A beautiful Arabic proverb states:
الصراخ على قدر الألم
‘The greater the pain the louder the scream‘
This saying perfectly describes the reaction of the Rafidah Shia – especially their clerics and polemicists – whenever Sunnis write in defense and in praise of the Ahlul-Bayt (minus Rafidi Zandaqat/heresies).
Nothing puts the Rafidah in more panic and hysteria than learned Sunnis purifying the Ahlul-Bayt from the filth of Rafidism by educating the masses on the historical (Sunni) version of the Ahlul-Bayt, an Ahlul-Bayt minus Rafidite Ghuluw (exaggeration) and Zandaqat (heresies), an Ahlul-Bayt minus the cancer that is Tashayyu’ (Shi’ism).
Some (more sensitive) Shia polemicists have long realised that the Shia version of the Ahlul-Bayt won’t ever attract the Sunni masses. Yes, the Rafidah got their share of (fooled) converts here and there, but then, what is so special about that? Even the five-star Kafir Qadyanis can boast with millions of converts (‘Ex-Sunnis’) around the world. This proves absolutely nothing.
The truth is that the Shia version of the Ahlul-Bayt, especially the Twelver version, is anything but appealing to the Sunni masses. What is it that Sunnis are missing out on anyway?
- Textbook idolatry like praying to the Ahlul-Bayt Imams, calling on to them (under the false pretext of Tawassul/intercession) for all our needs (a heresy taken from other pagan and polytheistic religions like that of the Church)?
- Constantly wailing (like Jews) and mourning the Ahlul-Bayt/Imams for entire months?
- Pagan self-mortification rituals (also taken from the pagan Church) in the name of the Ahlul-Bayt/Imams?
- Shrine-licking, shrine-crawling, and other forms of excessive spastic grave veneration in the name of Ahlul-Bayt/Imams?
- Ritualised cursing in the name of the Ahlul-Bayt/Imams?
- Mass-Takfir on the Sahaba in the name of the Ahlul-Bayt/Imams?
- Church-like idolatrous depiction (iconography) of the Ahlul-Bayt/Imams (who are depicted like pale-skinned effeminate Persian demigods)?
Absolutely nobody is in need of such a hideous and fake and satanic Judeo-Persian version of the Ahlul-Bayt and sect. The Rafidah can keep such a version to themselves just like the Church can keep their fake version of Jesus (peace be upon him) for themselves.
In a nutshell, the Twelver Shia version of the Ahlul-Bayt is repulsive, the entire Twelver sect really is, and the worst thing that can happen to the Shia clergy is if the masses (including non-Muslims) are educated on the differences between the Sunni version of the Ahlul-Bayt and the Rafidi version of the Ahlul-Bayt i.e. when an alternative is presented. The Shia clergy know well that no sane individual – if given the option to compare – would ever opt for the vile and vicious and polytheistic Rafidi version of the Ahlul-Bayt. This is why they try their utmost to downplay Sunni efforts in praise of the Ahlul-Bayt.
The Rafidah (like Christians in relation to Jesus) in their delusion think they have a monopoly on the Ahlul-Bayt; nothing irritates them more and makes them hysterical than Sunnis claiming the Ahlul-Bayt and declaring them free and innocent of Rafidism.
This is exactly what happened just recently. Hysteria by the Rafidah and vicious attacks against a Sunni academic, a good friend of mine. His crime? A biography of Ali ibn al-Husayn (whom the Rafidah ascribe to themselves as their fourth infallible Imam) based on reliable Sunni reports and historical accounts.
Just hours after the release of the book the Rafidah started to become furious, almost rabid, and I am not just referring to (plenty) anonymous online trolls; I am referring to well-respected (in Shia circles) mainstream Shia clerics who couldn’t resist but to expose their deeply rooted hatred of Sunnis (under the pretext of anti-Wahhabism):
There you go! Compiling an entire book about the merits and virtues of one of the Imams of Bani Hashim earns you the title of ‘Wahhabi’ (who are impure Nawasib/enemies of Ahlul-Bayt who must be executed according to Shia Fiqh!).
But this is really expected, for until you’re attributing divinity to the Imams and calling out them, you’ll always be a Muqassir, Wahhabi, and Nasibi.
Never will the Rafidah be pleased with you until you are prostrating 500+ times to Fatimah in Sujud (tAwAsSuL). Anything less is being a Wahhabi.
