Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Comiting Murder or stealing doesn't make u a non muslims you are sinner but still a muslim!
Even if Yazeed did kill...as per Shia belief...but still he remains a Muslim according to Quran n Sunnah
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
i dont buy that you "started" investigating when you made that post at the start of this thread. I believe your investigations had concluded by that time. nevertheless that is tangential to the topic.
its okay if you think that its wrong to curse anyone, even grave sinners, and by that standard its logical for you to not curse Yazid. Most people would disagree with you, and do curse/strongly condemn/condemn/decry etc people who have committed grave sins.
as far as you saying it isnt conclusive that Yazid had ordered the killing of imam husain, the fact that ibn ziyad wasnt acted against, the family of imam hussain were imprisoned in his court prisons just makes that idea hard to believe.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
I'm not very knowledgeable about the topic, but I've noticed often we indulge in arguments leading to fights over figures from the past. I realize Sunnis and Shias have different views and beliefs; however, I don't see either side following the commands of any such person in particular. Therefore, what exactly is it that we get out of such arguments?
For instance, how does arguing over whether or not Yazid was a believer/good/ bad human being/Muslim benefit any of us?
God is the witness over all of us. I'm sure Allah (SWT) will deal with such matters more appropriately.
Besides, I doubt that we would have the world united over a particular version of a historical event.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Ravage, my intent was clear Allah knows best.
As far as it goes for cursing, I found the following:
[QUOTE]
“Cursing an upright Muslim is unlawful (haram) by unanimous consensus of all Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Cursing a believer is like killing him” (Sahih al-Bukhari).
As far as the sinners are concerned, it is permissible (but not rewarded) to curse them in a general manner, such as saying “Allah curse the corrupt” or Allah curse the oppressors” and so forth. It has been narrated in many narrations that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) cursed sinners in a general manner. However, to curse a particular person who commits some act of disobedience, such as oppression, murder, adultery, etc, there is a difference of opinion. The Majority of Scholars Including Imam al-Ghazali hold the view that this is impermissible.
Yes, it will be permissible to curse a person regarding whom it has been decisively established that he died on disbelief (kufr), such as Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl, Pharaoh, Haman and their likes. (See: al-Adhkar by Imam Nawawi & Reliance of the traveller, P. 772-773).
[/QUOTE]
Sadiyah: Nothing really, our deen is complete, and the rest is just history, that we can acknolwedge, but ascribe NO religious significance to it.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
yep, it is sad…
even if (big IF) yazeed was the killer of Hussain (ra), the killers of Uthman (ra) r much worse…
because Uthman (ra), undoubtedly holds a much higher rank than Hussain (ra)…
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^ That really depends on who you ask. If you ask a shia, most likely Caliph Uthman has no relevence or reverence as compared to any of the Imams or ashabs. So if anyone wants to discuss or remember the caliphs death, it is mostly up to you guys to initiate it. From shia point of view his death was merely a public reaction to his malpractises whilst in power.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^Not true, i think if his killers were punished quikly and eficeintly, the whle shia/sunni divide might not have happened.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Salam, My Dear Brother & Sisters OPEN YOUR EYES
FIRST WITH HOLY QURAN
"Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein..." (42:23) a group of companions asked "O Prophet of Allah, who are those of your relatives whose love has been made obligatory on us by Allah?" The Prophet replied, "They are Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husain." Some hadith contain the words "and their sons," meaning Hasan and Husain.
According to AHLE SUNNAT Great Books and authors that the above verse is for the five only and they have Hadith in the following books.
ABOUT VERSE MUBAHILA: :Of course, our first argument is from the Qur'an, which is the strongest Divine evidence, namely the Verse of Imprecation (Ayah-e-Mubahala) in which Allah says: "And to him who disputes with you therein after the knowledge has come to you, say 'Come, let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves and then let us invoke and lay the curse of Allah upon the liars.'" (3:60) Notable ulema, such as Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, Imam Abu Ishaq Tha'labi, Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti, Qazi Baidhawi, Jarullah Zamakhshari, Muslim bin Hujjaj, and many others, have written that this holy verse was revealed on the Day of Imprecation, which was the 24th or 25th of Dhu'l-Hijja in 9 AH and ALSO ASHRAF THANVI in QURAN Tafseer.
YOUR SON: HASSAN AND HUSSAIN
YOUR WOMAN: FATIMA
YOUR SELVES: MOHAMMAD(sws) AND ALI (as).
