Virtues Of Family Of Ali

66 posts in this topic

Don't you accept that Khalifah election and the leading of Ummah was on a good way and on sunnah and Qur'an, then why Hussain got killed?! Wasn't your way of conducting, led the Ummah to kill Hussain?! Wasn't Yazid appointed by Muawia (hazrat!)?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
[color=#000000]As far as Sayyiduna Imam Husain’s (Allah be pleased with him) 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. [/color]
[color=#000000]Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra al-Hanbali states in his Ahkam al-Sultaniyya:[/color]
[color=#000000]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 him 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.[/color]
[color=#000000]He further states:[/color]
[color=#000000]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).[/color]
[color=#000000]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. [b]After his demise, the nation’s influential and powerful people have a right to accept his leadership or reject it.[/b][/color]
[color=#000000][b]Keeping this in mind, the leadership of Yazid was also subject to the same criterion other leaderships are[/b]. 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.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[b] [/b](See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/262 & al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, 8/151).[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[/color]
[color=#000000]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.[/color]
[color=#000000]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. [color=#0000ff]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.[/color][/color]
[color=#000000]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 [color=#0000ff]I give my hand in the hand of Yazid as a pledge of allegiance[/color]. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/313).[/color]
[color=#000000]Similar can be read in Shia books:[/color]
[color=#000000]لما رأى الحسين نزول العساكر مع عمر بن سعد بنينوى ومددهم لقتاله أنفذ إلى عمر بن سعد: ” اني أريد أن ألقاك فاجتمعا ليلا فتناجيا طويلا، ثم رجع عمر بن سعد إلى مكانه وكتب إلى عبد الله بن زياد: أما بعد: فإن الله قد أطفأ النائرة وجمع الكلمة وأصلح أمر الامة، هذا حسين قد أعطاني أن يرجع إلى المكان الذي أتى منه أو أن يسير إلى ثغر من الثغور فيكون رجلا من المسلمين، له ما لهم وعليه ما عليهم،أوأن يأتي أمير المؤمنين يزيد فيضع يده في يده، فيرى فيما بينه وبينه رأيه، وفي هذا لكم رضى وللامة صلاح.[/color]
[color=#000000]When al-Husein saw the coming of the soldiers of ‘Umar bin Sa’ad and their reinforcements, he sent him a message saying: I want to meet you, and they met at night and negotiated for a long time, then ‘Umar bin Sa’ad went back and wrote to Ibn Ziad: Allah has put out the fire and has united the word of the Muslims and fixed the affair of the nation, al-Husein has given me three options: either we let him return to the place that he came from, or that he may head to make Jihad against the Kouffar in the distant lands like any other Muslim, or that he may go to Ameer al-Mumineen Yazid and place his hand in his hand and discuss with him the differences in opinion, with this you and the nation shall be pleased.( al-Mufid in al-Irshad 2/87).[/color]
[color=#000000]ولما رأى أن لا سبيل له إلى العود ولا إلى دخول الكوفة، سلك طريق الشام سائرا نحو يزيد بن معاوية لعلمه عليه السلام بأنه على ما به أرق من ابن زياد وأصحابه، فسار عليه السلام حتى قدم عليه عمر بن سعد في العسكر العظيم، وكان من أمره ما قد ذكر وسطر، فكيف يقال إنه القى بيده إلى التهلكة؟ وقد روى أنه صلوات الله وسلامه عليه وآله قال لعمر بن سعد: اختاروا منى إما الرجوع إلى المكان الذي أقبلت منه، أو ان أضع يدي في يد يزيد ابن عمى ليرى في رأيه، وإما ان تسيروني إلى ثغر من ثغور المسلمين، فأكون رجلا من أهله لي ماله وعلي ما عليه. وان عمر كتب إلى عبيد الله بن زياد بما سئل فأبى عليه[/color]
[color=#000000]When he (al-Husein) saw that he had no means of returning or entering al-Kufa, he took the road of al-Sham heading towards Yazid bin Mu’awiyah as he knew that he was much softer than Ibn Ziad and his men, he walked until ‘Umar bin Sa’ad met him with a great army, what happened then is known so how can some say that he cast himself with his own hand towards ruin? and it was narrated that he (as) said to ‘Umar bin Sa’ad: “Choose for me one of three: either I go back from where I came, or [color=#0000ff]I put my hand in the hand of my cousin Yazid so that I may change his opinion[b],[/b][/color] or that you lead me to one of the battle fields of Jihad so that I can be a like any man.” ‘Umar bin Sa’ad then wrote to Ibn Ziad and he refused it.( al-Sharif al-Murtada in Tanzeeh al-Ambiyaa page 229).[/color]
[color=#000000]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).[/color]
[color=#000000]In conclusion, it is impermissible to rebel against authority even if the ruler is oppressive or a sinner. [b]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.[/b][/color]
[color=#000000]This argument was answered by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari(except the quotes from Shia books).[/color]

