Did ibn Taymiyyah Declare Takfir Again the 12er Shia

[Rationalist]

A lot of 12ers accuse him of doing takfir against them, but till this day they have not been able to prove their point. I can understand he disliked the 12ers because at the time there was a lot of political tensions between the two schools. However, is there any evidence that he declared the 12er Shia as non-Muslims?

[Bolani Muslim]

I've heard that he originally did takfir of 12ers, but took it back later on as he realized that not all laymen have the beliefs of their scholars. Not sure how true it is :/

[Rationalist]

This is what I found.
Sh. al-Islam said in Minhaj al-Sunnah:

والإمامية الاثنا عشرية خير منهم بكثير فإن الإمامية مع فرط جهلهم وضلالهم فيهم خلق مسلمون باطنا وظاهرا ليسوا زنادقة منافقين لكنهم جهلوا وضلوا واتبعوا أهواءهم وأما أولئك فأئمتهم الكبار العارفون بحقيقة دعوتهم الباطنية زنادقة منافقون عوامهم الذين لم يعرفوا باطن أمرهم فقد يكونون مسلمين


12vr Shia are much better than Ismailism because in spite of the ignorance and misguiadnce of the 12vrs Shiaa, there are some who are Muslims in their heart and outwardly and they are not hypocrits and Zanadiqah as they are ignorants who become misguided and followed their whims. As for their leaders and scholars, who know the reality of their hidden agenda of their Madhab are hypocrits and Zanadiqah. as for the 12vr Shiaa laypeople whose inner beleif is not obvious or confirmed to be right then they might be Muslims.


This isn't any different than what the 12er Shia have declared against non-12ers.

What about fatwas ordering the killing of the Shia? This is another area where I have seen the 12er Shia accuse
 ibn Tamiyyah.

[Khaled]

This is what I found.
Sh. al-Islam said in Minhaj al-Sunnah:

والإمامية الاثنا عشرية خير منهم بكثير فإن الإمامية مع فرط جهلهم وضلالهم فيهم خلق مسلمون باطنا وظاهرا ليسوا زنادقة منافقين لكنهم جهلوا وضلوا واتبعوا أهواءهم وأما أولئك فأئمتهم الكبار العارفون بحقيقة دعوتهم الباطنية زنادقة منافقون عوامهم الذين لم يعرفوا باطن أمرهم فقد يكونون مسلمين


12vr Shia are much better than Ismailism because in spite of the ignorance and misguiadnce of the 12vrs Shiaa, there are some who are Muslims in their heart and outwardly and they are not hypocrits and Zanadiqah as they are ignorants who become misguided and followed their whims. As for their leaders and scholars, who know the reality of their hidden agenda of their Madhab are hypocrits and Zanadiqah. as for the 12vr Shiaa laypeople whose inner beleif is not obvious or confirmed to be right then they might be Muslims.


This isn't any different than what the 12er Shia have declared against non-12ers.

What about fatwas ordering the killing of the Shia? This is another area where I have seen the 12er Shia accuse
 ibn Tamiyyah.

I remember when I posted something like this, I was accused by some brothers of "Irjaa'"....

[Muwahhid]

This is what I found.
Sh. al-Islam said in Minhaj al-Sunnah:

والإمامية الاثنا عشرية خير منهم بكثير فإن الإمامية مع فرط جهلهم وضلالهم فيهم خلق مسلمون باطنا وظاهرا ليسوا زنادقة منافقين لكنهم جهلوا وضلوا واتبعوا أهواءهم وأما أولئك فأئمتهم الكبار العارفون بحقيقة دعوتهم الباطنية زنادقة منافقون عوامهم الذين لم يعرفوا باطن أمرهم فقد يكونون مسلمين


12vr Shia are much better than Ismailism because in spite of the ignorance and misguiadnce of the 12vrs Shiaa, there are some who are Muslims in their heart and outwardly and they are not hypocrits and Zanadiqah as they are ignorants who become misguided and followed their whims. As for their leaders and scholars, who know the reality of their hidden agenda of their Madhab are hypocrits and Zanadiqah. as for the 12vr Shiaa laypeople whose inner beleif is not obvious or confirmed to be right then they might be Muslims.


This isn't any different than what the 12er Shia have declared against non-12ers.

What about fatwas ordering the killing of the Shia? This is another area where I have seen the 12er Shia accuse
 ibn Tamiyyah.

I remember when I posted something like this, I was accused by some brothers of "Irjaa'"....

The difference is that you said neither the scholars nor the laymen are kafir....which, if that is really what you believe then that would be extreme Irjaa'.

[Khaled]

The difference is that you said neither the scholars nor the laymen are kafir....which, if that is really what you believe then that would be extreme Irjaa'.

First of all, I want to make the point that Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله shouldn’t be read by laymen such as yourself, nor by people with ulterior motives such as the Shi’a, because the two of you, either knowingly or unknowingly, misunderstand his words.  Shaykh al-Islam is a scholar’s scholar, and not someone whose works really should be read by people who don’t have the principles or the ability to discern what he says.

Second of all, the translation, which is misleading, but I will get to that later, doesn’t say he makes takfeer of their “scholars”, rather he makes takfeer of أئمتهم الكبار العارفون بحقيقة دعوتهم الباطنية زنادقة منافقون, meaning “their major Imams who know the reality of their batini da’wah are zanadiqah munafiqoon” not that everybody that goes to a hawzah is automatically a kafir.

