Answering Ghuluw

Ghulu means extremism; unfortunately some shias have misunderstood certain aspects of the religion and have added beliefs which are incompatible to true Islam. Imam Ali AS has warned clearly in sermon 126 of Nahjul Balagha the following:


“….With regard to me, two categories of people will be ruined, namely he who loves me too much and the love takes him away from rightfulness, and he who hates me too much and the hatred takes him away from rightfulness. The best man with regard to me is he who is on the middle course. So be with him and be with the great majority (of Muslims) because Allah’s hand (of protection) is on keeping unity. You should beware of division because the one isolated from the group is (a prey) to Satan just as the one isolated from the flock of sheep is (a prey) to the wolf. Beware; whoever calls to this course, kill him, even though he may be under this headband of mine….”


Some of these beliefs are as follows:


  1. Belief Imam Ali AS is Allah in human form.
  2. Belief that the Quran is physically distorted.
  3. That the Imams AS are higher status than Prophet Muhammad SAW
  4. A third shahada is recited in prayer.
  5. Belief that Imam Ali AS will judge those on judgement day.
  6. Belief that the Imams created the universe by Allahs delegation and that they sustain it.
  7. Sayyids can only marry other sayyids.

Point 1

From Man La Yahdarahu al-Faqih

3550 – وقال أبوجعفر عليه السلام: (أن عليا عليه السلام لما فرغ من أهل البصرة أتاه سبعون رجلا من الزط فسلموا عليه وكلموه بلسانهم، ثم قال لهم: إني لست كما قلتم إنا عبدالله مخلوق، قال: فأبوا عليه وقالوا لعنهم الله: لا بل أنت أنت هو، فقال لهم: لئن لم ترجعوا عما قلتم ولم تتوبوا إلى الله عزوجل لاقتلنكم، قال: فأبوا عليه أن يتوبوا ويرجعوا قال: فأمر عليه السلام أن تحفر لهم آبار فحفرت، ثم خرق بعضها إلى بعض، ثم قذف بهم فيها، ثم جن رؤوسها، ثم ألهب في بئر منها نارا وليس فيها أحد منهم فدخل فيها الدخان عليهم فماتوا)).

3550 – And Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said that when Amir al-Mu’mineen عليه السلام departed from the people of Basra seventy men from the Zutt came to him. So they gave salam to him and spoke with him in their language. Then he said to them: I am not as you have said. I am a created servant of Allah. So they refused him and they, Allah curse them, said: No, rather you, you are He. So he said: If you do not return from what you have said regarding me, and do not repent to Allah `azza wa jalla I will kill you.

He said: So they refused to repent and return. He said: So he عليه السلام commanded that there be wells dug for them. So it was dug. Then they were pierced some of them to some (i.e. the wells were joined together (?)). Then he threw them in it. Then he covered its heads (i.e. the openings to the wells). Then fire was ignited in a well from it in which there was not any of them in it. So the smoke came in upon them in it and they died.

Point 2

“Shaykh Saduq” (309/919-381/991), wrote:


“Our belief is that the Quran which Allah revealed to His Prophet
Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn).
And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not
greater in extent than that. The number of surahs as generally
accepted is one hundred and fourteen …And he who asserts that we say
that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar.”

Shi’i reference: Shi’ite Creed (al-I’tiqadat al-Imamiyyah), by Shaykh
Saduq, English version, p77.


Masail al-Sarawiya, which is a book attributed to Sheikh Al Mufeed, in it contains the following statement:

All of what is between the two covers of the Quran is the Speech of Allah Ta’ala and His revelation; it does not contain any sayings of human beings, and it is most of what has been revealed, and the rest of what Allah Ta’ala has revealed as Quran is bestowed with (Al-Qaem) the Preserver of Shariah and Custodian of Rulings with none of it being omitted, even though the one who has compiled what is between the two covers as present today (Uthman) did not include this in the compilation due to reasons such as: his shortcomings in knowing some (of it), what he had doubts about, and some which he included and others he meant to exclude, while Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) compiled the revealed Quran from beginning to end, and collated it as it is supposed to be collated: so he put the Makki (verses) before Madani, and abrogated verses before those abrogating them, and put all of it as it is required to be put, and for this reason (Imam) Jafar ibn Muhammad as-Saddiq said: “By Allah if the Quran was read as it was revealed you would have found our names as those before us were named”…

Authentic Hadiths have passed from our Imams (A.S.) that they have ordered (us) to read what is between the two covers, and that we do not resort to any other, be it in addition or subtraction until the Qaem emerges and he would read to people the Quran as Allah Ta’ala revealed it and as collected by Amir al-Mu’mineen (Ali) and they forbade us from reading what is mentioned in Hadith of words that are in excess of what is established in the Mushaf because it did not come through Mutawatir (narrations), but through individual (narrations), and a person can commit mistakes in conveying it, and whenever a person reads what is contrary to what is in the two covers he will make himself prone to (the attacks) of those who differ with us (i.e. Sunnis), and to the mighty (Sunni rulers) and thus he would expose himself to perishing. Thus, they (A.S.) prevented us from reading the Quran contrary to what is mentioned between the two covers.

Book Title: Masa’il as-Sarawiyya
Author: ash-Shaykh al-Mufid
Publisher: Dar al-Mufid in Lebanon, Beirut [1993]
Editor: Sa’ib `Abd al-Humayd
Page(s): 78-81

There is doubt if this book was indeed the work of the Al Mufeed, as al-Khoei says lists several arguments for this in his book Kuliyat fi Ilm ar-Rijal Page 316-7 that when Najashi (a prominent scholar of the time) in his rijal mention al-Mufid, he doesn’t mention any work by the name of M asail al-Sarawiya, therefore this work is not proven to be from al-Mufid.


