some narrations say that he died before mecca was conquered but he did lay siege to it, but yazid clearly endorsed the pillaging of Medina and the killing of ansar ...
Hadith : "one who hates the ansar is a munafiq " so the evidence is clear
few ppl refers hurra as a tragedy and event of mass killings ......... that is pure exaggeration. few tribes of medina revolted against the govt, they were given warning many times and even when the army invaded madina it stayed 3 days outside madina and asked the ppl not to oppose the govt. but when the revolter did not listen they had to face the consequences.
however there was not that kind of bloodshed as it is generally reported. akabir sahaba did not approve the revolt and narration of hazrat abdullah ibn umer in this regards has been quoted by imam bukhari as well as imam muslim. it is said that even hazrat ali bin husaain did not support the revolt of ppl of medina.
interestingly nobody dare to discuss the wazaaif hazrat yazid granted to ppl of medina including aal e hussain.
@ Das
i appreciate that u consider karbala was a political event..........
few ppl refers hurra as a tragedy and event of mass killings ......... that is pure exaggeration. few tribes of medina revolted against the govt, they were given warning many times and even when the army invaded madina it stayed 3 days outside madina and asked the ppl not to oppose the govt. but when the revolter did not listen they had to face the consequences.
however there was not that kind of bloodshed as it is generally reported. akabir sahaba did not approve the revolt and narration of hazrat abdullah ibn umer in this regards has been quoted by imam bukhari as well as imam muslim. it is said that even hazrat ali bin husaain did not support the revolt of ppl of medina.
interestingly nobody dare to discuss the wazaaif hazrat yazid granted to ppl of medina including aal e hussain.
the ansar are the people of medina now u even deny that ? what about the hadith i quoted.Now just to defend yazid u r prepared to bash them ? they are blessed for 3 generations by prophet now u forget that
yazid's govt was not legitimate as he is not a khalifa but a king
ali b hussain totally withdrew from politics after karbala so thats not an issue.And abdullah b umar was also similarly apolitical , but sahaba better than him took part in political disputes so that does not prove anything.
@ Das
i appreciate that u consider karbala was a political event..........
and it is ....politics is an integral part of religion
wazaif of yazid was the RIGHT of all people, as he had usurped the baytulmal , just accepting wazaif does not mean this was a favor of yazid.Yazid'd possession of baytul mal was illegal to begin with
now if a thief sends u a part of money he stole from u will u thank him for that ?
Re: Jafri, explain your words more clearly plz
[QUOTE]
once an enemy ... always an enemy
It makes Islam look rather powerless ... I thought the Message of Islam was one that penetrated nations and turned the hearts! Apparently some believe this not to be the case.
[/QUOTE]
you are right ...thats not a hard and fast rule
many former enemies of islam became good believers
e.g abu sufyan b harith ( not harb ) , ikrama b abu jahl, adi b hatim
but condemnation of abu sufyan b harb and is clan is because even after accepting islam they didnt become sincere muslims but always harbored their aristocratic and nationsliatic prejudices