BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

Chapter Three

Abnormal Consequences of a Creed Adopting the Concept of Takfir

Introduction

There is no doubt that adopting a concept or ideology has programmed consequences, coloured with its dye and shrouded with its garment. If the concept or ideology is sound and sensible, the consequences will be the same. If the opposite, then nothing will constantly be attached and associated with it except a shameful, faulty policy or odd, rejected views. This is an established principle in which we might find diversity and dissimilarity, yet never have we come across any exception.

For example, we notice some who adopt these fallacious concepts and ideologies attempting to justify them with a range of twisted and redundant arguments and propositions. We find others—when tricks are non-existent and agents to market it are insubstantial due to its manifest invalidity—resorting to falsehood and deception in an effort to conceal or renounce it due to suspected adoption of it. However, the conspicuous dissimilarity remains. Both groups, even the one who endeavours to come out as a rejector of the faulty belief, realising its presence manifesting against him—whether he wishes or rejects, in wakefulness or negligence—there are indications to his belief and convicted faith in it which we find in the midst of his speech. Beyond his repudiations is a certain inclination towards the establishment of the very thing he outwardly endeavours to negate and dissociate from.

We find this type of diversity and dissimilarity in devious and defective approaches despite partnership in corrupt and unusual views, permanent and evident in the Takfir creed of the Shia Imamiyyah. On one hand, Shia scholars are not ashamed to twist clear statements to produce proof for their Takfir belief, with bizarre rational applications which have no link whatsoever to the Shari’ah and logic.^[1] On the other hand, other Shia scholars found no escape but to forge genuine lies and employ shameful deceitfulness as mediums to hoodwink others and convince them of Shi’ism being devoid of the dismissed and detested concept of Takfir, yearning to create a platform for them among the non-Shia, which they may capitalise on in their endeavour to demolish and destroy [the belief system of the opposition] secretly and subtly.^[2]

With this, there remains diversity in rejection and dissimilarity in methodology, with the incapacity to forge unity of opinion and meet satisfactions. We thus find various inflexible, obscure views in one scholar; without the slightest noteworthy difference.^[3]

NEXT⇒ Section 1 – Disgraceful Falsehood—their only way to deny the Charge of Takfir from Shi’ism

[1] They are the overwhelming class of Shia scholars who have documented in their books the disbelief of the opposition without displaying their belief to the public. The first two chapters of this treatise are brimming with examples.

[2] This is the group upon which I will shed light in the first section of this chapter, to point out their status and make people aware of their cunningness, mischievousness, and the reality of their character.

[3] I will attend to this in the second section of this chapter when I compare the stance of the clerics of Imami Takfir to the stance of the scholars of the rest of the Muslims, especially the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. The collaboration of all Imamiyyah scholars on the same view and stance will become clearly evident to you—despite their dissimilar mediums and approaches in identifying the school.

BACK⇒ Return to Table of contents

Chapter Three

Abnormal Consequences of a Creed Adopting the Concept of Takfir

Introduction

There is no doubt that adopting a concept or ideology has programmed consequences, coloured with its dye and shrouded with its garment. If the concept or ideology is sound and sensible, the consequences will be the same. If the opposite, then nothing will constantly be attached and associated with it except a shameful, faulty policy or odd, rejected views. This is an established principle in which we might find diversity and dissimilarity, yet never have we come across any exception.

For example, we notice some who adopt these fallacious concepts and ideologies attempting to justify them with a range of twisted and redundant arguments and propositions. We find others—when tricks are non-existent and agents to market it are insubstantial due to its manifest invalidity—resorting to falsehood and deception in an effort to conceal or renounce it due to suspected adoption of it. However, the conspicuous dissimilarity remains. Both groups, even the one who endeavours to come out as a rejector of the faulty belief, realising its presence manifesting against him—whether he wishes or rejects, in wakefulness or negligence—there are indications to his belief and convicted faith in it which we find in the midst of his speech. Beyond his repudiations is a certain inclination towards the establishment of the very thing he outwardly endeavours to negate and dissociate from.

We find this type of diversity and dissimilarity in devious and defective approaches despite partnership in corrupt and unusual views, permanent and evident in the Takfir creed of the Shia Imamiyyah. On one hand, Shia scholars are not ashamed to twist clear statements to produce proof for their Takfir belief, with bizarre rational applications which have no link whatsoever to the Shari’ah and logic.^[1] On the other hand, other Shia scholars found no escape but to forge genuine lies and employ shameful deceitfulness as mediums to hoodwink others and convince them of Shi’ism being devoid of the dismissed and detested concept of Takfir, yearning to create a platform for them among the non-Shia, which they may capitalise on in their endeavour to demolish and destroy [the belief system of the opposition] secretly and subtly.^[2]

With this, there remains diversity in rejection and dissimilarity in methodology, with the incapacity to forge unity of opinion and meet satisfactions. We thus find various inflexible, obscure views in one scholar; without the slightest noteworthy difference.^[3]

NEXT⇒ Section 1 – Disgraceful Falsehood—their only way to deny the Charge of Takfir from Shi’ism

[1] They are the overwhelming class of Shia scholars who have documented in their books the disbelief of the opposition without displaying their belief to the public. The first two chapters of this treatise are brimming with examples.

[2] This is the group upon which I will shed light in the first section of this chapter, to point out their status and make people aware of their cunningness, mischievousness, and the reality of their character.

[3] I will attend to this in the second section of this chapter when I compare the stance of the clerics of Imami Takfir to the stance of the scholars of the rest of the Muslims, especially the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. The collaboration of all Imamiyyah scholars on the same view and stance will become clearly evident to you—despite their dissimilar mediums and approaches in identifying the school.