Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
I dont understand, why curse in the first place don't we have some namazes to do then curse people..?
really?
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
crescent, I agree and had stated the same in the thread about beards, pointing to the fact that we get so stuck in minutia while we are not even doing justice to what is required, what is farz. and in the cases of differences like these, the amount of energy ppl collectively spend on it, if spent in some other manner could be beneficial. I am all for talks and sharing knowledge, but it is not always a simple sharing of knowledge but a one-upmanship thats goes on
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Who cares to what extent his jerkiness extended? 120 some odd replies on debating the degree of jerkiness?
PEOPLE!
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
however among this there were specifics that were intereting info, how he treated the severed head, what his statements were, the rvalry between clans since way back..I think it was all worthwhile discussion, iys just when cut and paste warriors show up and try to 'win' a discussion is whe we run into issues.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Because its the sunnah of Allah as well as of Holy Prophet [s] hiself who cursed lairs, oppressors etc. (EG 2:161, 3:61, Hud:18, Hud, 50-60, Maidah:78).) Cursing doesnt mean abusing rather a suplication to remove mercy from such a wretch person. Thus, doing ‘namzes’ has nothing to do with cursing someone which takes only a word to do.
As for Yazeed, the main reason which sunni ulema gave for the permissibility of cursing yazeed is the following tradition:
“Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice and frightened the residents of Medina, the curse (la’nat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is on such a person”
“Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice and frightened the residents of Medina, the curse (la’nat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is on such a person”
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) by Ibn Katheer, Vol 8 Page 1147, Nafees Academy Karachi
Thus, it is stated that:
“Whoever frightens Medina incurs the wrath of Allah, His Angels and all the people”. Those people who deem it permissible to curse Yazeed bin Muawiyah deem this and other similar kinds of hadiths as base and this tradition is from Ahmad ibn Hanbal and have been taken by Alkhilal, Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz, Qadhi Abu Laila and his son Qadhi Abul Husayn. Abul Faraj Ibn Jauzi wrote a seperate book deeming it permissible to curse Yazeed".
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1148, Nafees Academy Karachi
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^ Sunnah of Allah to Curse? ...MashAllah.
We're talking about Yazid, not The Pharaoh.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^ I actually agree with you. I don't think its the duty of a proper muslim to go around "cursing" people. Even if they were absolutely horrible. What is a curse from one of us going to really do? Rather we should probably try to learn from their mistakes and not end up like them.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/980323/1998032326.html
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Useless information trust me.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
What guarantee do we have that that same unbeliever, or "bad" muslim repented before he died and what not?
Cursing is permissible for Pharaoh, because we have a guarantee, its in the Quran, even to that its not Recommended, but permissible.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Had you bothered to check the verses i quoted you would have not replied like this, btw you missed the whole point of the tradition i quoted anyways, the Quranic verses are not specific about a person rather they are condemning and cursing characteristics of person (lairs, oppressors etc,) thus anyone who doesnt admit the sheer oppression committed by yazeed on non other than the family of Prophet [s], he will obviously refrain from the Quranic view of cursing the opressor.
Anyway, my point was not about persuading someone to curse rather i was trying to show that the filthy charcter of Yazeed has nothing to do with shia sunni (to some extent) as we see former sunni ulema condemning and cursing yazeed, such noxious character he was.
If there are plethora of proofs about disbelief, oppression, deviation and other acts in total contradiction to Quranic injunctions while there isnt any solid proof of of being repentant then we cannot just give the benefit of doubt to him otherwise we will have to change all the history of kufaars who were died or killed by the muslims by sainyg “who knows, he repented just before death” .
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
armughal:
[quote]
Sa1eem:
[quote]
[One cannot love Yazid and still expect to enter Heaven where only righteous would go and enemies of Prophet (SAW) and his family cannot go. Heaven where Hasnain (RA) (Hasnain = Hasan plus Hussain, a name used as combined name for both) would be leaders, how can Yazid or his sympathisers can go there, is not only incomprehensible, rather completely impossible]
[/quote]
i am sorry but u keep on forcing me to repeat the christian anology here....
christians too say that if u believe in Christ u r in heaven, and if u dont believe in him (i.e to be the son of God) than u have no place in heaven....
when u tell them that jesus was not the son, but a prophet of God, they think u hate him...
