The first response can be read here.

Introduction

On Nov 10th 2024, I engaged in a highly publicized Youtube debate over whether contemporary Twelver Shiis should be considered Muslims.

At present, many people are interested in this debate topic given political developments in the Middle East. Here, Twelver Shii powers (e.g., Iran, Hezbollah, Houthis) have called for a Sunni-Shii alliance to protect Palestine and counter Israeli-US attacks in the region. Sunnis who believe Twelver Shiis are Muslims hold that such an alliance is desirable if not obligatory, as Muslims have a duty to cooperate and defend one another. But Sunnis who believe that Shiis are non-Muslims hold that such an alliance is problematic and that Shiis pose a grave danger to Sunnis. Indeed, many go a step further and argue that Sunnis should support Israel and the US in destroying the Shiis (e.g., in Lebanon, in Iran, in Yemen, in Iraq, and certainly in Syria).

The debate involved me and two Arabic-speaking PhD holders with self-proclaimed “expertise” in religion and geopolitics. I contended that, as a general principle, contemporary Twelver Shiis should be considered Muslims. My debate opponents advocated for the opposite view.

The debate is available here.

A distinguished scholar, Mufti Zameel then wrote a refutation of my position titled: “The Superiority of Prophets Over Non-Prophets: A Definitive Islāmic Belief.” The Mufti’s refutation asserts that, as a general principle, contemporary Twelver Shiis should be considered kafirs (i.e., it is necessary to make takfir of them).

On December 20, 2024, I wrote an extensive response to the Mufti’s refutation titled: “Are the Shia Disbelievers for Their Belief in Superiority of Imams Over Prophets? A Response to Mufti Zameel.”

The response is available here.

The Mufti then wrote a refutation of my response titled: “Denial of the Necessities of Religion & the Kufr of the Shī’ah.”

In his second refutation, the Mufti declined to address many arguments in my response and criticized other arguments in my response. He also raised several additional points in favor of the view that contemporary Twelver Shiis should be considered kafirs.

Now, I have already made my position clear in the debate and in my extensive first response. Anyone who wishes to understand my position can consult these materials.

Nevertheless, for maximal clarity, I will briefly respond to some of the points raised in the Mufti’s second refutation.

But before doing so, let me repeat something I said before about the Mufti.

I consider the Mufti to be a pious and learned individual who deserves the utmost respect. We are proud to feature several of his essays on this site (just search for his name in the search bar).

That being said, I contend that the Mufti has not succeeded in disproving my overall position in his first refutation or his second refutation.

My criticism of some of the Mufti’s views should in no way be interpreted as an attack on the Mufti.

Hard Takfir Vs. Soft Takfir

Let me begin by briefly summarizing something I discussed (with proofs) in my first response to the Mufti.

In traditional fiqh texts, Sunni scholars widely differ over how to apply rules on takfir. We must distinguish between a “hard takfir” position and a “soft takfir” position.

Those who support the hard takfir position are quite willing to make takfir of many other groups. They readily make takfir of those who differ from their preferred theological school. As a result, Islamic texts are filled with statements of takfir directed at Asharites, Maturidites, Ahl al-Hadith, Mutazilites, and Kharijites. Unsurprisingly, proponents of the hard takfir position readily takfir Twelver Shiiis. They likewise readily takfir certain Sufi groups (e.g., supporters of Ibn Arabi). Moreover, in the modern period, proponents of the hard takfir position are willing to make takfir of modernist reformist groups. Such reformist groups might advocate, for example, belief in Darwinian evolution. They might also hold that many Sharia rules do not apply to present times. On these grounds, they reject traditional Sharia rules legitimating slavery, minor marriage, stoning for adultery, and blasphemy punishments. It should be noted that a large majority of present-day Sunni Muslim laymen and scholars hold at least some highly problematic modernist reformist beliefs that break from traditional Sunnism.

Those who support the soft takfir position are much more cautious in pronouncing other groups kafirs. They avoid takfir wherever there is any significant doubt about whether such takfir is justified. Proponents of the soft takfir position do not readily takfir other theological schools, or Shiis, or Sufi groups, or modernist reformist groups. Although takfir is done in clear cases, it is avoided wherever there is doubt.

Proponents of hard takfir prioritize making takfir. For this reason, they carefully search for valid evidence and arguments to justify takfir of specific individuals (e.g., Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn ‘Arabi) or groups (e.g., Ahl al-Hadith, Sufis). By contrast, proponents of soft takfir prioritize avoiding takfir. For this reason, they carefully search for valid evidence and arguments which justify avoiding takfir of specific individuals or groups.

Like many premodern scholars, the Mufti has embraced a hard takfir position with respect to Twelver Shiis. It is not clear whether he embraces the hard takfir position with respect to other groups (e.g., Ahl al-Hadith, Sufi followers of Ibn Arabi, modernist reformist groups).

I have challenged him to make his position clear, arguing that if he adopts the hard takfir position with respect to Twelver Shiis, he should adopt it with respect to other groups as well. However, he has chosen not to address this matter – leaving open the possibility that he applies the hard takfir position in an inconsistent manner.

At any rate, in my first response to the Mufti, I emphasized that, like many premodern scholars, I embrace the soft takfir position. Moreover, for me, consistency is very important. So, I adhere to this position when evaluating non-Shii theological schools (e.g., Asharites, Ahl al-Hadith), or Shiis (e.g., Twelvers), or Sufis, or modernist reformist groups. I accept that, in some cases, certain members of these groups make statements which justify takfir. However, I avoid takfir in cases wherever there is any doubt.

I am afraid of making unjust takfir, as a Muslim who does this may become a kafir himself in keeping with the famous hadith recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari.

Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “If a man says to his brother, ‘O Kafir (disbeliever)!’ Then surely one of them is such (i.e., a Kafir).” 

Let me also mention Ibn Abidin. Ibn Abidin advocated for the soft takfir position, and for this reason refrained from general takfir of Twelvers (as I proved in my first response). Here I will simply reproduce a passage from Ibn Abidin where he discusses some other Hanafi scholars with views like his own. He notes that they refrained from takfir where any doubt existed, even if the argument against takfir was a weak one.

Ibn ‘Abidin says:

A man does not leave the faith except by denying what originally brought him into it. Moreover, what is certainly regarded as apostasy (riddah) should be judged as such, while what is doubtful is not judged as apostasy, for established Islam is not nullified by doubt. Islam holds a position of superiority, and a scholar, when presented with such cases, should not hasten to declare Muslims disbelievers…. I state this as a guiding principle for the issues discussed in this section, as it has been stated in some cases that an act is disbelief, while according to this principle, it is not. Reflect on this.

 

Jami’ al-Fusulayn and al-Fatawa al-Sughra say: ‘Disbelief is a serious matter, so I do not label a believer as a disbeliever if I find a narration indicating that he does not become a disbeliever.’ Similarly, al-Khulasa and other sources mention: ‘If there are views in a matter that imply disbelief, and one view that prevents it, the mufti should incline towards the view that prevents disbelief, as a way of maintaining good opinion about Muslims.’ Al-Bazzaziyya adds: ‘Except if the person explicitly intends an act that constitutes disbelief, in which case interpretation does not benefit him.’

 

Tatar Khaniyya states: ‘One does not become a disbeliever due to what is uncertain, as disbelief entails an extreme punishment and thus requires an extreme offense. When doubt exists, there is no extremity.’ Therefore, it has been established that a fatwa should not declare a Muslim to be a disbeliever if their words can be interpreted in a favorable way or if there is disagreement regarding their disbelief, even if the differing view is weak. Thus, for most phrases indicating disbelief that have been mentioned in the sources, a fatwa of disbelief is not given, and I have obligated myself not to issue fatwas in such cases.” This is an abridged version of al-Bahr’s statement.

