~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

Society Religion & Philosophy
81

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

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."*

Yazids own words attest to his kufr to the tee.

82

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

hmmm interesting- those words in my view do make him a munafiq of the highest order.

83

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

Fraudz:

[quote]
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.
[/quote]

My experience of Majlis is mostly TV programs and so I do not know a lot in details regarding Majlis. Regardless, I can understand significance of majlis, as long as it keeps itself with recalling the events that happened during Karbala. It reminds what happened to the descendents of Prophet (SAW) in the hand of so-called Muslims (Yazidies).

I believe that all Muslims should keep remembering what happened in karbela, as that brings the feeling of closeness towards Prophet (SAW) and his descendents that one can easily forget when involved in day-to-day living. I believe that after hearing majlis, if a Muslim does not feel remorse and tears does not come out, that person in reality has no love of Prophet (SAW) and in that case, Iman of such Muslim is debatable.

[Note: Allah has told us specifically in Quran that we should love Prophet (SAW), else Allah does not need us. That requirement is true for Muslims until the Judgment day. Hence, Muslims of all ages (era) should get that reminded and probably Majlis is a way to knock to us the need regarding love of Prophet (SAW) through the love of his descendent and getting involved in their suffering.].

As for matam, Zanjir things and hurting oneself with knives, I personally feel it is too much, but I respect the beliefs and involvement Shias find when event of Kerbela is mentioned and thus, I feel better to keep my eyes close (without criticism). I believe that if Shias really love the way they show they love the descendents of Prophet (SAW), than certainly that would be envious for me.

[quote]
I addition, politics dont make someone a hater or foe of the prophet's family. I mean yazid's case is one,.
[/quote]

As for Yazid and politics, I do not think that there was choice of playing politics and still be within the circle of Islam. Yazid was not playing politics of power struggle, but he was playing with children of Prophet (SAW), same Prophet (SAW) due to whom Islam came in Arabia and people became Muslim and loving whom is requirement of being Muslim.

Thus, we are not talking about politics of equals but politics playing with religion Islam and family of Prophet (SAW). If Imam Hussain (RA) was playing politics, he would have given bayt to Yazid (as Yazid army was much stronger at that time), then later would have started playing politics against Yazid. Actually, after the death of Yazid, that happened couple of years after the shahadah of Imam Hussain (RA), Ummayah kingdom (Khalafat) became very weak and if Imam Hussain (RA) were alive, it would have been child play to throw Umayyad out of Khalafat.

[Politicians do not sacrifices their life for anything, but when chips are down, they wait for the right time to pounce back]

[quote]
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
[/quote]

I do not think that one should get involved with rights and wrongs too much regarding first 3 Khalifs. I believe that Khalafat is nothing to do with Islam but it was like, ‘King is dead! Long live the King’ thing. Prophet (SAW) died and someone had to be Khalifa, Abu Bakar (RA) became Khalifa, so what is big deal about that? I do not think there is any significance (as far as Islam is concerned) regarding any of first four Khalifa (later ones, those who were Kings, are insignificant anyhow).

If there are some people, that do not believe that Abu Bakar (RA) would have been first Khalifa (or even be Khalifa ever), then also, what is big deal about that?

[Note: If Khalafat after the death of Prophet (SAW) had any significance for Islam, Prophet (SAW) would have given crystal-clear direction about Khalafat. Since Prophet (SAW) did not gave any crystal-clear direction about Khalafat, shows that importance of Khalafat is insignificant in Islam]

My loyalty to Sahaba is indirect. It is my love of Prophet (SAW) that makes me respect those close to Prophet (SAW) (i.e Sahabas) and since I do not know how close a particular Sahaba was with Prophet (SAW), I try to respect all (unless I believe with certainty (and clearly) that their behaviours was bad with Prophet (SAW) or his descendents).

So, I think that it is best not to have bad feelings regarding first three Khalifas, but again I would respect feeling of Shias because if they believe differently they have all the rights (and since my loyalty is only with Prophet (SAW) and no one else (no Sahabas), I would keep quite).

We should remember that those Sahabas were lucky that they were there when Prophet (SAW) was there, else most of them would have had died as Kafir. All Sahabas were indebted to Prophet (SAW) and due to Prophet (SAW), their indebtness extends to the descendents of Prophet (SAW).