Shaykh Tusi also did not mention any work with this name.

إنّ نسبة هذا الكتاب إلى الشيخ المفيد : قدّس سرّه : لم تثبت، ولم يذكر النجاشي والشيخ له كتاباً يسمّى بالمسائل السروية

However Al Mufeed has written books in which he clearly states the Quran is preserved and agrees with the texts in our hands, in Awa`il al-Maqalat page 81 (Qum, published 1413 AH) says:

و قد قال جماعة من أهل الإمامة إنه لم ينقص من كلمة و لا من آية و لا من سورة و لكن حذف ما كان مثبتا في مصحف أمير المؤمنين ع من تأويله و تفسير معانيه على حقيقة تنزيله

“And the group from the people of Imamah says there is no shortening in the words, and not in the ayah, and not in the Surah, but the cancellation of what was established in the mus`haf of Amir al-Mu`mineen  (as) from his ta`wil/interpretation of its meanings”

From his other books such as Kitab al-Irshad, again Sheikh Al Mufeed explains how it is more difficult to understand the Quran now , as the notes form the Imams are missing and the order has changed. This is not contentious, no one thinks the Quran was revealed and structured in the way it is now, however the content is the same. There is a special copy of the Quran which is with the Imams which contains the verses in the original order with a tafseer and taweel of every ayat. This was unfortunately rejected by Uthman. Additionally His teacher, Sheikh Saduq also wrote :

“Our belief is that the Quran which Allah revealed to His Prophet
Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn).
And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not
greater in extent than that. The number of surahs as generally
accepted is one hundred and fourteen …And he who asserts that we say
that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar.”

Shi’i reference: Shi’ite Creed (al-I’tiqadat al-Imamiyyah), by Shaykh
Saduq, English version, p77.

Sheikh Al Mufeed had written a book which is a like an amendment of the above, and he does not criticise or mention Sheikh Saduq view on the Quran, where as he did disagree on other subjects, his silence is taken that he agrees with Sheikh Saduq view.

Regarding those who believed in tahrif, Sharif al-Murtada (ar) said. . .

“Only a group of traditionists who do not understand what they are
saying nor know where they are going, those who always follow
narratives and submit to whatever is quoted, whether true or false,
without any thought or reflection, whose views are not worth attention.

As for the scholars, theologians, and rational debaters of our schools
such as Abu Jafar ibn Qiba, Abu’l Ahwas, the Nawbakhtis, and their
predecessor and successors, we have never come across any opinion among
them concerning alleged omission in the text of Qur’an.”

Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (as)
“We did not make humans rulers, but we made the Qur’an the ruler over humans. This Qur’an is free from change but does
not speak on its own accord, an interpreter is needed for this task.” Nahjul Balagha part 6 page 7,

Often people ask, but what about the people who do say such things? Are they Kafir? Now the only arguement
that any shia scholars believe that the current Quran in our hands is not 100% correct, (as explained above), also
believe that the Quran is preserved 100% perfectly with the Imam of the time AS.

For this reason, it is not applicable to call these people kafir, but rather they are a minority belief that I believe
to be incorrect. If however, someone was to say, all qurans any where and at all time are wrong, or false, then this
person is certainly a kafir.

Sunni’s actually have 7 different types of Quran, however they are not mutawatur, and the Imams AS have explicity
mentioned that the quran is as the people recite. The sunnis also differ on if “bismillah arrahman arraheem” is
part of the quran.

Khoei has written an excellent book called Al Bayan fee tafsir al Quran,in which he address hadiths that imply tahreef in the Quran.

There are some hadith that are interesting, they say such things like ” there were 17,000 verses in the Quran when it was revealed”, and some of these hadiths are rated as having a sahaih chain. The way they are to be understood is that it is very likely the number of verses was significantly more than what we have today, however, they were either abrogated, caused to be forgotten,  or not part of the Quran (hadith Qudsi).  Here is a selection of such a hadith:
عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْحَكَمِ عَنْ هِشَامِ بْنِ سَالِمٍ عَنْ أَبِي عَبْدِ اللَّهِ ع قَالَ إِنَّ الْقُرْآنَ الَّذِي جَاءَ بِهِ جَبْرَئِيلُ ع إِلَى مُحَمَّدٍ ص سَبْعَةَ عَشَرَ أَلْفَ آيَةٍ
“Aboo ‘Abd Allah (as), has said, ‘The Holy Quran that Jibra’eel brought to Muhammad (SAWAS) had seventeen thousand verses (17,000).’”


  • Al-Kulaynee, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 634, hadeeth # 28
  • Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq (Reliable)
    –> Mir’aat Al-’Uqool, vol. 12, pg. 525
  • Al-Majlisi I (Majlisi’s Father) said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
    –> RawDah Al-Muttaqoon, vol. 10, pg. 21
  • Hoor Al-’Aamilee said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (authentic)
    –> Al-Fuwaa-id Al-Toosiyyah, topic # 96, pg. 483

Point 3

There are three opinions mentioned in Shaykh Mufeed’s Awail al-Maqalat:

قد قطع قوم من أهل الإمامة بفضل الأئمة (ع) من آل محمد (ص) على سائر من تقدم من الرسل والأنبياء سوى نبينا محمد (ص)، وأوجب فريق منهم لهم الفضل على جميع الأنبياء سوى أولي العزم منهم – عليهم السلام – وأبى القولين فريق منهم آخر وقطعوا بفضل الأنبياء كلهم على سائر الأئمة (ع

1) Imams of Ahl al-bayt are superior to all messengers and Prophets except Prophet Muhammad(saw)
2) Imams of Ahl al-bayt are superior to all Prophets except Ulil ‘Azm
3) All Prophets are superior to Imams of Ahl al-bayt


There appears to be no solid consensus regarding this issue, as it is not something that we will be questionned about, it is better to remain silent.

