Imamah: usul al-din or usul al-mathab?

[confusedshia]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

[Abu Muhammad]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Thank you for admitting it: "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality"

The biggest takfiree group, at last...

[Farid]

As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

[Abu Muhammad]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.

If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...

[confusedshia]

As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.

[Farid]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/

This might be useful to you.

[confusedshia]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/

This might be useful to you.

I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.

If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.

Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.

[confusedshia]

As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.

Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.

i don't know who zlatan is. i'm speaking of my experience with other shia indviduals who follow the likes of sistani, and the shia scholars i have interacted with about this.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Thank you for yours and everyone elses reply. However, I believe his argument is that because it is usul al-mathab, the rejection of Imamah does not amount to kufr akbar and remove someone from the fold of Islam or prevent them from being judged as a Muslim in the akhira.

Thats not what zlatan wrote. He said the one who disbelieves in this part of usul al madhab is treated as a kafir in the akhirah.

i don't know who zlatan is. i'm speaking of my experience with other shia indviduals who follow the likes of sistani, and the shia scholars i have interacted with about this.

My bad. You must have meant sistani. I mistook you for referring to zlatan the guy who posted on this thread.

[Abu Muhammad]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/

This might be useful to you.

I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.

If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.

@confusedshia

Could you ask those people to elaborate the one that I highlighted above. What is the "confusion now" and "things aren't clear as they once were"?

[iceman]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Thank you for admitting it: "Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality"

The biggest takfiree group, at last...

It sounds like you've scored a goal at last. 😃

[iceman]

As the brothers have said, it really makes no major difference if Sunnis are going to rot in hell in the end.

Relax, don't take it too seriously. 😊

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.

If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...

Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.

As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.

[Farid]

http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/09/03/are-sunnis-going-to-hell/

This might be useful to you.

I think it was you said that before (maybe someone else), shia theology appears to be evolving and shias rely on contemporary scholars more so than classical ones today - I think this is the case. All of the Shia scholars I have spoken to have told me that a Sunni from our era may be judged as a Muslim, because we live in an age of confusion and things are no longer as clear for people as they once were. This seems to be the mainstream position amongst contemporary Shia scholars in my experience, as opposed to the classical scholars like al-mufid, who say whoever rejects one of the 12 imams is a kafir.

If Shia theology isn't evolving, then they are lying to me. I hope it is the former.

Hmmm... I don't know about the people that are speaking to you, however, the views above are the orthodox Shia views. If an orthodox Shiasm does exist, then it is the one that believes in eternal hellfire for Sunnis.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Sayyed Al-Khoei said a kafir who is jahil taqsiri is not worthy of punishment.

[Abu Muhammad]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.

If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...

Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.

As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.

Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".

When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):

Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".

Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)

....  no more taqiyyah.

Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Salam,

When I enquired into Quranic proof of Imamah with some Shia, they told me that such burden of proof is not required as with belief in Allah or the Angels, or His Books, Messengers, etc... because according to them, Sistani says that Imamah is usul al-mathab and not usul al-din.

Did Sistani really say this? And does it being usul al-mathab lower the burden of proof?

Usool Al-Deen and Usool Al-Madhab is the same thing in reality (because the madhab of Ahlulbayt is true Islam) - the difference is a mainly Fiqhi one, as far as I have seen.

What I have deduced is this:

If we were to say it is Usool Al-Deen, like tawheed and nubuwaah and qiyamah for example, then we would consider anyone who disbelieves in it as treated as a kafir both in this world and akhira. And some Shi'i scholars have leaned towards that.

But if we were to say it is Usool Al-Madhab, then the ruling may be different. Since the disbeliever in it may be treated as a Muslim in dunya, but he will be treated as a kafir in the akhira.

Not quite right a "fiqhi" one. More towards a "taqiyyah" one.

If you were the biggest sect, that "fiqh" will definitely change...

Has nothing to do with size. A man could create his own sect right now with 5 people and if he believes in Tawheed, Nubuwwah and Qiyamah he will be treated as a Muslim.

As for when this ruling will change, it is said when Imam Al-Mahdi (as) returns.

Thank you very much for stating that. That is exactly what I meant by "the biggest".

When your 12th imam reappear (as per your belief):

Imam al-Sajjad (a) is quoted as saying that "When our al-Qa'im rises, God will remove fear from the hearts of our Shiites".

Imam Muhammad b. Ali al-Baqir (peace be upon him) has replied, “For a full eight months, he will have his sword unsheathed and will kill the enemies of God until God is satisfied.” (Al-Ghaybah)

....  no more taqiyyah.

Hence, that usul al-mazhab 'twisting' is more towards taqiyyah rather than fiqh issue...

No, it does not. It is related to shubha, where it is said one can regard the mukhalifeen as Muslims due to the fact that there is a shubha on whether haqq is with the Shi'a or not.

When the Mahdi arrives, this shubha will be lifted as the mukhalifeen will have no choice but to believe - because he will be there calling to himself and to the true Islam. If they reject, they will be regarded as kafir in both dunya and akhira, as opposed to only akhira, as some scholars have stated.

I do not know why you are still trying to argue the taqiyya point. No one has ever said this.