نقد دیدگاه وهابیت در اتهام غلو به شیعه در اعتقاد به قدرت‌های غیبی اهل‌بیت(ع) باتکیه‌بر کلام عقلی و استدلالی

 The issue of "exaggeration" and its attribution to Imami Shia—especially regarding the belief in miracles , knowledge of the unseen , and ontological guardianship of the Ahl al-Bayt (as)—has long been one of the central foci of theological conflict and a tool used by the Wahhabi movement for takfir (excommunication) and "othering." By adopting a specific and literalist reading of operational monotheism and monotheism in worship, Wahhabism considers any attribution of occult or supernatural agency to other than God as a departure from the circle of religion and absolute polytheism. This research aims to investigate the foundations of this accusation with a critical approach, utilizing rational and argumentative theology as well as textual traditions  from both Islamic schools of thought. The fundamental issue in this controversy is the conflation of "independent power" with "divinely permitted power," as well as reducing a dispute over instances  to a conceptual and theological disagreement. The importance of this research lies in refuting the foundations of takfir, proving the rational plausibility of Shia doctrines in the light of operational monotheism, and elucidating the harmony of Quranic verses and narrative traditions concerning the occult actions of the divine saints.
This research has been organized using a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library and documentary research tools. The methodological framework of the article is based on conceptual analysis, logical formulation of the claims of the Salafi and Wahhabi movements (especially the views of Ibn Taymiyya, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and Al al-Shaykh), critical analysis of the exegetical and narrative texts of both Islamic schools (focusing on the context of verses related to miracles and the qualifier " بِإِذْنِی " [with My permission], and traditions accepted by Ahl al-Sunnah), and finally, the formulation of a theological-philosophical argument based on the system of vertical causality and divine proximity in Islamic wisdom.
The findings of the research indicate that Wahhabism's claim regarding a definitive entailment between the belief in occult powers and polytheism lacks any solid rational or traditional basis. In the domain of textual tradition, the Holy Quran—by repeatedly asserting the qualifier " بِإِذْنِی " in the miracles of Jesus (as) (such as the revival of the dead and the creation of a bird) and describing the transfer of the throne of Bilqis by Asif ibn Barkhiya relying on " "عِلْمٌ مِنَ الْکِتَابِ knowledge from the Book"—proves that the manifestation of extraordinary acts from pious, permitted servants is not only not a violation of monotheism, but rather the channel and sign of the realization of operational monotheism. In the narrative texts of Ahl al-Sunnah and Wahhabism, events such as " یا ساریة الجبل " (O Sariya, the mountain!), Umar's letter to the Nile, and intervention in the earthquake of Medina are also regarded as miracles and illuminations, and have been accepted. This demonstrates a behavioral duality and internal contradiction within the intellectual apparatus of Wahhabism; because they permit the principle of occult agency for the Companions, yet label the attribution of a degree of it to the Ahl al-Bayt (as) as heresy and exaggeration. Therefore, the real dispute is one of "instances" , not "concepts." From a rational standpoint, the argument of vertical causality also shows that the agency of a proximate servant, due to annihilation in God , is situated along the line of divine agency, and the negation of independence inherently prevents the realization of polytheism.
The foundations of the Wahhabi accusation against the Shia regarding the occult powers of the Ahl al-Bayt (as) stem from a conflation of two fundamental concepts in Islamic theology: "independent power," which is exclusive to the divine essence, and "permitted power," which is realized through God's permission and will in His special servants. The Shia have never placed the Ahl al-Bayt (as) on a par with God, but rather have considered them as channels of the divine will; hence, the belief in their occult powers is in truth an affirmation of operational monotheism, not a departure from it. First, based on the Quran and Sunnah, any power manifested by special servants is meaningful only within the framework of "by the permission of Allah," and denying it is an explicit denial of Quranic concepts. Therefore, believing in permitted power is not an instance of exaggeration, but a manifestation of true faith in the divine will. Second, the disagreement between the Shia and Wahhabism is not in the definition of exaggeration, but in the application of its instance. Wahhabism denies the very same divinely permitted powers for the Ahl al-Bayt (as) that it accepts for the Companions and its own caliphs, thereby erroneously elevating a dispute over instances to the level of conceptual disagreement, whereas the meaning of exaggeration is uniform in both schools, and only the accepted instances differ. Third, the Shia belief in occult powers is supported by solid traditional and rational proofs. The Quran affirms the possibility of this principle through its explicit statement of the permitted extraordinary acts of Jesus (as) and Asif ibn Barkhiya, and the Sunnah affirms it through traditions concerning the miracles of Umar ibn al-Khattab and divine saints. Furthermore, based on causality, reason also considers ontological guardianship to be rational within the radius of God's will. Fourth, despite such evidence, insisting on takfir and the accusation of exaggeration is neither a defense of monotheism nor a fair scientific or religious boundary; rather, it is a transgression of limits. With this approach, Wahhabism ignores the manifestation-oriented reality of monotheism and ultimately falls into another form of exaggeration: exaggeration in denying the manifestations of God's power in righteous saints, which is the very essence of epistemic deficiency and intellectual extremism.