Now, in order to understand Shaykh al-Islam’s position رحمه الله, we need to go back to his statements, while knowing his principles that he would rely upon.

From amongst that is that he, without a doubt, was harshest in his refutation against the Shi’a from all the Islamic sects.  He described them as having little aql, being enemies to Islam, and even described as worse than the khawarij (which I don’t agree with).  I will say that the fact I frequent this site and hope to contribute to it shows that I think very lowly of the Shi’as, much like I think very lowly of the khawarij.

However, at the end of the day, Shaykh al-Islam رحمه الله still considered them Muslims and didn’t expel them from the fold of Islam (unlike what they have done to him).  This is because, as we all know, the Shi’as are of different types, and therefore, from reading his works, we see Shaykh al-Islam رحمه الله divided them into three categories: kuffar by consensus, Muslim by consensus, and those who there are a difference of opinion about.  The first would be groups like the Ismailiayh, Alawiyah, Druze etc[1], the second would be like the Zaydiah and the moderate 12ers[2], and the third would be the Rafidah, which Shaykh al-Islam mentions, for example that there are two opinions on the authority of Imam Ahmad رحمه الله in the issue of their takfeer[3].  In addition, this is how Ibn Taymiyah divides all Islamic sects, Shia or otherwise.

As far as the quote that was mistranslated, then read this بارك الله فيك and see if you still think Shaykh al-Islam makes takfeer of 12er scholars:

فهذه خاصة الرافضة الإمامية التي لم يشركهم فيها أحد لا الزيدية الشيعة , ولا سائر طوائف المسلمين , إلا من هو شر منهم كالإسماعيلية الذين يقولون بعصمة بني عبيد , المنتسبين إلى محمد بن إسماعيل بن جعفر , القائلين : بأن الإمامة بعد جعفر في محمد بن إسماعيل دون موسى بن جعفر , وأولئك ملاحدة منافقون .
والإمامية الاثنا عشرية خير منهم بكثير , فإن الإمامية مع فرط جهلهم وضلالهم فيهم خلق مسلمون باطنا وظاهرا , ليسوا زنادقة منافقين , لكنهم جهلوا وضلوا واتبعوا أهواءهم , وأما أولئك فأئمتهم الكبار العارفون بحقيقة دعوتهم الباطنية زنادقة منافقون , وأما عوامهم الذين لم يعرفوا أمرهم فقد يكونون مسلمين.

The real translation goes as follows:

This is a unique feature of the Rafidah Imamiyah (i.e. the belief in the infallibility of their Imams) which no one else agreed with them, not the Zaydi Shi’as, nor any of the other Islamic sects, except for who is worse than them such as the Ismailis who believe in the infallibility of Bani Ubayd, those who attribute themselves to Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Jafar who believe that Imamah after Jafar is for Muhammad ibn Ismail, not Musa ibn Jafar.  They are mulahidah munafiqoon.

The 12er Imamis are much better than them, for the Imamiayh, despite their ignorance and misguidance, have among them a large group of Muslims inwardly and outwardly, are not zanadiqah munafiqeen, however they stay ignorant are misguided and follow their desires.  As for them (i.e. the Ismailis) then their major scolars who know the reality of their Batini Da’wah are Zanadiqah Munafiqoon.  As for their laymen who don’t know their affair, then they might be Muslim.

SubahanAllah, it seems like Shaykh al-Islam even tries to find excuses for the laymen Ismailis, who himself makes takfeer of and reports a consensus on this issue.  Yet, he still tries to find a way to excuse their laymen from kufr.  As far as the person who translated that as if he was talking about the 12ers, then may Allah forgive him, for either he translated that incorrectly out of ignorance, or he worse, he may have done so attempting to lie about Shaykh al-Islam رحمه الله.

والله المستعان

[1] Majmoo al-Fatawa (3/351)
[2] Minhaj as-Sunnah (3/452) (5/12) (5/337)
[3] Majmoo al-Fatawa (3/56)

[Khaled]

*double post*

[Muwahhid]

The difference is that you said neither the scholars nor the laymen are kafir....which, if that is really what you believe then that would be extreme Irjaa'.

First of all, I want to make the point that Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله shouldn’t be read by laymen such as yourself, nor by people with ulterior motives such as the Shi’a, because the two of you, either knowingly or unknowingly, misunderstand his words.  Shaykh al-Islam is a scholar’s scholar, and not someone whose works really should be read by people who don’t have the principles or the ability to discern what he says.

Second of all, the translation, which is misleading, but I will get to that later, doesn’t say he makes takfeer of their “scholars”, rather he makes takfeer of أئمتهم الكبار العارفون بحقيقة دعوتهم الباطنية زنادقة منافقون, meaning “their major Imams who know the reality of their batini da’wah are zanadiqah munafiqoon” not that everybody that goes to a hawzah is automatically a kafir.

Now, in order to understand Shaykh al-Islam’s position رحمه الله, we need to go back to his statements, while knowing his principles that he would rely upon.

From amongst that is that he, without a doubt, was harshest in his refutation against the Shi’a from all the Islamic sects.  He described them as having little aql, being enemies to Islam, and even described as worse than the khawarij (which I don’t agree with).  I will say that the fact I frequent this site and hope to contribute to it shows that I think very lowly of the Shi’as, much like I think very lowly of the khawarij.

