A strange hadeeth.

[MDK]

Aslaam alaikum.
What do muslims over here think of this hadeeth?:

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إسماعيل ‏ ‏قال حدثني ‏ ‏أخي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن أبي ذئب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سعيد المقبري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏ ‏قال ‏
‏حفظت من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وعاءين فأما أحدهما فبثثته وأما الآخر فلو بثثته قطع هذا البلعوم

Roughly translated: Ishmail narrated to us that it was narrated to me from Ibn Abi Zeb, who narrated that Sa'eed al-maqbari who narrated that Abi hurrayra said: I memorized from Rassulallah (saaws) two types of knowledge, one of them I transmitted, but the other, if I transmit it this throat (refering to his own) would be cut.

wa alaikum asalaam.

[GothiKa]

That's an interesting hadith. But why would Abu Huraira(ra) say such a thing?

[JayC]

whats the reference?

[MDK]

That's an interesting hadith. But why would Abu Huraira(ra) say such a thing?

Salam akhi,
Yes, the hadeeth is indeed very strange.
I know of one reason, however i do not want to share it right now.

I want to see other veiws.

PS the hadeeth is in Bukhaari, therefore it is saheeh.

wasalaam.

[MDK]

whats the reference?

Salam alaikum Akhi/ukhti.
The hadeeth is in BUkhaari, therefore it is saheeh. Here is the source (http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=117&doc=0)

I've presented the isnaad if you want to verify its reliability, but it is in bukhaari, so there is no need to.

wasalaam.

[Al-Nasser]

:salams

Imam Ibn Hajr explain this hadith by saying that the 2nd type of hadiths Abu Hurairah (ra) was talking about is the hadiths the prophet :saw: described the tyrants in

for example (according to Imam Ibn Hajr not me) Yazid Ibn Muwaiya (ra)......Abu Hurairah was known to be saying frequently "i seek refuge with Allah from the 60th year and the leadership of the junior tyrant".......and he died in year 59...one year before Yazid became a caliph

so Abu Hurairah (ra) was afraid that telling these hadiths will make the tyrants behead him

[Cardo]

:salams

Imam Ibn Hajr explain this hadith by saying that the 2nd type of hadiths Abu Hurairah (ra) was talking about is the hadiths the prophet :saw: described the tyrants in

for example (according to Imam Ibn Hajr not me) Yazid Ibn Muwaiya (ra)......Abu Hurairah was known to be saying frequently "i seek refuge with Allah from the 60th year and the leadership of the junior tyrant".......and he died in year 59...one year before Yazid became a caliph

so Abu Hurairah (ra) was afraid that telling these hadiths will make the tyrants behead him

Isn't that a bit unusual, that while others were gladly giving their life for Islam, Abu Hurairah (r.A.) was not passing the sunnah of the prophet to the ummah?

[Al-Nasser]

Isn't that a bit unusual, that while others were gladly giving their life for Islam, Abu Hurairah (r.A.) was not passing the sunnah of the prophet to the ummah?

Imam Ibn Hajr also comment on that by saying that the sunnah which should be transmitted under any circumstances is the sunnah which discuss sharia and religious rulings..........while the sunnah which discuss the end of times for example has lower priority

maybe Abu Hurairah (ra) also had this verse in mind

Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent.
2:195

[Cardo]

Imam Ibn Hajr also comment on that by saying that the sunnah which should be transmitted under any circumstances is the sunnah which discuss sharia and religious rulings..........while the sunnah which discuss the end of times for example has lower priority

maybe Abu Hurairah (ra) also had this verse in mind

Spend your wealth for the cause of Allah, and be not cast by your own hands to ruin; and do good. Lo! Allah loveth the beneficent.
2:195


I don't think that verse would apply here...

But was Abu Hurairah (R.A.) the only person these life-threatening hadith were told to?

[Al-Nasser]

I don't think that verse would apply here...

But was Abu Hurairah (R.A.) the only person these life-threatening hadith were told to?

Abu Hurairah was closer to the prophet :saw: than any other companion so there is a very good chance that he heard from the prophet :saw: what no other companion heard

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams


for example (according to Imam Ibn Hajr not me) Yazid Ibn Muwaiya (ra)......Abu Hurairah was known to be saying frequently "i seek refuge with Allah from the 60th year and the leadership of the junior tyrant".......and he died in year 59...one year before Yazid became a caliph

A bit Off Topic- But some people actually respect yazid even though he was a terrible ruler.
Where do they get the info for that?

:wswrwb:

[Al-Nasser]

:start:

:salams



A bit Off Topic- But some people actually respect yazid even though he was a terrible ruler.
Where do they get the info for that?

:wswrwb:

by comparing his good and bad deeds he deserve the respect.......maybe he was a tyrant but also he encouraged Jihad, respected the scholars and crushed the heretics

[faqir]

Yazid was a fasiq [according to the majority of Ulema] who is either directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of the grandchildren of our beloved Nabi salallahu alayhi wa sallam - i don't have any respect for him - in fact, some of the Ulema of old openly cursed him eg Imam al Taftazani in Sharh al-aqaid al nasafiyya and many others.

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

Yazid was a fasiq [according to the majority of Ulema] who is either directly or indirectly responsible for the murder of the grandchildren of our beloved Nabi salallahu alayhi wa sallam - i don't have any respect for him - in fact, some of the Ulema of old openly cursed him eg Imam al Taftazani in Sharh al-aqaid al nasafiyya and many others.


Exactly, I don't think I'll ever give him respect he doesn't deserve it- he was a cr@p (cr@p) ruler- where you have Umar (RA) who was so worried about everyone he ruled over he would enquire about everyone and sleep on the streets then you have this guy whose rulership was so atrocious that it doesn't matter what sect one is in- the fact that he was responsible for the murder of the grandon of the Prophet :saw: Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon and his family- directly or indirectly deping on your school of thoughts.

I curse him too- and I'll openly admit that fact for he was a complete jahil idiot who didn't deserve his leadership title, Alhamdulillah his son turned out better. :)

:wswrwb:

[Cardo]

Aslaam alaikum.
What do muslims over here think of this hadeeth?:

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إسماعيل ‏ ‏قال حدثني ‏ ‏أخي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن أبي ذئب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سعيد المقبري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏ ‏قال ‏
‏حفظت من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وعاءين فأما أحدهما فبثثته وأما الآخر فلو بثثته قطع هذا البلعوم

Roughly translated: Ishmail narrated to us that it was narrated to me from Ibn Abi Zeb, who narrated that Sa'eed al-maqbari who narrated that Abi hurrayra said: I memorized from Rassulallah (saaws) two types of knowledge, one of them I transmitted, but the other, if I transmit it this throat (refering to his own) would be cut.

wa alaikum asalaam.


I believe this very hadith has been quoted by Sufis who claim that this is the hidden knowledge that they have been exposed to.

[MDK]

:salams

Imam Ibn Hajr explain this hadith by saying that the 2nd type of hadiths Abu Hurairah (ra) was talking about is the hadiths the prophet :saw: described the tyrants in

for example (according to Imam Ibn Hajr not me) Yazid Ibn Muwaiya (ra)......Abu Hurairah was known to be saying frequently "i seek refuge with Allah from the 60th year and the leadership of the junior tyrant".......and he died in year 59...one year before Yazid became a caliph

so Abu Hurairah (ra) was afraid that telling these hadiths will make the tyrants behead him

salaam akhee.

