The Islaamic ruling regarding (Ayatollah) Khomeini

Question: What is the Islaamic ruling regarding (Ayatollah) Khomeini?

Answer: Khomeini has a book in which he mentions the excellence of the Imaams (Hassan and Hussein et al) of the family of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) over and above the Prophets and the Messengers (`alayhim as-salaam); (So) based upon this (statement of his) he is not a Muslim.

[Shaykh al-Albaanee, al-Haawee min Fataawa ash-Shaykh al-Albaanee – Page 349]

Published: 16 April 2004


Concerning Yazeed ibn Mu`aawiyyah

Al-Dhahabi said: he was the commander of that army during the campaign against Constantinople, among which were people such as Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari. Yazeed was appointed by his father as his heir, so he took power after his father died in Rajab 60 AH at the age of thirty-three, but his reign lasted for less than four years.

Yazeed is one of those whom we neither curse nor love. There are others like him among the khaleefahs of the two states (Umawi/Umayyad and ‘Abbaasi/Abbasid) and the governors of various regions, indeed there were some among them who were worse than him. But the issue in the case of Yazeed is that he was came to power forty-nine years after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); it was still close to the time of the Prophet and some of the Sahaabah were still alive such as Ibn ‘Umar who was more entitled to the position than him or his father or his grandfather.

His reign began with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and it ended with the battle of al-Harrah, so the people hated him and he was not blessed with a long life. There were many revolts against him after al-Husayn, such as the people of Madeenah who revolted for the sake of Allaah, and Ibn al-Zubayr.

[Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’, part 4, p. 38]

Shaykh al-Islam described people’s attitudes towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah, and said:

The people differed concerning Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, splitting into three groups, two extreme and one moderate.

One of the two extremes said that he was a kaafir and a munaafiq, that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to spite the Messenger of Allaah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather ‘Utbah, his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle al-Waleed ibn ‘Utbah and others who were killed by the companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and others on the day of Badr and in other battles – and things of that nature. To have such a view is easy for the Raafidis who regard Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan as kaafirs, so it is much easier for them to regard Yazeed as a kaafir.

The second extreme group think that he was a righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahaabah who were born during the time of the Prophet and were carried and blessed by him. Some of them give him a higher status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and some of them regard him as a prophet. Both views are obviously false to one who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the earliest Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the Sunnah or to any intelligent person who has reason and experience.

The third view is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.

Then they divided into three groups, one which cursed him, one which loved him and one which neither cursed him nor loved him. This is what was reported from Imaam Ahmad, and this is the view of the fair-minded among his companions and others among the Muslims. Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody?

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed: according to what I have heard he is neither to be cursed nor to be loved. He said, I also heard that our grandfather Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed and he said: we do not deny his good qualities or exaggerate about them. This is the fairest opinion.

[Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, part 4, p. 481-484]

Sunnis and Shee`ah

Question: We are exposed to every kind of preaching and propagation of religions and we suffer immensely from this. One thing that we are suffering from at the moment is that the Shee’ah sect of the twelve Imaams has begun to spread its beliefs and teachings in many different ways. They deceive the Muslim youth who are living amongst Muslim minorities and they have reached regions which you would never think possible. Could your Eminence summarise the most important differences between the Sunni and Shee’ah?

Answer: There are many differences between the Sunni and Shee’ah. However, some of the most important are as follows Ahlus-Sunnah are compassionate and merciful towards the Companions of the Prophet. They say:

{Our Lord! Forgive us and forgive our brothers who preceded us in faith and do not put in our hearts any malice towards those who believed. Our Lord! You are Compassionate and Most Merciful}, [Soorah al-Hashr, Aayah 10].

It is well known, however, that the group the questioner mentioned slanders, defames and maligns the Companions. They consider them to be sinful and impious and they believe that they left Islaam after the death of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam). In fact, their slandering of the Companions is not only slander and defamation of them, but rather it is slander and defamation of the Companions, the Messenger of Allaah (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) the religion of Islaam and it is also slander and defamation of Allaah’s Wisdom.

As for their slandering of the Companions, that is clear. Their slandering of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) stems from the fact that to degrade the Companions to such an extent is itself to slander the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam). A person is on the religion of his closest friend and a person is judged according to who his associates and Companions are. Therefore, if the associates and Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) were so despicable, then he must be like them. We seek Allaah’s protection from believing such things!

As for it being slander and defamation of the religion of Islaam, this is because the religion of Islaam was not transmitted to us except by way of the Companions of the Prophet, may Allaah be pleased with them. If, therefore, they were so dishonourable and disreputable, how can we have trust in and rely upon this religion and how can we take it as our path to Allaah (Subhaanahu wa Ta’aala)?

As for it being slander and defamation of Allaah’s Wisdom, Glorified and Exalted is He, this is because the clearest contradiction to wisdom is that Allaah should choose for the very best of His creation, such dishonourable and disgraceful companions, as claimed by those misguided ones. This point is one of the main differences between Ahlus-Sunnah and the Shee’ah.

