Did the Sahabah All Fight Each Other?

[iceman]

THE PEACE TREATY OF HUDAYBIA     

The incident of Hudaibiyah reserves in history a significant phase of Islam when Muslims got an opportunity to unexpectedly notch gains from the jaws of an apparent defeat.
It was the sixth year of Hijrah since the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his supporters had left the beloved city of Makkah. They were eager to visit the holy Kaaba and perform tawaf (circumambulation).

The pagans of Makkah had meanwhile confronted Muslims three times in the Battle of Badr, Battle of Uhud, and the Battle of Trench. And despite winning in at least two of the battles (in Uhud, they had to retreat), Muslims were still not strong enough to dare counter attack on the large force of the Makkan pagans.

The Hudaibiyah encounter occurred meanwhile that not only gave Muslims courage to go ahead with the mission, but it also tested their courage and faith in Islam.

So tell me what is your analysis on the peace treaty of Hudaybia? Do you believe that just as Hassan gave into Muawiya Prophet s.a.w gave into the Makkan Pagans? Just as Hassan couldn’t empower Muawiya Muhammad s.a.w and the Muslims couldn’t empower the Makkan Pagans.

So according to your analysis this means Hassan couldn't empower Muawiya so the peace treaty with Muawiya means Hassan accepted Muawiya as his leader, then this would mean Muhammad s.a.w couldn’t empower the Makkan Pagans so the peace treaty with them means Muhammad s.a.w accepted them as their leader? Is this what treaty means to you?😊

[Cherub786]

I see you are comparing the Treaty of Hudaibiya with sayyidina Hasan's pact with Amir Mu'awiya (radi Allahu anhuma).
In the pact, sayyidina Hasan surrendered his office of Khilafa thus allowing Amir Mu'awiya to become the undisputed leader of the Muslim Ummah.
In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen? I look forward to your answer

[muslim720]

Well if that was the case and the matter was as crystal clear as that then they're wouldn’t have been an issue, would there?

Quantity but no quality!  You offered nothing as rebuttal to negate my assertion that the Imams (ra) themselves contradicted the concept of Imamah (thereby shattering its credibility) more thoroughly than anyone else.

I put forward and explanation and ask to answer and you disregard it. Once again what was the belief and faith of the author/writer of Al-Kafi? And did he believe in absolutely everything he has in his book? If the matter was as simple and as straightforward as you've said,

Where did Al-Kafi come from?  As a matter of fact, just a side-note, the compiler of Al-Kafi believed in the authenticity of the reports.

then where does the belief and faith of the author/writer (Al-Kulayni) go?😊

The compiler of Al-Kafi went to people who upheld their own nafs above Islam.  In fact, these people were those whom the Imams (ra) cursed.

Exactly, so where did this unfairness and injustice come from? Is Caliphate going to be the actual cause? And it's going to be at the absolute peak and high, that's how worse it's going to get before the coming of Al Mahdi.

So according to your theory the Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission, so what's going to or is going wrong if the Holy Prophet (saw) accomplished and succeeded in his mission?😊

To put it another way, since you like to play dumb, the fact that Sunnah has to be re-implemented is a testimony to the success enjoyed by the Holy Prophet (saw). 

If you were to establish the success model suggested by Wilayah, what will you implement?  Do you even have a model?  The only two "infallible" Imams (ra) who had the Caliphate did everything that you despise.  One gave up the Caliphate, both made some sort of peace with Muawiya (with varying degrees in the outcome), contradict each other in actions and decisions, forego Fadak, etc.

The success of the Holy Prophet (saw) is that he left us a model which can be re-implemented to establish justice.  The failure of Wilayah is the lack of any realistic model.  And the model you might ascribe to them is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions.

So who introduced justice? If the answer is that the Prophet s.a.w did then what exactly happened to that justice? You must ponder on this and accept that Caliphate is what messed things up and Saqifa was just only the beginning of things going wrong.😊

Now watch how your own idiotic statement will slap you in the face.  I do not know how you can go from justice to Caliphate or Saqifa messing things up.  However, if I accept your claim (that Caliphate messed things up) then why did Imam Ali (ra) and Imam Hassan (ra) accept the Caliphate (if it was a cursed system)?

