The Empire of the Biblical Antichrist (The Shi'ite Mahdi) will Cover the Whole Globe except Makkah and Madinah

Introduction

Eschatological traditions across religions often present a final, global sovereign—either for good or evil—who will dominate much of the world before a final judgment or transformation. Within certain strands of Shiʿite Islam, the figure of Imam al-Mahdi is envisaged as a saviour-king who will establish a universal rule of justice. In Christian apocalyptic scenarios the figure of the Antichrist similarly takes dominion over the earth prior to the return of Christ. This article explores the Shiʿite Mahdist scenario of global rule, its intersections and contrasts with the “Antichrist empire” motif, and the specific idea (in some sources) that the Mahdi’s empire will stretch globally except for the Hejaz cities of Makkah and Madinah. While this is not a mainstream, universally held formulation, it draws on a mix of Islamic eschatological texts and modern interpretations.

---

The Shiʿite Mahdi: Doctrine and Mission

Within Twelver Shiʿism the Mahdi (the Twelfth Imam) is a hidden saviour who will re-appear at the end of time. Iranica Online+2Harvard Projects+2 The Encyclopaedia Iranica notes that Imami eschatology “is completely dominated by the figure of the Mahdi… his manifestation … and the situation of the world at the time of these events.” Iranica Online According to such traditions:

• The world will be filled with injustice, oppression, decay of religion. Iranica Online+1

• At the right time the Mahdi will emerge, unify the faithful, and fill the earth with justice as it was filled with injustice. wwmf.org+1

• His rule is often described as universal: not just a regional domain, but a global transformation (sometimes interpreted as world-government) in which Islam becomes predominant. The Thinking Muslim -+2IJHSSI+2

One key contemporary analysis (“The Hidden Imam and the End of Time: A Primer on the Mahdi”) emphasises that the idea of a global mission is embedded in Shiʿite eschatological and political imagination. Harvard Projects

---

The Global Empire Scenario

In many Mahdist hadiths and Shiʿite narratives, the Mahdi is depicted as conquering or converting wide territories, extending his authority over east and west, over Muslims and non-Muslims, until the world is under a just order. For example: “He will occupy the east and the west of the world, bringing everything under his command.” The Thinking Muslim - Some sources note that his companions (sometimes said to number 313) will wield great strength and will subdue the nations. IJHSSI The scenario therefore resembles, in broad outline, the Christian apocalyptic image of the Antichrist’s world-dominion, though the character is different (a messianic saviour vs a deceiver).

Importantly, one passage in the Iranica article states: “The army of the Qāʾem … Ḥejāz, Iraq, the east, Egypt, Syria, and then Constantinople will be conquered before the entire world submits to the saviour.” Iranica Online That suggests a step-by-step global subjection under the Mahdi.

Thus, the “empire” envisioned is: a unified global polity, centered in Islamic eschatology, where the Mahdi reigns, and international boundaries as known today are abolished or overridden by this eschatological rule.

---

The Exception of Makkah and Madinah?

The particular motif that the “empire” covers the whole globe except Makkah and Madinah is less evident in standard academic sources. Many texts indicate that the Mahdi emerges from or gathers at Makkah or the Hejaz. For example: “The rising will occur … when the Mahdi launches his appeal from Mecca.” Iranica Online Some sources say that his uprising begins in the Hejaz and then moves outwards.

However, the idea of excluding Makkah or Madinah from his empire is not well-documented in mainstream Shiʿite eschatological literature. Some fringe or modern popular interpretations may mention that certain cities are spared or reserved for other roles in the final drama. Without strong textual evidence, this part of the scenario remains speculative.

It may reflect the mixing of Christian-Apocalyptic frameworks (where Jerusalem or specific holy cities are exempt from Antichrist domination) with Islamic eschatology. Thus, while the global conquest motif is part of Mahdist belief, the precise exception of the two holy cities of Islam (Makkah and Madinah) is not a consensus position.

---

Comparison with the Biblical Antichrist Motif

From the Christian perspective, the Antichrist is a figure who comes and deceives the world, establishes a reign of wickedness, and then is overcome by Christ. The Mahdi scenario is somewhat inverted: the Mahdi is the good saviour who brings justice, rather than the evil ruler. Some modern interpretative frameworks (especially in Christian-Muslim inter-faith discussion) treat the Mahdi as analogous to the Antichrist, but this is controversial and not accepted in Islamic theology.

In both motifs:

• A global scale of rule is envisaged.

• A final battle or confrontation occurs (in Islamic version: often alongside the return of Jesus) EBSCO+1

• Moral transformation of the world is central.

Yet significant differences:

• In Mahdi doctrine the mission is restorative and righteous, not deceptive and evil.

• In Christian Antichrist doctrine the world is dominated by evil until Christ returns and defeats the Antichrist.

• The axis of “empire” differs: Muslim eschatology centres around Islam and submission to God; Christian eschatology centres around Christ and faith in him.

---

Implications and Contemporary Relevance

Why does the idea of a global Mahdi-empire matter today? Several factors:

• Political: Some commentators (e.g., on Iran’s foreign policy) warn that eschatological beliefs about the Mahdi influence state behaviour, especially in relation to global missions or support for movements abroad. Boston University+1

• Ideological: The vision of a global Islamic justice order feeds into debates about “global order,” the role of Islam in world politics, and how religiously motivated movements interpret their mission.

• Inter-faith: The parallels (and differences) between Mahdi eschatology and Christian eschatology encourage dialogue—and sometimes tension—over the meaning of “end-times,” dominion, and what constitutes legitimate religious power.

• Sociological: For believers, the expectation of the Mahdi offers hope in times of crisis: the world is unjust now, but a saviour will come and transform it. periodicos.pucminas.br+1

However, there are also cautionary notes: the global-empire motif can be harnessed by extremist groups or conspiratorial thinking, projecting inevitability onto geopolitical events. Some sources warn of mis-use of Mahdist imagery for political mobilisation. institute.global

---

Critical Assessment and Limitations

It is important to approach the “empire” narrative with caution. Some of the limitations:

• Many of the hadiths and traditions about the Mahdi are disputed or of uncertain authenticity. Islamic scholars often classify them into various degrees of reliability.

