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

[GreatChineseFall]

Interesting questions. There seems to be a difference of opinion amongst the fuqaha regarding what constitutes rejectness.

There are very important Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim as well as of course, the punishment in akhira. If you want I can go through them.

Yeah sure, please do if it is not too much trouble. Please keep in mind that I didn't define reject either, so any scholar can put any definition he wants. Or do you mean that there are scholars that reject the very notion of "rejection due to shubha" or "rejection due to jahl"? If the differences can be clarified with examples like my example it would help even more. Also the issue of tahreef for example is an interesting case and if it leads to rejection of a fundamental part of Adl or Imamah.

This is why you have a filthy heart. You fool, not every nasibi is najis. You read stuff online in English from zindeeq websites like these and their liking which are created by your retarded Wahabi brethren.

Read ya ghabi if you can even read Arabic;

والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا  دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .

To be fair, his statement "Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi" and your quote are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can be that Abu Bakr is a special case whereby loving him necessitates hating the Ahl al Bayt (due to him killing Fatima for example) and your quote could be talking about other Shia sects who reject some of the Imams.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Yeah sure, please do if it is not too much trouble. Please keep in mind that I didn't define reject either, so any scholar can put any definition he wants. Or do you mean that there are scholars that reject the very notion of "rejection due to shubha" or "rejection due to jahl"? If the differences can be clarified with examples like my example it would help even more. Also the issue of tahreef for example is an interesting case and if it leads to rejection of a fundamental part of Adl or Imamah.

To be fair, his statement "Loving Abu Bakr is enough to make a sunni to be considered as kafir and najis nasibi" and your quote are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It can be that Abu Bakr is a special case whereby loving him necessitates hating the Ahl al Bayt (due to him killing Fatima for example) and your quote could be talking about other Shia sects who reject some of the Imams.

Of course there are scholars who reject the notion of rejection through shubha. Some said that non-Twelvers are out and out kafir and najis, among them Shaykh Al-Bahrani (rah).

Some Fiqhi differences between a Mu'min and a Muslim only;

- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min is not entitled to khums or zakat
- a Muslim who is not a Mu'min cannot give testimony for most things in court even if he is a truthful person
- according to majority of ulama, gheeba and sabb is only haram if it is directed towards a Mu'min
- prayer behind someone who is not a Mu'min is not valid, therefore the one who joins them in congregation does not pray in the same way one prays behind a Mu'min (i.e his niyyah is different).

The scholars differed on what is considered a rejection of a certain asl of the usool. Does disbelief in isma necessiate rejection of Imamah, for example? For example, Shaykh Al-Ansari (rah) says it doesn't.

So what necessiates rejection of an asl is differed upon.

Actually my quote is clear and was in reply to the narrations that say those who hate the Shi'a are nasibis. The Sayyed (rah) says not every nasibi is najis, and only [my point is here] the nasibi who has emnity towards Ahlulbayt (as) is najis.

In fact in another place he says even those who waged a war on the Imam (as) but not out of hatred for him - even they are not najis. Because what necessiates najasa is emnity towards them (as).

[muslim720]

In fact in another place he says even those who waged a war on the Imam (as) but not out of hatred for him - even they are not najis. Because what necessiates najasa is emnity towards them (as).

So in that case, Muawiya - fighting for no other reason but for the qisas of Uthman (ra) - is not najis?  Why, then, all the hula palooza?

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

So in that case, Muawiya - fighting for no other reason but for the qisas of Uthman (ra) - is not najis?  Why, then, all the hula palooza?

That's exactly why Sayyed Al-Khomeini ruled that Mu'awiyah was not najis.

Although other Shi'i scholars disagreed with this reading of history, but if it can be proven that Mu'awiyah did not fight out of hatred, then he was not najis according to the mabani of Al-Khoei and others.

[muslim720]

That's exactly why Sayyed Al-Khomeini ruled that Mu'awiyah was not najis.

Although other Shi'i scholars disagreed with this reading of history, but if it can be proven that Mu'awiyah did not fight out of hatred, then he was not najis according to the mabani of Al-Khoei and others.

Alhamdulilah, one more thing we all can agree on without going around in circles.  My contention, however, is with the word games.  Is it usool al-deen or madhhab? 

One learned Shia brother stated the following, "The Usool Al-Deen and Furoo` Al-Deen is not mentioned in ANY hadeeth.  The scholars have put this together much later on.  So you won't find aHaadeeth from the Ahl Al-Bayt (as) that says.  The Usool Al-Deen says, 'The Usool Al-Deen is....and the Furoo` Al-Deen is....'.  Actually there is a Hadeeth that talks about the pillars of faith, and it looks like the Sunnee's pillar of faith, but with Wilaayah put in there."

