Sunni sect was created by Jews

[Pearl]

According to twelvers the sunnis are deviants who are following a sect created by  Jews. These Jews also were  good friends of the first three khalifas.

[Farid]

"Created?" I don't know if that is a claim made by any serious Shias.

They are referring to ex-Jews like Ibn Salam, Mohammad bin Ka'ab, and Ka'ab Al Ahbar.

The most notable and influencial was the last. However, Shias need to specify what influence did Ka'ab have upon Sunnis?

The answer is that they narrated from him events of the past pre-Islamic nations. Ka'ab Al-Ahbar was not a significant narrator of hadith. He does not have any hadiths in the Saheehain.

Anyhow, to say that he created Sunnism is pure falsehood.

[MuslimK]

"Sunni sect" How can they call the Ahl-Sunnah a sect while their own sect properly meets the definition of a sect.

Anyways, Sunins don't follow the Sabaite concept that Ali was appointed by Allah. Our religion is not based on the idea of a man like Ibn Saba that their sect is. 

[Hani]

Because their Shia sect is CLEARLY created by a Jew they have this habit of throwing their own mistakes towards others.

[Pearl]

"Created?" I don't know if that is a claim made by any serious Shias.

These Shias are serious and truly believe that Sunnis are following Jews. They said just look at Middle East and all the extremists, none of those extremists are Shias.

[Farid]

^ I don't see the link between extremism and Jews. The Nazis killed lots of people but that doesn't make them Jewish.

Here is a tip, when crimes against humanity and mass murder occurs from an officially recognized state, it is not referred to as terrorism by the rest lf the world, no matter how brutal it may be. Due to this, the actions of Bashar Al Assad against his people, Hezbollah, and Iran, are not referred to as terrorism, even though they have more blood on their hands than Palestinian blood on the hands of the Jews in all the years of the occupation.

So, yes, technically speaking, you will find more random acts of terrorism by those that ascribe themselves to Sunnism. However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.

[omar111]

In reality, Sunnis are not a sect. They are the continuation of Islam through the blessed companions of Prophet.
As for Jews, khalifs were never a friend of Jews.Hazrat umar expelled Jews from Arab and there is a whole chapter in malik muwatta and sahi Muslim about it
Book 45, Number 45.5.19:
Malik said, ''Umar ibn al-Khattab expelled the jews from Najran (a jewish settlement in the Yemen) and Fadak (a jewish settlement thirty miles from Madina). When the jews of Khaybar left, they did not take any fruit or land. The jews of Fadak took half the fruit and half the land, because the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had made a settlement with them for that. So Umar entrusted to them the value in gold, silver, camels, ropes and saddle bags of half the fruit and half the land, and handed the value over to them and expelled them."
Translation of Sahih Muslim, Book 19: The Book of Jihad and Expedition (Kitab Al-Jihad wa'l-Siyar) Chapter 20: EVACUATION OF THE JEWS FROM THE HIJAZ
Even if Jews succeeded in forming the Sunni sect, what have they achieved? Twelveres don’t call Sunni kafirs and even if Jews managed a few deviations, Islam is still alive in sunnis.So what is achieved by the Jews?
But Jews created a kafir sect, when they created shiaism.So it was worth the Jewish efforts.
A recent report in Al Hayat, one of the largest and most-respected pan-Arab dailies, charges that Iran is supporting more than 100 Shiite extremist organizations and militias in Syria and Iraq.

The newspaper, which is published in London and funded by Saudi Arabia, says the crimes of these groups are no less horrific than those of the Islamic State.

[Hadrami]

"Created?" I don't know if that is a claim made by any serious Shias.

These Shias are serious and truly believe that Sunnis are following Jews. They said just look at Middle East and all the extremists, none of those extremists are Shias.

True what Hani said, because shia sect is created by jews then they try to accuse others to divert the attention. Now the same thing happen with this issue. Shia say they are against suicide bombing, car bombs etc, but we know pro iran shia groups were the pioneer in the early 80s. They claim they are against it is just PR stunt. It's not a coincidence that we've never heard of suicide bombing, car bombs etc in the name of Islam before Iran revolution. Most of those are done by marxist/secular groups then by shias.

[رشدي السلفي]

Interesting, this is actually the first time I hear something about Shi'as accusing us of following the Jews. We all know how false their claim is... their sect itself was created by a Jew. Feels weird that they would accuse our deen ("sect") of being Jewish.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

There is a hadith which I believe is narrated by Shaykh Al-Saduq which claims the first two would sit down with the scholars of the Jews pre-Islam.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is true, because we know that the second Caliph was an expert in innovations in the religion, so it wouldn't surprise me if he has imported Jewish and Majoosi beliefs and/or practices and mixed them with Islam.

