It is narrated from Zuhrī, that Sayyidunā Abu Bakr rađiyAllāhu ánhu name is Abdullah bin Uthmân bin Aamir bin Amr bin Ka’ab bin Sa’ad bin Taeem bin Marah bin Ka’ab bin Laueey bin Galib bin Fahr.
Ummul Mu’minīn Sayyidāh Ayesha rađiyAllāhu ánha has narrated that Sayyidunā Abu Bakr rađiyAllāhu ánhu was given the name Abdullah bin Aamir bin Amr by family members, but was known as Attīq.
Sayyidunā Layth bin Sa’ad narrated that Sayyidunā Abu Bakr rađiyAllāhu ánhu was given the name Attīq, by the kindness [and mercy] of the Beloved Prophet śallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam. Your real name was Abdullah bin Uthmân.
Abu Hafs Amr bin Ali rađiyAllāhu ánhu narrates that Sayyidunā Abu Bakr rađiyAllāhu ánhu blessed face was [of a] light [complexion] and your blessed name was Abdullah bin Uthmân.
Amir narrates from his father Sayyidunā Abdullah bin Zubayr rađiyAllāhu ánhu that Sayyidunā Abu Bakr rađiyAllāhu ánhu’s name was Abdullah bin Uthmân.
 Hâkim, al-Mustadrak, vol. 3, pp. 64, Hadīth 4403
Imâm Bayhaqī, Sunan al-Kubra, vol. 6, pp. 369, Hadīth 12870
 Shaybāni, Al-Âhād wa al-Mathānī, vol. 1, pp. 70
 At-Tabarânī, Mu’jam al-Kabīr, vol. 1, pp. 52, Hadīth 4
Haytamī has stated in Majma’ al-Zawâ’id [vol. 9, pp. 41] that this has been narrated to us by at-Tabarânī and all the narrators are trustworthy [thiqqa].
Shaybāni, Al-Âhād wa al-Mathānī, vol. 1, pp. 69
Ibn Hajar Asqalânī, al-Isaba, vol. 4, pp. 170
 Haytamī, Majma’ al-Zawâ’id, vol. 9, pp. 41
 Ibn Hibbān, Sahīh, vol. 15, pp. 279, Hadīth 6864
The Beloved Rasūl of Allâh Almighty şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam stated,
It is wajib (obligatory) upon my Ummah to love Abū Bakr [rađiyAllāhu ánhu]
In another blessed Ĥadīth, the Beloved Prophet şallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam said,
It is wājib upon my Ummah to love Abū Bakr [rađiyAllāhu ánhu] and to be thankful to him
Both Ĥadīths compiled in as-Sawaiq al-Muharriqa of Imām Ibn Ĥajar al-Haytamī rađiyAllāhu ánhu (d. 974h).
The ruling for the denier of the Khilafa of Abu Bakr and 'Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala ánhuma
Sidi Muhammad Aqdas
It is evident that those Rafidis [tabarra’i] who insult Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhuma – even if they deny them being Imams and Khulafa – are definitely Kafirs according to relied upon books of the Hanafi school and the explicit writings of the jurists. It is in Durr al-Mukhtar that:
If he is a denier of any necessity of faith, then he is a Kafir. Such as saying that Allah has a body or denies that Abu Bakr Siddiq radiyAllahu ta’ala ‘anhu is a companion [Durr al-Mukhtar, 1:83].
Tahtawi, commentary of Durr adds:
And denying his Khilafah is also Kufr [Tahtawi, 1:244].
Fatawa Khulasa and Khazanat al-Muftin mention that:
If Rafidis consider Mawla ‘Ali radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu to be greater than all the companions; then they are innovators and astray. If they deny the Khilafah of Siddiq radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu; then they are Kafir [Khazanat al-Muftin, 1:28].
It is in Fath al-Qadir and Hashiya Tabyeen that:
If any Rafidi considers Mawla ‘Ali radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu to be Afdal [greater] than the first three Khulafa; then he is astray and if he denies the Khilafah of Siddiq or Faruq radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhuma, then he is a Kafir [Hashiya Shalbi ‘ala Tabyeen al-Haqayiq, 1:135].
