monotheists, but they have their own interpretation just as the Shias have their own interpretation. They are both followers of Prophets and they are both guilty of Shirk. Why is one excused and not the other? The same goes for the pagans before Islam came to the Arabian Peninsula. They were following the religion of Ibrahim and they believed that paganism is in fact from Ibrahim's religion. Why aren't they excused?

Anyways, bro Abu az-Zubayr, I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that I think there are two views on the issue, and it seems the majority view is that we do NOT do takfeer wholesale, although it might be true that experts on Shi'ism lean towards your minority opinion, namely of doing wholesale takfeer.

Well, to consider what a majority or minority view may be, one needs to read up on what all the scholars have written on the topic. I quoted from Ibn 'Abidin above who clearly stated that the rule that applies to one group of rafida is not applicable to the other group. The only rafida left today are those who make takfeer of the companions and slander Aisha. As Ibn 'Abidin says, they are all kuffar. As the fatwa of lajna states that there is no difference between the leaders and their followers when it comes to the rafida.

There is also consensus of scholars on the fact that whoever denies any part of Islam which is known by necessity, he is a kafir and is not to be excused for ignorance. Tawheed is the most important aspect of that which is known by necessity. It is so fundamental that anyone who has the Quran proofs are already established against him. To deny it is tantamount to denying the Quran being a proof in and of itself.

The reason I call the new movement of revisionism is because this is what they are doing with the heritage and ignoring the consensus of the jurists on the issue, a reason why Sh Ibn Baz encouraged the students to refer to the chapters on apostasy to discover the truth themselves. I did and I discovered it. If you read some of the quotes I have posted in this thread, you will see the harsh attitude of the mainstream Najdi scholars, starting with Sh Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab up to Ibn Baz, towards the revisionists who attribute themselves to the da'wah.

Yes, I am perhaps the first one to call them revisionists, but I guess the term is a lot more lenient than the anti-revisionists attitude al-durar al-saniya is crammed full of. I used to think that perhaps these najdis may have gone to an extreme. But by going through the fiqh of apostasy among the four madhab, I realised they were spot on, 100% correct. It is the revisionists who are the minority, at least as far as the fiqh books are concerned.

[Abu Maryam PK]

AZ, what is the sequence of books u wud recommend to read on the topic. it's better if u type out in arabic, because it id hard to make out arabized english

[Abuz Zubair]

Something interesting about Sh Ibn Baz.. from Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth:

في شرح كشف الشبهات
قد صرّح الشيخ عبدالعزيز بن باز - رحمه الله - بكفر عواّمهم وأنهم يلحقون
بأئمتهم ، ولما قاتل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم كفار قريش لم يفرق
بين أئمتهم وعوامّهم ، ولما سئل رحمه الله عن الإمامية في القطيف
والمنطقة الشرقية قال : هم كفار وعوامهم كفار ( وبأعيانهم )
قلت ( عبدالله ) : ووالله لقد سمعتها بأذني .
ملاحظة مهمة جدا : لن تجد هذه الزيادة في الأشرطة التي من إصدار البردين ، ستجدها مبتورة تماما ( الذي عنده الأشرطة من أول ما تم لها الفسح سيجدها ، وأما الموجودة الآن فقد تم حذفها من الإعلام (( للمصلحة !!!! ))
لعلّي أضع تفريغا حرفيا لهذه المسألة إن شاء الله قريبا .


Sh Ibn Baz made takfeer of all the rafidha, the laity and the clergy.

[Abu Maryam PK]

لن تجد هذه الزيادة في الأشرطة التي من إصدار البردين ، ستجدها مبتورة تماما
And who was responsible for this tahreef? a tell claim and hard to prove.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Something interesting about Sh Ibn Baz.. from Multaqa Ahl al-Hadeeth:

Sh Ibn Baz made takfeer of all the rafidha, the laity and the clergy.

I don't see the comparison between rafidi laymen and kufar quraysh
the later did not accept the message of Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, laymen and all, so they are kufar with no doubt, they did not accept Islam for us to question if they are considered Muslim.
but shia laymen believe in Allah and His Messenger, and many do not believe in tahrif in Quran..etc. the stuff that is in their religion, because they did not study their religion and dont' know lot of that stuff, they are very ignorant, and some of them would reject those beliefs if they knew about them.

[Abu Maryam PK]

and some of them would reject those beliefs if they knew about them.

i asked a shia class fellow whether they believe jibreel landed at the wrong place for prophethood, and he just lughed at this and said how stupid to believe such things....dont know it was taqiyyah or what.

[Abuz Zubair]

Another interesting fatwa from Sh Ibn Baz:

انقل لكم ما سمعته من الامام ابن باز رحمه الله في الجامع الكبير وقد سئل عن الرافضة فقال : هم كفار ، فقال السائل وعوامهم ؟ فالتفت اليه الشيخ ( حيث كان السائل في جهة الشيخ اليسرى ) فقال : وعوام اليهود والنصارى ، اليسوا كفار ؟ فقال السائل : بلى ، فقال الشيخ وكذلك الرافضة .أ.هـ

Aren't the layman among Jews and Christians kuffar? yes. The likewise the Rafida.

