sunni tashayu'

[abirshami]

sunni tashayu’
the first imam of the shia who founded the imamate was imam `ali zayn al ‘abidin
imam ali zayn al ‘abidin was selected after the martyrdom of al husayn at karbala by the shi’a ‘ali
taqiya was a later heresy
the shia ‘ali were a rival dynasty of the umayyid and abbasid dynasties
imam ja’far was infallible and the other imams had a minimal margin of error
once imam ja’far was accused of using religious teachings to become wealthy and in his respose he commented on just about every type of knowledge that existed many topics of which he could become rich due to his knowledge of and he proved his sincerity and that teaching religion is a far less lucrative field thus proving their accusation false
an early sunni supporter of the shia ‘ali was the great imam abu hanifa who supported several shia rebellions
in order to make light of the then caliphs desire to kill Imam Ja’fars successor he listed as his successor the caliph’s governor and several others the caliph didn’t wish to kill as his successors thus foiling the caliph and governors plans to expend the next imam
his three sons were imam isma’il who predeceased him, imam musa al kadhim who was the choice of the imami shi’as and his other son abd allah al aftah
hadiths about the Mahdi – this grandson of mine will be a sayyid (al hussain)
al mahdi will be from the descendants of fatima – ibn kathir
he will die at 40 years old (first Mahdi not certain about second) – al suyuti
he will descend with gabriel and michael at his sides – al suyuti
he will die doing what he found comfort in – al suyuti
he will bring justice to the world while it was previously filled with darkness and oppression ibn kathir
he will do this for seven years – ibn kathir
he will have a mole on his right cheak - shia hadith
he will have a head like an ‘arab and a body like an Israelite – shia hadith
it was the shia ‘ali (imami’s) who founded the jami’a al azhar al sharif in cairo, egypt and the shia ‘ali (zaydi’s) who founded the jami’a al qarawiyyin in fez, morocco

[Muhammad Hasan]

sunni tashayu’
the first imam of the shia who founded the imamate was imam `ali zayn al ‘abidin
imam ali zayn al ‘abidin was selected after the martyrdom of al husayn at karbala by the shi’a ‘ali
taqiya was a later heresy
the shia ‘ali were a rival dynasty of the umayyid and abbasid dynasties
imam ja’far was infallible and the other imams had a minimal margin of error
once imam ja’far was accused of using religious teachings to become wealthy and in his respose he commented on just about every type of knowledge that existed many topics of which he could become rich due to his knowledge of and he proved his sincerity and that teaching religion is a far less lucrative field thus proving their accusation false
an early sunni supporter of the shia ‘ali was the great imam abu hanifa who supported several shia rebellions
in order to make light of the then caliphs desire to kill Imam Ja’fars successor he listed as his successor the caliph’s governor and several others the caliph didn’t wish to kill as his successors thus foiling the caliph and governors plans to expend the next imam
his three sons were imam isma’il who predeceased him, imam musa al kadhim who was the choice of the imami shi’as and his other son abd allah al aftah
hadiths about the Mahdi – this grandson of mine will be a sayyid (al hussain)
al mahdi will be from the descendants of fatima – ibn kathir
he will die at 40 years old (first Mahdi not certain about second) – al suyuti
he will descend with gabriel and michael at his sides – al suyuti
he will die doing what he found comfort in – al suyuti
he will bring justice to the world while it was previously filled with darkness and oppression ibn kathir
he will do this for seven years – ibn kathir
he will have a mole on his right cheak - shia hadith
he will have a head like an ‘arab and a body like an Israelite – shia hadith
it was the shia ‘ali (imami’s) who founded the jami’a al azhar al sharif in cairo, egypt and the shia ‘ali (zaydi’s) who founded the jami’a al qarawiyyin in fez, morocco

I am not sure if the Alids (who you refer to as the Shi'a Ali), thought Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq Alayhis Salam* was infallible. Yes Imam al-Azam Abu Hanifah supported the rebellion of Imam Zayd Alayhis Salam, but something tells me you would not wish to accept Imam Zayd Alayhis Salam and some of the things he taught (especially regarding Umarayn Radiyallahu Anhu).

Rather than having a sectarian debate, why don't we try and understand each other?

I am sure there is much we Sunnis can learn from you Shi'a, and much you can learn from us. But dialogue cannot be built on hatred - we must insist you refrain from rude comments regarding the wives of the Prophet Alayhis Salam (Ummahat al-Mu'mineen - our Mothers), the four Khulafah ar-Rashidah and Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu. The last will be especially difficult for you I understand, but unless you refrain such comments against them we cannot have a dialogue.

Now to start our dialogue - I will ask you a question. What - in the Shi'i view - happens to non-Shi'i Muslims in the Hereafter?