Thank you for that, are there anymore?

wasalaam.

[Al-Nasser]

salaam akhee.

Thank you for that, are there anymore?

wasalaam.

about this hadith.....maybe

about Yazid.......many

Imam Ibn Taimmyah said that we shouldn't call him a fasiq

Yazid (ra) led the first army to attack Constantinople

in his ear Algeria and Morocco were liberated

he narrated hadiths (which tell about Al Bukhari's trust in the integrity of Yazid)

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:


he narrated hadiths (which tell about Al Bukhari's trust in the integrity of Yazid)

:salams

Anything that came out of that rabid dog's gob should hardly be credited.

:wswrwb:

[bilalbasrawi]

Aslaam alaikum.
What do muslims over here think of this hadeeth?:

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إسماعيل ‏ ‏قال حدثني ‏ ‏أخي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن أبي ذئب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سعيد المقبري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏ ‏قال ‏
‏حفظت من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وعاءين فأما أحدهما فبثثته وأما الآخر فلو بثثته قطع هذا البلعوم

Roughly translated: Ishmail narrated to us that it was narrated to me from Ibn Abi Zeb, who narrated that Sa'eed al-maqbari who narrated that Abi hurrayra said: I memorized from Rassulallah (saaws) two types of knowledge, one of them I transmitted, but the other, if I transmit it this throat (refering to his own) would be cut.

wa alaikum asalaam.

Asalamu 'Alaykum,
Why is the Muslim world corrupted today? Many Muslims ask themselves that, but can never find the answer. Here's the truth... a majority of muslims have replaced the Qur'an with the Hadith, which is completely unacceptable.

Does history repeat itself?
The Jews, hundreds of years after Moses's death created Mishnah (hadith, sayings) and Gemarrah (sunna, Actions) and uphold them and the invented laws in them rather than the TORAH (revealed word of God).

In the city of Nicene 300 years after the death of Jesus, the concept of Trinity was CREATED, and is now the primary source of a Christian's belief in defiance of the Bible which advocates the absolute worship of God Alone.

The Muslims 150- 200 years after the death of Muhammed CREATED another source of their religion with the Quran, "Hadith and Sunnah", falsely attributed to the prophet Muhammed, and in defiance of the Quran. Today most Muslims have discarded the Quran in favor of Hadith and Sunnah.

Why are there arguments during Ramadhan? Because people use Hadith for guidance to find out when it is the first day of the full month rather than the Qur'an, when in fact the Qur'an thoroughly explains about Ramadhan.

Go to this site for information: www.masjidtucson.org

[RashidD]

No offence bro Bilal but i think your post is a bit misplaced. The hadith have granted us a great insight into many things. Many aspects of Islamic Shariah is based on Hadith.

Also, the state of muslims today is, imho, not good due to human form/ conscience e.g. greed, power hungry nature, cultural influence, worldly pressure etc. By remembering the example of Rasoolullah (SAW) we will be made more aware of the right path, and hence change our ways into accordance with them InshaAllah :)

[bilalbasrawi]

No offence bro Bilal but i think your post is a bit misplaced. The hadith have granted us a great insight into many things. Many aspects of Islamic Shariah is based on Hadith.

Also, the state of muslims today is, imho, not good due to human form/ conscience e.g. greed, power hungry nature, cultural influence, worldly pressure etc. By remembering the example of Rasoolullah (SAW) we will be made more aware of the right path, and hence change our ways into accordance with them InshaAllah :)

Please read the following:

It is possible that Allah has put the Muslim Ummah in such a difficult situation, because they have abandoned the Qur'an and have taken in its place the Hadith? The Book of God is the only Truth. The Hadith cannot be used for guidelines, but it can only be used for its historical value or facts. During the time of Prophet Muhammad, every Muslim was prosperous, because the Hadith did not exist than. Even a while after his death (pbuh), there was still prosperity, but when the Hadith came along, a book in which no one had permission from Prophet Muhammad nor any authority from God to write, Islam began to crumble.

Many Muslims have come to idolize the Prophet Muhammad: "Say (O Muhammad), 'I am no more than a human being like you. It has been revealed to me that your God is ONE GOD. Therefore, you shall observe Him ALONE, and ask His forgiveness, AND WOE TO THE IDOLWORSHIPERS.'" (41:6)

Why is the Hadith unacceptable:

"Shall I seek OTHER THAN GOD as a source of law, when He has revealed THIS BOOK FULLY DETAILED? ....The word of your Lord is COMPLETE, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words; He is the hearer, the omniscient. Yet, if you obey the majority of people, they will take you away from the path of God. That is because they follow CONJECTURE, and they fail to think." (6:114-116)

"They insist upon following conjecture, when the guidance is given to them herein from their Lord." (53:23)

The Prophet Muhammad:"O prophet, if the believing women come to you and pledge that they will not idolize anything beside God, nor steal, nor commit adultery, nor kill their children, nor produce any falsehood, nor disobey you WHEN YOU ARE RIGHT, you shall accept their pledge, and ask God to forgive them." (60:12)

"Anything good that happens to you (O Muhammad) is from God. And anything bad that happens to you is from you. We have sent you as a messenger to the people, and God suffices as a witness. Whoever obeys the messenger is obeying God. As for those who turn away, we did not send you as their guardian." (4:79-80)

The Quran gives numerous examples that we must obey what Muhammad uttered as a messenger of God, and NOT NECESSARILY what he uttered as a man. As a messenger, he uttered Quran, and nothing but Quran.

Much of the Hadith has caused a perversion in Islam...Furthermore, the Quran teaches that Muhammad the man actually committed serious errors. Thus, in the verse shown below we see that God wished to establish a law whereby a man can marry the divorced wife of his adopted son. Muhammad was to be our example. However, this was contrary to the traditions of Arabia, and the Prophet actually "feared the people instead of fearing God."

"You said to the one blessed by God and blessed by you, 'Do not divorce your wife, and observe God.' Thus, you hid in yourself what God wanted to declare, and you feared the people when God is the one you should fear. Then, when Zeid (Muhammad's adopted son) finally divorced her, we had you marry her. This was done to show that the believing men are allowed to marry the divorced wives of their adopted sons. The commands of God shall be carried out." (33:37)

RashidD, you stated that you do not agree with my statements in your last message, but everything I say comes from the Quran, so how can I be wrong, when the Qur'an is in fact, being the the Book of God, 100% correct.

The followers of Hadith and sunna' do not follow their own teachings:
"Abi Saeed AlKhudry may God be pleased with him reported that the messenger of God may God exalt him & grant him peace had said, 'Do not write anything from me EXCEPT QURAN. Anyone who wrote anything other than Quran shall erase it.'"

"The messenger of God ordered us never to write anything of his Hadith." (Reported by Ibn Hanbal)

"If Quran is complete and fully detailed (as God says), where can we find the details of Salat prayers?"

