Sunni sect was created by Jews

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

So a person who denies a necessity of religion is a Kafir but Imamah isn't a necessity? Or is it that they're excused because of doubts? If so, a Mujassim or a Jabri or etc... Are also in doubt regarding necessities.

As for Khawarij, they were popularly known for their devoutness and worship yet they're Nawasib. Also I remind you of the countless narrations declaring the Kufr of the regular non-Nasibi Rejecters of Imamah, Al Khui above said that our Kufr is Mutawatir However:

والأخبار الواردة بهذا المضمون وإن كانت من الكثرة بمكان إلاّ أنه لا دلالة لها على نجاسة المخالفين ، إذ المراد فيها بالكفر ليس هو الكفر في مقابل الاسلام وإنما هو في مقابل الايمان

He said that it is Kufr muqabil Iman not Kufr muqabil Islam. I wonder then how come the Khawarij are treated as Kufr muqabil Islam.

All in all, Khui said narrations about the Kufr of Sunnies are Mutawatir

ما ورد في الروايات الكثيرة البالغة حد الاستفاضة من أن المخالف لهم (عليهم السلام) كافر

And he said that Sunnies are apparently treated as Muslims even though in reality they're Kuffar:

وإسلامهم ظاهراً بلا فرق في ذلك بين أهل الخلاف وبين غيرهم وإن كان جميعهم في الحقيقة كافرين

They're excused because of doubts, and because it is asl of the madhab not of the deen.

However if it is asl of the deen, such as tawheed and nubuwaah (basically the shahadatayn) then they are not excused whether it be due to doubts or anything else.

Although in reality, they are both the same in terms of kufr. The only difference is the first person (who denies Imamah) has a share in the outward Islam when it comes to laws such as marriage, for example.

I don't like Sayyed Al-Haydari very much, however, in this video he explains the difference quite well (between those who made Imamah an asl of the deen and those who made it an asl of the madhab).

Short video:

https://youtu.be/ajXGOemiKmY

So basically, they all agree on the kufr of the Sunnis - and while some ulama say Sunnis are kafir by thahir and batin, other ulama say Sunnis are to be treated as Muslims in terms of Fiqh Ahkam, but in reality they are kafir.

P.S I want to say I noticed that people have been replying to me, and I am sorry that I haven't replied back to everyone, I am busy celebrating Eid with friends and family. I will assure you I will get back to you in due time, so don't worry about that.

[Hani]

So basically, they all agree on the kufr of the Sunnis - and while some ulama say Sunnis are kafir by thahir and batin, other ulama say Sunnis are to be treated as Muslims in terms of Fiqh Ahkam, but in reality they are kafir.

Great, we believe based on experience that is mainly due to Taqiyyah not due to "doubts". Muhammad (saw) didn't keep Aisha except for Taqiyyah, `Ali married his daughter off as Taqiyyah, Hasan kept his wife as Taqiyyah, `Ali bin Musa married the Caliph's daughter out of Taqiyyah etc... They'll tell you "The Imams treated non-Shia as Muslims, prayed behind them, ate their food etc..." But all of that according to many Shia narrations, is due to Taqiyyah not "doubts".

I'll listen to the Haydari thing.
Longer version:

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

So basically, they all agree on the kufr of the Sunnis - and while some ulama say Sunnis are kafir by thahir and batin, other ulama say Sunnis are to be treated as Muslims in terms of Fiqh Ahkam, but in reality they are kafir.

Great, we believe based on experience that is mainly due to Taqiyyah not due to "doubts". Muhammad (saw) didn't keep Aisha except for Taqiyyah, `Ali married his daughter off as Taqiyyah, Hasan kept his wife as Taqiyyah, `Ali bin Musa married the Caliph's daughter out of Taqiyyah etc... They'll tell you "The Imams treated non-Shia as Muslims, prayed behind them, ate their food etc..." But all of that according to many Shia narrations, is due to Taqiyyah not "doubts".

I'll listen to the Haydari thing.
Longer version:

It is not due to taqiyya. It is due to whether you believe Imamah is an asl of the madhab, or asl of the deen. It has nothing to do with taqiyya.

Not even one faqih I have ever seen has said this is due to taqiyya. This is a weak argument my friend, I am sorry.

[Hani]

Those who said Asl of Madhab not of Deen ignored the plentiful narrations due to necessity of Taqiyyah. They felt it was in their best interest as a community to treat the opponents as Muslims apparently and outwardly (exactly as Khui said) while believing in their Kufr internally.

That's our opinion and our reading based on the statement of scholars and the narrations.