Because according to us, by unanimous consensus of the Sunnis, the non-Sunni Muslims will eventually enter Jannah. Even if Allah decided to punish them for innovation - and that is up to Him as He does what He wills - they will eventually enter Jannah. Many of our scholarship extended this to all Monotheists** as a whole, based off of a explicit Hadith of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam in Sahih Muslim.

It is narrated on the authority of 'Uthman that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said.

He who dies knowing (fully well) that there is no god but Allah enters Paradise.

- Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Iman. (Hadith 26a Darussalam)

So according to you, what happens to us Sunnis?

---

* It is permitted and practice of the Early Sunnis, like Imam al-Bukhari, to add, "Alayhis Salam" after the names of the Ahlul Bayt to show respect. This is not just something the Shi'a of today do. Here is an example from one of Imam al-Bukhari's chapter titles:

بَابُ مَنَاقِبُ قَرَابَةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَمَنْقَبَةِ فَاطِمَةَ عَلَيْهَا السَّلاَمُ بِنْتِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ

- Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab Fada'il as-Sahabah an-Nabi Alayhis Salam.

** Of course this does not apply to false claimants of Monotheism, such as the Monists/Pan-deists, the Trinitarian Christians etc. (as these groups consider divine more than just Allah, Shirk).

[abirshami]

Thanks for the reply and i will keep that in mind. I actually happen to be a sunni but i like to research tashayu' because I love the imams. I'm always open to any suggestions or insights anyone has to add from shia and sunni. I'm trying to get a clearer picture of what the shia were like way back when when they started out. Any corrections and insights are appreciated as i have a lot to learn in this topic. Shukran was salam

[abirshami]

here is an updated version of the original article:

sunni tashayu’

the first imam of the shia who founded the imamate was imam `ali zayn al ‘abidin

imam ali zayn al ‘abidin was selected after the martyrdom of al husayn at karbala by the shi’a ‘ali

taqiya was a later heresy

the shia ‘ali were a rival dynasty of the umayyid and abbasid dynasties

imam ja’far was infallible and the other imams had a minimal margin of error

once imam ja’far was accused of using religious teachings to become wealthy and in his respose he commented on just about every type of knowledge that existed many topics of which he could become rich due to his knowledge of and he proved his sincerity and that teaching religion is a far less lucrative field thus proving their accusation false

an early sunni supporter of the shia ‘ali was the great imam abu hanifa who supported several shia rebellions

in order to make light of the then caliphs desire to kill Imam Ja’fars successor he listed as his successor the caliph’s governor and several others the caliph didn’t wish to kill as his successors thus foiling the caliph and governors plans to expend the next imam

his three sons were imam isma’il who predeceased him, imam musa al kadhim who was the choice of the imami shi’as and his other son abd allah al aftah

hadiths about the Mahdi – this grandson of mine will be a sayyid (al hussain)

al mahdi will be from the descendants of fatima – ibn kathir

he will die at 40 years old (first Mahdi not certain about second) – al suyuti

he will descend with gabriel and michael at his sides – al suyuti

he will die doing what he found comfort in – al suyuti

he will bring justice to the world while it was previously filled with darkness and oppression ibn kathir

he will do this for seven years – ibn kathir

he will have a mole on his right cheak - shia hadith

he will have a head like an ‘arab and a body like an Israelite – shia hadith

it was the shia ‘ali (imami’s) who founded the jami’a al azhar al sharif in cairo, egypt and the shia ‘ali (zaydi’s) who founded the jami’a al qarawiyyin in fez, morocco

[Abu 'Abdullaah]

...I actually happen to be a sunni...

Did you bump your head or something?

[ilikepie]

Rather than having a sectarian debate, why don't we try and understand each other?

Hey bro.
I am honestly pleasantly surprised at this kind response.
I am not entirely sure how to answer the question you posed to the sunni-shia guy. I would say something along the lines of whoever professes belief in One God and that the Prophet is His Messenger (pbuhf), will (eventually at some point) go to heaven.
But perhaps a better point of coming to an understanding is: Why do you respect Muawiyah if he fought the Rightly guided caliph of his time?
I look forward to a great dialogue brother! =)

[ອາໄສຢູ່ ຣາຮາມ]

Hey bro.
I am honestly pleasantly surprised at this kind response.
I am not entirely sure how to answer the question you posed to the sunni-shia guy. I would say something along the lines of whoever professes belief in One God and that the Prophet is His Messenger (pbuhf), will (eventually at some point) go to heaven.
But perhaps a better point of coming to an understanding is: Why do you respect Muawiyah if he fought the Rightly guided caliph of his time?
I look forward to a great dialogue brother! =)

Because he is a sahabi

[Muhammad Hasan]

