Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Little human..that was such a great post..thanks a lot
"Husain a.s. is from me and I am from Hussain a.s."
Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal Vol 4, P172
please folks..read the part in BOLD and hopefully you will realize the status of Imam Hussain (a.s.)
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
cresent, this person did more then just killing Imam Hussain (a.s.) and His family. he made His sisters, wife, daughter and other family members run through the bazaar without chaddar..these are the grand children of Prophet Mohummad (pbuh&up) walking through the streets without rida...walking like prisoners, His 4 year old daugther died in the prison...but maybe all this really doesnt matter right
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Parda duniya ko seekhanay wali..ayee bazaar main Zainab (a.s.)
Ghar say bahar bhi na aanay wali..ayee bazaar main Zainab (a.s.)
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
but see, i only get that from shia's, and not sunni, or any other sources :S
and you have to get one thing here, when i say you cannot curse yazid, its not because im defending his actions (whatever they maybe), but stating why you cannot curse him.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
I mean what I am reading is that he by all means did very wrong and horrible stuff. I think that is something everyone agrees on.
the question then is, from a religious point of view, can he be called a kaffir or can he be cursed by everyone? If not ..provide evidence that doing so is not allowed, and if he can be cursed, provide evidence that it is allowed.
that would be good info.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Majalis were introduced by Hazrat Zainab(as) in medina to inform the people of medina what happened to the grandson of Prophet pbuh in karbala and it was followed by matam to express the grief.
Imam Hussain wasn’t a sahabah, he was the grandson of Prophet pbuh and yazid is nowhere close to sahabah.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Very informative. Thank you for sharing. :k:
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
After the death of Ali (RA) and abdication from Khalafat by Imam Hasan (RA), Muawiah took over the rein of Islamic empire back to the original leadership of Mecca. True to tradition of Meccan, he (and especially his son Yazid) used sword not only to take over but also to revenge his family (a Meccan tradition). The enviousness of banu-Shams (banu-Ummaya is from banu-Shams) with banu-Hashim is old story but real reason for revenge using sword happened with first battle of Islam; that is Gazwa-e-Badr.
First killing amongst Muslims and Kuffar of Mecca in battle was killing of Banu-Ummaya by Banu Hashim. Gazwa-e-Badar started because of lies of Abu-Sufiyan (father of Muawiah) bringing goods back to Mecca (Abu-Sufiyan sent message, lying to Meccan leaders that Muslims want to attack convey and loot the goods, so save it from ‘Muslims’). Meccan came out and even though found no threat from Muslims decided to have a go on Muslims.
The first three Kuffars killed were grandfather of Muawiah (Uttaba who was father-in-law of Abu Sufiayn and father of Hind), Uncle of Hind (Sheeba who was granduncle of Muawiah and brother of Uttaba) and Brother of Hind (Walid who was uncle of Muawiah and son of Uttaba).
Battle started with one-to-one contest. Initially three Ansars came out (from Muslim side) to contest them but those three Kuffars returned them back, as they wanted to fight with their equals. Thus, Prophet (SAW) sent his own Uncle Hamza (RA), his 70 year old cousin Obaida (RA) bin Haris (Haris was the eldest son of Abdul-Mutalib and eldest brother of Abu-Talib), and his cousin Ali (RA).
Ali (RA) killed Walid, Hamza (RA) killed Uttaba (father of Hind) and Sheeba was having upper hand on Obaida (RA) but since these two [Hazrat Hamza (RA) and Hazrat Ali (RA)] finished their killing of their kuffars opponent, moved and helped Obaida (RA) and thus killed Sheeba (though due to injury, later Obaida (RA) also got Shaheed).
That hatred got so entrenched in the heart and mind of banu-ummaya (rather family of Abu-sufyan) that Hind (mother of Muawiyah and grandmother of Yazid) planned and prepared the killing of Hamza (RA) in Uhad and did the horrific thing of chewing raw heart of Hamza (RA). History records that when head of Imam Hussain (RA) was presented to Yazid, he put his foot on the head of Imam Hussain (RA) and declared that he avenged Badar. Thus, hatred between Banu Hashim and Banu Ummaya is understandable. Fath-e-Mecca ended the rule of Abu-sufiyan on Mecca and Muawiah as ruler in waiting of Mecca (after Abu-sufiyan).