When asked for these narrations, he cited:
“I requested Aboo `Abd Allaah (as) ‘Teach me, please, the principles of beliefs. The Imam (as) said, ‘They are: to testify and affirm that there is no one who deserves to be worshipped except Allah, to testify and affirm that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and to affirm that whatever he has taught is from Allah. (It is of the principles of beliefs) to affirm and accept that there is 5 salaah (prayers), to pay Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fast) in the month of RamaDaan and to perform Hajj of the House (of Allah). (It is of the principles of beliefs) to love those who love us (‘A’immah from the family of the Messenger of Allah), to disown our enemies and to become part of the group of the truthful ones. (All such issues are of principles and obligatory matters).’”

    Source:
    Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 2
    Grading:
    Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
    --> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 101



“Aboo Ja`far (as) has said, ‘Islam is based on five principles. They are: Salaah, al-Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fasting), Hajj and al-Wilayah.  The call to none of the other principles has been so emphatic as it has been to al-Wilayah.  People accepted the other four but they left aside this [al-Wilayah].’”

    Source:
    Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 3
    Grading:
    Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq Kal-SaHeeH (Reliable like a SaHeeH (hadeeth))
    --> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 116


Why would people accept the other four but leave the simplest one out?  Wilayah, like belief in redemption through Christ, is just a belief.  Of the five, it would be the easiest of them all (to abide by).  The key phrase in all of this is, "The scholars have put this together much later on".

Brother Nader also referenced his own blog (where he has shared the same hadiths): http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/5-foundation-pillars-of-imaan-faith.html

In the comments section, some brother, Wasil, commented by saying, "Wilayat is from furu al-islam and it's one of the pillars of iman and without it iman is inadequate but to say that everybody who doesn't believe in it is kaffir is very extreme and contradicts quran and hadith." 

The question I have, then, is, why believe in something so problematic which contradicts the Qur'an and Hadith?  Why even bother giving it different spins or painting different pictures of it?  Which one is easier?  Having endless discussions which lead us no where leaving a vast majority of a population of 1.7 billion in doubt, feeling as though they may have violated Islam, or simply admitting that it is not in the Qur'an and Sunnah?  And if it is not in Qur'an and Sunnah then adios, bye bye, see ya later!

[Hadrami]

This is why you have a filthy heart. You fool, not every nasibi is najis. You read stuff online in English from zindeeq websites like these and their liking which are created by your retarded Wahabi brethren.

Read ya ghabi if you can even read Arabic;

والجواب عن ذلك أن غاية ما يمكن استفادته من هذه الأخبار أن كل مخالف للأئمة (عليهم السلام) ناصبي إلاّ أن ذلك لا يكفي في الحكم بنجاسة أهل الخلاف ، حيث لا  دليل على نجاسة كل ناصب ، فان النصب إنما يوجب النجاسة فيما إذا كان لهم (عليهم السلام) وأما النصب لشيعتهم فان كان منشؤه حبّ الشيعة لأمير المؤمنين وأولاده (عليهم السلام) ولذلك نصب لهم وأبغضهم فهو عين النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) لأنه إعلان لعداوتهم ببغض من يحبهم ، وأما إذا كان منشؤه عدم متابعتهم لمن يرونه خليفة للنبي (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم) من غير أن يستند إلى حبهم لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام) بل هو بنفسه يظهر الحب لعلي وأولاده (عليهم السلام) فهذا نصب للشيعة دون الأئمة (عليهم السلام) إلاّ أن النصب للشيعة لا يستتبع النجاسة بوجه ، لما تقدّم من الأخبار والسيرة القطعية القائمة على طهارة المخالفـين ، فالنصب المقتضي للنجاسة إنما هو خصوص النصب للأئمة (عليهم السلام) .

so the professional ahmak trying to get out of the hole. As if any sunni will be happy to know loving Abu Bakr whom shia believe was a nasibi wont make sunni a najis, just a kafir. Good to know 😂😂 You scum always love to play with words like a lawyer

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Alhamdulilah, one more thing we all can agree on without going around in circles.  My contention, however, is with the word games.  Is it usool al-deen or madhhab? 

One learned Shia brother stated the following, "The Usool Al-Deen and Furoo` Al-Deen is not mentioned in ANY hadeeth.  The scholars have put this together much later on.  So you won't find aHaadeeth from the Ahl Al-Bayt (as) that says.  The Usool Al-Deen says, 'The Usool Al-Deen is....and the Furoo` Al-Deen is....'.  Actually there is a Hadeeth that talks about the pillars of faith, and it looks like the Sunnee's pillar of faith, but with Wilaayah put in there."

When asked for these narrations, he cited:
“I requested Aboo `Abd Allaah (as) ‘Teach me, please, the principles of beliefs. The Imam (as) said, ‘They are: to testify and affirm that there is no one who deserves to be worshipped except Allah, to testify and affirm that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and to affirm that whatever he has taught is from Allah. (It is of the principles of beliefs) to affirm and accept that there is 5 salaah (prayers), to pay Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fast) in the month of RamaDaan and to perform Hajj of the House (of Allah). (It is of the principles of beliefs) to love those who love us (‘A’immah from the family of the Messenger of Allah), to disown our enemies and to become part of the group of the truthful ones. (All such issues are of principles and obligatory matters).’”