 

لَا يُخْرِجُ الرَّجُلَ مِنْ الْإِيمَانِ إلَّا جُحُودُ مَا أَدْخَلَهُ فِيهِ ثُمَّ مَا تَيَقَّنَ أَنَّهُ رِدَّةٌ يُحْكَمُ بِهَا وَمَا يَشُكُّ أَنَّهُ رِدَّةٌ لَا يُحْكَمُ بِهَا إذْ الْإِسْلَامُ الثَّابِتُ لَا يَزُولُ بِالشَّكِّ مَعَ أَنَّ الْإِسْلَامَ يَعْلُو وَيَنْبَغِي لِلْعَالِمِ إذَا رُفِعَ إلَيْهِ هَذَا أَنْ لَا يُبَادِرَ بِتَكْفِيرِ أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ مَعَ أَنَّهُ يَقْضِي بِصِحَّةِ إسْلَامِ الْمُكْرَهِ. أَقُولُ: قَدَّمْت هَذَا لِيَصِيرَ مِيزَانًا فِيمَا نَقَلْته فِي هَذَا الْفَصْلِ مِنْ الْمَسَائِلِ، فَإِنَّهُ قَدْ ذُكِرَ فِي بَعْضِهَا إنَّهُ كُفْرٌ مَعَ أَنَّهُ لَا يَكْفُرُ عَلَى قِيَاسِ هَذِهِ الْمُقَدِّمَةِ فَلْيُتَأَمَّلْ اهـ مَا فِي جَامِعِ الْفُصُولَيْنِ وَفِي الْفَتَاوَى الصُّغْرَى: الْكُفْرُ شَيْءٌ عَظِيمٌ فَلَا أَجْعَلُ الْمُؤْمِنَ كَافِرًا مَتَى وَجَدْت رِوَايَةً أَنَّهُ لَا يَكْفُرُ اهـ وَفِي الْخُلَاصَةِ وَغَيْرِهَا: إذَا كَانَ فِي الْمَسْأَلَةِ وُجُوهٌ تُوجِبُ التَّكْفِيرَ وَوَجْهٌ وَاحِدٌ يَمْنَعُهُ فَعَلَى الْمُفْتِي أَنْ يَمِيلَ إلَى الْوَجْهِ الَّذِي يَمْنَعُ التَّكْفِيرَ تَحْسِينًا لِلظَّنِّ بِالْمُسْلِمِ زَادَ فِي الْبَزَّازِيَّةِ إلَّا إذَا صَرَّحَ بِإِرَادَةِ مُوجِبِ الْكُفْرِ فَلَا يَنْفَعُهُ التَّأْوِيلُ ح وَفِي التَّتَارْخَانِيَّة: لَا يَكْفُرُ بِالْمُحْتَمَلِ، لِأَنَّ الْكُفْرَ نِهَايَةٌ فِي الْعُقُوبَةِ فَيَسْتَدْعِي نِهَايَةً فِي الْجِنَايَةِ وَمَعَ الِاحْتِمَالِ لَا نِهَايَةَ اهـ وَاَلَّذِي تَحَرَّرَ أَنَّهُ لَا يُفْتَى بِكُفْرِ مُسْلِمٍ أَمْكَنَ حَمْلُ كَلَامِهِ عَلَى مَحْمَلٍ حَسَنٍ أَوْ كَانَ فِي كُفْرِهِ اخْتِلَافٌ وَلَوْ رِوَايَةً ضَعِيفَةً فَعَلَى هَذَا فَأَكْثَرُ أَلْفَاظِ التَّكْفِيرِ الْمَذْكُورَةِ لَا يُفْتَى بِالتَّكْفِيرِ فِيهَا وَلَقَدْ أَلْزَمْت نَفْسِي أَنْ لَا أُفْتِيَ بِشَيْءٍ مِنْهَا اهـ كَلَامُ الْبَحْرِ بِاخْتِصَارٍ

 

Hashiyat Ibn Abidin

With this in mind, let’s look at several key claims contained in the Mufti’s second refutation. The Mufti makes these claims to strengthen his case for making general takfir of contemporary Twelvers.

Assessing the Mufti’s Claim: “Past Muslim scholars disagreed over whether Twelvers were kafirs – but those scholars who claimed they were Muslims only did so because they did not fully understand Twelver doctrine”

The Mufti acknowledges that major premodern scholars had different opinions over whether to declare that Twelvers, in general, are kafirs. Some major scholars did make general takfir of Twelvers. But other major scholars (e.g., Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Abidin) did not endorse general takfir of Twelvers.

The Mufti claims that those who did not make general takfir of the Twelvers were mistaken. He further argues that their view was based on an inadequate knowledge of Twelver doctrine. According to the Mufti, any scholar with an adequate knowledge of Twelver doctrine would make general takfir of the Twelvers.

I respectfully disagree.

Shiis are famous for constantly dividing into sects and subsects (e.g., Ismailis, Zaidis, Twelvers, Nusayris, etc.).

Anyone who studies Shii doctrine of any type, including Twelver doctrine, will see that it is highly diverse.

Throughout history, major Twelvers authorities have disagreed on significant issues. They have disagreed on the question of whether the Quran has been altered. They have likewise disagreed on the comparative status of imams and prophets, and the doctrine al-wilaya al-takwiniyya.

Moreover, the specific beliefs held by Twelvers have changed significantly over time and vary by region. For example, pre-Safavid Twelver Shiism is very different than Safavid Twelver Shiism. Additionally, enormous changes in Twelver doctrine have taken place over the past century due to modern reform movements.

It is also well-known that Twelvers in South Asia have doctrines that are further from Sunnism than Twelvers in the Arab world. This is because the major centers of Twelver learning (Najaf and Karbala) are in the Arab world and influenced by the larger Sunni environment. Meanwhile, Twelvers in South Asia are influenced by the Hindu environment and are regarded as less orthodox and less learned. Their historical center of learning is Lucknow, which has a much lower status than Najaf, Karbala, and Qum. These important facts are overlooked by the Mufti who is puzzled by the fact that Sunni scholars in the Arab world (like Ibn Abidin) are more hesitant to make takfir of Twelvers than Sunni scholars in South Asia. The Mufti assumes that South Asian scholars actually know more about Twelver doctrine, when it is more likely that the Twelvers groups encountered by Arabs differ from those in South Asia.

A good recent academic work that deals with regional differences between Twelvers is Simon Wolfgang Fuchs, In a Pure Muslim Land: Shi’ism between Pakistan and the Middle East (University of North Carolina Press, 2019).

Now, if all Twelvers had one well-defined and stable doctrine, then it would make sense to assess it, verify whether it contains teachings that violate what is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura, and then make general takfir of Twelvers if these teachings exist.

The problem is that no such well-defined and stable doctrine exists.

This is perhaps the primary reason why various premodern Muslim scholars did not make general takfir of the Twelvers. It was not because they lacked knowledge of Twelver doctrine. Quite the contrary. It was because they knew that different Twelver groups had significantly different beliefs and that these beliefs changed over time. Therefore, they wisely held that before making takfir of a given Twelver, it is necessary to determine what exactly his beliefs are. If his beliefs violate what is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura, then he is takfired (e.g., if he claims that Quran is fabricated, if he claims that Our Mother Aisha committed adultery). However, the default status of a Twelver is that he is a Muslim, so long as he does not affirm a belief that conflicts with what is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura.

Here there is a further point that must be made. In both Sunnism and Shiism, the masses lack knowledge of many aqida doctrines. For example, according to Sunni aqida, the Quran is uncreated. Moreover, most Sunni aqida texts assert that Allah is not literally located above the sky and that He does not have a literal hand. Yet, the vast majority of Sunni laymen rarely think about these matters and lack knowledge of Sunni aqida doctrines.

The same applies even more with respect to Twelver Shii aqida doctrines. Because Twelver doctrines are so heterogenous and constantly changing, Twelver laymen have a very limited knowledge of them. Matters are made even more complicated by the practice of taqiyya – where Twelver scholars often conceal the true nature of their doctrines from the public and masses.