It is in Wajiz of Imam Kardari that:
The denier of the Khilafah of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is a Kafir, this is authentic. The denier of the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is also a Kafir. This is most authentic [Fatawa Bazzaziya, 6:318].
It is in Tabyeen al-Haqayiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqayiq that:
Imam Mirghinani said that salah behind an innovator will be valid but not valid behind a Rafidi, Jahmi, Qadari, Tashbahi. It is gathered from this that if someone’s innovation is not to the extent that he is a Kafir, then salah behind him will be valid but Makrooh and if it does reach Kufr, then it is not valid at all [Tabyeen al-Haqayiq, 1:134].
It is in Fatawa Hindiya that:
The same is in Tabyeen al-Haqayiq and Khulasa and it is authentic. The same is in Badayi’ [Fatawa Hindiya, 1:84].
Also in Hindiya [3:264], Bazzaziya [3:319], al-Ashbah [Kitab al-Siyar], Ithaf al-Absar wa’l Basayir [p.187], Fatawa Anqarwiya [1:25] and Waqiyat al-Muftin [p.13] that:
Rafidis that speak ill of Shaykhayn radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhuma [al ‘ayadhu billah] are Kafir. If they consider Mawla ‘Ali radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu to be greater than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhuma, then he is an innovator and not a Kafir.
It is on the same page of Bazzaziya and in Barjandi Sharh Nuqaya [4:21] from Fatawa Zahiriya that:
The denier of the Imamah of Abu Bakr Siddiq radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is a kafir. Some said he is an innovator and not a Kafir; but the authentic position is that he is a Kafir. Similarly, the denier of the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is also a Kafir according to the authentic narrations.
Bazzaziya also has that:
It is Wajib [necessary] to call Rafidis, Nasibis and Kharijis as Kafir because they say Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Uthman, Mawla ‘Ali, Talha, Zubair and Sayyida ‘Aisha were all Kafirs [Bazzaziya, 6:318].
It is in Bahr al-Rayiq that:
The most authentic position is that the denier of the Khilafah and Imamah of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhuma is a Kafir [Bahr al-Rayiq, 5:121].
It is in Majma’ al-Anhur Sharh Multaqa al-Abhur that:
If Rafidis are only Tafdilis, then they are innovators and if they deny the Khilafah of Siddiq, they are Kafir [Majma’ al-Anhar, 1:108].
From the same book:
Whoever denies the companionship of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is a Kafir. Likewise, whoever denies that he is the rightful Imam, he is a Kafir according to the most authentic position. Similarly, whoever denies the companionship of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is a Kafir in the most authentic reports [Majma’ al-Anhar, 1:631].
It is in Ghunya Sharh Munya that:
An innovator is someone who holds any belief that contradicts the Ahlu’s Sunnah wa’l Jama’ah. Praying behind him valid whilst being Makruh until his belief does not reach Kufr according to the Ahlu’s Sunnah. If it does, then praying behind him is invalid. Such as the Rafidis who say Mawla’ Ali is God or that prophethood was for ‘Ali and Jibra’eel made a mistake. Such beliefs are Kufr and so is accusing Sayyida ‘Aisha or to deny the companionship and Khilafah of Siddiq radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu or to speak ill of Shaykhayn radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhuma [Ghunyat al-Musalli, p.515].
It is in Kifaya Sharh Hidaya [1:305] and Mustakhlas al-Haqayiq Sharh Kanz al-Daqayiq that:
If a Kafir innovates, such as a Jahmi or Qadari who say the Qur’an is created or a Rafidi who denies the Khilafah of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu, then praying behind him is not allowed [Mustakhlas al-Haqayiq, 1:202].
It is in Sharh Kanz ‘ala Fath al-Muyin that:
It is in Khulasa that salah is valid behind innovators apart from the Jahmiya, Jabriya, QaDurriya, Rafidi Ghali, those who believe the Qur’an is created and the Mushabbiha. Salah is valid, but Makruh, behind the Ahl Qibla as long as their innovation does not reach Kufr such that they are not Ghali. And a Rafidi Ghali is someone who denies the Khilafah of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu [Sharh Kanz ‘ala Fath al-Muyin, 1:208].
