Monthly Archives: August 2012

Installation of Yazid as Ruler

Before Yazid’s reign in 60 A.H., his father, Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan, ruled over the Muslims. Both, the father and the grandfather, accepted Islam only as a measure of last resort, after the recapture of Mecca and their defeat as leaders of intense opposition against Prophet Muhammad (S).
This is the same Muawiya who, not only rebelled and waged a war against “The Fourth Caliph” (Imam Ali bin Abi Talib a. s.), who had been elected by the Muslims to be their Caliph, but also opposed and fought Imam Hasan (the brother of Imam Husayn a. s.), who, according to Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy, “was murdered by being poisoned” by Yazid, the so called Amirul Mu’minin! (Refer Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy’s book Maisha ya Sayyidnal Hasan (The Biography of Sayyidna Hasan) p. 24, 1999 ed., published by Adam Traders, Mombasa.

Ten years before he was poisoned, Imam Hasan had signed a ceasefire agreement with Yazid’s father, Muawiya, after an intense battle. In his book, on page 16, Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy states that one of the conditions of this ceasefire agreement was that Imam Hasan would cede Caliphate to Muawiya. However, on the death of Muawiya, the Caliphate would revert to Imam Hasan (a.s.), if he were still alive, or else, it would revert to Imam Husayn (a.s.).
Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy continues to explain on page 24 of the same book that “Yazid realized the fact that on the death of his father, he would lose the opportunity to inherit his rulership, which would pass on to Hasan, as per the treaty. He decided to murder him (Hasan) by poisoning him. He sent some trusted individuals secretly to Sayyidnal Hasan’s last wife, Jaada binti Asha-ath, who had no children with him. She was promised that if she murdered her husband, Yazid would marry her and that she would be given one hundred thousand Dirhams in advance, and much more, if she so wished. She was overcome by this temptation and poisoned her husband, who suffered for forty days, and passed away, a martyr…”
On page18 of his book titled The Biography of Sayyidina Husayn, Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy says: “Before the death of Sayyidina Hasan, Muawiya had made up his mind to unbind himself from his treaty to let Al Hasan, or any one else, to succeed him. He decided to make his favorite son, Yazid, heir-apparent to his throne. He would let the public know that on his death, there would be no nomination, except that his son, Yazid would become the Caliph. This would be done regardless of Hasan’s consent or not, and in face of acceptance or rejection by all and sundry.” He concludes thus: “So that they should continue to stay in their positions, most of his governors strongly supported this idea despite the fact that it was un-Islamic…”
After the martyrdom of Imam Hasan that resulted from him being poisoned, Muawiya planned his strategy to establish his son Yazid’s succession. But to do this was not easy. According to what Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy states in his book The Biography of Sayyidina Husayn on page 18, “(Muawiya) perceived the difficulties in breaching the covenant and planned to execute his stratagem stealthily by prompting his governors to air this view and thus create an impression that this idea was not his but that of his governors. He instructed his governors to promote this idea in their domains of authority casually, in the initial stage.”
Having done so, he then assembled them all at one venue and as preplanned, made each of them, one after the other, propose Yazid’s succession. However, all of them did not comply; among those who opposed this idea was Al Ahnaf bin Qays, who, according to Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy (refer his book Page 20), said: ‘No! We, the people of Iraq, and the people of Hijaz, too, are not in agreement with this. We are not satisfied with the prospect of having Yazid as the Caliph of Muslims. And you, more than any one else, know that your son is unfit (for this position). Do not purposely condemn yourself to Hell. As for us, we shall not be satisfied unless we see this position goes to one from the progeny of Ali.”
There ensued a commotion. Sheikh reports (page 20): “Abu Khunayf unsheathed his sword…Addressing Muawiya, he said, ‘Let him who opposes me taste this: he will then come to his senses.’ Preparing to go away, Muawiya said: ‘Indeed, this is a true patriot, one who is man of action, not mere words, one who is the best of all who are present here.’ The assembly then dispersed.”
