Having misrepresented the true creed of the Shi’a, Minhajj al Nasibi seek to conclude their fitnah by presenting the fatwas of Sunni Ulema on the Shi’a:
What Do Scholars of AhluSunnah in the Past and Present say about Shi’a (Rafidah)?:
1)Imam Ash-Shafi’i:On one occasion Imam Shafi’i said concerning the Shi’a, “I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Raafidi* Shi’a.” and on another occasion he said; “Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the raafidi* Shi’a, because they invent ahadith and adopt them as part of their religion.” (Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah) *(Some Shi’a at the time of the Alid Imam Zayd ibn ‘Ali demanded that he make a declaration of innocence (tabarra) from whoever disagreed with ‘Ali’s right to be Imam. When Zayd refused, they rejected him, and became known as the “raafida” or rejectors. Those who followed Imam Zayd became known as Zaydis, and have very little difference from mainstream Islam. The Raafidi evolved into the various Imami Shi’a sects, the largest of which is the Ithna ‘Ashari.)2) Imam Abu Hanifah:It is reported that often Imam Abu Hanifah used to repeat the following statement about the raafidi Shi’a; “Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself committed disbelief.”
3) Imam Malik:Once when asked about the Rafidi Shi’a, Imam Malik said; “Do not speak to them or narrate from them, for surely they are liars.” During one of Imam Malik’s classes, it was mentioned that the Rafidi Shi’a curse the Sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.” (48:29) He then said, “Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaba are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks.” (Tafseer al-Qurtubi)
4) Abu Zur’ah ar-Razi: He said of the Rafidi Shi’a doctrine of cursing the Sahaba, “If you see someone degrade any of the companions of the Prophet SAWS know that he is a disbeliever. Because the Prophet SAWS was real, what he brought was the truth and all of it was conveyed to us by way of the Sahaba. What those disbelievers wish to do is cast doubt on the reliability of our narrators in order to invalidate the Qur’an and Sunnah. Thus the disbelievers are the ones most deserving of defamation.”
5) Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi: During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm would often debate with the Catholic priests about their religious texts. He brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of the original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out the Shi’a claims that the Qur’an has been distorted and altered, Ibn Hazm informed them that Shi’a claims were not valid evidence because the Shi’a were not themselves muslims.
6) Imam Al-Alusi: He declared the raafidi Shi’a disbelievers because of their defamation of the sahaba. His position was based on the rulings of Imam Malik and other scholars. In response to their claim to be followers of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s SAWS family) Al-Alusi said, “No, they are really followers of the devils and the Ahl al-Bayt are innocent of them.”
7) Muhammad Rasheed Rida: This scholar was among those who worked sincerely for rapproachment between the Shi’a and the sunni, and they in turn pretended moderation for his benefit. However, in the midst of his efforts, they caught him by surprise by presenting him with a number of their books which slander Islam. He then replied in a paper called As-Sunnah wa Ash-Shi’a in which he exposed their false doctrines and idolatrous practices.
8) Dr. Hilali: After living close to the Shi’a for some years, the famous Moroccan scholar, Dr. Hilali wrote a paper on them in which he declared them to be disbelievers.
9) Abul-A’la Maududi: This great Pakistani scholar wrote an introduction to the book, “Ar-Riddah bain al-Ams wa al-Yaum” In it was written, regarding the Imami Ja’fari Shi’a, “despite their moderate views (relative to other Shi’a sects), they are swimming in disbelief like white bloodcells in blood or like fish in water.”
10) among the other contemporary scholars who have expressed similar views are: Sheikh Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Baz, Sheikh Nassiraddin Al-Albani, Allama Ash-Shanqiti, Sheikh An-Nashashibi, Imam Ahmad Ameen, and Dr. Rashaad Salim.
Those against us are of one school of thought as a whole, so it is common sense that they would throw dirt on those who do not ascribe to their beliefs. In addition we should point out that those that have made such verdicts have often done so in accordance with their own Nasibi views (whether open or hidden) and misguided propaganda against the Shi’a.
It is ironic that these alleged scholars despite their own differing views are united / one voice against the Shi’a! We reject these fatwas, for it is only fair for a Judge to look at both sides of a case before reaching a decision. That would be the ‘just’ method, but then what correlation do these Nasibis have with justice?
The Minhajj by collating these fatwas feel as if they have proven their argument beyond a shadow of a doubt, when the truth is the opinions of two sects in opposition can never be deemed as proof. Deobandi scholar Maulana Zafar Ahmad Uthmani writing on Jozjani commented:
“I say that Jozjani was a Nasibi who deviated from Ali and this is an antithesis of Shias who deviate from Uthman, thus the correct view is to befirend with both of them, we should not accept the statement of one innovator against the other innovator”.
1. Qawaid fi Uloom al-Hadith, page 400 (Karachi)
2. Bidayah Al-Saail Ila Adla Al-Masaail, page 505 (Bhopal)
Website states:
During one of Imam Malik’s classes, it was mentioned that the Rafidi Shi’a curse the Sahaba. Imam Malik recited the verse, “Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them.” (48:29) He then said, “Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaba are mentioned is the one about whom the verse speaks.” (Tafseer al-Qurtubi)
Although we have already addressed fatwas based on hatred of the Sahaba in a previous chapter, let us now analyse the views of Imam Malik. Classical Maliki scholar Qadi Iyad in Tarteeb ul Madarik wa Takreeb al Masalik’ Volume 2 pages 45-46 states in his discussion on Malik’s beliefs:
“Once an Alawi asked Malik: ‘Who was superior after Rasulullah (s)?’ Malik replied: ‘Abu Bakr’. He then asked: ‘Then who?’ He replied: ‘Umar’. The Alawi then asked: ‘Then who?’. He said: ‘The oppressed caliph Uthman’. The Alawi said: ‘By Allah I would never sit with you again’. Malik said: ‘It is up to you’”.