Take the issue of the comparative status of imams and prophets. In Twelver books of aqida, the majority view is that the imams have a higher status than some prophets. There is also a minority view that the imams have a lower status than all prophets.

The Mufti assumes that the Twelver layman holds to this majority view. But this assumption is not warranted. It is quite likely that Twelver laymen do not think about these matters, just like Sunni laymen do not think about the question of whether the Quran is uncreated, or whether Allah is physically located above the sky.

Moreover, even if Twelver laymen do think about these matters, they likely have differing views on the comparative status of imams and prophets. Even if many hold the majority view, many may hold the minority view or simply be uncertain which view is correct. In fact, uncertainty is probably widespread given the absence of knowledge characteristic of laymen.

I emphasize this point, because the Mufti does not recognize that widespread uncertainty about aqida is characteristic of Twelver laymen, just like it is characteristic of Sunni laymen.

Given this complicated state of affairs, general takfir of Twelvers is unwise. For even if we assume (like the Mufti) that the majority view is kufr, it is likely that a large percentage of Twelvers do not hold it.

Assessing the Mufti’s Claim: “When a group has kufr beliefs based on false historical information, it is not granted al-udhr bi-l-jahl – and here the situation of the Twelvers is like that of Jews and Christians”

The Mufti argues that Twelvers, Jews, and Christians are all kafirs who reject Islamic doctrines which are ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura (known of the religion with certainty).

Moreover, a primary reason why the three groups reject such doctrines is because they rely on fabricated reports about history.

For example, Jews accept fabricated reports about Moses. According to these reports, Moses rejected the idea that a non-Jewish prophet would come in the future to abrogate the Mosaic law. Relying on these fabricated reports, Jews reject belief in Muhammad ﷺ – a non-Jewish prophet who abrogated the Mosaic law. The Mufti notes that such Jews have no al-udhr bi-l-jahl (excuse of ignorance) just because they relied on false historical reports.

The same applies with respect to Christians, who accept fabricated reports concerning Jesus. In these reports, Jesus asserts that he is the literal son of God. Relying on these fabricated reports, Christians reject the Quranic teaching that Jesus is not the son of God. Once again, they have no al-Udhr bi-l-Jahl.

According to the Mufti, the same principle applies to the Twelvers, who fabricate reports on the Prophet ﷺ, the Companions (e.g., Ali, Hasan, Salman), and the Salaf generally – especially members from the Prophet’s family (e.g., Muhammad al-Baqir, Jafar al-Sadiq). Fabricated Twelver reports claim that the Prophet ﷺ and the Salaf endorsed various Twelver doctrines, including doctrines which assign the imams a higher status than some prophets. According to the Mufti, the Twelvers, like Jews and Christians, have no al-’Udhr bi-l-Jahl simply because they rely on fabricated reports.

But this line of analysis is problematic for several reasons.

To begin with, in discussing al-udhr bi-l-jahl, we cannot compare Twelvers, Jews, and Christians. Al-udhr bi-l-jahl only applies to individuals who have pronounced the shahada, thereby entering into Islam. Twelvers have pronounced the shahada, but Jews and Christians have not. Therefore, only Twelvers and entitled to al-udhr bi-l-jahl. Jews and Christians are denied al-udhr bi-l-jahl because they have not pronounced the shahada. It has nothing to do with the fact that they have relied on fabricated reports.

But let us put the issue of Jews and Christians aside. Perhaps the Mufti simply wishes to make the general claim that al-’Udhr bi-l-Jahl does not apply when a Muslim rejects what is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura, basing his view on fabricated reports.

I would acknowledge that scholars who support a hard takfir position are inclined to the Mufti’s perspective. But it is not characteristic of those with a soft takfir position. Rather, those with a soft takfir position hold that takfir is inappropriate where a person has a doubt or “Shubha,” with some sort of justification. This Shubha may take the form of a mistaken ta’wil (interpretation) of the Quran or a mistaken ta’wil of authentic reports about history. Alternatively, the Shubha may be based on weak or fabricated reports about history. When a person has a Shubha, takfir cannot be pronounced on him immediately. Rather he must be shown that his Shubha is wrong and lacks a basis. It is only after this that al-Udhr bi-l-Jahl has been removed and he may be pronounced a kafir.

The issue of Shubha is particularly relevant when it comes to Twelvers because, as indicated above, their texts contain many reports claiming that the Prophet ﷺ and other early Muslim figures assigned a very high status to the Imams. It is these reports that are the basis of Twelver claims that their Imams have a higher status than some prophets.

Now, one might respond that the reports found in Twelver texts are all fabricated, and therefore they cannot serve as the basis of a valid Shubha. Yet, this response is subject to various counterarguments.

First, although Twelver texts are filled with fabricated reports, it is not obvious that all their reports are fabricated. By extension, it is not obvious that a legitimate Shubha cannot come from a report contained in Twelver texts.

Second, in reality, Twelvers’ Shubhas are not simply based on reports found in Shia collections. They also come from ta’wils of the Quran, from ta’wils of authentic reports found in Sunni collections, as well as from weak or fabricated reports found in Sunni hadith collections (e.g., reports indicating that the status of Ali is comparable to various prophets). I have mentioned some of these reports in my previous response to the Mufti (e.g., al-Bayhaqi’s report: ‘Whoever wishes to look at Adam in his knowledge, Noah in his piety, Abraham in his forbearance, Moses in his dignity, and Jesus in his worship, then let him look at [ʿAli ibn Abi Ṭalib], for in him is found what was dispersed among them.’).

Third, let us assume that Twelver scholars should know that all reports contained in their texts are fabricated and have no historical value. Does the same apply to the Twelver laymen who lack knowledge of history and the hadith sciences? What if, lacking in such knowledge, they believe in Twelver reports which claim that the Prophet ﷺ and other early Muslims granted the imams an extremely high status? It would seem that Twelver laymen of this type should be granted al-udhr bi-l-jahl when they make exaggerated claims about the imams (e.g., the claim that the imams have a higher status than some prophets).

Assessing the Mufti’s Claim: “Twelvers are kafirs because their views are comparable to those of the Qadianis, who are obvious kafirs”

The Mufti suggests that Twelvers are Kafirs because their views are comparable to those of Qadianis. But here I would suggest there are some significant differences.

Qadanis explicitly claim to believe in a prophet (Mirza Ghulam Ahmad) after Muhammad ﷺ, whereas Twelvers explicit reject the notion of any prophet after Muhammad ﷺ. Admittedly, Twelvers do believe in imams who are considered walis that receive a lower form of divine inspiration which helps them interpret the Quran and derive fiqh rulings. But these walis do not replace the Prophet Muhammad’s ﷺ religion or abrogate his legal rules. By contrast, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad does abrogate legal rules from Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, like those on jihad and blasphemy punishments.

READ: 8 Bizarre and Offensive Kufri Beliefs from Qadiyanis

It should also be noted that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad also claimed to be Jesus and Krishna. By contrast, Twelvers do not believe that their imams are incarnations of Jesus or Krishna.

Another relevant difference is that many Twelver beliefs can be traced to the earliest era of Islam. Since the death of the Prophet ﷺ, some members of the early Muslim community in Arabia believed that Ali and his family members have special status and are entitled to special leadership roles above others. This is false, of course, but determining this fact from first principles requires careful study of the historical evidence. After carefully studying the evidence, we see that the Sunni position is correct. But, at the very least, some study is required.

Matters are different with Qadianis. Qadiani views cannot be traced back to the era immediately following the death of the Prophet ﷺ. Rather Qadiani views emerged over a thousand years later in the distant land of India. For this reason alone, they are more easily dismissed as obvious kufr with no basis or justification.

To conclude, the claim that Twelvers are comparable to Qadianis seems exaggerated and dubious.

Assessing the Mufti’s Claim: “Twelvers are kafirs because they claim that Abu Bakr and Umar engaged in injustice”

The Mufti highlights the fact that Twelvers criticize Abu Bakr and Umar for injustice. For example, they claim that Abu Bakr and Umar unjustly deprived Ali of the Caliphate, and deprived Fatima of property.

