1148

Ruling on giving zakaah to a Raafidi- with notes and comments.

Praise be to Allaah.

In the chapters of their books which discuss who is entitled to receive zakaah funds, the scholars have stated that these funds are not to be given to a kaafir <While the author of this opinion purports to aim his criticism at the Shi’a, whom he describes by the redundant term Rafidi who were a Shi’ite sect with Mu’tazilite leanings, much of his work is also an attack on practices that are also common to the Ahl al-Sunna..> or an innovator (follower of bid’ah). The Raafidis are undoubtedly kuffaar for four reasons:

They cast aspersions on the Qur’aan, claiming that two-thirds of it has been omitted, as is stated in their book by al-Noori which is called Fasl al-Khitaab fi Ithbaat Tahreef Kitaab Rabb al-Arbaab, and in Al-Kaafi, and other books. Whoever casts aspersions on the Qur’aan is a kaafir who disbelieves in the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning): "and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)" [al-Hijr 15:9]

<Sahih Bukhari Volume Four. Stoning of an Adulteress reported by Ibn Abbas

 The caliph Umar had wished to stone to death an adulteress who was pregnant and was stopped by a group of Sahabih. In the first Jumuah Khutbah, which was also his last, after the event he was reported to say, "I am going to say something, it is destined to me that I should say. It may be my last sermon before I die. Whoever does not properly grasp my utterance, I do not allow him to tell lies about me. God sent Muhammad, His true Prophet and revealed the Book to him. One part of it was the verse concerning the stoning of one who commits adultery. We read the verse, understood and digested it. The Prophet did stone and we too after him. I am afraid that after some length of time some people may say that they do not find the verse in question in the Book of God and will go astray by giving up the revealed ordinance of God. The stoning of an adulterer is a part of the Book of God whether the act is committed by a man or a woman, even if she is pregnant, when proved by a witness or confession. Besides that, we used to read in the Quran, "Do not turn away from your parents. It is an ingratitude to turn away from your parents."

From this narration it is clear that the Caliph Umar claimed that two verses of the Holy Quran had been omitted. His word was not accepted by the compilers of the Quran that we all read.

Al-Suyuti in al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran reports that Umm al-Mumineen A’isah said that chapter al-Azhab used to have 200 verses but that Caliph Uthman could only find 73 of them! In the same book he reports Abdullah ibn Umar as saying, "No one should say I have taken from the whole Quran. How does he know that this is the entire Quran? Verily, a great deal is missing from the Quran."

So I have presented you with three narrations from a sahih book, from three separate reporters whose narrations are considered reliable by the compilers of the Sitta Sahih from the work of the Muhadith Bukhari and the Maliki Rijaali Suyuti that claim 129 verse of the Holy Quran were omitted. Shaykh Ibn Jibreen seems to have committed, from enmity to a particular belief, a grave discourtesy, to several of the most famous and widely admired figures of Sunni Islam. Surely he cannot accuse them of what he accuses we Shi’ah! But if he does not then where is the first proof for his accusation? A crime is a crime whoever commits it and no Sunni scholar has ever classified this type of statement as a crime nor as an act that can cause a person to be excluded from the fold of Islam.

The Ahadith reported in al-Kafi refer to how the Quran is read (Qira’at) to the exegesis of the verses (Tafseer) and the commentary of the Holy Prophet saw. which he related to ‘Ali ibn Abu Talib almost contemporaneously with the revelation. Thus, the text refered to in the Shi’a sources is an annotated version of the verses we all know in the order of revelation. The recitation that al-Mahdi will give upon his return will be the same as the recitation of the Holy Prophet and not from a school of the Qurra. The knowledge that will be revealed when he returns from his occultation may be an explanation of the Muqatta’at and he will remove the misinterpretations from the minds of men by explaining the clear and the unclear verses.

The Shi’a discount these reports of missing verses on the authority of a report by Imam Jaf’ar al-Sadiq, "What is between the covers is the Quran and what is not between the covers is not the Quran. One of the great Shi’a Faqih and Muhadith, al-Shaykh al-Sadooq said in I’tiqadatu al-Imamiyyah, "Our belief is that the Quran which descended from Allah upon His Prophet is what we find today between the two covers, and that is what the people have in their hands-no more and no less than that, and whoever attributes to us that we say other than that is a liar." This is my belief and I too will testify against anyone who says otherwise.