Honesty and you are polar opposites but if you were honest for one day and re-read your comments, you would see that all your allegations (in one way or another) are also accusations against your own "infallible" Imams (ra).

😊 He didn't make him the leader of the Muslims. You have no knowledge about the peace treaty.

Preceded by a stupid smiley face, thank you for proving that you are not a follower of, and will not follow, Imam Hassan (ra).  I laughed out loud when I read, "He didn't make him the leader of the Muslims".  Fine!  Muawiya forced his way to the throne.  Again, my point!  Muawiya out-muscled an "infallible" Imam (ra) who possessed both worldly and outer-worldly power, lol.  Muawiya must have been in a class by himself, above the Imams (ra), lol!

And staying on the topic of honesty, you accuse me of not having knowledge of the peace treaty between Imam Hassan (ra) and Muawiya and in the next post, you copy-paste the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.  I am not surprised!  This is how you (Shias) are programmed.  They teach you "concept A" by pointing you to "concept B" which, by the way, is totally unrelated to "concept A".  And so, it shows that there is a fundamental flaw in Shi'i teaching and learning centers starting with the teachers.

[iceman]

I see you are comparing the Treaty of Hudaibiya with sayyidina Hasan's pact with Amir Mu'awiya (radi Allahu anhuma).
In the pact, sayyidina Hasan surrendered his office of Khilafa thus allowing Amir Mu'awiya to become the undisputed leader of the Muslim Ummah.
In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen? I look forward to your answer

I see you say, "Treaty of Hudaibiya" and then you say "Hasan's pact with Amir Mu'awiya". You call one treaty and the other just a pact? And then you go again by saying "Hasan surrendered his office of Khilafa" and then you say "allowing Amir Mu'awiya to become the undisputed leader".

See how you put this forward by praising one and undermining the other. By mitigating Hassan's authority, personality and charactert and by raising and uplifting the other. This tells a lot about your mindset to begin with.

Now the answer to your question. First of all acknowledge and understand that they were both a treaty. Then you also need to acknowledge and understand the reason behind the treaty and the circumstances and conditions attached to them. All you have is a mindset and that's what you go by. And then you ask just to undermine and catch out based on point scoring. Your answer will come next. Don't worry 😊

[iceman]

I see you are comparing the Treaty of Hudaibiya with sayyidina Hasan's pact with Amir Mu'awiya (radi Allahu anhuma).
In the pact, sayyidina Hasan surrendered his office of Khilafa thus allowing Amir Mu'awiya to become the undisputed leader of the Muslim Ummah.
In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen? I look forward to your answer

Now the answer to your question,

"In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen?"

No he didn't? Now a question to you, the circumstances related to this treaty were they in the benefit of the Muslims on a short and long term basis? Allow me to put some circumstances relating to the treaty of Hudaibiya.

These are the conditions of peace between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl Ibn Amr the envoy of Makkah:

1. There will be an armistice between the two parties and no fighting for the next 10 years.

2. Any person or tribe who wishes to join Muhammad and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Likewise any person or tribe who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so.

3. If any Makkan went to Madinah, then Muslims would return him to Makkah, but if any Muslim from Madinah went to Makkah, he would not be returned.

4. If any young man, or one whose father is alive, goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish of Makkah, will not be returned.

5. This year the Muslims will go back without entering Makkah. But next year Muhammad and his followers can enter Makkah, spend three days and perform the Umrah.

Take a look at the conditions 3 and 4. Do you see them in favour of the Muslims and how? Where does your questions and doubts go here?

[Cherub786]

Now the answer to your question,

"In the treaty of Hudaibiya, did the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم surrender his office of Nubuwwah and accept the leadership of the Mushrikeen?"

No he didn't? Now a question to you, the circumstances related to this treaty were they in the benefit of the Muslims on a short and long term basis? Allow me to put some circumstances relating to the treaty of Hudaibiya.

