Print Page | Close Window

Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Islamic INTRAfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: Matters/topics, related to various sects, are discussed where only Muslims who may or may not belong to a sect take part.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1082
Printed Date: 21 October 2014 at 11:47am


Topic: Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid
Posted By: rami
Subject: Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 12:45am

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem


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 - 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.



Replies:
Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 6:55am

Salam Rami,

Thank you for your post and in explaining the position of the Sunni Ullama on this point.

Rami wrote

" This clearly shows that when Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) discovered that Yazid had established his authority, he agreed to accept him as a leader."

This is a lie. I can't imagine that anyone could say this. If anyone has read a single paragraph from the story of Ashura or the speech of Imam Hussien it should be clear that, on several occassions, Imam Hussien was told by direct representatives of Yazid that he would be allowed to go in peace if he swore alligience to Yazid, but he refused in the strongest terms to do so. In fact, before he left Medina for Kufa he was informed that Yazid was the Caliphate and ordered to give his allegience and he refused. (sources avilable upon request).

The Sunni scholars can only get away with saying this because they do not accept any authentic sources for the speech given by Imam Hussien himself. I will include the speech, however, just to illustrate my point.

" Imam Husain (a.s.)'s sermon on the day of Ashoora

 "Now then! Consider my family, and ponder as to who I am and then admonish yourselves. Then do you consider that killing me and plundering my sanctity and respect is lawful for you? Am I not the grandson of your Prophet and the son of his Vicegerent and cousin, who was the foremost in believing and the bearer of witness upon everything that the Prophet had brought from Allah? Was not Hamza, the chief of Martyrs, the uncle of my father? Was not Ja'far, who flies with two wings in Paradise, my Uncle? Did not the Tradition of the Prophet reach you in which he has said about me and my brother that both of us are the chiefs of the youth of Paradise? Then if you agree to what I say, and verily what I have said is nothing but the truth, then it is better, for by Allah, from the time I have realised that Allah dislikes the liars, I have never ever spoken a lie. Then if you do not believe to what I say, there are alive among you the companions of the Prophet. Go to them and ask them and they shall bear testimony to the truthfulness of my speech. Ask Jabir bin Abdullah Ansari, Abu Sa'eed Khu­dri, Sahl bin Sa'ad Sa'edi, Zayd bin Arqam and Anas bin Malik, they will tell you that they have heard this tradition from the Prophet of Allah regarding me and my brother. Is not this sufficient to refrain you from shedding my blood"? 

Then Shimr bin Ziljawshan, the accursed said, "I worship Allah (only) by lips (half heartedly), and do not understand what you say." Hearing this Habib bin Mazahir said, "I can see that you worship Allah with seventy types of doubts, and I bear testimony that you have spoken the truth and you cannot understand what the Imam says, for Allah has placed a seal (of ignorance) upon your heart."

Imam continued,  "Then if you doubt this, do you even doubt that I am the grandson of the Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.s.)? By Allah! There is no other grandson of the Prophet in the east or the west except myself from among yourselves or anyone else. Woe be to you! Have I killed anyone from among you whose revenge you desire? Or have I usurped the wealth of anyone or hurt anyone whose retribution you desire from me"?  When no one answered him, he called out in a loud voice,

"O Shabas bin Rab'ee! O Hajjar bin Abjar! O Qays bin Ash'as! O Yazeed bin Haris! Have you not written let­ters to me saying that the fruits had ripened and the surrounding earth had blossomed, and to come to a huge army prepared for me"? They replied that they had not written any such letters. Imam said,

"Glory be to Allah! Yes by Allah, you had written it." Then he continued,

"O people! Then now if you do not like my arrival, then leave me so that I may go away to a place of refuge."

 Qays bin Ash'as said, "We do not know what you say. Then submit yourselves to your cousins (Bani Umayyah), they shall deal with you in a manner which you like." Imam replied,

"By Allah! I shall not give my hands in yours like a base man, nor shall I flee away like a slave." Then he called out in a loud voice,

 "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/ - 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.)