Before taking up this matter, a few points should be noted. Immediately after the death of the Prophet ﷺ, a number of disagreements emerged within the early Muslim community. These centered primarily on the proper distribution of political power and wealth. Two key events were the first and second fitna. The first fitna (656-661) when a group assassinated the Caliph Uthman, claiming that his policies were unjust. This event would lead to a series of violent conflicts in which major Companions fought against one another. Such Companions included Ali, Muawiya, Aisha, Talha, and Zubayr. The death of the Caliph Muawiya then sparked the second fitna (680-692), which saw wars and rebellions involving Companions like Husayn and Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. During these events, Companions not only disagreed with one another. They insulted each other and accused one another of injustice, with the implicit expectation that those guilty of injustice would be punished by Allah.

Indeed, even before the first and second fitnas, there were disagreements involving Abu Bakr, Umar, Ali, and Fatima. Fatima held that she was entitled to the land of Fadak. Ali believed that he was entitled to a greater voice in political affairs. They thought that this was required by justice. But Abu Bakr and Umar took a different position.

All of this is recorded in Sunni sources.

Take the following report recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari.

Fatima the daughter of the Prophet (ﷺ) sent someone to Abu Bakr (when he was a caliph), asking for her inheritance of what Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) had left of the property bestowed on him by Allah from the Fai (i.e. booty gained without fighting) in Medina, and Fadak, and what remained of the Khumus of the Khaibar booty.

 

On that, Abu Bakr said, “Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) said, “Our property is not inherited. Whatever we leave, is Sadaqa, but the family of (the Prophet) Muhammad can eat of this property.’ By Allah, I will not make any change in the state of the Sadaqa of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) and will leave it as it was during the lifetime of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ), and will dispose of it as Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) used to do.” So Abu Bakr refused to give anything of that to Fatima. So she became angry with Abu Bakr and kept away from him, and did not task to him till she died.

 

She remained alive for six months after the death of the Prophet. When she died, her husband `Ali, buried her at night without informing Abu Bakr and he said the funeral prayer by himself. When Fatima was alive, the people used to respect `Ali much, but after her death, `Ali noticed a change in the people’s attitude towards him. So `Ali sought reconciliation with Abu Bakr and gave him an oath of allegiance. `Ali had not given the oath of allegiance during those months (i.e. the period between the Prophet’s death and Fatima’s death).

 

`Ali sent someone to Abu Bakr saying, “Come to us, but let nobody come with you,” as he disliked that `Umar should come, `Umar said (to Abu Bakr), “No, by Allah, you shall not enter upon them alone “ Abu Bakr said, “What do you think they will do to me? By Allah, I will go to them’ So Abu Bakr entered upon them, and then `Ali uttered Tashah-hud and said (to Abu Bakr), “We know well your superiority and what Allah has given you, and we are not jealous of the good what Allah has bestowed upon you, but you did not consult us in the question of the rule and we thought that we have got a right in it because of our near relationship to Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) .”

 

Thereupon Abu Bakr’s eyes flowed with tears. And when Abu Bakr spoke, he said, “By Him in Whose Hand my soul is to keep good relations with the relatives of Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) is dearer to me than to keep good relations with my own relatives. But as for the trouble which arose between me and you about his property, I will do my best to spend it according to what is good, and will not leave any rule or regulation which I saw Allah’s Messenger (ﷺ) following, in disposing of it, but I will follow.”

 

On that `Ali said to Abu Bakr, “I promise to give you the oath of allegiance in this after noon.” So when Abu Bakr had offered the Zuhr prayer, he ascended the pulpit and uttered the Tashahhud and then mentioned the story of `Ali and his failure to give the oath of allegiance, and excused him, accepting what excuses he had offered; Then `Ali (got up) and praying (to Allah) for forgiveness, he uttered Tashahhud, praised Abu Bakr’s right, and said, that he had not done what he had done because of jealousy of Abu Bakr or as a protest of that Allah had favored him with.

 

`Ali added, “But we used to consider that we too had some right in this affair (of rulership) and that he (i.e. Abu Bakr) did not consult us in this matter, and therefore caused us to feel sorry.” On that all the Muslims became happy and said, “You have done the right thing.” The Muslims then became friendly with `Ali as he returned to what the people had done (i.e. giving the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr).

The existence of such disputes is recorded in Sunni works

To sum up. In some unfortunate circumstances, the Companions themselves disagreed with one another, and insulted one another, and accused one another of injustice, and even killed one another. At the same time, it is known that they did not takfir each other on these grounds. In other words, the Companions did not hold the view that whoever insults a Companion is a kafir, or that whoever kills a Companion is a kafir, or that whoever accuses a Companion of injustice is a kafir, or that whoever claims that God will punish a Companion for injustice is a kafir.

In premodern fiqh texts, scholars are aware of these facts. This is why many scholars are cautious in making takfir in matters related to the Companions. For a lack of caution can lead to problematic or logically inconsistent views. For instance, suppose that we say, based on our love for the Companions, that a person becomes a kafir if he insults a Companion or accuses a Companion of injustice. If we actually apply this rule, then we will end up takfiring the Companions themselves – for they sometimes insulted one another and accused one another of injustice. However, if we don’t apply the rule to Companions, but we apply it to others, then we become inconsistent.

Now, let us turn to Abu Bakr and Umar in particular. If we examine the evidence, we will see that they were two righteous men, loved by the Prophet ﷺ, and favored by the Prophet ﷺ. We will also see that they did everything in their power to preserve Islam in the crucial period following the death of the Prophet ﷺ. Moreover, where they differed with others (e.g., Ali, Aisha), it was a legitimate difference of opinion based on their ijtihad. It did not constitute injustice. All of these points are supported by overwhelming historical evidence. For this reason, it is a great evil to accuse Abu Bakr and Umar of injustice, or to insult them on these grounds.

But the Mufti goes a step further. He suggests that one becomes a kafir if he accuses Abu Bakr and Umar of injustice, or believes that Allah will punish them for such injustice

He suggests that it is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura that Abu Bakr and Umar were righteous men that did not perpetrate injustices after the death of the Prophet ﷺ. A strong claim of this kind would need to be based on either the Quran or mutawatir hadiths.

The Mufti does believe that mutawatir hadiths of this kind exist. His view on this is shared by some premodern scholars. A good example is Ibn Taymiyya, who asserts that there is a mutawatir hadith which not only affirms the righteousness of Abu Bakr and Umar, but establishes an exact order of righteousness of four companions. It establishes that Abu Bakr is the best Muslim after Muhammad ﷺ, who is followed by Umar, who is followed by Uthman, who is followed by Ali.

Ibn Taymiyya says:

“And they (i.e., the Ahl al-Sunnah) affirm what has been transmitted through mass narration from the Commander of the Faithful, Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) and others, that the best of this Ummah after its Prophet are: Abu Bakr, then Umar, then they place Uthman third, and Ali fourth (may Allah be pleased with them all), as indicated by the reports.”

 

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية رحمه الله :

” وَيُقِرُّونَ بِمَا تَوَاتَرَ بِهِ النَّقْلُ عَنْ أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَغَيْرِهِ مِنْ أَنَّ : خَيْرَ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ بَعْدَ نَبِيِّهَا : أَبُو بَكْرٍ ، ثُمَّ عُمَرُ ، وَيُثَلِّثُونَ بِعُثْمَانِ ، وَيُرَبِّعُونَ بِعَلِيِّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمْ ؛ كَمَا دَلَّتْ عَلَيْهِ الْآثَارُ ” .

If one believes that Ibn Taymiyya is correct on this point, then it can be argued that one becomes a kafir unless one affirms very specific beliefs about Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. For example, one would become a kafir if he affirmed that all four were righteous but that Ali held a higher status than Uthman, or that Uthman held a higher status than Abu Bakr. After all, by doing so, one would have rejected a teaching that is based on a clear mutawatir hadith, and which is consequently ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura.

