This post is divided into four parts, to ascertain four fundamental issues:
1. Who was the first Shia Imami scholar ever to declare non Shias as Muslims?
2. What did his preceding scholars (especially the classical scholars) rule about non Shias?
3. What did the succeeding mutakhireen say about non Shias?
4. What do the modern/recent scholars, especially the 'pro unity' ones, say about brotherhood between Shias and non Shias?
Part 1:
The first Shia Imami scholar in
history to deviate from the orthodox stance, to accept non Shias as
Muslims and consider them 'tahir' (non najis)
Extract from the book 'Meaning of the term Nasibi', by Ayatullah Jamil Hamudi al Amuli (Beirut, Lebanon), Page 97 (Arabic pages posted at the bottom of the post)*
(Chapter title) Misconception of Muhaqqiq Hilli is the root of this tragic problem:
"Had
Muhaqqiq Hilli (602-676 AH) not
decreed a fatwa declaring non Shias to
be tahir/non najis Muslims in dunya and their kufr being applicable to
akhirah (hereafter) only, there would have never been even a sign and
trace of
such an opinion among Shia scholars. He was among the latter
scholars (the classical shias scholars considered non Shias to be najis
kuffar in dunya and akhirah) and was the very first one ever to declare
non Shias to be non najis in dunya,
and his opinion influenced his successors whereby they would just
blindly parrot his reasoning for his fatwa instead of conducting self
investigation, as if they were his muqallids........
After Muhaqqiq
Hilli, the first ones to follow him in declaring non Shias as tahir
Muslims in dunya and their kufr being limited to akhirah only, were the akhbari scholars such as Baqir Majlisi (1110 AH) in Biharul Anwar and Shaikh Abdullah b. Saleh al Bahrani (1130 AH)............The well known latter usooli scholars then simply followed them blindly in this regard."
الحدائق الناضرة - المحقق البحراني - ج ٥ - الصفحة ١٧٨
Hadaiq al Nadirah by Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani, Volume 5 page 178
إذا عرفت
ذلك فاعلم أن من جملة من صرح بطهارة المخالفين بل ربما كان هو الأصل في
الخلاف في هذه المسألة في القول باسلامهم وما يترتب عليه المحقق في المعتبر
Now
that it has been established that classical scholars used to consider
non shias najis kuffar, it should be noted that one who declared the non
shias to be tahir (non najis), in fact perhaps the first one ever to
deviate from the orthodox stance (in non shias being najis kuffar) to
declare them to be Muslims and laws of Muslims being applicable upon
them in dunya (while them being kuffar in akhirah) was Muhaqqiq Hilli in his book "al Mu'atbar".
Part 2:
What did the preceding scholars (especially the classical scholars) rule about non Shias?
مستند الشيعة - المحقق النراقي - ج ١ - الصفحة ٢٠٦
Mustanad al Shia by Ayatullah Naraqi, Volume 1, Page 206
حكم المخالفين
Islamic ruling upon the status of non shias
دليل القائل بالنجاسة: أنهم كفرة ونصاب، وكل أولئك أنجاس
Reasons adopted by proponents of their (non shias')
najasah (ritual impurity), their being kuffar (disbelievers) and
nasibis, and all of them being najis (ritually impure).
أما الأول: فلانكارهم ما علم من الدين ضرورة، ولتواتر الأخبار معنى به،
ولذا صرح جماعة بكفرهم، كابن نوبخت مسندا له إلى جمهور أصحابنا، والشيخ في
التهذيب، والسيد، والحلي، والفاضل في بعض كتبه، وهو الظاهر من
المفيد والقاضي
As for the first (reason), so it is due to their rejection of what is known to be among the fundamentals of religion, and due to tawatur of the ahadith implying such. And thus a group of scholars like Ibn Nawbakht (predecessor of Shaikh Sadooq) as well as the majority of the classical Imami scholars, Shaikh Tusi (385 - 460 AH) in Tahdhibul Ahkam, Sharif al Murtada (355 - 436 AH), Ibn Idris al Hilli (543 - 598 AH), and Allama Hilli (648 - 726 AH) in some of his books (in Muntahul Matlab) declared them to be kuffar. And this ruling is also apparent from Shaikh Mufid (336 - 413 AH) and Qadi ibn al Barraj (401 - 481 AH).