[GreatChineseFall]

The distinction asl of madhab and asl of deen would only make sense if there were other madhahib that are accepted. That of course is not the case from the twelver point of view. Sounds like just a smokescreen to confuse the masses.

Basically in their view, Imamah is an asl of the madhab and not of the deen but the madhab itsself is an asl of deen as the madhab of the Ahl al Bayt is the only acceptable one. Meaning, even if they don't list it as such, your deen is worthless if you don't accept this particular madhab(which is derived from the concept of Imamah in the first place!) and making it thus a necessity of the deen. Then, to make things fuzzy, they can then claim that Imamah is only a necessity of the madhab and not of the deen.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

The distinction asl of madhab and asl of deen would only make sense if there were other madhahib that are accepted. That of course is not the case from the twelver point of view. Sounds like just a smokescreen to confuse the masses.

Basically in their view, Imamah is an asl of the madhab and not of the deen but the madhab itsself is an asl of deen as the madhab of the Ahl al Bayt is the only acceptable one. Meaning, even if they don't list it as such, your deen is worthless if you don't accept this particular madhab(which is derived from the concept of Imamah in the first place!) and making it thus a necessity of the deen. Then, to make things fuzzy, they can then claim that Imamah is only a necessity of the madhab and not of the deen.

No one is trying to make a smokescreen, I have no idea what you're talking about. The distinction serves a great purpose:

- Someone who disbelieves in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwah) is a kafir. Outwardly and in batin.

- Someone who believes in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwahl) ONLY while disbelieving in the Usool of the Madhab (Imamah, Adl) is to be treated as a Muslim and considered a Muslim - outwardly - but his reality is kufr. And he is not treated as a Mu'min (there are differences in Fiqhi Laws between Mu'mins and only Muslim).

This is if, as far as I have learnt, only if their disbelief in Imamah and Adl is due to shubha or jahl or something which doesn't obligate rejection of what the Prophet has done tabligh about.

- Someone who believes in all five Usools is a Muslim and a Mu'min. He will go to Jannah.

It serves a great distinction in the way you treat people and how you go about in your daily life such as marriage and food and purity of people, returning of the salam, and other things such as qisas, etc...

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Edit.

[Hani]

Quick question, if we're to be treated as Muslims according to al-Khu'i, why is it allowed according to Khu'i to backbite us and cause us harm through scheming and tricking us?

ثبت في الروايات(1) والأدعية والزيارات جواز لعن المخالفين ، ووجوب البراءة منهم ، وإكثار السبّ عليهم ، واتّهامهم ، والوقيعة فيهم ـ  أي غيبتهم ـ لأنّهم من أهل البدع والريب(2). بل لا شبهة في كفرهم ، لأنّ إنكار الولاية والأئمّة حتّى الواحد منهم ، والاعتقاد بخلافة غيرهم ، وبالعقائد الخرافية كالجبر ونحوه يوجب الكفر والزندقة ، وتدلّ عليه الأخبار المتواترة الظاهرة في كفر منكر الولاية ، وكفر المعتقد بالعقائد المذكورة وما يشبهها من الضلالات

He also said here that denying one of the Imams or believing in the Imamah of other than the twelve no doubt necessites Kufr. How'd he make a switch and become a Takfiri here?

Or is backbiting and plotting against muslims a teachings from the teachings of Shiasm?

As for not doing Qada' for the prayers missed as a Sunni after converting to Shiasm, Khu'i says it's because the condition of being a Sunni is literally a lot worse than missing some prayers:

إنّ الحال التي كنت عليها أعظم من ترك ما تركت من الصلاة

Then he follows it by saying:

نعم قد ثبت حكم الإسلام على بعضهم في بعض الأحكام فقط تسهيلا للأمر ، وحقناً للدماء

"True, they are considered Muslims when it comes to certain rulings, ONLY TO MAKE THINGS EASY FOR US AND TO AVOID BLOOD-SHED."

So they're treated as Muslims ONLY in certain rulings of Islam, so they're not exactly Muslims according to you guys. Furthermore, he says it is done to lighten the burden off of the Shia (sounds like Taqiyyah) and to avoid spilling blood (which would have been Shia blood).

[Hadrami]

Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?

I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.

Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.

It may contradict the belief in Nubuwwah

In regards to contradicting the belief in Nubuwwah, there is a shia narration which states that denying mahdi (or was it any of 12 imam) is equal to rejecting Nabi shallallahu alayhi wasallam's nubuwwah. Anyone care to confirm if that's authentic?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Quick question, if we're to be treated as Muslims according to al-Khu'i, why is it allowed according to Khu'i to backbite us and cause us harm through scheming and tricking us?