Hey bro.
I am honestly pleasantly surprised at this kind response.
I am not entirely sure how to answer the question you posed to the sunni-shia guy. I would say something along the lines of whoever professes belief in One God and that the Prophet is His Messenger (pbuhf), will (eventually at some point) go to heaven.
But perhaps a better point of coming to an understanding is: Why do you respect Muawiyah if he fought the Rightly guided caliph of his time?
I look forward to a great dialogue brother! =)

As-Salamu Alaykum,

It is interesting to read the answer you have provided, it very much the same as what we state, although many of our Ulama further include all Monotheists in that based on that Hadith I quoted. I asked as I've heard that according to some (Twelver) Shi'a, those who do not believe in the Shi'ite doctrine of Imamah (all the Non-Shi'i Muslims and even other more moderate Shi'a groups like the Zaydis) will all go to Jahannam for eternity and that moreover these people would not be regarded as Muslims in the first place. I think Khomeini was quoted in that regard.

So it is good to know that you seem to not hold that view. If you could quote scholarly statements from Twelver Shi'a scholars on Salvation, I would much oblige.

Why do Ahlus Sunnah respect Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu?

First of all, there is a basic respect we give to all Sahabah and I am sure you are aware of this. This doctrine is known as 'Adalah as-Sahabah' (uprightness of the Sahabah) and is a core Sunni belief:

1. The Muhajirun

And (it is) for the poor fugitives who have been driven out from their homes and their belongings, who seek bounty from Allah and help Allah and His messenger. They are the loyal.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah al-Hashr, Ayah 8)

2. The Muhajirun and the Ansar

Those who believed and left their homes and strove for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them - these are the believers in truth. For them is pardon, and bountiful provision.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah al-Anfal, Ayah 74)

And the first to lead the way, of the Muhajirin and the Ansar, and those who followed them in goodness - Allah is well pleased with them and they are well pleased with Him, and He hath made ready for them Gardens underneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide for ever. That is the supreme triumph.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah at-Tawbah, Ayah 100)

Allah hath turned in mercy to the Prophet, and to the Muhajirin and the Ansar who followed him in the hour of hardship. After the hearts of a party of them had almost swerved aside, then turned He unto them in mercy. Lo! He is Full of Pity, Merciful for them.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Quran, Surah at-Tawbah, Ayah 117)

3. The Ansar specifically

Those who entered the city and the faith before them love those who flee unto them for refuge, and find in their breasts no need for that which hath been given them, but prefer (the fugitives) above themselves though poverty become their lot. And whoso is saved from his own avarice - such are they who are successful.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah al-Hashr, Ayah 9)

4. All those who took the pledge under the tree

Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance unto thee beneath the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down peace of reassurance on them, and hath rewarded them with a near victory;

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah al-Fath, Ayah 18)

5. All of the Sahabah Generally

Ye are the best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin right conduct and forbid indecency; and ye believe in Allah. And if the People of the Scripture had believed it had been better for them. Some of them are believers; but most of them are evil-livers.

(Pickthall's Interpretation of al-Qur'an, Surah Ali 'Imran, Ayah 110)

And there are also many Ahadith to this effect. E.g.

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

Do not revile my Companions, do not revile my Companions. By Him in Whose Hand is my life, if one amongst you would have spent as much gold as Uhud it would not amount to as much as one much on behalf of one of them or half of it.

- Sahih Muslim, Kitab Fada'il as-Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum. (Hadith 2540 Darussalam)

Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) as saying:

The best of my Umma would be those of the generation nearest to mine. Then those nearest to them, then those nearest to them, then people would come whose witness would precede the oath and the oath will precede the witness.

- Sahih Muslim, Kitab Fada'il as-Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum. (Hadith 2533a Darussalam)

And many more besides.

What does respect entail?

That we consider them honest and trustworthy, true believers, the best of the Muslims and that we do not show disrespect to them and revile them. It is for this reason that we do not scrutinise the honesty/reliability of the Sahabi in a chain of narration, as they are all trustworthy as according to the Qur'an.

This does not mean however that we believe that the Sahabah are necessarily free from Sins or mistakes - no actually some of the Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum went even as far as commiting major sins (there were Sahabah stoned for adultery etc.) However even then, out of sheer respect, we do not dwell on their sins revile them for it. Even the honest believer can sin, the Sahabah Radiyallahu Anhum are not Masum like the Prophets Alayhim Salam.

Indeed even the Sahabah who were sinful are far, far superior to us.

But why Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu specifically? Didn't he fight Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhahu?

First, a specific tradition narrating good regarding Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Abu 'Umairah - and he was one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ):

from the Prophet (ﷺ), that he said to Mu'awiyah: "O Allah, make him a guiding one, and guide (others) by him."

- Jami'at-Tirmidhi Vol. 1, Book 46, Hadith 3842; Imam at-Tirmidhi rated it sound.

And we know that the Dua of the Prophets Alayhim Salam are accepted.