We also read:
Malik’s student Mus’ab asked Malik as to who was superior after Rasulullah? He replied: ‘Abu Bakr’. Then asked him, ‘Then who’. Malik replied: ‘Umar’. ‘Then?’. Malik replied: ‘Uthman’. When asked: ‘Then?’ Malik said: ‘The views of the people here got stopped, these are the beloved of Rasulullah (s), Abu Bakr was made the Imam of Salat by Rasulullah (s), Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr and Umar made a six-man Shura and people chose (Uthman), after that the people stalled’.
We further read:
‘In another narration Malik had stated whoever was desirous of the Caliphate (means Ali) cannot be equal to one who did not demand it (Abu Bakr)’.
And then we read:
“In another narration by Ibn Wahb iti is stated that Malik Abu Bakr and Umar are superioir to all man, then Ibn Wahb asked: ‘Then who?’. Then Malik stopped and did not make any reply. Ibn Wahb asked: ‘I am the one who follow your opinion in my religion’. Then Malik said: ‘Uthman’.”
Renowned Sunni scholar Abu Zahra commenting on the above narrations stated:
“From the above narrations we can see that Malik was a supporter of Mu’awiya and the Banu Ummayya cause…If we look at the reason behind Imam Malik’s statements, in relation to his comments about the Sword of Islam, brother and son in law of Rasulullah (s) – Ali, from whom the descendants of Rasulullah (s) came, we can see that this view was borne out of Banu Ummayya thought, even if he [Malik] did not like their deeds but still he did not recognize the actual status and merit of Ali”.
Malik Hayaat wa Asra, page 85
Abu Zahra further states on page 59:
“Some experts have pointed out that Imam Malik did not take many hadith from Ali and Ibn Abbas and its reason is given that it was due to his pro Banu Ummayya leanings. The summary of all this discussion is, that Malik belonged to that group that had no association to politics, nor encouraged revolution and ever got satisfied on seditions [Fitna], they never reduced their will wishinf for the caliphs of the time, they took stipends from the State. Anyhow, Malik’s views were the ones which brings him closer to the Banu Ummayya, this pro Banu Ummayya viewpoint was such that it never brought him against the Banu Ummayya, his viewpoint against Ali was like those held by Banu Ummayya”.
So we learn that Imam Malik supported the Banu Ummayya and shared their thoughts. He clearly avoided mentioning Ali as the rightful khalifa in line with Banu Ummayya thinking. It is therefore common sense that one critical of Ali will likewise be opposed to his Shi’a. His fatwa therefore has no legitimacy.
Moreover, it was Malik’s habit to criticize others and for this precise reason, he was hence criticised as we read in Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 1 page 239:
“Some scholars has mentioned that Malik was criticized by some scholars of his era, because he had criticized some people who were well known for being pious, faithful, reliable and honest”
Website states:
5) Ibn Hazm al-Andalusi: During the period of Muslim rule in Spain, Imam Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm would often debate with the Catholic priests about their religious texts. He brought before them evidence of textual distortions in the Bible and the loss of the original manuscripts. When they replied by pointing out the Shi’a claims that the Qur’an has been distorted and altered, Ibn Hazm informed them that Shi’a claims were not valid evidence because the Shi’a were not themselves muslims.
The key to answering this fatwa lies in Minhajj al Nasibi’s very own admission that Ibn Hazm was the Imam “During the period of Muslim rule in Spain”. The Muslim rule during that time was that of the Banu Ummayya, who had a bitter enmity towards Imam ‘Ali (as). In connection with this we cite the words of Allamah Shibli Numani al Hanafi:
“Traditions were first formed in book form in the days of Ummayads, who, for about 90 years, throughout their vast dominions stretching from the Indus in India to Asia Minor and Spain, insulted the descendants of Fatima and got Ali openly censured in Friday sermons at the mosques. They had hundreds of saying coined to eulogise Amir Mu’awiya.
Siratun Nabi, Volume 1 page 60
Ibn Hazm was the Imam in Spain during this era. Whilst there is no doubt that khalifa Umar bin Abdul Aziz had put an end to the ritual cursing of Imam Ali (as) we ask: ‘what was the likelihood of this injunction changing three generations (scholars and ordinary folk) who had been brought up on a staple diet of bearing enmity to Ali (as)’? Would these anti Ali sentiments have just vanished? Clearly not, particularly when the State sponsored Imams continued to advocate the legitimacy of the rule of Mu’awiya (and his actions) then it was natural that they condemned his opponents. Like his Banu Ummayya’s Nasibi Khalifas, Ibn Hazm toed the same anti Ali line and to prove this we quote Dhahabi who stated in Siyar alam al-Nubala, Volume 18 page 201:
“What increased his status was his inclination towards the rulers of Bani Ummaya, the past and the present of them and his belief of the correctness of their Imamate, till he was attributed to Nasb”
Ibn Hazm authored ‘al Fasl fi Mihal al Nihal’ in which he stated that the Imamat of Imam Ali can neither be proven by text or ijma, just by logic. This further exposes his Nasibi beliefs, a supporter of the Nasibi Banu Ummayya his bigoted Nasibi views make this fatwa void.
