Nasb-and-the-Nawasib

opposition will set in due to this stance? And if it is fine to consider the Kāmiliyyah
to be part of the Shīʿah, then it should be also fine to consider the Khawārij to be
part of the Shīʿah because they were initially from his supporters and partisans.
Furthermore, when the scholars say that the Kāmiliyyah are from the Rawāfiḍ,
it does not imply that they remained Rawāfiḍ even after the stance they took.
Rather it means that in terms of their origin they and the Shīʿah were born out of
the same Shīʿī roots.
Proof 2: The Rawāfiḍ impugn some of the Mothers of the Believers, ʿAbbās I,
and others besides them despite them all being from the Ahl al-Bayt, 1 and it goes
without doubt that whoever harasses any member of the Ahl al-Bayt is a Nāṣibī,
as is stated by Ibn Taymiyah who has defined them by saying, “They verbally and
by action harass the Ahl al-Bayt. 2
This proof also cannot be accepted, for whoever knew Naṣb or dealt with some
of its issues has never identified a similarity between it and them. Hence the
scholars, of ancient and of recent, have not spoken a word referring to Naṣb when
discussing the issue of ʿĀʾishah J being accused after she was exonerated by
Allah E. As for the generality in the definition ‘they harass the Ahl al-Bayt
verbally or by action’ the generality here is restricted to ʿAlī I and his progeny;
this falls under the principle of mentioning a general but intending a specific. An
example of this would be to say that the Rawāfiḍ revile all the Ṣaḥābah M and
despise them, 3 but it is well known that they do not revile ʿAlī, Salmān, Abū Dhar,
and others. 4
Furthermore, Ibn Taymiyah himself has mentioned the harassment of the Rawāfiḍ
toward many members of the Ahl al-Bayt besides the ʿAlawī branch, but still did
1 Al-ʿAqīdah fī Ahl al-Bayt bayn al-Ifrāṭ wa al-Tafrīṭ p. 533.
2 Majmūʿ Fatāwā Shaykh al-Islām 3/154.
3 Ibid. 3/154.
4 Al-Tanbīh wa al-Radd ʿalā Ahl al-Ahwāʾ wa al-Bidaʿ 1/13; al-Badʾ wa al-Tārīkh 5/127.
96