I asked a simple question. Now, Ali [raz] was a great person like other sahabas but I don't get why didn't he prosecute the killers of the 3rd caliph and had people from the same tribe in his army. It paramounts to a cause of a fitna in the first place!!!!
In the end, what it did was set a bad precedent for future when muslims killed other muslims for power, $$$ etc. ..
why dont u support his enemies then who fought him to "avenge uthman" ? and if killers of uthman were in army of Ali why do u accept him as the fourth caliph?
and why do scholars today overwhelmingly agree that Ali b abitalib[as] did the right thing at that time ?
the precedent of killing other muslims had already been set in the time of 3rd caliph
12er shias generally put all first three caliphs in the same category which is totally unfair ...Umar[ra] and Abu Bakr[ra] personal lives & administration was much better than uthman and esp. Umar[ra] was very strict in his dealings which kept the tribes in line and prevented widespread corruption despite the huge influx of wealth ....
wow, thats fun… u wanned me to get u something from nahjul blagha… Its too strong for sunni’s and undigestable for wahabi’s who praise mavia but since u have offered its my honor to provide u a khutba … i know u wont be able to digest it but just for the sake of it am posting it so u wud who Imam Ali a.s is according to nahjul blagha … Abt Haroon a.s dieing bfr mosa i dont wana argue … lack of knowldge again i never heared that Haroon a.s died bfr Mosa a.s
anywayz herezz ur khutba http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/43761/--utf-8-q-aNahjAlIsrar10-Khutba-tul-Bayan-1--pdf---pdf.html i wanned to post in shape of pics here but its not workin that way
wasalam
Aqeel
incase somebody have hard time opening khutba … u click on the link wait abt 30 secs and then scroll down and says download file and u can open the khutba its in Urdu and Arabic … and some people wud just love it its awesomee
there are dogmas, and there are people who follow them like sheeps. and then there are people who have read the actual history, have made an opinion about it, and then let people know what they think of it. if their views do not agree with those of the dogmatists then they lose respect in their eyes.
I have not watched the videos that have been linked. but since the question is here about Yazid being called raziallah anhu, Iwould like to put in a few words in that regard.
most people regard the battle of Karbala as something that was fought for the sake of Islam. as usual there were two sides, and both of them could have been either right or wrong, Imam Hussain is taken by default as someone who was right. why? because he was the grandson of Muhammad(PBUH). just for that reason alone he is given a "get out of jail free card' and all the blame goes to Yazid.
the fight started way before karbala. it started with the death of Usman, the third of the pious caliphs. soon there were two groups of followers. one followed Ali, and the other Muawiya. historians agree that Muawiya was the better administratos of the two. he obviously deserved the post. and since there was no mulukiat, something that Muawiya is accused of starting, in islam, it would not have been any bad.
the supporter of Ali claim that he was in the family of the Prophet and so it was natural that the power throne should have gone to him. thus they really advocate mulukiat in that area. it does not come to their minds that they do not respect Muawiya for the same reason.
After the Ali-Muawiya tussel even Imam Hassan was given nice treatment. at one point, Ibne Khaldun writes, he was given around 10 million from the public coffers.(it is quoted in "the shade of swords" by MJ Akbar). at other times they have been rewarded handsomely.
I am not sure if Imam Hussain has been given the same amounts of money. however it is certain that Yazid respected him and would not have taken his enmity because that would have been politically unfeasible. he thought it would be dangerous.
but when it came to it he had to fight to save his throne and government. we have seen that several times in the modern eras how states erase their enemies. even then the recorded fact is that Yazid never ordered his assassination.
there are several other things: I am sure there were some people present at that time who had either lived in the time of the Prophet or had been the sons of those who had lived in those times. given that islam was so fresh, and given that the vigour was still persistent at that time, why did not any one come to the rescue of Imam hussain and his family? the only plausible argument would be that they knew that Imam Hussain was doing it for political purposes, not for the sake of Islam. had it been the latter they would have flocked to his support. and yazid would have had no choice but to abdicate the throne.
full marks for independent thinking !
however u have only seen one side of the picture or rather a abridged version of the events that unfolded before and after karbala .....
you are also questioning the entire concept of pious caliphate which puts you in collision course with the consensus of scholars /historians in Islam ....your approach is like that of orientalists
Please just give me the reference of the Khutbah from Najhul Balagha – I don’t have the time hearing someone talking and spicing it up. Don’t worry about my digestion, in case you are concerned it is ok (alhamdulilah). (Though I envy the time you have on your hands to fill up space over here.)
