Total Pageviews

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Shias and Sunnis, The Difference

Doctor Kaleem siddiqui of London claims that the differences between Shia and Muslims are only secondary. The Shia are not out of the fold of islam. On the other hand, doctor alawi syays that the Shia is out of fold of Islam because of their belief that all the sahabah (radiallahu anhu) (except for a few) are kaafir and that the differences between them and Muslims are not secondary but fundamental. Based on the quran, it is necessary to regard the sahabah (radiallahu anhu) to be the best of the ummah and to believe that they are on haqq. Doctor Siddiqui says that despite my being a Siddiqui (descendant of Hadhrat Siddiq (radiallahu anhu), i definitely consider Iran to be the source of guidance. On the other hand doctor alawi says that despite my being an alawi (descent of Hadhrat Ali "(radiallahu anhu)", i consider all the sahabah to befitting of the title of "(radiallahu anhu)" and i believe that they all earned the pleasure of Allah. I have this belief with regards to each and every sahabi that Allah was pleased with him, and he with Allah.

Between these two doctors of England, who is on haqq? Please explain.
May you be rewarded.
Muhammad bilal, Lancashire
Our differences with the ithna ashari Shia are on fundamental pronciples and not merely on secondary or practical aspects. Allamah Taajud Deen Subki (777 a.h.) has fulfilled the responsibility of tacking this question many years ago. He says:
"The error of the mu’tazilah and Shia is with regards to the clear-cut matters of Islam and their difference with the Ahlus Sunnah is definite (and not mere conjecture). 1
Because of their (Shia) al-aqaa’idus sab’ah – seven basic tenets, the scholars have always considered them to be out of the fold of Islam. The scholars did not remove them from the fold of Islam – when were they ever in the fold of Islam that they could be removed? If a person is within the fold of Islam, no one can remove him from it. Confession and accusation is one aspect and strictly adhering to kufr and admitting it is something else. In these diffferent cases, the rule will also change. The kufr beliefs of the Shia have been confirmed by them time and again and they continue confessing them openly. The seven basic tenets on account of which the scholars have considered them to be out of the fold of Islam are as follows:
Rejections of the belief that the present quran is free from any blemish (alteration, interpolation, omissions, etc.).
Rejection of the finality of prophethood (khatmun nubuwwah) in the sense that this divine chain of commissioned souls (Prophets) has come to an end.
The belief that the imaam is superior the the Prophets.
Rejection of the imaan of Hadhrat Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (radiallahu anhu). The fact that both of them are sahabis, both of them have acquired the pleasure of Allah and his rasul sallaliahu alayhi wosallam and the fact that both of them are jannatis (dwellers of paradise) is definite (established by clear proofs).
Holding the belief of accusation (of adultery) against ummul mu’mineen Hadhrat A’ishah radiallahu anho.
Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was not successful in his mission during his era.
Allah’s promise of establishing a khilaafah that continued immediately after rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam was not fulfilled.
If some of the ulama at any time condidered them to be Muslims, then the reason for this is that the word "shia" has several meanings. Their definitions are different and so are the different groups of Shia. In the first twelve centuries of Islam, there was no different of opinion with regards to the ithna ashari Shia. If at any time any of them rejected their accepted beliefs, then this was done through the principle of "taqiyyah ". This is something that is not unknown to any learned person (aalim).
Those scholars who have not studied the beliefs of the ithna ashari shia from their original source books and merely issue a fatwa after reading (the above-quoted) question, then such a fatwa cannot be considered to be valid with regard to them. Questions of this nature should be referred to those ulama who have made an in-depth study of the Shiah, or, who have some knowledge of the original sources.