This famous question reveals their total ignorance of Quran and a subconscious effort to prove that God is wrong in His repeated assertions that Quran is "complete" and "fully detailed."

For the Quran teaches in no uncertain terms that Abraham is the founder of Islam as it is practiced today. As such, what did Abraham contribute to our daily life as Muslims?

The Quran teaches that ALL RELIGIOUS PRACTICES IN ISLAM (Salat, Zakat, Fasting & Hajj) CAME TO US FROM ABRAHAM, GENERATION AFTER GENERATION.

Thus, Islam in its final form, as is practiced today, is based on two things:
(1) QURAN: contributed through Muhammad, and (2) RELIGIOUS PRACTICES: through Abraham.
Everything I say is undeniable, because all of my evidence comes from the Qur'an. There is no way you can defend your statement that I am wrong.

Asalamu 'Alaykum
Peace!

"(On the day of judgment) the messenger will say, 'My Lord; my people have deserted THIS QURAN.' We thus set up against every prophet enemies from among the guilty. Your LORD SUFFICES AS A GUIDE AND SUPPORTER." (25:30-31)

[Cardo]

The Quran gives numerous examples that we must obey what Muhammad uttered as a messenger of God, and NOT NECESSARILY what he uttered as a man. As a messenger, he uttered Quran, and nothing but Quran.




The Quran in numerous places states that the Prophet :saw: is supposed to be OBEYED

003.032 Say: "Obey Allah and His Messenger": But if they turn back, Allah loveth not those who reject Faith.
Al-Qur'an, 003.032 (Aal-E-Imran [The Family of Imran])

003.053 "Our Lord! we believe in what Thou hast revealed, and we follow the Messenger; then write us down among those who bear witness."
Al-Qur'an, 003.053 (Aal-E-Imran [The Family of Imran])


Although the above verse is about Isa (A.S.) its clear that Prophets(A.S.) have to be followed.
I understand your point of view when you say that traditons of prayers are passed on from Abraham(A.S.), but there are a lot of differences in these payers. They didn't recite the Quran, they were used to praying while intoxciated. Without hadith, we wouldn't know the order of the Quran. Without Hadith we wouldn't know if praying intoxicated was banned first or compete intoxication was banned first. We could imply that we can consume intoxicants unless we are praying.

Why does Allah SWT "Obey Allah and the Prophet" instead of "Obey Allah"
We obviously don't know about Islam better than the Prophet :saw: and his companions, so if there are a few docmented sayings and tradtions, why not use them carefully?

I agree that a lot of hadith have problems and some weak ones are classified as sahih and vice versa- that is not a reason to reject all of them. I reject any hadith that goes against the Quran and general common sense.


004.064 We sent not a messenger, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of Allah. If they had only, when they were unjust to themselves, come unto thee and asked Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had asked forgiveness for them, they would have found Allah indeed Oft-returning, Most Merciful.
Al-Qur'an, 004.064 (An-Nisa [Women])

To obey in accordance with the will of Allah is what Sunnah is. If Allah SWT wanted to reveal the Quran and end the story there, He would have just given Muhammed :saw: a book. But in His Wisdom He says,

025.032 Those who reject Faith say: "Why is not the Qur'an revealed to him all at once? Thus (is it revealed), that We may strengthen thy heart thereby, and We have rehearsed it to thee in slow, well-arranged stages, gradually.
025.033 And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and the best explanation (thereof).
Al-Qur'an, 025.032-033 (Al-Furqan [The Criterion, The Standard])

Allah SWT wanted to strengthen the heart of Muhammed :saw: not to just 'pass on' His words, but to explain them to the ummah, recite them, and follow them according to His will and be an example for the ummah to follow:
033.021 Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah.
Al-Qur'an, 033.021 (Al-Ahzab [The Clans, the Coalition, the Combined Forces])

014.004 We sent not a messenger except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. Now Allah leaves straying those whom He pleases and guides whom He pleases: and He is Exalted in power, full of Wisdom.
Al-Qur'an, 014.004 (Ibrahim [Abraham])

You have quoted the verse of Surah Al Ahzab to justify that the prophet :saw: can err , but if you look one verse above, there again is a command to obey the prophet.

033.036 It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path.
Al-Qur'an, 033.036 (Al-Ahzab [The Clans, the Coalition, the Combined Forces])

003.164 Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a messenger from among themselves, rehearsing unto them the Signs of Allah, sanctifying them, and instructing them in Scripture and Wisdom, while, before that, they had been in manifest error.
Al-Qur'an, 003.164 (Aal-E-Imran [The Family of Imran])

If you believe that the Prophet :saw: should not be obeyed, then the verses above are enough to make you reconsider, but if u feel that certain or all collections of hadith lack authenticity, then that is a completely different chapter.

[Cardo]

Go to this site for information: www.masjidtucson.org (http://www.masjidtucson.org)

You get your information from the International Community of Submitters website??? :rubeyes:

Do you follow "Quran The Final Testament, by Rashad Khalifa, PhD."?

[RashidD]

Please read the following:


Forgive me if i dismiss this rather quickly as if scholars throughout the ages can accept Hadith then i'm willing to discount the views of a few individuals now. Why would scholars use Hadith all this time while some people are now trying to disprove them?

[Al-ghurabah]

:start:



:salams

Anything that came out of that rabid dog's gob should hardly be credited.

:wswrwb:



:rolleyes: mmm ok. no needto swear sis.. dont let your emotions get better of you.. the shiah love for the grand children of the prophet mmake them do silly stuff which are completely out of islam.. and they surse the sahabas like umar ibn al-khatab and abu bakr etc...

you have no right to surse any of the sahaba or the tabieen...

[reyaah_annasr]

Our attitude towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah (http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=14007&ln=eng)

Read the above link. For some reason when I tried to paste the article here it gave me the following: weird........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our attitude towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah

Question:
I heard of this person Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah. I heard that he once a calipha of the muslims and he was a drunken sadistic person, who was not really a muslim. Is this true? Please tell me his story. Thank you and may allah bless you.

Answer:
<SPAN class=datasimp>
<SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 16.0pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Simplified Arabic'"><FONT size=4>Praise be to Allaah.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[CheifJunior]

Aslaam alaikum.
What do muslims over here think of this hadeeth?:

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏إسماعيل ‏ ‏قال حدثني ‏ ‏أخي ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن أبي ذئب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سعيد المقبري ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي هريرة ‏ ‏قال ‏
‏حفظت من رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وعاءين فأما أحدهما فبثثته وأما الآخر فلو بثثته قطع هذا البلعوم

Roughly translated: Ishmail narrated to us that it was narrated to me from Ibn Abi Zeb, who narrated that Sa'eed al-maqbari who narrated that Abi hurrayra said: I memorized from Rassulallah (saaws) two types of knowledge, one of them I transmitted, but the other, if I transmit it this throat (refering to his own) would be cut.

wa alaikum asalaam.

narrated to him who narrated to him who narrated to him. Seems like through chinese whisper the message may have been distorted?

[Abu Mus'ab]

narrated to him who narrated to him who narrated to him. Seems like through chinese whisper the message may have been distorted?

