Ibn Tayyar

I don't disagree. I'm simply answering the question legalistically.
Morally, I am in agreement with you 100%.

It is allowed because the awrah for a man and the awrah for a woman is the same, and it is the private parts, and the chest is not a private part - according to most of our scholars.
Most Imamis state: It is wajib for her to cover her rear and private parts in the presence of women and her maharim; to cover other parts as well is better though not wajib, except where there is a fear of sin.
https://www.al-islam.org/five-schools-islamic-law-muhammad-jawad-mughniyya/rules-modesty
Sayyed Al-Sistani (ha) says the same:
مسألة 12: يجوز للرجل النظر إلى ما عدا العورة من مماثله - شيخاً كان المنظور إليه أو شابّاً، حسن الصورة أو قبيحها - ما لم يكن بتلذّذ شهويّ أو مع الريبة - أي خوف الافتتان والوقوع في الحرام - وهكذا الحال في نظر المرأة إلى ما عدا العورة من مماثلها، وأمّا العورة - وهي القُبُل والدُّبُر كما مرّ في أحكام التخلّي - فلا يجوز النظر إليها حتّى بالنسبة إلى المماثل، نعم حرمة النظر إلى عورة الكافر المماثل والصبيّ المميّز تبتني على الاحتياط اللزوميّ.

It is allowed because the awrah for a man and the awrah for a woman is the same, and it is the private parts, and the chest is not a private part - according to most of our scholars.
Most Imamis state: It is wajib for her to cover her rear and private parts in the presence of women and her maharim; to cover other parts as well is better though not wajib, except where there is a fear of sin.
https://www.al-islam.org/five-schools-islamic-law-muhammad-jawad-mughniyya/rules-modesty
Sayyed Al-Sistani (ha) says the same:
مسألة 12: يجوز للرجل النظر إلى ما عدا العورة من مماثله - شيخاً كان المنظور إليه أو شابّاً، حسن الصورة أو قبيحها - ما لم يكن بتلذّذ شهويّ أو مع الريبة - أي خوف الافتتان والوقوع في الحرام - وهكذا الحال في نظر المرأة إلى ما عدا العورة من مماثلها، وأمّا العورة - وهي القُبُل والدُّبُر كما مرّ في أحكام التخلّي - فلا يجوز النظر إليها حتّى بالنسبة إلى المماثل، نعم حرمة النظر إلى عورة الكافر المماثل والصبيّ المميّز تبتني على الاحتياط اللزوميّ.

That is exactly what we say. And we say many of the Sahaba turned back on imaan, therefore will not recieve the promised rewards.
Our issue is not sahaba making mistakes per se, like fleeing or what not. Our issue is sahaba leaving the religion completely, or deviating.
The issue is still disputed today, and people like Al-Tusi (rah) viewed it as allowed. Either way, what does that have to do with what was said? Yes, the Imams (عليه السلام) did taqiyya in "minor things", the reason is so that the Imam (عليه السلام) is not said to have "unique" opinions which go against contemporary Sunni fiqh. The Imam (عليه السلام) does not want the eyes of the authorities on him or his Shi'a.
And yes, that is also why we take the opposite of what you guys narrate, as it is very likely that whatever agrees with Sunni fiqh was said in taqiyya.. 