    Source:
    Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 2
    Grading:
    Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is SaHeeH (Authentic)
    --> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 101



“Aboo Ja`far (as) has said, ‘Islam is based on five principles. They are: Salaah, al-Zakaah (charity), Sawm (fasting), Hajj and al-Wilayah.  The call to none of the other principles has been so emphatic as it has been to al-Wilayah.  People accepted the other four but they left aside this [al-Wilayah].’”

    Source:
    Al-Kulayni, Al-Kaafi, vol. 2, pg. 18, hadeeth # 3
    Grading:
    Al-Majlisi said this hadeeth is Muwaththaq Kal-SaHeeH (Reliable like a SaHeeH (hadeeth))
    --> Mir`aat Al-`Uqool, vol. 7, pg. 116


Why would people accept the other four but leave the simplest one out?  Wilayah, like belief in redemption through Christ, is just a belief.  Of the five, it would be the easiest of them all (to abide by).  The key phrase in all of this is, "The scholars have put this together much later on".

Brother Nader also referenced his own blog (where he has shared the same hadiths): http://www.revivingalislam.com/2010/09/5-foundation-pillars-of-imaan-faith.html

In the comments section, some brother, Wasil, commented by saying, "Wilayat is from furu al-islam and it's one of the pillars of iman and without it iman is inadequate but to say that everybody who doesn't believe in it is kaffir is very extreme and contradicts quran and hadith." 

The question I have, then, is, why believe in something so problematic which contradicts the Qur'an and Hadith?  Why even bother giving it different spins or painting different pictures of it?  Which one is easier?  Having endless discussions which lead us no where leaving a vast majority of a population of 1.7 billion in doubt, feeling as though they may have violated Islam, or simply admitting that it is not in the Qur'an and Sunnah?  And if it is not in Qur'an and Sunnah then adios, bye bye, see ya later!

Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith, not that there is a hadith which says "Usool Al-Deen are five, tawheed, nubuwwah etc..".

For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl.

The discussion of usool al madhab and usool al deen is mainly related to Fiqh, wherein a disbeliever in usool al madhab can still be treated as a Muslim. That's all.

The hadiths you laid out mention Arkan Al-Deen (Pillars of Islam), not the Usool.

What Wasil says has no basis, his views are shadh, I am telling you what our jurists say not what internet polemicists say.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

so the professional ahmak trying to get out of the hole. As if any sunni will be happy to know loving Abu Bakr whom shia believe was a nasibi wont make sunni a najis, just a kafir. Good to know 😂😂 You scum always love to play with words like a lawyer

Lol you ghabi, as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis. You think I am here to please you lot?

Hahahaha

[muslim720]

Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith, not that there is a hadith which says "Usool Al-Deen are five, tawheed, nubuwwah etc..".

For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl.

I took brother Nader's point and understood it well (that usul al-deen is a concept and term made by scholars), however, Imamah finds itself without any leg to stand on when we explore the Qur'an (at least).

The discussion of usool al madhab and usool al deen is mainly related to Fiqh, wherein a disbeliever in usool al madhab can still be treated as a Muslim. That's all.

A sentence ago you said, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in....." and you made mention of Imamah in the same breath.  How can something that is an obligatory belief, as ordained by the Qur'an, be then open for Fiqhi discussion?  As far as we are concerned, without any Fiqh, if one disbelieves in any of the six articles of faith is a disbeliever.

The hadiths you laid out mention Arkan Al-Deen (Pillars of Islam), not the Usool.

So, then, where is your hadith regarding the usool al-deen?

What Wasil says has no basis, his views are shadh, I am telling you what our jurists say not what internet polemicists say.

His views are not shadh if you ponder over your own statements, "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."

And, "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."

And, "Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith..."

And, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl".

To recap, usool al-deen and usool al-madhhab are one in the same; therefore, disbelieving Imamah makes us disbelievers although some of your scholars may treat us as Muslims in this world.  Like you said to another brother, "as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis", I say to you, as if I care about the treatment of Shia scholars.

Why would I care how Shias treat us in this world?  Our entire life transaction is with Allah (swt), not your scholars so the Hereafter is what we seek, not dunya.

Maybe now Wasil's statement might make more sense to you.  In your madhhab, you have issued a judgment on us WITHOUT any backing from Qur'an and Sunnah.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I took brother Nader's point and understood it well (that usul al-deen is a concept and term made by scholars), however, Imamah finds itself without any leg to stand on when we explore the Qur'an (at least).