No,maybe if you had a brain instead of a nut you might be able to understand it.

And the Hadith is Sahih and to reject a Sahih Hadith is kufr.

[Abu Mus'ab]

Our attitude towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah

Question:
I heard of this person Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah. I heard that he once a calipha of the muslims and he was a drunken sadistic person, who was not really a muslim. Is this true? Please tell me his story. Thank you and may allah bless you.

Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

His name was Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan ibn Harb ibn Umayaah al-Umawi al-Dimashqi.

Al-Dhahabi said: he was the commander of that army during the campaign against Constantinople, among which were people such as Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari. Yazeed was appointed by his father as his heir, so he took power after his father died in Rajab 60 AH at the age of thirty-three, but his reign lasted for less than four years.

Yazeed is one of those whom we neither curse nor love. There are others like him among the khaleefahs of the two states (Umawi/Umayyad and ‘Abbaasi/Abbasid) and the governors of various regions, indeed there were some among them who were worse than him. But the issue in the case of Yazeed is that he was came to power forty-nine years after the death of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); it was still close to the time of the Prophet and some of the Sahaabah were still alive such as Ibn ‘Umar who was more entitled to the position than him or his father or his grandfather.

His reign began with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and it ended with the battle of al-Harrah, so the people hated him and he was not blessed with a long life. There were many revolts against him after al-Husayn, such as the people of Madeenah who revolted for the sake of Allaah, and Ibn al-Zubayr.

(Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’, part 4, p. 38)

Shaykh al-Islam described people’s attitudes towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah, and said:

The people differed concerning Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, splitting into three groups, two extreme and one moderate.

One of the two extremes said that he was a kaafir and a munaafiq, that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to spite the Messenger of Allaah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather ‘Utbah, his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle al-Waleed ibn ‘Utbah and others who were killed by the companions of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and others on the day of Badr and in other battles – and things of that nature. To have such a view is easy for the Raafidis who regard Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan as kaafirs, so it is much easier for them to regard Yazeed as a kaafir.

The second extreme group think that he was a righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahaabah who were born during the time of the Prophet and were carried and blessed by him. Some of them give him a higher status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and some of them regard him as a prophet. Both views are obviously false to one who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the earliest Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the Sunnah or to any intelligent person who has reason and experience.

The third view is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.

Then they divided into three groups, one which cursed him, one which loved him and one which neither cursed him nor loved him. This is what was reported from Imaam Ahmad, and this is the view of the fair-minded among his companions and others among the Muslims. Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody?

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed: according to what I have heard he is neither to be cursed nor to be loved. He said, I also heard that our grandfather Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed and he said: we do not deny his good qualities or exaggerate about them. This is the fairest opinion.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, part 4, p. 481-484

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

[reyaah_annasr]

jazakallahu khayr

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

:rolleyes: mmm ok. no needto swear sis.. dont let your emotions get better of you.. the shiah love for the grand children of the prophet mmake them do silly stuff which are completely out of islam.. and they surse the sahabas like umar ibn al-khatab and abu bakr etc...

you have no right to surse any of the sahaba or the tabieen...

Akhee I will :insha: never curse any of the sahaba, but that yazid dog was hardly a sahaba, there is not one person who says that he was a brilliant ruler... he was a cr@p ruler although some say he deserves respect.

I guess it depends on history and who writes it, people can say mushrraf is a great ruler and everything he is doing depends on his love for pakistan whilst others can label him a sellout who accepts money for trading Muslims in... depends on the viewpoint. But everyone agrees that Yazid was a cr@ppy ruler, look at this the Hadeeth of Abu Hurairah- some say that this yazid dog wasn't responsible for the events of Kerbala directly, well how about afterwards when he kept the members of the Prophet :saw: Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his family in captive, where Bibi Sakina- the innocent four year old daughter died in captivity- so please don't sit there and tell me I have no right to say a bad thing about this rabid dog whose actions speak for themselves.

There is a world of difference between Abu Bakr (RA) and Yazid or Umar (RA) and yazid.

:wswrwb:

[Palwaan]

You should watch your tongue, its Ramadhan and you dont know what you are talking about.

And can you name me one Sunni scholars and no shias or brelawi who ever cursed Imam Yazid?

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

You should watch your tongue, its Ramadhan and you dont know what you are talking about.

And can you name me one Sunni scholars and no shias or brelawi who ever cursed Imam Yazid?

Right now I have to get back to work, will be home and logged on around midnight so :insha: will deal with your request.

Thanks for telling me it's Ramadan :)

Imam Yazid... you have to be kidding me :rubeyes:

:wswrwb:

[Palwaan]

:start:

:salams



Right now I have to get back to work, will be home and logged on around midnight so :insha: will deal with your request.

Thanks for telling me it's Ramadan :)

Imam Yazid... you have to be kidding me :rubeyes:

:wswrwb:

ok I will log in tomorrow to see the reply.

I call him Imam Yazid.

looking forward to your reply sister.

[Abu Mus'ab]

Akhee I will never curse any of the sahaba, but that yazid dog was hardly a sahaba, there is not one person who says that he was a brilliant ruler... he was a cr@p ruler although some say he deserves respect.

You're closer to shiasm then Islam.

[MDK]

narrated to him who narrated to him who narrated to him. Seems like through chinese whisper the message may have been distorted?

You have not studied Mustalah al-hadeeth, so you should not assume stuff like that. The arabs at that time were famous for their accurate memory, thier memory was alot more better than ours. Once they heard of some wise saying (like the hadeeth i posted above), they memorised that saying at once, and they kept it in their memory till death. Memorising was a sort of custom for arabs, since they hardly ever wrote and most were illeterate, they just memorised instead.

Anyway can we please stay in topic here, instead of discussing about yazeed ibn muwiyah can a brother or sister please post an explanaition of this hadeeth please.

As for Yazeed, we are not to judge, Allaah is. And he is the best of judges.

wasalaam.

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

From Sunnipath: Indeed some scholars did curse him (Sa`d al-Din al-Taftazani, for example, See: Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P. 2845),

What I don’t understand is people can sit there and call all sorts of people- dead and alive kaffir but when it comes to yazid then it becomes a different matter.

Who are the leaders of men for Paradise… Hassan (RA) and Hussain (RA) so how can a jahil idiot who killed one of the leaders of Jannah end up in Paradise? Imam Yazid… you have got to be kidding me, the man who everyone says was responsible either directly or indirectly for the blood of the family of the Prophet Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his family can be respected.

He was a tyrant and a Imam’s job is to rule fairly over his people- Umar (RA) would search the streets to ensure that everyone under his rulership was okay- there is a world of difference between them.

If you think you’re gonna sit there and make me respect yazid then quite frankly you are wasting your time- plus the events of Kerbala are more useful to ponder over than the life of yazid.
I’m not gonna sit here and discuss this issue with people who sit there criticising others and labelling them Kuffar but hardly spend time educating others.

:wswrwb:

[Palwaan]

There is no evidence that Imam Yazid killed anyone or upon his orders were executions made except some propoganda from the shias kuffar who are known liars.