@In Gods Name I'm not sure if you are here to discuss or simply try to be contrarion and attack the modern scholars.
Being closer to the Imam's time does not mean correctness, as many of the opinions of those even in the Imam's time amongst his companions were of shadh opinions. What matters is the saying of the Imam (عليه السلام) himself.
The classical scholars which you keep bringing up themselves disagreed with those earlier than them from the companions of the Imams (عليه السلام) on many issues, so if being earlier was a hujjah why did they have the audacity to disagree with those who actually were with the Imams (عليه السلام)? 
This is a nonsensical opinion. Otherwise, based on your logic, one cannot disagree with the classical scholars in any Fiqhi opinion, and they themselves had no right to disagree with those before them. 
Most of today's sciences did not exist thoroughly and in detail during the time of the classical scholars. You, yourself, are a big supporter of Ilm al-Hadith, Ilm al-Rijal and Ilm al-Usool. Tell me which one of the classical scholars (especially the Qummis, who we take majority of hadiths) believed in these sciences at the same level of detail of the later scholars?
Does this mean the development of these sciences were wrong, because say, Al-Saduq (rah) did not ascribe to them?
Secondly, you keep saying majority believed in an early Maghrib, which in and of itself is disputed.
This is what Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah) said in Al-Masbut (one of his later books). 
علامة غيبوبة الشمس هو أنه إذا رأى الآفاق، والسماء مصحية ولا حايل بينه وبينها ورآه قد غابت عن العين علم غروبها، وفي أصحابنا من قال: يراعي زوال الحمرة من ناحية المشرق وهو الأحوط
The time of sunset is the setting of the sun, and its end is the setting of twilight, which is the redness in the direction of the west, and the sign of the setting of the sun is that if he sees the horizons and the sky is clear and there is no barrier between him and it, and he sees that it has set, he will know that it has set, and among our companions are those who take into account the disappearance of the redness in the direction of the east (1), and this is more cautious
So as you see, this was a disputed matter, not clear cut among our classical scholars, and what I quoted is him talking about the opinions of his contemporaries and those even before him, who held the opinion of dissappearance of the Eastern redness. He also did not completely throw away their opinion as based on ghulat or whatever else you wrote, and mentions that it is more cautious. 
In fact, the Shaykh (rah) seemingly had multiple opinions in his life about this issue. Because in al-Nihayah, he agreed with the view of the later maghrib! 
He said: The beginning of the time for maghrib prayer is when the sun sets. Its sign is that the disc falls. The sign of its fall is the lack of redness on the east side.
And this is what Al-Majlisi (rah) says in Al-Bihar:
The beginning of the time for sunset is sunset without disagreement. He said in al-Mu’tabar: This is the consensus of the scholars, and likewise [he said] in al-Muntaha. The companions disagreed about how sunset is determined, so most held that it is only verified and known by the disappearance of the eastern redness. He said in al-Mu’tabar: This is what the companions did.
Here Al-Majlisi (rah) claims most of the companions believed that the time for maghrib is with the dissappearance of the eastern redness, and he quotes Al-Hilli (rah) who also mentions that. This is despite Al-Hilli (rah) himself ascribing to the view of the earlier maghrib.
And this is what Al-Sabzawari (rah) says in summing up the difference of opinion among the older scholars:
The companions differed as to what is determined by sunset, so most of them, [such as] Shaykh Abu Ja'far al-Kulayni, the Shaykh (al-Tusi) in al-Tahtheeb, al-Nihayah, the two Fadil's, the two Shaheed's, and most of the later scholars held that it is only achieved and known by the disappearance of the eastern redness. He said in al-Mu’tabar, and the companions acted accordingly, and the shaykh said in al-Mabsoot. The sign of the setting of the sun is that if he saw the horizons and the sky was clear, and there was no barrier between him and it behind it. The knowledge of its setting had disappeared from the eye, and some of our companions said that he should pay attention to the disappearance of the redness in the direction of the east, which is more cautious. As for the first opinion, if the sun has set from sight and he sees its light on a mountain facing it or a high place such as the Lighthouse of Alexandria and something similar, then he prays, and the ruling on its rising is not necessary, since if it rises, according to the other narration, it is not permissible until it sets in every place you see, which is more cautious. It appears from it that consideration is taken when the disc is in a coma, and it is the one chosen by Sayyid al-Murtada, Ibn al-Junaid, and Ibn Babawayh in the book “Illal al-Shara’i,” and it appears to have been chosen in al-Faqih, where it was reported. 
And this is a good summary from him (rah). I will also mention that the view mentioned in Al-Muq'niah by Shaykh Al-Mufid (rah) also mentions the disappearance of the redness as the sign for maghrib.
So what you tried to pass of as a seemimgly classic vs newer dispute, is not really that at all, and in fact this was always a dispute in every era.
And finally, like I said previously, I could care less about Sunnis, and in fact we have been told to take what opposes them during dispute in many cases. They are meaningless to me and their opinions are like dust.
I would ask that you have humility and not just try to be contrarion and try to draw attention to your threads with shock value, and indeed be willing to discuss without resorting to outlandish claims and mentioning things like ghulat which have nothing to do with this. 

