Shi'ite see that Jews are better than Muslims:
This Ummah (nation) is the best among all nations. The best of this nation is the first generation (people at the time of the prophet (pbuh)). Although those people are the most perfect people by their righteous follow to the Sunnah of the prophet (pbuh), Shia claimed that those people are kāfirs (disbelieves in Islam) and were not following the truth even though they knew it! Whereas since Allah said about Jews (after all the corruption that they did):
And whereas none of this Ummahas the Shia claim follow the truthdo justice in the light of truth, then Jews are better than Muslims! Clearly Jews and Christians respect their prophets more than the Rāfida:
Imam Sha3bi asked the Jews: "who is the best among your nation?" They said: "the companions of Moses." Then he asked the Christians so they replied: "the apostles of Jesus." Then he asked the Rāfida "who is the worst among your nation?" They said: "the Companions of Muhammad"
Obviously those Rāfida are included in the meaning of this Ayah:
Shia champion and assist Kafirs against Muslims:
When the Mongols invaded the Islamic world, Shia provided a strong support to them against Muslims. Shia helped the Christian crusaders against Muslims. When Jews established a state in north of Iraq, Shia were the greater supporters to them. Iran today supports Hafez al-Asad (president of Syria) and al-Gaddafi (president of Libya) who are very anti-Islamic. Probably the only exception through out all of the Shia's history is Hizb-Allah in Lebanon which fights strongly against Israel.
On the other hand, the Sunni Muslims (Ahl-us-Sunnah) are those who uphold the Qur'aan and the Hadeeth (Sunnah). It is through them that Allah has protected Islam. They are those who engaged in Jihad for the glory and dignity of Islam and established the glorious history of Islam.
Why Shia curse the wives of the prophet and his companions?
The one who curses the wives of the prophet and his companions is:
Remember that Abu-Bakr and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) were the closest companions to Muhammad (pbuh) as all references indicates and Allah confirmed in the Qur'an. His good treat to them is very well known to Shia. They were both fathers-in-law of the Prophet and his right hand. So, if the Shia claim were correct then we have three possible situations:
By insulting the wives and the companions of the Prophet (pbuh), clearly the Shia want people to say: "Muhammad was a wanton man among wanton companions. If he were a virtuous man then his companions will be virtuous people too." The Shia curse the Companions who are the righteous pattern to this Ummah and Allah bear witness for that:
Contradiction in Shi'ism
Shia cusses Abu-Bakr and his daughter Aisha, the wife of the prophet (pbuh), but they regard his son since he fought with Ali. So, they hate the best one in this Ummah after The Prophet and they regard his son who does not have any contribution in raising Islam.
Shia also claim that they love the family of the Prophet (pbuh), but they curse his wives who are the most important part of his family!
Why cussing the Companions (Sahābah) of The Prophet (pbuh) is very dangerous?
Because the Companions of The Prophet (pbuh) are those who are denigrating and demolishing Islam. For, indeed, it is the Sahābah (my Allah be pleased with them) who are the ones through whom Islam has been passed down to us. So those people who curse and insult them, in reality, are destroying Islam.
During a class of Imaam Maalik, it was mentioned that the Raafidite Shi`ites curse the Sahaabah. In reply, he quoted the Quranic verse, "Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and those with him are harsh with the disbelievers and gentle among themselves. So that the disbelievers may become enraged with them." He then said, "Whoever becomes enraged when the Sahaabah are mentioned is one about whom the verse speaks." So, anyone who is enraged by the mention of the Sahaabah is a dsibeliever, because the verse says, " the disbelievers may become enraged with them (Sahaabah)."
Shia curses the Rightly Guided Khalifas (May Allah be pleased with them)
If they had any sense, they would know and appreciate that they are in reality cursing the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself. Abu Bakr and Umar were both fathers-in-law of the Prophet. Also, during the lifetime of the Prophet both were his right hand men; and after his demise, it is they who had great worry feeling for the welfare of Islam. Who else has ever been honored with such a position and honor as was granted to these two? Again, it is these two who had always participated and had been with the Prophet during all the battles. These facts are enough to refute the Shia beliefs.
As for Uthmaan, he was the husband to two daughters of the Prophet. It is clear that Allah does not choose for His Messenger a son-in-law and companions except those who are the best.
