Ragheb El-Sergany Articles

Does Islam encourage hostility to Christians?
Dr. Ragheb El-Sergany
Some fanatics accuse Islam of bigotry against Christians and incitement to hate them. They
back their false claim by Quranic verses which they misunderstood them or purposely
misinterpreted them. Some of these Quranic verses cited the prohibition of taking non-
Muslims allies, like the verse:

}
{
Translation: {Let not believers take disbelievers as allies rather than believers. And whoever
[of you] does that has nothing with Allah, except when taking precaution against them in
prudence. And Allah warns you of Himself and to Allah is the [final] destination} [Al-
Èmran:28]. And the verse:
{
}
Translation: {O you who have believed, do not take the disbelievers as allies instead of the
believers. Do you wish to give Allah against yourselves a clear case?} [AniNisaa:144].
Those fanatics quoted these verses and the like as evidence for bigotry of Islam against
Christians, even if they are citizens of the Muslim state.
In fact, such verses have a completly different signification which is easily understood by
those who studied the reasons of revelation of these verses and the rules of forming the
Muslim state at the time of the Prophet (PBUH). It is manifested in the following:
1- The related forbidding is limited to those known as certain group distinguished by their
own beliefs, dogmas, thoughts and cermonies that is Jews or Christians or the like, not as
neighbors, colleagues or citizens. It is duty upon every Muslim to be ally only to the Muslim
nation, thus the forbidding mentioned earlier means that a Muslim is forbidden to court non-
Muslims against Muslims.
It is granted that no religion or man-made system approves it for its followers to be ally to
other group other than to which he is ascribed, which is known in nationalism language as
'Treason'.
2- The alliance prohibited by the verses is not applied to all non-Muslims in general, even if
he were to be peaceful to Muslims or Dhimmy (protected non-Muslim living under Islamic
rule), however, it is applied to inflicting harm to Muslims or opposing Allah and His
Messenger. This is manifested by the following:
A- The verse:
{}
Translation: {You will not find a people, who believe in Allah and the Last Day having
affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger} [Al-Mujadalah:22]. Opposing
Allah and His Messenger is not restricted to disbelief in them only; rather it extends to
opposing their call and confronting it and doing harm to its adherents.
B- In the beginning of the chapter titled Al-Mumtahanah:
}
{
Translation: {O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies,
extending to them affection while they have disbelieved in what came to you of the truth,
having driven out the Prophet and yourselves [only] because you believe in Allah, your Lord}
[Al-Mumtahanah:1]. The verse unveils the reason of prohibiting alliance or showing
cordiality to polytheists, for being disbelievers in Islam and for driving out Muslims and the
Messengers of their homes unjustly.
C- In the same chapter:
}
.
{
Translation: {Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion
and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them and acting justly
toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. Allah only forbids you from those
who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion -
[forbids] that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, and then it is those
who are the wrongdoers} [Al-Mumtahanah:8-9]. Allah classified non-Muslims into two
groups:
Those who were peaceful to Muslims and did not fight them in terms of Islam or
expelle them from their homes, thus, they have the right to be approached in kindness
and justice by Muslims.
Those who went confronting Muslims, killing them, driving Muslims out of their
homes or supporting in doing so, thus, it is forbidden for Muslims to show alliance to
this kind, like polytheists of Mecca who severely punished Muslims. The text
signifies that it is not forbidden to show alliance to the former kind.
3- Islam made it permissible for Muslims to marry women of the people of the Book. The
marital life is based on the psychological tranquility, affection and mercy as indicated in the
verse:
{}
Translation: {And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may
find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy} [Ar-Rum:21]. This
means that alliance of Muslims to non-Muslims is permissible. How it comes for a Muslims
husband to not be kind to his wife, Christian or Jew? Or how it comes for a Muslim not to be
kind to his grandmother or grandfather, or his aunt if they were to be Christians?
4- The very plain fact is that Islam gives priority to the religious bond to any other bond,
whether it is relative, regional, racial or class. Muslims are brothers and Muslims are one
nation, the noble of them is abided by any covenant that may be given by the least of
Muslims. Muslims are one party against any other oppressing them. Muslims are attached to
each other rather than any disbeliever even if he is a father, son or brother to Muslims.
This condition is not restricted only to Islam, however, it is the nature of any religion and
creed and the gospel approves this repeatedly.
5- In addition to the aforementioned, the life-example of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH),

his companions and the righteous successors present the practical evidence for what has been
mentioned before. This book "Future of Christians in the Muslim state" is full of situations
and examples to the great dealing of the Prophet with non-Muslims of the different dogmas
and races.
Without hesitation, one can be assured that there is no law ordained its adherents to be kind to
others like Islam did, which is strong evidence that it is a religion revealed by Allah, Lord of
the worlds.
Source: "Future of Christians in the Muslim state" by Dr. Ragheb El-Sergany

Origins of Shia
Views Count: 7,003

72
Facebook 0 Google+ Twitter EMAIL
Scholars of Usul Al-Fiqh (Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence) stated the following rule, "One
cannot pass a judgment on something unless one has a clear conception of it". Based on this
rule, it is meaningless to pass a judgment on Shia unless you have good knowledge about
them. It is also meaningless to express one's opinion on reconciling the views of Sunnis and
Shiites without recognizing the nature of both sects. Likewise, it is of no real sense to accept
or reject talking about Shia without knowing the reality of the issue, to what extent it is
dangerous, its rank as to our priorities and its relation to the multiple variables the Ummah is
facing.
In short, before we proceed to criticize opponents or proponents of Shia, we should first

understand who Shia are, what their origins are, what their theological and Fiqhi
(Jurisprudential) backgrounds are, what their history is about, what their reality is an what
their goals and ambitions are. Only after doing this, we can express our view foresightedly,
especially when we know how many people changed their long-believed views and give up
their ideas after they had been provided with sound information and clear vision.
Who are Shia?
The issue is not merely that of certain people living in a certain country who have some
disputes with neighboring countries. Rather, it is an issue of theological, historical and Fiqhi
backgrounds that have to be referred to.
Many historians differ on the real beginning of Shia.
What is commonly believed by the masses is that Shia are those people who supported Àli
bin Abu Talib during the caliphate of Muàwiyah bin Abu Sufyan, (may Allah be pleased with
him). Accordingly, this means that those who supported Àli bin Abu Talib are Shia while
those who supported Muàwiyah are Sunnis. Such a notion has never been accepted by
anyone. Moreover, Sunnis believe with regard to the dispute that arose between the two
honorable Companions that Àli (may Allah be pleased with him) was on the right, while
Muàwiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) exercised Ijtihad (independent judgment) but
did not reach the truth. Thus, Sunnis thought is clearly siding with Àli. Moreover, tenets,
doctrines and ideologies held by Shia are entirely different from those held by Àli bin Abu
Talib absolutely. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the rise of Shia was at that era.
Some historians say that the rise of Shia was after Al-Hussein (may Allah be pleased with
him) was martyred. This opinion sounds to be more logical. Actually, Al-Hussein rebelled
against the rule of Yazid bin Muàweiyah and, therefore, headed for Iraq after his followers
there had promised to back him. However, they let him down at the critical time, which led to
the martyrdom of Al-Hussein at Karbala. The group of people who invited him and failed to
support him regretted doing so and decided to expiate their sin through rebelling against the
Umayyad state. They actually did so and a large number of them were killed and thus were
called Shia. This might explain why we notice that Shia are more attached to Al-Hussein bin
Àli than to Àli bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) himself. They also, as we can
see, mark the anniversary of Al-Hussein's martyrdom while don not mark that of Àli bin Abu
Talib.
However, this sect only rose as a political one opposing the rule of the Umayyad dynasty and
backed any attempts to rebel against it. Until that time, they did not hold theological or
jurisprudential principles different from those of Sunnis. We will even come to know that
earlier leaders whom Shiites claim to be their earlier Shia Imams were only Sunni men
adopting doctrines and principles of Sunnis.
The situation continued to be stable for months after the martyrdom of Al-Hussein (may
Allah be pleased with him). At this period lived Àli Zainul-Àbdin bin Al- Hussein who was
one of the most righteous personalities and great ascetic scholars. He has never been reported
to have any beliefs or ideologies different from those held by Companions and later
generations.
Àli Zainul-Àbdin had two sons of a high level of piety and purity, namely, Mohammed Al-
Baqir and Zaid, both of whom completely believed in beliefs held by Sunni scholars
including Companions and Successors. However, Zaid bin Àli (may Allah have mercy on
him) differed in viewing that Àli bin Abu Talib was worthier of assuming caliphate than Abu
Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him). Although this opinion conflicts with the Ummah's
consensus and contradicts many Hadith that explicitly held Abu Bakr Al-Siddik, Ùmar and
Ùthman in a higher rank than Àli (may Allah be pleased with him), this difference of
opinion, however, does not relate to doctrinal issues. While he viewed that Àli was the best,
he, however, admitted the high rank of the first three caliphs. He also believed in the
permissibility of one less in rank assuming imamate despite the existence of those higher in
rank. Accordingly, he did not deny the imamate of Abu Bakr, Ùmar and Ùthman (may Allah
be pleased with them). Apart from this view, he concurred with Sunnis in theology, principles
and Fiqh.
Repeating the attempt of his grandfather Al-Hussein bin Àli (may Allah be pleased with
them both), Zaid bin Àli rebelled against the Umayyad caliph Hisham bin Abdul-Malik,
which ended up with his being killed in 122 A.H. His followers then founded a sect based on
his ideas, known in history as Zaydiyyah, named after Zaid bin Àli. Though considered to be
a Shia-based sect, Zaydiyyah agrees with Sunnis in everything except in holding Àli in a
higher position than the first three Caliphs. The followers of this sect are mainly in Yemen
and they are the nearest Shia sects to Sunnis - even one can hardly distinguish them from
Sunnis in most respects.
It is worth mentioning that a group of the followers of Zaid bin Àli asked him about his
opinion on Abu Bakr and Ùmar. In reply, he supplicated Allah to show mercy to both of
them, but those who asked him refused to do the same and seceded from his sect. Therefore,
they were known in the history as Rafidah (lit. dissenters) because they rejected the caliphate
of Abu Bakr and Ùmar on one hand, and rejected Zaid's opinion on the other. Subsequent
generations of such a group founded a sect which was later known as Ithna Àshriyyah
(Imamiyyah) to turn into Shia's largest sect.
Mohammed Al-Baqir, Zaid bin Àli's brother, died eight years before his brother (in 114
A.H.) leaving behind a son who became the reverend scholar Ja`far Al-Sadiq. The latter was a
prominent scholar and a proficient Faqih (Jurisprudent), who held the same theology believed
in by Companions, Successors and Muslim scholars in general.
Late at the era of the Umayyad caliphate, the Abbasid movement started activities aiming at
rallying people against the Umayyad caliphate. The movement collaborated with the groups
which seceded from Zeid bin Àli and both toppled the Umayyad caliphate in 132 A.H. The
Abbasid caliphate came to power headed by the founder Abul-Àbbas Al-Saffah and his
successor Abu Ja`far Al-Mansur. Those who collaborated with this movement felt
disappointed as they sought to establish a caliphate ruled by one of Àli bin Abu Talib's
grandchildren. Therefore, those people formed a group called Al-Talibiyyun (lit. proponents
of Àli bin Abu Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) compared to Abbasids who are named
after Al-Àbbas bin Abdul-Muttalib) with the aim of staging a coup against the Abbasid
caliphate.
Until this era, there were no essential theological or jurisprudential violations except that of
the criticism of Abu Bakr and Ùmar; actually, some of them who seceded from Zaid bin Àli
rejected them and would even curse them in public.
Ja`far Al-Sadik died in 148 A.H. leaving behind a son called Musa Al-Kazim, who was also a
scholar but less in rank than his father. He died in 183 A.H. leaving behind some sons
including Àli bin Musa Al-Rida.
It happened that the Abbasid caliph al Ma'mun sought to contain the rebellion of Al-
Talibiyyun who claimed the caliphate for the descendants of Àli bin Abu Talib rather than
those of Al-Àbbas. Thus, he nominated Àli bin Musa Al-Rida as the crown prince, which
fueled a fierce controversy among Abbasids. However, Àli bin Musa Al-Rida suddenly died
in 203 A.H., but Al-Talibiyyun accused Al-Ma'mun of killing him and once again staged
successive revolutions against Abbasids just as they did with Umayyads.
Anyway, passage of years gave room for revolutions to relatively calm down. Until that time,
Shia had not yet adopted an independent religious school of thought to be called Shia. Rather,
there were only political movements aiming at assuming power and opposing rulers due to
many reasons which did not include such theological reasons as those held by Shia now.
Strikingly, such dissenting calls found support on a large scale in the Persian region (currently
Iran). Actually, many inhabitants of such a region felt sorry for the fall of the huge Persian
empire and its fusion into the Islamic state. They, Persians, considered themselves of a higher
race, a better ethnicity and a greater history than Muslims. This feeling led to the rise of
Persophilia - an ideology which means giving priority to their race and ethnicity over
anything even Islam. Some of them even showed deep adherence to their Persian roots, lock,
stock and barrel, even the fire which they once worshiped.
As they were not powerful enough to rebel against the Islamic state, and being Muslims for
decades, they found the Al-Talibiyyun's revolutions a way through which they would seek to
topple the Islamic caliphate which toppled their Persian state before. In the same time, they
did not want to forsake Islam which they embraced for many years. They, however, decided
to interpolate it through injecting into it the heritage of the Persian state so as to secure
instability within the Muslim Ummah. They kept a low profile, while Al-Talibiyyu
maintained the high profile. Bearing in mind that Al-Talibiyyun are affiliated to Àli bin Abu
Talib, are a part of the Prophet's Household and thus held in a high esteem by people, such
people secured continuation of there mission.
Thus, attempts of Persophils united with those of Al-Talibiyyun belonging to the Prophet's
Household to form a new independent, not only political but also religious, entity.
Back to Al-Talibiyyun, we can see that after the death of Àli Al-Rida whom Abbasid Caliph
Al-Ma'mun nominated as the crown prince, he was succeeded by his son Mohammed Al-
Jawad who died in 220 A.H. The latter was also succeeded by his son Àli bin Mohammed
Al-Hadi who died in 254 A.H. Finally, the latter was succeeded by Al-Hassan bin Àli called
Al-Àskary who also died suddenly in 260 A.H. leaving behind a young 5-year-old son,
Mohammed.
Throughout previous years, separatist movements, which consisted of some of the Prophet's
Household and Persophils, would swear allegiance to the elder son of Al-Talibiyyun's leader,
starting with Àli Al-Rida and ending with Al-Hassan Al-Àskary. Concerning the ascendants
of Àli Al-Rida, such as his father Musa Al-Kazim or his grandfather Ja`far Al-Sadik or his
grandfather's father Mohammed Al-Baqir, they did not assume the revolutionary leadership
against Umayyad or Abbasid rule.
However, after Al-Hassan Al-Àskary had died in 260 A.H., revolutionists got totally
confused as to who is to assume leadership when Al-Hassan Al-Àskary left behind a young
son. They even got more confused after the sudden death of that young son. This resulted in
dividing such revolutionary groups into many sects each different from the other in terms of
principles and ideas as well as even in laws and beliefs.
The most famous among such sects is Ithna Àshriyyah (Imamiyyah), now prevailing in Iran,
Iraq and Lebanon. It is the biggest Shiite sect at present.
The leaders of this sect started to add to Islam ideas that would work best for situations they
are exposed to currently and that may ensure the continuation of their sect despite the absence
of their leader.
They added many serious Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) to the religion of Islam, claiming
them to be part and parcel of Islam. Thus, such Bid'ahs, with the passage of time, became a
key component of their ideology and thought. Some of such Bid'ahs relate to Imamate
(caliphate). Seeking a justification for the lack of a current imam, they argued that Imams are
twelve only, arranging them in the following order: 1- Àli bin Abu Talib, 2- Al-Hassan bin
Àli, 3- Al-Hussein bin Àli, 4- Àli Zainul-Àbidin bin Al-Hussein, 5- Mohammed Al-Baqir
bin Zainul-Àbidin, 6- Ja`far Al-Sadik bin Mohammed Al-Baqir, 7- Musa Al-Kazim, 8- Àli
Al-Rida, 9- Mohammed Al-Jawad, 10- Àli Al-Hadi, 11- Mohammed Al-Mahdi and 12- Al-
Hassan Al-Àskary.
That is why this sect is called Ithna Àshriyyah. Seeking to justify why the Imam succession
came to an end, they claimed that the young child Muhammad bin Al-Hassan Al-Àskary has
not died yet, and that, according to them, he has disappeared in a mountain cave and that he is
still alive (over one thousand years now). They further claim that he will be back one day to
rule the world. They also believe him to be the Awaited Mahdi (Righteous Imam). They also
claimed that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) bequeathed Imamate to those
twelve names but Companions withheld such information. This is why they judge
Companions in general to be disbelievers (however, some of them judge Companions to be
only profligate) as they concealed such a bequeath. Influenced by the Persian system of rule,
they introduced the inevitability of the monarchical system believing that the Imam must be
the elder son of Àli bin Abu Talib and likewise all succeeding Imams. As known to all, this
notion is not Islamic at all. Even Sunni Islamic states based on a monarchical system, such as
Umayyad, Abbasid, Seljuk, Ayyubi and Ottoman caliphates, never considered the
monarchical system to be a part of religion or that ruling must be on a dynasty basis.
Influenced also by Persia, they introduced sanctification of the ruling dynasty. Accordingly,
they believed in the infallibility of the aforementioned Imams and thus considered their
sayings to be as holy as the Qur'an and Prophetic Hadith. Moreover, most of their Fiqhi
(jurisprudential) rules are even derived from the sayings of Imams, regardless of whether
these sayings are authentically or falsely attributed to them. Furthermore, in his book "Islamic
Government", Khomeini, the leader of the Iranian revolution, stated, "One of the
fundamentals of our ideology is that our Imams are higher in rank than devoted angels and
prophets." Hence, this explains their bitter hostility to all Companions (except for a few of
them who do not exceed thirteen). They also show hostility to even some of the Prophet's
Household, such as Al-Àbbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Allah's Messenger's uncle,
and his son Abdullah bin Àbbas (may Allah be pleased with him), the great scholar of the
Ummah. Unarguably, hostility to these two figures and judging them to be disbelievers is due
to the historical conflict between Ithna Àshriyyah and Abbasid caliphate.
Among their Bidàhs also is that they consider most Muslim countries to be Darul-Kufr
(House of disbelief). They also judge the people of Medina, Mecca, Egypt and Levant to be
disbelievers, falsely reporting the Messenger of Allah to have said something in this regard
and thus believe it to be a part of their religion.
You can refer to such ideas in their original resources, such as Al-Kafy, Bihar Al-Anwar and
Tafsir Al-Qummi, Tafsir Al-Àyyashi, Al-Burhan and other books.
Consequently, they do not acknowledge any Sunni scholars and all the authentic Hadith
books, such as Al-Bukhari, Muslim, Al-Tirmidhi and Al-Nasa'i. They also deny the authority
of Abu Hanifah, Malik, Al-Shafiì and Ibn Hanbal. They also do not admit the excellence of
Khalid bin Al-Walid or Sa`d bin Abu Waqqas, Ùmar bin Abdul-Àziz,, Musa bin Nusair,
Nourul-Din Mahmoud, Salahud-Din, Qutuz and Muhammad Al-Fatih.
As a result of their non-recognition of Companions, Successors and books of Hadith and