[color=#000000]taken from[/color]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
(discuss this first:)
[font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#000000"][[/color][/font][color=#000080][font=Tahoma, sans-serif]عن ابن عباس قال: لمّا اشتدّ بالنّبيّ (صلى الله عليه و سلم) وجعه، قال: ائتونى بكتاب اكتب لكم كتاباً لاتضلّوا بعده، [/font][/color][color=#FF0000][font=Tahoma, sans-serif]قال عمر[/font][/color][color=#000080][font=Tahoma, sans-serif]: انّ النّبيّ (صلى الله عليه و سلم) [/font][/color][color=#FF0000][font=Tahoma, sans-serif]غلبه الوجع[/font][/color][color=#000080][font=Tahoma, sans-serif] وعندنا كتاب اللَّه حسبنا، فاختلفوا وكثر الغلط، قال: قوموا عنّي ولاينبغي عندي التنازع، فخرج ابن عباس يقول: انّ الرزيّة كلّ الرزيّة ماحال بين رسول اللَّه (صلى الله عليه و سلم) وبين كتابه.»[/font][/color]
[color=#000000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, sans-serif][size=3]صحيح بخارى، ج 1، ص 120، كتاب العلم، باب 82 كتابة العلم، حديث 112. و ج 3، ص 318، كتاب المغازى، باب 199 مرض النّبيّ (ص) و وفاته، حديث 872. و ج 4، ص 225، كتاب المرض و الطب، باب 357 قول المريض قوموا عنّى، حديث 574. و ص‏774، كتاب الاعتصام، باب 1191 كراهية الخلاف، حديث [/size][/font][/font][/color][color=#FF0000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][font=Tahoma, sans-serif][size=3]2169][/size][/font][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"...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..."[/font][/color]
[font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#000000"](I didn't read the full text)...How this is Sunnah of Muhammad (saww)? You say he did not appoint anybody![/color][/font]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding Abubakr(ra) appointing the his successor, there are few facts that needs to stated inorder to understand this issue properly.
Abu Bakr(ra) said: “Verily, as you can clearly see I have been afflicted with a severe illness, and I feel certain that, because of the severity of my condition, I will soon die. Therefore, Allah has released you from the pledge that you have made to me, and my covenant with you(as your Khaleefah) has also come to an end. Allah has returned your affair to you(i.e your ability to choose a leader among yourselves), So appoint over yourselves whomsoever you wish. Indeed, if you choose your new leader while I am still alive, you will be less likely to differ among yourselves after I am gone”. (At-tareekh Al-Islaame 9/258).
Dr Ali M. Sallabi states in his book: The Prophet’s companions consulted one another regarding the matter of choosing the next Khaleefah. Whenever a given companion was nominated for the job, he would refuse and suggest someone else in his place. Such was the way of the Prophet’s companions; each one of them thought that his Muslim brother was better and more worthy than he was. For this reason, the Prophet’s companions, unable to arrive at a decision among themselves, returned to Abubakr and said to him, “O Khaleefah of the Messenger of Allah, your opinion is our opinion(i.e appoint your successor for us).” He said, Then give me some time, so that I can see what is best in the view of Allah and what is best for His religion and His slaves. Abubakr, as did the Prophet(saw) before him, always consulted his companions before making an important decision. In keeping with that policy, he discussed the matter with a few eminent companions. (The Biography of Abubakr As-Siddeeq by , Dr. Ali M. Sallabi, page 724)