Here is the complete article which you did not quote but only one line:

Q
Imam Hussain's going against Yazid, and the Sunni view on Yazid. Can we curse him?
Answered by Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam

http://ummah.com/images/Q_Image.jpgIn 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?

(http://images.sunnipath.com/adclick.php?n=ae4641fa)
http://ummah.com/images/bism01.jpg
http://ummah.com/images/A_Image.jpg
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.

Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra al-Hanbali states in his Ahkam al-Sultaniyya:

“It is permissible for a Khalifah to appoint a successor without the approval of those in power, as Abu Bakr appointed Umar (Allah be pleased with them both) as his successor without the backing and presence of the prominent figures of the community. The logical reason behind this is that appointing someone a successor to the throne is not appointing his a Khalifa, or else, there will be two Khalifas, thus there is no need for the influential people to be present. Yes, after the demise of the Khalifah, there presence and approval is necessary”.

He further states:

“Khilafah (leadership) is not established merely with the appointment of the Khalifa, rather (after his demise) it requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah” (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, p. 9).

In view of the above, the majority of the Umma’s scholars are of the view that if a Khalifah or ruler appoints his successor without the approval of those in power, then this is permissible, but it will only serve as an suggestion. After his demise, the nation’s influential and powerful people have a right to accept his leadership or reject it.

Keeping this in mind, the leadership of Yazid was also subject to the same criterion other leaderships are. His leadership could not be established after the demise of Sayyiduna Mu’awiya (Allah be pleased with him) until it was approved by the major personalities of the nation.

Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) from the outset did not approve of Yazid being designated a leader. This was his personal opinion that was based on purely religious grounds and there was nothing wrong in holding this view.

After the demise of Sayyiduna Mu’awiya (Allah be pleased with him), Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) saw that the major personalities of Hijaz including Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) had not yet approved of Yazid’s leadership. Furthermore, he received heaps of letters from Iraq which made it clear that the people of Iraq had also not accepted Yazid as their leader. The letters clearly stated that they had not given their allegiance to anyone. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/262 & al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, 8/151).

In such circumstances, Sayyiduna Husain’s (Allah be pleased with him) stand with regards to Yazid’s leadership was that the pledge of allegiance by the people of Sham can not be forced upon the rest of the Muslims. Therefore, his leadership was as yet not established.

In Sayyiduna Husain’s view, Yazid was a tyrant ruler who desired to overcome the Muslims, but was not yet able to do so. In such a circumstance, he considered his religious duty to prevent a tyrant ruler prevailing over the Muslim Ummah.

For this reason, Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) sent Muslim ibn Aqeel (Allah be pleased with him) to Kufa in order to investigate the truth about Yazid’s rule. His journey was not of an uprising nature, rather to discover the truth.

Had Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) thought that Yazid had imposed his rule and established his power all over the Muslim lands, the case would have been different. He would certainly have accepted his leadership without choice and would not have opposed it. But he thought that this was a tyrant ruler that had no authority as of yet, and can be stopped before he establishes his authority.

This is the reason why when he came close to Kufa and discovered that the inhabitants of Kufa have betrayed him and succumbed to Yazid’s rule, he suggested three things, of which one was “Or I give my hand in the hand of Yazid as a pledge of allegiance”. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/313).

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. However, Ubaid Allah ibn Ziyad was not ready to listen to Sayyiduna Husain and ordered him to come to him unconditionally. Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) was in no way obliged to obey his command and he also feared his life, thus had no option but to fight him. This was the beginning of the unfortunate incident of Karbala. (See, for details, Imam Tabari’s Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk & Imam Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya).

In conclusion, it is impermissible to rebel against authority even if the ruler is oppressive or a sinner. The opposition of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) was due to the fact that Yazid’s rule had not yet been established and he intended to prevent his rule before it being established.

The position of Yazid

With regards to your second question that, is it permissible to curse Yazid?

Firstly, it must be remarked here that this is not an issue on which one’s Iman depends, nor will one be asked on the day of Judgement as to what opinion one held about Yazid. This is a trivial matter, thus many scholars have advised to abstain from indulging and discussing the issue and concentrate on the more immediate and important aspects of Deen.

Secondly, it should be understood that there is a general and accepted principle among the scholars that it is impermissible to curse a Muslim no matter how great of a sinner he is.

Imam Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) states:

“Cursing an upright Muslim is unlawful (haram) by unanimous consensus of all Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Cursing a believer is like killing him” (Sahih al-Bukhari).

As far as the sinners are concerned, it is permissible (but not rewarded) to curse them in a general manner, such as saying “Allah curse the corrupt” or Allah curse the oppressors” and so forth. It has been narrated in many narrations that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) cursed sinners in a general manner. However, to curse a particular person who commits some act of disobedience, such as oppression, murder, adultery, etc, there is a difference of opinion. The Majority of Scholars Including Imam al-Ghazali hold the view that this is impermissible.

Yes, it will be permissible to curse a person regarding whom it has been decisively established that he died on disbelief (kufr), such as Abu Lahab, Abu Jahl, Pharaoh, Haman and their likes. (See: al-Adhkar by Imam Nawawi & Reliance of the traveller, P. 772-773).

In view of the above, if it is established that Yazid died as a non-Believer or he regarded the killing of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) permissible and died without repentance, then it would be permissible to curse him. However, it this is not established, then it would not be permissible.

Indeed some scholars did curse him (Sa`d al-Din al-Taftazani, for example, See: Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasafiyya, P. 2845), but the majority of the Ulama have cautioned against cursing him. Firstly, because it has not been decisively established that Yazid himself killed or ordered the unfortunate killing of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah have mercy on him). There are some reports that he expressed his remorse on the actions of his associates, and even if he did, then murder and other sins do not necessitate Kufr.

Imam al-Ghazali (Allah have mercy on him) states that it is even impermissible to say that Yazid killed or ordered the killing of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) let alone curse him, as attributing a Muslim to a sin without decisive evidence is not permissible. (See: Sharh Bad al-Amali by Mulla Ali al-Qari, P. 123-125).

He further states:

“If it is established that a Muslim killed a fellow Muslim, then the understanding of the people of truth is that he does not become a Kafir. Killing is not disbelief, rather a grave sin. It could also be that a killer may have repented before death. If a disbeliever dies after repentance, then it is impermissible to curse him, then how could it be permissible to curse a Muslim who may have repented from his sin. And we are unaware whether the killer of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) died before or after repentance”. (ibid).

All of the above, whilst keeping in mind that (when cursing becomes permissible), it is not something that is obligatory (fard), necessary (wajib) or recommended (mandub). It only falls into the category of permissibility (mubah).

Therefore, it would best be to abstain from cursing Yazid, as there is no reward in cursing him, rather one should abstain from discussing about him altogether and concentrate on more practical aspects of Deen. May Allah Almighty give us the true understanding of Deen, Ameen.

And Allah knows best

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, UK

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

You're closer to shiasm then Islam.

And your opinion matters to me cuz?.... :)


Please keep your opinions about me to yourself, I neither have the time nor the patience to hear it- if you do not have something constructive to say or help out then you comments are not required.

Try educating before labelling...works wonders :)

:wswrwb:

[Al-Irhaab]

There is a world of difference between Abu Bakr (RA) and Yazid or Umar (RA) and yazid.