This is particularly relevant to the Mufti’s refutation, for he asserts that “considering other Ṣaḥabah superior to Abu Bakr (رضي الله عنه ) is misguidance and innovation, yet it does not amount to disbelief. (Radd al-Muḥtar, 8:152–3)”. But if Ibn Taymiyya is correct that Abu Bakr’s superiority over all others is established by a mutawatir hadith, then one would become a kafir by asserting that some other companion (e.g., Uthman) is better than Abu Bakr.

But is there actually a mutawatir hadith of this kind claimed by Ibn Taymiyya?

This is not evident. A hadith is mutawatir if, from the time of the Prophet ﷺ, it has continuously been passed on by such a large number of different transmitters that its authenticity cannot be doubted. The number of transmitters needed to prevent doubt is a matter of debate between scholars. Historically, scholars have proposed possible numbers like four, or seventy, or more. For this reason, scholars have different over which hadiths should be classified as mutawatir.

Indeed, they differ over determination of which hadiths are mutawatir in the same way that they differ over which ijmas exist. Some scholars posit the existence of many mutawatir hadiths and ijmas, while others posit the existence of much fewer.

Take the aforementioned hadith mentioned by Ibn Taymiyya. If all scholars held that it was mutawatir, then they would agree that an individual becomes a kafir by asserting that some other companion (e.g., Uthman) is better than Abu Bakr. Yet this is not the case.

And it is easy to see why people might question whether the relevant hadith is mutawatir. If this hadith is indeed mutawatir, it would need to have been widespread at the time of the Prophet’s (saw) death. But if it was widespread at the time of the Prophet’s (saw) death, then why were there disputes over the Caliphate? If all the Muslims were aware that Abu Bakr was best, then Umar, then Uthman, then Ali – why did they not simply agree to make them Caliphs in this order from the beginning? Why did Ali not immediately agree to Abu Bakr’s Caliphate? And why did Uthman need to be elected as Caliph? A mutawatir hadith is one in which there is absolutely no doubt. But is it true that there is no absolutely no doubt here? Problems of this kind can lead to disagreements about whether it is correct to classify such a hadith as mutawatir.

To be sure, the Mufti could concede that Ibn Taymiyya’s hadith about Abu Bakr and Umar is not really mutawatir. He could still claim that are other hadith about them which are mutawatir, and which establish that they were righteous men who could not have perpetuated injustices after the death of the Prophet (saw).

But again, it is not obvious that such mutawatir hadiths exist.

The underlying issue here is that proponents of the hard takfir position usually justify their views by positing a large number of mutawatir hadiths and ijmas.

But their judgments on these matters are debatable.

This point is especially pertinent given the specific scholars that are cited in the Mufti’s refutation. Thus, the Mufti gives special attention to Taqi al-Din al-Subki. Al-Subki asserts that there is a mutawatir hadith that Abu Bakr and Umar are righteous and guaranteed Paradise. This may be right. But al-Subki’s judgement on such matters is not beyond dispute. Indeed, he is known for making strong but controversial statements about which doctrines are accepted by all Muslims, and obligatory to believe. For example, al-Subki was harshly critical of Ibn Taymiyya. In attacking Ibn Taymiyya, he asserts that there ijma that istighatha is permissible, and also that there is an ijma that the hellfire will never pass away. He makes these statements knowing that Ibn Taymiyya believes they are incorrect.

Aside from the issue of whether there exists a mutawatir hadith of the type claimed, the Mufti’s analysis raises some additional problems.

When it comes to Twelver criticisms of Abu Bakr and Umar, there are many different levels. Some Twelvers hold that Abu Bakr and Umar merit criticism for committing an injustice, others go a step further and hold that they merit insults, others go a step further and hold the God will punish them, others go a step further and insist that they are kafirs who will be eternally punished. In matters of takfir, we must distinguish between these levels of criticism (which is what is done in fiqh books).

The problem here is that many sweeping claims are being made about Twelvers without adequate evidence. For example, the Mufti’s analysis suggests that contemporary Twelvers endorse insulting Abu Bakr and Umar. But this overlooks the fact that many of the highest contemporary Twelver authorities (e.g., Sistani, Khameini) have explicitly prohibited insulting Abu Bakr and Umar.

The Mufti should present adequate evidence if he wishes to assert that all or most Twelvers believe in insulting Abu Bakr and Umar, or that all or most Twelvers believe that Abu Bakr and Umar are kafirs. I recognize that the Mufti is not simply making things up. On the contrary, he is surely correct in stating that some Twelvers believe in such things – just like some Twelvers believe in alteration of the Quran (tahrif) and some believe in al-wilaya al-takwiniyya. But “some” is not the same as “all” or even “most” (e.g., most Twelvers today certainly do not believe in tahrif of the Quran, and it is doubtful whether most believe in al-wilaya al-takwiniyya, at least in its extreme form).

To conclude, there are many problems with takfiring contemporary Twelvers based on their views regarding Abu Bakr and Umar.

As noted previously, the Companions themselves disagreed with one another, and insulted one another, and accused one another of injustice, and even killed one another. At the same time, it is known that they did not takfir each other on these grounds. This makes it difficult to argue that a person becomes a kafir if he insults a Companion, or accuses a Companion of injustice, and the like.

It is claimed that there are mutawatir hadiths which establish that Abu Bakr and Umar had a level of righteousness which would have prevented them from committing injustices. But it is not evident such mutawatir hadiths exist.

Finally, Twelvers hold varying views on Abu Bakr and Umar. Even if some of these views amount to kufr, that would not justify general takfir of Twelvers.

That being said, let me reiterate that the historical evidence strongly indicates that Abu Bakr and Umar did not perpetuate injustices during their reigns. Whoever claims otherwise is a deviant that merits harsh criticism and punishment.

Assessing the Mufti’s Claim: “Twelvers are Kafirs because they consider their Imams to be Prophets”

It is my understanding that the Mufti accepts the following standard Sunni beliefs:

1. There are many prophets (up to 124,000), the vast majority of whom are not mentioned in the Quran.
2. These prophets receive a type of full divine revelation (i.e., wahi).
3. There are also non-prophets, mentioned in the Quran, who receive a lesser type of divine revelation (e.g., ilham). In some cases, these non-prophets can be considered walis (i.e., pious people).
4. Sometimes angels bring the lesser type of divine revelation to walis.

For instance, Maryam is a wali that received divine revelation brought by angels.

In Quran 3:42-43, Allah says:

“The angels said to Mary: ‘Mary, Allah has chosen you and made you pure: He has truly chosen you above all women. Mary, be devout to your Lord, prostrate yourself in worship, bow down with those who pray.”

In Quran 19:16-19, Allah says:

“Mention in the Quran the story of Mary. She withdrew from her family to a place to the east – and secluded herself away; We sent Our Spirit to appear before her in the form of a perfected man. She said, ‘I seek the Lord of Mercy’s protection against you: if you have any fear of Him [do not approach]!’ but he said, ‘I am but a Messenger from your Lord, [come] to announce to you the gift of a pure son.’”

The mother of Musa is another example.

In Quran 28:7, Allah says:

“We inspired Moses’ mother (wa awhayna ila umm Musa), saying, ‘Suckle him, and then, when you fear for his safety, put him in the river: do not be afraid, and do not grieve, for We shall return him to you and make him a messenger.’”

Walis are also mentioned in hadiths. For instance, in Bukhari, it is reported:

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said, “Allah, the Exalted, has said: ‘I will declare war against him who treats with hostility a wali of Mine. And the most beloved thing with which My slave comes nearer to Me, is what I have enjoined upon him; and My slave keeps on coming closer to Me through performing supererogatory deeds until I love him, (so much so that) I become his hearing with which he hears, and his sight with which he sees, and his hand with which he strikes, and his leg with which he walks; and if he asks Me something, I will surely give him, and if he seeks My Protection (refuge), I will surely protect him”.

