Shiachat Members Already Respond To My Blog

I have just recently started this blog a few days ago, and it already seems it is gaining notice within the Shiachat community. The title of the topic at Shiachat: "Another Sunni Claims They Love Ahlulbayt (as) More."

The 12rs like to monopolize the term "Ahlulbayt" for themselves. They encourage us to love the Ahl Al Bayt  (as), but the reality is, there is a condition. We have to become 12r Shias and separate the love of some of the closest companions of the Prophet (pbuh), Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), and Uthman (ra). If you do not convert into 12r Shiaism, they become irritated and claim you follow the enemies of the Ahl Al Bayt (as) and will brand you with the term "nasibi."If we take a look at a fatwa by Grand Ayatollah Al Khoei, he goes on to say that all non-12rs (even including other shia sects) are Muslims in the Dunya and kaffirs in the Akhira:

"We had already spoke about The Najasah(uncleanliness) of all the teams who differ with the Twelver Shias and their Tahara. And in brief that denying the Wilayah for ''all'' the Imams PBUT or ''some of them'''' is like denying the message and it brings Kufr and Najasah? Or that Denying The Wilayah necessarily means leaving Iman (Belief) with the Hukm of his Islam and Tahara. What is popular amongst the scholars Is the Tahara of those who differ with us Although the author of the book "Al Hada'eq" May Allah sanctify his secret has attributed to the modern scholars like al Sayyed al murtada that it was popular amongst them That those who differ are Kouffar and Najis even the ''other'' Shia teams(1). What we can use to prove the Najasah of those who differ with us is divided into three parts, Firstly what we Read in Countless and plenty of Narrations that those who differ with the Imams are Kouffar."

"And thus Other Shia teams like Zaidiyah, Kisaniyah, Ismaliyah and others their ruling is the same as that of those who differ with us because there is no difference between denying Wilayah of the Imams altogether and between accepting it for ''some ''Imams and denying it for other Imams, and it was mentioned that he who denies'' one'' denies'' all'', and I know that Denying this Wilayah does not mean Kufr or Najasah nor does denying Wilayah for some of the Imams, What is correct is The Tahara of all those who differ with the Twelver Shia and their Islam Based on what is ''Apparent'' Although ÍN REALITY They are All Kouffar and we have called them Muslims in The Dunyah and Kaffirs on The Day of judgement."

-Source: kitab al tahara, Khoei, 2/87.
sheikh Muhammad Hassan Jawahiri in his book "Jawahir al-kalam" 6/67 quoted hadith:

ان الزيدية والواقفة والنصاب بمنزلة واحدة
"Zaydiya, Waqifiyah and Nawaseeb are at the same level".


This is hardly a surprising reaction. This makes me think of a verse in the Holy Quran:

"And never will the Jews or the Christians approve of you until you follow their religion. Say, "Indeed, the guidance of Allah is the [only] guidance." If you were to follow their desires after what has come to you of knowledge, you would have against Allah no protector or helper." (2:120)

As Muslims, we believe in the Prophets Isa (as) and Musa (as) and love them as one of the major Prophets (as) of Allah (swt). Just because we claim that Isa (as) isn't the Son of God, does this take our love away from him (as)? Absolutely not. So how come the Shia's claim that we are enemies of  the Ahl Al Bayt (as) just because we don't follow 12r Shiaism or because we love the companions? 

MashAllah, Sheikh Ninowy (May Allah Preserve Him) has said it beautifully in his speech (5:40 in the video):

"We Ahl Al Sunnah Wal Jammah do not see any difference between loving the Sahaba (ra) and loving the Ahl Al Bayt (as). For a Sahaba (ra) and Ahl Al Bayt (as) love each other so dearly."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Cl4TRQJ6r0M


Update:

After doing more research on some of the claims that they made regarding letter 6 in Nahjul Balagha where  Imam Ali (as) says to Muawiyah that the 3 calipahs were legit rulers, and their supporters gave him bayah.

Al Khoei a major 12er dismisses this sermon by saying
نصر: عمر بن سعد، عن نمير بن وعلة، عن عامر الشعبي

Two of narrators in chain are Mahjool (Unknown)

1st narrator in the chain is Amr as-Sha'abi and he is liar and enemy of Imam Ali
http://www.al-khoei.us/books/index.php?id=7469

Now if Al Khoei says that this sermon contains the enemy of Imam Ali (as) then what about sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah which they supposedly claim dismisses the 3 calipahs. In fact it was Shaykh Saduq who presented this chain for ash-Shiqshiqiyyah

Muhammad ibn `Ali Majilawayh related this sermon to us and he took it from his uncle Muhammad ibn Abi'l-Qasim and he from Ahmad ibn Abi `Abdillah (Muhammad ibn Khalid) al-Barqi and he from his father and he from (Muhammad) Ibn Abi `Umayr and he from Aban ibn `Uthman and he from Aban ibn Taghlib and he from `Ikrimah and he from Ibn `Abbas. (`Ilal ash-shara'i`, vol.1, chap.122, p.l46; Ma`ani al-akhbar, chap.22, p.361)

Now the narrator Ikramah is also an enemy of Imam Ali (as). He too was a Nasibi so why the double standards ?

In sermon 92 Imam Ali (as) recommends the Muslims to appoint another Calipah and he in fact say to I will obey him.

This sermon disturbs the 12er/Dozeners because they believe a Calipah can only be among the 12 and the term obey is only used for the 12. They further go and dismiss the sermon by saying..

This sermon is taken from Sunni sources and it is weak - History of Tabari 3/456 (Does not exist in Shia sources)

Sayf bin Umar is in the chain!

كتب إلي السري عن شعيب عن سيف عن محمد وطلحة قالا

Now the 12er say this is weak because of Saif bin Umar. On the contrary, when they claim that Umar (ra) made threats to burn down the house of Bibi Fatima (sa) they have no issues with the narrator in the chain who is Sayf bin Umar. How ironic!