Finally, the Salafi concept of Tawhid resembles that of the Jews. So that is another clue.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.

Another outstanding claim and accusation against the Shi'a - to which there is no proof.

Sunnis kill each other more than Shi'as kill Sunnis, as a matter of fact.

[Link]

Sunnism wasn't created by Jews, it was created by the worse people on earth, the killers of the Prophets of old, the Illuminati.

It is still controlled today by them and will continue to be under the control of Satanic forces until the sect disappears due the truth of Shiism.

Mauwiya and Yazeed though many honest people think were after dunya were part of more sinister plot and part of a more ancient opposition towards God's chosen ones.

Read Suratal Tahreem.   The Jinn Worshippers - many of them - were under the guise of Islam and never left their Jinn worship.

In Suratal Tahreem keep in mind the Prophet had a supernatural scent such that people can smell a wonderous beautiful scent from him.  There was a plot to cause chaos.

The Prophet did what he did by the name of God and waited till God revealed the Surah exposing their plot.

Indeed the two wives were just two ponds in a bigger scheme but with the staunch warning of the Surah,  the hypocrites knew Rasool knew at the very least of their plots.

Aisha and Hafsa - Rasool was constantly trying to win them over, and the Surah showed that at a certain point, they were turning to repentance.....

Sunnism through and through is a manipulation of Illuminati in the past to the present, and their interpretation of Quran is that of the Jibt and their belief in "submission" is belief in the Taghut, for they follow the Taghut and do not follow God and his Mastership vested in his chosen ones.

They have been manipulated throughout history and still today are manipulated by Illuminati.

They been nurtured to trust their leadership like blind sheep,  because if they ever open their eyes, to either what the Quran teaches or the Sunnah, everything will be over.

The plot of Satan will fail and the Just Leader will be what the umma realizes it needs.

There is many verses of Quran talking about people trusting devils while they think they are guided. Many verses warning not to follow leaders and great men picked by humanity but rather stick to those who God has chosen and follow what he has brought down and revealed.

[omar111]

The basic difference is this that in Sunni, the Prophet is a success and in Shiaism, the prophet is a failure/
As Khomeini wrote
 'Every prophet came to establish justice on Earth. His aim was also to establish justice but he was not successful. The same is the position of the Seal of the Prophets who came to reform human society and establish justice but failed during his lifetime.' (Ittihad wa-yak-jihati:15)
 All the prophets till this day came to implement justice, but they didn’t succeed. Even the last Prophet (s) who had come to guide the humanity, he also couldn’t do it. The only one who will succeed  in implementing justice around the world, is Mahdi the awaited.”
Mukhtarat min ahadith wa khitabat al imam al khomeini, p. 42

 According to shiaism, the Prophet selected the worst people as companions and the worst women as his wives. So his mission will be completed by Imam e zanana.He will establish justice, hang the chufas and punish the most beloved wife. So why don’t Shia recite the kalma of imam instead of Prophet?


   Ziyarah narrated by Sayed Ibn Tawoos in his book Misbahu Zaa'er, and within this ziyarah we find many traits which have not come for any single Prophet or Imam in the past.
Salaam Alaykum, O the remainder of the previous Prophets and Successors
Salaam Alaykum to you, O the Imam, who is the hope of everyone and will destroy injustice and enmity.
Salaam Alaykum, O the Imam who will guide and uproot polytheism and hypocrisy.
And the one who will uproot all injustice and evils

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Twelver Shia adopted the Sunnah of Jews over Sunnah of Prophet Mohammad(SAWS).

https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/08/27/twelver-shia-adopted-the-sunnah-of-jews-over-sunnah-of-prophet-mohammadsaws/

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.

Another outstanding claim and accusation against the Shi'a - to which there is no proof.

Sunnis kill each other more than Shi'as kill Sunnis, as a matter of fact.

Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Khwansari in the biography of highly revered Shia Scholar Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi, said:
وإيقاع القتل العام من أتباع أولئك الطغام، إلى أن أسال من دمائهم الأقذار كأمثال الأنهار، فانهار بها في ماء دجلة، ومنها إلى نار جهنم
“He is the Examiner, the Philosopher, the Polymath, the Widely-versed, the Honorable … … And one of his famous known transmitted matters, is the story of [his] alliance in Iran with the respected Sultan Hulagu Khan son of Tolui son of Genghis Khan, one of the greatest Sultans of the Tatars and Mongols, and his arrival in the convoy of the supported Sultan with full preparation to Dar Al-Salam Baghdad, to guide the servants and spread harmony [in the land], and putting an end to the chain of transgression and mischief, and extinguishing the circle of injustice and confusion. By ending Rule of Bani Al-‘Abbas (i.e. the Abbasid caliphate), and inflicting the general massacre on the followers of those tyrants, up to the point where their filthy bloods flowed like rivers, collapsing into the Tigris river, and from it, it shall collapse into the fire of Hell, their Home of Misery, and the residence of the wretched and the evil”. (‘Rawdaat Al-Janaat’ 1/300-301.)

Comment: Pay careful attention to his choice of words when he said: “their filthy blood”. Is this how he views the blood of 1.5 million Muslims who were massacred in Baghdad?

More of such events mentioned in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/non-shias-in-the-view-of-taqiyyah-free-twelver-shiism/

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

However, there is MUCH more blood on the hands of Shiasm. There is simply no comparison.

Another outstanding claim and accusation against the Shi'a - to which there is no proof.

Sunnis kill each other more than Shi'as kill Sunnis, as a matter of fact.

Shia scholar Muhammad Baqir al-Khwansari in the biography of highly revered Shia Scholar Nasir Al-Din Al-Tusi, said:
وإيقاع القتل العام من أتباع أولئك الطغام، إلى أن أسال من دمائهم الأقذار كأمثال الأنهار، فانهار بها في ماء دجلة، ومنها إلى نار جهنم
“He is the Examiner, the Philosopher, the Polymath, the Widely-versed, the Honorable … … And one of his famous known transmitted matters, is the story of [his] alliance in Iran with the respected Sultan Hulagu Khan son of Tolui son of Genghis Khan, one of the greatest Sultans of the Tatars and Mongols, and his arrival in the convoy of the supported Sultan with full preparation to Dar Al-Salam Baghdad, to guide the servants and spread harmony [in the land], and putting an end to the chain of transgression and mischief, and extinguishing the circle of injustice and confusion. By ending Rule of Bani Al-‘Abbas (i.e. the Abbasid caliphate), and inflicting the general massacre on the followers of those tyrants, up to the point where their filthy bloods flowed like rivers, collapsing into the Tigris river, and from it, it shall collapse into the fire of Hell, their Home of Misery, and the residence of the wretched and the evil”. (‘Rawdaat Al-Janaat’ 1/300-301.)

Comment: Pay careful attention to his choice of words when he said: “their filthy blood”. Is this how he views the blood of 1.5 million Muslims who were massacred in Baghdad?

More of such events mentioned in this link:
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/non-shias-in-the-view-of-taqiyyah-free-twelver-shiism/

That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.

[Hani]

That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.

It's harder to find Shia calls to violence due to Taqiyyah and due to the disadvantage the Shia were at historically in terms of military might and numbers. However, when they reached power in Safavid Persia, they let rivers of blood flow and this is mass transmitted in Iran's own history books in Persian and Arabic.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.

It's harder to find Shia calls to violence due to Taqiyyah and due to the disadvantage the Shia were at historically in terms of military might and numbers. However, when they reached power in Safavid Persia, they let rivers of blood flow and this is mass transmitted in Iran's own history books in Persian and Arabic.

That's a strange argument, that I am surprised would be coming from you, considering you are indeed a knowledgable person.

Do you have any proof to back up your statement from the books of the great fuqaha of the Shi'a, whether they are classical scholars or modern scholars, claiming that killing Sunnis is a popular view among the sect, or in fact a view at all? Tusi, Murtadha, Mufid, Ansari, Hilli, two Shahids, Sahib Al-Jawahir? Anyone? You know yourself this is not an Orthodox opinion amongst our sect.

I can assure you this is not the case. Now, as for the Safawi Empire, who said they represent Shi'i orthodoxy? You do realise I can point to tens of examples of Sunni rulers throughout history, such as the Hajjaj and others, and say they represent Sunnism?

And yes, I would assume that some Shi'i scholars were doing the Safawi's bidding, that isn't strange at all. We have palace scholars to this day, and might I add they are more likely to be in the Sunni world?

[Hani]

That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.

It's harder to find Shia calls to violence due to Taqiyyah and due to the disadvantage the Shia were at historically in terms of military might and numbers. However, when they reached power in Safavid Persia, they let rivers of blood flow and this is mass transmitted in Iran's own history books in Persian and Arabic.

