63 replies to this topic

[omarashidwani]

Abu Hurraira would walk through the markets and 'O Allah don't accept the events of 56 Hijri and I don't see this boy's reign'

In Fatah ul Bari Ibn Hajr states that:

"Abu Hurraira was referring to the youth of Quraysh"


Ibn Kathir states:

"Abu Said al Khudri narrates that he heard Rasulullah (s) say after 60 Hijri undeserving people shall ignore prayers and enter the deepest part of Hell".

This hadith is also a condemnation of Yazeed since he became the Leader immediately after 60 Hijri.


besides,
Ghazzali supporters should refrain from cursing the Devil - since according to Ghazzali the act of cursing someone that you do not know is pointless, and it is better to use one's tongue to recite Surah Fateha. This type of logic contradicts the practice Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s) - for no man can be as forgiving and pious as Rasulullah (s), and yet we learn that at various points during his life that he would curse his enemies and those of Allah (swt). If Ghazzali would deem this practice to be a sin then is he accusing Rasulullah (s) of indulging in sinful actions?

We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 231 Dhikr Yazeed:

Justice shall rule my Ummah until the first individual who shall destroy my Deen, from the Banu Ummayaa his name shall be Yazeed.

Edited by omarashidwani, 12 March 2011 - 05:49 PM.

[omarashidwani]

A QUESTION FOR THE SUPPORTERS OF YAZID
Those people who support Yazid and claim that he participated in the siege of
Constantinople and is therefore forgiven, even when the facts have been brought out
can they bring forth any proof from the Quran or the Sunnah? Even if he had
participated, will all his later sins be forgiven and Allah SWT will not take him to
account for them?
There are other acts also for which forgiveness has being declared. There is a
Hadith in Sunan Ibn Majah, Bab Majaa fil Ghusl, Pg No. 105,
Translation: Whoever washes a dead body, enshrouds it, perfumes it, carries the
Janazah, offers its Salaat ul Janazah, and does not reveal if he sees anything in the
dead body, that person is as free of sins on that day as if his mother gave birth to
him on that day.
In the same way, there is a Hadith about Hajj: Syeduna Abu Hurairah (May Allah
SWT be well pleased with him) relates: I heard the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi
wa sallam) say: Whoever performs a Hajj, uttered no obscenities, did nothing bad,
he will return that day in such a state as if his mother has given birth to him.–Sahih
Bukhari, Vol 1, Pg No. 206
There is a Hadith in Sahih Muslim,
Translation: It has been narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (May
Allah SWT be well pleased with him) that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa
sallam) said: Whoever bears the responsibility of an orphan or makes someone
responsible for the orphan, I (i.e. the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam))
and that person will be like 2 fingers (i.e. so close), Imam Malik (May Allah SWT
shower His Mercy on him) gestured with the first and the middle finger.
There are many Hadith in which glad tidings of forgiveness have been given.
Does the forgiveness mentioned in the above Hadith and in other Hadith mean that
a person after performing the above acts can leave Fardh Salaat, drink wine, steal,
persecute somebody, hurt somebody, murder somebody, even then because of the
past virtuous acts, all his later sins will be forgiven? No, what it means is that
because of the virtuous acts, the earlier sins are forgiven and not the later sins.
Otherwise, it should be said that if any person performs a Hajj, washes a dead body,
or bears the responsibility of an orphan, that person can leave Salaat, drink wine,
steal, persecute somebody, hurt and murder somebody but these sins will not affect
him, only because that person has performed some virtuous acts. No sane person
will accept that. This is a castle in the air. If this is accepted as correct, then the
society cannot be kept free of oppression.