The Gutless coward Moaning Mahdi Modarresi and his likes love to hide behind the term “Wahhabi” when expressing their hatred and grudge for all Sunni Muslims. Allah Himself refers to the wives of the Prophet (ﷺ) as mothers of the believers (which is an honorific title and not just a description about the prohibition of marrying the wives of the Prophet after his demise as the ignorant Rawafid claim). Where does He mention “Twelve infallible imams”?
If it is not Ghuluw (exaggeration) then they want nothing to do with it and it bores them. It reminds one of the many debates with Christians. They get so angered whenever Muslims praise Jesus and say that despise his lofty status he was not divine in any shape or form, he was the Messiah and Prophet of God. As if that’s belittling. Anything short of God himself is a smear to them. Same with the Rafidah, anything short of the Ghuluw (exaggeration) that they have attributed to the Ahlul-Bayt is a smear to them.
Another (quite effeminate) ignorant turban-head went on a tirade and damage control spewing ignorance upon ignorance:
I have personally refuted the mental gymnastics of this pagan Mushrik apologist of Shirk in the past (here>>) and a number of his Facebook posts filled with ignorance and misinformation, this time he has beaten his own record in spewing ignorance and half-baked knowledge. Let’s quickly debunk his lies:
1. Salafis are not being reactionary when giving lectures on the Ahlul-Bayt or when they write books about their merits.
This ignoramus thinks that it is a new phenomenon and due to Rafidi Da’wah. I myself spent the best time of my life in a 100% Sunni Arab country with zero Rafidism and zero Rafidi Da’wah, as a matter of fact, I haven’t seen a country where Rafidism is as much as despised as in Jordan (more than half of its population are Palestinians!), yet the love of Ahlul-Bayt was part in every corner of Jordan, Salafi and Ash’ari scholars all wrote books in praise and defense of the Ahlul-Bayt. and no, that wasn’t due to the fear of Iran and Rafidi propaganda, it was simply rooted in the Sunni tradition of writing in praise of the Ahlul-Bayt.
The books of all schools of thought in the Sunni (Athari/Ash’ari) world are filled with biographies of the Ahlul-Bayt, reports about their merits, even detailed accounts of their lives. Take for example the Ibn Kathir, the Umayyad scholar and student of Ibn Taymiyyah who just like his teacher had nothing but praise for sayyidunah al-Husayn ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with them. Ibn Kathir collected many reports about the tragedy of Karbala`.
In fact, the authentic reports on the tragedy of Karbala` (minus Rafidi exaggeration and Persian fairy-tales) can all be found in books that were compiled by Sunni scholars. The only difference is that this work has now also started in English i.e. it is not new, let alone reactionary, it is and has always been Sunni tradition to give lectures about the Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt and write in defense of them.
2. This ignoramus doesn’t know the difference between a lecture where a Maqtal is a read and a Rafidi Majlis (gathering of self-flagellation and excessive mourning). In his ignorance he believes that the famous Sunni Bahraini Shaykh, Hasan al-Husayni decided to commemorate Ashura! Commemorating the death of anybody who died over a thousand years ago is foolishness and nothing that Islam has ever described (and no pathetic analogies will justify such nonsense. The Prophet according to some narrations cried for his grandson when he was informed about his future martyrdom, he did not turn that calamity into an annual self-flagellation and mourning carnival as the Rafidah have done).
Shaykh al-Husayni gave a lecture on al-Husayn that includes the Maqtal of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him). A Maqtal is a written account containing historical monographs and narrations about the murder or martyrdom of a notable personality in history.
The Maqtal of Umar, Uthman, Ali, etc., and other great Muslim personalities are read in the entire Muslim (Sunni world), of course minus Shia hysteria and self-harming rituals and other excessive mourning practices.
I myself have listened to the Maqtal of Umar ibn al-Khattab (where people shed tears without indulging in any form of excessive mourning, let alone turning it into an annual ritual) and have watched many lectures about the lives of the Ahlul-Bayt. This is not a new phenomenon, it is Sunni tradition it’s just that the brainwashed Rafidites have been told that Sunnis either hate or don’t care about the Ahlul-Bayt, they can’t imagine that in Riyadh (Najd) scholars have been given lectures about the Ahlul-Bayt for over a century, a tradition that has never ceased to exist:
As for Ashura being a celebration to Sunnis: I’ve refuted this vicious lie more than once, as a matter of fact, this ignorant turban-head is repeating this lie of his that I refuted in the past here>>>.
