A Critical Refutation of TwelverShia.net
https://www.twelvershia.net/2013/05/02/al-mufid-and-the-ruling-on-umar-ra/
TwelverShia.net claims that Shaykh al-Mufid contradicted himself concerning Umar ibn al-Khattab.
According to the article:
In al-Masa’il al-‘Ukbariyyah, al-Mufid allegedly admitted that Umar remained a Muslim.
But in al-Fusul al-Mukhtarah, al-Mufid allegedly declared Umar a disbeliever for rejecting Imam Ali’s Imamah.
The website therefore accuses al-Mufid of following his desires and changing his ruling whenever it suited his argument.
This accusation is built upon three major distortions:
It ignores al-Mufid’s technical distinction between Islam and iman.
It presents a statement reporting the view of another group as though it were initially al-Mufid’s direct ruling.
It omits al-Mufid’s explicit explanation that some forms of “kufr” do not mean legal apostasy from Islam.
The discussion becomes clear when al-Mufid’s complete writings are read together.
1. What did al-Mufid actually say in al-Masa’il al-‘Ukbariyyah?
Al-Mufid was asked about the alleged marriage of Umm Kulthum to Umar ibn al-Khattab, despite the questioner’s belief that Umar had opposed Imam Ali’s divine right.
Al-Mufid answered:
أَنَّ الْمَنَاكِحَ عَلَى ظَاهِرِ الْإِسْلَامِ دُونَ حَقَائِقِ الْإِيمَانِ.
وَالرَّجُلُ الْمَذْكُورُ، وَإِنْ كَانَ بِجَحْدِهِ النَّصَّ وَدَفْعِهِ الْحَقَّ قَدْ خَرَجَ عَنِ الْإِيمَانِ، فَلَمْ يَخْرُجْ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ، لِإِقْرَارِهِ بِاللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ، وَاعْتِرَافِهِ بِالصَّلَاةِ وَالصِّيَامِ وَالزَّكَاةِ وَالْحَجِّ.
وَإِذَا كَانَ مُسْلِمًا بِمَا ذَكَرْنَاهُ، جَازَتْ مُنَاكَحَتُهُ فِي حُكْمِ الشَّرِيعَةِ.
English:
“The legal rulings of marriage are based upon outward Islam, not upon the realities of faith.
The man mentioned, although by denying the explicit designation and rejecting the right he departed from faith, did not depart from Islam, because he acknowledged Allah and His Messenger, and acknowledged prayer, fasting, zakat and pilgrimage.
Since he was a Muslim according to what we have mentioned, marriage to him was legally permissible according to the ruling of the Shariah.”
Reference:
Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Masa’il al-‘Ukbariyyah, issue 15, pp. 60–61 in the cited edition.
Al-Mufid’s words are extremely clear:
خَرَجَ عَنِ الْإِيمَانِ
“He departed from faith.”
But:
فَلَمْ يَخْرُجْ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ
“He did not depart from Islam.”
This is not an accidental contradiction.
It is a deliberate theological distinction.
2. Outward Islam is not the same as true faith
Al-Mufid distinguishes between:
ظَاهِرُ الْإِسْلَامِ
“Outward Islam”
And:
حَقَائِقُ الْإِيمَانِ
“The realities of faith.”
Outward Islam establishes worldly legal rulings:
Marriage may be legally valid.
Blood and property remain protected.
The person is dealt with as part of the Muslim community.
The person is not automatically treated as a formal apostate.
True iman, according to al-Mufid’s theology, requires correct loyalty, obedience and acceptance of divinely established authority.
Therefore, according to his vocabulary, someone may remain legally Muslim while being outside complete or true faith.
TwelverShia.net pretends that the words “Muslim” and “believer” must always mean exactly the same thing in every theological and legal context.
The Qur’an itself rejects that assumption.