That's a strange argument, that I am surprised would be coming from you, considering you are indeed a knowledgable person.

Do you have any proof to back up your statement from the books of the great fuqaha of the Shi'a, whether they are classical scholars or modern scholars, claiming that killing Sunnis is a popular view among the sect, or in fact a view at all? Tusi, Murtadha, Mufid, Ansari, Hilli, two Shahids, Sahib Al-Jawahir? Anyone? You know yourself this is not an Orthodox opinion amongst our sect.

I can assure you this is not the case. Now, as for the Safawi Empire, who said they represent Shi'i orthodoxy? You do realise I can point to tens of examples of Sunni rulers throughout history, such as the Hajjaj and others, and say they represent Sunnism?

And yes, I would assume that some Shi'i scholars were doing the Safawi's bidding, that isn't strange at all. We have palace scholars to this day, and might I add they are more likely to be in the Sunni world?

You're reading too much into the comment, I simply stated that Shia philosophy was dictated by the politics and conditions they lived through. The entire focus was to hide beliefs, keep books secret, try to assimilate into Sunni society without raising suspicion. This is plastered all over their books as you know. In this context, why would they "wage war" against Ahlul-Sunnah? That would simply backfire on them and they'd be slaughtered, also religiously the Shia Hadith books contain A LOT of emphasis on Taqiyyah until the rise of the 12th Imam who slaughters the Arabs, the scholars would be breaching that law if they waged a violent war.

The only prevention from violence is not to issue verdicts of Takfeer, which some of your scholars like Murtada already did, others like Khu'i tried to play a Taqiyyah game and said "Muslims in the world Kuffar in afterlife" but that's not to save Sunni blood, it is to save Shia blood from being spilled.

[Zlatan Ibrahimovic]

That is still no proof that Shi'is endorse violence against Sunnis and/or believe their blood is halal. Although I disagree with the Sayyed's wording.

It's harder to find Shia calls to violence due to Taqiyyah and due to the disadvantage the Shia were at historically in terms of military might and numbers. However, when they reached power in Safavid Persia, they let rivers of blood flow and this is mass transmitted in Iran's own history books in Persian and Arabic.

That's a strange argument, that I am surprised would be coming from you, considering you are indeed a knowledgable person.

Do you have any proof to back up your statement from the books of the great fuqaha of the Shi'a, whether they are classical scholars or modern scholars, claiming that killing Sunnis is a popular view among the sect, or in fact a view at all? Tusi, Murtadha, Mufid, Ansari, Hilli, two Shahids, Sahib Al-Jawahir? Anyone? You know yourself this is not an Orthodox opinion amongst our sect.

I can assure you this is not the case. Now, as for the Safawi Empire, who said they represent Shi'i orthodoxy? You do realise I can point to tens of examples of Sunni rulers throughout history, such as the Hajjaj and others, and say they represent Sunnism?

And yes, I would assume that some Shi'i scholars were doing the Safawi's bidding, that isn't strange at all. We have palace scholars to this day, and might I add they are more likely to be in the Sunni world?

You're reading too much into the comment, I simply stated that Shia philosophy was dictated by the politics and conditions they lived through. The entire focus was to hide beliefs, keep books secret, try to assimilate into Sunni society without raising suspicion. This is plastered all over their books as you know. In this context, why would they "wage war" against Ahlul-Sunnah? That would simply backfire on them and they'd be slaughtered, also religiously the Shia Hadith books contain A LOT of emphasis on Taqiyyah until the rise of the 12th Imam who slaughters the Arabs, the scholars would be breaching that law if they waged a violent war.

The only prevention from violence is not to issue verdicts of Takfeer, which some of your scholars like Murtada already did, others like Khu'i tried to play a Taqiyyah game and said "Muslims in the world Kuffar in afterlife" but that's not to save Sunni blood, it is to save Shia blood from being spilled.

Sayyed Al-Murtadha is said to have issued that verdict, but there is no proof from his writings that he believed so. And even if he did hold the believe that the Sunnis are kafir, that doesn't mean it is halal to wage war on them.

Sayyed Al-Khoei's view wasn't due to taqiyya, he could care less about Sunni feelings. You know what he has said regarding Sunnis in his writings. His verdict was a result of his own ijtihad, and the proof of that is, is that he refuted the opinions of some that held the belief of outward kufr of the Sunnis, in his commentary on Urwat Al-Wuthqa.