Sheikh Farsy continues (page 21) saying that when Bibi Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, came to know about this, “she was very angry because Muawiya was going back on his promises given to Sayyidnal Hasan…”
This matter ended at that, and no further action was taken. However, after a while, (in 50 A.H.), Muawiya went to Medina, in the words of Sheikh Farsy, “to send out his feelers.” There, “he had a meeting with the sons of prominent companions (of the Prophet, (S)), namely, Abdullah bin Abbas bin Abdil Muttalib, Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib bin Abdil Muttalib, and Abdullah bin Zubair bin Awam; he did not call for Sayyidinal Husayn.” He talked with them very graciously so as to win their approval, but all of them turned him down, and he went home empty handed!
“On the death of Sayyidnal Hasan,” says Sheikh A.S. Farsy (page 22), “Muawiya ordered people of Syria to accept Yazid as their Caliph after him. They complied unanimously.” He then ordered the governor of Medina to force all people of Medina to accept Yazid (as their next Caliph). According to Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 23), “he (the governor of Medina) was deeply agitated, seeing no reason why a depraved young man should rule over the elders and the companions of the Prophet (S).” Therefore, he let Muawiya know his stand; Muawiya responded immediately, “writing him a letter to terminate his services as governor.”
On receiving this letter, the governor (Merwan bin Hakam) “was furious, and accompanied by elders of his maternal relatives and members of his clan (Bani Kinana), he went to Syria to meet Muawiya with a threat of a coup. Thus threatened, Muawiya treated the governor and his relatives with soothing words, plenty of cash and a life-long pension comprising three hundred pounds per month for him, and fifty pounds per month for each of his relatives…”
Back in Medina, the new governor implemented Muawiya’s orders fully, and reported to him those who were in the front line opposing this order. In turn, Muawiya dispatched to him individual letters for each one of them, and ordered him to extract from each of them a response. The addressees of these letters were: Abdullah bin Abbas bin Abdil Muttalib, Husayn bin Ali bin Abi Talib bin Abdil Muttalib, Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib bin Abdil Muttalib, and Abdullah bin Zubair bin Saffiya bint Abdil Muttalib.” Sheikh A. S. Farsy reports in his book on page 24, that “the content of this letter was very harsh, warning the addressees that he would kill them if they refused to accept Yazid‘s succession to Caliphate after his death.”
As per Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 24), these dignitaries “responded in sharp and stern words. The longest reply was from Sayyidinal Husayn.”
On receiving these replies, Muawiya instructed his governor, once more, to put “severe pressure on them to make them comply. The governor did so, but with no success,” says Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 24). He, therefore, advised Muawiya to go to Medina to meet them personally.
Muawiya went to Medina and “after resting, he met secretly with each one of them separately, so that they should not give him one reply unanimously,” says Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 25). The first one he talked to was Imam Husayn a. s. “He told him, ‘My son! Do not create division in the community of your grandfather. Every one is satisfied that Yazid should succeed me as the Caliph. There are no opponents to this except you and those whom you lead. They have told me that as soon as you have agreed, they, too, will be satisfied.’ He (Imam Husayn) replied, ‘Bring them here and let them say so in my presence. For I do not believe that they have really told you so. However, if they truly reiterate what they have told you I, too, will, comply, but I’m certain that they will not concur.’ Muawiya retorted: ‘Fine, you can go, but do not disclose to any one any thing that transpired in the course of our conversation.” This is what Sheikh A. S. Farsy has recorded in his book on page 25.
After Imam Husayn a. s., Muawiya called Abdullah bin Zubair, and then Abdullah bin Umar bin al Khattab. They, too, gave the same reply as that of Imam Husayn a. s. – “verbatim”. Here, Sheikh A. S. Farsy, adds (page 25-26), Muawiya sent for Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakrinis Sidiqq. They had an intensively bitter exchange of words. As they both were of the same age, their exchange of words was at par with each other, with anger.”