[/quote]
hmm well, I am sorry if you found what I said is analogically similar to what Christian say, though I do not know why I feel differently neither I know where what I said is wrong :).
Have I wrote wrong that only righteous would go to heaven?
Have I wrote wrong that enemies of Prophet (SAW) or his family, would not go to heaven?
Note: Love of Prophet (SAW) is must to be Muslim (Quran says so). When we read darud-e-Ibrahim in salaat we pray for Salaamti and Barakat for Prophet (SAW) and his descendent. Now, how can a person be enemy of descendent of prophet (SAW) and fight them, still read darud-e-Ibrahim in salaat. ... [unless he is munafiq and liar, because even though he is enemy of descendent of Prophet (SAW) and fight them, still praying for the well being of the descendents of Prophet (SAW) in Salaat (if that person really do Salaat)]. ....
*Thus, such person who is enemy of descendents of Prophet (SAW) and fight them could not go to heaven (simple logic, as even if they could be Muslim is doubtful). *
Regardless, there is other reason apart of Salaat and reading darud-e-Ibrahim. Reason is that, if a person loves Prophet (SAW), that person cannot become enemy of the descendent of Prophet (SAW) or would fight with the descendent of Prophet (SAW) as it is inconceivable.
Just imagine: what would you consider a person that fight your children, humiliate them, do atrocities on them and kill them (Kill your descendents to such level that almost all of your descendents are killed except few that survived were lucky to survive). Would you consider that person your friend or enemy?
Now, if requirement for such person to be Muslim is that, he should love and respect you more then all wealth, power, or position of this world. He should love you more then even his family and children, then would you consider that person a Muslim?
Now, this above situation also applies regarding those who fought and killed the descendents of prophet (SAW). For them, Prophet (SAW) left this world meant that Allah is not there and what Allah has made obligatory on all Muslims should not be bothered, and thrown out of window. Thus, with this belief, they think they can fight and kill the family members (and descendent) of same Rasul who brought Islam to them.
Thus, have I wrote wrong that enemies of Prophet (SAW) or his family, would not go to heaven?
*Am I wrong to consider Yazid whose men on his behalf killed the descendents of Prophet (SAW), as enemy of Prophet (SAW) family? *
Now, since Yazid was enemy of Prophet (SAW) and his family, to me, I do not believe that he would go to heaven.
Though I have to say that I have no right to say with certainty that Yazid (or even Abu-jahal or Abu-lahab) will go to heaven or hell, as in the end, judge and master of heaven and hell is Allah. Only thing is that, according to what we know, I can say that he is unlikely to go to heaven, just like Abu-Jahal or Abu-Lahab. At least Abu-Jahal and Abu-Lahab was enemy of Prophet (SAW) because of differences in religion (beliefs), but Yazid was became enemy of Prophet (SAW) because he wanted to revenge his kafir ancestors killed in Gazwa-e-badar, and also for petty worldly things as power and money.
Even that power and wealth he got was because of the religion that Allah sent through Prophet (SAW) and this ranched person became enemy of family of same Rasul-Allah. He did not even realised that his freedom was also gift of Prophet (SAW) as, after the capture of Mecca, he should have been slave of Muslims of Medina, probably salve of same Hussain (RA) he got killed.
I also said that it is unlikely sympathisers of Yazid (or those who love him) would go to heaven.
That is obvious, as those who love Yazid or sympathies with him, from their deed, become partner to what Yazid did and would end up with Yazid. [Note: Anyone that love and sympathies zalim is as much zalim as the zalim he love and sympathies].
*Yazid only ruled for around 2 to 3 years: *
First event of his rule was massacre in Kerbela of Prophet (SAW) family. Hearing of Kerbala, Medina revolted and Yazid sent 12000 soldiers (mostly consisting of Syrian Christians) to punish people of Medina. Medina was conquered. Syrian Christian soldiers were allowed to sack the city and do whatever they liked for three days, when destruction and sacrilege followed and no house or sanctity of anyone was respected. Over 10 thousand people of medina killed including 700 prominent citizens.
