The shai-pukhtoons of kurma and hangu etc

[RevolutionThroughReason]

A secular Pashtun nationalist practicing Pashtunwali never think backwardly. Lack of education is one thing and Pashtunwali another thing. Pashtuns who are backward are because of ignorance, illiteracy, Islamism not because of Pashtunwali.

An educated secular Bangash or Turi Shia Pashtun will never kill another Pashtun but a religious bigot will do so.

But Pashtunwali is backwards and introduces things like the molestation of young boys for bacha bazi and grave abuses for women. So if a Secular Nationalist Pashtun wants progress then he has to throw away Pashtunwali into the rubbish bin or he is only using Pashtunwali for emotional pull or he wants to push Pashtuns back into stone ages again by keeping a culture of badal and swara and forcing girls to have sex with men against their consent by making them marry men who they did not choose.

The major problems with Pashtuns is tribal feuding, lack of respect for women's rights due to not obeying Islamic Injunctions and pedophilia of boys due to the idea that young boys are for sexual enjoyment.

There's nothing in Pashtunwali that can help Pashtuns.

[Kochagasht]

But Pashtunwali is backwards and introduces things like the molestation of young boys for bacha bazi and grave abuses for women. So if a Secular Nationalist Pashtun wants progress then he has to throw away Pashtunwali into the rubbish bin or he is only using Pashtunwali for emotional pull or he wants to push Pashtuns back into stone ages again by keeping a culture of badal and swara and forcing girls to have sex with men against their consent by making them marry men who they did not choose.

The major problems with Pashtuns is tribal feuding, lack of respect for women's rights due to not obeying Islamic Injunctions and pedophilia of boys due to the idea that young boys are for sexual enjoyment.

There's nothing in Pashtunwali that can help Pashtuns.

straw man fallacy

[IvNoName]

But Pashtunwali is backwards and introduces things like the molestation of young boys for bacha bazi and grave abuses for women. So if a Secular Nationalist Pashtun wants progress then he has to throw away Pashtunwali into the rubbish bin or he is only using Pashtunwali for emotional pull or he wants to push Pashtuns back into stone ages again by keeping a culture of badal and swara and forcing girls to have sex with men against their consent by making them marry men who they did not choose.

The major problems with Pashtuns is tribal feuding, lack of respect for women's rights due to not obeying Islamic Injunctions and pedophilia of boys due to the idea that young boys are for sexual enjoyment.

There's nothing in Pashtunwali that can help Pashtuns.

Here is a tip sista. The more you try the more suspicious people become of your true motives.

[DaZahroJaam.]

But Pashtunwali is backwards and introduces things like the molestation of young boys for bacha bazi and grave abuses for women.

The Pashtun culture does not promote or encourage bachabazi. The tribal feuding and sexual otherwise of abuse is evident in various parts of the country dominated by Pashtun communities but not the other thing you claimed.

[gadoonwal]

Afghan government of Hamid Karzai paid Turi and other Shiites of Kurm to fight against Sunnis. Karzai used sectarian conflict to deny Taliban a safepass through East Khost and Kurm.

The current war between Sunnis and Shiites in Kurm is started by Karzai govenrment.

i heard something similar.
This half breed karzai should be hanged for crimes against pashtuns then.

[gadoonwal]

The solution is for them to convert to Islam or move to another country. Because in Islam, hostile non-Muslims and sects outside the fold of Islam like the Ismailiyyah are not allowed to live among Muslims.

They only cause problems and they spread corruption.

we share 5000 years old history with turi pakhtuns.islam came 1400 years ago and we are proud to be suni muslim but why should we give up our 5000 years old brotherhood and history for the sake of extremists.
We all disagree with their belief but killing is not the salution.
They were sunis once but a shai clerk convert their leader so if you are great suni muslim why do,nt you approcah them different way?
Also what will you do if people in non-muslim countries asked muslims to convert?

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

we share 5000 years old history with turi pakhtuns.islam came 1400 years ago and we are proud to be suni muslim but why should we give up our 5000 years old brotherhood and history for the sake of extremists.
We all disagree with their belief but killing is not the salution.
They were sunis once but a shai clerk convert their leader so if you are great suni muslim why do,nt you approcah them different way?
Also what will you do if people in non-muslim countries asked muslims to convert?