It is n Tahtawi ‘ala Maraqi al-Falah that:
The denier of the Khilafah of Siddiq radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is a Kafir. And Fath al- Qadir says the same for the denier of the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu. Burhan Sharh Mawahib al-Rahman says the same for the denier of the Khilafah of ‘Uthman and salah behind someone who denies the wiping of the socks or the companionship of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu or speaks ill of Shaykhayn or accuses ‘Aisha Siddiqq radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anha and is also invalid behind anyone who denies any necessity of faith as he is Kafir. His explanation will not be heard nor will his excuse that he said so due to a mistaken opinion [Tahtawi ‘ala Maraqi al-Falah, p.168].
It is in Nazm al-Farayid of ‘Allama ibn Wahban that:
Whoever curses or speaks ill of Shaykhayn is a Kafir. An even greater Kafir is someone who says that Yadullah means ‘hand’. The most accurate opinion for someone who denies the Khilafah of Abu Bakr radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is Takfir and this is the same for the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu.
It is in Tayseer al-Maqasid that:
If a Rafidi speaks ill of Shaykhayn radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhuma and curses them will become a Kafir. If he believes that Mawla ‘Ali radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is greater than them, then he is not a Kafir but astray and an innovator.
According to the most authentic way, the denier of the Khilafah of Siddiq radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu is a Kafir. And the same is for the Khilafah of ‘Umar radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhu.
It is in Fatwa ‘Allama Nuh Afandi, Majmu’a Shaykh al-Islam ‘Ubaid Allah Afandi, Mughni al-Mustafti ‘an Su’al al-Mufti and ‘Uqud al-Durriya that:
Rafidis are Kafirs. They hold many beliefs of Kufr. They deny the Khilafah of Shaykhayn and speak ill of them. May Allah blacken their faces in both worlds. Whoever has any of their characteristics is a Kafir [‘Uqud al-Durriya, 1:103].
To speak ill of Shaykhayn radiyAllahu ta'ala 'anhuma is the same as disrespecting RasulAllah sallAllahu 'alaihi wasallam. Imam Sadr Shaheed said: Whoever speaks ill or curses Shaykhayn is a Kafir [‘Uqud al-Durriya, 1:104].
It also has that:
The scholars of the ‘Uthmani era always had divine help with them. Whoever among them was the Akabir Shaykh al-Islam wrote fatawa against the Shi’a. Many of them wrote extensively and compiled monographs. It was the Muhaqqiq and Mufassir, Abu Mas’ud Afandi ‘Imadi [leading Mufti, ‘Uthmani era], who gave the fatwa of the Rafidis’ Kufr and apostacy. His fatwa has been recorded by ‘Allama Kawakibi Halabi in his commentary of Farayid Sunniya [‘Uqud al-Durriya, 1:105].
Ashbah, Ithaf [p.187], Anqarwi [p.25] and Waqiyat al-Muftin [p.13] all have it from Manaqib Karwari that:
Whoever denies the Khilafah of Shaykhayn or has hatred for them is a Kafir because Shaykhayn are beloved to RasulAllah sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam [Waqiyat al-Muftin, p.13].
Moreover, many of the Akabir have explained that the Kufr of the Rafidis is such that even their repentance is not accepted. Tanweer al-Absar has it that:
The repentance of any apostate is accepted except for him who insults a Prophet or any or both of the Shaykhayn [Durr al-Mukhtar, 1:356].
It is in Ashbah wa’l Nadhayir, Fatawa Khayriya [1:94] and Ithaf al-Absar wa’l Basayir
The repentance of a Kafir is accepted in both worlds but there are some Kafirs whose repentance is not accepted. One of these is someone becomes a Kafir due to insulting our Prophet or any Prophet. Another is he who becomes Kafir after speaking ill of one or both of Shaykhayn radiyallahu ta'ala 'anhuma.
