Tahrif and Rejecting Imamah

[Hadrami]

This thread probably wont get any reply from shia since I think the forum is a bit too academic which is not good for running around in circle type of discussion often employed by shia. My question is why is it when someone rejects imamah then he is a kafir, but believe in tahrif is not?

[Farid]

Good question brother Hadrami. Perhaps it is because Ahlulbayt is the heavier of the Thaqalayn... Oh wait... It isn't.

[Rationalist]

Also, when the 12th Imam appears he will abolish Taqiyyah, so you can't be a Muslim if you reject him. Therefore, one has to accept the 12th Imam to be a Muslim in the view, but they are allowed to reject the completeness of the Quran when it is present in front of us.

[Hadrami]

I knew it, no reply from shia

[Hadrami]

maybe there will be a reply a year on

[Soccer]

Tahreef occurred in the past, for example with the Torah and Gospels and many books all around the earth sent in different times.

Still, to reject God's authority in the heavens and the earth, was never acceptable due to that, the same is true of today. This has your answer. But I will expand.

Rejecting God's proofs and signs, when proven to a person, makes on a disbeliever. Having envy to any chosen person by God makes a person a Fasiq.

A person may out of convenience declare themselves Sunni and hence reject Imammate of Ahlulbayt, but reality is, it's when they are aware of the clarifications from God or hold on to ignorance and refuse to learn despite the availability of guidance for them that makes them a disbeliever.

There are type of disbelief, denying truth just because it hasn't guided you, is arrogance and type of kufr.

That said,  Majlisi scolded all the scholars that interpreted tahreef metaphorically and they proved it was metaphorical. The hadiths he said are literal he was aware of the view of the scholars of his time as well that said it was to be interpreted differently then to be taken as literal tahreef.

He might have had a few hadiths that can't be interpreted differently but his view, to me, was evil.  I don't know if God will forgive it.

I never understood, he saw Ahlulbayt in Quran clearly and even proven the philosophy of ghayba in Quran by his words Majlisi had a lot of insights. Yet this is a plunder I don't understand.

Something fishy. And while he preserved a lot of hadiths, also, the hadiths that were lost, were also lost in a way on account of him not preserving them.  So you have some government coming in (Safawids) and Majlisi justifying their innovations and then also opposing and arguing against the scholars of his time and the view of Shiites that Tahreef didn't mean literal and almost all hadiths pertaining to it are not meant to be seen in the way Majlisi was proposing.

It's as fishy as 4 people presenting the best words attributed to Imam Mahdi that no humans can even come close to writing.

The truth is to put poison into the religion, you have to present mostly good. This is the truth especially with Shiiites, because it would be a competition.
And Shiites familiar with superiority of words of Ahlulbayt, you would have to MOSTLY NARRATE TRUTH EVEN IF YOU WERE A FABRICATOR.

Understand this point, and it becomes irrelevant. Ilmel rijaal might have some historical significance and useful for some historical accounts, but for religion, it's not needed. Insights, there is enough of them just from fabricators, because they had to work with the truth manifested by Ahlulbayt.

But I Don't believe over all the narrators we have, can all be trusted just because they are deemed reliable by a shaky foundation of ilmel rijaal what we inherited.

That said, a fabricator has to narrate mostly truth, or he would be exposed.

Try understanding this. It opened my view drastically and I became so unafraid of reading hadiths because of it.