THERE ARE TO BE FOUND in the field today the likes of Daniel Haqiqatjou and Abdullah al-Andalusi who shield and protect the Rafiḍah, alongside what they have of nifāq (hypocrisy), kufr (disbelief), shirk (polytheism) and enmity towards Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (رضي الله عنهما), slandering the Wives of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) and treachery towards Ahl al-Sunnah throughout the ages. Alongside that, there is found with them—the neo-Sabaʾites such as Haqiqatjou and al-Andalusi—blanket, unrestricted takfīr of Sunni Muslim rulers, with accusations of apostasy, hypocrisy and disbelief. This is not on grounds of creed, but on grounds of use of wealth and economic goals, politics, and international relations.
Hence, the scale for them is not comprised of clear foundations of religion, but primarily of economic and political considerations, which explains why they reside in and speak from the pits and kennels of the Khawārij and the Rāfiḍah, while pretending otherwise. This is their corrupt scale of judgement as a result of which they become most blind, ignorant, deceived and oppressive in their statements and judgements, and as punishment, are further blinded from seeing legislative and creational realities as they actually are.
In this article, we want to clarify the deception they are promoting with respect to the “Shīʿah”—a broad and ambiguous term—by selectively quoting from Ibn Taymiyyah, and misrepresenting his speech, whose precision and exactness, they do not comprehend and accurately convey.
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, and in the language of the ḥadith scholars, the Shīʿah are those who sided with ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) and were partisan to him in the civil strife that occurred and they vary in the degree and ferocity of their opposition and hatred of their opponents. The early ones did not revile Abū Bakr or ʿUmar (رضي الله عنهما), and while they disagreed with Muʿāwiyah (رضي الله عنه), that was on political grounds, and they considered him to be the errant and unjust party. But when these affairs of civil strife had transpired and Muʿāwiyah made many conquests as the leader of the ummah, they considered Muʿāwiyah to be righteous and just.
This type of tashayyuʿ (light mild Shīʿism) was found among some of the Tābiʿīn such as Sharīk bin ʿAbd Allāh al-Qāḍī, who made it clear that Abu Bakr and ʿUmar (رضي الله عنهما) are superior to ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه).
There remain lighter forms of Shīʿism today, such as the Zaydiyyah who are concentrated in Yemen, however, they are being converted to Twelver Shīʾism by the Houthis, who are proxies of Iran in Yemen, serving their regional interests.
As for the Rāfiḍah, then they added to what was with the Shīʿah in the issue of ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) and Muʿāwiyah (رضي الله عنه) and they rejected Abū Bakr and ʿUmar (رضي الله عنهما) and many of the Companions, from those foremost in faith. So they reviled Abū Bakr, ʿUmar and the Companions, hated them and claimed leadership was usurped from ʿAlī. So they added disloyalty to ʿAbu Bakr, ʿUmar and the Companions, and increased in their anger and enmity.
As for those known as “Shīʿah” today, the Twelver Shīʿites, or the Imāmiyyah, then they are from the foundation of the Rāfiḍah, but added many innovated doctrines of disbelief, such as the claim that ʿAlī (رضي الله عنه) is a god, or that he was supposed to be the Prophet and recipient of revelation, that the Qurʾān is incomplete or tampered with and was given incorrectly by Jibrīl to Muḥammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), that their leaders are infallible and superior to the Prophets, their slander of ʿĀʾishah (رضي الله عنها) and making takfīr of the generality of the Companions, and numerous other affairs.
It is important to note that while some of these doctrines were infused very early on by the likes of ʿAbd Allāh bin Sabaʾ al-Yahūdī, they did not penetrate all currents of what we broadly call Shīʿism.
Hence, we must distinguish between these different factions and acknowledge the difference between what we refer to as Shīʿism (use very broadly, and inaccurately), light Shīʿism (such as the Zaydiyyah), Rāfiḍism and Twelver Shīʿism, and then more extreme groups such as the Nuṣairīyyah and Ismāʾīliyyah.
The people of desires and misguidance—such as Daniel Haqiqatjou and Abdullah al-Andalusi—use the ambiguity and confusion in this respect in order to shield the Twelver Shīʿite hypocrites and disbelievers and deliberately do not convey the very specific and exact speech of the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah, in order to deceive their listeners and their audience, in order to shield and/or shill for Iran and its proxies, all of whom are fuelled by the kufr of Twelver Shīʿism.
While they may acknowledge “errors” or “heresies” for the “Shīʿah”—which are actually the greatest types of clear, apparent kufr—and claim to oppose the Shīʿah therein and thereby, in reality, their contradiction and hypocrisy in viewpoint and behaviour are exposed by their rage, hatred, takfīr and accusations of hypocrisy and apostacy against Sunni Muslim scholars and rulers on dubious worldly grounds. This is evident corruption and shows that their love and hate, loyalty and disloyalty is not based on the foundations of Islām itself, such as Tawḥīd, Īmān and ʿaqīdah, but something else.
In a debate with some notorious Islām-haters, Haqiqatjou claimed that Sunnis and Shīʿahs agree on Tawḥīd and on the Qurʾan and claims their differences are only minor, unlike the significant differences between Christian sects.