A sentence ago you said, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in....." and you made mention of Imamah in the same breath.  How can something that is an obligatory belief, as ordained by the Qur'an, be then open for Fiqhi discussion?  As far as we are concerned, without any Fiqh, if one disbelieves in any of the six articles of faith is a disbeliever.

So, then, where is your hadith regarding the usool al-deen?

His views are not shadh if you ponder over your own statements, "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."

And, "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."

And, "Usul Al-Deen is a concept and term made by the scholars that has backing in Qur'an and hadith..."

And, "For example we know the Qur'an tells us we must believe in tawheed and nubuwwah and qiyamah. Therefore they are usool. And so we also believe amongst the obligatory things to believe in is Imamah and Adl".

To recap, usool al-deen and usool al-madhhab are one in the same; therefore, disbelieving Imamah makes us disbelievers although some of your scholars may treat us as Muslims in this world.  Like you said to another brother, "as if I care about the happiness of Sunnis", I say to you, as if I care about the treatment of Shia scholars.

Why would I care how Shias treat us in this world?  Our entire life transaction is with Allah (swt), not your scholars so the Hereafter is what we seek, not dunya.

Maybe now Wasil's statement might make more sense to you.  In your madhhab, you have issued a judgment on us WITHOUT any backing from Qur'an and Sunnah.

1 - It is open for Fiqhi discussion because Sunnis claim there is no evidence for Imamah in Qur'an and Sunnah. It would be different if someone rejected something after it was proven to him it is in the Qur'an and Sunnah. But this hasn't been proven to most Sunnis, as they argue there is no proof for it in either the Qur'an or Sunnah. Therefore it does not necessiate that they be treated as kafirs.

2 - Where is my hadith regarding Usool Al-Deen? You want me to bring forth Shi'i hadiths which say disbelief in Imamah is kufr? Because this is what "Usool Al-Deen" are for. It is the parts of faith which are obligatory to believe in so one is considered a Muslim or Mu'min, and that disbelief in them necessiates kufr. If you want I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah.

3 - Your re-cap is actually accurate, finally we come to an agreement regarding what is meant by these terms.

[muslim720]

1 - It is open for Fiqhi discussion because Sunnis claim there is no evidence for Imamah in Qur'an and Sunnah.

So why is the matter open for discussion among Shias when it is "proven" to them?  Why bother giving it labels such as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" when the end result, with Allah (swt), as per the Shia belief is the same (that any denier of Imamah will be a disbeliever and hence, Hell-bound)?

But this hasn't been proven to most Sunnis, as they argue there is no proof for it in either the Qur'an or Sunnah.

Are we wrong to assume that position when Imamah has no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah? 

Therefore it does not necessiate that they be treated as kafirs.

Well, someone might disbelieve in Scriptures (other than the Qur'an).  After we furnish proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can pass judgement on him.  Why can't you do the same?  And if you cannot, surely you cannot, then what Wasil said should make sense to you.  And once it makes sense, call Imamah what you may (usool al deen or usool al-madhhab), it is pointless.  However, to condemn Muslims as disbelievers (even in the Hereafter) for something that is absent from our religious texts, you have enrolled yourself in the Takfiri school.

It is the parts of faith which are obligatory to believe in so one is considered a Muslim or Mu'min, and that disbelief in them necessiates kufr.  If you want I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah.

Before you bring "mutawatir" reports from within a sect that accounts for no more than ten to fifteen percent, please establish the belief through what is agreed upon, that is, the Qur'an. 

Your re-cap is actually accurate, finally we come to an agreement regarding what is meant by these terms.

I like to cut to the chase.  If the Hereafter is what matters to a Muslim or Mu'min, call it usool al-deen or usool al-madhhab, the end result, according to you, will be the same for majority of Muslims (who do not believe in Imamah).  The least you can do is provide us proof for Imamah, like we can quote tens of unambiguous Qur'anic verses to support our 6 articles of faith.  If you cannot do that, please do not get offended when it is said to you that you subscribe to a Takfiri ideology.

As much as we hate ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them and all such groups, they have far more clear-cut Qur'anic verses - when it comes to worship of  none other but Allah (swt) (without intermediaries) - to support their Takfir on you than you have to support yours on them.  When it comes to the fundamentals of Islamic worship, for example, you will be hard-pressed to seal the fate of accursed Takfiris like ISIS, let alone those who follow the religion like it was revealed to the Prophet (saw).

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

So why is the matter open for discussion among Shias when it is "proven" to them?  Why bother giving it labels such as "usool al-deen" or "usool al-madhhab" when the end result, with Allah (swt), as per the Shia belief is the same (that any denier of Imamah will be a disbeliever and hence, Hell-bound)?

Are we wrong to assume that position when Imamah has no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah? 

