Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1082
Printed Date: 18 April 2024 at 5:13am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid
Posted By: rami
Subject: Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 12:45am
|
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem
Imam Hussain's going against Yazid, and the Sunni view
on Yazid. Can we curse him? In view of this statement, what is the Islamic verdict on Imam Hussain's (radiyAllahu-Anhu) rebellion against the corrupt leadership of Yazeed? Was this permissible according to the Shariah? Also, what view should Muslims hold of Yazeed. I notice Shia often curse him. Is this allowed? In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, The answer to your question will be given in two parts. The first deals with Sayyiduna Husain�s (Allah be pleased with him) uprising against the leadership of Yazid, and the second deals with the opinion of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama�ah regarding Yazid. As far as the first question is concerned, it is an accepted fact among the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama�ah that to challenge authority is generally not permissible. Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya: �We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their wrongdoings to be pardoned�. (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111). The commentators of al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya have mentioned many evidences for this. Allama al-Ghunaymi al-Maydani and other commentators on this work elaborated on this topic by mentioning the relevant evidences. Allah Most High says: 1) �O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you� (al-Nisa, 59). 2) Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Whoever obeys me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. And whoever obeys my ruler (amir), obeys me, and whoever disobeys my ruler, disobeys me� (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6718 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1835). 3) Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Listen to and obey your ruler, even if he is an Abyssinian slave whose head looks like a raisin� (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6723 & Sahih Muslim). 4) Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Whoever sees his ruler doing something he disapproves of, he should be patient, for no one separates from the (Muslim) group even for a span and then dies, except that he will die a death of (pre-Islamic) ignorance. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6724 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1849). 5) Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �A Muslim must listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839). The above evidences are clear in establishing the fact that one must obey the ruler even if he is corrupt or a sinner (fasiq). The reason for this, in the words of Allama al-Ghunaymi, is that, there have been many corrupt rulers in Islamic history and never did the predecessors (salaf) rebel against them, rather they used to submit to their rule and establish Jumu�ah and Eid prayers with their permission. Also, piety is not a pre-requisite for leadership. (Sharh al-Ghunaymi, p. 110). Other scholars emphasize that uprising against corrupt leadership results in more tribulation and destruction then the initial oppression of the ruler. With forbearance and tolerance, one�s sins will be forgiven. And in reality, the corrupt ruler is imposed by Allah due to our own wrongdoings, thus it becomes necessary that we repent and seek Allah�s forgiveness coupled with good actions, as Allah Most High says: �Whatever misfortune happens to you, is because of the things your hands have wrought� (42:30)��.. And He says: �Thus do we make the wrongdoers turn to each other, because of what they earn� (6:129). Therefore, if a nation wants to free themselves from the oppression of their leader, they must refrain themselves from oppressing others. However, if the ruler commands to do something that is a sin, then there is no obedience, as mentioned earlier in light of the many evidences found in the Sunnah. Also, uprising and challenging a corrupt ruler becomes permissible when he openly transgresses in a way that his action is not open to any interpretation, provided one has the means to do so. (This was explained in detail in one of the earlier posts. (See: http://www.daruliftaa.org/what_does_open_kufr_mean.htm - http://www.daruliftaa.org/what_does_open_kufr_mean.htm) ; As far as the actions of Sayyiduna Imam Husain (Allah be pleased with him)
and his uprising against Yazid is concerned, firstly, it should be understood
that according to the majority of scholars, the status of a heir to the throne
(wali al-ahd) is only one of recommendation that requires approval from the
nations prominent and influential figures after the demise of the Khalifa. ------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness. |
Replies:
Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 6:55am
|