One should know that it is human nature that, if someone is indebted to someone, they and their descendents show their gratitude to that person and even to the descendents of that person else these people would be called namak-haram. Same is true for all Muslims being indebted to prophet (SAW) and thus all should show gratitude to Prophet (SAW) and his descendents. Similarly, since love of Prophet (SAW) is obligation on all Muslims (made by Allah), automatically, our love for the descendent of Prophet (SAW) becomes obligatory.

84

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

munafiq is when your in the realms of Islam outwardly atleast; kufr is when you reject islam altogether; hence yazid cannot come under munafqat due to his outright and open rejection of islam.

85

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

[quote]

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.

[/quote]

I have no Idea what type of the muslim you are but do you know the head count of Yazid's Army at Karabala there were 30,000 soilders under Umar_ibn_Saad leadership for only 71 (Men which included Adult & Children)
There is no need to present things illogically here to save Yazid. Where is Yazid and where is the status of Hussain (RA) grandson of Prophet sww.

86

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

^ This is what happens when folks try to 'investigate' things with a conclusion made up beforehand. They then pull at straws from here and there and try to support the very conclusion theyve made up. Its pretty messed up and tragic altogether.

Indians charged with fraud
87

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

**Fraudz:

My experience of Majlis is mostly TV programs and so I do not know a lot in details regarding Majlis. Regardless, I can understand significance of majlis, as long as it keeps itself with recalling the events that happened during Karbala. It reminds what happened to the descendents of Prophet (SAW) in the hand of so-called Muslims (Yazidies). **

I actually have been to a number of majalis, in Pakistan and in US and must say that there are some that were more discussing the tragedy in a very sensible manner, narrating the events and the loss, and ppl were teary eyed and some sobbing, and then there were those where the masjid looked like a mosh pit with ppl jumping up and down and beating themselves. I could never really relate to it.

I was called a yazidi or somrthing like that when I told ppl at one such gathering that iw as not going to do matam..oh well, like a yazidi (if there is such a thing now) would spend several hours in some masjid 45 minutes from his house...anyhooo

*I believe that all Muslims should keep remembering what happened in karbela, as that brings the feeling of closeness towards Prophet (SAW) and his descendents that one can easily forget when involved in day-to-day living. I believe that after hearing majlis, if a Muslim does not feel remorse and tears does not come out, that person in reality has no love of Prophet (SAW) and in that case, Iman of such Muslim is debatable. *

we should thus also remember the events that impacted the prophet directly and was a source of grief to him whethet it was the brutal attack on him in taif or the passing of his son. Remorse, pain and hurt is not always accompanies with flowing tears, atleast not for everyone. And even facing the hardest tragedy in my personal life, I never got sad to a point that I started beating myself in grief. While I can understans that there may be those who get so worked up that they beat themselves, which to me seems contrary to what religion teaches, however, I find it highly suspct when at one majlis no one is beating himself, and at another majlis, everyone is doing it. That seems like a display and a ritual more than anything.

*As for matam, Zanjir things and hurting oneself with knives, I personally feel it is too much, but I respect the beliefs and involvement Shias find when event of Kerbela is mentioned and thus, I feel better to keep my eyes close (without criticism). I believe that if Shias really love the way they show they love the descendents of Prophet (SAW), than certainly that would be envious for me. *

On the other hand I always found matam repulsive and zanjeer and knives matam even more so, and coud not find any basis to do that. All shias dont do that anyways..

as far as the politics part goes, I meant that in my view the tragic events at kerbala, or the dispute regarding succession or chice of khalifa after the prohets passing, do nothing to change God's word so that is not a religion issue but a politics issue, as no matter who you think was right or wrong (well hopefully no one thinks yazid was right) I meant with the initial power dispute..so no matter who was right or wrong, it did not change what was revealed.

88

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

well he was in the realm of islam outwardly atleast for a big part of his life right? so technically he was a munafiq of the highest order who later rejected faith if those accounts are accurate, which i have no reason to doubt the authenticity of.

89

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

He may have been a munafiq beforehand (which is worse than kufr), but that label no longer remains.