However, at the end of the day, Shaykh al-Islam رحمه الله still considered them Muslims and didn’t expel them from the fold of Islam (unlike what they have done to him).  This is because, as we all know, the Shi’as are of different types, and therefore, from reading his works, we see Shaykh al-Islam رحمه الله divided them into three categories: kuffar by consensus, Muslim by consensus, and those who there are a difference of opinion about.  The first would be groups like the Ismailiayh, Alawiyah, Druze etc[1], the second would be like the Zaydiah and the moderate 12ers[2], and the third would be the Rafidah, which Shaykh al-Islam mentions, for example that there are two opinions on the authority of Imam Ahmad رحمه الله in the issue of their takfeer[3].  In addition, this is how Ibn Taymiyah divides all Islamic sects, Shia or otherwise.

As far as the quote that was mistranslated, then read this بارك الله فيك and see if you still think Shaykh al-Islam makes takfeer of 12er scholars:

فهذه خاصة الرافضة الإمامية التي لم يشركهم فيها أحد لا الزيدية الشيعة , ولا سائر طوائف المسلمين , إلا من هو شر منهم كالإسماعيلية الذين يقولون بعصمة بني عبيد , المنتسبين إلى محمد بن إسماعيل بن جعفر , القائلين : بأن الإمامة بعد جعفر في محمد بن إسماعيل دون موسى بن جعفر , وأولئك ملاحدة منافقون .
والإمامية الاثنا عشرية خير منهم بكثير , فإن الإمامية مع فرط جهلهم وضلالهم فيهم خلق مسلمون باطنا وظاهرا , ليسوا زنادقة منافقين , لكنهم جهلوا وضلوا واتبعوا أهواءهم , وأما أولئك فأئمتهم الكبار العارفون بحقيقة دعوتهم الباطنية زنادقة منافقون , وأما عوامهم الذين لم يعرفوا أمرهم فقد يكونون مسلمين.

The real translation goes as follows:

This is a unique feature of the Rafidah Imamiyah (i.e. the belief in the infallibility of their Imams) which no one else agreed with them, not the Zaydi Shi’as, nor any of the other Islamic sects, except for who is worse than them such as the Ismailis who believe in the infallibility of Bani Ubayd, those who attribute themselves to Muhammad ibn Ismail ibn Jafar who believe that Imamah after Jafar is for Muhammad ibn Ismail, not Musa ibn Jafar.  They are mulahidah munafiqoon.

The 12er Imamis are much better than them, for the Imamiayh, despite their ignorance and misguidance, have among them a large group of Muslims inwardly and outwardly, are not zanadiqah munafiqeen, however they stay ignorant are misguided and follow their desires.  As for them (i.e. the Ismailis) then their major scolars who know the reality of their Batini Da’wah are Zanadiqah Munafiqoon.  As for their laymen who don’t know their affair, then they might be Muslim.

SubahanAllah, it seems like Shaykh al-Islam even tries to find excuses for the laymen Ismailis, who himself makes takfeer of and reports a consensus on this issue.  Yet, he still tries to find a way to excuse their laymen from kufr.  As far as the person who translated that as if he was talking about the 12ers, then may Allah forgive him, for either he translated that incorrectly out of ignorance, or he worse, he may have done so attempting to lie about Shaykh al-Islam رحمه الله.

والله المستعان

[1] Majmoo al-Fatawa (3/351)
[2] Minhaj as-Sunnah (3/452) (5/12) (5/337)
[3] Majmoo al-Fatawa (3/56)

Okay, regardless, ibn taymiyyah is one scholar, and hes NOT from the salaf, our sources are the Kitab, Sunnah, and sayings of the sahaba/salaf.... so he's nothing compared to the 4 imams who made takfeer on the raafidha. Twlevers and raafidha are interchangeable terms, twelvers is just what they call themselves while ahlussunnah always referred to them with the term raafidha.

Also, the shi'a scholars today speak openly about their kufr beliefs and publish them in books, not like in the time of ibn taymiyya, read the statements of any ayatollat today, they openly declare their belief in infalliblity of imams and knowing ghaib....I'm an ex-shia and when I was a kid I went to a weekend shia islamic school for kids (in a western country btw) and they even taught us laymen about the infallibility of the imams. The scholars of shi'a, 99% of them believe in some type of kufr, so the general ruling on them is theyre kafir.

Look here: https://youtu.be/3p2d0UGP7fg even Sheikh al Fawzan (whos not known to be takfiri, rather the opposite) says The ruling on the raafidha is same for scholars and laymen, so he even makes takfir on the laymen!! and thats why I said witholding takfir on the scholars of rawafidh is EXTREME Irjaa', because witholding takfir on the laymen alone is minor Irjaa'.

[MuslimAnswers]

^
Just keeping it with respect to the laymen, if you are an Ex-Shia you will know that there are large numbers of Shias today who have extreme skepticism, even cynicism, concerning what their scholars say, and about the rules of "(Shia) Islam" and if thoroughly investigated by a Shia judge might be declared as non-Shia- just as you find many skeptics and 'reformers' among the Sunnis who say strange things and who might say they are Sunnis while they are something else if investigated.

It seems then that based on this matter, we are taking the position of Husn ad-Dhann about the lay Sunnis following formal Sunnism, and Suu' Ad-Dhann about the adherence of lay Shias to formal Twelver Shiaism, in order to avoid bad consequences.