These are the conditions of peace between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl Ibn Amr the envoy of Makkah:

1. There will be an armistice between the two parties and no fighting for the next 10 years.

2. Any person or tribe who wishes to join Muhammad and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Likewise any person or tribe who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so.

3. If any Makkan went to Madinah, then Muslims would return him to Makkah, but if any Muslim from Madinah went to Makkah, he would not be returned.

4. If any young man, or one whose father is alive, goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish of Makkah, will not be returned.

5. This year the Muslims will go back without entering Makkah. But next year Muhammad and his followers can enter Makkah, spend three days and perform the Umrah.

Take a look at the conditions 3 and 4. Do you see them in favour of the Muslims and how? Where does your questions and doubts go here?

None of these terms violate any doctrine or article of Islam.

As for the Hasan-Muawiya pact, it clearly violates the doctrine of Imamate as conceived by your Twelverism.

You admitted that in the treaty of Hudaybiya the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه did not surrender his Nubuwwah nor allow for the Mushrikeen to extend their rule or control over his Ummah or over the Medina state.

But in the Hasan-Muawiya pact, not only did sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه surrender his office of Imamate, effectively resigning from the office of Caliphate, he allowed for the Umayyads to extend their rule and control over his Shia and over the domains that were previously out of Umayyad control (i.e. Iraq).

[muslim720]

None of these terms violate any doctrine or article of Islam.

As for the Hasan-Muawiya pact, it clearly violates the doctrine of Imamate as conceived by your Twelverism.

You admitted that in the treaty of Hudaybiya the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه did not surrender his Nubuwwah nor allow for the Mushrikeen to extend their rule or control over his Ummah or over the Medina state.

But in the Hasan-Muawiya pact, not only did sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه surrender his office of Imamate, effectively resigning from the office of Caliphate, he allowed for the Umayyads to extend their rule and control over his Shia and over the domains that were previously out of Umayyad control (i.e. Iraq).

Expect to be told that you do not understand what is being discussed and that you have a vendetta against Shias.

[Cherub786]

Expect to be told that you do not understand what is being discussed and that you have a vendetta against Shias.

Well I mean as far as I'm concerned the debate has been settled long ago. We are basically beating a dead horse. Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt, the only reason Mr. Iceman persists in trying to defend the indefensible is obviously due to his emotional and irrational attachment to his religion. His arsenal is empty and he has nothing left except sly remarks. Really sad if you think about it.

[Khaled]

Well I mean as far as I'm concerned the debate has been settled long ago. We are basically beating a dead horse. Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt, the only reason Mr. Iceman persists in trying to defend the indefensible is obviously due to his emotional and irrational attachment to his religion. His arsenal is empty and he has nothing left except sly remarks. Really sad if you think about it.

I do feel bad for the guy, he's just too emotionally driven to actually discuss anything being said to him.  He hasn't been taught the basics of his religion, Islam or Shi'asm, he has only been taught to hate non-12ers.  His whole tirade isn't out of any supposed love for Ahl al-Bayt, but rather out of hatred for the "other side."  This is what sectarianism does to you, والله المستعان

[iceman]

None of these terms violate any doctrine or article of Islam.

As for the Hasan-Muawiya pact, it clearly violates the doctrine of Imamate as conceived by your Twelverism.

You admitted that in the treaty of Hudaybiya the Prophet صلوات الله وسلامه عليه did not surrender his Nubuwwah nor allow for the Mushrikeen to extend their rule or control over his Ummah or over the Medina state.

But in the Hasan-Muawiya pact, not only did sayyidina Hasan رضى الله عنه surrender his office of Imamate, effectively resigning from the office of Caliphate, he allowed for the Umayyads to extend their rule and control over his Shia and over the domains that were previously out of Umayyad control (i.e. Iraq).

Be it the treaty between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl Ibn Amr the envoy of Makkah or be it the treaty between Hassan, son of Ali  and Muawiyya ibn abu Sufyaan the self appointed Amir of Syria, None of the terms of both treaty violate any doctrine or article of Islam.