Website states:
7) Muhammad Rasheed Rida:This scholar was among those who worked sincerely for rapproachment between the Shi’a and the sunni, and they in turn pretended moderation for his benefit. However, in the midst of his efforts, they caught him by surprise by presenting him with a number of their books which slander Islam. He then replied in a paper called As-Sunnah wa Ash-Shi’a in which he exposed their false doctrines and idolatrous practices.8) Dr. Hilali:After living close to the Shi’a for some years, the famous Moroccan scholar, Dr. Hilali wrote a paper on them in which he declared them to be disbelievers.10) among the other contemporary scholars who have expressed similar views are: Sheikh Abdul ‘Aziz ibn Baz, Sheikh Nassiraddin Al-Albani, Allama Ash-Shanqiti, Sheikh An-Nashashibi, Imam Ahmad Ameen, and Dr. Rashaad Salim.
The common link between this group of Nasibis is the fact that they are adherents of the Salafi / Wahabi / AhleHadeeth cult who unlike ‘true’ Sunnis reject Tawassul, performing ziarat to Rasulullah’s grave etc. The key link to these Nawasib is the fact that they deem their Imam to be Ibn Tamiyah, they deem him to be “Shaykh ul Islam” and their Nasibi thought is in line with his views. Now let us analyse what the Ahl’ul Sunnah have said about their Imam:
We have already written a complete article on Ibn Tamiyah thus here we will cite a few of edcits issued by Sunni scholars against him. For example, We read in Daf Shubah min Shabah by Abu Bakr bin Muhammad al-Hesni al-Dimashqi al-Shafiyee (d. 829 H), page 123:
“Sheikh Zainuddin ibn Rajab al-Hanbali was amongst those who believed that Ibn Taimiyah is a kafir”
Abu al-Mahasin al-Dimashqi in his book Zayl Tazkirah tul Hufaz, page 316 and Shaykh Ahmed Raza Bijnawri in Anwar al-Bari, Volume 11 page 192 have recorded another statement of Shaykh Alauddin Bukhari al-Hanafi (d. 841 H) regarding Ibn Tamiyah that:
“He (Alauddin Bukhari) declared in his assembly that whoever deems Ibn Taymia to be ‘Sheikh ul Islam’ is kafir”.
We read in Takmilat al-Sayf al-Saqil by Imam Muhammad Zahid bin Hassan al-Kawthari al-Hanafi (d. 1371 H), page 177:
“The Syrian (scholars) issued a statement about ibn Taimiyah, and al-Burhan ibn al-Ferkah wrote on it forty lines wherein he declared that he (ibn Taimiyah) is a kafir, and al-Shehab bin Jabhal agreed with him”
Similarly Imam Yafee records in his famed work Mirat al-Janan, Volume 2 page 248:
“It was announced in Damascus and other cities that whoever believed in Ibn Tamiyah’s beliefs, his blood should be shed and his property should be seized”.
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Shah Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehalwi stated:
“At times, the text of Ibn Tamiyah in books such as ‘Minhaaj as Sunnah’ and others has been very hideous, it has been very belittling particularly against Ahlulbayt, prohibits visiting the tomb of Rasulullah (s), rejects the Ghauth, Qutub and Abdaal and disgrace the Sufies… According to the views of Ahlul Sunnah, his text is cursed therefore AhlulSunnah can not be criticized because of his writings”.
Fatawa Azizi, Volume 2 page 79 (Published in Deoband)
Theses Nasibi followers of Ibn Taymiyya [who according to Ahl'ul Sunnah disrespected Rasulullah (s)] have been deemed to be kaffirs as they adhere to his thinking and call him “Shaykh ul Islam”. They therefore have no right to throw dirt at us, their fatwas have no validity, since the Ahl’ul Sunnah consider them to be kaffirs.
Let us also give a gift to the Wahabi cult which also love and adhere to the beliefs of Ibn Tamiyah. lmam Ibn Abdideen (d. 1254 H) while writing on the Khawarij in ‘Radd al-Muhtar’ popularly known as ‘Fatawa Shaami’ Volume 4 page 449 made a distinction between the Wahabis and Ahle Sunnah in this manner:
“In our time the followers of Abdulwahab who appeared in Najd and conquered the two shrines, were embracing the Hanbali sect but they believed that they are the only Muslims and whoever disagreed with their beliefs he was polytheist, therefore they allowed to shed the bloods of Ahlul Sunnah and their scholars”.