In fact, if we return to the actual meaning of the word Shee’ah, we find that they mean by it that they are the followers and party of Ahlul-Bayt (the Family of the Messenger). However, the Family of the Prophet (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) and at the head of them ‘Alee Ibn Abee Taalib, one of the rightly guided khulafaa., did not condone the activities of this group. Rather, they disowned them, so how can a person he the follower and supporter of someone who has disowned him and renounced his actions? The people who have the greatest right to be the friends and supporters of the Family of the Messenger (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) are Ahlus-Sunnah. Their right to this description lies in the fact that they believe that the Family of the Prophet have two claims: the claim to faith and the claim to kinship with the Messenger (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam). However, they do not go beyond the bounds of what is correct and proper concerning them. This is something that could lead to the claim that the Family of the Prophet are divine or that they have more right to the Message and to Prophethood than Muhammad, prayers and peace be upon him, and similar such claims which are common in their madhhab.

In short, it is incumbent upon us to make known in the clearest possible manner, the doctrine of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah concerning the Family of the Prophet and the remainder of the companions, in order that the falseness of what those fanatics believe may be exposed.

[Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, al-Aqalliyaat al-Muslimah – Page 85, Fatwa No.24]

Information about the Shee`ah

Question: 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?

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

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, 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 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)]

What the Shee`ah do on `Ashoora’ is bid`ah (innovation) and misguidance

Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Every Muslim should mourn the killing of al-Husayn (may Allaah be pleased with him), for he is one of the leaders of the Muslims, one of the scholars of the Sahaabah, and the son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who was the best of his daughters. He was a devoted worshipper, and a courageous and generous man. But there is nothing good in what the Shi’ah do of expressing distress and grief, most of which may be done in order to show off. His father was better than him and he was killed, but they do not take his death as an anniversary as they do with the death of al-Husayn. His father was killed on a Friday as he was leaving the mosque after Fajr prayer, on the seventeenth of Ramadaan in 40 AH. ‘Uthmaan was better than ‘Ali according to Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and he was killed when he was besieged in his house during the days of al-Tashreeq in Dhu’l-Hijjah of 36 AH, with his throat cut from one jugular vein to the other, but the people did not take his death as an anniversary. ‘Umar ibn al-Khattaab was better than ‘Ali and ‘Uthmaan, and he was killed as he was standing in the mihraab, praying Fajr and reciting Qur’aan, but the people did not take his death as an anniversary. Abu Bakr al-Siddeeq was better than him but the people did not take his death as an anniversary. The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is the leader of the sons of Adam in this world and the Hereafter, and Allaah took him to Him as the Prophets died before him, but no one took the dates of their deaths as anniversaries on which they do what these ignorant Raafidis do on the day that al-Husayn was killed. … The best that can be said when remembering these and similar calamities is that which ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn narrated from his grandfather the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who said: “There is no Muslim who is afflicted by a calamity and when he remembers it, even if it was in the dim and distant past, he says Inna Lillaahi wa inna ilayhi raaji’oon (verily to Allaah we belong and unto Him is our return), but Allaah will give him a reward like that of the day when it befell him.” Narrated by Imam Ahmad and Ibn Majaah

al-Bidaayah wa’l-Nihaayah (8/221).

To whom is the book Nahj al-Balaaghah attributed?

Imaam al-Dhahabi (may Allaah be pleased with him) said in his biography of al-Murtada ‘Ali ibn Husayn ibn Moosa al-Moosawi (d. 436 AH): I said, he was the compiler of the book Nahj al-Balaaghah which is attributed to Imam ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him), but the reports contained therein have are no isnaads. Some of it is false and some of it is true, but it contains some frabricated reports of things that the Imam would never have said. But who is the fair-minded man who would look at it in an objective manner?! It was said that it was compiled by his brother Shareef al-Radiy. It includes slander against the companions of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); we seek refuge with Allaah from knowledge that is of no benefit.

Siyar A’laam al-Nubala’, 17/589

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: “Most of the khutab (sermons) that the author of Nahj al-Balaaghah includes in his book are lies against ‘Ali. ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) is too noble and too worthy to have uttered such words. But these people fabricated lies and thought that they were praise, but they are neither truth nor praise. Whoever says that the words of ‘Ali or any other human being are above the words of any other created being is mistaken, for the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) are above his words, and both of them are created beings. Moreover the correct meanings that are to be found in the words of ‘Ali are to be found in the words of others, but the author of Nahj al-Balaaghah and his ilk took many of the things that people say and made them the words of ‘Ali. There are some words narrated from ‘Ali that he did say, and some of them are true words that would have been befitting for him to say, but in fact they are the words of others. Hence in Kalaam al-Bayaan wa’l-Tabyeen by al-Haafiz and in other books there are words narrated from people other than ‘Ali and the author of Nahj al-Balaaghah attributed them to ‘Ali. If these sermons which were transmitted in Nahj al-Balaaghah were really spoken by ‘Ali, they would have been found in other books that existed before this book was written, and they would have been narrated from ‘Ali with isnaads and otherwise. It is known from those who are well versed in the study of narrations that many of them (these sermons) – indeed most of them – were unknown before this, therefore it may be concluded that they are fabrications. So the narrator should state in which book they are mentioned, who narrated it from ‘Ali, and what its isnaad is. Otherwise, anybody could say something and claim that it was said by ‘Ali. Those who are well-versed in the knowledge of the hadeeth scholars and of reports and isnaads and are able to tell what is sound and what is not sound would know that these people who transmitted reports from ‘Ali are the least likely people to know about reports and be able to distinguish the sound from the unsound.

Manhaaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiyyah, 8/55.