Neither did Muhammad s.a.w give up His divine authority nor did Hassan give up His divine authority. Because divine authority is not something you give up. Just as Muhammad s.a.w made peace and the terms and conditions of the treaty gave the opposite side the upper hand Hassan did the same.

Muhammad s.a.w and Hassan both acted in the long term benefit of the Muslims. But the Muslims turned out more ruthless and savage than the Makkan Pagans by butchering the progeny of the Prophet s.a.w in Karbala and taking the rest as prisoners and severely mistreating them.

Don't mix the man made status of Caliphate at Saqifa with divine authority. Hassan never accepted Muawiya as his ruler or gave allegiance to him. He just stepped aside to stop the innocent blood of Muslims being spilled from both sides over this worldly status of Caliphate. Muawiyah on the other hand didn’t care how many more lives would be lost.

[iceman]

I do feel bad for the guy, he's just too emotionally driven to actually discuss anything being said to him.  He hasn't been taught the basics of his religion, Islam or Shi'asm, he has only been taught to hate non-12ers.  His whole tirade isn't out of any supposed love for Ahl al-Bayt, but rather out of hatred for the "other side."  This is what sectarianism does to you, والله المستعان

😀 Read my posts and then look into the mirror to see yours since you can't see clearly and you will find where the hatred lies. Oh let me tell you, the hatred lied among Bani Ummayah for Bani Hashim and now it lies with Sunni extremists for the Shias who want to bring about the Islamic Caliphate system through bloodshed and butchering just like the Ummayads 😊 If you can't get your way or authority and power then use violence and threatening behaviour to your advantage.

[iceman]

Well I mean as far as I'm concerned the debate has been settled long ago. We are basically beating a dead horse. Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt, the only reason Mr. Iceman persists in trying to defend the indefensible is obviously due to his emotional and irrational attachment to his religion. His arsenal is empty and he has nothing left except sly remarks. Really sad if you think about it.

"Twelverism is intellectually bankrupt"

Really. If that was the case then why would you spend so much time creating such sites and refuting it. 😊😀😁😂😃😅

[iceman]

Expect to be told that you do not understand what is being discussed and that you have a vendetta against Shias.

ABSOLUTELY. YOU'VE NAILED IT. If there wasn't a vendetta then just only three people wouldn't have all of a sudden slipped away to Saqifa in secrecy and without informing others.

If there wasn't a vendetta then when the Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper there wouldn't have been an objection and chaos would have been caused to create an obstacle 😊

[muslim720]

ABSOLUTELY. YOU'VE NAILED IT. If there wasn't a vendetta then just only three people wouldn't have all of a sudden slipped away to Saqifa in secrecy and without informing others.

If three people (ra) could overcome the entire Ummah and three living "infallible" Imams (ra) then you have substantiated my two points that they overpowered three "infallible" Imams (ra) and that the Imams (ra) are not worthy to be followed (to have been out-muscled by three mere fallibles).

If there wasn't a vendetta then when the Prophet s.a.w asked for a pen and paper there wouldn't have been an objection and chaos would have been caused to create an obstacle 😊

The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would.  In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper.  Again, if Umar (ra) was able to overpower everyone in the room, including the "infallible" first Imam (ra), then Imamah is worthless.

You cannot prove to me otherwise and so you are spinning your wheels in place.

[iceman]

If three people (ra) could overcome the entire Ummah and three living "infallible" Imams (ra) then you have substantiated my two points that they overpowered three "infallible" Imams (ra) and that the Imams (ra) are not worthy to be followed (to have been out-muscled by three mere fallibles).

The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would.  In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper.  Again, if Umar (ra) was able to overpower everyone in the room, including the "infallible" first Imam (ra), then Imamah is worthless.

You cannot prove to me otherwise and so you are spinning your wheels in place.