:wswrwb:

and there is a world of difference between yazid and yourself...

he fought in jihad for well over 20 years, he liberated lands from the kuffar, he waged war on the sea, he was given bayah to from sahaba (ra)... even abdullah ibn umer (ra) gave him bayah,

yazid has been narrated to do many wrong things, but he died in iman, he was given the blessing of seeing the sahaba (ra) of being the son of a eminent sahabi (ra), he was given the blessing of fighting for the sake of allah (swt), all three things which both you and me have been denied. before you curse a muslim you should learn what a muslim is and the rights he has, you talk of the love of the prophet (saw) so much yet the prophet (SaW) said do not curse the dead because it only harms the living, and the person he was talking about was abu jahl, one of the worst of the enemies of islam, yet to deride the son of a sahabi and attribute lies learned from the shiahs to him.... well i guess that is what happens when u spend too much time in the land of shiahs

[Abu Mus'ab]

:start:

:salams



And your opinion matters to me cuz?.... :)


Please keep your opinions about me to yourself, I neither have the time nor the patience to hear it- if you do not have something constructive to say or help out then you comments are not required.

Try educating before labelling...works wonders :)

:wswrwb:

Like my opinion doesn't matter to you likewise yours really doesn't matter to me.

You curse muslims but think that a evil kaafir like khomeini will go to jannah,khomeini only has one place and that is jahannam.

[Arifa]

Jeez man, you sound like God.

[Al-Nasser]

Like my opinion doesn't matter to you likewise yours really doesn't matter to me.

You curse muslims but think that a evil kaafir like khomeini will go to jannah,khomeini only has one place and that is jahannam.

Khomeini praised in one of his books Nasir Al Deen Al Toosi.....the Shi'ite scholar who worked as a consultant for Hulaqo after the invasion of Baghdad........Al Toosi is responsible for killing thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of Muslims and the looting and the destruction of a large number of invaluable Islamic books.......and how the shi'ite rabbis justify that?......Al Toosi helped killing many kaffirs (me and you, Sunnis)

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

Like my opinion doesn't matter to you likewise yours really doesn't matter to me.

You curse muslims but think that a evil kaafir like khomeini will go to jannah,khomeini only has one place and that is jahannam.


Oh so the way I see it, it's okay for YOU to sit there judging on whose kaffir or not and who goes to hell but Heaven forbid someone else dislikes a guy you like and doesn't give him thre respect that he had no right to in the first place then they have no right?

and there is a world of difference between yazid and yourself...

yazid has been narrated to do many wrong things, but he died in iman, he was given the blessing of seeing the sahaba (ra) of being the son of a eminent sahabi (ra), he was given the blessing of fighting for the sake of allah (swt), all three things which both you and me have been denied. before you curse a muslim you should learn what a muslim is and the rights he has, you talk of the love of the prophet (saw) so much yet the prophet (SaW) said do not curse the dead because it only harms the living, and the person he was talking about was abu jahl, one of the worst of the enemies of islam, yet to deride the son of a sahabi and attribute lies learned from the shiahs to him.... well i guess that is what happens when u spend too much time in the land of shiahs

Oh so being the son of a sahaba means we should respect him, I have more respect for yazid's son than i do regarding yazid.

So why don't you compare this theory with the fact that Imam Hussain (AS) was the grandson of the Prophet :saw: Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his family and one of the leaders for the men of Jannah.

yazid ticks me off, he's an idiot- a jahil idiot and this post of mine is wtness on the day of Qiyaamah- why do you think I hate him because he hurt the family of the Prophet :saw: Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and he was responsible for Kerbala's events- a cr@ppy ruler whose leadership is in dispute.

Just because he is someone you love doesn't mean I have to love him. I am neither a sheep nor a fan of yazid- and i am firm in my faith so please don't sit there questioning my Faith and my love for Muhammad :saw: Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his family.

:wswrwb:

[Al-Nasser]

Yazid didn't order killing Al Husain (ra) and it was reported that he was sobbing when he heard that Al Husain (ra) was killed

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

Yazid didn't order killing Al Husain (ra) and it was reported that he was sobbing when he heard that Al Husain (ra) was killed


Akhee please explain why Abu Hurairah (RA) known to say frequently accoridng to the post you posted before:

"i seek refuge with Allah from the 60th year and the leadership of the junior tyrant".......and he died in year 59...one year before Yazid became a caliph

:wswrwb:

[Al-Nasser]

because Yazid was a tough man!!......he wasn't as gentle or pious as Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman and Ali (ra).........certainly he was not perfect......but i compare his good deeds with his bad deeds (everyone of us has bad deeds) and the conclusion is that he deserve respect..........of course i do this comparison from sunni books which depend on strict system of historical accounts narrations not shi'ite books which depend on what Ayatollah had on dinner

[Al-Irhaab]

Oh so being the son of a sahaba means we should respect him, I have more respect for yazid's son than i do regarding yazid.

So why don't you compare this theory with the fact that Imam Hussain (AS) was the grandson of the Prophet :saw: Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his family and one of the leaders for the men of Jannah.

yazid ticks me off, he's an idiot- a jahil idiot and this post of mine is wtness on the day of Qiyaamah- why do you think I hate him because he hurt the family of the Prophet :saw: Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and he was responsible for Kerbala's events- a cr@ppy ruler whose leadership is in dispute.

Just because he is someone you love doesn't mean I have to love him. I am neither a sheep nor a fan of yazid- and i am firm in my faith so please don't sit there questioning my Faith and my love for Muhammad :saw: Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him and his family.

:wswrwb:

yes the son of a sahaba (ra) means you should respect him... only an idiot would think otherwise... the prophet (Saw) said the best of generations is my generation then the generation after and then the generation after and then there will be many liars... that is from the grandfather of hussein (ra) the prophet (SaW)...

you are firm in your love for the prophet (saW) yet you love those who abuse his precious wife Aisha (Ra) whom he said to that she is the most beloved of all women to me, and you love the one who cursed Abu bakr (ra) the father in law of the prophet (Saw) who he (Saw) said is the most beloved of all men to me... i find your love for the nasibis those who hate the prophet (Saw) family and those who hate the prophet (Saw) companions a little strange ...

i love the prophet (Saw) as all muslims do and we love the family of the prophet (SaW) as all muslims must do, but greater than our love for the prophet (saw) is our love for allah (swT) and greater than our love for the prophet (Saw) family is our love for the deen of allah (Swt), you speak ill of yazid because you hear it from tainted enemies of islam and muslims... you can continue to speak ill of him, yet the ulema have already said what they have to say that we remain silent..

yazid did more good than most of us will do during our lifetime, perhaps he did more evil than we have done, perhaps allah (Swt) will forgive him for his sins and grant him jannah... perhaps allah (swt) will reject our good and punish us for our sins... so id rather stay quiet and leave it for allah (Swt) to judge him as he is our brother and i know allah (swt) will do justice on him...

[Umm Layth]

It is still Ramadan, should not this be discussed in Muharram ?

