The question addresses the differences between our prayers and those of the Sunni community, the origins of these differences, and the evidence supporting the validity of Shia prayers.
🤖
AI Notice: This translation was generated by AI and is currently awaiting human verification.
1 Answer
Peace be upon you and God's mercy and blessings.
Your question regarding the validity of the prayers of the general public and their view on our prayers is a jurisprudential question that falls outside the realm of doctrinal inquiries. Therefore, we will provide a brief and general response without delving into the details of the issue or discussing the narrations or verses related to it, as this would require extensive discussion and knowledge of certain jurisprudential principles, which are best addressed by specialists in the field.
In general, we say that the claim that their prayers are not the prayers intended by God stems from our scholars' view, based on the evidence from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the infallible Ahlulbayt, that the prayers of the opponents lack certain conditions and essential components, such as prostrating on surfaces that are not permissible for prostration, or including additions that are not part of the prayer, like the act of crossing the arms (taktif), or issues related to the invalidation of ablution due to the manner in which they perform it. All of this is viewed in light of the prayer that God has legislated and the manner in which it should be performed.
However, it is worth noting that some Shia scholars, based on specific evidence, consider the prayers of the opponents to be valid if performed correctly according to their own doctrine, despite the aforementioned deficiencies. Nevertheless, these prayers are not accepted, and it is commonly held among Shia scholars that the prayers of an opponent who has gained insight (istibsar) are valid if performed correctly according to their doctrine, and there is no need for them to make up for it, based on specific evidence, despite the existing deficiencies.
As for their claim that our prayers are invalid, it is based on what they see, according to the statements of their scholars and the principles of their jurisprudential or doctrinal schools, such as their view on the invalidity of our method of performing ablution, for example, or their belief that prostrating on the soil of Imam Hussein is a form of polytheism, among other detailed reasons.
However, what has been presented is the jurisprudential aspect of the issue, which each group refers to what they consider to be valid evidence within their jurisprudential framework. This is, in fact, secondary in importance to the doctrinal aspect, which forms the true background and primary reason for the differences in perspectives and rulings.
Thus, to answer your main question succinctly, any deviation, alteration, or loss in religion, both in beliefs and rulings, ultimately traces back to one central issue: the issue of leadership in Islam. Those who believe, based on the Quran and the declarations of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his family), that legitimate leadership is in Imam Ali (peace be upon him) and his descendants, take their religion, after the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family), in beliefs and rulings from them, believing that they are the speaking Quran and equal to the Quran, and that they are infallible and that their knowledge is the knowledge of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). Thus, they derive their prayers and other rulings from them and from the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) before, during, and after him.
On the other hand, those who hold a different view from the Quran and the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and place leadership outside the Ahlulbayt (peace be upon them) take their religion from them and follow their lead, despite not being worthy of speaking on behalf of the religion, whether in terms of knowledge or infallibility. Their knowledge is not the knowledge of the Prophet (peace be upon him), nor do they claim or have claims of infallibility, and the evidence does not support the legitimacy of their leadership or the authority of what they attribute to and rule in the name of religion.
Thus, the divergence of doctrinal schools has led to a greater divergence in jurisprudential schools, resulting in significant differences in subsidiary rulings and jurisprudential and non-jurisprudential details.
We ask God for safety in religion and a good outcome for us and for you.