The Random Thread
90

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

In that regard even Hazrat Ali ra was lucky because, he is also indebted to Prophet saw like all other Sahabas. Just like Ali ra sided with Prophet saw and shared hardships so did other Sahaba as well. Remember that Allah said this about Sahaba

48:29 Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from Allah and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward. [INDENT]And the Abu Bakr ra was called friend of Prophet saw in Quran.

Those who consider a Muslim and Momin and son in law of Prophet saw herectic are not showing any love to Prophet saw.

And what is your view about Ummulmomineen Ayesha Siddiqa ra?
[/INDENT]

91

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

[quote]

***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?**
[/quote]

**
[/quote]
**

firstly Water table in a place like jhelum and a dry desert like iraq will be greatly different
secondly ummayyads have a previous record of stopping water , just before siffin they stopped it from the army of Ali , and even when he sent an envoy they refused until a battle occured
Their argument was that just as uthman was deprived of water (allegedly) similarly his enemies should be kept thirsty,
[It should be noted that ummayyads considered banu hashim and most of Medinians collectively responsible for murder of uthman, this was also the justification for the battle of Harra]

92

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

this line in bold explains a lot…
personally I think there is a great temptation amongst the muslim historians to associate every kind of vice with him and maybe even exaggeratted them,because of what happened in Karbala and Harra.That has made some people like yourself a little skeptical

But in reality Yazid followed in many respects the policies of his father, he was an empire builder just like him.Muawiyah’s insistance of yazid as his successor was precisely because he knew that he would not rock the boat and maintain the sufyanid dynasty that is why he was willing to use any means including assainations abdur rehman b khalid] to achieve his goal.
It was only the unexpected defiance of Husain b Ali that upset his calculations

Ali had warned the muslims that after him the ummayyads will rule them like caesers and that is what happened…
while yazid might have reformed the irrigation but he also pillaged the Holy city of medina, so his priorities are clearly evident.His father has already set the example for such events by the raids of Bushr b Artat in which muslims were killed indiscrimnately
The focus has dramatically shifted from upholding the rule of sharia and respect for muslim lives to consolidating imperial power
and stiffling all opposition

Extra-Judicial killings of pious muslims that has became legitimate during his father’s reign was extended to large scale massacres of muslims while non-muslims enjoyed great toleration withen their courts.Similarly It was his father who was the first one to make peace with the christian byzanties by paying tributes so that he can purse with vigor the conflict with Caliph Ali pitting muslims against each other

They both appointed cruel men like ibn ziyad over the muslims and when questioned about their crimes distanced themselves from him in public without ever punishing him, as the dirty work of silencing political opponents could be well handled by a thug like ziyad it was not befitting a ummayyad prince.

so in short even if I dont believe all that is associatted with the personal life of yazid, it really does not change my image of him in any way, there are enough established facts about his reign to condemn him without believing every little detail of his personal life…he remains a brutal tyrant just like his father

93

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

[QUOTE]

The Legend has it that the imperial persians did treachery and they wanted to see either Hazrat Hussein or Yazeed getting killed. We very well know that Persians never liked the Arabs

[/QUOTE]

lol....keep them coming

94

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

[quote]

And what is your view about Ummulmomineen Ayesha Siddiqa ra?

[/quote]
[INDENT]My views about her are can be represented by this incident
just before Jamal Ayesha wrote a letter to zayd b suhan asking for his support
he replied
"This is a letter from Zayd ibn Suhan to 'A'yesha daughter of Abu Bakr and consort of the Prophet. 'Ayeshah! I am indeed your loyal and obedient son but on condition that you abandon this dangerous action and go back home the way you have come. If you reject my suggestion and advice, I will not only be your son, but I will also be the first person to oppose and fight you."
May God bless 'A'ishah for her deal with us. She entrusted us with her own task of housekeeping and took over our task of fighting and jihad."

Ayesha as we all know disregarding his advice went on to fight at Jamal , while Zayd faithful to his obligation was martyred in this battle figting against her

[/INDENT]

95

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

If you really want to know about Yazid i think you should research it yourself. Obviously you will find different opinion on the matter.

The subject, specially in these times is incredibly inflamatory, i think its childish to call yazid - "hazrat" or to curse Uthman, Abu-bakr and Umar, it just antogonizes people for whom clearly this is a sensitive topic.