3. The Qur’an distinguishes Islam from iman
Allah says:
قَالَتِ الْأَعْرَابُ آمَنَّا قُلْ لَمْ تُؤْمِنُوا وَلَكِنْ قُولُوا أَسْلَمْنَا وَلَمَّا يَدْخُلِ الْإِيمَانُ فِي قُلُوبِكُمْ.
English:
“The Bedouins say: ‘We have believed.’ Say: ‘You have not believed. Rather, say: We have submitted, for faith has not yet entered your hearts.’”
Qur’an 49:14.
These people were permitted to say:
أَسْلَمْنَا
“We have submitted and entered Islam.”
But they were told:
لَمْ تُؤْمِنُوا
“You have not truly believed.”
Therefore, the distinction:
Muslim in outward legal status
But not a true believer inwardly
is a Qur’anic distinction, not a contradiction invented by al-Mufid.
4. The same distinction appears in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim
Sa‘d ibn Abi Waqqas said:
فَقُلْتُ:
يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، مَا لَكَ عَنْ فُلَانٍ؟ فَوَاللَّهِ إِنِّي لَأَرَاهُ مُؤْمِنًا.
فَقَالَ:
أَوْ مُسْلِمًا.
English:
“I said:
‘O Messenger of Allah, why did you leave so-and-so? By Allah, I consider him a believer.’
The Prophet replied:
‘Or merely a Muslim.’”
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Faith.
Sahih Muslim, Book of Faith.
The Prophet distinguished between calling someone:
مُؤْمِنًا
“A believer”
and:
مُسْلِمًا
“A Muslim.”
Sunni scholars consequently use the principle:
كُلُّ مُؤْمِنٍ مُسْلِمٌ، وَلَيْسَ كُلُّ مُسْلِمٍ مُؤْمِنًا.
English:
“Every believer is a Muslim, but not every Muslim is necessarily a believer.”
Sunni Muslims obviously reject al-Mufid’s judgement concerning Umar.
But they cannot claim that distinguishing legal Islam from true iman is itself logically impossible when the distinction exists in the Qur’an and Sunni hadith.
5. The second passage initially reports the opinion of a group
In al-Fusul al-Mukhtarah, a Mu‘tazili asked al-Mufid:
أَلَيْسَ قَدْ أَجْمَعَتِ الْأُمَّةُ عَلَى أَنَّ أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ كَانَ ظَاهِرُهُمَا الْإِسْلَامَ؟
English:
“Has the community not agreed that Abu Bakr and Umar outwardly displayed Islam?”
Al-Mufid replied:
نَعَمْ، قَدْ أَجْمَعُوا عَلَى أَنَّهُمَا قَدْ كَانَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِ الْإِسْلَامِ زَمَانًا.
فَأَمَّا أَنْ يَكُونُوا مُجْمِعِينَ عَلَى أَنَّهُمَا كَانَا فِي سَائِرِ أَحْوَالِهِمَا عَلَى ظَاهِرِ الْإِسْلَامِ، فَلَيْسَ فِي هَذَا إِجْمَاعٌ.
لِلِاتِّفَاقِ عَلَى أَنَّهُمَا كَانَا عَلَى الشِّرْكِ، وَلِوُجُودِ طَائِفَةٍ كَثِيرَةِ الْعَدَدِ تَقُولُ:
إِنَّهُمَا كَانَا بَعْدَ إِظْهَارِهِمَا الْإِسْلَامَ عَلَى ظَاهِرِ كُفْرٍ بِجَحْدِ النَّصِّ.
English:
“Yes, they agreed that the two outwardly displayed Islam for a period.
But there is no consensus that they outwardly displayed Islam during every stage of their lives.
This is because it is agreed that they had previously been upon polytheism, and because there exists a large group which says:
After outwardly displaying Islam, they manifested apparent kufr by denying the explicit designation.”
Reference:
Al-Fusul al-Mukhtarah, discussion with Abu Amr al-Shatawi, pp. 26–27 in the cited edition.