*As for what happened in Kerbala, there is wrong propaganda by the followers of yazid that Imam Hussain (RA) was going on jihad against Yazid or that what happened is nothing to do with Yazid. If imam Hussain (RA) were going on Jihad against Yazid then he would have had army with him, not family members (consisting of handful of people) with women and children as little as few months old. *
Before event of Kerbela happened, Muawiah had died and Yazid took over the rein of Muawiah as ruler. The army that killed Imam Hussain (RA) was army of Yazid, following the command of Yazid and was acting on behalf of Yazid. Yazid killed Imam Hussain (RA) as Hitler killed Jews, Stalin killed many in Russia, Changez Khan killed many wherever he went or Halaku killed many when he captured Bhagdad. None killed with their own hand but all are killers as their men killed on their behalf just like Yazid men killed the children of Prophet (SAW) on behalf of Yazid.
*I think that Prophet (SAW) was so unfortunate that he had such followers that after his death did all they can to kill and destroy the family of Prophet (SAW) that never happened in history with any leader, reformer or Prophet. That is the case even though in Quran Allah has made obligatory on Muslims to love Prophet (SAW) more then anything, even children, power or wealth. *
Actually, it seems that Muawiah had more loyal follower then Prophet (SAW) (remnant of built in loyalty amongst Arab tribes for the ruler of Mecca). Thus followers of Muawiah, even though they use to call themselves Muslim loved Yazid (who was not even a Sahabi) more then the children of Prophet (SAW), just because Yazid was son of Muawiah son of Abu-Sufiyan (ruler of Mecca) was from family of rulers of Mecca. (That was in spite that it is fard on Muslim to love Prophet (SAW) and it is obvious that loving someone means loving close to that person). It is unfortunate that even though Imam Hussain (AS) was amongst the best of Muslims and grandchild of Prophet (SAW), there were (and are) still many Muslims in love of Yazid (the worst of human being).
In having loyal supporters, it seems that, even Z A Bhutto have better followers who are supporting Bai-Nazeer regardless of what she does. None of Z A Bhutto friends dared to challenge Bai-Nazeer just because she is daughter of Z A Bhutto. Even Kafir hindus are better loyal to their leader Nehru as they supported Indra Ghandhi (daughter of Nehru) due to Nehru and now grandchildren of Nehru. Well, supporter of Banu-Ummaya were also very loyal as they supported Yazid (as they do it even now) even if they have to go against the children of Prophet (SAW), whom if they are Muslims (as they claim) it is their religious duty to love and respect.
Certainly, what happened during those days and our reaction to it is one of the tests of Allah as love of Prophet (SAW) is a condition for being Muslim, that is in Quran and our being Muslim is related to how we feel about Prophet (SAW) and family of Prophet (SAW), else we are not even Muslim whatever we do.
Love of Prophet (SAW) more then anything in this world, including parents and children, is must and part of Imaan:
* *
Surah 9 ayah24: *YUSUFALI:* Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred; the wealth that ye have gained; the commerce in which ye fear a decline: or the dwellings in which ye delight - are dearer to you than Allah, or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;- then wait until Allah brings about His decision: and Allah guides not the rebellious.
(Note: above ayahs give condition of being Muslim and along with Allah, love of Prophet (SAW) is must and those who love Prophet (SAW) should love children of Prophet (SAW) as showing love to the children of Prophet (SAW) is actually showing the love of Prophet (SAW). Those who show their love and respect to anyone else, like Yazid when compared to the children of Prophet (SAW), then they are obviously not Muslim)]
Just imagine how those could be Muslim who fought children of Muhammad (SAW) when at the same time they were reading darood-e-Ibrahimi in their salaat, where they are suppose to pray for the children of Prophet (SAW). Thus, either these people were not doing salat or if they were doing salat they were reading darud-e-ibrahimi without believing on it (thus they were munafiqs) or they were doing salat without even reading darud-e-Ibrahimi (means there salat was not proper).