 

وعن أبي هريرة رضي الله عنه قال‏:‏ قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم‏:‏ ‏”‏إن الله تعالى قال‏:‏ ‏”‏من عاد لي وليَّا، فقد آذنته بالحرب، وما تقرب إلي عبدي بشيء أحب إليَّ مما افترضت عليه، وما يزال عبدي يتقرب إليَّ بالنوافل حتى أحبه فإذا أحببته كنت سمعه الذي يسمع به، وبصره الذي يبصر به، ويده التي يبطش بها، ورجله التي يمشي بها، وإن سألني، أعطيته، ولئن استعاذني، لأعيذنه‏”‏ ‏(‏‏(‏رواه البخاري‏)‏‏)‏‏.‏

In keeping with standard Sunni doctrine, the Mufti presumably accepts that walis continue to exist after the Prophet ﷺ (e.g., Abu Bakr, Abd al-Qadir al-Jilani, Ahmad Sirhindi). The Mufti also presumably accepts that these walis continue to receive a lesser type of divine revelation This lesser revelation (e.g., ilham) does not replace the Quran or the religion of the Prophet ﷺ. Rather, walis use it to help them interpret the Quran and extract legal rulings. This phenomenon has, of course, been affirmed by many major Muslim scholars like al-Ghazali and Ibn Taymiyya.

In keeping with standard Sunni doctrine, the Mufti presumably accepts that, after the time of the Prophet ﷺ, some prophets (e.g., Khidr, Ilyas) might still be present on earth.

Furthermore, in keeping with standard Sunni doctrine, the Mufti presumably accepts that, after the time of the Prophet ﷺ, Allah protects the Sunni community as represented by the scholars. Allah does this by endowing Sunni jurists with a type of infallibility such that whenever they agree on a teaching (ijma), they are protected from error.

So all of these points should be kept in mind when evaluating the Mufti’s argument.

The Mufti states that it is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura that there are no prophets after Muhammad ﷺ.

The Mufti then claims that Twelvers are kafirs because they violate the preceding doctrine. This is because the imams existed after Muhammad ﷺ, and the Twelvers elevate these imams to the status of prophets.

But is this line of argument defensible?

Someone might argue that the doctrine of no prophets after Muhammad ﷺ should be applied with maximal strictness and that anyone who comes close to violating it automatically deserves takfir.

But this generates a problem.

As mentioned earlier, Sunnis do not see a problem in believing that prophets like Khidr and Ilyas exist on this earth after Muhammad ﷺ. It is argued that Khidr and Ilyas are not ordinary prophets because, even though they continue on this earth after Muhammad ﷺ, they started their lives before Muhammad ﷺ. Given that Khidr and Ilyas are not ordinary prophets, one does not become a kafir by asserting that they exist after Muhammad ﷺ. One can accept this argument. But is should be admitted that the argument implies that we are not applying the doctrine of no prophets after Muhammad ﷺ with maximal strictness, such that whoever comes close to violating it automatically deserves takfir.

The Sunni Sufi concept of the wali also raises problems. Sufis deny that walis are prophets. If one wanted to criticize Sufis, one could argue that, in reality, they elevate walis to the status of prophets. After all, Sufis claim that walis continue to receive a lesser type of divine revelation (potentially brought by angels). Sufis also claim that walis use this to help interpret the Quran and extract legal rulings.

Most Sunnis would deny that Sufi beliefs about walis violate the doctrine of no prophets after Muhammad ﷺ. Once again, one can accept this argument. But it should be admitted that the argument itself implies that we are not applying the doctrine of no prophets after Muhammad ﷺ with maximal strictness, such that whoever comes close to violating it automatically deserves takfir.

Now let’s turn to the case of the Twelvers. The Twelvers explicitly claim that their imams are not prophets. Rather, they explicitly assert that their imams are simply walis.

The Mufti says this is not sufficient. In his view, the Twelvers do, in fact, treat their imams as prophets, even if they deny that they are prophets.

What is the proof for this?

Here the Mufti mentions various Twelver ideas about their imams.

For example, Twelvers believe their imams receive a type of lesser revelation (ilham), which is sometimes given through angels, like the lesser revelation received by Maryam.

Twelvers deny that their imams can alter or abrogate the religious teachings brought by Muhammad ﷺ, as he was the final prophet. Nevertheless, Twelvers still claim that their imams use the type of lesser revelation they receive to help them interpret the Quran and extract legal rulings.

In addition, Twelvers believe that their imams have a type of infallibility such that whenever they declare a teaching, they are protected from error. In this sense there is a type of similarity with the Sunni notion of ijma.

To my mind, Twelver claims of this type do not prove that they consider their imams to be prophets. Rather, these claims indicate that Twelvers consider their imams to be walis. This is the reason why they explicitly say that their imams are walis, and not prophets.

In arguing that Twelvers consider imams to be like prophets, the Mufti asserts that, according to Twelvers, it is obligatory to follow the imams in the same way that it is obligatory to follow the prophets, and that whoever does not follow the imams is a kafir. There is no doubt that this belief was common in the premodern period, although my understanding is that it was a matter of dispute. What is clearer though, is that among contemporary Twelvers, many if not most do not believe that it is obligatory to follow the imams in the same way that it is obligatory to follow the prophets, and that whoever does not follow the imams is a kafir. This is the view of the highest contemporary Twelver authorities like Sistani and Khameini

The Grand List of Endorsements of the Amman Message and Its Three Points

One of the fundamental features of a prophet is that he must be followed, and that whoever does not follow is a disbeliever. So how can it be said that contemporary Twelvers consider their imams to be equivalent to prophets, when their view is that one who does not follow these imams does not become a disbeliever?

In reality, some extreme Sufis have greatly exaggerated the powers and status of walis. Generally speaking, I hold that extreme Sufi beliefs of this kind are deviant, but do not necessarily amount to disbelief.

Twelver views are as bad or worse than extreme Sufi views. There is no doubt that they are highly deviant. But, once again, they do not necessarily amount to disbelief.

This is not to deny that Twelver doctrines about their imams sometimes do cross into clear disbelief. For example, the Mufti mentions that there are some extreme Twelvers who hold that the imams have authority to abrogate legislation from the Prophet ﷺ. Takfir of such Twelvers is clearly justified. But this does not mean the general takfir of Twelvers is justified.

Assessing the Mufti’s Claim: “Twelvers are kafirs because they believe that it is possible for a non-prophet to have a higher status before Allah than a prophet”

The Mufti notes that most Twelver aqida books claim that a non-prophet may have a higher status before Allah than a prophet. More specifically, most Twelver aqida books claim that their imams (who are walis) have a higher status than some (or most) prophets (but not the Prophet Muhammad).

Why is this important? According to the Mufti, Islam does not merely teach that prophets in general have a higher status than non-prophets. Rather, Islam teaches that every single prophet has a higher status than every single non-prophet, and this is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura.

The Mufti further claims that there is an ijma that every single prophet has a higher status than every single non-prophet.

Consider non-prophet walis like Maryam and the Mahdi. The Mufti’s position is that a person becomes a kafir if he asserts that Maryam or the Mahdi have a higher status before Allah than any of the many prophets which have existed in history, which may number up to 124,000 (the vast majority of which are not mentioned in the Quran).

I have addressed these arguments in depth in my previous response to the Mufti. Here, I will only briefly repeat a few key points.

It is doubtful that there exists an ijma that every single prophet has a higher status than every single non-prophet. Moreover, even if there were such an ijma, scholars disagree on whether an ijma can justify takfir (e.g., takfir of Twelvers).

Despite the lack of a clear ijma, I am nevertheless convinced that every prophet is higher in status than every non-prophet. The existing evidence very strongly supports such a view. However, I do not think that this matter is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura.

Thus, I think that whoever asserts that a non-prophet could have a higher status than a prophet is guilty of extreme deviance. But it is not clear cut that he is a kafir.

