Sunni view of this Shia argument?

[discipleofJesus]

I have a few questions I would like to ask Sunnis. If you are Sunni and think you have a good answers to my questions, please answer them.
I will quote from a Shia book what seems to be a common Shia argument against Sunnis. After my quote, I will ask a few questions.

I will prove to the reader that the problem of hadiths is among the most difficult of problems the Muslims live with today especially at the present time; because the “Wahhabi Universities” graduate doctors who specialise in the field of hadiths. You find them memorizing the hadiths that concord with their schools and beliefs. Most of these hadiths are [the product] of the fabrications by the Umayyads, their predecessors, whose aims were also to extinguish the light of the message [of Islam] and to portray the Prophet (S.A.W.) as a feeble-minded clown not knowing what he says, not aware of his contradictory traditions, and deeds which [even] a madman would laugh at.

Despite the efforts of researchers and ahl al-sunna scholars to cleanse and sift the traditions, there are still, most unfortunately, in the authentic and reliable books, many [strange] things. Similarly, the Shi’a books are not safe from interpolations and fabrications.

However, they admit that they do not have an authentic book except the book of Allah. Apart from it, they (the books) contain lean and fat. As for the ahl al-sunna, they agree that the Sahihs of al-Bukhari and Muslim are the most correct books after the book of Allah; in fact, they say that everything in them is correct. Due to that, I will attempt to place in front of the reader some examples of hadiths reported in al-Bukhari and Muslim which contain what they contain, i.e., denigration of the sanctity of the great Prophet (S.A.W.), or the members of his household (A.S.).
I will attempt here to repudiate some of the hadiths which were fabricated to justify the actions of the Umayyad and 'Abbasid rulers. They wanted, in reality, to destroy the infallibility of the Prophet (P), so as to justify their crimes and their slaughter of innocent people.

The above quote is from ‘Ask Those Who Know’
by Sayed Mohamed Tijani Smaoui , CHAPTER 7, al-islam.org/ask/7.html [bold emphasis mine]

I would really like to read a good response (if possible with historical evidence) by a Sunni to the above quote (especially what is in bold). Shias often say what the above quote says (especially in bold) or something similar to it. I am not trying to ask this to upset any Sunnis here, I am just looking for a good response by a Sunni.

Can a Sunni respond (if possible with historical evidence) to the above quote (especially what is in bold)?
[Do so by quoting other books or articles if you want to.]

Do you know who are the specific Umayyad and ‘Abbasid rulers it is referring to?

Who is meant by “fabrications by the Umayyads, their predecessors”?

 

[Shenango]

Greetings Disciple,

There is nothing really to answer for, because all what you quoted amounts to is sweeping generalizations and accusations for which no proof is presented. As someone who has objectively analyzed Shi’a criticism here and there, I can say that what else I have seen pretty much amounts to this: wishful thinking and outrageously slanderous charges without providing any proof. It’s as if merely saying something makes it true.

The Umayyads and Abbasids oppressed the Shi’a greatly, and massacred multitudes of their numbers. So I can’t imagine Shi’a would have anything positive to say about them, and I can see why they would resort to irrationality (making claims without evidence).

You have to understand the Shi’a psyche to understand what I’m getting at. They have historically viewed themselves as an oppressed minority fighting for survival against a cold majority out to exterminate them. Groups that have this psychology often form what’s called a “persecution complex”, where rational consideration flies out the window, replaced by fear and irrationality that everything the majority does and says is somehow a conspiracy against them. It is this collective paranoia that most of their absurd claims come from.

We have no evidence at all that any Umayyad or 'Abbasid caliphs changed any Hadiths. And even were one to humor such claims, most Umayyad and 'Abbasid rulers didn’t live up to the standards of conduct in almost any Hadith, those claimed to be fabricated or not. So the point is moot.