AZ, what is the sequence of books u wud recommend to read on the topic. it's better if u type out in arabic, because it id hard to make out arabized english

There are two ways:

1) long winded way, but you will be 100% convinced if you follow that route. Basically, just read through al-durar al-saniya, the 'aqida section of fatawa lajna daima, and fatawa al-a'imma al-najdiya, and of course, the chapters on ridda in the classical works of four schools, and works dedicated to kufr like alfadh al-kufr by hanafis and i'lam by al-haytami.

2) shorter route is to read two works by Abul-Ula al-Rashid, one called عارض الجهل and the other called ضوابط تكفير المعين both forwarded by fawzan. Two books by مدحت آل فراج one called العذر بالجهل تحت المجهر الشرعي forwarded by Ibn Jibrin and another one by Madhat, which is the latest of his works, شرح مفيد المستفيد في كفر تارك التوحيد Mufid al-Mustafid is Sh Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab's work dedicated to takfeer mu'ayyan and the lack of excuse for ignorance therein.

[Abu Maryam PK]

Jazakallahu khair for the books.
but how do we know ibn baz really said all that, not that i disagree with them, but how can anyone be convinced by something which is claimed to be deleted from tapes

[Abu Maryam PK]

There are two ways:

1) long winded way, but you will be 100% convinced if you follow that route. Basically, just read through al-durar al-saniya, the 'aqida section of fatawa lajna daima, and fatawa al-a'imma al-najdiya, and of course, the chapters on ridda in the classical works of four schools, and works dedicated to kufr like alfadh al-kufr by hanafis and i'lam by al-haytami.

2) shorter route is to read two works by Abul-Ula al-Rashid, one called عارض الجهل and the other called ضوابط تكفير المعين both forwarded by fawzan. Two books by مدحت آل فراج one called العذر بالجهل تحت المجهر الشرعي forwarded by Ibn Jibrin and another one by Madhat, which is the latest of his works, شرح مفيد المستفيد في كفر تارك التوحيد Mufid al-Mustafid is Sh Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab's work dedicated to takfeer mu'ayyan and the lack of excuse for ignorance therein.

i think i will take the long one. Till then i will remain off-line, insha'Allah. It appears to be a very interesting topic. something akin to discovering the da-vinci code

[Abuz Zubair]

I don't see the comparison between rafidi laymen and kufar quraysh
the later did not accept the message of Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, laymen and all, so they are kufar with no doubt, they did not accept Islam for us to question if they are considered Muslim.

I am talking about the Mushrikin who died before Muhammad SAW became a Prophet. I.e. those who died worshipping idols before Islam in Jahiliyya. Were they Muslims on the religion of Ibrahim, and excused for their ignorance? Or were they declared mushrikin just by worshipping idols? Surely, they deserve more excuse since they didn't even have the Quran, right?

i asked a shia class fellow whether they believe jibreel landed at the wrong place for prophethood, and he just lughed at this and said how stupid to believe such things....dont know it was taqiyyah or what.

Which is why it is futile discussing whether a layman really knows his beliefs or not, since they will never tell you the truth.

More fatwas from Sh Ibn Baz:

السؤال : فضيلة الشيخ ، السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته ، وبعد
أفيدكم أنني رجل أعمل في مدينة نجران وقابلني رجل عند منزله ثم دعاني لشرب القهوة وقد قام هذا الرجل بذبح ذبيحته وبعدما حلّ وقت الصلاة لم يصل معنا ثم اتضح أنه من الرافضة فما هو رأي فضيلتكم ' هل يجوز أكل ذبيحته وجزاكم الله خيرا ؟
جواب الشيخ رحمه الله : ][ إذا عرف أنه من الرافضة لا تؤكل ذبيحته لأنهم يعبدون علي وأهل البيت ويستغيثون بهم وينذرون لهم فهم كفرة بذلك
سواء المكارمة في نجران وأتباعهم أو في القطيف أو في غير ذلك
من عرف أنه من الرافضة لا تؤكل ذبيحته لكفرهم الظاهر بعبادتهم أهل البيت وتعلقهم بعلي وفاطمة والحسن والحسين والإستغاثة بهم ونذرهم لهم ، إذا قاموا يا علي وإذا جلسوا يا علي ، نسأل الله العافية
هذا الشرك الأكبر ، ويجب بغضهم في الله وألا يُتخذوا أصحابا ، ولكن ينصحون ، يدعون إلى الله لعل الله يهديهم ، إذا كنت لك بهم صلة ، تدعوهم إلى الله وتحثهم على إتباع السنة ومحبة الصحابة والترضي عنهم ، الرافضة يسبون الصحابة ، يسبونهم إلا قليلا إلا نفرا يسيرا . انتهى كلامه رحمه الله
المصدر من سلسلة لقاء مع إخوة في الله ، الجزء الأول
الدقيقة 24 و 18 ثانية
نقاته بحروفه من هذا الرابط : http://www.islamhouse.com/ar/tapes.php?doWhat=showcat&catid=14

[Um Abdullah M.]

