Assalam Aleikum.

I must state that you are engaging in really nasty polemics that exclude any real point or conclusion. You are simply pasting quotes from various sources in a manner called "dumping". "Dumping" is pretty nasty as it forces everyone to either accept your quotes and sources as legit, or go throught them all. Dumping polemical assertions pasted from websites is not in the spirit of this forum. As a Sunni, I have my issues with much of the foundation that the SHi'ites have based their beleifs on, but I also find hurling and trading polemics with them to be a waste of time and to a certain point, distasteful. I am asking you to make a voluntary choice to refrain from your current intention of pasting nasty polemics. Keep in mind that the mainstream Shias face Mecca and pray. I am aware of the differences, but after 1200 years you will accomplish nothing in the discord and I see no benefit in your current behavior.

Assalam Aleikum 

So was Abu Hanifa who did support Ah ul bayt, and rejected the Ummayds for their horrid treatment of the Ah ul bayt, and even gave his loyalty to an Abbasid Caliph until he also started abusing members of Ah ul bayt.

What is sad is that the differences between shia and sunni was not actually "cannonized" in the early days, and now we have a split that has become a stain on our history. 

The problem with the act of dumping is such that the problem is independent of where the souces are from, or the claim of where they are from. The act of dumping is a dishonest rhetorical trick, because one is faced with two choices:

1) Take the time to check all of the claims. 

2) Do not take the time to check the claims, then we are faced with trusting the author or not.

This form of rhetoric is "low tech", and it is also used by Chrsitian evangelcials who wish to show many derranged claims such as how the Jews really beleived in the trinitiy, or how the Jews used to be like Christians and they too give tons of quotes from the talmud, and rabbincal writings, and it is up to everyone to check all of their sources, which is not really feasable given the volume of claims

It is "low tech" because it does not seek to find any truth, or put forth an argument or conclusion based upon any principles of rhetoric and logic. "Dumping" is really just a list of assertions which for all practical purpose, violates the widely known "princple of charity" in terms of examing pasages, texts, and interpreting writings. "Low tech" forms of rhetoric such as dumping seek to take the most outrageous, exaggerated interpretation of a text or passage. That is the erroneous nature of such chicanery. 

As an example, if I wish to debate the Shia, there are various grounds to choose that have real merit. Any group putting forth "lists" of claims is simply suspect of not being genuous about debate.

I would not expect anyone from the Shia community to take your work serious. I would not. It is simply "bad form". Your work does not provide an argument of any form, it simply makes assertions. I have had numerous lists like that one passed to me from Christians and from Shias who make outrageous claims from "my own texts". One cannot replace low tech rhetoric for real debate.

No good comes from them. And when you pass them along, it makes us look no better than many of the evangelcials or even the more aggressive Shia.

I believe your intention is not good.

Your powers of deduction are puzzeling. What I represent has not been clarified, and a fatwah for common sense is not required. I also suspect this to be a simple deflection from the point of my post which was both polite and concise. This really has no relevance to the bad form of using this forum to "dump" bad polemics that have absolutely no benefit, or intentional benefit.  

  Yes, that seems to be right. The Shias and Sunnis have the same Quran every where. There are some bad claims by some Shias about the Quran but it is better to overlook those things and not spread the bad news. Andalus is right. fateh should not embark on a heavy serious mission on the forum.

But the post of the last friend here, above, even though he/she has twisted the beliefs around to make them palliable (palatable, consumable) by covering them in nice words such as zahiri Khalifah and real Khalifah, that is an effort by the Shia friend. But that is not enough. It is just an effort to falsely calm down the things. Hazrat Abubakr and Hazrat Umar were the real Khalifah and Imam of the Ummah in all respects. Allah made them the Khalifah. Hazrat Ali was the fourth Imam.

Now it is necessary to correct the last part of the Shia friend about Ghadeer and the hadith that is quoted, in all earnest and with loving message, I will say that there was no discussion about Wilayat (or Khilafat) at Ghadeer. I have the proof. The translation that is done by the Shia Ulema about "Man kuntu Maulahu, Fa Aliyyu Maulahu" is wrong. The word Maula does not mean Leadership or Khilafat. There was nothing decided at Ghadeer about future leadership. The Shias are totally mistaken about it and they are making a great controversy about it using the Ghadeer. That is the cause of the major rift in the Ummah.

The word Maula has many meanings, such as a released slave or a friend etc. The shia friend has not quoted the whole Hadith. The prophet came to know that some Sahabah were not happy with Hazrat Ali. So the prophet advised them that whosoever friend I am then Ali is also a friend of that person. The proof that meaning is the friend here is as follows:

"Man kuntu maula hu fa Aliyyu Maula hu. Allah humma walle man Walaa hu wa Aade man Aadaa hu". That is the complete Hadith. It means "Who ever's friend I am then Ali is also the friend of that person. O Allah, please you also be the friend of that one who is the friend of him ( of Ali) and you also be the enemy of the one who is the enemy of him (.i,e, Ali).

Please read the whole Hadith and then decide what is the meaning of the word "Maula" in it. It cannot be any ruler or Hakim. It can only be the meaning "Friend'" as in the last the word enemy is also there.

I hope my friends will agree that there is nothing about a successor in that hadith. Thanks.