Point 4

A minority claim the Tahashud includes the phrase “Ali wali Allah”. They may also say it is part of the athan, iqama.

They often point to Bihar ul Anwar Volume 84,


However there is nothing in that chapter supporting the view, and the book does not actualy refer to salat in that section.


Some then have pointed to a book, Fiqh-e-kamil, by Majlissi, however there is no source/isnad for the hadith mentioned in that book. However in an older text, Tadhib al-Ahkam of Shaykh Tusi(ar), the apparent same hadith is narrated without the addition of “Ali wali Allah” etc.

Here is the original text


Sayyed Sistani’s ruling:

§ Question : Is it allowed to recite ali un wali Allah in Tashahhud?

§ Answer : Although it is desirable to witness on the guardianship (wilayat) of Imam Ali after witnessing on the prophethood of the Prophet but as a measure of obligatory precaution, one should not witness on the guardianship of Imam Ali in prayer. Meaning, the obligatory precaution is that ‘Ashhadul ann alian waliullah’ should not be said in tashahhud.

Ayat ullah Ali Khamnai ‘s Fatwa

Salaam. i need help regarding ali yun wali Allah in namaz. is it farz or wajib? plz also give me some references and fatwas of marjahs.

Bismihi Ta`ala To bear witness that Imam Ali (A.S.) is wali of Allah is not a part of Adaan, Iqaamah, or tashahhud. It is not permissible to say it intending as part of them, but to say it as expressing one’s belief is no problem.

Q 460: What is your esteemed opinion on the third testimony {shahadah} for the master of God’s believers, Imam Ali (a), as being the commander {amir} and the leader {wali}, in the adhan and iqamah of obligatory prayers?

A: It is not a part of the adhan or iqamah according to Islamic law, but there will be no problem in it if it is not included with the intention of putting it into, and making it a part of the adhan and iqamah. Rather, this testimony will be preferable if it is included solely for expressing and stressing one’s belief regarding the Caliph {successor} of the holy Prophet, may God’s blessings be upon him and his infallible inheritors. (Practical Laws Of Islam by Ayatullah Khamene’i.


From Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih:


وروى أبو بكر الحضرمي، وكليب الاسدي عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلام أنه ” حكى لهما الاذان فقال: الله أكبر، الله أكبر، الله أكبر أكبر، أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله، أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله، أشهد أن محمدا رسول الله، أشهد أن محمدا رسول الله، حي على الصلاة، حي على الصلاة، حي على الفلاح، حي على الفلاح، حي على خير العمل، حي على خير العمل، الله أكبر، الله أكبر، لا إله إلا الله، لا إله إلا الله، والاقامة كذلك “. ولا بأس أن يقال في صلاة الغداة على أثر حي على خير العمل ” الصلاة خير من النوم ” مرتين للتقية.

وقال مصنف هذا الكتاب رحمه الله: هذا هو الاذان الصحيح لا يزاد فيه ولا ينقص منه، والمفوضة لعنهم الله قد وضعوا أخبارا وزادوا في الاذان ” محمد وآل محمد خير البرية ” مرتين، وفي بعض رواياتهم بعد أشهد أن محمدا رسول الله ” أشهد أن عليا ولي الله ” مرتين، ومنهم من روى بدل

ذلك ” أشهد أن عليا أمير المؤمنين حقا ” مرتين ولا شك في أن عليا ولي الله وأنه أمير المؤمنين حقا وأن محمدا وآله صلوات الله عليهم خير البرية، ولكن ليس ذلك في أصل الاذان، وإنما ذكرت ذلك ليعرف بهذه الزيادة المتهمون بالتفويض، المدلسون أنفسهم في جملتنا


And what is narrated from Abu Bakr al-Hadhrami and Kulayb al-Asadi from Abi `Abdillah (as) that he related to them the adhan.  So he said: Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, ashhadu al-la ilaha illallah, ashhadu al-la ilaha illalllah, ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah, ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah, hayya `ala ‘s-salah, hayya `ala ‘s-salah, hayya `ala ‘l-falah, hayya `ala ‘l-falah, hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal, hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal, Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, la ilaha illallah, la ilaha illallah.  And the iqama is like that.  And there is no problem that it be said in the salat al-ghadha (fajr) immediately after “hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal” “as-salat khayram-mina ‘n-nawm” two times for taqiyya.


The author of this book (Shaykh Saduq), may Allah have mercy on him, said: This is the correct adhan, nothing is added to it, nothing is subtracted from it.  The Mufawwadha, Allah curse them, have forged narrations and added in the adhan “Muhammad wa Ale Muhammad khayru ‘l-bariyya” two times, and in some of their reports after “ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasulallah” “ashhadu anna `Aliyyan waliyullah” two times, and some of them that narrate in place of that “ashhadu annna `Aliyyan amir al-mu’mineen haqqa” two times.  There is no doubt that `Ali is the Wali of Allah, and that he is the Commander of the Believers truly, and that Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad are the best of people, however that is not from the original adhan.  And I have only mentioned this that thereby may be known that those who have been accused of concocting (the doctrine of) tafwid and have insinuated themselves in our ranks may be known.

