Praise be to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, and his companions, and those who follow him.
To proceed:
Rafdh (rejection) according to the Salaf is the cursing of the noble Companions.
Al-Khallal said in “Al-Sunnah” (778):
“Muhammad bin Yahya Al-Kahhal informed me that Abu Abdullah said: ‘The Rafidhi is the one who curses.’”
Harb Al-Karmani said in his creed:
“Whoever mentions any of the Companions of Muhammad, peace be upon him, with evil or faults them or disassociates from any of them, or curses them, or insinuates cursing them, is a Rafidhi, an opposing, vile, misguided person.”
So, whether he curses one or curses all of them, he is a Rafidhi. The Salaf spoke harshly about the Rafidha and most of the Salaf declared those who religiously curse the Companions to be disbelievers.
As for Tajahhum, it is the denial of attributes due to the implication of anthropomorphism.
The question here is: which is worse, the Jahmiyya or the Rafidha?
The answer is that the Salaf do not differ in that the Jahmiyya are worse than the Rafidha.
Al-Bukhari said in “Khalq Af’aal Al-’Ibaad” (83):
“Waki’ said: ‘The Rafidha are worse than the Qadariyyah, the Haruriyyah are worse than them, and the Jahmiyyah are the worst of these groups. Allah Almighty said: {And Allah spoke to Moses directly} [4:164], but they say He did not speak, and they say faith is in the heart.’”
What Waki’ said applies to the Ash’aris, as they deny the real speech since they do not affirm speech with letters and sound. They support Jahm’s doctrine in faith, as Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned in several places.
Ibn Taymiyyah said in “Majmoo’ Al-Fatawa” (7/119):
“If you consider their arguments, you will find claims without evidence. Al-Qadhi Abu Bakr Al-Baqillani supported Jahm’s view on the matter of faith following Abu Al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari, and so did most of his followers.”
The Ash’aris’ denial of Uluw (aboveness of Allah) is more outrageous than the Jahmiyyah’s, and their stance on the attribute of speech, as Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out in “Al-Istiqamah”. Ibn Taymiyyah reinforced Waki’s statement, stating that the Jahmiyyah, including the Ash’aris, are greater disbelievers than the original Rafidhah.
Ibn Taymiyyah said in “Bayaan Talbees Al-Jahmiyya” (5/405):
“This is established by the tenth point, which is that these Jahmiyyah use ambiguous terms and convey to people the opposite of what is in their hearts more than any other group. The Rafidhah share this trait with them, but these [Jahmiyyah] are greater in disbelief and hypocrisy. Therefore, Abdul-Rahman bin Mahdi said: ‘They are two religions: the Jahmiyyah and the Rafidhah,’ mentioned by Al-Bukhari in ‘Khalq Af’aal Al-’Ibaad.’ Al-Bukhari said: ‘I don’t see a difference between performing Salah behind a Jahmi and a Rafidhi or behind a Christian and a Jew. They [Jahmiyyah and Rawāfiḍ] are not to be greeted, nor are they to be visited, nor are they to be married, nor is their testimony to be accepted, nor are their sacrifices to be eaten.’ This is explained elsewhere. The Jahmiyyah criticized the essence of Tawhid, which is the testimony that there is no god but Allah, and the Rafidhah, their fundamental doctrine undermines the second testimony, which is that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If a person combines Rafidhism and Jahmism, he comes close to the heretical Batinis, the Carmathians, who are the most hypocritical and secretive, showing contrary to what they believe, and addressing people with ambiguous words understood differently by them.”
By Jahmiyya, Ibn Taymiyyah means the Ash’aris, as he was responding to the philosopher of the Ash’aris, Al-Razi, in this book.
With this understanding, you realize that calling a Jahmi Ash’ari who denies the aboveness [of Allah] “an Imam from the Imams of Muslims” is like calling a cursing Rafidhi “an Imam from the Imams of Muslims”, but more so. Denying the disbelief of the Jahmi is like denying the disbelief of the Rafidhi. As for denying the innovation of the Jahmi, I do not know what to say about it.
If the aboveness of Allah is a hidden matter, then the trustworthiness of the Companions is also a hidden matter. I still remember some brothers when they wanted to repel people away from Sayyid Qutb, they mentioned his disparagement of several Companions. This repelled those with a sound Fitrah from him, as this is a well-established matter that cannot be denied except by stubbornness. He follows the pattern of other contemporary writers who uncritically accept fabricated historical narratives, a stance they do not take with hadiths, especially those that contradict their reasoning. They judge the Companions by values that no one believed in a century or two ago, but were taken from the new civilization, which is utter folly.
The point here is that Sayyid’s denial of attributes is more outrageous than his disparagement of the Companions. If you do not excuse him for his words about the Companions, then with greater reason, you should not excuse him for his bad words about the attributes.
Some of our brothers used to argue that the evidence against Sayyid Qutb was established because one of his references was the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir. How about some of the Jahmi scholars who are more knowledgeable about hadith than Ibn Kathir himself?
What if several characteristics of Tajahhum, Irjaa’, Jabr, and grave worship were combined in him?
It should be noted that the Ash’aris’ view on the aboveness [of Allah] does not differ much from that of the naturalists and atheists, as [they both believe that Allah] neither enters nor exits, is not seen by the eye, and is not approached, which means it is like nature to them. Reflect on this.
Ibn Taymiyyah said in “Dar’ Ta’arud” (1/203):
“Therefore, the physician Ibn Al-Nafis used to say: ‘There are only two madhabs: the madhab of Ahl Al-Hadith, or the madhab of the philosophers. As for these Mutakallimun [philosophers], their statements are evidently contradictory and differing.’ This means that Ahl Al-Hadith affirmed everything the messengers brought, while those [philosophers] considered everything to be imagination and delusion.”
Ibn Al-Nafis sees that the words of the Mutakallimun essentially revert to the words of the denying philosophers, even if they appear to agree with the people of Islam. Many of them do not realize the reality of their words but speak out of fanaticism, imitation, or ignorance.
Know that today’s Rafidha do not suffice with cursing; rather, they declare the Companions to be disbelievers, adopt Jahmism, and openly worship others besides Allah. They are undoubtedly the farthest sect from Islam today, but the comparison is with the original Rafidhah.
May Allah’s blessings be upon Muhammad, his family, and his companions.
- Shaykh Abu Ja’far al-Khulayfi
Leave a Reply