Were the Shaykhayn like angels or were they evil?

[Eddie Mecca]

8 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Zaydi position: A just leader from the Ahl al-Bayt is to be obeyed. 

Wilāyat al-Faqīh system has aligned Twelverism with Zaydi conception of Imamate to a great extent...Allah seems to be bringing the two schools of thought into arrangement with one another for a divine purpose 

Edited October 30 by Eddie Mecca

[Ashvazdanghe]

7 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

As for "al-Farisi"-issue: That's how it's pronounced in Arabic. You can't dictate how another language works. 

Then: Your justification is simply a later apologetic attempt as to why major famous companions, whom all sides regard in high regards, served under the Shaykhayn. You simply don't want to admit the most obvious reason: Because the Shaykhayn were trying to be just rulers. 

Then: The pan-Arab-issue is true regarding Bani Umayya and wrong regarding the Shaykhayn. Just because you have a certain view of them, doesn't mean that you accuse them of things that are simply not true. 

 

And by the way: The Shaykhayn and those who served under them were a Sabab for the Fath of Iraq and Iran. This means their forefathers entered into Islam thanks to the Shaykhayn. It's therefore ironic for them to hate them. 

Salam all arab speakers are calling him Salaman "al-Farsi" which only some radical sunnis likewise Wahabis have tried to change his name into so called "al-Farisi" which has no basis even in sunni texts which they have just do it to manipulate people that he has not been Iranian because of their hate toward Iranians whether Shia or Sunni . 

 

Then: your defeating battle for justification of three sunni Shaykhayn is really laughable ; because their void actions after usurping right of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) & opposing orders of prophet Muahhamd (pbu) & creation of innovations & distortion of Islam by them have made them unjust rulers although of sunni saga about their fake  justice which even people likewise Genghis Khan & Alexander & Hitler & other ruthless conquerors  tried to be just rulers. 

Then : The pan Arab issue is real historical matter which second Shaykhayn Umar has been clearly a pan arab anti Iranian which new converts from Iranians have not an equal place in similar fashion of Arab muslims during era of all three Shaykhayn which it's a historical fact which even mentioned in so called Sunni Sahih books which only at era of rulership of Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) Iranians have gained some rights by efforts of Amir Al Muminin Imam Ali (عليه السلام) ; which later cursed Umayyads have returned to pan Arab anti Iranian policy of three Shaykhain ; which even during Abbasids Iranians whether Sunni or shia have suffered from pan arab policy of Abbasids although they owed their rulership to Iranians .

 

And bt the way : Three sunni shaykahyn have been  conquerors likewise Genghis Khan & Alexander & Hitler & other ruthless conquerors  who used Islam just for justifications of conquering new lands likewise Iran & Iraq which nobody owes his Islam to them which cooperation Sahabis likewise Salman "Al-Farsi" (Muhammadi) have cooperated with them to do damage control to stop mass killing of Iranians by army of three sunni Shaykhayn which saga spreading Islam by army of three sunni Shaykhayn is just good for naive people likewise Wahabis who still have dream of reviving era of cursed umayyads. 

 

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

8 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

As for the Sunni "solution": It's one of the reasons why Muslim countries are so far away from justice today.

As for the Shi'a "solution": It's basically only a historical position and doesn't help at all. 

 

There are other solutions, which make more sense:

Zaydi position: A just leader from the Ahl al-Bayt is to be obeyed. 

Mu'tazila: A just Muslim leader is to be obeyed. 

As for Shia "solution" there is infallible Imam as Imam Mahdi (aj) so all conditions of following just infallible progeny  as members of Ahl al-Bayt has been always continued since demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) until now which deputies of Imam Mahdi (aj) as Marjas & Wilaya faqih fullfil all conditions of Zaydis & Mu'tazila which Mu'tazila solution is just a pardoxical solution by Sunnis who rejected infallible leader but on the other hand have tried to  find  a just muslim leader in similar fashion of Shia infallible Imam which Mu'tazila solution has been failed since initiating until perishing which reviving it doesn't change anything because still it has no proper solution while after OCT 7 many Sunnis have initiated leaning toward Shia solution because it has been proven it's only proper solution .  

[Eddie Mecca]

On 10/26/2024 at 12:37 AM, AbdusSibtayn said:

it's 'against the site rules' so I'll pass. 

Exactly...consider the following: 1.) why is badmouthing the three caliphs against SC site policy? 2.) Why do the marājiʿ prevent the muqallid from badmouthing the three caliphs? Please don't tell me it's because they want to maintain Muslim unity...and don't tell me "taqiyyah" please...those aren't the reasons...because Sunnis respect and revere Muʿāwiyah, Hind, Abu Sufyan, Yazīd etc. and our scholars haven't placed a similar ban or similar ruling against criticizing or disparaging those clowns

[Panzerwaffe]

15 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The Sunnis are puffed with pride because they constitute the majority...they're always talking about THE MAJORITY, THE MAJORITY, THE MAJORITY etc. The funny thing is during the First Fitnah...their beloved "MAJORITY" stood against the third caliph...here they must take a decisive stance against one of their core tenets / concepts (always siding with the majority and never disturbing or disrupting the cohesiveness of the Jamāʻah)...if they (Sunni brethren) choose to side with the so-called rebels and the people of Miṣr (مِصر)...than they violate another key principle of Sunnism...namely, standing against the third Rightly Guided Caliph and siding with his killers...it's sort of a catch 22 for Sunnis...if they side with Uthman...then they go against the majority of Muslims...if they side with the majority of Muslims...then they can't help but to stand against Uthman and his later policies...you can have one...you can the other...but you can't have both and be theologically consistent.

That’s why ibn saba was unfairly blamed for all evils to absolve the majority of any crime 

 

[Panzerwaffe]

14 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The Sunnis only like to discuss the first six years of Uthman's rule...the Shi'is only emphasize the last six years of Uthman's reign...I want to discuss all twelve years fairly and objectively...enough nonsense 

 

Uthman probably was supremely unqualified for the caliphate due to his aristocratic background 

if not imam Ali , sa’d b abi Waqqas was a better choice or even better an ansari 

[Panzerwaffe]

On 10/28/2024 at 2:48 PM, Abu Nur said:

That is irrelevant because Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was appointed exactly as legitimate leader with the same authority of leadership than the Prophet Muhammad (saws).