I have Nahjul Balagha at home and I am quite sure that it has to be the one Known as the **Sermon of ash-Shiqshiqiyyah **http://www.al-islam.org/nahjul/3.htm
In this sermon Hz. Ali (ra) is stating that he was the rightful person deserving the Khilafate and guess what?
He forgot to mention and remind the people of his ‘Divine appointment at Khum Ghadeer’. This ‘event’ is much used by the Shia confirming ‘Divine appointment’ of Hz. Ali (ra)
Now compare the above with sermon quoted below and see the contradiction between the two. And Hz. Ali (ra) is beyond contradicting himself!!!
I have noted that you have ignored to respond to my comments. Let me see you answering them
[quote=“Ibn_Sadique, post:53, topic:178145”]
-** Nahjul Balagha Sermon 91** - [When people decided to swear allegiance at Amir al-mu’minin’s hand after the murder of `Uthman]
“Leave me and seek some one else. We are facing a matter which has (several) faces and colours, which neither hearts can stand nor intelligence can accept. Clouds are hovering over the sky, and faces are not discernible. You should know that if I respond to you I would lead you as I know and would not care about whatever one may say or abuse. If you leave me then I am the same as you are. It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief (ulil Amr).”
The above statement is very important:
Note that Hz. Ali (ra) never deemed it fit to claim that he was the chosen/appointed Khalifah (successor) the Prophet (saw). Keep it in mind that it was his religious obligation to do so if indeed he was the appointed Khalifah.
Hz. Ali (ra) did not see fit to remind the people that the Prophet (saw) had chosen him as the Emir/Leader over the Muslims at Khum Ghadeer as it would have been the best to ‘promote’ his claim as the leader of the Muslims.
He said that: “It is possible I would listen to and obey whomever you make in charge of your affairs” He showed no objection to any other to be elected as an Emir/Leader (Ulil amr) for the Muslims.
Importantly he also stated: “. I am better for you as a counsellor than as chief” *
Go first update your knowledge and if you haven’t heard it doesn’t mean it did not happen. And Hz. Haroon (as) dying before Hz. Musa (as) debunks your theory of Hz. Ali (ra) being the successor of Prophet (saw).
Muslims don’t follow Islam from events from History books but the Quran and Sunnah of the Prophet (saw) and nothing else.
These ‘historical facts’ have no bearing whatsoever on being a good (faithful) Muslim.
In the Hereafter Allah (swt) is going question each individual about his/her beliefs and deeds and nothing from the history books*
People visit Yazeed's l.a grave in syria only to piss on it. there are salt fossils growing on his grave. For some sins Allah shows you the signs in this world.
what are salt fossils? you mean salt has been fossilized on his grave? surely religion is blind and idotic following of some dogmas. and you are living example of that.
Salam … first of all sorry for being lazy here i was just little busy with uni and couldnt respond on time …anway after reading this post of urz\ i am kinda thinking to leave u alone in ur present condition …
You are saying That Imam Ali a.s Calimed Khilfaat In khutba 3 first of all thanks to u … thats what u wanted me to post and now u provided the sourcce urself ..
As Usual u challenged me first to bring the khutba from nahjul blagha and now u are askin Me why did Ali a.s not mention Ghadeer in khutba … first of all it would be as me asking u .. y didnt ALLAH name his Khaliffa in Quran … or some stupid question anyone can come up with…thats the difference between shia and sunni religion when u run out of words u just grab the issues like y didnnt he say it … For God sake thats a totally childish question … how do u even know that he was talkin to followers of abu bakar ? And he is not tryin to prove that he desrves Khilfaat miore .. he is telling us …
U taunted me for being knowlege less … thats kool coz i dont have enough and i admit unlike u who doesnt have enough knowledge but u wud just not admit it … Anyway from ur posts now i kinda realize it u just google search em and put em here … dear bother reading what u post here … Hazrat Haroon didnt die before Hazrat Moosa a..s and thats accotrding to shia history now i didnt check on sunni history yet but i will … so before u make historial facts try to read other histories too …
Salam ... first of all sorry for being lazy here i was just little busy with uni and couldnt respond on time ......anway after reading this post of urz\ i am kinda thinking to leave u alone in ur present condition ...
You are saying That Imam Ali a.s Calimed Khilfaat In khutba 3 first of all thanks to u ... thats what u wanted me to post and now u provided the sourcce urself ..