After sacking of Medina, Meccan declared Abdullah bin Zubair as Khalif and thus Yazid army was ordered to move from Medina and attack Mecca. Reaching Mecca, Yazid army fixed catapults surrounding the hills of Mecca and started stoning Mecca, resulted in Kaba catching fire and crack on the black stone. Fortunately, Yazid died while his army was trying to capture Mecca, thus his army withdrew, and thus taking advantage of temporary ceasefire, Abdullah bin Zubair rebuilt Kaba (Few years later, King Abd al-Malik (5th Umayyad King) captured Mecca for Umayyad Kingdom).
Now, if anyone has love and sympathy with Yazid, what can I say about them?
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
BUt you really think we can curse someone based on sources that only the shia present? I mean he was bad, but in shi'ite text hez satan himself or something?
I was just wondering about that thast all.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
why is it that u insist so much on cursing yazeed????
i dont see shiaas cursing abu jahal and abu lahab everytime their name is mentioned....
why then be so strict on yazeed????
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
armughal:
People curse Yazid because he use to call himself Muslim (at least outwardly) and killed those whom Muslim love (and consider as religious obligation to love). Abu-Jahal and Abu-lahab fought Muslims (fairly), as there was difference between their beliefs and beliefs of Muslims (thus, they were doing, fighting against Islam, as that is what they were suppose to do).
No one curse Habshi who killed Hamza (RA) as at the time he killed Hamza (RA), he was kafir (No one even said anything to him after he became Muslim). No one even remember name of those who killed Jaffar Tayyar (RA) and others. Even atrocities of Meccan on Muslims become pardonable, as it was atrocities by Kafir on Muslims. No one even curse Hind (mother of Muawiah) regardless of her taking out the heart of Hamza (RA) dead body and chewing it (though people just mention it as barbaric act, without cursing Hind, because she was proclaimed Kafir at that time).
If Yazid would have been a proclaimed Kafir (a declared Kafir), no one would have cursed him or hated him that much, though, would have remembered the atrocities.
Crescent_:
[quote]
BUt you really think we can curse someone based on sources that only the shia present? I mean he was bad, but in shi'ite text hez satan himself or something?
I was just wondering about that thast all.
[/quote]
Well, what I wrote is nothing to do with Shia writings. You could realise that in old days, when writing was not commercial and customers were selective, and thus books writing (or any type of writing) was an expensive affair, that were mostly sponsored by rulers, powerful and rich. Obviously, Shias were never in power to influence history, so what we have in writing are mostly by Sunnis (or people unconcerned of politics), many wrote against all odds and under threat of persecution to bring the truth to us and occasionally against the will of rulers (a very difficult thing at that time when Human rights did not existed). Some later historians are also there. Actually, to be true, if history is influenced it has to be by sunni kings (Umayyad and Abbasid), trying to justify their rules.
No doubt there must be Shia writers too that have put the stories what they got and must have written in their hiding, under the threat of persecution or during later years.
Regardless, I believe that most historians try their best to be impartial and their writings are more accurate with plenty of research. Reputation of writers is at stake when writing history books and thus, no writer (other then those writing in praise of rulers) would write something untrue where they gain nothing.
As for cursing Yazid, many previous Muslim religious scholars have done that: For instance, one beautiful two lines regarding Kerbela is:
Qatel-ley-Hussain Asal may mergay Yazid hay
Islam Zindah hota hay her karbela kay baad
Now, mergay Yazid = death of Yazid can be considered as cursing Yazid.
(Though, poet here has used Yazid as sign or icon of a zalim (tyrant) and poet is saying that death of Hussain (righteous) is actually death of Zalim, as righteousness (Islam) revives (get alive) after every atrocities on righteous (after Karbela)
Now regarding what I personally believe:
Actually, I seldom remember Yazid to curse him. Even when events related to Kerbela and shahadat of Imam Hussain (RA) are mentioned, I do get remorse, but Yazid or anyone from the culprits do not come in mind that much anyhow to curse. But when I see someone praising Yazid or talking against Imam Hussain (RA), than Yazid gets into mind and hate for him and for all who loves him increases.
I believe that it is best to have that belief in mind, so that if Allah asks on judgement day what I think of him, I can tell to Allah that, I love Imam Hussain (RA) and descendents of Prophet (SAW) and certainly hate all who fought him, including Yazid.