Asa brother 

I understand that is the 12er official stance but then logically Sunnis should be in the same category as disbelievers as they refuse to accept a divinely appointed leader 

i can’t understand why then they are treated differently from others who refuse to believe in Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as divinely appointed 

[AbdusSibtayn]

13 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Exactly...consider the following: 1.) why is badmouthing the three caliphs against SC site policy? 2.) Why do the marājiʿ prevent the muqallid from badmouthing the three caliphs? Please don't tell me it's because they want to maintain Muslim unity...and don't tell me "taqiyyah" please...those aren't the reasons...because Sunnis respect and revere Muʿāwiyah, Hind, Abu Sufyan, Yazīd etc. and our scholars haven't placed a similar ban or similar ruling against criticizing or disparaging those clowns

I didn't want to say anything about these people. It was something else. 

As far as the answer to this is concerned, the Sunnis agree among themselves about upholding the 3 caliphs, but the status of the early Umayyads was disputed within proto-Sunnis themselves. 

From the proto-Sunni figures like A'isha herself and the Zubayrids (who had no love lost for Ali (عليه السلام) or the Shi'a), a section of Medinan tabi'in led by Abdullah ibn Handhala ibn Abi Amir (again,not Shiites), the early Hanafis of Iraq (including Abu Hanifa himself), and some proto-Sunni scholars of the Abbasid period like al-Nasa'i, all of them had a deep-seated hatred for the Umayyads, especially the house of Abu Sufyan (la). 

These figures, unlike the 3 khulafa or A'isha herself who are venerable by Sunni consensus, are controversial characters in early Sunnism itself. This is why our scholars place them in a different category and do not include them among the 'holy personalities' of the other sect, because the Sunnis themselves disagree about these figures being 'holy'. 

Edited October 30 by AbdusSibtayn

[AbdusSibtayn]

13 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Wilāyat al-Faqīh system has aligned Twelverism with Zaydi conception of Imamate to a great extent...Allah seems to be bringing the two schools of thought into arrangement with one another for a divine purpose 

Except that the wali al-faqih need not be an Alawi-Fatimi, which is a necessary condition for the Zaydi imamate. 

Anyone who is a mujtahid and qualified for the job can be the wali faqih. 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

16 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The Sunnis are puffed with pride because they constitute the majority...they're always talking about THE MAJORITY, THE MAJORITY, THE MAJORITY etc. The funny thing is during the First Fitnah...their beloved "MAJORITY" stood against the third caliph...here they must take a decisive stance against one of their core tenets / concepts (always siding with the majority and never disturbing or disrupting the cohesiveness of the Jamāʻah)...if they (Sunni brethren) choose to side with the so-called rebels and the people of Miṣr (مِصر)...than they violate another key principle of Sunnism...namely, standing against the third Rightly Guided Caliph and siding with his killers...it's sort of a catch 22 for Sunnis...if they side with Uthman...then they go against the majority of Muslims...if they side with the majority of Muslims...then they can't help but to stand against Uthman and his later policies...you can have one...you can the other...but you can't have both and be theologically consistent.

As someone with a Sunni background I can tell you that most Sunni laymen have never heard a single sentence about the reason 'Uthman had opposition to his rule in the later years or who opposed him or what lead to his killing. Just imagine that our Mashayikh will not give you any information about this subject. 

In fact I get the feeling that even most Sunni students of knowledge  have never read any early Islamic book regarding history like let's say Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad. They rely on secondary information, where everything "controversial" is already not present anymore. 

The idea that ond should not mention that which happened between the Sahaba in front of the laymen, resulted in absolute ignorance regarding history even among non-laymen.

Most Sunnis have even no idea regarding recent history, let alone regarding early one. That is how it's for example easy for the Wahhabiyya to spread their beliefs among Sunnis, despite the fact that the Wahhabiyya started first slaughtering Sunnis before anyone else. 

Edited October 30 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

16 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

A lot of Twelvers end up contradicting Ali's (peace be upon him) actions...a Shi'i will never overtly declare Imam Ali's stance to be the wrong one...but they'll declare Ali's stance was the wrong stance in a subtle manner...a sizeable portion of Twelvers side with those who led or participated in the uprising against Uthman...for example, it's rare these days to hear a Twelver say, "we must defend Uthman at all costs" or "the people of Egypt could've handled that differently"...yet this was the very position that Imam Ali (peace be upon him) took historically...Ali's stance was a middle or medium stance...this cannot be denied...he (Ali) opposed the last 6 years of Uthman's despotic rule...but he believed in the rule of law and opposed anarchy and insurrection and vigilantism...Uthman should have been brought before the magistrate...brought to court and charged accordingly...according to due process and standard Islamic legal procedures 

This is because they (12ers) are taught about history, but not in a true and accurate manner, but rather in a manner that results in hating close to all companions (meaning the exact opposite of Sunnis, which is not better) including even the Muhajirin and Ansar, who were honest followers of our noble Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam). 

They are for example not told that the majority of the people, who participated in Badr or who pledged the allegiance of Ridwan, later on sided with Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) against Mu'awiya. They are also not told that most Muhajirin / Ansar and their children did not accept Yazid - especially after the martyrdom of Imam Hussayn (peace be upon him) - and that many of them got martyred likewise. 

 

Another issue, which many people don't realize is the following: Those who planned towards the killing of 'Uthman were the likes of Mu'awiya bin Abi Sufyan, Marwan bin al-Hakam and 'Amr bin al-'As. 

As for Mu'awiya: One of his men - Ruman al-Asbahi - was directly involved in killing 'Uthman and despite this he remained without problems (rather the opposite!) until the time of 'Abd al-Malik bin Marwan.

And another one of his men - Abul A'war al-Sulami - wrote the famous fake letter to Egypt in the name of 'Uthman. 

As for 'Amr bin al-'As - a major supporter of Mu'awiya - then he was stirring up the people of Egypt against 'Uthman! 

As for Marwan bin al-Hakam, then one could right whole books about his evil tactics and his deviousness. He caused the killing of a Badri companion through a servant of his, which then led to a complete escalation of the situation and attack on 'Uthman himself and his killing. 

Edited October 30 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

16 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

The Sunnis only like to discuss the first six years of Uthman's rule...the Shi'is only emphasize the last six years of Uthman's reign...I want to discuss all twelve years fairly and objectively...enough nonsense 

 

Good point. 

The rule of 'Uthman basically refutes both sides. 