• The specific claim of excluding Makkah and Madinah from the Mahdi’s empire lacks strong textual support; it may derive from popular, non-canonical interpretations.

• The idea of a world-conquering empire is often symbolic rather than strictly literal: “filling the earth with justice” might mean moral transformation rather than military conquest. The interpretive diversity among Shiʿites means that some understand the Mahdi more spiritually than militarily. Islamic Center+1

• There is a risk of projecting modern ideas of global empire or state-power onto what may have been originally theological and symbolic visions.

• Scholars emphasise that eschatological writings were often composed in times of crisis and may reflect symbolic language rather than geopolitical blueprints. periodicos.pucminas.br

Thus, while the “Mahdi empire” motif is compelling in popular discourse, it must be situated within the broader context of eschatological literature and theological diversity.

---

Conclusion

The vision of a global rule under the Shiʿite Mahdi—one in which the earth is filled with justice and the faithful are united—is a powerful component of Shiʿite eschatology. It resonates with themes of hope, transformation, and final victory over injustice. Within this vision, an “empire” is envisaged: dominion over east and west, over Muslims and non-Muslims, a profound change of world order.

However, the specific twist that such an empire would cover everything except Makkah and Madinah is not firmly grounded in the primary eschatological sources and may reflect modern or syncretic interpretations. The comparison to the “Antichrist empire” motif in Christian eschatology is helpful in highlighting the scale and intensity of the vision, but it also underscores crucial differences in purpose, character, and theology.

For believers, theologians, scholars and observers alike, the Mahdi-empire theme invites reflection on the nature of power, redemption, and the end of history. It reminds us that eschatology is not just about the future—it is about how communities understand the present world, its injustices, and their aspirations for what comes next.

Usaha Abdul Hadi Awang untuk Mendamaikan Ahli Sunnah dan Syiah

Dalam konteks umat Islam global yang diwarnai oleh pelbagai mazhab dan pandangan, cabaran perpaduan ummah sering menjadi topik hangat dibincangkan. Salah satu tokoh yang sering disebut dalam usaha merapatkan jurang antara kelompok-Sunnah dan Syiah ialah Presiden Parti Islam Se‑Malaysia (PAS), Abdul Hadi Awang. Artikel ini meninjau latar belakang, pendekatan, rintangan dan potensi transformasi daripada usahanya untuk mendamaikan kelompok Ahli Sunnah dengan Syiah.

---

Latar Belakang dan Kedudukan Abdul Hadi Awang

Abdul Hadi Awang dilahirkan pada 20 Oktober 1947 di Kampung Rusila, Marang, Terengganu, dan menamatkan pengajian di Universiti Islam Madinah serta Universiti Al-Azhar. University of Malaya eJournal+1 Beliau memegang jawatan Presiden PAS sejak tahun 2002. en.wikipedia.org+1 Dalam arena antarabangsa, beliau pernah terlibat dengan badan-badan ulama dunia termasuk sebagai ahli kepada lembaga yang bertugas dalam pemerkasaan penyatuan pemikiran Islam. University of Malaya eJournal+1

Kedudukan ini membolehkan beliau menjadi salah satu suara yang cuba menyuarakan gagasan penyatuan ummah — bukan sekadar dalam politik tempatan, tetapi juga dalam dimensi teologi dan mazhab.

---

Pendekatan Abdul Hadi Dalam Usaha Taqrīb (Penyatuan)

Antara pendekatan yang dapat dikenal pasti dalam usaha beliau ialah:

1. Lawatan ke luar negara dan dialog antar­mazhab
   Dalam satu laporan, dilaporkan bahawa Abdul Hadi telah ke Iran atas jemputan wakil ulama Iran, sebagai usaha membawa suara Ahli Sunnah ke persidangan ulama Islam di Iran. Data Toto HK Dengan mengambil bahagian dalam forum antarabangsa, beliau menunjukkan minat untuk berinteraksi dengan pemimpin Syiah dan Sunni di arena global.

2. Retorik perpaduan ummah dan kerangka keadilan
   Beliau pernah menyatakan:

   “Saya turut mengambil peluang untuk merapatkan hubungan dengan pemimpin gerakan Islam dan ulama yang mewakili kelompok Sunni dan Syiah … demi menjaga kepentingan dunia Islam yang berdepan dengan pelbagai cabaran.” Harakahdaily
   Pendekatan ini menunjukkan bahawa beliau melihat perbezaan mazhab bukan hanya sebagai persoalan akidah yang perlu dibid’ahkan, tetapi sebagai realiti yang boleh didekati melalui dialog dan keadilan.

3. Gagasan «mazhab mendahului zaman»
   Dalam laporan media Islam, disebut bahawa Hadi Awang membawa idea bahawa perbezaan mazhab boleh diraikan dalam kerangka pemikiran ilmiah dan toleransi. mediaislam.net Beliau mencadangkan agar bukan semata-mata menolak yang berbeza, tetapi menilai apa yang baik dan praktikal untuk dikekalkan.

---

Rintangan dan Kontroversi

Usaha jenis ini tidak tanpa cabaran. Antara rintangan yang dikenalpasti:

• Sikap dalam kalangan ahli Sunnah terhadap Syiah
  Banyak kumpulan Sunni tradisional di Malaysia memandang fahaman Syiah dengan sangat kritikal, dan ada yang menolak sebarang bentuk dialog kecuali Syiah menukar akidahnya. Sebagai contoh, satu artikel membincangkan kritikan terhadap kenyataan Hadi yang dikatakan mengajak Syiah dan Khawarij menyertai PAS, yang kemudian dituntut untuk menarik balik oleh pengkritik. ustazfathulbari.wordpress.com
  Ini menunjukkan bahawa wujud keraguan dalam komuniti ahli Sunnah terhadap motif dan implikasi usaha penyatuan tersebut.