@In Gods Name I'm not sure if you are here to discuss or simply try to be contrarion and attack the modern scholars.
Being closer to the Imam's time does not mean correctness, as many of the opinions of those even in the Imam's time amongst his companions were of shadh opinions. What matters is the saying of the Imam (عليه السلام) himself.
The classical scholars which you keep bringing up themselves disagreed with those earlier than them from the companions of the Imams (عليه السلام) on many issues, so if being earlier was a hujjah why did they have the audacity to disagree with those who actually were with the Imams (عليه السلام)? 
This is a nonsensical opinion. Otherwise, based on your logic, one cannot disagree with the classical scholars in any Fiqhi opinion, and they themselves had no right to disagree with those before them. 
Most of today's sciences did not exist thoroughly and in detail during the time of the classical scholars. You, yourself, are a big supporter of Ilm al-Hadith, Ilm al-Rijal and Ilm al-Usool. Tell me which one of the classical scholars (especially the Qummis, who we take majority of hadiths) believed in these sciences at the same level of detail of the later scholars?
Does this mean the development of these sciences were wrong, because say, Al-Saduq (rah) did not ascribe to them?
Secondly, you keep saying majority believed in an early Maghrib, which in and of itself is disputed.
This is what Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah) said in Al-Masbut (one of his later books). 
علامة غيبوبة الشمس هو أنه إذا رأى الآفاق، والسماء مصحية ولا حايل بينه وبينها ورآه قد غابت عن العين علم غروبها، وفي أصحابنا من قال: يراعي زوال الحمرة من ناحية المشرق وهو الأحوط
The time of sunset is the setting of the sun, and its end is the setting of twilight, which is the redness in the direction of the west, and the sign of the setting of the sun is that if he sees the horizons and the sky is clear and there is no barrier between him and it, and he sees that it has set, he will know that it has set, and among our companions are those who take into account the disappearance of the redness in the direction of the east (1), and this is more cautious
So as you see, this was a disputed matter, not clear cut among our classical scholars, and what I quoted is him talking about the opinions of his contemporaries and those even before him, who held the opinion of dissappearance of the Eastern redness. He also did not completely throw away their opinion as based on ghulat or whatever else you wrote, and mentions that it is more cautious. 
In fact, the Shaykh (rah) seemingly had multiple opinions in his life about this issue. Because in al-Nihayah, he agreed with the view of the later maghrib! 
He said: The beginning of the time for maghrib prayer is when the sun sets. Its sign is that the disc falls. The sign of its fall is the lack of redness on the east side.
And this is what Al-Majlisi (rah) says in Al-Bihar:
The beginning of the time for sunset is sunset without disagreement. He said in al-Mu’tabar: This is the consensus of the scholars, and likewise [he said] in al-Muntaha. The companions disagreed about how sunset is determined, so most held that it is only verified and known by the disappearance of the eastern redness. He said in al-Mu’tabar: This is what the companions did.
Here Al-Majlisi (rah) claims most of the companions believed that the time for maghrib is with the dissappearance of the eastern redness, and he quotes Al-Hilli (rah) who also mentions that. This is despite Al-Hilli (rah) himself ascribing to the view of the earlier maghrib.
And this is what Al-Sabzawari (rah) says in summing up the difference of opinion among the older scholars:
The companions differed as to what is determined by sunset, so most of them, [such as] Shaykh Abu Ja'far al-Kulayni, the Shaykh (al-Tusi) in al-Tahtheeb, al-Nihayah, the two Fadil's, the two Shaheed's, and most of the later scholars held that it is only achieved and known by the disappearance of the eastern redness. He said in al-Mu’tabar, and the companions acted accordingly, and the shaykh said in al-Mabsoot. The sign of the setting of the sun is that if he saw the horizons and the sky was clear, and there was no barrier between him and it behind it. The knowledge of its setting had disappeared from the eye, and some of our companions said that he should pay attention to the disappearance of the redness in the direction of the east, which is more cautious. As for the first opinion, if the sun has set from sight and he sees its light on a mountain facing it or a high place such as the Lighthouse of Alexandria and something similar, then he prays, and the ruling on its rising is not necessary, since if it rises, according to the other narration, it is not permissible until it sets in every place you see, which is more cautious. It appears from it that consideration is taken when the disc is in a coma, and it is the one chosen by Sayyid al-Murtada, Ibn al-Junaid, and Ibn Babawayh in the book “Illal al-Shara’i,” and it appears to have been chosen in al-Faqih, where it was reported. 
And this is a good summary from him (rah). I will also mention that the view mentioned in Al-Muq'niah by Shaykh Al-Mufid (rah) also mentions the disappearance of the redness as the sign for maghrib.
So what you tried to pass of as a seemimgly classic vs newer dispute, is not really that at all, and in fact this was always a dispute in every era.
And finally, like I said previously, I could care less about Sunnis, and in fact we have been told to take what opposes them during dispute in many cases. They are meaningless to me and their opinions are like dust.
I would ask that you have humility and not just try to be contrarion and try to draw attention to your threads with shock value, and indeed be willing to discuss without resorting to outlandish claims and mentioning things like ghulat which have nothing to do with this. 

I'm not sure why you made this a discussion about bid'ah when there is strong evidence on both sides. 
First of all the view of the opposite sect is largely irrelevant, in fact there are commands to take what opposes them. Who cares what they say anyway, what matters is what our scholars and corpus say.
Secondly, our hadiths themselves are divided on this issue, so it is not like this was "made" a issue in the later periods, this was always a dispute amongst the classical scholars, as mentioned by the classical scholars themselves.
Thirdly, who said it is the majority opinion of our scholars? Muhaqiq Al-Hilli disagrees (even though he agrees with the view early Maghrib view itself), he says it is not as famous as the other opinion. As did Al-Majlisi, who said majority of the companions were also of the later Maghrib view. And Sayyed Al-Khoei also agreed with the view of Al-Hilli that the later Maghrib view is more famous.
Finally, who says later views aren't more correct? Who says later ulama aren't more knowledgable? The current scholars have knowledge of usool and ilm al-hadith and other uloom which far exceed the classical scholars, especially the traditionalists who didn't really ascribe or put weight in such sciences. 
Also, alot of our ulama aren't against an early maghrib per se, but advise ihtiyat in waiting, and that's because there's strong evidence from both sides.
You are not a Faqih so leave people to follow who they believe is the most learned.

It means that we have to show bara'ah from the people of innovation, and to expose their bid'ah and expose them, and insulting them is one of the methods of showing your bara'ah. Deterring a person's bid'ah or deterring people from following a person's bid'ah will result in a great reward for the deterrer.
It is also an example of nahi an al munkar, as bid'ah is one of the ultimate forms of munkar. It also shows that the mubtad'i (innovator) does not have the same sanctity as the mu'min, whom insulting him is haram. 
You shouldn't have love in your heart for the kufr of the kafirs, the deviance of the deviants, the innovation of the innovator, and the fisq of the fasiqs.