Some may question why we don't find many ahadith of the virtues of Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu specifically, the answer to that is that generally only the best of the Sahabah have many such Ahadith of where the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam spoke of their virtues, such as the Sahabah from the Muhajirun and the Ansar. A group of ten from the Muhajirun have also been guaranteed Jannah according to the Sunni tradition and their virtues specifically are abundant.

It is correct to say that Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu is not from the highest ranks of the Sahabah, but the Ahadith which show the general virtues of the Sahabah will apply to him too. Yes we also have many reports that are critical of him too, and again the Sahabah can make mistakes.

It was narrated from Ishaq bin Qabisah from his father that :

Ubadah bin Samit Al-Ansari, head of the army unit, the Companion of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), went on a military campaign with Mu'awiyah in the land of the Byzantines. He saw people trading pieces of gold for Dinar and pieces of silver for Dirham.

He said: "O people, you are consuming Riba (usury)! For I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: 'Do not sell gold for gold unless it is like for like; there should be no increase and no delay (between the two transactions).'"

Mu'awiyah said to him: "O Abu Walid, I do not think there is any Riba involved in this, except in cases where there is a delay."

'Ubadah said to him: "I tell you a Hadith from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and you tell me your opinion! If Allah brings me back safely I will never live in a land in which you have authority over me."

When he returned, he stayed in Al-Madinah, and 'Umar bin Khattab said to him: "What brought you here, O Abu Walid?" So he told him the story, and what he had said about not living in the same land as Mu'awiyah. 'Umar said: "Go back to your land, O Abu Walid, for what a bad land is the land from where you and people like you are absent." Then he wrote to Mu'awiyah and said: "You have no authority over him; make the people follow what he says , for he is right."

- Sunan Ibn Majah Vol. 1, Book 1, Hadith 18

Regarding Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu's fighting of Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhahu, establishing hereditary rule etc.

The Sunni position here is very clear. We recognise that what Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu did was wrong, in fact many would go as far as saying it was sinful for him to do that. That he was in the wrong is clearly indicated by the Prophetic Ahadith, Hadith that were even quoted to Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu (he was aware of them).

However what did Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhahu do? Fight him to the death like the Khawarij are fought? No, the two met and decided to resolve their differences. That fighting started due to the issue of Uthman Radiyallahu Anhu's killing, and Amir Muawiyah himself recognised the rank of Imam Ali KarramAllahu Wajhah.

Abu Muslim Al-Khawalani and a group with him, entered on Mu’awiyah and said to him: "Are you competing with Ali or are you like him?” So he replied: “By Allah, I know that he is better than me, and more virtuous..."

- Al-Bidyah wal-Nihayah (Secondary)

In addition other actions he Radiyallahu Anhu did are also wrong or mistaken, but we still have that basic respect for him as a Sahabi and recognise his piety and that he was only doing what he thought was right (with regards to the fighting). He Radiyallahu Anhu even ordered his accursed son to respect the grandchildren of the Prophet Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam and not commit injustice against them.

Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu vs Yazid the Accursed: A world of difference

Just as the son of Nuh Alayhis Salam is and was completely different to his father, so was the son of Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu completely different from his father. To make it clear - whilst we have respect for Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu, we have no respect for the murderous evil tyrant that was Yazid.

There is a world of difference between the two - one was a Sahabi of RasulAllah Salallahu Alayhi Wa Salam who met him and even narrated Ahadith from him, who was praised (even generally) by him and who in all other aspects apart from his mistakes was a pious Muslim. He followed the rules of warfare (when wrongfully fighting the Muslims) and of Jihad (when fighting the non-Muslims) and only opposed the Imam of the Muslims on an issue which is on its surface praiseworthy (wishing that the death of your relative is investigated and handled according to Shari'a), even though he was wrong to fight.

By comparison Yazid was alcoholic lunatic who wished, plotted and exacted harm on the Ahlul Bayt in the most cruel manner (and we have all read the historical reports of what he did with the beloved head of Imam Hussain Alayhis Salam), he was barely practicing and even other Sahabah took up arms against him after witnessing his evil first-hand. He ignored his fathers command (a major sin in and of itself) and attacked and murdered Imam Hussain Alayhis Salam and besieged the Prophet Alayhis Salam's city. The books of history are replete with the disgusting behaviour of his savage troops upon the citizens of Madinah.

If he was a Muslim (and many of our scholars even doubt that), then he is of the likes of the genocidal Idi Amin of recent times. In fact he is much worse. Many of our Ulama even permit cursing him and others recognise his evil whilst forbidding his cursing as they argue that he was still Muslim. If he was a Muslim, then the only virtue he had was the Shahadah.

Only the Nawasib have any respect for Yazid.

Insha'Allah I hope this answer has provided for you details on why we respect Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu.