الحدائق الناضرة - المحقق البحراني - ج ٥ - الصفحة ١٧٥
Hadaiq al Nadhirah by Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani,Volume 5, Page 175
Islamic ruling upon the status of non shias
المشهور بين متأخري الأصحاب هو الحكم باسلام المخالفين وطهارتهم، وخصوا
الكفر والنجاسة بالناصب كما أشرنا إليه في صدر الفصل وهو عندهم من أظهر
عداوة أهل البيت (عليهم السلام) والمشهور في كلام أصحابنا المتقدمين هو
الحكم بكفرهم ونصبهم ونجاستهم وهو المؤيد بالروايات الإمامية، قال الشيخ
ابن نوبخت (قدس سره) وهو من متقدمي أصحابنا في كتابه فص الياقوت: دافعوا
النص كفرة عند جمهور أصحابنا ومن أصحابنا من يفسقهم.. الخ. وقال العلامة في
شرحه أما دافعوا النص على أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) بالإمامة فقد ذهب
أكثر أصحابنا إلى تكفيرهم لأن النص معلوم بالتواتر من دين محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله) فيكون ضروريا أي معلوما من دينه ضرورة فجاحده يكون كافرا كمن يجحد وجوب الصلاة وصوم شهر رمضان. واختار ذلك في المنتهى فقال في كتاب الزكاة في بيان اشتراط وصف المستحق بالايمان ما صورته: لأن الإمامة من أركان الدين وأصوله وقد علم ثبوتها من النبي (صلى الله عليه وآله)
ضرورة والجاحد لها لا يكون مصدقا للرسول في جميع ما جاء به فيكون كافرا.
انتهى. وقال المفيد في المقنعة: ولا يجوز لأحد من أهل الايمان أن يغسل مخالفا للحق في الولاية ولا يصلي عليه
ونحوه قال ابن البراج. وقال الشيخ في التهذيب بعد نقل عبارة المقنعة: الوجه
فيه أن المخالف لأهل الحق كافر فيجب أن يكون حكمه حكم الكفار إلا ما خرج
بالدليل.
وقال ابن إدريس في السرائر بعد أن اختار مذهب المفيد في عدم جواز الصلاة على المخالف ما لفظه: وهو أظهر ويعضده القرآن وهو قوله تعالى: " ولا تصل على أحد منهم مات أبدا.. " (١) يعني الكفار، والمخالف لأهل الحق كافر بلا خلاف بيننا
The popular view among the latter scholars is that the non shias are Muslims and Tahir (ritually pure/clean), and they single out the nasibi as being a kafir (disbeliever) and najis (ritually impure/unclean) as we pointed out at the start of the section. The nasibi according to them is one who expresses enmity towards the ahlulbait.
While what is popular among the classical scholars is that the non shias are kuffar (disbelievers), nasibis and najis. This view is supported by shia ahadith. Shaikh ibn Nawbakht who was one of the classical scholars, said in his book "Fas al Yaqoot": "The ruling of kufr has been advocated by the majority of our companions, while there are some among our companions who consider them sinners........". And Allama Hilli explained this text by saying "As for defending the Prophet (pbuh)'s ruling of Ali (as) being the Imam, so most of our companions have ruled upon the non shias being kuffar (disbelievers) since the hadith designating Ali as the Imam is known to be mutawatir, thereby making it a fundamental aspect of the religion. Therefore, one who rejects it is deemed a kafir like one who rejects the obligation of salat (Islamic prayer) or fasting of Ramadan." And he adopted this view in his book "Muntahul Mutlab" where he wrote in the section on zakat, while explaining the conditions of it being necessary for the receiver to be a believer "Because the Imamate is among the pillars of the religion and its fundamentals, and evidence of its necessity is known from the Prophet (pbuh), its rejector does not affirm collectively what the Prophet (pbuh) came with, therefore he is deemed a kafir...."