ثبت في الروايات(1) والأدعية والزيارات جواز لعن المخالفين ، ووجوب البراءة منهم ، وإكثار السبّ عليهم ، واتّهامهم ، والوقيعة فيهم ـ  أي غيبتهم ـ لأنّهم من أهل البدع والريب(2). بل لا شبهة في كفرهم ، لأنّ إنكار الولاية والأئمّة حتّى الواحد منهم ، والاعتقاد بخلافة غيرهم ، وبالعقائد الخرافية كالجبر ونحوه يوجب الكفر والزندقة ، وتدلّ عليه الأخبار المتواترة الظاهرة في كفر منكر الولاية ، وكفر المعتقد بالعقائد المذكورة وما يشبهها من الضلالات

He also said here that denying one of the Imams or believing in the Imamah of other than the twelve no doubt necessites Kufr. How'd he make a switch and become a Takfiri here?

Or is backbiting and plotting against muslims a teachings from the teachings of Shiasm?

As for not doing Qada' for the prayers missed as a Sunni after converting to Shiasm, Khu'i says it's because the condition of being a Sunni is literally a lot worse than missing some prayers:

إنّ الحال التي كنت عليها أعظم من ترك ما تركت من الصلاة

Then he follows it by saying:

نعم قد ثبت حكم الإسلام على بعضهم في بعض الأحكام فقط تسهيلا للأمر ، وحقناً للدماء

"True, they are considered Muslims when it comes to certain rulings, ONLY TO MAKE THINGS EASY FOR US AND TO AVOID BLOOD-SHED."

So they're treated as Muslims ONLY in certain rulings of Islam, so they're not exactly Muslims according to you guys. Furthermore, he says it is done to lighten the burden off of the Shia (sounds like Taqiyyah) and to avoid spilling blood (which would have been Shia blood).

Because you're not mu'min. It is only haram to backbite mu'mins (some scholars seem to have allowed backbiting fasiqs even if they're Twelvers to be halal, at least in their public acts fisq, so that too). The condition for the hurma of gheeba is iman. Khomeini explained this well in Al-Makasib Al-Muharrama.

Al-Khoei here is talking about the reality of the situation, which is the fact that Sunnis in reality are kuffar. There is no switch, you need to look at things wholly.

Yes, not being a Twelver is worse than not praying, no issues with that. My point was that the laws of Islam are upon Sunnis, in this regard. Also by the way, when it comes to Hajj too (with a little more detail I believe).

Now, as for what Al-Khoei said is the point of these rulings, that is the reason for these rulings but not the means which the fuqaha use to get to deduce these rulings (which has been explained in the discussions above). The Imams may very well have told us to treat Sunnis as Muslims due the reasons Sayyed Al-Khoei has stated (although some other scholars may disagree with this).

Which is why I believe Allama Al-Majlisi says these rulings will change once the Imam (as) has returned, to which the hujjah will befall upon the Sunnis these time outwardly, and disbelief will result in out and out kufr both dhahir and batin because there will be no shubha anymore.

Are Qadiyanis Muslim as per al-Khoei?

I would assume not. Haven't seen him explictly say anything regarding them.

Why? They claim to believe in shahadatayn and Day of judgement. Which this criteria he must believe they are Muslims as well.

It may contradict the belief in Nubuwwah

In regards to contradicting the belief in Nubuwwah, there is a shia narration which states that denying mahdi (or was it any of 12 imam) is equal to rejecting Nabi shallallahu alayhi wasallam's nubuwwah. Anyone care to confirm if that's authentic?

In reality, there is no difference. The only difference is the Fiqh Laws and outward treatment differs. But in reality they are the same.

[Hadrami]

well there you go. How can someone reject nubuwwah of Rasulullah shallallahu alayhi wasallam, but at the same time accept he is a Nabi? 😂

So we reject your mahdi=reject Nabi, but we are muslim? You just contradict yourself again 😆

[Hani]

Perfect, I believe I illustrated what I had in mind in this thread.

Thank you for your time.

[Hadrami]

Perfect, I believe I illustrated what I had in mind in this thread.

Thank you for your time.

Isnt it amazing that shia, the largest takfiri group in the world is seen by outsiders as a group which is against takfir practices the most. Even the khawarij of today is mild in comparison to shia

[Abu Muhammad]

WHAT A DECEPTIVE PLAY OF WORDS!… AMAZING. REALLY…

Why don't Twelvers call us munafiq since what you have described above suits with the attributes of munafiqun? Is it because fear of something? (taqiyyah smell is in the air)…

[GreatChineseFall]

No one is trying to make a smokescreen, I have no idea what you're talking about. The distinction serves a great purpose:

- Someone who disbelieves in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwah) is a kafir. Outwardly and in batin.

