Shi‘ism: A Persisting Enemy of Islam and Muslims

By Muftī Radā-ul-Haq (hafizahullāh)

Translated by Mufti Abdullah Moolla

What follows is a translated transcription of a lecture delivered by Muftī Radā-ul-Haq (hafizahullāh) at Dār-ul-‘Ulūm Azaadville on the burning topic of Shi‘ism. Within this lecture, Muftī Radā-ul-Haq opened up the eyes of the audience and passionately conveyed his deep concern for the Ummah regarding the fitnah of this severely misguided sect.

In the name of Allāh, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

All praise is for Allāh, Rabb of the Universe. May peace and salutations be upon our leader and master, Sayyidunā Muhammad, his family, his companions, his spouses and all his followers.

To proceed:

Honorable ‘Ulama, friends and brothers,

I have been requested to advise the audience regarding the Rawāfid. I have been tasked to inform the audience about this fitnah.

During the time of Rasūlullāh sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, there were hypocrites, i.e., munāfiqīn. There were a few of them. There is a report of Sayyidunā Huzayfah (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) which states that there are no munāfiqīn after the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). Another report in Sahīh Al-Bukhārī from Sayyidunā Huzayfah (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) states that the hypocrites after the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) will be worse than the hypocrites of the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

One report mentions that there will be no presence of hypocrites, whereas another report states that the hypocrites that come later will be much worse and far more atrocious than the hypocrites of the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam). The scholars have reconciled these two reports in various ways. It is best that we say during the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) there were munāfiqīn present. Later on however, the munāfiqīn will exist under a different name, i.e., not under the name of ‘munāfiq.’ This is despite the fact that the munāfiqīn who would come later⁠—after the time of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam)⁠—would be much worse. They would not be named as ‘munāfiqīn.’ They will name themselves differently. For example, they will use zindiq. They will refer to themselves as Rawāfid. They will call themselves Rawāfid, and these are the ones we refer to as Shi‘ah. However, they will not use the name ‘munāfiq.’

RELATED: The Types of Hypocrisy in Islam

It is stated in the books of the Shi‘ah⁠—and I have provided the relevant references in Badr-ul-Layālī Sharh Bad’-ul-Amālī and Al-Asīdah As-Samāwiyyah Sharh ‘Aqīdah At-Tahāwiyyah—where the Shi‘ah themselves have mentioned that:

The word ‘munāfiq’ refers to us (i.e., the Shi‘ah).

A munāfiq is someone who says one thing but has something else in their heart.

Taqiyyah is a special belief (and practice) of the Shi‘ah. Taqiyyah means to make something apparent, but the heart of the person conceals something else completely. I shall not explain their beliefs before you at this point. Most ‘Ulama are aware of them and the people have been taught about this too.

I want to explain how, in terms of politics and state matters, no other group has harmed Muslim Ummah as severely as the Rawāfid have. The non-Muslims will not be able to cause harm to the Muslims for as long as they are not accompanied by Muslims, i.e., those who claim to be Muslims. Once those who claim to be Muslims ally themselves with the non-Muslims, then they will cause harm to the Muslim Ummah.

RELATED: The Severity of Selling Out Dīn for Worldly Gain

The era of Rasūlullāh (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) was followed by the eras of Sayyidunā Abū Bakr (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) and Sayyidunā ‘Umar (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). The time of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) then arrived [after the Khilāfah of Sayyidunā ‘Uthmān (radiyallāhu ‘anhu)]. During this time, the very same munāfiqīn that had killed Sayyidunā ‘Uthmān (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) had now joined the army of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). They did this in order to inflict great harm to the Muslims from within. Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) was engaged in peace negotiations with Sayyidunā Mu’āwiyah (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). They came to a peace agreement and were successful in their attempt towards reconciliation.

The very same munāfiqīn who had killed Sayyidunā ‘Uthmān (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) had joined the army of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). And now, they were unable to digest the occurence of a peace agreement. They did not wish for peace to prevail. These very same people eventually became the killers of Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). They martyred Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu).