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

which depend on what Ayatollah had on dinner

The last part of your statement made e chuckle, Akhee i don't care what the Ayatullah had for dinner... that's so ajeeb :p

Br Irhaab- I won't give respect to Yazid cuz I don't think he derves it, but he's dead and fone and Allah will judge him and judge us. I don't get into debates about people and their deeds because Allah jduges but I can't explain it to you I simply do not like Yazid.I rpomise you that the 'shias' i spend time with have neither cursed Aisha or Abu Bakr- maybe some do, but the one's I spend time with don't. I swear never have any of them cursed the Sahaba you say they do- do you think I would practise double standards and praise them on Ummah and in real life sit in the company of those cursing them?

Maybe you won't understand my resentment regarding yazid just as I do not understand your resentment regarding musharraf even though the same logic of him being a 'Muslim' ruler can be applied.

:wswrwb:

[Al-Irhaab]

:start:

:salams



The last part of your statement made e chuckle, Akhee i don't care what the Ayatullah had for dinner... that's so ajeeb :p

Br Irhaab- I won't give respect to Yazid cuz I don't think he derves it, but he's dead and fone and Allah will judge him and judge us. I don't get into debates about people and their deeds because Allah jduges but I can't explain it to you I simply do not like Yazid.I rpomise you that the 'shias' i spend time with have neither cursed Aisha or Abu Bakr- maybe some do, but the one's I spend time with don't. I swear never have any of them cursed the Sahaba you say they do- do you think I would practise double standards and praise them on Ummah and in real life sit in the company of those cursing them?

Maybe you won't understand my resentment regarding yazid just as I do not understand your resentment regarding musharraf even though the same logic of him being a 'Muslim' ruler can be applied.

:wswrwb:

shiahs never cursed the sahaba (ra) infront of me... but when i left they did it plenty well... i wonder why :torture:

as for the difference between musharraf and yazid.. no one to this day has every claimed that yazid implemented other than the law of allah (Swt), no one has every claimed that yazid handed over muslims to the kuffar to be killed, no one has ever claimed that yazid allied with crusaders to ensure that the rule of islam was not implemented... that is the difference betwee the two.. one may have committed great sins, but he also did many good things and he fought for the sake of allah (swT) and he ruled by the laws of allah (Swt) and the GRANDSON of the prophet (Saw) praised him as a pious muslim... for me the word of the grandson of the prophet (Saw) is enough to know how yazid was.. allah (Swt) will judge him, if it were not for the fact that he was the son of a sahabi (ra) and that he did many good deeds and that many lies have been said to him then perhaps what you feel might be the truth, but the fact remains the three above realities are true...

again like i said to you before you need to research from the books of history from the muslims more about yazid.. Abullah ibn Umer (Ra) the one that the prophet (Saw) kissed and loved gave bayah to yazid...

[MMS]

i have lots of shia family and family friends, we dont really get into religious debates but i went to a shia wedding recently and in the khutbah they were talking about the love between rasoolAllah (saw) and Aisha(r.a) and they were reffering to her as Ummul Mu'minin :D

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

i have lots of shia family and family friends, we dont really get into religious debates but i went to a shia wedding recently and in the khutbah they were talking about the love between rasoolAllah (saw) and Aisha(r.a) and they were reffering to her as Ummul Mu'minin :D


LOl sis join the club, I have quite a few Shia family members, sis can I ask are you Syed too? :)

:wswrwb:

[MMS]

:start:

:salams




LOl sis join the club, I have quite a few Shia family members, sis can I ask are you Syed too? :)

:wswrwb:

naa im not :)

[Al-Irhaab]

i have lots of shia family and family friends, we dont really get into religious debates but i went to a shia wedding recently and in the khutbah they were talking about the love between rasoolAllah (saw) and Aisha(r.a) and they were reffering to her as Ummul Mu'minin :D

they probs knew u were there :rolleyes:

[*IslamicGirl*]

:start:

:salams

they probs knew u were there :rolleyes:


Hmm sure and as soon as she went it went back to that :torture: theory didn't it? :p

:wswrwb:

[MMS]

they probs knew u were there :rolleyes:

loll no it wasnt that, the shia imam they had doing the khutbah didnt know

[Umm Layth]

I think the initiater of this discussion has achieved his objectives by now, which is to create fitnah and discredit the Islamic ruling system, we should refrain from entertaining this discussion and curse men of nobility.

There is something I would like to expand upon and my disagreement with the analysis from Sunnipath and else which assume that Yazid was a legitimate ruler when it is agreed upon that he was a Mutasaalit (usurper) whilst the Khaleefah of Muslimeen was appointed in Hijaaz, ie Abdullah ibn Zubair (ra).

To Know the situation regarding Yazid requires that we are aware of the reality of the incident. Muwa'wiyah became the Khalifah after Imam Hassan stepped down. The condition for Imam Hassan stepping down was that Muwa'wiyah give him 6 million dinar and that Imam Hassan will be Khalifah in the event of Muwa'wiyah leaving the post by whatever means of choice or death. However Imam Hassan died whilst Muwa'wiyah was still in the post. Muwa'wiyah was a good ruler and astute Politician until someone brought to his attention the practice of the Persians and there appointment of heirs. Muwa'wiyah knew that the Islamic method is Bayah, for the rasoolaallah (saaw) has mentioned that and I am sure you guys know about that.

He proceeded to take Bayah for his son whilst he was still alive. At the time the most influential people in Madina were the 4 Abdullahs (Abdullah ibn Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn Abbas and Abdullah ibn Abu Bakr). Muwa'wiyah knew to secure the rule of his son he needed their Bayah. He first instructed his governor in Madina to take a pledge for his son. Upon the refusal of the Abdullahs, Muwa'wiyah travelled to Madina with soldiers and Money. It is narrated that he met Abdullah Ibn Zubayr, whom he asked to give a pledge for his son. The reply came: Does this mean that you are abdicating Amir Al Mumineen i.e There can not be two rulers at the same time. Muwa'wiyah became angry with him. Upon realising that the Abdullahs were not accepting this behaviour, Muw'wiyah then met with them and the people in public. He placed two men with swords behind the Abdullahs and gave a speach. He vowed that if any of the Abdullahs spoke against him he will have them killed. By this action he took the Bayah for Yazid by force. (You can refer to Tarikh At Tabari, Tarikh al Khulafaa by Imam Suyuti Full Version amongst others for details etc.

By this Yazid came to power and he had support of some of those in Ash Sham and some in Kufah. He was considered a muttasalit since he usurped the power. Imam Hussein fought him over this and Imam Hussein was correct for he was a ruler who obtained power via a illigitimate way. Imam Hussain had the support of those in Madina. It is possible to have a Muttasalit who becomes Khalifah. i.e If he obtained power via the wrong means but it transpired that later people gave him Bayah and accepted him he could be a ruler as happened with Marwan bin Hakim (If I remember correctly, It was he who fought Abdullah ibn Zubayr after the death of Yazid).

Therefore, it should be clear that Yazid was not a khaleefah, we see after the death of Muawiya, the Ummah did not give the bayah to Yazid by freewill and consent. Infact people rose up, like Imam Hussin (ra) to rectify this, as did other sahabhi like Abdullah ibn Zubair. Only the people of Syria gave him consent but the majority of the ummah refrained, like the people of Iraq, Hijaz, and Egypt.