Well, someone might disbelieve in Scriptures (other than the Qur'an).  After we furnish proof from the Qur'an and Sunnah, we can pass judgement on him.  Why can't you do the same?  And if you cannot, surely you cannot, then what Wasil said should make sense to you.  And once it makes sense, call Imamah what you may (usool al deen or usool al-madhhab), it is pointless.  However, to condemn Muslims as disbelievers (even in the Hereafter) for something that is absent from our religious texts, you have enrolled yourself in the Takfiri school.

Before you bring "mutawatir" reports from within a sect that accounts for no more than ten to fifteen percent, please establish the belief through what is agreed upon, that is, the Qur'an. 

I like to cut to the chase.  If the Hereafter is what matters to a Muslim or Mu'min, call it usool al-deen or usool al-madhhab, the end result, according to you, will be the same for majority of Muslims (who do not believe in Imamah).  The least you can do is provide us proof for Imamah, like we can quote tens of unambiguous Qur'anic verses to support our 6 articles of faith.  If you cannot do that, please do not get offended when it is said to you that you subscribe to a Takfiri ideology.

As much as we hate ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them and all such groups, they have far more clear-cut Qur'anic verses - when it comes to worship of  none other but Allah (swt) (without intermediaries) - to support their Takfir on you than you have to support yours on them.  When it comes to the fundamentals of Islamic worship, for example, you will be hard-pressed to seal the fate of accursed Takfiris like ISIS, let alone those who follow the religion like it was revealed to the Prophet (saw).

I don't understand your first sentence. But the reason these terms exist is to benefit us, so that we Shi'a know how to treat different human beings. Whether we can eat their slaughtered animals, whether we can marry them etc..

Like I said, they are mainly related to Fiqhi differentiation. So they are important to us in that regard. They might not be important for you, but it wasn't created for you.

You can claim Imamah has no basis in Qur'an or Sunnah, we say it does. Therefore, that's the premise from which we derive our laws.

I don't understand your point about scriptures and Wasil? Also, you can call us takfiris, I really don't care. Lol.

I'm not here to argue about whether Imamah is in the Qur'an or not, this is a discussion on the terms which are in the title. I am merely explaining why we Shi'a do this, not arguing whether it is correct or not.

Once again, I am not offended at all when you say I am part of a takfiri ideology. So be it. But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.

[Asif Hussain]

But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.
[/quote]

So when the Safavid empire killed the Sunnis in Iran did they tickle them to death rather than violence? And what about the sunni's being killed in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Syria, may I ask how the shias found a way around being violent whilst carrying out these acts.

Please do not play the victim card here

[muslim720]

I don't understand your first sentence.

I will be more specific.  If the matter is clear to you (Shias) from the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no need for a discussion.  Whether it is open to discussion because Shia scholarship wishes to be fair to Muslims or because it saves them face or whatever, it shows insecurity and indecisiveness (on your part).

But the reason these terms exist is to benefit us, so that we Shi'a know how to treat different human beings. Whether we can eat their slaughtered animals, whether we can marry them etc..

Building on the insecurity and indecisiveness point, you will not find an iota of flaw in our six articles of faith, with the Qur'an and Sunnah replete with unambiguous proof (supporting them).  We are not adding anything to the tenets of faith.  It is borderline pathetic that you add Imamah to the religion and then backtrack for reasons "to benefit" you so that you "know how to treat different human beings".

Qadianis violate our beliefs; benefit or none, convenience or hardship, they are kafir.  No backtracking, no discussions!  What (I think) Wasil meant to say was that while Shias have a case within their own circles, it finds no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah.  For that reason, he withheld himself from making takfir on Sunnis.

Like I said, they are mainly related to Fiqhi differentiation. So they are important to us in that regard. They might not be important for you, but it wasn't created for you.

Brother, I know it was not created for us but why the hesitation and word-games when it has been "proven" to you through Qur'an and Sunnah?

You can claim Imamah has no basis in Qur'an or Sunnah, we say it does. Therefore, that's the premise from which we derive our laws.

......and yet you hesitate to call a spade a spade, you hesitate to call a denier of Imamah a kafir, even when it matches your premise of deriving laws.

I'm not here to argue about whether Imamah is in the Qur'an or not, this is a discussion on the terms which are in the title. I am merely explaining why we Shi'a do this, not arguing whether it is correct or not.

As with other discussions, namely mutah, this is the same quagmire we find ourselves in when it comes to discussing with Shias.  If Imamah is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and you were the one to say, "......I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah", why the unnecessary word gymnastics?  Or do you set aside the fact that an (alleged) ordinance of Allah (swt) has been violated for your own worldly benefits, so you can eat our meat and marry from among us?  Is that your criteria?  Convenience over Islam?

Once again, I am not offended at all when you say I am part of a takfiri ideology. So be it. But the difference between me and Sunni takfiris, is that Sunni takfiris tend to be quite violent against Shi'a.

