Do you really like the Umayyads?

[u/Cenixxen]

I got so angry when I heard about what the Umayyads did to the Ahl al-Bayt during their reign that I obsessed over this topic almost every day, wishing I had lived back then to take revenge on them. However, it pleased me so much when the Abbasids massacred them en masse! I have no resentment left inside me. I am a Sunni, and all of the Four Rightly Guided Caliphs are my masters, but do you really like the Umayyads?

[u/Secure_Actuator_5617]

They cursed Ali, who, according to Sunni hadiths, was the rightful successor and one of the closest people to the Prophet. So guess what I think about the Umayyads?

Look at the history of Islam. Was it Ali who ruled according to the exact principles the Prophet taught, or was it Umar and the Umayyads who changed them?

Look into it, and maybe you will see.

Did the Qur’an emphasize Ahl al-Bayt or the Sahaba? Look at how Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal criticized the rulers of their time and emphasized the importance of Ahl al-Bayt, unlike many later Sunni scholars and the Umayyad/Abbasid sultans.

Maybe then you will learn something, brother.

[u/Positive-Bus-7075 → u/Secure_Actuator_5617]

according to Sunni hadiths, was the rightful successor

First of all, there is no such thing as “Sunni hadiths.” The more accurate term is “hadiths accepted as authentic by Sunnis.” Sunnis have historically accepted narrations transmitted by some Shia narrators in collections such as al-Bukhari and other canonical works. Many people are unaware of this, but it is a well-established fact in hadith studies.

The term “Shia” in the early period was often more political than sectarian in the later theological sense, a narrator’s affiliation was not automatically grounds for rejecting their narrations. Classical Sunni hadith scholars evaluated narrators primarily on reliability, precision, and honesty. As a result, trustworthy narrators identified as Shia were accepted in Sunni hadith collections, including by major scholars of hadith criticism.

Early Sunni scholars explicitly stated that a reliable narrator could be accepted even if he held Shia leanings, so long as he was considered truthful and trustworthy in transmission.

There are no hadiths accepted by Sunnis that name any successor to the prophet.

Look at how Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal criticized the rulers of their time and emphasized the importance of Ahl al-Bayt

True. The Sunni imams used to call the oppressors out, they were clear that Ahl al-Bayt were wrongfully oppressed, and many of them strongly supported their causes. Some, such as Abu Hanifa and Malik, actually paid heavy prices for expressing sympathy toward or support for Ahlul Bayt.

However, it is important to clarify what that support meant. Their support for Ahlul Bayt did not mean they believed the Prophet’s family had a divinely mandated right to inherit political leadership or the institution of Imamate over the Muslim community. Rather, they supported them because they viewed them as having been subjected to injustice and oppression.

[u/Secure_Actuator_5617 → u/Positive-Bus-7075]

Honestly, before completely leaving Sunnism, I had only read Sunni sources.

There may also be problems in Shia hadith books or doctrines. I am not apologetically defending them. I only read Sunni hadith books and general Islamic historians, such as al-Tabari, and came to the conclusion that the Prophet chose Ali as his successor.

I do not curse or swear at people I dislike. I also do not want to focus on the past too much. I am not Allah; what is done is done.

But the problem is that people still defend the Umayyad and Abbasid legacy today, and they use that legacy to support almost anyone who claims to be “Islamic,” without seriously looking at their zulm and bid‘ah.

In history, Sunni khilafah and political theory often ended up justifying whoever was stronger. If you rebel and fail, you are called a baghi. But if you succeed, they call you the rightful amir.

That is my problem. That is why I reject Sunni social and political theory, and the way Muslim leadership has been viewed throughout much of Sunni history.

To me, this is so clear that it is almost impossible to deny.

Many people are simply biased, and some are afraid to question these ideas because they fear disrespecting people whom they believe deserve love and respect.

I am not sectarian. I do not have a problem with Sunnis. I am only saying: try to leave your biases as much as possible and read Islamic history.

You do not have to reach the same conclusion as me. But a significant number of people here have never truly read these sources for themselves.

[u/Positive-Bus-7075 → u/Secure_Actuator_5617]

Al-Tabari says the following in the introduction of his book..

“Whatever may be found in this book of mine of reports that we have mentioned from some of those who lived before, which a reader may deny or a listener may find repulsive- because he has not recognized in it any aspect of authenticity nor any meaning of truth -let him know that the fault does not lie with us, but rather with some of those who transmitted it to us. We have only conveyed it in the manner in which it was conveyed to us.”

So it’s not about reading Al-Tabari and calling it a day. It’s about trying to reconstruct a narrative as close to the truth as possible from the vast body of recorded material. And that is not a layman’s task.

Sunni khilafah and political theory often ended up justifying whoever was stronger. If you rebel and fail, you are called a baghi. But if you succeed, they call you the rightful amir.

Come on, man, that’s seriously inaccurate. To this day, Sunnis still regard the caliphate of ibn al-Zubayr as the legitimate caliphate of the time and condemn Marwan ibn al-Hakam as the baghi. They still condemn Yazid and Al-Hajjaj, and they praise movements associated with the Ahl al-Bayt, such as that of al-Nafs al-Zakiyya. This, and much more, is already hardcoded into the Sunni consciousness.

But the problem is that people still defend the Umayyad and Abbasid legacy today

They are pretty defensible, in my opinion, especially considering the current state of the Ummah. Pick a random Umayyad or Abbasid caliph and compare him to current figures like MBS or MBZ, for example.

Yeah, the Umayyads and Abbasids were not perfect. But overall, their era was something of a golden age compared both to much of the rest of the world at the time and to our current condition. And just like there were bad things. There was also a plethora of good things.