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 9:16am

One more thing, brother Rami....I just counldn't resist.

You wrote in another forum that, " i sugest you study what the colonial powers have done to the muslim people throught history as well as other countries." I am glad to hear you say this however, one of the reasons that colonial powers like Britian and U.S. were able to "divide and conquer" in the Middle East is by making sure that the sow (i.e., pig, oppresive ruler) that they choose carried his silk purse (i.e., the outward proffesion and superficial practice of Islam). Ditto for the Muslim "Caliph's" and their lackies (i.e., Yazid ibn Muawiyah, Marwan ibn Hakim, Haroon Rasid, etc.)

See the connection...?



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

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 10:02am
Hazrat Hussein making three conditions for surrender are mentioned in many history books including Tabri.
       Sermon doesn't prove anything,as it was delivered after his conditions were turned down.

Shamir to bring to Kufa Moharram
But Al-Hosein, who feared the cruel tyrant to 'Obeidallah worse than death, stood firm to his conditions. He even prevailed on 'Omar to urge that he might be sent direct to the Caliph's court. Well had it been for the Umeiyad house, if the prayer had been agreed to. But impatient of delay, 'Obeidallah sent instead a heartless creature called Shamir (name never uttered by Muslim lips without a shudder) to say that 'Omar must dally no longer with Al-Hosein, but, dead or alive, bring him in to Al-Kufa; should 'Omar hesitate, Shamir was to supersede him in 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.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 10:32am

Salam Delight,

What were the three conditions? What do you mean by surrender? If you mean by surrender that Imam Hussien (a.s.) agree to pay allegience to Yazid, then please provide sources for this.



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

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: Abu Hadi
Date Posted: 03 June 2005 at 4:45pm

Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya:

“We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their wrongdoings to be pardoned”.  (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111).

Then even according to Imam al-Tahawi(r.a.) it would have been permissable to disobey all of the Caliphs, except Imam Ali.

We hold that obedience to them is part of obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they do not order us to commit sins

Tell me then, is disobedience to RasoullAllah not a sin ?

Qur'an 4:65, But nay, by your Lord, they will not believe until they
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 ?



-------------
There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error...
Quran Ch.2 Verse 256


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 7:26am

Salam to all,

" In this outburst the name of Al-Hasan is added to that of Al-­Hosein, not only because the Shi'a hold him to have been entitled to the Caliphate (though he resigned it)"

This is an interesting point. Imam Hassan (a.s.) DID in fact (and this is agreed by all) make a peace treaty with Muawiyah after he seized the Caliphate upon Imam Ali's death. Imam Hassan agreed to accept Muawiyahs Caliphate first and foremost to avoid further bloodshed and fitnah among the Muslims (which Muawiyah began by revolting against Imam Ali (a.s.). Imam Hassan (a.s.) had several conditions for his agreement, and Muawiyah signed the agreement and then gave a speech in Damascus (references avilable upon request) at which he said, " I have not become your leader for any reason other than to rule over you. As for my agreement with (Imam Hassan (a.s.)), I will do as I wish." Then he proceed to tear up the agreement (both literally and figuratively).

This should be sufficient to demonstrate the charecter of the usurpers of the Prophets (a.s.) minbar.



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

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: Ayubi1187
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 9:27am
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.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 9:51am

I'm glad that you have identified yourself clearly "Muawiya(ra) " for all to see.

To one who would wish for Allah(s.w.a.) to be please with Muawiyah, I will not continue to discuss this matter.

For those who wish to know more about the peace treaty (with both Sunni and Shia sources too numerous to mention in this forum), please see the following link. http://al-islam.org/sulh/ - http://al-islam.org/sulh/

NOTE TO FORUM MEMBERS: I will not, in the future, be responding to the posts of Ayubi1187. Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufiyan was an open and declared enemy of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahyl al-Bayt and anyone who would praise them is far from guidance.