To keep this conversation going, I will pose you a question too my brother. Above I have requested you provide scholarly quotes regarding the issue of Salvation for Non-Shi'i Muslims according your beliefs. My next question to you is:

According to your beliefs, what are the 'Daruriyyat ad-Din', the requirements for being a Muslim as opposed to the requirements for being a Shi'i? Again I would request you quote a scholar, whether that is from a work of their's or a readily available lecture etc.

Jazakullah, I look forward to this back and forth.

[ilikepie]

It is interesting to read the answer you have provided, it very much the same as what we state, although many of our Ulama further include all Monotheists in that based on that Hadith I quoted. I asked as I've heard that according to some (Twelver) Shi'a, those who do not believe in the Shi'ite doctrine of Imamah (all the Non-Shi'i Muslims and even other more moderate Shi'a groups like the Zaydis) will all go to Jahannam for eternity and that moreover these people would not be regarded as Muslims in the first place. I think Khomeini was quoted in that regard.

So it is good to know that you seem to not hold that view. If you could quote scholarly statements from Twelver Shi'a scholars on Salvation, I would much oblige.

You sir are evidently well-read. Rather than needlessly go through semantics, you are clearly well aware there is more than 1 position in the Ahlulbayt school of thought as to who ends up in hellfire permanently. I subscribe to the position I mentioned before. The alternative position you mentioned above I acknowledge is certainly present in our school. There is also a 3rd position. Therefore there is nothing for me to "prove", as clearly you are aware of the opinions that exist, and I have openly acknowledged this.

I am more looking for a concise conversation as opposed to a lengthy debate of the many points you brought up.

Thank you for the thorough response. It appears you have been asked this question on multiple occasions. Though I must say I sense a hint of unjustified bias, given the following:

We recognise that what Amir Muawiyah Radiyallahu Anhu did was wrong, in fact many would go as far as saying it was sinful for him to do that.

Later you comment:

He ignored his fathers command (a major sin in and of itself)

It seems in the former comment there is an underlying reluctance to state Muawiyah committed a grave sin, whereas in the latter comment it is easy for you.

Anyway that aside, to make myself clear as well, I would like to express two things:
1. I love many Sahaba. But there are also Sahaba I hate. The basis for this is not emotion, my preference or whatever. It is ordered as such by Allah and His Prophet pbuhf.
2. If one must love and respect all Sahaba, and trust all their judgements/quotes/etc. to me is very problematic, because as I am sure you can agree, there is a lot of disagreement (to the point thousands killed each other. So if there is disagreement, I need an objective source where I can get the correct way to practice the Sunnah of Allah and His Prophet.

For example, you mention the verse of ridhwan. Clearly, our tafsir differs given that, to my understanding, the verse is clear that it does not include every single person under the tree, and there are exceptions such as this you did not mention:

“O you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve marching for war, then turn not your backs to them. And whoever shall turn his back to them on that day- unless he turn aside for the sake of fighting or withdraws to a company then he, indeed, becomes deserving of Allah’s wrath and his abode is hell; and an evil destination shall it be.”(Surah Anfāl 8:15-16)
There are accounts of certain Sahaba fleeing from battle meaning they are damned to hell, so again, how do you reconcile to seemingly contradictory things? But I suppose you have your own tafsir from the Sahaba and I have my own from the Ahlulbayt (a.s).

Further, although I am not a fan of him (because he somehow has 1000s more narrations in a span of 3-4 years compared to Ali's (a.s) 25 or so years), Abu Hurairah mentions:
The Prophet said, “While I was sleeping, a group (of my followers were brought close to me), and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from amongst (us) me and them, he said (to them), ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ Then behold! (Another) group (of my followers) were brought close to me, and when I recognized them, a man (an angel) came out from (me and them) he said (to them); ‘Come along.’ I asked, ‘Where?’ He said, ‘To the (Hell) Fire, by Allah.’ I asked, ‘What is wrong with them?’ He said, ‘They turned apostate as renegades after you left.’ So I did not see anyone of them escaping except a few who were like camels without a shepherd”.
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8 Hadith 587

Anas also mentions something to the same effect.

So again, how do we reconcile these contradictions; if Ali (a.s) says go right and Muawiyah says go left (or any sahabis who say opposite things), which Sahabi do we take our religion from? I would appreciate if the matter of war is not downplayed to mere playful fighting; thousands of muslims slaughtered.
Bottom line, Sahabis disagreed on the Sunnah of the Prophet (hence the battles to the death). To acquire this Sunnah in its purity, we need to make distinctions on who is worthy of respect and who is not.

Thank you for reading. If this is not the type of back and forth you were looking for, that's ok, can make that clear to me, no offence taken =).