[Khaled]

Okay, regardless, ibn taymiyyah is one scholar, and hes NOT from the salaf, our sources are the Kitab, Sunnah, and sayings of the sahaba/salaf.... so he's nothing compared to the 4 imams who made takfeer on the raafidha. Twlevers and raafidha are interchangeable terms, twelvers is just what they call themselves while ahlussunnah always referred to them with the term raafidha.

Shaykh al-Islam is one of the main sources in refuting the Shi'a and he is also one of the harshest.  This point is very important since you will later on in your post accuse him indirectly of "EXTREME Irjaa'", which makes you perhaps the first person in history to do so.  As far as the 4 Imams, then I'm not sure which 12ers you think existed during Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik رحمهما الله time, and as far as Imam Ahmad رحمه الله, then I already mentioned his opinion in the previous source from the most knowledgeable scholar on his narrations; ibn Taymiyah.  As far as Imam ash-Shafi'ee رحمه الله then it is well known that what is reported on hi views on aqeedah are heavily contested by his own students, so if you find any takfeer of Shi'a from him; you should take it with a grain of salt.

And I also rely on the Kitab, the Sunnah and the Salaf, all three which are major sources which teach that we should be very careful in declaring other Muslims Kuffar.

Also, the shi'a scholars today speak openly about their kufr beliefs and publish them in books, not like in the time of ibn taymiyya, read the statements of any ayatollat today, they openly declare their belief in infalliblity of imams and knowing ghaib....I'm an ex-shia and when I was a kid I went to a weekend shia islamic school for kids (in a western country btw) and they even taught us laymen about the infallibility of the imams. The scholars of shi'a, 99% of them believe in some type of kufr, so the general ruling on them is theyre kafir.

I'm not sure you really know what Minhaj as-Sunnah for it is a book refuting another book called "Minhaj al-Karama" written by a major Shi'i scholar named al-Hilili.  In the quote itself (that was purposeful mistranslated) he discussed that no other sect other than the Rafidah believe in the infallibility of their Imams except the Ismailis.  That means that Shaykh al-Islam both knew their works and what their scholars said (which is why we rely on him so much in refuting them) and knew about their belief in infallibility and knowing of the unseen, which in case you don't know, some extremist Sufis believe in similar things for people who are lesser than Ali, al-Hassan or al-Hussayn رضي الله عنهم.

even Sheikh al Fawzan (whos not known to be takfiri, rather the opposite) says The ruling on the raafidha is same for scholars and laymen, so he even makes takfir on the laymen!! and thats why I said witholding takfir on the scholars of rawafidh is EXTREME Irjaa', because witholding takfir on the laymen alone is minor Irjaa'.

As far as "even Sheikh al Fawzan says" then I'm not sure how that's an argument.  First of all, it was him specifically I was referencing when I said something along the lines that I don't make general takfeer of them, laymen or scholars, inside or outside Saudi.  For me, al-Fawzan is not a hujjah in anything, and he is well known for having extreme positions in issues of Irjaa, to the point that he called Shaykh al-Albani رحمه الله a murji'.  Since this is site to refute Shi'as and not other Sunnis; I'm going to leave it at that.  At the end of the day, the four Imams didn't make takfeer of their scholars, the scholars of hadeeth didn't either (since we know we have Shi'i narrators in the books of Ahl as-Sunnah even the Sahihayn), and neither do the scholars on the level of Shaykh al-Islam (not an-Nawawi, Ghazali, Subki, Suyuti, Dhahabi).  Not even most Salafi scholars today do, only exceptions being people like Fawazan and other Najdis.

والله المستعان

[Muhammad Tazin]

At the end of the day,
Not all twelvers are Kaafir. But those who seriously and strictly abide by the rulings of Twelver literature(major books,fatwas etc.) are rafidi, because they are the Ghulat - about whom Scholars of Islam made takfir

[Khaled]

At the end of the day,
Not all twelvers are Kaafir. But those who seriously and strictly abide by the rulings of Twelver literature(major books,fatwas etc.) are rafidi, because they are the Ghulat - about whom Scholars of Islam made takfir

Like who?

[Muwahhid]

^
Just keeping it with respect to the laymen, if you are an Ex-Shia you will know that there are large numbers of Shias today who have extreme skepticism, even cynicism, concerning what their scholars say, and about the rules of "(Shia) Islam" and if thoroughly investigated by a Shia judge might be declared as non-Shia- just as you find many skeptics and 'reformers' among the Sunnis who say strange things and who might say they are Sunnis while they are something else if investigated.

It seems then that based on this matter, we are taking the position of Husn ad-Dhann about the lay Sunnis following formal Sunnism, and Suu' Ad-Dhann about the adherence of lay Shias to formal Twelver Shiaism, in order to avoid bad consequences.

Well thats the whole point is that....if there's a "shia" who doesnt believe in any kind of kufr....then We shouldn't consider them a Twelver/Rafidhi, we should say this person is essentially a Zaidi....so when i say Rawafidh in general are kuffar im talking about the ones who believe in their beliefs, and those are the majority of them, its not logical to say that only the minority of a specific sect believe in the beliefs of that sect.