With regard to ‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Muljim, it is clearly recorded that he pledged allegiance to Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). However, he remained with Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) only until the time of the peace agreement, i.e., for as long as Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu) stood in opposition to Sayyidunā Mu’āwiyah (radiyallāhu ‘anhu). Once they had made peace and united, he (‘Abdur-Rahmān Ibn Muljim) martyred Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu).

As recorded in the books of the Shi‘ah, Sakīnah, the daughter of Sayyidunā Husayn (radiyallāhu ‘anhu), said:

‘You have killed my grandfather, i.e., Sayyidunā ‘Alī (radiyallāhu ‘anhu).’

She was addressing the Rawāfid.

She continued:

‘You killed my father, Sayyidunā Husayn (radiyallāhu ‘anhu).’

This was because he was ready and prepared to make a peace agreement and armistice with the Khilāfah of the time. He was readying himself to go. It was the very same people who martyred him.

She also said:

‘You poisoned my paternal uncle, Sayyidunā Hasan radiyallāhu ‘anhu.’

This is recorded in Al-‘Iqd Al-Farīd, a Shi‘ah work.

RELATED: Is the Shi’a Hadith Literature Reliable?

She continued:

‘My husband, Mus’ab, you have martyred him.’

Hence, we learn that it was the Rawāfid who murdered and martyred the great and lofty personalities in Islām.

The Umayyad era was coming to an end. We do not say that this point of the Umayyad rule was the best, but the initial stage of the Umayyads was excellent. Loss, harm and problems did set in towards the end. At that time, the Rawāfid had selected Abū Muslim Khurāsānī (for their aims and objectives).

Abū Muslim Khurāsānī was in jail. When the Rawāfid heard his speech, they took a liking to him and felt that he was a very suitable candidate to be used by them. His speech made them feel as though he was brave and bold. They had him released, made him a leader and put him forward in order to establish the ‘Alawī Government. He started a significant movement against the Umayyads. As a result, the Umayyad rule was ended. Thereafter the ‘Alawīs oppressed the Umayyads to a great degree. It is reported that the Umayyads were put into a tent and that horses were made to gallop over them, trampling them all to death. In fact, the corpses of the Umayyads were removed from their graves and flung aside.

This was done to the Umayyads, despite them having ruled for over eighty years and after achieving so much. Spain and Portugal were conquered during their time. The areas of Sindh in Pakistan and Gujarat in India were conquered. Punjab and Multan were conquered during the time of Walīd Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik. The area of Turkistan, the place where Imām Bukhārī (rahimahullāh) was born, the entirety of this area [modern-day Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan] was conquered during the Umayyad era.

There are twelve Muslim provinces in China. The Muslims had gone there and conquered during the Umayyad time. It has been written about this era that the King of China was extremely awed by the Muslims. He came to know that the leader of the Muslims was Hajjāj Ibn Yūsuf, who was in Iraq. He said:

‘I am prepared to meet your governor because I have heard from the people in China that the people wearing white have come, and wherever those wearing white come, disbelief and falsehood are destroyed.’

RELATED: Is Jihad ONLY Defensive? Did Islam Spread by the Sword? (UNAPOLOGETIC Answer)

The King in China was prepared to meet them because he wanted to traverse the same path that the Muslims were upon. Hajjāj Ibn Yūsuf passed away and then came Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik.

Major leaders and conquerors were killed after this time too.

Anyway, it is recorded that Abū Muslim Khurāsānī was a Rāfidī. He caused great harm to the Muslims.

The ‘Abbāsid era then dawned. The last ruler of the ‘Abbāsids was Musta’sim Billāh. Sa’dī, the poet, wrote a qasīdah upon the end of the ‘Abbasid rule. I shall mention the last two lines:

‘The skies have the right to rain blood because the rule of Musta’sim Billāh has come to an end.’