After that, Muawiya had to change his strategy. “On the next day,” says Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 26), “he called for Sayyidinal Husayn and Abdullah bin Abbas.” After inquiring about “them and their families, he began to praise his son, Yazid, attributing to him qualities that he had, and ones that he did not have. Having done so, he told them, ‘For this reason he deserves to become the Caliph of Muslims…’” Sheikh A. S. Farsy says on page 26 that, Imam Husayn retorted by describing Yazid’s viciousness and then added, “Do not add more sins to what you have already accumulated for yourself. Enough is enough. You are violating Islamic values and Muslims’ rights. by imposing on them your whims.”
When this strategy also failed, Muawiya ordered that all the three dignitaries be presented to him: they being Abdur Rahman bin Aby Bakr, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubair. (See Sheikh A.S. Farsy, page 27). “He welcomed them collectively, and then told them, ‘This issue of Yazid’s succession is the choice of Allah and acceptable to all except you three. Be careful not to cause a calamity. Or else, you will incur both Allah’s and my wrath…’ All of them contradicted him… He decided to talk in confidence with Adur Rahman bin Abi Bakr. On hearing this talk about Yazid’s succession, Abdur Rahman said: ‘We don’t want that to happen. And if you implement your decision by force, we shall re-enact the first battle fought by the Muslims, you and those who share your views being on the side of polytheists, the way your father was then.’” So saying, Abdur Rahman walked out.
After three days, all the people of Medina were ordered to assemble. Muawiya kept close to himself all those who were opposing him; announced to those present that every nook and corner of his empire had accepted Yazid as their next Caliph except the people of Madina, and that if he knew of any other person better qualified than Yazid, he would have paved way for that person’s succession, but there was no such person. Then he warned them all that he did not want to hear any opposition. He adjourned the assembly, to resume it again in the evening.
Sheikh Abdallah narrates (page 28-29) that prior to going to this meeting, Muawiya “assembled all his opponents and went with them to the meeting. When he arrived there, he said, ‘I have arranged for hired killers to be present at the assembly. I shall announce to the public that you have now agreed with the succession of Yazid. He who does not value his life should raise his objection. For no sooner does he do so, than people will see his head rolling on the ground.’ And he had instructed his soldiers to instantly kill anyone who dared oppose him. Besides that, he made this threat known to all those who were present there, so that all of them remain in a state of fear.”
Now, this is Muawiya and this is how he planned his son’s succession — that son, Yazid, whom the Wahabis regard as Amirul–mu’minin (the Prince of Believers), May Allah forgive us!
At this public assembly, assuming the same threatening posture that he had used in warning Imam Husayn and others, Muawiya mounted the pulpit and said, “Be my witness that those who had been opposing me (regarding Yazid’s succession) are now in agreement (with my proposal); and they are all present here. They are the patriots of Madina and the companions (of the Prophet (S). All is now well.” This is what Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy narrates in his book, page 29. He then adds, “After that, he distributed large sums of money to the elders of each clan belonging to Muhajirs and Ansars, and others…” This is how Yazid secured his Caliphate in the month of Rajab, A.H. 60, on the death of his father.
O my Muslim brothers! If this is how things were, as portrayed by Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy, then would any genuine Muslim, who truly understands his religion, and who wishes to protect the honor of Islam, ever perceive a man like Yazid to be among the leaders of Islam, let alone accept him as Amirul Mu’minin or the Prince of the Believers? Bear in mind that these are not the direct acts of Yazid as such; they were perpetrated by his father, Muawiya. However, the heinous acts that he himself committed after his succession surpasses those of his father.