@In Gods Name I'm not sure if you are here to discuss or simply try to be contrarion and attack the modern scholars.
Being closer to the Imam's time does not mean correctness, as many of the opinions of those even in the Imam's time amongst his companions were of shadh opinions. What matters is the saying of the Imam (عليه السلام) himself.
The classical scholars which you keep bringing up themselves disagreed with those earlier than them from the companions of the Imams (عليه السلام) on many issues, so if being earlier was a hujjah why did they have the audacity to disagree with those who actually were with the Imams (عليه السلام)? 
This is a nonsensical opinion. Otherwise, based on your logic, one cannot disagree with the classical scholars in any Fiqhi opinion, and they themselves had no right to disagree with those before them. 
Most of today's sciences did not exist thoroughly and in detail during the time of the classical scholars. You, yourself, are a big supporter of Ilm al-Hadith, Ilm al-Rijal and Ilm al-Usool. Tell me which one of the classical scholars (especially the Qummis, who we take majority of hadiths) believed in these sciences at the same level of detail of the later scholars?
Does this mean the development of these sciences were wrong, because say, Al-Saduq (rah) did not ascribe to them?
Secondly, you keep saying majority believed in an early Maghrib, which in and of itself is disputed.
This is what Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah) said in Al-Masbut (one of his later books). 
علامة غيبوبة الشمس هو أنه إذا رأى الآفاق، والسماء مصحية ولا حايل بينه وبينها ورآه قد غابت عن العين علم غروبها، وفي أصحابنا من قال: يراعي زوال الحمرة من ناحية المشرق وهو الأحوط
The time of sunset is the setting of the sun, and its end is the setting of twilight, which is the redness in the direction of the west, and the sign of the setting of the sun is that if he sees the horizons and the sky is clear and there is no barrier between him and it, and he sees that it has set, he will know that it has set, and among our companions are those who take into account the disappearance of the redness in the direction of the east (1), and this is more cautious
So as you see, this was a disputed matter, not clear cut among our classical scholars, and what I quoted is him talking about the opinions of his contemporaries and those even before him, who held the opinion of dissappearance of the Eastern redness. He also did not completely throw away their opinion as based on ghulat or whatever else you wrote, and mentions that it is more cautious. 
In fact, the Shaykh (rah) seemingly had multiple opinions in his life about this issue. Because in al-Nihayah, he agreed with the view of the later maghrib! 
He said: The beginning of the time for maghrib prayer is when the sun sets. Its sign is that the disc falls. The sign of its fall is the lack of redness on the east side.
And this is what Al-Majlisi (rah) says in Al-Bihar:
The beginning of the time for sunset is sunset without disagreement. He said in al-Mu’tabar: This is the consensus of the scholars, and likewise [he said] in al-Muntaha. The companions disagreed about how sunset is determined, so most held that it is only verified and known by the disappearance of the eastern redness. He said in al-Mu’tabar: This is what the companions did.
Here Al-Majlisi (rah) claims most of the companions believed that the time for maghrib is with the dissappearance of the eastern redness, and he quotes Al-Hilli (rah) who also mentions that. This is despite Al-Hilli (rah) himself ascribing to the view of the earlier maghrib.
And this is what Al-Sabzawari (rah) says in summing up the difference of opinion among the older scholars:
The companions differed as to what is determined by sunset, so most of them, [such as] Shaykh Abu Ja'far al-Kulayni, the Shaykh (al-Tusi) in al-Tahtheeb, al-Nihayah, the two Fadil's, the two Shaheed's, and most of the later scholars held that it is only achieved and known by the disappearance of the eastern redness. He said in al-Mu’tabar, and the companions acted accordingly, and the shaykh said in al-Mabsoot. The sign of the setting of the sun is that if he saw the horizons and the sky was clear, and there was no barrier between him and it behind it. The knowledge of its setting had disappeared from the eye, and some of our companions said that he should pay attention to the disappearance of the redness in the direction of the east, which is more cautious. As for the first opinion, if the sun has set from sight and he sees its light on a mountain facing it or a high place such as the Lighthouse of Alexandria and something similar, then he prays, and the ruling on its rising is not necessary, since if it rises, according to the other narration, it is not permissible until it sets in every place you see, which is more cautious. It appears from it that consideration is taken when the disc is in a coma, and it is the one chosen by Sayyid al-Murtada, Ibn al-Junaid, and Ibn Babawayh in the book “Illal al-Shara’i,” and it appears to have been chosen in al-Faqih, where it was reported. 
And this is a good summary from him (rah). I will also mention that the view mentioned in Al-Muq'niah by Shaykh Al-Mufid (rah) also mentions the disappearance of the redness as the sign for maghrib.
So what you tried to pass of as a seemimgly classic vs newer dispute, is not really that at all, and in fact this was always a dispute in every era.
And finally, like I said previously, I could care less about Sunnis, and in fact we have been told to take what opposes them during dispute in many cases. They are meaningless to me and their opinions are like dust.
I would ask that you have humility and not just try to be contrarion and try to draw attention to your threads with shock value, and indeed be willing to discuss without resorting to outlandish claims and mentioning things like ghulat which have nothing to do with this. 