If the Rafida (Shia) are true to their claims, then could they explain why The Messenger (pbuh) did not forewarn the Ummah and clarify the alleged enmity of the Rightly Guided Khalifas (i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan) towards Islam?
Allah bears witness in the Qur'an that Abu Bakr is a close companion to the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by his saying:
Shia curses Ali (May Allah be pleased with him)
Their insults and curses are not limited just to the Rightly Guided Khalifas but are also directed towards Ali. Because Ali himself, in Masjid Rabia, gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Abu Bakr and also gave his daughter, Umm Kulthum in marriage to Umar. He also willingly gave the oath of allegiance (bai'ah) to Uthmaan. Not only this, but he was actually the right hand man and a well wisher of the Rightly Guided Khalifas. So could Ali chosen a kafir as a son-in-law for himself? And could Ali have given the oath of allegiance (bai'ah), as he did, to a kafir? Subhān Allah (Glory to God)! This indeed is a great accusation!
Shia curses Hasan son of Ali (May Allah be pleased with them)
Also, by cursing Mu'aawiya (May Allah be pleased with him), these Rafida (Shia) are actually cursing Hasan (May Allah be pleased with him). Because Hasan withdrew from, and gave up the Khilaafah to Mu'aawiya purely for the pleasure of Allah. The Messenger (pbuh) foretold of this in the hadith. So can the grandson of The Messenger (pbuh) actually have withdrawn from and left the Khilaafah in the hands of a Kafir for him to rule over the people? Subhān Allah! This indeed is a great accusation and insult!
If the Rafida say that Ali and Hasan were forced into doing this, then this is proof enough that these Rafida have no sense whatsoever. The accusations levelled against these two honored companions of the Prophet (pbuh) are the worst insults ever imaginable and are beyond belief. They should remember that Ali faced the unbelievers in Mecca pace to face although Muslims were less than 40 man. So, why does he hide his Islam when Muslims became the majority and why he does not face the hypocrites?
Shia curses Aisha, the mother of the Believers (May Allah be pleased with her)
Furthermore, how do these Rafida curse and insult Umm ul Mu'mineen (mother of the Believers) A'isha when Allah Himself has mentioned her in the Qur'an as the mother of the believers?
There is no doubt whatsoever that only that person will curse and insult Umm
al-Mu'mineen who does not consider her to be a mother. Because for one who does have a
mother, does not curse and insult her, but loves her.
Imam Malik stated that anyone who slanders her should be killed right away because Allah forbids us (in the Qur'an) from it forever and because anyone who curses the Prophet (p) or any member of this family should be killed too. This fatwa was also issued by his teacher Imam Ja'far al-Saadiq. Allah says:
Ali vs. Jesus
Indeed, Christians and Shia are very similar as a way of thinking. For instance, Christians take their priests as gods other than Allah. Shia also take their Imams as gods other than Allah.
Christians take Jesus as a son of Allah then they describe his death on the cross as he is a week man who cant do anything to support his faith. They made him a target to every kind of accusations, mocks, and humiliations. Shia on the other side give Ali a higher position than the prophet Muhammad (p) and claim that Islam wouldnt spread and unbelieving wouldnt be defeated without Ali. However, the claim that he too weak to defense Islam after the death of the prophet Muhammad (p) and he had to accept all kinds of accusations and humiliations against himself and against Ahlu-Bayt with no attempt to stop that.
Shia vs. Ahlu-Bayt
All members of Ahl-ul-Bayt (the family of the Holy Prophet) belong to Sunni Muslims. Imam Jafar al-Sadiq for instance, is the teacher of Imam Malik and Imam Abu-Hanifa. None of Ahlu-Bayt subscribed to the false beliefs of these Rafida (Shia). There are numerous solid arguments based on logic and Shari'ah refuting their religion and false beliefs. These arguments are so many that it would be difficult to recount them all. Therefore they should repent from their false and unfounded beliefs and enter into the fold of Islam.
These Rafida (Shia) actually descend from Abu Lu'luah Majoosi (a Persian fire worshipper) and Abdullaah ibn Saba' (a Jew). However they are more dangerous from the Christians themselves. Christians fight Islam face to face (if they did) while Rafida stab Islam from its back.