I won’t bother to comment much on the remaining lines of ignorance of this Shia Qommite Shia priest with effeminate hand gestures, for how can it be expected that such an ignorant (who is considered learned in their ranks!) Rafidite understands the nuances of the concept of obeying the rulers (a concept that even exists in his own sect, heck, his Imams are declared as inferior to other Imams of the Ahlul-Bayt according to the Zaydi Shia because they i.e. the likes of al-Sadiq, al-Baqirs, etc. refused to rise and obeyed the rulers of their time just as Abdullah ibn Umar had done!).
3. As for the claim (lie) that when Sunnis do speak about the Ahlul-Bayt ‘the whole lecture will turn into trying to prove that the imams (as) praised their usurper caliphs’, I’d simply advise every truth-seeking and truth-loving person to judge for themselves by reading (and listening and watching) the works of the Sunnis in praise and defense of the Ahlul-Bayt. I have prepared a nice list:
Ali Ibn Al-Husayn: A Critical Biography by Abdullah Al-Rabbat
Get it here>>>
The Martyrdom of al-Husayn in Light of the Authentic Traditions by Farid al-Bahraini
Get it here>>>
Additionally, you can download a series of books in defense and praise of the Ahlul-Bayt, completely for free on my websites (left sidebar)
And here an excellent series of lectures by yet another ‘Wahhabi-Salafi’ Saudi scholars who has educated millions of Sunnis around the world on the lives of great Islamic personalities, including a series on the Ahlul-Bayt:
The Life of Ali bin Al-Hussein AL-SAJJAD – Shaykh Mohammad Musa Al-Shareef
The Life of Mohammad Al-BAQIR – Shaykh Mohammad Musa Al-Shareef
The Life of Ali bin Musa AL-RIDHA – Shaykh Mohammad Musa Al-Shareef
Ahlus-Sunnah claim the Ahlul-Bayt, they don’t reclaim them!
As a former Shiite I dislike the term ‘reclaim’ in relation to the Ahlul-Bayt as it carries some sort of negative connotation. To reclaim is to retake something lost. The Ahlus-Sunnah have never lost the Ahlul-Bayt nor have they failed in preserving their rights and teaching about their lofty virtues. The correct term that should be used is ‘claim’. Ahlus-Sunnah must claim the Ahlul-Bayt with their chest.
Even during my Shia days, I have never encountered Sunnis with Rafidi tendencies, except for the esoteric/Batini type of Sufis (whom the Rafidah clergy love to parade as ‘true and good Sunnis’, for obvious reasons). These semi-Rafidi Sufis (even most ‘Ex-Sunnis’ are of such background as I can testify from personal experience) often throw Nasibism accusations against their arch-enemy, the Atharis/Salafis. It is claimed that Salafis do not hate the Ahlul-Bayt explicitly but rather implicitly. Of course, hatred is equated to the rejection of Rafidi and Sufi Ghuluw (exaggeration) with the Ahlul-Bayt/Awliya`, that alone is enough to render one as a Nasibi/Gustakh, etc.
It is the same game really that the Rawafid play just under the cloak of Tawassuf (Sufism).
As explained earlier, Sunnis/Salafis are anything but reactionary when speaking in honour and praise of the Ahlul-Bayt. The mere fact that this is a 1000+ year Sunni tradition rebukes this baseless Rafidi slander and accusation. The Ahlus-Sunnah do not need to apologise nor justify anything to anybody as they have never neglected the Ahlul-Bayt in their books and lectures, rather they have given them their due right, with moderation and free of Rafidi nonsense and heresies and exaggeration (Ghuluw).
Not all of the Twelve Imams that the Rafidah attribute to themselves were scholars
(let alone infallible guides superior than Prophets!)
The romanticised and Persianised i.e. exaggerated version of the Ahlul-Bayt has no place in academia and authentic reports of the Muslims. The reason why some of them are barely mentioned (or not at all) is simply due to the fact that they were irrelevant in comparison to other scholars. They were respected Hashimites and we ask Allah to have mercy on them, but by no means are we obliged to believe in the fairy-tales that the Rafidah have attributed to them.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah divided the Imams that the Rafidah ascribe to themselves as infallible Imams into four categories:
1 – Ali ibn Abi Talib, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them). They are noble Sahabah and no one doubts their virtue and leadership, but many others shared with them the virtue of being companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) and among the Sahabah, there are others who were more virtuous than them, based on authentic evidence from the Prophet ().
2 – Ali ibn al-Husayn, Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir, Jafar ibn Muhammad al-Sadiq, and Musa ibn Jafar. They are among the trustworthy and reliable scholars. Manaaj al-Sunnah (2/243, 244).