The answer to your question is that doctor kaleem siddiqi may be a siddiqi in the very same sense that he is from the progeny of Muhammad bin Abi Bakr who had attacked Hadrat Uthman (radiallahu anhu) and who upon being put shame, retracted. As for doctor alawi, he must be really from the progeny of Hadrat Ali (radiallahu anhu) who, in following the path of hadrat Ali (radiallahu anhu), always considered Hadrat Abu Bakr and Hadrat Umar (radiallahu anhuma) as his guides and belove persons and even named his children after them.
Among the early scholars, the opinions of the following with regards to the Shia can be considered to be reliable. These scholars are: Imam Abu Hanifah rahmatullahi alayh, Imam Thauri rahmatullahi alayh, Imam Auzaa’ee rahmatullahi alayh, Imam Malik rahmatullahi alayh, Imam Layth bin sa’d rahmatullahi alayh, Imam Abu Yusuf rahmatullahi alayh, Imam Shafi’ee rahmatullahi alayh, Imam Ahmad rahmatullahi alayh, Imam Tahawi rahmatullahi alayh and Imam Abul Hasan Ash-sha’rani rahmatllahi alayh.
The Ithna Ashari sect of the Shia hadn’t been established till the. This sect established itself after the disappearance of its twelfth imam (who was born in 256 a.h. and disappeared in the year 260 a.h.). They formulated their sect in the beginning of the fourth century hijri. Although the tafseer of Ali bin Ibrahim al-Qummi (307 a.h.). Which is the basis of this sect, was written at the end of the third century, it remained concealed until the middle of the fourth century. Thereafter, the student of Ali bin Ibrahim al-Qummi, Muhammad bin Ya’qub al-Kulayni (328 a.h.), compiled the first book of hadith of this sect. Initially, this book also remained concealed later, it made its appearance.
In those days, shi’ism was known only from this aspect that few persons, under the influence of Jews and sabeans, bore hatred towards all the sahabah (radiallahu anhu). Because it has been established from the quran and other absolute proofs that the sahabah (radiallahu anhu) have earned the pleasure of Allah and that they are the best of the ummah and the best of all eras (khayrul qureen), bearing any hatred towards them was always considered to be something that necessitated kufr.
From thet very beginning allamah sha’bee rahmatullahi alayh did not even consider them to be Muslims. He did not take them out of the fold of Islam. Instead, he used to say that when did these people ever enter Islam that we can remove them from its fold? They hadn’t entered Islam considering it to be a true religion. From the very beginning, their goal was to create internal strife. Hafiz ibn taymiyyah rahmatullahi alayh (728 a.h.) quotes from allamah sha’bee rahmatullahi alayh:
“Sha’bee said: ‘i warn you of those lead astray from among the ahlul bid’ah. The worst among them are the rawaafid. They did not enter islam on account of seeking the truth, nor out of fear of Allah, but on account of their enmity and hatred towards the muslims." 2
In this book, tanbeehul wulaat wal hukkaam, hadrat allamah shaami rahmatullahi alayh (1253 a.h.) quotes from allamah abus sa’ud (982 a.h.) the fatwa of imam abu hanifah, imam sufyaan thauri and imam auzaa’ee rahmatullahi alayhim:
“if these people repent and enter islam , they will not be killed . Just like the other kuffaar, they will be forgiven after they repent."
Based on this, the fatwa of imam abu hanifah rahmatullahi alayh: “kill the unbeliever secretly because his repentance is not known, " will mean that if you arrest him prior to him repenting, his repentance at that time will not be accepted and that punishment for disbelief will be meted out to him.
Imam malik (rm) has issued a fatwa in which he states that based on the quran, all those who bear any hatred towards the sahabah (radiallahu anhu) are kaafir. In the verse of the quran “it fills the unbelievers with rage at them.” (Surah al-fath, verse 29), the reason for regarding the Shia as kaafir is mentioned. Let alone the a’immah mujtahideen, even imam ibn hazm zaahiri rahmatullahi alayh (456 a.h.) has stated the same fact:
“The shia is a group which has treaded the path of the jews and christians in lying and kufr. The Shia is certainly not Muslims. 3
This is something that was uttered in the fifth century. Is there any uncertainty in it? Is there any difference of opinion with regared to the kufr of the ithna ashari Shia? Imam Malik rahmatullahi alayh has also issued a fatwa that if any wealth comes into the hands of the Muslims as booty, the Shia will not receicve any share of it. The famous maliki muhaddith and jurist, qadi iyaad maliki (524 a.h.), writes:
“Imam Malik says:’whoever has degraded any one of the companions of the prophet sallahu alayhi wa sallam has no claim in the booty. 4
What other reason could there be apart from the fact that such a person is not a Muslim and therfore does not receive any share from the wealth of the Muslims. When he issued this fatwa, none of his contemporary ulama, mujtahideen and students (such as Imam Muhammad and imam shafi’ee rahmatullahi alayhima) rejected this fatwa. Instead, one group of ulama openly supported him. Haafiz ibn kathir rahmatullahi alayh (774 a.h.) writes:
“A group of ulama agreed with him in this matter, may Allah be pleased with all of them for this .5
At another place, allamah qadi iyaad rahmatullahi alayhi writes:
“We certainly regard such a person to be a kaafir who considers the entire ummah to be astray and all the sahabah to be kaafir.6
With regards to the sahabah, whose being jannatis has been established by tawaaturand certainty, allamah sarakhsi rahmatullahi alayh (483 a.h.) writes the following:
“Whoever defames the sahabah is a heretic. He has cast aside the sheet of Islam. If he does not repent, the treatment for him is the sword." 7
Imam Fahkrud deen razi razi rahmatullahi alayh (606 a.h) is a respected scholar of the sixth century. He also writes:
“The claim of the shia that additions, subtractions, alterations and interpolations entered the quran is such a belief that it renders their Islam null and void."8 (it is not correct to say that our previous scholars did not know about their beliefs regarding the quran).
The following with regards to rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has been established by tawatur:
He was successful in his mission and Allah completed his favours upon him.
Truth prevailed in makkah and falsehood vanished. And the sovereignty of Islam was established there.
People entered the religion of Allah in large numbers.
This success did not cease with the demise of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Instead, it continued and Allah’s promise of khilaafah was fulfilled.
The first three khulafaa’ (i.e. hadrat , hadrat umar and hadrat uthman (radiallahu anhu) were believers and they had enjoyed the full confidence of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.
The fourth khalifah, hadrat Ali al-murtada (radiallahu anhu), became a khalifah in succession to them and maintained his khilaafah on the basis of his predecessors.
Hadrat Hasan’s (radiallahu anhu) handing over of the khilaafah to hadrat mu’aawiyah (radiallahu anhu) was done on the basis that the former considered the latter to be a Muslim. He was not handing over the affairs of the Muslims to any kaafir.
These seven factors constitute a part of the fundamental treasures of the Muslims and they have been established by a consecutive and unbroken chain of narrators. Can any learned person have any doubt regarding the kufr of those who reject these factors unhesitatingly and hold the belief that after the demise of rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam all the sahabah, apart from a few became murtad? Apart from this, isn’t the person who has a doubt regarding them (Shia) being kaafir also guilty of having evil thoughts about the sahabah (radiallahu anhu)? You have learnt the opinion of the Muslims of the sixth century in the words of allamah qadi lyaad rahmatullahi alayh. Now let us learn the opinions of the seventh century by haafiz ibn humaam rahmatullahi alayh (861 a.h). He writes:
“the person who considers hadrat ali to be better then the (preceding) three khulafaa’ is a bid’atee. If such a person rejects the khilaafah of hadrat Abu Bakr and hadrat Umar (radiallahu anhu) (which has been promised in the quran), then he is a kaafir."9 (if this is the ruling with regards to such a person, what will the ruling be with regards to the person who considers hadrat Ali (radiallahu anhu) to be superior than the previous prophets?) 
Shaykhul islam haafiz ibn taymiyyah rahmatullahi alayh (728 a.h.) is a great scholar of the seventh century. He has written on each of the groups that are opposed to the sahabah (radiallahu anhu). With regards to the Shia, he has the following to say:
“There is no doubt in the kufr of the opinion that all the sahabah except for a few whose number doe’s not even reach ten had become murtad, or that the general masses had all become faasiq. The reason for this is that such a person is rejecting that portion of the quran in which they (the sahabah) have been praised (this does not appear in one place but in several plaes in the quran). In fact, kufr has found a place in one who doubts the kufr of such kuffaar (i.e. the Shia)." 10
Ibn taymiyyah rahmatullahi alayh quotes the following from qadi abu ya’la:

"All the jurists agree that it is kufr to speak ill of the sahabah if this (speaking) is considered to be permissible."11
Let us now go to the eight century. The fatwa of imam malik (rahmatullahi alayh) is being echoed over here as well. The commentator of the quran. Hafiz ibn kathir (rahmatullahi alayh) (774. A.h.) writes:
"Based on this verse, according to one narration, imam malik has passed a ruling of kufr on the shia because they bear malice towards the sahabah. He said this because the Shia hates the sahabah. And whoever hates the sahabah is

No comments:

Post a Comment

Select Your Language