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

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: Ayubi1187
Date Posted: 06 June 2005 at 1:12pm
Originally posted by Ali Zaki

I'm glad that you have identified yourself clearly "Muawiya(ra) " for all to see.


To one who would wish for Allah(s.w.a.) to be please with Muawiyah, I will not continue to discuss this matter.


For those who wish to know more about the peace treaty (with both Sunni and Shia sources too numerous to mention in this forum), please see the following link. http://al-islam.org/sulh/ - http://al-islam.org/sulh/


NOTE TO FORUM MEMBERS: I will not, in the future, be responding to the posts of Ayubi1187. Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufiyan was an open and declared enemy of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahyl al-Bayt and anyone who would praise them is far from guidance.




Look at this guy acting so smart and piouse. Come out of the darkness man, i don't know what your ayatolahs have bean feeding you with but for your information ahlul-sunnah consider Muawiya(ra) as pious sahabi ofcourse not on the same level as Ali(ra) or Hassan(ra). I don't even know how you can be against Muawiya(ra) when one of your imams as you clime gave the caliphat of islamic nation to him. Certainly Hassan(ra) would not do something like that if Muawiya(ra) was not worthy of that. Or do you and your shias think you have beter judgment and knowledge then Hassan ibn Ali(ra)?


Posted By: delight
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 8:31am
   
is said that before the last battle he wrote to Moawiyah, proposing certain conditions; but that Moawiyah, before he received his letter, had sent him a blank paper signed at the bottom, bidding Hasan write what terms he pleased in it, and he would take care to see them punctually performed. Hasan took the paper and doubled the conditions which he had demanded in his letter; and when he and Moawiyah came together, he insisted upon the terms written in the blank paper: which Moawiyah refused, and told him, that it was reasonable he should be contented with those that he had expressed in his letter, since it was his own proposition. The articles that Hasan then stipulated for were these. First, that Moawiyah should give him all the money in the treasury of Cufah. Secondly, the revenues of a vast estate in Persia



In this conference (according to Abulfeda and some others) Hosein proposed one of these three conditions for Amer’s decision: either that he might go to Yezid, or else have leave to return back to Arabia, or else be placed in some garrison where he might fight against the Turks. Amer wrote word of this to Obeidollah, who seemed at first to look upon it as a reasonable proposal; till Shamer stood up and swore that he ought not to be admitted to terms till he had surrendered himself; adding, that he had been informed of a long conference between him and Amer. This remark totally changed Obeidollah’s mind. There is a tradition from one that attended Hosein all the way from Mecca, and overheard this conference; according to which, Hosein did not ask either to be sent to Yezid, or to be put into any of the garrisons, but only that he might either have leave to return to the place from whence he came, or else be at liberty to go where he would about the country, till he should see which way the inclinations of the people would turn.
BY SIMON OCKLEY, B.D.

PROFESSOR OF ARABIC IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.


-------------
LOGIC IS SIMPLE OTHERWISE IT IS ARGUMENT.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 07 June 2005 at 9:34am

Salam alakum Delight,

Since you don't quote your sources for your first line of discourse (i.e., Hasan write what terms he pleased in it, and he would take care to see them punctually performed. Hasan took the paper and doubled the conditions which he had demanded in his letter; and when he and Moawiyah came together, he insisted upon the terms written in the blank paper: which Moawiyah refused), I would be interested to know where this story comes from?

Also, I find it amazing on a few counts.

Imam Hassan (a.s.), as a well-known (by both Sunni and Shia) of the Ahly al-Bayt,  is specifically mentioned in the Quran as being "purified" from error and is among those whom the prophet ordered us to love (lets stick to the clear traditions for now). Given this fact, it is amazing that someone could see (in a conflict between these two) Muawiyah to be the one who is the "victim" of the "greed" of Imam Hassan (a.s.) and is in the right. Is it possible that the Prophet could order us to love someone who was a liar and an oppressor (astafir Allah)?