We should also note that action of Muawiah was nothing to do with the murderer of Usman (RA), as many like to believe. Muawiah only used the death of Usman (RA) and all that murderer hype to start a war of Khalafat. *Those who say that war between Ali (RA) and Muawiah was war due to demands for punishment of culprits (murderer) involved in the death of Usman (RA), then they are completely wrong. *
First of all Hazrat Ali (RA) was a better judge of Islam then Muawiah wanting revenge of Usman (RA), thus Muawiah should have trusted Ali (RA). On other hand, Ali (RA) was khalifa too, thus Muawiah should have trusted Ali (RA) judgement anyway (as a better judge and as Khalif).
Even if Muawiah did not trusted Ali (RA) and that would have been the case then talk after ‘siffin’ between Ali (RA) and Muawiah, would have had something to do regarding murderer of Usman (RA) but talk was all regarding Khalafat [where Muawiah man tried to depose Ali (RA) and instate Muawiah]. Thus, the talk that followed ‘Siffin’ shows that in reality, war by Muawiah against Ali (RA) was nothing to do with murderer of Usman (RA) but it was regarding Khalafat (where Muawiah was trying to gain Khalafat using excuses of Usman (RA) murder).
It is true that amongst Meccan, banu-Hasmim were weaker party and banu-Shams were stronger and more influential party, but the way banu-Ummaya took over the rein of Muslims is deplorable. Regardless, it is more deplorable that even today, many people (calling themselves Muslims, wonder why?) are still banu-Ummaya loyalist. These deplorable people would go to extreme end to defend Yazid and Muawiah in every way.
To think that Allah would not ask where the loyalty of Muslim lies is living in denial of the events and its place as test of Allah in this world (as all what happens in this world is a part of test of Allah). Nevertheless, it is best to leave the judgment of Allah regarding those who are living with their loyalty to enemy of Prophet (SAW) and his family, as certainly they will not have the last laugh after death.
Ummayads managed to rule for 89 years until 750 AD. Then Abbasid (Hashmi) took the rein and ruled for 508 years, until 1258 AD. What ever they (Yazid, Muawiah and other ummayads) did was their deed and they will be answerable to that on judgment day. Apart of paying for the crime on judgement day, Abbasids (banu-Hashims) made them Ummayads pay for their crime in this world too.
When Abbasids (banu-Hashimi) came to power, they killed most of Ummayads, making 89 years of Ummayad rule ending with Ummayad death, misery, and destruction. Abbasids did not stopped there but they dug the graves of past ummayad kings (so-called Khalifs) and punished the skeleton of each one of them [except. I think Umar bin Abdul Aziz (RA)].
That is different matter that one Ummayad prince ran to Spain where Ummayad ruler ruled until the fall of Spain. Unfortunately, Abbasid also persecuted children of prophet (SAW) considering them to be threat to their Khalafat. Sometime I really feel surprised that even though ruling class were always anti-children of Prophet (SAW), how still Muslims preserved all what happened to them, as ruling class and not those persecuted influence how the history is written (probably, it is will of Allah that we know what happened).
The thing that bugs me is that, how and why the children of Yazid (the followers and worshiper of banu-Ummayads, people who love Yazid) call themselves Muslims. We cannot call them ‘Kafir’, as for we Muslim, our hands are tied as we are stopped from calling anyone ‘kafir’ who utters that they believe on ‘Laillah-illallah, Muhammad-ur-Rasul Allah’ (even if that person does not really believes). But at least, these people should stop calling themselves Muslim, would make life easier. When these people do not love Prophet (SAW) but love the enemy of Prophet (SAW), why these people associate themselves with the religion Allah sent through Prophet (SAW)?
Some followers of banu-ummaya say that whatever happened in those days, on judgement day, both will forgive each other. But it is obviously wrong as fact is that all involved were humans and humans only forgives in this life, not after death and thus, what happened during those days will take many, who were against the family of Prophet (SAW) to hell. I do not think that Allah ever going to forgive those who abusesed, accused and fought the family of his most beloved Prophet (SAW). What happened during those days are also test of Muslims loyalty of later years (even of today) as even now there are people who are more loyal to banu-Ummaya, the enemies of Prophet (SAW), and it is anyone’s guess where they will end after death.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
ok, so u blame the shahadat of Hussain (ra) on ibn-e-zeyad.....
then who was responsible for the shahadat of abdullah bin zubayr (ra), who was killed in the haram, and in the process, these ppl u r trying to defend also burnt the kaaba....
now burning the holy kaaba deserves a curse or not????