I want to know this:

If a person who calls himself a Qadiyani but doesn't know anything about the Prophethood of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiyani, is he considered to be a Muslim or a Kafir?

If you say he is considered a Muslim still, then I would assume you would have contradicted the Ijma of the Muslims today.

If you say he is still a Kafir, like all those who call themselves Isma'ilis irrespective of what they know or don't know about Islam, then I want to know, why excuse a person who attributes himself to contemporary rafd?


Are we talking about kufr in Allah's eyes, meaning that Allah will put him/her in hell if they label themselves as Qadyani?
or are we talking about our dhahir judgement of a person? but the hell and heaven issue is up to Allah who knows the person's inner belief if he had the kufr beliefs of Qadyanis or not ?

becasue the person could be calling himself Qadyani because that is what his parents told him, he was taught that Islam is Qadyanism while he does not really know anything about Mirza, just hears that he was a wali or something, so he believed it without knowledge, but he doesn't know about his claim of prophethood.

so ur saying that we would declare him kafir based on him labeling himself as Qadiani not his beliefs, but in yawm al Qiyama we dont' say he will go to hell based on label, Allah knows his inner beliefs and He only knows where his place is in day of judgement.

I am not sure if what I am saying is clear or not.



The Christians also consider themselves monotheists, but they have their own interpretation just as the Shias have their own interpretation. They are both followers of Prophets and they are both guilty of Shirk. Why is one excused and not the other? The same goes for the pagans before Islam came to the Arabian Peninsula. They were following the religion of Ibrahim and they believed that paganism is in fact from Ibrahim's religion. Why aren't they excused?


because Christians after Islam must accept Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam for them to become Muslim, and before Islam they had shirki beliefs and practices which made them kafir, that is clear obvious.
same with the Mushrikeen of Quraish, the ones who worshiped idols became kafir, doesn't matter what they believed is the religion of Ibrahim, they commited major shirk.

but the shia I am speaking about are laymen who are very ignorant about their deen... so they do not believe in their heart the things that their imams preach, because those laymen do not even know about what their imams preach, too busy with dunya life, away from deen, just pray and fast.
And lets say that they don't engage in shirki practices that their imams preach and do, due to their ignorance.
they are almost shia only by name.
so would that person be kafir?

[Abuz Zubair]

Jazakallahu khair for the books.
but how do we know ibn baz really said all that, not that i disagree with them, but how can anyone be convinced by something which is claimed to be deleted from tapes
Because there are just too many records to deny :)

أيضا سئل الشيخ رحمه الله ..
السائل : الرافضة هل يحكم بكفرهم جميعا ولا بعضهم ؟
الشيخ ابن باز رحمه الله : المعروف أنهم كفار ، عبّادا لعلي عامتهم وقادتهم لأنهم تبع القادة مثل كفار أهل مكة تبع أبي سفيان وأشباهه ، تبع أبي جهل ، وتبع أبي لهب كفارهم تبع لهم ، عامتهم تبعهم .
لأنهم مقلدون لهم راضون بما هم عليه ما يطيعون يخالفونهم ، كل المشركين كفار ، كل المشركين الذين يتبعون قادتهم .
الرسول قاتل الكفار ولا ميّز بينهم ، والصحابة قاتلوا الروم وقاتلوا فارس ولا فصّلوا بين العامة وبين الخاصة ، لأن العامة تبع الكبار ، تبع القادة ، العامة تبع القادة ، نسأل الله العافية .
(انتهى كلامه رحمه الله من الوجه الأول من الشريط الثالث لشرح كشف الشبهات )

[Abuz Zubair]

Are we talking about kufr in Allah's eyes, meaning that Allah will put him/her in hell if they label themselves as Qadyani?
or are we talking about our dhahir judgement of a person? but the hell and heaven issue is up to Allah who knows the person's inner belief if he had the kufr beliefs of Qadyanis or not ?

Dhahir of the person... The batin and punishment in the hereafter rests on iqamat al-hujja. And even that, whoever has the Quran, hujja is established against him in terms of tawheed.

becasue the person could be calling himself Qadyani because that is what his parents told him, he was taught that Islam is Qadyanism while he does not really know anything about Mirza, just hears that he was a wali or something, so he believed it without knowledge, but he doesn't know about his claim of prophethood.

so ur saying that we would declare him kafir based on him labeling himself as Qadiani not his beliefs, but in yawm al Qiyama we dont' say he will go to hell based on label, Allah knows his inner beliefs and He only knows where his place is in day of judgement.

I am not sure if what I am saying is clear or not.