As Usual u challenged me first to bring the khutba from nahjul blagha and now u are askin Me why did Ali a.s not mention Ghadeer in khutba ... first of all it would be as me asking u .. y didnt ALLAH name his Khaliffa in Quran ...... or some stupid question anyone can come up with.....thats the difference between shia and sunni religion when u run out of words u just grab the issues like y didnnt he say it .... For God sake thats a totally childish question ... how do u even know that he was talkin to followers of abu bakar ? And he is not tryin to prove that he desrves Khilfaat miore .. he is telling us ...
U taunted me for being knowlege less ... thats kool coz i dont have enough and i admit unlike u who doesnt have enough knowledge but u wud just not admit it ... Anyway from ur posts now i kinda realize it u just google search em and put em here ... dear bother reading what u post here .... Hazrat Haroon didnt die before Hazrat Moosa a..s and thats accotrding to shia history now i didnt check on sunni history yet but i will ... so before u make historial facts try to read other histories too ...
I was looking in this post, hoping to get something that is worth reading or talking about. i was disappointed.
secondly, when you write in text speak you give an impression that you are not well read, and can not spell the words. the keyboard is there for a reason. use it.
now coming to the post, as i understand.
Allah mentioning his khalifa in the Quran...he did, only that it was man, not any particular person. speaking of Khalifa, it does not mean any ruler. it just means successor. and when Umar was appointed Khalifa, he was Khalifa Khalifa Rasoolullah. since the name was getting longer with each successor, it was reduced to Khalifa. that was just like the name of Madina-tun-Nabi was reduced to Madina.
Whether Shia and Sunni Histories are similar or different, i frankly dont care. and i dont care whether Haroon died before or after Moses. that was thousands of years ago. forget about it.
and so with Ali's story. whether he deserved it or not is a useless debate. you can not change history now. and whatever you say you will never be able to do so.
so it is better if you stop fighting about it and use your energies towards a better purpose.
Salam all,
Since people started praising yazid, its not surpiring that now they r calling Imam Hussain a.s wrong ......
We have different histories, both cant be write so lets ask Quran
إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا {33}
"Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying"
Now i dunt care whom u consider Ahley-bait .... I belive Ahleybait are ...Rasool s.a.w His daughter Fatima s.a Her Husband Ali a.s and her sons Imam Hassan a.s and Imam Hussain a.s ....
U can say Ahley-bait means Rasool s.a.w family or his sahabi or his ummat its ur call but Imam hussain a.s is Prophet s.a.w family, he is his sahabi and his ummat.... so u cant take Imam Hussain a.s out of it ....
Now when Quran says they r paak then just who the he!! are u to say he was wrong ....same goes for Imam Ali a.s vs mavia ... both cant be paaak only one is after so many battels atleast u shld accept, Now that explains reality of ur history and ur religion
May ALLAH Punish those who changed history and those who advertise this wrong history without pondering on it and realizing what there history is saying doesnt make sense ... i wanned to write more but lack of time
Latter Inshallah
even if we accept your arguement that the Quran called both the Imams paak, how does that mean they never made any mistakes or that Hussain was right in fighting yazid?
and how does it denigrate Yazid in any way?
Ali and Muawiya--both cant be Paak? hello!! have you ever read history. i am sure even your history mentions that he was in one of the Ashra Mubashara. or do you deny that? I am sure you wont deny that when Makkah was conquerred, his father's (Abu Sufyan) home was the one where people could get sanctuary other than Kaaba.
I am not advocating anyone. I am just saying come up with a rational argument. my "history" says that my father should have been the emperor of the world, but the authentic history and logic says otherwise.
come up with a better argument.
Ali and Muawiya--both cant be Paak? hello!! have you ever read history. i am sure even your history mentions that he was in one of the Ashra Mubashara. or do you deny that? I am sure you wont deny that when Makkah was conquerred, his father's (Abu Sufyan) home was the one where people could get sanctuary other than Kaaba.
.
excuse me ....who was amongst the ashra-e-mubashira? muawiyah ?
where did you read that? ... mulana azam tariq's "islamic history :made ridiculously simple"
even if we accept your arguement that the Quran called both the Imams paak, how does that mean they never made any mistakes or that Hussain was right in fighting yazid?
and how does it denigrate Yazid in any way?
