Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid Post Reply Post New Topic
Page  of 3 Next >>
Author Message
rami
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Senior Member

Joined: 01 March 2000
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2550
Quote rami Replybullet Topic: Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid
    Posted: 03 June 2005 at 12:45am

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem


assalamu alaikum

Imam Hussain's going against Yazid, and the Sunni view on Yazid. Can we curse him?

Answered by Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam

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)  ;

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

 

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.
IP IP Logged
Ali Zaki
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Quote Ali Zaki Replybullet 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,

 "O servants of Allah! 'And verily, I take refuge with my Lord and your's, lest you stone me (to death)'[58] and I take refuge with my Lord and your's, from every arrog­ant, who does not believe in the day of reckoning."  Then the Imam dismount­ed from his Camel and commanded Uqbah bin Sam'an to fasten its legs.

SOURCE: http://al-islam.org/nafas/

“O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you” (al-Nisa, 59).

The above evidences are clear in establishing the fact that one must obey the ruler even if he is corrupt or a sinner (fasiq). "

O what a tragedy it is that our Sunni brothers believe that the Uhl al'Amr include the Thalimeen. How sad it is that our Sunni brothers believe it was wajib to follow Saddam (who was recorded on video praying with his shoes on, while not facing the Quibla) while he was murdering millions of Shia. So if someone, like Gandi (a non-Muslim) was the ruler it is permissible to rebel against him because he is a non-Muslim while it is wajib to obey Sadam. Wow!

I could say alot more than this, but I will refrain for now.

"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. "

Imam Hussien does not need for us to remember him, this is for our benefit today. By cursing Yazid, it does not change what happened, however, it sends a message to the Yazids who are alive today.(and oppressing the Muslims as we speak.)

"It was possible for Husain to save his life by submitting himself to the will of Yazid. But his responsibility as a reformer did not allow him to accept Yazid's Caliphate. He therefore prepared to embrace all sorts of discomfort and inconvenience in order to deliver Islam from the hands of the Omayyads. Under the blazing sun, on the parched land and against the stifling heat of Arabia, stood the immortal Husain."

 - Washington Irving

If Washington Irving, a non-Muslim living in the West, was able to see the importance and relevence of the tragedy of Karbala, then how is it that the majority of the Muslim Umma does not recognize it's importance.  Is religion just the performance of rituals? Is there any more "practical aspect" of religion than working for justice in one's own life, in owns own family, in ones community or in the world as a whole? Is there any more practical aspect of religion than standing up for principles in the face of tremendous obstacles?

Salam

"The structure of faith is supported by four pillars endurance, conviction, justice and jihad."

Imam Ali (a.s.)
IP IP Logged
Ali Zaki
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Quote Ali Zaki Replybullet 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.)
IP IP Logged
delight
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 11 May 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 20
Quote delight Replybullet 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 com­mand.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-H­osein 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, there­fore, 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.
IP IP Logged
Ali Zaki
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Quote Ali Zaki Replybullet 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.)
IP IP Logged
Abu Hadi
 
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 13 May 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Quote Abu Hadi Replybullet 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
make you the judge of what is in dispute between them, then they shall find in themselves no dislike of that which you have decreed, and submit in full submission

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 ?



Edited by Abu Hadi
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error...
Quran Ch.2 Verse 256
IP IP Logged
Ali Zaki
 
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 217
Quote Ali Zaki Replybullet 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.)
IP IP Logged
Ayubi1187
 
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 06 December 2001
Location: Somalia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 69
Quote Ayubi1187 Replybullet Posted: 06 June 2005 at 9:27am
Originally posted by Ali Zaki

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).



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.

Edited by Ayubi1187
IP IP Logged
Page  of 3 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com