Wow!  Contemporary history 101!  What happened when Saddam was ousted?  Hint: Shia death squads.  As soon as the Shias came in power, they did not roll out beds of roses; they killed Sunnis indiscriminately.  There was a documentary in which a Sunni family was holding pictures of a family gathering, their Shia neighbors posing with them in the same pictures.  The same Shia neighbors, after the fall of Saddam, killed a good a portion of the same Sunni family.  I was not there to verify the story but there are enough grievances on both sides and I thought you could do better than pulling out a victim card so soon.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

I will be more specific.  If the matter is clear to you (Shias) from the Qur'an and Sunnah, there is no need for a discussion.  Whether it is open to discussion because Shia scholarship wishes to be fair to Muslims or because it saves them face or whatever, it shows insecurity and indecisiveness (on your part).

Building on the insecurity and indecisiveness point, you will not find an iota of flaw in our six articles of faith, with the Qur'an and Sunnah replete with unambiguous proof (supporting them).  We are not adding anything to the tenets of faith.  It is borderline pathetic that you add Imamah to the religion and then backtrack for reasons "to benefit" you so that you "know how to treat different human beings".

Qadianis violate our beliefs; benefit or none, convenience or hardship, they are kafir.  No backtracking, no discussions!  What (I think) Wasil meant to say was that while Shias have a case within their own circles, it finds no basis in Qur'an and Sunnah.  For that reason, he withheld himself from making takfir on Sunnis.

Brother, I know it was not created for us but why the hesitation and word-games when it has been "proven" to you through Qur'an and Sunnah?

......and yet you hesitate to call a spade a spade, you hesitate to call a denier of Imamah a kafir, even when it matches your premise of deriving laws.

As with other discussions, namely mutah, this is the same quagmire we find ourselves in when it comes to discussing with Shias.  If Imamah is in the Qur'an and Sunnah, and you were the one to say, "......I can bring forth mutawatir hadiths proving the kufr of the one who disbelieves in Imamah", why the unnecessary word gymnastics?  Or do you set aside the fact that an (alleged) ordinance of Allah (swt) has been violated for your own worldly benefits, so you can eat our meat and marry from among us?  Is that your criteria?  Convenience over Islam?

Wow!  Contemporary history 101!  What happened when Saddam was ousted?  Hint: Shia death squads.  As soon as the Shias came in power, they did not roll out beds of roses; they killed Sunnis indiscriminately.  There was a documentary in which a Sunni family was holding pictures of a family gathering, their Shia neighbors posing with them in the same pictures.  The same Shia neighbors, after the fall of Saddam, killed a good a portion of the same Sunni family.  I was not there to verify the story but there are enough grievances on both sides and I thought you could do better than pulling out a victim card so soon.

All of this stems from the fact that some Shi'a Fuqaha decided to differentiate between batini kufr and dhahiri kufr. They said dhahiri Islam is attained by simply saying the shahadatayn. But they said true Islam which one will be asked for in the akhira requires belief in all of the usool, not some. It isn't really difficult or insecure bro.

Furthermore, are you sure Sunnis don't do takfir on "ambiguous" things, as you say? Can you tell me why Ibn Hanbal does takfir of his own fellow Sunnis who say the Qur'an is created? That's a pretty big deal to me.

I don't know what wordplay is this. If you want me to be clear: the denier of the Imamah is a kafir. The only difference between you and outward kafirs is I treat you as a Muslim.

Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times? What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.

[Hadrami]

Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times?

ah the professional ahmak inserting the word "contemporary times", because he knows full well how extreme & violent his scum religion is throughout history once they came into power. Its not a coincidence that shia death squads came about once tyreheads got more power.

What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.

Saddam was a violent dictator, but iraq used to be known as clever & advanced arab country. Just few years under tyreheads rule, it became the center of chest slapping takfiri zombies who have successfully ruin that once most advanced & clever arab country. Again those idiots of death squads which massacred sunni in iraq came to existence after tyreheads power increased. The bin saba inspired religion followers and jews are expert in playing victim card.

[muslim720]

All of this stems from the fact that some Shi'a Fuqaha decided to differentiate between batini kufr and dhahiri kufr.

With no proof from the Qur'an and authentic Sunnah, is it any wonder they had to resort to this?  And setting hypocrites aside - because, unlike me who openly declares his disbelief in Imamah, the hypocrites do not openly declare their kufr - can you show me the proof for "batini" and "dhahiri" kufr?

They said dhahiri Islam is attained by simply saying the shahadatayn. But they said true Islam which one will be asked for in the akhira requires belief in all of the usool, not some. It isn't really difficult or insecure bro.

"They said" is insignificant because neither the Qur'an says what they say nor does it recognize Imamah. 

Furthermore, are you sure Sunnis don't do takfir on "ambiguous" things, as you say? Can you tell me why Ibn Hanbal does takfir of his own fellow Sunnis who say the Qur'an is created? That's a pretty big deal to me.

