[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pathan Bhai: *
Can you prove that Yazeed at any point in his life accepted Allah as his Lord and Prophet Mohammaad (pbuh) as the messenger of Allah?
Infact if you read one of his post KErbala spoeeches, he said (not word to word): There was no Prophet and there was no message of Allah. It was all a drama staged by Bani Hashim to get the crown.
[/QUOTE]
thats new...any refrences?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bao bihari: *
thats new...any refrences?
[/QUOTE]
Dont have 1 coz i read it long time back. Whyd ont you dig the literature?
btw i dont give a rat's back abt anything to do with Yazeed, be it proving him a kaafir or whatever else.
shiaas r blinded by hatred....
and they r blinded by love....
i have to say they r totally misguided....
what happened between hussain (ra) and yazeed was politics and not religion....
imam hassan (ra) had already given up khilafat (as the prophet had foretold) and brought about peace....
muaweya (ra) made a mistake and put yazid as khalifa (king to be more accurate) and what followed was more mistakes by yazid....
but how does he become a kaafir????
did he reject Allah????
did he reject the Prophet????
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
what happened between hussain (ra) and yazeed was politics and not religion....
[/QUOTE]
Yazeed's motives were political, however every step taken by Imam Hussein was for the sake of Allah's religion alone.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pathan Bhai: *
Yazeed's motives were political, however every step taken by Imam Hussein was for the sake of Allah's religion alone.
[/QUOTE]
its not Imam Hussain's (ra) faith under discussion here, it is yazid's....
no one puts a question mark on Imam Hussain's faith and no one thinks he desired worldly gains....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
shiaas r blinded by hatred....
and they r blinded by love....
i have to say they r totally misguided....
[/QUOTE]
The feelings mutual.
and it was not a mistake by yazid, but a first degree murder.
Its a funny world. when people are accused of cursing the ashabs, they're labelled kafirs and even become wajib al katl, blown to pieces in mosques. However, the killer of the Imam Hussain(as), the Prophets beloved grandson is defended as a muslim?
now this is what you call real blindness.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by humhaipakistani: *
The feelings mutual.
and it was not a mistake by yazid, but a first degree murder.
Its a funny world. when people are accused of cursing the ashabs, they're labelled kafirs and even become wajib al katl, blown to pieces in mosques. However, the killer of the Imam Hussain(as), the Prophets beloved grandson is defended as a muslim?
now this is what you call real blindness.
[/QUOTE]
ur only problem is that u feel that the murderer still lives 1400 years after his crime....
.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by bao bihari: *
thats new...any refrences?
[/QUOTE]
Here ya go:
We read in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21, under the commentary of Surah Ibrahim verse 28 as follows:
"The Banu Umayya were initially kaafir, then some of them presented themselves as Muslim. Yazeed then became a kaafir. The Banu Umayya maintained their enmity towards the family of the Prophet, and killed Husayn in a cruel manner. The kaafir Yazeed committed kufr in relation to the Deen of Muhammad proven by the fact that at the time of the killing of Husayn he made a pointed reference to avenging the deaths of his kaafir ancestors slain in Badr. He acted against the family of Muhammad (s), Banu Hashim and in his drunken state he praised the Banu Umayya and cursed the Banu Hashim from the pulpit".
bani hashim were also initially kafir…
what a stupid argument put forward… 
and imagine the muslims taking a kaafir as their khalifa…
they werent that lost of imaan…
Ask Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee who deemed it permissible to curse the kaafir Yazeed!
Book Reference Again:
Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21
On the other hand you (your books) say he was kafir and on the other hand you believe hims the 6th khalifa of muslim Ummaha!!
how absurd!!
Let me tell you some more about his charachter from the sunni and wahabi point of views:
We read in Muruj al Dhahab:
“Due to his hatred of Allah (swt) Yazeed openly drank alcohol. In his deeds he followed the Seerah of Pharoah, but Pharoah was more just to his own subjects.”
-Ibn Kathir’s comments on Yazeed
Ibn Kathir is the Wahabi’s biggest historian and a student of Ibn Taymiyya himself. As far as Wahabis are concerned, his words are written in gold. Yet Ibn Kathir himself writes in al Bidayah:
**“Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to music, kept the company of boys with no facial hair (civil expression for paedophilia with boys, a form of homosexuality) , played drums, kept dogs (civil expression for bestiality) , not a day would go by when he was not in a drunken state”. **
Ibn Jauzi’s comments on Yazeed ‘the drunkard’
Ibn Jauzi in Wafa al-Wafa:
“Yazeed appointed his cousin Uthman bin Muhammad bin Abu Sufyan as Governor of Madina. He sent a delegation to visit Yazeed who bore gifts so that they might take the oath of allegiance to him. Upon their return they said ’ We have returned having visited a man who has no religion, he drinks, plays instruments, keeps the company of singers and dogs [civil word for bestiality], we declare that we have broken our allegiance to him. Abdullah bin Abi Umro bin Hafs Mukhzumee commented 'Yazeed gave me gifts. But the reality is this man is an enemy of Allah (swt) and a drunkard . I shall separate myself from him in the same way that I remove my turban [from my head]….”