Website states:
1) Imam Ash-Shafi’i:On one occasion Imam Shafi’i said concerning the Shi’a, “I have not seen among the heretics a people more famous for falsehood than the Rafidi* Shi’a.” and on another occasion he said; “Narrate knowledge from everyone you meet except for the Rafidi* Shi’a, because they invent ahadith and adopt them as part of their religion.” (Minhaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah) *(Some Shi’a at the time of the Alid Imam Zayd ibn ‘Ali demanded that he make a declaration of innocence (tabarra) from whoever disagreed with ‘Ali’s right to be Imam. When Zayd refused, they rejected him, and became known as the “raafida” or rejecters. Those who followed Imam Zayd became known as Zaydis, and have very little difference from mainstream Islam. The Rafidi evolved into the various Imami Shi’a sects, the largest of which is the Ithna ‘Ashari.)2) Imam Abu Hanifah:It is reported that often Imam Abu Hanifah used to repeat the following statement about the Rafidi Shi’a; “Whoever doubts whether they are disbelievers has himself commited disbelief.”3) Imam Malik: Once when asked about the Rafidi Shi’a, Imam Malik said; “Do not speak to them or narrate from them, for surely they are liars.”
First and foremost one needs to point out that Nasibi Ibn Taymiyya in Minhajj al Sunnah has recorded these three fatwas in Minhajj al Sunnah. Readers should know that this Nasibi fails to cite ‘from where’ he has taken these fatwas, we ONLY have his word that these are the fatwas of these three Imams, and the testimony of this Nasibi is of no value. We would ask the Minhajj and their fellow Deobandi parties to consider the fact that if we are to indeed to accept these fatwas, then we should also accept the fatwas that they have issued against one another. If we were to adopt this approach, accepting all of these testimonies as proof of kufr, then no one would remain a Muslim the adherents of the four madhabs have issued fatwas of takfeer against one another. We will cite some examples:
Let alone the followers of a Madhab, if we read history we will come to know that the founders of different Sunni schools have not spared eachother from severe criticism and Takfeer. We have dedicated a complete chapter on the condemntation of Abu Hanifa by other Sunni Imams, please see the chapter Condemnation of Abu Hanifa of our article “Students of Imam Ja’far (as)”. Here, let us cite one such statement by Imam Shafiyee which we read in Tarikh Baghdad, Volume 15 page 549:
Shafiyee said: ‘No one was born in Islam more evil than Abu Hanifa’
Imam Dhahabi records in Syar alam al-Nubala, Volume 10 page 95:
“No doubt that when the Imam (Shafiyee) use to reside in Egypt, he disagreed with the Maliki scholars and abolished some of their beliefs through proofs from Sunnah and he disagreed with his Sheikh (Malik) in some issues, thus they (Malikis) felt sorrow and abused him and there was an hostility between them.”
We read in Aemat al-Fiqh al-Islami Lelfetyan by Muhammad Ali Qutub, Volume 2 page 26:
“Imam Shafiyee may Allah be pleased with him, went out from his house to the mosque in order to give a lesson and when he finished and was on his way back to home, some foolish and extremist Malikis ambushed him and they hit him with thick sticks and cudgels until he passed out”.
Remember that after few days of this incident, Imam Shafiyee Succumb to the injuries caused in this attack by the Malikis.
From the founding fathers of different Sunni sects, let us now turn to the Takfeer that has been made against eachother by the scholars of these respective sects. Let us begin with a famed Hanafi name Sharfuddeen Isa Abi Bakr (d. 624 H) who authored the voluminous commentary (Sharah) of Imam Hasan Shaybani’s famed work ‘Al Jami al Kabeer’. His forefathers used to be Shafiyee but he abandoned the Shafiyee sect and converted to the Hanafi school of thought. One day when his father asked him as to why he converted to Hanafi while all of his relatives were Shafiyee, he replied:
“Are you not happy at the fact that amongst you is one that has become a Muslim?”
al-Fawaid al-Bahya, page 62 (Lucknow) by Imam Abdul Hai
If we are to accept the viewpoint of this great Hanafi jurist then all of the followers of Shafiyee sect including Imam Idrees Shafiyee are kaffir. Similar was the belief of Qadhi Muhammad bin Musa al-Hanafi (d. 506 H) who while writing on the Shafiyee school of thought said:
“If I was in power I would order the Shafiyees to pay Jaziya”.
1. Meezan al Etidal, Volume 4 page 52
2. Jawahir al-Muziyah, Volume 2 page 136
3. Siyar Alam an-Nubla, Volume 19 page 249
4. Al-Bidayah wa al-Nahayah, Volume 12 page 216
Jaziya is a tax that is imposed on non-Muslims, so this great Hanafi jurist believed that Imam Shafiyee and his followers were kaffir. Not only this, but we also read that:
“It is not allowed for a Hanafi man to marry his daughter to a Shafiyee man but it is allowed [for a Hanafi man] to marry a Shafiyee woman”
Baraziyah Bar Hashiyah al-Fatawa al-Hindyah, Volume 4 page 112, printed in Quetta Pakistan
It means that the way Muslims are barred from marrying a male amongst the AhlulKitab Christans and Jews but can marry with their women, similarly the Sunnis belonging to Shafiyee sect falls in the same category in the eyes of Hanafis. This is what Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi commented as recorded by Ahmad al-Zahrani in his book Al-Talyqat al-Athira fi Sharh al-Tahawia, page 35:
“They declared that it is not allowed for a Hanafi to marry with Shafiyee woman! While some of them showed leniency and claimed that it is lawful but not the other way around. (i.e. not allowed for Shaffiyee man to marry a Hanafi woman). And they justify that by giving her (Shaffiyee woman) the status of Ahlul kitab! I personally know a Shaffiyee Sheikh who asked a Hanafi Sheikh’s daughter for marriage but he (the Hanafi Sheikh) refused and said: ‘If you are not a Shafiyee…!’”