@In Gods Name I'm not sure if you are here to discuss or simply try to be contrarion and attack the modern scholars.
Being closer to the Imam's time does not mean correctness, as many of the opinions of those even in the Imam's time amongst his companions were of shadh opinions. What matters is the saying of the Imam (عليه السلام) himself.
The classical scholars which you keep bringing up themselves disagreed with those earlier than them from the companions of the Imams (عليه السلام) on many issues, so if being earlier was a hujjah why did they have the audacity to disagree with those who actually were with the Imams (عليه السلام)? 
This is a nonsensical opinion. Otherwise, based on your logic, one cannot disagree with the classical scholars in any Fiqhi opinion, and they themselves had no right to disagree with those before them. 
Most of today's sciences did not exist thoroughly and in detail during the time of the classical scholars. You, yourself, are a big supporter of Ilm al-Hadith, Ilm al-Rijal and Ilm al-Usool. Tell me which one of the classical scholars (especially the Qummis, who we take majority of hadiths) believed in these sciences at the same level of detail of the later scholars?
Does this mean the development of these sciences were wrong, because say, Al-Saduq (rah) did not ascribe to them?
Secondly, you keep saying majority believed in an early Maghrib, which in and of itself is disputed.
This is what Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah) said in Al-Masbut (one of his later books). 
علامة غيبوبة الشمس هو أنه إذا رأى الآفاق، والسماء مصحية ولا حايل بينه وبينها ورآه قد غابت عن العين علم غروبها، وفي أصحابنا من قال: يراعي زوال الحمرة من ناحية المشرق وهو الأحوط
The time of sunset is the setting of the sun, and its end is the setting of twilight, which is the redness in the direction of the west, and the sign of the setting of the sun is that if he sees the horizons and the sky is clear and there is no barrier between him and it, and he sees that it has set, he will know that it has set, and among our companions are those who take into account the disappearance of the redness in the direction of the east (1), and this is more cautious
So as you see, this was a disputed matter, not clear cut among our classical scholars, and what I quoted is him talking about the opinions of his contemporaries and those even before him, who held the opinion of dissappearance of the Eastern redness. He also did not completely throw away their opinion as based on ghulat or whatever else you wrote, and mentions that it is more cautious. 
In fact, the Shaykh (rah) seemingly had multiple opinions in his life about this issue. Because in al-Nihayah, he agreed with the view of the later maghrib! 
He said: The beginning of the time for maghrib prayer is when the sun sets. Its sign is that the disc falls. The sign of its fall is the lack of redness on the east side.
And this is what Al-Majlisi (rah) says in Al-Bihar:
The beginning of the time for sunset is sunset without disagreement. He said in al-Mu’tabar: This is the consensus of the scholars, and likewise [he said] in al-Muntaha. The companions disagreed about how sunset is determined, so most held that it is only verified and known by the disappearance of the eastern redness. He said in al-Mu’tabar: This is what the companions did.
Here Al-Majlisi (rah) claims most of the companions believed that the time for maghrib is with the dissappearance of the eastern redness, and he quotes Al-Hilli (rah) who also mentions that. This is despite Al-Hilli (rah) himself ascribing to the view of the earlier maghrib.
And this is what Al-Sabzawari (rah) says in summing up the difference of opinion among the older scholars:
The companions differed as to what is determined by sunset, so most of them, [such as] Shaykh Abu Ja'far al-Kulayni, the Shaykh (al-Tusi) in al-Tahtheeb, al-Nihayah, the two Fadil's, the two Shaheed's, and most of the later scholars held that it is only achieved and known by the disappearance of the eastern redness. He said in al-Mu’tabar, and the companions acted accordingly, and the shaykh said in al-Mabsoot. The sign of the setting of the sun is that if he saw the horizons and the sky was clear, and there was no barrier between him and it behind it. The knowledge of its setting had disappeared from the eye, and some of our companions said that he should pay attention to the disappearance of the redness in the direction of the east, which is more cautious. As for the first opinion, if the sun has set from sight and he sees its light on a mountain facing it or a high place such as the Lighthouse of Alexandria and something similar, then he prays, and the ruling on its rising is not necessary, since if it rises, according to the other narration, it is not permissible until it sets in every place you see, which is more cautious. It appears from it that consideration is taken when the disc is in a coma, and it is the one chosen by Sayyid al-Murtada, Ibn al-Junaid, and Ibn Babawayh in the book “Illal al-Shara’i,” and it appears to have been chosen in al-Faqih, where it was reported. 
And this is a good summary from him (rah). I will also mention that the view mentioned in Al-Muq'niah by Shaykh Al-Mufid (rah) also mentions the disappearance of the redness as the sign for maghrib.
So what you tried to pass of as a seemimgly classic vs newer dispute, is not really that at all, and in fact this was always a dispute in every era.
And finally, like I said previously, I could care less about Sunnis, and in fact we have been told to take what opposes them during dispute in many cases. They are meaningless to me and their opinions are like dust.
I would ask that you have humility and not just try to be contrarion and try to draw attention to your threads with shock value, and indeed be willing to discuss without resorting to outlandish claims and mentioning things like ghulat which have nothing to do with this. 