NOW HADITH:
Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih, Allama Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina, Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi in Kitabu'r-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira-e-Khawasu'l-Umma, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad and others quote the Holy Prophet as saying: "If anyone frightens and oppresses the people of Medina, Allah will frighten him (i.e., on the Day of Judgement). He will be cursed by Allah, by the angels, and by all humanity. And on the Day of Judgement, Allah will not accept any of his deeds."
AHLE SUNNAT VIEW ABOUT YAZID:
Mas'udi, in his Muruju'z-Dhahab, Volume II, says that the character of Yazid was like that of Pharaoh, but that Pharaoh was more just to his subjects than Yazid was. Yazid's rule brought disgrace on the fair name of Islam. His wickedness included drinking wine, murdering the Prophet's son, cursing the Prophet's successor, Ali, demolishing the House of Allah (Masjidu'l-Haram), and mass killings. He committed countless transgressions against divine law, sins which are unforgivable.
The majority of ulema have cursed Yazid. Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Amir Shabrawi Shafi'i in Kitabu'l-Ittihaf be Hubbi'l-Ashraf Raji' ba La'n-e-Yazid, page 20, writes that when the name of Yazid was mentioned before Mulla Sa'd Taftazani, he said: "Curse be on him and on his companions and helpers." Allama Samhudi in his Jawahiru'l-Iqdain, is reported to have said: "The ulema in general have concurred that it is permitted to curse him who murdered Imam Husain, or who ordered him to be murdered, or who sanctioned his murder, or who agreed to his murder."
Ibn Jauzi, Abu Ya'la, and Salih Bin Ahmad, arguing from the verses of the Holy Qur'an write that, "It is proven that cursing Yazid is permissible. It is the duty of all Muslims that they should know the rights that Imam Husain has over them, and how, with the strength of his suffering oppression and tyranny, he watered the tree of Islam with his own blood and the blood of his family. Otherwise, that blessed tree might have died because of the tyranny of the Bani Umayya. It was Husain who gave Islam a new life."
YAZID OWN STAEMENT AFTER MASS KILLING IN KARBALA:
Abdullah Bin Uzza Ba'ri. Sibt Ibn Jauzi, Abu Raihan, and others have written that Yazid wished for the presence of his ancestors, who were all infidels, and were killed in the battle of Badr on the order of the Prophet. Yazid said: "I wish those of my clan who were killed at Badr, and those who had seen the people of the Khazraj clan wailing (in the battle of Uhud) on account of lancet wounds, were here. They would have hailed me with loud cries and said: 'O Yazid, may your hands never be paralyzed' because I have killed the chiefs of his (the Prophet's) clan. I did so as revenge for Badr, which has now been completed. The Bani Hashim only played a game with government. There has come no message from Allah, nor was anything revealed. I would not belong to the Khandaq family if I had not taken vengeance on the descendants of the Prophet. We avenged the murders of Ali by killing his son, a horseman and a brave lion."
OTHER INFOR ABOUT YAZID(Lanatullahe)
Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkira, page 63, says that some of the people of Medina went to Syria in 62 A.H. When they learned of the sinful deeds of Yazid, they returned to Medina, broke their allegiance to him, cursed him, and turned out his Governor, Uthman Bin Abi Sufyan. Abdullah Bin Hanzala (Ghusilu'l-Mala'ikat) said: "O people, we did not revolt against Yazid until we verified that he was an irreligious man. He killed the descendants of the Prophet, illegally associates with mothers, daughters, and sisters, drinks wine, and does not offer the ritual prayer."
SOME PEOPLE STILL DEPENDING HIM AND IGNORING QURAN AND SUNNAH.
ALLAH AP SAB KA HAMI WA NASIR HO
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Iconoclast
[quote]
^Not true, i think if his killers were punished quikly and eficeintly, the whle shia/sunni divide might not have happened.
[/quote]
You mean, knowledge of Hazrat Ali (RA) regarding Islam was less then yours [as you are questioning decision of Hazrat Ali (RA)] or is that you are right and he was wrong regarding the issue that he had in his hand (because you know better)?
Or is it that you believe that there were better and more Knowledgeable person at that time other then Ali (RA)?
Who knows, probably you might be thinking that unfortunately you were not born at that time, else you would have corrected the decision of Ali (RA).