SUMMARY

The Hadith-Masters have interpreted the Hadith, "the first army from My Ummah
to attack Caesar is forgiven in many ways. One of them is that the city if Caesar
mentioned in the Hadith is not Constantinople, but Hims, which was the capital city
of the Roman Empire in the era of the Prophet, as given in Fath Ul Bari. This city
was conquered in the caliphate of Hadhrat Umar (May Allah SWT be well pleased
with him).
Even if it is accepted as Constantinople according to the opinion given by other
interpreters, Yazid is still not included in the forgiveness, as Yazid did not
participate in the first siege of Constantinople. The first siege of Constantinople
took place in 32 A.H. under Hadhrat Ameer Mu'awiyah (May Allah SWT be well
pleased with him). The second siege took place in 43 A.H. under the command of
Hadhrat Basar bin Artaah (May Allah SWT be well pleased with him). The third
siege took place in 44 or 46 A.H. under the command Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin
Khalid bin Walid (May Allah SWT be well pleased with him). Yazid did not
participate in any of these attacks. There are 4 opinions about Yazid's participation
in the attack on Constantinople–in 49, 50, 52 or 55 A.H. Even if any of them is
accepted as true, then Yazid cannot be said to have participated in the first siege as
the first siege took place in 32 A.H.. Therefore, Yazid is not included in the
forgiveness mentioned in the Hadith.

May Allah SWT implant the love of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa
sallam) in our hearts and bless it with the love of the Ahle Bait, the elders of our
Deen, the Auliya and the virtuous people (saliheen) and protect our faith from all
kinds of trial tribulations and make us follow the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of
the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).
__________________

[omarashidwani]

al-muslim as-salafi, on 27 December 2010 - 06:03 PM, said:

In Defence of Yazeed ibn Mu�awiyyah
(Rahimahullah)


Part 1

Compiled
Series compilers and Trans: Abu Hibbaan & Abu Khuzaimah Ansaari

Introductory

Ameer al-Mu�mineen Yazeed ibn Mua�wiyyah was a believer with a correct and sound Aqeedah (belief) and accusing him to be a disbeliever is absolutely incorrect and a pure slander.

�Yazeed�s Islaam was correct as he was a believer.� (Wafyaan al-A�yaan Wa Abnaa Ibnaa az-Zamaan (1/328), Mir�atul-Janaan Wa-Ibratul-Yaqzaan Fee Ma�arifah Maa Ya�abir Min Hawaadith az-Zamaan (3/177).

Shaikh ul-Islaam al-Imaam Ibn Taymiyyah (death 728 Hijree) said,

�Yazeed was from the teenage muslims he was neither a disbeliever nor a Zindeeq (heretic) he used to give a lot (of wealth in charity) and he was brave. He did not have the evil and bad things which the enemies attribute to him.� (al-Waseeyatul-Kubraa (pg.300), Majmoo al-Fataawa (2/41).

He also said,

�This man (Yazeed) was a king from amongst the muslim kings and he was not like this and that (as the people claim).� (Minhaaj as-Sunnah (2/247).

He also said,

�Rather the Islaam of Mu�awiyyah, Yazeed, Banee Ummayyah and Banee Abbaas is established with Tawatur (ie so many narration's) and similarly their praying, fasting and Jihaad against the non-believers is also established.� (Minhaaj as-Sunnah (1/163)

Abdul-Hayy Husainee said,

�Attributing Fisq (open sinning) and disbelief to Yazeed ibn Mu�awiyyah is unlawful (haraam) and considering this to be lawful (ie these attributions to him) are unlawful (haraam).� (Nazhatul-Khawaatir Wa Bahjatul Masaama�a Wan-Nawaazir (7/514).

Ibn Hajr al-Makkee ash-shafaee (death 974 Hijree) said,

�Yazeed was a believer from amongst the believers.� (as-Sawaa�iq al-Meharqah (pg.223).

Mulla Alee Qaaree hanafee (death 1014 Hijree) said,

�Yazeed having Eemaan is not something which is hidden.� (Sharh Fiqhul al-Akbar (pg.88).

Ibn Khaldoon malikee (death 732 Hijree) said,

�A majority of the companions were with Yazeed and they did not hold it permissible to rebel against him.� (Muqaddimah Ibn Khaldoon (pg.217).

None of the four Imaams and the authors of the six well-known books of hadeeth declared Yazeed to be a disbeliever or a heretic

Yazid in light of the Hadith-2

There is a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Vol 2, Kitab ul Fitan:



Translation of Hadith: 'Amr bin Yahya Sae'ed bin 'Amr bin Sae'ed narrates on the authority of his paternal grandfather; that he said: I was sitting along with Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (May Allah be well pleased with him) in Masjid Nabawi in Madina and Marwan was along with us.  Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (May Allah be well pleased with him) said: I heard the truthful Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) say: My Ummah will be destroyed at the hands of a few lads of the Quraish.  Marwan said: Allah curse such youngsters.  Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (May Allah be well pleased with him) said: I can say 'so and so, son of so and so and so and so, son of so and so, if I want to. Hadhrat 'Amr bin Yahya says, I, along with my grandfather, went to Bani Marwan when they were ruling over Syria and found that he was a young lad and my grandfather said shortly they will also become one of them.  We said you understand this better.