Ali and Muawiya--both cant be Paak? hello!! have you ever read history. i am sure even your history mentions that he was in one of the Ashra Mubashara. or do you deny that? I am sure you wont deny that when Makkah was conquerred, his father's (Abu Sufyan) home was the one where people could get sanctuary other than Kaaba.
I am not advocating anyone. I am just saying come up with a rational argument. my "history" says that my father should have been the emperor of the world, but the authentic history and logic says otherwise.
come up with a better argument.
I belive in a religion that makes sense .... rather then making sense out of what our molvies tell us abt our religion !!! .. i hope u get the difference,
If both are rite then u r callin Quran wrong ..... And mavia was among ashra-e-mubashra ?? thanks to abu hureraa yet again .... i can write a history of my own inlcuding abu jehal among em??? is that gonna make a differnce.......
I wonder on ur thinkin that u wonder who was right among yazid (la) and Hussain (a.s) Islam doesnt teach us to kill 6 months old and islam doesnt teach us to stop someone from having water ..... U can call urself muslim like yazid did but if thats islam then i wonder why are people proud of this religion !!!!
I was looking in this post, hoping to get something that is worth reading or talking about. i was disappointed.
secondly, when you write in text speak you give an impression that you are not well read, and can not spell the words. the keyboard is there for a reason. use it.
now coming to the post, as i understand.
Allah mentioning his khalifa in the Quran...he did, only that it was man, not any particular person. speaking of Khalifa, it does not mean any ruler. it just means successor. and when Umar was appointed Khalifa, he was Khalifa Khalifa Rasoolullah. since the name was getting longer with each successor, it was reduced to Khalifa. that was just like the name of Madina-tun-Nabi was reduced to Madina.
Whether Shia and Sunni Histories are similar or different, i frankly dont care. and i dont care whether Haroon died before or after Moses. that was thousands of years ago. forget about it.
and so with Ali's story. whether he deserved it or not is a useless debate. you can not change history now. and whatever you say you will never be able to do so.
so it is better if you stop fighting about it and use your energies towards a better purpose.
that post wasnt for u ... it was for the person i quoted ... for u >>> when i need grammer classes i wud let u know as far is islam is concenrned i think its better for u to VISIT "teaching english" forums rather than talkin about islam here
even if we accept your arguement that the Quran called both the Imams paak, how does that mean they never made any mistakes or that Hussain was right in fighting yazid?
and how does it denigrate Yazid in any way?
Ali and Muawiya--both cant be Paak? hello!! have you ever read history. i am sure even your history mentions that he was in one of the Ashra Mubashara. or do you deny that? I am sure you wont deny that when Makkah was conquerred, his father's (Abu Sufyan) home was the one where people could get sanctuary other than Kaaba.
I am not advocating anyone. I am just saying come up with a rational argument. my "history" says that my father should have been the emperor of the world, but the authentic history and logic says otherwise.
come up with a better argument.
Thanks God u guys wernt charstian ... and our book wasnt bible that was chageable .... which means if Quran was changeable ur historians wud have filled it with praisning ur first 3 caliphs and Banu Umayyads, but fortunately for u anyone is allowed to makeup there own history !!!!!!! when history starts to tell us something different from Quran u shld be a smart enough to ignore history and belive Quran over it !!!!!1 when i give u a source from Quran i dunt want ur replys from bloody histroy made by abu hurrera and Ummayads od abbasids ...
rather then correcting my spelling and grammer here it wud be better if u proive some ayyat from Quran that prooves that two Tatheers can have argument over sumthing !!!!!!!
and i love staying away from history ... but u ummayads cant argue over anything wiothout getting back to ur homemade histroy !!
and hey one more thing about beating/ matam that pplz say shias do it let
me tell one thing
Matam is NOT part of Shi'a Islam, it is a manner of mourning. You do NOT have to do Matam. That's number 1.
Second, there is no prohibition of Matam in the Qur'an or Sunnah, but there is AMPLE EVIDENCE to suggest that the Prophets and their Sahaba mourned in this way.
For example, in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sunan al-Nasa'i, and Sahih Muslim:
"Rasulullah (s) was in a state where he was hitting his chest."
What Owais Qarny, when after Rasoolullah broke a tooth during a battle, he took a stone and broke all of his teeth? What about that one? What does Abu Huraira have to say about that? Do these people not realize that history agrees with the permissibility of Matam?
