6829 – 0135
Question:
Are the Shia who believe in Imamah–and not the other misguided beliefs of the Shia like the Imams being superior to the Ambiya, tahrif of Quran, the Sahabah being murtad etc–out of the fold of Islam?
Clarification
Please clarify, how would this kind of belief in the doctrine of Imāmah be defined?
Imamah – divine appointment i.e. the belief that Allah Ta’ala has appointed certain individuals to be leaders of the Ummah. Whether they are from the Twelvers, Seveners, Zaidiyyah, or any other group.
Answer:
As salām ʿalaikum wa raḥmatullāhī wa barakātuhu
In the Name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Imāmah is the main issue which divides the Ahl as-Sunnah and the Shīʿah, in fact Imāmah is the root of all Sunni-Shīʿī differences; all other differences will be found to result from the difference that exists on that central point. Imāmah is about leadership of the Ummah after the demise of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه وسلم. The Shīʿah believe that just as Allāh chose Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم as His Messenger to mankind, He chose and appointed a line of twelve men to succeed him as the leaders of the Ummah in all matters, spiritual as well as temporal.
It is a matter of consensus amongst the Shīʿah that the right of their twelve Imāms to lead the Ummah was bestowed by Allāh Taʿālā Himself. No distinction is made between the appointment of Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم as the Messenger of Allāh and the appointment of the twelve Imāms as his successors.
Muḥammad Ḥusayn Kāshif al-Ghiṭā writes in his book Aṣl al-Shīʿah wa Uṣūluhā:
Imāmah is a divine station, just like Nubuwwah. Just as Allāh chooses whomsoever He wants to for Nubuwwah and Risālah … similarly, for Imāmah too, He selects whomsoever He wishes.
Ibn Bābuwayh al-Qummī writes:
It is our belief about one who rejects the Imāmah of Amir al-Mu’minīn (Sayyidunā ʿAlī) and the Imāms after him that he is the same as one who rejects the Nubuwwah of the Ambiyā’.
It is our belief concerning a person who accepts (the Imāmah of) Amir al-Mu’minīn but rejects any one of the Imāms after him, that he is similar to one who believes in all the Ambiyā’ but rejects the Nubuwwah of Muḥammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Nabī صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “The Imāms after me are twelve. The first is Amir al-Mu’minīn ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and the last is the Qā’im (the Mahdī). Obedience to them is obedience to me, and disobedience to them is disobedience to me. Thus, whoever rejects one of them has rejected me.”
Whoever wrongfully claims the Imāmah is an accursed oppressor. Whoever places the Imāmah in anyone besides its rightful repositories is an accursed oppressor. Nabī صلى الله عليه وسلم said: “Whoever shall deny ʿAlī his Imāmah after me has denied my Nubuwwah, and whoever denies me my Nubuwwah has denied Allāh His divinity.” Imām Jaʿfar as-Ṣādiq said: “Whoever doubts the kufr of our enemies is himself a kāfir.”
Abū Jaʿfar al-Ṭūsī says:
Rejection of Imāmah is kufr, just as rejection of Nubuwwah is kufr.
Ibn Muṭahhar al-Ḥillī said:
Imāmah is a universal grace (luṭf ʿāmm) while Nubuwwah is a special grace (luṭf khāṣṣ), because it is possible that a specific period in time can be void of a living Nabī, while the same is not true for the Imām. To reject the universal grace is worse than to reject the special grace.
Imāmah results in disbelief Khatm al-Nubuwwah
A Logical outcome of the Shīʿī concept of Imāmah is the end of the belief in Khatm al-Nubuwwah (the Finality of Prophethood), which is rendered meaningless after it. Prophethood and its Finality are not empty words but carry a precise meaning and significance about which no one can be in doubt. When the Prophet of Islam is described as the Seal of the Prophets or Final Messenger it denotes that Prophethood or Apostleship and all associated traits ended with him.
Muḥammad Bāqir al-Majlisī, chief Shīʿī scholar of Safawid Iran, writes in his Biḥār al-Anwār (v. 26 p. 82), one of the eight canonical works of the Shīʿah:
To our knowledge there is no reason not to describe the Imāms as Prophets, except consideration to the Final Prophet. Our intellect too cannot perceive a distinction between Nubuwwah and Imāmah.
He did however make one distinction, which he writes in his book Ḥayāt al-Qulūb (Vol. 3 p. 10):
Imāmah is superior to Prophethood.
Acceptance of the belief of Imāmah, thus, simply means that Prophethood has not ended but is continuing with added strength and splendor in the name of Imāmah. A belief in total contradiction with the pristine teachings of Islām.
Brother in Isām,
If a person holds the belief of Imāmah together with clearly denying the Finality of Prophethood, then such a person is out of the fold of Islām. Further, any person who holds beliefs that result in the open rejection of established tenants of Dīn is without a doubt out of the fold of Islām.
If, however, a person believes in the concept of Imāmah and “not the other misguided beliefs of the Shīʿah like the Imams being superior to the Ambiyā, Tahrīf of Qurʾān, the Ṣaḥābah being murtad etc.”, then such a person will be a misguided innovator (Mubtadiʿ) but will not be out of the fold of Islām.
It is worth noting that if a certain belief necessitates or implies disbelief in another aspect, the rejection of which is Kufr, we will not say that a person rejects the second aspect with certainty unless he openly states so. The belief in the doctrine of Imāmah necessitates the rejection of the Finality of Prophethood, however, a person may not necessarily reject the Finality of Prophethood directly. Until a person openly states so, he will not be considered to have rejected this tenant and therefore will not be deemed out of the fold of Islām.
And Allāh Taʿālā knows best.
Asl al-Shīʿah wa Usūlūhā p. 58
Risālat al-Iʿtiqadp. 111-114, quoted by al-Majlisi: Bihār al-Anwār vol. 27 p. 62
Talkhis ash-Shafi vol. 4 p. 131
Al-Alfaynp. 3
مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح — علي بن (سلطان) محمد، أبو الحسن نور الدين الملا الهروي القاري (ت ١٠١٤هـ) 180/1
وقال ابن حجر: فمن أطلق تكفير الفريقين أخذا بظاهر هذا الخبر فقد استروح، بل الصواب عند الأكثرين من علماء السلف والخلف أنا لا نكفر أهل البدع والأهواء إلا إن أتوا بمكفر صريح لا استلزامي؛ لأن الأصح أن لازم المذهب ليس بلازم، ومن ثم لم يزل العلماء يعاملونهم معاملة المسلمين في نكاحهم، وإنكاحهم، والصلاة على موتاهم، ودفنهم في مقابرهم؛ لأنهم وإن كانوا مخطئين غير معذورين حقت عليهم كلمة الفسق والضلال إلا أنهم لم يقصدوا بما قالوه اختيار الكفر
الاعتصام — إبراهيم بن موسى بن محمد اللخمي الغرناطي الشهير بالشاطبي (ت ٧٩٠هـ) 694/2
وقد اختلفت الأمة في تكفير هؤلاء الفرق أصحاب البدع العظمى. ولكن الذي يقوى في النظر وبحسب الأثر عدم القطع بتكفيرهم. والدليل عليه عمل السلف الصالح فيهم، ألا ترى إلى صنع علي رضي الله عنه في الخوارج؟ وكونه عاملهم في قتالهم معاملة أهل الإسلام على مقتضى قول الله تعالى: {وإن طائفتان من المؤمنين اقتتلوا فأصلحوا بينهما} [الحجرات: 9]، فإنه لما اجتمعت الحرورية وفارقت الجماعة لم يهيجهم علي ولا قاتلهم، ولو كانوا بخروجهم مرتدين لم يتركهم، لقوله عليه الصلاة والسلام
منهاج السنة النبوية في نقض كلام الشيعة القدرية — تقي الدين أبو العباس أحمد بن عبد الحليم بن عبد السلام بن عبد الله بن أبي القاسم بن محمد ابن تيمية الحراني الحنبلي الدمشقي (ت ٧٢٨هـ)
ولا يلزم إذا كان القول كفرا أن يكفر كل من قاله مع الجهل والتأويل ; فإن ثبوت الكفر في حق الشخص المعين، كثبوت الوعيد في الآخرة في حقه، وذلك له شروط وموانع، كما بسطناه في موضعه. وإذا لم يكونوا في نفس الأمر كفارا لم يكونوا منافقين، فيكونون من المؤمنين، فيستغفر لهم ويترحم عليهم. وإذا قال المؤمن : {ربنا اغفر لنا ولإخواننا الذين سبقونا بالإيمان} [سورة الحشر: 10] يقصد كل من سبقه من قرون الأمة بالإيمان، وإن كان قد أخطأ في تأويل تأوله فخالف السنة، أو أذنب ذنبا، فإنه من إخوانه الذين سبقوه بالإيمان، فيدخل في العموم، وإن كان من الثنتين والسبعين فرقة، فإنه ما من فرقة إلا وفيها خلق كثير ليسوا كفارا، بل مؤمنين فيهم ضلال وذنب يستحقون به الوعيد، كما يستحقه عصاة المؤمنين والنبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يخرجهم من الإسلام، بل جعلهم من أمته، ولم يقل: إنهم يخلدون في النار. فهذا أصل عظيم ينبغي مراعاته ; فإن كثيرا من المنتسبين إلى السنة فيهم بدعة، من جنس بدع الرافضة والخوارج