Who was Ziyad? Was he a Shia of Ali??

Ziyad was a very intelligent man, a good politician, wise and a shia of Alee (a.s), who made him a governor in Fars. When Muawiya joined Ziyad to himself (by saying that you are son of Aboo Sufiyan and my brother) he turned into the worst enemy of the family (of the Prophet) and Shi’ee of Alee (a.s) and he is the one who killed Hujr Ibn Adi and his people

Source: Lisan al-Mizan Asqalani Vol 3, Pg. # 531
Ziyad (لعنت اللہ) was always in search of the Shiites of Alee (عليه السلام) and killed them, when Hassan Ibn Alee (عليه السلام)  heard it he prayed to Allah (swt) and said: “O my Allah (swt) put his death soon, because death is his punishment”. 

Source: Majmahul Zawahid Haithami Vol 6, Pg. # 408
This has also been recorded in: Mohjam al-Kabir Tabarani Vol 3, Pg. # 68, Siyar Ahlam Nobala Zahabi Vol 3, Pg. # 496, Tarikh al-Islam Zahabi Vol 4, Pg. # 210

Ibn Ziyad now as a governor for Yazid (la) set out spy’s in order to seek out any loyal supporters of the Imam Hussain (a.s). It was brought to his attention Hani ibn Urwa (r.a) was among them. Ibn Ziyad (la) threatened Hani to give up the location of Muslim bin Aqeel to which he refused. Ibn Ziyad (la) remind him that he would not spare his life as it was not done so with Hujar ibn Adi and his friends. Hani ibn Uraw (r.a) refused to do so which later lead to him been murdered by Yazid (la) and his henchmen. The testimony of Ibn Ziyad to Hani Ibn Urwa also verify’s that the loyal supporters of Ahlulbayt (a.s) were few in numbers.

(فقال عبيدالله : يا هاني اما تعلم ان ابي قدم هذا البلد فلم يترك احدا من هذه الشيعة الا قتله غير ابيك وغير حجر ، وكان مع حجر ما قد علمت ،)

“Don’t you know Hani, when my father came to this land, he did not spare the life of any one of the Shi’ee except for your father and Hujr? (And) You know what happened to Hujr?!”

Source: Tarikh Al-Tabari Vol 5, Pg. # 361
On the acknowledgement of this letter Yazid (l.a) issued an order to Ibn Ziyad  (l.a) in which he ordered Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s) to be either killed or expelled.

ثم دعا مسلم بن عمرو الباهلي وكان عنده فبعثه إلى عبيد الله بعهده إلى البصرة ، وكتب إليه معه : أما بعد ؛ فإنه كتب إلي شيعتي من أهل الكوفة يخبرونني أن ابن عقيل بالكوفة يجمع الجموع لشق عصا المسلمين ، فسر حين تقرأ كتابي هذا حتى تأتي أهل الكوفة فتطلب ابن عقيل كطلب الخرزة حتى تثقفه فتوثقه أو تقتله أو تنفيه ، والسلام.)

“My followers among the people of Kufah have written to me to inform me that Muslim bin Aq’eel is in Kufah gathering units in order to spread rebellion among the Muslims. Therefore, when you read this letter of mine, go to Kufah and search for Ibn Aq’eel, as if you were looking for a bead, until you find him. Then bind him in chains, kill him!, or expel him.”

Source: Tarikh Al-Tabari Vol 5, Pg. # 357
Before Imam Hussain (a.s) departed for Karbala, Ibn Abbas (r.a) advised him against it. Ibn Abbas found the invitation very suspicious as he was aware the people of Iraq who had loyalty towards the Ahlulbayt (a.s) had been none existent.
(أتى الحسين عبد الله بن العباس ، فقال : يابن عم إني أتصبر ولا أصبر ، إني أتخوف عليك في هذا الوجه الهلاك والاستئصال ، إن أهل العراق قوم غدر فلا تقربنهم ، أقم بهذا البلد فإنك سيد أهل الحجاز ، فإن كان أهل العراق يريدونك كما زعموا ، فاكتب إليهم فلينفوا عدوهم ، ثم أقدم عليهم فإن أبيت إلا أن تخرج فسر إلى اليمن ، فإن بها حصونا وشعابا وهي أرض عريضة طويلة ولأبيك بها شيعة ، وأنت عن الناس في عزلة)
“Cousin I invoke patience, but I do not have it. I fear you destruction and extirpation in this exercise. The Iraqis are a treacherous people. So don’t go near them. Remain in this land, for you are the leader of the people of Hijaz. If the Iraqis want you as they claim, write to them that they should drive out their enemies, and then you will come to them. If you insist on leaving, then go to Yemen. There, there are fortresses and gorges. It is a vast distant land. Your father had Shi’ee there and you would be remote from the people”.