Tafsir (exegesis of the Qur'an), they depended largely on sayings attributed to their Imams
through very weak chains of narrators. Consequently, many abhorred Bid'ahs took place
regarding their doctrines, acts of worship, transactions and other wakes of life. In this article,
I do not intend to give a list of their Bid'ahs; actually, such a goal requires composing many
books. I only refer here to the origin of the problem so that we may understand its
consequences. However, it requires a lengthy talk to speak about such Bid'ahs as Taqiyyah (a
dispensation allowing Shiites to conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or
compulsion) and Raj'a (the second coming or the return to life of their Imams after death),
viewing that the Qur'an was interpolated, misbelieving in Allah, Bid'ahs committed at the
shrines, building such shrines in mosques, abhorred Bid'ahs committed on the anniversary of
Al-Hussein's Martyrdom and thousands of other Bid'ahs that became key pillars in religion
according to Ithna Àshriyyah.
All that I have mentioned so far is only a part of the ideology of Ithna Àshriyyah. However,
there are several other sects that rose during the same period in history, especially during the
period known in history as the period of "Shia Bewilderment", which started as early as the
middle of the third century A.H. following the death of Al-Hassan Al-Àskary (the twelfth
and last Imam according to them).
From this period on, literature and books that plant their ideology and doctrines were
composed. Their methodologies spread widely in the Persian region in particular and in the
Muslim world in general. However, till then no state was established to officially adopt such
ideologies. Anyway, by the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth century
A.H., serious developments took place that led to Shia assuming power in some areas, which
had serious repercussions on the entire Muslim Ummah. This is what I will deal with in the
next article, if Allah so wills.
However, I have to repeat the rule that "one cannot pass a judgment on something unless one
has a clear conception of it". Thus, if we are to take a decision regarding a specific matter or
issue, we have to have knowledge about it first. In other words, we can judge something to be
right or wrong or say that it is better to do so-and-so only when authentic information is
available. Undoubtedly, judgments based of passions and on no study leads certainly to evil
consequences.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam Muslims.
By: Dr. Ragheb El Sergani

Our attitude toward Shia
Shia represent only 11% of the Muslim Ummah (only 150 Million all over the world).
Views Count: 2,899
20
Some journalists are very skillful in making Muslims believe that opening the Shia file to
discussion is tantamount to dealing the death blow. They view that the Muslim Ummah
consists of both Sunnis and Shia and thus opening the issue to discussion has the effect of
dividing the Muslim Ummah into two halves. However, this view is wrong from two
prospectives:
First: Shia represent only 11% of the Muslim Ummah (only 150 Million all over the world).
Actually, it is totally unfair for the Muslim Ummah to waver it fundamentals in order to
maintain this few number within the main Muslim body instead of demanding Shia to abide
by the theological, moral, historical and political standards of the Muslim Ummmah.
Second: In our previous article (Shia's Peril), we referred to the fact that Fitnah (disorder) is
not that quiescent one we are trying to kindle. In fact, Fitnah is already extremely on fire,
with boiling effects all over the Muslim world firstly in Iraq. What should we do in face of
shedding the Sunni blood there and the evident wasting of once-greatly-capable country?!
In our discussion of the problem, we are trying to understand the roots of the problem. Once
we understand, we can propose logical solutions. However, no solutions to the problem can
be offered in the absence of clear knowledge of their rise, roots, concepts, methodologies,
objectives and ambitions.
In the previous article, I spot light on the threat of contemporary Shia to the present of the
Muslim Ummah. We specifically listed five dangerous points, each of which is an enough
justification to urgently open the file. Below is a brief outline of the five points:
First: Shia's constant defamation of Companions, which turned into the essence of their belief
in religion. Actually, it is an evident grudge that exceeded all limits. In this website, we
regularly receive comments from Shiites on articles relating to Abu Bakr, Ùmar and
Ùthman as well as other Companions that are overflowing with grudge and rancor. It is
something very sensitive for a Shiite to see a Companion's name, which necessitates him to
have a violent reaction. How come then that we observe self-control regarding such an
infringement? We stated there that overlooking such vices resembles forsaking religion which
we may not do.
Second: The danger of the spread of Shiism in Muslim countries, were it through directly
embracing and conversion to the Shiite thought or indirectly through being convinced with
Shia's ideas being unaware of embracing Shiism.
Third: The murder of thousands of Iraqi Sunnis.
Fourth: Direct threat of military, political, economic dominance over Iraq and thus serving
US interests.
Fifth: Direct threat to countries in the region other than Iraq. In this regard, we gave UAE,
Bahrain and KSA as examples. I do not think it proper to remain silent till the interests of
such countries be lost. In my opinion, positive speed movement to safeguard the safety and
security of such countries is inevitable.
However, we have discussed the above referred to five points in detail in our previous article
(Shia's Peril). Actually, we call readers to read this article thoughtfully on account of its
dealing with serious issues. Moreover, we invite them to read the other previous two articles:
(Origins of Shia) and (Shia's Dominance), so that you might get an overall view of the
subject.
But.. Are these five points everything?
Unfortunately, no!
Actually, Shia's peril is too threatening to be dealt with in such five points. Browsing history
proves that contingent deterioration is more than unimaginable. The Ùbaidi Ismaìlite Shiites
occupied Egypt for more than two consecutive hundred years. Although having never been
predictable, it took place anyway as we know. Hence, drawing attention to such a peril is
necessary and inevitable.
Let us now resume listing Shia's dangers at the present.
Sixth: Danger of Iran-Syria rapprochement.

We can obviously notice the close rapprochement between Iran and Syria. Danger can be
predicted in view of the serious situation Syria lives. For about forty years, Syria has been
ruled by Nusairis (known as Àlawites), who are attributed to the founder of their sect Abu
Shuàib Muhammad bin Nusair Al-Baghdadi (Died 270 A.H.). Abu Shuàib claimed
prophethood and that Àli is Allah incarnate - Glorified and Exalted is He high above what
they say!
Although Nusairis constitute no more than 10% of the total population, they have absolute
authority. Therefore, they give a wide latitude to the spread of Shiism in the country. Thus,
connection of the Shiite Crescent from Iran to Iraq and to Syria and Lebanon will represent a
serious barrier separating the east of the Muslim world from the west and giving indication of
a contingent stretch of unknown dimensions.
Seventh: There is a certain serious matter requiring us to take an immediate stance, discussing
which may never be put off. I mean Muslims' infatuation with greater Shiite figures,
especially the leader of the Lebanese Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah and the Iranian president
AhmadiNejad. Unarguably, public attitudes adopted by both figures infatuated many Sunnis,
especially in the absence of equivalent Sunni figures at the head of authority in Muslim
countries. In fact, they are infatuating in view of success achieved by both of them in
reaching their respective objectives; i.e. war against Jews in the case of Nasrallah and
establishing a powerful state in the case of AhmadiNejad. Therefore, it is necessary to draw
the attention of all Sunnis to the fact that achieving even a great success in a certain issue
does not necessarily denote sound creed and methodology. We should bear in mind that the
wicked Ùbaidi Shiite State achieved tenfold or hundredfold greater military and political
successes than those achieved by Hezbollah and Iran. Nevertheless, we may not take it as an
example. Furthermore, we may by no means take as an example a secular - even if Sunni -
leader. This is because we believe that a leader to be an example has to achieve integrity,
balance and comprehensiveness in such fields as creed, morals, knowledge and practice.
Moreover, his practicing Jihad has to be in Allah's Cause and in support of Allah's sound
religion and to establish the Shari'ah (Islamic Law) unchanged and unmodified.
Let me also deliver a message to those who dream of being ruled by a Shiite, even if
moderate, leader. I would like to ask them whether they would accept to believe in the twelve
Imams they believe in. Would we then accept to give up the history of Companions, our
schools of thought and Sunnah books we trust? Which education curricula do we expect to be
applied in such a case; Shiite or Sunni curricula?
Indeed, Ismaìl the Safavid established a very powerful state in Iran constructing it dazzlingly
in terms of administration and organization. How was his behavior when his state reached its
peak? See the article (Shia's Dominance) for more information about how he made use of his
power to be a thorn in the Ottoman State's side, spreading Shiism in Iraq and uniting with the
Portuguese in face of Sunni Ottomans.
Brothers and sisters, Islam is one integrated entity, i.e. we may not apply one part of it and
forsake another. Allah (may He be Exalted) said, "O you who believe! Enter into Islam
wholly" [Al-Baqarah, 208] {} , Transliteration: Y 'Ayyuh Al-
Ladhna 'man Adkhul F As-Silmi Kffatan. Accordingly, if we are to take an example, it
should be integrated. However, if there is any defect, it should by no means relate to creed
and concepts. Otherwise, there will be evil consequences and severe harm.
Eighth: Unfortunately, Shia's narrations of events have made its way so tremendously through
history books. Thus, to read and benefit from history, we have to revise it in order to purify
forgery and interpolation. Actually, this is an essential task and fundamental duty, abandoning
which might result in loss of huge heritage and distortion of the biographies of the best of
people and generations. The beginning should be understanding Shia's danger on history
books, purifying such books from their forged narrations and then inferring lessons from
authentically narrated events. In fact, I would like to spot more light on such issues. I have
counted narrations reported concerning the narrative of the Battle of Siffin to find them 113.
It was astonishing to find out that 99 of which are Shiite malicious narrations aiming at no
more than distorting the image of Companions. Such narrations are widely circulated among
Shia as well as those influenced by their ideas, including supposedly Sunni journalists under
the pretext that they are recorded in Tarikh Al-Tabari, a prominent Sunni scholar. By doing
so, they pay no attention to the Sanad (chain of narrators) mentioned by Al-Tabari. Suppose
they pay it any attention, they know noting about narrators. Thus, it becomes a must to purify
history books from Shia's narrations so that people might read the Ummah's history from its
authentic resources.
Ninth: Many people do not take into consideration our duties toward Shia. It is unarguably
unjustified to let such a huge number of people as more than one hundred and fifty million
persons think so corruptly without drawing their attention to the danger of their beliefs and
ideas.
Undoubtedly, such people are in ultimate need of being educated, enjoined to do good and
forbidden from doing evil. We will be unquestionably asked by our Lord on the Day of
Judgment whether we performed our duties toward those people who hold such beliefs as
those referred to in the article "Origins of Shia".
Some Shiites sent comments on these articles supplicating Allah to punish me through
resurrecting me along with Abu Bakr and Ùmar. Actually, it gives me great pleasure that
someone wishes me to be resurrected with them. However, I felt very sorry for them for
showing enmity to these two giant figures chosen by Allah to be the Companions of the
Prophet (peace be upon him). I consider it an essential priority of Callers to Allah to clarify
for such people the danger of what they believe in. Undoubtedly, fair-minded persons among
them are likely to accept the truth heedless of the risks once informed of the true belief.
Tenth: Who protects helpless Sunnis who live in Iran now? Do you know how many they
are? They are about twenty million persons constituting about 30% of the total population.
Nevertheless, they are represented in the Iranian cabinet by no minister. Moreover, the ratio
of their parliament representation is less than 10% . Furthermore, million Sunnis living in the
capital Tehran are in vain struggling to establish even only one Sunni mosque. In this regard,
we need not mention direct oppression of all Sunnis who demand their rights. Actually,
oppression is so severe that Sunni mosques are destroyed. A famous event is the destruction
of Sheikh Fayd Mosque in Khurasan in 1994 A.D./1414 A.H.
Another event is the destruction of the Congregational Mosque in the state of Blushistan
which was accompanied by killing two hundred Sunni young men who staged a sit-in in the
mosque protesting against the destruction of Sheikh Fayd Mosque.
It goes without saying that education curricula studied by twenty million Sunnis in Iran does
not go in line with Sunni doctrines and principles. In fact, they are Shiit-based curricula.
Unfortunately, Iranian Sunnis experience a great dilemma being helpless, as known by

everyone. Is it then proper to keep silent regarding their problems as well as the problems of
Iraqi Sunnis, or speak out so that Allah might help someone do something?
So far, we have listed ten evident dangers of Shia.
Brothers and sisters, do you still think it is wise to keep silent?
Do analytics claiming to be reasonable view that harms following from opening the file to
discussion are greater than harms of the actual fact we live, from which we listed ten harms in
this article and the one prior to it?
Nonetheless, I did not write these articles aiming at igniting the fuse of war against the Shia
of Iran, Iraq, Syria or Lebanon. I also did not aim at deducing that Shia are more dangerous
than Jews. Rather, by writing these articles I aim at leading to a truthful understanding of
situations. Only after knowing the truth, wise men from among Sunnis can agree on a proper
and appropriate attitude.
Actually, many of those who hurry to express opinion on many complicated problems do not
have the least knowledge about the issue under discussion; they express no more than
emotion-based opinions and imagined their fancies to be realties which they thought will be
put into practice by sincere persons.
Now, after these blood-smelling information, how should our attitude toward Shia be?
First: The majority of scholars judge Ithna Àshriyyah (who believe in, study and prepare for
the advent of the Imam Al-Mahdi, the twelfth descendant of the Prophet Muhammad who is
believed to be still alive and waiting for the world to prepare for his emergence from
occultation and just leadership) in general to be Muslims. However, they are deviated
Mubtadi` (innovating in religion) Muslims. Accordingly, all such general rulings of Islam as
marriage, inheritance, burial, judiciary, food and all transactions apply to them. Therefore,
they are also permitted to perform Hajj and Ùmrah (minor pilgrimage) and to enter the
Sacred Lands otherwise prohibited to be entered by non-Muslims. Thus known, their
deviation might not, nevertheless, be underestimated. Rather, they need to be reformed and
rectified. It even necessitates rulings and laws to be sanctioned. In this respect, many Muslim
scholars made good contributions in the field, details of which can be sought for elsewhere.
Moreover, the majority of scholars judge some Shia sects to be disbelievers, including
Ismaìliyyah, Nusairis and suchlike blasphemous sects.
Second: Based on Shia's methodologies deep-rooted deviation, we dare say it is impossible to