• Tuduhan meredakan isu akidah yang sensitif
  Usaha seperti lawatan ke Iran dan dialog dengan pemimpin Syiah telah menimbulkan reaksi bahawa Hadi Awang mungkin terlalu akomodatif, sedangkan beberapa pihak menegaskan bahawa isu perbezaan akidah bukan hanya soal hubungan sosial, tetapi menyentuh pegangan asal akidah yang sangat sensitif. Suara Keadilan+1
  Ada pihak yang melihat dialog tersebut sebagai berisiko mencairkan garis pemisah yang dijaga oleh kelompok Sunni konservatif.

• Isu persepsi politik dan manfaat politik
  Sesetengah pemerhati mempertikaikan sama ada motivasi utama usaha ini bersifat spiritual dan ilmiah semata-mata atau mempunyai agenda politik. Sebagai contoh, satu artikel mengulas bahawa mimpi Hadi Awang (menjumpa Nabi SAW) dikaitkan dengan usahanya mendamaikan Sunni dan Syiah — dan dilihat oleh sesetengah pihak sebagai sarana mobilisasi atau legitimasi politik. Harapan Daily
  Ini menimbulkan persoalan sama ada usaha penyatuan ini bebas daripada kalkulasi politik.

---

Potensi Transformasi dan Kesan yang Mungkin

Walaupun pelbagai rintangan wujud, usaha Abdul Hadi Awang membawa potensi transformasi yang boleh memberi impak positif kepada masyarakat Islam di Malaysia dan mungkin lebih luas:

• Memperkasa konsep respect dan toleransi mazhab
  Jika dialog dan interaksi antarmazhab diteruskan, ia boleh membantu membina semangat toleransi antara Sunni dan Syiah, mengurangkan stereotaip dan fiqh konflik yang selama ini wujud. Ini boleh menghasilkan suasana di mana perbezaan mazhab tidak menjadi sumber konflik tetapi menjadi ruang untuk berdialog.

• Menjawab cabaran geopolitik dan sektarian
  Dunia Islam hari ini terdedah kepada konflik sektarian—contoh: konflik Sunni-Syiah di Timur Tengah. Usaha penyatuan mazhab seperti yang dibawa oleh Hadi boleh dilihat sebagai sumbangan ke arah mengurangkan ketegangan sedia ada, khususnya apabila Malaysia sebagai negara pelbagai mazhab dan etnik boleh menjadi contoh. Beliau pernah berkata bahawa langkah ini demi menjaga “kepentingan dunia Islam yang berdepan pelbagai cabaran.” Harakahdaily

• Pembangunan kerangka ilmiah dan pendidikan akidah
  Dengan membawa perbezaan mazhab ke dalam kerangka dialog ilmiah, ia boleh memperkasa penghasilan ulama dan penuntut yang lebih matang dalam memahami akidah, mazhab, serta realiti kekalutan pemikiran Islam moden. Seperti yang dinyatakan dalam satu kajian: “… generasi yang hanya mengikuti pengajian persekolahan semata-mata … perlu perhatian terhadap penguasaan ilmu-ilmu agama.” jais.gov.my

---

Beberapa Catatan Kritis

Walaupun terdapat potensi, terdapat beberapa catatan yang perlu diberi perhatian:

• Perlu kejelasan tentang garis pemisah akidah: Dialog tidak bermakna jika garis asas akidah tidak diiktiraf atau dipandang enteng oleh salah satu pihak. Sebahagian besar ahli Sunnah menganggap beberapa doktrin Syiah sebagai bertentangan dengan kedudukan sahabat Nabi SAW, sehingga wujud keraguan terhadap asas penyatuan. (Contoh pengkritik yang menyatakan kenyataan Hadi patut ditarik balik. ustazfathulbari.wordpress.com)

• Risiko kurangnya penerimaan umum: Walaupun pemimpin seperti Hadi membawa usaha ini, penerimaan dalam akar umbi kedua pihak mungkin lemah — jika dialog dianggap terlalu “melunak” atau terlalu “konfrontatif”, ia boleh menimbulkan penolakan.

• Perlunya pendekatan yang terstruktur: Usaha ‘mendamaikan’ perlu disertai dengan program pendidikan, penerangan bersama, dan hasil konkrit—tidak sekadar kunjungan atau kenyataan umum. Tanpa itu, usaha boleh kelihatan simbolik sahaja.

---

Kesimpulan

Usaha Abdul Hadi Awang untuk mendamaikan kelompok Ahli Sunnah dan Syiah merupakan satu inisiatif yang menarik dan mencabar dalam konteks umat Islam hari ini. Dengan status sebagai pemimpin politik dan ulama, beliau membawa pendekatan dialog, lawatan antar­mazhab, dan retorik perpaduan yang agak berbeza daripada kebanyakan naratif mazhab yang mengukuh perbezaan.

Walaupun terdapat pelbagai rintangan—baik dari sudut akidah, persepsi, mahupun politik—usaha ini menyimpan potensi untuk mencipta ruang baru bagi perpaduan ummah yang tidak semata-mata disandarkan kepada persamaan politik atau etnik, tetapi berdasarkan prinsip toleransi, keadilan dan kesedaran ilmiah.

Bagi masyarakat Malaysia yang terdiri daripada pelbagai mazhab dan aliran, pendekatan seperti ini boleh menjadi model alternatif terhadap konflik sektarian yang melanda di banyak tempat lain. Namun kejayaan sebenar akan bergantung kepada penerimaan akar umbi, ketulusan dialog, serta keberkesanan pendidikan yang menyertainya.