Probably if you were born at that time, you nust be thinking that you should have been the fourth khalif :)
**
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
The whole shia/sunni divide existed before Caliph Uthman came into power, hence that point is kinda moot. However my point was not about the origins of the sunni shia divide but on the death of Caliph Uthman and the reason why he was killed.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
You mean, knowledge of Hazrat Ali (RA) regarding Islam was less then yours [as you are questioning decision of Hazrat Ali (RA)] or is that you are right and he was wrong regarding the issue that he had in his hand (because you know better)?
Or is it that you believe that there were better and more Knowledgeable person at that time other then Ali (RA)?
Who knows, probably you might be thinking that unfortunately you were not born at that time, else you would have corrected the decision of Ali (RA).
Probably if you were born at that time, you nust be thinking that you should have been the fourth khalif :)
*
Ma'adhallah, i have no such intent.
I beleive that status of Hazrat Ali is beyond what i can even imagine of.
You are taking my statement out of context. The context is shi'ite "theology" and "madhab". This is a madhab that is standing on a specifc intertpretation of events. 1400 years on, all what they debate with sunnies is, Fulan did that and Fulan did that etc, these events have no relevance to us now, we cannot fix what happened.
But when they keep coming on these things, i want to show them other side of the picture. Can you argue that Shahadat of Hazrat Uthman ra was any less a calamity than Kerbala? I think i am right to beleive that it was his Shahadat that led to bloodshed and Fitnah among Muslims. And as ARM pointed out, we keep talking about Kerbala, but we never talk about people who murdered the beloved son in law of Prophet saw.*
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
bhai if your asking a shia, the answer would be there is no comparison. They’re in total different leagues.
Secondly; if no ones remembers him, then whose fault is that? The onus is on those who follow him as a caliph, and not on those who are pretty much indifferent. so theres no point whinging about it here is there?
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Could you shed some light on his malpractices?
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
I was talking to Sa1eem:snooty:
And yes, those who beleive in him being the third Caliph, we sunnies, still do not discuss it that much, coz our religion does not depend upon one particular event in history, it depends on Quran and Sunnah.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
SOME THING ABOUT THIRD CALIPH BY AHLE SUNNAT
Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Khallikan, Ibn A’sam Kufi (it is also recorded in Siha-e-Sitta), Mas’udi in Muruju’dh-Dhahab, Volume I, page 435, Ibn Hadid in Sharhe Nahju’l-Balagha, Volume I, and others of your ulema affirm that when Uthman Bin Affan became Caliph, he acted against the examples set by the Holy Prophet and also against the ways of Abu Bakr and Umar. Both sects agree that in the Consultative Council in which he was selected as Caliph Abdu’r-Rahman Bin Auf offered him allegiance based on the Book of Allah, the hadith of the Prophet, and the ways of Abu Bakr and Umar. One condition of his allegiance was that Uthman would not let the Bani Umayya interfere nor would he give them any authority. But when his position became secure, he violated these pledges. According to the Holy Qur’an and reliable hadith, to violate an agreement is a great sin. Your own ulema say that Caliph Uthman broke his pledge. Throughout his caliphate he acted in contradiction to the way of Abu Bakr and Umar. He gave the Bani Umayya full authority over the people’s lives and property.
Another example of Uthman’s cruelty was his beating of Ammar Yasir. Ulema of both sects relate that when Umayyad oppression increased, some companions of the Prophet wrote to Uthman, asking him to relent. They said that if he continued to assist his cruel Umayyad Governors, he would not only be harming Islam, but he would himself be subjected to serious consequences. They asked Ammar Yasir to deliver the petition since Uthman himself had acknowledged Ammar’s virtue. They had often heard Uthman say that the Prophet said that faith was blended with the flesh and blood of Ammar. So Ammar took the letter to Uthman. When he arrived, Uthman asked him, “Do you have business with me?” He replied: “I have no business of a personal nature. But a group of the Prophet’s Companions has written in this letter some suggestions and advice for your welfare. They have sent them to you through me.” After reading a few lines, Uthman threw the letter down. Ammar said: “It was not good of you. A letter from the companions of the Holy Prophet of Allah deserves respect. Why did you throw it on the ground? It would be proper for you to have read it and replied to it?” “You are lying!” Uthman shouted. Then he ordered his slaves to beat him, and Uthman himself kicked him in the stomach. He fell, unconscious; his relatives came and took him to the house of Ummu’l-Mu’minin Umm Salma (one of the Prophet’s wives). From noon until midnight he remained unconscious. The tribes of Hudhail and Bani Makhzun turned against Uthman because of his cruelty to Abdullah Bin Mas’ud and Ammar Yasir.
100 of more evidence is in your history that he was against the islamic law.