It should also be remembered that when contemporary Twelvers say that imams have a higher status than most prophets, this expression is somewhat misleading. For in the view of many contemporary Twelvers, it is only prophets (not imams) who bring new religious teachings, and it is only prophets (not imams) who must be followed to obtain salvation.

And here I should reiterate a point made above. Let us assume that it is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura that every single prophet has a higher status than every single non-prophet. This would mean that the view found in most Twelver aqida books is kufr. But does this mean we should make general takfir on Twelvers? Here there are obstacles. Even among Twelver scholars, not all endorse the majority view. Things are even more complicated for laymen. Recall that Twelver laymen (like Sunni laymen) often have very limited knowledge of aqida doctrines. As a result, while many lay Twelvers may endorse the majority view, many may also endorse the minority view, or simply be unsure of the comparative status of imams and prophets. Given this state of affairs, blanket takfir comes at high risk.

Assessing the Mufti’s Claim: “Twelvers are kafirs because they believe that the Quran has been altered (i.e., tahrif)”

The Mufti claims that Twelvers are kafirs because they believe that the Quran has been altered. But while this view is common in premodern Twelver texts, it has been abandoned by the vast majority of contemporary Twelvers. There have been several academic studies on this development. So I will simply present excerpts from two relevant peer-reviewed academic sources.

The first is a book. The second is an article. I have linked to the article, so that the reader can directly verify its content.

First Source

p.24-30 in Etan Kohlberg and Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi, (eds.). “Revelation and Falsification: The Kitab al-qira’at of Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Sayyari: Critical Edition with an Introduction and Notes by Etan Kohlberg and Mohammad Ali Amir-Moezzi”. (Leiden: Brill, 2009).

Imāmī Views on the Question of the Falsification of the Qur’ān

As we have seen, there were many who held that the ‘Uthmānic version was not a faithful reproduction of the revelations made to the Prophet. Yet, the most explicit, forceful, and numerous accusations that the official Qur’ān did not conform to the revelations made to Muhammad are found in Imāmī sources, especially of the pre-Buwayhid period, and are directed against the first three caliphs and their followers, all of whom are depicted as adversaries of ‘Alī.

 

Briefly put, these sources maintain that ‘Alī, Muhammad’s only true initiate and legitimate successor, was the sole possessor of the complete version of the revelation made to the Prophet. After Muhammad’s death and the assumption of power by ‘Alī’s enemies, this version, which was much longer than the official one, was rejected by those in authority mainly because it contained explicit tributes to the first Imam, his descendants, and supporters, and equally explicit attacks on their adversaries. Once rejected, this recension was concealed by ‘Alī in order to be secretly transmitted to future Imams of his lineage. Since at least the 4th/10th century, these beliefs have been under constant attack by Sunnī and Mu’tazilī authors and heresiographers, who regard them as among the most flagrant elements of Shī’ī “heresy.”

 

There are quite a few studies on taḥrīf in Shī’ism. They may be divided into three groups, depending on the conclusions drawn in them:

 

Writers of the first group maintain that the doubts raised concerning the authenticity of the ‘Uthmānic codex have no historical basis and are founded solely on dogmatic and political-theological views. Once ‘Alī was removed from power, it was only natural that sooner or later his supporters would declare his recension to be the most complete, in order not only to demonstrate his superiority over other Companions of the Prophet but also to underline their betrayal of him. The weakness of this thesis lies in the fact that it reduces Imāmī Shī’ism to an exclusively political movement in search of temporal power. It does not take into consideration the numerous and complex doctrinal and historical accounts found in various sources that support the notion of falsification.

According to a second group of studies, the Imāmīs did not claim that the official version as a whole was unreliable and did not doubt the authenticity of its content. Rather, they argued that certain words or expressions had been omitted and that the order of some verses or suras had been changed. They held the ‘Uthmānic codex to contain virtually the entire revelation; ‘Uthmān’s fault lay above all in his rejection of other recensions, especially ‘Alī’s commentary, which appeared in the margin of ‘Alī’s own copy and is indispensable for a proper understanding of the Qur’ānic text. According to some studies in this group, views on the falsification of the Qur’ān are of non-Shī’ī provenance, originating particularly among extremist groups (ghulāt) or various heterodox and heretical movements, and aimed at contaminating the corpus of Shī’ī ḥadīth. These studies reflect the position taken by the Imāmīs—most of them, after the Buwayhid period—to the exclusion of earlier views, which are passed over in silence for apologetic reasons. Thus, these studies attempt to present Imāmī Shī’ism, despite rich textual evidence to the contrary, as having been—always and everywhere—a “moderate” movement respectful of Islamic “orthodoxy.”

 

Finally, there are those who maintain that the Imāmīs, basing themselves on the utterances of their Imams as reported in the vast corpus of early Shī’ī ḥadīth, openly questioned the integrity of the ‘Uthmānic codex and accused non-Shī’īs of having falsified the Qur’ān. This was, in fact, the early Imāmī position, confirmed by numerous historical accounts and by Imāmī tenets, mainly of the pre-Buwayhid period. In the Buwayhid period (i.e., starting in the mid-4th/10th century), specific historical and doctrinal circumstances led the majority of Twelver scholars, beginning with Muhammad b. ‘Alī Ibn Bābawayh (d. 381/991), to abandon this thesis and adopt the Sunnī viewpoint.

 

The Buwayhid era signaled the marginalization of the original esoteric suprarational tradition, whose main doctrines are set out in the above-mentioned sources. With the end of the period of historical Imams, the flourishing of a kind of rationalism in almost all religious environments, and especially the Shī’ī rise to power at the center of the Sunnī ‘Abbāsid caliphate, Imāmī jurists, particularly those in the capital Baghdad, seem to have felt constrained to break at certain points with the original tradition in order to develop a new rational theological-legal method. For these jurists, who were seeking rapprochement with the Sunnī “orthodoxy,” which had become ever more firmly established, belief in the falsification of the official Qur’ān was no longer tenable, particularly as this Qur’ān was being increasingly regarded as sacred, and belief in its integrity as inseparable from faith.

 

The leading Imāmī scholars of this period declared that the ‘Uthmānic codex faithfully reproduces the text of the revelation; at the same time, they remained very circumspect about earlier religious authorities who had maintained the contrary. Ibn Bābawayh seems to have been the first major Twelver author to adopt a position identical to that of the Sunnīs: “Our (i.e., Twelver) belief is that the Qur’ān, which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad, is (the same as) the one between the two boards (mā bayn al-daffatayn, i.e., the official ‘Uthmānic version)… And he who asserts that it is greater in extent than this (the present text) is a liar.” He passes in silence over the many traditions that mention falsification, erasure, or alteration (taḥrīf, maḥw, tabdīl/ taghyīr). His disciple and commentator, al-Shaykh al-Mufīd (d. 413/1022), at least in some of his writings, follows the same direction, limiting himself to discussing changes in the order (ta’līf) of some verses or suras, or the elimination by certain Companions of ‘Alī’s commentary on the Qur’ān, which appeared in the margins of his recension and was also called qur’ān. This, apparently, is how al-Mufīd tries to explain away the existence of traditions that speak of the suppression of some passages of the Qur’ān.

 

Other opponents of the theory of falsification take the same position, while further developing it. They include, for example, al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā (d. 436/1044) in al-Masā’il al-Ṭarābulusiyyāt al-Ūlā, and Abū Ja’far al-Tūsī (d. 460/1067) in al-Tibyān. This position regarding the Qur’ān, which aligns with that of the rest of the Muslims, became the prevailing view held by the majority of Twelver Shī’īs, who were dominated by the rationalist school later known as the Uṣūliyya. It was also held by some well-known scholars who did not all belong to the rationalist tendency. Among them are al-Faḍl b. al-Ḥasan al-Ṭabrisī (d. 548/1154), Raḍī al-Dīn ‘Alī b. Mūsā Ibn Ṭāwūs (d. 664/1266), al-’Allāma al-Ḥillī (d. 726/1325), ‘Alī b. Muḥammad al-Bayāḍī al-’Āmilī (d. 877/1472–1473), Muḥsin al-Fayḍ al-Kāshānī (d. 1091/1680), and Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Ḥurr al-’Āmilī (d. 1104/1693).

