Q.
Salaamun Alaykum
i had just had a couple of questions, hope Ustadh Abdullah can answer
them.
1. Was Abdullah ibn Saba the founder of the shias, and do the shias hold
him in high regard?
2. The dawoodi bohras, a sect from the shias, thier leader is a corrupt
man who takes millions and millions of dollars from his followers, they are
a business, for example if a bohri is to do a nikah or a janazah or
anything of that nature they will not commence until the imam is payed a
good amount of money. I have many bohri friends here, and the ones who
criticize the bohra leader tell me this. So i was wondering what is
their(dawoodi bohras) status is in regards to islam.
2. so are mainstream shias, the ones you mentioned in your lectures a part
of Ahl us Sunnah, or will we consider them Muslims but Ahlul Bidaa', due to
their practices such as mataam, mutah, some deviant beliefs which do not
conform to Ahlus sunnah, etc ?
JazakAllau Khairan
A.
As Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah, Brother Zaid
The answers to your questions are as follows:
1. No. Abdullah b. Saba' was not the founder of the Shiites. It's only Sunnis who promote this idea. The first to allege that he was the source of their views was a man by the name Sayf b. 'Umar who is relied upon heavily by major scholars of Sunni history, like Imam al-Tabari. The problem with Sayf is that he has been unanimously agreed upon by scholars as being a liar and fabricator of reports as alluded to by Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani in his Taqrib al-Tahdhib. In spite of this, Sunni historians have relied on his historical accounts in determining the authenticity of a number of occurrences. This is because the scholars were much more lenient in historical reports than they were with respect to the acceptance of hadiths. Many scholars in their polemic against the Shiites have continued to regurgitate this claim in spite of the problems inherent in the credibility of Sayf b. 'Umar. As for Shiites, they do not hold Abdullah b. Saba' in high regard, while
many critical historians believe that Abdullah b. Saba' is a fictitious character.
2.As for the Bohris, I have no knowledge of them and their beliefs, so I cannot comment on them. As for taking large sums of money to perform a marriage, this does not put a person outside of Islam.
3. As for the Shiites I speak about in my lecture, none of them fall within the confines of Ahl al-Sunna, though most of them I spoke about are considered Muslims. They are deemed to be heretics according to Sunni standards, as many of them consider Sunnis, likewise, to be the real heretics. May Allah bring light where there is darkness, and guidance where there is deviancy.
was Salam
Abdullah
Q.
Walikumassalaam wa rahmatullhai wa barakatuhu
JazakAllahu Khairan for answering my questions, i really want to
understand this topic without any bias that is why i am asking these
follow up questions, hope you don't mind,
1. Do the shias believe that the imams are greater than some of the
prophets, and if this is the case than is this belief kufr?
2. was imam Jafar as Sadiq a student of Imam Abu Hanifa ?
3. What is the mashoor opinion of Ahl ul sunnah on regards to Yazid
do we curse him?
4. I know in your lecture you said that their is no proof from their
texts that they are told to practice taqiyyah, but why is it that so
many sunni scholars say the contrary?
5. and if they disagree with the ijma' of the sahaba than is this kufr?
Was Salam
A.
As Salamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullah,
The answer to your questions are as follows:
1. While it is difficult to apprehend the beliefs of every faction and sub-faction of the Shiites (as with any school or sect), what the mainstream Twelver Ja'fari faction of the Shiites hold is that to deny any of the Imams is worse than denying one of the Prophets--Allah's peace and mercy on them all. This is because, in their view, the Imamate is a general category of persons who carry the divine light and direction of God, while the station of Prophet is a specific category of one who carries the same light and direction. In other words, to deny the general category of one a thing is tantamount to denying the specific category of it. And since the specific category of prophecy is the more binding to believe in, to deny the broader category of Imam is equivalent to denying the prophethood of the prophets in their view. So what in fact negates a person's faith is a denial of the prophets, since one denies the Imams according to traditional Twelver doctrine. This view is similar to that of many Sufis who argued whether or not the station of being a saint (wali) is more virtuous than that of being a prophet (nabi). As for saying that an Imam is better than a prophet, that is something that appears to be unsubstantiated and only promoted by vulgar Sunni sectarians. If such a view does exist among Shiites, it is something that I lack knowledge of, and those who make the claim will need to provide the proof that corroborates those claims. But if anyone believes that an Imam is better than a Prophet--peace upon them all--that person undoubtedly holds a view that is tantamount to unbelief (kufr).
2. No. Imam Ja'far was not a student of Imam Abu Hanifa. Rather, it is believed that Imam Abu Hanifa as well as Imam Malik studied with him.
3. As for the reigning view among Sunnis regarding Yazid b. Mu'awiya, it is that he was a shameless sinner (fasiq), not an unbeliever. Most scholars do not allow cursing him or cursing any person specifically and by name. As for Imam Ahmad, there are two narrations in the Hanbali School. One allowing one to curse Yazid and another disallowing it. The first view is upheld by the great polymath 'Abd Al-Rahman b. al-Jawzi, while apparently the stronger view in the Hanbali School is the narration from Ahmad that forbids cursing Yazid.
4. As for the matter of dissimulation (taqiya), the Shiite doctrine is no more different than the Sunni doctrine of taqiya that allows for one to conceal his/her faith under imminent danger to one's life or safety. Perhaps, the Sunnis emphasize it more as a normal practice of Shiites due to the fact that there were times in history when Shiites were able to secure political authority over Sunnis due to the practice. As for what is popular today about claims that they do so when they come among non-Muslims and drink wine and fornicate with women, there is no religious basis for this though we may find some of laity arguing for the validity of that. In fact, in practice, drinking and selling unlawful items in non-Muslim lands is not very much different from what many Sunnis who rely on Hanafi fatwas that allow for them to indulge in certain non-Islamic monetary transactions in non-Muslim lands; transactions like, interest, selling wine, selling lottery tickets, etc. As a matter of fact, were a Muslim to fornicate with a woman in a non-Muslim country and then confess to the crime in Islamic lands, the Hanafis are of the view that such a person cannot be punished even though he/she has violated the Islamic moral code. I only mention this to highlight that those who are committed to maintaining the sectarian divide have a tendency to be only hypercritical of their opponents.
5. As for disagreement with the Ijma' of the Sahaba, it is unlikely that Shiites disagree with anything that constitutes an authentic and binding Ijma' that occurred during that time, like the tenets of faith, the 5 pillars, the prohibition of the major sins, and the compulsory nature of the major obligations. As for some details that are declared to be matters of consensus other than those, Shiites do not become unbelievers by contravening them, since they do not believe in the doctrine of Ijma' to start with. This view view has been expressed by Imam al-Juwayni in his Burhan about schools that do not accept the doctrine of Ijma. And Allah knows best.
Was Salam
Abdullah