Yes it is clear. Theoretically, you are right. However, I most of the Qads are filthy rich so they don't live in remote islands, and they have access to information through which they can find out the truth. If they don't then they are not excused.

because Christians after Islam must accept Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam for them to become Muslim, and before Islam they had shirki beliefs and practices which made them kafir, that is clear obvious.
same with the Mushrikeen of Quraish, the ones who worshiped idols became kafir, doesn't matter what they believed is the religion of Ibrahim, they commited major shirk.

Yes, but you missed the point. I am talking about the Christians and the pagans who lived BEFORE the advent of Islam. They think that the religion of ibrahim is seeking intercession through idols. Were those pagans who died before Islam considered Muslims or kuffar?

This is the question.

Likewise, those Christians who began to worship Jesus BEFORE Islam, are they considered Muslims or kuffar? In terms of rulings, can they be prayed for?


but the shia I am speaking about are laymen who are very ignorant about their deen... so they do not believe in their heart the things that their imams preach, because those laymen do not even know about what their imams preach, too busy with dunya life, away from deen, just pray and fast.
And lets say that they don't engage in shirki practices that their imams preach and do, due to their ignorance.
they are almost shia only by name.
so would that person be kafir?

As Sh Ibn Baz said there is no difference between Christians, Jews and Rafida. There might be a Christian who just believes in God, who has never heard of the Prophet, and frankly he is also into dunya and doesn't know much about Jesus or worshipping him, etc... But he knows he is supposedly a Christian. Is he excused for ignorance?

[Um Abdullah M.]

ok, from what I understand, laymen of kafir sects such as :
Brelwis, Rafidah...etc.
are declared as kafir for shirki beliefs and practices.

I agree 100%

but I am not speaking about laymen who indulge in clear shirki practices or have clear shirk beliefs

I am speaking about ones who are very ignorant (due to them not studying their deen and being busy with dunya life, and living in area or place where poverty and ignorance is rampent, with not many sources for learning and especially where people do not speak Arabic) so they do not practice shirk or believe in it becuase they don't know about it, they even barely just pray and fast, and know very basic things about Islam, that is all.

so what would be judgement on these type of people?

so we can say that we are just making a general takfir of laymen, but when it comes to individuals it is a different matter?

like we say that Brelwis in general are kafir, laymen or scholars.
then when we come to an individual it is a different matter, meaning if that individual is like what I described above then we would judge him like a brelwi who practices shirk and believes in it ?

did I get that right?

[abbccdd]

What's this revisionist movement all about?

[Abuz Zubair]

Well, once we acknowledge that these people are like the Jews, the Christians and Qadiyanis, then it does not matter what they practice or don't because they are not Muslims to begin with. They actually belong to a different religion.

Also, if a Muslim says he is a Christian, even if he doesn't worship Jesus he is beyond the pale of Islam just by saying so. If a person attributes himself to Hinduism, even if he doesn't worship idols, he is beyond the pale of Islam. Similarly, if one attributes himself to rafd, he is a rafidi and not a Muslim, no matter to what level he practises or doesn't.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Dhahir of the person... The batin and punishment in the hereafter rests on iqamat al-hujja. And even that, whoever has the Quran, hujja is established against him in terms of tawheed.

a person who does not know Arabic and doesn't have a translation of its meaning into his language?



Yes, but you missed the point. I am talking about the Christians and the pagans who lived BEFORE the advent of Islam. They think that the religion of ibrahim is seeking intercession through idols. Were those pagans who died before Islam considered Muslims or kuffar?

This is the question.


read my statement again and you will see that I agree with you.
here it is again:
((because Christians after Islam must accept Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam for them to become Muslim, and before Islam they had shirki beliefs and practices which made them kafir, that is clear obvious.))


Likewise, those Christians who began to worship Jesus BEFORE Islam, are they considered Muslims or kuffar? In terms of rulings, can they be prayed for?

yes they were kafir because they WORSHIPED Isaa alayhi assalam, so they were mushrik.
but ones who didn't worship him and were upon the true beliefs of Nasraniya, then they were believers.


There might be a Christian who just believes in God, who has never heard of the Prophet, and frankly he is also into dunya and doesn't know much about Jesus or worshipping him, etc... But he knows he is supposedly a Christian. Is he excused for ignorance?

we don't excuse him for ignorance, but isn't he to be tested on day of judgement if the message didn't reach him/her?

so in dunya we consider him kafir, but in akhira is a different matter, Allah tests the person.
right?

[Abuz Zubair]

a person who does not know Arabic and doesn't have a translation of its meaning into his language?

If he has no way of getting it translated or asking someone who could tell him what it means then he is from Ahl al-Fatra. The dhahir of him is kufr, but his batin is left to Allah.

read my statement again and you will see that I agree with you.
here it is again:
((because Christians after Islam must accept Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam for them to become Muslim, and before Islam they had shirki beliefs and practices which made them kafir, that is clear obvious.))