So you're saying to me that those people who had influence, wealth and support and who were willing to use it if things didn't go their way (Saqifa) or those (Safeen) who did use it and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour and created a civil war, because they actually weren't happy with who (Ali, Hassan) got into authority,

were better and stronger than those who also had influence, wealth and support but never used it to support violence and threatening behaviour just to have their way or their demands met and who always had the benefit of the Muslims and the welfare of Islam at heart? 😊

[iceman]

If three people (ra) could overcome the entire Ummah and three living "infallible" Imams (ra) then you have substantiated my two points that they overpowered three "infallible" Imams (ra) and that the Imams (ra) are not worthy to be followed (to have been out-muscled by three mere fallibles).

The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would.  In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper.  Again, if Umar (ra) was able to overpower everyone in the room, including the "infallible" first Imam (ra), then Imamah is worthless.

You cannot prove to me otherwise and so you are spinning your wheels in place.

Basically Umar's attitude and behaviour towards the Prophet s.a.w doesn't alarm you. You want to look for excuses here and there just divert the attention from Umar and his response to the Prophet's s.a.w call for pen and paper.

[iceman]

If three people (ra) could overcome the entire Ummah and three living "infallible" Imams (ra) then you have substantiated my two points that they overpowered three "infallible" Imams (ra) and that the Imams (ra) are not worthy to be followed (to have been out-muscled by three mere fallibles).

The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would.  In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper.  Again, if Umar (ra) was able to overpower everyone in the room, including the "infallible" first Imam (ra), then Imamah is worthless.

You cannot prove to me otherwise and so you are spinning your wheels in place.

"The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not mention anything that you were hoping he would"

It's not about what I was hoping or what we're trying to prove. See what I mean, you always make this personal rather than keeping it a general discussion. As long as you have that mindset and continue to discuss along the lines of YOU V US, we will remain in circles.

It's what the Prophet s.a.w asked for and why. And Umar could have remained silent if not showing obedience towards the Prophet s.a.w by either rushing towards fetching pen and paper or calling for the Prophet s.a.w to be given pen and paper. Infact he objected and said that there wasn't any need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to write by saying "the book of Allah is enough for us".

This is not about me hating Umar. Infact it's not about Umar or his character, personality, performance or achievement. It's about his response and behaviour and the intentions behind it. And it's about you having blind loyalty for Umar and therefore looking for excuse to protect him. Be honest with yourself. If the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper would you be the first to towards obedience by either fetching or calling out to be fetched or would you be the cause of objection and obstruction? Stick to the subject and for once in your life be honest with yourself.

"In fact, the onus was just as much on Imam Ali (ra) and Abbas (ra) to bring pen and paper"

First of all Umar objected and was the cause of a row. There were people who supported Umar and said that the pen and paper shouldn't brought and given and there was a group that said otherwise. Basically an argument started and a row erupted. And the beloved companions were the cause of it, no one else. Some loyal, obedient and supportive companions, wouldn't you say.

[Abu Muhammad]

It's what the Prophet s.a.w asked for and why. And Umar could have remained silent if not showing obedience towards the Prophet s.a.w by either rushing towards fetching pen and paper or calling for the Prophet s.a.w to be given pen and paper. Infact he objected and said that there wasn't any need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to write by saying "the book of Allah is enough for us".

This is not about me hating Umar. Infact it's not about Umar or his character, personality, performance or achievement. It's about his response and behaviour and the intentions behind it. And it's about you having blind loyalty for Umar and therefore looking for excuse to protect him. Be honest with yourself. If the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper would you be the first to towards obedience by either fetching or calling out to be fetched or would you be the cause of objection and obstruction? Stick to the subject and for once in your life be honest with yourself.

What was Umar's intention behind pen and paper incident? I just wonder...

[muslim720]

So you're saying to me that those people who had influence, wealth and support and who were willing to use it if things didn't go their way (Saqifa) or those (Safeen) who did use it and turned towards violence and threatening behaviour and created a civil war, because they actually weren't happy with who (Ali, Hassan) got into authority,

were better and stronger than those who also had influence, wealth and support but never used it to support violence and threatening behaviour just to have their way or their demands met and who always had the benefit of the Muslims and the welfare of Islam at heart? 😊

I am only saying that your Imams (ra) failed, according to your theology.  They did not do anything to help Shiaism (they did not reclaim Fadak, they did not strive to establish their "Divinely Ordained Rights", etc).