[ilikepie]

the verse is clear that it does not include every single person under the tree

Meant to say not every single person in attendance*

[Abu Sulayman]

I would say something along the lines of whoever professes belief in One God and that the Prophet is His Messenger (pbuhf), will (eventually at some point) go to heaven.

I also believe this, but there is of course an exception and that is regarding those who deny what is necessarily known to be from the religion or curse the religion or what is similar to that.
So anyone who believes in Tahrif al-Qur`an for example is disbeliever and this no matter whether he calls himself a "follower of the Ahl al-Bayt" or "follower of the Sahaba" or what is similar to that.

But your above position (which as already stated I also agree with, but with the stated exception) doesn't really seem to be a classical Imami position, because Kamal al-Haydari (who is an Imami scholar, right?) has mentioned that there exist only two positions among the Imami scholars of the past:
1) That non-Imami Muslims (which includes even the Zaydiyya) are to be regarded as Muslims only in this world, while in the hereafter they are disbelievers deserving everlasting punishment.
2)That they are disbelievers in this and the next world and therefore deserving everlasting punishment.

Now Kamal al-Haydari did not ascribe to any of these two views, so it seems that your above view is more a modern view among some Imamis and not something your scholars of the past were upon.

You can obviously correct me if I'm wrong and if the information given by Kamal al-Haydari is not accurate.

[ilikepie]

I also believe this, but there is of course an exception and that is regarding those who deny what is necessarily known to be from the religion or curse the religion or what is similar to that.
So anyone who believes in Tahrif al-Qur`an for example is disbeliever and this no matter whether he calls himself a "follower of the Ahl al-Bayt" or "follower of the Sahaba" or what is similar to that.

But your above position (which as already stated I also agree with, but with the stated exception) doesn't really seem to be a classical Imami position, because Kamal al-Haydari (who is an Imami scholar, right?) has mentioned that there exist only two positions among the Imami scholars of the past:
1) That non-Imami Muslims (which includes even the Zaydiyya) are to be regarded as Muslims only in this world, while in the hereafter they are disbelievers deserving everlasting punishment.
2)That they are disbelievers in this and the next world and therefore deserving everlasting punishment.

Now Kamal al-Haydari did not ascribe to any of these two views, so it seems that your above view is more a modern view among some Imamis and not something your scholars of the past were upon.

You can obviously correct me if I'm wrong and if the information given by Kamal al-Haydari is not accurate.

I thought there were three views.
Anyway it seems I should elaborate my stance further, I get my understanding from hadiths such as these:

...A man asked Imam as-Sadiq [a] about this verse, "Does this apply to those who do not know this Order (wilaya)?"
So the Imam replied, "This is for the believers only."
The man said, "May Allah rectify you, what about those who fast, pray, abstain from the forbidden, are pious, but do not know about this Order and do not hate the Ahl al-Bayt and their followers (yunassib)?"
So the Imam replied, "Allah will enter those people into Paradise by His grace." (al-Mahasin)

I should clarify my position further.
To love Allah means to hate his enemies.
To love the Prophet means to hate his enemies.
And to love those chosen by Allah (Imams of Ahlulbayt) means to hate their enemies.

To love the enemies of Allah is tantamount to supporting the collapse of Islam, the religion of God.
To love the enemies of the Prophet is tantamount to supporting the collapse of Islam, the religion of God.
To love the enemies of those chosen by God (chosen Prophets, Imams, Leaders) is tantamount to supporting the collapse of Islam, the religion of God.

I've come to understand and believe in this from verses such as:
O ye who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination. Quran 4:59

Obviously, it's evident who the Shia consider enemies, on the basis of ahadith from the Prophet (pbuhf), such as 'Oh Ali, no except a hypocrite hates you', 'I am the city of knowledge, Ali is its gate', and of course...

The single, best accolade given to anyone in the history of humanity: Ali is the nafs of Rasoollah (pbuhf).

Hopefully that clarifies my position, as it seems I put forward an inaccurate, overly "modern" view as you like to put it.

Bringing this back to Muawiyah,

Hanzala bin Khawalid narrated:
I was sitting with Muawiya. Two people were fighting over the head of Ammar bin Yassar. Each one of them was claiming that “I killed Ammar.” Then Abdullah bin Amrow said “Each one of you is getting happy over the killing of this person, surely I heard from the Prophet saying this, Oh Ammar the rebellious group will martyr you.”

https://shiasunniinfo.wordpress.com/...mar-ibn-yasir/

So again I ask, if Sunnis respect Muawiyah, how do you reconcile the differences in order to practice Islam the way the Prophet (pbuhf) delivered it?
Furthermore, if Muawiyah "reconciled" with Ali (a.s), why did he institute Laana on Ali (a.s) state-wide? (as we know, this holds the same weight as calling a muslim a kaffir; the moment a muslim calls another muslim a kaffir, one of them is certainly a kaffir).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayya...of_cursing_Ali

Allah tells us in the Quran on countless occasions, do you not reflect on those who came before you? The story of Lot (a.s) and his wife, Noah (a.s) and his wife, Aad, Thamud, Abu Lahab, sahaba of the Prophet (pbuhf), etc. etc. So do not tell me that we cannot and should not examine the lives of those who supposedly upheld the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuhf).