Ibn Khaldun states:
“Yazeed’s time of governance can be seen as fisq and debauchery, and the blame is on Mu’awiya who should have controlled him”.
We read in Tareekh Kamil:
“The narrator states 'By Allah, Yazeed drinks alcohol and abandons Salat”
We read in Tareekh Abul Fida:
“Yazeed played the tambourine, drank alcohol and raised bears [civil expression for bestiality]”.
Hayaath al Haywaan states:
** “Yazeed would hunt with cheetas, play chess and drink alcohol”.**
-Yazeed was a homosexual
We read in al Bidayah wa al Nihayah page 64 Volume 9 “Dhikr Abdul Mulk”
“**Abdul Malik bin Marwan said in a khutbah that unlike Uthman I am not weak and unlike Mu’awiya I am not cunning / dishonest and unlike Yazeed I am not a homosexual”. **
-Yazeed used to copulate with his mother and sisters
Here we shall cite the following authentic Sunni sources:
Tabaqath al Kabeera Volume 5 page 66 Dhikr Abdullah bin Hanzala and Volume 4 page 283
Tareekh ul Khulafa page 209 Dhikr Yazeed
Sawqih al Muhriqa page 132 Dhikr Yazeed
Mustadrak al Hakim Volume page 522
Al Isaba Volume 3 page 469
Ya Nabi al Mawaddath page 326
Tareekh Ibn Asakir Volume 7 page 275
Fatawi Abdul Hai page 79
Tareekh al Islam Volume 2 page 356
Al Masalaik Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik page 435
We read in Tabaqath:
“Abdullah bin Hanzala the Sahaba stated 'By Allah we opposed Yazeed at the point when we feared that stones would reign down on us from the skies. He was a fasiq who -copulated with his mother, sister and daughters, who drank alcohol and did not offer Salat-”
Need More???!!!
You posted earlier that Shias are misguided. If rejecting a so called Khalifa of muslim ummah with above personality is misguidence then I am proud to be a Recently Converted Misguided Shia.
To prove that he was Kafir and rejected the deen of Allah lets see the following traditions:
-Yazeed's rule was dogged by alcoholism and transgression
We read in Muruj al Dhahab:
" Due to his hatred of Allah (swt) Yazeed openly drank alcohol. In his deeds he followed the Seerah of Pharoah, but Pharoah was more just to his own subjects."
-Qadi Thanaullah's comments on Yazeed's kufr poetry
We read in Tafseer Mazhari:
"Yazeed deemed drinking alcohol to be Halaal, and he recited these couplets 'if the Deen of Ahmad deems alcohol to be haraam…
Mulla 'Ali Qari in Sharh Shifa commenting on hadith that the Deen will be harmed by young men states:
"The destruction of the Deen at the hands of a young man refers to Yazeed bin Mu'awiya who sent Muslim bin Uqba to pillage Madina"
In 'Siraaj Muneera', Allamah 'Ali bin Ahmad also stated that the hadith refers to Yazeed. The same comment can also be located in Ashiaath al Lamaat by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Haq Dehlavi.
-In al Bidaya wa al Nihaya we read:
"The Deen will be damaged at the hands of a man from Banu Ummaya whose name shall be Yazeed"…
-Yazeed bin Mu'awiya's rejection of the Qur'an
We shall rely on the following reputable books of Ahl'ul Sunnah:
Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah Volume 8 page 204 Dhikr Ras al Husayn
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 2 page 249 Dkikr Yazeed
Sharh Foqh Akbar page 73 Dhikr Yazeed
Sharh Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21 Surah Ibrahim
Shazrah al Dhahab page 69 Dhikr Shahadth Husayn
Maqatahil Husayn Volume 2 page 58 Dhikr Shahdath Husayn
Tadhkira Khawwas page 148
Tareekh Tabari Volume 11 pages 21-23 Dhikr 284 Hijri
Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani (commentary of Surah Muhammad)
We are citing Tadhkira, Maqathil and Shazarath al Dhabah. This is also found in the Arabic (non-Leiden) version of the History of Al-Tabari:
**When the head of Husayn (as), the grandson of the Holy prophet (saws), was presented before Yazeed he recited the couplets of the kaafir Zubayri:
"Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies nether was there any revelation"**
-In Tafseer Ruh al Maani it is stated clearly:
"Allamah Alusi stated, Yazeed the impure denied the Prophethood of Rasulullah (s). The treatment that he meted out to the people of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet proves that he was a kaafir".