The controlling words are:
وَلِوُجُودِ طَائِفَةٍ كَثِيرَةِ الْعَدَدِ تَقُولُ
“Because there exists a large group which says…”
Al-Mufid is initially reporting that a large group held this view.
He is answering a claim of consensus.
To refute consensus, one does not need to prove that the opposing opinion is correct. One only needs to establish that a recognised opposing opinion exists.
TwelverShia.net turns:
“A large group says”
into:
“Al-Mufid suddenly issued a direct legal ruling.”
That is not an accurate reading of the sentence.
6. The website also mistranslates the grammar of the passage
Al-Mufid gives two reasons why there was no agreement covering every stage of their lives:
First:
لِلِاتِّفَاقِ عَلَى أَنَّهُمَا كَانَا عَلَى الشِّرْكِ
“Because everyone agrees they had previously been upon polytheism.”
This refers to the period before Islam.
Second:
وَلِوُجُودِ طَائِفَةٍ كَثِيرَةِ الْعَدَدِ تَقُولُ...
“And because there exists a large group which says…”
This refers to a later disputed allegation.
The website collapses these separate points and produces a confused translation, making the discussion appear more contradictory than it is.
7. Al-Mufid later advances a different argument concerning Hudaybiyyah
An honest response should not hide the continuation.
Al-Mufid later cites the reported statement of Umar concerning Hudaybiyyah:
مَا شَكَّكْتُ مُنْذُ يَوْمِ أَسْلَمْتُ إِلَّا يَوْمَ قَاضَى فِيهِ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ أَهْلَ مَكَّةَ.
English:
“I never doubted since the day I embraced Islam except on the day when the Messenger of Allah concluded the treaty with the people of Makkah.”
Al-Mufid then argues:
فَاعْتَرَفَ بِشَكِّهِ فِي دِينِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَنُبُوَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ.
English:
“He admitted his doubt concerning Allah’s religion and the Prophethood of His Messenger.”
He concludes polemically:
فَقَدْ حَصَلَ الْإِجْمَاعُ عَلَى كُفْرِهِ بَعْدَ إِظْهَارِ الْإِيمَانِ.
English:
“Thus consensus is established concerning his kufr after displaying faith.”
Reference:
Al-Fusul al-Mukhtarah, continuation of the same debate.
Therefore al-Mufid does personally use very harsh theological language.
That should not be hidden.
However, the argument here is not simply:
“Rejecting Imamah legally made Umar a non-Muslim.”
The argument is based upon what al-Mufid interpreted as an admission of doubt at Hudaybiyyah.
The website merges two separate arguments:
Denial of Imam Ali’s designation
And alleged doubt in the Prophet at Hudaybiyyah
as though they were one identical statement.
8. Al-Mufid explicitly explains his use of the word kufr
The decisive answer is found in al-Mufid’s own book al-Jamal.
He writes:
وَأَجْمَعَتِ الشِّيعَةُ عَلَى الْحُكْمِ بِكُفْرِ مُحَارِبِي أَمِيرِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ.
وَلَكِنَّهُمْ لَمْ يُخْرِجُوهُمْ بِذَلِكَ عَنْ حُكْمِ مِلَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ.
إِذْ كَانَ كُفْرُهُمْ مِنْ طَرِيقِ التَّأْوِيلِ كُفْرَ مِلَّةٍ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ كُفْرَ رِدَّةٍ عَنِ الشَّرْعِ.
مَعَ إِقَامَتِهِمْ عَلَى الْجُمْلَةِ مِنْهُ، وَإِظْهَارِ الشَّهَادَتَيْنِ، وَالِاعْتِصَامِ بِذَلِكَ عَنْ كُفْرِ الرِّدَّةِ الْمُخْرِجِ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ.
وَإِنْ كَانُوا بِكُفْرِهِمْ خَارِجِينَ عَنِ الْإِيمَانِ.