As for the refutation of the Sunni stance: When 'Uthman started to install his relatives into power, it caused the majority of Muhajirin and Ansar to be opposed to his rule and even prefer him not to be the Khalifa anymore. This shows that the Muhajirin and Ansar only believed in obedience towards a just leader, which destroys the famous Sunni "a Qurayshi leader no matter if just or not"-stance. 

As for the refutation of the Shi'a stance: When 'Uthman was still ruling in the manner of the Shaykhayn, there was no opposition. Why? Because then his rule was still just, which basically means that the Shaykhayn were just otherwise the Muhajirin and Ansar would have opposed them in the same manner it happened later on to 'Uthman, when his style of ruling changed. 

 

The above also explains why Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) differentiated between the Shaykhayn on one side and the Bani Umayya on the other. 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

16 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Wilāyat al-Faqīh system has aligned Twelverism with Zaydi conception of Imamate to a great extent...Allah seems to be bringing the two schools of thought into arrangement with one another for a divine purpose 

There is an additional issue here: They also implemented Shura and that's why they have a parliament. 

Now before the Sunnis claim this for themselves due to the Shaykhayn also taking consultation into consideration: You're the people who made obedience obligatory even to unjust oppressive criminals! So don't claim anything for yourself! If any thing the Mu'tazila could take credit for this, because they stressed justice in governance and not you. 

 

(I obviously don't know how good or bad this is implemented in Iran as I have not lived there and I don't want to believe Western propaganda or the propaganda by worthless Khalijis with their Bani-Umayya-style-governments.)

Edited October 30 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

1 minute ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

 If any thing the Mu'tazila could take credit for this, because they stressed justice in abgovernance and not you. 

 

Regarding the Mu'tazila: They were quite close to the Zaydiyya in most issues and many early Ahnaf were Mu'tazila. 

This could also explain the good relationship between Abu Hanifa and Imam Zaid. 

What's interesting here to know are several things: Imam Abu Hanifa differed with the so called Ahl al-Hadith in his methodology and was therefore heavily attacked by them. The reason behind this is that the Ahl al-Hadith heavily relied on Ahadith - many of whom were not authentic in reality - while Abu Hanifa relied on the Quran and the deduction that follows from it. That's why they made up the claim that he was "weak in Hadith"!

In addition to that his creed was similar to what would later become known as the creed of the Mu'tazila. The attacks of the Ahl al-Hadith also attest to that. 

Unfortunately his later followers did move towards the Ahl al-Hadith in Fiqh. In creed they also moved away in a number of important issues, while they still remained much more intelligent (especially regarding divine attributes) than let's say many of the mindless Hanabila. 

(If it were not for the Ash'aris, the Hanabila would have authenticated all anthropormphic narrations that crept in from the Ahl al-Kitab into our Turath and were unjustly declared as Prophetic narrations!) 

What is also interesting to know is that the Mu'tazila were much harsher when it came to accepting Ahadith than let's say Asha'ira. (I won't mention Hanabila, because they were mostly mindless regarding the subject of Hadith, which is funny because they regarded themselves as Ahl al-Hadith). 

[Abu Nur]

6 hours ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Asa brother 

I understand that is the 12er official stance but then logically Sunnis should be in the same category as disbelievers as they refuse to accept a divinely appointed leader 

i can’t understand why then they are treated differently from others who refuse to believe in Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as divinely appointed 

Wa Aleikum Salaam,

Qur'an have already demonstrated prophetood with certainty and rejecting the Prophet means it takes you out of Islam. But as for Imamah, this is different because you can not gain same certainty trough Qur'an without using hadiths. There is no such a thing as follow 12 Imams and Imam Ali (عليه السلام) will be the next Imam after our Prophet (saws) etc in Qur'an.

Principle of Imamhood and authority does exist in Qur'an but it is not clear at all how it should be used after the Prophet as long the Prophet demonstrate it before his demise.

So it is here why we do consider Sunnis as Muslim because rejecting the Imams that takes the person out from Islam need to happen with certainty by founding all the evidences in Qur'an and Hadiths that Imamah of Ali (عليه السلام) is valid, 12 imams from progeny of Prophet is valid etc. This only happens when someone just have hatred toward Shias/Shia Islam or he love to live as with their sectarian life, while knowingly knows it is valid and truth.

The reason why majority of Sunnis are Muslims is because they never seek to find these truths out or that they have not yet found the truth while seeking it or because of out of emotions and ignorance they reject it without certainty.

The biggest fault while trying to find proof for Imamah is falling to the traps of Invidual narrations and pointless criticism of small outside details that have been demonstrated 400 years after the events.

Imamah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) can be found when you add the Qur'an verses plus all the necessary narrations together:

You are to me as Aaron to Musa but without prophetood + Ghadir + Hadith Thaqalayn etc and you will reach to conclusion.

Edited October 31 by Abu Nur

[Panzerwaffe]

6 hours ago, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Good point. 

The rule of 'Uthman basically refutes both sides. 

As for the refutation of the Sunni stance: When 'Uthman started to install his relatives into power, it caused the majority of Muhajirin and Ansar to be opposed to his rule and even prefer him not to be the Khalifa anymore. This shows that the Muhajirin and Ansar only believed in obedience towards a just leader, which destroys the famous Sunni "a Qurayshi leader no matter if just or not"-stance. 

As for the refutation of the Shi'a stance: When 'Uthman was still ruling in the manner of the Shaykhayn, there was no opposition. Why? Because then his rule was still just, which basically means that the Shaykhayn were just otherwise the Muhajirin and Ansar would have opposed them in the same manner it happened later on to 'Uthman, when his style of ruling changed. 

 

The above also explains why Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) differentiated between the Shaykhayn on one side and the Bani Umayya on the other. 

And uthmans is first Umayyad ruler 

[Eddie Mecca]

Brilliant 5 year old post by a certain brother on Quora...brother Abbas Nafoosh...I think this deserves sharing and I echo his sentiments... 

Abbas Nafoosh

engineer with constructive logical expertise in Religion

Was Ali ibn Abu Talib practicing the same Islam as Abu Bakr and the rest of Sahabah? If yes, then how did Shias deviate from Sunni Islam?

"They definitely did not practice the same Islam, and they had significant difference of opinion.

But that’s fine. And nobody expects two people to behave exactly alike.

For example, Abu Bakr and Uthman were generous in giving their relatives and tribesmen positions of wealth and power, while Umar and Ali strictly frowned upon doing so.