Ask For Allah's Protection Against The Rule Of Lads



There is a Hadith in Musnad Imam Ahmed.  (Hadith No: 3800)



Translation:  It has been narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (May Allah be well pleased with him) relates that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: Ask for Allah's protection, against the start of the decade of 70 and against the against the rule of lads."



The interpreter of Sahih Bukhari and the author of Fath Ul Bari, Hafidh Ahmed bin Hajar Asqalani (May Allah shower His Mercy on him), mentions another Hadith on the authority of "Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaiba, and writes: The Hadith of Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaiba says that Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (May Allah be well pleased with him) even while passing through markets, used to pray: O Allah, let me not reach 60 A.H. and the rule of lads.



Hafidh Ibn Hajar Asqalani (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) writes after mentioning this Hadith: In this Hadith, it is indicated that the first youngster would become a ruler in 60 A.H.  Accordingly this is what happened.



Yazid bin Mua'awiyah occupied the seat in this year, stayed there till 64 A.H. and died.



The interpreter of Sahih Bukhari, Imam Badruddin ''Aini Hanafi (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) specifies what is meant by "the first kid to rule" in Umdat ul Qari/  Vol 16, Pg No. 333.  he writes: "The first kid to rule was Yazid."



It is mentioned in the Hadith, which mention the tribulations close to the Qiyamah,



Translation: Then those who invite towards misguidance will arrive. In the interpretation of this Hadith, Hadhrat Shah Waliullah (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) writes in Hujjatullah il Baligha,. Vol 2, Pg No. 213; Mabhasthul Fitan: In Syria, the one who invited towards misguidance is Yazid and in Iraq. Mukhtar.



Muhaddith-e-Deccan Abul Hasanaat Hadhrat Syed Abdullah Shah Naqshbandi Mujaddidi Qadri (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) mentions the opinion of Hadhrat Mazhar (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) on the authority of Mirqaat: By lads, it is meant those who were after the first 4 rightly-guided Caliphs, (Khulafa Rashidun), i.e. Yazid, Abdul Malik bin Marwan etc.



In a very short period of time, he (Yazid) spread extraordinary decay in the Ummah. He destroyed Madina Munawwarah (from where the world was granted peace); in Makkah Mukarramah, (which has been declared by Allah as a city of peace), he set up cannons and rained stones on the Ka'aba.  He denied water to the Ahle Bait for 3 days in the battle of Karbala.  He insulted the Ahle Bait.  He persecuted the family of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) to no end.  He martyred the associates of the Ahle Bait and he martyred Imam Hussain (May Allah be well pleased with him).

[omarashidwani]

tRUEMOMIN, on 26 December 2010 - 04:39 PM, said:

My little question to all those who dont keep any soft corner for yazid. forget about references just use your own brain. karbaala incident happen in 10th muhurrum and Hussain® left from makkah.  just 30 days eariler there was hajj going on in makkah and all around world people visted makkah for hajj. Why alll not follow hussain® and went to karbaala. why only 72 people left for karabalaa. Why alll hajii went back. Why few shahaba insist hussain® not to go to karbaala and why that sahababai® didnot follow hussain®. All agree on that written statement that hussain® offer to let me go back to where i come from.    while in haidths you read that whoever run from jihad consider themself in hell.   if he comes with jihad intenstion why he has given offer to go back.

Sahabi Anas bin alHarith:

أنس بن الحارث يقول سمعت رسول الله ( صلى الله عليه و سلم ) يقول إن ابني ذا يعني الحسين يقتل بأرض يقال لها كربلاء فمن شهد ذلك منكم فلينصره

"I heard Rasulullah (s) say 'Verily my son, means Husayn, will be killed in a land called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him".
Tarikh Dimashq, Volume 14 page 223
Ibn Khaldun in Mudaqqimah states:

"Husayn was on the right path, he attained martyrdom for which he shall be rewarded".