Hafidh of Shias Rajab al-Borsi said that sunnis would stay in the hell forever, this is the very same al-Borsi which accused mother of believers Aisha (r.a) in treachery!
In his book “ad-Door ath-Thamin fi Khamsmia Aya nazalat fi mawlana Amiralmuminin bi ittifaq aktharil mufasirin min ahl ad-deen”, at page 47 said:
Translation:
And know! That wouldn’t stay in the fire (of the hell forever) anyone except disbelievers and friends of enemies of family of Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ali). Because friends (mawali) of their enemies are their (ahlalbayts) enemies. And if he claims that he loves them, that is lie and shirk.
There is no doubt that each Muslim has great love and honour towards all companions, like Umar, Aisha, Talha and others. And these companions in accordance to shia belief were enemies of family of Muhammad (sallalahu alaihi wa ala alihi wa sallam). So, in accordance to this quote from shia hafidh, each sunni would stay in the hell forever due to his love of Umar or Aisha, even if he claims that he also loves Ahlalbayt.
gift2shias.com 
Rajab al-Bursi is not a Shee’ah. He is a sufi heretic. He is said to be ghuluww by hurr al-‘amili in his Amal al-Amul. And muhsin al-Amin says in his A’yaan al-Shee’ah that he is a “Shia sufi”. Which is an oxymoron.
If you read his works Mashaariq. You will see his ghuluww tendencies and his Sufi side.
Have to disagree.
Amini in “Ghadir” 7/33 said about al-Borsi:
من عرفاء علماء الإمامية
From gnostic scholars (of) Imamiyah.
As for his qhuluww, al-Burjardi in “Taraif maqal” 2/162 said:
وربما ينسب إلى الغلو وهو برئ منه
And sometimes he was ascribed to ghuluw, AND HE (WAS) FAR AWAY FROM IT.
As for his lable soofe, even Khomayni, which was face of Imamiyah in 20 century, had great leaning towards soofiyah.
I am well aware of what some of our scholars say about Rajab al-Bursi. If you look at those scholars who were much stricter against bid’ah and ghuluww you will see that he is ghuluww no doubt.
All of these ghuluww khutbahs that are attributed to Imaan Ali such as khutbah al-bayyaan, tatunjiyyah all come from his book.
Anyone who analyzes him will see that he is no doubt ghuluww and he is a Sufi.
There is a new philisophy post safawid and qatar dynasty that includes Sufism and their beliefs in Islam.
His being ghali doesn’t mean he was not shia. And again his soofe stance also doesn’t harm him as shia. Because as I said Khomayni also was pro soofe.
These words of Rajab doesn’t much contradicts to KNOWN shia stance on opponents. al-Mufeed narrated agreement that each opponent is kaafir. So I can’t see why you are rejecting these words, as if they are not stance of shias.
The issue I have is calling him some Shee’ah, when you say “Shee’ah” to the average reader they will think that mainstream 12’er Shia with mainstream beliefs.
Now the beliefs in Rajab al-Bursi’s books are considered “mainstream” beliefs now, but if you were to analyze his beliefs when he lived with the beliefs of the Shee’ah of his time, you will see the ghuluww and sufi come out. A lot of the ghuluww beliefs that are seen today, you can find their origins from Rajab al-Bursi’s books.
I know him being a Ghulat or Sufi doesn’t change his “shee’ah” if you want to go by that broad definition even Ismailis are considered “Shee’ah”. To the average reader when they see shee’ah they are thinking 12’er imaaniyyah.
I didn’t say that he was good and correct shia in his times. Even your scholars like Mamiqani admitted that some established beliefs of modern shias, in the past would be consider as ghuluw. So, I said: Shia Rajab al-Borsi.
Tell me is Khomayni was shia or not? If you say that Rajab wasn’t shia, you have to say the same regarding Khomayni. Because I don’t know how you, but I don’t see much difference between their beliefs.