I'm not sure why you made this a discussion about bid'ah when there is strong evidence on both sides. 
First of all the view of the opposite sect is largely irrelevant, in fact there are commands to take what opposes them. Who cares what they say anyway, what matters is what our scholars and corpus say.
Secondly, our hadiths themselves are divided on this issue, so it is not like this was "made" a issue in the later periods, this was always a dispute amongst the classical scholars, as mentioned by the classical scholars themselves.
Thirdly, who said it is the majority opinion of our scholars? Muhaqiq Al-Hilli disagrees (even though he agrees with the view early Maghrib view itself), he says it is not as famous as the other opinion. As did Al-Majlisi, who said majority of the companions were also of the later Maghrib view. And Sayyed Al-Khoei also agreed with the view of Al-Hilli that the later Maghrib view is more famous.
Finally, who says later views aren't more correct? Who says later ulama aren't more knowledgable? The current scholars have knowledge of usool and ilm al-hadith and other uloom which far exceed the classical scholars, especially the traditionalists who didn't really ascribe or put weight in such sciences. 
Also, alot of our ulama aren't against an early maghrib per se, but advise ihtiyat in waiting, and that's because there's strong evidence from both sides.
You are not a Faqih so leave people to follow who they believe is the most learned.

I would disagree. The differences between the rationalist Baghdadi school and the traditionalist Qummi school of the classical era were vast in many ways.
I would say there was a great difference of opinion between the companions of the Imams (عليه السلام) on some basic tenets of aqeeda, including fundamentals.
And likewise among the companions of the Prophet (saww), where after his death you see differences arise on simple aspects of the Deen.
I don't see the generational gap as big of a difference maker as you do. Differences were always there and will continue to be.

It is not authentic.
We do not know the chain of Sayyed Ibn Tawus (rah) to Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) or Al-Kadhim (عليه السلام) in relating this Du'a, as the book which actually had the chain does not exist today. The narration itself also doesn't even specify it is a specific amal for Laylat Al-Qadr, but the Sayyed (rah) counted it as among the a'maal.
There is a narration in the Amali of Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah) which mentions a similar Du'a and also mentions the act of placing the Holy Qur'an on the head after praying a 2 rak'ah prayer - but it is also not mentioned as a specific amal for Laylat Al-Qadr. In fact, the narration mentions that Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) taught this to a man who was complaining of debt and oppression by a ruler. This narration does contain a chain, however it is not authentic at all.
I guess this question will dwelve into whether we need authentic chains for Du'as and mustahab acts of worship. Most people will say you do not need that, especially for Du'as. 
My opinion is if you don't want to do it then don't do it, but there is no reason to shame other believers for doing it if their marja deems it okay.

It is not authentic.
We do not know the chain of Sayyed Ibn Tawus (rah) to Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) or Al-Kadhim (عليه السلام) in relating this Du'a, as the book which actually had the chain does not exist today. The narration itself also doesn't even specify it is a specific amal for Laylat Al-Qadr, but the Sayyed (rah) counted it as among the a'maal.
There is a narration in the Amali of Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah) which mentions a similar Du'a and also mentions the act of placing the Holy Qur'an on the head after praying a 2 rak'ah prayer - but it is also not mentioned as a specific amal for Laylat Al-Qadr. In fact, the narration mentions that Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) taught this to a man who was complaining of debt and oppression by a ruler. This narration does contain a chain, however it is not authentic at all.
I guess this question will dwelve into whether we need authentic chains for Du'as and mustahab acts of worship. Most people will say you do not need that, especially for Du'as. 
My opinion is if you don't want to do it then don't do it, but there is no reason to shame other believers for doing it if their marja deems it okay.

It is not authentic.
We do not know the chain of Sayyed Ibn Tawus (rah) to Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) or Al-Kadhim (عليه السلام) in relating this Du'a, as the book which actually had the chain does not exist today. The narration itself also doesn't even specify it is a specific amal for Laylat Al-Qadr, but the Sayyed (rah) counted it as among the a'maal.
There is a narration in the Amali of Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah) which mentions a similar Du'a and also mentions the act of placing the Holy Qur'an on the head after praying a 2 rak'ah prayer - but it is also not mentioned as a specific amal for Laylat Al-Qadr. In fact, the narration mentions that Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) taught this to a man who was complaining of debt and oppression by a ruler. This narration does contain a chain, however it is not authentic at all.
I guess this question will dwelve into whether we need authentic chains for Du'as and mustahab acts of worship. Most people will say you do not need that, especially for Du'as. 
My opinion is if you don't want to do it then don't do it, but there is no reason to shame other believers for doing it if their marja deems it okay.