Salam Rami, Thank you for your post and in explaining the position of the Sunni Ullama on this point. Rami wrote " This clearly shows that when Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) discovered that Yazid had established his authority, he agreed to accept him as a leader." This is a lie. I can't imagine that anyone could say this. If anyone has read a single paragraph from the story of Ashura or the speech of Imam Hussien it should be clear that, on several occassions, Imam Hussien was told by direct representatives of Yazid that he would be allowed to go in peace if he swore alligience to Yazid, but he refused in the strongest terms to do so. In fact, before he left Medina for Kufa he was informed that Yazid was the Caliphate and ordered to give his allegience and he refused. (sources avilable upon request). The Sunni scholars can only get away with saying this because they do not accept any authentic sources for the speech given by Imam Hussien himself. I will include the speech, however, just to illustrate my point. " Imam Husain (a.s.)'s sermon on the day of Ashoora "Now then! Consider my family, and ponder as to who I am and then admonish yourselves. Then do you consider that killing me and plundering my sanctity and respect is lawful for you? Am I not the grandson of your Prophet and the son of his Vicegerent and cousin, who was the foremost in believing and the bearer of witness upon everything that the Prophet had brought from Allah? Was not Hamza, the chief of Martyrs, the uncle of my father? Was not Ja'far, who flies with two wings in Paradise, my Uncle? Did not the Tradition of the Prophet reach you in which he has said about me and my brother that both of us are the chiefs of the youth of Paradise? Then if you agree to what I say, and verily what I have said is nothing but the truth, then it is better, for by Allah, from the time I have realised that Allah dislikes the liars, I have never ever spoken a lie. Then if you do not believe to what I say, there are alive among you the companions of the Prophet. Go to them and ask them and they shall bear testimony to the truthfulness of my speech. Ask Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, Abu Sa'eed Khudri, Sahl bin Sa'ad Sa'edi, Zayd bin Arqam and Anas bin Malik, they will tell you that they have heard this tradition from the Prophet of Allah regarding me and my brother. Is not this sufficient to refrain you from shedding my blood"? Then Shimr bin Ziljawshan, the accursed said, "I worship Allah (only) by lips (half heartedly), and do not understand what you say." Hearing this Habib bin Mazahir said, "I can see that you worship Allah with seventy types of doubts, and I bear testimony that you have spoken the truth and you cannot understand what the Imam says, for Allah has placed a seal (of ignorance) upon your heart." Imam continued, "Then if you doubt this, do you even doubt that I am the grandson of the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.)? By Allah! There is no other grandson of the Prophet in the east or the west except myself from among yourselves or anyone else. Woe be to you! Have I killed anyone from among you whose revenge you desire? Or have I usurped the wealth of anyone or hurt anyone whose retribution you desire from me"? When no one answered him, he called out in a loud voice, "O Shabas bin Rab'ee! O Hajjar bin Abjar! O Qays bin Ash'as! O Yazeed bin Haris! Have you not written letters to me saying that the fruits had ripened and the surrounding earth had blossomed, and to come to a huge army prepared for me"? They replied that they had not written any such letters. Imam said, "Glory be to Allah! Yes by Allah, you had written it." Then he continued, "O people! Then now if you do not like my arrival, then leave me so that I may go away to a place of refuge." Qays bin Ash'as said, "We do not know what you say. Then submit yourselves to your cousins (Bani Umayyah), they shall deal with you in a manner which you like." Imam replied, "By Allah! I shall not give my hands in yours like a base man, nor shall I flee away like a slave." Then he called out in a loud voice, |
Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 9:16am
|
One more thing, brother Rami....I just counldn't resist. You wrote in another forum that, " i sugest you study what the colonial powers have done to the muslim people throught history as well as other countries." I am glad to hear you say this however, one of the reasons that colonial powers like Britian and U.S. were able to "divide and conquer" in the Middle East is by making sure that the sow (i.e., pig, oppresive ruler) that they choose carried his silk purse (i.e., the outward proffesion and superficial practice of Islam). Ditto for the Muslim "Caliph's" and their lackies (i.e., Yazid ibn Muawiyah, Marwan ibn Hakim, Haroon Rasid, etc.) See the connection...? ------------- "The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad." Imam Ali (a.s.) |
Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 10:02am
|
Hazrat Hussein making three conditions for surrender are mentioned in many history books including Tabri.