First see these sahih ahadith:

محمّد بن الحسن بإسناده عن سعد بن عبد الله ، عن العبّاس بن معروف ، عن علي بن مهزيار ، عن حمّاد بن عيسى ، عن حريز بن عبد الله ، عن زرارة قال : قلت لأبي جعفر ( عليه السلام ) : ما يجزي من القول في التشهّد في الركعتين الأوّلتين ؟ قال : أن تقول : أشهد أن لا إله إلاّ الله وحده لا شريك له ، قلت : فما يجزي من تشهّد الركعتين الأخيرتين ؟ فقال : الشهادتان.

Muhammad b. al-Hasan (Shaykh Tusi) with his isnad from Sa`d b. `Abdullah from al-`Abbas b. Mihzyar from Hammad b. `Isa from Hariz b. `Abdullah from Zurara. He said: I said to Abi Ja`far : What suffices for the saying in the tashahhud in the first two rak`ats? So he said: That you say “ashhadu al-la ilaha illallahu wahdahu la sharika lahu”. So I said: So what suffices for the tashahhud of the last two rak`ats? He said: The two shahadas.

وعنه ، عن علي بن الحكم ، عن أبي أيّوب الخرّاز ، عن محمّد بن مسلم قال : قلت لأبي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) : التشهّد في الصلاة ؟ قال : مرّتين ، قال : قلت : وكيف مرّتين ؟ قال : إذا استويت جالساً فقل : أشهد أن لا إله إلاّ الله ، وحده لا شريك له ، وأشهد أنّ محمّداً عبده ورسوله ثمّ تنصرف ، قال : قلت : قول العبد : التحيات لله والصلوات الطيبات لله ؟ قال : هذا اللطف من الدعاء يلطف العبد ربّه.

And from him (Shaykh Tusi) from `Ali b. al-Hakam from Abi Ayyub al-Kharraj from Muhammad b. Muslim. He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah : The tashahhud in salat? He said: Twice. He said: I said: And how are the twice? He said: When sitting straight then say “ashhadu al-la ilaha illAllah, wahdahu la shareeka lah, wa ashhadu anna Muhammadan `abduhu wa rasooluh” then you depart. He said: I said: The saying of the servant “at-tahiyyatu lillahi wa ‘s-salawatu ‘t-tayyibatu lillah”? He said: This is courteousness (al-lutf, benevolence, kindness, friendliness) from the du`a, the servant does courtesy (to) his Lord. (I’m unclear on how to translate that last line though)

وبإسناده عن محمّد بن علي بن محبوب ، عن يعقوب بن يزيد ، عن ابن أبي عمير ، عن عمر بن أُذينة ، عن الفضيل وزرارة ومحمّد بن مسلم ، عن أبي جعفر ( عليه السلام ) قال : إذا فرغ (1) من الشهادتين فقد مضت صلاته ، فإن كان مستعجلاً في أمر يخاف أن يفوته فسلّم وانصرف أجزأه.

And by his (Shaykh Tusi) isnad from Muhammad b. `Ali b. Mahbub from Ya`qub b. Yazid from Ibn Abi `Umayr from `Umar b. Udhayna from al-Fudayl and Zurara and Muhammad b. Muslim from Abu Ja`far . He said: When (one) has finished with the two shahadas then his salat has concluded. So if he is in a hurry with an affair he fears will expire, then he is to do taslim and depart, and it suffices for him.

And these other akhbar:

وعنه ، عن الحجّال ، عن علي بن عبيد ، عن يعقوب بن شعيب ، عن أبي عبد الله ( عليه السلام ) قال : التشهّد في كتاب علي شفع .

And from him (Shaykh Tusi) from al-Hajjal from `Ali b. Ubayd from Ya`qub b. Shu`ayb from Abu `Abdillah . He said: at-Tashahhud in the book of `Ali is an even-number.

ـ محمّد بن يعقوب ، عن محمّد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمّد ، عن الحجّال ، عن ثعلبة بن ميمون ، عن يحيى بن طلحة ، عن سورة بن كليب قال : سألت أبا جعفر ( عليه السلام ) عن أدنى ما يجزئ من التشهّد ؟ قال : الشهادتان.

Muhammad b. Ya`qub (Shaykh al-Kulayni) from Muhammad b. Yahya from Ahmad b. Muhammad from al-Hajjal from Tha`laba b. Maymun from Yahya b. Talha from Surah b. Kulayb. He said: I asked Abu Ja`far about the least that suffices in the tashahhud. He said: The two shahadas.

Also in Waseel Ashia , In the chapter of how to say the tahashud, it makes mentions to several varieties, however they all revolve around what is referred to the shahadatayn. The book can be found here:

Another source some people use is this:

[ 317 ]ولو لم يرد هذا الخبر لكنت أجيزه بالخبر الذي روي: 937 – عن الصادق عليه السلام أنه قال: ” كل شئ مطلق حتى يرد فيه نهي ” (1). والنهي عن الدعاء بالفارسية في الصلاة غير موجود، والحمد لله رب العالمين. 938 – وقال الحلبي له: ” أسمي الائمة عليهم السلام في الصلاة؟ قال: أجملهم ” (2). 939 – وقال الصادق عليه السلام: ” كل ما ناجيت به ربك في الصلاة فليس بكلام ” (3). 940 – وسأله منصور بن يونس بزرج ” عن الرجل يتباكى في الصلاة المفروضة حتى يبكي، فقال: قرة عين والله، وقال عليه السلام: إذا كان ذلك فاذكرني عنده ” (4). 941 – وروي ” أن البكاء على الميت يقطع الصلاة، والبكاء لذكر الجنة والنار من أفضل الاعمال في الصلاة “. وروي أنه ما من شئ إلا وله كيل أو وزن إلا البكاء من خشيه الله عزوجل فان القطرة منه تطفي بحارا من النيران، ولو أن باكيا بكى في أمة لرحموا. (5)