make Fiqhi (jurisprudential) or doctrinal reconciliation between the Sunni and the Shiite
thoughts. Actually, Shia is not an Islamic school of thought as thought by some people.
Rather, it is a sect that deviated from the straight path. Thus, reconciling the straight path
with deviation stands for deviation of a lesser degree. In brief, it is entirely unacceptable
according to Shariàh. Does reconciliation mean accepting insulting Companions and no one
else? Does reconciliation mean believing in no more than twelve Imams? Does it mean
authorizing Al-Bukhari and Muslim while denying the authority of Abu Dawud and Al-
Tirmidhi? Does it also mean deeming Mutàh (temporary) marriage lawful in certain
circumstances? Or, does it mean overlooking oppressing some Sunnis in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon
and Syria while moving positively regarding oppressing others? Brothers and sisters,
reconciliation reached a dead end. More decisively, any attempt to reconcile the doctrines or
rulings of Sunnis and Shiites is tantamount to changing and distorting the religion, which
may never be our objective. Moreover, a reference has to be made to the situations of
scholars who during a stage of their life attempted reconciliation to find out it is infeasible in
spite of repeated attempts.
We would like to pay a special attention here to the great Syrian scholar Dr. Mustafa Al-
Sibaì (may Allah show mercy to him). In his book (The Position of Sunnah as to Islamic
Legislation), he explicitly stated, "It seemed that reconciliation means drawing Sunnis closer
to Shiism." The same approach was followed by the great scholar Dr. Yussuf Al-Qaradawi,
who reached the same result.
Third: Our efforts should not be halted at the stage of denying Shia's doctrines and
methodologies. Rather, we should fortify fellow Sunnis with beneficial knowledge that can
safeguard them against falling into the snares of corrupt beliefs. Moreover, scholars and
Callers to Allah have to be energetic in informing Sunnis about their true religion and the
story of the Prophet and his reverend Companions. Besides, the huge historical heritage of the
Ummah has to be made use of. To this effect, the Ummah that cannot read its history is
incapable of forming its future.
Fourth: We should never feel embarrassed or hesitate to discuss suspicions raised by Shia
here and there. Furthermore, we should not be ostriches about the Shia file thinking that
doing so will have the effect of gaging them. On the contrary, we have to discuss the issue
bravely. It should turn into a matter of creed, reforming deviation and rectification of a bad
conduct. Hence, we have to discuss complicated historical issues that Shia powerfully make
use of and to explain such issues from a sound Islamic prospective. In addition, Sunnis' love
and respect of the Prophet's household has to be highlighted. Moreover, it should be clarified
that the deceiving idea that Shia show more love and respect to the Prophet's Household is a
false notion. Undoubtedly, the Prophet's Household may never be satisfied with distorting the
Prophet's methodology.
Fifth: We should sincerely and truthfully call and advise Shiites to depend on impartial
scientific investigation in reading their history and doctrines. By doing so, they will come to
know that their historical reports are narrated through very weak and interrupted chains of
narrators and that most of their methodologies and ideas have not been coined before the
third century A.H. We are certain that Allah will guide sincere persons among them to the
straight path. (And this is not difficult for Allah.)
Sixth: Muslim and Arab countries, as well as Muslim communities in Western countries, have
to be on their guard against increasingly growing Shiism. As we stated above, Shiism stands
for deviation from the right path. Therefore, good attention has to be paid to it especially in
countries where Shiism is intensively propagated, such as Bahrain, UAE, KSA and Jordan.
Seventh: Sunnis living in confrontation line, i.e. Iraq, Iran and Lebanon are to take care, unite
and keep in touch with their Sunnis brothers all over the Muslim world. They also have to
join forces in order to protect themselves against dangers to which they are exposed, and to
vividly use mass media to show their status and positions, which might provide them easily
with help.
Eighth: We do not object to peaceful co-living between Sunnis and Shiites provided that no
mutual aggression takes place. I also do not prefer involving into thorny issues of ideological
and theological dispute on condition that it be reciprocal. This should not mean giving Iranian
and Iraqi Shiites all rights while marginalizing Sunnis.
Ninth: Political rapprochement between some political Sunni and Shiite groups is also
possible in some respects. However, caution should be observed regarding the possibility of
the collapse of rapprochement, which is the historically usual end of such relations. Ultimate
caution should also be observed regarding giving up any theological or legal principle in
favor of rapprochement. Moreover, rapprochement should be conditional on certain
circumstances and common interests, in the sense that it should not be unconditional so that it
might not result in interrupting the unity of the Ummah or misunderstanding.
Tenth: I call upon Muslim rulers to be up to the huge responsibility they undertake.
Undoubtedly, Sunnis adopted reconciliation calls only being infatuated with Shiite figures
that rose in the absence of Muslim rulers from the arena. We noticed how much Sunnis were
impressed by Erdoan for his stance against Jews as well as by the Dane Prime Minister,
which clearly indicates that the Sunni masses are in need of a symbol to back and support.
We ask Allah to show you the truth as a truth and guide you to follow it and to show you
falsehood as falsehood and to help you avoid it.
With this tenth point ends the ten points briefing my viewpoint on this serious file.
I am certain that there are tens, hundreds or even thousands of questions that I found no room
to answer in such brief articles. Anyway, my absolute aim is to only open doors for discussion
and to give a clearer vision. No doubt, detailed explanation and investigation can be tackled
by specialized researches and studies, which I ask Allah to guide Muslim scholars to conduct
and to explain to people in general "until there is no more Fitnah, and the religion will all be
for Allah alone" [Al-Anfal, 39].
May Allah safeguard the Muslim Ummah against all evils, guide it to the straight path and
provide for it immediate and future good.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.
Dr. Ragheb ElSergani

Shia's Peril
difference between Sunnis and Shiites does not relate only to subsidiary matters but also to
some fundamentals as well!!
Views Count: 1,613
00
Many Muslims view it is very difficult and confusing to adopt a certain attitude towards
Shiites. Difficulty is actually due to many reasons.
Lack of information is one of such reasons. In fact, Shia as for many Muslims is something
ambiguous. They know neither their entity nor their origin. Moreover, they neither have a
historical look at their past nor can expect their future. Consequently, a good number of
Muslims thinks that Shia is no more than an Islamic school of thought and thus similar to
Shafi'i, Maliki or other Schools of thought. Thus thinking, they do not grasp the fact that
difference between Sunnis and Shiites does not relate only to subsidiary matters but also to
some fundamentals as well.
The fact that many Muslims are not realistic or practical is another reason for difficulty.
Actually, some Muslims have unsubstantiated rosy dreams. Thinking they are reasonable,
they think there is no reason for conflict and wonder why do not we sit together overlooking
our disputes, a Sunni shaking hands with a Shiite and take one way since both parties believe
in Allah, His Messenger and the Last Day. It seems they forgot it is a far more complicated
issue. For example, we judge to be a disbeliever a person who, although believing in Allah,
His Messenger and the Last Day, deems drinking wine and adultery lawful. Deeming them
lawful means denying their being prohibited by the Qur'an and Sunnah. If we apply the same
criterion here, we will find out that the issue of Shia is so dangerous that it requires Shari'ah
(Islamic Law) scholars to adopt decisive situations as far as the Islamic ruling on enormous
Shiite Bid'ahs (innovations in religion) is concerned. Another reason leading to difficulty is
multiplicity of deep wounds that hit many Muslim countries and multiplicity of enemies such
as Jews, Crusaders, Communists, Hindus and others. In this regard, some of those claiming to
be reasonable view that we should not open a new bloc for conflict.
This might be true in case we are trying to open such a bloc when it is already closed.
However, being wide-open and of constant harm, ignoring it is a vice. Furthermore, it is
useless to pose the repeatedly asked question: Who is more dangerous, Jews or Shiites? In
fact, asking such a question aims at squelching those who try to awaken the Ummah and to
put in awkward situation those who strive to protect and safeguard the Ummah. In refutation
of such an argument, I say that there is no problem to face two contingent perils at a time. I
would like also to ask them: Is it Sunnis who search for a justification to attack Shiites? I
think the actual fact substantiated by bulk of evidence tells us that it is Shiites who harm
Sunnis.
In the two previous articles, Origins of Shia and Shia's Dominance, I gave an outline of the
Shia history. Through these articles, we could see tremendous aggressions committed by
Shiites against the Muslim Ummah. However, I do not think that our present fact differs from
the past. Rather, I certify that history repeats itself and that sons have inherited fathers' and
grandfathers' rancor. Besides, no good is expected from those who claim the Companions
generation was corrupt except for a very few number of them, which stands for explicitly
belying the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him), The best people are those living in
my generation This Hadith (Prophetic tradition) is related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim as
well as other compilations of authentic Hadith.
Undoubtedly, present Shias truth -just as their truth in the past- is very heinous.
Let us revise important matters to help us have a clearer vision and thus help us understand
the ideal attitude we should adopt toward Shiites in order to know which is better, speaking or
remaining silent.
First: Everyone knows the Shias attitude toward the Prophet' Companions ranging from Abu
Bakr Al-Siddiq (the very truthful), Ùmar Al-Faruq (one who distinguishes between truth and
falsehood) and Ùthman Dhon-Norain (one who married two of the Prophet's daughters) to
mothers of the believers, headed by À'ishah the mother of the believers and ending with the
whole great generation. Actually, Shias books and references, as well as even their creed and
belief essentials, claim that this generation as a whole is profligate or even disbeliever and
that the majority of which has gone astray and accuse them of hiding and interpolating the
religion.
Regarding this, should we observe and remain silent in order to avoid Fitnah (disorder) as
they calim?
I wonder what Fitnah can be more than accusing this generation of corruption and lying!
I would like that you try to comprehend the following statement said be the reverend
Companion Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with both of them), When later
generations of this Ummah curse earlier generations, let those who have knowledge unfold it,
for one who conceals such knowledge is as if concealing what is revealed to Muhammad
(peace be upon him) [The Hadith as reported in a Marfu' (traceable back to the Prophet)
form is Da'if (unreliable). However, it is more authentically reported to be the words of Jabir
bin Abdullah the Prophet's Companion].
Could you comprehend what depth this statement has?
Actually, defaming the Companion's generation does not stand for merely defaming some
people who have passed away and thus, as claimed by some people, will not be harmed by
such defamation being in Paradise in defiance of Shiites. More seriously, defaming
Companions actually implies direct accusation of the authenticity of the whole religion. In
fact, we received this religion through only Companions. Therefore, if doubt is cast on their
morals, intentions and actions, how should we then follow this religion? Given this, the
religion will be lost and the Prophet's Hadith and orders will be of no authority. On the
contrary, we ask Shiites, what Qur'an do you recite? Is not it the Companions in mass, whom
you defame, who transmitted the Qur'an?, Is not it Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased
with him), whom you claim to have assumed caliphate through fraud, who collected the
Qur'an? Based on your claims, why did not he interpolate the Qur'an if it is true that he
interpolated the Sunnah?
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said, Follow my Sunnah (manner of conduct) as well as
that of my rightly-guided Caliphs [Related by Al-Tirmidhi, Book on Knowledge Taken from
Allah's Messenger (2676), Ibn majah (42) and Ahmad (17184)], Thus, the Sunnah of the four
rightly-guided Caliphs is an indispensable part of the religion of Islam. Moreover, rulings and
decisions issued by Abu Bakr, Ùmar, Ùthman and Àli are binding for all Muslims
everywhere and at any time till the Day of Judgment. How can then defaming them be
acceptable?
To this effect, our great scholars would tremble on hearing someone affronting the Prophet's
Companions. For example, Ahmed bin Hanbal (may Allah be pleased with him) would say,
"If you hear someone saying bad words about the Prophet's Companions, know that his being
a Muslim is an object of doubt." Moreover, Judge Abu Ya`la said, "Scholars are unanimous
on judging one who insults Companions while deeming it permissible to be a disbeliever and
one who does so while not deeming it permissible to be a profligate."
To the same effect, Abu Zaràh Al-Razy said, "If you see someone underestimating the
Prophet's Companions, know that he is a heretic."
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyah said, "One who claims that all Companions - except for a few
number not exceeding twenty - forsook Islam after the Prophet's death is undoubtedly
disbeliever."
Actually, such strict judgments regarding those who underestimate Companions is justified
by the fact that it is Companions who transmitted the religion to us. Accordingly,
underestimating them implies casting doubts on the religion itself. In addition, this great
generation was praised in innumerable occurrences in Qur'anic verses and Hadith of the
Prophet (peace be upon him). Therefore, defaming them indicates belying Allah and His
Messenger.
Some people might argue that we did never hears so-and-so - a Shiite - insulting
Companions. I would like to draw the attention of such people to three points:
The first point: The main point of Imamiyyah (a Shiite sect believing in the twelve Imams
descending from Àli) is that Companions conspired against Àli bin Abu Talib, all the
Prophet's Household and the Imams they believe in. Therefore, all adherents of Imamiyyah
(found in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon) believe in the corruption of Companions. Should they
admit the goodness of Companions, the Shiite main idea would be refuted. Therefore, it is
acknowledged that all Shiites, were they leaders or followers, do neither respect or show
reverence to Companions nor learn religion from them in the least.
The second point: Shiite leaders are always illusive in situations where their dislike of
Companions is disclosed, although it is apparent in some of their expressions or situations as
stated by Allah (may He be Exalted), "but surely you will know them by the tone of their
speech" [Muhammad: 30], Transliteration: Wa Lata`rifannahum F Lani Al-Qawli, {
} . In this regard, we perhaps watched the debate held between Dr. Al-Qaradawi
(may Allah safeguard him) and Rafsanjani on Al-Jazeera TV.
We could see how Rafsanjani was illusive regarding attempts made by Dr. Al-Qaradawi to
make him say something good about Companions or Mothers of the believers. By the same
token, Khamenei - the current leader of the Iranian Revolution - gave the following
indecisive reply to a question about the ruling on insulting Companions that gave no definite
answer regarding permissibility or otherwise, "Any saying leading to sowing discord among
Muslims is absolutely impermissible." According to him, insulting Companions is not
prohibited on its own, but it is only prohibited on account of its sowing discord among
Muslims. This was published in the Egyptian newspaper Al-Ahram on November 23, 2006.
The third point: A special care should be given to the Taqiyyah creed which constitutes nine-
tenths of religion according to them. Tiqiyyah refers to a dispensation allowing believers to
conceal their faith when under threat, persecution or compulsion. However, when they come
to power, they openly disclose it. Throughout the Shia's history we referred to, we could
know that when they dominate Sunni countries, such as Abbasid Caliphate in Iraq, Egypt,
Morocco and other countries, they would publicly insult Companions considering it one of
the essentials of their faith.
Through this point, we come to the conclusion that it is necessary to speak in order to clarify
the truth regarding honorable Companions, for indeed refraining from telling' the truth is
satanic. Moreover, keeping silent will result in loss of religion itself.
Second: Danger of the spread of Shiite faith in the Muslim world. Undoubtedly, propagating
the Shiite faith is making its way rapidly throughout the Muslim world. It is extending
beyond the borders of countries where it used to be such as Iran, Iraq and Lebanon. Rather, it
is now spreading on a wide range in Bahrain, UAE, Syria, Jordan, KSA, Egypt, Pakistan,
Afghanistan and other Muslim countries. More dangerously, many people have held the
Shiite ideas and principles while thinking they are not Shiites. To this effect, after our articles
in this regard have been published, we received a great bulk of messages whose senders claim
to be Sunnis while their messages are overflowing with Shiite ideas and methodologies. We
all know about fierce campaigns launched against Companions in newspapers and satellite
channels in Sunni countries. Most famous are the campaign launched recently by an Egyptian
newspaper against À'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), the campaign launched by
another newspaper against Al-Bukhari (may Allah show mercy to him) and satellite programs
presented by a famous journalist defaming Companions in all episodes.
What adds to the difficulty of the situation and the improbability of remaining silent thereon
is the close relationship between Shiite and Sufi methodologies on the pretext that both of
them love the Prophet's Household. As we know, Sufism is widespread in many Muslim
countries when it is famous for committing many Bid'ahs and abhorred sins and shares Shia
in that both sanctify the graves of the Prophet's Household. As a result, Shiism is expected to
spread so long as Sufi sects are widespread in Muslim countries.
Third: The situation in Iraq is very dangerous.
It became a usual scene that Sunni Muslims are killed after glancing at their identity cards.
Scholar Harith Al-Dary, Secretary General of the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq,
stated that more than 100000 Sunnis were killed by Shiites from 2003 to 2006 only. This is in
addition to constant displacements of Sunnis so that Shiites might easily have authority in
such regions. Furthermore, most of those displaced outside Iraq are Sunnis, which might lead
to serious change of the population structure which will result in evil consequences. The
question that arises is: Is the Fitnah resulting from discussing the issue of Shia more
dangerous than that of killing such a great number of Sunnis? Till when should we remain
silent in this regard, when everyone knows that Iran fully supports killing Sunnis according to
identity cards?
Fourth: Iran has its clear, or even explicitly publicized, coveted objects in Iraq. Previously,
there was an eight-year-old war between the two countries. However, their way to it is now
paved, bearing in mind that Iraq represents an ultimate Shiite religious importance. In Iraq
there are the holy shrines and the graves of six Shiite Imams, including the grave of Àli bin
Abu Talib in Najaf, the grave of Al-Hussein in Karbala, the grave of Musa Al-Kazim and that
of Muhammad Al-Jawad in Kazimiya, and the grave of Muhammad Al-Hadi and that of AL-
Hassan Al-Àskary in Samarra. This is in addition to false graves of such prophets as Adam,
Noah, Hud and Salih - all located in Najaf - whose names are well-known to be falsely
attributed them.
Moreover, the dangers of Iran's ambitions in Iraq is reinforced by the fact that US backs and
supports such ambitions. We can all see the American-backed and sponsored Shiite
government. Furthermore, reciprocal unreal accusations between the US and Iran should
make no sense. Actually, USA never thinks of launching war against Iran - refer to our article
"A demon under control". However, worrying is not only ambitions in Iraq's oil or wealth, or
even the expansion of Shiite-dominated land, but also the fact that brutality and criminality is
part and parcel of their belief in religion. They consider Companions and other Sunni
Muslims who followed them to have showed enmity to the Prophet's Household. They,
therefore, call us Nawasib (understood by the Shiite to mean those who declared hostility
against the Household of the Prophet), although we show more respect to the Prophet's
Household than them. Based on accusing us as such, they issue very dangerous judgments.
For Example, Khomeini said, "It is strongly substantiated to apply the same rulings of Ahlul-
Harb (people otherwise at war with Muslims) to Nawasib. This means that it will be lawful to
take booties from them and divide one-fifth of it among warriors. It is even strongly
substantiated that it is lawful to take up their property wherever they may be and with any
how. In such a case, one-fifth is to be singled out." Asked about the ruling on one who denies
the Imamate of the twelve Imams, the Shiite Imam Muhammad Sadiq Al-Rawhani said the
following amazing statement, "Imamate is higher in rank than prophethood. Moreover,
perfecting the religion took place through appointing Imam Àli (peace be upon him) as the
Commander of the Faithful. In this regard, Allah (may He be Exalted) said, "This day, I have
perfected your religion for you, completed My Favor on you" [Al-Ma'idah 3], Transliteration:
Al-Yawma 'Akmaltu Lakum Dnakum, {} . Accordingly, he who does not
believe in the Imamate of the twelve Imams dies as a disbeliever."
In the article (Origins of Shia), we stated that Khomeini in his book "Al-Hukumah Al-
Islamiyya (Islamic Government)" stated that Imams offer much Prayers to a degree never
reached by a high-ranked angel or a prophet and thus disbelieving in them is more harmful
than disbelieving in the Prophet (peace be upon him). I think this notion explains their
judging others to be disbelievers, which results in deeming killing Sunnis in Iraq and
everywhere to be lawful. Moreover, in this context we can understand also the inevitability of
holding sway over Iraq for the Shiite sanctuaries there that is dominated by those whom they
judge to be disbelievers.
Fifth: Their direct threat is not limited to Iraq only.
Rather, their ambitions extends to all the countries of the region. They consider Bahrain to be
a part of Iran, which is explicitly stated by Ali Akbar Natiq Nouri, the head of the
investigation section, in the Revolution leader's office while celebrating the Iranian
Revolution thirtieth anniversary. He said, "Bahrain was in the past the 14th governorate of
Iran and was represented by an MP in the Iranian National Consultative Assembly." Besides,
it is well-known that Iran occupies three important UAE islands in the Arabian Gulf.
Moreover,they are growing so largely in number in the UEA that they now constitute 15% of
the whole population. In addition, they control trade centers especially in Dubai.
The situation in KSA is also not stable. Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, turmoil took
place frequently in KSA. It even took place immediately after the Iranian Revolution. At that
time, Shiite demonstrations were organized in Al-Qatif and Saihat, the severest of which took
place on November 19, 1979. The situation got worse to the extent that they demonstrated in
and tried to destroy Allah's Sacred House, which happened during Hajj seasons in 1987 and
1989. Furthermore, 450 Shiite personalities submitted a request to the crown prince at that
time Prince Abdullah to assume supreme positions in the Cabinet, diplomatic corps, military
and security systems and to raise their representation ratio in the Shoura Council.
In the same regard, Ali Shamkhani, the top military counselor of the Supreme Guide of the
Iranian Revolution, stated that in case USA strikes Iran's nuclear institutions, Iran will not
strike only US interests in the Gulf, but will also use ballistic missiles to hit strategic targets
in the Gulf as well as oil pumps and energy stations in the Arabian Gulf.
This statement was published by the British Times on Sunday June 10, 2007.
Is this everything?
No, there are much more things of which we gave no mention.
In this article, we have so far discussed only five points highlighting the danger and
importance of the issue of Shia. However, there remains other very important five points
which I prefer not to discuss them here in brief so that I may give them their due detail.
Therefore, I will put them off - if Allah wills - till the next article, after which I will speak
about the ideal way to deal with such serious circumstances.
Undoubtedly, the issue of Shiàh is not that marginal issue within the story of Islam that is to
be neglected or postponed. Rather, it is one of the priorities of the Muslim Ummah. Everyone
could perceive that Palestine's liberation by Salahud-Din followed only from saving Egypt
from the Àbidy Shiite reign. At that time, Salahud-Din did not suppose that war against
crusaders should be given priority over discussing the Shiite rule in Egypt. This is because
Muslims gain victory only when they have a sound creed and sincere soldiers. Actually,
Salahud-Din would never use the Egyptian people to fight with him such a fatal battle unless
he relieved them of the Àbidy innovative rule. The same should apply to the Iraqi case now,
as well as all countries threatened by Shiites. In fact, we have to take lessons from history.
We ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.
Dr. Ragheb ElSergany