Probably it is best to leave the fate and punishment of that ranched person ‘Yazid’ to Allah and think little about his insignificant being. In reality, Allah punished him (and all his family) in this world too and punishment after judgement day is waiting.
Allah destroyed his family in this world too: His son ‘Muawiah II’, a decent person, abdicated the throne of Yazid within a year of becoming King, left saying that, he can only smell blood from it. Soon he died (murdered) without leaving any child. To make Khalid, younger son of Yazid, king (he was too young for Umayyad to accept him as King), Yazid wife married old man Marwan (second cousin of Muawiah) who promised that he would make Khalid the King when he grows up. After becoming King, Marwan ditched his promise, made his own son successor, and thus Yazid wife killed him. Marwan son, Abd al-Malik became the next King and as you can see, Kingdom for what Yazid and Muawiah fought, left their descendent and moved to others from the family of Umayyad.
Muawiah (19 years) and his children (4 years) ruled for around 23 years. Then Marwan, second cousin of Muawiah and his children ruled for another 66 years. Then, Abbasid came to power, butchered all Umayyad they got their hand (in name of revenge) and dug all the graves of Umayyad (except few) and hanged their skeleton on roads.
Thus, you can see that Allah has disgraced them all in this world too. Even now, when someone mentions their name, 100s of million people curse them. Allah knows what punishment awaits them after judgment day.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^ please dont' 'use that logic, just because people died that way doen't mean they were disgraced.
Cuz you can say that about alot of people in history then..(nauzubillah).
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^ chalo itna to maana aapne keh yazid kafir nahin thaa....
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
I was just wondering about that thast all.
I dont think if i have been talking in German till yet! If you come out of a shell in which you are living you will realize that vast bulk of Sunnies do not show any affliation with Yazeed and as i have been saying various sunni ulema have deemed it permissible to even curse him which is the final stage of codemnation.
[QUOTE]
why is it that u insist so much on cursing yazeed????
i dont see shiaas cursing abu jahal and abu lahab everytime their name is mentioned....
why then be so strict on yazeed????
[/QUOTE]
I dont know if it was directed to me but anyway, yes people like abu jahl and abu lahb are worth to be cured but why do you want to expel yazeed from that list?
The crimes and atrocities as well as the sinful habits yazeed had were unprecedented.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
^ lol not the big ullemas iknow, sunnis are taught not to curse yazid or any other muslim.
Re: ~! Yazid? Was he really what they make him out to be?
Crescent_:
[quote]
^ please dont' 'use that logic, just because people died that way doen't mean they were disgraced.
Cuz you can say that about alot of people in history then..(nauzubillah).
[/quote]
I did not use the word disgraced because of anyone’s death. I used the word disgraced because:
Due to their actions (especially Kerbala), Umayyad created so much hate for themselves that when Abbasid first Khalif ‘who took for himself title ‘Al-saffah’ means ‘blood shedder’ took power, he had a blood bath of Umayyad, killing as many as he can.
Thousands of Umayyads were mercilessly slaughtered (killed and many even burned alive). Abbasid did not stopped there, as they dug the graves of Umayyad dead and hanged their skeletons on public places. Even now, mentioning name of Umayyad Kings, especially ‘Yazid’ (main cause of all hate), bring in 100s of million Muslims cursing him. That is why I said disgraced.
I do not know if any family has received such punishment in this world as Umayyad received. Avenge was such horrid that not only those that were living suffered but also the skeleton of those that were in graves were taken out and hanged. Disgrace is such that even after 1400 years from that atrocity of Kerbela, 100s of million Muslims whenever remember Kerbela or hear word ‘Yazid’, curse him.
Rule of Yazid, is remembered for three things he did. First year of his rule, ‘Karbela’ happened. In second year, his army (mostly Christian) ransacked, plundered and desecrated Medina. In third year, his army (again mostly Christian) surrounded and stoned Mecca, destroyed Kabba and creating crack on black stone.
[Note: There is hadith of Prophet (SAW) that ‘anyone who intends evil against Medina would burn in hell’ and no one fall on that category more then Yazid (though there are few more lesser culprits from later years)]