It is in Durr al-Mukhtar that:
It is in Bahr al-Rayiq from Jawhara Nayyara Sharh Mukhtasar Quduri that Imam Sadr Shaheed said that whoever speaks ill of Shaykhayn radiyallahu ta'ala 'anhuma or curses them is a Kafir. His repentance is not accepted and the fatwa of Imam Dabbusi and Faqih Abu’l Laith Samarqandi is on this. And fatwa should be on this opinion. This is what is decided in Ashbah and ‘Allama Shaykh al-Islam Muhammad bin ‘Abdullah Ghazi Tamartashi maintained this [Durr al-Mukhtar, 1:357].
Is there ijmah of siddiue e akbar or maslak of jamoor, if someone says hazrat ali is afzal is he still a sunni? because some people say afew sahaba believe he was afzal.
There is an Ijma' of the Ahl Al-Sunnah Wa Al-Jamaa’ah on the fact that Sayyiduna Abu Bak Al-Siddeeq is the most superior amongst the companions of our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him and Allah is pleased with them all). He, who believes that Sayyiduna Ali or any other companion is more superior above Sayyiduna Abu Bakr, is misguided from the Ahl Al-Sunnah Wa Al-Jamaa'ah. This is what Imam Ahmad Raza in his various Fatwas and Sadr Al-Shari’ah in his Bahar-e-Shari’at have established. Imam Ahmad Raza has also written two pamphlets on this issue, “Matla’ Al-Qamarayn” and “Al-Zulaal Al-Anqaa” in which there are many and many references and quotes of our most authentic personalities from the past.
A few quotes from Imam Ahmad Raza (Allah is pleased with him) relevant to the question will be of much benefit. He says, “According to research the word Qat’I is used for two meanings. Firstly, when there is absolutely no possibility of another meaning and nothing affects it, like in Muhkam and Mutawatir. Secondly, there is no possibility of another meaning which is produced through evidence although a possibility remains, like in Majaaz and Takhsees. The first type is known as Ilm Al-Yaqeen and the person who rejects it is known as an infidel. The second type is known as Ilm Al-Tamaaniyyah and the person who rejects such is known as an innovator and misguided. One can in no circumstance call a person who rejects the second type an infidel”.
Imam Ahmad Raza then explains that the superiority of Sayyiduna Abu Bakr is proven through the second type mentioned above. He says, “We do not need to prove the superiority through the first type of Qat’I evidence for we do not call the Tafdeelies, infidels. We seek refuge in Allah from calling such. However, their misguidance is established through the other meaning of Qat’I which only an unaware person would refute. This is because much evidence (Nusoos) has come to prove this and the Ahadeeth have reached Al-Tawatur Al-Ma’nwiy, therefore, weak and unstable possibilities which are not produced through evidence have no affect in Qat’I of this meaning. The scholars of Usool have clearly explained this”.
Further more, Imam Ahmad Raza explains, “Without doubt, weak, in reality has absolutely no contradiction with authentic, therefore weak contradiction will neither cause loss to us neither will it benefit he who refutes us”.
The great Imam also clears the misunderstanding that most people fall victim to whilst dwelling into this issue, “Contradiction is one thing and mere affirmation or negation is another thing. One will realise this when he reads the following Ahadeeth, do not give superiority to a Prophet over another Prophet, do not give me superiority over Yunus Ibn Matta, Adam is the most superior amongst the Prophets and Ibraheem is the best of all creation. Will anyone accept these as a contradiction to the superiority of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and upon them all)”. Hence the answer to the fact that there are narrations from the Sahabah that another is more superior than Abu Bakr (Allah is pleased with all of them).
Imam Ahmad Raza also explains that the reconciliation between the statements of the scholars is simple after understanding what has been mentioned before. Those scholars who mentioned this issue as Qat’I meant the second type of Qat’I and those who mentioned it as Zanni meant the highest type of Zanni which is the same as the second type of Qat’i. From this we understand that those who mentioned there is no ijma’ on this issue, simply meant that there is no Qat’I Ijma’, (in the meaning of the first type of Qat’i) on this issue.