[Muwahhid]

Shaykh al-Islam is one of the main sources in refuting the Shi'a and he is also one of the harshest.  This point is very important since you will later on in your post accuse him indirectly of "EXTREME Irjaa'", which makes you perhaps the first person in history to do so.  As far as the 4 Imams, then I'm not sure which 12ers you think existed during Imam Abu Hanifa and Imam Malik رحمهما الله time, and as far as Imam Ahmad رحمه الله, then I already mentioned his opinion in the previous source from the most knowledgeable scholar on his narrations; ibn Taymiyah.  As far as Imam ash-Shafi'ee رحمه الله then it is well known that what is reported on hi views on aqeedah are heavily contested by his own students, so if you find any takfeer of Shi'a from him; you should take it with a grain of salt.

How can you say a sheikh is a main source in refuting the shi'a? SubhanAllah, a sheikh is a main source? Sheikh ibn taymiyyah (r) doesn't have a monopoly on anti-rafidhism....theres thousands upon thousands of scholars throughout history, and I wasn't accusing him of Irjaa' but the fact is that I cannot confirm anything you are saying about his statements since I personally dont read his works all that much, so for all I know you can be misinterpreting, misquoting everything he's saying. From what I have known is that he made takfeer on their scholars, this what I've heard being stated in lectures, etc. You're not a scholar or a student of knowledge as far as i know so I wouldnt trust anything you are saying. As for the 4 imams i've seen quotes of all 4 of them making takfeer on the raafidha. I will attach an image of those statements, which if you look at the statement of Abu Hanifa...it seems to appear that he may even make takfir on the Zaidis (I could be wrong.) Btw I dont make takfir on the Zaidis.

I'm not sure you really know what Minhaj as-Sunnah for it is a book refuting another book called "Minhaj al-Karama" written by a major Shi'i scholar named al-Hilili.  In the quote itself (that was purposeful mistranslated) he discussed that no other sect other than the Rafidah believe in the infallibility of their Imams except the Ismailis.  That means that Shaykh al-Islam both knew their works and what their scholars said (which is why we rely on him so much in refuting them) and knew about their belief in infallibility and knowing of the unseen, which in case you don't know, some extremist Sufis believe in similar things for people who are lesser than Ali, al-Hassan or al-Hussayn رضي الله عنهم.

So you're telling me a person can believe that imams know the ghaib and are infallible and still be muslim ?? No, anyone who believes those things is a mushrik, and I doubt Ibn Taymiyya would excuse someone for that, but if he did, he has the wrong opinion, but I doubt he did.

As far as "even Sheikh al Fawzan says" then I'm not sure how that's an argument.  First of all, it was him specifically I was referencing when I said something along the lines that I don't make general takfeer of them, laymen or scholars, inside or outside Saudi.  For me, al-Fawzan is not a hujjah in anything, and he is well known for having extreme positions in issues of Irjaa, to the point that he called Shaykh al-Albani رحمه الله a murji'.  Since this is site to refute Shi'as and not other Sunnis; I'm going to leave it at that.  At the end of the day, the four Imams didn't make takfeer of their scholars, the scholars of hadeeth didn't either (since we know we have Shi'i narrators in the books of Ahl as-Sunnah even the Sahihayn), and neither do the scholars on the level of Shaykh al-Islam (not an-Nawawi, Ghazali, Subki, Suyuti, Dhahabi).  Not even most Salafi scholars today do, only exceptions being people like Fawazan and other Najdis.

I dont follow Sheikh Fawzan or take knowledge from him, I was only quoting him to show that even a "moderate" Palace Scholar like him is making general takfir. The reason im very doubtful of what you say about the 4 imams not making takfir is because of what follows that when you say the scholars of hadeeth didnt make takfir because they narrated from shi'is....this proves nothing since at that time shi'ism was still developing and many were not extreme and still within the fold of Islam, the shi'a narrators in books of ahl-as Sunnah didnt curse the sahaba or commit shirk, etc. This is probably why the 4 imams only made takfir on their scholars at that time, as for today, their should be general takfir, with some exceptions if some are found to be ignorant.

[Muwahhid]

 This point is very important since you will later on in your post accuse him indirectly of "EXTREME Irjaa'", which makes you perhaps the first person in history to do so.

If it was true that I indirectly accused ibn taymiyyah of Irjaa as you say, then wouldn't the statement of Sheikh Fawzan also be indirectly accusing ibn taymiyyah of Irjaa'? Since he was asked about the laymen having different ruling than the (kufr) ruling of scholars and he called it "Irjaa'." This would mean he (fawzan) would most definitely consider leaving takfir of the scholars as a more severe level of Irjaa', so wouldnt he then, according to you, be the "1st in history to do so" and not me ? and do you really think noone in history preceded fawzan in his view??? But yet you say im the 1st in history to do this!! SubhanAllah

[Khaled]

How can you say a sheikh is a main source in refuting the shi'a? SubhanAllah, a sheikh? is a source? Sheikh ibn taymiyyah (r) doesn't have a monopoly on anti-rafidhism....theres thousands upon thousands of scholars throughout history, and I wasn't accusing him of Irjaa' but the fact is that I cannot confirm anything you are saying about his statements since I personally dont read his works all that much, so for all I know you can be misinterpreting, misquoting everything he's saying. From what I have known is that he made takfeer on their scholars, this what I've heard being stated in lectures, etc. You're not a scholar or a student of knowledge as far as i know so I wouldnt trust anything you are saying. As for the 4 imams i've seen quotes of all 4 of them making takfeer on the raafidha. I will attach an image of those statements, which if you look at the statement of Abu Hanifa...it seems to appear that he may even make takfir on the Zaidis (I could be wrong.) Btw I dont make takfir on the Zaidis.