Non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries do want us to leave Islam.

Both, the government, the political parties and the society in large rather see us abandoning our religion and assimilating in their culture.

They consider us as a threat. We may not pose a physical violent threat, but we do change the fabric of their society. This of course is something they dislike. They don't want us Muslims to spread our religion and practice our rituals.

WIth regards to Shiites, the thing is, when the Turi tribe decided to become kafirs, they should have thought about the consequence of their decision.

Of course, in Pashtun society, people don't care about Islam as much as they should do. But from a strictly legal point of view, when someone chooses to abandon Islam and become a kafir, in this case a shiite, then that particular person chooses the path of misguidance over the path of guidance. This is harmful for both the person in question and the society.

[MENTION=1068]gadoonwal[/MENTION] as a Muslim, you should know that the only brotherhood a Muslim is bound to is the brotherhood of Islam. If think you need to be loyal towards your non-Muslim brothers, consider this: according to 12 imamite Shiite sect, and the Ismaili sect, all Sunnis are kafirs. They consider us as non-muslims and in their own religion their belief is that we all go to hell. In their books of law, marriage with a Sunni is not allowed.

So you are telling me, you are loyal to Turis because they are Pashtuns despite the fact that their religion does not consider you as a believer but a disbeliever?

They are a small weak minority, this is why they are not very active and violent. Would the Iranian revolutionary guard start giving them military training and assistance like the Hazara's in Afghanistan are receiving, your fellow Pashtun brothers you have 5000 year old history with, will slaughter you and cook you alive like Hazara's did it to us in Kabul back in 1993.

[gadoonwal]

Non-Muslims in non-Muslim countries do want us to leave Islam.

Both, the government, the political parties and the society in large rather see us abandoning our religion and assimilating in their culture.

They consider us as a threat. We may not pose a physical violent threat, but we do change the fabric of their society. This of course is something they dislike. They don't want us Muslims to spread our religion and practice our rituals.

WIth regards to Shiites, the thing is, when the Turi tribe decided to become kafirs, they should have thought about the consequence of their decision.

Of course, in Pashtun society, people don't care about Islam as much as they should do. But from a strictly legal point of view, when someone chooses to abandon Islam and become a kafir, in this case a shiite, then that particular person chooses the path of misguidance over the path of guidance. This is harmful for both the person in question and the society.

@gadoonwal as a Muslim, you should know that the only brotherhood a Muslim is bound to is the brotherhood of Islam. If think you need to be loyal towards your non-Muslim brothers, consider this: according to 12 imamite Shiite sect, and the Ismaili sect, all Sunnis are kafirs. They consider us as non-muslims and in their own religion their belief is that we all go to hell. In their books of law, marriage with a Sunni is not allowed.

So you are telling me, you are loyal to Turis because they are Pashtuns despite the fact that their religion does not consider you as a believer but a disbeliever?

They are a small weak minority, this is why they are not very active and violent. Would the Iranian revolutionary guard start giving them military training and assistance like the Hazara's in Afghanistan are receiving, your fellow Pashtun brothers you have 5000 year old history with, will slaughter you and cook you alive like Hazara's did it to us in Kabul back in 1993.

mukhtarama/haghaliya
i fully understand your point.
The turis and others shai pashtuns will never be that stronger to slaughter us cus they are sarounded by us.
They are living in this region as a shai for centuries but remember we suni-pashtuns attack them first.
They begged suni-pashtuns to solve the problems according to pashtun code of pashtunwali and jerga system but our extremists made them more extrem.
So they have no other choice to get help from iran and iran as you know an evil state promoting only shai extremism.
They also attacked sunis but most of the time the wahabi sect of sunis attacking them and bombing them.
They know that as a minority they can never win.
Some of them now gone to southren punjab.As this right?
we lived for centuries together and now since the 80s the sunis turned against them.
Zai was evil and he destroyed the brotherhood and promoted extremism.
Elements in ,,isi,, supporting extremists against shai in kurma.

We have completly lost our brotherhood to wahabism.
Now the shai iran will use our own blood brothers against us.


Iran support shais in every corner of the world.
Soon you will see the suni-shai war accross the world.
From one side saudis will support sunis and from another side iran will back shai.
The world will watch us and laugh on us.
How can a human be that wild.
My main point is that we should ,nt allow others like iranians to use our land and people against us.
This war will spread all over the region.
The turis i met are scared of this situation cus they know the sunis will choped them.
We are already suffering.pashtuns will be used both in afghanistan and pashtunistan in this war.
I know one turi ,we sometime joke with him why are you wasting your time in imam bargah?
He was very nice guy and said ,i know this is not the true islam and i feel no good cus all our pashtuns are sunis but now this is like part of our way life to go there.we feel lonely and strange.
He was fully convinced by one our freind to change but was scared of his family.
I am against this killing of our own pashtuns just cus they follow shai-islam.

[badmash_khel]

gadoonwal explained the situation very well. He has the right attitude and good insight into pashtun affairs.

Shamlawar calls fellow muslims kafir eventhough majority of muslim and pashtun scholars accept the 12er shias as muslim. Turis and other pashtun shias are 12er shias hence muslim. We have a minority of people who have left the ijma of the sunni community and have come up with their own opinion on the matter wether 12er shias are muslim or not. Such people do not represent sunni muslim pashtuns.

12er shias fullfill all the requirements of being called a muslim such as belief in Allah, his messengers, the holy booKs, angels, Qadr, the judgement day etc. They can not prove 12er shias to be kafir. Their accusations are based on emotional sentimentalities and other small differences which still do not take 12er shias out of the fold of Islam.

[Ansari1]

Dear Badmash_khel.,

I do not agree with the following phrase and would like to clarify my viewpoint [which is the viewpoint of many scholars throughout the history].

12er shias fullfill all the requirements of being called a muslim such as belief in Allah, his messengers, the holy booKs, angels, Qadr, the judgement day etc. They can not prove 12er shias to be kafir. Their accusations are based on emotional sentimentalities and other small differences which still do not take 12er shias out of the fold of Islam.

Before I go into the subject, it should be clear that we are talking about Tashayyu [Shi'ism] and the Shi'a [be it in this case Pashtun or non Pashtun] who ascribe themselves to this sect.

12er shias fullfill all the requirements of being called a muslim such as belief in Allah

Many Shi'a Muslims, in fact, almost all of them are indulged in shirk al akbar as they claim their “infallible” imams have attributes of Allah subhana wa ta'ala. A simple example is the fact the Shi'a claim their imams know the unseen [al ghayb], they know their hour of death and death is in their hands, they hear the supplications of their [shia] followers after their death [in whatever language it is made] etc. These are all forms of major shirk and I think a sensible person would not even try to claim otherwise.


Also I would like to point out that believing in the uniqueness of Allah azzawajal is an obligation and moreover, it is something which is undisputed, even if proper knowledge hasn't reached him/her.


Having said that, the scholars of Shi'ism are the structures of this sect. A sensible Shi'a would and should follow the major scholars of his/her religious sect, who in turn were responsible for creating the Ithna Ashari /Ja'fari sect. Such scholars were Shaykh Mufid, Muhammad Ya'qub al Kulaini, Shaykh Tusi, Nuri at Tabrasi, Shaykh Saduq/ Ibn Babawayh al Qummi, Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi, Ni'matullah al Jazaa'iri, Yusuf al Bahraani.


Let us read a few quotes from these major scholars of Shi'ism.


Ni'matullah al Jazaa'iri says in his book “Anwaar al Nu'maniyyah” p.278 the following:


“We do not believe in the God, nor in the Prophet who's khalifah was Abu Bakr”.


As a God fearing Shi'a I would condemn such a saying and such a scholar. Have you ever heard any Shi'a complaining about this, or about Ni'matullah al Jazaa'iri, the Grand classical scholar of Shi'ism? The answer is a clear cut NO.


For each and every scholar of Shi'ism has a similar saying and supports it. The only time it is denied is when the scholar practices his tenet of religious enlightenment, namely Taqiyyah [i.e. lying/dissimulation].


Even the biggest authority of todays Shi'ism, Khomeini has a similar stance on Tawheed. His definition is concluded in what Shi'ism calls “Wilaayatul Takhwiniyyah”.








Ayatullah Khomeini, Hukumatul Islamiyyah, p.52



He says:


“Behold, the Imam has a praised rank, a high rank and universal sovereignty who's commandments and authority is to be followed by all atoms in the universe. One of the tenets of our religion is that our imams have a high rank that is neither accessible for a major Angel, nor a sent Messenger.





Again, major Shirk.




The same applies to the statement that the Shi'a [Shi'ism] believe in the holy books. Therefore you say the following:

12er shias fullfill all the requirements of being called a muslim such as belief the holy booKs,

I am sorry for reducing your quote btw.


Among the holy books is off course the Qur'aan.
The Shi'a individual may believe in the completeness of the Qur'aan, [some Shi'a don't consider the Uthmanic codex to be authentic]. As a matter of fact, 95% of all major Shi'a scholars concluded and had a consensus about the alteration of the present Qur'aan. Among them, Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi, Tabrasi, Qummi, Ayyaashi, Kashaani, Mufid, Kulayni, Jazaa'iri, Bahraani etc.




This is for instance what Tafsir al Qummi mentions about the corruption of the Qur'aan and the Shi'a scholars.


ولكن الظاهر من كلمات غيرهم من العلماء والمحدثين المتقدمين منهم والمتأخرين القول
بالنقيصة كالكليني والبرقى، والعياشي
وال
نعماني، وفرات بن ابراهيم، واحمد بن ابى طالب الطبرسي صاحب الاحتجاج والمجلسى، والسيد الجزائري، والحر العاملي،
والعلامة الفتوني، والسيد البحراني وقد تمسكوا في
اثبات مذهبهم بالآيات والروايات التى لا يمكن الاغماض عنها والذي يهون
الخطب ان التحريف اللازم على
قولهم يسير جدا مخصوص بآيات الولاية


“But it is obvious from the words of the later scholars of hadith concerning tahreef/alteration [of the qur'an] such as Al Kulayni, Al Barqi, al Ayaashi, an Nu'maani, Furaat bin Ibraahim, Ahmad ibn Abu Talib at Tabrasi, Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi, Sayyed al Jazaa'iri, Al Hurr al Amili, Allamah al Fattuni, Sayed al Bahraani, they adhered to the verses and narration [regarding the corruption] which they could impossibly deny when formulating their stance. What makes matters less worse is that they believed tahreef /corruption only took place in verses regarding Wilaayah”.


Tafsir al Qummi, part 1, p.412 [one of the major Shi'a tafasir available].




The father of Shi'a scholars, al Amali, a mufassir of Shi'ism states the following regarding the corruption of the Qur'aan in his book Mir'aat al Anwaar wa Mishkaat al Asraar:





“People have to acknowledge that Thiqat ul Islaam Muhammad ibn Ya'qub al Kulayni [may Allah bless him] believed in the alteration of the Qur'aan [tahreef] and the deletion [of verses] from it since he authenticated many narrations in his book Al Kafi. In his introduction he admits that he believes in that he narrates and he did not criticize these nor did he provide any evidence to refute it. This is also confirmed from his teacher, Ali ibn Ibraahim al Qummi [May Allah bless his soul] who used these narrations in his tafsir [exegeses] and he exaggerated in it..those having the same view in this field [regarding tahreef] were our disciples Ayaashi, Al Nu'maani, Furaat ibn Ibraahim and others. And this is known as the madhab [creed] of the majority of the Muhaqqiq al Muhaddithin. The same applies to the viewpoint of Ahmad ibn Abu Talib al Tabrasi in his work al Ihtijaaj en from amongst those supporting his viewpoint was our Shaykh Allamah Muhammad Baqir Ulum Ahl al Bayt [Majlisi]. He elaborated on this in his work Bihaar al Anwaar extensively and we do not need to go into that. I have many proofs for the authenticity of this viewpoint after examining many of the narrations which lead us to conclude that this case [of tahreef/corruption of the quran] is one of the necessities of the Shi'a madhab and it is the result of the big corruption which took place after stealing the caliphate. After these observations one will realize that the stance of Saduq was based on mere illusions”.


Abu Ali al Hassan Al Amali, Muqaddimah Tafsir al Burhaan, Mir’aat al Anwaar wa Mishkaat al Asraat, Beirut, p83, 84

1. All big scholars of Shi'ism, responsible for writing all the major Shi'a books of creed believed in the corruption of the Qur'aan.
2. The only Shi'a scholar who denied it [along with Tusi and Sharif al Murtadha] had, according to Hurr al Amili, the first muhaddith of Shi'sm, illusions concerning this matter.
3. Believing in the corruption of the Qur'aan is indeed a Shi'a creed and one of the basic neccesities of this sect, since they believe the real Qur'aan which was compiled by Ali is now with their hidden imam.

To be continued. I would like to present similar cases for the notion of believing in "Qadr, Messengers, Judement Day" etc.

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

It wasnt gadoonwal who said that. It was [MENTION=3825]badmash_khel[/MENTION].

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

Shamlawar calls fellow muslims kafir eventhough majority of muslim and pashtun scholars accept the 12er shias as muslim.

What common Muslims and politicians and government agents posing as scholars say doesn't mean anything.

Name one Mujtahid Scholar from either Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki or Hanbali school who declares that the 12 imamite/ithn ashariyyah and Ismailiyyah are within the fold of Islam.

Dont bring me modern day politically correct scholars on governments pay-roll.

Give me a classic Mujtahid who considers them as Muslims.

Turis and other pashtun shias are 12er shias hence muslim. We have a minority of people who have left the ijma of the sunni community and have come up with their own opinion on the matter wether 12er shias are muslim or not. Such people do not represent sunni muslim pashtuns.

You are just being arrogant here. Post statements of mujtahideen supporting your claim.

Those who consider 12imamites as Muslim obviously don't know the aqeedah of 12imamites. I supsect that you are ignorant and you don't know any better.

If in any case, you do know their aqeeda and you still consider them to be Muslim despite knowing their shirk, their disbelief in Qur'an etc, then you are probably not a muslim yourself.

Because as, Ansari1 mentioned: it is mandatory for every Muslim to know his religion properly. One cannot claim to be a Muslim without truly understanding what shirk, kufr, imaan, tawheed etc mean.

12er shias fullfill all the requirements of being called a muslim such as belief in Allah, his messengers, the holy booKs, angels, Qadr, the judgement day etc. They can not prove 12er shias to be kafir. Their accusations are based on emotional sentimentalities and other small differences which still do not take 12er shias out of the fold of Islam.

It seems the ones who are being emotional are you and gandoonwal. You have the audacity to accuse us of doing what you are guilty of.

In Islam, the definition of belief and disbelief, monotheism and polytheism are as clear as it can get. Any common Muslim can know the difference between kufr and imaan, shirk and tawheed. Aside from this, we have libraries of Shiite scholars accessible where their core beliefs are explained and propagated in classic and modern books by their most senior scholars.

We also have recorded statements in audio and video of their current senior scholars and even common men proclaiming the same ideas.

There is sufficient evidence to confirm the disbelief of all 12 imamite shiites and ismailis.

The ones who claim otherwise are obviously being emotional. It is too big of a deal to accept the fact that all those people are not Muslims.

[Ansari1]

12er shias fullfill all the requirements of being called a muslim such as belief in angels

This is what the renowned book of Shi'a hadith tells about the Angels. The narration is ascribed to our Prophet sallalahu aleyhi wasallam. [May Allah punish those who lie upon the Prophet].


87 - كنز : روي مرفوعا ، عن أنس بن مالك قال : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله : خلق الله من نور وجه علي بن أبيطالب عليه السلام سبعين ألف ملك ، يستغفرون له و لمحبيه إلى يوم القيامة

Bihaar al Anwaar, vol.65, p.142

http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-hadis/behar65/114.htm

Shi'ism tells us that Angels are created from the face of Ali radiallahu anhu. What exactly fulfills the islamic conditions? The only information about all the arkaan of Islaam are absurdities if we really open the Shi'a books of creed.


In the most authentic Shia book of hadith we read that Angels come across the “imams” furnishings:




A number of our people has narrated has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from ibn Sinan from Masma‘ Kirdin al-Basri who has said the following. "I used to eat one meal in twenty four hours. I would ask permission to see abu ‘Abdallah (a.s.) at such time that I would expect that their table cloth is collected and they have fished their meal. When I would arrive he would ask to return the table cloth. I would find food in it but it would not harm me while if I would eat with others again I could not do so and it would become very difficult for me to sleep because of gases. I complained about it before the Imam (a.s.) and said that if I would eat from your table it does not harm me. He said, "O abu Sayyar, it is because you eat from the table of the virtuous people. Angels shake hands with them on their furnishings." The narrator has said that I then asked, "Do they (angels) appear to you?" He has said, "The Imam (a.s.) wiped his hand over one of his children and said, ‘They are more kind to our children than we ourselves are."

http://www.alseraj.net/maktaba/kotob/english/Hadeeths/AlKafi/html/eng/books/hadith/al-kafi/part4/part4-ch97.htm

This off course is another fallacy which has nothing to do with the islamic understanding of Angels.


This is what Khomeini states about the Angel Gibrael, [Jibril alayhi salam] by the help of Shi'a narrations:





“Concerning Jibril, when Allah asked him who am I and who are you? And each time he [Jibril] answered: You are you and I am I whereupon Allah burnt him and sent him to the lowest of skies because of his arrogance, until the savior of the souls arrived in the world of the lights and the souls. The Mawla [guardian] of the two universes of the Taqalayn, our Mawla Ali ibn Abu Talib (AS). It was then that Ali taught Jibril that he should say: You are the Great King and I am a humble slave. When Jibril said that, he was saved from the hellfire”.


Source: Ruhullah al Musawi al Khomeini, Al Ta'leeqah alal Fawaa'd al Radawiyyah, p151


So Jibril alayhi salaam was to be burned in the hellfire and Ali radiallahu anhu saved him? Jibril was arrogant and he didn't praise his creator in a majestic manner or he simply didn't know what the appropriate answer was? In case he didn't know, would Allah azzawajal punish and burn him [as he “did according to the Shi'a creed] for something he did not know?

This “Khomeini” is followed by millions of so called muslims.


This abusing of Angels and Prophets is countless in major books of Shi'ism. I am asking the advocates of Shi'ism, when and were did you condemn the abusing of the Angels, Prophets, Allah, the Qur'aan which takes place in the books of Shi'a Aqeeda such as Al Kafi, Man La Yahduruh al Faqih, Wasaa'il al Shi'a, Bihaar al Anwaar and all the major Tafaasir?


If the Shi'a does not know his/her religion, please study it. Till then, they should not be surprised if takfir takes place while their stubbornness withholds them from questioning the Shi'a faith.

[Ansari1]

12er shias fullfill all the requirements of being called a muslim such as belief in Qadr, the judgement day

Shi'ism does not acknowledge al Qadr in the Islamic sense. Moreover, the Ithna Ashari Ja'fari aqeedah contains the concept of "Al Badaa", simply, Allah changing his mind if something didn't work out the way the Shi'a forgers planned. This was the case when one of their "infallible" imams states that his son would be the next infallible imam. This is narrated in many of their stories but when his son died before his father did, the Shi'a scholars had to invent the concept of Allah changing his mind [staghfiruallah].

Concerning the day of Resurrection. It is not the Qiyaama which you read about in the authentic ahaadith of the Prophet, nor the Qur'aan verses. According to Shi'ism Ali and some of their Imams will be resurrected before the day of Resurrection [Ar Raj'ah] and they will spill the blood of all, foremost sunni's a.k.a. nasibis. Also, their hidden cellar imam will resurrect the wifes of the Prophet and would lash them.

You can read this in many books of Shi'a creed, among others that of Muhammad Baqir al Majlisi, Haqqul Yaqeen, Bihaar al Anwaar.

So again, nothing islamic about the Day of Resurrection, nor about al Qadr.

[Ansari1]

Shamlawar calls fellow muslims kafir eventhough majority of muslim and pashtun scholars accept the 12er shias as muslim.

Majority of Muslim and Pashtun scholars? Please elaborate. As far as I know, from the time of the classical scholars until now, none of the scholars of Ahl ul Sunnah deemed a Rafidhi/ghaali to be a Muslim.

Yes, a mainstream Shi'a back in those days was regarded as a Muslim. There is a substantial difference between twelver Shi'ism and a "Shi'a" in the time of Ali radiallahu anhu and Muawiyah radiallahu anhu. You had the Shi'a of Muawiyah, and those of Ali, all of them Ahl ul Sunnah.

When rafd emerged in its true form, during the era of Zaid ibn Ali, the differences between the Muslims and Rawaafid became eminent. This was the time the aforementioned scholars had their agenda's fully booked with forging narrations.

You say the Shi'a [12ver rawaafid are Muslims]. On the other hand, this is their religious stance on us:

Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani states in his book: المشهور 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 أنيغسل 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
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….”( Hadaiq al Nadhirah by Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani,Volume 5, Page 175).



قال 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
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). (Hadaiq al Nadhirah by Shaikh Yusuf al Bahrani,Volume 5, Page 175).


Shia scholar Nematullah Jazairi states in his book: It was narrated from the Prophet(saw) that the sign of the Nawasib is favoring other than Ali over him (i.e. a Nasibi is anyone that favors anyone over Ali, be it Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman) … This can also be returned to the first, [meaning] that what is meant by favoring others over him are those who do it in a manner of firm belief and certainty, in such a way that the imitators and the weak are not included; [That is because] their (i.e. the imitators) favoring of others over him (i.e. Ali) was a result of their imitation of their scholars, fathers, and predecessors, and that they have no means of arriving at [such a conclusion] or even affirming [it with certainty by themselves]. This meaning (i.e. that Nasibi is anyone who favors anyone over Ali) is supported [by the fact that] the Imams [‘Alaihim AlSalam] and their Khawas (close companions) have referred to Abu Hanifa and his likes as Nasibiis. Even though Abu Hanifa was not from among those who demonstrated animosity to Aal Al-Bayt [‘Alaihim Al Salam], rather he used to [love] visiting [and accompanying] them, and used to demonstrate [love,] care and affection towards them. Yes, he did go against their views [in cases], and used to say: Ali said [so-and-so], [and] I say [so-and-so] [So] with that, the view of Al-Sayid Al-Murtada and Ibn Idrees [… their souls] is strengthened, as well as the view of some of our contemporary scholars that all those that oppose us (Al-Mukhalifeen) are Najasah (Filth – unclean). That is based on using the terms Kufr and Shirk to describe them in the Book and the Sunnah, so that term would [also] encompass them when used, and because you have verified that most of them are Nawasib by that meaning.( Book: Anwar an-Nomaniyah. Vol 2, page 308, Author: Nematullah Jazairi.)


Shia sheikh Muhammad Hasan an-Najafi al-Jawhari in his book “Jawaher al-kalam” quoted other shia scholar saying:
“أن الناصب يطلق على خمسة أوجه: الخارجي القادح في علي (ع)، الثاني ما ينسب إلى أحدهم (عليهم السلام) ما يسقط العدالة، الثالث من ينكر فضيلتهم لو سمعها، الرابع من اعتقد فضيلة غير علي (ع)، الخامس من أنكر النص على علي (ع) بعد سماعه أو وصوله إليه بوجه يصدقه
The Nasibi title is designated(for a person) over five reasons: For a Khariji who criticizes Ali (as); Secondly for he who attributes something that invalidates uprightness (adala) to any of the Imams, Thirdly, for he who denies a virtue of theirs when he heard it; Fourthly, for one who believes in the superiority of someone other than Ali (over him); Fifthly, he who denied the report of explicit election of Ali after hearing it or its reaching to him in a manner that allows him to confirm it”. (Jawaher al-kalam vol 6, p 66).


Baqir Majlisi stated:
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
“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.”( Biharul Anwar, Volume 23 Page 290 ).