The status of the imams of the Ithna 'Ashari Shi'ah
Views Count: 480
00
Q: What is the position on the 12 Imams of the Shia, especiallt the later ones?
A: Praise be to Allaah.
Firstly:
The Raafidis, Imamis or Ithna 'Asharis ("Twelvers") are one of the branches of Shi'ism. They
are called Raafidis because they rejected (rafada) most of the Sahaabah and they rejected the
leadership of the two Shaykhs Abu Bakr and 'Umar, or because they rejected the imamate of
Zayd ibn 'Ali, and deserted him. They called Imamis because they are primarily focused on
the issue of imamate, and they made it a basic principle of their religion, or because they
claim that the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) stated that 'Ali and his
descendents would be imams. They are called Ithna 'Asharis ("Twelvers") because they
believe in the imamate of twelve men from the Prophet's family (ahl al-bayt), the first of
whom was 'Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and the last of whom was Muhammad ibn
al-Hasan al-'Askari, the supposed hidden imam, who they say entered the tunnel of Samarra'
in the middle of the third century AH and he is still alive therein, and they are waiting for him
to come out!
They hold beliefs and principles which are contrary to those of the people of Islam, such as
the following:
1- They exaggerate about their imams, claiming that they are infallible, and they devote many
acts of worship to them such as supplication, seeking help, offering sacrifices and tawaaf
(circumambulating their tombs). This is major shirk which Allaah tells us will not be
forgiven. These acts of shirk are committed by their scholars and common folk alike, without
anyone among them objecting to that.
-2- They say that the Holy Qur'aan has been distorted, and that things have been added and
taken away. They have books concerning that which are known to their scholars and many of
their common folk, and they even say that believing that the Qur'aan has been distorted is an
essential tenet of their beliefs. See the answer to question no. 21500.
-3- They regard most of the Sahaabah (may Allaah be pleased with them) as kaafirs, and
disavow them, and they seek to draw closer to Allaah by cursing and reviling them. They
claim that they apostatized after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) except very few (only seven). This is a rejection of the Qur'aan which affirms their
virtue, and says that Allaah was pleased with them and chose them to accompany His Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It also implies a slur against the Qur'aan itself,
because it was transmitted via them; if they were kuffaar then there is no guarantee that they
did not distort it or change it. This is what the Raafidis believe anyway, as stated above.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: "As for the one who
goes further and claims that they apostatized after the Messenger of Allaah (peace and
blessings of Allaah be upon him) died, apart from a small number, no more than ten or so, or
that they became evildoers, there is no doubt that he is a kaafir, because he is rejecting what it
says in the Qur'aan in more than one place, that Allaah was pleased with them and praised
them. Indeed, the one who doubts that such a person is a kaafir is to be labelled as a kaafir
himself, because what this view implies is that those who transmitted the Qur'aan and Sunnah
were kuffaar or rebellious evildoers. The verse says "You (true believers in Islamic
Monotheism, and real followers of Prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him- and his Sunnah)
are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind" [Aal 'Imraan 3:110], {
}, Transliteration: Kuntum Khayra 'Ummatin 'Ukhrijat Lilnnsi, and the best of them
were the first generation. But according to this view, most of them were kaafirs and rebellious
evildoers, and this ummah is the worst of nations and the earliest generations of this ummah
were the most evil of them. The fact that this is kufr is something that no Muslim has any
excuse for not knowing". End quote from al-Saarim al-Maslool 'ala Shaatim al-Rasool (p.
590).
-4- They attribute badaa' to Allaah, i.e., forming a new opinion that was not held before. This
implies attribution of ignorance to Allaah, may He be exalted.
-5- They believe in taqiyah (dissimulation) which means showing outwardly something other
than what one feels inside. In fact this is lying and hypocrisy and skill in deceiving people.
This is not something that they do at times of fear; rather they regard use of taqiyah as a
religious duty for minor and major matters, at times of fear and times of safety. Whatever of
truth was narrated from one of their imams, such as praise for the companions of the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or agreeing with Ahl al-Sunnah, even in matters
of purification or food and drink, is rejected by the Shi'ah who say that the Imam only said
that by way of taqiyah.
-6- Belief in raja'ah, which is the belief that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be
upon him) and the members of his household (ahl al-bayt), 'Ali, al-Hasan, al-Husayn and the
other imams will return. At the same time, Abu Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthmaan, Mu'aawiyah, Yazeed,
Ibn Dhi'l-Jooshan and everyone who harmed Ahl al-bayt - according to their claims - will
also return.
All of these people will return - according to their beliefs - to this world once more before the
Day of Resurrection, when the Mahdi reappears, as the enemy of Allaah Ibn Saba' told them;
they will return in order to be punished because they harmed Ahl al-Bayt and transgressed
against them and denied them their rights, so they will be severely punished, then they will all
die, then they will be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection for the final recompense. This is
what they believe.
And there are other corrupt beliefs which one can find more details about in the following
books, which explain how false they are:
- al-Khutoot al-'Areedah by Muhibb al-Deen al-Khateeb (available in English, translated by

Abu Bilal Mustafa al-Kanadi)
- Usool Madhhab al-Shi'ah al-Imamiyyah by Dr. Naasir al-Qafaari
- Firaq Mu'aasirah tantasib ila al-Islam by Dr. Ghaalib ibn 'Ali 'Awaaji (1/127-269)
- Al-Mawsoo'ah al-Muyassarah fi'l-Adyaan wa'l-Madhaahib wa'l-Ahzaab al-Mu'aasirah

(1/51-57).
See also the answer to question no. 1148 and 10272.
The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked: Is the Imam Shi'ah
way part of Islam? Who made it up? Because they, i.e., the Shi'ah, attribute their madhhab to
Sayyiduna 'Ali (may Allaah ennoble his face).
Answer: "The Imami Shi'ah madhhab is a fabricated madhhab that has been introduced into
Islam. We advise you to read the book al-Khutoot al-'Areedah and Mukhtasar al-Tuhfah al-
Ithna 'Ashariyyah and Minhaaj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyah], which will
explain a lot of their innovations. Abd al-'Azeez ibn 'Abd-Allaah ibn Baaz, 'Abd al-Razzaaq
'Afeefi, 'Abd-Allaah ibn Ghadyaan. End quote.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah (2/377).
Secondly:
From the above it is clear that this madhahb is false and that it goes against the beliefs of Ahl
al-Sunnah wa'l-Jamaa'ah, and that its beliefs will not be acceptable from anyone, either from
their scholars or their common folk.
As for the imams to whom they claim to belong, they are innocent of this lie and falsehood.
There follow the names of these imams:
1- 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allaah be pleased with him) who was martyred in 40 AH.
2- Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) (3-50 AH)
3- Al-Husayn ibn 'Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) (4-61 AH)
4- 'Ali Zayn al-'Aabideen ibn al-Husayn (38-95 AH), whom they call al-Sajjaad
5- Muhammad ibn 'Ali Zayn al-'Aabideen (57-114 AH) whom they call al-Baaqir
6- Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Baaqir (83-148 AH) whom they call al-Saadiq
7- Moosa ibn Ja'far al-Saadiq (128-148 AH) whom they call al-Kaadim
8- 'Ali ibn Moosa al-Kaadim (148-203 AH) whom they call al-Rida (Reza)
9- Muhammad al-Jawaad ibn 'Ali al-Rida' (195-220 AH) whom they call al-Taqiy
10- 'Ali al-Haadi ibn Muhammad al-Jawaad (212-254 AH) whom they call al-Naqiy
11- al-Hasan al-'Askari ibn 'Ali al-Haadi (232-260) whom they call al-Zakiy
12- Muhammad al-Mahdi ibn al-Hasan al-'Askari, whom they call al-Hujjah al-Qaa'im al-
Muntazar. They claim that he entered a tunnel in Samarra', but most researchers are of the
view that he did not exist at all, and that he is a Shi'i myth.See: al-Mawsoo'ah al-Muyassarah
(1/51).Ibn Katheer said in al-Bidaayah wa'l-Nihaayah (1/177): "As for what they believe
about the tunnel of Samarra', that is a myth which has no basis in reality and no proof or
sound reports". End quote.
Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) divided the Imams of the Ithna 'Ashari Shi'ah
into four categories:
1 - 'Ali ibn Abi Taalib, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with them). They are
noble Sahaabah and no one doubts their virtue and leadership, but many others shared with
them the virtue of being companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon
him) and among the Sahaabah there are others who were more virtuous than them, based on
saheeh evidence from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).
2 - 'Ali ibn al-Husayn, Muhammad ibn 'Ali al-Baaqir, Ja'far ibn Muhammad al-Saadiq and
Moosa ibn Ja'far. They are among the trustworthy and reliable scholars. Manhaaj al-Sunnah
(2/243, 244).
3 - 'Ali ibn Moosa al-Rida, Muhammad ibn 'Ali ibn Moosa al-Jawaad, 'Ali ibn Muhammad
ibn 'Ali al-'Askari, and al-Hasan ibn 'Ali ibn Muhammad al-'Askari. Concerning them,
Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyah) said: "They did not show a great deal of knowledge such
that the ummah might benefit from them, nor did they have any authority by means of which
they could help the ummah. Rather they were like any other Haashimis, they occupy a
respected position, and they have sufficient knowledge of what which is needed by them and
expected of people like them; it is a type is knowledge that is widely available to ordinary
Muslims. But the type of knowledge that is exclusive to the scholars was not present in their
case. Therefore seeks of knowledge did not receive from them what they received from the
other three. Had they had that which was useful to seekers of knowledge, they would have
sought it from them, as seekers of knowledge are well aware of where to go for knowledge".
Minhaaj al-Sunnah (6/387).
4 - Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-'Askari al-Muntazar (the awaited one). He did not exist at all,
as stated above.
And Allaah knows best.
Shiites, Shiism, and Islam (part 1 of 2)
Views Count: 1,061
00
Description: A glimpse of how Shiites and Shiism differ from Islam, with a few
demonstrative examples in matters of creed. Part One: Belief in God.
By IslamReligion.com
One of the most perplexing scenarios to non-Muslims and new Muslims alike is the division
they may see between Shiites and Sunni Muslims. Some tend to become confused when they
see that each group claims to be following the true Islam. To truly understand this subject to
the fullest, one must delve into the early history of Islam and see under what circumstances
this division actually began, a study far from possible for most people. Another way, much
more in the scope of the average person, is to analyze which group is true to the teachings of
Islam, a simple comparison may be done between Sunni and Shiite beliefs and practices in
relation to textual evidence, the Quran - the revealed word of God, and the Sunnah - or
teachings of Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him.
Many times, people see this division to be a major one, while the fact remains that Shiites
only make up a mere 8 percent of the Muslim population, reaching even this figure after
taking hold of certain important political regions in history. Not a division, one can
confidently say that the Shiites are but one of the various splinter groups which left the pure
teachings of traditional Islam. Sunnis, on the other hand, are not a splinter group, but merely
name themselves as such to differentiate themselves from the Shiites and other deviant sects.
The word "Sunni" itself comes from the term "Sunnah", explained earlier to be the teachings
of Prophet Muhammad, for they are strict in abiding by these teachings without any
introductions, interpolations, or omissions. The word Shiite (Shi'a in Arabic) means a "party",
"sect", "supporters" or a "group of like minded individuals". God says in the Quran
addressing His Prophet, Muhammad:
"Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (Shi'a), you have no concern
in them in the least. Their affair is only with Allah, Who then will tell them what they used to
do." [Quran 6:159], {
} , Transliteration: 'Inna Al-Ladhna Farraq Dnahum Wa Kn Shiyaàn Lasta
Minhum F Shay'in 'Innam 'Amruhum 'Ilá Allhi Thumma Yunabbi'uhum Bim
Kn Yafàlna
Although the specific groups called the Shiites is not what is directly intended in this verse, it
is inclusive of them.
When one studies a bit of history, they will see that the term Shiite was first used amongst the
Muslims in regards to a political issue over which the Muslims varied, 37 years after the
death of the Prophet. Although the Shiites claim that their origin lies in that scenario, the
actual term Shiite being used to denote this specific sect actually occurred much later in
history. In either case, it is clear that the term was unheard of during the time of the Prophet,
and thus we can say that the Shiites were a group which appeared after the death of the
Prophet.
The Shrine of the Zoroastrian, Abu Lu'lu'ah, in Kashan, Iran, venerated by Shiites
Over the long evolution of Shiite thought, they incorporated many foreign concepts into their
faith. Starting as a political opinion which favored some views of Ali, the cousin of the
Prophet, over some other companions, it became a sect purporting strange ideas foreign to
Islam. This was due mainly to the fact that this ideology was mainly espoused by people in
areas far from the centers of Islamic learning, namely Persia, those who were either new to
Islam, had either converted to Islam nominally, and were living in areas where a large
percentage of people remained upon their previous religions. Thus the Shiites became fertile
soil to the introduction of foreign ideas, which they struggled to incorporate into some
aspects and beliefs maintained by Islam, resulting in a sect composed of ideas stemming from
Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Islam. Not strange is it then that we see that one of the most
important shrines in Shiism visited by many Shiites is that of Abu Lu'lu'ah, a Zoroastrian who
died after the Caliphate of Umar, located in the city of Kashan in present day Iran.
Muhammad Ali Mu'zi, an Iranian Shiite researcher in France, stated:
"The basic fundamentals of the Zoroastrian religion has entered into Shiaism even in some
minute issues. And this relationship marked the brotherhood between Shiaism and the
ancient Magian Iran." [1]
We will now take a brief look at Shiism from just one aspect, that of beliefs. From these few
examples, one will clearly see how different it truly is from the religion of Islam brought by
Prophet Muhammad.
There are various articles of faith in Islam, and from them branch other beliefs which must be
held by all who attribute themselves to Islam. They are as mentioned in the verse:
"but piety is that one has firm belief in God, the Last Day, the angels, the scriptures and the
Prophets" [Quran 2:177], {} ,
Transliteration: Wa Lakinna Al-Birra Man 'mana Billhi Wa Al-Yawmi Al-'khiri Wa Al-
Mal'ikati Wa Al-Kitbi Wa An-Nabyna.
This is also mentioned in a statement of the Prophet, may God praise him: Faith is that you
believe in God, the angels, the scriptures, the Prophets, the Last Day... [Saheeh Muslim].
This short discourse will merely touch on some of these various aspects of faith, and mention
just some of the beliefs of the Shiites and how they differ from Islam.
Belief in God:
The proper belief about God, or creed is the most important aspect of the religion of Islam.
During the first 13 years of Muhammad's Prophethood, he corrected people's beliefs about
God, warning them against calling to others besides God, whether angels, prophets, saints,
martyrs, trees, stones, stars, or idols. He clarified that only God alone, the One who created
them was to be worshipped. Very few legislations and acts of worship were revealed for this
period. The majority of the Quran itself calls to this belief. God says in the Quran that calling
to others besides Him is a sin worthy of eternal damnation in Hellfire:
"Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise
for him, and the Fire will be his abode." [Quran 5:72], {
}, Transliteration: 'Innahu Man Yushrik Billhi Faqad arrama Allhu Àlayhi Al-Jannata.
This is an uncompromising belief in Islam, and is the basis from which one enters the fold of
Islam. We find, however, that Shiites believe in the veneration of others besides God.
Homage is to be paid to great saints and martyrs, such as Ali, Hussein, Fatimah, their Imams,
and they are directly called out to in times of need. They believe that they can answer their
calls as well as intervene for them with God, a belief that according to Islam is clear
disbelief[2]. God says:
"Is not He (God) Who responds to the distressed one, when he calls Him, and Who removes
} , Transliteration: 'Amman Yujbu
the evil." [Quran 27:62], {
Al-Muarra 'Idh Da`hu Wa Yakshifu As-S'a.
Another important tenet which Shiism clearly violates is the concept that God Alone
administers the affairs of the universe, and it is He alone who knows the Unseen. Shiism
attributes these powers to their leaders, called Imams, and place them in a position higher
than the Prophets and angels. God says:
"Say: 'None in the heavens and the earth knows the unseen except Allah, nor can they
perceive when they shall be resurrected." [Quran 27:65], {