Sorry, JK for highlighting that. Now my question is, if the Christians were declared kuffar for worshipping Christ before Islam came to them and they weren't even excused for ignorance, why should then Muslims be excused for ignorance? At least in dhahir?

yes they were kafir because they WORSHIPED Isaa alayhi assalam, so they were mushrik.
but ones who didn't worship him and were upon the true beliefs of Nasraniya, then they were believers.

Yes.

we don't excuse him for ignorance, but isn't he to be tested on day of judgement if the message didn't reach him/her?

so in dunya we consider him kafir, but in akhira is a different matter, Allah tests the person.
right?

Yes, provided that he didn't fall short in seeking the truth.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Also, if a Muslim says he is a Christian, even if he doesn't worship Jesus he is beyond the pale of Islam just by saying so. If a person attributes himself to Hinduism, even if he doesn't worship idols, he is beyond the pale of Islam. Similarly, if one attributes himself to rafd, he is a rafidi and not a Muslim, no matter to what level he practises or doesn't.

brother, those are obvious, they do not claim to be Muslim, I mean Christians, Jews, Hindus.
and most Muslims know that those are other religions that came before Islam.
Also those religions not believing in Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

so the person who labels himself as Christian cannot claim ignorance about it, at least the issue that they do not believe in Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam,
for him to choose to label himself with a label he must know at least some of their beliefs or else one would be insane to label himself with something he doesn't know anything about.

and we can't say that his parents taught him that label because his parents are Muslim and Muslims don't teach their kids to call themselves Christians.


but sects like shia, they claim to be Muslim and have main Islamic beliefs like Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam being last Messenger, in Quran, hadith (though it is mostly fabricated or weak), fast Ramadan, do hajj ..etc.

so an ignorant laymen when seeing that they would think they are Muslim just differ in small issues, and actually even many sunni laymen who do not have much clue about shia beliefs think that they are like us just with few small differences, and they do not realize how far their beliefs are from Islam.

so there is a difference, it can be confusing for very ignorant laymen.

[Um Abdullah M.]

Sorry, JK for highlighting that. Now my question is, if the Christians were declared kuffar for worshipping Christ before Islam came to them and they weren't even excused for ignorance, why should then Muslims be excused for ignorance? At least in dhahir?


Now you see you didn't clearly understand what I was trying to say.

you are speaking about ones who indulged in shirk practices and beliefs, those are not to be excused at least in dhahir.. I agree.

but I am speaking about ignorant ones who do not indulge in clear shirki practices or have clear shirki beliefs.

that is the question, is the second group excused for affiliating themselves with a sect that has shirk beliefs and practices because he grew up in a family that follows that sect, but then he is too wrapped up in dunya, so he didn't learn much about the beliefs of his sect, and just knew about the simple basics that most Muslim laymen learn in school.
(the six pillars of Iman and 5 pillars of Islam with not much detail)

[Madarijas-Salikeen]

as salaamu alaykum,

The thing is that even many of the ignorant shias usually do shirki things. You will find that most of the shias including the ignorant will say 'Ya ali'

[Um Abdullah M.]

as salaamu alaykum,

The thing is that even many of the ignorant shias usually do shirki things. You will find that most of the shias including the ignorant will say 'Ya ali'

wa alaykum assalam
true, but I was mostly thinking about ones who grew up in the west, or ones who came from Lebanon, I noticed some of the Lebanese shia bringing their kids to sunni schools, they are even married to sunni Lebanese women, and both are quite ignorant about their deen, some don't even know that their are major diferences between shia and sunni, they think they are basically the same just minor differences.

Now in Iran and Iraq, most laymen there practice shirk becuase it has been inhereted from one generation to antoher, the kids from young age are taken to these places of shirk and are taught shirk from a young age.

may Allah save us from shirk and kufr.

[Abuz Zubair]

but sects like shia, they claim to be Muslim and have main Islamic beliefs like Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam being last Messenger, in Quran, hadith (though it is mostly fabricated or weak), fast Ramadan, do hajj ..etc.

But so do the Qadiyanis. In fact, Qadiyanis have less kufr than the Rafida. They don't curse the companions. They don't slander 'Aisha. They don't believe in the tahreef of the Quran. They are in fact hanafis in fiqh. They pray to Allah alone, as far as I know, and they obviously believe in the Prophet SAW. A group of them even believe in the FINALITY of the Prophet s. Yet, despite of that, the laity and clergy among them are declared as disbelievers. The Lahoris, who merely attribute themselves to the man, even though they don't even believe he is a Prophet are declared to be kuffar.

I want to know, if the Shia are worse, why are they treated differently?

Also, when Ibn Baz and other Mashaykh make takfeer on the Shia laymen, categorically stating that they are all kuffar whether they are in Najran or Qatif, they liken the laymen to the laymen of Jews and Christians. They do not distinguish between a layman who doesn't commit shirk and the layman who does. Moreover, most of these issues of takfeer in clear cut matters are based on assumptions. I.e. if a person claims to be a rafidi, it is instantly assumed that he holds their beliefs, even if he doesn't. Not recognising such people as kuffar has drastic results in terms of fiqh, i.e. their marriage to Muslims is considered valid, their meat is halal to eat and they can be prayed for and over.