Actually, it seems like you don't know the history of anti-Shi'a polemics.  If there are literally thousands who are refuting the Shi'a, can you name who who a) doesn't rely on Ibn Taymiyyah, so you can scratch off Uthman al-Khamis and Dimishqiyyah, and b) who makes takfeer of 12ers (again, you can scratch off those two names)?  Fact of the matter is, Shaykh al-Islam's contribution to this field is practically unparalleled.  Second of all, if you can't confirm his statement (which is quoted up there in full Arabic for you to read in which he unequivocally doesn't make takfeer of them), then what are you doing talking about this?  Why are you on here accusing people of Irjaa' if you can't even confirm something like whether or not Shaykh al-Islam رحمه الله makes takfeer of the Shi'as or not?  Third of all, who are these people whose lectures you are watching who are telling you that Shaykh al-Islam makes takfeer of the 12ers?  I have never heard one person who specializes in his works stating that; the only people who make that claim are Najdis and Shi'as.

As far as those quotes, how can you trust them after what you have seen being misquoted here?  Do you really think Imam Abu Hanifah's takfeer really applies to 12er Shi'as of today?  There were NO Twelver Shi'as around during the times of the Tabi'eeen.  As far as Imam Ahmad's statement, then again, Shaykh al-Islam (the most knowledgeable person regarding Imam Ahmad's narrations) says that are two opinions narrated about him. 

So you're telling me a person can believe that imams know the ghaib and are infallible and still be muslim ?? No, anyone who believes those things is a mushrik, and I doubt Ibn Taymiyya would excuse someone for that, but if he did, he has the wrong opinion, but I doubt he did.

Well its in the quote up there, so if you want to deny what the Shaykh clearly said then it is your own problem.  I think anyone who holds those opinions is extremely misguided and is following his desires; but he is still Muslim.

I dont follow Sheikh Fawzan or take knowledge from him, I was only quoting him to show that even a "moderate" Palace Scholar like him is making general takfir.

If he is a "palace scholar" like you claim, then it would be in his interest to make takfeer of the Shi'a to defend the Najdi's behavior towards them historically, as well as the Saudi enemy today which is Iran.  Fact of the matter is, Fawzan's views on Irjaa' are rejected as no one, before him or currently, who is not a Najdi agrees with him.  Perhaps the only people who are not Khawarij who agree with him are the Dammajis.

The reason im very doubtful of what you say about the 4 imams not making takfir is because of what follows that when you say the scholars of hadeeth didnt make takfir because they narrated from shi'is....this proves nothing since at that time shi'ism was still developing and many were not extreme and still within the fold of Islam, the shi'a narrators in books of ahl-as Sunnah didnt curse the sahaba or commit shirk, etc. This is probably why the 4 imams only made takfir on their scholars at that time, as for today, their should be general takfir, with some exceptions if some are found to be ignorant.

Again, Imam Bukhari and Muslim, as well as all the other scholars of hadeeth, are narrating from Shi'i scholars (not Zaydis only) and yet, in your mind, that somehow doesn't negate the fact that he doesn't make takfeer of their scholars.  The fact of the matter is, you chose to ignore Shaykh al-Islam's categorization, and instead follow your hawa.  The only Shi'as that there is an agreement on their kufr is the Ghulat, i.e. the Ismailis, Druze etc.  The political Shi'as and the Zaydis are considered Muslims by default, while the "Rafidah" are disagreed upon.  If you want to make takfeer of them, then go ahead, I'm sure they are not the only ones.  I'll stick with the scholars who didn't make takfeer of them, i.e. all the non-Najdis.

[Khaled]

If it was true that I indirectly accused ibn taymiyyah of Irjaa as you say, then wouldn't the statement of Sheikh Fawzan also be indirectly accusing ibn taymiyyah of Irjaa'? Since he was asked about the laymen having different ruling than the (kufr) ruling of scholars and he called it "Irjaa'." This would mean he (fawzan) would most definitely consider leaving takfir of the scholars as a more severe level of Irjaa', so wouldnt he then, according to you, be the "1st in history to do so" and not me ? and do you really think noone in history preceded fawzan in his view??? But yet you say im the 1st in history to do this!! SubhanAllah

Fawzan has said a lot of crazy things (including the the pre-Islamic Arabs were "muwahideen" in Ruboobiyah, which is a lot crazier then not making takfeer of Shi'as), but him accusing Shaykh al-Islam of Irjaa' is not something that would be wierd for him, considering everyone else he's accused of Irjaa', including Shaykh al-Albani رحمه الله.  So go ahead, the only person that has proceeded you in this in history is a "palace scholar" who "you don't take knowledge from."

Can you give us someone you "take knowledge from" who makes takfeer of the 12ers?

[Khaled]

Here are some other statement from Shaykh al-Islam about the 12er Rafidah:

1.  Here he says that a lot of Jahmis and Rafidis went to the lands of non-Muslims, and because of them a lot of people became Muslim.  He adds that being a Muslim Innovator is better than being a non-Muslim:

" وقد ذهب كثير من مبتدعة المسلمين من الرافضة والجهمية وغيرهم إلى بلاد الكفار فأسلم على يديه خلق كثير , وانتفعوا بذلك , وصاروا مسلمين مبتدعين , وهو خير من أن يكونوا كفارا "مجموع الفتاوى (13/96).