That does not immediately mean that Umar and Ali make a sect that is opposed to that of Abu Bakr and Uthman, although at the time, their style of leadership did, and resulted in a lot of opposition.

The differences between Shia and Sunni Islam were revealed politically yet were fundamentally ideological. This is a very very important thing to note. The revelation of the differences is not necessarily the same as formation of the sect, it simply resulted in masses getting behind the flag of each sect.

For example, up to the time of Hussain ibn Ali, being Shia was frowned upon, but not strictly persecuted. Once Hussain was killed by Yazid ibn Muawiyah, a surge of Shia sectarianism took over the Arab world, but was crushed down by significant persecution. This continued way past the time of Al-Sadiq, until the time of Al-Ridha and al-Ma’mun, whom moved his capital from Baghdad to Khurasan, were people were significantly Shia and allowed to be so without persecution. And since that time, Shia became the majority in the majority of Iran and Khurasan areas, with the rise of the Buyid and Samanid dynasties after the decline of Abbasids.

However, this is “the first major political rise of Shia”, which is also different from “the rise of the political Shia”, which was much later at the Safavid dynasty.

Many people mistakenly take the former or the latter to mean the beginning of Shia Islam, and thus believe there was only a sect centuries after the Rashidun time.

However, as pointed earlier, that is not correct. Even at the time of Ali, there were plenty of people who identified as Shia. And even at the time of the prophet, there were plenty who identified as Shia. By plenty, I mean 20–100 people, and not 100 million like it is today, however, these were still significant and influential companions of the prophet, and were about to have an armed uprising spearheaded by Ali himself to take the caliphate back from Abu Bakr, whom had taken it unjustly according to their viewpoint (however this uprising was quickly crushed down, and Ali was basically under house arrest for a while).

Now the fundamental differences are also not about Ali being a relative of the prophet, but are ideological. Shia believe in intrinsic ethics, in reason being the arbiter, and in absolute immaculacy of the prophet, while Sunni believe in immaculacy only in delivering the message of God.

That’s where the sects are formed, right at the beginning of the Islam, with different takes on the prophet. Since Shia believe every action of the prophet is a sign of God, they take the events of Ghadir Khumm strictly as the prophet appointing Ali as his successor, and as a direct order from God, while Sunni see it as a political opinion of the prophet which does not need to be strictly enforced.

And that’s where the schism starts, fundamentally ideological, with political implications appearing later on.

With all that being said, I see many Muslims attempting to force unify the Ummah in their image by eradicating any differences and attributing the differences to later in time, and thus not Islamic.

This is not the correct approach, my brothers and sisters. Unity does not mean suffocation of different opinions and eradicating them. Unity means embracing this diversity of opinion and focusing on common ground, rather than on differences.

Muslims have 95% common ground with Christians, and Shia have 99% common ground with Sunnis. Yet that tiny differences has been used by evil men throughout history to drive these groups to fight each other and see each other as the enemy, rather than as a unified body of humans.

Unity of Ummah is only achievable by openly, yet critically and scholarly talking and discussing this topics, and not by fanfares and fanfights on Internet forums and in the streets. Identifying the differences, the reasoning and historic realities behind them, accepting which areas can be false and need to be mended and which areas are absolute, and then coming to peace with this reality and living with it, is the path to unity. Conformity is not unity, and that’s not God wants of any human being. Unity is a means to human salvation, not an ends to it. Sacrificing human salvation and truth for unity is just wrong."

[Eddie Mecca]

1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

a surge of Shia sectarianism took over the Arab world

The brother did a splendid job...However I would exchange the above wording for something more like, "drawing strength and inspiration from the tragic events of Karbalāʾ, an electrical surge of Shi'i fervor swept over Arabia"

[AbdusSibtayn]

1 hour ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Brilliant 5 year old post by a certain brother on Quora...brother Abbas Nafoosh...I think this deserves sharing and I echo his sentiments... 

Abbas Nafoosh

engineer with constructive logical expertise in Religion

Was Ali ibn Abu Talib practicing the same Islam as Abu Bakr and the rest of Sahabah? If yes, then how did Shias deviate from Sunni Islam?

"They definitely did not practice the same Islam, and they had significant difference of opinion.

But that’s fine. And nobody expects two people to behave exactly alike.

For example, Abu Bakr and Uthman were generous in giving their relatives and tribesmen positions of wealth and power, while Umar and Ali strictly frowned upon doing so.

That does not immediately mean that Umar and Ali make a sect that is opposed to that of Abu Bakr and Uthman, although at the time, their style of leadership did, and resulted in a lot of opposition.

The differences between Shia and Sunni Islam were revealed politically yet were fundamentally ideological. This is a very very important thing to note. The revelation of the differences is not necessarily the same as formation of the sect, it simply resulted in masses getting behind the flag of each sect.

For example, up to the time of Hussain ibn Ali, being Shia was frowned upon, but not strictly persecuted. Once Hussain was killed by Yazid ibn Muawiyah, a surge of Shia sectarianism took over the Arab world, but was crushed down by significant persecution. This continued way past the time of Al-Sadiq, until the time of Al-Ridha and al-Ma’mun, whom moved his capital from Baghdad to Khurasan, were people were significantly Shia and allowed to be so without persecution. And since that time, Shia became the majority in the majority of Iran and Khurasan areas, with the rise of the Buyid and Samanid dynasties after the decline of Abbasids.

However, this is “the first major political rise of Shia”, which is also different from “the rise of the political Shia”, which was much later at the Safavid dynasty.

Many people mistakenly take the former or the latter to mean the beginning of Shia Islam, and thus believe there was only a sect centuries after the Rashidun time.

However, as pointed earlier, that is not correct. Even at the time of Ali, there were plenty of people who identified as Shia. And even at the time of the prophet, there were plenty who identified as Shia. By plenty, I mean 20–100 people, and not 100 million like it is today, however, these were still significant and influential companions of the prophet, and were about to have an armed uprising spearheaded by Ali himself to take the caliphate back from Abu Bakr, whom had taken it unjustly according to their viewpoint (however this uprising was quickly crushed down, and Ali was basically under house arrest for a while).

Now the fundamental differences are also not about Ali being a relative of the prophet, but are ideological. Shia believe in intrinsic ethics, in reason being the arbiter, and in absolute immaculacy of the prophet, while Sunni believe in immaculacy only in delivering the message of God.