Assuming you are not misrepresenting the position of Ibn Hanbal (rah) or lying upon him, he made clear takfir.  He did not play word-games or give hypocritical and diametrically opposed ruling like, "those who believe that the Qur'an is created are Muslims in this world but not in the Hereafter".  That attitude is what does not sit well with me.  You can make takfir on us but when you do so, stand by it.  You cannot even call a spade a spade.

On a side note, I know the Ashari aqeedah states that the Qur'an is the Uncreated Speech of Allah (swt) and it was (if I am not mistaken) to counter the Mu'tazilite claim.  I hope you have not confused Mu'tazilites with Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah.

I don't know what wordplay is this. If you want me to be clear: the denier of the Imamah is a kafir. The only difference between you and outward kafirs is I treat you as a Muslim.

This is preposterous!  I am a denier of Imamah so I'm a kafir (as per your own standards) but then you treat me as a Muslim.  Why, then, do you have standards?

Reminds me of a discussion on ShiaChat in which brothers were mocking the narration in our books which say that a rock, upon which rested the clothes of Musa (asws), started running from him to the point that Children of Israel saw him naked and noticed that Musa (asws) had no deformities (I am sure you know the story).  Nader Zaveri, same Nader as the one with the blog, shared the very same narration from Shia books and said that while he rejected the hadith, it was authentic as per 90 - 95% of Shia standards.  He was putting his own intellect above, and ahead of, agreed-upon Shia standards.  Well then why do you even bother yourselves with standards you choose not to follow in the first place?

Can you bring me one Shi'a scholar who allowed the killings of Sunnis in contemporary times? What idiots in Iraq did has no religious backing at all.

Shia death squads, to my knowledge, killed indiscriminately without any such scholarly ruling or backing.  Imagine what would have happened if a scholar had given such a fatwa!  In the case of ISIS, may Allah (swt) destroy them, we had nutjobs finding one another; ISIS finding a "scholar" and redeeming their crimes through the nutjob scholar's fatwa (for argument's sake if we agree that certain scholars backed them).  In the case of Shia death squads, they killed so many Sunnis without any fatwa, meaning, they did not even await a religious justification to kill Sunnis; it was like no-brainer, killing Sunnis, no problem.  If you could reflect on that for a moment, you will understand how unnerving that is!

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

This is indeed very strange. You are asking me to present proof for a Fiqhi issue which is debated between Shi'a jurists themselves. What proof do you want me to give you? If I give you Shi'i hadith you will reject it because it isn't hujjah for you.

It's like me asking for proof about any Fiqhi issue which is disputed upon between Malikis and Hanbalis for example, and then you give me hadith proof as to why Hanbalis are more correct, and then I reject it and say Sunni hadith is rejected.

I don't know why you keep focusing on a simple Fiqh issue which is just like any other Fiqh issue. Lol.

Lol, is it really us who are into word games, or you lot who would go as far as to defend people who started wars and rebelled on the "legitimate Caliph' by saying they did "ijtihaad and erred" - radh, radh, radh. Lol.

A killer and a rebel (Abu'l Ghadiyah) killed Ammar (rah), but both of them are "radh" 

Why can't you call a killer a killer? Why resort to these games? Strange religion.

Who said that narration was authentic according to Shi'i standards? It was authentic according to rijali standards, but its matn was shaky. And to our standards, if its matn contradicts the Qur'an, it doesn't matter even if its chain is golden. This is a weak example I'm afraid.

Shi'a death squads are like Shi'as who drink alcohol or Shi'as who are thieves. That does not mean their religion promotes these things. Just as I don't hold you accountable for the crimes Sunnis committed, you shouldn't hold me accountable for what an idiot in Iraq did.

@Hadrami, the most retarded countries are Sunni countries. Look at Afghanistan, Somalia and others. Sunnis who declare other Sunnis as kafirs killing each other. Masha Allah. I will agree their infighting does prove they are following the sahaba 

[muslim720]

This is indeed very strange. You are asking me to present proof for a Fiqhi issue which is debated between Shi'a jurists themselves.

Disbelief in Imamah making Muslims kafir is a matter of fiqh or aqeedah?

It's like me asking for proof about any Fiqhi issue which is disputed upon between Malikis and Hanbalis for example, and then you give me hadith proof as to why Hanbalis are more correct, and then I reject it and say Sunni hadith is rejected.

When it comes to our core beliefs, the four schools of fiqh are united by the six articles of faith.  False equivalence!

I don't know why you keep focusing on a simple Fiqh issue which is just like any other Fiqh issue. Lol.

Simple "fiqh" issue?  It enables you to make takfir on a billion-plus Muslims and it is a "simple 'fiqh' issue"?

Lol, is it really us who are into word games, or you lot who would go as far as to defend people who started wars and rebelled on the "legitimate Caliph' by saying they did "ijtihaad and erred" - radh, radh, radh. Lol.