With regard to the book Fasl al-Khitab written in the latter years of the life of Haji Mirza Hussain Nuri (d.1908), Ayatullah Agha Haji Mirza Mahdi Pooya writes, "....In the last two centuries of the Hijrah some traditionists had tried to question the status of the Quran within the very narrow field of the sporadic traditions which are dearer to them than reason and the Quran..

In the beginning of the present century, the late Haji Mirza Hussain Nuri, who belongs to this group, has written many valuable books which earned a name for him, but unfortunately his book Fasl al-Khitab,, a bundle of contradictions, represents the views against the unanimous verdict of Shi’ah scholars of all centuries regarding the genuiness of the Quran and subjected him to the severe criticism of his contemporaries whose superiority in learning is unquestionable."

The learned, and greatly missed, Ayatullah then continues by illustrating the contradictions from Nuri’s book and demolishing the arguments it contains. (Essence of the Holy Quran.)

What we read from Ibn Jibreen, is an almost classical example of the misuse of syllogistic reasoning. His argument is the expression and unjustifiable attempt to rationalise his sectarian and divisive prejudice. He bases this upon the work of one ageing scholar. A work that is confined to the shelves of reference libraries and as has been demonstrated receives universal admonition from Shi’a scholars. To say that such a book is representative of Shi’a thought on this matter is like saying that the thief is a man therefore all men are thieves but what has been stolen here is common sense, reason and truth. by persons claiming to uphold the law.>

They cast aspersions upon the Sunnah and the saheeh ahaadeeth. <It is the duty, and a fundamental rule of ijtihad, to verify and contextualise any source material so what Ibn Jibreen is actually saying here is that anyone who conducts ijtihad or disagrees with him is a disbeliever. I will quote some Sunni opinions on this attitude at the end of this section. > They do not follow them, because they were narrated from the Sahaabah who, according to them, are kuffaar. <If an hadith is found to be weak or false due to any of the criteria of Uloom al-Hadith and Rijaal it is the duty of any Muslim not to transmit that report. This is true of any narration whatever book it comes from. Equally if a narration is verified by these sciences then it may be transmitted, whatever its source. I would refer anyone seeking proof of this to the book Al-Amaali by the great Shi’a scholar al-Shaykh al-Mufid where he reports, on more than one occasion, from Abu Hurairrah! To say that someone is not a reliable transmitter is not the same as saying that they are a fabricator. To be unreliable is an error but does not indicate on belief. To fabricate an hadith is a sin which may indicate that the fabricator is over zealous in his belief, a hypocrite or a disbeliever. The amalgamation of these categories into one is a fabrication of the unlearned or a deliberate abandonment of truth.> They believe that the Sahaabah became kaafirs after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, apart from ‘Ali and his descendents, Salmaan, ‘Ammaar and a few others. <It is a matter of historical record that some of the companions reverted to their former ways. Once again it is Ibn Jibreen who introduces the principle of if one does they all do. It is also a matter of record that the Hashimite claim to the Caliphate was strong enough and had sufficient support for Abu Suffian to suggest that he would, with his followers, support an armed uprising against Abu Bakr. An offer which ‘Ali declined. It should be noted here that it is not the practice we follow to say that the Holy Prophet saw. died. As his departure was caused by the long term effects of the poison given to him by a non believer he saw. was shaheed and we have the word of Allah swt. that the martyrs in the way of Allah swt. are sleeping.> But with regard to the first three khaleefahs and the majority of the Sahaabah who gave their bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to them, they think that they all apostatized and became kaafirs, so their ahadeeth cannot be accepted. This is stated in al-Kaafi and other books of theirs. <The majority of the companions were not involved in the selection of the Caliphs and in real terms had little choice in whether to pledge allegiance or not. The Ridha tribes who refused to send their zakaat to the Caliph on the grounds that they had no hand in his selection and that in the time of the Prophet saw. they had been allowed to distribute these funds in their own territory were slaughtered as they called out salaams and recited the shahadetain. There is a report in Sahih Bukhari that ascribes the non payment of zakaat to the Caliph being added to the list of acts that indicate Kufr by Caliph Abu Bakr despite the protests of some of the Madinite companions. It is estimated that around twenty thousand people died during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, many of whom were Muslims and most of them were killed by other Muslims. We have hadith of the Prophet saw. that if one Muslim kills another Muslim that one will gain Jannah and the other is assured the Hell fire.>

The eminent Sunni scholar Jamal Effendi al-’Iraqi al-Sidiqi al-Zahawi writes in his book, The Doctrine of the Ahl al-Sunna Versus the "Salafi Movement", as follows, "Since clear reason and sound theory clash in every way with what the Wahhabis believe, they are forced to cast reason aside. Thus their taking the text of Quran and Sunna only in their apparent meanings absurdity results. Indeed this is the well spring of their error and misguidence." Al-Zahawi refers to one of the scholars that the modern "Salafis" often claim as an authority, "Ibn Taymiyya also said in essence that among the blameworthy innovations is declaring a group among the Muslims to be unbelievers, making their blood and wealth licit because of rejected innovations. For, he said, there may be in that group less unwarranted innovation than in the party carrying out the declaration of disbelief."