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
sa1eem, i have never heard anyone who calls himself a follower of yazid....
or a worshipper of banu umayyah....
like some have started worship of ahl-e-bait, do u think others started worshipping banu umayyahd????
this is a false accusation that u have some up with....
i am very sure that no one has ever worshipped banu umayyah, and that u r just conjuring up a lie....
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Most of ulema Ahley Sunnat regard Yazid as an infidel. Even Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and many other great ulema of your sect suggest that curses on him should be recited. Abdu'r-Rahman Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi has written a book on this subject, Kitabu'l-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anidu'l-Mani'an La'n-e-Yazid La'natullah. the majority of ulema have noted his irreligious, tyrannical behavior. Muslim states that as caliph, Yazid attempted to do away with religion. 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 (one of br already mentioned this in his post earlier).
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 Hazrat Husain (RA) 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."
I regret that, instead of recognizing the services that these holy people rendered for Islam, you raise objections about pilgrims who visit their tombs and call them worshippers of the dead. We often read that in the central places of countries, like Paris, London, Berlin, and Washington there are tombs honoring the "unknown soldier." It is said that, suffering the tyranny of the enemy and in defense of his country, he sacrificed his life. But there was no mark on his body or clothes to indicate his family or city. Because he gave his life in defense of his country, even though he was unknown, he is worthy of respect. When a king or any prominent personality visits such cities, he visits the grave of the unknown soldier and places wreaths of flowers on it. An unknown soldier receives much respect, but I regret that, instead of respecting the pilgrims who visit the tombs of learned, pious Muslims, we criticize them. Some of them knew the entire Qur'an by heart. They sacrificed their lives in the defense of Islam. These people include the trustees of Allah, the Holy Prophet, and descendants of the holy Prophet.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
armughal:
l
Hmm :) ..... I am also sure that no one worship banu-ummaya (I do not think they deserve that :)) but certainly there are people who call themselves Muslim still hate Prophet (SAW) family in favour of Banu-Ummaya. What can you call them?
My analogy is not the way we worship Allah but it is analogy used in language for instance: worshiper of money, worshiper of power, worshiper of their leader, worshiper of tribal loyalty etc etc. This type of worshiping means that one is very loyal to them and would do anything for them (things or humans they love).
Y2K_Zaid:
[quote]
Most of ulema Ahley Sunnat regard Yazid as an infidel
[/quote]
I do not think that any ‘TRUE’ ulema of Ahley-sunnah wal Jamah declared Yazid ‘infidel’ (that means Kafir). It is consensus amongst Ulema of ‘Ahley-sunnah wal Jamah’ that, anyone that utters (says) ‘kalma-e-Shahadah (or Kalma-e-Tayaba)’ from his mouth, cannot be called ‘Infidel’, whatever that person believes of does. For such person, as far as them being ‘in Islam or out of Islam’ is concerned, it is best to leave the judgment to Allah. For a Muslim, they have to treat that person as Muslim (however sinner. I believe Ulema of Ahley-sunnah wal Jamah consider Yazid a Fasiq and all believe that he was lanatee).
Note: I do not hate Yazid because what he did was bad (as there are many in history who did worse then Yazid and I am not even bothered about them). I only hate Yazid because what he did to the children of Prophet (SAW) whom I love and about whom Allah has told Muslims to love, else a person is not even a Muslim.
Thus, it is my love of Prophet (SAW) and because of Prophet (SAW), my love is extended to his children, his descendents and close blood relatives) that makes me hate Yazid and to an extend Muawiah, other then that, there is no other reason.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Were you there with your cam coder? can u send us the clips? How do u know such minute details? The thing is that your Zakirs have brainwashed you.
If you do a little scientific investigation you will find out that the whole Karbala incidence is exaggerated by Persians. Let me discuss some of the fallacies.