(1) هذا الخبر يدل على أن الاصل في الاشياء الاباحة وينافى القول بأن الاصل في الصلاة الحرمة. (2) ظاهره أنى أسميهم بأساميهم في الصلاة عليهم في التشهد كما اسمى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ومعنى ” أجملهم ” أي اذكرهم بأمر شامل لهم مثل ” آل محمد ” فيمكن أن يفهم منه وجوب الصلاة على آل محمد (ع). (مراد) (3) أي فليس بكلام مخل بالصلاة. (مراد) (4) ” قرة عين ” كناية عن السرور والفرح أي يوجبهما في الاخرة، ويمكن أن يكون ذلك اشارة إلى قول النبي صلى الله عليه وآله ” قرة عينى في الصلاة ” أي التباكي الذى يترتب عليه البكاء ينبغى أن يكون في الصلاة فيفهم منه معنى آخر لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وآله غير ما هو المشهور (مراد) أقول: الطريق صحيح، وهو منصور بن يونس القرشى مولاهم يكنى أبا يحيى من أصحاب الكاظم عليه السلام واقفى. (5) مضمون مأخوذ من الخبر الذى في ثواب الاعمال ص 200 باسناده عن محمد ابن مروان عن أبى عبد الله عليه السلام قال: ” ما من شئ الا وله كيل ووزن الا الدموع فان القطرة منها تطفئ بحارا من نار، وإذا اغرورقت العين بمائها لم يرهق وجهه قتر ولا ذلة فإذا فاضت حرمه الله على النار، ولو أن باكيا بكى في امة لرحموا “.However, as the footnote explains, the phrase “أجملهم” is meant that saying ”  آل محمد ” in the salawat.

Point 5

It can be explained by the understanding that those that love Imam Ali AS are believers and those that hate him are hypochrites. In Sheikh Saduqs work:

Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar said: I asked Imam as-Sadiq: “Why did Amir al-Mu’minin become the divider between heaven and Hell?” To which the Imam said: “Because love of him is faith and hatred of him is disbelief [kufr]. Indeed, the paradise was created for the people of faith, and Hell for people of disbelief. And so he is the divider between heaven and Hell, and for this reason: because none will enter paradise accept those who love him, and none will enter paradise except his lovers, and none will enter Hell except those who despise him”. And so Mufaddal said to him: “O son of the Prophet, so the Prophets and the Inheritors all loved him, and all of his enemies hated him?” Imam as-Sadiq said: “Yes”. Mufaddal said: “How can this be the case?” The Imam said: “You know that the Prophet said on the Day of Khaybar: ‘The flag will be given tomorrow to a man who loves Allah and His Prophet, and Allah and His Prophet love him, and he will not return until Allah has brought victory by his hands”. And so he gave the flag to ‘Ali, and Allah brought victory through his hands”. Mufaddal said: “Yes”. The Imam continued: “And you know that the Prophet came into possession of a roast bird, he said: ‘Oh Allah, bring me the person who, from amongst all your creations, is most loved by you and loved by me, to sit and share this bird with me.’ And of course he meant ‘Ali“. Mufaddal said: “Yes”. The Imam said: “And so is it permissible the Prophets and Messengers of Allah and their inheritors did not love the man who was loved by Allah and the Prophet, and did not love the man who loved Allah and the Prophet?” Mufaddal said: “No”. The Imam said: “And so is it permissible that the believers from their nations did not love the beloved of Allah and the Prophet, and the beloved of their own Prophets?” Mufaddal said: “No”. The Imam said: “Then it is proven that all of the Prophets of Allah and his Prophet and all of the believers loved ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib. And it is proven that their enemies and those who rebelled against them hated them, and hated all who loved them”. Mufaddal said: “Yes”. The Imam said: “As such, no one will enter the Paradise accept who loves the first ones and the last ones, and no one will enter Hell except those who hate the first ones and the last ones. As such, ‘Ali is the divider between heaven and Hell.’”

Point 6

Sheikh Saduq:Those who exceed the bounds of belief (ghulat) and those who believe in al-mufawwida(delegation) is that they are kuffar. None have belittled Allah more; as Allah says: “It is not possible for any human being unto whom Allah has given the scripture and wisdom and the prophethood that he should afterwards have said unto mankind: Be slaves of me instead of Allah…” [3,79]

Also Al Kulayni wrote in the introduction to Al Kafi:

He created all things in their origin new and at the very beginning through His might and
wisdom and nothing existed to invalidate His being the originator of all things. No other cause existed
to compete His invention. He alone created what He wished as He wished to reveal His wisdom and
the reality of His Lordship.

A hadith that condemns an early companion of Sheikh Saduq (Mufaddal ibn ‘Umar)

Abdullah ibn Miskan says: Hujr ibn Za’idah and ‘Amir ibn Judha’ah al-Azdi came to Abu ‘Abdillah [Imam Ja’far] and told him: “May we be ransomed for you! Mufaddal says that you [the Imams] determine the sustenance of the people.” He [Imam Ja’far said]: “By Allah, no one besides Allah determines our sustenance. One day I needed food for my family. I was under difficult circumstances and thought hard about it, until I managed to secure food for them. Only then did I feel content. May Allah curse him and disown him.” They asked: “Do you curse and disown him?” He replied: “Yes, so you too, curse him and disown him. May Allah and His messenger disown him.” (Ikhtiyar Ma’rifat ar-Rijal vol. 2 p. 614)

Regarding Khutba Bayan etc

The scholar says it is unauthentic.