What we need to point out is that Ibn Baz and others consider rafd to be a religion on its own, completely different to Islam. Hence, a person who claims to belong to that religion, he is of that religion, regardless of what he knows or doesn't know about that religion.

Similarly, an Isma'ili who are an offshoot of the batiniyya, they are considered as an Ummah of kufr by consensus, yet, how many of them wouldn't have a clue what Isma'ilism is about. And even though they think they are a sect within Islam, the Muslims consider them to be of a different religion, just like the Jews and the Christians.

My question remains, why treat the contemporary rafida any different to the Isma'ilis or Qadiyanis?

[Um Abdullah M.]

But so do the Qadiyanis. In fact, Qadiyanis have less kufr than the Rafida. They don't curse the companions. They don't slander 'Aisha. They don't believe in the tahreef of the Quran. They are in fact hanafis in fiqh. They pray to Allah alone, as far as I know, and they obviously believe in the Prophet SAW. A group of them even believe in the FINALITY of the Prophet s. Yet, despite of that, the laity and clergy among them are declared as disbelievers. The Lahoris, who merely attribute themselves to the man, even though they don't even believe he is a Prophet are declared to be kuffar.

I want to know, if the Shia are worse, why are they treated differently?

Also, when Ibn Baz and other Mashaykh make takfeer on the Shia laymen, categorically stating that they are all kuffar whether they are in Najran or Qatif, they liken the laymen to the laymen of Jews and Christians. They do not distinguish between a layman who doesn't commit shirk and the layman who does. Moreover, most of these issues of takfeer in clear cut matters are based on assumptions. I.e. if a person claims to be a rafidi, it is instantly assumed that he holds their beliefs, even if he doesn't. Not recognising such people as kuffar has drastic results in terms of fiqh, i.e. their marriage to Muslims is considered valid, their meat is halal to eat and they can be prayed for and over.

What we need to point out is that Ibn Baz and others consider rafd to be a religion on its own, completely different to Islam. Hence, a person who claims to belong to that religion, he is of that religion, regardless of what he knows or doesn't know about that religion.

Similarly, an Isma'ili who are an offshoot of the batiniyya, they are considered as an Ummah of kufr by consensus, yet, how many of them wouldn't have a clue what Isma'ilism is about. And even though they think they are a sect within Islam, the Muslims consider them to be of a different religion, just like the Jews and the Christians.

My question remains, why treat the contemporary rafida any different to the Isma'ilis or Qadiyanis?


firstly: did u read my last post to bro ahl assunnah?

secondly: I also believe they have their own religion, mixing Islam with paganism.
but I was not talking about the religion as a whole.
but I think I get that ur talking about general takfir not individual one, meaning that we say in general that Rafidah are kafir, but there might be a few individuals who are mainly shia by name, then their judgement is different, maybe to us in dhahir they are kafir, but Allah only knows their batin if they really dont' believe what their imams belive due to their ignorance or if it is taqiyyah.

[Abuz Zubair]

firstly: did u read my last post to bro ahl assunnah?

Yes, and there is a difference between a person attributing himself to a general category of Shia, and a person claiming to be a Ja'fari, Ithna 'ashari, etc...

In Bosnia and other places, there were intermarriages amongst Muslims and Christians since no one cared much about the faith.

but I think I get that ur talking about general takfir not individual one, meaning that we say in general that Rafidah are kafir, but there might be a few individuals who are mainly shia by name, then their judgement is different, maybe to us in dhahir they are kafir, but Allah only knows their batin if they really dont' believe what their imams belive due to their ignorance or if it is taqiyyah.

I am talking about every single rafidi individual, or whoever attributes himself to rafd today. Takfeer on dhahir goes without saying. Takfeer on batin means that the person in question will burn in hell, and that cannot be ascertained until hujja is established, and in most cases hujja is already established by the Quran in issues of Tawheed and Shirk.

What do you think about my question about the Qadiyanis and Batinis on one hand and Rafida on the other in terms of takfeer of a layman who claims not to know anything.

The other thing to remember is what I said before that most of such ahkam are based on assumption. For instance, the one who lives amongst the Muslims yet denies that which is known by necessity, he is declared a disbeliever based on the assumption that he knows. As al-Qadhi 'Ayadh says, that if it is assumed that he cannot be ignorant of something as clear cut, he is declared a disbeliever. Similarly, we have two issues with the rafidi laymen:

1) the assumption that they all have kufr beliefs and practices, and

2) you will never get to find out what he believes and what he doesn't since lying is part of his religion, and all the while, he can lie to sell his meat to the Sunnis which is haram for them to consume.

This is why, I haven't come across a single scholar who made distinction between a rafidi who knows what he is about and a rafidi who doesn't.

[leo]

Yes, and there is a difference between a person attributing himself to a general category of Shia, and a person claiming to be a Ja'fari, Ithna 'ashari, etc...

