63 replies to this topic

[omarashidwani]

after the comment of Dr. Zakir Naik on yazid, a new phase of nasibi allegations were raised against imam hussain(ra). the endeavor is not new in its objective. mehmood abbasi wrote his infamous and subjective book&quot;khilafat muawiya wa yazid&quot;. it paved way for nasibis in criticizing the stand of imam hussain. presently books by hafiz salahuddin yousuf and aqeequl rehman simbhli are deviating people of ahl sunnah from right aqeedah. nasibis find it easy to criticize ahl bait , a reaction to rafidi slanderings. but it is like cursing jesus(as) when christians foul mouth our prophet(saw).<br /><br />as regards the character and position of yazid, there is an ijma in the ummah for the past fourteen hundred years. deviant beliefs of ghazali and ibn taimiyah dont find themselves in the ijma.<br /><br />subjectivity is also apparent in eulogizing yazid. for example the hadith of qustantinia. there are some facets of the hadith we need to contemplate.<br />1/the prophet hasnt used the words qustantinia in the hadith<br />2/ the promise of maghfirah in the hadith does not in any way give a person license to sin. the maghfirah holds good before the expedition, after the battle the promised maghfirah is applicable if the character of the person remains in keeping with the islamic teachings.<br />3/ the commentators of the hadityh like ibn hajar asqalani, imam qastalani, badruddin aini along with other notable ones have correctly stated that yazid was not included in maghfirah as his deeds spoiled it all.<br />4/ the narrator of hadith are qdris and nasibis , accepting their hatred for Ali(ra).<br />5/ no sahaba supported yazid by this hadith when rebellions rose against him.<br />6/no tabaee has used the hadith as premise to eulogize or defend yazid.
The tradition relating to Caesar's City was narrated by Thawr bint Yazeed he was an enemy of Commander of the Faithful Ali(ra). we read in tabaqat ibn saad
"Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol 7 under the topic: Thawr bin Yazid al Kalayee .The grandfather of Thawr was present in Siffeen and participated along side Muawiyah and was killed in the same war. Therefore whenever the name of Ali was taken before Thawr he used to say: "I do not love the man who killed my grandfather۔"

Edited by omarashidwani, 23 December 2010 - 02:21 PM.

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

May Allah guide those who love Yazeed. Indeed, he was a fasiq and a corrupt ruler and brought corruption in the land of Muslims during his rule.

[Fatah-Momin]

http://islamic-forum...?showtopic=1980

[maulana yazeed]

Yazeed  ®  was  certainly  a  better  man  than  khomeini  ,  sistani  ,  khoei  ,  moqtader  al-sadr  ,  al-hakim  ,  nasrullah  ,  maliki  ,  jafari  ,  allawi  ,  zardari  combined .

[Fatah-Momin]

Khalif Yazid Bin Mauwiyah

Facts:
Yazid was nominated in 50 AH
About 1000 blessed companions were alive, most of them accepted the nomination
Those accepted  included Sahaba from Ashra Mubashra, Ashab-e-Badr, Ashab-e-Baite-e-Rizwan
It included Hz. Ibn Abbas[ra] and also Hz. Hussein Ibn Ali [ra] Ibn Abu Talib.
Hadith of RasoolAllah [saw] also favour Yazid, the army headed by Yazeed also included Hz. Hussein[ra]
Incident of Karbala  happened in 61 AH
Hz. Hussein[ra] did not raise any objection for almost 10yrs.

There are many such facts which are shrouded behind the veil of Shia lies and deception, especially  in south Asian area.

Edited by Fatah-Momin, 23 December 2010 - 09:32 PM.

[Fatah-Momin]

AbuMuslimKhorasani, on 23 December 2010 - 03:04 PM, said:

May Allah guide those who love Yazeed. Indeed, he was a fasiq and a corrupt ruler and brought corruption in the land of Muslims during his rule.