3 – Ali ibn Musa al-Ridha, Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Musa al-Jawad, Ali ibn Muhammad ibn Ali al-Askari, and al-Hasan ibn Ali ibn Muhammad al-Askari.
Concerning them, Shaykh al-Islam (Ibn Taymiyah) said: “They did not show a great deal of knowledge such that the Ummah might benefit from them, nor did they have any authority by means of which they could help the Ummah. Rather they were like any other Hashimis, they occupy a respected position, and they have sufficient knowledge of that which is needed by them and expected of people like them; it is a type of knowledge that is widely available to ordinary Muslims. But the type of knowledge that is exclusive to the scholars was not present in their case. Therefore, seekers of knowledge did not receive from them what they received from the other three. Had they had that which was useful to seekers of knowledge, they would have sought it from them, as seekers of knowledge are well aware of where to go for knowledge. Minhaj al-Sunnah (6/387).
4 – Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Askari al-Muntazar (the awaited one i.e. mythical hidden Rafidi ‘Mahdi’). He did not exist at all, as stated above.
Of course, to a people who worship the Imams by praying to them and attributing all sorts of divinity to them the words above are nothing short of blasphemy, however, to the sober Muslim mind this is a fair and just analyses that literally reflects the lives and contributions of those individuals.
How the evil Shia clergy portrays Sunnism and Sunnis as the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt
As a starter, Nasb/Nasibism is not just hurled at those who literally and explicitly hate Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him). It’s not that simple. Rawafid know well that no Sunni hates Ali, thus they have concocted evil narrations and attributed them to the Ahlul-Bayt claiming to hate the ‘followers’ (Rawafid, heretics, fake followers to us Sunnis) of the Ahlul-Bayt is sufficient for one to be rendered as a Nasibi!
See the famous anti-Shia books like Minhaj al-Sunnah by Ibn Taymiyyah, as-Sawa’iqu ‘l-Muhriqa by Ibn Hajar al-Makki and Tuhfa Ithna-‘Ashariyya byShah ‘Abdul ‘Aziz Dehlawi, and you will realise that Sunni scholars have always emphasised that they are against Rafidi Shi’ism but not against the Ahlul-Bayt. How can they when loving and honouring the Ahlul-Bayt is an essential part of Islamic/Sunni faith (as stated by the likes of Ibn Taymiyyah).
The Rafidah have created their own benchmark of what and what not constitutes enmity towards the Ahlul-Bayt. They regard themselves as the only true followers of the Ahlul-Bayt, opposing them and their religion is enough to render one a Nasibi (which in return means that the only Sunnis who are spared from their accusations are subservient ones who do not speak out against Rafidism, let alone refuting it, everybody else is a Nasibi).
The only Sunnis who are spared from the Nasibi accusation are those who are ignorant of the Rafidi religion (known in Rafidi Fiqh as ‘Mustad’afin’) and have a neutral or ideally a positive stance towards them (like HT and other deviants) and their heretical sect.Of course, no Sunni with an iota of knowledge will have a positive stance towards Twelver Rafidism, he will reject and despise their beliefs, and Ayatullats just like he rejects and despises Nasibism, Kharijism, and other heresies.
So this is what makes any Sunni who opposes Shiism, a Nasibi, and not just literally hating Ali. Of course, ignorant Sunnis, and grave worshipping type of ‘Sunnis’ and other to-be victims of Rafidism are embraced as ‘brothers and true Sunnis’, they are the target after all.
As an Ex-Twelver Shiite I can tell you that Twelvers (Rafidah) are brainwashed from a young age with the notion that everybody other than them – including Zaydi Shia and all other Shia sects – are hellbound and enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt no matter how much they claim to love and even follow the Ahlul-Bayt.
Sunnis are often referred to in primary Shia sources as (العامة) which translates into ‘the generality’ and the Twelvers as (الخاصة) which translates into ‘the special ones’ (similar to how Jews view themselves i.e. the chosen people). Sunnis and their schools are also often referred to as ‘the school of the Sahabah/caliphs’ whereas Shiites are grouped as ‘the followers of the Ahlul-Bayt’, those upon ‘the school of Ahlul-Bayt’. The caliphs are of course those who murdered the Ahlul-Bayt.
These vicious descriptions hold no legitimacy whatsoever in the eyes of Sunnis, as a matter of fact, they carry the connotation that Sunnis and Sunnism somehow oppose the teachings of the Ahlul-Bayt. Thus, Sunnis are not just perceived as the others, they are also viewed as those who love the enemies and killers of the Ahlul-Bayt.