To support the statement, here is the excerpt from a reply given to a rafida by a knowlegeable sunni (may Allah reward him for his services)

"One must understand that when speaking of the Science of Rijal that the term "shia" is different from the term "rafd". The Shia were those who accepted the caliphate of Sayyidina Abu Bakr and Umar yet considered Ali the most worthy of being so or those who preferred Ali to Uthman - which is acceptable and not Rafd as the Sahaba did it".

Imam al-Dhahhabi's Mizan al-I`tidal, volume 1, to the bottom of page 5, you will read that there are two types of innovation: minor and major.

--The minor includes many of the Shia of the Tabi`in and the Tabi` Tabi`in; the characteristics of this type of Shi`ism is lack of deviation and not going to extremes. Folks from this type are admissible.

Then major innovation, like complete rafd [the word for those who turned on Imam Zayd for refusing to reject Abu Bakr and Umar (Allah be pleased with them both); the folks who rejected him are the Rawafida, the ancestors of today's Twelver Shi`i, those who take the matter to extremes, while putting down Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA) and calling people to do so. Folks of this type are inadmissible, and they have no honour.

It is confirmed without a doubt that the term "shia" was used for those who accepted the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar but initially supported Ali. They did not think of it as their religious duty to do Tabarra etc. The term used for those who reject and curse the Sahaba was "Rafidi" or "Ghulat shia".


The mainstream shia community today comprises of 12er Rafida, thats why when we use the term shia today, is automatically referred to 12er mushriks.

[WM]

Abuz Zubair, you said that Durar al-Saniyya showed that IAW was opposed by most of the people (laity and religious clerisy) of his time; that doesn't mean that all those who opposed him were non-Muslims, does it?

[Abuz Zubair]

Abuz Zubair, you said that Durar al-Saniyya showed that IAW was opposed by most of the people (laity and religious clerisy) of his time; that doesn't mean that all those who opposed him were non-Muslims, does it?
Some were and others weren't. Those who didn't make takfeer of the pagans because they believed what they did was part of Islam were declared disbelievers themselves. Others who agreed that what the pagans did was wrong, but were unsure about declaring them to be disbelievers for various reasons, they were not declared to be disbelievers.

[WM]

As you said though, how can he (IAW) have made takfir of entire villages/towns? That really troubles me, but I guess I don't know about the specifics.

[Abuz Zubair]

As you said though, how can he (IAW) have made takfir of entire villages/towns? That really troubles me, but I guess I don't know about the specifics.
I don't think he did, even though some words may be indicative of that. Many fatwas explicitly make it clear that they only made takfeer of those who are known for practising Shirk. So it could be that in a village or a city, the vast majority of the people are involved in grave worshipping, so he would say, 'the ppl of huraymala became apostates...' and so on. But they always acknowledged that they do not make general takfeer on a whole group of people living in a place, for amongst them are those who do not commit shirk.

[WM]

But how can you make takfir of someone merely for being present at a gravesite? I mean, you would have to hear them actually make du'a to the dead, sacrifice for them etc. How can you assume they're mushrikin? Sometimes I worry about IAW and for that reason want insha Allah to read his works and read the history of is times...bro, I just worry that he made takfir when he shouldn't have...what do I do? I want to understand the issues involved and not do him any injustice. But to reach this point will take years, will involve learning arabic and reading all relevant works.

[hshad]

Some were and others weren't. Those who didn't make takfeer of the pagans because they believed what they did was part of Islam were declared disbelievers themselves. Others who agreed that what the pagans did was wrong, but were unsure about declaring them to be disbelievers for various reasons, they were not declared to be disbelievers.

So, when is a person declared a kafir for not making a takfir on another kafir/mushrik? This question assumes that the person believes that all that the kafir did was kufr, shirk, etc.

[Muslim4life101]

Calling upon other besides Allah swt is the most dangerouse sin: SHIRK.
The problem with rawafidh is when they reject some evil,they choose other evil. So some amongst them might not like to slander Aisha r.a( evil sin that leads to kufr),but then he calls with fanatism upon Ali r.a(shirk) or upon other imam from their imams.This is the problem they are facing.

Allah swt condemns shirk and slandering Aisha r.a.

[Ibn Jafar]

Wow...this thread really got going... Anyway, before I reply I want to state my backround just to let you all know where I'm coming from...

I was rasied a Catholic, NOT a shia. My father left Iran when he was 18, before the revolution, and came to America. He was rasied a Shia but is not one now. He is just an average American. My mothers side is traditional Italian-American. Growing up as a Catholic, I was not taught about Islam, my father felt all religions were the same anyway... The only Iranian family I have here is my Dad and uncle. They are not Shia, but were rasied Shia. However, my family in Iran is Shia. Now I have never had a conversation with them about anything, let alone Islam, cause I only speak english and they don't. I do not claim to be an authority on this subject...but I will share what I know.