Asalaam Alaikum

Brother it is not the question of "Love" for Yazeed Bin Mauwiyah, it is more about exposing the lies and fabrication perpetrated by Shia by Vilifying  Khalif Yazeed. I have many threads on the board on this topic please go through them and inshallah you will realize the truth. It does not absolve Yazeed from what happened during his klhilafate, but what is truth and what is lie, and that must be exposed.

[Offeror]

Asalam-o-alaikum, Kindly check this link for those readers who understand Urdu Language. and for those who don't understand Urdu, I will give a short description of what the video includes regarding Yazid.

[Fatah-Momin]

Asalaam Alaikum
Brother it is common knowledge what Tahirul Qadri represent,

[Offeror]

sorry duplication

Edited by Offeror, 25 December 2010 - 11:47 AM.

[Offeror]

<br /><br /><br />

Waalaikum-us-salam,

My point was that we shouldn't have any soft corner for Yazid.
I've heard many devout followers of Zakir Naik, who because of their reverence to Zakir find sense in his comments on Yazid.
I have also heard from people things like Yazid was also a Sahabi and we shouldn't use such words for a Sahabi.

I am firmly of the point of view that I have not yet listened to a mainstream Sunni scholar who has in any way defended Yazid.
The people who martyred Hazrat Imam Hussain r.a and his blessed Companions, should not be given any soft corner in our hearts and minds.
It is true that Shias go overboard in their reverence to the Ahl-e-Bait,
but it does not mean that we should try to prove Yazid a good man, just to prove the Shia wrong.

Finally, I go with the view point of mainstream Sunni scholars (not some pervert or free-thinker), and they comdemn Yazid big time, so I'm with them and I'll propagate this message.
Another important thing is, that Allah the Almighty does not belittle his great servants. If Yazid really were a good Sahabi, he would not have been condemned by you'll have to agree, almost
everybody. Its just a minor group that is somehow finding a soft corner for Yazid.

Zakir Naik said the words "may Allah be pleased with him" for Yazid. I'm sorry but any man who says such words doesn't deserve the respect of those who claim to love the Prophet saw and his lovely family.

I hope you've understood my point in good spirit.

BTW, you did a great job exposing the Shia beliefs. I've had a look. Seriously I'm still shocked why they haven't been kicked out of the fold of Islam.

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

Fatah-Momin, on 24 December 2010 - 01:55 AM, said:

Brother it is not the question of &quot;Love&quot; for Yazeed Bin Mauwiyah, it is more about exposing the lies and fabrication perpetrated by Shia by Vilifying Khalif Yazeed. I have many threads on the board on this topic please go through them and inshallah you will realize the truth. It does not absolve Yazeed from what happened during his klhilafate, but what is truth and what is lie, and that must be exposed.

Asalam Alaikum,

The belief of shia shouldn't affect ours. Yazeed was the one who attacked Madina and killed many companions and their children. Ibn Zubbair (ra) was also martyred by the army of yazzed in Makkah. Many top Islamic personalities were killed by Yazeed. This is the view of scholars of Islam.

Thanks,

[Naqshbandi]

Salamu Alykum...
I do agree that some lies might have been made to demonise Yazid to the limit we see today. But there is no doubt that he was tyrant and greedy, his being fasiq and fajir is accepted by a great majority of Muslim scholars.
Secondly there is no benefit/thawab in defending Yazid and but there sure is sin/harm in even trying to find faults in Al Hussain radi'Allahu anhu wa alehe salam.
We have so many grounds to show the kufar of shia but this certainly isn't a wise thing to do.
Some people may defend him because he is the son of Ameer Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan radi'Allah anhuma.
The Sahaba Karaam who gave bayat to Yazid was forceful and indicated by Battle of Harrah and eventual martyrdom of great sahaba Ibn Zubayr alehe ridwan.
Keep up the work of exposing shia filth but protect yourself from harm to imaan.

[Fatah-Momin]

Yazeed Did not attack Medina, the battle took out side the city limit at Harrah, and most of the things that are recorded to have occured after the battle are mostly Shia fabrications.
Please post  incidents that proved him to be tyrant, fasiq.