There are several books, articles written by western scholars (atleast the ones i know about) which outline the destruction of Islam. Our growing population is viewed as a threat to the zionists and other bigoted people. Its very convenient that Muslims are busy butchering each other it really jsut makes the zionists and imperialistic bigots job a lot easier.

Unity is absolutely necessary for our survival. So the next time some idiot says something that makes you angry at sunni's or shia's take a moment and think about the hundred of thousands of muslims killed daily, the inhumane manner in which they are butchered in lebonon, palestine, bosnia, iraq, etc! some are even tortured, women raped, men whose limbs are cut off and eyes poked out before they are killed, think of these atrocities and tragedies and recognize that the magnitude of whats being done to muslims collectively is so much worse, and so much bigger then these minute differences. Even if the bani hashim and bani ummayids hated each other and faought each other ruthlessly - is it necessary to continue the fued - specially in these trying times!

your opinion about yazid, mawiya, usman etc will not enlighten anyone, it will not change hearts and minds, you will not suddenly convert the shia/ sunni you are addressing, all your remarks will do is create rifts, antogonize your fellow muslim bretherin.

we must make efforts to ind common ground! we must keep these discussion which incite and create hate to a minimum! otherwise shia/ sunni we will not survive these trying times!

my very personal opinion is that people who bring up such subjects are rather backwards and selfish! incapable of putting thier own opinions/ issues aside for the benefit of all Muslims!

There is a lot more we (sunni and shia) have in common! Why can we not focus on that? I am telling you as a person who is the in the know, who is well read and literate about int'l political matters!! if we continue this way, if we do not rise above these trivial differences and debates, Islam will not last, and all Muslims will collectively suffer. Our fates our in our hands. I hope to see a change in our discourse from here on out!

LP
LP
96

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

^ well aware of that, and I do apologize if i offended anyone...that was not the intent at all.

But i had to give a speech on yazid the next day, and thats why i started this thread.

And its enlightened me atleast. As a sunni it shouldn't be my concern, moreso i should focus on my deen and contemporary issues.

But this was for my knowledge, not to start a civial war on gs.

my partner was shia, and she and i discussed it peacefully, i mean lol, she held her opinions and i held mine, and i didn't see anything wrong with that.

Because shias/sunni are still united under the banner of tauheed. And whether we're at war or against each other or not, when an enemy of islam attacks the fundamentals of our religion, we do fall under the banner to defend our deen.

This has been seen over and over again in Iraq, Lebanon etc.

97

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

^ really?! b/c apparently sunni's and shia's are also consistently blowng each other up in iraq! and i think we need to not do that! i understand that to some extent that fire is fueled probably by non-muslims but still!

similarly whats happening in africa with black muslims vs arab muslims! apparently the arbs muslims are butchering the black muslims and the muslim countries are just sorta standing by watching it happen! not doing anything!! sad!! so sad!!

Also i was curious why pick such a hot subject - yazid!
Also could i recommend that perhaps at the end of your speech - you and your shia female partner in debate/ discussion reiterate that despite the differences its necessary that shia's and sunni's stay united otherwise we all lose or something to that effect!

if you are going to bring up divisive topics - you should i think end on a note of the need for unity!

98

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

actually its black muslims agaist black muslims in darfur..they just think they are arab, bu racially they are not the same race as arabs, they are as black as the ones they are killing, just thought i would clarify this big misconception that ppl have. not that it is right either way.

99

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

Iconoclast:

You are absolutely right. Ali (RA) was lucky to have Prophet (SAW) as his guardian and first cousin. If not, then whatever place Ali (RA) has in the heart of Muslims would not have been there. Actually, if Ali (RA) was not the husband of Fatima (RA) and father of Imam Hasan (RA) and Imam Hussain (RA), his place amongst Muslims would not have been same.

No doubt, if anyone gives love and respect to Ali (RA), it is because Ali (RA) was very close to Prophet (SAW). Ali (RA) was not just companion but was close blood relative of Prophet (SAW) and much more. Ali (RA) father was Uncle of Prophet (SAW) [Both grandfather and grandmother (from father side) of Ali (RA) and Muhammad (SAW) was same]. Muhammad (SAW) was orphan and Ali (RA) father adopted him and looked after him. Later, since the time Ali (RA) was born, Muhammad (SAW) looked after Ali (RA) similar to his son.