} , Transliteration: Qul L Ya`lamu Man F As-Samwti Wa
Al-'Ari Al-Ghayba 'Ill Allhu Wa M Yashùrna 'Ayyna Yubàthna.
"And among His Signs is that He shows you the lightning, by way of fear and hope, and He
sends down water (rain) from the sky, and therewith revives the earth after its death. Verily, in
that are indeed signs for a people who understand." [Quran 30:24], {
} , Transliteration: Wa

Min 'ytihi Yurkumu Al-Barqa Khawfan Wa amaàn Wa Yunazzilu Mina As-Sam'i
M'an Fayuy Bihi Al-'Ara Ba`da Mawtih 'Inna F Dhlika La'ytin Liqawmin Ya`qilna.
The Shiites give many of these attributes to their Imams. Some of them even attribute
lightning to be caused by them [3].
In authoritative Shiite texts, its states:
"The Imams have knowledge of whatever occurred in the past and whatever will happen in
the future, and nothing is concealed from them." (Al-Kulaini, Al-Kaafi, p.260).
"The Imams have knowledge of all the revealed books, regardless of the languages in which
they were revealed" (Ibid, p.227).
"The Imams know when they will die, and they do not die except by their own choice" (Ibid,
p.258).
"All of the earth belongs to the Imams." (Ibid, p.407).
There are many aspects of faith in Shiism that oppose Islam and which render a person out of
its fold. Due to this reason, Muslims do not consider Shiism to represent Islam, but rather
believe it to contradict the very basics of Islamic teachings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] The Role of Zoroastrianism in the Development of Shiaism.
[2] Biha'r Al-Anwa'r, Al-Majlisi. An example of such preposterous beliefs can be found in the
following statements of one of their Imams, or leaders:
"When prophet Noah (Peace be upon him) was about to drown in the flooding waters, he
invoked God Almighty by our (i.e. the names of the Imams) names. Hence God Almighty
came to his rescue. When Prophet Abraham (Peace be upon him) was thrown into the
scorching fire, he prayed to God through our names, and God Almighty ordered the fire to be
cool and a means of safety for him [Abraham]. When prophet Moses (Peace be upon him)
struck the Sea with his rod in quest of a path, he invoked God with respect to our names and
God made the sea dry out. Finally when the Jews plotted to kill Jesus (Peace be upon him), he
supplicated to God by mentioning our names and was rescued from death. God eventually
raised him up." (Wasa'il As-Sheea, 4/1143)
[3] Bihaar al-Anwar, Al-Burhan, and others.
Islamreligion website
Shiites, Shiism, and Islam (part 2 of 2)
Views Count: 680
00
Description: A glimpse of how Shiites and Shiism differ from Islam, with a few
demonstrative examples in matters of creed. Part Two: The Testimony or Declaration of
Faith, the previous Scriptures, the Quran, and the Prophets. A religion based upon the
succession of Imams.
By IslamReligion.com
The Shahaadah
The Shism even differ with Islam in the first and most important pillar of Islam and faith,
called the Shahaadah, the testimony one gives upon affirming their faith in Islam, that none
deserves worship but God, and that Muhammad is His slave and messenger (laa ilaaha ill-
Allah). This testimony is the most important aspect of Islam, and the whole religion is built
upon it, and embodies this unique and total monotheism and belief in God. So important is it
that the Prophet pleaded to his uncle who was on his deathbed to testify:
O uncle! Say 'laa ilaaha ill-Allah,' a phrase for which I will plead on your behalf in front of
God [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
His uncle did not say this testimony due to his fear of what people would say about changing
the religion of his forefathers upon death. He died, and the Prophet was informed by
revelation that he was among the people of Hell.
Point being, this phrase and what it entails is so important that the Prophet made it a means of
everlasting life in Paradise. He said:
No one says 'La ilaaha ill-Allah' and dies firmly upon it, but he/she will enter Heaven
(Paradise) [Saheeh Al-Bukhari].
Thus is this phrase considered the first pillar of Islam, the very statement that rendered one a
believer, gives him an opportunity to enter Paradise!
The Shiites, however, have a different 'testimony of faith'. They not only negate it meanings,
as shown in the previous articles by associating others with God, but they have also added
certain principles nowhere to be found in authentic texts. Their shahaadah comprises of the
statement: "none deserves worship but God, and that Muhammad is His slave and messenger,
and Ali is His beloved and chosen one, and successor to the Prophet" [1].
This is due to the extremism they have in regards to the cousin of Prophet Muhammad, Ali, to
whom they claim their origin. The Shiites even claim that the succession of Ali was
mentioned in all of the scriptures revealed to the previous prophets [2]. They claim that all
will be asked about the succession of Ali on the Day of Judgment [3], and that if anyone
believes differently, they are considered polytheists [4]. Although Ali was known to be one of
the most pious of the companions of the Prophet, in no narration can we find that Prophet
Muhammad ever mentioned his succession in rule. Actually even when we look at early
Shiite works, they themselves attribute this belief to Abdullah ibn Saba', a renegade who
claimed Islam and plotted against the Caliph Uthman, and also claimed that Ali was God
Himself [5]. Thus it is clear that these beliefs are all innovations never preached by Prophet
Muhammad, may the mercy and blessings of God be upon him.
Belief in the Scriptures:

God mentions in the Quran that He revealed Scriptures to the Prophets which they taught and
recited to their people. Some of these Prophets and Scriptures are mentioned in the Quran:
Say, "We believe in Allah and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been
sent down to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and to the tribes, and that which has been given
to Moses and Jesus, and that which has been given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make
no distinction between any of them, and to Him we have submitted (in Islam)." [Quran
2:136], {

} , Transliteration: Ql 'mann
Billhi Wa M 'Unzila 'Ilayn Wa M 'Unzila 'Ilá 'Ibrhma Wa 'Ism`la Wa 'Isqa
Wa Ya`qba Wa Al-'Asbi Wa M 'tiya Msá Wa `sá Wa M 'tiya An-
Nabyna Min Rabbihim L Nufarriqu Bayna 'Aadin Minhum Wa Nanu Lahu Muslimna.
"It is He (God) Who has sent down the Book to you with truth, confirming what came before
it. And He sent down the Torah and the Gospel." [Quran 3:3], {

} , Transliteration: Nazzala Àlayka Al-Kitba Bil-aqqi Muaddiqan
Lim Bayna Yadayhi Wa 'Anzala At-Tawrata Wa Al-'Injla.
It was the Prophets who received revelation, and due to the fact that Muhammad, may God
praise him, was the last prophet, there will be no other Scriptures revealed after the revelation
of the Quran. The Shiites however, believe that there was a scripture revealed after the Quran
before the death of the Prophet, which they call the 'Tablet of Fatimah'. They claim, that in it
were the names of all those who were to be their Imams in the future[6].
They invented these ideas due to the fact that they could not find any verses in the Quran
which they could use to defend their views. They did not cease at this, but also went on to
directly challenge the authenticity of the Quran by stating that its has not been preserved[7],
and that the Quran today is incomplete, and that the complete version is with their 12th Imam
who has been in hiding for the past 900 years in 'the cave'. They believe that when he
emerges he will bring forth the complete version[8]. This, as should be clear to all, is in direct
opposition to the teachings of Islam, as God clearly states that the Quran is under the direct
protection of God:
"The Chapter of Succession". On both sides is a translation in Persian.
"Verily it is We Who have sent down the Reminder and surely, We will guard it (from
corruption)" [Quran 15:9], {} , Transliteration: 'Inn Nanu
Nazzaln Adh-Dhikra Wa 'Inn Lahu Lafina.
The Shiites assert that the existing Quran must have been altered, since there is no reference
to any of their strayed beliefs in it. One of the first to explicitly state this view was Mirza
Hussein Muhammad Taqiy al-Noori al-Tabrasi (d. 1320 AH) in his book The Final Verdict on
the Distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords[9].
The Shiites became so extreme in their beliefs, that they even attempted to insert chapters
about Ali, may God be pleased with him, in the Quran, since they could not find any clear
texts. One of them is what they called "The Chapter of Succession".
Belief in the Prophets:

As mentioned earlier, Islam teaches that the Prophets were the best of humanity, specifically
chosen by God due to their excellent qualities specifically to preach the message of God to
humanity. God says in the Quran:
"Allah specially chooses Messengers from angels and from humans. Verily, Allah is All-

Hearer, All-Seer." [Quran 22:75], { } ,
Transliteration: Allhu Yaaf Mina Al-Mal'ikati Rusulan Wa Mina An-Nsi 'Inna Allha
Samùn Barun.
The Prophets were the best of humans, living examples to be emulated:
"We sent no messenger except to be obeyed, by Allah's leave" [Quran 4:64], {

} , Transliteration: Wa M 'Arsaln Min Raslin 'Ill Liyuà Bi'idhni
Allhi.
The Shiites, however believe that their Imams are better than the prophets [10], and that some
prophets were highly praised only due to their love of the Imams [11].
If one was to mention all the beliefs of the Shiites in which they have opposed the teachings
of Islam, it would definitely need many volumes to do so. It should be clear, however, from
this short discourse that the beliefs purported by Shiism has no basis in any of the teachings
of Islam, but rather that it is a conglomeration of foreign beliefs evolved over a period of
time, all of which revolve around extremist views concerning the leadership of certain
favored candidates, known as their Imams. A religion which teaches the worship of God
alone and living a life taught by God's prophets, a message preached by all prophets, has for
them become a life and existence solely based upon love of Ali and affirming his and their
Imam's claim to leadership, struggling to find ways to fit into Islamic texts by addition,
interpolation, or misrepresentation. Creation comes into being, Prophets are sent and
Scriptures are revealed, all for the purpose of succession of Ali and the latter Imams [12], and
even on the Day of Judgment, it will be their Imams, not God, who will judge people [13]. It
is no matter to wonder, then, what the basis of entering Heaven or Hell will be according to
Shiism.
A religion based upon a claimed love of the family of Prophet Muhammad, may the mercy
and blessings of God be upon him, has lead them to beliefs contradicting the very essence of
the message brought by him, the message of Islam.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
[1] Abdul Kareem Mushtaq.
[2] Al-Kulaini, Al-Kaafi, 1/437.
[3] The Wilayat of 'Ali ibne Abi Talib (as), Answering Ansar.
[4] "Whoever sets up another Imam besides 'Ali and delays 'Ali's caliphate is a polytheist."
(Al-Kafi fil-Usool, vol.10 p.55)
[5] Rijaal al-Kishhi.
[6] Al-Kulaini, Al-Kaafi, 1/527-8, and many others.
[7] Usul Kafi 1:228
[8] Al-Anwar al-Nu'maniah, 2: 360-2.
[9] Faslul Khitab Fi Tahreefi-Kitabi Rabbil Arbaab.
[10] Wasa'il As-Sheea.
[11] Bihaar al-Anwar (26:267).