[AbuMuslimKhorasani]

Fatah-Momin, on 25 December 2010 - 09:01 PM, said:

Yazeed Did not attack Medina, the battle took out side the city limit at Harrah, and most of the things that are recorded to have occured after the battle are mostly Shia fabrications.

Please post incidents that proved him to be tyrant, fasiq.

Salam Alaikum dear brother,

Ok here are some information about the actions of Yazeed:

Ibn Hajar (rah):
Loving and glorifying him (Yazid) is not done except by innovator who has void belief because he (Yazid) had such characteristics that his lover deserves to be faithless, because to love and hate just for the sake of God is a sign of faith.

Source: �al-Imta bil al-Arba�in al-Matbainatus Samah� p 96.

Ibn Katheer:
And he Muslim bin Uqba, about whom salaf said: Musraf bin Uqba, May Allah not do well to this leader of evil and ignorance, he made Madina legal for 3 days on the order of Yazid. May Allah also not grant Jaza and khayr to him(i.e. Yazid), he got many righteous killed and also looted the amwaal in Madina in great numbers, this has been multiply narrated that he created a lot of Shar and Fasad. It is mentioned that Hadrat Muafl bin Sanan (RA) was tied infront (of Ibn Uqba) and then martyred, you were his friend before but later you used strong words against Yazid due to which he became angry at you.

Source: Al-Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Volume 8, Page No 280

and many more narrations...

[Fatah-Momin]

Brother I am requesting for everyone saying that Yazid was a fasiq and a tyrant, to provied incidents that he suppose to have perpetrated.  Opinions expressed are personal opinions.
I will give you examples here, did during his reign, Yazid banned Salah? errected Idol for worship? Banned recitation of Quran? made Islam illigal?  discontinued practice of Haj and sawm or made himself prophet/imam, I hope brother will be able to provide evidence to these allegation.  I have asked many Shia same question none has been able to respond.

If you accuse hem of murder, theft, alcohol and womanizing, you need eye witnesses for all these acts, Hz. Muhammad bin Hanifiyah [rta] has given evidence to the contrary. Even you can bring evidence to support these allegation at best it establish hadood on him, and does not remove him from the pale of Islam. And it is not permitted to slander or  accuse a Muslim dead or alive who can not defend him or herself.

[Offeror]

Fatah-Momin, on 25 December 2010 - 09:01 PM, said:

<br />Yazeed Did not attack Medina, the battle took out side the city limit at Harrah, and most of the things that are recorded to have occured after the battle are mostly Shia fabrications.<br />Please post incidents that proved him to be tyrant, fasiq.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Here are a few things I've found by just a little search:

Sunni Sources:

1. Tabaqath al Kabeera Volume 5 page 66 Dhikr Abdullah bin Hanzala and Volume 4 page 283
2. Tareekh ul Khulafa, (Urdu), page 210 Dhikr Yazeed
3. Sawqih al Muhriqa page 132 Dhikr Yazeed
4. Mustadrak al Hakim Volume page 522
5. Al Isaba Volume 3 page 469
6. Ya Nabi al Mawaddath page 326
7. Tareekh Ibn Asakir Volume 7 page 275
8. Fatawi Abdul Hai page 79
9. Tareekh al Islam Volume 2 page 356
10. Al Masalaik Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik page 435


in Tabaqath:

"Abdullah bin Hanzala the Sahaba stated 'By Allah we opposed Yazeed at the point when we feared that stones would reign down on us from the skies. He was a fasiq who copulated with his mother, sister and daughters, who drank alcohol and did not offer Salat"

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Tareekh ul Khulafa:

"Waqidi has narrated from Abdullah bin Hinzala al Ghaseel: 'We prepared to attack Yazeed at the time when we were sure that stones would come from sky because people were doing Nikah with their mothers, sisters and daughters. They were drinking alcohol and have left prayers'."

You can check the references.
And Secondly, I gave you link of Allama Tahir ul Qadri on Yazeed, and u said it was common knowledge, but still you are asking whether he was fajir or not?
I just don't know what you will gain by defending Yazid,
May Allah guide us all to despise the enemies of the Prophet saw and his beloved family.