Prophet (SAW) had no brother or sister. His mother and father died when he was little. Ali (RA) was his first cousin (Abdullah and Abu-Talib had same father and mother when other uncle of Prophet (SAW) had different mother), Abu-Talib gave all protections and love to Prophet (SAW) as father and handed over Ali (RA) to Prophet (SAW) from birth (when Prophet (SAW) was in his late twenties). Thus, one can say that Ali (RA) relation with Prophet (SAW) was closest anyone could expect between two person (as good as real brothers).

Ali (RA) in reality gave up his life for Muhammad (SAW) by sleeping on the bed of Muhammad (SAW) the day Muhammad (SAW) migrated, as Kuffar wanted to kill Muhammad (SAW) in bed while sleeping. Ali (RA) slept knowing about it (and there was good chance that he would have got killed) but Allah saved him. The event shows the extreme belief of Ali (RA) on Prophet (SAW) that none could have.

Sleeping on the bed of Prophet (SAW), taking place of Prophet (SAW) and pretending to Kuffar that Prophet (SAW) was still sleeping, knowing the plan and intention of Kuffar who wanted to blindly put their sword in Prophet (SAW) while sleeping and kill Prophet (SAW), chances of Ali (RA) to get killed in place of Muhammad (SAW) was almost certain.

Allah saved him miraculously, as one of the Kuffar got suspicious and thus Kuffar investigated and noticed that it was not Prophet (SAW) but his cousin Ali (RA). Surprising thing is that, Ali (RA) slept and slept without worries is un-imaginative. One can say that after that day, Ali (RA) life was bonus as he in reality gave up his life in place of Prophet (SAW), for Allah and for safe migration of Prophet (SAW).

Ali (RA) is the only person whom Prophet (SAW) stopped doing something that Islam allows. That was stopping Ali (RA) marrying while Fatima (RA) was married to Ali (RA). Thus, one can say that Ali (RA) sacrificed his right given by Allah, for the sake of the happiness of Muhammad (SAW), something Muhammad (SAW) did not asked from anyone nor anyone sacrificed that for Muhammad (SAW) happiness.

Ali (RA) was not only Sahabi, he was first cousin of Prophet (SAW), brought up by Prophet (SAW) as adopted son (thus all values of Ali (RA) came from Prophet (SAW)), was the only Sahaba of his age who never did shrik (as he accepted Islam at an age where a person is still free from sin. It was Ali (RA) through whom, the family of Prophet (SAW), his descendents spread. Well, many things are associated with Ali (RA) that is unparallel.

But regardless of all what I mentioned above, if Ali (RA) was not related to Prophet (SAW) and was not that close to Prophet (SAW), he meant nothing for Islam and on his own, no Muslim would have given him any love or respect. Rather, we would not have been even talking about him. So yes, even Ali (RA) love and respect is dependent on how close he was with Prophet (SAW) in every respect, closeness that none had other then children of Prophet (SAW).

Actually, above ayah is regarding Muslims in general (who are Momin) in any era (from time of Prophet (SAW) to today). Regardless, just read the above ayah and you will notice something that is true for Muslims of any era (Muslims of prophet (SAW) time (including Sahabas) and Muslims of today):

**Is there any unconditional forgiveness and great rewards for any one there? **Is anything different there then what it is regarding Muslims of today? **Is it not true that ‘Allah has promised those amongst all Muslims, who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness and great reward’? **

I am sure that any Muslim, even now, if that Muslim believes (from their heart) and do righteous deeds, Allah has promised forgiveness and great reward for that Muslim too (as mentioned in that ayah). Am I wrong to say that?

Where does Quran called Abu-Bakr (RA) or anyone friend of Prophet (SAW) as Prophet (SAW) only had companions but no friends amongst Human? (Companion is a person who is passing time together, an acquaintance, ham-safar)

Actually, there are number of hadith regarding this. Prophet (SAW) neither took anyone (human) as friend nor called anyone (human) as friend. Prophet (SAW) did say that if he had taken anyone as friend (from humans) then he would have been Abu Bakar (RA).