A killer and a rebel (Abu'l Ghadiyah) killed Ammar (rah), but both of them are "radh" 

Do you have any proof that we praise the killer of Ammar (ra)?  As for praising those who "started wars" with the legitimate Caliphs (ra), your own Imams (ra) praised him and the Prophet (saw) prophesied of "two Muslim groups" fighting each other.  Specifically speaking, there were renegades in those groups but generally speaking, they were two groups of Muslims.  Of course their aqeedah will not make sense to you because you are not sure about your own aqeedah while living a life in which, as admitted by your own self, convenience precedes religion.

Why can't you call a killer a killer? Why resort to these games? Strange religion.

It is criminal for you to speak about killers and rebels.  Shall I remind you that we did NOT erect a shrine for the killer (a non-Muslim at that) of the second Caliph?

Who said that narration was authentic according to Shi'i standards? It was authentic according to rijali standards, but its matn was shaky. And to our standards, if its matn contradicts the Qur'an, it doesn't matter even if its chain is golden. This is a weak example I'm afraid.

And how does it contradict the Qur'an?

Shi'a death squads are like Shi'as who drink alcohol or Shi'as who are thieves. That does not mean their religion promotes these things. Just as I don't hold you accountable for the crimes Sunnis committed, you shouldn't hold me accountable for what an idiot in Iraq did.

I am not holding you accountable but it is good to get a taste of your own medicine.  Shias, even famous ones, like Nakshawani, are quick to call Sunnis out for the crimes committed by those we do not associate ourselves with.  However, at the mere mention of Shia death squads, the whole thing turns into, "but you cannot blame our entire population for the short-comings and crimes of a few Shias".  I say fine, practice what you preach and stand by your standards; otherwise, you'll be judged by the same standards.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

Disbelief in Imamah making Muslims kafir is a matter of fiqh or aqeedah?

When it comes to our core beliefs, the four schools of fiqh are united by the six articles of faith.  False equivalence!

Simple "fiqh" issue?  It enables you to make takfir on a billion-plus Muslims and it is a "simple 'fiqh' issue"?

Do you have any proof that we praise the killer of Ammar (ra)?  As for praising those who "started wars" with the legitimate Caliphs (ra), your own Imams (ra) praised him and the Prophet (saw) prophesied of "two Muslim groups" fighting each other.  Specifically speaking, there were renegades in those groups but generally speaking, they were two groups of Muslims.  Of course their aqeedah will not make sense to you because you are not sure about your own aqeedah while living a life in which, as admitted by your own self, convenience precedes religion.

It is criminal for you to speak about killers and rebels.  Shall I remind you that we did NOT erect a shrine for the killer (a non-Muslim at that) of the second Caliph?

And how does it contradict the Qur'an?

I am not holding you accountable but it is good to get a taste of your own medicine.  Shias, even famous ones, like Nakshawani, are quick to call Sunnis out for the crimes committed by those we do not associate ourselves with.  However, at the mere mention of Shia death squads, the whole thing turns into, "but you cannot blame our entire population for the short-comings and crimes of a few Shias".  I say fine, practice what you preach and stand by your standards; otherwise, you'll be judged by the same standards.

No, the Fiqh issue which is debated is whether Sunnis are treated as Muslims ot kafirs. A group of our jurists ruled that Sunnis are najis, for example. But there is ijma on kufr of Sunnis.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't talking about whether there is a difference of opinion on the kufr of Sunnis, but a difference of opinion on how they are treated. That is the "simple Fiqh issue". And I don't know why it's a big issue for you if it means takfir, lol, Sunni scholars declare us innovators and some go as far as declare us kafirs, and we're in Jahannam regardless.

Of course I have proof you guys praise the killer of Ammar ibn Yassir (ra). Ibn Hazm said he made a mistake and did ijtihaad and sent taradhi on him.

For more quotes on him by Sunni scholars, either in praise or doing aplogetics; http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=134800

I'm not telling you to call those who fought Imam Ali (as) kafirs, but you should call them rebels and renegades. But you can't do that, because of "ijtihada fa akhta". Lol.

Also, my Imams (as) praised them? Please present proof for that. As I already know what to say to that, as it is a Sunni talking point that has even been refuted by intelligent Sunnis.

Sorry did I only say if it contradicts the Holy Qur'an? If it contradicts aql or general principles of the madhab, then it can be set aside. These general principles have much stronger backing than a solitary report. It's not just about having thiqa narrators. What brother Nader meant by standards is rijali standards, but a narration still has to pass other tests to be accepted, and all Shi'a scholars are in agreement to this.

Unfortunately for you, it is false equivalence to equate death squads with terrorism in the Sunni world. Atleast 67 million Sunnis are sympathetic to ISIS according to a Pew Research Poll. And that's just ISIS.