Unsurprisingly, one will find major Shia authorities throughout history declaring the generality of Sunnis (and not just ‘Wahhabis’) as Nawasib i.e. enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt who according to Shia jurisprudence are the worst type of disbelievers who can be killed whenever it suits the Shia.
One may argue that it is quite obvious that Sunnis love the Ahlul-Bayt, it is after all enshrined in their creed; there is not a single major book of Sunni creed that doesn’t profess this belief. This is correct, however, the Shia clergy have always found a way to put Sunnis and Sunnism in the camp of the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt simply based on false premises like:
Umar ibn al-Khattab (as per Shiism) killed Fatimah and her unborn child -> Sunnis love Umar -> Sunnis love the killer of lady Fatimah/Ahlul-Bayt
What is always missing in such foolish equations is that Sunnis do not believe that Umar ibn al-Khattab even touched a single hair of Fatimah, let alone having killed her and her unborn child. Sunnis have engaged in academic discussions and have debunked such accusations. All of that is irrelevant to the hateful Rafidi clergy, they are after all good for two things only: the spread of Shirk and Fitnah (whilst claiming unity).
I can still recall when I was a Shiite and met older relatives who literally believed that Sunnis hate the Ahlul-Bayt. When I asked them where they got this nonsense from they referred me (unsurprisingly) to the Shia clergy. That’s what they were told from a young age.
If you think about it it makes perfectly sense. Before the age of mass-media, such lies (Sunnis hate the Ahlul-Bayt) could easily be spread. It wasn’t like someone in Tehran could easily double-check the authenticity of such claims. They were simply accepted as golden truths. Shiites were made to believe to be the true followers of the Ahlul-Bayt, the others were subsequently the enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt, the Umayyad Sunnis who do not wail for weeks for dozen Imams and are thus not true lovers of the Ahlul-Bayt (according to that fallacious logic Sunnis are not lovers of the Sahabah like Umar and Uthman who were brutally martyred, yet Sunnis do not commemorate their martyrdom on an annual basis with extreme and bizarre mourning rituals).
It used to be like a walk in the park for the Shia clergy to keep the Shia masses in the dark and to believe that Sunnis hate the Ahlul-Bayt, especially in a country like Iran which does boast a significant Sunni minority population, however, most Iranian Sunnis reside in the border regions of the country i.e. far away from the centres of modern-day Iran i.e. its major cities and thus were was little to no interaction between the majority (Shia) population of Iran with the minority (Sunni).
Then came the age of mass media, TV, and Newspapers, etc. Relatives from that generation that I personally met were not as naive and ignorant as the older generation, they were aware that Sunnis loved the Ahlul-Bayt. Even the Khomeinist media could not hide this fact and more frequent interactions with Iranian Sunnis have removed any doubt about the fact that Sunnis love the Ahlul-Bayt, name their children after them and praise them in their prayers and religious speeches (Fridays, etc.) and lectures.
From this point on, the Shia clergy had no choice but to change their strategy. They could no longer sell to the people that Sunnis hate the Ahlul-Bayt, so they started to admit that Sunnis love the Ahlul-Bayt. Of course, they did not do so out of love and respect for Sunnis, but simply due to the fact that their lies would be exposed quickly in a world with mass media.
This is why today you will hardly find any Shia cleric stating that Sunnis hate the Ahlul-Bayt and are their enemies, instead, the Shia masses are fed with a more vicious and sophisticated slander where the love that Sunnis profess for the Ahlul-Bayt is downplayed and often disregarded as insufficient due to the Sunnis love for the ‘enemies’ of the Ahlul-Bayt. Enemies of the Ahlul-Bayt are of course the bulk of the Sahabah:
This deficient love of Ahlul-Bayt renders Sunnis as hypocrites (worse than disbelievers) and this is why Sunnis are not classified as believers but rather as mere Muslims with superficial (!) Islam by all Shia jurists who have ever walked the earth.
Sunnis are treated like hypocrites (i.e. Muslims in this world and disbelievers in the Hereafter) and will enter Hellfire (except very few, the so-called Mustadh’afin) as confessed by this ‘Ayatollah’ who is merely repeating what the giants of his sect have repeatedly stated in volumes of books and Fatwas:
In short: every honourable Sunni with self-respect and awareness of the evil of Rafidism is a Nasibi/enemy of the Ahlul-Bayt according to the Rawafid. Shia definition of a Wahabi/Yazidi/Nasibi: Any Muslim that exposes Shi’ism.