The Mahdi in Islam: How the Shiite and Sunni Visions Differ

In Islamic belief, the concept of the Mahdi — “the rightly guided one” — represents hope, renewal, and divine justice. The Mahdi is a messianic figure expected to appear before the Day of Judgment to restore righteousness, defeat tyranny, and establish peace. Both Sunni and Shiite Muslims share this belief in a future savior, yet their understandings of who the Mahdi is, when he will appear, and what role he will play differ in significant theological and historical ways.

While the Mahdi of Sunni Islam is an awaited reformer who will arise in the future, the Mahdi of Shiite Islam — particularly among the Twelver Shia, the largest branch — is a specific historical person: the twelfth Imam, born in the 9th century, who went into occultation and will one day return. The divergence between these two perspectives reflects deeper differences in how Sunnis and Shias view authority, leadership, and divine guidance in Islam.

---

The Origins of the Mahdi Concept

The idea of a divinely guided leader predates Islam and has echoes in earlier Near Eastern religious traditions, where expectations of a savior or just ruler were common. Within Islam, the concept took shape during the early centuries after the Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632 CE, amid political turmoil and struggles over succession.

The Prophet Muhammad himself did not use the title “Mahdi” in the Qur’an, but hadith (prophetic sayings and reports) attributed to him — found in both Sunni and Shia collections — describe a righteous descendant from his family (Ahl al-Bayt) who would fill the world with justice after it had been filled with oppression. These reports formed the seed from which later Mahdist traditions grew.

Yet, as Islamic history unfolded, the idea of the Mahdi took on different meanings in different communities — shaped by theological priorities and historical experiences.

---

The Sunni View: A Future Reformer and Just Ruler

In Sunni Islam, the Mahdi is not an existing, hidden person but a future leader who will be born shortly before the end of time. He will be a righteous Muslim, a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatimah, and will rise during a period of global turmoil and moral decay.

Characteristics of the Sunni Mahdi

• Name and Lineage: Sunni traditions often report that the Mahdi’s name will be Muhammad ibn Abdullah, mirroring the Prophet’s own name, and that he will be from the Prophet’s family (Ahl al-Bayt).

• Mission: He will restore justice, revive true Islam, and unite Muslims under righteous leadership.

• Role in the End Times: His rule will coincide with the second coming of Jesus (Isa), who will assist him in defeating the Antichrist (al-Dajjal) and establishing global peace.

• Nature: The Sunni Mahdi is not considered infallible or divine; he is a pious human leader chosen by God for a special mission.

Sunni Sources and Variations

References to the Mahdi appear in classical Sunni hadith collections such as Sunan Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah, though not all Sunni scholars consider these reports equally authentic. Some medieval scholars, like Ibn Khaldun, were skeptical about the reliability of Mahdi traditions. Nonetheless, belief in a coming Mahdi became widespread among the majority of Sunnis.

Importantly, Sunni theology does not tie the Mahdi to a specific person from history. He will arise in the future as a reformer (mujaddid) chosen by God to guide humanity through a final era of justice before the Day of Judgment.

---

The Shiite View: The Hidden Imam and Living Mahdi

In Shiite Islam, particularly the Twelver (Ithna ‘Ashari) branch, the Mahdi is not a future-born leader but a present, living Imam who has been hidden by divine will since the 9th century.

According to Twelver Shia belief, the Mahdi is Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Askari, the twelfth in the line of Imams descended from the Prophet through his daughter Fatimah and her husband Ali ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s cousin and the first Imam.

The Story of the Twelfth Imam

Imam Hasan al-Askari (the 11th Imam) died in 874 CE in Samarra (modern Iraq). His followers believe that he had a young son, Muhammad al-Mahdi, who disappeared from public view after his father’s death to protect him from persecution by the Abbasid caliphate.

This disappearance is known as the Occultation (Ghayba), and it occurs in two phases:

1. The Minor Occultation (874–941 CE): During this period, the Imam communicated with his followers through four appointed deputies.

2. The Major Occultation (since 941 CE): The Imam withdrew completely from human contact, and his direct communication ceased.

Shiites believe that the Hidden Imam is still alive, sustained by divine power, and that he will reappear at the end of time as the Mahdi, to establish God’s justice on earth.

Characteristics of the Shiite Mahdi

• Identity: He is the Twelfth Imam, born and hidden, not yet revealed to the public.

• Role: His reappearance (zuhur) will mark a cosmic turning point — he will defeat evil, restore true Islam, and rule with perfect justice.

• Nature: The Mahdi, like other Imams, is considered infallible (ma‘sum), divinely appointed, and endowed with special knowledge.

• Relation to Jesus: Like in Sunni tradition, Jesus will return and pray behind the Mahdi, symbolizing the unity of divine truth.

---

Theological Foundations of the Difference

The divergent views of the Mahdi arise from deeper theological differences between Sunni and Shia Islam.

1. Authority and Leadership

• Sunni Islam holds that leadership after the Prophet was to be determined by community consensus, hence the institution of the caliphate. The Mahdi, therefore, is seen as a future reformer, not part of an ongoing divine lineage.

• Shia Islam, however, views leadership as divinely ordained through the line of Imams descended from Ali and Fatimah. The Mahdi is the last of these Imams, whose authority and existence are continuous, even in occultation.

2. Continuity of Divine Guidance

For Sunnis, revelation ended with the Prophet Muhammad. The Mahdi’s guidance will be moral and political, not revelatory.
For Shiites, divine guidance continues through the Imamate, making the Mahdi a link in an unbroken chain of divine authority.

3. Spiritual Meaning

In Shia thought, the Hidden Imam symbolizes God’s ongoing care for humanity — an unseen but ever-present source of guidance. His eventual return represents hope and moral responsibility for the faithful.
In Sunni thought, the Mahdi represents renewal and purification of faith in times of corruption — a reminder that God will never abandon His community.

---

Historical and Political Expressions

Throughout Islamic history, Mahdist movements have appeared in both Sunni and Shia contexts, often during periods of political turmoil or social upheaval.

