Comparative Proving of Not-falsehood of violating the Waid (Punish Promise) from the Viewpoint of Theology and Jurisprudence

The Mutazilites believe that the big-sins-doer which dies without repentance will encounter to the divine punishment and there is no way for his/her forgiveness. From their opinion, such a person although being believer, because of his/her sins like a non-believer will always be in torment. Therefore, if God does not punish this person, He violated his Waid (Punish Promise) and violating the Waid implicates a lie; while God never lies, then he never violates Waid. In a descriptive and content analysis way, this research tries to prove that violating Waid is not false from the view point of Kalam (Theology) and Feqh (Jurisprudence). On the basis of some rational and narrative reasons, the Shia thinkers criticized the Mutazili theory. From the view point of these thinkers, violating Waid is not false (Kedhb), because it is related to the practical phase, not to the serious will. Also Waid is primarily conditioned and is not practicable until its condition realized. Thus in the lack of conditions, forgiveness is possible. In addition, if violating Waid is false, every false is not inadmissible. The evidence is the religious legislator's (Share') permission for lie on the basis of some expedients. Considering Wad (promise) and Waid as subjunctive mood (insha’) is another way for solving the misgiving of contradiction of false of violating Waid. Accordingly, Wad and Waid are of subjunctive moods that are stated in the form of simple sentences. Then the application of correct and false for them is not real but metaphorical.