According to the rationalists, traditions maintaining that the ‘Uthmānic codex had been altered were invented in heterodox circles, are totally unreliable, and in no way reflect genuine Shī’ī beliefs. Despite their prominence in the transmission of doctrine, the compilers and scholars who transmitted these traditions without examining their reliability lacked clarity and critical sense. However, there were always thinkers who, out of respect for ḥadīth, upheld the theory of taḥrīf. These scholars are associated, to a greater or lesser degree, with the rival traditionalist school, the Akhbāriyya, a minority group that is nevertheless quite important in the history of Shī’ī thought. Well-known representatives of this school include, in the 6th/12th century, Aḥmad b. ‘Alī al-Ṭabrisī in his Iḥtijāj, and Ibn Shahrāshūb in his Mathālib al-Nawāṣib; in the Safavid period, Muḥammad Bāqir al-Lāhījī in his Tadhkirat al-A’imma, Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ al-Māzandarānī in his commentary on al-Kulaynī’s Uṣūl min al-Kāfī, Hāshim al-Baḥrānī in al-Burhān, and Ni’mat Allāh al-Jazā’irī in al-Anwār al-Nu’māniyya and Manba’ al-Ḥayāt. In the 12th/18th and 13th/19th centuries, notable figures included ‘Abdallāh al-Ḥusaynī al-Shubbar in Maṣābīḥ al-Anwār and Yūsuf b. Aḥmad al-Baḥrānī in al-Ḥadā’iq al-Nāḍira. Three particularly important works also belong here: Ḍiyā’ al-’Ālamīn/’Ālamayn fī l-Imāma, and the Qur’ānic commentary Mir’āt al-Anwār, both by Abū l-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad Ṭāhir al-’Āmilī al-Iṣfahānī (d. after 1140/1727–1728), and Faṣl al-Khiṭāb by Mīrzā Ḥusayn al-Nūrī al-Ṭabarsī/Ṭabrisī (d. 1320/1902).

 

At the same time, a careful reading of the texts seems to indicate that the attitude of Imāmī scholars regarding the ‘Uthmānic codex is, at times, extremely complex—surely due to some embarrassment—and that the issue of whether or not the Qur’ān was falsified went well beyond the rationalist/traditionalist divide. We have already chosen to classify some major figures associated with the traditionalist tendency, namely Ibn Ṭāwūs, Muḥsin al-Fayḍ, and al-Ḥurr al-’Āmilī, as opponents of taḥrīf, although their positions are not always clear. Conversely, some renowned figures associated with the rationalist tendency also display an ambiguous attitude toward this delicate matter. These include, from the Buwayhid period, al-Shaykh al-Mufīd; from the Safavid period, the renowned al-Majlisī (d. 1110/1699); and in the 19th and 20th centuries, celebrated mujtahids such as Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Mahdī al-Narāqī (d. 1244/1828–1829), Shaykh Murtaḍā al-Anṣārī (d. 1281/1864), Akhūnd Muḥammad Kāẓim al-Khurāsānī (d. 1329/1911), and Ayatollah Khomeini (d. 1409/1989).

 

Among the works cited, Faṣl al-Khiṭāb by al-Nūrī al-Ṭabarsī/Ṭabrisī constitutes the most systematic attempt to uphold the theory of the falsification of the ‘Uthmānic codex. If al-Sayyārī’s work, extensively cited by al-Nūrī, can be considered the oldest monograph upholding the Shī’ī notion of the falsification of the Qur’ān, then al-Nūrī’s book is the last. It also seems to complete another circle: the first of the twelve arguments in Faṣl al-Khiṭāb in favor of the theory of taḥrīf, which constitutes the first of the book’s twelve chapters, is based on the famous ḥadīth according to which all that happened to the Jews and Christians will someday also befall the Muslims. And since the sacred books of the Jews and Christians had been falsified (according to Q 2:75, 4:46, 6:91), the author concludes that the book of the Muslims, in its official version (not the true recension, that of ‘Alī, kept by the Hidden Imam and protected by Allah; cf. Q 15:9, 41:41–42), had also been falsified. In this lengthy first chapter, al-Nūrī attempts to demonstrate the key role that the falsification of scriptures has played in the history of all religions. Here, one can hear an echo of the warnings sounded by the ancient prophet Māni, mentioned at the beginning of this introduction, about the fate which awaits scriptures and the religious communities dependent on them when these scriptures are not written down by the prophets who brought them.

Second Source

p.444-446 in Rainer Brunner,  ”The dispute about the falsification of the Qur’an between Sunnis and Shi’is in the 20th century.” Stefan Leder et al. (Eds.): Studies in Arabic and Islam: Proceedings of the 19th Congress, Union Européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants, Halle 1998. Leuven [et al.]: Peeters, 2002, pp. [437] – 446” (2002).

The last dramatic signpost for the relations between Sunnism and Shiism was the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Since then, the number of mutual polemic writings has once again increased, and it is hardly astonishing that the problem of tahrif has also been affected by this general trend. As far as Shii writers are concerned, two methods of coping with the problem are to be observed. The first is apology. Thus, the Shii author Jaefar Murtacid al-Amill chose a remarkably careful expression and spoke of “a group of reports of which one may perhaps say that their outward and literal meaning points to the distortion (of the Qur’an).” But more important than this highly euphemistic treatment of the issue is the second method that consists in open criticism. A series of new books has been published or older ones have been reprinted by Shii writers or institutions (mostly propaganda organizations in Iran), in which tahrif forms the central theme. Finally, there is hardly a new book on the general subject of the Qur’anic sciences whose author can afford not to include a long chapter dealing with tahrif. On the other hand, the number of Sunni polemic writings, usually centered around Nuri’s Fayl al-khitab and mostly paying tribute to Khatib, has become equally firmly established. Their authors scarcely bother to distinguish between different currents or stages of Shii thought, but generally blame the whole of Shiism — past and present — for believing in tahrif or disguising their views by means of taqiyyah. Only very rarely does one find authors who are willing to adopt a more moderate view and to differentiate the inner-Shiei currents in this regard at least to some extent.

 

Oddly enough, there is no visible difference with regard to the contents of the debate, because both Sunnis and Shieis emphasize the completeness and authenticity of the Qur’an. Therefore, the main argument against the possibility of tahrif, the reference to the Qur’an itself (15/9: “It is We who have sent down the Remembrance, and We watch over it”), can be found on both sides without distinction. The whole dispute is about the assessment of the early Shii compilations of hadiths and of later Shii authors who took them for granted. It seems rather ironical — in so far as religious polemics can be ironical — that the controversy between Sunnis and Shiis on this question in modern times only started when the Shii scholars unanimously agreed on abandoning the last signs of ambiguity and denying their own tahrif traditions. That this need not necessarily prevent Sunni polemicists from incessantly repeating old accusations and from crusading against al-Kulayni by quoting Ibn Hazm is not really surprising. Religious polemicists have never and nowhere been characterized by the will or even the ability to look at more than one side of the medal.

Conclusion

It is certainly true that particular doctrines held by some Twelvers justify takfir (e.g., that the Quran is altered, that the imams have the authority to abrogate the Prophet’s ﷺ legislation). It can also be said that, in the premodern era, takfir may have been justified for many, if not most, Twelvers. That being said, over the course of the past century, Twelvers have moved much closer to orthodox Sunni belief. This is not to deny that some significant portion of contemporary Twelvers may merit takfir. But general takfir of Twelvers lacks justification. This is especially so with regards to Twelver laymen. Twelvers should be judged on a case-by-case basis. The Twelver individual should be considered a Muslim until he affirms a doctrine that contradicts what is ma’lum min al-din bi-l-darura.