2. Explanation of Common Technical Terms used in Takfir

Section 2 – The Influence of their Concept of Takfir on the Rest of the Muslim Sects and Schools and its Manifestation – 1. Their excommunication includes all the sects and mazahib (schools of thought) of the Ahlus Sunnah
December 7, 2022
Shia Allegations on Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim – NEW UPLOAD!!!
December 9, 2022

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

 

2. Explanation of Common Technical Terms used in Takfir

 

The most important of these technical terms are:

 

1. Iman (Faith)

Their purport is Islam with the belief of the Imamah of the Twelve Imams. The proof follows:

a. Shia ‘Allamah Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Musawi al-’Amili states:

 

المراد بالإيمان هنا معناه الخاص وهو الإسلام مع الولاية للأئمة الاثني عشر

The purport of iman here is its distinct meaning, i.e. Islam with the Wilayah of the Twelve Imams.[1]

 

b. Ayatollah al-’Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al-Ruhani affirms:

 

الإيمان يعني الإسلام والولاية للأئمة الاثني عشر

Iman, i.e. Islam and Wilayah of the Twelve Imams.[2]

 

c. Shia ‘Allamah Muhammad ibn Jamal al-Din Makki al-’Amili, titled the Second Martyr, says:

 

المراد بالإيمان معناه الأخص وهو الإسلام والولاية للأئمة الاثني عشر

The purport of iman here is its most distinct meaning, i.e. Islam and the Wilayah of the Twelve Imams.[3]

 

d. Shia Muhaddith Yusuf al-Bahrani says:

 

الإيمان الذي هو عبارة عن الإسلام مع اعتقاد إمامة الأئمة الاثني عشر

Iman defined as Islam with the belief in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams.[4]

 

He also said:

الإيمان الذي هو عبارة عن معرفة الإمام والقول به

Iman defined as recognition and belief in the Imam.[5]

 

He emphasises that the definition of iman cannot apply to others besides the Shia who do not believe in Imamah, affirming:

والذي دلت عليه الإخبار كما تقدمت الإشارة إليه أن الإيمان لا يصدق على غير الإمامية

What the narrations prove, which was alluded to previously, is that iman is not applicable to others besides the Imamiyyah.[6]

 

2. Mu’min (Believer)

The purport of Mu’min is exclusively an Imami Shia.

Shia scholars who clearly mention this are:

a. Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Musawi al-’Amili states:

 

المؤمن هو المسلم الذي يعتقد إمامة الأئمة الاثني عشر

A Mu’min is that Muslim who believes in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams.[7]

 

b. Shia Muhaddith Yusuf al-Bahrani says:

 

المؤمن وهو المسلم المعتقد لإمامة الأئمة الاثني عشر

A Mu’min is that Muslim who believes in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams.[8]

 

c. Shia ‘Allamah al-Najafi affirms:

 

كما أنه لا إشكال في وجوب غسل المؤمن أي الإمامي المعتقد لإمامة الأئمة الاثني عشر عليهم السلام

Just as there is no objection in the compulsion of washing a Mu’min, i.e. an Imami who believes in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams ‘alayhim al-Salam[9]

 

d. Al-Khuwanasari writes in his book Jami’ al-Madarik:

 

ومن الشروط الإيمان بمعنى كونه اثني عشريا

One of the conditions is iman, i.e. him being an Ithna ‘Ashari.[10]

 

e. Ayatollah al-’Uzma Abu al-Qasim al-Khu’i writes in his book Misbah al-Faqahah:

 

أقول المراد من المؤمن هنا من آمن بالله وبرسوله وبالمعاد وبالأئمة الاثني عشر عليهم السلام أولهم علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام وآخرهم القائم الحجة المنتظر

I say: The purport of Mu’min here is one who believes in Allah, His Messenger, Afterlife, and the Twelve Imams ‘alayhim al-Salam—the first being ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib and the last al-Qa’im, the proof, the awaited.[11]

 

f. Shia Ayatollah and Imam Khomeini declares in his book al-Makasib al-Muharramah:

 

المراد بالمؤمن الشيعة الإمامية الاثني عشرية

The purport of Mu’min is the Shia Twelver Imamiyyah.[12]

 

g. Ayatollah al-’Uzma al-Sistani writes in his book al-Masa’il al-Muntakhabah:

 

رابعا الإيمان بمعنى أن يكون اثنا عشريا

Fourthly: Iman, which means being a Twelver.[13]

 

3. Mukhalif (Opposition)

Their object is all Muslims—besides the Shia Imamiyyah—who do not believe in the Imamah in the manner they believe, as one of the important fundamentals of Shi’ism. The following Shia scholars have mentioned this meaning:

a. Ayatollah al-’Uzma Golpaygani presents this in a question answer style:

 

من هو المخالف هل هو من خالف معتقد الشيعة في الإمامة أو من خالف بعض الأئمة وقف على بعضهم فيدخل في ذلك الزيدية وغيرهم وهل حكم المخالف حكم الخارج والناصب والغالي أم لا باسمه تعالى المخالف في لساننا يطلق على منكر خلافة أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام بلا فصل وأما الواقف على بعض الأئمة عليهم السلام فهو وإن كان معدودا من فرق الشيعة إلا أن أحكام الاثني عشرية لا تجري في حقه

Who is the opposition? Is he one who opposes the belief of the Shia in Imamah or opposes some of the Imams while agreeing with others, which will include the Zaidiyyah and others? Is the verdict of the opposition the same verdict against a Khariji, Nasibi, and extremist or not?

In the name of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala: The opposition in our vocabulary is applicable to the rejecter of the undisputed[14] Caliphate of Amir al-Mu’minin ‘alayh al-Salam. With regards to one who accepts some Imams ‘alayhim al-Salam, he—although counted among the Shia sects—the rulings of the Twelvers are not applicable to him.[15]

 

b. Muhammad Kalantar, researcher of the book al-Lam’ah al-Dimashqiyyah writes:

 

المخالف وهو غير الاثني عشري من فرق المسلمين

The opposition is all Muslim sects besides the Twelvers.[16]

 

c. Al-Mirza Jawwad al-Tabrizi states:

 

بحيث أنهم عرفوا حتى عند أعدائهم بتوليهم لهؤلاء الأئمة الطاهرين وميزوا بأنهم (الاثنا عشرية) في إشارة إلى اعتقادهم بإمامة الأئمة الاثني عشر وصار الأمر عند الشيعة بحيث أن من كان لا يؤمن بأحدهم أو جعل غيره مكانه لا يعد من هذه الطائفة المحقة

In the manner that they are recognised,[17] even by their enemies, by befriending them for these pure Imams. They (Twelvers) have been distinguished in indication to their belief in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams. The matter has rested according to the Shia that anyone who does not believe in one of them or places someone else in the place of one of them is not reckoned from the group on truth.[18]

 

d. Shia Muhaddith Yusuf al-Bahrani says:

 

لأنا لا نعقل من المخالف متى أطلق إلا المخالف في الإمامة والمقدم فيها

Since we cannot understand who is the opposition when used unrestrictedly except to be opposition in Imamah and placing others before it.[19]

 

He also said:

ومخالفيه هم الذين لم يأخذوا بأحكامه ولم يعتقدوا إمامته وعصمته بل جعلوه من سائر الخلفاء

His opposition are those who do not adhere to his verdicts and do not believe in his Imamah and infallibility, but rather include him as one of the Khalifas.[20]

 

He also says:

 

ولا ريب أن مراد ابن أدريس بالحق الذي صرح بنجاسة من لم يعتقده إنما هو الولاية كما سيأتيك بيانه إن شاء الله تعالى في الأخبار فإنها معيار الكفر والإيمان في هذا المضمار

Undoubtedly, the purport of Ibn Idris clearly stating the impurity of one who does not believe in the truth, is Wilayah, the explanation of which will soon come—Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala willing—in the narrations. It is the standard of disbelief and belief in this arena.[21]

 

e. Contemporary Shia Ayatollah al-’Uzma Muhammad Sa’id al-Hakim who resides in Najaf presently has spelled out the technical meaning of al-’ammah (the masses) and al-mukhalifin (the opposition) that they are the ones who associate with al-Sheikhayn, Abu Bakr and ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhuma, and believe in the validity of their Caliphate. In other words, the opposition and masses are the Ahlus Sunnah, together with their sects and mazahib. His exact words are:

 

الظاهر أن المراد بالعامة المخالفون الذين يتولون الشيخين ويرون شرعية خلافتهما على اختلاف فرقهم لأن ذلك هو المنصرف إليه العناوين المذكورة في النصوص

It is apparent that the purport of the masses and opposition are those who associate with Sheikhayn and believe in the validity of their caliphate, together with the diversity of their sects, as this is what the mentioned titles in the texts are referring to.[22]

 

f. Shia Ayatollah al-’Uzma Muhsin al-Hakim explains who the title of opposition refers to in his words:

 

ولا ينافي الطعن فيه بما سبق إذ يكون حاله حال جماعة من العامة والفطحية والواقفية وغيرهم من المخالفين للفرقة المحقة

It does not negate criticism of it, by what has passed, as his condition is the condition of a group of the masses (Ahlus Sunnah), the Fathiyyah, Waqifiyyah, and others from the opposition of the true sect.[23]

 

g. Al-Khu’i explains:

والمخالف مسلم غير مضمر للكفر إلا أنه لا يعتقد بالولاية

The opposition is a Muslim who is not concealing disbelief, except that he does not believe in Wilayah.[24]

 

h. Al-Tusi has mentioned something on the topic of Salat al-Janazah from which the meaning of opposition may be understood. He says:

 

وأما ما يتضمن من الأربع تكبيرات محمول على التقية لأنه مذهب المخالفين

With regards to that which includes four takbirs, it is based on Taqiyyah as that is the view of the opposition.[25]

 

He alludes by the opposition to the Ahlus Sunnah—who recite four takbirs in Salat al-Janazah.

 

i. Shia Muhaqqiq al-Hilli mentioned a text relating specifically to the ruling of giving zakat to a non-Shia. He writes:

 

ولو أعطي مخالف زكاته لأهل نحلته ثم استبصر أعاد

If the opposition gave zakat to one of his creed and then accepted the truth, he will give it again.[26]

 

When the researcher of the book Sadiq al-Shirazi intended to comment on this text, he explained the opposition with full clarity that it is a non-Shia Muslim. He says:

 

يعني لو أعطى غير الشيعي زكاته لفقراء غير الشيعة وجب عليه إعادة الزكاة بعد ما صار شيعيا

If a non-Shia gives his zakat to a poor non-Shia, it is incumbent upon him to repeat his zakat after he becomes a Shia.

 

Here it is necessary to indicate to something noteworthy. The meaning of opposition is all Muslims besides the Shia Imamiyyah. This includes two groups:

Firstly, the Ahlus Sunnah with all their sects and mazahib. They are the primary purport of this technical term as the clear texts of their sources indicate.

Secondly, the others sects of the Shia, like the Ismailiyyah, Zaidiyyah, and others are also regarded as opposition by the Imamiyyah. The rulings of the latter do not apply to the former.[27]

Based on this, the purport of the technical term al-mukhalif is the Ahlus Sunnah firstly and primarily and the rest of the sects of the Shia besides the Imamiyyah secondarily and consequential. It is incumbent to be aware of this, especially when pertaining to their concept of Takfir and the manifestation of its effect when applying it to Muslims. Sometimes, I will express their stance on the Ahlus Sunnah and sometimes assert their stance on all the Muslims. Both expressions are correct. The word al-mukhalif includes all.

 

4. Kufr (Disbelief) in polarity with iman

Shia Ayatollah al-’Uzma Abu al-Qasim al-Khu’i lists three meanings of kufr (disbelief). One of them, i.e. the second type, is peculiar to the topic of discussion. He says:

 

وذلك لأن للكفر مراتب عديدة … ومنها ما يقابل الإيمان يحكم بطهارته واحترام دمه وماله وعرضه كما يجوز مناكحته وتوريثه إلا أن الله سبحانه يتعامل معه معاملة الكافر في الآخرة وقد كنا سمينا هذه الطائفة في بعض أبحاثنا بمسلم الدنيا وكافر الآخرة

This is because disbelief has many stages. One of them is in polarity with iman. His purity and the sanctity of his blood, wealth, and honour is approved just as marrying him and inheriting from him is permissible.[28] However, Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will deal with him as a disbeliever in the Hereafter. We have labelled this group in a discussion of ours as the Muslim of the world, disbeliever of the Hereafter.[29]

 

Manifestation 1

Deeming the disbelief of the Ahlus Sunnah as poles with Iman[30]

The authorities and luminaries who have asserted this:

  1. The Seal of Shia Muhaddithin al-Majlisi:

He writes:

ويدخل في هذا الكفر المقابل لهذا الإيمان من سوى الفرقة الناجية الإمامية من فرق المسلمين وغيرهم

One who equates the saved Imamiyyah sect with other sects of Muslims and others enters into this disbelief, which is in contrast to this iman.[31]

 

  1. Shia ‘Allamah Muhammad Hassan al-Najafi, author of Jawahir al-Kalam:

The forthcoming are some of his statements:

 

ولعل الوجه فيه إطلاق الكفر على المخالفين في بعض الأخبار وهو محمول على إرادة الكفر الإيماني دون الإسلامي

Probably, the reason for applying disbelief to the opposition in some narrations is understood as intending imani, not Islamic, disbelief.[32]

 

محمول على إرادة تنزيله منزلة الكافر فيما يتعلق بالأمور الأخروية من شدة العذاب والخلود فيه

It is interpreted as intending to place him at the position of a disbeliever in aspects connected to the Hereafter, like severity of punishment and remaining therein forever.

 

He did not suffice on attributing their disbelief to the Hereafter. He presented proof to establish that the purport of the Imams is exactly this. He thus says immediately thereafter:

 

كما هو ظاهر المنساق إلى الذهن من ملاحظتها بل من أعطى النظر والتأمل فيها يقطع بإرادتهم عليهم السلام بيان دفع وهم احتمال حصول ثواب لهم أو مرتبة أخروية أو امتياز من الكفار بسبب ما أظهروه من الشهادتين مع إنكارهم الولاية

As is the apparent sequence to the mind when considering it. In fact, one who ponders and reflects over it will be certain that their ‘alayh al-Salam intention was to elucidate upon removing the thought of the possibility for them acquiring reward or a level in the Hereafter, or distinction from the disbelievers due to the shahadatayn they professed, when they rejected Wilayah.[33]

 

لان الأقوى طهارتهم في مثل هذه الأعصار وإن كان عند ظهور صاحب الأمر عليه السلام بأبي وأمي يعاملهم معاملة الكفار كما أن الله تعالى شأنه يعاملهم كذلك بعد مفارقة أرواحهم أبدانهم وفاقا للمشهور بين الأصحاب

As the strongest view is their purity in eras like these, although when the authority (Twelfth Imam ‘alayh al-Salam)—may my parents be sacrificed for him—will emerge, he will deal with them like the disbelievers[34] just as Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala will deal with them after their souls separate their bodies, in accordance to the common view among the scholars.[35]

 

  1. Shia Grand Sheikh Murtada al-Ansari, author of al-Makasib:

After establishing the authenticity of the narrations, which excommunicate the rejecter and opposition of Imamah, he applies the disbelief mentioned therein to disbelief, the opposite of iman. He says:

 

والحاصل أن ثبوت صفة الكفر لهم مما لا إشكال فيه ظاهرا كما عرفت من الأصحاب ويدل عليه أخبار متواترة نذكر بعضها تيمنا وتشريفا للكتاب إلا أن المستفاد من مجموع الأخبار وكلمات الأخيار أن المراد بهذا الكفر المقابل للإيمان الذي هو أخص من الإسلام

The outcome is that the establishment of the quality of disbelief for them is something having no objection externally, as you have come to learn from the scholars. Mutawatir narrations indicate to it, some of which we will mention for blessings and honour for the book.[36] What is learnt from all the narrations and the words of the best is that this disbelief is in polarity with iman, which is more specific than Islam.[37]

 

He also said:

فإطلاق الكفر عليهم باعتبار إرادة ما يقابل الإيمان لا ما يقابل الإسلام

Labelling them with disbelief is considering that which is contrast to iman, not that which is contrast to Islam.[38]

 

  1. Ayatollah al-’Uzma Muhsin al-Hakim

a. He says:

 

وأما النصوص فالذي يظهر منها أنها في مقام إثبات الكفر للمخالفين بالمعنى المقابل للإيمان كما يظهر من المقابلة فيها بين الكفار والمؤمن فراجعها

With regards to the texts, what is apparent from it is that it is in the station of establishing disbelief for the opposition in the meaning at polarity to iman, as is apparent from the comparison of it between the disbeliever and believer, so refer to it.[39]

 

b. He says:

وأما ما ورد في كفر الناصب والغالي فاظاهر منه الكفر بلحاظ الآثار الأخروية نظير ما ورد في كفر المخالف

With regards to what has been mentioned about the disbelief of a Nasibi and an extremist, the apparent is disbelief with regards to the effects of the Hereafter same as what has come regarding the disbelief of the opposition.[40]

 

c. He says:

أما المسلم المخالف فالمشهور ظاهرا عدم جواز النيابة عنه لأنه بحكم الكافر في الآخرة

With regards to a Muslim opposition, what is apparent is the impermissibility of representation on his behalf as he is the ruling of a disbeliever in the Hereafter.[41]

 

  1. Ayatollah al-’Uzma and their political leader in recent times, Khomeini:

a. After acknowledging the authenticity of the narrations excommunicating the opposition in Imamah, he explains it as disbelief, the opposite of iman. At the same time, he refutes Shia ‘Allamah Yusuf al-Bahrani. He says:

 

فهلا تنبه بأن الروايات التي تشبث بها لم يرد في واحدة منها أن من عرف عليا عليه السلام فهو مسلم ومن جهله فهو كافر بل قابل في جميعها بين المؤمن والكافر والكافر المقابل للمسلم غير المقابل للمؤمن

Was he not cognisant of the fact that it does not appear in any of the narrations he adhered to that whoever recognises ‘Ali ‘alayh al-Salam is a Muslim and whoever is ignorant of him is a disbeliever. Rather, he compares between a Mu’min and disbeliever in all of them. The disbeliever in contrast of a Muslim is not the one in contrast of a Mu’min.[42]

 

b. He emphasises the same point saying:

 

فما وردت في أنهم كفار لا يراد به الحقيقة بلا إشكال ولا التنزيل في الأحكام الظاهرة فلا بد من حملها إما على التنزيل في الأحكام الباطنة كالثواب في الآخرة كما صرحت به رواية الصيرفي أو على بعض المراتب التي هي غير مربوطة بالأحكام الظاهرة

What appears of them being disbelievers, the true essence is not meant without an objection nor reduction in external rulings. It is therefore necessary to apply it to either reduction in internal rulings like reward in the Hereafter as the narration of al-Sayrafi clarifies or some levels which are not connected to external rulings.[43]

 

  1. Ayatollah al-’Uzma, Researcher, Ringleader of the territory in his time, Abu al-Qasim al-Khu’i:

a. After acknowledging that the narrations, which excommunicate the opposition in Imamah, are plenty and reach the level of abundance, he applies disbelief in them to that which opposes iman. He says:

 

وما يمكن أن يستدل به على نجاسة المخالفين وجوه ثلاثة الأول ما ورد في الروايات الكثيرة البالغة حد الاستفاضة من أن المخالف لهم عليهم السلام كافر وقد ورد في الزيارة الجامعة ومن وحده قبل عنكم فلأنه ينتج بعكس النقيض أن من لم يقبل منهم فهو غير موحد لله سبحانه فلا محالة يحكم بكفره والأخبار الواردة بهذا المضمون وإن كانت من الكثرة بمكان إلا أنه لا دلالة لها على نجاسة المخالفين إذ المراد فيها بالكفر ليس هو الكفر في مقابل الإسلام وإنما هو في مقابل الإيمان كما أشرنا إليه سابقا

It is possible to present three arguments as proof for the impurity of the opposition (referring to the Ahlus Sunnah). Firstly, the topic of abundant narrations which reach the limit of istifadah (abundance) that their opposition is a disbeliever. It appears in al-Ziyarah al-Jami’ah, “Whoever declares His oneness, it is accepted from you.” Because this translates to the opposite of the claim that those from whom it is not accepted do not believe in the oneness of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, hence there is no escape but to pass the verdict of his disbelief. The narrations containing this topic, although plenty at one place, except that there is no indication in them to the impurity of the opposition, as the purport of disbelief in them is not disbelief in contrast to Islam. It is only in contrast to iman as we have previously indicated.[44]

 

b. He says:

 

للأخبار الواردة في كفر المخالفين كما تأتي جملة منها عن قريب لأن الكفر فيها إنما هو في مقابل الإيمان ولم يرد منه ما يقابل الإسلام

Due to the narrations mentioning the disbelief of the opposition, a collection of which will shortly appear, because the disbelief in them is in contrast to iman and none have appeared in contrast to Islam.[45]

 

c. He says:

 

فقد قلنا في أبحاث الطهارة أن المراد من الكفر ترتب حكمه عليه في الآخرة وعدم معاملة المسلم معهم فيها بل يعاقبون كالكافر …

We asserted in the discussions on purity that the purport of disbelief is the application of its verdict in the Hereafter and them not being dealt with as Muslims there; rather they will be punished like the disbeliever.[46]

 

  1. Contemporary Ayatollah al-’Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al-Ruhani:

He affirms that the Ahlus Sunnah will not enter Jannat due to them not believing in Wilayah while answering a question posed to him.

 

السؤال هل السنة يحكم عليهم بالكفر هذا هو الأهم … هل يدخلون السنة الجنة طبعا هم لا يوالون عليا عليه السلام ولكنهم لا يكرهون أهل البيت ويحبونهم … وكيف يدخلون النار وهم يشهدون الشهادتين ويصلون الصلوات الخمس ويحجون ويصومون رمضان … الجواب بسمه جلت أسماؤه يشترط في صحة العبادات الولاية لأمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فمع فقد الشرط لا يتحقق المشروط

Question: Is the verdict of disbelief passed against the Ahlus Sunnah? This is the most important aspect … will the Ahlus Sunnah enter Jannat? Naturally, they do not believe in the Wilayah of ‘Ali ‘alayh al-Salam. However, they do not dislike the Ahlul Bayt, rather love them. How can they enter Hell when they testify to the shahadatayn, perform five salahs, perform Hajj, and fast in Ramadan?

Answer: In His name, Whose names are sublime. The condition for the validity of worship is Wilayah to Amir al-Mu’minin ‘alayh al-Salam. When the condition is absent, the conditional is not founded.[47]

 

They announce emphatically that the abode of the Ahlus Sunnah is eternity in the fire of Jahannam, with the Jews, Christians, and remaining disbelieving creeds.

 

Manifestation 2

The Invalidity of the worship of the Ahlus Sunnah and them not receiving reward for it[48]

Some of the Shia scholars and authorities who acknowledge this manifestation of their concept of Takfir are:

  1. ‘Allamah and Seal of the Shia Muhaddithin Muhammad Baqir al-Majlisi:

a. He quotes to us the unanimous verdict of the Imamiyyah on the outcome of the concept of Takfir:

 

واعلم أن الإمامية أجمعوا على اشتراط صحة الأعمال وقبولها بالإيمان الذي من جملته الإقرار بولاية جميع الأئمة عليهم السلام وإمامتهم

Know that the Imamiyyah have unanimously agreed to iman, which includes testifying to the Wilayah and Imamah of all the Imams ‘alayhim al-Salam, a condition for the validity and acceptance of actions.[49]

 

b. He said:

 

فغير المؤمن الاثني عشري المصدق قلبا لا يترتب على شيء من أعماله ثواب في الآخرة ويلزمه الخلود في النار كما مر وسيأتي أيضا إن شاء الله

A non-Twelver who believes with his heart, no reward will be awarded for any of his actions in the Hereafter and he will be doomed for eternity to Hell, as has passed and will soon come, Allah willing.[50]

 

  1. Shia Ayatollah al-’Uzma Muhsin al-Hakim:

a. He states:

ثم إنه لا ريب في شرطية الإيمان في صحة العبادة وعليه فعبادة المخالف باطلة

Thereafter, there is no doubt that iman[51] is a condition for the validity of worship. Following this, the worship of the opposition is worthless.[52]

 

b. He says:

لإن بطلان عبادة المخالف إنما استفيدت من الأخبار

The invalidity of the worship of the opposition is deduced from the narrations.[53]

 

  1. Shia Ayatollah al-’Uzma ‘Abdul-Hussain Sharaf al-Din, author of al-Muraja’at:

While commenting on the hadith he quoted to prove this belief, he says:

 

فأنعم النظر في قوله لا ينفع عبدا عمله إلا بمعرفته حقنا ثم أخبرني ما هو حقهم الذي جعله الله شرطا في صحة الأعمال أليس هو السمع والطاعة لهم والوصول إلى الله عز وجل عن طريقهم القويم وصراطهم المستقيم وأي حق غير النبوة والخلافة يكون له هذا الأثر العظيم

Look properly at his statement: a bondsman’s action will not benefit him except by recognising our right. Inform me then of what their right is which Allah has made a condition for the validity of actions. Is it not listening to and obeying them and reaching Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—through their upright way and straight path. What right besides Nubuwwah and Caliphate can have this great effect?[54]

 

  1. Shia Imam and Ayatollah al-’Uzma Khomeini:

He has declared this reality in many statements of his book al-Arba’in. Have a look at some:

a. He states:

 

ثم ذكر عليه السلام الصادق مغزى كلامه من أن والولاية شرط في قبول الأفعال كما سيأتي الإشارة إليه إن شاء الله تعالى

Thereafter al-Sadiq ‘alayh al-Salam mentioned the gist of his statement that Wilayah is a condition for the acceptance of actions, indication to which will shortly appear, Allah willing.[55]

 

b. He states:

والأخبار في هذه الموضوع وبهذا المضمون كثيرة ويستفاد من مجموعها أن ولاية أهل البيت عليهم السلام شرط في قبول الأعمال عند الله سبحانه بل هو شرط في قبول الإيمان بالله والنبي الأكرم صلى الله عليه وسلم

The narrations on this topic and on this theme are plenty. It is deduced from all of them that Wilayah of the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al-Salam is a condition for the acceptance of actions according to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, in fact it is a condition for the acceptance of faith in Allah and the honourable Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.[56]

 

c. He emphasises that this malice and enmity is not a belief peculiar to him, to the exception of other scholars of the Imamiyyah. Rather, it is from the accepted realities of the creed which no two dispute over. Belief in it is one of the essentials of Shi’ism. He states:

 

إن ما مر في ذيل الحديث الشريف من أن ولاية أهل البيت ومعرفتهم شرط في قبول الأعمال يعتبر من الأمور المسلمة بل تكون من ضروريات مذهب أهل التشيع المقدس وتكون الأخبار في هذا الموضوع أكبر من طاقة مثل هذه الكتب المختصرة على استيعابها وأكثر من حجم التواتر

What has passed in the commentary of the blessed hadith that Wilayah and recognition of the Ahlul Bayt is a condition for the acceptance of actions, this is considered one of the accepted facts. In fact, it is from the essentials of the pure creed of the adherents of Shi’ism. Narrations on this topic are greater than can be contained in a concise book like this and more abundant than the size of tawatur.[57]

 

d. He reveals his belief towards the Ahlus Sunnah in a more despicable manner. He states that the truthful sincere repentance through which Allah converts evil deeds to good deeds is specific to the Shia Imamiyyah only, to the exception of all others. It will never ever include the Ahlus Sunnah, as they do not subscribe to their belief in Imamah and Wilayah. He states:

 

فكل من توفرت فيه هذه الأمور الثلاثة آمنوا وتابوا وعملوا صالحا فاز وشملته ألطاف الله سبحانه وأصبح مكرما أمام ساحة قدسه فتتحول سيئاته وآثامه إلى حسنات من المعلوم أن هذا الأمر يختص بشيعة أهل البيت ويحرم عنه الناس الآخرون لأن الإيمان لا يحصل إلا بواسطة ولاية علي وأوصيائه من المعصومين الطاهرين عليهم السلام بل لا يقبل الإيمان بالله ورسوله من دون الولاية كما سنذكر ذلك في الفصل التالي

Everyone in which these three aspects are found completely—he believed, repented, and performed good actions—attained success, is covered with the benevolence of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, and becomes honoured before the arena of His purity. Moreover, his evil deeds and sins convert into good deeds. It is known that this is specific to the Shia of the Ahlul Bayt while other people are deprived of it as iman is not attained except through the medium of Wilayah of ‘Ali and his Awsiya’ from the infallible, pure ‘alayhim al-Salam. As a matter of fact, iman in Allah and His Messenger is not accepted without Wilayah as we shall mention in the upcoming section.[58]

 

  1. Ayatollah al-’Uzma and the Ringleader of the Academic territory Abu al-Qasim al-Khu’i:

a. He acknowledges that the consensus of the Shia has been reached to declare the worship without Wilayah null and void and that many texts establish this. He states:

 

تكفينا بعد الإجماع المحقق كما عرفت النصوص الكثيرة الدالة على بطلان العبادة من دون الولاية

Sufficient for us after the established consensus, as you have realised, are the plenty nusus indicating the invalidity of worship without Wilayah.[59]

 

b. He states:

 

فقد قلنا في أبحاث الطهارة أن المراد من الكفر ترتب حكمه عليه في الآخرة وعدم معاملة المسلم معهم فيها بل يعاقبون كالكافر ولا يثابون بأعمالهم الخيرية الصادرة منهم في الدنيا كالصلاة وغيرها

We asserted in the discussions on purity that the purport of disbelief is the application of its verdict in the Hereafter and them not being dealt with as Muslims there; rather, they will be punished like the disbeliever and they will not be rewarded for their good deeds carried out in the world like salah, etc.[60]

 

c. He also writes:

 

قدمنا في كتاب الطهارة عند التكلم حول غسل الميت اعتبار كون المغسل مؤمنا استنادا إلى الروايات الكثيرة الدالة على أن عمل المخالف باطل عاطل لا يعتد به وقد عقد صاحب الوسائل بابا لذلك في مقدمة العبادات

We mentioned in the book of purity, while speaking about washing the deceased, consideration of the one being washed being a believer, relying on the abundant narrations indicating that the action of the opposition is useless and worthless, not considered. The author of al-Wasa’il has dedicated a chapter to this in the introduction to the forms of worship.[61]

 

d. He writes:

 

اشتراط الإيمان في المصلي للأخبار الدالة على عدم مقبولية عمل غير المؤمن فإنها كما تدل على عدم كفاية عمل المخالف في مقام الامتثال كذلك تقتضي عدم كفايته في الإجزاء فلا يجزي عمله عن المكلفين وفي بعضها أن الله سبحانه شانع أو يشنع عمل المخالف أي يبغضه فلا يقع مقبولا امتثالا إجزاء

The condition of iman in the one praying is due to the narrations indicating the non-acceptance of the action of a disbeliever, for just as it indicates the non-sufficiency of the action of the opposition in the station of obedience, it demands the non-sufficiency in him being rewarded. Hence, his action will not suffice from the obliged. It appears in some reports that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala hates the action of the opposition, i.e. despise it, hence it cannot be accepted, fulfil a command, and be worthy of reward.[62]

 

e. He furnishes a narration as a support for their belief of Takfir. He says:

 

كصحيحة محمد بن مسلم قال سمعت أبا جعفر عليه السلام يقول كل من دان الله عز وجل بعبادة يجهد فيها نفسه ولا إمام له من الله فسعيه غير مقبول وهو ضال متحير والله شانئ لأعماله

Like the Sahihah of Muhammad ibn Muslim who says that he heard Abu Jafar ‘alayh al-Salam saying, “Whoever seeks closeness to Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—with worship in which he tires himself, without any Imam from Allah, his exertion is unaccepted and he is misguided, confused; and Allah hates his actions.”

 

He then deduced from it their belief in its invalidity saying:

 

فإن من يكون الله شانئا لأعماله ومبغضا لأفعاله كيف يصح التقرب منه وهو ضال متحير لا يقبل سعيه فكل ذلك يدل على البطلان وفي ذيل الصحيحة أيضا دلالة على ذلك كما لا يخفى على من لاحظها فإذا بطل العمل ممن لا إمام له وكان كالعدم فمن لا يعترف بالنبي بطريق أولى إذ لا تتحقق الولاية من دون قبول الإسلام ومما ذكرنا يظهر الحال في اعتبار الإيمان في صحة الصوم وأنه لا يصح من المخالف لفقد الولاية

Certainly, those actions Allah despises and deeds Allah hates, how can proximity through them be valid? He is deviated, confused; his efforts are not accepted. All this indicates to invalidity. An indication appears in the footnotes of al-Sahihah to this as is apparent to one who peruses through it. When the deeds of one who has no Imam are invalid and are like non-existent, then all the more regarding one who does not acknowledge the Nabi, as Wilayah cannot be established without accepting Islam. And what we mentioned portrays the condition of considering iman for the validity of fasting and that it is not valid from the opposition due to Wilayah being absent.

 

  1. Ayatollah  al-’Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr:

He answered when a question about this belief of theirs was posed to him.

 

س: هناك أناس يعتقدون بأن مذهب التشيع مذهب خامس وله الحق في نشر تعاليمه ولا يفرقون بينهم وبين الشيعة ولكن لا يعتقدون بأن الخلافة يجب أن تكون للإمام علي عليه السلام فهل عملهم صحيح وموجب للقبول ج: بسمه تعالى يعتبر في قبول الأعمال الولاية

Question: There are people here who believe that the Shia sect is the fifth mazhab (school of thought) and it has a right to disseminate its teachings. They do not differentiate between them and the Shia. At the same time, they do not believe that caliphate was necessary for Imam ‘Ali ‘alayh al-Salam. Are their actions valid and acceptable?

Answer: In His name, the Exalted. Wilayah is considered in the acceptance of actions.[63]

 

  1. Ayatollah al-’Uzma ‘Ali al-Sistani:

He emphasised this belief while considering iman—belief in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams—a condition for being worthy of reward. The gist of his statement is that without iman—which is the condition of the sects of the Ahlus Sunnah—there will be no reward for acts of worship. He says:

 

شرائط صحة الصوم وهي أمور الإسلام فلا يصح الصوم من الكافر نعم إذا أسلم في نهار شهر رمضان ولم يأت بمفطر قبل إسلامه فالأحوط لزوما أن يمسك بقية يومه بقصد ما في الذمة وأن يقضيه إن لم يفعل ذلك وأما الإيمان فالأظهر عدم اعتباره في الصحة بمعنى سقوط التكليف وإن كان معتبرا في استحقاق المثوبة

The conditions for the validity of fasting are few: Islam; hence, fasting of a disbeliever is not valid. Yes, if he embraces Islam during the day in the month of Ramadan and did not do anything to invalidate the fast before embracing Islam, then the most cautious thing to stick to is to abstain (from eating, etc.) for the rest of the day with the intention of what is his responsibility and to repeat it (the fast) if he does not do this. With regards to iman, then what is most obvious is that it is not considered in validity, in the sense that the responsibility being waived, although it is considered in being worthy of reward.[64]

 

The Muslims should ponder over this Takfir concept and what it spawns, malice in the hearts of those who adhere to it. They see nothing in all the actions of the Ahlus Sunnah and forms of worship including salah, fasting, pilgrimage, charity, Jihad, etc., other than futile effort, exhaustion, and the decrease of wealth without the slightest reward or recompense. Their condition in this is the same as the condition of those who did not worship Allah for a batting of an eyelash, i.e., the disbelievers whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala described as such in His Glorious Book when He said:

 

وَمَا مَنَعَهُمْ أَنْ تُقْبَلَ مِنْهُمْ نَفَقَاتُهُمْ إِلَّا أَنَّهُمْ كَفَرُوْا بِاللهِ وَبِرَسُوْلِهِ

And what prevents their expenditures from being accepted from them but that they have disbelieved in Allah and in His Messenger.[65]

 

Naturally, their deprivation from reward and recompense is like the disbelievers, the natural outcome of which is they will land in the Fire of the Hereafter. This is exactly what the Shia affirmed which I quoted from them in manifestation 1 of this section.

 

 


[1] Madarik al Ahkam, vol. 5 pg. 237.

[2] Fiqh al Sadiq, vol. 7 pg. 258.

[3] Masalik al Afham, vol. 1 pg. 421.

[4] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, vol. 12 pg. 203.

[5] Al Shihab al Thaqib, pg. 97.

[6] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, vol. 22 pg. 204.

[7] Madarik al Ahkam, vol. 4 pg. 150.

[8] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, vol. 10 pg. 359.

[9] Jawahir al Kalam, vol. 4 pg. 80.

[10] Jami’ al Madarik, 6 pg. 4.

[11] Misbah al Faqahah, vol. 1 pg. 323.

[12] Al Makasib al Muharramah, vol. 1 pg. 250.

[13] Al Masa’il al Muntakhabah, pg. 13.

[14] The object of this specification in the definition of an Imami as opposed to his opposition, is that an Imami believes that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is the khalifah immediately after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam without a gap, i.e. he is the first khalifah after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. This includes denial of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr radiya Llahu ‘anhu who assumed the position immediately after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. The Ahlus Sunnah (the opposition) believe that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu is a khalifah of the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, but he is the fourth after the three Khalifas (Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum, not the first.

[15] Irshad al Sa’il, pg. 199, Question: 742.

[16] Al Lam’ah al Dimashqiyyah, vol. 1 pg. 348.

[17] He means the Shia Imamiyyah.

[18] Mirza Jawwad al Tabrizi: article on the Imamah of the Twelve Imams, pg. 12.

[19] Al Shihab al Thaqib, pg. 254. Placing others before it refers to one who placed Abu Bakr and ‘Umar before ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhum in the caliphate.

[20] Al Shihab al Thaqib, pg. 228.

[21] Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, vol. 5 pg. 179.

[22] Al Muhkam fi Usul al Fiqh, vol. 6 pg. 194. Similarly, wherever the word al ‘ammah appears, the purport is the Ahlus Sunnah. Allow me to indicate here the necessary difference between it and the word al ‘awamm—which refers to the general simple souls among Muslims.

[23] Mustamsak al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, vol. 5 pg. 366.

[24] Kitab al Taharah, vol. 9 pg. 94.

[25] Tahdhib al Ahkam, vol. 3 pg. 316.

[26] Shara’i’ al Islam, vol. 1 pg. 123.

[27] Their scholars who have clearly stated the inclusion of sects of the Shia in opposition and the rulings of the Imamiyyah not applying to them:

Shia Sheikh Muhammad Hassan al Najafi writes in his book Jawahir al Kalam, vol. 4 pg. 80:

 

كما إنه لا إشكال في وجوب غسل المؤمن أي الإمامي المعتقد لإمامة الأئمة الاثني عشر عليهم السلام ما لم يحصل منه سبب الكفر بل هو إجماعي إن لم يكن ضروريا وأما من لم يكن كذلك كالعامة وقد يلحق بهم فرق الإمامية المبطلة كالواقفية والفطحية والناووسية

Just as there is no objection in the obligation of washing the believer, i.e. the Imami that believes in the Imamah of the Twelve Imams ‘alayhim al Salam, as long as any disbelief did not occur from him; in fact, it is unanimously accepted if not essential. With regards to one who is not such, like the masses (Ahlus Sunnah), and included with them are the deviated sects of the Imamiyyah like the Waqifiyyah, Fathiyyah, and Nawusiyyah.

 

Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhsin al Hakim writes in his book Mustamsak al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, vol. 5 pg. 366:

 

ولا ينافي الطعن فيه بما سبق إذ يكون حاله حال جماعة من العامة والفطحية والواقفية وغيرهم من المخالفين للفرقة المحقة

It does not negate criticism of it by what has passed as his condition is the condition of a group of the masses (Ahlus Sunnah), the Fathiyyah, Waqifiyyah, and others of the opposition of the true sect.

 

Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Golpaygani writes in his book Irshad al Sa’il, pg. 199, Question: 742:

 

وأما الواقف على بعض الأئمة عليهم السلام فهو وإن كان معدودا من فرق الشيعة إلا أن أحكام الاثني عشرية لا تجري في حقه

With regards to one who accepts some Imams ‘alayhim al Salam, he—although counted among the Shia sects—the rulings of the Twelvers are not applicable to him.

 

[28] Probably, this declaration wipes out the notion, which some of the ignorant who are not aware of it boast over, that the establishment of marriage between the Shia and Ahlus Sunnah shatters the claim of takfir, in his understanding. Appropriate to mention, which creates resentment and fury, is that this oppressive, filthy judgement upon the Muslims of the Ahlus Sunnah is considered by majority of Shia scholars as a grave mistake, inciting their grudge, and they regard it as an obvious escape from the belief of Shi’ism of the Ahlus Sunnah being disbelievers in the world and the Hereafter, impure, whose wealth and blood are permissible. The unknown nature and invalidity of this view in the Shia creed is regarded as an accepted reality, which is definitely correct. In fact, what is surprising and baffles the sound mind is that this view is not practiced upon, not even as a belief of those who rejected it or proposed it. Their adoption of it and passing such a verdict was either due to Taqiyyah to deceive the simple-minded Muslims or due to a necessity for the benefit of Shi’ism or the Shia to remove any obstacles and hindrances in their living with others Muslims. Our proof for this is the emphatic statements of the grandees and grand authorities of Shi’ism who know fully well the knowledge and hidden realities between the rulings and beliefs. What was said about the purity of a Muslim al mukhalif in the world is nothing more than Taqiyyah or to facilitate a temporary benefit. These scholars have emphatically mentioned this:

Grand Shia Sheikh al Ansari in his book Kitab al Taharah, vol. 2 pg. 353:

 

ولا يتوهم من الحكم بطهارتهم بثبوت مزية لهم من حيث الرتبة على سائر الكفار كما توهمه بعض فطعن على المتأخرين بما طعن وإنما نحكم بذلك كما ذكره كشف اللثام استهزاء بهم ودفعا للحرج عن المؤمنين

It should not be misunderstood from declaring them pure the establishment of any distinctiveness for them regarding rank over the rest of the disbelievers as some have assumed, leading them to criticise the latter scholars. We only pass this ruling, as Kashf al Litham mentioned, to mock at them and remove difficulty from the believers.

 

Shia Muhaqqiq and Muhaddith al Bahrani writes in al Shihab al Thaqib, pg. 280:

 

فإن رسوم الإيمان قد انطمست وآثاره قد عفت واندرست ونار التقية قد علا شرارها وعظم في الفرقة الناجية انتشارها وقد ورد الأمر في الشريعة المحمدية أن احجبوا دينكم بالتقية ولعل هذا هو السر في تصريح علمائنا المتأخرين بإسلام أولئك المخالفين كما قد نقل فضلاؤنا المتأخرون عن الشيخ رحمه الله من أنه أظهر تلك المقالة في بعض مصنفاته تقية لقوله بكفرهم كما نقله عنه غير واحد من الأصحاب

The traditions of Islam have been obliterated and the effects have been erased and effaced. The flames of the fire of Taqiyyah have risen and spread widely in the saved sect. The command in the Shari’ah of Muhammad has come to conceal your din with Taqiyyah. Probably, this is the secret behind our latter scholars stating the Islam of these opposition, as our distinguished latter scholars have transmitted from Sheikh rahimahu Llah that he expressed this view in some of his books out of Taqiyyah, as he declares them disbelievers, as more than one of the scholars have transmitted.

 

Shia Muhaddith Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri writes in his book al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 2 pg. 308:

 

وأما إطلاق الإسلام عليهم في بعض الروايات فلضرب من التشبيه والمجاز والتفاتا إلى جانب التقية التي هي مناط الأحكام

With regards to application of Islam to them in some narrations, it is a sort of allegory, speaking figuratively, and switching to the side of Taqiyyah which is the object of rulings.

 

Contemporary Shia ‘Allamah Muhammad Jamil Hamud writes in his book al Fawa’id al Bahiyyah fi Sharh ‘Aqa’id al Imamiyyah, vol. 2 pg. 27:

 

أما حكم بعض المتأخرين بإسلامهم فمبني على ضرب من المصلحة والتسهيل وحقنا للدماء كل هذا بحسب الظاهر دون الواقع ويشهد له ما ذكره صاحب البحار والخوئي في مصباح الفقاهة فليراجع وإلا فالمسألة موضع اتفاق لا سيما عند المتقدمين

With regards to the latter scholars ruling them as Muslims, this is based on a type of benefit, ease, and protection of blood. All of this is according to the external, not the reality. Evidence for this is what the author of al Bihar and al Khu’i have mentioned in Misbah al Faqahah, refer to it. Otherwise, the issue is unanimously accepted especially among the early scholars.

 

He writes in the same volume, pg. 26:

 

مضافا إلى أن تبني هذا الرأي ما هو إلا مماشاة معهم ومداراة لهم

Added to this is that the basis of this view is nothing but keeping abreast with them and being sociable with them.

 

Consider, O beloved reader, these many explanations came to interpret a weak view in Shi’ism, rather unknown view, which some of the latter scholars have proposed, although the early scholars rejected it. The weak view rules the opposition as worldly Muslims, not in the Hereafter. Besides, the Islam of the world is hampered, abrogated, and confused as taking him as a brother in din is impermissible. In fact, it is permissible to curse him, slander him, dissociate from him, fabricate about him, and lie tenfold about it, as well as other things that we will find shortly in the upcoming pages of this treatise. With regards to the Hereafter, then he is according to this watered-down opinion, eternally doomed to Hell with the Jews, Christians, and Magians. He will never see nor smell the fragrance of Jannat. After all this, will anyone hope or wish, or even assume, to find an adherent of Shi’ism who believes in the Islam of a general complete opposition in the world and Hereafter? Except falsely, deceptively, maliciously, and enjoying the ignorance and simplicity of the opponent!

It is my intention, Allah willing, to prepare a separate treatise, very shortly, highlighting their emphatic texts and clear acknowledgements of this either to ease life for the Shia or remove harm from them when socialising with the Ahlus Sunnah, or observing Taqiyyah in order to protect their creed from the reaction of others Muslims when becoming aware of the reality of their concept of Takfir. I ask Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala to bring it to completion.

[29] Al Tanqih fi Sharh al ‘Urwah al Wuthqa, vol. 2 pg. 63 – 64.

[30] This is what al Khu’i attested to that it is disbelief of the Hereafter, which will lead the culprit in the Hereafter to the abode of the Jews, Christians, Magians, and Idolaters. Study the second stance of this section.

[31] Mir’at al ‘Uqul Sharh al Kafi, vol. 7 pg. 127.

[32] Jawahir al Kalam, vol. 39 pg. 32.

[33] Jawahir al Kalam, vol. 6 pg. 60, 61.

[34] His purport of sahib al amr (authority) is their Twelfth Imam who went into hiding while young in the well of Samura’—according to their most common reports—for more than a millennium. He continues awaiting an opportunity to emerge to this very day. When he will emerge after a lengthy period, he will spread his sovereignty and apply the rulings of the disbelievers against the Ahlus Sunnah. He will begin by killing them and executing them, and then snatch their wealth and honour.

[35] Jawahir al Kalam, vol. 6 pg. 56.

[36] Just look at how he established the quality of disbelief and is convinced of its tawatur among the scholars of Shi’ism. Then ponder over his words: some of which we will mention for blessings and honour for the book. This is clear indication that excommunication of the opposition—all the Ahlus Sunnah—and cursing them is considered in the eyes of these people one of the most exalted acts of proximity, to the extent that they bless their books by its mention and raise its status thereby. What type of malice and rancour is this?

[37] Kitab al Taharah, vol. 2 pg. 352.

[38] Ibid., vol. 2 pg. 354.

[39] Mustamsak al ‘Urwah, vol. 1 pg. 391.

[40] Nahj al Faqahah, pg. 318.

[41] Dalil al Nasik, pg. 47.

[42] Kitab al Taharah, vol. 3 pg. 320.

[43] Kitab al Taharah, vol. 3 pg. 323.

[44] Al Khu’i: Kitab al Taharah, vol. 2 pg. 84 – 85.

[45] Kitab al Taharah, vol. 2 pg. 85 – 86.

[46] Misbah al Faqahah, vol. 5 pg. 94.

[47] Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani al Shirazi website for verdicts on belief. http://www.imamrohani.com/fatwa-ar/viewtopic.php?t=1861

[48] This dangerous manifestation of Takfir established by the narrations, some of which Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Khomeini quotes in his book al Arba’in, pg. 591 – 592:

 

عن الكافي بإسناده عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال ذروة الأمر وسنامه ومفتاحه وباب الأشياء ورضى الرحمن الطاعة للإمام بعد معرفته … أما لو أن رجلا قام ليله وصام نهاره وتصدق بجميع ماله وحج جميع دهره ولم يعرف ولاية ولي الله فيواليه وتكون جميع أعماله بدلالته إليه ما كان له على الله حق في ثوابه ولا كان من أهل الإيمان

From al Kafi via his isnad from Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam who said: The apex of the matter, its summit, its key, the door to all things, and the pleasure of al Rahman lies in obedience to the Imam after recognising him. If a person stands the night in prayer, fasts the day, spends all his wealth in charity, and performs Hajj his entire life, but does not recognise the Wilayah of the Wali of Allah in order to associate with him and ensure that all his actions are in accordance to his indication, he does not have any right to reward from Allah and he is not from the people of iman. (Usul al Kafi)

 

Via his isnad from Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam who said:

 

من لم يأت الله عز وجل يوم القيامة بما أنتم عليه لم يتقبل منه حسنة ولم يتجاوز له سيئة

Whoever does not come to Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, on the Day of Qiyamah, with that which you are upon, no good deed will be accepted from him and no bad deed will be overlooked. (Wasa’il al Shia)

 

Via his isnad from Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam who stated:

 

والله لو أن إبليس لعنه الله سجد لله بعد المعصية والتكبر عمر الدنيا ما نفعه ذلك ولا قبله الله ما لم يسجد لآدم كما أمره الله عز وجل أن يسجد له وكذلك هذه الأمة الغاصبة المفتونة بعد تركهم الإمام الذي نصبه نبيهم لهم فلن يقبل الله لهم عملا ولن يرفع لهم حسنة حتى يأتوا الله من حيث أمرهم ويتولوا الإمام الذي أمرهم الله بولايته ويدخلوا من الباب الذي فتحه الله ورسوله لهم

By Allah, had Iblis—may Allah curse him—prostrated to Allah after the sin and arrogance for the entire existence of the world, this will not benefit him and Allah will not accept from him until he prostrates before Adam as Allah—the Mighty and Majestic—commanded him to prostrate. Similarly, this Ummah who usurped and fell into fitnah after they discarded the Imam which their Nabi appointed for them, Allah will never accept any action from them and will never raise any good deeds for them until they come to Allah from where He commanded them, associate with the Imam whom Allah commanded them to associate with, and enter from the door that Allah and His Messenger opened for them. (Wasa’il al Shia)

 

The Shia authorities have claimed its abundance and tawatur. The seal of their Muhaddithin al Majlisi is one who has stated this in Bihar al Anwar, vol. 8 pg. 369:

 

وقد وردت أخبار متواترة أنه لا يقبل عمل من الأعمال إلا بالولاية

Mutawatir narrations have been mentioned stating that no action will be accepted without Wilayah.

 

Shia Ayatollah al ‘Uzma al Khu’i in his book al Sawm, vol. 1 pg. 424:

 

النصوص الكثيرة الدالة على بطلان العبادة من دون الولاية

There are a multitude of texts indicating the invalidity of worship without Wilayah.

 

There is a voluminous book of Shia Sheikh Hashim al Bahrani in which he gathered all the narrations that state emphatically the invalidity of worship without Imamah. The title is: Nihayat al Ikmal fima bihi Tuqubbil al A’mal.

[49] Bihar al Anwar, vol. 27 pg. 166.

[50] Mir’at al ‘Uqul Sharh al Kafi, vol. 7 pg. 121.

[51] The purport of iman is belief in the Imamah of the twelve Imams, the definition of which I have quoted in the beginning of this section.

[52] Mustamsak al ‘Urwah, vol. 10 pg. 226.

[53] Mustamsak al ‘Urwah, vol. 11 pg. 7.

[54] Al Muraja’at, pg. 82.

[55] Al Arba’in, pg. 583.

[56] Al Arba’in, pg. 592.

[57] Al Arba’in, pg. 591.

[58] Al Arba’in, pg. 590.

[59] Al Sawm, vol. 1 pg. 424.

[60] Misbah al Faqahah, vol. 5 pg. 94.

[61] Kitab al Salah, vol. 2 pg. 360.

[62] Kitab al Taharah, vol. 9 pg. 27.

[63] Masa’il wa Rudud, vol. 1 pg. 10, Mas’alah: 13.

[64] Minhaj al Salihin, vol. 1 pg. 330 – 331.

[65] Surah al Tawbah: 54.