Source: Tarikh Tabari Vol 5, Pg. # 383 – 384, Al-Kamel Fi Tarikh Ibn Athir Vol 3,  Pg. # 400, Al-Bedaya wa Nehaya Vol 11, Pg. # 469, Ansab al-Ashraf Balazari, Vol 3,  Pg. # 374
From this brief introduction it can be established the Imami Shi’ee during the Tragerdy of Karbala made the minority population. Now the question arises as to what was the creed of these people? and to whom was their loyalty with?. The so called ‘Ahl Sunnah’ have attempted to confuse people by suggesting these people had been Sh’iees of Ali (a.s) and thus present day Shi’ee are damned for neglecting the Imam (a.s). This concept is against the holy Qur’an itself as it has been revealed ‘That no burdened person shall bear the burden of another’, meaning every soul shall carry its own injustices, whether disbelief or sin, and none else shall carry its burden of sin. If we was to exert the same logic with those of Kufa can we blame the present day people of Hijaz for been cursed in not aiding to protect Hamzah (a.s), Uthmaan (la), or even the martyr’s of  Karbalah? Or the Prophet (saw) himself! in which many of the companions fled from battle leaving him (saw) stranded which resulted in his face been striked. Could anyone use such feeble logic?  Inshallah’tala in our next article we will be dealing with the creed of those who wrote the letter to the Imam (a.s).

 

The Uthmaani Shi’ee cursed Ali and used to loudly speak it on pulpits and elsewhere.

Source: Minhaj Al-Sunnah Vol 6, Pg. # 201
Muawiyah Paves The Way

During this reign of Muawiya’s (l.a) he appointed Ziyad Ibn Sumaya (l.a) in charge of Kufah and surrounding areas. In this period and even before many loyal supporters of Ahlulbayt (a.s) were systematically murdered. Before Muawiyah’s (la) passed away he had appointed his son Yazid (la) as his successor. Yazid (la) followed in the lines of his cursed father and now had appointed the son of Ziyad Ibn Sumaya known as Ibn Ziyad (la) to take his demonic position

إذ لجأ بنو أمية إلى الفتك بمحبي أهل البيت وإذلالهم. فقتلوا حجر بن عدي صبراً في عهد معاوية لأنه أنكر سب علي على المنابر

“The Umayyad’s killed and humiliated the lovers of Ahlulbayt (a.s), and ruthlessly killed Hujr bin Adi  during Muawiyah’s reign on account of his criticism of their act of cursing Imam Alee (a.s) from the pulpits”

Source: Hasan bin Farhan al-Maliki ‘Qeraah fi Kutub al-Aqaed’, Pg. #  170 
“Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad was with Alee (r.a), Imam Alee (r.a) used him in some duties, until Alee (r.a)  was killed and Hasan (a.s) gave the government to Muawiya, then Muawiya joined Ziyad to himself and gave him the government of two iraqs (Kufa and Basra), he was governor untill he died”

Source: Al-Istiab Vol 2, Pg. # 524

The Analysis Of Kufah

In order to understand the political, social and economical situation of Kufa prior to the event of Karbalah one needs to delve into the history in order to get a clear picture of how  Kufa was developed into a state. It was founded during the leadership of Umar Ibn Khataab  (la), and it was inhabited by more than one thousand Companions of the  Prophet (saw)  including twenty-four who had participated in the battle of Badr. Notable Sunni scholars such as  Allamah Shibli Naumani in his famous book ‘Al-Farooq’ had praised Umar ibn Khataab (la) for the construction of city of Kufa:-


“When a number of cities were conquered, Saad bin Waqqas wrote to Omer that Arabs are becoming spoiled (with all the successes), Omer wrote back to find a spot that has both land and sea strategic importance. Hence Suleiman Hazeefah choose the land of Kufa and named it such.


