‫ت لعق‬

‫ِك اب ا ل‬

The Book of Logic

Finding the true religion with logic

‫ الح ّج ي أبو حمز ة ق اسم ب محمد‬:‫تأ ليف‬

‫ن‬
‫الحيدري‬
Written by: Hajji Abu Hamzah Qasim bin Muhammad al-Haydari

1
 ٌ‫ َطلَب ُ ا ْل ِع ْل ِم فَ ِري ضَ ة‬:‫ال أ بِ ي َع ْب ِد الله‬
َ ‫َق‬
Abi Abdullah has said: “Seeking knowledge is obligatory”
— Al-Kafi Vol. 1, Chap. 2, Hadith 2

2
Table of Contents
Preface..........................................................................................................................................5
Proving Theism............................................................................................................................7
Proving Monotheism................................................................................................................. 10
Non-Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions..................................................................................12
Judaism...................................................................................................................................... 13
Christianity................................................................................................................................. 14
The Trinity.............................................................................................................................. 14
The Bible................................................................................................................................15
Introduction to Islam................................................................................................................. 17
Bakrism.......................................................................................................................................18
Ibadism....................................................................................................................................... 22
Sufism.........................................................................................................................................23
Zaydism...................................................................................................................................... 25
Ismailism.................................................................................................................................... 28
Twelverism................................................................................................................................. 30
Usulism.................................................................................................................................. 30
Others, Additional Points, & Conclusion................................................................................ 36
Responding to “arguments” and lies against the Akhbariyya................................................ 38

3
4
 Preface
ٍ Logic is something every human being has. We use logic every day. No
matter the task, we’re always using logic. Before making any decision we think. To
think and ponder is the nature of man. However, this book is not a philosophical
book. In this book, we will explore something more grand; religion. Everybody has
faith; everyone worships something. Even if you think you are agnostic, atheist, or
whatever you might be, you are worshiping something. If not a deity you are
worshiping a person and/or an object or objects.
Everyone has a religion, and everyone is worshiping something, so what is
the correct one? Which path is 100% the truth? Does there exist something that is
100% the truth or are we being lied to? These are all questions at one point in our
lives we begin to wonder. Some people question this later than others, and vice
versa. In the Sunni Islamic Narrative of the life of Abraham, he questioned before
reaching prophethood.
In my own life, ever since I’ve reached the age of puberty, I began my
questioning. To reach a conclusion; however, you cannot only rely on philosophy.
To reach a sound conclusion you need logic backed up with proof. In this book, my
main tool will be ‘Aql (‫)عقل‬, or logic. I will provide minimal proof when need be,
such as referencing holy books and scholars.
I want to make things clear, I am not a scholar nor do I claim to be. I am a
simple layman and student of knowledge. My knowledge is minimal, however,
when it comes to logic, one should be able to decide even with minimal
knowledge. Often, people discredit me for my young age, however, when I begin
to properly debate them they prove that they lack logic and knowledge.
This is not the first document I’ve written on religion. I will include
references to my other books, such as my book in which I expose the Ahmadiyyah
and their lies, along with my book on the trinity and atheism. I write this in service
to my master, may God hasten his reappearance, and allow me to be his humble
slave. I dedicate this to him and his pure forefathers. As I write this shortly before
the Arbaeen, I also dedicate this to my master’s forefather Al-Hussayn bin Ali [a.],
the thirsty one, the one whom the heavens and the earth have mourned, the one
who has made the entire world crazy for him.
So, what am I? There are many names for what I may be, Muslim, Muwali,
Akhbari, Salafi, these are all terms that people call me. I am but a simple servant of

5
God and his vicegerents. This book is part of another book I am writing, which will
be larger in size as I will use many proofs against and for all religions. This book
will only use logic and minimal references.

6
 Proving Theism
Before we get started we must establish some things as references for this
book:

1. Religion is objectively true

2. Religion must make logical sense
3. Religion and Science are both different and the same at the same time 1
4. Existence is real

So what is theism? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, theism is

the belief in the existence of one or more Gods. In other words, theism is believing
in deities. Atheism is the opposite of theism, the belief that there is no greater deity
responsible for the bigger picture.
How can we logically prove theism over atheism? First off, we need to
define what a deity is. A deity, or God, is a being thought to be responsible for
creation, intervening in it, and sustaining it. In the future, we will see why this
specific definition can be problematic. A better definition would be that a deity, or
God, is a divine being thought to be the original source of everything.
In monotheism, this being is one singular being. In polytheism, this being is
multiple beings responsible for either the same or different thing(s). To prove
theism, There are multiple methods that can be used to prove it, a philosophical
approach, and a scientific one. We will briefly look at both, but ultimately both will
involve logic.
First, let us begin with the philosophical approach. When pondering life and
the universe, often, we will often notice the extreme precision of how everything is
positioned and how everything works. For example, if the Earth was slightly off
the position it is in now, life would not be able to exist whatsoever.
There must be a cause to this, no logical person will take it that this all
happened out of nowhere. So where did it come from? Surely it had to be a third
party of some sort, otherwise is there not a logical fallacy? The logical fallacy is
that something came from nothing.

1
Religion and Science are different as they are different fields, but are the same as you cannot have one
without the other. Science handles the physical realm whilst Religion handles the spiritual realm. At the
same time, Religion explains science, and science proves religion

7
 To elaborate, if you ponder for a bit, you will notice that everything has an
origin. To get paper you must first get wood, and to get wood you must first get a
tree, and to get a tree you must first get a seed and precisely nurture it, eventually,
you will go far back to the origin of the entire universe. But, where did the universe
come from?
The Big Bang Theory suggests that one day there was nothing then one day
something happened and the universe began. Some may argue that before the big
bang happened there was something present before it happened, but even still no
matter how far you go back you will either get to nothing or get to a deity. If you
argue that the universe was always here and neither has a beginning or end similar
to some monotheistic Gods, this would make the universe a deity. However, it is
illogical for the universe to be a deity as the universe itself does not create or kill.
Furthermore, the universe is in constant expansion, does it make sense for a God to
have size?2
It hurts our brains to think about the origin of it all as we can't fully
comprehend it. Even if we establish that everything came from a deity, we might
wonder where that deity came from. However, to ask a question like this is
illogical. If you think that there was another deity that created deities you will have
an infinite amount of deities. So, you will never be able to actually have a universe.
How? Let’s say you are a child, to go out, you ask your parents, and your parents
ask their parents, and their parents ask their parents, etc. You will never be able to
go out because the past generations will continuously keep asking the generations
that came before them. Of course, this example is hypothetical, as logically no one
cannot have that many generations alive at once.
The same applies to deities. This also disproves polytheism, as you cannot
have multiple at once if they create other deities. But what of the scientific
method? There is a formula that can be used:

1. Existence is real
2. We are a contingent existence
3. Existence is necessary
4. Therefore a noncontingent existence exists 34
2
This point will be expanded on later within the book
3
Contingent = the possibility that it does not exist; non-contingent = must exist/the essential necessary
being
4
This formula is attributed to Mikhail Ali Master, a student of science

8
 Conclusion:
- A deity must exist as without a deity, logic is flawed
- there cannot be multiple deities at the same time (will be expanded on)

9
 Proving Monotheism
In the previous chapter I discussed that it does not logically make sense to
ask the question “Who created God?” as if there was another God who created God
(such as in some polytheistic faiths) You would not have a universe in the first
place as there would be an infinite amount of creators who created the creator.
There are also more proofs, if you want a polytheistic faith to make sense,
you’ll be forced to do mental gymnastics. First, we must define some common
characteristics of a deity, or rather, God:

1. He is All-Powerful
2. He is the creator/a creator
3. He is the origin of the universe

Even within polytheistic faiths, for the most part, these characteristics
remain the same. For example in the Ancient Aztec Faith/Mythology, there are
different deities who have created different things and are responsible for different
things. The origin of the current world was the sun-God. Right away we can notice
that if a God created another God it would negate the first attribute that the God(s)
are all-powerful. For if each was all-powerful, how could they be created? And if
they were each the creator or the origin, how could they have an origin?
We can see this fallacy in religions such as Hinduism, with thousands of
Gods, some being created. In the case of Hinduism, or to be more specific, in the
case of all religions, the faith varies from person to person, the religion names such
as “Christianity” or “Islam” or in our example, “Hinduism” are umbrella terms to
refer to people with similar beliefs.
One Hindu may argue that the Hindu “Gods” are just avatars of one singular
greater God. Another Hindu may argue something else. This applies to all
religions, but it should be noted that there is one single religion, that is not an
umbrella term, and its followers are on the absolute truth. What is that religion? If
monotheism is true, then is it of the Abrahamic tradition? Is it a lesser Abrahamic
faith such as Yazidism? Even within the umbrella term of “Abrahamic Religion”
there are thousands. Is there really a way to disprove it all?
For the sake of simplicity, I will use logic against each umbrella term, and
when we come to a conclusion on which umbrella term is the truth, we will dive

10
into that world and dissect every piece. Otherwise, this book would be thousands
of pages long, and I would probably have to stretch something that is just using
logic over possibly hundreds of volumes.
I am still a student of knowledge so of course this is not possible yet.
Anyone can prove a religion with only logic if they are a logical person but if I
were to include proof for every single one of my arguments it would account for a
lifetime of studying. Again I will say this, There is only 1 true religion. We will
find that religion, so let us knock off the Abrahamic Tradition, but with hundreds
of religions belonging to that tradition, which one do we look at first?
Let us take a look at Judaism, which is considered by most historical and
religious institutions to be the oldest religion of the pure Abrahamic Tradition.

Conclusion:
- There are hundreds of Umbrella Terms for the thousands of religions within
the world
- Monotheism is the true path for that said umbrella term

11
 Non-Abrahamic Monotheistic Religions
Outside of the Abrahamic Tradition, there are a few monotheistic religions
that don’t believe in the God of Abraham. Such religions include Sikhism and
Zoroastrianism. So how do we logically disprove them? As for a religion like
Sikhism, we can see the religion as Guru-Centric from afar, and most followers of
Hinduism or Islam will identify the religion as a mixture of these two religions.
What makes Abraham so special that there are hundreds of religions that
claim to follow him? Many will say that Abraham performed miracles however
followers of religions outside the Abrahamic tradition will claim that their prophets
have also performed miracles. With the exception being Sikhism who claims that
their Gurus never performed miracles to prove their religion.
In the case of Zoroastrianism, their prophet has performed miracles similar
to Moses in the Abrahamic tradition. One way to logically disprove them is their
high reverence for fire. Although Zoroastrians don’t necessarily worship fire one
could argue that their ancientness is what could’ve caused their reverence.
One noticeable thing is the fact that they mainly have only one single
prophet. Most religions share the fact they’ve had many leaders sent to them, such
as Sikhism with its many Gurus. And if not leaders such as prophets, then they
would have many Gods. Zoroastrianism, however, doesn’t. With human history
being large, our world today is extremely different from the world when it first
started. Many religions recognize this and have multiple leaders.
And if there was a singular all-powerful, all-knowing God, he would also be
aware of this. Would it not make sense for this God to send multiple Prophets and.
or messengers to make sure people are on the correct path at all times?

Conclusions:
- Religions outside of the Abrahamic Tradition have certain flaws that usually
lead to logical fallacies and make you wonder if this is truly the truth
- God will constantly keep a leader on earth for Humans to be guided, or leave
behind a form of guidance (that usually will remain uncorrupted)

12
 Judaism
Before we begin discussing a religion such as Judaism, there should be some
things that should be established. First of all, the Religion of God should be for all
human beings. However, according to traditional Jewish law, to be considered a
jew, you must be ethnically Jewish. In fact, most people consider Judaism as an
ethno-religion.
If the Religion of God is for all of God’s creations, why does one have to be
a specific type of creation (as in, in looks such as skin color, or human-made
concepts such as race and ethnicity) to be within God’s religion? That constitutes
the all-powerful and just God as unjust, damning everyone except 1 group of
people to eternal damnation because of something in God’s control and not their
own free will.
A God who contradicts his own attributes and is unfair to his creation surely
cannot be the God of Abraham. This is one way we can logically disprove Judaism
as this is one of their biggest flaws.

Conclusion:
- Judaism is not worshiping the God of Abraham as the God of Abraham is
fair and just, however the Jewish God is unfair and unjust due to the
damnation of most people to eternal damnation due to something that is
within God’s hands. 5

5
If a Jew claims that their God does not punish every non-follower of Judaism, this makes it less likely
that they are the true religion, why should we be a Jew when God does not punish us for not being a
Jew?

13
 Christianity
Many Christians believe Judaism is the religion that precedes Christianity,
which is why I am discussing Christianity now. There are many things that are
logically wrong with Christianity depending on the denomination, for example, the
catholic church changing religious rules to fit with changing times., Historically,
we can see that some people didn’t like a specific church's doctrine so they created
their own church and their own doctrine. This obviously weakens the religion, and
nowadays the religion is subject to criticism and hate, in fact, most atheists are
atheists because they don’t like Christianity.
Throughout the hundreds and if not thousands of denominations of
Christianity, (as religion is usually different on a personal level), there is one belief
that unites the entire Umbrella term: the Trinity. What is the trinity? The Trinity,
according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is the Christian Godhead as one God is
in three persons; the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit.

The Trinity
One major problem with the Trinity is that Trinitarian Scholars say that the
Trinity was not taught by Jesus. 6789101112 This is a big issue as the Trinity is the
central belief that all Christians share. Logically, the Trinity does not make sense
either.

6
Anthony Tyrell Hanson in his “The Image of the Invisible God”, “No responsible NT scholar would claim
that the doctrine of the Trinity was taught by Jesus or preached by the earliest Christians or consciously
held by any writer of the NT. It was slowly worked out in the course of the first few centuries”
7
Charles Wagner wrote in Charisma Magazine that “We today believe in the Trinity not because of direct
biblical revelation but because of majority votes in certain councils—in other words, by extra-biblical
revelation.”
8
Christopher Kaiser in his “The Doctrine of God” writes "The Church’s doctrine of the Trinity would seem
to be the farthest thing from [Jesus & the NT writers] minds...the doctrine is not found anywhere in the NT;
it was not so clearly articulated until the late 4th century AD."
9
Gutbrie Jr. writes "The Bible does not teach the doctrine of the Trinity. Neither the word ‘trinity’ itself nor
such language as ‘one-in-three,’ ‘three-in-one,’ one ‘essence’ (or ‘substance’), and three ‘persons’ is
biblical language”
10
W.R Matthews writes “St. Paul did not know it [the Trinity], and would have been unable to understand
the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed.”
11
Graham Green states "[protestants] claim that no belief should be held dogmatically which is not
explicitly stated in Scripture. But they themselves accepted Trinity, for which there is no such precise
authority in the Gospels."
12
Martin Luther has stated “It is indeed true that the name ‘Trinity’ is nowhere to be found in the Holy
Scriptures, but has been conceived and invented by man.”

14
 For example, if Jesus was God how could an All-Powerful God be lowered
and be confined by dimensions and locations? If Jesus is the origin of everything
then what is the origin of the Father and the Holy Spirit? The Trinity bears a
resemblance to polytheism as we see 3 deities making up 1 singular deity.
Can a God be lowered to the status of being in the womb of a woman? Can
anyone take care of God? Most Christians will answer, ‘no’ but who took care of
Jesus if not Mary? It simply makes logical fallacies, why would God want to show
us that he understands us by sending his son or appearing in human form and
suffering, laughing, etc? The list goes on when it comes to logical fallacies behind
this.
Not only does this not logically make sense, but Christian scholars admit
that this belief is not Christian and is an addition. OK, if the Trinity is not a part of
Christianity, can we find pure Christianity and follow that? The answer is no, as the
other thing that brings Christians together is the Bible.