س: ما حكم الخطبة الافتخارية التي نستمع عليها في الانترنت وهل هي منسوبة حقاً لأمير المؤمنين؟
فأن كان فمن نقلها عنه؟

ج: نسبت إلى أمير المؤمنين(عليه السلام) ولم نتثبت من صحة النسبة المذكورة ولا يسعينا البحث عن ذلك.

(Ayatullah Saeed al-Hakeem)

Marhoom Lankarani:

“In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

Salamun Alaikum,

The said sermons in the letter have not been transmitted to us through reliable channels, even though they contain material and issues that are found in other traditions. Secondly, a sermon that conflicts with the Quran, it is not considered a Hujjat (binding proof). Yes, in some cases there is need for Ta’weel (explanation), Takhsees (specification) or Taqyeed ( setting conditions) the rules for which have been explained by experts and scholars for dealing with reliable traditions which [seem to] have contradictions. The sermons of Amir al-Mumineen, in the case that they are transmitted us through a correct chain of narrators, have the same ruling as the rest of the traditions.


In the Name of Allah, The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful
Wa salaam,
There are some sermons that have been attributed to Imam Ali (A.S.) and a question has arisen as to whether they are legitimate sermons are not. Can His Eminence verify if these sermons are legitimate and if so, how can they be Qur’anically based. The sermons are:
Khutbat ul Bayan
– Khutbat al-Iftikhariya
– Khutbat al-Tattanajia.
They are found in the Mashariq al-Anwar by Shaykh Rajab Barsi. Was he a heretic? If not, how do the ulema regard his credentials? Please respond in English. May Allah bless his eminence and grant him long life. Editing as there were other questions posed as well.

sayed al-khoei in sirat al-najat 1/471 :

سؤال 1331 : ما رأيكم بخطبة البيان المنسوبة للامام علي عليه السلام ؟
الخوئي : لا أساس لها ، والله العالم .

q: what’s your opinion about khubat al-bayan…

a: it’s false and Allah knows best

allama al-majlissi(ra)

و ما ورد من الأخبار الدالة على ذلك كخطبة البيان، و أمثالها فلم توجد إلا في كتب الغلاة و أشباههم

what is narrated about this like khutbat al-bayan it’s only found in the book opf ghulat and their likes


And Imam ‘Ali ar-Rida(AS) used to say in his prayer: 0 Allah, I seek absolution from Thee in respect of Thy Strength and Power. There is neither strength nor power save in Thee. 0 Allah, I declare myself before Thee as having nothing to do with those who assert in respect of us things which we ourselves do not know. O Allah, to Thee belongs creation and Thou possessest the power of command; “Thee (alone) do we worship and from Thee do we seek help” [1, 4]. 0 Allah, Thou art our Creator, and the Creator of our ancestors, near and remote. 0 Allah, none deserves lordship save Thee; and divinity befits none except to Thee. So do Thou curse the Christians who belittled Thy greatness, and do Thou curse those who declare Thee to resemble Thy Creature. O Allah, verily we are Thy slaves and the sons of Thy slaves. We have no power over ourselves in respect of profit, loss, death, life or resurrection (nushur). O Allah, he who asserts that we are lords (arbab, plural of rabb) – we seek absolution from Thee in respect of him.

0 Allah, he who asserts that we have the power of creation and providing, – we seek absolution from Thee in respect of him, an absolution similar to that of Jesus, son of Mary, in respect of the Christians. 0 Allah, we have never called upon them to assert what they do assert; so do not punish us for what they say and forgive us for what they allege. “My Lord! leave not one of the disbelievers in the land” [71, 26]. “If Thou shouldst leave them, they will mislead Thy slaves and will beget none save lewd ingrates”.

There is another important point which must be discussedhere briefly. A considerable number of traditions are to be 

found, especially in the earliest Shi’i collection of hadith, Al-

Kafi, which describe the Imams as supernatural human

beings. What was the origin of these traditions, and to what

extent are the Imams themselves responsible for them? These

traditions are reported, as indeed are all Shi’i traditions, on

the authority of one of the Imams, in this case mainly from

Al-Baqir and Ja’far. But were these Imams really the authors

of such traditions, which describe their supernatural character?

The first thing which must be noted in this connection is

that while Al-Baqir and Ja’far themselves lived in Medina,

most of their followers lived in Kufa. This fact brings us to a

crucial problem. Kufa had long been a centre of ghulat

speculations and activities. Whether ‘Abd Allah b. Saba’, (43) to

whom the history of the ghulat is traced, was a real personality

or not, the name As-Saba’iya (44) is often used to describe the

ghulat in Kufa who believed in the supernatural character of

‘Ali. According to the heresiographers, Ibn Saba was the first

to preach the doctrine of waqf (refusal to recognize the death

of ‘Ali) and the first to condemn the first two caliphs in

(301)addition to ‘Uthmin. (45) Baghdadi says that As-Saba’iya
mostly consisted of the old Saba’iyans of South Arabia, who
survived all vicissitudes until the time of Mukhtar and
formed the nucleus of his “chair-worshippers”.(46) 