Yazeed bin Mu'awiya's declaration on the pulpit of the khalifa that Yazeed was not worthy of Khilafat:
Yazeed's own son condemned his father and grandfather, stating they will be punished in the grave, and supported Shia claims that the khilafat was the right of the Shia Imams
-We read in Sawaiqh page 134 about what the khalifa succeeding Yazeed said in his inaugural address as khalifa:
"When Yazeed's son came to power he gave the speech: 'Khilafat is from Allah (swt). My grand father Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan fought for khilafat against that individual who was more entitled to it, that being 'Ali. He [Mu'awiya] performed actions that you are all aware of, and he is suffering in his grave for that. Then my father Yazeed became the khalifah even though he was not deserving of khilafat. He fought the grandson of Rasulullah (s) [Husayn (as)] and is suffering in the grave on account of his sins.' Mu'awiya bin Yazeed then proceeded to cry, 'It is a terrible thing that we are fully aware of Yazeed's bad deeds: he slaughtered the family of the Prophet (s) , he deemed alcohol halal , and set fire to the Ka'aba . I don't need this khilafat, you deal with it"
This is what a son said about his father and grandfather. This is what the khalifa said about his father and grandfather. Not surprisingly, this lone voice of conscience amongst the Umayyads didn't last long in power, and he was rapidly succeeded by the power-hungry branch of the Umayyads led by Marwan, whose devious and vile character are avouched for in the references at the start of this article. Here one khalifa is condemning in the strongest way two pervious khalifas. Yet Sunni Islam is content to believe that they were one happy family.
Similarly in Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 301, "Dhikr Mu'awiya the second" and Hayaath al Haywan Volume 1 page 88 "Dhikr al Awaaz" we read that Mu'awiya Saneeh stated in a sermon:
"My father Yazeed did not deserve to attain the position as khalifah over the Prophet's Ummah".
Yazeed bin Mu'awiya was such a fasiq that his own son sought to distance himself from his reign and he declared publicly that Yazeed was not entitled to be khalifah on account of his fasiq actions. These are the comments of Yazeed's son. Yet despite the testimony of the countless scholars we have cited, and the countless companions, and above all, Al-Hussain (as) himself, and here Yazeed's own son, the 21st century Nasibis of Ansar.org and Sipah-e-Sahaba think they know better, even better than their Grand Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya, whose words supersede all scholars according even to the Nasibis themselves. They seek to bring Yazeed to your hearts, a man whose own son said before the Ummah that his father is enduring the punishment of the grave.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by armughal: *
and imagine the muslims taking a kaafir as their khalifa....
they werent that lost of imaan....
[/QUOTE]
muslims with imaan? where was that imaan when nawasi e rasul was dragged through the bazaar of shaam? where were these so called muslims with imaan when Imam Hussain (a.s.) called out for help..Imam Hussain (a.s.) didnt need their help but He just wanted to show the reality of these muslims with imaan
All what I posted above is taken from the following Books of Ahl-e-Sunnah und Wahbis.
It is proven from the sources of Ahl’ul Sunnah that Yazeed rejected the concept of revelation; rather he deemed all this a stage for power by Rasulullah (s). This proves that Yazeed was a kaafir, so what right do these Nasibi have to extol Yazeed, deem him to to the rightful Khalifah over the Muslims and Ameer’ul Momineen?
Edit: *wondering if you still believe him as your rightful 6th khalifa
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by zer01: *
Perhaps she ment muslim in the whole. Like I posted above that all the muslim and then living SAHABA joined this La'een.
[/QUOTE]
Zero1
My summary answer to all your points is this. whatever politics took place does not change what my obligations to god, or to people are. My pillars of faith are the same, and all the political kabbadi that took place after the death of the prophet, and aftrer the quran was completed does not change religion.
I do nto care whether the texts come from the books of sunni or shia folks. Those books are not Quran.
The rest of the stuff, is not part and parcel of the faith, whether i say lanat on someone, or not, does not impact religion as it is.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Sheraz CT: *
muslims with imaan? where was that imaan when nawasi e rasul was dragged through the bazaar of shaam? where were these so called muslims with imaan when Imam Hussain (a.s.) called out for help..Imam Hussain (a.s.) didnt need their help but He just wanted to show the reality of these muslims with imaan
[/QUOTE]
where was anyone when this took place...really
^ and you dont believe the hadith in my signature?
sheraz whats your point. Mypoint simply was that when this incodent took place No one helped.
I dont know what you mean by "doni not believe in the statemnt in your signature"
please make your question concise and to the point so I dont have to guess what you are trying to ask. Gracias.
haha..from ur post it seems like u believe Quran is all you need..so i was just wondering if u agree with my signature or not
btw how much do u know about the story of Shaam..where was everyone? well they were watching and enjoying the baybassi of Aale Rasool