The Bible
Before we begin talking about the bible, we should establish some things:

1. If a Holy book contradicts it is corrupted

2. If there are contradictions within a religion that religion is not the truth

One issue with the Bible is that it not only contradicts itself but also
contradicts Christian Doctrine. For example, it contradicts itself by saying one
thing is x and then saying that same thing is y. And it contradicts Christian
Doctrine as Christian Theology preaches the Trinity, however, the Bible does not
teach the Trinity. These contradictions make Christianity an unreliable religion
with flaws, and it makes you wonder if the most followed religion is truly the
religion of Truth.
But what is the proof of the Bible contradicting itself? I will provide only a
few examples but there are many contradictions.

15
 — Genesis 17:10 “This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me
and you and your descendants after you: Every male among you shall be
circumcised.”
— Galatians 5:2 “Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision,
Christ will be of no advantage to you.”
— Genesis 32:30 “So Jacob called the name of the place Peni'el, saying,
"For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved."”
– John 1:18 “No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom
of the Father, he has made him known.

One could also argue that these are different testaments. However, if God
reveals something does it make sense that he needs to update his revelations?
Should God change for us or should we change for God? Is God a being that
changes for us? He is All-Mighty, he is the source of everything, even morality so
why should he update his morals to fit with our morals?
This is all the beginning, When it comes to Christianity thousands of pages
can be written only using logic. If there are many denominations, which one is the
correct one and why do many change to fit the times? Although the religion is the
most followed, it simply does not make that much sense. We see in Bible studies
that some things don’t quite add up.
So then what is the religion that is closest to the truth? The only [large]
Abrahamic Religion that we’ve not covered is the… that religion. With the bombs
terrorism and constant fighting. Is Islam the truth?

Conclusion:
- Christianity is an illogical religion
- Christians do not follow their scholars
- Christians do not know what is in their book
- God does not need to update his religion for our morals and God’s morals
are above ours
- The Trinity is polytheism

16
 Introduction to Islam
Is Islam a religion that is without its faults? I’ve criticized Christianity for its
denominations but what about Islam and its sects? Didn’t Mohammed say that
there are 73 sects in Islam? So how can the religion be any different than
Christianity I have just harshly criticized?
First I should repeat, that words such as Christianity and Islam are umbrella
terms. Within each umbrella term are diverse beliefs that can all be classified as
their religion. Within Islam, there are more umbrella terms, The big 3 are Sunnism
(which will be referred to as Bakrism for their reverence of Abu Bakr as the
successor of the Prophet Muhammad), Shi’ism (which will be referred to as
Tashayyu’ as that is a better name), and Ibadism.
Within these umbrella terms, we have so many worlds, Bakrism we see
Sufism (Tasawwuf), Asharism, Atharism, Maturidism, Hanafis, Asharis, Malikis,
Hanbalis, Shafi’is, Salafis, etc. Within Tashayyu’ we see Ghulat (such as
Alawites13), Shaykhism, Usulism, and Akhbarism, Ismailism which itself is an
umbrella term. And Ibadism with its Wahbi School (not to be confused with the
Bakri Wahabbi school).
So how do we compare the two religions when each has its own
interpretations of things? For example, one common Christian example is that the
Prophet Muhammad is a pedophile for marrying Aisha at a young age, however,
within other traditions such as the Tashayyu tradition, it is narrated often that Aisha
was at the age of 18-19 when she married the Prophet.
There are ways we can compare the religions, such as the fact that
Christianity, although it lists itself as a monotheistic religion, its followers have
polytheism beliefs. Islam is a religion that is always talked about negatively. Yet,
according to statistics, it is growing. As we look deeper in Islam we shall see
whether the statistics are true or not.

13
Alawite Islam should not be considered Islam due to their reverence of Ali as a reincarnation of God,
refer to our Trinity and Polytheism sections

17
 Bakrism
Bakrism, which calls itself Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah (the people of the
tradition and consensus), or Sunnism, is the biggest umbrella term within Islam.
All Bakris and all sects of Islam are defined by mainly one thing: the successors of
the Prophet Muhammad regarding politics and/or religious and spiritual matters.
Islamic Subsects are usually defined by differences within Aqeedah, creed, or their
beliefs. Such as that the Bakri Asharis and the Bakri Atharis differ as the Atharis
take the Qur’an and Ahadith (reports of the Prophet Muhammad and/or his family,
companions, and the students of his companions, and their students) literally.
The Bakri chain argues that Abu Bakr, whom they claim to be the best friend
of the Prophet Muhammad, should’ve been the first of his successors. Then Umar,
who was appointed by Abu Bakr, then Uthman ibn Affan, then Ali ibn Abi Talib.
The Bakri caliphate system follows the Shura Council, in which the Muslims
decide who amongst them would be their leader. Historically, Abu Bakr did take up
the reins of the Caliphate, whether this was justified or not we will look at it with a
logical approach backed up with minor evidence.
The Bakri narrative is that after the death of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and
Umar were called to a place called Saqifa within Madina, They were called
because the tribes of Madina were about to appoint their chief as the Caliph. Abu
Bakr and Umar rushed to avoid any conflict happening within the Muslim
Community. After a bit of debate, the consensus within Saqifa was that the first
Caliph should be from the Prophet’s Tribe (which Abu Bakr and Umar were) and
that Abu Bakr should’ve led as he was the closest to the Prophet.
This is the Bakri narrative, and also what happened historically with bias.
When we look at the Qur’an, God has always appointed Caliphs on earth and has
given successors to each Prophet. Does it make sense that the Holy Prophet
Muhammad, the best of mankind from the beginning to the end, would neglect
something such as this? We read in the Qur’an 24:55:

َ ‫ف ال َ ّذي‬
‫ن م ِن قَبْلِه ِ ْم‬ ِ ‫ات لَيَسْتَخْلِف َنّه ُ ْم فِي الَْأ ْر‬
َ َ ‫ض كَمَا اسْ تَخْل‬ َ ‫ن آم َن ُوا م ِنك ُ ْم و َعَم ِلُوا‬
ِ َ ‫الصّ الِ ح‬ َ ‫الل ّه ُ ال َ ّذِي‬
َ َ ‫و َعَد‬
“God promised those of you who believe and act righteously that He will appoint
for them successors on the earth, just as He appointed successors for those
before them.”

18
 Many Bakris will try to argue that Abu Bakr was appointed, however, he
was appointed by the Muslim population. With God being the best of planners, he
willed the Muslims to appoint Abu Bakr, therefore Abu Bakr was appointed.
However not only is this flawed but this also contradicts the traditions of Bakrism.
We read within Sahih Al-Bukhari—the book that is considered to be the most
authentic collection of reports from the Holy Prophet Muhammad—Volume 9,
Book 89, Hadith 25114:

‫ َأ َن ّه ُ سَم ِ َع َأ ب َا‬،‫ن‬ َ ِ‫ن عَبْد‬

ِ َ ‫الر ّحْم‬ ُ ْ ‫ َأ خْبَرَنِي َأ بُو سَلَم َة َ ب‬،‫ِي‬ ُ ‫ن‬
ِ ّ ‫الز ّهْر‬ َ ُ ‫ ع َنْ يُون‬،ِ‫الل ّه‬
ِ َ ‫ ع‬،‫س‬ َ ُ ‫ َأ خْبَر َن َا عَبْد‬،ُ‫ح َ َ ّدثَنَا عَبْد َان‬
‫ وَم َنْ عَصَانِي‬،َ‫الل ّه‬ َ ‫الل ّه ِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَا‬
َ َ‫ل‏ "‏ م َنْ َأ طَاعَنِي فَق َ ْد َأ طَاع‬ َ ‫ل‬ ّ َ ‫ه ُر َي ْر َة ـ رضى الله عنه ـ َأ‬
َ ‫ن رَسُو‬

‫‏‬.‫ وَم َنْ ع َص َى َأ م ِير ِي فَق َ ْد عَصَانِي‏"‏‬،‫ وَم َنْ َأ طَاعَ َأ م ِير ِي فَق َ ْد َأ طَاعَنِي‬،َ‫الل ّه‬
َ ‫فَق َ ْد ع َص َى‬

Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Messenger (‫ )ﷺ‬said, "Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever
disobeys me, disobeys Allah, and whoever obeys the ruler I appoint, obeys me,
and whoever disobeys him, disobeys me."