Now let us read the belief of Shafiyee scholar Muhammad bin Muhammad Abu Mansur al-Faqih al-Barawi al-Tusi (d. 576 H) in Shazarat al-Dahab, Volume 4 page 271:
It has been reported that al-Barawi said: ‘If I was the authority I would take Jaziya from the Hanbalis’
We read in Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Volume 12 page 311:
Shukri Marjan al-Khadim [d. 560 H], he learnt different recitations of Quran and Shafiyee fiqh, he was intolerant towards the Hanbalis and used to hate them and used to show extreme enmity against ibn Hubaria and ibn al-Jawzi and he used to say to ibn al-Jawzi: ‘My intent is to uproot your sect and vanish your existence’.
Allamah Ibn Emaad Hanbali in his famed work Shazarat al-Dahab, Volume 3 page 352 recorded about a Shafiyee scholar Allamah Shaykh Abu Bakr al-Muqri al-Waiz (d. 476 H):
“Al-Bakri Abu Bakr, the Quran reciter and preacher, he was a preacher of the Ash’ari sect, he went to Nizam the king of Khorasan, thus he (the king) supported him financially and allowed him to preach in the mosuques of Baghdad. He abused the Hanbalis and made Takfeer against them, thus they (Hanbalis) did the same to him”.
Imam Dhahabi in his book Tazkirat al-Hufaz, Volume 3 page1187 and Siyar alam un-Nubla, Volume 18 page 508 records under the biography of Shaykh ul Islam Abu Ismaeel Abdullah Ansari that once he was travelling from Hirat to Basra meanwhile some people accosted him and asked as to which sect he belonged to, he replied that he was a Hanbali but a man caught him and brought to Shaykh Abu Hatim al-Hanbali who was having a huge gathering at that time. When that man informed Shaykh Abu Hatim Hanbali about the claim of Shaykh Abu Ismaeel, Abu Hatim asked the man to realease him and then the unequivocal statement given by Shaykh Abu Hatim Hanbali was as follows:
“Whoever is not a Hanbali, verily he is not a Muslim”
A similar stance has been likewise adopted by the Hanafis, to the extent that according to them, whoever does not accept Abu Hanifa is cursed. Imam Alauddin al-Haskafi al-Hanafi (d. 1088 H) stated:
“May a curse equal to a particle of sand be upon a person who rejects Abu Hainfa’s statement”
Al-Dur al-Mukhtar Sharah Tanveer al-Absar, page 14
We read in Shazarat al-Dahab, Volume 6 page 309:
“Muhibuddeen Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Muhammad bin Abi Bakr al-Dumraqi al-Hindi al-Hanafi [d.789 H], he migrated to Makka and heard (hadith) from al-Ez bin Jama’a, he is was a skillful scholar and used to perform umra and recite the whole Quran every day and used to record the knowledge, Ibn Hajar said: ‘But he was so intolerant and used to abuse al-Shafiyee’.”
Let us also shed some light on some those historical incidents wherein the Takfeer between the different Sunni schools ended in breaking out of all out war on eachother. In al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 12 page 143, Ibn Kathir records about the bloodshed that took place between the Hanabalis and the people of Nizamiyah i.e. the Shafiyees in 470 Hijri:
“Fitna took place between the Hanbalis and the scholars of Nizamiyah school and each group had supporters in the public, therefore around twenty men died in the fight between them”.
Regarding 447 Hijri, we read in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 12 pages 83:
“Fitna took place between the Ash’aris and Hanbalis, the Hanbalis became powerful, therefore no one of the Ash’aris dared to perform Friday [Jum'a] or congregational [Jama'a] prayers”.
Similarly a fight broke out in 495 Hijri also. We read in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 12 pages 199:
“Isa bin Abdullah al-Qunuwi addressed the people and he was Shafiyee Ash’ari, thus fitna took place between the Hanbalis and Ash’aris in Baghdad”.
In 514 Hijri, we read in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 12 pages 232:
“Because of him (Abu Nasir al-Qushairi al-Shafiyee) a fitna took place between the Hanbalis and Shafiyees”
A lot of Shafiyees and Hanbalis were killed in the bloodshed. The government of Baghdad had to intervene and hence when one of the ministers called both the parites before him so that he can make a trcue between them, the Shafiyee scholar amongst them spoke out:
“Truce is supposed to be between two opponents who dispute about guardianship or life or propery matters, but these people claim that we are Kafir, we believe that whoever does not keep our beliefs is a Kafir, thus which sort of truce can take place between us”.
Zayl Tabaqat Hanbaliyah by Ibn Rajab, page 7
Similar fight broke out in 595 Hijri as we read in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 13 pages 26:
“They broke the Hanbalis’ pulpit and the Zuhar prayers was paused that day in Hanbali’s corner”.
We read in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 13 page 28:
“Nizamuddin Masood bin Ali [d. 596 H], he was a good person, Shafiyee, he had a huge school in Khawarezm (city) and a huge mosque and he built a huge mosque in Maro (city) for the Shafiyees but the Hanbalis and their Sheikh who was known as Sheikh ul Islam felt jealous, thus they burnt it as it has been reported”
In 716 Hijri, differences between the Hanbalis and Shafiyees became such that Ibn Kathir states in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 14 pages 85:
“Fitna took place between the Hanbalis and Shafiyees because of the beliefs, then they sued each other in Damascus before Tankaz the vice-president, thus he made a truce between them”.