Sermon doesn't prove anything,as it was delivered after his conditions were turned down. Shamir to bring to Kufa Moharram But Al-Hosein, who feared the cruel tyrant to 'Obeidallah worse than death, stood firm to his conditions. He even prevailed on 'Omar to urge that he might be sent direct to the Caliph's court. Well had it been for the Umeiyad house, if the prayer had been agreed to. But impatient of delay, 'Obeidallah sent instead a heartless creature called Shamir (name never uttered by Muslim lips without a shudder) to say that 'Omar must dally no longer with Al-Hosein, but, dead or alive, bring him in to Al-Kufa; should 'Omar hesitate, Shamir was to supersede him in com�mand.1 Thus forced, 'Omar forthwith surrounded closely the little camp. Al-Hosein resolved to fight the battle to the bitter end. The scene that followed is still fresh in the believers' eye; and as often as the fatal day comes round, the 10th of the first month, it is commemorated with the wildest grief and frenzy. Encircled with harrowing detail, it never fails to rouse horror and indignation to the utmost pitch. The fond believer forgets that Al-Hosein, leader of the band, having broken his allegiance, and yielded himself to a treasonable, though impotent, design upon the throne, was committing an offence that endangered society, and demanded swift suppression. He can see nought but the cruel and ruthless hand that slew with few exceptions all in whose veins flowed their Prophet's sacred blood. And, in truth, the simple story needs no adventitious colouring to touch the heart. WILLIAM MUIR, K.C.S.I. LL.D., D.C.L., PH.D (BOLOGNA 1 Shamir ibn Dhi'l-Jaushan is a name never pronounced by the pious Muslim but with ejaculatory curse. 'Obeidallah (so the story goes) was at first inclined to concede the prayer of Al-Hosein, as urged by 'Omar, for a safe-conduct to the Caliph at Damascus, when Shamir stepped forward, and said that 'Obeidallah, for the credit of his name, must insist on the pretender's surrender at discretion. So he obtained from 'Obeidallah a letter to 'Omar, threatening that if he failed to bring Al-H�osein in, Shamir should take the command, and also obtain the government of Ar-Reiy in his stead. The name is variously pronounced as Shamir, Shomar, or Shimr. The whole of the sad tale becomes at this point so intensified, and so overlaid with 'Alid fiction, that it is impossible to believe a hundredth part of what the heated imagination of the Shi'a has invented. The names are all ranged, either on one side or on the other (especially with the Shi'a) as models of piety, or as demons of apostasy. Mourning for Hosein. Who that in the East has seen the wild and passionate grief with which, at each recurring anniversary, the Muslims of every land spend the live-long night, beating their breasts and vociferating unweariedly the frantic cry� The Moharram. Hasan Hosein! Hasan Hosein!�in wailing cadence, can fail to recognise the fatal weapon, sharp and double-edged, which the Umeiyad dynasty had thus allowed to fall into the hands of bitter enemies?1 'Ali, the little son of Al-�Hosein, introduces a new thread into the tangle of claimants for the headship of Islam. His mother was a daughter (it is said) of Yezdejird, the last of the Sasanids. He had, there�fore, the support of the Persians, and is acknowledged by all the Shi'a as the fourth Imam, under the title Zain al-'Abidin ("Glory of the Devout"). 1 In this outburst the name of Al-Hasan is added to that of Al-�Hosein, not only because the Shi'a hold him to have been entitled to the Caliphate (though he resigned it), but because he, too, is regarded as a martyr poisoned by his wife, at the instigation, they say, of Mu'awiya, but (as we have seen) without any sufficient presumption. The tragedy is yearly represented as a religious ceremony, especially by the Shi'a, in the "Passion Play," throughout which are interwoven, in a supernatural romance, the lives of the early worthies of Islam, ending with the pathetic tale of the martyr company of Kerbala; while Abu Bekr, 'Omar, and 'Othman are execrated as usurpers, and the whole Umeiyad crew, 'Obeidallah, Al-Hajjaj, etc., are held up to malediction ------------- LOGIC IS SIMPLE OTHERWISE IT IS ARGUMENT. |
Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 10:32am
|
Salam Delight, What were the three conditions? What do you mean by surrender? If you mean by surrender that Imam Hussien (a.s.) agree to pay allegience to Yazid, then please provide sources for this. ------------- "The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad." Imam Ali (a.s.) |
Posted By: Abu Hadi
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 4:45pm
|
Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya: �We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their wrongdoings to be pardoned�. (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111). Then even according to Imam al-Tahawi(r.a.) it would have been permissable to disobey all of the Caliphs, except Imam Ali. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins Tell me then, is disobedience to RasoullAllah not a sin ? Qur'an 4:65, But nay, by your Lord, they will not believe until they Qur'an 33:36, It is not for a believing man nor a believing women, when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter, to have the choice in their affair; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has surely gone astray in manifest error Qur'an 4:59, O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger and those of you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Last Day; that is best and more suitable to the end It has become clear from our discussion (see hmmm topic on this forum) that Our Holy Messenger(p.b.u.h) appointed Imam Ali(a.s.) as his sucessor. If this is not yet clear to people, then we will continue this discussion. All other discussions are based on this point. Therefore, if a muslim or muslima would give their Bayya' to anyone other that whom the Prophet(p.b.u.h.) has specifically told them to make Bayya' to, then they would be disobeying the prophet, and therefore would be committing a sin. If their leaders asked them to do this, then they would be under no obligation to obey their leaders, according to Imam Tahawi. Right ? ------------- There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error... Quran Ch.2 Verse 256 |
Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 7:26am
|
Salam to all, " In this outburst the name of Al-Hasan is added to that of Al-Hosein, not only because the Shi'a hold him to have been entitled to the Caliphate (though he resigned it)" This is an interesting point. Imam Hassan (a.s.) DID in fact (and this is agreed by all) make a peace treaty with Muawiyah after he seized the Caliphate upon Imam Ali's death. Imam Hassan agreed to accept Muawiyahs Caliphate first and foremost to avoid further bloodshed and fitnah among the Muslims (which Muawiyah began by revolting against Imam Ali (a.s.). Imam Hassan (a.s.) had several conditions for his agreement, and Muawiyah signed the agreement and then gave a speech in Damascus (references avilable upon request) at which he said, " I have not become your leader for any reason other than to rule over you. As for my agreement with (Imam Hassan (a.s.)), I will do as I wish." Then he proceed to tear up the agreement (both literally and figuratively). This should be sufficient to demonstrate the charecter of the usurpers of the Prophets (a.s.) minbar. ------------- "The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad." Imam Ali (a.s.) |
Posted By: Ayubi1187
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 9:27am
Any legitimate source to this tearing of the agreement? or is it another made up story to avoid the problem it cause to shiism that Hassan(ra) accepted the caliphate of Muawiya(ra) and shia don't. |
Ali Zaki wrote:Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 9:51am
|
I'm glad that you have identified yourself clearly "Muawiya(ra) " for all to see. To one who would wish for Allah(s.w.a.) to be please with Muawiyah, I will not continue to discuss this matter. For those who wish to know more about the peace treaty (with both Sunni and Shia sources too numerous to mention in this forum), please see the following link. http://al-islam.org/sulh/ - http://al-islam.org/sulh/ NOTE TO FORUM MEMBERS: I will not, in the future, be responding to the posts of Ayubi1187. Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufiyan was an open and declared enemy of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahyl al-Bayt and anyone who would praise them is far from guidance. ------------- "The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad." Imam Ali (a.s.) |
Posted By: Ayubi1187
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 1:12pm
Look at this guy acting so smart and piouse. Come out of the darkness man, i don't know what your ayatolahs have bean feeding you with but for your information ahlul-sunnah consider Muawiya(ra) as pious sahabi ofcourse not on the same level as Ali(ra) or Hassan(ra). I don't even know how you can be against Muawiya(ra) when one of your imams as you clime gave the caliphat of islamic nation to him. Certainly Hassan(ra) would not do something like that if Muawiya(ra) was not worthy of that. Or do you and your shias think you have beter judgment and knowledge then Hassan ibn Ali(ra)? |
Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 8:31am
|
is said that before the last battle he wrote to Moawiyah, proposing certain conditions; but that Moawiyah, before he received his letter, had sent him a blank paper signed at the bottom, bidding Hasan write what terms he pleased in it, and he would take care to see them punctually performed. Hasan took the paper and doubled the conditions which he had demanded in his letter; and when he and Moawiyah came together, he insisted upon the terms written in the blank paper: which Moawiyah refused, and told him, that it was reasonable he should be contented with those that he had expressed in his letter, since it was his own proposition. The articles that Hasan then stipulated for were these. First, that Moawiyah should give him all the money in the treasury of Cufah. Secondly, the revenues of a vast estate in Persia In this conference (according to Abulfeda and some others) Hosein proposed one of these three conditions for Amer�s decision: either that he might go to Yezid, or else have leave to return back to Arabia, or else be placed in some garrison where he might fight against the Turks. Amer wrote word of this to Obeidollah, who seemed at first to look upon it as a reasonable proposal; till Shamer stood up and swore that he ought not to be admitted to terms till he had surrendered himself; adding, that he had been informed of a long conference between him and Amer. This remark totally changed Obeidollah�s mind. There is a tradition from one that attended Hosein all the way from Mecca, and overheard this conference; according to which, Hosein did not ask either to be sent to Yezid, or to be put into any of the garrisons, but only that he might either have leave to return to the place from whence he came, or else be at liberty to go where he would about the country, till he should see which way the inclinations of the people would turn. BY SIMON OCKLEY, B.D. PROFESSOR OF ARABIC IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. ------------- LOGIC IS SIMPLE OTHERWISE IT IS ARGUMENT. |
Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 9:34am
|
Salam alakum Delight, Since you don't quote your sources for your first line of discourse (i.e., Hasan write what terms he pleased in it, and he would take care to see them punctually performed. Hasan took the paper and doubled the conditions which he had demanded in his letter; and when he and Moawiyah came together, he insisted upon the terms written in the blank paper: which Moawiyah refused), I would be interested to know where this story comes from? Also, I find it amazing on a few counts. Imam Hassan (a.s.), as a well-known (by both Sunni and Shia) of the Ahly al-Bayt, is specifically mentioned in the Quran as being "purified" from error and is among those whom the prophet ordered us to love (lets stick to the clear traditions for now). Given this fact, it is amazing that someone could see (in a conflict between these two) Muawiyah to be the one who is the "victim" of the "greed" of Imam Hassan (a.s.) and is in the right. Is it possible that the Prophet could order us to love someone who was a liar and an oppressor (astafir Allah)? REGARDING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN YAZID AND IMAM HUSSIEN (A.S.) I also find it amazing that anyone could believe that Imam Hussien would have paid allegience to Yazid. The character flaws of Yazid are well-known, and the sins he commited publically are enough information about his character. Imagine the grandson of the Holy Messenger (a.s.) and the "Master of the Martyr-Youth of Paradise" whom the Prophet's (a.s.) own Holy lips often kissed swearing his allegience to him. Does that make sense? I also wonder why you do not accept the words of Imam Hussien (a.s.) himself, or the traditions transmitted by his supporters (i.e., Shia), yet, you will tout as evidence analysis (without any sources or references) from a "Proffesor of Arabic (not even Islam studies) at the University of Cambridge. What does that prove? By the way, I am a graduate student at a well known University in southern California, and I could tell you first-hand about the mistakes in analysis made by "high-caliber" University proffessors. If you will accept the traditions transmitted DIRECTLY from Imam Hussien (a.s.) then let me know which sources you will accept. With this information, I will attempt to clarify this point further. ------------- "The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad." Imam Ali (a.s.) |
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 09 June 2005 at 5:49am
|
Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem Assalamu alaikum
Your accusation is refuted by your later comments, If the source for the speech is not accepted as being authentic then accusing a scholar of lying is ridiculous. Are we to throw away our scholarship simply because the result is your evidence does not stand up to scrutiny, how can you honestly expect a scholar to accept evidence after the source is shown to be fabricated or what ever the case may be. What ever is said in the speech is not relevant, no scholar can honestly be accused of lying if he does not accept a piece of evidence as being authentic, this is plain logic.
This is simplistic and emotional, you honestly believe the above Quote is the explanation for Saddam hussain. Unlike what you are implying we do not throw out the Quran and Hadith specifically mentioning obedience simply because we do not like it, �we hear and we obey�. How can you suggest we ignore what Rsul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) has said, if you do not have these ahadith that is for you and your Aqeedah but for us the hadith are there and they are many. Maybe you are suggesting this rule is a lie since there wasn�t mass uprising against saddam after the entire country supposedly saw him praying with his shoes on in the wrong direction, Statements which don�t consider reality have little value. Interstingly enough I recently met an unfortunate brother who was forced into exile for possessing anti Saddam material he left behind his wife and children and moved to Syria for I think 10 years before coming here a few years ago, he hadn�t spoken or seen his family in all that time, Don�t imagine people were simply blind to Saddam. Imam Ahmad once said an hour of Anarchy is worse than thirty years of oppression.
The moral coruption that is caused by cursing people and hating them is far worse than any imagined or real benefit in sending messages. These emotions open the door for shaytan. In the Quran it says do not approach the Quran in an impure state, the outward meaning is to have wudu while the inward meaning is to be Tahar or cleanse your self of bad qualities, so when you combine the two the door for shaytan to influence you while reading it is closed and therefor you are able to grasp its deep meanings. It affects a persons mentality and spiritual cleanliness and stops a person from getting closer to Allah as no person can approach him except in a clean state he is al Qudus, there is no benefit to your Islam, Iman or Ihsan what so ever in practicing this.
Who is Washington irving? What exactly do you mean by not seeing the importance, some shia actually think we don�t like Ahl al bayt or don�t get upset when we are reminded of what occurred at Karbala. Have you ever read anything from any major Sunni scholar saying Karbala means nothing to sunni�s or we don�t care about Ahl al bayt.