That’s where the sects are formed, right at the beginning of the Islam, with different takes on the prophet. Since Shia believe every action of the prophet is a sign of God, they take the events of Ghadir Khumm strictly as the prophet appointing Ali as his successor, and as a direct order from God, while Sunni see it as a political opinion of the prophet which does not need to be strictly enforced.

And that’s where the schism starts, fundamentally ideological, with political implications appearing later on.

With all that being said, I see many Muslims attempting to force unify the Ummah in their image by eradicating any differences and attributing the differences to later in time, and thus not Islamic.

This is not the correct approach, my brothers and sisters. Unity does not mean suffocation of different opinions and eradicating them. Unity means embracing this diversity of opinion and focusing on common ground, rather than on differences.

Muslims have 95% common ground with Christians, and Shia have 99% common ground with Sunnis. Yet that tiny differences has been used by evil men throughout history to drive these groups to fight each other and see each other as the enemy, rather than as a unified body of humans.

Unity of Ummah is only achievable by openly, yet critically and scholarly talking and discussing this topics, and not by fanfares and fanfights on Internet forums and in the streets. Identifying the differences, the reasoning and historic realities behind them, accepting which areas can be false and need to be mended and which areas are absolute, and then coming to peace with this reality and living with it, is the path to unity. Conformity is not unity, and that’s not God wants of any human being. Unity is a means to human salvation, not an ends to it. Sacrificing human salvation and truth for unity is just wrong."

This is so wrong and misinformed that I don't even know how and where to begin fixing it. It needs a whole thread in its own right to unpack and rectify the blunders. 

It looks like some 20 year-old college goer watched a botched You Tube video on the early history of Islam, or copy-pasted from some lazy senior's assignment, and wrote an essay. 

Sorry to be this blunt but I am really annoyed when people write such bunkum with such gall and confidence when they are hardly conversant with what they are talking about and play with people's confidence. I'm not blaming you, I'm merely angry at the guy who wrote the original answer. 

Edited October 31 by AbdusSibtayn

[Borntowitnesstruth]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:04 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Wilāyat al-Faqīh system has aligned Twelverism with Zaydi conception of Imamate to a great extent...Allah seems to be bringing the two schools of thought into arrangement with one another for a divine purpose 

Not necessarily because zaydism believes in a leader from among progeny of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) but Wilayat al faqih does not. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

@Eddie Mecca I'll post a detailed criticism of this answer inshallah. 

[AbdusSibtayn]

On 10/30/2024 at 10:34 AM, Eddie Mecca said:

Wilāyat al-Faqīh system has aligned Twelverism with Zaydi conception of Imamate to a great extent...Allah seems to be bringing the two schools of thought into arrangement with one another for a divine purpose 

Also, the modern day Zaydis in Yemen, at least since the days of Hussain Badr al-Din Houthi, have been moving theologically closer to the Twelvers by somewhat reviving the old and extinct Jarudi manhaj, as opposed to the more prevalent B(EDITED)i line (sorry I have to censor this, it's a theological and historical term, but the ShiaChat admins have somehow decided that it is offensive and in the list of banned words). 

Which is why (rather surprisingly) some neo-Zaydi polemicists hate the Houthis and accuse them of corrupting their traditional B(EDITED)i aqeedah for political expediency (allying more closely with Iran and the Twelvers). 

[Borntowitnesstruth]

On 10/26/2024 at 2:01 AM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Salamun 'alaykum, 

this is one of the topics were most Sunnis and Shi'a today can only think in a "black or white"-manner and as such are unable to accept any criticism of their views in one direction or the other. 

Instead of thinking of the Shaykhayn as two angels (as most Sunnis today do) or as two evil persons (as most Shi'a today do), there is also the option to look at them from a more balanced perspective: They were two Muslim rulers, who tried to be just - that's why the majority of the Muhajirin and Ansar did not oppose their rule - but had also mistakes. 

The view of them being similar to angels and the view of them being evil are both based upon narrations. These narrations - especially concerning this subject - were heavily influenced by politics and as such far away from being reliable unlike what the two opposing sides claim. 

We know that Allah ta'ala has praised the Sabiqun al-Awwalun from among the Muhajirin and the Ansar and we also know that the majority of them did not oppose the rule of the Shaykhayn. 

We also know - unlike what some Shi'a today claim - that they did care for justice and would for example never accepted that anyone hits Fatima (peace be upon her) as is claimed in some narrations. (There are different versions, some are nearer to the truth, while other contain clear exaggerations, which are insulting towards all Muslims of that time in reality.)

How does it come that the same Muhajirin and Ansar were not pleased when 'Uthman bin 'Affan started to put his relatives in positions of power? How does it come that the majority of the Muslims that participated in the Battle of Badr and those who pledged allegiance to the Best of Creation (peace and blessings be upon him) under the tree sided with the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) against Mu'awiya and his ilk.

How does it come that the same Muhajirin / Ansar and their children stood against Yazid after the martyrdom of Imam al-Hussayn (peace be upon him) and were likewise martyred as a result. 

Then: Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) was in the Majlis al-Shura of 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, who would usually take the position of Imam 'Ali, if he would have a recommendation regarding an issue. Not just that: Major companions that were close to Imam 'Ali, were in positions of power under 'Umar. 

What people do not take into consideration is that some positions became issues of creed later on, but were not understood as such by earlier Muslims. 

Take the event of Ghadir: Yes, it's not possible to get out of this event without acknowledging a special status and religious leadership to Imam 'Ali bin Abi Talib (peace be upon him) upon all believers and without understanding that Imam 'Ali is with the truth and those opposing him are upon falsehood, but it does not necessitate political leadership. Especially when Imam 'Ali did not declare himself as such (which he could have done from the very beginning on) and only drew the sword when it came to Mu'awiya and his likes and not before. 

Even if political leadership is meant, then it's still possible that the Shaykhayn knew that the Bani Umayya would not accept such a leadership and would cause problems and tried to find another solution. Think about it: 'Umar put those close to Imam 'Ali in positions of power and would have even preferred him as the Khalifa after his rule. 

What is ironic here is that the above mentioned way of thinking is closer to that of the companions, who supported Imam 'Ali (meaning the very first real Shi'a), which is why they had no problems to be under the Shaykhayn (even in positions of power!), but clearly had a problem with Mu'awiya. 

I personally believe that the Zaydiyya (majority of Shi'a were Zaydiyya or close to them in the past) and someone like Shakyh Ahmad al-Waeli from among the Twelvers had a more balanced view than many Sunnis and Shi'a today. 