The Qur'an says:
"Then came forward his wife in grief, she smote her face and said (what! I) An old barren woman?" (51:29)
Prophet Adam is narrated in their books to have beat himself:
"Hadhrath Adam was so distressed that he smashed his hands onto his knees and the skin from his hands caused gashes from which bone could be seen." - Ma'arij al-Nabuwwah
this is what i know and i think things should be clear
and just stop the fight
become one ..as it should be our prophet Muhammad s.a.w never wanted this
muslims in different sects .. its such a pity
Interesting thread. I thought there is a verse in the Quran that asks us not to injure ourselves? "smote" has various connotations, and so lets not forget their is a big difference between smacking your face in suprise or when you realize you forgot something vs. cutting yourself repeatedly with knives as you jump bloodily on a street with a bunch of youths doing the same.
excuse me ....who was amongst the ashra-e-mubashira? muawiyah ?
where did you read that? ... mulana azam tariq's "islamic history :made ridiculously simple"
I have never read Azam Tariq. I never was into his religious or political views to begin. i hated the man to my gut.
but i checked out and found out that what i wrote initially was not right. so thanks for pointing that out.
I belive in a religion that makes sense .... rather then making sense out of what our molvies tell us abt our religion !!! .. i hope u get the difference,
If both are rite then u r callin Quran wrong ..... And mavia was among ashra-e-mubashra ?? thanks to abu hureraa yet again .... i can write a history of my own inlcuding abu jehal among em??? is that gonna make a differnce.......
I wonder on ur thinkin that u wonder who was right among yazid (la) and Hussain (a.s) Islam doesnt teach us to kill 6 months old and islam doesnt teach us to stop someone from having water ..... U can call urself muslim like yazid did but if thats islam then i wonder why are people proud of this religion !!!!
Islam does not teach us a lot of things, and we still do them. does that make us any better than yazid? surely not.
you did not really answer my question. give me something that should convince me that Hussain was right. or forfeit. as i said earlier i dont want to give him a get out of jail free card.
and last of all, i dont call myself a muslim like yazid. and nor would i like to be called a muslim like Hussain. I have never seen them and dont think i could compare myself to them.
Thanks God u guys wernt charstian ... and our book wasnt bible that was chageable .... which means if Quran was changeable ur historians wud have filled it with praisning ur first 3 caliphs and Banu Umayyads, but fortunately for u anyone is allowed to makeup there own history !!!!!!! when history starts to tell us something different from Quran u shld be a smart enough to ignore history and belive Quran over it !!!!!1 when i give u a source from Quran i dunt want ur replys from bloody histroy made by abu hurrera and Ummayads od abbasids ...
rather then correcting my spelling and grammer here it wud be better if u proive some ayyat from Quran that prooves that two Tatheers can have argument over sumthing !!!!!!!
and i love staying away from history ... but u ummayads cant argue over anything wiothout getting back to ur homemade histroy !!
I am not an Ummmayyad. stop calling me that. and change your spelling. it is offensive.
even if we accept your arguement that the Quran called both the Imams paak, how does that mean they never made any mistakes or that Hussain was right in fighting yazid?
and how does it denigrate Yazid in any way?
Ali and Muawiya--both cant be Paak? hello!! have you ever read history
Actually everyone is paak. Allah is Paak. Shaytan is also Paak. Moses is Paak and so is Pheroan. Everyone is Paak. They are all in heaven drinking beers. Yazid burnt down the Kaaba so he became paak. Will you join me in encouraging George Bush to blow up the Kaaba so George Bush can become Paak as well? Please answer the question.
Actually everyone is paak. Allah is Paak. Shaytan is also Paak. Moses is Paak and so is Pheroan. Everyone is Paak. They are all in heaven drinking beers. Yazid burnt down the Kaaba so he became paak. Will you join me in encouraging George Bush to blow up the Kaaba so George Bush can become Paak as well? Please answer the question.
wow! that was some vaccuous argument. Ali and Muawiya were both Sahaba, right? and what is that hadith that " follow any of my sahabi you will get guidance because all of them are like stars" or something?
George Bush is not any of them.
ihope i made that clear enough.
wow! that was some vaccuous argument. Ali and Muawiya were both Sahaba, right? and what is that hadith that " follow any of my sahabi you will get guidance because all of them are like stars" or something?
"Something", haha, you don't even know the fairy tales from which you quote. Hilarious!
Hah bhai, all Sahaba are right, even the ones that kill the other Sahaba. Like I said, they are all in heaven drinking sharab!