And Shaikh Mufid said in his book "al Muqnia": "It is not permissible for anyone among the believers to bathe the dead body of an opponent of the truth of wilayah, or to pray upon him." Qadi ibn al Barraj also said similar to it. And Shaikh Tusi wrote in his book "Tahdhib al Ahkam" after quoting the above mentioned text of "al Muqnia": "The reason for this is that the opponent of the people upon the path of haqq (truth) is a kafir, thereby deserving the ruling of a kafir, except for the one who is exempted due to proof." And Allama ibn Idris al Hilli also adopted the view of Shaikh Mufid regarding the impermissibility of praying the funeral prayer of the non shia, he wrote: "It is apparent and supported by the Qur'an. Allah says (al Qur'an 9:84) "And never offer a prayer on any one of them who dies", which means that they are kuffar. The opponent of the people of truth is a kafir and there is no disagreement among us on this point."
ومذهب المرتضى في ذلك مشهور في كتب الأصحاب إلا أنه لا يحضرني الآن شئ من
كلامه في الباب. وقال الفاضل المولى محمد صالح المازندراني في شرح أصول الكافي:
ومن أنكرها يعني الولاية فهو كافر حيث أنكر أعظم ما جاء به الرسول وأصلا من
أصوله. وقال الشريف القاضي نور الله في كتاب إحقاق الحق: من المعلوم أن
الشهادتين بمجردهما غير كافيتين إلا مع الالتزام بجميع ما جاء به النبي
(صلى الله على وآله) من أحوال المعاد والإمامة كما يدل عليه ما اشتهر من
قوله (صلى الله عليه وآله) (٢) " من مات ولم يعرف إمام زمانه مات ميتة جاهلية " ولا شك أن المنكر لشئ من ذلك ليس بمؤمن ولا مسلم لأن الغلاة والخوارج
وإن كانوا من فرق المسلمين نظرا إلى الاقرار بالشهادتين إلا أنهما من
الكافرين نظرا إلى جحودهما ما علم من الدين وليكن منه بل من أعظم أصوله
إمامة أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام
And the view of Sharif al Murtada on this issue is well known among the books of our companions, however, at the moment I (Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani) do not have present with me anything from him on this topic. And Ayatullah Saleh Mazindrani wrote in his commentary of Usul al Kafi: "And whoever denied it, i.e. wilayah, so he is a kafir as he has denied the greatest fundamental principle brought by the Prophet (pbuh)." And Qadi Noorullah Shostri (Aka Shahid Thalith) wrote in his book Ihqaqul Haq: "It is known that the two testimonies alone are not sufficient until they are supplemented collectively with what was brought by the Prophet (pbuh) among the teachings of resurrection and Imamate, as is evidenced by the popular hadith "Whoever died without knowing the Imam of his time, would have died the death of jahilliyah." And there is no doubt that its denier is neither a Momin (believer) nor a Muslim because even though the Ghulat and Khawarij are listed as Islamic sects due to their professing the two testimonies (shahadatain) but they are still kuffar due to their rejection of what is known to be a part of religion, and from it, in fact from the greatest of religious principles is the Imamate ofAmirul momineen (as)."