Well, to this, I will provide you the example of Calf from Bani Israel, Just as the majority of the people does not oppose the worship of Calf, the Calf does not become righteous deity or God. Similarly, the people at the time of Shekyein had various self-interests not to oppose the rule of shekyein even though they knew that their rule was not divinely approved. This does not make shekyein to be good muslims because they violated the Quran and Sunnah of Prophet (PBUHHP) and drove Ahlebait away from what was divinely proposed for them.

The narrations which tell the shekyein's out-of-Islam conduct is corroborated by both the Sunni and Shia sources. Both these school of thoughts have numerous traditions which tell us that both these shekhyein always wanted that the Banu Hashem tribe should have no influence at all. The positions which they gave to the followers of House of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) were meager even though they qualified for it as compared to those who were unjust and had worldly motives as compared to divine objectives for that you could read the history.

By the term, Sabiquon al Awwaloon is meant those who always not at on some instances but always strive for what is best for divine mission but the time they lag behind in the pursuit of divine mission and go after the worldly things, they are expelled from such category. That is why people like Balam Baur, who had been given Ism Azam, was relieved from such position when he disobeyed Allah (عزّ وجلّ). The higher position of a human being who can err has been promised until and unless he does not make mistake. So, you should clear your such concept about Sabiquoon al Awaloon. 

Well, there are numerous traditions even among the books of those who admire the Shekheyin that Shekyein went with fire to House of Syeda Fatima Zahra (عليه السلام) and threaten to lit the House with fire and also that it was Abu Bakar who denied the right of Fadak to Syeda Fatima Zahra and Umar who instigated Abu Bakr not to give that right to her. So, they dont seem to be acting upon what the Prophet had ordained and it was not a Muslim way.

The reason the Muhajjirin and Ansar opposed to Uthman was that the oppressions which started in the time of first two Shekyhein went onto maximum in the time of Uthman which made people life so miserable that they had to come out of homes not for Islam but for their own sakes so that they may not end in a disaster. When corruption runs deep in a society and life and becomes miserable, then comes civil wars which are followed by the masses seeking for someone who may be just and may make life easier for them. It was the same reason that people denied to have Muawyiya as their leader because they knew what Uthman has done to them. So, when people does not give righteous one to rule, Allah (عزّ وجلّ) disgraces them in their own wrongdoings until they have marifah and then return them to righteous place. It was the main reason that when Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was asked by people to take allegiance, he denied because society was so much deteriorated that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) did not want any part in it and when he did, he took allegiance on the condition that people will not oppose him in any way and he lived and died in trying to reform the society. Thus, people could not oppose Imam Ali (عليه السلام) because on the other side, they had complete destruction in the shape of Muawiya who had all evil in himself rather than good so Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was the only option for them.

As your own words say, the children of Muhajjirin and Ansar stood after martyrdom of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) when Yazid begin to destroy Kaba and Medine and rape their woman and had unlawful children were born out of thousands of women. They acted after the damage had been done while they were called upon by Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) before that. So, this does not prove them to be right minded people.

If you had not read the traditions and history, I would try to rewrite it for you. Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was already told that there will be civil disturbance after the Prophet (PBUHHP) and he was told by Prophet to settle down if you do not get enough people to stand up for your right. If you do not accept that then there are words of Umar ibn al Khattab in which he says that if it were not for that person (Ali ibn Abu Talib), there would have been great fitna in our midst. And, he even criticized his own early actions saying that it would have brought a great catastrophe but that person saved us. So, please refer into history, which person saved people from destruction by being silent. And, this silence came after the House of Ahlebait reminded the people of their right but became silent when people didnt hear them. So their silence was similar to the silence of Prophet Haroon (عليه السلام) who reminded to people about Allah (عزّ وجلّ) but became silent to prevent scuffle among themselves.

Well, even with the leadership of Shekyein Banu Ummaya was not happy and one time Abu Sufyan came to Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to offer his support and contended that leadership should be among the family of Prophet so did it matter to shekyein that one tribe be opposed to them? Not at all. so if Sheykhein had place Khilfah to Imam Ali (عليه السلام), Banu Ummaya would not have mattered at all because all tribes would have been on the side of Imam Ali (عليه السلام). About your statement that Umar gave important position to the followers of Imam Ali (عليه السلام), it was meager and people who were opposed to Imam Ali (عليه السلام) were in enormous majority and thirdly it was a political move to dissipate any civil movement against Umar al Khattab. Also, Umar al Khattab did not want Imam Ali (عليه السلام) to be Caliph after him because he opposed it with his own words by alleging Imam Ali (عليه السلام) that Imam Ali (عليه السلام) covet Caliphate for himself. And had he wanted it, he could have appointed Imam Ali (عليه السلام) directly like Abu Bakar appointed him without shura but he did not do it. So, it is not righteous to say that.

Well, the Companions begin to see problems in the rule of Muwawiya in the similar way they saw problems in the rule of Uthman both of them wanted people belonging to their tribes have more influence in the Khilafah so in the end the most of the companions move against Uthman and Muwawiya was out of fear of poverty and lack of having livelihood in event Muwawiya would become a leader but Imam Ali (عليه السلام) was a just leader as opposed to Muwawiya so Allah (عزّ وجلّ) did not allow them any other way to choose between their destruction and salvation and they choose Imam Ali (عليه السلام).  

Edited October 31 by Borntowitnesstruth

[Eddie Mecca]

1 hour ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Not necessarily because zaydism believes in a leader from among progeny of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) but Wilayat al faqih does not.

Justice is a key component and a highly emphasized quality in both religious systems...Zaydis limit leadership to pious, knowledgeable descendants of Ali and Fatima who are willing to pick up the sword...Similarly, Twelvers restrict religious authority to righteous scholars who might or might not be progeny of the Prophet (peace be upon him)...Ali Khamenei is a descendant of Muhammad...Ruhollah Khomeini was a descendant of Muhammad...both choose the path of resistance (i.e. rebellion against Western hegemony with the sword)

Edited October 31 by Eddie Mecca

[Borntowitnesstruth]

1 minute ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Justice is a key component and a highly emphasized quality in both religious systems...Zaydis limit leadership to pious, knowledgeable descendants of Ali and Fatima who are willing to pick up the sword...Similarly, Twelvers restrict religious authority to righteous scholars who might or might not be progeny of the Prophet (peace be upon him)...Ali Khamenei is a descendant of Muhammad...Ruhollah Khomeini was a descendant of Muhammad 

Second major difference is that wilayat al faqih is valid until it is in harmony with Quran and with the hadith of Masoomeen. But Zaydism has no such law. 