This was one of the reason that his death has less value as compare to even of IMAM HUSSAIN KARBALA .
YOU NEED STUDY DEAR GO TO BOOKS INSTEAD OF SOME LESS KNOWLEDGEABLE ULLAM
ALLAH APKA HAMI WA NASIR HO
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^ Don't get me started.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
exactly..so why bring it up if its irrelevant? 
sadiyah; will do inshallah but will require a seperate topic.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
1st things first:
Hussein R.A. ONLY opposed yazid because Yazid had not yet gained power as the caliph.
**IF **Yazid had gotten his authority right away, then Hussein R.A. would have pledged allegiance to him. This is why when he neared Kufa and realized people had given allegiance to Yazid, he said four things one of which were “Or I give my hand in the hand of Yazid as a pledge of allegiance”. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/313).
Appointing a successor was not wrong. Abu Bakr r.a. chose Umar r.a. then **after Abu **bakr r.a.'s death the prominent people decided if his decision was right or not.
In the case of Yazid, AbdAllah ibn Umar r.a. opposed yazid's rule as well as Hussein r.a.
So BEFORE YAZID GAINED AUTHORITY Hussein r.a. set out to stop him, because he didn't want a Tyrant Ruler over the muslims.
Anyways, circumstances led to events, and ibn Ziyad would not listen to Hussein r.a. and neither would Hussein r.a. to him. So they fought.
THERE IS NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT YAZID KILLED OR ORDERED THE KILLING OF HUSSEIN r.a.
Therefore we cannot curse someone without having any evidence towards him.
ANother thing is that, **LETS ASSUME **for a second he did kill hussein r.a. We still cannot curse him because he is not a kufr, he only committed a grave sin.
Lastly, cursing someone won't give us reward in the hereafter, Allah swt won't ask us "did you curse yazid!:O"?
see what I mean?
On a side note, this is the only thing i don't realize about shias .... why attach religious significance to the event at kerbala? Why?
Your deen was completed by the Prophet pbuh, so why make up new rituals and practices based on what happened years after his demise?
Thats what I don't understand.
For me, History is History, I focus on my Quran and Sunnah, not on things that happened afterwards...my deen was completed for me.
If two individuals had a dispute, so be it, they're sitll muslims, and that dispute is between them. I mean you had incidents where Ali r.a. would bury Muawiyah r.a.'s soldiers and vice versa, when the fighting stopped.
So in my opinion, cursing anyone would not get us anything...and attaching religious significance to things not part of deen (disputes etc) is not our job.
Reference from you Quote: ANother thing is that, **LETS ASSUME **for a second he did kill hussein r.a. We still cannot curse him because he is not a kufr, he only committed a grave sin.
YAZID SHOULD BE CURESD : FOR EVIDENCE FROM QURAN SEE BELOW
**HADITH:
**Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih, Allama Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina, Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi in Kitabu'r-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira-e-Khawasu'l-Umma, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad and others quote the Holy Prophet as saying: "If anyone frightens and oppresses the people of Medina, Allah will frighten him (i.e., on the Day of Judgement). He will be cursed by Allah, by the angels, and by all humanity. And on the Day of Judgement, Allah will not accept any of his deeds."
AHLE SUNNAT VIEW ABOUT YAZID:
Mas'udi, in his Muruju'z-Dhahab, Volume II, says that the character of Yazid was like that of Pharaoh, but that Pharaoh was more just to his subjects than Yazid was. Yazid's rule brought disgrace on the fair name of Islam. His wickedness included drinking wine, murdering the Prophet's son, cursing the Prophet's successor, Ali, demolishing the House of Allah (Masjidu'l-Haram), and mass killings. He committed countless transgressions against divine law, sins which are unforgivable.
SOME MORE EVIDENCE FOR Murdering the prophets son..
The majority of ulema have cursed Yazid. Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Amir Shabrawi Shafi'i in Kitabu'l-Ittihaf be Hubbi'l-Ashraf Raji' ba La'n-e-Yazid, page 20, writes that when the name of Yazid was mentioned before Mulla Sa'd Taftazani, he said: "Curse be on him and on his companions and helpers." Allama Samhudi in his Jawahiru'l-Iqdain, is reported to have said: "The ulema in general have concurred that it is permitted to curse him who murdered Imam Husain, or who ordered him to be murdered, or who sanctioned his murder, or who agreed to his murder."
NOW VALUE OF PROPHET FAMILY BY QURAN.