2.  Here he says that anyone who believes in Allah and His Messenger is better than not believing in them, even if they happen to be Khawarij or Rafidah.

كل من كان مؤمنا بما جاء به محمد فهو خير من كل من كفر به , وإن كان في المؤمن بذلك نوع من البدعة , سواء كانت بدعة الخوارج والشيعة والمرجئة والقدرية أو غيرهم "مجموع الفتاوى (35/201).

3.  Here he talks about marrying a Rafidi, and while he discourages it, he doesn't say it is haram, which proves he doesn't make takfeer of them, despite being incredibly harsh towards them:

الرافضة المحضة هم أهل أهواء وبدع وضلال , ولا ينبغي للمسلم أن يزوج موليته من رافضي , وإن تزوج هو رافضية صح النكاح , إن كان يرجو أن تتوب , وإلا فترك نكاحها أفضل , لئلا تفسد عليه ولده" مجموع الفتاوى (32/61

4. Here he is talking about praying behind a Mubtadi' like a Shi'i or a Khariji and saying that anyone who makes takfeer of the Ummah or doesn't pray in Jama'ah or Jumuah behind them is just as bad as the Shi'as; because that's the reason we have a problem with them in the first place:

والفاسق والمبتدع صلاته في نفسه صحيحة , فإذا صلى المأموم خلفه لم تبطل صلاته , لكن إنما كره من كره الصلاة خلفه لأن الأمر بالمعروف والنهى عن المنكر واجب , ومن ذلك أن من أظهر بدعة أو فجورا لا يرتب إماما للمسلمين , فانه يستحق التعزيز حتى يتوب , فإذا أمكن هجره حتى يتوب كان حسنا , وإذا كان بعض الناس إذا ترك الصلاة خلفه وصلى خلف غيره آثر ذلك حتى يتوب , أو يعزل , أو ينتهي الناس عن مثل ذنبه , فمثل هذا إذا ترك الصلاة خلفه كان فيه مصلحة , ولم يفت المأموم جمعة ولا جماعة , وأما إذا كان ترك الصلاة يفوت المأموم الجمعة والجماعة فهنا لا يترك الصلاة خلفهم إلا مبتدع مخالف للصحابة رضي الله عنهم.
وكذلك إذا كان الأمام قد رتبه ولاة الأمور , ولم يكن في ترك الصلاة خلفه مصلحة , فهنا ليس عليه ترك الصلاة خلفه , بل الصلاة خلف الإمام الأفضل أفضل , وهذا كله يكون فيمن ظهر منه فسق أو بدعة تظهر مخالفتها للكتاب والسنة ,كبدعة الرافضة والجهمية " . مجموع الفتاوى (23/354) .

[Khaled]

Here is one last quote.  This time from al-Dhahabi رحمه الله regarding al-Kulayni, the author al-Kafi:

محمد بن يعقوب. أبو جعفر الكليني الرازي. شيخ فاضل شهير، من رؤوس الشيعة وفقهائهم المصنفين في مذاهبهم الرذلة. روى عنه: أحمد بن إبراهيم الصيمري، وغيره. وكان ببغداد وبها مات. وقبره ظاهر عليه لوح. والكليني: بضم الكاف وإمالة اللام والياء ثم بنون. قيده الأمير. (4/250)

We learn here that:
a) adh-Dhahabi didn't get the memo that it was "EXTREME Irjaa'" to not make takfeer of Shi'a scholars,
b) adh-Dhahabi actually somewhat praises al-Kulayni,
c) in al-Siyar, adh-Dhahabi describes him as an Imami (11/492), so he knew he was a 12er scholar,
d) al-Kafi is one of the most famous if not the most famous and important book in the 12er madhhab, meaning that the 12er madhhab was well known to adh-Dhahabi at least, and yet he didn't make takfeer of him.

Again, this shows that a) at-least Shaykh al-Islam and adh-Dhahabi didn't make takfeer of their scholars, b) and that the Shi'i madhhab was always well known amongst our Ulama.

[Muwahhid]

Actually, it seems like you don't know the history of anti-Shi'a polemics.  If there are literally thousands who are refuting the Shi'a, can you name who who a) doesn't rely on Ibn Taymiyyah, so you can scratch off Uthman al-Khamis and Dimishqiyyah, and b) who makes takfeer of 12ers (again, you can scratch off those two names)?  Fact of the matter is, Shaykh al-Islam's contribution to this field is practically unparalleled. 

I said thousands throughout HISTORY, and ibn taymiyyah was born around 600 yrs after hijra , those before him obviously didn't refer to a man who wasn't born yet. I also gave you a list of statements of Imams from the salaf, if you believe those statements are all fabricated, please elaborate.

Second of all, if you can't confirm his statement (which is quoted up there in full Arabic for you to read in which he unequivocally doesn't make takfeer of them), then what are you doing talking about this?  Why are you on here accusing people of Irjaa' if you can't even confirm something like whether or not Shaykh al-Islam رحمه الله makes takfeer of the Shi'as or not?