[Eddie Mecca]

4 minutes ago, Borntowitnesstruth said:

Second major difference is that wilayat al faqih is valid until it is in harmony with Quran and with the hadith of Masoomeen. But Zaydism has no such law. 

Expand and elaborate please 

[Borntowitnesstruth]

6 hours ago, Eddie Mecca said:

Expand and elaborate please 

There is nothing really to expand bro. Simply a faqih in the house of Ahlebait (عليه السلام) cannot go against teachings of Ahlebait and if he does, he is not a faqih anymore. Similarly, wilayat of a faqih is related to his role of being a faqih, he retains such position until he remains a faqih and not otherwise. If he is no more a faqih, the role of wilayat cannot be attached to him because it is related to the one who is in harmony with the teachings of Quran and Ahlebait (عليه السلام).

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 10/30/2024 at 6:25 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

As for Shia "solution" there is infallible Imam as Imam Mahdi (aj) so all conditions of following just infallible progeny  as members of Ahl al-Bayt has been always continued since demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) until now which deputies of Imam Mahdi (aj) as Marjas & Wilaya faqih fullfil all conditions of Zaydis & Mu'tazila which Mu'tazila solution is just a pardoxical solution by Sunnis who rejected infallible leader but on the other hand have tried to  find  a just muslim leader in similar fashion of Shia infallible Imam which Mu'tazila solution has been failed since initiating until perishing which reviving it doesn't change anything because still it has no proper solution while after OCT 7 many Sunnis have initiated leaning toward Shia solution because it has been proven it's only proper solution .  

The Maraji' are fallible people and claiming that they're deputies of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) doesn't make them infallible.

In fact some Maraji' use the religion for their own benefit similar how it happenened among the Ahl al-Kitab prior to us.

Let's please not be childish here and deny the undeniable.

As for your statement that the Mu'tazila solution is not a solution, then this is very ironic, because many 12ers basically understood that their own position has no connection to reality since more than 1000 years (!) and accepted having a just leadership - irregardless of lineage - being the better solution and not infallible leaders, that are not even among us! So you accepted what the Mu'tazila stated and now are telling me that their position is not the solution?! 

Let's please not deny the goodness of others just because they don't agree with you on everything. 

Just look at the world around us: Many non-Muslim states have accepted the Mu'tazila-solution and have a much more just system compared to most Muslim countries. If you have lived in both worlds, you will not be able to deny this.

 

 

Edited October 31 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

On 10/27/2024 at 11:40 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Regarding usurping the right of leading: This depends whether one understands the event of Ghadir as religious leadership or political leadership.

I forgot to mention another option here and that is whether the Nass regarding the Imama of the Prince of the Believers (peace be upon him) is jali (explicit) or khafi (implicit). 

The Imamiyya usually take the position that it's jali, which is why they tend towards Takfir and Tafsiq of most companions. 

Most Zaydiyya however would say it's khafi such that Takfir or Tafsiq is not necessitated. 

From the way Imam 'Ali (peace be upon him) acted, the Zaydi position makes more sense to me. In the first option there is no reason to stay silent, while in the second if does make sense. 

 

Edited October 31 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

14 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Also, the modern day Zaydis in Yemen, at least since the days of Hussain Badr al-Din Houthi, have been moving theologically closer to the Twelvers by somewhat reviving the old and extinct Jarudi manhaj, as opposed to the more prevalent B(EDITED)i line (sorry I have to censor this, it's a theological and historical term, but the ShiaChat admins have somehow decided that it is offensive and in the list of banned words). 

Which is why (rather surprisingly) some neo-Zaydi polemicists hate the Houthis and accuse them of corrupting their traditional B(EDITED)i aqeedah for political expediency (allying more closely with Iran and the Twelvers). 

Sorry, but this is typical Wahhabi propaganda against Zaydi Shi'a of Yemen in order to make Sunnis hate them and in order to justify their sectarian war against them. 

I would suggest to read what the Zaydiyya themselves think about this issue:

Al-Bayan al-Shafi li 'Ilaqat Zaydiyyat al-Yaman bil Jarudiyya

As you see their understanding of Jarudiyya may not be even the same as yours or that of Sunnis. 

 

And simple Tawaqquf would make the issue so much simpler instead of going overboard like Sunnis (by overly praising all companions) or Imamiyya (by acting as if most companions were apostates and hypocrites). Allah ta'ala is the Best of Judges and the Most Just. 

 

 

[StrangerInThisWorld]

Another issue which makes more sense: The Zaydiyya believe that those who commit major sins and crimes and die without Tawba will not attain salvation. This is also what the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) believed and it's explicitly supported by the Quran. 

As for the position, which most people today - whether Sunni or Shi'a -  are upon, then it's basically the position of Bani Umayya. Then we're surprised regarding our state. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 10/31/2024 at 10:50 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

The Maraji' are fallible people and claiming that they're deputies of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) doesn't make them infallible.

In fact some Maraji' use the religion for their own benefit similar how it happenened among the Ahl al-Kitab prior to us.

Let's please not be childish here and deny the undeniable.

Salam lol all of us have agreement that The Maraji' are fallible people which all shia muslims don't consider them infallible in opposition to your childish nonsense. 

name one marja who has used religion for his own benefit which surly you can't do it which your childish accusation against them just can be found in Wahabi propaganda against them.

On 10/31/2024 at 10:50 PM, StrangerInThisWorld said:

Just look at the world around us: Many non-Muslim states have accepted the Mu'tazila-solution and have a much more just system compared to most Muslim countries. If you have lived in both worlds, you will not be able to deny this.

Non muslisms are judging based on corrupt leadership in Sunni countries also majority of them have biased mindset or insufficient knowledge about Shia Islam in similar fashion which you have biased mindset against twelvers due to your lack of knowledge & affecting by Wahabi propaganda against Twelvers; also non muslims can't dictate us how we rule our countries which all corruption in current Sunni leadership is due blind following of non Muslim states which for example KSA & UAE just following orders of non Muslim states which corrupt leadership of UAE is the best example of applying so called Mu'tazila doctrine of non muslims in a so called muslim country which UAE is best ally of Zionist Israel against Palestinians which shows that your favorit solution is most just unjust system in favour of enemies of Islam likewise Zionist Israel which is reviving manner of Shaykhayn by fake mask of reason & peace of so called Mu'tazila which their reasoning & intellect advises them to normalize with zionist Israel because it's ally their master America . 