It is not authentic.
We do not know the chain of Sayyed Ibn Tawus (rah) to Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) or Al-Kadhim (عليه السلام) in relating this Du'a, as the book which actually had the chain does not exist today. The narration itself also doesn't even specify it is a specific amal for Laylat Al-Qadr, but the Sayyed (rah) counted it as among the a'maal.
There is a narration in the Amali of Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah) which mentions a similar Du'a and also mentions the act of placing the Holy Qur'an on the head after praying a 2 rak'ah prayer - but it is also not mentioned as a specific amal for Laylat Al-Qadr. In fact, the narration mentions that Imam Al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) taught this to a man who was complaining of debt and oppression by a ruler. This narration does contain a chain, however it is not authentic at all.
I guess this question will dwelve into whether we need authentic chains for Du'as and mustahab acts of worship. Most people will say you do not need that, especially for Du'as. 
My opinion is if you don't want to do it then don't do it, but there is no reason to shame other believers for doing it if their marja deems it okay.

It does not say that at all, you just added an addition from your own interpretation.
Do you believe the reward of hijra will be accepted without correct niyyah and iman? 
Once again, this Ayah conditions on those the reward of forgiveness on 1) Iman and 2) Jihad.
Where is the general praise?
Saying something is debunked does not make it debunked. 
The word "منهم" (among them) in Ayah 29 from Surat Al-Fath which you have used time and time again shows that the Verse is conditional. 
Even Al-Razi conceded as much when he said منهم could mean تبعيض (division, not generality).
He said:
لبيان الجنس لا للتبعيض ، ويحتمل أن يقال هو للتبعيض
While you are here acting as if the Ayah is clear in supporting your position, it is in fact.
They were praised when they believed, and they lost praise when they erred, and they regained praise after Tawbah.
This hadith does not help your stance at all, because Salman and Abu Dharr were kuffar at a certain stage. Were they awliyaa during their time of kufr? No, it is speaking to the time they were upon righteousness. We even have reliable hadiths criticising Ammar (رضي الله عنه) for certain decisions he made, but he came back and died upon the correct path.
See here:
Abi Bakr al-Hadhrami said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people turned back except three individuals - Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad, I said: what about Ammar? He عليه السلام said: he wobbled a bit then he returned [to the truth] … then the people repented after that, so the first ones to return [to the truth] were Abu Sasan al-Ansari, Abu Amra, Shatira, and they became seven, none recognized the right of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام except these seven.
So once again, it shows the fallibility of even the best of the companions.

It does not say that at all, you just added an addition from your own interpretation.
Do you believe the reward of hijra will be accepted without correct niyyah and iman? 
Once again, this Ayah conditions on those the reward of forgiveness on 1) Iman and 2) Jihad.
Where is the general praise?
Saying something is debunked does not make it debunked. 
The word "منهم" (among them) in Ayah 29 from Surat Al-Fath which you have used time and time again shows that the Verse is conditional. 
Even Al-Razi conceded as much when he said منهم could mean تبعيض (division, not generality).
He said:
لبيان الجنس لا للتبعيض ، ويحتمل أن يقال هو للتبعيض
While you are here acting as if the Ayah is clear in supporting your position, it is in fact.
They were praised when they believed, and they lost praise when they erred, and they regained praise after Tawbah.
This hadith does not help your stance at all, because Salman and Abu Dharr were kuffar at a certain stage. Were they awliyaa during their time of kufr? No, it is speaking to the time they were upon righteousness. We even have reliable hadiths criticising Ammar (رضي الله عنه) for certain decisions he made, but he came back and died upon the correct path.
See here:
Abi Bakr al-Hadhrami said: Abu Ja`far عليه السلام said: the people turned back except three individuals - Salman, Abu Dhar and Miqdad, I said: what about Ammar? He عليه السلام said: he wobbled a bit then he returned [to the truth] … then the people repented after that, so the first ones to return [to the truth] were Abu Sasan al-Ansari, Abu Amra, Shatira, and they became seven, none recognized the right of the commander of the faithful عليه السلام except these seven.
So once again, it shows the fallibility of even the best of the companions.

These Verses do not prove "general" or "unconditional" praising of companions, which you are trying to allude to.
Once again, 59:8 conditions the reward for their emigration based on 1) their intention 2) that they stand for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Messenger. Shi'as will say those who did not stand for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Messenger, therefore will not recieve reward for their hijra.
48:18 is also conditioned upon fulfilling their pledge. 
48:29 is conditioned upon them believing and doing good deeds.
So these praises are not for the "companions" generally, they are for those who upheld their end of the conditions. Only they are the awliyaa and the righteous.
As for the Ansar, many of them were munafiqoon and so the Verses which praise them don't apply to the munafiqeen among them. So once again, everything is conditioned, whether before Hunayn of after Hunayn.
Why will it backfire on me? Ammar and Abu Dharr committed a grave sin by doing so. They were not adil not awliyaa when they fled. Only after they repented and became righteous after that, will we consider them awliyaa. 
Yes, they are not included. 