REGARDING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN YAZID AND IMAM HUSSIEN (A.S.)

I also find it amazing that anyone could believe that Imam Hussien would have paid allegience to Yazid. The character flaws of Yazid are well-known, and the sins he commited publically are enough information about his character. Imagine the grandson of the Holy Messenger (a.s.) and the "Master of the Martyr-Youth of Paradise" whom the Prophet's (a.s.) own Holy lips often kissed swearing his allegience to him. Does that make sense?

I also wonder why you do not accept the words of Imam Hussien (a.s.) himself, or the traditions transmitted by his supporters (i.e., Shia), yet, you will tout as evidence analysis (without any sources or references) from a "Proffesor of Arabic (not even Islam studies) at the University of Cambridge. What does that prove? By the way, I am a graduate student at a well known University in southern California, and I could tell you first-hand about the mistakes in analysis made by "high-caliber" University proffessors.

If you will accept the traditions transmitted DIRECTLY from Imam Hussien (a.s.) then let me know which sources you will accept. With this information, I will attempt to clarify this point further.



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

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 09 June 2005 at 5:49am

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

Assalamu alaikum

This is a lie…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.

Your accusation is refuted by your later comments, If the source for the speech is not accepted as being authentic then accusing a scholar of lying is ridiculous. Are we to throw away our scholarship simply because the result is your evidence does not stand up to scrutiny, how can you honestly expect a scholar to accept evidence after the source is shown to be fabricated or what ever the case may be.

What ever is said in the speech is not relevant, no scholar can honestly be accused of lying if he does not accept a piece of evidence as being authentic, this is plain logic.

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!

This is simplistic and emotional, you honestly believe the above Quote is the explanation for Saddam hussain. Unlike what you are implying we do not throw out the Quran and Hadith specifically mentioning obedience simply because we do not like it, “we hear and we obey”. How can you suggest we ignore what Rsul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) has said, if you do not have these ahadith that is for you and your Aqeedah but for us the hadith are there and they are many.

Maybe you are suggesting this rule is a lie since there wasn’t mass uprising against saddam after the entire country supposedly saw him praying with his shoes on in the wrong direction, Statements which don’t consider reality have little value. Interstingly enough I recently met an unfortunate brother who was forced into exile for possessing anti Saddam material he left behind his wife and children and moved to Syria for I think 10 years before coming here a few years ago, he hadn’t spoken or seen his family in all that time, Don’t imagine people were simply blind to Saddam.

Imam Ahmad once said an hour of Anarchy is worse than thirty years of oppression.

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.)

The moral coruption that is caused by cursing people and hating them is far worse than any imagined or real benefit in sending messages. These emotions open the door for shaytan. In the Quran it says do not approach the Quran in an impure state, the outward meaning is to have wudu while the inward meaning is to be Tahar or cleanse your self of bad qualities, so when you combine the two the door for shaytan to influence you while reading it is closed and therefor you are able to grasp its deep meanings.

It affects a persons mentality and spiritual cleanliness and stops a person from getting closer to Allah as no person can approach him except in a clean state he is al Qudus, there is no benefit to your Islam, Iman or Ihsan what so ever in practicing this.

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?

Who is Washington irving?

What exactly do you mean by not seeing the importance, some shia actually think we don’t like Ahl al bayt or don’t get upset when we are reminded of what occurred at Karbala. Have you ever read anything from any major Sunni scholar saying Karbala means nothing to sunni’s or we don’t care about Ahl al bayt.

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...?

What makes you think muslims did not resist in the colonial times, there is such a thing as loosing, if I am not mistaken the Shia consider westerners to be yajooj wa majooj and as such they can not be defeated until the time of Isa and the mahdi according to that understanding.

If you like I can send you some material about the muslim resistance in mecca and madinah in the time of the salafi uprising against the Ottoman khalifah, it is a translation of a work written in the Ottoman period some time before the Collapse of the Khalifah, the human tragedy is almost as sad as Karbalah br. I think we both mourne the loss of janat al baqi and what was to the local people.

