← Featured Articles

Global · Sects & Groups

What it argues

A summary of the answer and its 4 follow-up questions.

  1. Is Shia status collectively kafirLaw & rulings

    Darul Uloom Deoband and Faraz Rabbani hold Shia are Muslim in general, with kufr limited to those holding specific disqualifying beliefs. Other fatwas, attributed to Mufti Ebrahim Desai's department, hold Shia doctrine as a whole is incompatible with Islam's fundamentals. Expert Opinions argues against collective takfir, citing al-Shafi'i's acceptance of narrations from innovators and Ibn Taymiyyah's leniency. Hanafi-linked fatwas themselves disagree on whether Shia as a group count as Muslim.

  2. Hanafi list narrows kufrLaw & rulings

    Ibn Abidin limits actual kufr to Qur'an-distortion belief, denying Abu Bakr's companionship, accusing A'isha of adultery, or deifying Ali. The same source rules belief in the twelve Imams or Ali's priority to the caliphate as fisq (sinful deviance), not kufr. Mut'a is ruled an invalid marriage contract and taqiyya only governs how outward statements are judged — neither is treated as a takfir ground. A narrower Hanafi standard excludes core Shia beliefs like Imamate from kufr.

  3. Cursing named CompanionsLaw & rulings

    Authentic hadith forbid reviling the Companions generally as a grave sin, without naming it kufr. Separate fatwas single out cursing or vilifying Abu Bakr and Umar by name specifically as kufr, not merely fisq. The sources do not state whether reviling other, unnamed Companions carries the same kufr ruling. Fatwas treat cursing Abu Bakr and Umar by name as crossing into disbelief, beyond general reviling.

  4. Responding to sectarian postsSociety

    Resharing posts that repeat reviling of A'isha, Abu Bakr or Umar is sinful because it spreads the wrong. Verifying a claim before believing or passing it on is obligatory; refuting it with wisdom and good manners is allowed. Where a reply would only inflame matters, staying silent is the default response. Guidance favours verification and restraint over amplifying or retaliating against sectarian reviling.

  5. Punishment and divisionSociety

    Punishing anyone who reviles the Companions is for a judge (ta'zir), not for individuals online. AMJA urges Muslims to step away from sectarian argument, saying this is not the same as approving of it. A post pinning one person's reviling on every Shia goes beyond what has been verified. Enforcement and blanket blame are both discouraged as matters for individuals to take up themselves.

Are all shia kaafir?

Fatwas split on whether Shia are collectively kafir, as Hanafi rulings narrow kufr to specific beliefs and single out cursing Abu Bakr and Umar

Hanafi-linked fatwas disagree on whether Shia Muslims are collectively kafir, with some narrowing disbelief to specific named beliefs; separate guidance advises caution in responding to posts reviling the Companions.

  • Fatwas disagree on whether Shia Muslims are collectively kafir or Muslim with individual exceptions.
  • A narrower Hanafi standard limits actual kufr to a handful of specific beliefs, excluding Imamate.
  • Cursing Abu Bakr and Umar by name is ruled kufr, beyond the general sin of reviling Companions.
  • Guidance on responding to sectarian posts favours verification, restraint and avoiding amplification.

Read the original answer

The Hanafi fatwas lists doctrinal disputes — the status of the Imams, alleged Qur'an distortion, vilification of the Companions, mut'a and taqiyya — as grounds for ruling Shia outside mainstream Islam.

The premise only partly holds. The Hanafi fatwas here (via Ibn Abidin, F4) tie takfir to specific beliefs — Qur'an-distortion, denying Abu Bakr's companionship, accusing A'isha of adultery, or deifying Ali — while explicitly ruling that belief in the twelve Imams or Ali's superior claim to the caliphate is sinful deviance (fisq), not kufr. Mut'a is ruled an invalid marriage contract on its own grounds, and taqiyya is treated only as a question of how to judge concealed belief — neither is presented as a kufr-trigger in these sources.

  • F1 and F2 apply a broader standard, calling Shia in general disbelievers over Qur'an-distortion belief and slandering Abu Bakr, Umar and A'isha.
  • F4's Ibn Abidin gives a narrower, belief-specific criterion and explicitly excludes Imamate/twelve-Imam belief from kufr.
  • Mut'a's prohibition rests on Companion consensus and is a contract-validity ruling, not a takfir ground, in the sources given.

Reviling the Companions is not kufr?

The sources give two levels: reviling the Companions in general is a grave sin condemned in emphatic, authentic hadith, but the Hanafi-linked fatwas do not stop there for Abu Bakr and Umar specifically — cursing or vilifying them by name is ruled kufr, not merely fisq. Disagreement over rank or preference (e.g. holding Ali more deserving of the caliphate) is treated elsewhere as sinful deviance, but actual cursing of the two Shaykhs crosses into disbelief according to these fatwas.

  • The hadith prohibition on reviling Companions is general and does not itself name the sin as kufr (H4, H5, H2).
  • Three fatwas independently single out cursing Abu Bakr and Umar as an act/belief of kufr (F5, F6, F7).
  • Ibn Kathir's tafsir frames cursing the Companions Allah has praised as effectively at odds with believing the Qur'an (T1).

Someone keeps posting about Shia that revile Ayesha, Abubakr and Umar RA. What must I do?

The answer depends on the case. Resharing posts that repeat the reviling is sinful, because it spreads the wrong. Verifying a claim before you believe or pass it on is obligatory. Refuting it with knowledge, wisdom and good manners is allowed. Where your words would only inflame things, saying nothing is the default. So: do not repost or amplify the content, privately advise the person posting it, and if you reply at all, defend the honour of A'isha, Abu Bakr and Umar calmly, without insulting anyone back.

  • Punishing anyone who reviles the Companions is for a judge (ta'zir), not for individuals online.
  • Leaving a sectarian argument is not approving of it. AMJA urges Muslims to step away from that kind of division.
  • A post that pins one person's reviling on every Shia goes beyond what has been verified.

But he posted for a good reason: A Gaza resident highlights the risks that Shiaism poses to children and emphasizes the critical need to educate Muslim children about following the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)

It depends on the case. Teaching children the Sunnah and warning people, with knowledge, against specific false beliefs is permissible and can be praiseworthy. Reposting content that reviles A'isha, Abu Bakr and Umar is still sinful, even when the purpose is good. In the sources, a good aim does not justify spreading evil talk, and an act with some benefit is given up when it leads to a greater harm.

  • Make the point without the poison. Teach the virtues of the Companions and the Sunnah directly, instead of passing on the insults.
  • You could suggest he share the Gaza resident's message about educating children and leave out the clips of reviling.
  • Warn about specific beliefs, not a whole community: Expert Opinions caution against sweeping sectarian condemnation.

Sources

Does a good purpose make reposting Shia insults of the Companions permissible? — Coherence Academy