This proves that the Caliph must be appointed by the Prophet himself. So
what is the proof that the Prophet appointed Abu Bakr? Many might bring the
hadith that says that Abu Bakr is the close friend of the Prophet however a close
friend is not the same thing as a successor. I may be the CEO of a company, but
just because I have some very good friends doesn’t mean I will give my company
to them, rather, I would give it to whom I choose, and most likely my children.
Furthermore, Umar ibn Al-Khattab, who was appointed as the successor of Abu
Bakr states that Abu Bakr was not appointed by the Prophet Muhammad. We read
within Sahih al-Bukhari Book 93, Hadith 7815:
‫الل ّه ِ ب ْ ِن ع ُم َر َ ـ رضى الله‬
َ ِ‫ ع َنْ عَبْد‬،ِ ‫ ع َنْ َأ بيِه‬،َ ‫ ع َنْ هِشَا ِم ب ْ ِن ع ُْروَة‬،ُ‫سفْيَان‬
ُ ‫ َأ خْبَر َن َا‬،‫ُف‬ ُ ْ ‫ح َ َ ّدثَنَا مُحَم ّد ُ ب‬
َ ‫ن يُوس‬

‫ك فَق َ ْد‬
ْ ُ ‫ وِإَ ْن َأ ت ْر‬،ٍ ‫ف م َنْ ه ُو َ خَيْر ٌ م ِن ِ ّي َأ بُو بكْر‬
َ َ ‫ل ِإ ْن َأ سْ تَخْل ِف فقَدِ اسْ تَخْل‬
َ ‫ل ل ِعُم َر َ َأ لا َ تَسْتَخْل ُِف قَا‬
َ ‫ل ق ِي‬
َ ‫عنهما ـ قَا‬

14
Bukhari
15
Bukhari

19
 ُ‫ وَدِدْتُ َأ ن ِ ّي نَجَو ْت‬،‫ِب‬
ٌ ‫ِب ر َاه‬ َ ‫الل ّه ِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فََأ ث ْنَو ْا عَلَيْه ِ فَق َا‬
ٌ ‫ل ر َاغ‬ َ ‫ل‬ ُ ‫ت َرَك َ م َنْ ه ُو َ خ َير ٌ م ِن ِ ّي رَسُو‬

‫‏‬.‫كف َافًا لا َ ل ِي و َلا َ عَل َىّ لا َ َأ تَح َم ّلُه َا ح ًَي ّا وَم َيِّتًا‏‬
َ ‫مِنْهَا‬

Abdullah, son of Umar narrates that Umar was asked: “Will you not appoint a
successor?” Umar replied: “If I appoint a successor, someone better than me has
already appointed [me]: Abu Bakr and if I refrain from doing so, someone better
than me has already refrained from doing so: The Messenger of God (s.).”

This tradition proves that Abu Bakr was not appointed as Umar says that the
Prophet has refrained from doing so, which contradicts the aforementioned hadith
(which is a major fallacy within Bakrism and already renders Bakrism due to
contradictions within their most Authentic book).
I should make myself clear, there are thousands of Hadith similar to this
within the corpus of the Bakris. My main tool within this book is logic, and taking

20
a step back, and seeing all this with a logical mind, we can already see that
Bakrism has falsehood as they believe that Abu Bakr was the first Caliph after the
prophet. However, the proof that I have just brought proves otherwise. And if not
Abu Bakr being the first Caliph, then who? To answer this question we must look
at more sects within Islam. So, we have concluded that Bakrism is false.
Before I move on, however, I would like to address one logical problem with
the Atharis, Salafis, Ahlul Hadith, and all others who believe this. These people
believe that God has a physical body but not like our body. However this does not
logically make sense as to have a body of any sort is to be confined, How can an
all-powerful God be confined?
Furthermore, many Bakris believe that God is located above him or on his
throne. This also logically does not make sense as how can an all-powerful god be
limited to a space? The same question can be asked to those such as the Asharis
who believe that God is everywhere even if it is figuratively. If God is all-powerful
he should be above being confined to spaces, so he is above being somewhere and
being everywhere. 16

Conclusion
- Bakrism is false as they cannot prove Abu Bakr as the first successor with
their own corpus and the Qur’an
- God cannot be above his throne
- God is above being somewhere and everywhere

Ibadism

Ibadism is another umbrella term that is considered to be the third largest

umbrella term within the umbrella term that is Islam. Ibaadis follow the Bakri

16
One other point that could be brought up is the common dilemma regarding Hussain, the grandson of
the Prophet, who was brutally killed like an animal in Karbala. Bakrism requires you to be completely
obedient towards the Caliph, but how could anyone who claims to love the prophet support Yazid who
brutally killed the family of the Prophet?

21
approach, they believe that Abu Bakr and Umar were rightly guided caliphs. They
believe that Uthman’s caliphate was rightly guided at first but then they separated
from him. When he died, they followed Ali until the Battle of Siffin, at the battle of
Siffin they deemed his caliphate as invalid and separated from him or did a
Khurooj, in which they left his army.
There are many ways that Ibadism could be disproved, the main thing is that
they are Khwarajites, and did Khurooj which is against the Qur’an. The Qur’an
and the consensus of all of Islam say that there must be complete obedience to the
ruler of the time. We read in Surah Al-Nisa, verse 59:

ٍ ‫ل وَُأ و۟ل ِى ٱلَْأ ْمر ِ م ِنك ُ ْم ۖ فِإ َ ن تَنَٰـزَعْتُم ْ فِى شَىْء‬ َ ‫ٱلر ّسُو‬ َ ۟ ‫ٱلل ّه َ وََأ طِيع ُوا‬ َ ‫ي َٰٓـَأ ُ ّيهَا ٱل َ ّذِي‬
ۢ َ ۟ ‫ن ءَام َن ُوٓ ا ۟ َأ طِيع ُوا‬
‫ن تَْأ وِ يل ًا‬ ِ ‫ل ِإ ن كُنتُم ْ تُْؤم ِن ُونَ ب َِٱلل ّه ِ و َٱل ْيَو ْ ِم ٱ ْلَٔـا‬
َ ِ ‫خر ِ ۚ ذَٰل‬
ُ َ‫ك خَيْر ۭ ٌ وََأ حْ س‬ َ ‫ٱلل ّه ِ و‬
ِ ‫َٱلر ّسُو‬ َ ‫ف َر ُدّوه ُ ِإ لَى‬
٥٩
O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you. Should you
disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and
the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution.

The fact that the Khwarajites did not obey the appointed ruler, caused a
Fitnah, or disorder in the community, and betrayed the ruler is enough to show that
their religion is not even worthy of mention.

Conclusion:

- Absolute obedience to the ruler is required

- Betraying the ruler and disobeying him is wrong

Sufism

22
 The Sufis are another umbrella term. Many people consider Sufism as a sect
of its own, however, it is more a movement that belongs to both the Sunni and Shia
umbrella terms. The Sufis combine both Shia and Sunni beliefs. If they are the
Sunni Sufis then obviously they have been disproved as Sunnism has been proved
to be illogical. If they are Shia Sufis then the way to disprove them is to see what
the Shia Imams or spiritual and political leaders have said about them.
We read in Al-Ithna Ashariyya (the Twelvers) page 34 by Shaykh al-Hurr
al-Amali:

‫ لا تقوم الساعة على أمتي حتى يخرج قوم‬:‫محمد بن حسين عن النبي صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم قال‬

‫ ويرفعون أصواتهم بالذكر يظنون أنهم على‬،‫من أمتي اسمهم صوفية ليسوا مني وإنهم يهود أمتي يحلقون للذكر‬

‫طر يق الأبرار بل هم أضل من الكفار وهم أهل النار لهم شهقة كشهقة الحمار وقولهم قول الأبرار وعملهم‬

‫عمل الفجار وهم منازعون للعلماء ليس لهم إيمان وهم معجبون بأعمالهم ليس لهم من عملهم إلا التعب‬

Muhammad ibn Husayn reported that Prophet Muhammad (s) said: "The Hour will not
come upon my nation until people of my nation will come forth, who are called the Sufis. They
are neither from me nor am I from them and they are the Jews of my nation, who shear for
the remembrance and raise their voices for the remembrance (dhikr), thinking that they are on the
path of the virtuous. However they are even more misguided than the disbelievers and they are
the people of the fire. They have a scream like the scream of the donkey. Their word is the word
of the virtuous, while their deeds are the deeds of the debauched and they quarrel with the
knowledgeable. They have no faith and are complacent about their deeds. They gain nothing
from their deeds except for exhaustion.”