This is either gross ignorance from Haqiqatjou—and he is the most ignorant of people with respect to matters of creed and methodology, being a pauper in that respect—or it is a deliberate lie and perhaps emanates from the fact that he is an Iranian ex-Shīʿah who is trying to shield and protect them, and make little of their misguidance, alongside trying to downplay divisions among those who ascribe to Islām in the course of discussion and debate with Islām-haters.
There is no Sunni with an ounce of knowledge in this respect who will claim that the Twelver Shīʿites are upon Tawḥīd and have the same belief regarding the Qurʾān. The Twelvers have shirk in Rubūbiyyah, let alone Ulūhiyyah, and they have another Qurʾān, the alleged complete Qurʾān, which only they claim to possess.
Thus for Daniel Haqiqatjou, Abdullah al-Andalusi and their likes to give cover for these hypocrites, disbelievers and polytheists, who are the greatest of liars and dissimulators, by claiming the differences between them and the people of Islām, Tawḥid and Sunnah are only very minor is a great deception. It clearly exposes either the tremendous ignorance of these individuals of the most basic foundations of Islām, or their deliberate intent to deceive the Muslims with respect to their religion.
Let us now turn to the relevant speech of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah (رحمه الله) in this regard which explains the various categories and rulings. He said:
As for the one who combined his revilement [of the Companions] with the claim that ʿAlī is a god or that he was the [actual] Prophet and that Jibrīl erred in [giving the] Messengership, then there is no doubt about the kufr of such a one.
Rather, there is no doubt about the kufr of the one who withheld from his takfīr.
Likewise, the one who claimed that the Qurʾān is lacking some verses which have been concealed, or claimed that it has esoteric interpretations which abolish the [requirement to fulfil the] legislated actions and what is like that.
These are called the Qarāmiṭah and Bāṭiniyyah and among them are the Tanāsukhiyyah [Transmigrationists], and there is no doubt concerning the disbelief of these ones.
As for the one who reviled them with a revilement that does not malign their trustworthiness and nor their religion, such as describing some of them with mislerliness or cowardice or lack of knowledge or absence of abstemiousness, then this is the one who deserves to be disciplined and receive exemplary punishment. However, a judgement of disbelief is not made upon him merely for that.
And it is upon [the likes of this one] that the speech of those who did not make takfīr of them [the Shīʿah, revilers of the Companions] is carried.
But as for the one who cursed them and reviled them absolutely, then this is a point of difference between them, due to the affair revolving between cursing that emanates from rage and cursing that emanates from belief.
As for the one who exceeded that and claimed that they apostatised after the [passing] of Allāh’s Messenger except a very small group of them who do not reach ten-odd in number, or that they became sinners in general, then there is also no doubt about his kufr, for he denies what the Qurʾān has explicitly stated in more than one place of being pleased with them and praising them.
Rather, the one who doubts the kufr of his likes then his kufr is specified.
For the import of this statement is that those who conveyed the Book and the Sunnah are disbelievers or sinners and that the ummah—which is [described]: “You are the best nation to be brought forth for mankind” (3:110-), and the best of it is the first generation—that the generality of them were disbelievers or sinners. And the import of [their claim] is also that this nation is the most evil of nations, and that the foremost of this nation are the most evil of them.
The disbelief of such a one [who says this] is known by necessity from the religion of Islām.
For this reason, you will find that the generality of those from whom such statements emerge, it becomes clear that he is a zindīq [disbelieving heretic], and the generality of the Zanādiqah use [the Rāfiḍī] doctrine as a cover.
He also said:
As for the one who reviled the Wives of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), then the one who reviled ʿĀʾishah with what Allāh freed her from, then he has disbelieved and more than one [of the scholars] has cited a consensus upon this. And as for the one who reviled others from his wives, then there are two views. The first, that it is like reviling one of the Companions, as will come [further in the discussion] and the second—and it is correct—that whoever reviled [any] one of the Mothers of the Believers, then it is just like reviling ʿĀʾishah.
From the above, we can identify five different groups:
To elaborate on point 5 above:
01 Either Haqiqatjou and his likes know of the kufr and nifāq of the Twelver Rāfiḍī Shīʿites, that which is written in their books and on their tongues of clear doctrines of kufr and shirk, or they pretend not to know or they know. So if they do not know, then it is brought to their attention, and if they pretend not to know, this pretence will have been removed.
02 Then once they know, they either confirm and accept the types of judgements Shaykh al-Islām stated about them, as a group, and affirm their kufr and nifāq, and speak and write about it, and convey these judgements to the world, in order to display their loyalty for Islām and its carriers, the Companions, for Tawḥīd and Īmān and ʿaqīdah, and for the Prophet’s Wives, or they do not.
03 So if they do not, then it proves that they do not distinguish between Tawḥīd and idolatry, Īmān and nifāq, and are the most ignorant of people about the foundations of the religion, and for not acknowledging their kufr, or having doubts about it, then they too have fallen into kufr.