This book by al-Zahawi is fully indexed, annotated, contains a list of 55 learned scholars of the four Sunni madhab who have written condemnations of the Wahabi/Salafi sect.>

They regard the Sunnis (Ahl al-Sunnah) as kaafirs, so they do not pray with you. <Why does Ibn Jibreen refer to Ahl al-Sunna in the third person? Is it a subconscious admission of what al-Zahawi says that Wahabis/Salafis believe that all who disagree with them are disbelievers. If this is the case Ibn Jibreen would certainly feel a distance existed between himself and Ahl al-Sunna. He of course misleads the reader once more by his introduction of disbelief. The problem for the ordinary Shi’a is that he may have no means of telling if the Imam al-Jamaat is a Wahabi/Salafi, who endorses and practices injustice against the whole Ummah, or not. In Jafari Fiqh one of the conditions for a person leading prayer is apparent justness. > Whoever prays behind a Sunni will repeat his prayer. <;If their is a serious doubt, in the mind of the follower, that the leader of the prayer is not a just person but they wish to join the prayer for the thawab of praying with Muslim brothers or sisters or they are forced to join a jamaat by some form of coercion then offering the prayer again in the best way known to the worshipper, qurbat Allah, could hardly be considered sinful.  If the prayer leader is thought to be just and sincere and the the follower is allowed to stand in the prayer as he believes to be best then their appears to be no problem.  As is well known some Malikis stand one way and others another way.  Each of the four Sunni madhab have variations in their recitations and other details of the prayer.> Indeed, they think that we are naajis (impure), and when they shake hands with us they go and wash their hands. <This is not considered necessary by the majority of mujtahids even if you shake hands with a polytheist although some recommend such an action if there is wetness on the hands of a non-believer as a precaution against his not performing the obligatory ghusls and of course without the purification of Islam, by faith or domination, such persons are not halal for any Muslim.> Whoever regards the Muslims as kaafirs is himself a kaafir, <For once he is correct> so we regard them as kaafirs just as they regard us as kaafirs, and more so.  <But now he innovates, according to the view of Ibn Taymiyya, and boasts that he does it more than others.

The question that needs to be asked here is if this is the view of one who claims to be a follower of the Hanbali madhab and who is permitted to issue such sweeping fatawa why were both Ayatullah Sharif al-Deen al-Musawi and Ayatullah Mohsin Hakeem both, at different times, invited to lead the jamaat prayers for the hujjaj in the Haram at Mecca? Both of them being Shi’a scholars of the highest rank and fame!>

Here is a ruling from Ayatullah al-Uzma Syed Ali al-Husaini Seestani that is binding on all who perform their ibadat according to his rulings and is the same in substance and meaning to similar rulings to be found in the works of all Shi’a Mujtahids who are currently followed, "An infidel i.e. a person who does not believe in Allah and His Oneness, is najis. Similarly, Ghulat who believe that any one of the holy Imams as God, or that they are incarnations of God, and Khawarij and Nawasib who express enmity towards the holy Imams, are also najis. And similar is the case of those who deny Prophethood, or any of the necessary laws of Islam, like namaz and fasting, which are believed by the Muslims as a part of Islam and which they also know as such.

As regards the people of the Book (i.e. the Jews and the Christians) who do not accept the Prophethood of Prophet Muhammad bin Abdullah (Peace be upon him and his progeny), they are commonly considered najis but it is not improbable that they are pak. However, it is better to avoid them." Issue 107 Taudhihul Masa’il.

My indebtedness to the collectors of the narrations and to the grand scholars of Islam is too great for me to repay so I turn to Allah swt. Who is like no other nor is anything like Him, and ask Him, Most Generous to reward them from His Limitless Bounty and His Unending Mercy.

Shaykh Mohammed Amin,

The month of Ramadhan, 1421.