Shia Fallacy no 1.
Hazrat Hussein and his Family were not allowed to have water from the banks of river Tigris ( Farat wa Dajla)
Now how is it possible that the Yazeed forces could seal the whole river? Even the Americans cannot seal the Iraqi border....Pakistan cannot effectively seal its border with Afghanistan. India cannot stop Kashmeri freedom fighters from crossing the borders.....but somehow the forces of Yazeed were so strong that the sealed the entire river making access to it impossible. This I cannot understand. What about during the night time? Hazrat Hussein's Caravan could have easily reaced the waters in stealth because Yazeed forces did not have night vision Binoculars at that time.
Shia Fallacy no 2.
The family of Hazrat hussien was thirsty , they had all their water sources depeleted and thus....they came out from the tents and asked the forces of yazeed for water and a war broke out!
Now a little reasoning would tell us that when you are near the banks of a river. The water level in below the surface is not very deep. I have lived near seashores and rivers. If you start digging near the banks of river jhelum or Indus in Pakistan you will get water approximately at 6 or 5 feet. I am sure that in ancient days when they used to travel in carvans they did carry tools like plougher with them...incase somebody died they could easily burry them with! Why didn't Hazrat Hussein and his family tried to dig a well? Digging a well near a sandy river hardly takes 4 hours....!
These are all scientific.... any comments?
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
y2k zaid- ther eis no issue with someone going to anyone's grave and offering fatiha 9although you dont physically ahve to be at the gravesite to offer fatiha). I have not had the chance to go to Karbala but InshaAllah one day I will. It is a place of historic significance to all muslims.
There is however a difference bwtee ppl who visit qabr to do fatiha and to pay respects versus those who pray to the graves. That is not right no matter whose qabar it is and no matter where it is. Ppl used to get kicked out of masjid e nabwi for doing that, and I bet it still happens to this day.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
One can love the prophet and his family, yet not tale part in majalis, and alams and matam and what nots. I was called someone opposed to the prophets family just because I voiced that I find the whole matam thing very wrong, the zanjeer matam and the matam they do with knives..ppl want to do it, i thinkits worng but hey if they think its right more power to them. Those are not the only ways to show love and reverence for these holy figures.
slightly off the topic, but in line with what was just said.
I addition, politics dont make someone a hater or foe of the prophet’s family. I mean yazid’s case is one, but conflicts and diff of opinion exists about the first 3 khalifahs as well. who was right, and who was wrong or does it even matter in terms of the religion.
Thats a bigger question and one that has kept the sects fighting for ages.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
bitter reality
your arguments do not change the fact that the forces under Yazid's control savagely killed some extremely important figures for us. The family of our prophet. No matter how exaggerated that is or how factual it is, that does not change the injustice that was committed and the horrific tragedy that took place there. If you sit bck and reflect..I mean one would wonder, how on earth could this happen and how on earth anyone who calls himself a muslim slay the prophet's family...
yes it does not change the religion, the message was complete, but if this is not a tragedy, i dont know what is.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Historical records tend to look at Yazid poorly..writers like Philip K Hitti and many Muslim historians perceive his rule as one of general incompetence and "moral degeneration" that set a precedent for most other Ummayad Caliphs.
I've always argued with some of my Shia friends that the key schism is one of blame & vengence..that sunnis do not consider the events of karbala as tragic. I believe you have to look at what happened afterwards in general, the destruction of the Ka'bah and also look at the end of the Ummayad Caliphate in Damascus to see the story should have been settled at that stage ...
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Cresent; your arguments are so illogical, they’re unbelievable.
anyways heres an ayah on cursing:
Surah Baqarah verse 161:
Yusufali 2:161:* Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- on them is Allah’s curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind;*]
Hope that clears things up.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Is this the particular reason, Shia Scholars Curse the first three Caliphs as well? Interesting.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
what is the definition of someone who rejects faith? I mean someone could be a horrible muslim, but still a muslim unless he renounces faith right. he could be doing everything against religion, could be only muslm in his name, ppl may not identify with that person and he may be breaking each and every law.
is that true? or do some actions kick someone out of the faithful?