Defining rifd and nasb

Discussion in 'Miscellany' started by Aqdas, Feb 7, 2021.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Making the remembrance of ahl al-bayt alone could be for a few reasons:

    1. Out of love for them with no ill intent towards sahabah. This is permitted.
    2. Out of "love" for them and purposely leaving the mention of sahabah. This is forbidden.

    So if scenario 1 is permitted, why did Alahazrat recommend mentioning ahl al-bayt after the sahabah? Would people say Alahazrat was reactionary in the negative sense?

    Alahazrat recommended it to demarcate Sunni gatherings from shiah ones and not because he is pained at the remembrance of ahl al-bayt per se. Because shiah only extol ahl al-bayt, the most foresighted master of the last century said the above.

    To say that we shouldn't have a reactionary approach in this particular issue gives an incorrect impression that Ahl al-Sunnah are disturbed by the praise of ahl al-bayt. This is an incorrect deduction.

    Ahl al-Sunnah don't mention sahabah when ahl al-bayt are praised due to enmity for the latter - they do it due to the times we live in to curtail the spread of rifd amongst the masses.

    Have we not seen how sahabah are vilified on "sunni" stages? Aren't they considered sunni who attacked Siddiq e Akbar about Fadak? The same people disparage Hazrats Umar and Uthman too. Others attack the remembrance of Amir Muawiyah. This is all done in the name of Ahl al-Sunnah!

    So isn't it wise to mention sahabah when ahl al-bayt are extolled so that notions are corrected? It certainly is. And Alahazrat was the wisest of his time onwards.

    Rifd has been injected into sunnis covertly and en masse. In such a climate, it makes perfect sense to mention sahabah in gatherings dedicated to ahl al-bayt.

    I hope Shaykh Asrar takes note of this.
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2021
    Sunni Jaag likes this.
  2. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Told you this is relevant.

    This is a nasibi forum. :rolleyes:

    People need to learn definitions and their application and also the difference between methodology and hatred.

    It's quite frustrating to live in this age where people are just generally thick. Sorry.
    uk7866, Qadiriyyah and Unbeknown like this.
  3. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

  4. Aqdas

    Aqdas Staff Member

    Sunnis don't have any antipathy towards any companion or any family member of RasulAllah ﷺ. We love both groups from the depths of our hearts.

    At times, we might encourage certain behaviours even if they're not necessary. Certain things might be called for depending on time and place.

    e.g. why did Imam Abu Hanifah say that wiping over leather socks is a sign of Ahl al-Sunnah even though it is merely a permissible act and not actually fard or wajib? Because the opposite - not believing in wiping - was the hallmark of shiah who were present in large numbers in Kufa.


    Bearing that in mind, is it wajib to raise slogans for Mawla Ali? No. Is it permitted to only raise slogans of sahabah? Yes. Then why do we encourage saying Haydari Ya Ali after we say Tahqiq Haq Char Yar even though it's fine to only say the latter?

    Because we are Sunni. It is the hallmark of nasibis and kharijis to leave Haydari Ya Ali. Whereas the lifeblood of Ahl al-Sunnah is Ya Ali. So though permitted alone, we strongly encourage it to be raised after Tahqiq Haq Char Yar because,

    1. We find peace in Ya Ali.
    2. We want to differentiate between Sunni and nasibi.

    Similarly, it is the hallmark of rafidis to leave the mention of the first three caliphs. So thought permitted, we tend to not only raise Haydari Ya Ali, we precede it with Tahqiq Haq Char Yar as,

    1. We find peace in the mention of all four friends.
    2. We want to differentiate between Sunni and rafidi.

    What if someone repeats either Tahqiq or Haydari multiple times but ignores the other? Is he a deviant?

    Not necessarily. He might be a Sunni who has love for sahabah or Ahl al-Bayt. So why might we discourage it? Simple. Public perception.

    It is the hallmark of rafidis to say Haydari Ya Ali multiple times with no mention of sahabah. So though it doesn't necessarily mean one is rafidi, it is best to avoid assimilation with them.

    Same with Tahqiq Haq Char Yar without mention of Mawla Ali. It doesn't automatically make one nasibi but it's best avoided due to assimilation with nasibis.


    It is permitted to make mention of sahabah and Ahl al-Bayt alone. So, let's say it's Jumadi al-Akhir and there's an event about Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, it is permitted without dislike to base the entire speech on him.

    In the same way, if it's Ramadan, it is permitted to dedicate the entire speech to Mawla Ali, with no dislike.

    Then why do we tend to and even encourage mentioning sahabah and Ahl al-Bayt together? Same reason. To differentiate ourselves from rafidis and nasibis.

    So though not a necessity, we do it to always make our position clear to our masses.

    #Alahazrat answers a query:

    'It is also in the books that the mention of Hasanayn be done after the mention of the blessed companions رضي الله عنهم. This does not mean that their [Hasanayn’s] remembrance is not allowed without the remembrance of the companions. They are both individual acts of worship and to leave the mention of the companions knowingly is not allowed. And Allah knows best.'

    [Fatawa Ridawiyyah, 23:747]

    Three points derived:

    1. It's best to mention Ahl al-Bayt after mentioning sahabah.
    2. But it is permitted even alone.
    3. Leaving the mention of sahabah purposely isn't allowed.

    Alahazrat says this so that our gatherings become distinct from rafidis.

    If a speaker mentions one group or the other alone, this is permitted. Though it's better to mention both to demarcate between Ahl al-Sunnah and Ahl al-Bidah.

    So have husn al-zann if a speaker only mentions one group. Unless, of course, the speaker is known for nasibi/rafidi leanings whereupon:

    1. He shouldn't be lecturing to Sunnis anyway.
    2. He should clarify that his aqidah is that of Ahl al-Sunnah.


    Is it permitted to recite praise or Mawla Ali alone? Permitted?! It is sunnah! If it's done according to the creed of Ahl al-Sunnah, it is most praiseworthy.

    If you find someone dedicated an entire speech to Mawla Ali, don't suspect him of rifd (being shiah) unless he has history of it. It is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah to mention Mawla Ali.

    So don't be over zealous in this. Unless the speaker is known to be shiah leaning, listen to the praises of Mawla Ali wholeheartedly. As long it is done according to the way of Ahl al-Sunnah.

    In the same vein, a talk dedicated wholly to sahabah wouldn't mean the speaker is nasibi, unless he has history of hatred for Ahl al-Bayt.


    We often hear poetry in Sunni gatherings. We are permitted to recite as much as we want in praise of sahabah and Ahl al-Bayt provided the poetry itself is according to Sunni creed and won't confuse laity.

    Sayyiduna Abu Bakr is the best of men after the prophets. But what if someone were to read lines that suggested he is even greater than them? Would it permissible to oppose that? Yes. Not just permissible but obligatory.
    We live in a time when Sunnis have been infiltrated by shiah. It isn't too infrequent that shiah poetry is recited amongst us. It doesn't show hatred for Ahl al-Bayt to stop that.


    Amir Muawiyah is a companion of RasulAllah ﷺ. Sunnis speak only good regarding companions. Defence of Amir Muawiyah is due to his status as a companion. In their disagreements, Mawla Ali was upon truth and Amir Muawiyah was mistaken. Sahabah were all human and were susceptible to mistakes. They aren't considered sinless. But the Sunni position is to withhold tongues against them. Defence of Amir Muawiyah is not borne out of hatred for Mawla Ali but rather because he is a companion and none of them are reviled.


    Nasb means to bear hatred for Ahl al-Bayt. In our times, it seems that many actually fail to understand its true definition. We have to differentiate between a few things:

    1. Someone who opposes the remembrance of Mawla Ali per se. That's nasb and would make one a nasibi.
    2. Someone who loves the praise of Mawla Ali. This person won't be a nasibi.
    3. But what about person 2 opposing certain things or calling for certain things? E.g. he enjoys praise of Mawla Ali but when he hears the slogan, Haydari Ya Ali five times in a row, he raises a slogan of Tahqiq Haq Char Yar. Is he nasibi?

    Not necessarily. Remember, nasibi means to hate praise of Mawla Ali. So why did he do what he did?

    1. He didn't like the praise of Mawla Ali. He's nasibi.
    2. Because Sunnis have been infiltrated by shiah and repeating Haydari Ya Ali is something more associated with shiah, he reacted to create that difference between Sunni and shiah. He doesn't consider it wrong per se to repeat Haydari Ya Ali. This person isn't nasibi.

    Now, you can talk all day about his methodology being right or wrong. I agree. Methods differ. But can he be called nasibi? No. If he was nasibi, he wouldn't just raise Tahqiq Haq Char Yar, he would oppose Haydari Ya Ali altogether. But he doesn't. He is a proponent of Haydari Ya Ali. How can such a person ever be nasibi?

    Many people have mixed up methodologies with nasb. The above is one example. Another example:

    What if a scholar dedicates more speeches to praise of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr and not much for Mawla Ali? Is he nasibi? Not necessarily. Once again, we need to differentiate between methodology and nasb.

    You can argue that he should balance his time. But remember, nasb means hatred for Mawla Ali. If he's doing so out of hatred for Mawla Ali, he's nasibi. If he's doing so for any other reason, he isn't. He might be doing so because he feels shiah influence amongst Sunnis. He might be doing it because Sayyiduna Abu Bakr is the greatest companion and he likes mentioning him more. As long as he doesn't oppose or bear hate for praise of Mawla Ali, he isn't nasibi. Maybe just his method is wrong.

    It is crucial that we delineate the two:

    1. Nasb/nasibi
    2. Methodology

    A Sunni might adopt a certain methodology for various reasons and that might be perceived as wrong or right. But he can't be deemed a nasibi unless he has hate for Mawla Ali.

    Similarly, if a person talks about Sayyiduna Abu Bakr more and doesn't have previous shiah leanings and doesn't talk about Mawla Ali much or only raises Tahqiq Haq Char Yar, we might oppose this because it is more aligned to nasibis/kharijis who omit the remembrance of Mawla Ali. So we will make a point of mentioning Mawla Ali and raising Haydari Ya Ali to differentiate between Sunni and nasibi.


    Shiah doesn't mean to love Ahl al-Bayt. It means enmity of sahabah. So if a person spends his entire life doing Ali Ali, that wouldn't make him shiah.

    You can talk all day about what you feel is ideal, but he remains a Sunni. What has he done that takes him out of Ahl al-Sunnah?

    He would only be shiah if he shows enmity towards any of the sahabah. It is crucial to understand this. It isn't Ali Ali that makes one shiah.


    As long as somebody isn't known to hold shiah or nasibi leanings, he will be considered Sunni even if he talks only about Sayyiduna Abu Bakr or only Mawla Ali. That's down to personal choice and we can agree or disagree or remain indifferent to it.

    Yes, if someone does the following amongst other things, then he's shiah or that way leaning:

    - elevates Mawla Ali above Shaykhayn
    - criticises sahabah
    - reviles Amir Muawiyah or opposes his praise
    - opposes the remembrance of the first three caliphs

    If someone does the following amongst other things, then he's nasibi or that way inclined:

    - opposes remembrance of Mawla Ali per se
    - considers Amir Muawiyah to be right and Mawla Ali wrong
    - opposes Haydari Ya Ali

    The bottom line is, properly DEFINING shiah and nasibi.

    Once we've done that, you'll see that a Sunni is neither nasibi nor shiah.

    The ship of Ahl e Sunnat reaches safety because, the companions -
    Are stars and the ark is the progeny of RasulAllah ﷺ

    رضي الله عنهم اجمعین
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2020

Share This Page