In page 17 of the same book we read:

‫ لا يقول بالتصوف أحد إلا لخدعة أو ضلالة أو حماقة وأما من سمى‬:‫عن الرضا عليه السلام قال‬

‫نفسه صوفيا للتقية فلا إثم عليه‬.

23
 Al-Riḍhā, peace be upon him, who said, “no one believes in Ṣūfīsm, except for
deception, misguidance, or foolishness. As for the one who calls himself a Ṣūfī for
dissimilation (Al-Taqiyyah), then there is no sin against him.”

Furthermore, on page 33 we read:

‫محمد بن عبد الجبار عن العسكري عليه السلام أنه قال سئل الصادق عليه السلام عن حال أبي‬

‫ إنه فاسد العقيدة جدا وهو الذي ابتدع مذهبا يقال له التصوف وجعله مقرا لعقيدته‬:‫هاشم الكوفي فقال‬

‫ ورواه أيضا بسند آخر وقال فيه وجعله مقرا لنفسه الخبيثة‬.‫الخبيثة‬.

Muhammed bin ‘Abd al-Jabbār, from al-‘Askarī, peace be upon him, that al-Ṣādiq, peace
be upon him, was asked about the condition of Abū al-Hāshim al-Kūfī (the one to whom Ṣūfīsm
is attributed). The Imām replied, “he had a very corrupt creed. He is the one who innovated a
way called Taṣawwuf and made it a place to put his impure creed.” He also narrated it via
another chain and said in it, “and he made a place to put his impure self.”

So as we can see, following the Sufis is illogical as if they are a Sunni

Tariqah (Sufi Order) then it is illogical as Sunnism is flawed, and if they are Shia
Tariqah, it is illogical to follow them as according to Shia narrations Sufis are
deviants and Jews.

Conclusion:

- Sufis are Jews

- Sufis are deviants
- Following Sufism is illogical

Zaydism
Starting off with our first umbrella term that falls under the Tashayyu’
umbrella term. Let us see if Zaydism is the true form of Tashayyu’. First of all,

24
Zaydism is an umbrella term as aforementioned, there are many different Zaydis
with many different beliefs. Other than the Houthis, most Zaydis nowadays do not
have an Imam Present on the earth. Which contradicts the Qur’an. Surah
al-Baqarah, verse 30 states:

‫ن‬ َ َ ‫ك ٱلدِّمَٓاء َ و‬
ُ ْ ‫نح‬ ُ ِ ‫سد ُ ف ِيهَا و َيَسْف‬
ِ ‫ل ف ِيهَا م َن ي ُ ْف‬
ُ َ ‫تج ْع‬
َ ‫ض خ َلِيف َة ۭ ً ۖ قَالوٓ ُ ا ۟ َأ‬
ِ ‫ل فِى ٱلَْأ ْر‬ َ ّ ‫ل ر َُب‬
ٌۭ ِ ‫ك لِل ْمَل َٰٓـِئكَة ِ ِإ ن ِ ّى ج َاع‬ َ ‫وِإَ ْذ قَا‬

٣٠ َ‫ل ِإ ن ِ ّىٓ َأ ع ْلَم ُ م َا ل َا تَعْلَم ُون‬

َ ‫ك ۖ قَا‬
َ َ ‫ِس ل‬
ُ ‫ح ب ِحَمْدِك َ و َنُق َ ّد‬
ُ ِّ ‫نُس َب‬
And (remember) as your Lord said to the Angels, "Surely I am making in the earth a Caliph."
They said, "Will You make therein one who will corrupt in it and shed blood while we (are the
ones who) extol (with) Your praise and call You Holy?" He said, "Surely I know whatever you
do not know."

Furthermore in verse 24:55 we read:

َ ‫ف ال َ ّذي‬
‫ن م ِن قَبْلِه ِ ْم‬ ِ ‫ات لَيَسْتَخْلِف َنّه ُ ْم فِي الَْأ ْر‬
َ َ ‫ض كَمَا اسْ تَخْل‬ َ ‫ن آم َن ُوا م ِنك ُ ْم و َعَم ِلُوا‬
ِ َ ‫الصّ الِ ح‬ َ ‫الل ّه ُ ال َ ّذِي‬
َ َ ‫و َعَد‬
“God promised those of you who believe and act righteously that He will appoint for them
successors on the earth, just as He appointed successors for those before them.”

From these two verses it's safe to assume that at all times there will be a
Caliph on the earth at all times appointed by God. If the Imamah is over then has
God forsaken us? Furthermore, Zaydis believe that anyone who is a descendant of
Hassan and Hussain [a.] can be the Imam. The two Qur’an verses brought above
disproves this as the Caliph will be appointed by God himself.
Not only have there been over 30 Imams since the Prophet, the Imamate is
over and God has forsaken us. Abu Jurud, who is a famed Zaydi and founder of the
Jurudi Zaydi Subsect has narrated from the Prophet that the Prophet has said that
there will be 12 Imams after the Prophet.

17. ْ‫ ع َن‬، ‫ِي‬

ِ ّ ‫ ع َنْ‌ َأ بِي سَع ِيدٍ ال ْع ُصْ فُر‬، ِ‫ ع َنْ مُحَم ّدِ ب ْ ِن الْحُسَيْن‬، َ ‫ ع َنْ مُحَم ّدِ ب ْ ِن َأ حْمَد‬، ‫يح ْيى‬
َ ‫ن‬
ُ ْ ‫مُحَم ّد ُ ب‬
ِ ‫ل الله‬
ُ ‫ل رَسُو‬
َ ‫ « قَا‬: ‫ل‬
َ ‫ قَا‬، ‫جعْفَرٍ عليه‌السلام‬
َ ‫ ع َنْ َأ بِي‬: ِ‫ ع َنْ َأ بِي الْجا َر ُود‬، ‫عَمْرِو ب ْ ِن ث َاب ٍِت‬

ِ ‫ ِإ ن ِ ّي واث ْن َ ْي ع َشَر َ م ِنْ وُلْد ِي وَأ ن ْتَ ي َا عَل ِ ُيّ زِ ُرّ الَْأ ْر‬: ‫صلى‌الله‌عليه‌وآله‌وسلم‬
َ ‫ض ـ يَعْنِي َأ وْت َاد َه َا وجِبَالَهَا ـ بنَِا َأ وْتَد‬

25
 ‫ ول َ ْم يُنْظَر ُوا‬، ‫ْض بَِأ ه ْلِه َا‬
ُ ‫َت الَْأ ر‬
ِ ‫ سَاخ‬، ‫ فِإ َ ذ َا ذ َه َبَ ال ِاث ْنَا ع َشَر َ م ِنْ ولْد ِي‬، ‫خ بَِأ ه ْلِه َا‬ َ ‫الله ُ الَْأ ر‬
َ ‫ْض َأ ْن تَسِي‬

».”

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn Ahmad from Muhammad ibn
al-Hassan from Sa‘id al-‘Usfuriy from ‘Amran ibn Thabit from abu al-Jarud from abu Ja‘far
(a.s.) who has said the following: “The Messenger of Allah ‫ ﷺ‬has said, ‘I and twelve
persons from my descendants and you O Ali, are the securing anchor of the earth, that is,
the pillars thereof and its ropes. Through us Allah has secured the earth from devouring the
inhabitants. If all the twelve persons from my family will no longer be there, the earth will
devour her inhabitants without delay.”