 

Abu Hadi wrote

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 ?

What ever discussion has occurred in another thread is not relavent to me since I am not involved in it, it is the Shia position that Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alayhi wa saalam) appointed Imam Ali (ra) as his successor not the Sunni position, we have our own evidence and ahadith about the matter. I do not see how this discussion is based on this point.

Even if imam Ali was meant as his successor Islam is not a monarchy  and successor ship to Ahl Al bayt alone has much weaker evidence then that for imam Ali being appointed as the first Khalifah.

You make to many conclutions which are nothing more than theories with a modern day mentality. The Arabic in that time was different the mentality was different, the reality and the way Allah treated Mankind according to there actions and what was in there hearts was different, add to this that no person can fully or properly understand another person…so how do you expect to explain the events by drawing conclusions from basic evidence.

 

Ali Zaki wrote 

Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufiyan was an open and declared enemy of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahyl al-Bayt.

 
Muawiyah died a muslim Allah will eventually forgive him for his sins like everybody else and admit him to heaven.

Don’t interprate (ra) to mean may Allah be pleased with his sins no one has ever said or implied this.



-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: rami
Date Posted: 09 June 2005 at 6:03am
Bi ismillahir rahamnir raheem

Originally posted by Ali Zaki

Imam Hassan (a.s.), as a well-known (by both Sunni and Shia) of the Ahly al-Bayt,  is specifically mentioned in the Quran as being "purified" from error and is among those whom the prophet ordered us to love (lets stick to the clear traditions for now). Given this fact, it is amazing that someone could see (in a conflict between these two) Muawiyah to be the one who is the "victim" of the "greed" of Imam Hassan (a.s.) and is in the right. Is it possible that the Prophet could order us to love someone who was a liar and an oppressor (astafir Allah)?


Br the Quran does not mention he was purified from error, he (Imam Husain) Purified(tahrah) himself from bad Qualities Allah made it easy for him. Claiming he was free from error is claiming that he was above Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam). The prophet was free from sin but not making a mistake as is shown in the Quran in Surat Abbasa, regarding his lapse in judgment when the blind man came to him.

REGARDING THE CONFLICT BETWEEN YAZID AND IMAM HUSSIEN (A.S.)

I also find it amazing that anyone could believe that Imam Hussien would have paid allegience to Yazid. The character flaws of Yazid are well-known, and the sins he commited publically are enough information about his character. Imagine the grandson of the Holy Messenger (a.s.) and the "Master of the Martyr-Youth of Paradise" whom the Prophet's (a.s.) own Holy lips often kissed swearing his allegience to him. Does that make sense?


Alegiance does not mean agreement this is an exageration of events, it was for peace, he was making a sacrefice by agreeing may Allah reward him. This shows the strength of his charecter not weakness, would you do the same to your enemy for the greater good, We do not look down on him for this but praise him more than you percieve for his wisdom.



-------------
Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) said: "Whoever knows himself, knows his Lord" and whoever knows his Lord has been given His gnosis and nearness.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 09 June 2005 at 7:23am

Salam Rami,

Thank you for your replies. I am fortunate for the opportunity to understand the Sunni position from someone as knowledgable as you.

A GENERAL POINT REGARDING THE IMAM HASSAN AND IMAM HUSSIEN

It seems that most our disagreements are a result of our referal to different sources for the events that occured. I have searched, however, I have had a hard time finding credible Sunni sources of information for these events. I would appreciate it is you (or other Sunni brothers) could give me some authentic sources (not modern, academic sources), i.e., traditions from those who actually witnessed the events first hand. If all you have is Arabic, thats fine, I have many friends who can translate.

"Unlike what you are implying we do not throw out the Quran and Hadith specifically mentioning obedience simply because we do not like it.."