 

[manualman]

Shenango:

Greetings Disciple,

You have to understand the Shi’a psyche to understand what I’m getting at. They have historically viewed themselves as an oppressed minority fighting for survival against a cold majority out to exterminate them. Groups that have this psychology often form what’s called a “persecution complex”, where rational consideration flies out the window, replaced by fear and irrationality that everything the majority does and says is somehow a conspiracy against them.

Wow, sounds like Islam has its own version of the catholic/orthodox schism. Is that a fair comparison?

 

[Shenango]

manualman:

Wow, sounds like Islam has its own version of the catholic/orthodox schism. Is that a fair comparison?

It’s an interesting question to ponder. Certainly similarities could be found, but I don’t know that an analogy would translate over perfectly.

 

[George_Waters]

Shenango:

It’s an interesting question to ponder. Certainly similarities could be found, but I don’t know that an analogy would translate over perfectly.

Shenango,

I have repeatedly read on this forum that there is only one true Islam and while Shia claim to be Muslim they are not true Muslims (i.e. Sunni) due to their heretical beliefs. Regardless of the perfection of details in the analogy between Catholic and Orthodox would this not be a schism of some sort as Shia do consider themselves true Muslims?

Peace and Happy New Year,

George

 

[Shenango]

George Waters:

I have repeatedly read on this forum that there is only one true Islam and while Shia claim to be Muslim they are not true Muslims (i.e. Sunni) due to their heretical beliefs. Regardless of the perfection of details in the analogy between Catholic and Orthodox would this not be a schism of some sort as Shia do consider themselves true Muslims?

Greetings George,

I guess I don’t see the problem with acknowledging schisms or sectarianism within a religion while at the same time belonging to one of those schisms and identifying it as the ‘true’ religion, as you do.

Are you asking me how I can consider Shi’as Muslims, though they hold unorthodox beliefs? Or what?

 

[George_Waters]

Shenango:

Greetings George,

I guess I don’t see the problem with acknowledging schisms or sectarianism within a religion while at the same time belonging to one of those schisms and identifying it as the ‘true’ religion, as you do.

Are you asking me how I can consider Shi’as Muslims, though they hold unorthodox beliefs? Or what?

Shenango,

I have read on this forum Shias being denounced by Sunnis as “not true Muslims” due to their “heretical” beliefs. Is this inaccurate? You can’t believe everything you read on the Internet right?

Are you saying that the addition of Ali to the Shia shahadah is irrelevant and that Sunnis and Shia are both Muslims regardless of this fundamental difference? Shia and Sunni being more akin to the various rites in Roman Catholicism and far less to the Catholic/Protestant split?

Thanks.

Peace and Happy New Year!

George

 

[Anima_Christi]

Shenango:

You have to understand the Shi’a psyche to understand what I’m getting at. They have historically viewed themselves as an oppressed minority fighting for survival against a cold majority out to exterminate them. Groups that have this psychology often form what’s called a “persecution complex”, where rational consideration flies out the window, replaced by fear and irrationality that everything the majority does and says is somehow a conspiracy against them. It is this collective paranoia that most of their absurd claims come from.

Much like the Arab/Muslim world in general.

 

[George_Waters]

Shenango:

You have to understand the Shi’a psyche to understand what I’m getting at. They have historically viewed themselves as an oppressed minority fighting for survival against a cold majority out to exterminate them. Groups that have this psychology often form what’s called a “persecution complex”, where rational consideration flies out the window, replaced by fear and irrationality that everything the majority does and says is somehow a conspiracy against them. It is this collective paranoia that most of their absurd claims come from.

Based on what is reported from Iraq it seems Iraqi Sunni have a “perecution complex” in regards to the Shia majority.

Peace and Happy New Year,

George

 

[discipleofJesus]

I found the following and thought i’d link to them here in case anyone was interested

Shia websites

al-islam.org/

al-islam.org/organizations/aalimnetwork/

al-islam.org/encyclopedia/

answering-ansar.org/

Sunni websites critical of Shias

ansar.org/

allaahuakbar.net/shiites/index.htm

 

[Shenango]

George Waters:

I have read on this forum Shias being denounced by Sunnis as “not true Muslims” due to their “heretical” beliefs. Is this inaccurate?