English:
“The Shia agreed upon describing those who fought the Commander of the Faithful as committing kufr.
However, they did not thereby remove them from the legal status of the Islamic community.
Their kufr arose through interpretation and was a kufr of religious deviation; it was not apostasy from the Shariah.
They continued to uphold Islam in general and publicly pronounced the two testimonies. Through this, they remained protected from the apostasy that removes a person from Islam, although through their kufr they were outside faith.”
Reference:
Shaykh al-Mufid, al-Jamal, p. 70 in the cited edition.
This passage directly destroys the alleged contradiction.
Al-Mufid distinguishes between:
كُفْرٌ يُخْرِجُ عَنِ الْإِيمَانِ
“Kufr that removes someone from true faith”
And:
كُفْرُ الرِّدَّةِ الْمُخْرِجُ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ
“Apostasy that legally removes someone from Islam.”
He explicitly says the first does not necessarily mean the second.
9. The phrase “kafir” does not always carry one legal meaning
The Qur’an and Islamic scholarship use kufr in more than one sense.
There is absolute disbelief that removes a person from Islam.
There is kufr al-ni‘mah, meaning ingratitude.
There are acts described as kufr without necessarily being treated as formal apostasy.
There is theological condemnation concerning rejection, concealment or disobedience.
Even Sunni hadith contains statements such as:
سِبَابُ الْمُسْلِمِ فُسُوقٌ، وَقِتَالُهُ كُفْرٌ.
English:
“Insulting a Muslim is wickedness, and fighting him is kufr.”
Reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
Sunni scholars did not generally conclude that every Muslim who fought another Muslim automatically became a formal apostate whose marriage ended and whose inheritance was invalidated.
They interpreted “kufr” according to context.
Similarly, one must first examine what al-Mufid means by kufr before accusing him of declaring someone both a Muslim and a formal apostate simultaneously.
10. Al-Mufid never said legal Islam equals righteousness
TwelverShia.net argues that al-Mufid’s first answer supposedly admitted that all alleged actions attributed to Umar did not remove him from Islam.
That is partly correct only in the legal sense.
Al-Mufid explicitly says:
خَرَجَ عَنِ الْإِيمَانِ
“He departed from faith.”
He does not say:
Umar was righteous.
Umar possessed true faith.
Umar’s caliphate was divinely legitimate.
Umar’s alleged actions were correct.
Imam Ali loved and endorsed him.
He says only:
فَلَمْ يَخْرُجْ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ
“He did not depart from Islam.”
That is a worldly legal classification, not praise.
11. Legal marriage does not prove affection or approval
Al-Mufid continues:
وَلَيْسَ يَمْتَنِعُ كَرَاهَةُ مُنَاكَحَةِ مَنْ يَجُوزُ مُنَاكَحَتُهُ.
English:
“It is not impossible for marriage to someone to be disliked while still being legally permissible.”
He adds:
لِلْإِجْمَاعِ عَلَى جَوَازِ مُنَاكَحَةِ الْفَاسِقِينَ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْقِبْلَةِ لِفِسْقِهِمْ، وَإِنْ كَانَتِ الْكَرَاهَةُ لِذَلِكَ لَا تَمْنَعُ مِنْ إِبَاحَتِهِ.
English:
“There is consensus regarding the legal validity of marriage with sinners from the people of the qiblah despite their sinfulness, although the dislike of that does not prevent its permissibility.”
Therefore:
Legal validity does not equal love.
Legal Islam does not equal true iman.
Marriage does not equal approval of caliphate.
Legal permissibility does not equal theological endorsement.
12. The alleged contradiction disappears when al-Mufid’s categories are respected
Al-Mufid’s position can be summarised as follows:
Umar outwardly professed Islam.
He acknowledged Allah, the Prophet, prayer, fasting, zakat and pilgrimage.
Therefore, he was not automatically treated as a legal apostate outside the Muslim community.
According to al-Mufid’s theology, rejection of Imam Ali’s authority removed him from true faith.