This early group of ghulat seems to have been absorbed by
the Kaysaniya, who believed in Muhammad b. al-Hanafiya’s
Mahdism and followed his son Abu Hashim ‘Abd Allah.
The death of Abu Hashim was the turning point in the
history of the ghulat, for it caused the split in consequence of
which they separated into two distinct groups. One upheld
the various successors of Abu Hashim and believed in his
concealment and return and eventually transplanted them-
selves into Iran, where they grew into the Kharramite
revolutionary movement towards the end of the Umayyad
period. The other group overlapped the Kaysanite stage,
remained in Kufa, and somehow connected itself with the
Husaynid Imams. The most conspicuous names in this
second group, who became the followers of Al-Baqir and then
of Ja’far as-Sadiq, are Hamza b. ‘Umara al-Buraydi, Bayan b.
Sim’an, Sa’d an-Nahdi, Mughira b. Sa’id al-’Ijli, his Co-
tribesman Abu Mansur al-’Ijli, and Muhammad b. Abi
Zaynab Miqlas b. Abi’l-Khattab. It would be too lengthy to
even briefly describe their extremist teachings here; suffice it
to say that they preached that the Imams were the incarnations
of God, that the divine particle incarnate in ‘All b. Abi Talib
enabled him to know the unseen, foretell the future, and to
fight against the infidels, that the power of the invisible
angelic world was in ‘Ali like a lamp within a niche in a wall,
and that God’s light was in ‘Ali as the flame in a lamp.(47) In
connection with these ghulat and their teachings, here we will
only point out that from Al-Baqir onwards, all the subsequent
Imams always cursed them and repeatedly warned their
followers not to accept traditions from them.(48) Kashshi quotes
Ja’far, who complains of Mughira, for example, as misrepresenting
Al-Baqir, and adds that all the ghuluw ascribed to Al-
Baqir was from Mughira. (49) In fact Ja’far and all the Imams
who followed him were always unequivocal in violently
cursing the ghulat and condemning their teachings.

There was, however, another very active group in Kufa,busy in advancing the cause of Al-Baqir and Ja’far. The most 

important among them were people such as Jabir b. Yazid

(302)al-Ju’fi, (50) Abu Hamza ath-Thumali; (51) and Mu’adh b. Farra
an-Nahwi. (52) Paying only occasional visits to the Imams in
Medina and enjoying their confidence, they severed their
relations with the ghulat of Kufa. On behalf of the Imams
they had doctrinal quarrels with the ghulat and preached
against the latter’s excessive claims regarding the nature and
function of the Imams. They did remain faithful to a certain
doctrinal discipline, imposed by the Imams, while this was
aggressively violated by the ghulat. Yet, when we see the
traditions related by Jabir and his associates in this group, it
seems that they must have been influenced by some of the
ideas propagated by the ghulat, especially those of Bayan b.
Sim’an and Mughira b. Sa’id. 

Perhaps no follower of Al-Baqir and Ja’far dared to go so
far in his assertions as Jabir. It will suffice to quote here only
one from a great number of traditions related by Jabir, which
indicates his semi-ghulat tendencies. Jabir related that Al-
Baqir said:

“‘O Jabir, the first beings that God created were Muhammad
and his family, the rightly guided ones and the guides; they were
the phantoms of light before God.’ I asked, ‘And what were the
phantoms?’ Al-Baqir said, ‘Shadows of light, luminous bodies
without spirits; they were strengthened by the Holy Spirit (Ruh
al-Quds), through which Muhammad and his family worshipped
God. For that reason He created them forbearing, learned,
endowed with filial piety, and pure; they worship God through
prayer, fasting, prostrating themselves, enumerating His names,
and ejaculating: God is great.”‘ (53)

If we compare the ideas of the ghulat concerning God’s
light in ‘Ali, pointed out above, with Jabir’s description of the
Imams as the “shadows of light” and “luminous bodies”, there
seems to be a common trend of thinking between the two.

It is perhaps for this reason that later ghulat groups accepted
Jabir as their forerunner. This is indicated by the assertions
of Abu’l-Khattab and his successors, who claimed Jabir as
their predecessor. Thus Umm at-Kitab is said to contain the
teachings of Al-Baqir, Jabir b. ‘Abd Allah al-Ansari, and Jabir
al-Ju’fl. (54) Another religious writing, Risalat al-Ju’fi, contain-
ing Isma’ili doctrines, is based mainly on the expositions of
Jabir on the authority of Al- Baqir. (55) Apparently neither the
doctrine of Umm al-Kitab nor that of Risalat al-Ju’fi represent

(303)the views of Al-Baqir, and probably only little of what Jabir
himself taught. It is nevertheless an important point that he
was regarded as the spiritual forefather of the post-Khattabite

However, in spite of the fact that ghuluw was repeatedly
condemned by Al-Baqir, Jafar, and the successive Imams of
the Husaynid line, a number of traditions containing some
ghulat ideas found their way into Shi’i collections of hadith.
Most of these traditions are related from Jabir al-Ju’fi But it
is now by no means possible to ascertain whether Jabir
himself was the author of these traditions or whether these
were attached to his name by the later ghulat and were
circulated in the Imamate circles. In both the Sunni and the
Shi’i science of hadith, little attention was paid to the
substance of a tradition: usually a hadith was either accepted
or rejected according to the credibility and trustworthiness of
its transmitters. In the Shi’i science of hadith, the main
criterion was that if a person was proven to have been a
devoted and sincere adherent of the Imam of his time, his
traditions were acceptable. Jabir, in spite of his semi-ghulat
tendencies and exaggerations, whether authentic or forged,
nevertheless remained, throughout his life, faithful to Al-
Baqir and Ja’far. When Muhammad b. Ya’qub al-Kulayni
(died 328/939) compiled the first collection of the Shi’i
traditions, Al-Kafi fi’l-’Ilm ad-Din, his purpose was to collect
whatever came to him on the authority of those who were
known as the adherents of any one of the Imams. In this way
a great many traditions ascribing supernatural and super-
human characteristics to the Imams, propounded by the
semi-ghulat circles in Ku fa, crept into the Shi’i literature.