From Sahi Muslim:

*Book 004, Number 1083: *
Jundub reported: I heard from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) five days before his death and he said: I stand acquitted before Allah that I took any one of you as friend, for Allah has taken me as His friend, as he took Ibrahim as His friend. Had I taken any one of my Ummah as a friend, I would have taken Abu Bakr as a friend. Beware of those who preceded you and used to take the graves of their prophets and righteous men as places of worship, but you must not take graves as mosques; I forbid you to do that.
*
Sahi Muslim: Book 031, Number 5869: *

Abu Sa’id reported that Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) sat on the pulpit and said: Allah gave a choice to His servant that he may opt the beauties of the world or that which is with Him and the servant chose that which was with Him. Thereupon Abu Bakr wept and he wept bitterly and said: Let our fathers and our mothers be taken as ransom for you. It was Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) who had been given the choice and Abu Bakr knew it better than us and Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) is reported to have said: Behold, of all people the most generous toward me in regard to his companionship and his property was Abu Bakr and were I to choose anyone as my bosom friend, I would have chosen Abu Bakr as my dear friend, but (for him) I cherish Islamic brotherliness and love. There shall be left open no window in the mosque except Abu Bakr’s window.

Thus, Prophet (SAW) did not take anyone as friend and all at best were companions. Bukhari mentions this too, though in different way. In hadith from Bukhari, Prophet (SAW) told the people around regarding Abu-Bakr (RA) ‘This friend of Yours (or your friend)’ but when it was regarding himself, Prophet (SAW) used ‘my companion’ (not my friend).

*Bukhari: Volume 6, Book 60, Number 164: *
Narrated Abu Ad-Darda:
There was a dispute between Abu Bakr and 'Umar, and Abu Bakr made Umar angry. So 'Umar left angrily. Abu Bakr followed him, requesting him to ask forgiveness (of Allah) for him, but 'Umar refused to do so and closed his door in Abu Bakr’s face. So Abu Bakr went to Allah’s Apostle while we were with him. Allah’s Apostle said, “This friend of yours must have quarrelled (with somebody).” In the meantime 'Umar repented and felt sorry for what he had done, so he came, greeted (those who were present) and sat with the Prophet and related the story to him. Allah’s Apostle became angry and Abu Bakr started saying, “O Allah’s Apostle! By Allah, I was more at fault (than Umar).” Allah’s Apostle said, "Are you (people) leaving for me my companion? (Abu Bakr), Are you (people) leaving for me my companion? When I said, ‘O people I am sent to you all as the Apostle of Allah,’ you said, ‘You tell a lie.’ while Abu Bakr said, 'You have spoken the truth."

Allah’s Apostle said, “This friend of yours must have quarrelled (with somebody).” : Note: Prophet (SAW) did not said, ‘this friend of mine’ but when it comes to my: Allah’s Apostle said, "Are you (people) leaving for me my companion?

Regardless, according to all evidence without doubt, amongst similar age (ham-umar) companions of Prophet (SAW), Abu-Bakr (RA) (who was around 3 years younger then Prophet (SAW)), was most closer to Prophet (SAW) and due to that he has a lot of respect amongst Muslims (more then all others who were companions). Abu-Bakr (RA) was the companion who always affirmed whatever Prophet (SAW) said and was always there with Prophet (SAW).

You are right. If anyone was a companion of Prophet (SAW), they deserve all respect as long as they showed love and respect towards Prophet (SAW) and his family.

Note: We should give all respect to companion of Prophets (SAW). The reason to give love and respect to descendents of prophet (SAW) is because Allah has made it obligatory on Muslims to give love and respect to Muhammad (SAW) and it is because of that love and respect of Muhammad (SAW) a person gives love and respect to the descendents of Prophet (SAW) who are blood of Prophet (SAW).

Ayesha (RA) was ummul-momineen and deserves all respect as all wives of Prophet (SAW) deserves. Again, all our respect of Ayesha (RA) is due to her matrimonial relation with Prophet (SAW). That is why, even though all Muslims consider that her action of initiating Jang-jamal against Ali (RA) was wrong, Muslims still respect her (rather, has to respect her as they should) as she was wife of Prophet (SAW), and due to that, is mother of believers (No-doubt).

100

Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?

nice posts ms farwa raza

anyways cresent..hopefully you have read every post carefully....specially the ones by ma mooli and das reich

LP