Al-Mufid sometimes described such rejection using the language of kufr.
But he explicitly distinguished that theological kufr from apostasy that legally removes a person from Islam.
Therefore the two statements are compatible within al-Mufid’s system:
خَرَجَ عَنِ الْإِيمَانِ
“He departed from faith.”
فَلَمْ يَخْرُجْ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ
“He did not depart from Islam.”
And:
حُكِمَ عَلَيْهِ بِالْكُفْرِ، وَلَمْ يُخْرَجْ عَنْ حُكْمِ مِلَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ.
“He was described using the language of kufr but was not removed from the legal status of the Muslim community.”
13. Was al-Mufid’s language harsh and potentially confusing?
Yes.
Al-Mufid’s language concerning Abu Bakr and Umar is extremely harsh.
His use of expressions such as:
ظَاهِرُ كُفْرٍ
“Apparent kufr”
and:
حَصَلَ الْإِجْمَاعُ عَلَى كُفْرِهِ
“Consensus was established concerning his kufr”
can easily be misunderstood unless his technical explanation elsewhere is read.
A fair Sunni critic may reject his theology and criticise his terminology.
But that is different from proving a logical contradiction.
The accurate criticism would be:
“Al-Mufid used harsh and complicated theological terminology that distinguishes legal Islam from true faith.”
The inaccurate criticism is:
“Al-Mufid declared Umar a legal Muslim and a legal apostate at the same time.”
He did not.
14. The website deliberately omits al-Mufid’s controlling explanation
TwelverShia.net quotes the two passages most likely to appear contradictory.
But it does not quote al-Mufid’s explicit explanation:
لَمْ يُخْرِجُوهُمْ بِذَلِكَ عَنْ حُكْمِ مِلَّةِ الْإِسْلَامِ.
“They did not thereby remove them from the legal status of the Islamic community.”
Nor:
لَمْ يَكُنْ كُفْرَ رِدَّةٍ عَنِ الشَّرْعِ.
“It was not apostasy from the Shariah.”
Nor:
إِظْهَارِ الشَّهَادَتَيْنِ، وَالِاعْتِصَامِ بِذَلِكَ عَنْ كُفْرِ الرِّدَّةِ الْمُخْرِجِ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ.
“By publicly professing the two testimonies, they remained protected from the apostasy that removes one from Islam.”
Why omit the very passage in which al-Mufid explains his terminology?
Because once it is quoted, the manufactured contradiction disappears.
Final Verdict
Shaykh al-Mufid did not simultaneously declare Umar a legal Muslim and a legal apostate.
His position was:
Umar remained within outward and legal Islam because he professed the shahadatayn and practised the major outward obligations.
According to al-Mufid’s theology, he was outside true iman because of his rejection of Imam Ali’s authority.
Al-Mufid sometimes used the word kufr for this theological exclusion.
But he explicitly stated that such kufr was not necessarily:
كُفْرُ الرِّدَّةِ الْمُخْرِجُ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ
“Apostasy that removes a person from Islam.”
The Qur’an itself distinguishes outward Islam from inward faith.
Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim also distinguish a Muslim from a true believer in certain contexts.
The second passage initially reports the existence of a group’s opinion in order to defeat a claim of consensus.
Its continuation advances a separate harsh argument concerning Umar’s reported doubt at Hudaybiyyah.
And al-Mufid’s own writing in al-Jamal supplies the controlling explanation that TwelverShia.net omitted.
Therefore the article did not expose a contradiction.
It exposed its own failure to distinguish:
Islam from iman;
Theological kufr from legal apostasy;
Reporting an opinion from personally issuing a ruling;
And legal validity from love or political approval.
Calling al-Mufid a “buffoon” does not repair that failure.
It only replaces textual analysis with insults.
Did Shaykh al-Mufid Contradict Himself About Umar?
Primary Category :
Secondary Category :
Loading comments...