Hence before Abu Bakr(ra) finalized his decision to appoint Umar(ra), he in fact mutually consulted the prominent Muslims, including Abdur Rahman ibn Awf(ra) , Uthman bin Affan(ra) , Ali ibn Abi Talib(ra), and Talhah ibn Ubayd-Allah(ra).
Thus we read:…[Abu Bakr] said addressing this audience:“I have not appointed any relative of mine as Caliph, and I have not installed Umar as Caliph on my own. I have rather done it only after holding consultations with men of sound judgment. Are you then agreed to his being your Caliph?” Hearing this, they (the masses) said: “We all agree with your choice and opinion.” Following this, he (Abu Bakr) said: “You should then carry out Umar’s orders and obey him.”(Tareekh al-Islam, Vol.1, pp.313-314)
Similarly we read: Abu Bakr looked out over the people from his enclosure…He said (to the people): “Will you be satisfied with him whom I have left as (my) successor over you…?” They responded: “We hear and obey.” (The History of al-Tabari, Vol.11, pp.146-147)
Hence, we find that, Abubakr(ra) initially left upon the Sahaba(ra) to choose their new leader, but since they failed to do so, and asked him to appoint a leader from them, he acted upon it, but that too, after the consultation(Shura) with prominent companions of Prophet(saw).
If Shias still argue that, why Abubakr(ra) wanted a Caliph be appointed during his lifetime, unlike Prophet(saw), then we respond that, the reason to it was given by Abubakr(ra), He said, “Indeed, if you choose your new leader while I am still alive, you will be less likely to differ among yourselves after I am gone”. (At-tareekh Al-Islaam 9/258).” Since Abubakr(ra) didn’ receive revelation nor had knowledge of unseen, his opinion was to make sure that, no disunity occurs after him. However Prophet(saw) used to receive revelation and was made aware of some future events, hence he didn’t have to explicitly appoint Abubakr(ra) as his Caliph, because he was made aware that people will appoint Abubakr(ra) as his successor, that is why he was happy when he saw Abubakr(ra) leading the prayer to Sahaba on his final day. Anas bin Malik Al-Ansari, said: "Abu Bakr used to lead the people in prayer during the fatal illness of the Prophet till it was Monday. When the people aligned (in rows) for the prayer the Prophet lifted the curtain of his house and started looking at us and was standing at that time. [b]His face was (glittering) like a page of the Qur'an and he smiled cheerfully.(Sahih Bukhari).[/b] Thus he(saw) left this issue on the people, because he knew that eventually Abubakr(ra) would be appointed by them.
But still if the Shias out of their bias and hatred towards Abubakr(ra), claim that Abubakr(ra) went against the Sunnah, then we say that, this is a baseless claim, and if Abubakr(ra) should be blamed for this issue according to Shias, then even Ali(ra) is not free from a similar blame, and the Shias will need accept that even Ali(ra) went against the Sunnah of Prophet(saw), because during the time of the Messenger of Allah(saw) and the three caliphs who succeeded him, Madinah was the capital of the Islamic state. The leader of the Muslims lived there and ran its affairs himself; when he travelled, he would appoint someone to run its affairs. However, this situation changed after allegiance was sworn to Ali (ra) as caliph, since he changed the Capital from Madina to Kufa.