[Offeror]

Ibn e Kathir al Bidayah Volume 8 says In English here...

"Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to music, kept the company of boys with no facial hair [civil expression for paedophilia with boys, a form of homo***uality], played drums, kept dogs [civil expression for bestiality], making frogs, bears and monkeys fight. Every morning he used be intoxicated and use to bind monkey with the saddle of a horse and make the horse run."

Edited by Offeror, 26 December 2010 - 04:15 AM.

[Offeror]

It is also worthy of mention that Hazrat Imam Hussain r.a had sent Hazrat Muslim Bin Aqeel r.a. to Kufa to go and check the situation.

And then what happened with Hazrat Muslim Bin Aqeel r.a. in Kufa is common knowledge right.
Even after his martyrdom there was significant time till Hazrat Imam Hussain r.a. and his Companions were martyred.
Was Yazeed so unaware of what had happened with Hazrat Muslim Bin Aqeel r.a.?
Was the martyrdom of Hazrat Muslim Bin Aqeel r.a. not a big enough issue for Yazeed?
So that he kept his eyes closed until Hazrat Imam Hussain r.a. would be martyred?

There is no sense in defending Yazeed, unless everything that has been told to us was completely fabricated.
Having sympathy for Yazeed is like having sympathy for the devil. Allah hi hidayat de!

Edited by Offeror, 26 December 2010 - 04:25 AM.

[Offeror]

Fatah-Momin, on 25 December 2010 - 11:06 PM, said:

<br />Brother I am requesting for everyone saying that Yazid was a fasiq and a tyrant, to provied incidents that he suppose to have perpetrated. Opinions expressed are personal opinions. <br />I will give you examples here, did during his reign, Yazid banned Salah? errected Idol for worship? Banned recitation of Quran? made Islam illigal? discontinued practice of Haj and sawm or made himself prophet/imam, I hope brother will be able to provide evidence to these allegation. I have asked many Shia same question none has been able to respond.<br /><br />If you accuse hem of murder, theft, alcohol and womanizing, you need eye witnesses for all these acts, Hz. Muhammad bin Hanifiyah [rta] has given evidence to the contrary. Even you can bring evidence to support these allegation at best it establish hadood on him, and does not remove him from the pale of Islam. And it is not permitted to slander or accuse a Muslim dead or alive who can not defend him or herself.<br />

Very simple question, you have labelled yourself as Shia's ultimate nighmare. So, what is your opinion on the faith of a "Muslim" who abuses the Sahaba?
Of course, I am referring to the Shias. Lets assume for instance, that the Shia's consider Quran perfect, and do not deify Hazrat Ali r.a, and technically speaking
fulfilll the basic conditions of Islam, but still they abuse some Sahaba. I think it would be most pathetic to stop me from cursing the Shia, saying that
I should not talk like this for Muslims.

And then what are your thoughts of Yazeed who went overboard and didn't just cause verbal pain to the Prophet and his family, but even beheaded many of them.
Just because Yazeed was not on the battlefield, no one can absolve him of his responsibility from this issue.
He was not child, he was heading the State of Islam.

If I'm allowed to give link to another forum where many examples have been quoted for Yazeed's fisq, then I'll do so.
Anyways, your last line quoted above is really saddening to read.

[Fatah-Momin]

You can give as many links as possible as long as evidence is from classical books by classical scholars with sound chain of narrations.Khalif is responsible for what ever happens under his khilafa. He did send two of the best Shia of Ali to meet with Hz. Hussain[ra]. 1. Abdullah Ibn Ziad, he was one of the most trusted of Shia, and was governor of Kufa under Hz. Ali[ra].  2.  Shimr, personal Body guard and brother in law of Hz. Ali[ra]  who demanded for return of his nephews [step brother] from Hz. Hussein[ra]  at Karbala..  Please do not post allegation, any evidence you post must be backed by proper references.
The logic that you post are not evidence, history is something that had already happened in the past, so we must read the past as it happened and not as we wish it should have happened.