04 If however, they do affirm it, then either this manifests clearly in their speech, their love and hate, their loyalty and disloyalty in the way they treat the Rāfiḍi scholars and rulers, compared to the Sunni scholars and rulers whom they oppose, or it does not manifest.
05 So if it manifests, then so, and if it does not, then this is a clear sign that they have no worth, no value, no veneration for the Companions and for the Wives of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and for the Qurʾān and for Tawḥīd and Īmān, and in reality, their īmān is like the īmān of the Murjiʾah, and resembles what was spoken of by al-Jahm bin Ṣafwān, in that it is devoid of the actions of the heart, and it is all just academic and intellectual in nature, not something that affects and mobilises the heart in the direction that it ought to in terms of love, hate, loyalty and disloyalty.
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah said:
Hypocrisy is abundant and apparent among the Rāfiḍah, the brethren of the Jews, and there is not to be found among the factions, any that are more abundant and more apparent in hypocrisy than them. There are even found among them the Nuṣayris and the Ismāʾīlīs and their likes who are the greatest of all factions in hypocrisy, heresy and enmity to Allāh and to His Messenger.
Thus, Shaykh al-Islām considers their scholars and leaders as “brethren of the Jews”, on the basis of their actual beliefs and doctrines, whereas Haqiqatjou and his likes, slander Sunni scholars and leaders as beng “Zionists” purely on ground of politics.
He also said:
The intelligent of the Muslims are agreed that there is not to be found any faction among the factions of Ahl al-Qiblah of greater misguidance, lying and innovation and closest to every evil, and furthest from every good than his faction [i.e. the Rāfiḍah].
Haqiqatjou and al-Andalusi reverse these scales and attribute to the Sunni scholars and rulers of particular states what Ibn Taymiyyah ascribes to the Rāfiḍah hypocrites and enemies of Islām.
He also said:
These Rāfiḍah are either hypocrites or ignoramuses, for there is no Rāfiḍī and no Jahmī except that he is a hypocrite or an ignoramus of what the Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) came with. There is not among them anyone who is knowledgeable of what the Messenger while having belief in it. Their opposition to what the Messenger came with and their lie upon him is not hidden to any except the one with excess in ignorance and desire.
Ibn Taymiyyah allows the excuse of ignorance for some of the Rāfiḍah—the others being considered hypocrites (munāfiqīn)— and this is only in relation to confirmation and corroboration of the judgement of kufr upon them if they do not abandon their kufr, not that there is any question about the kufr of what they believe of the doctrines mentioned earlier.
He also said:
There is no doubt that the Rāfiḍah have a strong resemblance to the Jews, they are an untruthful people [given to lies, slanders]. They desire to extinguish the light of Allāh with their mouths but Allāh refuses except to complete His light, even if the disbelievers hate it.
So while it is the Rāfiḍah of Iran, the Hezbollah and the Houthis who have strong resemblance to the Jews and who wish to extinguish the light of Allāh, through their kufr and nifāq, in the world of Rāfiḍi apologists, shielders, and/or bootlickers—those who cannot distinguish Tawḥīd from idolatry, Īmān from kufr in the affair of love and hate, loyalty and disloyalty—it is the Sunni Muslim scholars and rulers who are described as such, not on the basis of actual doctrines and convictions, but due to hatred and resentment towards them on political grounds.
And this is with our clear notification, that we do not accept anything that opposes the Book and the Sunnah that may come from any of the rulers, rather we free ourselves from any of the established errors, or misguidances, or injustices that may come from them, but we, in our position and behaviour towards them are in moderation, avoiding the excesses of the Murjiʾāh, the Khawārij and the Rāfiḍah as explained elsewhere.
01 The position of Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah and the Muslim scholars on the Shīʿah is one of tafṣīl (detail), because there are different currents and strains among them. That in which there is no doubt is the kufr of the Twelver Shīʿites as a group, a category, on account of clear manifest doctrines of kufr and shirk.
02 Where we found that Ibn Taymiyyah speaks of the Shīʿah as innovators and Muslims in what is apparent, then this is referring to specific types and sections, such as the Zaydiyyah as a group, and likewise, those upon whom the proof has not been established such as those with genuine ignorance. In the view of many scholars, it does not apply to those who have no excuse such as their scholars and leaders, they are considered disbelievers or hypocrites who wear the garment of Islām while concealing kufr, and their doctrines are clear kufr which no Muslim can doubt.
03 Because Shīʿism and the Shīʿah are broad umbrella terms, then people like Haqiqatjou and al-Andalusi are able to confuse and deceive people, and they shield the Rāfiḍah and side with their nation states, their leaders and their proxies in geopolitical events, while making takfīr of certain Sunni Muslim rulers and scholars, and all of this on the basis of political issues, not on the actual issues of Tawḥīd, Īmān and ʿaqīdah, because these affairs are of little value to them.
04 The Rāfiḍah themselves are the greatest of liars and given to treachery as Ibn Taymiyyah noted, so their apparent concern for Sunni Muslims, such as in Palestine, is only for show, and in reality, it is only a means for them to pursue their regional, geopolitical agenda which is to cause strife and revolution in Sunni lands, and to convert Sunnis to Shīʿism or kill them or displace them from the lands they inhabit.