There are, however, numerous traditions in Kafi in which
both Al-Baqir and Ja’far clearly denied that they possessed
supernatural powers and discounted the miracles attributed
to them. (56) It is thus most unlikely that Ja’far was personally
responsible for all those fantastic descriptions of the super-
natural character of the Imams which were circulated in his
name by his semi-ghulat followers in Kufa. Indeed, Ja’far did
not excommunicate them as he did, for example, in the case
of Abu’l-Khattab, and as Al-Baqir did in the cases of Bayan,
Abu Mansur, and Mughira. In Kafi itself, there are many
traditions from both Al-Baqir and Ja’far as-Sadiq in which

(304)they declared that they were simply God-fearing men,
distinguished from others only because they were the
Prophet’s nearest relatives and thus became the custodians
and trustees of his message. And by virtue of their devotion
to God and because of the fact that perfect knowledge of God
had come to them through Nass and ‘Ilm, they were able to
live their lives in complete obedience to the will of God. (57)
Regarding the traditions pertaining to the supernatural
character of the Imams, perhaps the most decisive and
revealing is the statement of Ja’far himself in which he said:
“Whatever is in agreement with the Book of God, accept it;
and whatever is contrary to it, reject it.” (58) When we recall
that Ja’far as-Sadiq was at least a century before the time of
Bukhari and Muslim, it is significant to find that it is the
Imam Ja’far who is credited with establishing this criterion
for testing hadith, one which came to be regarded as the most
important principle to observe in judging traditions.(59) 

Moreover, the fact that the ghulat or semi-ghulat were
attributing their own thoughts to the Imams and that the
Imams were not responsible for these statements is further
illustrated by a report given by Kashshi. A follower of the
Imam ‘Ali ar-Rida once read before him certain Hadith
which he had copied from the notebooks of those in Iraq who
had taken down sayings of Al-Baqir and Ja’far. The Imam
strongly rejected the authenticity of those traditions and
declared that Abu’l-Khattab and his followers had contrived
to have their lies accepted in those notebooks. (60) Similar
traditions have been noted earlier wherein Ja’far complained
of Mughira misrepresenting Al-Baqir.

Point 7

Shaykh Saduq has never said that Sayyida girls cannot marry non-Sayyids. Who ever says so is a liar. Shaykh Saduq, however, has said that `Alawis are kufv of each other. This is the statement along with the hadith being referred to:

وبعضهم أكفاء بعض، لقول النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم حين نظر إلى بنين وبنات علي وجعفر ابني (أبي) طالب: (بناتنا كبنينا، وبنونا كبناتنا



(The translation of this section of the book can be read here:….e=suduk/Suduk41 )


First of all, the hadith that is quoted is a mursal narration, as the footnote explains, so it is not reliable. Secondly, even if we ignore the authenticity of the hadith, as these malang types from Pakistan usually do, the content of the hadith itself states: “Our daughters are for our sons, and our sons are for our daughters”. So, if we are to assume that this hadith is true and declares the marriage of Sayyedahs with non-Sayyeds to be impermissible, then it is simultaneously declaring the marriage of Sayyids with non-Sayyidahs to be equally impermissible.


But, does this member (and other such people who argue about this) also believe that the marriage of Sayyids with non-Sayyidahs is not allowed in Islam? Of course not. Because they only cherry pick what parts of Islam they want to believe and what parts they don’t (i.e., they are hypocrites).


Thirdly, to get a better understanding of what this hadith is referring to, we look at the longer version of it that is recorded in Fiqh al-Rida:

” نروى أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله نظر إلى ولدى أميرالمؤمنين الحسن والحسين صلوات الله عليهم وبنات جعفر بن أبى طالب فقال: بنونا لبناتنا وبناتنا لبنينا ”…/00/no0002.html


Translation: “the Prophet of Allah [s] looked upon the sons of Ameerul Mu’mineen, al-Hasan and al-Husayn, blessings of Allah be upon them both, and (looked upon) the daughters of Ja`far b. Abi Talib, and said: Our sons are for our daughters, and our daughters are for our sons.”


So the actual meaning of this hadith is that the Prophet wants the sons of Imam Ali [a] (specifically Imam Hasan and Husayn [a]) to marry the daughters of Ja`far b. Abi Talib. This hadith is in no way a general rule of marriage for Sayyeds and non-Sayyeds. The reference was specifically to the sons and daughters of Imam Ali and Ja`far (not even including the other brothers of Imam Ali [a], i.e., Talib and Aqeel).


Finally, the short version of the hadith that is referred to in the post that I quoted is present under the chapter Bab al-Akfaa’ in Man la Yahduruh al-faqih. There are several other ahadith in this chapter — the very next one being:

وقال الصادق عليه السلام: (المؤمنون بعضهم أكفاء بعض



Translation: Imam Sadiq [a] said: The believers are kufv of each other.

No exceptions mentioned. All believers are kufv of each other, the very next hadith states:


وقال عليه السلام: ” الكفؤ أن يكون عفيفا وعنده يسار

Translation: And he (Imam Sadiq) [a] said: al-Kufv means for one to be chaste and possess ease (of living expenses).


So the very next two hadith from this same chapter explicitly reject the notion that Sayyedahs are not allowed to marry non-Sayyeds.

You May Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *