A really weak istidhlal. 1) There’s a dispute among scholars (between Sunnis and also between Shias) about the use of a polyseme in more than one meaning (cf. Sharh al-talwih and al-mutawal). 2) For the sake of argument it’s permissible : there’re conditions for that. (...) https://twitter.com/makh4n/status/1260196849845223426

3) For the sake of argument, all conditions are fulfilled: Um has no positive or negative value ; indeed there’s a dispute if there’s an objective way to identify the valence of words. ; yes, a word could have a positive value when taken into the context of sentence. (...)

4) What Um al-mumineen means in the terminology ? 5) If we can use its connotations, we can also use its denotation with all that implies. 6) Is there any condition (Iman, piety, etc ?) ? 7) For the sake of argument : it has a great value. Is it a permanent title ?

8) Let us suppose that it’s a permanent title : is it a form of legal immunity against hellfire ? Each point should be discussed. After that, we can see if the istidlal is correct or not, based on Fiqh, Usul al-fiqh, history and kalam.