[12] I'tiqaadaat (106-7)
[13] Rijaal al-Kishhi (337)

Distortion of the Qur'aan by the Raafidis
Views Count: 524
00
Q: I have also heard by a shia collegue that their is a surat in their book which is not in the
QURAN. can u confirm this? the surat in qs is called SURAT AL-WILAYAT.
With regard to Soorat al-Wilaayah, some of the Shi'ah scholars and imams have stated that it
exists. Any of them who denies that does so by way of taqiyah (dissimulation). One of those
who clearly stated that it exists is Mirza Hussein Muhammad Taqiy al-Noori al-Tubrusi (d.
1320 AH). He wrote a book in which he claimed that the Qur'aan had been distorted and that
the Sahaabah has concealed some parts of it, including Soorat al-Wilaayah. The Raafidis
honoured him after his death by burying him in al-Najaf. This book by al-Tubrusi was
published in Iran in 1298 AH, and when it was published there was a great deal of
controversy because they wanted the doubts about the validity of the Qur'aan, which were
known only to their leaders, to remain scattered throughout hundreds of their major books,
and they did not want that to be compiled in one book. At the beginning of his book he said:
"This is a good and noble book entitled Fasl al-khitaab fi ithbaat tahreef Kitaab Rabb il-
Arbaab (Decisive comment on the distortion of the Book of the Lord of Lords) He
mentioned aayahs and soorahs which he claims that the Sahaabah concealed, including
'Soorat al-Wilaayah,'" the text of which, according to them, and as quoted in this book, is:
"O you who believe, believe in the Prophet and the Wali [i.e., 'Ali] whom We have sent to
guide you to the straight path, a Prophet and a Wali who are part of one another, and I am the
All-Knowing, All-Aware"
And they have another soorah which they call Soorat al-Noorayn: "O you who believe,
believe in the two lights (al-noorayn) which We have sent down to you to recite to you My
Verses and to warn you of the punishment of a great Day. They are part of one another and I
am the All-Hearing, All-Knowing. Those who fulfil the covenant with Allaah and His
Messenger mentioned in the verses (of the Qur'aan), the Gardens of delight will be theirs, but
those who disbelieve after they believed by breaking their covenant and disobeying the
command of the Prophet, they will be thrown into Hell. They have wronged themselves and
gone against the wasiyyah of the Prophet (i.e., the appointment of 'Ali as khaleefah), and they
will be given to drink of boiling water" and other such nonsense.
You can see the entire soorah, along with a telegraphic picture of the Persian mus-haf at the
following site:
http://arabic.islamicweb.com/shia/nurain.htm
Prof. Muhammad 'Ali Sa'oodi - who was one of the greatest experts of the Ministry of Justice
in Egypt - examined an Iranian mus-haf kept by the Orientalist Bryan and he obtained a copy
of this soorah; above the lines of Arabic script there is written the translation in the Iranian
language.
As it was mentioned by al-Tubrusi in his book, Fasl al-khitaab fi ithbaat tahreef Kitaab Rabb
il-Arbaab, it is also mentioned in their book Dabastan Madhaahib, which is in Farsi, written
by Muhsin Faani al-Kashmiri. This book has been printed numerous times in Iran, and this
false soorah was quoted from it by the Orientalist Noeldeke in his book The History of
Qur'anic Manuscripts, 2/120, and was published by the French Asian newspaper in 1842 (p.
431-439).
It was also mentioned by Mirza Habibullaah al-Haashimi al-Kho'i in his book Manhaaj al-
Baraa'ah fi Sharh Nahj al-Balaaghah (2/217); and by Muhammad Baaqir al-Majlisi in his
book Tadhkirat al-A'immah (p. 19, 20) in Farsi, (published by) Manshoorat Mawlana, Iran.
See also (al-Khutoot al-'Areedah li'l-Asas allati qaama 'alayha deen al-Shi'ah by Muhibb al-
Deen al-Khateeb).
This claim of theirs is a denial of the words of Allaah (interpretation of the meaning):
"Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'aan) and surely, We will
guard it (from corruption)" [al-Hijr 15:9].
{} , Transliteration: 'Inn Nanu Nazzaln Adh-Dhikra Wa 'Inn
Lahu Lafina
Hence the Muslims are unanimously agreed that anyone who claims that anything in the
Qur'aan has been altered or changed is a kaafir.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:

"The same applies to those among them who claim that some verses of the Qur'aan have been
taken away or concealed, or who claim to have some esoteric interpretations that exempt him
from having to do the actions prescribed in sharee'ah etc., who are called al-Qaraamitah and
al-Baatiniyyah, and who include al-Tanaasukhiyyah [names of esoteric sects]. There is no
dispute that they are kaafirs". (Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/1108-1110).
Ibn Hazm said:
"The view that the Qur'aan has been altered is blatant kufr and is a rejection of what the
Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said". (Al-Fasl fi'l-Ahwa'
wa'-Milal wa'l-Nihal, 4/139).
And Allaah knows best.
Information about the Shi'ah
Views Count: 444
10
Q: We are in urgent need of information about the differences between the Sunnis and Shi'is.
We hope that you can explain something about their beliefs?.
The Shi'ah have many sects. Some of them are kaafirs who worship 'Ali and call upon him,
and they worship Faatimah, al-Husayn and others. Some of them say that Jibreel (peace be
upon him) betrayed the trust and the Prophethood belonged to 'Ali, not to Muhammad. There
are also others among them, such as the Imamiyyah - the Raafidi Ithna 'Ashari - who worship
'Ali and say that their imams are better than the angels and Prophets.
There are many groups among them; some are kaafirs and some are not kaafirs. The mildest
among them are those who say that 'Ali was better than the three (Abu Bakr, 'Umar and
'Uthmaan). The one who says this is not a kaafir but he is mistaken, because 'Ali was the
fourth, and Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq, 'Umar and 'Uthmaan were better than him. If a person
prefers him over them then he is erring and is going against the consensus of the Sahaabah,
but he is not a kaafir.
The Shi'ah are of different levels and types. The one who wants to know more about that may
refer to the books of the scholars, such as al-Khutoot al-'Areedah by Muhibb al-Deen al-
Khateeb [available in English under the same title, translated by Abu Ameenah Bilaal
Philips], Manhaaj al-Sunnah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, and other books that have
been written on this topic, such as al-Shi'ah wa'l-Sunnah by Ihsaan Ilaahi Zaheer [also
available in English translation] and many other books which explain their errors and evils -
we ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound.
Among the most evil of them are the Imamis, Ithna 'Asharis and Nusayris, who are called al-
Raafidah because they rejected (rafadu) Zayd ibn 'Ali when he refused to disavow the two
Shaykhs Abu Bakr and 'Umar, so they went against him and rejected him.
Not everyone who claims to be a Muslim can be accepted as such. If a person claims to be a
Muslim, his claim should be examined. The one who worships Allaah alone and believes in
His Messenger, and follows that which he brought, is a real Muslim. If a person claims to be
a Muslim but he worships Faatimah or al-Badawi or al-'Aydaroos or anyone else, then he is
not a Muslim.
We ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound. Similarly, anyone who reviles the faith, or does not
pray, even if he says that he is a Muslim, is not a Muslim. The same applies to anyone who
mocks the faith or mocks the prayer or zakaah or fasting or Muhammad (peace and blessings
of Allaah be upon him), or who disbelieves in him, or says that he was ignorant or that he did
not convey the message in full or convey the message clearly. All such people are kaafirs. We
ask Allaah to keep us safe and sound.
Majmoo' Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz (28/257).

Ashura and the doom of a Pharaoh
No doubt, the day when a tyranny dies is remarkable!!
Views Count: 1,292
00
No doubt, the day when a tyranny dies is remarkable!!
Even if oppressed subjects are non-Muslims, we hate and

condemn oppression and rejoice to see its end. Indisputably,
oppression is by no means acceptable. In this regard, Allah said in
a Qudsi (sacred) Hadith reported by Muslim on the authority of
Abu Dharr who reported Allah's Messenger to have reported that
Allah says, "O My servants, I have made oppression unlawful for
Me and unlawful for you, so do not commit oppression against one
another." [Reported by Muslim]
After the Hijrah (emigration to Madinah), Ibn 'Abbas reported, as

related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim, that the Prophet (peace be
upon him) found the Jews fasting on the tenth of Muharram. The
Prophet (peace be upon him) inquired of them, "What is the
significance of this day on which you fast?" They replied, "This is a
good day, the day on which Allah rescued the children of Israel
from their enemy. So, Musa (Moses) fasted this day." The Prophet
(peace be upon him) said, "We have more claim over Musa than
you." And the Prophet (peace be upon him) fasted on that day
and ordered Muslims to fast on that day.
:
: .
. : .
Fasting on the Day of 'Ashura' was prescribed before the fast of

Ramadan. When the latter was prescribed, the Prophet (peace be
upon him) made fasting on the Day of 'Ashura' supererogatory.
However, aiming at giving Muslims stronger motivation to fast on
that day, the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, as related by
Muslim on the authority of Abu Qatadah, "Fasting on the Day of
'Ashura' will blot out all the sins of the preceding year."
A question has to arise here; why this day is so significantly

celebrated? In fact, the reason is clear as the Prophet (peace be
upon him) obviously did not want such a memory to pass without
enough contemplation and reflection. He perhaps wanted us to
carefully examine this greatly inspirable event even once a year.
Actually, the Children of Israel lived for so long feeling that victory
is very far-reached and that there is hardly any hope for a change.
They further felt that Pharaoh's tyranny will continue forever and
that their persecutors will remain to enjoy their authorities
regardless of whatever efforts exerted be the persecuted children
of Israel.
So what happened?
Actually, we know in detail what happened but we just forget!
We came to know that Pharaoh, who led his army trying to break
into the sea after eye-witnessing the miracle of dividing the sea
waters, was drowned along with his soldiers and retinue at a
moment. No doubt, we know about this event indicating that Allah
is Omnipotent and of infinite power and that tyrants have to come
to an end no matter how long they continued in power and
tyranny. In this regard, it is very interesting to read the Prophet's
words, as related by Al-Bukhari on the authority of Abu Musa Al-
Ash'ari (may Allah be pleased with him), "Indeed Allah prolongs
the life of an oppressor so that when he is taken, nothing can
release him. He then recited: Such is the Seizure of your Lord
when He seizes the (population of) towns while they are doing
wrong. Verily, His Seizure is painful, and severe. [Hud 10:102]"

} : : .
{

Indeed, this is the lesson Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him)

wanted us to learn. We should never lose heart, for Allah the
Almighty is capable of saving Muslims from whatever calamity
they suffer. Allah (may He be Glorified and Exalted) said, { and
the (blessed) end is for the Muttaqun (pious).} [Al-A'raf 7:128]
{...

} 128 :
Transliteration: waalAAaqibatu lilmuttaqeena
Moreover, the Divine law of destroying oppressors is not applied

to a unique event that took place only during the lifetime of Musa
(peace be upon him) through the destruction of Pharaoh; rather, it
is frequently applied along the world history. To this effect, Allah
(may He be Glorified and Exalted) said, {How many a town
(community), that were wrongdoers, have We destroyed, and
raised up after them another people!} [Al-Anbia' 21:11]

{

} 11 :

Transliteration: Wakam qasamna min qaryatin kanatthalimatan

waanshana baAAdahaqawman akhareena
The account given in the Qur'an for Pharaoh does not merely
represent a historical narration of a past figure. Rather, it gives an
accurate embodiment of a recurrent type of oppressive tyrants,
giving a detailed explanation of their biographies, way of thinking,
means of tyranny and how believers face them. However, it
culminates by giving an account of the doomed end of their
tyranny and oppression.
Through his wonderful statement, the Prophet (peace be upon

him) presented the Qur'an as a realistic book pulsating with life.
Thus, when a Muslim browses through the Qur'an and comes to
the occurrences of Pharaoh will understand them in the context of
the Pharaohs of his time. In fact, how many Pharaohs there are
and how many forms they take! They sometimes take the form of
disbelieving pagans, sometimes of the Crusaders, sometimes of
Tatars, sometimes of European colonialists and many times of
Muslims!
Indeed, how many Pharaohs there are!
However, they will sure come to their fatal end, for, certainly,
Allah does not fail in His Promise.
This is the notion Allah's Messenger wanted us to comprehend

and this is the actual reason why we celebrate this day.
Undoubtedly, this is the lesson we are to learn from this event.
Moreover, we should not give mass media or some sects the
opportunity to keep us from understanding this perspective.
Furthermore, we may not allow them to fool us or make us
concern for such objectives and principles as totally different from
those taught to us by our ideal and Prophet (peace be upon him).
Undoubtedly, the Day of 'Ashura' is a good day, during which

tyranny came to an end, faith was granted victory and the infinite
power of the Lord of the Worlds was dominating.
I pray Allah to confer upon us such a vicarious day, in which

honorable believers of this Ummah raise the flags of glory and
dignity. Amen.
Dr. Ragheb ElSergany
islamstory website
With little modification

