Can there be a Greater Lie in the Universe? Mudassir Faruqi

Some of our people live with the illusion that perhaps there are some Shias who respect the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum and consider tabarra bad. Some of them are very clever and talk about the unity of the Ummah day and night.

 

Look, the Unity of the Ummah Conference is being held. Shia and Sunni scholars are hugging each other, praying behind each other, going to each other's madrasas and making statements of unity!

 

I am addressing all such people (simpleton Sunni brothers) today.

 

Let us proceed with knowing the following fact: According to the Rawāfiḍ, until a person does not accept the "Imamat" as prescribed by Allāh (obligatory by Allāh) and places the first crown of this Imāmat on the head of Sayyidunā ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu and declares "absolution and disavowal" (tabarra) from the khilāfat of Sayyidunā Abū Bakr Siddīq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, then his faith cannot be complete.

 

Yes, what you have read above is certainly correct.

 

What do you think? Is tabarra something extra for them? No!

 

Tabara is the main pillar of their "faith".

 

If you read it sometimes, you will know that the word "tabarra" is derived from "Barā’at", which clearly means "complete detachment, hatred, denial and severance from someone!"

 

There is an essential formula of faith in their belief, which they call: Tawallā and Tabarra, and both are incomplete without each other.

 

Tawallā means: love for the Imāms and the Ahl-ul-Bayt and confession of their Imāmat.

 

Tabarra' means: open hatred for all the "enemies and opponents" of the Imāms, denial of them and declaration of hatred for them.

 

Therefore, the real and true meaning of Tabarra in their belief is that: Unless a person explicitly denies the khilāfat of Sayyidunā Abū Bakr, Sayyidunā ‘Umar and Sayyidunā ‘Uthmān raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum, does not recognise them as usurpers and does not declare heartfelt hatred and severance (tabarra) from all the decisions they made and their personalities, then such a Rāfiḍī cannot be an Imāmī Shia!

 

This is the real meaning of Tabarra!

 

This is not verbal abuse; it is a clear denial of the first three Khulafā’ hatred for them. That is why I am saying that when a person who reminds them of them comes to a conference and says, "We consider tabarra bad," he is only fooling the public... nothing more!

 

This is the reason: If they want to prove their "belief in Imāmat," they will have to go to the incident of Ghadīr Khumm and prove all the companions of this gathering to be dishonest and deceitful, who, according to the Rawāfiḍ (may Allāh forbid), abandoned the command of the Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam.

 

If they want to convince the people of the right of Sayyidunā ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu, they will have to exaggerate the "Ḥadīth of Qirṭās" (the incident of the pen and the ink), and Sayyidunā Umar raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu will have to be directly accused of malice.

 

If they want to prove their entire existence true, they will have to go to Saqīfa Banī Sā'idah and make this dirty accusation against the entire group of Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum that they took away the right of Sayyidunā ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu.

 

In other words, at every point in history, wherever the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum made a sincere decision and it did not fit in with their self-made belief... There and there they became compelled to call the Ṣāḥābah "usurpers, hypocrites and apostates, may Allāh forbid".

 

So, tell me, how is it possible that a Rāfiḍī has even a corner of respect in his heart for all these companions?

 

How is it possible that a person is a Rāfiḍī and also respects Sayyidunā Abū Bakr raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu from his heart? This is exactly like someone saying that he is a Christian but does not believe that Sayyidunā ‘Īsā is the son of God!

 

Totally impossible! As long as he does not consider the first khilāfat as usurped, his own religion cannot survive.

 

It is impossible. Just as two plus two cannot be made to make five.

 

If you have learned this, then tell me... Those who have the belief that the khilāfat after Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam is not an administrative or consultative matter... Rather, "Imāmat" is stipulated by Allāh: The line of Imāmat after the Nabī is made directly obligatory by Allāh and the Imām is infallible like the Nabī and is chosen by Allāh alone and the first deserving of this divine Imāmat by Allāh is Sayyidunā ‘Alī Al-Murtaḍā raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu!

 

Those whose belief is that Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam had clearly and definitely declared the khilāfat of Sayyidunā ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu by Allāh's command in the area of Ghadīr Khumm, that is, Sayyidunā ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu was the "designated khalīf" according to the Sharia from the first day.

 

Those whose belief is that the khilāfat of Sayyidunā ‘Alī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu was decided by Allāh and Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam and its 100% mandatory meaning is explained as follows: It should be noted that appointing Sayyidunā Abū Bakr Ṣiddīq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu as the khalīfah after the demise of Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam was a direct violation of Allāh's command and a clear disobedience to the decision of the Messenger of Allāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam!

 

Doesn't this belief compel them to consider the first khalīfah as a "usurper" and to consider all those who took over the Caliphate and the Ṣaḥābah who supported them as "usurpers, disobedient and, Allāh forbid, hypocrites"?

 

Then tell me... what happens to someone who disobeys the command of Allāh and His Messenger... who denies the definitive text of the Qur’ān?

 

So, don't they call Ṣiddīq Akbar, ‘Umar Fārūq, ‘Uthmān Ghanī, Ṭalḥa and Zubayr the same thing (apostate, usurper, hypocrite, enemy of the Messenger and the Ahl-ul-Bayt)?

 

That is why today some intellectuals among us are saying with great emotion: Sir! We should leave the differences of the branches and become one nation; the Shia-Sunni differences should end now.

 

I am addressing you!

 

Those whose belief is that the first generation of Islam is traitors 24 hours a day, and you are proving to be an apostate, and on the other hand, they come to us with a hypocritical smile, and say to us: Come on, brother, we are one nation, we should become one.

 

Tell me, what is a bigger lie than this, a bigger contradiction than this, and a bigger lie than this? What can be a greater deception in the universe?

 

And if you truly desire unity, then the path to it does not pass through any hypocritical conference or partial agreement. The only way is: First, you openly declare your disgust and disavowal of this supposed "belief in Imāmat", acknowledge this belief as false and invalid, then we will accept that you respect the khilāfat of Ṣiddīq and Fārūq raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum and want to see this Ummah united.

 

It is 100% correct and possible to sit on peace committees and demand respect for our holy places from non-Muslims (Hindus, Sikhs, Christians) because their own religion does not stand on the takfīr of the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum. However, it is completely useless and futile to demand this from a Rāfiḍī Imāmī Shia because the takfīr, disbelief and disavowal of the three khulafā’ is such a fundamental and structural compulsion to keep alive his own supposed "belief in Imāmat" without which his own religion cannot survive even for a second.

 

Therefore, a non-Muslim can respect the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum while remaining in his religion, but if a Rāfiḍī respects the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum and the khulafā’ from the heart, he ceases to be a Shia in that very second. Therefore, making this request to him is blatant ignorance and a waste of time.

 

Mudassīr Fārūqī