Edited November 2 by Ashvazdanghe

[Sabrejet]

@StrangerInThisWorld. What is your opinion on someone, who says he had doubts about the Prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Is he an angel, or is he evil?

[StrangerInThisWorld]

6 hours ago, Sabrejet said:

@StrangerInThisWorld. What is your opinion on someone, who says he had doubts about the Prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). Is he an angel, or is he evil?

And is the above narration established and did the person in question die in a state of doubt? Or is anything you can get your hands on to justify Takfir acceptable? 

There is a quite lengthy narration in Sahih al-Bukhari, but look at one of the narrators! Al-Zuhri! The same guy, who "narrated" that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu 'alayhi wa alihi wa sallam) tried to commit suicide. 

 

I find this behavior really strange. Acting as if you have been given the keys to paradise and as if you know with certainity who exactly will enter it and who not. If the person, you hate so much, died upon disbelief, then Allah ta'ala will surely know this and if not, then Allah ta'ala also knows this. Leave the judgement to the Creator jalla jalaluhu. 

 

At the same time: There are things, which pertain to us and our salvation and the state of this Umma!

Allah ta'ala says:

53:32
ٱلَّذِينَ يَجْتَنِبُونَ كَبَـٰٓئِرَ ٱلْإِثْمِ وَٱلْفَوَٰحِشَ إِلَّا ٱللَّمَمَ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ وَٰسِعُ ٱلْمَغْفِرَةِ ۚ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِكُمْ إِذْ أَنشَأَكُم مِّنَ ٱلْأَرْضِ وَإِذْ أَنتُمْ أَجِنَّةٌۭ فِى بُطُونِ أُمَّهَـٰتِكُمْ ۖ فَلَا تُزَكُّوٓا۟ أَنفُسَكُمْ ۖ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَنِ ٱتَّقَىٰٓ ٣٢

Those who avoid the major sins and immoralities, only [committing] slight ones. Indeed, your Lord is vast in forgiveness. He was most knowing of you when He produced you from the earth and when you were fetuses in the wombs of your mothers. So do not claim yourselves to be pure; He is most knowing of who fears Him.

___

 

What do most Sunni and most Imami Mashayikh however say? "No even those who commit major sins will ultimately enter paradise as long as they were from our group!". They got this position from Bani Umayya, because according to Banu Umayya it was enough to claim belief in Islam and do some worship, but at the same time commit all kinds of major crimes and sins.

Do not underestimate the destructiveness of this position of theirs. Our state is connected to this very position! 

Edited November 2 by StrangerInThisWorld

[StrangerInThisWorld]

17 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam lol all of us have agreement that The Maraji' are fallible people which all shia muslims don't consider them infallible in opposition to your childish nonsense. 

name one marja who has used religion for his own benefit which surly you can't do it which your childish accusation against them just can be found in Wahabi propaganda against them.

Non muslisms are judging based on corrupt leadership in Sunni countries also majority of them have biased mindset or insufficient knowledge about Shia Islam in similar fashion which you have biased mindset against twelvers due to your lack of knowledge & affecting by Wahabi propaganda against Twelvers; also non muslims can't dictate us how we rule our countries which all corruption in current Sunni leadership is due blind following of non Muslim states which for example KSA & UAE just following orders of non Muslim states which corrupt leadership of UAE is the best example of applying so called Mu'tazila doctrine of non muslims in a so called muslim country which UAE is best ally of Zionist Israel against Palestinians which shows that your favorit solution is most just unjust system in favour of enemies of Islam likewise Zionist Israel which is reviving manner of Shaykhayn by fake mask of reason & peace of so called Mu'tazila which their reasoning & intellect advises them to normalize with zionist Israel because it's ally their master America . 

Wa 'alaykum al-Salam, 

if you admit that Maraji' are fallible people, then this necessitates that there are good and bad people among them. 

This mindset that one's own group is beyond mistakes and the only people with whom Allah ta'ala is pleased, was also present in the Ahl al-Kitab before us. 

Look how Allah ta'ala criticized them for this type of claims:

5:18
وَقَالَتِ ٱلْيَهُودُ وَٱلنَّصَـٰرَىٰ نَحْنُ أَبْنَـٰٓؤُا۟ ٱللَّهِ وَأَحِبَّـٰٓؤُهُۥ ۚ قُلْ فَلِمَ يُعَذِّبُكُم بِذُنُوبِكُم ۖ بَلْ أَنتُم بَشَرٌۭ مِّمَّنْ خَلَقَ ۚ يَغْفِرُ لِمَن يَشَآءُ وَيُعَذِّبُ مَن يَشَآءُ ۚ وَلِلَّهِ مُلْكُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتِ وَٱلْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا ۖ وَإِلَيْهِ ٱلْمَصِيرُ ١٨

But the Jews and the Christians say, "We are the children of Allāh and His beloved." Say, "Then why does He punish you for your sins?" Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allāh belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the [final] destination.

___

 

Then: Your claim against the Mu'tazila is pure injustice and the UAE have literally no connection to them. The Sunnis were quite successful in the termination of the existence of the Mu'tazila, which makes it easy for you to attack them, because they can't defend themselves now. 

We find the following in the Book of Allah ta'ala:

11:85
وَيَـٰقَوْمِ أَوْفُوا۟ ٱلْمِكْيَالَ وَٱلْمِيزَانَ بِٱلْقِسْطِ ۖ وَلَا تَبْخَسُوا۟ ٱلنَّاسَ أَشْيَآءَهُمْ وَلَا تَعْثَوْا۟ فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ مُفْسِدِينَ ٨٥

And O my people, give full measure and weight in justice and do not deprive the people of their due and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption.

___

Note that giving people their due right is general and applies to other situations also. 

If the Mu'tazila had some good ideas, then you will lose nothing by giving them credit for this, even if you don't agree with all their views. 

In fact even if we see non-Muslims being good in some issue, we shouldn't see any problem in giving them credit for this, even if we do not consider their way of life to be correct. 

Denying the goodness of others is not just and is not giving people their due right. 

Edited November 2 by StrangerInThisWorld