The city was founded in 17 AH and, as Omar had expressly commanded, houses sufficient to lodge forty thousand persons were constructed. Arab tribes were allotted separate quarters under the supervision of Hayaj ibn Malik. Omar had given explicit instructions with regard to the planning of the city as well as its construction…. the Jami Masjid was built on a raised squared platform and was so spacious that forty thousand persons could pray in it at one time.”


Source: Al Farooq, Vol 2, page  94 – 95
“Besides the Jami Masjid, separate mosques were built for each tribe based quarter of the city. Among the settled tribes in Kufah were twelve thousand men from Yemen and eight thousand from the Nazar Clan. There were numerous other tribes settled such as Saleem, Saqeef, Humdaan, Bajablah, Nim-ul Lat, Taghlab, Bani Asad, Nakha, Kindah, Azd, Mazainah, Tamim Muharab, Asad and Amirm Jadilah and Akhlat, Juhaina, Muhjaz, Hawazin, etc”.


“In Omar’s lifetime the city came to attain such greatness and splendor that the Caliph called it the head of Islam. It had indeed become a center of Arab power”.


Source : Al Faruq, Vol 2, pg. # 96
 
These historical facts have also been recorded in:-


Source: Al-Kamel Fi Tarikh Ibn Athir Vol 2 Pg.  37 – 375,  Fotuh ul-Boldan Balazari  Pg. # 387 – 389, Balazari Pg. # 387 – 389, Tarikh ul-Islam al-Zahabi Pg. # 170, Tarikh Tabari Vol 4, Pg. # 44 –  47

There is no doubting that the Kufan residents were loyal to the leadership of the Sheikhan to the extent that they deemed Kufa to be the head of Islam. Now if the Nawasib are still delusional in regards to this, we would like to question them to clarify to us would the mosque that holds 40 thousand worshippers were they all Shi’ee Imami mosques? Was Umar (laintent on developing a huge Shi’ee city, wherein beliefs centered cursing him and affirming that Alee (a.s) was the true leader of the Prophet?

We are not able to find any valid sources from the history of Islam that affirm that at the time of Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (a.s) the majority of Kufans were Imami Shias on the contrary we find numerous sources that tell us clearly that the majority of Kufans were followers of Uthmaan bin Affan (l.a). And their hostality towards the Ahlulbayt (a.s)  is evident to the extent that some of these Uthmaan Shi’ee used to curse Alee bin Abi Taalib (a.s).
(وكان من شيعه عثمان من يسب علي ويجهر بذلك على المنابر وغيرها لأجل القتال الذي كان بينهم وبينه.)


Truth Behind Karbalah Part I

The enemy’s of Ahlulbayt (a.s) have perpetuated lies that the Shi’ee had been responsible for the tragedy that transpired in Karbala. The purpose of this article is to refute such claims and bring to light the true face of the enemy. Firstly it is important to establish the term ‘Shi’ee’ in early Islamic history. One finds it perplexing that the term ‘Ahle Sunnah’ was non existent in early Islamic history and those who comprise of ‘Ahl Sunnah’ today were actually once referred to as ‘Shias’! Unknown to many, the first Shi’ee encompassed all the groups that would later be deemed the present day ‘Sunni’ and ‘Shi’ee’.

Thus it is essential for one to distinguish which group of Shi’ee were responsible. The ‘Twelver Imami Shi’ee’ in those days were called ‘Rafidhi’ (Rejectors). It was these religiously affiliated Shias that are known as ‘Imami Shia’ today. The ‘Imami Shia’ never accepted the Khalifat of Aboo Bakr, Umar, and Uthmaan, Muawiyah, Yazid (Allah’s curse be upon them all!), where as the other Shi’ee factions did. The Shias, ‘Shia Rafidhi’s’ as they are now known then, became those that upheld the right of Imam Alee (a.s) to be the first appointed khalifah. The forefather of the Nasbis Muawiyah (la) also used this the term ‘Rafidhi’s’ to describe the  followers of Amir Al Momineen (a.s). Salafi Ibn Al Aatham narrated that Muawiyah sent a letter to Amer bin Al Aas (Allah’s curse be upon both of them) in which the following words are recorded: 
“The Rafidah of Yemen, Basrah, Kufa and Hejaz are being assembled in aid of Alee bin Abi Taalib”.