وممن صرح بهذه المقالة أيضا الفاضل المولى المحقق أبو الحسن الشريف ابن الشيخ محمد طاهر
المجاور بالنجف الأشرف حيا وميتا في شرحه على الكفاية حيث قال في جملة
كلام في المقام في الاعتراض على صاحب الكتاب حيث إنه من المبالغين في القول
باسلام المخالفين: وليت شعري أي فرق بين من كفر بالله تعالى ورسوله ومن
كفر بالأئمة (عليهم السلام) مع أن كل ذلك من أصول الدين؟ إلى أن قال: ولعل
الشبهة عندهم زعمهم كون المخالف مسلما حقيقة وهو توهم فاسد مخالف للأخبار
المتواترة، والحق ما قاله علم الهدى من كونهم كفارا مخلدين في النار، ثم
نقل بعض الأخبار في ذلك وقال والأخبار في ذلك أكثر من أن تحصى وليس هنا
موضع ذكرها وقد تعدت عن حد التواتر. وعندي أن كفر هؤلاء من أوضح الواضحات
في مذهب أهل البيت (عليهم السلام) انتهى
And among those who concurred with this view is Muhaqqiq abu al Hasan al Sharif ibn al Shaikh Muhammad Tahir, who resided by Najaf al Ashraf till death, in his commentary upon "Al Kifayah" where he wrote in a section, objecting upon its author for being a proponent of the non shias being Muslims: "I wonder, is there any difference between disbelieving in Allah and His messenger, and in disbelieving in the Imamate of the Imams even though they are all from the fundamentals of the religion?" He further continued: "And perhaps they are under the impression that the non shia is a Muslim in reality, but it is an invalid delusion which goes against the mutawatir ahadith, and the truth is what has been stated by Sharif al Muratada that they are kuffar who would reside in hell forever." He then quoted some ahadith about that and stated that "they are far too numerous to be enclosed and neither is it the place to mention them, and they have surpassed the limit of tawatur. And according to me the kufr of non shias is among the most explicit issues in the school of ahlulbait."
هذا، والمفهوم من الأخبار المستفيضة هو كفر المخالف الغير المستضعف ونصبه
ونجاسته، وممن صرح بالنصب والنجاسة أيضا جمع من أصحابنا المتأخرين: منهم
شيخنا الشهيد الثاني في بحث السؤر من الروض حيث قال بعد ذكر المصنف نجاسة
سؤر الكافر والناصب ما لفظه: والمراد به من نصب العداوة لأهل البيت (عليهم السلام)
أو لأحدهم وأظهر البغضاء لهم صريحا أو لزوما ككراهة ذكرهم ونشر فضائلهم
والاعراض عن مناقبهم من حيث إنها مناقبهم والعداوة لمحبيهم بسبب محبتهم،
وروى الصدوق ابن بابويه عن عبد الله بن سنان عن الصادق (عليه السلام)
(١) قال: " ليس الناصب من نصب لنا أهل البيت لأنك لا تجد أحدا يقول أنا
أبغض محمدا وآل محمد ولكن الناصب من نصب لكم وهو يعلم أنكم تتولونا وأنكم
من شيعتنا ".. وفي بعض الأخبار (٢) " أن كل من قدم الجبت والطاغوت فهو ناصب
" واختاره بعض الأصحاب إذ لا عداوة أعظم من تقديم المنحط عن مراتب الكمال
وتفضيل المنخرط في سلك الأغبياء والجهال
على من تسنم أوج الجلال حتى شك في أنه
الله المتعال. انتهى. ونحوه في شرحه على الرسالة الألفية. وممن صرح بالنصب
جماعة من متأخري المتأخرين: منهم السيد نعمة الله الجزائري في كتاب الأنوار
النعمانية حيث قال: وأما الناصبي وأحواله وأحكامه فإنما يتم ببيان أمرين:
(الأول) في بيان معنى الناصب الذي وردت الروايات أنه نجس وأنه شر من
اليهودي والنصراني والمجوسي وأنه كافر باجماع الإمامية، والذي ذهب إليه
أكثر الأصحاب (رضوان الله عليهم) أن المراد به من نصب العداوة لآل محمد (صلى الله عليه وآله) وتظاهر ببغضهم كما هو الموجود في الخوارج
وبعض ما وراء النهر، ورتبوا الأحكام في باب الطهارة والنجاسة والكفر
والايمان وجواز النكاح وعدمه على الناصبي بهذا المعنى، وقد تفطن شيخنا الشهيد
الثاني من الاطلاع على غرائب الأخبار فذهب إلى أن الناصبي هو الذي نصب
العداوة لشيعة أهل البيت (عليهم السلام) وتظاهر في القدح فيهم كما هو حال
أكثر المخالفين لنا في هذه الأعصار في كل الأمصار
This, and the meaning of the extensive ahadith is that the non shia, other than the mustadh'af (the totally ignorant one who is not in any position to find the truth), is a najis kafir and nasibi. And among the latter scholars who advocated that the non shias are najis nasibis, one of them is Shahid al Thani. In his discussion about leftover water from pool/puddle, afterwards he mentioned the najasah of the pig, kafir and the nasibi by saying: "What is meant by the term nasibi is one who harbors enmity towards the ahlulbait or towards one of them, or displays hatred for them whether explicitly or indirectly such as by disliking the mentioning of ahlulbait and the propagation of their merits, or turns away from those of their virtues which are truly their virtues, and has enmity towards their lovers due to their love for ahlulbait. Shaikh Sadooq narrated from Abdullah b. Sinan, from Imam al Sadiq (as) who said: "The nasibi is not the one who has enmity towards us ahlulbait for indeed you will not find anyone say "I hate Muhammad (pbuh) and his family", instead the nasibi is the one who has enmity towards you people while he knows that you people love us and are among our shias." And it has been reported in some ahadith that "Whoever gives precedence to Jibt and Taghoot, then he is a nasibi." And some of our companions adopted the view that there is no greater hostility than to raise the lowly to the rank of perfection while lowering the one of high status following the way of the idiots and the jahils, upon one about whom the height of glory is assumed such that it was doubted about him that he is Allah." And he wrote similar in his commentary of "Risalah al Alfiah".
Among the latter generation of the latter scholars, those who advocated the non shias being nasibis is Allama Ni'matullah al Jazairi. He wrote in his book Anwar al Nu'mania: "And as for the nasibi, his condition and the rulings about him, so indeed it would be explained by two issues: First, the meaning of the term nasibi.There are ahadith about it that he is najis and is worse than the Jew, Christian and Zoroastrian, and he is a kafir as per the consensus of the Imami Shias. And many of our companions hold the view that the meaning of nasibi is the one who has enmity towards the family of Muhammad (pbuh) and is displayed by some of them, as is present in the khawarij and some who go beyond, and have arranged the rulings in the section on taharah (ritual purity), najasah, kufr, eeman (belief) and the permissibility and impermissibility of nikah upon the nasibi according to this definition. And our shaikh, Shahid al Thani discerned from the information in strange ahadith, so he adopted the view that the nasibi is the one who holds enmity towards the Shias of ahlulbait and expresses slanders on them, as is the state of our opponents in this period in all the countries."
Part 3:
What did the succeeding mutakhireen (latter) scholars say about non Shias?
مرآة العقول في شرح أخبار آل الرسول للمجلسي ج١١، ص: ١٩٠
Miratul Uqul by Majlisi, Volume 11, Page 190
و يطلق على من أخل بشيء من العقائد
الإيمانية و إن لم يكن ضروريا لدين
الإسلام كالإمامة، و المشهور أنهم في
الآخرة بحكم الكفار و هم مخلدون في النار كالمخالفين و سائر فرق الشيعة سوى
الإمامية، و قد دلت عليه أخبار كثيرة أوردناها في كتابنا الكبير، لكن قد عرفت أنه
يظهر من كثير من الأخبار أنه يمكن نجاة بعض المخالفين من النار كالمستضعفين و
المرجون لأمر الله، و قد ذكر العلامة و غيره قولا بعدم خلود المخالفين في النار، و
هو في غير المستضعفين و أشباههم في غاية الضعف لأن الإمامة عند الشيعة من أصول
الدين، و قد ورد متواترا عن النبي صلى الله عليه و آله و سلم من مات و لم يعرف
إمام زمانه مات ميتة جاهلية، و الأخبار في ذلك أكثر من أن تحصى.
And
whoever does not believe in something required for eeman (true belief),
although not essential for Islam (i.e. to be a mere Muslim) such as
Imamah, so it is well known that they are considered kuffar
(disbelievers) in the akhirah and would reside in hellfire like the non
Shias and all the sub sects of Shiaism other than the Imamis (i.e.
Twelver Shias). This has been proven by extensive ahadith which we have
recorded in our voluminous book. However, it is known that it is
apparent in ahadith that it is possible that some non Shias would be
relieved from hellfire, such as the mustada'fs (feeble minded and
ignorant people without resources) and those who return (repent) to the
command of Allah (swt). Allama Hilli and others mentioned the view of
non Shias not residing in hellfire, and it (being hell bound) is for
other than the mustada'fs and their likes, because as per shias Imamah
is among the fundamentals of religion, and it has been reported in
mutawatir ahadith from the Prophet (pbuh) that "Whoever died and did not
know the Imam of his age, then he died the death of jahilliyah", and
the ahadith on that are too many to be mentioned.
و أما الأحكام الدنيوية أيضا
كالطهارة و التناكح و التوارث فالمشهور أنهم في جميع ذلك بحكم المسلمين، و ذهب
السيد المرتضى رضي الله عنه و جماعة إلى أنهم في الأمور الدنيوية أيضا بحكم
الكفار، و الذي يظهر من بعض الأخبار أنهم واقعا في جميع الأحكام بحكم الكفار لكن
الله تعالى لما علم أن للمخالفين دولة و غلبة على الشيعة و لا بد لهم من معاشرتهم
رخص لهم في جميع ذلك و أجرى على المخالفين في زمان الهدنة و التقية أحكام المسلمين
و في زمن القائم عليه السلام لا فرق بينهم و بين الكفار، و به يمكن الجمع بين
الأخبار
And
as for the religious rulings to be applied to them in dunya (i.e. in
this world, not the hereafter), such as in issues of taharah (ritual
purity), nikah (marriage) and inheritance, so it is popular that they
would be treated as Muslims in all those issues, while Sharif al Murtada
and a group of scholars adopted the view that they should be treated as
kuffar in dunya also. And it does appear from some of the ahadith that
they should truly be treated as kuffar in all Islamic affairs, but
however, since Allah (swt) knew that the non Shias would rule and
prevail over the Shias and therefore the Shias would have no choice but
to socialize with them, thus He (swt) made a concession for the Shias on
this and established the application of Islamic laws upon non Shias
during the period of truce and taqiyya. But when Imam Mahdi (as)
appears, there would be no difference between the non Shias and the
kuffar. This way it is possible to reconcile between the ahadith (i.e.
to reconcile those ahadith which declare non shias to be Muslims and
those which declare them kuffar).
قال الشهيد الثاني (ره) في رسالة حقائق الإيمان: اعلم أن
جمعا من علماء الإمامية حكموا بكفر أهل الخلاف و الأكثر علي الحكم بإسلامهم، فإن
أرادوا بذلك كونهم كافرين في نفس الأمر لا في الظاهر، فالظاهر أن النزاع لفظي إذ
القائلون بإسلامهم يريدون ما ذكرناه من الحكم بصحة جريان أكثر أحكام المسلمين
عليهم في الظاهر، لا أنهم مسلمون فينفس الأمر، فلذا نقلوا الإجماع على
دخولهم في النار، و إن أرادوا بذلك كونهم كافرين باطنا و ظاهرا فهو ممنوع، و لا
دليل عليه بل الدليل قائم على إسلامهم ظاهرا كقوله عليه السلام: أمرت أن أقاتل
الناس حتى يقولوا لا إله إلا الله
Shahid
Thani wrote in his journal "Haqaiqul Eeman" (The realities of faith):
"Be aware that a group among the scholars ruled the non Shias to be
kuffar, while most of the scholars ruled them to be Muslims. So if they
(i.e. the former group) intend by that to declare the non Shias to be
kuffar in reality but not in dhahir (i.e. the apparent), then it appears
that the difference is merely an issue of differing terminologies, as
the proponents of non Shias being Muslims imply what we mentioned
regarding the correctness of applying the laws of Muslims upon the non
Shias in dhahir although they are not Muslims in reality. Thus they have
quoted an ijma' (consensus) upon the non Shias being hell bound, but if
by that they mean to say that the non Shias are kuffar in reality as
well as in the dhahir then that is invalid. There is no evidence for
that, in fact there is evidence upon the non Shias being Muslims in
dhahir as per the hadith of Imam Ali (as): "I have been ordered to fight
the people till they say 'la ilaha illallah' (There is no deity but
Allah)."
قال عبد الله المامقاني
في تنقيح المقال: 1/208 ط. نجف ، باب الفوائد : ( وغاية ما يستفاد من
الأخبار جريان حكم الكافر والمشرك في الآخرة على كل من لم يكن اثني عشرياً
Allama Abdullah al Mamqani wrote in Tanqihul Maqal (Major shia rijal book), Volume 1 Page 208 (published in Najaf): ": "The conclusion that is reached from the ahadith is
that the ruling of kafir (disbeliever) and mushrik (polytheist) would
apply in the hereafter upon anyone who is not a Shia Ithna Ash'ari (i.e.
Twelver Shia)."
قال محمد بن حسن النجفي
في جواهر الكلام : 6/62 : ( والمخالف لأهل الحق كافر بلا خلاف بيننا ،
كالمحكي عن الفاضل محمد صالح في شرح أصول الكافي ، بل والشريف القاضي نور
الله في إحقاق الحق ، من الحكم بكفر منكري الولاية ، لأنها أصل من أصول
الدين
Muhammad b. Hasan al Najafi wrote in Jawahirul
Kalam, Volume 6 Page 62: "And the opponent of the people of truth is a kafir, without any disagreement
between us (i.e. the scholars), as has been reported by Fadhil Muhammad Saleh
in his exegesis of Usul al Kafi, as well as by Qadi Noorullah Shostri in
Ihqaqul Haq wherein he declared the denier of Wilayah a kafir as it is a
fundamental principle among the fundamentals of religion."
قال يوسف البحراني في
الحدائق الناضرة : 18/53 : ( إنك قد عرفت أن المخالف كافر لاحظ له في
الإسلام بوجه من الوجوه ، كما حققنا في كتابنا الشهاب الثاقب
Shaikh
Yusuf al Bahrani stated in Hadaiqul Nadhirah, Volume 18 Page 53:
"Indeed you know that the non shia has no share in Islam in any way, as
we revealed in our book Shahab al Thaqib."
قال المجلسي في بحار
الأنوار: 23/390 ط. بيروت : ( إعلم أن إطلاق لفظ الشرك والكفر على من لم
يعتقد بإمامة أمير المؤمنين والأئمة من ولده (ع) وفضل عليهم غيرهم ، يدل
على أنهم كفار مخلدون في النار
Baqir Majlisi declared in Biharul Anwar, Volume 23 Page 290 (Published in
Beirut): "Note that the terms shirk (polytheism) and kufr (disbelief)
apply to one who does not believe in the Imamah of Ali (as) or his progeny, and
gives precedence to others over them, proving that they are kuffar destined to
reside in hell."
قال عبد الله شبر في حق
اليقين في معرفة أصول الدين : 2/188 ط. بيروت : ( وأما سائر المخالفين ممن
لم ينصب ولم يعاند ولم يتعصب ، فالذي عليه جملة من الإمامية كالسيد المرتضى
أنهم كفار في الدنيا والآخرة ، والذي عليه الأشهر أنهم كفار مخلدون في
النار
Abdullah
Shabbar wrote in Haqqul Yaqeen, Volume 2 Page 188 (Published in
Beirut): "And as for the rest of the non Shias among those who do not
have nasb (i.e. are not nasibis), hostility and prejudice, so a number
of Shia scholars like Sharif al Murtada declared them to be kuffar in
this world as well as in the hereafter, and the prevailing ruling is
that they are kuffar destined for hell."
Part 4:
What do the modern scholars, especially the 'pro unity' ones (such as Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatullah Khoei, Ayatullah Tabatabai etc) say about brotherhood between Shias and non Shias?
المكاسب المحرمة ، للخميني ، 1 /250
Makasibul Muhramah by Ayatullah Khomeini, Volume 1 page 250
المراد
بالمؤمن الشيعة الإمامية الاثني عشرية . وأما الأخبار فما اشتملت على
المؤمن فكذلك ، وما اشتملت على الأخ لا تشملهم أيضا لعدم الأخوة بيننا
وبينهم بعد وجوب البراءة عنهم وعن مذهبهم وعن أئمتهم ، كما تدل عليه
الأخبار واقتضته أصول المذهب...وقال: فإنها في مقام تفسيرها اعتبرت الأخوة
فيها ، فغيرنا ليسوا بإخواننا
What is meant by the
term 'momin', is Shia Ithna Ash'ari only. As for the ahadith which are
applicable on the 'momin', so they are meant to be for the Imami shias
only. Therefore, the ahadith which mention 'your brother' (for example
ahadith on backbiting being akin to eating the meat of one's brother) do
not include the non shias (sunnis etc) for there is no brotherhood at
all between us Imami shias and the non Shias. In fact, it is absolutely
obligatory to do tabarra from them, their schools of thought and their
leading scholars, based upon our ahadith which deem it (absolute tabarra
from non shias) to be the core of our religion. So whenever brotherhood
is implied in religious interpretations, it must be kept in mind that
non shias our by no means our brothers.
مصباح الفقاهة ، للخوئي ، 1 / 505
Misbahul fuqahah by Ayatullah Khoei, Volume 1 page 505
ومن البديهي أنه لا إخوة ولا عصمة بيننا وبين المخالفين
It is a matter of basic common sense that there is no brotherhood or support/partnership between us shias and the non Shias.
رياض المسائل ، لعلي الطباطبائي ، 8 / 68
Riyadul Masail by Ayatullah Ali Tabatabai, Volume 8 page 68
ودعوى الإيمان والأخوة للمخالف مما يقطع بفساده، والنصوص المستفيضة بل
المتواترة ظاهرة في رده، مضافا إلى النصوص المتواترة الواردة عنهم (عليهم
السلام) بطعنهم ولعنهم، وأنهم أشر من اليهود والنصارى، وأنجس من الكلاب
The attribution of
iman (belief) and brotherhood towards non shias is completely invalid.
There are explicit and mutawatir ahadith which invalidate this claim,
furthermore there are mutawatir ahadith from the Imams (as) mocking and
cursing the non shias, as well as calling them worse than Jews and
Christians, and filthier than dogs.
مستند الشيعة المؤلف : المحقق أحمد بن محمد مهدي النراقي
مجلد : 14
صفحة: 163
Mustanad al Shia by Ayatullah Naraqi, Volume 14 page 163
ودعوى الايمان والأخوة للمخالف مما يقطع بفساده.
وتؤكده النصوص المتواترة الواردة عنهم في طعنهم ولعنهم وتكفيرهم، وأنهم شر من اليهود والنصارى وأنجس من الكلاب
The
attribution of iman (belief) and brotherhood towards non shias is
completely invalid, and this is evidenced by mutawatir ahadith from the
Imams (as) mocking, cursing and doing takfeer of the non shias, as well
as calling them worse than Jews and Christians, and filthier than dogs.
وكيف يتصور الأخوة بين المؤمن والمخالف بعد تواتر الروايات، وتضافر الآيات في وجوب معاداتهم والبراءة منهم» (جواهر الكلام22/62)
How
is it possible to imagine brotherhood between shias and non shias when
there are mutawatir ahadith supported by numerous Qur'anic verses that
it is obligatory to be hostile to non shias and to do tabarra from them?
(Jawahirul Kalam by Shaikh Jawahiri, Volume 22 page 62)
*Original arabic pages from 'Ma'ani al Nasib' by Ayt. Jamil Hamudi al Amuli