What makes you think muslims did not resist in the colonial times, there is such a thing as loosing, if I am not mistaken the Shia consider westerners to be yajooj wa majooj and as such they can not be defeated until the time of Isa and the mahdi according to that understanding. If you like I can send you some material about the muslim resistance in mecca and madinah in the time of the salafi uprising against the Ottoman khalifah, it is a translation of a work written in the Ottoman period some time before the Collapse of the Khalifah, the human tragedy is almost as sad as Karbalah br. I think we both mourne the loss of janat al baqi and what was to the local people. Abu Hadi wrote
What ever discussion has occurred in another thread is not relavent to me since I am not involved in it, it is the Shia position that Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alayhi wa saalam) appointed Imam Ali (ra) as his successor not the Sunni position, we have our own evidence and ahadith about the matter. I do not see how this discussion is based on this point. Even if imam Ali was meant as his successor Islam is not a monarchy and successor ship to Ahl Al bayt alone has much weaker evidence then that for imam Ali being appointed as the first Khalifah. You make to many conclutions which are nothing more than theories with a modern day mentality. The Arabic in that time was different the mentality was different, the reality and the way Allah treated Mankind according to there actions and what was in there hearts was different, add to this that no person can fully or properly understand another person�so how do you expect to explain the events by drawing conclusions from basic evidence. Ali Zaki wrote
Muawiyah died a muslim Allah will eventually forgive him for his sins like everybody else and admit him to heaven. Don�t interprate (ra) to mean may Allah be pleased with his sins no one has ever said or implied this. ------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness. |
Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 09 June 2005 at 6:03am
Bi ismillahir rahamnir raheem
Br the Quran does not mention he was purified from error, he (Imam
Husain) Purified(tahrah) himself from bad Qualities Allah made it easy
for him. Claiming he was free from error is claiming that he was above
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam). The prophet was free from
sin but not making a mistake as is shown in the Quran in Surat Abbasa,
regarding his lapse in judgment when the blind man came to him.
Alegiance does not mean agreement this is an exageration of events,
it was for peace, he was making a sacrefice by agreeing may Allah
reward him. This shows the strength of his charecter not weakness,
would you do the same to your enemy for the greater good, We do not
look down on him for this but praise him more than you percieve for his
wisdom. ------------- Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness. |
Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 09 June 2005 at 7:23am
Posted By: SoftHeart
Date Posted: 11 June 2005 at 4:03am
|
Oops! Muslimeen! Too many arguments and counterarguments in this thread that I forgot what I wanted to comment about at the outset. In the very first message in this thread, it was said that "piety is not criteria for allegiance". Oh really! So did the Sahabah pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman, Ali (Allah be pleased with them) for reasons other than their extremely high standards of piety? Have you not read the comments that were made while pledging allegiance to Hadhrat Usman (RA) : "and we will pledge allegiance to who will promise to be estabished upon the Quran and the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sm), and upon the principles and practices and practices of Abu Bakr and Umar (RA)". [Lives of the Sahabah (Ch - Usman) : Allama Sulayman Nadawi]. And, would someone explain to me why Hadhrat Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Hussain have been denoted as (as.) in some of the messages. I understand this as "alayhim as-salam" that is used after the names of Prophets. Salam ------------- O Allah! We ask from you faith that's perfect, understanding that's correct, heart tha's humble, tongue that's true, knowledge that's useful, deeds accepted, and sins forgiven, repentance as advised. |
Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 13 June 2005 at 6:58am
|
Salam alakum Softheart, Briefly, The Shia argument for the Imam Ali (a.s.) being the rightful successor to the Prophet is based on the fact that the Prophet (a.s.) nominated (named) him as his successor EXPLICITLY (see Hmmmm topic in this forum, begining on page 5 for details). As a result, other selection criteria are not needed. Based on this same principle, Imam Ali (a.s.) nominate his successor in the same manner as the prophet, naming Imam Hassan (a.s.), etc. Speaking for myself, I use the predicate (a.s.) (alayhim as-salam) because this is the tradition among the Shia when refering to the 12 Imams, although Imams are Imams and not Prophets. I have seen, however, this term of respect (i.e., a.s.) used (in Shia literature) even with highly respect persons who were not Prophets or Imams (such as the prominant companion of the Prophet (a.s.) Salman Al-Farsi).
------------- "The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad." Imam Ali (a.s.) |