- Someone who believes in the Usool of the Deen (tawhid, nubuwwahl) ONLY while disbelieving in the Usool of the Madhab (Imamah, Adl) is to be treated as a Muslim and considered a Muslim - outwardly - but his reality is kufr. And he is not treated as a Mu'min (there are differences in Fiqhi Laws between Mu'mins and only Muslim).

This is if, as far as I have learnt, only if their disbelief in Imamah and Adl is due to shubha or jahl or something which doesn't obligate rejection of what the Prophet has done tabligh about.

- Someone who believes in all five Usools is a Muslim and a Mu'min. He will go to Jannah.

It serves a great distinction in the way you treat people and how you go about in your daily life such as marriage and food and purity of people, returning of the salam, and other things such as qisas, etc...

I am not saying that the distinction between how you treat certain people and what you believe them to be is a useful distinction. I am talking about the distinction between something being an asl of the deen and somethin being an asl of the madhab if the madhab itsself is a necessity of the deen. You CANNOT claim that something is not an asl of the deen and consider everyone who doesn't believe in that to be not a Mu'min or a Muslim. (Because you also don't believe Sunni's to be Muslims. What matters here is their reality, not how you treat them)

Consider this, let's say I say that the asl of the deen is only to believe in Allah and no other deities and the belief in the Prophets is an asl of my madhab, the madhab of the last Prophet(s.a.w.s.). And I call all Christians and Jews and other supposedly monotheists as Muslims and I treat them as such but not as Mu'mins and in reality they are all kuffaar. Then I say that the prohibition on backbiting is not the right of a Muslim but a Mu'min. Furthermore all these other rights are rights of Mu'mins, not Muslims(Basically whether or not it's convenient, I can simply make up which rights I want to grant them and which ones not, except for the clearly mentioned ones in the Qur'an). Does it REALLY make sense to call them Muslims then? What is the difference if I don't and give them the same rights as here?

In reality, there is no difference. The only difference is the Fiqh Laws and outward treatment differs. But in reality they are the same.

Isn't Taqiyyah to express outwardly what you don't believe internally? Isn't that exactly what you are saying here?

[GreatChineseFall]

I am not saying that the distinction between how you treat certain people and what you believe them to be is a useful distinction.

Correction: I mean useless of course

[MuslimAnswers]

Why don't Twelvers call us munafiq since what you have described above suits with the attributes of munafiqun? Is it because fear of something? (taqiyyah smell is in the air)…

It doesn't seem a proper or consistent response from the Twelver side: We can say that we must treat the Munaafiq as Muslims in this world precisely because of the fact that the Munaafiqs are following absolutely all the rules and say they believe in absolutely everything of Islam, so we judge them based on their outward pronouncements and actions. If they were to say something of clear rejection of the necessities of Islam, they are not treated as Muslims anymore.

I fail to see how we Sunnis would be classified as 'Muslims in this world, Disbelievers in the Next' under Twelver rules, since we absolutely reject their Imamah concept just as we reject the Trinity of the Christians, and we are proud of this rejection. It is definitely not a matter of equivocation in our speech or in our way of presenting our position; that is, unless Twelvers themselves are not sure what to make of Imamah and thus they project their own insecurities on others through clever strategies.

[GreatChineseFall]

Exactly, they can't call Sunni's Munafiqun because a Munafiq is by definition someone you can't distinguish from a true believer, at least not with certainty and thus must be treated as such and Allah will deal with him in the afterlife. In the case of Sunni's who reject Imamah, ie are disbelievers that is totally different.

I have strongly the impression these narratives are because of the position Shia's were in historically and just said for convenience. It's like an animal is told "We will consider you a horse with all his rights, but when you die you will have the body and skeleton of a donkey and we will bury you in the cemetery for donkey's, because in reality you are just a donkey". And then, when the animal says: "Then, why do you let me carry so much weight, I am to be treated as a horse, right? At least let me carry less weight." And then it's said: "No, no you are to be treated as horse, not a purebred horse, that is the right of a purebred." I mean, you have to be an idiot to consider such a view as honest.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Perfect, I believe I illustrated what I had in mind in this thread.

Thank you for your time.

Isnt it amazing that shia, the largest takfiri group in the world is seen by outsiders as a group which is against takfir practices the most. Even the khawarij of today is mild in comparison to shia

Because, you fool, we are not going around chopping heads of other people.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

WHAT A DECEPTIVE PLAY OF WORDS!… AMAZING. REALLY…

Why don't Twelvers call us munafiq since what you have described above suits with the attributes of munafiqun? Is it because fear of something? (taqiyyah smell is in the air)…

No it doesn't. You need to educate yourself.