Nope, it’s not inaccurate, but apparently you’ve misunderstood what we meant. When a Sunni says Shi’a are “not true Muslims” and have “heretical” beliefs, most do not mean that this puts Shi’as outside of the fold of Islam (there is a Sunni minority which holds otherwise though). Someone can be “not a true Muslim” but yet still be considered Muslim.

Are you saying that the addition of Ali to the Shia shahadah is irrelevant and that Sunnis and Shia are both Muslims regardless of this fundamental difference?

It’s interesting that you ask that. The shahadah thing used to be a big hangup for me, and it was on account of an absolutist view of it that I used to consider Shi’a non-Muslims in the past. But I’ve since learned from more scholarly sources not to consider the exact statement holy, and that it’s really the meaning behind it that counts.

I’ve grown to see that the Shi’a don’t have a different shahadah–a different one would say something entirely different. Their shahadah actually has the Sunni shahadah in it, but merely adds innovations on to it. And excesses and innovations don’t take one out of Islam (even though they’re wrong and should be reversed) as long as one holds to the core truths, all of which the Shi’a affirm.

Shia and Sunni being more akin to the various rites in Roman Catholicism and far less to the Catholic/Protestant split?

Though no analogy will ever be perfect, I think a Shi’a/Catholic and Sunni/Protestant analogy comes much closer than “various rites in Roman Catholicisim”. Sunni Islam is nothing like Roman Catholicism in ideology or philosophy, so a comparison between these will never be accurate, on any level.

The difference between Islam and Christianity though, with regards to such analogy, is that while Protestants broke off from the Catholic Church, in Islamic history, it was the Shi’a (which means “partisans”) who broke off from the main body of Muslims, who were Sunni to form their own sect based on their hero worship of 'Ali.

Not only did things happen in reverse in Islam, but the split was immediate, and not based on accusations of corruption. The Shi’a were not trying to restore Islam’s theology by splitting off. They just had a difference of opinion about what the correct political theology was when it came to 'Ali.

In this sense, the Shi’a split from Sunnis could be compared to Henry VIII’s split from the Pope to form the Anglican church. It was mainly political, with few to no changes made to the theological doctrines (which is why Anglicanism is the most similar Protestant sect to Catholicism).

And while Protestants broke off from the Catholic Church after centuries of alleged theological corruptions, the Shi’a broke off from Sunnis for mainly political reasons, which only centuries later morphed into actual theological corruptions Sunnis criticize Shi’a for today.

Another oddity is the fact that in Christianity, it was the Protestants, who share a very similar ideology/philosophy about theology with Sunni Muslims, who fractured into dozens of sects, while in Islam it was the opposite…the Shi’a fractured into disputing sects, while Sunni Islam remained united.

So as you can see, a Protestant/Catholic analogy paints a good picture, as long as you don’t take anything for granted, and understand that a feature is switched over in translating the analogy here or there.

 

[discipleofJesus]

Shenango:

But I’ve since learned from more scholarly sources not to consider the exact statement holy, and that it’s really the meaning behind it that counts.

What did you mean by this? Specifically, “not to consider the exact statement holy”?

 

[Shenango]

discipleofJesus:

What did you mean by this? Specifically, “not to consider the exact statement holy”?

I was talking about the shahadah, which states exactly:

“There is no god but God, and Muhammad is His messenger”.

The Shi’a shahadah starts this way too, but after “…His messenger”, continues with a statement about 'Ali, and some variations of it even about a current ayatollah and what not.

Basically, I used to see it like the Shi’a shahadah and its variations as totally nullifying the Sunni shahadah–that is to say their additions to it made the whole thing invalid. Whereas now I’ve learned to accept the valid part of it for what it is, and to acknowledge and condemn the additions to it as innovations.

There is a minority of Sunnis that still holds to my former absolutist, zero-sum, all-or-nothing views, but I believe the majority agrees with my current position (that is that Shi’as are Muslims, despite their additions to the profession of faith).