[Abu Sulayman]

I thought there were three views.
Anyway it seems I should elaborate my stance further, I get my understanding from hadiths such as these:

Well, but there only seem to exist TWO views among your Mashayikh of the past and this was stated by Kamal al-Haydari.
Do you know any of your classical Mashayikh who held another view?

Now the problem with these two views (which are at least majority views among you!) is that you give an issue that is NOT emphasized by Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala - the Lord of the Worlds - and His noble Messenger (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) such a weight that you regard anyone not believing in it as disbelievers in the hereafter and deserving of everlasting punishment.

I know that you may say that the issue of the [political] Imama (of the twelve A`imma) has proofs and so on, but the reality is that this issue is basically absent from the Qur`an al-karim and the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has not called towards it in a clear manner (praising Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) is not the same as assigning political leadership!). So how is possible to judge Muslims to be disbelievers in the hereafter, because they don't believe in something that has no strong proofs and has not been emphasized?

This is similar to what "Salafis" do, who will try to force people to believe in some new version of "Tawhid" for which they lack clear and strong proofs, while the Tawhid that our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) emphasized was what is stated in Surat al-Ikhlas. So acting as if it's not enough to believe in Surat al-Ikhlas to be regarded a monotheist is an innovation similar to acting as if it's not enough for one to be regarded a believer when one believes wholeheartedly in the six Arkan al-Iman (with the knowledge that these Arkan al-Iman have strong proofs and are emphasized on in a direct and clear manner unlike the issue of political Imama in the manner you understand it!).


Then: You're asking us regarding Mu'awiya (radhiallahu 'anhu) and seem to think that one's position regarding him is connected to one's entrance into paradise or hellfire.
Yes, he was wrong in fighting Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu), but this does not necessitate him to be a disbeliever.

Allah jalla jalaluhu states:

{ وَإِن طَآئِفَتَانِ مِنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ٱقْتَتَلُوا۟ فَأَصْلِحُوا۟ بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِنۢ بَغَتْ إِحْدَىٰهُمَا عَلَى ٱلْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَـٰتِلُوا۟ ٱلَّتِى تَبْغِى حَتَّىٰ تَفِىٓءَ إِلَىٰٓ أَمْرِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن فَآءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا۟ بَيْنَهُمَا بِٱلْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوٓا۟ ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُقْسِطِينَ }

{ And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. }

[Al-Qur`an al-karim 49:9 with English interpretation]

So it clearly is possible that two groups of BELIEVERS fight due misunderstandings or other reasons.

And by the way: The ones who started this Fitna among Muslims was not Mu'awiya (radhiallahu 'anhu) and his supporters, but rather those who martyred 'Uthman Dhul Nurayn (radhiallahu' anhu) (who later on tried to hide themselves among the supporters of Imam 'Ali (radhiallahu 'anhu)). So why is that you have forgotten about these people, while they are the actual reason for infighting?


Then: The issue does not stop here! Your group goes further and attacks the Shaykhayn Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and 'Umar al-Faruq (radhiallahu' anhuma) and others whose high status with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is known! And these attacks are based upon incorrect narrations and outright false accusations.

What I really find weird is how for example the Shi'a in 'Iraq can hate these two great personalities, while their forefathers entered into Islam at the hands of these two persons and the hands of the Sahabat al-kiram (radhiallahu 'anhum ajma'in), whom they curse day and night!

[ilikepie]

I know that you may say that the issue of the [political] Imama (of the twelve A`imma) has proofs and so on, but the reality is that this issue is basically absent from the Qur`an al-karim and the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) has not called towards it in a clear manner (praising Imam 'Ali (karamallahu wajhahu) is not the same as assigning political leadership!). So how is possible to judge Muslims to be disbelievers in the hereafter, because they don't believe in something that has no strong proofs and has not been emphasized?

I appreciate you have a different interpretation of the Quran. I provided an ayah above supporting our position:

Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you.

Tell me, according to your tafsir, can you name those who are charged with authority? Is there any instance in the entirety of humanity that Allah left the people to decide their leader, or did Allah select the leader? If you are adamant that Allah left it for the people after the Prophet died, then how did the 1st Caliph gain right to appoint his successor? Is he above the Prophet?

Our answer: as per interpretation provided by the Prophet pbuf, Ali (a.s) falls under the category among "those charged with authority among you".