- Al-Kafi Volume 1, Book 4, Chapter 126, Hadith 17

ّ َ ‫ُوب ع َنْ َأ بِي الْجا َر ُودِ ع َنْ ابي جعفر (عَلَيْه ِ ال‬
9 ْ‫سلام) ع َن‬ ٍ ‫مح ْب‬
َ ‫ن اب ْ ِن‬
ِ َ ‫يح ْي َى ع َنْ مُحَم ّدِ ب ْ ِن الْحُسَيْنِ ع‬
َ ‫ن‬
ُ ْ ‫ـ مُحَم ّد ُ ب‬

ْ‫ح ف ِيه ِ َأ سْمَاء ُ الا ْوصِيَاء ِ م ِن‬

ٌ ْ ‫ل دَخ َل ْتُ عَلَى فَاطِم َة َ (عليها السلام) و َبَيْنَ يَدَيْهَا لَو‬
َ ‫ِي قَا‬
ِ ّ ‫ج َابِر ِ ب ْ ِن عَبْدِ الله الانْصَار‬
ٌ ّ‫خر ُهُم ُ الْق َاِئم ُ (عجل الله تعالى فرجه الشر يف) ثَلاثَة ٌ مِنْه ُ ْم مُحَم ّدٌ و َثَلاثَة ٌ مِنْه ُ ْم عَلِي‬
ِ ‫وُلْد ِه َا ف َعَدَدْتُ اث ْن َ ْي ع َشَر َ آ‬.

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from ibn Muhbub from abu
al-Jarud from abu Ja‘far from Jabir ibn ‘Abdallah al-Ansari who has said the following “Once I
went to see Fatima (a.s.) (daughter of the Holy Prophet (s.a.) and I saw with her a tablet in
which the names of the executors of the wills of (Leaders with Divine Authority) were
written. I then counted them to twelve. The last one’s name was al-Qa’im (the one who will
rise with Divine authority). The names of three of them was Muhammad and the names of
another three was Ali.”

- Al-Kafi Volume 1, Book 4, Chapter 126, Hadith 9

Although Al-Kafi (A Twelver Book) is not Hujjah (proof, evidence,

argument, mandatory to follow) upon them [the Zaydites], the fact that one of their
followers, who is considered a reliable narrator by the Twelvers narrated such a
hadith does raise certain questions. Even with these contradictions, when we set
aside books and religious corpuses, logically it does not make sense the Zaydi
concept of leadership (Imamah).

26
 We’ve previously established that with logic God will keep on his earth a
leader to make sure that we remain on his path. If this ends, does that mean that
God has forsaken the world? Our modern world is a completely different world
than the world of the first human being. If God did not keep a leader on this earth
to keep us in check, what is the point of religion? If he did not give us a reason to
keep worshiping him, why should we worship him? God does not need us, we need
God, but Humans are creatures that are naturally selfish. No one really cares about
other people when you strip it all down. God has said in his book that even your
own parents will turn away from you. The nature of man is to only care about
ourselves. If there was not a person here to remind us that God is good for us why
would we worship him and remain in his covenant?

Conclusion:

- Zaydism is a false religion

- There must be an Imam on earth at all times

27
 Ismailism
Ismailism is another umbrella term that falls under the umbrella term of
Tashayyu’. Ismailis have split into more paths than most, much of it being unique.
I have written a short document that primarily focuses on Sevener Ismailism, an
extinct subsect that has recently tried to make a return. You may read it here.
Ismailis follow the Imams agreed upon by most, if not all of who claim to follow
Tashayyu’, being the Imams up until Imam Ja’far b. Muhammad al-Sadiq (with the
exceptions of Zaydis who follow Zayd b. Ali over Ja’far b. Muhammad), however
they believe that Ismail b. Ja’far was the next Imam after al-Sadiq, in contrast, the
Twelvers believe that it was Musa b. Ja’far who succeeded al-Sadiq.
On the subject of Sevener Ismailism, I shall quote from my book, Rejecting
Delusions: Sevener Isma’ilism (‫ اإلسماعيلية السبعية‬:‫)رفض األوهام‬:

The Sevener Ismaili Religion is considered to be extinct, unlike the Akhbaris who are
considered to be in low numbers, most sources about the Sevener Ismailis consider the religion
as extinct as of 1445 A.H. The religion is scarce and there isn’t any real proof for it either.
According to many historical and Ismaili sources, the Ismailis don’t have a corpus of ahadith.
While researching for this book, most Ismaili websites tried to use Twelver books to prove their
religion, all of which will be refuted in this document.
According to Encyclopedia Iranica, “Ismaʿilis had neither a Hadith collection of their
own nor a distinct Ismaʿili law before the establishment of the Fatimid dynasty in North Africa in
297/909. As Ismaʿili law began taking definite shape under the patronage of the Fatimid caliphs,
the need for a separate collection of clearly defined legal traditions became urgent; especially
since by this time, Hadith had come to be recognized, both by Sunnis and Shiʿites alike, as
second only to the Koran in authority.”
This statement obviously disproves the Sevener Religion as they reject the Fatimids and
believe their leader went into occultation long before the Fatimids. Furthermore, some Historical
sources state that Ismail b. Ja’far died before Ismailis claimed his Imamah. Let us see what the
Ismailis say is proof of their religion.

Using logic, we can see how much this disproves the religion of Sevener Ismailism as a whole.
Firstly, how can one follow the Sunnah (tradition) of the Prophet Muhammad without reading
any of the Hadith (traditions) of the Prophet Muhammad? Secondly, this statement is
contradictory to the Quran. The Quran states,

28
 َ ‫ن ُأ و۟ل َٰٓـِئ‬
‫ك‬ َ ُ ‫حس‬ َ ‫َٱلص ّدِيق ِينَ و َٱل ُش ّهَدَٓاء ِ و‬
َ َ ‫َٱلصّ ٰـلِحِينَ ۚ و‬ ِّ ‫ن و‬ َ ‫ن‬
َ ‫ٱلن ّب ِيِّۧـ‬ َ ِ ّ‫ٱلل ّه ُ عَلَيْه ِم م‬
َ َ ‫ن َأ ن ْعَم‬ َ ‫ل فَُأ و۟ل َٰٓـِئ‬
َ ‫ك م َ َع ٱل َ ّذ ِي‬ َ ‫ٱلل ّه َ و‬
َ ‫َٱلر ّسُو‬ ِ ُ ‫وَم َن ي‬
َ ‫طِع‬
‫ر َف ِيق ً ۭا‬
And whoever obeys Allah and the Messenger will be in the company of those blessed by Allah:
the prophets, the people of truth, the martyrs, and the righteous—what honorable company!
(Quran 4:69)

‫ل ِإ َلّا ٱل ْبَلَٰـ ُغ‬ َ ‫ل و َعَلَيْك ُم َمّا حُم ِّل ْتُم ْ ۖ وِإَ ن تُط ِيع ُوه ُ تَه ْتَد ُوا ۟ ۚ وَم َا عَلَى‬
ِ ‫ٱلر ّسُو‬ َ ّ ِ ‫ل ۖ فِإ َ ن تَو َل ّوْا ۟ فِإ َ َن ّمَا عَلَيْه ِ م َا حُم‬ َ ۟ ‫ٱلل ّه َ وََأ طِيع ُوا‬
َ ‫ٱلر ّسُو‬ َ ۟ ‫ق ُلْ َأ طِيع ُوا‬
ُ‫ٱل ْمُبِين‬
Say, "Obey Allāh and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away - then upon him is only that
[duty] with which he has been charged, and upon you is that with which you have been charged.
And if you obey him, you will be [rightly] guided. And there is not upon the Messenger except
the [responsibility for] clear notification." (Quran 24:54)

How can one obey the Prophet, if they do not know what the Prophet has said? How can you
know what Sunnah is authentic without reading the Hadith? The Ismailis take a Quranic
approach, which is clearly flawed and will never work. The Qur’an orders you to pray, how shall
you pray without knowing how to pray?