Can you, for once, address my claim?  They failed but you disagree!  Without bringing up irrelevant points, how did they not fail?

Basically Umar's attitude and behaviour towards the Prophet s.a.w doesn't alarm you. You want to look for excuses here and there just divert the attention from Umar and his response to the Prophet's s.a.w call for pen and paper.

Umar's (ra) attitude towards the Prophet (saw) alarms me as much as Imam Ali's (ra) attitude towards the Prophet (saw) when the Treaty of Hudaibiyah was being drafted.  Both were acts of love, not disobedience.

The issue is that you cannot apply different standards to the two scenarios.  If Umar's (ra) attitude alarms you in a negative way, Imam Ali's (ra) attitude should also bother you.

It's not about what I was hoping or what we're trying to prove. See what I mean, you always make this personal rather than keeping it a general discussion. As long as you have that mindset and continue to discuss along the lines of YOU V US, we will remain in circles.

Since you are too sensitive, let me say it in a different way.  The Prophet (saw) was alive three days thereafter and did not declare the Wilayah of Imam Ali (ra), something the Shias claim he (saw) would have dictated to be written down (which is why the Prophet (saw) asked for pen and paper).

Infact he objected and said that there wasn't any need for what the Prophet s.a.w had to write by saying "the book of Allah is enough for us".

Imam Ali (ra) objected to the Prophet's (saw) request while drafting the Treaty of Hudaibiyah.  In fact, Imam Ali (ra) took an oath by Allah (swt) that he would not do what the Prophet (saw) had instructed him to do.

First of all Umar objected and was the cause of a row

Do you know that among reports in Sahih Bukhari speaking about the "Tragedy of Thursday", there are quite a few that make no mention of Umar (ra)?  In case your reasoning faculties are impaired, which I am certain they are, it implies that Umar (ra) was possibly not the central figure in this event.  In other words, he was not the "cause of a row".

Be honest with yourself. If the Prophet s.a.w asked for pen and paper would you be the first to towards obedience by either fetching or calling out to be fetched or would you be the cause of objection and obstruction?

Be honest with yourself.  If the Prophet (saw) asked for certain words to be struck or erased would you be the first to towards obedience or would you be the cause of objection and obstruction?

Some loyal, obedient and supportive companions, wouldn't you say

...and Imam Ali (ra) stood around like a spectator much like how he did the same later when his wife was attacked.

I am willing to assume Umar (ra) was disobedient but where did Imam Ali's (ra) obedience go?  Could he not fetch a pen and paper?  How about in the three proceeding days?  A mere spectator: Imam Ali (ra), according to Shi'ism!

[Khaled]

😀 Read my posts and then look into the mirror to see yours since you can't see clearly and you will find where the hatred lies. Oh let me tell you, the hatred lied among Bani Ummayah for Bani Hashim and now it lies with Sunni extremists for the Shias who want to bring about the Islamic Caliphate system through bloodshed and butchering just like the Ummayads 😊 If you can't get your way or authority and power then use violence and threatening behaviour to your advantage.

بارك الله فيك for proving my point.  You view everyone who is not in your sect as trying to use violence and threatening behavior and all those other ad hominems, when have you ever heard me say or even suggest violence or forcing anyone to accept my position?  Do you really hold that view on every non-12er in the world?  Now we know where Islamphobia started.

Nevertheless, I will come out and say it, I do not believe in the use of force, nor do I like how the Ummayids treated people who went against their rule (which was the Muslims, since 12ers didn't exist at the time.)  I believe they oppressed MUSLIMS and therefore I disagree with them.

I have also stated time and time again to you that I am anti-Saudi and, I'll add, I'm anti-"revolutionary groups."  I think states like Iran and Saudi, "groups" like Hizbullah and Daesh are oppressors and people blinded by sectarianism being played behind the scenes by the US and Russia, much like the nawasib and the rawafid of yester-year were continuing the the wars of the Romans vs Persians.