*FIRST WITH HOLY QURAN
*"Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein..." (42:23) a group of companions asked "O Prophet of Allah, who are those of your relatives whose love has been made obligatory on us by Allah?" The Prophet replied, "They are Ali, Fatima, Hasan, and Husain." Some hadith contain the words "and their sons," meaning Hasan and Husain.
According to AHLE SUNNAT Great Books and authors that the above verse is for the five only and they have Hadith in the following books.
ABOUT VERSE MUBAHILA: :Of course, our first argument is from the Qur'an, which is the strongest Divine evidence, namely the Verse of Imprecation (Ayah-e-Mubahala) in which Allah says: "And to him who disputes with you therein after the knowledge has come to you, say 'Come, let us summon our sons and your sons, and our women and your women, and ourselves and yourselves and then let us invoke and lay the curse of Allah upon the liars.'" (3:60) Notable ulema, such as Imam Fakhru'd-Din Razi, Imam Abu Ishaq Tha'labi, Jalalu'd-Din Suyuti, Qazi Baidhawi, Jarullah Zamakhshari, Muslim bin Hujjaj, and many others, have written that this holy verse was revealed on the Day of Imprecation, which was the 24th or 25th of Dhu'l-Hijja in 9 AH and ALSO ASHRAF THANVI in QURAN Tafseer.
YOUR SON: HASSAN AND HUSSAIN
YOUR WOMAN: FATIMA
YOUR SELVES: MOHAMMAD(sws) AND ALI (as).
YAZID (LANATULAAHLE) has murderd 72 along with children, woman you still depending him, ignoring QURAN AND SUNNAH.
OPEN YOU EYES AND SEE FACTs and TRUTH
**ALLAH APKA HAMI WA NASIR HO
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
On the 9th Oct u start ur investigation and on the 10th u conclude??
I usually don’t get myself into such debates esp. it’s Ramadhan but I must say I went :mad2: when I read this post. So I just want to add my 2 cents on some of the things u mentioned.
Quran and Sunnah u say?
As far as I know no Prophet asked for anything from his ummah except P Mohammad s.a.w, since u have done research u’d know what I am referring to.
Yes as someone already posted above.
QURAN
“Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives; and whoever earns good, We give him more of good therein…” (42:23)
He asked for nothing but that the ummah loves his near relatives.
SUNNAH
Referring** specifically** to I Hussain a.s.
“Husain a.s. is from me and I am from Hussain a.s.”
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal Vol 4, P172
It is said that the P s.a.w. would place his grandson on his lap and say this to the ppl so that no one will have any excuse that they didn’t know who Hussain a.s. was.
Like Allama Iqbal said “Kardan-e-Shabbir say Khoon-e-Mohammad s.a.w. bay giya”
The Messenger looked at Ali a.s. Fatima a.s. Hassan a.s. & Hussain a.s. and said “I am at war with those who will fight u, and in peace with those who are peaceful to u” - Sahih Al-Tirmidhi Vol 5, P 699
You said
“attaching religious significance to things not part of deen (disputes etc) is not our job.”
“why attach religious significance to the event at kerbala?”
" For me, History is History, I focus on my Quran and Sunnah, not on things that happened afterwards…my deen was completed for me."
Firstly u seem to indicate that since it was a dispute between these 2 individuals we shouldn’t attach any religious significance to it. If we say there is no religious significance to what happened in Karbala, then actually Imam Hussain a.s. and his companions didn’t die as a shaheed {Nauzubillah}
I once opened a thread to lectures from Ahle-sunnah lecturers on the topic of Karbala and I highly recommend u dl & to listen to it. If u don’t have time, just go through what I posted with regard to what I heard in the lecture.
http://www.paklinks.com/gs/showthread.php?t=214810&highlight=karbala
In the lecture it is mentioned that on the fields of Karbala the opposing army insisted either he does bayat to Yazid or fight.
Hussain a.s. was son of Ali a.s. and Fatima a.s. & these ppl do not bow to “Tyrant Rulers” - as u urself refer to him as.
Quran itself mentions history and history has it’s relevance in Islam. The event of Karbala IS Islamic history.
Got to go now.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^ Yes because maybe i did spend alot of time on it?
Tell me though, what does "matham" have to do with the events at kerbala? Is it not attaching religious significance?
When Harun a.s. and Musa a.s. can have a conflict as stated in the Quran, and we're required to respect both sides, then why is it such a problem when two sahabis have it?
Allah says in Surah Baqarah verse 285 " we do not distinguish between them."
So why should we?