Sunni VS Shia Imamah

Hassan Al-Qadri has (admittedly) a big mouth, lots of drama and hot air, but when it comes to action he is the master of avoiding those who can dismantle him and the best arguments of his Rāfidi religion.

History will remember him as the individual with the worst excuses when it comes to avoid debates. You can say, he mastered the art of coming up with excuses in order to avoid debates.

He refuses to debate me (‘I don’t trust Shemrani’ excuse) and Farid (‘egg stains’ excuse and other childish and arrogant cop outs), basically everyone who is specialised in Rafidism (that’s why he and his Rafida group where so fond of debating a Qubūri like themselves).

Anyways, it was easy to trigger him, as he and his likes are insecure and know deep down in their hearts that the lie and myth and mother of all evil and Ghuluw i.e. Rafidi Imāmah/Wilayah has no basis in Islam, neither in the Qur’an nor in the Sunnah. So after I challenged him and his likes to a debate he subtitled a (promo) clip by a known ‘Saudi’ Rāfidi Zindīq and Turban-Head called Ahmad Salmān who pulls an old Shubhah (misleading argument) in a clip in Arabic.

The Shubhah: Citations of statements of Sunni scholars who regard Imamah (rulership) as one of the Usūl (principles) of the Dīn in addition to declaring the one who reject the Khilāfah of the Abū Bakr and ‘Umar (رضي الله عنهما) as miguided etc.

This is an old Shubhah and I dealt with this year’s ago on Wesal Farsi TV.

General response: ALL Muslims believe that Imamah/Rulership is one of the many principles (أصل من الأصول) of the religion, the religion in its entirety is based on the implementation of the Shari’ah, many Ahkām (like Hudūd) are not applied if the Shari’ah is not enforced. In THAT sense scholars speak of rulership (Imamah/Khilafah/Mulk etc.) as a necessity and as a principle of the religion, Muslims are not anarchists afterall.

However, the disagreement between us and the Rāfidah (and even Jews and Christians) is not if rulership is a necessity and thus of course one of the many principles (linguistically speaking) of the religion. Our disagreement is based on the TA’RīF (definition) and type of this Imamah/rulership and the claim of the Rāfidah that the entire religion is BASED on the Wilayāh (divine rulership) Alī b. Abī Tālib (رضي الله عنه) and in addition (!) the alleged divine Imāmah of eleven of his descendants. Take for instance these kufri narrations:

In Volume 1 of Hayāt al-Qulūb:

“O ‘Ali! Allah did not send any Prophet but ordered him of your love and Wilayah whether he liked it or not.”

I quote here from the notorious al-Islam org website:

According to another authentic tradition, the Prophet (SA) said “I asked Allah whom I should nominate and He revealed to me, ‘Nominate your cousin Ali ibn Abi Talib, whose name I have mentioned in the previous divine Books and stated that he is your successor. I have also obtained the oath of fealty for My Lordship, your Prophethood and Imamate and Wilayah of ‘Ali ibn Abi-Talib from all the creatures and Prophets.’”

Look at the Ghuluw (exaggeration), imagine Sunnis would claim such nonsense with regard to the Sahābah! When did Allāh and the Prophets taught the previous nations about this SPECIFIC Wilayāh/Imāmah that is nowhere mentioned in the Qur’an (let alone in previous revelation)? See how they have replaced the real main mission of the Messengers (that is Tawhīd) with the alleged divine leadership of the cousin of our Prophet [s], on top of that they have the audacity to compare Sunni belief in Imamah (non-divine rulership) with their exaggerated beliefs.

To further clarify that conflating between the Sunni belief of Imāmah (simple rulership) and the Rāfidī one is nothing but dishonesty and a distraction tactic I would like to present the following narrations in Rāfidī books:

بني الاسلام على خمس : على الصلاة ، والزكاة، والصوم ،والحج ، الولاية ، ولم ينادي بشيئ كما نودي بالولاية

Islam is based on five pillars; salah, zakat, sowm, hajj and Wilayah. Nothing has been announced as much as Wilayah.

Another narration (al Kafi 2/18) states:

بني الاسلام على خمسة أشياء : على الصلاة ، والزكاة،والحج، والصوم،والولاية قال زرارة : فقلت : وأي شيئ من ذلك أفضل؟ فقال الولاية أفضل!!

Islam is based on five pillars; salah, zakat, sowm, hajj and Wilayah.

Zurarah asked: “Which of them is most virtuous?” He replied: “Wilayah.”

Is this what Sunnis believe in regard to Khilafah/Imāmah? Is this how what Sunnis believe in regard to Abū Bakr and ‘Umar? I mean, look at the extent of the Ghuluw, in Rāfidism the SPECIFIC Wilāyah of ‘Ali [r] is not just a *principle* of the religion but rather the most important principle upon which all other principles (including Tawhīd and Prophethood!) are founded! They went as far as to claim that “nothing has been announced as much as Wilayah” (and this is why many of their top scholars believed that the Qur’an has been distorted by the Sahābah as the Qur’ān in our hands doesn’t mention this alleged important Wilāyah let alone emphasising on it).

Every just observer and researcher can conclude after studying the claims of the Rāfidi religion and their scholars that the Twelver Rāfidī belief in Imāmah is not just a principle but THE fundamental foundation of the religion upon which everything else is built, Sunnīs have never made such claim, it is thus disingenuous and a fallacious analogy to compare Sunni belief in rulership with the exaggerated Rāfidī one that has not basis in the Qur’an AND the Sunnah.

So the burden is upon the Rāfidah to prove THEIR alien and exaggerated concept of Imāmah from the Qur’an and Sunnah, it is them who have to provide evidence that Allah has legislated and commanded mankind to follow 12 alleged infallible semi-divine Imams (not just similar to Prophets but SUPERIOR to them as well!), a form of Imamāh that is superior to Nubuwwah (Prophethood!), an Imamāh and so Wilāyah (of ‘Ali!) which with all Mesengers were sent!

As for some Sunni scholars making Tabī’ or Takfīr on those who reject the Imāmah of Abu Bakr and ‘Umar etc:

That’s different to the Rāfidi belief of mass-takfir against the Sahābah and Muslims (due to them disbelieving in Rāfidi Imāmah). No Sunni scholar has ever claimed that the rejection of Abū Bakr and ‘Umar’s Khilafah are Kuffr/disbelief in and of itself and due to them being divinely commended matters. That would be precisely the Ghuluw the Rāfidah have fallen in with regard to their exaggerated and baseless belief in Imāmah of twelve Imāms. The scholars argue based on Ijma’/consensus i.e. whoever rejects this consensus is misguided and not a Sunnī.

Anyway, there is more to say but I leave it at that. Just note that all this talk about ‘but Sunnis also said…’ is nothing but a smoke screen, a diversion tactic in order to distract from the main dilemma:

The incapability of the Rāfidah to prove THEIR Imāmah belief in 12 alleged infallibles who are not just superior but also more crucial to our salvation than the likes of Jesus, Moses and Abraham (all clearly mentioned in the Qur’an…) from the Qur’an and Sunnah (without ridiculous Bātini Tafsir i.e. Tahrīf and mental gymnastics with Quranic verses).

That is and always will be the Musībatul-Kubrā for the Rejectionsts, the Rāfidah (Allah has rejected them) and they have to blame nobody but their wretched Salaf who have exaggerated so much that no person if intellect will ever buy their claims, no matter of hard Turban-Heads (the likes of Ahmad Salman) try to trivialise their beliefs by conflating it with ours.

PS: This Ahmad Salmān is like any other Rāfidi priest, a heretic to the bone. In this clip ( ) he brazenly states that Sayyidunā Ali (R) will literally judge on the day of judgement and decide who will enter heaven and hell, in fact (based on the Kufri Rāfidī Du’ā’ called ‘Ziyārat al-Jāmi’ah’ the Imams/Ahlul-Bayt will judge the entire creation on judgement day. Innil-Hukmu illā lil-Imām!