Personally I believe both genders have an innate toughness but in different areas. Men tend to lose logic during anger, while women tend to lose logic in sorrow. 
My personal observation really. 
All of our observations could simply be a reflection of the societies we live in. Perhaps in a previous time or a different environment than the norm, both men and women are much different than the ones we see.

I don't see where it was. Would you kindly restate what the argument is?
Ammar (رضي الله عنه) and Abu Dharr (رضي الله عنه) are praised because of what they died upon. They were not awliyaa when they were in a state of sin, and they didn't die except that they repented from their previous sins.
What your argument is that basically any sahabi will have his sins forgiven regardless of what he does and whether he repents or not. The Shi'a say that a sahabi is like anybody else from any generation, the udool among them are praised, the fusaaq, munafiq and kuffar among them are not.
As for the Verses you mentioned:
Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah. And those with him are firm with the disbelievers and compassionate with one another. You see them bowing and prostrating ˹in prayer˺, seeking Allah’s bounty and pleasure. The sign ˹of brightness can be seen˺ on their faces from the trace of prostrating ˹in prayer˺. This is their description in the Torah. And their parable in the Gospel is that of a seed that sprouts its ˹tiny˺ branches, making it strong. Then it becomes thick, standing firmly on its stem, to the delight of the planters—in this way Allah makes the believers a source of dismay for the disbelievers. To those of them who believe and do good, Allah has promised forgiveness and a great reward. (48:29)
It seems upon reading that the forgiveness and reward promised to them is conditioned upon 1) believing and 2) doing good.
And that is in line with what the Shi'a say.
˹Some of the gains will be˺ for poor emigrants who were driven out of their homes and wealth, seeking Allah’s bounty and pleasure, and standing up for Allah and His Messenger. They are the ones true in faith. As for those who had settled in the city and ˹embraced˺ the faith before ˹the arrival of˺ the emigrants, they love whoever immigrates to them, never having a desire in their hearts for whatever ˹of the gains˺ is given to the emigrants. They give ˹the emigrants˺ preference over themselves even though they may be in need. And whoever is saved from the selfishness of their own souls, it is they who are ˹truly˺ successful. (59:9-10)
First of all: These Verses in and of itself cannot be used to prove the adalah of all sahaba, as it clearly does not concern those who believed after the Fath - such as Mu'awiyah.
Secondly, once again we see that certain conditions are relayed upon those who the Verses are speaking about. 
For the muhajireen, it mentions those who were driven out, so this concerns those who were forcibly pushed out into hijra, and even if one were to take it as mutlaq to concern all muhajireen, it is conditioned with two extra conditions: 1) seeking Allah's pleasure and bounty - and this is in line with other hadiths relayed by your own books that those who migrated for worldly desires will not be rewarded for it and 2) standing up for Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and His Messenger, and the Shi'a will contend that many of the sahaba broke this promise both in their lifetime and after their life.
As for the Ansar in the second Verse, it seems to be speaking with regards to the distribution of the Spoils after the war, and it seems to condition bring selfless with regarding the spoils in order to be one of the muflihoon (successful).
Allah was much pleased with the believers when they swore fealty to you under the tree. He knew what was in their hearts. So He bestowed inner peace upon them and rewarded them with a victory near at hand (48:18)
Once again, the Shi'a will contend that the niyyah of the bay'ah and the fulfillment of the bay'ah are the conditions to recieve the rewards of it.
Surely those who pledge allegiance to you ˹O Prophet˺ are actually pledging allegiance to Allah. Allah’s Hand is over theirs. Whoever breaks their pledge, it will only be to their own loss. And whoever fulfils their pledge to Allah, He will grant them a great reward. (48:10)
This shows how the praising which you took as "general", is in fact,  conditioned.
I will respond to the rest of your post when Allah permits, insha Allah. But I believe this was the gist of your post.

Certainly true for Sunnis of today but not Sunnis of old. During the era of the tabi'een and those just after them, there were more madhahib than just the four. Perhaps there was as much as ten madhahib circulating at the same time.
Indeed, Salafis of today also hold different views on taqleed and rigid following of a madhab.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/21420/do-you-have-to-follow-a-madhhab

While that is the view of Shaykh Al-Tusi (rah), other scholars both in the classical period and the later period disagreed, and some have said that it is obligatory to believe that the Imams (عليه السلام) are better, such as Al-Saduq (rah), and there are some of those who came later also claimed it is an essential belief, such as Al-Majlisi (rah) and others.

Zakat Al-Fitra is given every year in the Holy Month of Ramadan. As for Zakat Al-Ghalat, that is only wajib on certain types of properties. 
So it is hardly neglected, it is simply not a takleef on most people.
Zakat was very relevant back in the times of the Imams (عليه السلام), especially since the coins in circulation were made of gold and silver - something in which giving zakat is wajib upon.

Even if what you say is true, that doesn't make them ghulat. That would just means they were "duped" into one incorrect belief.
You still haven't demonstrated the connection between akhbarism - and by that I mean akhbari scholars, not akhbaris online - and ghulu.