The Truth of Fighting in Islam
As we have known before, peace is the origin in Islam. The Prophet (PBUH) taught and
guided his companions and said to them: Do not wish to meet the enemy and ask Allah
soundness (by avoiding war)[1].
According to his ethics-based education derived from the Holy Quran and the Prophets
Sunnah, the Muslim hates killing and blood. Therefore, the Muslim does not initiate fighting
with anybody. Rather, he seeks all means to avoid fighting and bloodshed. This is well-
evidenced in several Quranic verses. The permission of fighting was only made after
Muslims faced war staged by the others. At that time, it was imperative to defend self and
religion. If Muslims did not fight in that case, this would have been a form of cowardice and
weak determination. Allah, be exalted He, says: {To those against whom war is made,
permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful
for their aid;- (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of
right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah} [al-Hajj:39-40].
The justification of fighting is clear in the verse: Muslims were wronged and expelled from
their homes for no cause. Allah also says: {Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you,
but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.} [al-Baqarah:190]. Al-
Qurtuby said: This verse is the first verse revealed in the order to fight. It is agreed that
fighting was banned before emigration by the Quranic verse: {Repel (Evil) with what is
better} [Fussilat:34] and the verse: {but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds)} [al-
Maeda:13]. In addition, there are other verses revealed in Mecca. When the Prophet
immigrated to Medina, the permission of fighting was revealed[2].
It is noticed that the order of fighting was meant to fight only who starts fighting, not peace-
lover. This was clearly stressed in the verse: {do not transgress limits} and then warning
believers: {for Allah loveth not transgressors.}. Allah, exalted be He, does not love
transgression even if against non-Muslims. This includes limitation of fighting, which implies
mercy for the humanity. Allah, to Whom be ascribed all perfection and majesty, says: {and
fight the Pagans all together as they fight you all together} [al-Tawbah:36]. Fighting in this
verse is restricted. When they are all united, it is a must for us to be united[3].
The cause of fighting pagans all together is that they fight Muslims all together. Therefore, it
is impermissible for Muslim to fight whoever does not fight him except under clear cause,
including stealing, plunder, usurpation of Muslims rights, or injustice they did to anybody
and Muslims want to end such injustice or because pagans prevent Muslims from
promulgating their religion or informing the other of their faith. Similar to the previous verse,
Allah also says: {Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the
Messenger, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay,
it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!} [al-Tawbah:13].
The people who violated their oaths were Mecca infidels. They caused the Prophet to leave. It
was said: They caused the Prophet to get out of Medina to fight the people of Mecca for
breaching oaths. Al-Hassan said: {being the first} to start fighting and violate covenants.
They helped Bani Bakr against Khuzaah. It was interpreted: they were the first to start
fighting in the Day of Badr because the Prophet got prepared for taking Al-Ir (train of beasts
of burden) and when they protected their Ir, they could have gone, but they insisted on
reaching Badr (a place about 150 km to the south of Al Medina where the first great battle in
Islamic history took place) and drink wine there. It was also interpreted that they prevented
the Prophet from performing Hajj and Umra [lesser pilgrimage] and Tawaf
(circumambulation around the Ka`bah)[4].
Regardless the time of the start, the cause of Muslims is clear: their enemies started fighting.
These are the causes and motives behind Muslims engagement in war. The reality of
Muslims during the eras of the well-directed caliphs evidenced that; in their conquests,
Muslims did not fight or kill all pagans who faced them. Rather, they fought only those who
fought them from among the army of conquered country, leaving other pagans embracing
their own religions. As we see, such causes and motives are denied only by unjust and biased
people. They include replying to aggression, defending self, people, homeland and religion,
as well as securing religion and belief for believers, whom disbelievers try to make abandon
their religion. They also include protecting the Islamic faith until it reaches all people and
finally punishing those who breach covenants[5].
Who could deny such causes and objectives of war? [1] Al-Bukhary, Book of Jihad and
Marching, the chapter of If the Prophet (pbuh) did not fight at the beginning of the day
(2804), Sahih Muslim: Book of Jihad and Marching, the chapter of Dislike of wishing to
meet the enemy and order to be patient at meeting, (1742) [2] See al-Qurtuby: Al-Jamea
liahkam al-Quran [The Collection of the Instructions of Quran], 1/718. [3] - See al-Qurtuby:
Al-Jamea liahkam al-Quran [The Collection of the Instructions of Quran], 4/474 [4] See al-
Qurtuby: Al-Jamea liahkam al-Quran [The Collection of the Instructions of Quran], 4/434.
[5] Anwar al-Gindy: With What Muslims Achieve Victory?, pp57-62.
More : http://islamstory.com/detailes.php?module=artical&slug=War-Islam-Causes-
Objectives
Islam Uniqueness in the Ethics of Wars
Good manners, flexibility, mercy with the weak, and tolerance with neighbors are all
characteristics of any nation at times of peace no matter how savage such a nation may be.
However, good treatment at time of war, flexibility with enemies, mercy with women,
children and the aged, tolerance with the defeated are all characteristics that cannot be done
by each nation and military commander. Seeing blood provokes bloodshed; animosity arouses
the feelings of grudge and wrath; the ecstasy of victory makes conquerors intoxicated with
that victory, so it pushes them into the most heinous kinds of revenge. This is both the old and
modern history of countries. Rather, it is the history of man since Cain killed his brother
Abel: {Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah.: It was accepted from one, but not
from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "(Allah)
doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous.} [Al-Maeda:27]. Here, history honors
the leaders of our civilization; military and civilians, conquerors and rulers, as from among
great leaders of other civilizations, they were alone characterized by merciful, fair humanity
in the fiercest battles and the darkest times that incite revenge and shedding blood. I swear
that if it had not been for the fact that history speaks about such a unique miracle in the
history of war ethics in a truthful manner without any doubt, I would have said it is a myth
like other myths that have no place on earth[1]. If peace is the origin in Islam and if war was
legalized in Islam for the aforementioned causes and objectives, Islam put rules and laws for
war in order to limit anything accompanying it. In this way, wars are controlled by ethics
rather than personal desires. Islam allowed wars against tyrants and aggressors not innocent
and peaceful people. Such ethical controls include the following: 1- Dont kill women,
children and the aged: The Messenger of Allah advised the commanders to be pious and fear
Allah in order to push them to observe the ethics of wars. The Prophet ordered them to avoid
killing children; Buraidah (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that whenever the
Prophet ordained anybody as a commander in an army or a brigade, he advised him
exclusively to be pious and fear Allah. The Prophet also advised such a commander and other
Muslims to have good manners, saying: and dont kill a newborn[2]. Abu Dawud
narrated that the Prophet said: Dont kill an elder or a child or a woman[3]. 2- Dont kill
worshippers: Whenever the Prophet sent his armies, he said to them: Dont kill people
confined themselves to worship in hermitages[4]. His advice to the army heading for
Muatah battle was: March in the name of Allah and in His Cause, fight the unbelievers.
Attack, but you shall not be filled with hatred, nor act treacherously, mutilate or slay a
newborn, a woman, an elder or a person confined himself in a hermitage.[5] 3- Dont act
treacherously: The Prophet saw off companies, advising them: dont act
treacherously.[6] Such a piece of advice was not aimed at Muslims dealings with their
Muslim brothers, but rather with archenemies they are going to fight. The matter was so
important that the Messenger of Allah distanced himself from the traitors even if they are
Muslims and even if the victim is infidel. The Prophet said: If anybody provided a man with
security and then killed him, I disavow the killer even if the killed person is an infidel.[7]
The value of faithfulness was so well-established in the manners of the Prophets
Companions that Umar ibn al-Khattab was told during his rule that one of the mujahideen
said to a Persian combatant: Dont fear then killed him. Al-Khattab wrote to the army
commander, saying: I was told that a man from among you call the infidel and if that infidel
sought protection in the mountain the man said to him: Dont fear. And when the man
caught the infidel, killed him. By the One Who controls my soul, if I was told that anybody
did so I would behead him.[8] 4- Dont make mischief on earth: Muslims wars were not
aimed at sabotage like contemporary wars, in which non-Muslim combatants are keen on
devastating all aspects of life of their opponents. Furthermore, Muslims were highly keen on
preserving development in every place even if in their enemies countries. This was clear in
the first caliphs (Abu Bakr) words when he advised the armies heading for the Levant. He
said: and dont make mischief on earth. This includes every good act. The advice also
said: Dont inundate or burn palm trees, slaughter cattle, cut fruitful tree or pull down
synagogues[9]. Such details show the goal behind the advice of not making mischief on
earth so that the army commander could not think that the animosity with any people does not
allow some forms of mischief, which are all rejected in Islam. 5- Spending on prisoners of
war: Muslim is rewarded for helping and spending on prisoners of war, because they are
weak, their links with relatives and people were cut and in dire need of help. The Holy Quran
mentioned benevolence with the prisoners of war together with benevolence with the orphans
and the indigents. In the description of believers, Allah, exalted be He, says: And they feed,
for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive. [Al-Insan:8]. 6- Dont
mutilate the dead: The Messenger of Allah prohibited mutilation. Abdullah ibn Zayd narrated:
The Prophet prohibited plunder and mutilation.[10] Emran ibn al-Husayn said: The
Prophet used to urge us to alms and prohibiting us from committing mutilation.[11]
Although the pagans mutilated the Prophets uncle Hamza, the Prophet did not abandon that
principle. Rather, he prohibited the Muslims from mutilating dead bodies of the enemy,
saying: The people who will face the severest punishment on the Day of Resurrection are: a
man killed by prophet; a man who killed a prophet; a misleading imam; a mutilator.[12]
There had never been even a single incident in the history of the Prophet that a Muslim
mutilated any of the enemies. These are the Muslims ethics of wars. These ethics do not
cancel honor in animosity, justice in treatment or humanity during fighting or after fighting.
[1] Mustafa al-Sibai: Min Rawai Hadaratena [From Among Feats of Our Civilization], P73.
[2] Muslim: Book of Jihad, chapter of Imam ordaining emirs and his advice to them to
observe ethics of invasion, (1731). [3] Abu Dawud: Book of Jihad, chapter of calling the
enemy (2614), Ibn Abi Shaibah, 6/483. Al-Baihaqy: al-Sunnan al-Kubra, (17932) [4] (381)
[5] Imam Muslim made the reference of the hadeeth without mentioning the story of the
people of Muatah, Book of Jihad and Marching, chapter of installing emirs and advice of
ethics of wars (1731), Abu Dawud (2613), Termidhi (1408), al-Baihaqy (17935), [6] Muslim:
Book of Jihad, chapter of installing emirs on missions (1731), Abu Dawud (2613), Termidhi
(1408), Ibn Majah (2857) . [7] Al-Bukhary: al-Tarikh al-Kabir [Great History], 3/322, the
phrasing is his. Ibn Hibban (5982). Al-Bazzar (2308). Al-Tabarany in al-Muagam al-Kabir
[Great Lexicon] (64) and in al-Muagam al-Saghir [Small Lexicon] (38). [8] Al-Muwatta:
narration of Yahya al-Leithi (967). Al-Baihaqy: Marefat al-Sunnan wal-Athar [Knowledge of
Sunnah and Traditions]. (5652) [9] Al-Baihaqy: Al-Sunan al-Kubra (17904). Al-Tahawy:
Sharh Mushakkal la-Athar, 3/144. Ibn Asaker: Tarikh Demeshq [History of Damascus], 2/75.
[10] Al-Bukhary: Book of Grievances, chapter of plunder (2342). Musnad al-Tialsy (1070).
Al-Baihaqy: al-Sunan al-Kubra (14452). [11] Abu Dawud: Book of Jihad, chapter of
prohibiting mutilation (2667). Musnad Ahmad (20010). Ibn Habban (5616). Abdul-Razzaq
(15819). Al-Abany: authentic. See: Erwaa al-Ghalil (2230). [12] Ahmed (3868), the phrasing
is his. Shuayb al-Arnaut said it is good. Al-Tabarani: Al-Kabir (10497). Al-Bazzar (1728).
Al-Albany: authentic; see: Al-Silsila al-Sahiha (281).
More : http://islamstory.com/detailes.php?module=artical&slug=Ethics-Wars-Islam
More : http://islamstory.com/detailes.php?module=artical&slug=Ethics-Wars-Islam
Balance and moderation are of the characteristics of Islamic civilization
More : http://islamstory.com/detailes.php?module=artical&slug=
Introduction Balance and moderation are of the main features of Islamic civilization. This
feature means moderation or equality between two opposite parties so that no party will have
exclusive influence and expels the other; no party will get more than its right, thus
dominating and repressing the other. Such balance and moderation fit a general and immortal
message that came to contain the four corners of the earth and the phases of time. Balance
and moderation are of the characteristics of Islamic civilizationThe civilization of Islam
combines spiritualism and materialism, or the needs of soul and the needs of material. It also
combines Sharia sciences and life sciences. It is interested in this world and the hereafter as
well. It combines idealism and realism. It strikes a balance between rights and duties. Balance
between these opposites means that each party should be given a scope and should get its
right equitably without hyperbole, omission, tyranny or injustice, as noted in the Book of
Allah, Who said: {And the Firmament has He raised high, and He has set up the Balance (of
Justice). * In order that ye may not transgress (due) balance. * So establish weight with
justice and fall not short in the balance.} [Al-Rahman: 7-9] Combination of material and
spiritual aspects It was clear from previous civilizations that both purely spiritual and purely
material aspects alone can not bring happiness to man. Pure spiritualism has nothing but
underdevelopment, undermining of will, thinking and the energies of work, killing of the
humanity of humans, and loss of the benefits of the universe. On the other hand, pure
materialism has nothing but tyranny, oppression, enslavement, humiliation, and brutal control
of lives, property and honor. The timeless civilization of Islam came to combine and strike a
balance between the requirements of spirit and the requirements of material, or between
human materialism and spiritualism. Thus, polite spiritualism has become the basis of polite
materialism. Then, man would enjoy will, freedom, thinking, and the fruit of efforts and work
within a framework of faith and morality based on justice, security, stability, compassion and
love[1]. This balance is meant to achieve harmony between human nature and mental
purpose, as well as response to and full harmony with ones ideas, imaginations, will and
intentions. Combination of Islamic and life sciences As for the combination of Sharia and life
sciences, Islam establishes its noble civilization on the methods of science, knowledge,
reason, research, experiment and induction. Islam appreciates the vitality of science in
building the state and society. In this regard, Islam praises science and scientists in various
fields. These fields include every understanding that helps man accomplish his mission in
life, namely reconstructing the earth and taking advantage of its wealth and treasures, namely
the combination of Sharia and life sciences. The word "science" mentioned in the Book of
Allah (be He Exalted) and His Messengers (peace be upon him) sayings was absolute
without restriction or limitation. It includes every beneficial science aiming at a better world
and reconstruction of the earth. It also includes every science aiming to reform people so that
they perform the duties of human succession properly on this planet. It means - most often -
science with its both religious and living branches. All the praise given to scholars was given
in the sense to every scholar who benefited people with his knowledge, whether religious or
life-wise. The history of Islamic civilization expressed this quite honestly. Perhaps Muslims
contributions and innovations in life sciences, which we will present it in the next chapter, are
the best expression of this combination. This balanced approach is different from those
civilizations, whose religions dominated the intellectual power, and where science was
prohibited, and thinking was restricted. Combination of world and hereafter As for
combination and balance between this world and the hereafter, perhaps the clearest evidence
to mention here is the verses that ordain the Friday prayer. Allah (be He Exalted) says: {O ye
who believe! When the call is proclaimed to prayer on Friday (the Day of Assembly), hasten
earnestly to the Remembrance of Allah, and leave off business (and traffic): That is best for
you if ye but knew! * And when the Prayer is finished, then may ye disperse through the land,
and seek of the Bounty of Allah, and celebrate the Praises of Allah often (and without stint):
that ye may prosper.} [Al-Jumah: 9, 10] This is the case of Islamic civilization in combining
the world and the hereafter. The abovementioned verse shows that even on Friday there is
sale and business for the world before the prayer, then mention of Allah, praying, and leaving
the buying, selling and similar aspects of life, then dispersing through the land and seeking
livelihood after finishing the prayer, without forgetting to mention Allah in every case, as this
is the basis of success. The grace of Allah here is livelihood and earning. In another verse
showing moderation between work for this life and work for the afterlife, Allah Almighty
says: {Seek, with the (wealth) which Allah has bestowed on thee, the Home of the Hereafter,
nor forget thy portion in this world.} [Al-Qasas: 77]. Islam did not ask a Muslim to be a
monk in a monastery, or a worshiper in an isolated place, praying all night and fasting during
the daytime, with no chance or luck in life. Rather, Islam asked a Muslim to work in this
world, reconstruct it, and seek livelihood in it. Thus, sons of the Islamic civilization work for
this world and the hereafter as well, seeking good and happiness in both. Combination of
idealism and realism One of the features of balance that characterized the Islamic civilization
is the combination of idealism and realism [2] in a perfect and wonderful form. Islam is an
ideal and realistic religion at the same time. It always seeks perfection and ideals for its
followers, but it urges them to do everything they could and does not place much burden on
people. Therefore, it was difficult to separate idealism from realism in Islam. Both are an
integrated piece of legislation for human beings, leading them to good, and showing them the
rules of conduct and transactions. As far as idealism is concerned, the Islamic civilization is
keen to enable man to reach the highest possible level easily, comfortably and tranquilly. In
realism, Islamic civilization takes into account the condition and nature of man, the limits of
his capacity, the nature of his composition, and the reality of his life. Imaginary idealism has
no existence in the Islamic civilization, but it exists only in the world of dreams, like that
established by Plato in his utopia, which is completely far from the reality of man and his
instincts, attitudes, shortcomings and deficiencies. The Islamic civilization does not have
such realism that means satisfaction regardless of its manner or shape, or means that the
Islamic civilization subdues its principles to cope with life by any means or to keep pace with
reality in any form. The civilization of Islam did not come to dab on the desires of people and
their systems, or to accept their dysfunctional conditions and traditions, but it came to abolish
all forms of ignorance and its systems, and establish a special system for itself. This system
may or may not look similar to some parts of the reality of people. Striking a balance between
idealism and realism, Islam has made a minimum level of perfection that should not be
exceeded, as this level is necessary to form the character of a Muslim reasonably, and this is
the least for a Muslim to be considered as Muslim. This level was set in a way that enables
the less people willing to do good and keep away from evil to reach it. This level consists of
obligatory duties and forbidden taboos. These duties and taboos were made in a way that
enables every one to handle them. The Islamic law observes these duties and taboos and puts
them in their size when necessary. In addition to this compulsory level, which every Muslim
has to reach, the Islamic law set another level that is higher and wider, and urged people to
reach it. This high level includes preferable duties and other acts of worship that the Islamic
law urges. It also includes abominations, from which a Muslim should distance himself.
Reaching this high level needs great efforts that not all people can exert. It has to do with
special talents and special willingness that a few people have. So, Islam does not impose this
ideal level on everyone, but it draws it for them and then leaves them to their energies {On no
soul doth Allah Place a burden greater than it can bear} [Al-Baqarah: 286]. Islam accepts all
good deeds that one can do {To all are degrees (or ranks) according to their deeds} [Al-
Anam: 132, Al-Ahqaf: 19]. Combination of rights and duties The last balance we wanted is
the combination of rights and duties. The Islamic civilization believes that every right of an
individual or a group is a duty on others. The rights of the governed are duties of rulers; the
rights of tenants are duties of owners; the rights of children are duties of parents, and so on.
Through performing duties, rights are preserved. Islam tended to strike a balance between
rights and duties of individuals and groups in order to make a balance between individualism
and social interest. Man is not an independent unity of life that is isolated from the rest of
society. Rather, man must live within the circle of society, share benefits and interests, and
establish relationships. Thanks to these links, the Islamic law has created rights and duties.
Thus, the civilization of Islam is characterized by balance and moderation. [1] Muhammad
Zafarullah Khan: Al-Hadarah Al-Islamiyah bayn Al-Hadarat (Islamic civilization among
civilizations), at this link: http://www.balagh.com/deen/ya1dbf66.htm [2] See: Gomaa Ali Al-
Khodli: Idealism and realism in Islam, Magazine of the Islamic University in Madina, P, 121-
133.
More : http://islamstory.com/detailes.php?module=artical&slug=
Religion & America's relation with the Jews
Does religion play role in deciding America?s relation with the Jews?
Views Count: 983
02
Does religion play role in deciding Americas relation with the

Jews?
Surely, there is a total change in the relation of Jews and

Christians. There are some changes in the traditional relation
between Jews and Christians. History tells us about an enmity
relation between both of them that backs to old time. Jews
received Jesus in the worst way. They accused his mother, Mary
the virgin, of fornication. They asked the Roman king of Jerusalem
to kill Jesus. Needless to say, that Christians believe that Jesus,
peace be upon him, was crucified and killed. However, we
Muslims firmly believe that he was neither crucified nor killed;
rather Allah raised him to heavens. Allah says: {but they killed
him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus)
was put over another man (and they killed that man)} [Surah An-
Nis 4:157]

{...