There is some proof within that document from Twelver books refuting
Ismaili claims about Twelver books that I will omit in this document. For the rest
of the subsects, being the Nizaris (Agha Khanis) and Mustailis, we can disprove
them simply. For Nizaris, they have a Trinity, which has already been proven
illogical when we discussed Christianity. Furthermore, one of their Imams has said
that the day of judgment has passed, and we are now in Heaven on earth.
If this was true then what is the point of being Ismaili or any religion? We’ve
already gone to heaven there’s no point in doing anything anymore. As for
Mustailis, who stem from the Fatimids, the Hadith argument applied to the. Why is
it that their reports only came when they came to power? Any logical person would
conclude that the Fatimid Caliphs would try to fabricate traditions of past Imams
too.

Conclusion:

- Nizari Ismailism is Polytheism

- Ismailism as a whole is an illogical religion

29
 Twelverism
Finally we’ve come to the largest umbrella term within Tashayyu’. We’ve
looked at a number of religions, will this be the final umbrella term that we look
at? Within Twelverism there are many umbrella terms and branches. The largest of
which is Usulism, from Usulism stems Shaykhism, from Shaykhism comes Babism
and the Bahai faith which are different religions outside of Islam. The Akhbaris
preceded the Usulis however Akhbarism is now considered a minority group after
the defeat of the Akhbaris in the 18th century.

Usulism
The main thing that separates Usulis from Akhbaris is their opinions
regarding Ahkam or religious rulings, or rather how to get Ahkam and Aqeedah
(literally creed, often refers to certain beliefs. An example would be the Aqeedah
of the Atharis involving taking the Qur’an literally). Usulis value Ijtihad and
following, imitating, or doing the Taqleed of Mujtahid. Ijtihad is using reasoning17,
or opinions in religious rulings. For example, if there is a modern problem such as
the issue of taking a certain medicine, a Mujtahid would use Ijtihad to give a ruling
on that issue. Akhbaris on the other hand, believe that all religious matters should
be taken from the Qur’an and Ahadith.
Historically, Akhbaris came before Usulis. Any logical person would rather
follow the group that came before as it is most likely to be closer to the true
religion. Seeing as how far the different umbrella terms have deviated from the true
Islam, we want to follow the one that came first no? However, every single
umbrella term claims that it came first, except for Usulism. Many Usuli clergymen
agree that Usulism came after Akhbarism, so logically why should we follow
Usulism? Many Usulis will argue that Taqleed is needed for the average layman,
for when you are Akhbari you are your own Marja’ or religious authority to
follow.
The common argument is that the average layman does not have that much
time to go and seek knowledge, busy with his worldly affairs. For example, a
farmer who is busy tending to his land may not have that much time to go and open

17
Although as we shall find out Usulis don’t use any reasoning when it comes to religion (as in logic)

30
a collection of Hadith to read Ahadith. Usulism offers the easier route in giving
permission to follow a learned scholar. This scholar can answer your questions and
give certain rulings.
If you, so far, think that this system makes sense, then you’ve fallen victim
to my sugarcoating. Only from afar does falsehood look so sweet and logical. This
system may be a bit different from the system that Bakrism follows, however,
Ijtihad is a Bakri thing and has not been preached by the Imams. Before I begun
writing the preface to this book, I shared a hadith that I will share again:

ٌ ‫ طَلَبُ ال ْعِلْم ِ فَرِ يضَة‬:‫ل أبِي عَبْدِ الله‬

َ ‫قَا‬
Abi Abdullah has said: “Seeking knowledge is obligatory”
— Al-Kafi Vol. 1, Chap. 2, Hadith 2

We see from this hadith that an Imam has said that seeking knowledge is
obligatory. So if you are a farmer you MUST make time to learn your religion. So
what’s wrong if you learn from a Scholar? Why must you do your own research?
There is nothing wrong with learning and taking from a scholar, however, within
Usulism, many of these Scholars who they take from do not provide proof for their
rulings. In fact, many of these rulings contradict the rulings of the Imams.
For example, the most followed Marja, or scholar, is Al-Sistani. In his
Risalah Amaliyah or book of rulings, he does not provide proof for his rulings.
Below is a scan of a page of his ‘Islamic Laws’ taken directly from his website:

31
 Pay attention to how he does not quote a Hadith to back up his ruling. We
read in the Ahadith,

32
 1 ْ‫سك َانَ ع َنْ َأ بِي بَصِ يرٍ ع َن‬
ْ ُ ‫ن اب ْ ِن م‬
ِ َ ‫يح ْي َى ع‬ ْ ‫ـ ع ِ َ ّدة ٌ م ِنْ َأ‬
َ ‫صحَابنَِا ع َنْ َأ حْمَد َ ب ْ ِن مُحَم ّدِ ب ْ ِن خ َالِدٍ ع َنْ عَبْدِ الله ب ْ ِن‬

‫ل َأ م َا و َالله م َا‬ ِ ‫ل قلُ ْتُ لَه ُ َاتّ خَذ ُوا َأ حْ بار َه ُ ْم وَرُه ْبانَه ُ ْم َأ رْبابا ً م ِنْ د ُو‬
َ ‫ن الله فَق َا‬ ّ َ ‫َأ بِي عَبْدِ الله (عَلَيْه ِ ال‬
َ ‫سلام) قَا‬

‫دَعَو ْه ُ ْم ِإ لَى عِبَادَة ِ َأ نْفُسِه ِ ْم و َلَو ْ دَعَو ْه ُ ْم م َا َأ ج َابُوه ُ ْم و َلَكِنْ َأ ح َُل ّوا لَه ُ ْم حَر َاما ً وَح َرّم ُوا عَلَيْه ِ ْم ح َلالا ً ف َع َبَد ُوه ُ ْم‬

َ‫حي ْثُ لا يَشْع ُر ُون‬

َ ْ‫م ِن‬.

A number of our people have narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid from ’Abdallah
ibn Yahya from ibn Muskan from Abu Basir who has said the following. “I asked Imam abu
‘Abdallah (a.s.) about the verse of the holy Quran that says, ‘They (unconditionally) obeyed the
rabbis and the monks and worshiped the Messiah, son of Mary, as they should have obeyed God.
. (9:31)’. The Imam replied, “By Allah they did not call people to worship them. If they had done
so people would not have accepted it. The Rabbis and monks made unlawful things lawful for
them and the lawful things as unlawful. And in this way they worshiped them unintentionally.”.

- Al-Kafi Volume 1, Book 2, Chapter 18, Hadith 1

Similarly, if you blindly follow a Scholar the same thing that happened with
the Christians and the Jews will happen to the Usulis. There are many things that
can be used to disprove Usulism, however, from a logical standpoint, Usulism is
illogical as it came after Akhbarism and that many Usuli Laymen accept rulings
without any proof. We have already established that an Imam must be present on
earth at all times. The current Imam, according to the twelvers who is the Twelfth
Imam, is in occultation and will return at a later date.
However we must still follow religion, with the Imam in Ghaybah
(occultation), who do we follow in both a religious and political standpoint? The
Imam, before leaving, never said to blindly take rulings from learned scholars.
From a logical standpoint, we have the sayings of the previous Imams recorded,
along with the Qur’an which is the word of God himself, so is it not logical to
follow the sayings of the previous leaders? We’ve established that God will not
change his religion to fit our worldly desires so the previous sayings of one Imam
MUST be the same as EVERY single Imam. Furthermore, the Qur’an states,

ۚ ‫ٱل ْيَوْم َ َأ كْ مَل ْتُ لَك ُ ْم دِينَك ُ ْم وََأ تْمَمْتُ عَلَيْك ُ ْم نِعْمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُم ُ ٱ ْلِإ سْ لَٰـم َ دِينًۭا‬

33
 This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have
approved for you Islām as religion.

– Surah al-Ma’idah, Ayat 3 (Quran 5:3)

This religion has been perfected and completed on that day which was
Ghadeer. Is it logical that whilst the leader of our time is in Ghaybah we can follow
different scholars who have different opinions with each other? The difference in
opinions have bled even into Aqeedah, creating a completely different religion than
what the Imams taught. For an example, someone who follows the Shirazi family
might believe that the Mushaf of Uthman of today is corrupt and changed, while
someone who follows Sistani might not believe the same. Or that if someone who
follows Amir al-Qurayshi might believe that the Ahlul Bayt did so and so, while
someone who Follows Khamenei might believe otherwise. With these differences
which scholar is on the correct path? Which Marja has the true religion?
If Islam is the truth, which version of Islam is the truth? This very question
is what brought me to the truth, and has brought me to write this book. With the
scholars who all have very different opinions, which scholar is the most correct? Is
it not logical to follow the best scholars who ever walked the earth? The ones who
are infallible, who are free from both sin and mistakes. Does a scholar like this
exist? Yes! These scholars are the Ahlul Bayt. The Prophet Muhammad [s.] and his
family [a.] who have been appointed by God to be the Imams.
Do not think that God has forsaken us because he has made his current
leader a hidden leader. That leader will return, and he will fill the world with
justice and peace. That leader is here, and he is affecting the world. And while we
cannot go to him directly, we can go to his predecessors. We can go to his
predecessors by reading the Akhbar, the reports, or the ahadith. Doing such makes
us Akhbari.