Verily this issue is not from amongst the Usool of our religion. However, if one says, because this issue is not from the Usool of our religion and not Qat’I, therefore, we are free to choose whether to accept it or not, the Imam says, “Tell them to leave all the necessary (Waajib) aspects of the religion and then observe what kind of a wrath the Shari’ah brings upon them. When it has become known and clearly proven by the statements of our predecessors, it is necessary for one to accept it”. Verily when scholars apparently differ we must reconcile and accept those that are the pillars of our religion, especially those who mentioned this issue as being Qat’i. Imam Ahmad Raza writes, “Amongst them is he who has mentioned this issue most, the lion of Allah, whose blessed face Allah has glorified. It is established through Tawaatur that he would give superiority to the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) above himself and the whole of the ummah. Further he removed all ambiguity from this issue in the narration of Daar Qutni where he said, anyone who gives superiority for me above Abu Bakr or Umar, verily I shall punish him the punishment of an accuser. Imam Zahabi says the narration is Saheeh. Is it possible that Sayyiduna Ali (Allah is pleased with him) would carry out such statement if it was not Qat’I and had contradiction? Whereas it is he who narrates from the Prophet (peace be upon him), wave punishments as much as possible for the Muslims. Amongst them is also Sayyiduna Maymoon Ibn Mahraan who is amongst the Fuqaha of the Taabi’een. He was asked if Abu Bakr and umar were more superior or Ali. His hair rose in fear and his veins began to expand upto the etent that his knife fell from his hand and he said, I had never thought that I’d live to see the day when people begin to give superiority for another above Abu Bakr and Umar. From amongst them is Imam Maalik Ibn Anas when he was asked who is most superior after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), he replied, Abu Bakr and Umar, then he said, is there any doubt in that? Also, amongst them is the great Imam Abu Hanifah. He was asked about the signs of the Ahl Al-Sunnah. He replied that the sign of the Ahl Al-Sunnah is that one believes Abu Bakr and Umar as most superior after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him. How can it be a sign if one who believed otherwise would also remain amongst the Ahl Al-Sunnah?). Also, amongst them is the great Imam Muhammad Ibn Idris al-Shafa’I who recorded the ijma’ of the Sahabah and the Tabi’een on this issue. Among them is also the Imam of Ahl Al-Sunnah Wa Al-Jama’ah Imam Ab Al-Hasan Al-Ash’ari, Imam Hujjah Al-Islam Al-Ghazali, Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Imam Ahmad Al-Qustalani, Imam Abd Al-Baaqi Al-Zarqaani and Imam Mulla Ali Al-Qaari and many others (May Allah shower mercy upon them all). Al-Sayyid Al-Shareef Ab Al-Husayn Al-Noori narrated from his Sheikh and Murshid Ale Rasool Ahmadi, he said that I heard from Shah Abd Al-Azeez Al-Dahalwi, he used to say that the superiority of the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar) is Qat’I or similar to Qat’I”.
Finally, Imam Ahmad Raza finishes by saying, “The superiority of the Shaykhayn is Qat’I in its second meaning and it is similar to Qat’I in its first meaning. Now it has become clear that if one says regarding those who say there is an Ijma’ on this issue, that even they are established on Zann then he is correct as long as he means Zann Bi Al-Ma’na Al-A’am or Qat’I Bi Al-Ma’na Al-Akhas and this will not cause any loss to us neither will it benefit the rejector. If he meant vice versa then he is wrong and he has no strength to prove his point for the many and many evidences that have been established against him”.
The above are not but extracts from the Khatamah (Conclusion) from one of Imam Ahmad Raza’s pamphlets on this issue. If one wishes then he shall seek refuge towards them for surely they are full of enlightened evidence from the Qur’an, Hadith and the statements of our predecessors and what I have mentioned above is not but a drop from its ocean and surely Allah knows best.
Zahid Hussain Al-Qadri
(Beggar at the doorstep of scholars)