I didn't come on here to discuss ibn taymiyyah and his views, I simply responded to your comment about you being accused of Irjaa, but for you this all keeps going back to ibn taymiyya. One doesn't need to be an expert in the statements of one scholar from the khalaf to know the basics of Islam, Tawheed, Shirk, Irjaa', takfir, etc. Your trying to tell me that people who believe human beings know the ghaib just like Allah knows the ghaib are still muslims. Such individuals are kaafir, you just have to know tawheed and shirk, and your fitra be in tact.

Third of all, who are these people whose lectures you are watching who are telling you that Shaykh al-Islam makes takfeer of the 12ers?  I have never heard one person who specializes in his works stating that; the only people who make that claim are Najdis and Shi'as.

Well you just admitted that some (najdis) make that claim, do you not consider muslims who live in the region of najd to be a part of ahlusSunnah?

As far as those quotes, how can you trust them after what you have seen being misquoted here?  Do you really think Imam Abu Hanifah's takfeer really applies to 12er Shi'as of today?  There were NO Twelver Shi'as around during the times of the Tabi'eeen.  As far as Imam Ahmad's statement, then again, Shaykh al-Islam (the most knowledgeable person regarding Imam Ahmad's narrations) says that are two opinions narrated about him. 

You say there were no twelvers. There were raafidha who later named themselves twelvers The (political)Shi'a came to Zaid ibn Ali ibn Husayn and asked him to curse Abu Bakr and Umar and he refused, they then left him and became known as the Raafidha, and the ones who followed him became known as Zaidi. This was BEFORE the time of Abu Hanifa, just because the imams hadn't reached twelve in number, doesn't mean anything, the ideology was the same, the rawafidh ideology had been established, they just hadn't yet started calling themselves twelvers because they only had 5 imams so far. So yes his statement is referring to the same group of people: Twelvers, Raafidha, whatever u want to call them.

Well its in the quote up there, so if you want to deny what the Shaykh clearly said then it is your own problem.  I think anyone who holds those opinions is extremely misguided and is following his desires; but he is still Muslim.

I went back and read the quote, he only mentioned those who believe in infallibility, not those who believe the imams know the ghaib.....are there any ayatollats today who dont believe the imams know the ghaib and that they control the atoms of creation?? If there are its less than 1% of them. As  I mentioned before even the majority of the laymen today believe in those things, maybe in the time of ibn tayimyya the laymen were a bit better due to the scholars keeping the true beliefs more secret. Allah knows best.

If he is a "palace scholar" like you claim, then it would be in his interest to make takfeer of the Shi'a to defend the Najdi's behavior towards them historically, as well as the Saudi enemy today which is Iran.  Fact of the matter is, Fawzan's views on Irjaa' are rejected as no one, before him or currently, who is not a Najdi agrees with him.  Perhaps the only people who are not Khawarij who agree with him are the Dammajis.

Well you just listed 3 groups of people who agree: Najdis, Dammajis, and Khawarij, and due to your apparent Irjaa' im sure you threw a huge amount of ahlusSunnah into the khawarij basket. When you say those "who agree with him", not sure if you mean agree in takfir on the scholars or agree in takfir on all the shi'a, if you mean takfir on scholars, im sure a huge number of ahluSunnah and most likely the majority, agrees. If your talking about takfir on the laymen, well I wasn't really here trying to prove that point anyways, actually regarding the laymen I believe theres room for debate on this issue, and when i said its minor Irjaa before I could be wrong on that, Allah knows, but regarding the scholars (present day ayatollats), the takfir should be made on them.

Again, Imam Bukhari and Muslim, as well as all the other scholars of hadeeth, are narrating from Shi'i scholars (not Zaydis only) and yet, in your mind, that somehow doesn't negate the fact that he doesn't make takfeer of their scholars.  The fact of the matter is, you chose to ignore Shaykh al-Islam's categorization, and instead follow your hawa.  The only Shi'as that there is an agreement on their kufr is the Ghulat, i.e. the Ismailis, Druze etc.  The political Shi'as and the Zaydis are considered Muslims by default, while the "Rafidah" are disagreed upon.  If you want to make takfeer of them, then go ahead, I'm sure they are not the only ones.  I'll stick with the scholars who didn't make takfeer of them, i.e. all the non-Najdis.

Yes Bukhari narrated from shi'is, not Rafidhis!!, they would've been either Zaydi, or political shi'as who hadnt yet accepted the kufr beliefs of raawafidh, In that time, as i said before this was the early stages of the raafidha, they existed yes, but their kufr may not have spread to all those who followed their imams muhammad al baqir, ja3far al sadiq, etc. Later on, after his time, twelver shi'as codified their beliefs into what is now a sect whos official beliefs are now completely raafidhi, while at that time it was mixed and not clear so not all were considered raafidha. You cannot compare shi'ism in that time to, say 200 years later. I gave you a statement of Bukhari saying "I dont see any diff between praying behind a rafidhi and a jew", isn't that takfir? Is Imam Bukhari a Najdi?

You're saying because I "ignored" the sheikhs categorization, i must be following my hawa... I think you're being a bit radical in blind following one specific scholar, I gave you the statements of men who are much much better than him, I gave you the Four Imams, plus al-Bukhari, Al-Sha3bi, Ahmad bin Yunus, and Ibn 3abidin. This is enough proof that regarding the raafidha, the majority of the salaf make takfir on them, the twelver scholars are all raafidha today, as for the laymen, there could be room for debate. Allah knows best.