34
 Conclusion:

- Following a scholar blindly is illogical

- Usuli scholars differ on many things, creating many different religions
- It is logical to follow the Ahadith and Quran only instead of blindly
following fatwas
- Following only the Ahadith and Quran makes us Akhbari
- Akhbarism is the true religion, the only religion

Ali has narrated from Muhammad ibn “Isa from Yunus from Hammad from Abu ‘Abd
Allah, recipient of divine supreme covenant, who has said the following: ‘I heard the
Imam saying, ‘There is nothing but it is in the Book and the Sunnah.’

– Al-Kafi Volume 1, Hadith 182, Chapter 20, Hadith 4

35
 Others, Additional Points, & Conclusion
We have finally concluded that the Akhbaris are that group that is upon the
truth. However, with the minimal proofs and logic I have provided, surely you
must still have your doubts. I will simplify the logic and expand upon it but I
recommend you do your research based on what I have provided and our
conclusion. Here is the logic that has been mentioned in the book simplified into
steps:

1. (The True) Religion is objectively true, a deity must exist as something

cannot come from nothing; something must always come from something.
The argument that space was empty then suddenly the Big Bang happened is
illogical. A Third party (a Deity) must exist for the universe to even begin as
everything has a beginning and an end.
2. Polytheism does not make logical sense as it leads to contradictions to what
a deity is. If they are equally all powerful then it contradicts as two things
cannot be the MOST powerful, there must be one over the other.
Furthermore most polytheistic religions believe that some Gods were created
by other Gods which is a contradiction to God being the most powerful as
how can a God be created?
3. Sikhism is a newly created religion with minimal proof for it so it is not
logical to follow it. Zoroastrianism is not logical as there are more chances
of corruption happening within the religion; God must have a leader on earth
at all times to keep humanity on his path.
4. Judaism is not a religion for all people, but rather only those who are
ethnically Jewish. Does it make sense that God has forsaken the rest of the
world and has only promised salvation to one group of people? We cannot
control what ethnicity we are born into, what type of just God would be like
this?
5. The trinity is polytheism no matter where you look at it. Furthermore, many
Christian scholars admit that the trinity was not taught in the gospels. The
two testaments also contradict each other. Furthermore, it does not make
sense that there must be revisions in God’s revelation, why would God
change to fit our needs?

36
 6. Bakrism does not make logical sense as a leader must be present on earth at
all time. The current Bakri leader is nonexistent, plus with the advents of the
4 school of thoughts regarding religious rulings, and the many schools of
thoughts regarding theology, it is clear the leaders of the Bakris were not
divinely appointed who kept the religion preserved. Furthermore, there is no
solid tradition proving the caliphate of Abu Bakr over the caliphate of Ali.
7. Ibadism is flawed as they believe that God’s appointed leader can be unfit to
rule.
8. Sufism is illogical as if it is a Sunni Sufi Order it is not logical to follow it as
Sunnism or Bakrism is flawed. Furthermore if it is a ‘Shia’ Sufi Order is is
not logical as there are many Shia traditions that condemn the Sufis.
9. Zaydism is illogical as they believe that leadership (Imamah) can be taken
up by any descendant of Hassan and Hussayn. This is illogical as through
logic we have established that God appoints these leaders. Furthermore, their
leadership has ended, meaning that God has forsaken this world.
10. Ismailism is flawed no matter what subsect you go to. Seveners do not have
a Hadith Corpus, and they are largely considered extinct. Mustailis only had
corpuses after the Fatimid Caliphate and not after the Prophet’s death,
leading one to question if its fully preserved. Nizarism has become
polytheism with a trinity in place and the fact they preach that we are in
heaven currently. If this statement is true then what is the point of following
any religion at all? We’ve all gone to heaven anyways.
11. Usulism is logically flawed as historically it came only after Akhbarism.
Furthermore it does not make sense to blindly follow scholars as it could
lead to you being misguided. At the same time, these scholars have different
opinions on everything, leading to the creation of completely different
religions.
12. This only leads us to Akhbarism. Al-Akhbariyya is the truth, the only truth.
There is no logical fallacy within the methodology of the Akhbaris.

For additional points on point one, please refer to my document on proving

the existence of God which can be accessed here. For additional proof against
Christianity, please refer to my document on the trinity which can be read here. I
also recommend everyone to read my first book on the Ahmadis, there is much

37
proof against Christians, polytheists, and Bakris along with the Ahmadis. You can
access the document here.

Responding to “arguments” and lies against the Akhbariyya

Naturally many of these arguments come from Usulis who have tried so hard
to wipe out all Akhbaris. Obviously, they failed in wiping out all, but they have
succeeded in wiping out most. I will be responding to points regarding logic and
nothing else, this is not a polemic against the Usulis.
Many Usulis argue about the methodology of the Akhbaris regarding
Ahadtih. Within the Akhbari methodology, every hadith within Shia books narrated
by Shias are considered Sahih or authentic. For almost the entirety of our corpus,
this means everything is authentic. The Usulis look at the chain of narrators of
every Hadith and judge if the narrators are trustworthy. Knowing the narrators is
known as Ilm al-Rijal and judging these men on the basis if they are truthful or
liars is known as Ilm al-Dirayah.
Logically, following Ilm al-Dirayah does not make sense. The reasoning
behind this is how can a scholar who came long after the narrator’s life know every
part of the narrator’s life to determine whether they are liars or truthful? Liars can
sometimes tell the truth, and truthful people can sometimes tell lies. So how can we
determine that in that specific moment they did not lie or tell the truth? Is it
possible for a scholar who came so long after to know everything about the
narrator’s life? It is impossible the scholar is not God or an Imam who granted such
knowledge. We read in Al-Masnu’ Fi Ma'rifat Al Hadith al-Mawdu’ Hadith 397:

‫ انظر‬:‫ قال أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام‬:‫ابن ادريس الحلي في كتاب السرائر‬

.‫إلى ما قال ولا تنظر إلى من قال‬

Ibn Idris al-Hilli in Kitaab al-Sara’ir: Ameer al-Mu’mineen [a.] said, “Look at what is being
said and do not look at who is saying it”

Some people criticize this approach by saying it will lead to many

contradictions within the ahadith. Unlike every other corpus, we have our own

38
methodology on what to do if two ahadith contradict. However if something
contradicts some other religion such as the Bakris, then it is fatal. For an example,
if there is a contradiction within the Bakri Sahih Al-Bukhari like the one we
showed, it nullifies their arguments as their methodology argues that Sahih
Al-Bukhari is THE most reliable and authentic book. However, if a contradiction
occurs in our al-Kafi, as taught by the Imams we have a methodology to solve such
things.

There is much more that could be responded to, however, this is not a book
specifically against Usulis. The final verdict behind all of this is that Akhbarism is
the truth. I once again implore you to do your own research. I am sure you will find
flaws within your own religion. Tell your leaders to refute this, let us see if they
can refute this without doing a logical fallacy or contradicting themselves. There is
no doubt that Akhbarism is the truth, and I have proved that with only logic. Go
ahead and do more research on the topic with more proof, but I hope that this has
guided you in the right direction. If this document helps even one person in finding
the truth or arguing against the falsehood, I can rest knowing I have served my
Imam in my state as a Layman.

39