why is it that some make a distinction between the shi'a and other deviant sects...

[aboosafar]

As salamu 'alaykum,
I would like to know, why is it that some make a distinction between the shi'a and other deviant sects like the jahmiyah, qadariyah, murji'ah, khawarij etc..

Some seem to hold that the shi'ah are the non sunni's to the exclusion of the aformentioned.

What is the difference between the other sects and the shi'ah?

As far as I know, there are presently, and have been historically, even some shi'ah that maybe closer to following the sunnah then some of the above mentioned sects, such as the zaydi's.

I heard a da'i once say that the meaning of sunni is generally any sect other than shi'i and more specifically it is synonymous with salafi.

Could one of the brothers with proper knowledge or reference to proper knowledge please explain this, preferably with some detail?

Allah yajzeekal khair.

Ma'as salamah,
Yousef Abus Safar

[Suhaib Jobst]

Wa Alaykum as-Salaam,

I'm not one of the brothers with the 'proper knowledge', but from my limited knowledge, it is because these sects have a general attachment to the Sunnah and the Ijma of the first three generations. Except each one strayed on a certain issue of 'Aqeedah. There is a distinction between Sunni in the general and specific sense.

As for the Rafidah, they differ with us from the very fundamentals of the Deen, and their deviance reaches the level of Kufr. They have entirely rejected the Sunnah and the Ijma, regarding the Sahabah as Kuffar save for a limited few.

You were right in mentioning the Zaydis, whose deviance does not reach the level of Kufr. But they are mistaken in their Aqeedah, which is Mu'tazilee. As for the majority of Shi'ites - Ithna Ash'ari (Twelver), there is Ikhtilaaf whether all of them or just the scholars from them are Kuffar, but the dominant view (the one I accept) is that all of them, even the lay followers, are Kuffar. And as for the smaller Shi'ite sects - Isma'ilis, Druzes, Nusayris, Alevis - then there is no difference of opinion, that they are Kuffar.

And Allah (Subhanahu wa-Ta'ala) knows best.

[aboosafar]

Allah yajzeekal khair akhi.

I have one more question.

Wasn't it a sect of shi'ah who founded al Azhar university. I think they were called Fatimi's but remember Isma'ili being mentioned in their ascription somewhere.

If they were Isma'ili then does this basically indicate that al Azhar as Sharif was founded by kuffar?

This is just something I vaguely remember reading, I don't know if I got the details right.

(update, I checked up on it and al Azhar was founded by the fatimi dynasty, which was a dynastly that ruled Cairo at a time when the Abbasid khilafah was weak, and really just a title more so than a ruling power. They taught Isma'ill shi'i fiqh and apparently they were Isma'ili, wallahu a'alam.)

So do all the scholars consider the Isma'ili's kuffar, scholars and laity alike or do some differ in this?

[Abu_Abdillah2000]

Yes, al-Azhar was founded by the dawlah of Banu 'Ubayd (who called themselves "al-Fatimiyyin"), who were Batiniyyah and Isma'iliyyah, and who ruled Egypt, North Africa and parts of Palestine for a few hundred years. The scholars of Ahlus-Sunnah had ijma' that they were kuffar. One of the Sunni scholars was tortured to death by them because he said: "If a person has ten arrows, he should shoot the Romans with one of them, and shoot the Fatimiyyin with the other nine." As punishment, the Fatimi king ordered him to be skinned alive. May Allah accept him from the shuhada'.

It was Salahuddin al-Ayyubi, rahimahullah, who overthrew the Fatimiyyin and re-established the teachings of the Sunnah and purified Egypt of Batiniyyah and Tashayyu', and made al-Azhar into a Sunni university wal-hamdu lillah.

[aboosafar]

Al hamdu lillah, Allah yajzeekal khair akhuwi.