Modern day Sunni scholar Shaykh Hassan Saqqaf records in his book Al-Salafia al-Wahabia, page 112:
“After uttering acerbic words, the Hanbalis then resorted to physical violence as a device to impose their beliefs and terrify their Muslim opponents”
Imam Subki in his authority work Tabaqat al-Shafyiah al-Kubra, Volume 8 page 131 makes a distinction between Hanablis and AhlulSunnah while recording another historical fight between the two Sunni sects:
“The Hanbalis became more powerful than the Ahlul Sunnah to the extent that they (Hanbalis) when they alone with them (Ahlul Sunnah) they used to malign, swear and beat them.”
Allamah Yaqut al-Hamawi records acocunt of another such war in his famed work Mujam al-Buldan, Volume 3 page 117:
“A dispute took place between the Hanafis and Shafiyees and wars took place between them and the victory was for the Shafiyees although they were less in number but Allah granted them victory over them”.
Ibn Khalikaan in his authority work Wafiyat al Ayan, Volume 1 page 415 as well as Imam Yafee in his famed work Mirat al-Janan, Volume 4 page 73 stated:
Abu al-Hassan Ali bin Abi Ali bin Muhammad bin Salem, known as Saifudeen al-Amadi [d. 631 H].
In the beginning of his life he was a Hanbali, then he traveled to Baghdad and studied under the teaching of Ali ibn al-Mani Abi al-Fateh Nasr bin Fetyan al-Hanbali, after some time he converted to the sect of Imam Shaffiyee… then a group of scholars felt jealous and turned intolerant against him, therefore they claimed that he adhered to some false and philosophical sects, then they wrote a report against him and they allowed shedding of his blood”.
While writing on a revered Shafiyee scholar Shaykh Abi Ishaq bin Ibrahim bin Ali bin Yusuf Firozabadi (d. 479 Hijri), Imam Subki records in Tabaqat al-Shaafiya, Volume 4 page 125:
“The Hanbalis claimed that during the incident of Ibn al-Qushairi when the fitna took place between the Hanbalis and Ash’aris, the Sheikh Abu Ishaq wanted to abolish their (Hanbali) sect”
On the next page we read:
“Then the Shaykh of Hanbalis al-Sharif Abu Jaffar bin Abi Musa and his followers abused Shaykh Abi Ishaq, thus the Caliph gathered them and made peace between them after a huge fitna had taken place between them and twenty men were killed”.
Imam Subki in Tabaqat al-Shaafiya, Volume 6 page 191 writing on the life of Muhammad bin Muhammad Abu Mansur al-Faqih al-Barawi al-Tusi (d. 576 H) states:
“Ibn al-Athir said, he (al-Barawi al-Tusi al-Shafiyee) was suffering from diarrhea and then died, it has been said that the Hanbalis sent him (poisoned) sweet which he ate and thus died. Sibt ibn al-Jawzi said: ‘It has been reported that the Hanbalis sent a woman to him at night and she offered him a dish of poisoned sweet and said to him: ‘This has been made by my hands’ thus he and his wife and a small kid ate from it, then they died’”.
In Syar alam al-nubala, Volume 12 page 54 we read the following stance of a Maliki scholar Qadhi Haarith bin Maskeen (d. 250 H) which he took in Egypt in 237 Hijri :
“He expelled the followers of Abu Hanifa and Shafiyee from the mosque and ordered to snatch their prayer-mats from the floor”.
Here we should point out that one view cited was that of Deobandi scholar Maudoodi:
9) Abul-A’la Maududi: This great Pakistani scholar wrote an introduction to the book, “Ar-Riddah bain al-Ams wa al-Yaum” In it was written, regarding the Imami Ja’fari Shi’a, “despite their moderate views (relative to other Shi’a sects), they are swimming in disbelief like white blood cells in blood or like fish in water.”
Maudoodi was a Deobandi scholar and hence an adherent of the Hanafi school of thought and yet in the Indian Subcontinent Barelvis and Deobandis DESPITE being Hanafi deem each other to be kaffir.
Ex Leader of the Nasibi terorrist orgnization of the Subcontinent Sipah Sahaba [kr-hcy.com], Zia ur Rahman Faruqi in his support of the banning of Ahmad Raza Khan Barelvi’s Tafseer of the Quran in Saudi Arabia, stated:
“We have come to know that some people of this evil [Dhaala] sect via a letter to you have sought to revoke the ban on the said Tafseer and translation [of Quran], and have very cunningly made an venomous attempt to cover up the wrong beliefs of their founder…The said Tafseer and translation [of Quran] is the result of the pen by the founder Ahmed Raza Khan Brelvi and his caliph Mufti Naeemuddin Muradabadi of this evil [Dhaala] sect. It is our demand that not only Kanz ul Iman be banned in Saudi Arabia but in other Arabic world, moreover the followers of ‘Raza Khani’ sect should be strictly prohibited from performing the rites of Hajj”.