"Do not follow those who have forgotten mention of Me and pursue their own fancies." (18:27) 

ALSO, there is substantial proof that the "Ul Al'Amr referes ONLY to the Ahl Al'Bay (and specifically to Imam Ali). This is agreed to by ALL Shia and THE MAJORITY OF Sunni Scholars.

" The Noble Qur'an restricts authority over the Muslims to God, the Messenger, and to those who pay zakat while bowing down. Thus it says: "Authority over you belongs to God and the Prophet and those believers who establish regular prayer and pay their zakat while bowing down" (5:55). This verse refers to an occurrence that happened only once, for there is no general injunction in Islam that zakat must be paid while one is bowing; this is neither obligatory nor recommended, and we cannot assume that some people used to do it as a matter of practice.

The event in question is the following. A certain poor main entered the Prophet's Mosque while 'Ali, peace be upon him, was bowing in prayer. The beggar asked him for his help, and 'Ali stretched out his finger toward him, meaning that he should remove the ring and take it The beggar complied and left the mosque.

At this point the angel of revelation came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and revealed to him the verse we have just cited. 

Sunnis and Shi's agree unanimously that the verse was revealed with reference to 'Ali and that he manifested the action that is mentioned in it 186 The verse then is a concise allusion to 'Ali. Although the verse uses a plural ("those believers who ... pay their zakat while bowing down") it refers to a single individual. While the reverse the use of a singular with the intention of a plural is not permissible in the Arabic language, the use of a plural with singular meaning is quite common and by no means restricted to this instance. For example, the Qur'an uses a plural to refer to Na'im b. Mas'ud al-Ashja'i, in 3:172 and to refer to 'Abdullah b. Ubayy in Surah al-Munafiqun, apart from other instances that might be cited. [188]

Considering the admission of Sunni scholars that this verse refers to 'Ali, no doubt can remain that the leader and ruler of the Muslims after the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him and his family, was 'Ali, peace be upon him, for here his authority is conjoined with that of God and the Messenger. "

SOURCE: http://www.al-islam.org/leadership/13.htm#r184 - http://www.al-islam.org/leadership/13.htm#r184

Sources Cited in passage:

See the creed of Abu Bakr al-Mu'min as cited in al-Mar'ashi, Ihqaq al-Haqq, Vol. III, p. 425; Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, al-Bahr al-Muhit, Vol. III, p.276; al-Qunduzi, Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, pp. 114-16.

ALSO: [188] al-Tabari, al-Tafsir, Vol. XXVIII, p. 270; al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur, Vol. VI, p. 223.

" we don’t like Ahl al bayt or don’t get upset when we are reminded of what occurred at Karbala."

I don't think that at all. My Sunni brothers respect (and some do) love Alhy Al'Bayt. What I said was " the majority of the Muslim Umma does not recognize it's (the tragic events at Karbala's)importance. I stand by this. If the Muslim Umma in general understood and appreciated the relevence of this event today, they would not accept oppression so easily.

I am aware of the uprisings you are speaking of. However, these uprising have been the exception, rather then the rule in Muslim history. Generally, we find that "rulers who forget Allah and follow their own fancies" have been obeyed (or at least tolerated) by the majority of Muslims. This applies from the "Golden Age" of Islam until today. The solution to this is a correct understading of the events of Karbala and what Imam Hussien stood for (and sacrificed his life for). This correct understanding and appreciation is what is lacking among the majority of Muslims today.

" The moral coruption that is caused by cursing people and hating them is far worse than any imagined or real benefit in sending messages. "

I disagree. To hate and curse evil is a complementary action to praising and encouraging good. The problem is that most people are not very good at correctly identifing which is which. For this reason we should confine ourselves to only hating and cursing something when it is clearly and explicitly evil, or when the evil thing is also cursed by the Quran, The Prophet (a.s.) or his purified progeny. However, we should also be careful not to remain silent when a clear and obvious example of evil behavior is occuring.