• In Sunni history, several leaders claimed (or were claimed) to be the Mahdi — for example, Muhammad Ahmad of Sudan in the 19th century, who led a massive anti-colonial revolt.

• In Shia history, the concept of the Hidden Imam shaped centuries of theology and politics, influencing movements in Iran, Iraq, and beyond. The 1979 Iranian Revolution, for instance, drew heavily on Mahdist imagery, though Shiite scholars warn against false claimants during the occultation.

---

Contemporary Perspectives

Today, both Sunni and Shiite Muslims continue to believe in the Mahdi, though interpretations vary. For Sunnis, he is a sign of the approaching Day of Judgment, and for Shiites, he is the awaited return of their hidden Imam.

Interfaith and intra-Muslim dialogue increasingly emphasize that both visions share a common moral goal: the triumph of justice, the defeat of oppression, and the restoration of divine order.

While the details differ, the Mahdi remains a symbol of hope — a reminder that, in the Islamic worldview, history moves toward moral fulfillment, and that faith demands both patience and ethical action while awaiting divine justice.

---

Conclusion

The Mahdi stands at the crossroads of theology, history, and hope in Islam. For Sunni Muslims, he is a future reformer who will arise before the end times; for Shiite Muslims, he is the hidden Twelfth Imam who already lives but has yet to reappear.

These two visions reflect the broader spiritual and political differences between Sunni and Shia Islam — between a faith centered on communal consensus and one rooted in hereditary divine authority. Yet, at their core, both traditions express the same yearning: that divine justice will ultimately prevail, and that humanity’s story will end in peace, righteousness, and light.

Ibn Taymiyyah fought the Shiites of his era

Ibn Taymiyyah: Context

Ibn Taymiyyah (full name: Taqī al‑Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al‑Ḥalīm ibn Taymiyyah, 1263‑1328 CE) was a Hanbali jurist, theologian, and reformer in the Mamluk period. He lived through social and political turmoil: Mongol invasions, internal disorder, sectarian tensions, competing religious doctrines (e.g. different schools of theology, Sufi practices, Shiʿite presence in certain regions). His concern was often to define “orthodox” Sunni Islam (as he saw it), to oppose innovations (bidʿah), and to safeguard what he understood as correct doctrine, creed (ʿaqīdah), practice (ʿamal), and law (sharīʿah).

Part of his intellectual project involved confrontation with different sects whose doctrines he regarded as erroneous. Among them were the Shiʿites (especially Twelver Shiʿism, often called Imāmī Shiʿism), as well as various smaller or related sects (for example Alawites / Nusayris, Druze, etc., depending on region).

---

How Ibn Taymiyyah Opposed the Shiʿites

1. Theological Refutations & Polemical Works

Ibn Taymiyyah wrote several works specifically to refute Shiʿite theological claims. The most prominent is Minhaj as‑Sunnah an‑Nabawiyyah, which is a Sunni critique of a Shiʿite Twelver theologian, Allāmah al‑Ḥillī, whose work Minhāj al‑Karamah Ibn Taymiyyah opposed. Wikipedia+1

In these works, Ibn Taymiyyah challenged several Shiʿite doctrines, including:

• The doctrine of the Imamate: who has legitimate authority after the Prophet, and what the nature of that authority is. DOAJ

• Certain theological beliefs attributed to some Shiʿites about the status of Ali ibn Abi Talib, about whether some companions erred, etc., or whether some Shiʿite beliefs crossed the line into what Ibn Taymiyyah saw as shirk (polytheism) or kufr (disbelief). He criticized additions or exaggerations in Shiʿite creed from his perspective. The Authentic Base+2DOAJ+2

He insisted on strict monotheism (tawḥīd), adherence to what he considered to be the correct creed of the Salaf (early generations), and rejected practices or beliefs that, in his view, violated those boundaries.

2. Legal / Fatwās Calling for Action

Beyond theological refutation, Ibn Taymiyyah issued legal opinions (fatwās) in which he declared some Shiʿite doctrines or groups to be outside the bounds of Islam. In some cases, he called for confrontation — understood in terms of struggle or fight — against those groups.

• According to historical sources, Ibn Taymiyyah described Shiʿites, in certain contexts, as worse (in terms of disbelief or deviation) than some other groups. EKB Journals+2Neliti+2

• He reportedly issued a fatwa to fight Shiʿites in the region of Kisrawan (in modern Lebanon), particularly in relation to military action by the Mamluk state. The context involves the Kesrouan campaigns (Kesrawan = Kisrawan) under the Mamluks, during which Shiʿite communities there (often called the Kesrawanis) were subject to military campaigns. Ibn Taymiyyah is reported to have been involved in justifying or supporting such campaigns. EKB Journals

• In addition, in his jurisprudential discussions, Ibn Taymiyyah sometimes classified certain Shiʿite beliefs as kufr (or disbelief), or at least gravely deviant, which could have legal consequences in terms of communal relations, non‑Muslim status, etc. The Authentic Base+1

3. Social and Political Dimensions

Ibn Taymiyyah's opposition to Shiʿites was not purely abstract or scholastic; it had social and political resonance in the Mamluk domains and beyond:

• Shiʿite populations existed in parts of the Levant, notably Kesrawan (Nep via Lebanon), Gabal ‘Amel, and elsewhere. The Mamluks (Sunni rulers) saw them as potentially politically problematic — partly because Shiʿite communities often had different allegiances, sometimes looked toward other Shiʿite powers (though that is debated), and sometimes were perceived as needing to be suppressed or brought under control in religious terms. Ibn Taymiyyah’s theological positions could serve to sharpen the policy case for suppression. EKB Journals

• Ibn Taymiyyah’s claims that Shiʿites had alliances or associations with groups seen by the sunnī establishment as heretical or as enemies (literal or spiritual) reinforced a view of them as not just theological dissenters but as social opponents. Neliti+1

---

Key Incidents: The Kesrawan Campaigns

One of the major historical episodes illustrating Ibn Taymiyyah’s stance in action is the Kesrawan (or Kisrawan) campaigns under the Mamluks.

• The Kesrawan region (in modern day Lebanon) had a significant Shiʿite (often Twelver) population. Under various Mamluk rulers, military campaigns were launched into Kesrawan, often with severe consequences for local Shiʿite communities — loss of life, destruction, displacement. EKB Journals

• Ibn Taymiyyah is said to have issued a fatwa and justification for such campaigns; that the Shiʿites in those areas were practicing beliefs which, from his perspective, were outside Islam and thus could be opposed by force. EKB Journals

• These campaigns were lethal and destructive: many Shiʿites were killed or captured; their property was looted; many had to flee or were displaced. The Mamluks confiscated fiefs, redistributed lands; these campaigns are documented in contemporary chroniclers. EKB Journals

---

Controversies and Nuances

Ibn Taymiyyah’s opposition to Shiʿites is controversial, for many reasons. Some points of nuance:

1. Extent of Takfīr / Accusations of Heresy
   Declaring someone a kafir is a serious matter; Ibn Taymiyyah is reported to have done so in certain circumstances. But scholars debate exactly which views or acts he considered to cross the threshold. Some of his criticisms are severe, but whether all Shiʿites were viewed as outside Islam in all contexts is contested. The Authentic Base+2EKB Journals+2

2. Expressions of Respect for Ahl al‑Bayt and Ali
   Despite his polemics, some sources affirm that Ibn Taymiyyah expressed respect for Ali ibn Abi Talib and other members of the Prophet’s family (Ahl al‑Bayt), at least in certain respects. For instance, in Al‑Aqīdah al‑Wāsiṭiyyah, he says believers accept reports from Ali; or places him among the “best men” after the Prophet in a Sunni ordering. chiite.fr+1

   These kinds of statements complicate any simple picture of outright hatred; they show that Ibn Taymiyyah did not deny certain honors due to Ali or Fatimah, etc., but nevertheless sharply opposed many Shiʿite theological claims.

3. Differing Views Among Shiʿites and Sunnis on Sources and Attributions
   Some of what is claimed about Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements comes from later sources, or from polemics. As with many medieval scholars, attribution of statements, the exact wording, and historical context matters greatly. Some alleged statements (especially about issuing fatwā to kill all Shiʿites, etc.) are debated in terms of textual attestation, context, authenticity.

4. Political vs. Theological Motivations
   It is likely not only theology but also politics, security, social order, power relations, and fear of sectarian dissent played into Ibn Taymiyyah’s stances. Rulers often used religious legitimations for suppressing groups they considered dangerous. Ibn Taymiyyah’s role was partly as jurist and theologian, who provided such legitimization.

---

Scholarly Perspectives & Criticism

Modern historians, theologians, and sectarian studies analyze Ibn Taymiyyah’s approach, and there is a range of views:

• Some see him as an uncompromising defender of Sunni orthodoxy, whose harsh rhetoric toward Shiʿites was normative for many in his milieu. They argue that Ibn Taymiyyah’s writings laid groundwork later for Salafi critiques of Shiʿism.

• Others caution that while Ibn Taymiyyah’s criticisms are strong, they must be understood in historical context: sectarian strife was more fluid then; boundaries between sects were less rigidly enforced; local dynamics varied. Some of what we see in texts is polemical rhetoric meant to persuade or warn rather than purely descriptive of every individual Shiʿite.

• Some Shiʿite scholars or writers accuse him of prejudice, of exaggeration, of misrepresenting Shiʿite beliefs, of mixing sectarian bias with polemical strategy.

• There is also scholarly work that compares Ibn Taymiyyah’s view with contemporaries like Allāmah al‑Ḥillī (Shiʿite scholar), noting that Ibn Taymiyyah’s refutation Minhaj as‑Sunnah is in response to Minhāj al‑Karamah by al‑Ḥillī. That gives an example of theological‑legal debate: doctrine of Imamate, legitimacy, etc. DOAJ

---

Implications & Legacy

Ibn Taymiyyah’s fight against Shiʿites (in theological, legal, and occasionally political/military forms) had several lasting consequences:

• His works continue to be cited among Sunni polemics against Shiʿite beliefs; they form part of the literature of theological debate and controversy even today.

• Some later movements that emphasize strict monotheism, critique of intercession or of saint veneration, or that define Sunnī‑Shiʿite boundaries rigidly draw on him for justification.

• On the Shiʿite side, his writings are often criticized, replied to; they have shaped how Shiʿite authors understand Sunni polemics; in some cases, they influence sectarian identities.

• Historians of Islam see Ibn Taymiyyah as a complex figure: one who combined scholarship, activism (religious and sometimes quasi‑political), who sought reform according to his view of the earliest generations (Salaf), and who was unafraid to confront controversial issues — in his view, for the sake of preserving what he saw as true Islam.

---

Conclusion

Ibn Taymiyyah’s conflict with the Shiʿites of his era was multifaceted:

• On the level of doctrine, he vigorously refuted Shiʿite theological beliefs, especially on Imamate, authority after the Prophet, and what he saw as innovations.

• In legal rulings, he didn’t shy away from takfīr and calls for action in certain regions when he believed Shiʿite beliefs threatened or undermined what he held as orthodox Islam.

• Politically and socially, his positions were part of larger Sunni‑Mamluk policies toward Shiʿite communities, especially in areas like Kesrawan, in which military campaigns, suppression, displacement, and persecution occurred.

• Yet his views also included acknowledgments of the status of Ali and other Ahl al‑Bayt, which complicates simple characterizations of him as pure antagonist. His writings must be read in context: theological conflict, political pressure, sectarian identity, and crisis.

The story of Ibn Taymiyyah vs. the Shiʿites is not simply one of blind animosity, but of contested doctrines, of boundary making, of theology being weaponized (in the sense of political and social consequences), and of how religious scholars in medieval Islam both shaped and were shaped by the sectarian divides of their time.

According to Shiism, All Companions of the Prophet, Muhammad are disbelievers except a few

Introduction

The status of the Prophet Muḥammad’s companions (in Arabic, al‑Ṣaḥābah) is a core point of theological divergence between Shīʿī and Sunnī Islam. While Sunnī Islam generally holds that all companions who met the Prophet in faith are to be regarded as righteous (ʿadīl) and to be defended from criticism (except where there is extremely strong evidence otherwise), many Shīʿī scholars maintain a more nuanced view. Some strong formulations — often from polemical or extreme sources — may say things like “all companions are disbelievers except a few,” but among mainstream/established Twelver Shīʿī scholarship, the position is more differentiated.

This article explores:

• What the mainstream Shīʿī scholarly positions are regarding the Companions, especially concerning righteousness, disbelief, or apostasy.

• What the textual and historical bases for these views are.

• The divergence of opinion within Shīʿī ranks.

• The common misconceptions or exaggerations.

• The implications of these views, and the controversies they generate.

---

Definitions: Who are the Companions

Before discussing what Shīʿīs believe about the companions, one must define who counts as a companion:

• The Sunnī definition generally: anyone who met or saw the Prophet Muḥammad while being a Muslim (believing), even if only for a short time, and died as a Muslim.

• The Shīʿī definition largely overlaps with this. Shīʿī scholars accept that someone who met the Prophet while believing, however briefly, is a Companion (ṣaḥābī). Islam Plus+3Al-Islam.org+3Wikishia+3

• But Shīʿī scholars often emphasize sincerity, consistency in faith (i.e., belief not only nominally but in action and loyalty), and fidelity to certain principles—especially loyalty to the Prophet’s Ahl al‑Bayt (House of the Prophet). Some companions are praised highly; others are criticized or at least judged less favourably. Wikishia+3Al-Islam.org+3Islamic Message+3

So the question “are all companions disbelievers except a few?” depends also on how “disbeliever,” “hypocrite,” “apostate,” or “rejecter” is defined, and which companions are being referred to, and what sources are cited.

---

What Mainstream Shīʿī Scholarship States

From reliable Shīʿī sources (especially Twelver), the main positions may be summarized more moderately than the absolutist statement in your prompt.

1. Not All Companions are Disbelievers
   Shīʿī scholars do not universally hold that “all companions except a few are disbelievers.” This is an over‑generalization. What is more accurate is that many Shīʿī scholars assert that among the companions there were:

   • Those who were faithful, sincere, and loyal (to the Prophet and later, especially, to ʿAli and the Ahl al‑Bayt). These are highly honoured in Shīʿī memory and considered righteous. Examples include ʿAli b. Abi Ṭālib, Salman al‑Fārisī, Miqdād ibn al‑Aswad, Abū Dharr al‑Ghifārī, Ammār ibn Yasir, Jabir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al‑Anṣārī, among others. Wikishia+3Al-Islam.org+3ShiaSunni+3

   • Those whose faith is considered weaker, whose actions were possibly inconsistent, or whose loyalty shifted after the death of the Prophet.

2. Critical Stance Toward Some Companions
   Shīʿī literature includes criticism of certain companions, especially the first three caliphs (Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, ʿUthmān) and certain others such as Muʿāwiyah. Some Shīʿī authorities accuse them of political usurpation of Ali’s rights, of opposing the Ahl al‑Bayt, or of other actions seen as unjust. In some accounts, they are described as having contributed to sedition (fitnah), deception, or wrongdoing. Islamic Message+2Valiasr AJ+2

3. Concepts of Justice (ʿAdālah) and Excellence (Islah / Wilāyah)
   In Shīʿī theology, being a companion does not automatically confer ʿadālah (justice / uprightness) or permanent virtue. Shīʿīs hold that only the Imāms from the Ahl al‑Bayt have infallibility (ʿiṣmah) in religious and moral guidance; others—even if companions—may err, commit sins, or have lapses. Being a companion is a virtue, but not proof of perfection. Wikishia+2Al-Islam.org+2

4. Some Strong Statements / Extreme Views
   Some Shīʿī scholars (especially in polemical works or certain historical writings) have made very strong, even shocking statements: for example:

   • The fifth Shīʿī Imam (in Twelver tradition) is reported in sources to have said: “People became apostates after the death of the Prophet, except three: Miqdād, Abū Dharr al‑Ghifārī, and Salman al‑Fārisī.” This is a famous narration among Shīʿī hadith collections. Islamic Message

   • Some sources declare Abū Bakr and ʿUmar as disbelievers or unbelievers in more polemical texts; these are not universally accepted as binding theology across Shīʿī schools. Islamic Message

   But these statements are not necessarily the mainstream or consensus position; rather they represent one end of interpretative and polemical literature.

---

Is “All Except a Few” a Fair Characterization?

Given the above, how accurate is the claim that “According to Shīʿīsm, all companions of the Prophet are disbelievers except a few”? It depends on what is meant:

• If taken literally (i.e. almost all companions are unbelievers, only a tiny number are true believers), that is not the position of mainstream, classical Twelver Shīʿī theology.

• If taken more loosely—as in many companions are criticized, some are revered, many are judged less favourably—then yes, that reflects something of the Shīʿī critique of certain companions.

So, one must differentiate:

1. Hard polemical claims vs normative Shīʿī theology.
   Some texts make absolutely strong claims, but many Shīʿī scholars either reject those hard statements or interpret them cautiously (e.g. as hyperbole, metaphor, or specific to certain companions in certain historical contexts).

2. Variation among Shīʿīs (Twelver, Ismaʿīlī, Zaydī, etc.) and among individual scholars. Not all Shīʿīs adopt the same views with equal strength toward every companion.