Kanz al Iman par pabandee kyo? [Why a ban on Kanz ul Iman?] pages 3-4 printed Ish’aat ul Maarif, Faislabad
In his another book ‘Faisal ik Roshan Sitara’ [Faisal - A shining star], Zia ur Rehman Faruqi has erupted similar venum against the Hanafi Brelvis. The Hanafi Brelvis on the other hand also deem Deobandis to be kafir. Allamah Ehsan Elahi Zaheer was one of the famed scholars of Wahabi / Ahl-Hadeeth / Salafi cult. He wrote a book on Brelvis namely Bareilawis – History and Beliefs, English translation by Dr. Abdullah (published by Idara Tarjuman al-sunnah, Lahore). In a separate chapter, Ehsan Elahi Zaheer recorded the Barelvi Hanafi fatwas against Ehsan’s own cult i.e. the Wahabi / Ahl-Hadeeth / Salafi then on page 251, Ehsan Elahi stated:
“As regards the Deobandis, their Hanafi brothers, the followers of Imam Numan in Thabit Abu Hainfa (Allah have mercy on him), even they did not escape from their hard-heartedness, acrimony of their tongue and severity of their fatwas about declaring them profligates and unbelievers, and from their dirty abuses and consecutive and abundant curses. They became the greatest target of their wagging tongue, sharp lances and shooting arrows. They did not leave any of them, senior or junior, but declared him profligate and unbeliever, and issued fatwa for his heresy and apostasy., and about the apostasy of a person who doubted his apostasy, and about the unbelief of him who is reluctant to accept him as unbeliever”
Bareilawis, page 251 by Ehsan Elahi Zaheer (Idara Tarjuman al-Sunnah, Lahore)
Their Imam Ahmad Raza Khan stated:
“The worse Murtad [apostate] amongst all is a Munafiq [hypocrite]. He is the one whose company is more harmful than the company of thousdand Kafirs because such a person teachs Kufr while being a Muslim, specially Wahabia Deobandia, as they call themsevles as pure Ahlul Sunnah, try to be Hanafi, Chishti Naqshbandi, offer prayers and keep fasts similar to our’s, learn and teach our books and call names upon Allah and Prophet [s], they are the most lethal ones”
Ahkaam e Shariat, part 1 page 77, Abulaala Press, Agra, India
Similarly we read:
“Deobandis and others, their prayer [Salat] is no prayer [Salat] and to pray behind them is also no prayer [Salat]. If for example the Imam of Friday prayer [Juma] or of the two Eid is amongst them [Deobandis etc] and you are unable to find a Muslim Imam, then it is obligatory [Fardh] to abandon the Friday and Eid prayers, one should just perform Zuhar instead of Friday prayer”.
1. Ahkaam e Shariat, part 1 page 77
2. Fatawa Rizvia, Volume 1 page 191 and page 736 (published in Breli)
Related to this Brelvi-Hanafi belief about the Deobandis, about 200 Brelvi-Hanafis had to re-marry their own wives since they had committed the grave sin of performing prayer behind a Deobandi Imam. This incident that took place in Muradabad, India, as we read:
200 weddings redone in UP after a fatwa
Abid Ali is 80 years old and has been married to 75-year-old Asgeri for as long as he can remember. But this week he repeated his
wedding vows and performed a nikah because a top cleric issued a fatwa dissolving his marriage. Ali wasn’t the only one. More than 200 couples had to re-do their nikah in Aharaula village, about 20 km from Moradabad.
What happened? These Barelvi Sunni Muslims had committed the crime of attending a namaaz led by a cleric from the rival Deoband sect. The namaz on August 11 was led by Maulana Hafiz Abu Mohamid during the burial of his uncle, Master Nazakat Hussain, a respected madrassa teacher who had died at the age of 85.
So all the villagers who attended the teacher’s namaaz-e-janaza fell into the abyss of hostility between the Barelvis and Deobandis that has been a fault line between the UP’s Sunni Muslims. The namaaz was led by Mohamid, a Deobandi, because the local imam of the village failed to turn up. However, this enraged local Barelvi leaders. Days after the burial, Haji Ali Hasan, a village elder travelled to Moradabad to meet with Mufti Abdul Mannan Karimi, a Barelvi religious cleric and briefed him on how a Deobandi had led a band of Barelvis in prayer.
That’s when the mufti struck back. Those at Hussain’s burial were no more Muslims and had turned kafir, he decreed in a fatwa last week. The price for resumption of status quo was, “Tauba karo, kalma padho aur nikah padhwao” (do penance, recite the kalma, marrying their wives all over again). “At least 100 couples have had the nikah ceremony done so far,” a triumphant Mufti Karimi told TOI on Tuesday. “This time there has been no pomp and show at the nikah. The basic requisite have been the presence of just two witnesses and no dawat or other celebrations have followed them.”
The mufti, however, exonerated those who were not aware of the identity of the Deobandi maulana and, therefore, were misled. But those who knew, he said, had to pay the price. “It is not my view, this is the stance taken by noted ulema and clerics of Barelvi sect hundred years ago in conformity with the Koran and Hadis,” he said.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1960258.cms – Cached
Also in Ahkaam e Shariat, part 1 page 86, Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi issued this fatwa:
“Wahabis, Deobandis, Wahabis not being in Taqleed, Qadiyanis, Chakralwis Nechris – their Zabih is impure and absolutely Haraam, even if they were to recite Allah’s name 100,000 times and were to portray themselves as pious and praiseworthy, they are all Murtadeen [apostates]“.