" The prophet was free from sin but not making a mistake as is shown in the Quran in Surat Abbasa, regarding his lapse in judgment when the blind man came to him."

I would encourage you to read Surat Abbasa again. The Quran does not say that the Prophet frowned, it says "HE frowned". The Sunni scholars have INTERPRETED this to refer to the prophet, however, our scholars do not agree with this interpretation.

If the Prophet could have a "lapse in judgement", then this calls into question every other judgement the prophet made. This is not true. The prophet is a member of the Ahly Al'Bayt, and has been "purified" from sin AND error. The Quran testifies many times to the infallibility of the Prophet and the fact that he does not take any action (even on small matters) that effects the Umma unless he receives revelation from Allah (s.w.a) directing him.

" Alegiance does not mean agreement this is an exageration of events, it was for peace, he was making a sacrefice by agreeing"

This is the difference between the situation of Imam Hassan and Imam Hussien. In the case of Imam Hassan, I would agree with you. In some cases it is neccessary to give allegience to preserve peace and prevent bloodshed. However, this is not applicable in the case of Imam Hussien as he had no choice but to defend Islam with his and his families blood.

" Muawiyah died a muslim Allah will eventually forgive him for his sins like everybody else and admit him to heaven. "

That is a very presumtious statement. If you do not know whether or not Allah (s.w.a.) will forgive your sins and admit you to heaven, how can you speak for Allah's (s.w.a.) decision regarding someone else.

"O believers, turn toward God, all of you, in repentance, in hope of attaining success and salvation" (24:31).

"O believers, turn toward God in sincere repentance, and it may be that God will veil and efface your sins" (66:8).

There is no guarantee of salvation even for the Mumin (believer) (which is a higher status then "Muslim"). You're statement sounds alot like the teaching of the Chrisitians.

Salam,



 



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

Imam Ali (a.s.)


Posted By: SoftHeart
Date Posted: 11 June 2005 at 4:03am

Oops! Muslimeen!

Too many arguments and counterarguments in this thread that I forgot what I wanted to comment about at the outset.

In the very first message in this thread, it was said that "piety is not criteria for allegiance". Oh really! So did the Sahabah pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman, Ali (Allah be pleased with them) for reasons other than their extremely high standards of piety? Have you not read the comments that were made while pledging allegiance to Hadhrat Usman (RA) : "and we will pledge allegiance to who will promise to be estabished upon the Quran and the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sm), and upon the principles and practices and practices of Abu Bakr and Umar (RA)". [Lives of the Sahabah (Ch - Usman) : Allama Sulayman Nadawi].

And, would someone explain to me why Hadhrat Ali, Imam Hasan and Imam Hussain have been denoted as (as.) in some of the messages. I understand this as "alayhim as-salam" that is used after the names of Prophets.

Salam



-------------
O Allah! We ask from you faith that's perfect, understanding that's correct, heart tha's humble, tongue that's true, knowledge that's useful, deeds accepted, and sins forgiven, repentance as advised.


Posted By: Ali Zaki
Date Posted: 13 June 2005 at 6:58am

Salam alakum Softheart,

Briefly, The Shia argument for the Imam Ali (a.s.) being the rightful successor to the Prophet is based on the fact that the Prophet (a.s.) nominated (named) him as his successor EXPLICITLY (see Hmmmm topic in this forum, begining on page 5 for details). As a result, other selection criteria are not needed. Based on this same principle, Imam Ali (a.s.) nominate his successor in the same manner as the prophet, naming Imam Hassan (a.s.), etc.

Speaking for myself, I use the predicate (a.s.) (alayhim as-salam) because this is the tradition among the Shia when refering to the 12 Imams, although Imams are Imams and not Prophets. I have seen, however, this term of respect (i.e., a.s.) used (in Shia literature) even with highly respect persons who were not Prophets or Imams (such as the prominant companion of the Prophet (a.s.) Salman Al-Farsi).

 



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

Imam Ali (a.s.)



Print Page | Close Window