Further explanation of our position:
Prayer is mentioned in Quran, but you must go to the Prophet (pbuhf) to know how to pray (there are 4 different ways in the 4 major sunni madhabs to pray as you know, one of which is similar to the Shia way aka Malikis because Malik took the prayer from the people of Medina aka those felt to be closest to the Prophet).
Likewise, leadership (Imamah) is mentioned in Quran, you go to the Prophet to tell you who that is. Of course it's not going to list the 12 names directly, there are 1000s of people with the names Mohamed, Ali, etc. The Quran provides the characteristics, hadith provides the minute details.
That's the basic premise where Shia and Sunni differ.
To me, when the Prophet says "Do I not have more right over you than you do over yourselves" to the companions, and when they reply "yes you do" he continues and says "then whoever I am his master, this Ali is his master". That to me is clear enough Ali is the master after the Prophet (pbuhf) and has more right over the companions than they do themselves. I am sure you heard of Ghadir Khumm, and I can show you the reasons why it is delusional to think that Prophet meant "friend".
The Prophet said "Quran & Ahlulbayt", not "Quran and Sunnah of x and y person".

Ultimately, according to our tafsir, Imamah is as clear as the order to pray.

But as I further illustrated with the quote from Imam Jafar al-sadiq (a.s): those who are ignorant of this and do not hate ahlulbayt, but otherwise are good muslims, heaven is their abode.

{ وَإِن طَآئِفَتَانِ مِنَ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ٱقْتَتَلُوا۟ فَأَصْلِحُوا۟ بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ فَإِنۢ بَغَتْ إِحْدَىٰهُمَا عَلَى ٱلْأُخْرَىٰ فَقَـٰتِلُوا۟ ٱلَّتِى تَبْغِى حَتَّىٰ تَفِىٓءَ إِلَىٰٓ أَمْرِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ فَإِن فَآءَتْ فَأَصْلِحُوا۟ بَيْنَهُمَا بِٱلْعَدْلِ وَأَقْسِطُوٓا۟ ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُقْسِطِينَ }

{ And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah. And if it returns, then make settlement between them in justice and act justly. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly. }

Why are you applying this to the killing between Ali (a.s) and Muawiyah? Tell, me if this was the Prophet who muawiyah tried killing, would this Ayah apply in such a context? No, because the Prophet is not just any believer, he is the master.
According to you, Ali is the 4th Rightly guided caliph. People who fight to kill him are by definition wrongly-guided. This may be hard for you but imagine Muawiyah fought Abu Bakr and tried to kill him, and Abu Bakr called him a hypocrite, would you still say Amir Muawiyah? Yes? No?

For us, Ali (a.s) is the master after the Prophet (pbuhf), and the Prophet said "Ali is with Haqq and haqq is with Ali". Therefore, whoever fights him, fights Haqq. And whoever fights Haqq, fights Allah, because Allah is with Haqq and Haqq is with Allah. This person therefore is the enemy of Allah, no? Please tell me the flaw in this logic, or if you doubt that the Prophet said that about Ali.

Furthermore, you did not address the fact that Muawiyah instituted state-wide LA'ANA (cursing) of Ali (a.s). How do you think it'll go down in heaven? Bloodshed?

Furthermore you did not address that Ammar was martyred by hypocrites as per the Prophet (pbuhf) (not me saying this).

[ilikepie]

The issue does not stop here! Your group goes further and attacks the Shaykhayn Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and 'Umar al-Faruq (radhiallahu' anhuma) and others whose high status with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is known! And these attacks are based upon incorrect narrations and outright false accusations.

For the record, you brought this up, not me.
I will state historical facts agreed upon by Sunni and Shia and even Salafi; no insulting, no cursing, no attacking. Plain facts.

1. Provide me with reference from Quran that says the people can elect their Leader.
2. Please explain to me what gave the first Khalifa the right to appoint the second Khalifa.
3. Please explain to me what gave the second Khalifa the right to form a shura council consisting of six members to elect the third khalifa?
4. Please explain to me why the Prophet is not allowed to designate his successor?
5. Why did Sayeda Fatema die angry at the first Khalifa? Where is her grave located?
If you can answer these questions satisfactorily, the Shia will cease to exist.
I know it's a lot, so for me, answering just 1 of the questions will suffice.

Sahih Bukhari Chapter of "The battle of Khaibar", Arabic-English, v5, tradition #546, pp 381–383, also v4, Tradition #325) that Hazrat Fatimah was angry with Abu Bakr and did not speak to him before she died.
"(O Prophet) tell (people) I don’t ask you any wage except to love my family.”(Qur’an 42:23).
The Messenger of Allah (S) had frequently said:
"Fatimah is a part of me. Whoever makes her angry, makes me angry."
Sunni references:
- Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, v5, Traditions #61 and #111
- Sahih Muslim, section of virtues of Fatimah, v4, pp 1904-5