Indeed the people of Hijaz gave the bayah to Abdullah ibn Zubair(ra), and he became the legitimate Khaleefah. Yazid was not a khaleefah, but a ruler over Syria. Soon after, Yazid died, and his son Muawiyah ibn Yazid became the ruler of Syria, but he abdicated very quickly within months, and he was followed by Marawan ibn Hakam. After his death the ruler of syria was Abdul Malik ibn Marwan. He raised enough force to attack Abdullah ibn Zubair, and killed him. At this stage Abdul Malik ibn Marwarn was not the khaleefah, but the mutasallat.

But the people then gave him the bayah and consented to his rule. And then the full line of the Ummayad continues

This is the reality of Yazid ibn Muwa'wiyah. We should understand some key points from this unfortunate era in our history.

1) No-One disputed that bayah was the Method for appointing a Khalifah
2) No-one disputed that the ruler should not be one
3) This period shows the level that the Ummah was at that it was able to account its ruler and some died doing that.
4) The peo[ple knew the responsibility of the ruler. It would be in-correct to think that because of the actions of a small number of people, This means the whole society was characterised by Kuffar and fitnah. We must remember these issues were amongst some of those in ruling not amongst the masses.

The rule of law was obeyed by the masses but this reality was amongst a small number and it became the discussion point. This is why we have to look at the society at that time as a whole and as the reality was and not draw conclusions from isolated incidents.

I hope this helps and Allah Knows Best
Wa Salaam

[Al-Irhaab]

loll no it wasnt that, the shia imam they had doing the khutbah didnt know

he was probably high then :rolleyes:

[Al-Irhaab]

I think the initiater of this discussion has achieved his objectives by now, which is to create fitnah and discredit the Islamic ruling system, we should refrain from entertaining this discussion and curse men of nobility.

There is something I would like to expand upon and my disagreement with the analysis from Sunnipath and else which assume that Yazid was a legitimate ruler when it is agreed upon that he was a Mutasaalit (usurper) whilst the Khaleefah of Muslimeen was appointed in Hijaaz, ie Abdullah ibn Zubair (ra).

To Know the situation regarding Yazid requires that we are aware of the reality of the incident. Muwa'wiyah became the Khalifah after Imam Hassan stepped down. The condition for Imam Hassan stepping down was that Muwa'wiyah give him 6 million dinar and that Imam Hassan will be Khalifah in the event of Muwa'wiyah leaving the post by whatever means of choice or death. However Imam Hassan died whilst Muwa'wiyah was still in the post. Muwa'wiyah was a good ruler and astute Politician until someone brought to his attention the practice of the Persians and there appointment of heirs. Muwa'wiyah knew that the Islamic method is Bayah, for the rasoolaallah (saaw) has mentioned that and I am sure you guys know about that.

He proceeded to take Bayah for his son whilst he was still alive. At the time the most influential people in Madina were the 4 Abdullahs (Abdullah ibn Zubayr, Abdullah ibn Ali, Abdullah ibn Abbas and Abdullah ibn Abu Bakr). Muwa'wiyah knew to secure the rule of his son he needed their Bayah. He first instructed his governor in Madina to take a pledge for his son. Upon the refusal of the Abdullahs, Muwa'wiyah travelled to Madina with soldiers and Money. It is narrated that he met Abdullah Ibn Zubayr, whom he asked to give a pledge for his son. The reply came: Does this mean that you are abdicating Amir Al Mumineen i.e There can not be two rulers at the same time. Muwa'wiyah became angry with him. Upon realising that the Abdullahs were not accepting this behaviour, Muw'wiyah then met with them and the people in public. He placed two men with swords behind the Abdullahs and gave a speach. He vowed that if any of the Abdullahs spoke against him he will have them killed. By this action he took the Bayah for Yazid by force. (You can refer to Tarikh At Tabari, Tarikh al Khulafaa by Imam Suyuti Full Version amongst others for details etc.

By this Yazid came to power and he had support of some of those in Ash Sham and some in Kufah. He was considered a muttasalit since he usurped the power. Imam Hussein fought him over this and Imam Hussein was correct for he was a ruler who obtained power via a illigitimate way. Imam Hussain had the support of those in Madina. It is possible to have a Muttasalit who becomes Khalifah. i.e If he obtained power via the wrong means but it transpired that later people gave him Bayah and accepted him he could be a ruler as happened with Marwan bin Hakim (If I remember correctly, It was he who fought Abdullah ibn Zubayr after the death of Yazid).

Therefore, it should be clear that Yazid was not a khaleefah, we see after the death of Muawiya, the Ummah did not give the bayah to Yazid by freewill and consent. Infact people rose up, like Imam Hussin (ra) to rectify this, as did other sahabhi like Abdullah ibn Zubair. Only the people of Syria gave him consent but the majority of the ummah refrained, like the people of Iraq, Hijaz, and Egypt.

Indeed the people of Hijaz gave the bayah to Abdullah ibn Zubair(ra), and he became the legitimate Khaleefah. Yazid was not a khaleefah, but a ruler over Syria. Soon after, Yazid died, and his son Muawiyah ibn Yazid became the ruler of Syria, but he abdicated very quickly within months, and he was followed by Marawan ibn Hakam. After his death the ruler of syria was Abdul Malik ibn Marwan. He raised enough force to attack Abdullah ibn Zubair, and killed him. At this stage Abdul Malik ibn Marwarn was not the khaleefah, but the mutasallat.

But the people then gave him the bayah and consented to his rule. And then the full line of the Ummayad continues

This is the reality of Yazid ibn Muwa'wiyah. We should understand some key points from this unfortunate era in our history.

1) No-One disputed that bayah was the Method for appointing a Khalifah
2) No-one disputed that the ruler should not be one
3) This period shows the level that the Ummah was at that it was able to account its ruler and some died doing that.
4) The peo[ple knew the responsibility of the ruler. It would be in-correct to think that because of the actions of a small number of people, This means the whole society was characterised by Kuffar and fitnah. We must remember these issues were amongst some of those in ruling not amongst the masses.

The rule of law was obeyed by the masses but this reality was amongst a small number and it became the discussion point. This is why we have to look at the society at that time as a whole and as the reality was and not draw conclusions from isolated incidents.

I hope this helps and Allah Knows Best
Wa Salaam

imam suyootis view on the bayah of yazid is disputed... abdullah ibn umer (ra) was present at the time and was amongst the highest in legal authority and he gave him the bayah... the bayah for abdullah ibn zubair (ra) was given much later hence the ease in which imam hussein (ra) was pressured in the hejaz by those loyal to yazid.. history is not as black and white as a few historians... imam hussein (ra) himself was fed many lies by the shiah of his time until they eventually betrayed him and left him to be martyred

[MDK]

Asalaam alakium.

This is getting off topic.
Brothers and sisters stop discussing about Yazeed.
If you want to, start another thread about it, do not continue discussing it in this thread.
Al-irhaab, Aby mus'aab, IslamGirl, palwaan and everyother else, with all due respect, please stop discussing about him, please stay on topic here.

wasalaam.