We read in Al -Awaasim Min Al-Qawaasim:
Ali went[i] to Kufa.[/i] He left Madina at the end of the month of Rabi’ al-Akhir in 36 A H. in order to be near to Syria. His son al-Hasan wanted his father to stay in Madina and take it as the abode of the khalifate as the three Khalifs had done before him (at-Tabari, 5:171). (Al -Awaasim Min Al-Qawaasim, page 88)
The Shias might argue that, Ali(ra) didn’t wish to change the capital or leave the way of Prophet(saw), but it was the circumstances due to which he went for his opinion for the benefit of Muslim Ummah, So we respond those Shias that, even Abubakr(ra) didn’t wish to appoint a Caliph, it was due to the situation and the benefit of the Ummah, he had to appoint the Caliph, ofcourse with consultation of prominent Sahaba(ra). Hence to us, none of these two Caliphs could be blamed for their decisions, which they took for the benefit of Muslim Ummah, nor does it mean in anyway that they did against the Sunnah of Prophet(saw).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Your argue is not acceptable for me since using Sunni books. Even if the narrations are acceptable, the conclusions is not solid and has محل اشکال.
[color=#000000][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]1- So muawia appointed a "tyrant ruler" as his successor, didn't Muawia know his son?![/font][/color]
[font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#000000"]2- We don't accept every narration in shia books. At least give the name of the shia source you quoted. Besides, the Shia narration says Umar-ibn sa'd wrote that... doesn't mean Hussain said that, bcaz Hussain in the battle said lots of time that after this, my life would be with abjection.[/color][/font]
[font="helvetica, arial, sans-serif"][color="#000000"]3- My first argue in this topic was that if you believe Ali has the Fafhilats which no one had, then how come you selected Umar as you Khalifah after abubakr (at least)? Umar had disobeyed the prophet bunches of time (in صحیح بخاری و مسلم). The last was in Muhammad's (s) death bed when he asked [/color][/font][color=#000000][font=Tahoma, sans-serif]ائتونى بكتاب اكتب لكم كتاباً لاتضلّوا بعده. Umar prevented! (what was he going to write...الله اعلم). Second, after صلح حدیبیه, umar went to رسول الله and protested it, THEN (after asking the [font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Rasool!) went to Abu-bakr, continue[size=4]d and said [/size][/font][/font][/color][size=4][right][font="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"][color="#000000"]فعملت لذلك اعمالا (i did so[/color][/font][color="#000000"]me stuff about it) (bokhari). ابن اب الحدید in شرح نهج البلاغه said that after he left the prophet, said "[/color][/right][color=#444444][right]لو أجد أعوانا ما أعطيت الدنية أبدا[/right][/color][color=#000000][right]" (if i had men, never accepted this abjection). It's a long discussion, let it be in a different topic.[/right][/color][/size]

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Javad' timestamp='1405326561' post='147303']
[quote name='Mythbuster1' timestamp='1405298078' post='147293']
[quote name='Hani' timestamp='1405296915' post='147292']
This guy tells me on chat that not all Shia are Mushrikeen and that one must not generalize (although I don't) Then he comes here saying that the entire nation killed Husayn and that Ahlul-Sunnah killed al-Husayn.

Iranian education needs some fixing.

Yeah you know why hani bro .........it's taqiya ON in chat ........taqiya OFF in here

What's your description of Shirk?! If I say Sunnis killed Husain, I am mushrik then?!!!!


If SHITITES didn't entice him then he would have lived till old age

And SHIMR the Shiite of Ali ra was with the commander of Yazid's army during the Battle of Karbala. He was the brother of Umm ul-Banin, the second wife of Ali ra, and hailed from the tribe of Banu Kalb. He was the maternal uncle of Abbas ibn Ali ra and Uthman ibn Ali ra, the martyrs of Karbala.

Shimr is notable for his participation in both the Battle of Siffin and the Battle of Karbala and, particularly, he is remembered for his responsibility for beheading Hussain ra.

So MR LIAR it was your ANCESTORS that called him and it was YOUR ancestor that beheaded him ra


Stop LYING !!!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now