Shia propagandists often make alot of noise about the Ridda (apostasy) wars that united the Arabian Peninsula upon Islam again through the struggle of the Caliph of Rasulullah, Abu Bakr ibn Abi Quhafa.
So what do the most authentic Shia sources say about people who simply refuse to pay Zakah? And what is the ultimate punishment for such people?
Shia “infallibles” and their takfir on those who refuse to pay the Zakah!
Al-Kulayni’s Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim from his father from Isma’il ibn Marrar fromYunus from Ibn Muskan … on the authority of Abu Ja’far (Muhammad ibn ‘Ali Al-Baqir): “The Messenger of Allah addressed a group of people in the mosque telling some of them to get up [of the mosque] until he threw out five persons, then he said: “Get out of our mosque and do not pray in here whilst you haven’t paid your Zakah.” [Al Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]
Yunus from ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah from Abu Basir on the authority of Abu ‘Abdillah (Al-Sadiq), who said: “We refuses to pay even a single ounce of the Zakah is not a believer nor a Muslim and this is the statement of Him (Allah), may He be glorified and exalted […].” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]
Abu ‘Ali Al-Ash’ari, from the one who mentioned it, from Hafs ibn ‘Omar, from Salim, from Abu Basir, (It has been narrated) from Abu ‘Abdullah (Al-Sadiq), who said: “Whoever refuses to pay a carat of Zakat, let him choose to die as a Jew or a Christian (i.e. kafir).” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]
- People who refuse to pray Salah must be denied from expelled from mosques!
- People who refuse to pay the Zakah are disbelievers!
- People who refuse to pay the Zakah can choose to die as Jews or Christians (i.e. disbelievers)!
And here the icing:
The Shia “Mahdi” will behead anybody who refuses to pay the Zakah!
[…] from Sahl from ibn Shamun from Al-Asam from Malikk ibn ‘Utbah from Ibn Taghlub who said: “Abu Abdullah (i.e. Al-Sadiq) told me: “Allah has declared the blood of two types of people permissible to be shed in Islam, nobody must judge with regards to these two types until Allah sends our Qa’im (Shia Mahdi) from Ahl Al-Bayt, and when Allah sends him, he will judge with regards to these two types according to the ruling of Allah, without requiring any testimony, which is: The adulterer will be stoned and the one who refuses to pay the Zakah will get beheaded.” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]
The above narration can be found in many other primary and secondary Shia sources, such as:
1. Man La Yahduruhu Al-Faqih, vol. 2, p. 11
2. Wasa’il Al-Shia, vol.6, p. 19
3. Al-Mahasin, p. 87, in Kamal Al-Din, v. 2, p. 671
4. Al-Khisal, v. 1, p. 169
5. Raudah Al-Wa’idhin, v. 2, p. 356
6. Wasa’il Al-Shia, vol.6, p. 19
7. Basa’ir Al-Darajat, p. 170
8. Bihar Al-Anwar, vol. 52, p. 309
A similar narration in one of the most classical and authentic Shia books Al-Mahasin:
Abu ‘Abdullah (i.e. Ja’far ibn Muhammad Al-Sadiq) said: “When our Qa’im (Mahdi) rises (re-emerges), he will take the person who refuses to pay the Zakah and behead him.” [Al-Mahasin by Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid Al-Barqi, vol.1, p. 88]
Putting aside the shocking nature of the last two narrations, where the Shari’ah of the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not just cancelled until the “emergence” of a mythicial Shia Mahdi, but nobody (that includes the Prophet) are permitted to apply the aforementioned punishments except the Shia Mahdi, and this is what their books testify too, i.e. only the Shia Mahdi will apply certain Shari’ah laws and even bring new matters!
A narration attributed to Imam Muhammad Al-Baqir, Abu Ja’far (5th Imam) says: ” By Allah, as if I see him (Shia Mahdi) between Rukn & Maqam (of Ka’abah, Makkah), people are declaring allegiance based on a new, powerful matter, a new Book (scripture), and a new authority from Heaven.” (Al-Numani, Kitab al-Ghayba, p. 107)
This is an insult to Islam, the Prophet and human intellect, this makes the Twelver Rafidah not just Mu’attilah (deniers) of the attributes of Allah, it also makes them Mu’attilah with regards to the Shari’ah of Allah, for throughout history many of their scholars believed in ta’til (cancelation) of the legal punishments (hudud) of the Shari’ah until the “re-emergence” of their Mahdi.
“Ayatollah” Abul-Qasim Al-Khoie says that whoever denies the Zakah is a kafir and even the representative of the Mahdi can execute deniers of Zakah!
First some takfir …
Al-Mustanad fi sharh Al-‘Urwah Al-Wuthqa by “Ayatollah” Al-Khoie
Its (Zakah) obligation is upon every accountable Muslim and it (Zakah) is from the necessities of the religion and the one who rejects it (Zakah) is a kafir (“disbeliever”).
Al-Khoie: “Whoever denies it (Zakah) with knowledge is a kafir, rather in a number of narrations we read that even the one who refuses to pay the Zakah is a kafir (“disbeliever”).” [Ayatollah Al-Khoie,Al-Mustanad fi sharh Al-‘Urwah Al-Wuthqa, p. 13, chapter of Zakah]
Al-Khoie: “The narrations with regards to it (Zakah) are plenty, in fact mass narrated (mutawatir), some of them have classified Zakah as important as the daily prayer and fasting (in Ramadan), it (Zakah) is thus from the necessities of the religion … and whoever denies it is a kafir.” [Ayatollah Al-Khoie,Al-Mustanad fi sharh Al-‘Urwah Al-Wuthqa, p. 13, chapter of Zakah]
And now to some tax collection, which according to Al-Khoie can be done by an “infallible” OR his representative:
Al-Khoie: “The person designated with the collection of Zakaha (from an apostate) is the either the Mahdi or his representative.” [Ayatollah Al-Khoie,Al-Mustanad fi sharh Al-‘Urwah Al-Wuthqa, p. 13, chapter of Zakah]
The irony should be pretty clear by now: According to Shia narrations, the Shia Mahdi will do what Abu Bakr did i.e. fighting and killing those who refuse to pay the Zakah, it just …
… what was haram to Abu Bakr is halal to the mythical Shia Mahdi …
If Shi’ites argue that there is a difference since their Mahdi is “infallible” and can do whatever he wants, then they have argued just like “Christians” who when confronted with the butcher-like characteristics of their god in the old testatment, simply state that god can do whatever he wants! The issue is not about god or the Shia Mahdi doing whatever they want, the issue here is that if fighting and killing Zakah deniers is in and by itself evil, then it is an evil no matter who has or is going to commit it. So Shi’ites can choose between condemning the actions of Abu Bakr which will serve as a condemnation on their own Imam, or they admit that Abu Bakr acted correctly and that at the very least his ruling was not made up out of thin air, but in accordance with the rule of the Shia Mahdi as per Shia hadiths, but unfortunately many Shi’ites still claim that Abu Bakr’s Jihad was illegal and unlawful, others go as far as to claim that the blatant apostates (many of them who followed various false Prophets that emerged at that time!) were actually Shi’ites of ‘Ali who refused to give the pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr.
Little do they know that ‘Ali and his supporters (Shias), friends and generals of ‘Ali, great man such as Hujr ibn ‘Adi, Ibn Hatim, Abu Qatadah, ‘Ammar ibn Yassir and others had wholeheartedly supported the campaign of Abu Bakr, so the legend that the people who Abu bakr fought in Riddah wars were alleged supporters of ‘Ali, can be debuked by the fact that many prominent supporters of ‘Ali fought against these apostates.
Also, not all people who were fought by Abu Bakr were simply refusing Zakah, many false prophets emerged at that time, which actually lends credibility to the whole campaign. As far as using physical force simply to extract Zakah was a new precedent set by Abu Bakr, something with which some other companions were not comfortable with, including ‘Omar ibn Al-Khattab (who after discussing with Abu Bakr was gobsmacked after Abu Bakr explained his position and sided with him) however, it turnt out to be the only efficient way, hence all Sahabah, including ‘Ali and his loyal friends supported Abu Bakr, and it is as Hassan Al-Basri said, that if it wasn’t for Abu Bakr, people would have been lenient with Zakah or forsaken it in the future.
Besides, it is of course argued that the heretics at the time of Abu Bakr did not just refuse to pay the Zakah, worse, most of them said that Zakah was just due to be paid to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, and after his death there was no obligation of Zakah! This of course is kufr, similar to the statement that there is no fasting in Ramadan.
So we must not think that all Ridda wars were simply a brutal tax collection drive when in fact there were false prophets and even prophetesses who threatened the Islamic principal of finality of prophethood
It was a real danger to the authority of Madinah as well with most Arab tribes (except the Sahabah in the main cities of Madinah, Makkah and Ta’if) in open rebellion, on these issues there is no difference between policies of Abu Bakr & ‘ali. When during ‘Ali’s caliphate some of the Persians refused to pay taxes and raised a revolt he also sent forces to deal with these rebellions.
Unfortunately Shia bias against certain Sahabah (companions) work like a blockage, even if Abu bakr and ‘Omar fought invading maritians many Shi’ites would lament for them (maritians) just as they do for Malik ibn Nuwayrah (a non-Sahabi whose Islam is doubted and who is accused of believing in a false Prophet and insulting Prophet Muhammad). The soft corner which most Shi’ites claim to have for him (i.e. Malik) & his wife is simply a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
There is no shortage of desperate attempts to tarnish the image of Abu Bakr (and essentially side with apostates!) on the the Shia side, it’s a biased mindset, hopefully this post will serve as a reminder to those who sit in glass houses and attack Abu Bakr for something that their own “infallible” will commit in the future (as per Shia beliefs).