} 157 :
Transliteration: wama qataloohu wama salaboohu walakin

shubbiha lahum
Christians believe in Jesus crucifixion, a matter that led to mass
doctrinal distortion in Christianity. Christians deem the Jews
responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. Such blame was not
confined to the Jews who lived at the time of Jesus, but was also
for all Jews through history. Jews were known in the Christian
heritage as Cursed Nation. The following incident witnesses to
this fact. Upon making a treaty with the Muslims, Christian bishop
of Jerusalem asked Umr Ibn al-Kattab -the Emir of the Believers-
not to allow any Jew to enter or dwell in this holy city, no matter
what were the circumstances.
There is a mutual hatred between Christians and Jews. Allah says

in the Qurn: {The Jews said that the Christians follow nothing
(i.e. are not on the right religion); and the Christians said that the
Jews follow nothing (i.e. are not on the right religion);} [al-
Baqarah 2:113]
{

...} 113 :
Transliteration: Waqalati alyahoodu laysati

alnnasaraAAala shayin waqalati alnnasara laysati alyahoodu
AAala shayin
Days pass and situations change. Nowadays, we witness a

strange agreement between Christians and Jews. Moreover, we
witness a Christian defense of Jews -in other words Christian
defense of Jewish lies-, mutual religious visits, and Church Support
for many Jewish issues, especially for those Jews who live in
Palestine.
What is the secret behind this strange change?
We may not understand the reason beyond such change until we

refer to history, while reading some events thoroughly to get an
explanation of the current situation that we witness.
European Jews Persecuted and forced to convert to Christianity
Jews lived under a series of European persecution. The polytheist

Byzantines invaded Jerusalem in 70 AC. The Byzantines, under the
leadership of Titus, massacred the Jews. This tragedy was
repeated in 132 AC. at the hands of the Byzantine leader Elijah
Hadrian. The Byzantine Empire adopted Christianity when its
emperor Constantine converted to it. Then the whole Europe
converted to Christianity. Consequently, there was a new series of
persecution against Jews, but with a new ideology. This ideology is
represented in the Christian persecution of the Cursed Nation that
killed the Messiah, according to the Christian belief. This
continued during most of the eras of the old European history.
Moreover, Christians used to call the Jews Infidels.
In the year 1290, there was a great escalation of such

persecution. Edward I, the king of England, expelled all Jews from
England. In 1306 Philip of France declared that the Jews of France
had to choose one of the following: either to get out of France and
never come back, or be killed, or convert to Christianity. Upon this
the Jews divided into two groups. One group immigrated to al-
Andalus (Spain) where Muslims were ruling there. Through ages,
Muslims are famous for their respect of religious freedom as well
as allowing religious minorities to practice their rituals.
The second group of Jews, however, converted publicly to
Christianity, but kept their Judaism secretly. They did what the
Jewish Rabbi of France at that time advised them. This group
remained like this, hiding in the garment of Christianity. Moreover,
some of them assumed some posts in the Church, and were
promoted till they assumed leadership positions in the Church!
Jews and the Establishment of Protestantism
In the sixteenth century Jews took a very serious move that led to
a strategic change in Europe and the world as whole. This move
was nothing but altering the Christianity -which already was
altered and distorted before- with the aim of changing it into a
religion that serves the Jewish interests in the name of new
Christianity. This new Christianity is called Protestantism.
The German priest, Martin Luther -driven by the Jews- initiated the
revolution against the Catholic Church that was dominating West
Europe. He called for reform and was supported by all Jewish
priests who controlled most of important positions in European
churches. Martin Luther expressed his deep love of Jews in the
book he wrote in 1523, which entitled That Jesus Christ was Born
a Jew. Although, Martine Luther was not a Jew -in order not to stir
suspicions- but his writings show his love of Jews. For example, in
his book That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew, he said: The Jews
are of the best blood on earth (Luther, l.c. xxv. 409); through
them alone the Holy Ghost wished to give all books of Holy
Scripture to the world; they are the children and we are the
guests and the strangers; indeed, like the Canaanitish woman, we
should be satisfied to be the dogs that eat the crums which fall
from their masters table (xxv. 260).
Jewish Priests & Jewish Ideas
Martine Luther did not only glorify Jews, but also spread -along
with the Jewish priests- new ideas that ensure more support for
Jews. The most important two ideas, that directly affected the
European policy in general and that of the Protestants in specific,
are as follows:
First Idea: He rejected some of the books of New Testament,

believing that the New Testament witnessed a big distortion and
alter, while advising his followers to depend mainly on the Old
Testament. He views that the Old Testament (Torah) was not
distorted (This is not true, because studies show that Old
Testament also witnessed some distortion and alter. Moreover
there are some Jewish writings in the field of biblical criticism that
deal with this issue).
Luther managed to make the Bible (Torah), the Holy book of Jews,
the book of the Protestants too.
The Second Idea: Jews inserted such idea in Protestantism. This

idea is that the coming of the Messiah will never occur until the
Jews have their national home in Palestine. According to this,
Christians who love the Messiah and wait for his coming must
help the Jews to have this national home. Moreover this turned
into a protestant doctrine. Jews were deemed holy by the
Protestants and that made them to be forgiven for their mistakes
as well as receiving no criticism.
Catholic Rejection & European Disagreement

The Catholic Church absolutely refused such Protestant ideas. For
Martine Luthers movement was deemed as a revolution against
the Pope and the Catholic Church. There were a lot of conflicts
between the Pope and Martine Luther. As a result Europe was
divided into two. One part supports the Catholic Pope. The head of
this part was France, the biggest catholic country in the world,
and the Popes most close ally, as well as Spain and Italy. As to
the second part, it went against the pope militarily and politically,
headed by Germany and England. This part held fast to the
movement of Martine Luther, merely because it contradicts the
pope, no matter if it is convincing or not.
In 1538 Henry VIII of England officially declared the separation of

the Church of England from the Roman Catholic Church, and
adopted some protestant ideas. Moreover, he allowed the Jews to
enter England after the ban of Edward I in 1290 AC. England
turned into a protestant country that supports Jews with all its
power.
Martine Luther -during his last years- denied his praise of Jews
and wrote a book in 1544 which entitled On the Jews and their
Lies. But his first thought was already spread in most European
countries, and started to appear in the writings of thinkers,
philosophers, and scholars who adopted Protestantism. For
example, Isaac Newton wrote in his book entitled Observations
Upon the Prophecies of Daniel and the Apocalypse of St. John
about prophesies that Jews will come back to their home, saying:
The manner I know not. Let time be the Interpreter. (page 41)
Also the German philosopher Kant referred to European Jews as
Palestinians living among us.
Discovery of America & French Revolution

European Protestants were subject of Catholic prosecution in
Europe. So the Protestants, who bear the Jewish thought, directed
the new country (America). By the passing of the time they
outnumbered the Spanish Catholics who came to America earlier.
Then the French revolution took place in 1789 AC. The revolution
attacked all old traditions in France. It got rid of Monarchy and
everything related to it. Consequently, it declared its opposition to
Catholicism and its adoption of Protestantism, despite the fact
that it is a secular revolution that does not care about religion.
This happened as a kind of rejection of everything old. When
Napoleon invaded Palestine in 1799 AC. he called the Jews to
come to Palestine from all over the world in order to establish
their state. This act was in cope with the Protestantism which he
believes in. However, his attempt failed as the Othman State
along with England and Russia drove him out of Palestine. France
adoption of Protestantism was a temporal one and France
remained Catholic country.
Protestants & Jewish State
There were many calls from Protestants calling for glorifying Jews
and establishing a state for them in Palestine. There were some
American voices among these calls. For example, William
Blackstone -a Protestant- sent the American president Benjamin
Harrison in 1891 a petition entitled Palestine for the Jews He
urged the start of Jewish return to Palestine. Note that such call
was earlier than that of Theodor Herzl (it was in 1897).
Doctrines of Americans & British
After this historical background, let us have a deep look.
American Protestants are the biggest of Christian sects in America

(more than 65% of American Christians), while Catholics are 30%.
In England, the Protestants are 76%, while the Catholics are 24%.
In German they are equal. In France, Italy, and Spain the majority
are Catholics.
We notice the dominion of England then America as well as the

Jewish effect in most political and economic systems of the world.
Moreover, there is the unprecedented declaration which the
catholic Pope was pressured to issue in 1966 that Jews are
innocent of the charge of killing Jesus. This act, in my view, is
political rather than religious one. For Catholics still worry from
the Jews and their history.
Based on this, it is evident that the American and British love

Jews, and defend their issues. This shows from the British
facilitating of the establishment of a Jewish state. American
continuous support of Jews is also clear. Such support is due to
the American and British belief in the holiness of the Jews and
their belief that the coming of the Messiah will not happen except
if Jews return to Palestine. So there is no possibility that such
countries may give up helping Jews unless a new doctrinal change
happens!
This is the attitude of the peoples. Will the rulers and presidents
act different? Or will they adopt the same attitude?
This is another topic.

I ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.
Dr. Ragheb El Sergany
The Prophets Mercy for Dead Believers
The Baqee` Graveyard in Madinah
Mon 10 October 2016 - 12:00

How did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) treat Muslims who passed away?
Was the relationship of the Prophet with his Companions a temporary one?
Did the Prophets care and compassion for them fade out after they passed away?
Did the daily problems of life cause him to forget his Companions as we do with our friends a
few years after they die?
Reading through the Prophets Sunnah proves that the Prophet continued to show mercy
towards his Companions even months and years after they passed away.
Visiting their graves

The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit the graves of his Companions,
pray for them, and remember and praise their good traits. He wanted this spirit to prevail
among Muslims. He encouraged Muslims to visit the graveyard frequently and to pray for the
deceased no matter how many years passed after they left.
The Prophet said: Visit the graves, for that makes you mindful of death. (Muslim)
He himself was consistent on doing that, setting an example for the believers after him.
Àishah (May Allah be pleased with her) reported that whenever it was her night (when the
Messenger spends night in her room), he used to go to the Baqi` (the cemetery of Al-
Madinah) at the last part of night and say,
Peace be on you, O abode of the believing people. What you have been promised has
come to you O Allah, forgive the [dead] people of the BaqiÀl-Gharqad. (Muslim)
Ùqba ibn Àmir reported that Allahs Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) one day
went out and offered prayer over the martyrs of Uhud just as prayer is offered over the dead.
He then came back to the pulpit and said:
I shall be present there (at the Hawd, the Prophets Pool) before you. I shall be a witness
over you and, by Allah, I am looking at my Pool now.
And I have been given the keys of the treasures of the earth (or the keys of the earth)
and, by Allah, I am not afraid that you would associate anything with Allah after me,
but I am afraid that you would be vying with one another over (the treasures of) the
earth. (Al-Bukhari and Muslim)
This happened, according to some narration of the hadith, eight years after the battle of Uhud.
The Prophet, after these long years, still cared for the martyrs of Uhud, prayed and
supplicated Allah for them.
The Prophet also urged Muslims to pray for their deceased because it helps him. Abu
Hurayrah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: The Messenger of Allah said,
When a man dies, his deeds come to an end, except for three: An ongoing charity,
knowledge from which people derive benefit, a pious child who prays for him.(Muslim)
Paying off their debts

The Prophet also urged Muslims to pay off the debts of their relative deceased. On one hand
this will be an act of showing mercy towards the deceased and, on the other hand, it is a
protection of the rights of people who are alive. It is a general mercy for both, the alive and
the dead people.
Abu Hurayrah narrated that that the Messenger of Allah said:
The soul of the believer is chained to his debt until it is paid off. (At-Tirmidhi)
Commenting on this hadith, Imam Ash-Shawkani said, This hadith is a call for the heirs to
pay off the deceaseds debts.
Moreover, when the state resources were sufficient to repay the deceaseds debts, the Prophet
pledged to pay them off. He said:
I am closer to the believers than their own selves. So, if one of the believers dies leaving
debts [unpaid off], I will repay it, but if he leaves wealth, it will be for his heirs. (Al-
Bukhari and Muslim)
He also used to support the children of the deceased if they were not capable to pay their
fathers debt. Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated:
Àbdullah ibn Àmr ibn Haram (Jabirs father) died and was in debt to others. I asked the
Prophet to intercede with his creditors for some reduction in the debts.
The Prophet requested them (to reduce the debts) but they refused. The Prophet said to me,
Go and put your dates (in heaps) according to their different kinds: the Àjwaon one
side and the cluster of ibn Zayd on another side. Then, call me.
I did that and called the Prophet. He came and sat at the head or in the middle of the heaps
and ordered me: Measure (the dates) for the people (creditors).
I measured for them till I paid off all the debts. My dates remained as if nothing had been
taken from them. (Al-Bukhari)
The Prophet was so concerned about rescuing the deceased from the punishment of the
hereafter that he did not only ask for paying financial debts but also instructed that Hajj
should be performed on behalf of the deceased if he died without fulfilling this duty.
Concern about their destiny
One of the amazing stories that shows the Prophets mercy towards dead believers is what
happened when he passed by two graves whose inmates were being punished for sins they
used to do in the world . Ibn Àbbas reported:
The Prophet once passed by two graves and said, They (the deceased persons in those
graves) are being tortured not for a great thing to avoid. And then added, Yes, (they are
being punished for a big sin), for one of them used to go about with calumnies while the other
never saved himself from being soiled with his urine. (Ibn Abbas added): Then he took a
green leaf of a date-palm) and split it into two pieces and fixed one piece on each grave and
said, May their punishment be abated till these (two pieces) get dry.
The Prophets mercy was not restricted to the pious and obedient believers but also extended
to the sinners and the disobedient.

Ragheb El-Sergany Articles

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Ragheb El-Sergany Articles

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Does Islam encourage hostility to Christians?

Dr. Ragheb El-Sergany

B- In the beginning of the chapter titled Al-Mumtahanah:

C- In the same chapter:

5- In addition to the aforementioned, the life-example of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH),

Source: "Future of Christians in the Muslim state" by Dr. Ragheb El-Sergany

Views Count: 7,003

In short, before we proceed to criticize opponents or proponents of Shia, we should first

Who are Shia?

Many historians differ on the real beginning of Shia.

As a result of their non-recognition of Companions, Successors and books of Hadith and

We ask Allah to glorify Islam Muslims.

By: Dr. Ragheb El Sergani

Dr. Ragheb El-Sergany

Views Count: 2,899

Facebook 0 Google+ Twitter EMAIL

Third: The murder of thousands of Iraqi Sunnis.

But.. Are these five points everything?

Let us now resume listing Shia's dangers at the present.

Sixth: Danger of Iran-Syria rapprochement.

Unfortunately, Iranian Sunnis experience a great dilemma being helpless, as known by

So far, we have listed ten evident dangers of Shia.

Brothers and sisters, do you still think it is wise to keep silent?

Second: Based on Shia's methodologies deep-rooted deviation, we dare say it is impossible to

We ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.

Dr. Ragheb ElSergani

Dr. Ragheb El-Sergany

Views Count: 1,613

Facebook 0 Google+ Twitter EMAIL

Could you comprehend what depth this statement has?

Third: The situation in Iraq is very dangerous.

Fifth: Their direct threat is not limited to Iraq only.

No, there are much more things of which we gave no mention.

We ask Allah to glorify Islam and Muslims.

Dr. Ragheb ElSergany

Views Count: 480

Facebook 0 Google+ Twitter EMAIL

- al-Khutoot al-'Areedah by Muhibb al-Deen al-Khateeb (available in English, translated by

- Usool Madhhab al-Shi'ah al-Imamiyyah by Dr. Naasir al-Qafaari

- Al-Mawsoo'ah al-Muyassarah fi'l-Adyaan wa'l-Madhaahib wa'l-Ahzaab al-Mu'aasirah

See also the answer to question no. 1148 and 10272.

Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa'imah (2/377).

And Allaah knows best.

Shiites, Shiism, and Islam (part 1 of 2)

Views Count: 1,061

Facebook 0 Google+ Twitter EMAIL

In authoritative Shiite texts, its states:

"All of the earth belongs to the Imams." (Ibid, p.407).

[3] Bihaar al-Anwar, Al-Burhan, and others.

Views Count: 680

Facebook 0 Google+ Twitter EMAIL

Belief in the Scriptures:

"The Chapter of Succession". On both sides is a translation in Persian.

Belief in the Prophets:

The Prophets were the best of humans, living examples to be emulated:

"We sent no messenger except to be obeyed, by Allah's leave" [Quran 4:64], {

[2] Al-Kulaini, Al-Kaafi, 1/437.

[5] Rijaal al-Kishhi.

[6] Al-Kulaini, Al-Kaafi, 1/527-8, and many others.

[7] Usul Kafi 1:228

[8] Al-Anwar al-Nu'maniah, 2: 360-2.

[9] Faslul Khitab Fi Tahreefi-Kitabi Rabbil Arbaab.

[10] Wasa'il As-Sheea.

[11] Bihaar al-Anwar (26:267).