The Shia do not believe in tawheed. The most common among them, the most ignorant, pray to various people for various things. The most ignorant Shia knows this is okay and allowed in thier religion. Just like the most commom and most ignorant sunni knows that he only prays to and worships Allah. If he does not know even this, he is not a Muslim. Just because people say they are Muslim and say the shahada, doesn't make it valid. If you were to explain to the average Shia what la illaha ill Allah means, they would reject it.

Having an Arabic name does not make you Muslim. Being born in the Middle east does not make you a Muslim. Reading the Quran does not make you a Muslim. Saying the shahada without fulfilling ALL the conditions of it does not make you Muslim! I imagine that most people here are Salafi on way or another. Have you guys ever heard of the 7 conditions of faith? Of course. Well, tell me, what happens if you fulfill, say, 6 of them. Are you Muslim? We read these things in books and we accept them, but when it comes to the really world we are scared to apply our religion. This stuff is the basics.

And for me it hits home. My family wants me to go to Iran to see them. And let me tell you I would LOVE to go if I wasn't Muslim, cause the shirk wouldn't bother me. But I could never. How would I expalin to my family that what they do (i.e. pray to dead people) is shirk. They would think I'm crazy! An extremist! So what if they believe that Allah is the only creator and the only one with power, the pagans of Mecca thought that to! The mark of the true religion is consistency. We need to hold the Shia to the same standered we hold the Jews and Christians and Bahais and so on. To bad if its not politically correct.

[Ibn Jafar]

and as for the Shia in the west, at least the Iranian ones, they are hard core secularists. So the average Shia in America, if they are from Iran (not sure about Iraqis) and kuffar on multiple levels.

[izzi]

Another interesting fatwa from Sh Ibn Baz:

انقل لكم ما سمعته من الامام ابن باز رحمه الله في الجامع الكبير وقد سئل عن الرافضة فقال : هم كفار ، فقال السائل وعوامهم ؟ فالتفت اليه الشيخ ( حيث كان السائل في جهة الشيخ اليسرى ) فقال : وعوام اليهود والنصارى ، اليسوا كفار ؟ فقال السائل : بلى ، فقال الشيخ وكذلك الرافضة .أ.هـ

Aren't the layman among Jews and Christians kuffar? yes. The likewise the Rafida.



There are two ways:

1) long winded way, but you will be 100% convinced if you follow that route. Basically, just read through al-durar al-saniya, the 'aqida section of fatawa lajna daima, and fatawa al-a'imma al-najdiya, and of course, the chapters on ridda in the classical works of four schools, and works dedicated to kufr like alfadh al-kufr by hanafis and i'lam by al-haytami.

2) shorter route is to read two works by Abul-Ula al-Rashid, one called عارض الجهل and the other called ضوابط تكفير المعين both forwarded by fawzan. Two books by مدحت آل فراج one called العذر بالجهل تحت المجهر الشرعي forwarded by Ibn Jibrin and another one by Madhat, which is the latest of his works, شرح مفيد المستفيد في كفر تارك التوحيد Mufid al-Mustafid is Sh Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab's work dedicated to takfeer mu'ayyan and the lack of excuse for ignorance therein.


assalamaleikum

djazakAllah khairan for these titles...are these books online??

if they are, can someone put the links here!!

hehe

wassalaam

[Abuz Zubair]

But how can you make takfir of someone merely for being present at a gravesite? I mean, you would have to hear them actually make du'a to the dead, sacrifice for them etc. How can you assume they're mushrikin? Sometimes I worry about IAW and for that reason want insha Allah to read his works and read the history of is times...bro, I just worry that he made takfir when he shouldn't have...what do I do? I want to understand the issues involved and not do him any injustice. But to reach this point will take years, will involve learning arabic and reading all relevant works.

I don't think anyone did that. In fact, he explicitly states that he is not talking about those who go to the graves just to make dua to Allah. And surely the issue was more complex than IAW declaring takfeer on an entire town. What used to happen is that IAW followers were often persecuted in certain towns where Shirk was practised and it was virtually impossible for a Muslim to live there, due to the hostility they used to receive. So it is possible, if a whole town were to be so hostile to anyone seemingly 'wahhabi', that no one would be left in that town except pagans, with the exception of those who hid their faith and practised taqiya.

Even at the time of the Prophet SAW, it was said that the ppl of Makkah are kuffar, but it didn't mean that the Muslims living their are also kuffar.

So, when is a person declared a kafir for not making a takfir on another kafir/mushrik? This question assumes that the person believes that all that the kafir did was kufr, shirk, etc. Yes, if a person refuses to make takfeer because he thinks - wrongly - that proofs must first be established, since te asl of these ppl to them is Islam, then yes takfeer is not made. However, if a person desists with respect to the Jews and Christians then he is surely a kafir.

djazakAllah khairan for these titles...are these books online??

I am sure al-durar al-saniya, fatawa muhammad b. Ibrahim and fatawa al-lajna al-daima are online.