In Al-Bidāyah wan Nihāyah, Ibn Kathīr (rahimahullāh) has written that eight hundred thousand people were killed in Baghdad at the time. One narration mentions that a million were killed. Another narration reports that one million and six hundred thousand were killed.

The condition of the libraries was such that all of the books had been taken out and thrown into the Tigris River. For a number of days the river ran black (due to the ink from the books). Musta’sim Billāh was granted safety but this was not for long. He was also killed. What was the reason? The very same Rawāfid.

One of the leading ministers in the government of Musta’sim Billāh was Muhaqqiq Tūsī. People study his books in philosophy. He was a staunch Rāfidī. Another minister was Ibn ‘Alqamī; also a Rāfidī.

Hulagu Khan, the grandson of Genghis Khan, was very fearful of the Muslims. He could not stand up and fight them. However, Ibn ‘Alqamī and Muhaqqiq Tūsī wrote to him and invited him. They said that with the arrival of the Tartars, the Muslim Empire shall be destroyed. They also promised their support to the Tartars. They also said that Muhammad (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) passed away, and nothing happened⁠—the world carried on. So what will happen if the ‘Abbāsid Empire comes to an end? Nothing.

The ‘Abbāsid Empire was destroyed with the evil plotting and conniving of Ibn Al-‘Alqamī and Muhaqqiq Tūsī.

Hence, in terms of politics and state matters, the Rawāfid have proven to be very harmful for the Muslims. The scholars have written that the Rawāfid have never supported the Muslims.

It is explained in the works of history that during the time of Walīd Ibn ‘Abdil-Malik, during the conquest of Europe, it was the Jews of the Maghrib that supported the Muslims. This is because they were tired of the King there. However, the Rawāfid have never aided or supported the Muslims. They are pure munāfiqīn. One must recognize them; stay away from their literature; oppose them; and make effort on the youth so that they can also recognize the Rawāfid and know of their beliefs. So that they are aware of how the Iranian Embassies which are situated in all the countries host a so-called ‘Hujjat-ullāh.’ This ‘Hujjat-ullāh’ has a great ‘Mujtahid’ position given to him which is slightly lower than the ‘Āyat-ullāh.’ He is the ‘Hujjat-ullāh’ and the Ambassador. He is a preacher of Shi‘ism as well as the Ambassador.

May Allāh Ta’ālā bless us with the ability to save ourselves and our youth from this fitnah. May peace and salutations be upon our leader and master, Sayyidunā Muhammad (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam) and his family and companions.

RELATED: An Orthodox Muslim’s Review of ‘The Lady of Heaven’: A Shia Propaganda Film

Follow Mufti Abdullah on Twitter: @MuftiAMoolla

MuslimSkeptic Needs Your Support!
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Is this really a proper time to publish this when our Iranian Muslim brothers and sister are under attack by Western-Zionist orchestrated destabilization & demonization campaign?


I think the timing was precisely for that reason. MuslimSkeptic probably (rightfully) doesn’t want to give the impression that their criticism of liberal movements in Iran in any way means they endorse Shiism or the Iranian regime that is responsible for wide-scale death and suffering of Sunnis. Just recently they killed Sunnis in Iran who were protesting against a local police force member committing r*pe. It wasn’t covered much in the media because they weren’t secular liberal protestors

Zaid Diaz

What do you want to say? Iran is ruled by the Shia clergy… Muslim Iranians have been suffering from tortures since the Safavid rule! And Zionists are the best friends of the Iranian ‘Ayatollahs’.

Tarek Bazzi

SubhanAllah, of all of the insane claims on the internet, the claim that the “Ayatollahs” in Iran are the friends of the Zionists must take the cake.

Can you point to a Muslim country in the world that is as staunchly opposed to America as Iran? Is there any reason other than Iran’s refusal to submit to American Imperialism that has placed it under the most severe sanctions in the world? Is there any Muslim country in the world that is more open in its animosity towards the cancerous “israel”

Zaid Diaz

Modern Arab leaders are fools, but whatever Iran does is all show, no go. The Iranian “Ayatollah” clowns extensively cooperated with the US and Israel when the Iraq invasion happened. These “Ayatollah” fraudsters also helped the US to invade Afghanistan! Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon, claims that they ‘help Palestinians’ but they instead bomb and kill Palestinians in support of Israel! Even Khomeini himself was set up by the West (US and France) because the Shah would not submit to them!