3. Theological implications: Declaring someone a disbeliever (kafir), apostate (murtad), or hypocrite (munāfiq) has serious implications in Islam. Shīʿī scholars are often cautious, and many do not officially declare certain sunnī‑venerated companions to be unbelievers, even if they strongly criticize them.

---

Key Textual and Rational Basis for Shīʿī Views

What are the sources Shīʿī scholars use to justify their position?

• Qurʾānic Verses — e.g. verses criticizing divisions, betrayal after the Prophet’s passing, admonishments concerning hypocrisy, etc. Some Shīʿīs interpret these as applying to companions who turned away or opposed what the “true line” (as they see it) after Muḥammad’s death. Al-Islam.org+2Islam Plus+2

• Hadith literature — both Shīʿī hadiths and sometimes shared hadiths that they interpret differently. For example, reports that the Prophet or Imāms warned of companions turning away. The narration about “except three” companions (Miqdād, Abū Dharr, Salman) is a Shīʿī hadith. Islamic Message

• Historical events — Shīʿī historiography often highlights events of political conflict after the Prophet’s death: the disputes over leadership, the first civil wars (fitan), the opposition of certain companions to ʿAli’s claims, etc. These become morally laden in Shīʿī thought.

• Principle of Imāmah — central to Twelver Shīʿī belief is that leadership of the Muslim community after the Prophet was meant to stay within the Ahl al‑Bayt, particularly through Imāms divinely appointed. From this standpoint, companions who opposed that principle are seen as wrong, possibly sinful or worse.

---

Variations and Counter‑Points Within Shīʿī Thought

Not all Shīʿī scholars agree in how “harshly” to judge companions. Some variations:

• Some Shīʿī scholars limit their criticism to specific companions, or to particular actions, accusing them not of full disbelief but of moral or political wrongdoing.

• Others are more cautious, especially in modern times, avoiding statements that might be taken as labelling Sunnī companions as unbelievers, due to concerns of Muslim unity, politeness, or inter‑Muslim conflict.

• There are also Shīʿī scholars who outright reject the more extreme claims (like “all companions except three are apostates”) or consider them weak in chain of transmission (ḥadīth criticism).

---

Criticisms and Sunni Responses

Among Sunnī Muslims, the Shīʿī view (especially its stronger formulations about certain companions) is often challenged on several grounds:

1. Accusation of unjust generalization — Sunnīs say that many companions are clearly praised in the Qurʾān, in hadith, and in early Muslim practice; for Shīʿīs to reject them wholesale is unfair.

2. Questioning sources or authenticity — Sunnīs often challenge the chain (isnād) or content (matn) of hadiths that Shīʿīs use to justify extreme statements.

3. Theological and scriptural arguments — Sunnīs argue that many verses of the Qurʾān refer generally to “all those who believed among the Companions” in a positive way, e.g. “Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him …” (Qurʾān 9:100) and others. They argue these verses contradict sweeping claims of widespread apostasy or disbelief.

4. Avoidance of declaring large groups disbelievers — Sunnīs see characterizing large numbers of companions as unbelievers as problematic, both in terms of scriptural evidence and for community unity.

---

Why the Idea of “All Companions Except a Few” Persists

Several reasons why this strong formula appears in discourse:

• Polemical literature playing to sectarian identities often sharpens statements for effect. Writers may use hyperbole or strong renditions to signal allegiance to the Ahl al‑Bayt and critique perceived injustice.

• Simplification by followers / laypeople — complex theological positions get simplified, sometimes exaggerated, in popular belief or internet content, turning “many companions criticised” into “all except few are disbelievers.”

• Certain hadiths / narrations in Shīʿī sources being cited out of context or without the commonist scholarly caveats (regarding reliability, chain strength, context, etc.)

---

What the Strongest Shīʿī Statements Are, & How They Are Interpreted

Some of the strongest statements are:

• The narration that “everyone became an apostate after the Prophet except three (Miqdād, Abū Dharr, Salman).” This is widely quoted among Shīʿīs. But scholars debate its chain reliability, what “apostate” means here, and whether it refers to literal disbelief or metaphorical opposition. Islamic Message

• Accusations against Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, etc., in Shīʿī polemical works: they are sometimes described as kāfir (disbeliever) or nāṣir of injustice. But many Twelver Shīʿī scholars stop short of declaring them unbelievers in dogmatic rulings, especially in more recent times.

Interpretive options used by Shīʿī scholars to contain or understand these claims:

• Distinguishing legal apostasy from moral fault / political opposition / sin. Not all wrong actions equal disbelief in Shīʿī jurisprudence.

• Using metaphorical, allegorical, or conditional readings: some statements may be commentary, or may refer to “in the sight of Allah” or in some future judgment, not legal verdicts in this life.

• Emphasizing selective acceptance: only hadiths or narrations with strong authenticity are used; weaker ones are set aside.

---

Conclusion

• The claim “According to Shīʿīsm, all companions of the Prophet are disbelievers except a few” is too strong and misrepresents mainstream Twelver Shīʿī theology.

• Mainstream Shīʿī belief holds that there are three broad categories of companions:

  1. Those who were faithful, loyal, sincere, and among the “best companions”

  2. Those who accepted Islam and were companions, but were not especially strong or consistent

  3. Those who are criticized for hypocrisy, opposition, or betrayal (especially after the Prophet’s death)

• Some companions are honoured, some are criticized; the Shīʿī position is selective, not wholesale condemnation.

• But certain Shīʿī texts, especially older or more polemical ones, contain statements that seem to come very close to saying almost all companions outside of a small group are disbelievers or apostates. These are often debated, with dispute about whether they are to be understood literally or metaphorically, and whether they are weak or strong hadiths.

• Because of the sensitivity of the topic — many Muslims (both Shīʿī and Sunnī) believe respect for the companions is important — views on this are frequently debated, sometimes heatedly, and sometimes simplified in ways that distort nuance.