If they are so divided that they do not regard each other as Muslim what credence / authority can be given to their fatwas against the Shi’a?
One of the famed names among Ahle Hadeeth / Salafis Allamah Muhammad Sideeq Hassan al-Qanuji al-Bukhari stated in his book:
“To follow a Madhab is from Shirk”
Al-Deen al-Khalis, Volume 1 page 180
Minhajj had in the final section sought to highlight the fatwas of the Ulema that they deemed as ‘reliable’ names that ordinary folk would sit up and take heed of. The difficulty for the Deobandi Hanafis is the fact that one of the ‘reliable’ opinions cited was that of Sheikh Nasiruddin Al-Albaani. This same ‘reliable’ Al-Albaani had in his commentary on Mukhtasar Sahih Muslim, 3rd ed. (Beirut: al-Maktab al-Islami, 1977, p. 548) deemed Fiqh Hanafi to be on par with the Gospels. We should point out that such is the dishonesty of the Salafi Nasibis, this phrase was has been mysteriously expunged from later editions. Albaani stated:
“This is clear (evident) that Isa (as) will rule according to our laws from Quran and Sunnah, not from other sources such as gospel or Hanafi fiqh.”
If Al-Albaani can be relied on when issuing takfeer against the Shi’a then the same reliability applies when he is attacking Fiqh Hanafi. If Albaani can ONLY be relied upon when attacking the Shi’a then is this not blatant hypocrisy?
Deobandi scholar Shaykh Ahmed Raza Bijnawri in his famed work ‘Anwar al-Bari Sharah Sahih Bukhari’ Volume 11 page 239 records:
“Ibn Tamiyah has declared Imam Ghazali and Imam al-Harmayn as worst Kaafirs than the Jews and Christians, see book Mawafiq al-Maqul by Ibn Tamiyah”
Deeming it an appropraite apportunity, let us also touch another Nasibi website that has used Imam Bukhari’s views against the Shias:
Imam Bukhari’s Fatwa on Befriending ShiasImam Bukhari declared:“I don’t see any difference between praying Salah behind a Jahmi or a (Shia) Rafidhi and a Christian or a Jew. They (Jahmis/Rafidhis) are not to be greeted, nor are they to be visited, nor are they to be married, nor is their testimony to be accepted, nor are their sacrifices to be eaten.”
(Khalq Af’aalul-’Ibaad, p.14)
When the matter is so severe that we should not send our greetings to them nor befriend them nor even visit them, then how deviated is the Manhaj of those who call to unity with the Shias!
The website is trying to use Bukhari’s wordings against the Shias as a decisive verdict but the fact of the matter is that Imam Bukhari himself was the traget of the Takfeer of the Sunni Imams and the author who is rejoice over the concept advanced by Bukhari that people shall not be visiting Rafidhi Shias, the case of Bukhari was so severe that Sunni Imams used tp ban all those who would visit to Bukhari. Imam Dhahadi in Syar alam al-Nubala, Volume 12 page 455 records the fatwa of Imam Muhammad bin Yahya al-Duhali (d. 258 H):
“Muhammad bin Yahya al-Duhali said: ‘Quran is the word of Allah, certainly it is not created…who ever claimed that Quran is created he is kafir, he is expelled from Iman, his wife is unlawful to him, he must repent otherwise his neck should be struck off and his money shall be a booty for the Muslims and he should not be buried in Muslims cemeteries. And who ever stopped and said : ‘I neither say created or uncreated’ verily he is almost Kafir and who ever said that the verses which we recite are created then he is an innovator, no one should befriend him nor talk to him and who ever attends to Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari’s gathering he must be suspected.”
Moreover we read:
Muhammad bin Yahya said: “Who ever attends his (Bukhari’s) assembly should not attend our’s”
On the next page we read:
Muhammad bin Yahya said: ‘This Bukhari claims that the verses which he recites are created and such a statement according to me is worse than the Jahamis’.
On page 462 we read the stance of Imam Abu Zar’a (d. 264 H) and Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi (d. 277 H):
Abdulrahman bin Abi Hatim said in his book ‘al-Jarh wa al-Tadil’: Muhammad bin Ismail came to Ray (city) in year 250, my father and Abu Zar’a heard hadith from him but later they abandoned his hadith when Muhammad bin Yahya wrote to them that he (Bukhari) declared in Nisabur (city) that his belief is that the verses which he recite are created.
It is strange to see that Bukhari in the quoted reference is asking others not to accept testimony of Rafidhis but we see that in his books Bukhari himself accepted testimonies of Rafidhis. In his Sahih, he has narrated from Abdullah bin Abdulqudus who has been declared ‘Malicious Rafidhi’ by Imam Ibn Moin (Tahdib al-Kamal, v15 p243), Abdulmalik bin Ayun who has been declared ‘Rafidhi’ by Sufyan (Tahdib al-Kamal, v18 p284), Ubaidullah bin Musa bin Abi al-Mukhtar who has been declared Rafidhi by Yaqub bin Sufyan (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v7 p52), while in his book al-Adab al-Mufrad, Bukhari has narrated from Jaffar bin Sulayman al-Dhuabei who has been declared Rafidhi by Ibn Haban (Tahdib al-Tahdib, v2 p97).
The areas in which Bukhari prohibted people to deal with Shias are not exclusive to Shias and the website cannot really rejoice on this fact because: