Allow me to elaborate on the disastrous and irregular consequences of the Imami creed, founded on the dismissed concept of Takfir, with the desire to expose the depth of the wickedness of these consequences and abnormalities. I have decided to capture the essence of this section with a comparison between the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah on one hand and the Shia excommunicators on the other, and each one’s stance towards the rest of the Muslim sects and individuals in two verdicts.
These verdicts hold the greatest significance in Islamic debates and are absolutely the most critical, considering what these two verdicts cover, i.e., a direct or strong connection with the doctrinal aspect of a Muslim individual. Additionally, the obvious and distinct consequences of accepting it on the actual coexistence of Muslims, considering each one’s stance on the other. First is the verdict of salvation on the Day of Qiyamah, what is it based on? Second is the verdict on the topic of succession after the Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and diversity in opinion.
It is appropriate at this juncture to inform the respected reader that, in presenting the essence of this section, I will rely on the declarations and acknowledgements of the Imami clerics themselves, no one else, without introducing the view or suggestion of the Ahlus Sunnah.
I allowed them to present the view and ijtihad of the Ahlus Sunnah first so that their view and ijtihad appears second. The extent of obstinacy deeply imbedded in the Shia Imami Takfiri creed compared to the apparent outstanding moderation, balance, and magnanimity in the view of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah will soon dawn upon everyone who reads the views of both parties. As if Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala intended the fire of their rebellion to scorch their faces; hence, He played the truth on their tongues, to spite them. Their tongues testified to their incrimination and the falsity of their creed—making the proofs of conviction against them greater and their accountability more severe and stern. Simultaneously, it acknowledged the adherence and devotion of the Ahlus Sunnah to justice and fairness, making their imposing structure loftier, their status higher, and their virtue over others accentuated. O beloved reader, have a look at the detailed discussion on these two topics and the stance of each sect, penned in Shia books.
This is unquestionably one of the most critical and important issues. The debate on the outcome of a Muslim and the destiny of his travels; either eternity in the comforts of Jannat or doom to the blaze of Hell.
This issue in reality is the be all and end all of a Muslim’s life, as it is the supreme reality upon which rests his detailed endeavours in this worldly life. The effort behind implementing every good action in the world, commanding it, and inviting towards it—while facing all the adversities and calamities it comes with; its adoption driven and motivated by a yearning for Jannat and its pleasures, coupled with abstention, distance, and rejection of every evil—notwithstanding its sweet taste and adorned outcomes—with the fear of Hell and its blaze hidden behind it.
There is no meaning to all the goodness and sweetness of the world, if the outcome and final abode is evil. Similarly, there is no consideration to the difficulties and adversities of the world, if the Afterlife is good and the abode is pleasant. Due to these aspects, this matter earns its magnitude and impact. Accordingly, it is binding upon one who dares to venture into it to possess the highest level of fairness, justice, and magnanimity, far removed from personal motive and passion, as he is now facing a genuine declaration on that which is eternal and everlasting, not just explaining a worldly, temporary situation.
Let us become aware of the genuine stance of both sects on this topic to ascertain which of the two was fair in submission after setting himself free from passion and its influence, thus observing impartiality and justice and who displayed transgression and obstinacy, thus deviating from the path of truth and falling into the abyss of falsehood and misguidance.
We will present clear statements of their clerics and authorities which establishes their conspicuous stance on this topic while depicting its difference to the stance of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. This will make manifest to you the obvious polarity and the vast dissimilarity between the two. We leave the stage open for the Imamiyyah scholars to explain to us the reality of the stance of both sects:
Sheikh al Nasir al Tusi makes a categorical statement in which there is some ambiguity, which establishes that the Shia Imamiyyah sect are the ones to attain salvation and those besides them are destroyed on the Day of Qiyamah. He says:
الفرقة الناجية هي الفرقة الإمامية قال لأن جميع المذاهب وقفت على أصولها وفروعها فوجدت من عدا الإمامية مشتركين في الأصول المعتبرة في الإيمان … ثم وجدت أن طائفة الإمامية هم يخالفون الكل في أصولهم فلو كانت فرقة من عداهم ناجية لكان الكل ناجين فيدل على أن الناجي هو الإمامية لا غير
The sect to attain salvation is the Imamiyyah sect. This is because I became acquainted with the fundamentals and branches of all the sects and found that all besides the Imamiyyah concur in the fundamentals considered for iman. I then found that the Imamiyyah sect opposes all in their fundamentals. So if a sect besides them attains salvation, all would attain salvation. This indicates that the one to attain salvation is the Imamiyyah, not anyone besides them.
Shia Muhaddith Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri comments on the above statement of al Tusi in more than one place to elucidate on the meaning. He says:
وبيانه أن الإمامية قد تفردوا بأن دخول الجنة والنجاة لا يكون إلا بعد ولاية آل محمد عليهم السلام واعتقاد إمامتهم وأما باقي الفرق الإسلامية فقد أطبقوا على أن أصل النجاة هو الإقرار بالشهادتين
The meaning is that the Imamiyyah have the unique view that entry into Jannat and salvation [from Hell] cannot be attained except by adopting Wilayah to the family of Muhammad ‘alayhim al Salam and believing in their Imamah. The rest of the Muslim sects are unanimous that the core of salvation rests upon testifying to the shahadatayn.
Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri comments on the original text as well:
وهذا تحقيق متين حاصله أنه لو كانت الفرقة الناجية غير الإمامية لكان الناجي كلهم لا فرقة واحدة وذلك لأنهم مشتركون في الأصول والعقائد الموجبة لدخول الجنة لا يخالفهم أحد سوى الإمامية فإنهم اشترطوا في دخول الجنة ولاية الأئمة الاثني عشر والقول بإمامتهم
This is a strong assertion. The gist of it is that if the sect attaining salvation was anyone besides the Imamiyyah, all would attain salvation—not just one sect. This is because all agree on the fundamentals and beliefs resulting in entry into Jannat. None besides the Imamiyyah oppose them. The Imamiyyah stipulate Wilayah of the twelve Imams and affirming their Imamah a condition for entry into Jannat.
Shia Historian and Cleric Muhammad Baqir al Khuwanasari is amazed by the speech of al Tusi and al Jaza’iri. He thus quotes it with a text clearer than the previous two, saying:
وقال السيد نعمة الله الجزائري أجزل الله بره بعد نقله لهذه العبارة وتحريره أن جميع الفرق مطبقون على أن الشهادتين وحدها مناط النجاة تعويلا على قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من قال لا إله إلا الله دخل الجنة وأما هذه الفرقة الإمامية فهم مجمعون على أن النجاة لا تكون إلا بولاية أهل البيت عليهم السلام إلى الإمام الثاني عشر عليه السلام والبراءة من أعدائهم فهي مباينة لجميع الفرق في هذا الاعتقاد الذي تدور عليه النجاة
Sayed Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri—may Allah increase his piety—after quoting and writing this text states: All the sects are unanimous on the shahadatayn alone being the basis for salvation, relying on his salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam statement, “Whoever says there is no deity but Allah will enter Jannat.” As for this Imamiyyah sect, they are unanimous that salvation is only through Wilayah of the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam until the twelfth Imam ‘alayh al Salam and dissociation from their enemies. It is thus dissimilar to all the sects in this belief upon which salvation rests.
4. ‘Allamah Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli
Shia ‘Allamah Ibn al Mutahhar al Hilli writes:
إن الإمامية جازمون بحصول النجاة لهم ولأئمتهم قاطعون على ذلك وبحصول ضدها لغيرهم
The Imamiyyah determine the attainment of salvation for them and their Imams, with confidence, and the attainment of the opposite for others.
والذي دلت عليه الأخبار كما تقدمت الإشارة إليه أن الإيمان لا يصدق على غير الإمامية وإلا لزم دخول غيرهم الجنة ولا قائل به
The narrations assert, as was indicated to previously, that iman is not applicable to the non Imamiyyah, otherwise entry of others into Jannat would be necessary; whereas no one holds this view.
Ayatollah al ‘Uzma ‘Abdul Hussain, author of the book al Muraja’at, initiates a lengthy discussion on what guarantees salvation according to both the Shia and Ahlus Sunnah. The gist of that discussion is:
a. He confirms that the narrations of the Ahlus Sunnah determine that salvation is attained with the shahadatayn—and this is emphatic affirmation of the justice of the Ahlus Sunnah—saying:
الفصل الخامس في طائفة مما صح عند أهل السنة من الأحاديث الحاكمة بنجاة مطلق الموحدين أوردناها ليعلم حكمها بالجنة على كل من الشيعة والسنة إلى أن قال وهذه الأخبار أجلى من الشمس في رابعة النهار وصحتها أشهر من نار على علم فيها من البشائر ما ربما هون على المسلم موبقات الكبائر فدونك أبوابها في كتب أهل السنة لتعلم حكمها عليك وعليهم بالجنة وكلما ذكرناه شذر من بذر ونقطة من لجج بحر اكتفينا منها بما ذكره البخاري في كتابه وكرره بالأسانيد المتعددة في كثير من أبوابه ولن نتعرض لما في باقي الصحاح إذ انشق بما ذكرناه عمود الفجر واندلع لسان الصباح
Section Five: A selection of authentic narrations, according to the Ahlus Sunnah, affirming the deliverance of absolute monotheists. We have reported them so that their verdict of Jannat for both the Shia and Ahlus Sunnah be realised.
He further states: These narrations are more evident than the sun at midday and their authenticity is more apparent than a fire on a mountain. They contain so many good tidings which perhaps underestimates the destructive consequences of major sins for a Muslim. Study the chapters of the books of the Ahlus Sunnah to know of the verdict of Jannat for you and them. What we documented is scattered seeds and droplets of a deep ocean. We sufficed on what al Bukhari documents in his book and repeats through various chains across many chapters. We did not cite what appears in the other authentic compilations, as what we mentioned caused true dawn to break and the tongue of morning to hang out.
b. He acknowledges submissively that their books and narrations do not rule salvation for all monotheists, as affirmed by the narrations of the Ahlus Sunnah. Rather, they specify and stipulate it for the believers in Imamah only. He says:
وإن عندنا صحاحا أخر فزنا بها من طريق أئمتنا الاثني عشر روتها هداة قولهم وحديثهم روى جدنا عن جبرئيل عن الباري فهي السنة التالية للكتاب وهي الجنة الواقية من العذاب وإليكها في أصول الكافي وغيره تعلن بالبشائر لأهل الإيمان بالله ورسوله واليوم الآخر لكنها تخصص ما سمعته من تلك العمومات المتكاثرة بولاية آل رسول الله وعترته الطاهرة الذين قرنهم بمحكم الكتاب وجعلهم قدوة لأولي الألباب ونص على أنهم سفن النجاة إذا طغى زخار الفتن وأمان الأمة إذا هاج إعصار المحن ونجوم الهداية إذا أسلدهم ليل الغواية وباب حطة لا يغفر إلا لمن دخلها والعروة الوثقى لا انفصام لها ولا غرو فإن ولايتهم من أصول الدين
We have other authentic compilations which we attained through the chain of our twelve Imams; narrated by guides: their statements and hadith. Our grandfather [Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam] narrated from Jibril from the Originator [Allah]. It is the Sunnah following the Book and the Jannat which protects from punishment. Have a look at them in Usul al Kafi and others books, announcing good tidings for the believers in Allah, His Messenger, and the Last Day.
However, these abundant general reports you heard are confined to the Wilayah of Rasulullah’s household and pure family, whom He joined with the decisive Book and appointed as leaders for the intelligent. He emphatically declared them ships of saviour when the profuse trails overflow, sanctuaries for the Ummah when the tornados of difficulties are rough and stormy, stars of guidance when they are covered by the night of temptation, doors of repentance, there is no forgiveness except for one who enters through them, and the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. Undoubtedly, their Wilayah is from the fundamentals of din.
Contemporary Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani states this while answering a question posed to him. The wording is:
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, but rather love them. How can they enter Hell when they testify to the shahadatayn, perform five Salahs, perform Hajj, and fast in Ramadan?
Through this, the enormous difference and the vast gap between the balanced religion of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah and the disgusting Takfir creed of the Shia Imamiyyah becomes crystal clear. We see them clearly stating the Ahlus Sunnah stipulating a simple utterance and confession to the shahadatayn a condition for a Muslim’s entry into Jannat—either immediately or delayed—while we see them testifying to the uselessness of this for them. There is no salvation through the shahadatayn, nor any superior acts of devotion and worship unless it is coupled with the fundamental of Imamah, in their sight. In fact, only with the specific Imams. Accordingly, the scholars of Shi’ism are unanimous that there will be neither salvation on the Day of Qiyamah nor triumph of Jannat for the non-Shia. All the remaining Muslim sects will be doomed to the Fire of Hell forever and ever, with the Jews, Christians, Magians, and Idolaters. These, O beloved brother, are the clear statements and emphatic declarations presented to you verbatim. Now, you may judge for yourself which of the two sects are closer to the right path and which of them are in clear deviation.
There is a cluster of issues in this one case, all of which manifests the balance and moderation of the Ahlus Sunnah and the transgression and obstinacy of the Shia. This will be proven from their scholars’ declarations and texts. Have a look at this through two main aspects.
The view of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah on the issue of Caliphate originates primarily from the Qur’an’s view on it, represented by His subhanahu wa ta ‘ala statement in His Decisive Book:
وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُوْرٰى بَيْنَهُمْ
And whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves.
As a result, Caliphate according to the Ahlus Sunnah is a matter which the Muslims should themselves decide by evidence of the glorious verse’s emphatic text and demanded by specific mechanisms and regulations. When Caliphate according to the Ahlus Sunnah is like this—a broad understanding, specification not limiting it—the door of nomination for it is completely open to whoever has the capability and courage to assume the post of Caliphate. The Muslims may decide—the Ahl al Hall wa al ‘Aqd (those consulted in making major decisions)—which of the candidates is most deserving of it and thus pledge allegiance to him. Whoever lacks a few qualities from prevailing in superiority, they will turn away from him or defer him until he becomes worthy and deserving of it. Likewise, the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah award the right to the Muslims in taking the Khalifah to account, if weakness or deficiency becomes apparent from him, as well as rising against him and removing him if he commits open disbelief which does not accept interpretation or vindication.
As regards to the stance of the Shia on the topic of Caliphate, it is extremely dissimilar to the Qur’anic methodology. They consider it a right exclusive and particular to Twelve Imams. It is not permissible, in any condition, to move away from them to anyone else or for any era to be free from them, no matter how long or short the era. In addition, they believe that these Imams have to be specified by name and sequence by Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala, persisting on their belief with all obstinacy and pig-headedness, without any evidence for their claim, neither textually nor rationally. In fact, they are incapable of producing a single verse or a portion of a verse from the Book of Allah, the Exalted in Might, as evidence for their claim.
Furthermore, they consider Imamah one of the fundamentals of Din like Tawhid, Afterlife, and Nubuwwah. They generate the natural result of this, the verdict of the absolute disbelief of every individual who does not believe in this fundamental, just like the rejecter of the fundamental of Tawhid, Afterlife, or Nubuwwah. They have not stopped here. They have gone to the extent of excommunicating one who attests to the fundamental but denies a specific individual of the Twelve Imams or rejects his right to it. As a result, while looking at the view of both sects on the topic of Caliphate, we are able to understand the vivid dissimilarity between them. It is possible to determine, merely on this basis, which of the two sects maintained fairness, justice, and moderation and which of the two fell into the trap of excommunication, digression, and deviance. Consequential to the diversity in understanding the concept of Caliphate by the Ahlus Sunnah from one angle and the Shia on the other angle, are two important matters which firmly plant and emphasise this polarity.
The Ahlus Sunnah view disagreement between the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum over the Caliphate a very natural occurrence; it being worthy to be assumed by every suitable person. The matter, per se, is subject to ijtihad. It is not befitting to expand it beyond its capacity nor is it correct to assign it unrestrictedly to a specific Sahabi, to the exclusion of others, leave alone one being criticised and the other glorified. Deserving caliphate is equally shared by those deserving of the post in the sight of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah; it is a subsidiary issue subject to the ijtihad of the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum. All of them in this, despite the disagreement and diversity of their views, were on great goodness.
As for the Shia, they do not view the disagreement as such. This is a disagreement in a fundamental of belief. In fact, they have gone further than this and considered it a determining factor between disbelief and faith. Whoever agrees with their stance—that ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu was the only one deserving of the Caliphate in the Shari’ah and that Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum are disbelievers and doomed to Hell for eternity for snatching the Caliphate from him—is a believer, whose blood and wealth are sacred and the rulings of a believer apply to him. Whoever opposes them and views differently, they consider him a disbeliever out of the religion, upon whom the laws of disbelief are applicable in the world and the Hereafter.
Have a look at this incident narrated by Shia Muhaddith, Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri, which he claims transpired between the scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah with one of their early scholars in the gathering of one of the khalifas, clarifying their belief on the disagreement between the Sahabah radiya Llahu ‘anhum over the caliphate of the Ummah after the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He says:
قال الصدوق تغمده الله برحمته في تمام ما حكيناه عنه في المباحثة مع علماء الجمهور في مجلس بعض الملوك لما قالوا له إننا وأنتم على إله واحد ونبي واحد وافترقنا في تعيين الخليفة الأول ليس الحال على ما تزعمون بل نحن وأنتم في طرف من الخلاف حتى في الله سبحانه والنبي وذلك أنكم تزعمون أن لكم ربا وذلك الرب أرسل رسولا خليفته بالاستحقاق أبا بكر ونحن نقول إن ذلك الرب ليس ربا لنا وذلك النبي لا نقول بنبوته بل نقول إن ربنا الذي نص على أن خليفة رسوله علي بن أبي طالب عليه السلام فأين الاتفاق
Al Saduq—may Allah envelope him in mercy—at the end of what we reported from him in the discussion with the scholars of the majority [Ahlus Sunnah] in a gathering of one of the kings, reports.
They [Ahlus Sunnah] said to him [the Shia scholar], “We and you believe in one deity and one Nabi. We only differ in determining the first khalifah.”
He answered, “The matter is not as you think. Rather, we and you are total opposites even with regards to Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala and the Nabi. This is because you believe that you have a Rabb and that Rabb sent a Messenger whose worthy successor is Abu Bakr. We, on the other hand, declare that that Rabb is not our deity and we do not attest to the Nubuwwah of that Nabi. Rather, we affirm that certainly our Rabb is the One Who emphatically declared ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam the khalifah of His Messenger. So where is the similarity?”
Thereafter, Ni’mat Allah al Jaza’iri voices with emphasis their fastidious stance on Imamah. He writes:
وحاصله أنا لم نجتمع معهم على إله ولا على نبي ولا على إمام وذلك لأنهم يقولون أن ربهم هو الذي كان محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم نبيه وخليفته بعده أبو بكر ونحن لا نقول بهذا الرب ولا بذلك النبي بل نقول أن الرب الذي خليفة نبيه أبو بكر ليس ربنا ولا ذلك النبي نبينا
The gist of it is that we do not concur with them on a deity, a nabi, or an imam. This is because they claim that their Rabb is the One whose Nabi is Muhammad and the khalifah after him is Abu Bakr. We do not agree with such a Rabb, nor such a nabi. We state that the Rabb whose Nabi’s khalifah is Abu Bakr is not our Rabb, nor is that nabi our nabi.
The point of contention in this issue is concealed in the upcoming question:
The group of Sahabah and Ahlul Bayt—added to ‘Ali and his two sons, Hassan and Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum—who are recognised for their iman, taqwa, hijrah, and jihad, as well as their assistance and support to Islam whom Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala praised, listed their virtues, and announced His love for them and their love for Him together with His Messenger salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam praising them and endowing them with his close company and love, the likes of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, ‘Abbas—the paternal uncle of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, his son—the sage of the Ummah, and many other senior Sahabah and Ahlul Bayt; are they worthy and deserving of Caliphate? What about those who followed them in goodness—like the grandsons of the Sahabah and Ahlul Bayt from the Quraysh coupled with some of the sons of Hussain ibn ‘Ali, who are known for righteousness and taqwa like ‘Abdullah ibn al Zubair, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz, the righteous offspring of Hassan ibn ‘Ali, and the other sons of Hussain—besides the Twelve Imams of the Shia—do they have right or candidacy to caliphate or are all of them banned from it? Is it restricted to certain individuals, and not possible to move to others?
The answer to this question reveals the hidden contention and the basis of the disagreement. On one hand, the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah view all these luminaries suitable and deserving of the caliphate. The Muslims appointed some of the above individuals as khalifah practically and they thus took up office. They were the finest of those who assumed burdens and responsibilities, the likes of Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum from the era of the Sahabah and ‘Umar ibn ‘Abdul ‘Aziz from the era of the Tabi’in.
To the contrary, the Twelver Shia Imamiyyah opine that no one will ever—notwithstanding the level of taqwa, righteousness, knowledge, intelligence, foresight, and planning he reaches—be suitable for it besides twelve men. They are ‘Ali, Hassan, Hussain and then nine descendants of Hussain ibn ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib—may Allah be pleased with them. Sahabah, Ahlul Bayt, Tabi’in, and other Muslims besides them are not worthy of it.
I thus find it compulsory for me—O beloved brother and reader—to present to you some declarations of their scholars stating this distinctiveness:
وأي عاقل يعتقد تقديم ابن أبي قحافة وابن الخطاب وابن عفان الأدنياء في النسب والصعاب الذين لا يعرف لهم تقدم ولا سبق في علم ولا جهاد … وألبسوا أشياء أقلها يوجب الكفر فعليهم وعلى محبيهم لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين
Which intelligent person will believe in the precedence of Ibn Abi Quhafah, Ibn al Khattab, and Ibn ‘Affan—inferior in lineage, obstinate, who are not known to have any precedence, nor superiority in knowledge or jihad?
They are guilty of many other crimes—the least of which necessitates disbelief. Thus, may the curse of Allah, His angels, and all humankind be upon them and their lovers.
وليتأمل العاقل المنصف أنه هل يجوز أن يتولى منصب الخلافة الذي هو معظم منصب النبوة مثل شيخ تيم الجاهل بأمور الدين ومثل عتل عدي الزنيم ذي الفظاظة الغلظة والمكر والخديعة ومثل ثور بني أمية الذي حملهم على أعناق الناس
Let an intelligent, just person consider whether it is permissible for a person to assume the seat of caliphate like the old man of Taym who is ignorant of religious affairs, like the cruel man of ‘Adi, the illegitimate pretender, hard-hearted, harsh, cunning, and deceitful, and like the ox of Banu Umayyah who burdened the necks of people with them.
فالشيعة تأبى إمامة الثلاثة وتقول بإمامة علي دونها
فهذه نبذة من مخازي الثلاثة تدل بأدنى فكر على عدم استحقاقهم الخلافة
This is a fraction of the three’s shameful acts … which indicate, with the least reflection, their unworthiness of the caliphate.
ومع هذا كيف يدخل الريب قلب أحد في خلافة علي عليه السلام عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وعدم استحقاق من تقدمه لها
With this, how can doubt ever enter the heart of anyone concerning the [legitimacy] of the Caliphate of ‘Ali ‘alayh al Salam from the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and the unworthiness of those who preceded him to the post?
ولا سيما وأن الله سبحانه لم يجعلها فيمن جعلها فيه إلا لانحصار الأهلية به وعدم صلاحية غيره لها ويكفينا في التعرف على الآثار والفوائد المهمة التي تترتب لو ولي الخلافة أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام الذي يدعي الشيعة النص عليه
Especially when Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala did not determine it for whom He determined it, except due to worthiness being confined to him and the unsuitability of others for it. Sufficient for us is knowing the narrations and subsequent significant benefits had Amir al Mu’minin ‘alayh al Salam assumed caliphate, for which the Shia claim emphatic text.
أما الخلفاء الثلاثة فنعتقد أن توليهم الحكم لم يكن شرعيا لوجود النص الصريح من النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على تعيين علي عليه السلام خليفة من بعده
As regards the three Khalifas, we believe that their assuming leadership was not permitted in the Shari’ah due to the presence of an emphatic text from the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam identifying ‘Ali ‘‘alayh al Salam as khalifah after him.
Ponder, O Muslim brother, over the intensity of the dissimilarity painted vividly in this image, so that you may see the fairness and balance of the Ahlus Sunnah, bright and evident as the sun, its light not able to be concealed except with a dark, misguiding cloud. According to the Ahlus Sunnah, the righteous individuals of the Ahlul Bayt whose superiority, goodness, and competence have been attested to, as is the condition of the remaining senior Sahabah, are worthy of caliphate without the slightest of doubt. Those of them who assumed the position and to whom people pledged allegiance, their caliphate is correct—without any Muslim doubting or critiquing it as they are believers, truthful individuals, and genuine warriors who enjoy superiority in Islam and relationship to Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam.
In stark polarity with this fairness and balance, you see the Shia methodology crammed with crookedness, ugliness, and misguidance which seeks to disfigure the image and upset the scales. It rejects the suitability of the senior Sahabah—specifically Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, and ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhum—and criticises their caliphate despite their precedence in Islam and support for it with their lives and wealth and notwithstanding their love for Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam and his love for them to the extent that he married their daughters and they married his and he kept them in his close circle. They were the most beloved Companions to him and the closest to his heart. Add to this Allah’s subhanahu wa ta ‘ala praise for them in more than one place of the Glorious Qur’an and His announcement of His pleasure with them and their pleasure with Him in many verses, like His statement:
وَالسَّابِقُوْنَ الْأَوَّلُوْنَ مِنَ الْمُهَاجِرِيْنَ وَالْأَنْصَارِ وَالَّذِيْنَ اتَّبَعُوْهُمْ بِإِحْسَانٍ رَّضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُمْ وَرَضُوْا عَنْهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُمْ جَنَّاتٍ تَجْرِيْ تَحْتَهَا الْأَنْهَارُ خَالِدِيْنَ فِيهَا أَبَدًا ذٰلِكَ الْفَوْزُ الْعَظِيْمُ
And the first forerunners [in the faith] among the Muhajirin and the Ansar and those who followed them with good conduct – Allah is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him, and He has prepared for them gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. That is the great attainment.
In fact, the issue has spiralled out of control from excommunicating the cream of the Sahabah and the warriors of Islam to the excommunication of the Ahlul Bayt—besides the twelve—even if they are from the progeny of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu, as the narrations, I just quoted, affirmed.
We will soon witness an academic actuality exposing its research on the view of the Ahlus Sunnah and Imamiyyah on the legitimacy of diversity in opinion and the permissibility of worshiping in whichever form, without the slightest difference or disparity. This, while reporting what the Imami scholars have transmitted and established in their books, including verdicts and declarations which discuss this aspect specifically, presented with clear polarity between the two views.
One Shia scholar quotes in his book the text of the verdict of Sheikh al Azhar, eminent grand scholar Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut, permitting adherence to the Jafari school as a fifth school, added to the other four schools of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah which they adhere to worldwide. Here is the text of his verdict as transmitted by the Shia—and the charge is against them—with the caption:
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم نص الفتوى التي أصدرها السيد صاحب الفضيلة الأستاذ الأكبر الشيخ محمود شلتوت شيخ الجامع الأزهر في شأن جواز التعبد بمذهب الشيعة الإمامية
In the name of Allah, the Excessively Merciful, Extremely Compassionate. The text of the fatwa issued by the mister, the virtuous, the grand teacher, Sheikh Mahmud Shaltut—the Sheikh of al Azhar University regarding the permissibility of adhering to the school of the Shia Imamiyyah.
قيل لفضيلته إن بعض الناس يرى أنه يجب على المسلم لكي تقع عباداته ومعاملاته على وجه صحيح أن يقلد أحد المذاهب الأربعة المعروفة وليس من بينها مذهب الشيعة الإمامية ولا الشيعة الزيدية فهل توافقون فضيلتكم على هذا الرأي على إطلاقه فتمنعون تقليد مذهب الشيعة الإمامية الاثنا عشرية مثلا
He was asked: Some people opine that it is mandatory upon a Muslim, for his acts of worship and transactions to be valid, to follow one of the four popular schools which do not include the school of the Shia Imamiyyah nor the Shia Zaidiyyah. Do you concur with this view, unrestrictedly, and disallow following the school of the Imamiyyah Ithna ‘Ashariyyah for example?
فأجاب فضيلته إن الإسلام لا يوجب على أحد من أتباعه اتباع مذهب معين بل نقول إن لكل مسلم الحق في أن يقلد بادئ ذي بدء أي مذهب من المذاهب المنقولة نقلاً صحيحاً والمدونة أحكامها في كتبها الخاصة ولمن قلّد مذهباً من هذه المذاهب أن ينقل إلى غيره – أي مذهب كان – ولا حرج عليه في شيء من ذلك إن مذهب الجعفرية المعروف بمذهب الشيعة الإمامية الإثنا عشرية مذهب يجوز التعبد به شرعاً كسائر مذاهب السنة فينبغي للمسلمين أن يعرفوا ذلك وأن تخلصوا من العصبية بغير الحق لمذاهب معينة فما كان دين الله وما كانت شريعته بتابعة لمذهب أو مقصورة على مذهب فالكل مجتهدون مقبولون عند الله تعالى يجوز لمن ليس أهلاً للنظر والاجتهاد تقليدهم والعمل بما يقررونه في فقههم ولا فرق في ذلك بين العبادات والمعاملات
السيد صاحب السماحة العلامة الجليل الأستاذ محمد تفي القمي السكرتير العام لجماعة التقريب بين المذاهب الإسلامية سلام عليكم ورحمته أما بعد فسرني أن أبعث إلى سماحتكم بصورة موقع عليها بإمضاء من الفتوى التي أصدرتها في شأن جواز التعبد بمذهب الشيعة الإمامية راجياً أن تحفظوها في سجلات دار التقريب بين المذاهب الإسلامية التي أسهمنا معكم في تأسيسها ووفقنا الله لتحقيق رسالتها والسلام عليكم ورحمة الله
His eminence answered:
Certainly, Islam does not obligate on any of its adherents following a particular school. Rather, we say: Indeed, every Muslim has the right to follow, from the onset, whichever of the schools have been transmitted authentically and the rulings of which have been compiled in their respective books. Whoever is following any of these schools has the right to switch to another—whichever it may be—and there is no sin upon him in any of this.
The Jafari School—commonly known as the school of the Twelver Shia Imamiyyah—is a school of thought adherence to which is permissible in the Shari’ah, similar to the rest of the schools of the Ahlus Sunnah. It is appropriate for Muslims to realise this and to free themselves from sectarianism without right to the particular schools. The Din of Allah and His Shari’ah is not subject to any school or restricted to any school. All are mujtahids and accepted in the Sight of Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala. It is permissible for those who are not experts in examining and ijtihad to follow them and to practice upon what they have documented in their fiqh. There is no difference in this regard between acts of worship and transactions.
Sayed, the magnanimous, the grand ‘Allamah, the teacher, Muhammad Taqi al Qummi
General Secretary of the World Forum for Proximity of Islamic Schools of Thoughts
Peace be upon you and His mercy. After salam, it pleases me to send to your magnificence, in a signed document, the verdict I issued on the issue of the permissibility of adhering to the school of the Shia Imamiyyah, hoping that you will preserve it in the files of the Dar al Taqrib bayna al Mazahib al Islamiyyah which we laboured with you to establish. May Allah enable us to realise its message. And may peace be upon you, and the Mercy of Allah.
I did not delve very deep in establishing this matter, in the sight of the Shia Imamiyyah, as it is not possible for any intelligent person to believe them allowing adherence to the four mazahib after establishing the deviance and disbelief of their [the four mazahib’s] Imams and followers, in fact the disbelief of anyone who attributes himself to anything besides the Imamiyyah and adheres to other than their fundamentals.
I will, however, suffice in highlighting this matter with the answer of the contemporary Lebanese Shia authority, Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah—of the many [prominent] Shia scholars in the history of Shi’ism, of present and past, moderate in viewing the Shia and Ahlus Sunnah simultaneously—to a question posed to him particularly on the permissibility of adhering to any of the mazahib of the Ahlus Sunnah. You may then ascertain the possibility of continuing the claim towards unity between the two sects. Probably, the image will be complete and the signs will be apparent. After this, the efforts of those with base ulterior motives and poisoned objectives will not be fruitful. Have a look, O beloved, kind reader, at the text of the question and the answer of Fadl Allah to it, verbatim, terminating the last section of this treatise:
هل يجوز التعبد في فروع الدين بالمذاهب السنية الأربعة وكذلك بقية المذاهب غير الشيعية
It is permissible to adhere in secondary matters to the four Sunni schools (mazahib) and the other schools apart from Shi’ism?
لا يجوز التعبد بأي مذهب إسلامي غير مذهب أهل البيت عليهم السلام لأنه المذهب الذي قامت عليه الحجة القاطعة والله الموفق وهو حسبنا ونعم الوكيل
It is not permissible to adhere to any Islamic school besides the school of the Ahlul Bayt ‘alayhim al Salam as it is the [only] school which is established through decisive evidence. Allah is the bestower of capability and He is sufficient for us and what an excellent Disposer of affairs He is.
 I penned this section to emphasise and expose the reality of the irregular obstinacy in views and ideologies based on the concept of Takfir of the Shia Imamiyyah. This is not in order to establish or highlight the corruption and fallaciousness of their belief. That is what this treatise has crammed from the first section, starting from the irregularity of their narrations and the declarations of their scholars and ending at the nasty manifestations and effects of it coupled with the consequential conduct.
 This is exactly what I relied upon in most of the sections of this treatise so that they are implicated with proof and their lies are exposed.
 As the poet said:
ومليحة شهدت لها ضراتها والحق ما شهدت به الأعداء
[She is] Gorgeous; to which her co-wives testify. The truth is what the enemy attests to.
 Nur al Barahin, vol. 1 pg. 64.
 Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 2 pg. 279.
 Rawdat al Jannat, vol. 6 pg. 285, in the biography of al Nasir al Tusi.
 Minhaj al Karamah, pg. 50.
 Al Hada’iq al Nadirah, vol. 22 pg. 204.
 The lengthy discussion appears in his book al Fusul al Muhimmah fi Ta’lif al Ummah, pg. 25 – 32.
 Cited previously.
 Al Fusul al Muhimmah fi Ta’lif al Ummah, pg. 25 – 32.
 The Muslims in general and Ahlus Sunnah in particular should ponder over how emphatically their most distinguished authority in the creed, the one who adhered to the concept of Takfir his whole life, declared it. To the extent that the questioner expresses his dissatisfaction and disapproval of it by highlighting in his question that they believe in the shahadatayn, perform the five Salahs, perform Hajj, and fast the days of Ramadan. Yet the answer of their Ayatollah al ‘Uzma came conclusive with complete rancour, hatred, and deviation to excommunicate them and declare their non-entry into Jannat, spewing the sickness of Takfir that ravages their hearts.
 Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani al Shirazi website for verdicts on belief: http://www.imamrohani.com/fatwa-ar/viewtopic.php?t=1861
 Surprisingly and shockingly, the Shia accuse the Ahlus Sunnah of obstinacy and sedateness and complain in their books, conferences, and all their gatherings of their oppression and tyranny and them standing as a barrier in the face of Islamic unity. More startling and astonishing is scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah, I will not say the masses, support their claim and affirm it. In fact, they go a step further and plead to their brethren to open their hearts for religious brotherhood with these people, to deal justly with them, and to desist from oppressing them. To Allah do we complain of the wicked conspiracy of the former and the ignorance and negligence of the latter. And there is no power nor might except with Allah.
 Shia Sheikh al Mufid—who was the greatest authority in Shi’ism is his era—relates to us the consensus of the Shia on the disbelief of the rejecter of Imamah under the heading: The verdict on labelling the rejecters of Imamah and the deniers of the mandatory obedience Allah obligated for the Imams. He declares:
اتفقت الإمامية على أن من أنكر إمامة أحد من الأئمة وجحد ما أوجبه الله تعالى له من فرض الطاعة فهو كافر ضال مستحق للخلود في النار
The Imamiyyah are unanimous that one who rejects the Imamah of one of the Imams and negates the mandatory obedience that Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala placed upon him is a disbeliever, deviant, and deserving of eternity in Hell. [Awa’il al Maqalat, pg. 44]
 Surah al Shura: 38.
 Considering it a matter specific to the Muslims, which is connected to the administration of their lives and affairs.
 The ‘Ulama’ of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah have excelled in listing the qualities needed wholly in the person suitable for caliphate, such that there is no scope for addition.
 This manner of pursuing people of stability represents—truly and with the testimony of the enemy before the friend—the loftiest and noblest manifestation of political association which every knowledgeable person recognises to this date.
 They reached the threshold of pig-headedness; they transgressed beyond the fairy tales of the ancient Greeks, the imaginations of the Romans, and the fantasies of the immature. This is when the matter settles to their final Imam, the Twelfth. Qiyamah has not yet arrived and the world is running as is. They endeavoured to fabricate a fable—his absence for more than a thousand years. Despite this, he is alive to this day, observing Caliphate and Imamah in a confined area, limited to his noble self.
 Probably this is what led some of their scholars and authorities to state that the Qur’an we have is interpolated and some verses which indicate to the names of these Imams have been deleted. Others believe in the existence of another Qur’an, not the Qur’an which we adhere to religiously, and name it Mushaf Fatimah, concealed with the absent Imam. They claim that it has multiple times more verses and chapters than our Qur’an. It contains strong suggestions to the number and names of these Imams.
 Some of them consider it more important than Nubuwwah, as proven in the beginning of this treatise.
 Or in the Hereafter only, according to the weak, rather dubious, view, in Shi’ism. I will soon dedicate a separate treatise to unveil the deceit and twists. We beseech Allah subhanahu wa ta ‘ala for the capability to bring it to fruition.
 Nur al Barahin, vol. 1 pg. 59.
 Al Anwar al No’maniyyah, vol. 2 pg. 278.
 Probably, there were others who were suitable for the position. However, caliphate was pledged to someone else and they were overlooked. They thus never assumed the position though they deserved it.
 There are other sects of the Shia like the Ismailiyyah who opine that Imamah is restricted to seven Imams. Each of them determines a number with which he is comfortable and about which he is optimistic.
 Despite majority of these Twelve Imams not assuming that level of virtue, knowledge, and piety as the Sahabah who assumed caliphate. In fact, the intelligence, puberty, and recognition of one is questionable, i.e., their twelfth Imam hidden from gazes. When the Imamah of the Shia became his responsibility, he was only a child who did not yet reach puberty.
 Not even the other children of Imam ‘Ali, the sons of Hassan ibn ‘Ali, and the other sons of Hussain radiya Llahu ‘anhum. All of them are not suitable for Imamah in the view of the Twelver Shia Imamiyyah. They consider those—besides the twelve—who assumed the position as usurpers of the position and those who sought it deviant. They declared these individuals disbelievers even though they were of the Ahlul Bayt and progeny of ‘Ali radiya Llahu ‘anhu. This is not my allegation against the Shia. This is clearly documented in the narrations of their most reliable book al Kafi. Have a look at two narrations which the author documents:
عن سورة بن كليب عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال قلت له قول الله عز وجل وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ تَرَى الَّذِيْنَ كَذَبُوْا عَلَى اللهِ وُجُوْهُهُمْ مُّسْوَدَّةٌ قال من قال إني إمام وليس بإمام قال قلت وإن كان علويا قال وإن كان علويا قلت وإن كان من ولد علي بن أبي طالب قال وإن كان
Sawrah ibn Kulayb narrates that he asked Abu Jafar ‘alayh al Salam, “The statement of Allah—the Mighty and Majestic: And on the Day of Qiyamah you will see those who lied about Allah [with] their faces blackened.”
He explained, “[It refers to] one who claims to be an Imam but he is not an Imam.”
I asked, “Even if he be an ‘Alawi?”
“Even if he be an ‘Alawi,” he responded.
“Even if he is from the progeny of ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib ‘alayh al Salam?”
“Then too,” he replied.
عن الحسين بن المختار قال قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام جعلت فداك وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ تَرَى الَّذِيْنَ كَذَبُوْا عَلَى اللهِ قال كل من زعم أنه إمام وليس بإمام قلت وإن كان فاطميا علويا قال وإن كان فاطميا علويا
Hussain ibn al Mukhtar reports: I asked Abu ‘Abdullah ‘alayh al Salam, “May I be sacrificed for you. And on the Day of Qiyamah you will see those who lied about Allah.”
He explained, “[It refers to] everyone who claims to be an Imam but he is not an Imam.”
I asked, “Even if he be an ‘Alawi Fatimi?”
“Even if he be an ‘Alawi Fatimi,” he responded. (Al Kafi, vol. 1 pg. 372.)
The passion for Takfir has reached this alarming state that they excommunicate all those who emulate them and are pleased with them till the Day of Qiyamah.
 Rasa’il al Karaki, vol. 1 pg. 62.
 Nafahat al Lahut fi La’n al Jibt wa al Taghut, pg. 5.
 Al Sirat al Mustaqim, vol. 1 pg. 88.
 Al Sirat al Mustaqim, vol. 3 pg. 38.
 Ihya’ al Shari’ah fi Mazhab al Shia, vol. 1 pg. 85.
 Fi Rihab al ‘Aqidah, vol. 2 pg. 98.
 Study the stance of Shia Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Sadiq al Ruhani al Shirazi in al Fatawa al ‘Aqa’idiyyah on the internet: http://www.Imamrohani.com/fatwa-ar/viewtopic/ar.php?=1370.
 ‘Uthman radiya Llahu ‘anhu married two daughters of Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. He enjoys a nobility which no other Companion enjoys. Therefore, he is named: Dhu al Nurayn (the Possessor of Two Lights). Rasulullah salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam married the daughter of Abu Bakr, ‘A’ishah, and the daughter of ‘Umar, Hafsah, radiya Llahu ‘anhum. ‘Umar radiya Llahu ‘anhu, during his reign, married Umm Kulthum bint ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiya Llahu ‘anhuma.
 Surah al Tawbah: 100.
 We notify the reader that Shia scholars quote these statements from some scholars of the Ahlus Sunnah wa al Jama’ah. It is not necessary for this to be the reality or the suitable verdict, when permitting adherence to a school which permits our assassination, deprives our needy of Zakat, and sanctions our backbiting, slander, and attacks on our honour. In fact, it motivates the same and promises reward for that. If it does not find any palatable excuses to exonerate it, it is nothing more than pure foolishness, miserable ignorance, or heresy to which no attention should be paid.
 From acknowledging the superiority of the scholars and honouring them, I find it my duty to present excuses for the eminent Sheikh and outstanding scholar—may Allah have mercy on him—for his above fatwa. I say: He restricted it to authentic transmission stating:
إن لكل مسلم الحق في أن يقلد بادئ ذي بدء أي مذهب من المذاهب المنقولة نقلاً صحيحاً
Indeed, every Muslim has the right to follow, from the onset, whichever of the schools have been transmitted authentically.
It is understandable that this condition is non-existent in the school of the Twelver Imamiyyah. The most glaring proof for the non-existence of the condition of authentic transmission is what one of the most prominent authorities and founders of Shi’ism—Sayed al Murtada titled ‘Alam al Huda—has acknowledged, that all chains of their narrations from the Imams are not free from those known to have corrupt beliefs like the Waqifah (those who stop the line of the Imams at Musa ibn Jafar), fanatics, Khattabiyyah (followers of Abu al Khattab, who believe in the divinity of the Imams), Haluliyyah (those who believe in incarnation), Mushabbihah (those who liken Allah to the creation), and Mujabbirah (those who believe that man does not have free will). Accordingly, he states in his book Rasa’il al Murtada, vol. 3 pg. 310:
فإن معظم الفقه وجمهوره بل جميعه لا يخلو مستنده ممن يذهب مذهب الواقفة إما أن يكون أصلا في الخبر أو فرعا راويا عن غيره ومرويا عنه وإلى غلاة وخطابية ومخمسة وأصحاب حلول كفلان وفلان ومن لا يحصى أيضا كثرة وإلى قمي مشبه مجبر وأن القميين كلهم من غير استثناء لأحد منهم إلا أبا جعفر بن بابويه رحمة الله عليه بالأمس كانوا مشبهة مجبرة وكتبهم وتصانيفهم تشهد بذلك وتنطق به فليت شعري أي رواية تخلص وتسلم من أن يكون في أصلها وفرعها واقف أو غال أو قمي مشبه مجبر والاختبار بيننا وبينهم التفتيش
The bulk and majority of fiqh, in fact the whole of it, the chain is not free from the Waqifah, fanatics, Khattabiyyah, Mukhammisah, believers in incarnation—whether the main narrator or sub-narrator of the report, either transmitter from someone else or transmitted from; like so and so and so and so and the other many who cannot be enumerated—or a Qummi, Mushabbih, or Mujabbir. The Qummiyyin—all of them without exception except Abu Jafar ibn Babawayh rahimahu Llah were Mushabbihah Mujabbirah yesterday. Their books and works are testimony to this. I wish I knew of a narration, the main narrator or sub-narrators, are free from being Waqifah, extremists, Qummis, Mushabbihah or Mujabbirah. Investigation is the manner of assessment between us and them.
It is discovered that all or majority of the narrators in their chains, who transmitted for them the school from Imam al Sadiq rahimahu Llah, are from sects with corrupt beliefs while some are clearly accursed on the tongue of Imam al Sadiq rahimahu Llah. The impact is ruling out authentic transmission from it. Hence, Imami Shi’ism is not included in this verdict, which the Mufti constricted with his words: transmitted authentically.
Moreover, he was not aware of the reality of their Takfir. Consequently, he is excused for his unawareness, as he erred according to his ijtihad. He will receive the reward for ijtihad. This is not a criticism against him, may Allah have mercy on him. This, in reality, is the condition of majority of Muslim scholars. Majority of those who occupy the fields of the Ahlus Sunnah do not really know their ideologies. I have discussed this matter, because these dreadful ideologies of their creed are not publicised. In fact, they spend great efforts to conceal them, so that they are not taken to task for them. This has prevented Muslim scholars from recognising what their hadith sources and fiqhi beliefs establish, and the criticism, malice, and excommunication it is filled with. This prompted me to dive into their sources to extract their concept of Takfir, hidden in thousands of sources.
There is a similar incident which happened to Sheikh Salim al Bishri rahimahu Llah, actually which the grand Shia authority ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din attributed to him—and in my sight, his trustworthiness and honesty is questionable and doubtful. Nonetheless, he says in letter 1:
وكنت أسمع أن من رأيكم معشر الشيعة مجانبة إخوانكم أهل السنة وانقباضكم عنهم وأنكم تأنسون بالوحشة وتخلدون إلى العزلة وأنكم وأنكم
I used to hear that you, Shia folk, prefer to avoid your brethren, the Sunnis, and keep away from them, and that you find your comfort in loneliness, resorting to isolation, and so on and so forth.
As if he is saying: I found an enlightened image of them which contradicts the wicked malicious image I was accustomed to hearing of them. Whereas, it is the truth, which this treatise has established through clear texts from their sources. However, I am convinced that the verdict is fabricated in the name of al Bishri rahimahu Llah. The transmitter is accused; hence his report cannot be accepted. If it is true, it only establishes his incomplete awareness of their malicious Takfir concept.
 Brother reader, go back to the first stance in the beginning of chapter two of this treatise to revise their view on the four Imams of the mazahib and their followers. The Shia announce their deviance and deviation and go a step further to characterise them with disbelief and apostasy.
 We mentioned previously of Shia Ayatollah al ‘Uzma ‘Abdul Hussain Sharaf al Din, author of the book al Muraja’at, feigning the persona of a compassionate individual desirous of Islamic unity, endeavouring earnestly to establish rapprochement between the Ahlus Sunnah and Shia Imamiyyah. He frequently sobbed and beseeched the Ahlus Sunnah for a verdict of permissibility to adhere to the Shia school as he wrote in his book al Muraja’at and others. Yet at the same time, he affirms with all pomposity the Takfir reality in more than one place, believing that proofs necessitate adhering to only the Shia creed—the school of the Ahlul Bayt according to him—while prohibiting taking din from all besides them. This conceals the verdict of the impermissibility of adhering to the remaining mazahib of the Muslims. Have a quick look at a few of his texts. He writes in correspondence 10 after transmitting a report he attributes to the Nabi salla Llahu ‘alayhi wa sallam that the knowledge of a bondsman is not accepted without Wilayah of the Ahlul Bayt. He says:
فأنعم النظر في قوله لا ينفع عبدا عمله إلا بمعرفة 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 لكنا منينا بقوم لا يتأملون فإنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون
Consider his statement: “Nobody’s good deeds will avail him unless he is mindful of our rights,” then tell me what these rights are, the ones that are considered by Allah as prerequisites to the acceptance of good deeds. Is it not obeying them and attaining Allah’s Pleasure through following their right path? What is the commandment to which both Prophethood and Caliphate attach such a great significance? But we have simply been inflicted by people who do not contemplate; so, “We are Allah’s, and unto Him is our return.”
He writes in correspondence 4:
ولو سمحت لنا الأدلة بمخالفة الأئمة من آل محمد أو تمكنا من تحصيل نية القربة لله سبحانه في مقام العمل على مذهب غيرهم لقصصنا أثر الجمهور وقفونا أثرهم تأكيدا لعقد الولاء وتوثيقا لعرى الإخاء لكن الأدلة القطعية تقطع على المؤمن وجهته وتحول بينه وبين ما يروم
Had the proofs allowed us to differ from the Imams of Muhammad’s progeny, or had we been able to achieve nearness to Allah, Glory to Him, by following others’ sects, we would then have followed in the general public’s footsteps, asserting the friendship and strengthening the ties of fraternity. On the contrary, positive proofs stand in the believer’s way, diverting him from following his own inclinations.
 This is the stance of the most prominent symbolic Shia figure for Taqrib (Sunni-Shia rapprochement), one for whom the atmosphere of the Ahlus Sunnah is filled and his image fills the gatherings of Taqrib and conventions of unity between the schools. What then must be the stance of the pig-headed dogged scholars among them?
 Ayatollah al ‘Uzma Muhammad Hussain Fadl Allah: Masa’il ‘Aqa’idiyyah, pg. 110.