The Shah wouldn’t submit to the West and Israel? You realize the Shah was put in power by the British in 1941 and then again by the Americans in 1953 and had strong relations with Israel? You do realize that the Shah’s secret police (savak) was trained and propped by the CIA and Mossad right? You do realize that the Shah spent billions of dollars buying American weapons right? You do realize that the West supported Saddam’s invasion of Iran and even gave him chemical weapons to gas Iranians?


Well Iran Also Supported American Invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan


the opposition is only limited to burning flags
and instead they have killed sunni muslims in iraq and syria and lebonon
Iran is not an enemy of isreal
Syrian Revolution has badly exposed Iran


lol nope and the Safavids were even better rulers then the Ottomans

Zaid Diaz

Of course! Safavids. who were infamous drunkards, molesters and fraudsters, are better than the Ottomans! There’s no logic in your comment.


Muslims in Iran are foremost under attack by the regime. Most killed up to date are Sunnis from the Kurd and Baloch minorities. From the size and quantity of the demonstrations it is pretty clear that the regime is hated by nearly all factions of society: liberal secular, Muslim…and even Rafidi. The regime is forced to bring in foreign Shiite militias (Lebanese…and Afghan Hazara) to maintain grip.


“The size and quantity of the demonstrations”. Do you realize the largest demonstration in any single day was 5,000 people? While pro-government demonstrations have been much larger. If the “regime” is hated by nearly all factions of society then how has it still maintained power for over 40 years despite being under genocidal sanctions? If the “regime” is hated by nearly all factions of society then why did millions of Iranians attend General Solemani’s funeral?


Iran Shia Clergy is in power since 43 or 44 years

can you answer why majority of the shia population has become secular
not just secular but anti islamic?


Interesting, first I’ve heard of Shia’s inviting the Mongols upon the Abbasids…


lol what you “heard” was bullshit propaganda the Shia weren’t even in power anywhere at the time and it was the Caliphs stupidity that caused the Mongol attack and victory

Zaid Diaz

Your ancestors themselves invited Hulegu to destroy Baghdad. Don’t talk about what you don’t know…


It was the khawarij that betrayed and murdered Ali (ra), not the shia. It was the mongols that destroyed the then decadent abbasids, not the shia. And it was the injustice, racism and corruption of the Umayyads that brought them to ruin and to be replaced by the Abbasids in the first place, not that of the shia. And now, while Iran is enduring another western/zionist backed “color revolution”, the sauds and oil barons in the gulf and other “muslim rulers” are hobnobbing with Israelis.

Abdullah Ali

Point being?


Ibn Muljim was a Khariji indeed but the betrayal came from the Shiite inhabitants of Kufa….this is even according to Shiite sources.

And now, while Iran is enduring another western/zionist backed “color revolution”,…”

Ah, so this isn’t happening because the regime is decadent, unjust, racist and corrupt?


I always hear from them “only a minority of shia curse sahabah” or “only a minority do matam (self flagellation).” Never buy these excuses. They are pure lies. Iraq, Syria and Lebanon are an example before our eyes. Syria despite being 80% Sunni, (15% Alawi), is now attempted to bring converted into a Shia country. Hezbullat wal Uzza and Iran establish Shia schools for children and reward families for sending Sunni kids there to become Shia. Don’t call them Muslim. Different religion altogether.


Does this guy have anything to say about Sunni Gulf countries shilling for the US and Israel or is he just going to pretend that isn’t happening?

Last edited 1 month ago by A A

I don’t know how familiar you are with this site but Gulf regimes have been criticized here extensively and numerous times. Do you not comprehend the concept that you can be against Iran while also being against other corrupt governments?