Source: Al Futooh, vol. 2, Pg.  382
Similarly the term Shi’ee was also referred to the opposing factions which had been called ‘Shi’ee of Muawiyah’ or ‘Shi’ee of Uthmaan’. The word ‘Shi’ee’ was used for these groups for purely political reasons.  Even Salafi Sheikh Bilal Philips has recorded in his works:

“The term was first used to describe both ‘Alee’s followers (Shee’ah ‘Alee) as well as those of Mu’aawiyah (Shee’ah ‘Alee)

Source: Ibn Al Jawzee’s The Devil’s Deception edited by Bilal Philips Pg. 39

The existence of the ‘Shi’ee Rafidhi’s has been abundantly clear from the works of classical Sunni Ulema, who acknowledge that the term ‘Shia’ in the past did not carry the same connotation that it does today. Let us quote the renowned Nasbi scholar, Imam al-Dhahabi: 
علي رضي الله عنه من يوم صفين، ويرون أنهم وسلفهم أولى الطائفتين بالحق، كما أن الكوفيين – إلا من شاء ربك – فيهم انحراف عن عثمان وموالاة لعلى، وسلفهم شيعته وأنصاره، ونحن – معشر أهل السنة – أولو محبة وموالاة للخلفاء الاربعة، ثم خلق من شيعة العراق يحبون عثمان وعليا، لكن يفضلون عليا على عثمان، ولا يحبون من حارب عليا من الاستغفار لهم فهذا تشيع خفيف..
“Yes, most of the Syrian populations from the days of (the battle of) Siffeen rejected the Caliphate of Amir-al-Momineen Alee and considered themselves and their ancestors righteous for doing so. The Kufans likewise deviated from Uthmaan and loved  Alee over him because their ancestors were the Shias and helpers whilst we, the Ahle Sunnah love all four of the Caliphs. There was also a third group of Shias in Iraq who loved both  Alee and Uthmaan but still preferred  Alee over Uthmaan and had an extreme dislike of those that fought  Alee at the same time they would supplicate, asking forgiveness of those that fought Alee. This was a softer version of Shia”

Source: Al-Dhahabi, Meezaan al-`Itidaal, vol. 6, Pg. 153
 
 Also Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says:

“According to the early scholars, Shiat meant to have faith on Alee having preference over Uthmaan, and `Alee was correct in his wars and those who opposed him were in error, although they preferred the Shaykhayn over them (Uthmaan and Alee)…

(But Ibn Hajr does not stop there he continues to say)

And maybe some of their beliefs was that `Alee was the best creation after the Messenger of Allāh (saw), and if they believe that, and have devote faith, truthful and diligent, then there is no disallowing his narrations, and if it is not with other motives. As for the shee`ism that is known to the muta’akhireen (later scholars), it is the pure Rafd (rejection), and it is not permissible to accept narrations from a raafiDee, ghaali and not from a kiraami”

Source: Ibn Hajr, Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, vol. 1, pg. #  94

 The mitigating conclusion is that the ‘Shias of Kufa’ accepted the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn (Aboo Bakr and Umar). Some Kufan Shias rejected the Caliphate of Uthmaan bin Affan in the same manner that the people of Syria rejected the Caliphate of Imam Alee (عليه السلام) . Others while sympathetic to Uthmaan bin Affan, still preferred Imam Alee (عليه السلام) . This particular faction not only believed in the Caliphate of the first three Caliphs but also prayed for forgiveness of all of those who fought against Imam Alee (عليه السلام) such as Ayesha (لعنت اللہ), Talha (لعنت اللہ), Zubair (لعنت اللہ), Muawiyah (لعنت اللہ) and so forth.