Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Yazid Sunni or shia

Rate this topic


Mummylovesjoe

Recommended Posts

  • Basic Members

Salam, I hope I don't sound silly, as I am very new shiaism. I was discussing yazid and what he did. And the person I was discussing it with said yazids children are Shia and that's why they do chains and make themselves bleed during muhram becuase of the regret that their ancesters killed imam hussain. Basically my question is, was yazid or his children Shia? Is that the purpose of matam ( regret?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

(salam)

No, Yazid was not Shi'i, otherwise he would have given Hussein (as) power.

Though some Shi'ites have respect for Yazid's successor Mu'awiya II, who gave up the Caliphate. Some believe he said he could "smell the blood of Ahl al-Bayt", recognizing that his father was a murderer.

Edited by Qa'im
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam, I hope I don't sound silly, as I am very new shiaism. I was discussing yazid and what he did. And the person I was discussing it with said yazids children are Shia and that's why they do chains and make themselves bleed during muhram becuase of the regret that their ancesters killed imam hussain. Basically my question is, was yazid or his children Shia? Is that the purpose of matam ( regret?)

Firstly i have never seen any shia personally 'bleed' themselves in muharram. This act is haram. It is done by extremist shias who take the practice of mourning literally. Yes it is good to fast (not on ashura) generally that month. Yes it is good to as a symbolic measure use chains to signify however small it may be the pain that imam hussain suffered. But some of the pictures that come back from places like pakistan are appaling. In no way does islam condone cutting or bleeding with knifes or self harm. That is against the Quran. It is unfortunate that this minority that practice ashura to the extreme self harm level result in the ridicule of shias by the sunnis.

Well aparently. And this i do say as aparently because i honestly dont know the authenticity of this at all. Muawiyah II son of Yazid did convert to Shia islam, well thats what wikipedia seems to say lol. Anyway it says that he converted as he could 'smell the blood of ahlul bayt on his hands'. This may or may not be true. However that the Shia are yazids children is complete trash. So trash it belongs IN my trash with my chicken tandoori pizza leftover from last night :squeez: The Shia existed long before yazid at the time of Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, and Imam Hussayn.

Thirdly there is no 'regret' for shia muslims. We mourn Imam Hussayns death. WHY? Because to keep his memory alive. Yazid ib Muawiyah after killing Imam Hussayn attempted to squash the memory of the events. These were however kept alive by Imam Hussayns family (the ones who survived) who spread the word of tyranny and injustice of Yazid and the horrors (and they truly were horrors) of karbala. The Shia mourn Imam Hussayn not out of 'regret' because we feel no guilt. In fact it is the opposite, we feel proud that the companions of Imam Hussayn were the Shia. Yes there were shia who deserted him, however there were no sunnis that helped him and that is fact.

We curse Yazid ibn Muwaiyah because he slayed Hussayn with his army

We curse Muwaiyah ibn Abu Sufyan because he waged war against Imam Ali. He marched an army against Imam Hassan. He also made it mandatory to curse Imam Ali from every Khutba.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

the question that should be asked is; Was Moaviya and his cursed son Yazid muslims ?

(salam)

would you consider someone who killed the grandchildren of the prophet (pbuh) a muslim? if so then re consider because that would be flawed thinking to say they are Muslims, even abu sufyan accepted islam just because he feared he would lose his life, positions of political pull we see him and his son and his grand child using a political hand not very long after the death of the prophet.

and one should consider these verse where Allah clearly sent verses about abu sufyan and his house and imam ali (as) and ahlul bayt

surah 9

107: And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.

108: Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.

(wasalam)

Edited by theunknownpreacher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaams,

Wow, first time hearing Yazid's son (Mu'awiya II) give up the throne due to what happened regarding Karbala. This is extremely interesting to me. If anyone can provide additional information regarding this topic? It will be greatly appreciated. Perhaps even a new thread.

Shuk'ran Jami'aan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

would you consider someone who killed the grandchildren of the prophet (pbuh) a muslim? if so then re consider because that would be flawed thinking to say they are Muslims, even abu sufyan accepted islam just because he feared he would lose his life, positions of political pull we see him and his son and his grand child using a political hand not very long after the death of the prophet.

and one should consider these verse where Allah clearly sent verses about abu sufyan and his house and imam ali (as) and ahlul bayt

surah 9

107: And there are those who put up a mosque by way of mischief and infidelity - to disunite the Believers - and in preparation for one who warred against Allah and His Messenger aforetime. They will indeed swear that their intention is nothing but good; But Allah doth declare that they are certainly liars.

108: Never stand thou forth therein. There is a mosque whose foundation was laid from the first day on piety; it is more worthy of the standing forth therein. In it are men who love to be purified; and Allah loveth those who make themselves pure.

(wasalam)

I am presuming yours was a rhetorical question to me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Yazeed's father Muawvia (L.A) was caliph of Sunnis. How he (Laeen) can be Shia then? The following videos are made by Sunnis to prove that Yazeed (Laeen) was a good person.

1.

2.

3.

These are in Urdu. However, the person who has uploaded this has written this under the description...

Yazid Bin Muawiyah Kon They? Its an challenge to Shias and Brelvis

I have edited and removed (ra) after the name of Yazeed (Laeen).

This Nawasib site has praised Yazeed (LA) and the poster is the administrator himself.

 http://    islamic-   forum.   net/  index.php?showtopic=1980 

Remove the spaces after copying the link.

It is settled fact that Yazeed (Laeen) is praised by Sunnis (Not all Sunnis) and he was Sunni's caliph.

But when the Nawasib and those Sunnis who consider Yazeed a good person saw that it is impossible for them to prove Yazeed innocent if they go straight in history. Therefore, they made a self concocted foolish claim that Yazeed (Laeen) did not order Kufans to martyr Imam Hussain (as) and he only ordered them to arrest imam (as). They further blamed that Kufans were Shias and not Sunnis therefore now Shias weep at Imam Hussain (as). But all these claims are utter ignorance and foolish. If Yazeed did not order his (as) martyrdom then why he ordered the arrest of family of Imam (as) and the family of Imam (as) remained in his imprisonment?

And secondly if Imam Hussain (as) was martyred by Shias then why all the descendants of Imam Hussain (as) [Nine Holy Imams] are Shia's Imams and not Sunni's Imams? Do they want to say that these Nine Imams started to educate and give religion and lead the killers of their father Imam Hussain (a.s)? Can they tell me the exact number of hadiths reported from these Nine Imams in their (Sunnis) books?

This proves beyond the shadow of doubt that Yazeed (Mal'oon) ordered the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) and the army of Kufans was not Shia rather it was Sunni army whose caliph was Yazeed (Laeen) the son of an other Sunni caliph Muawvia (Maloon).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

(salam)

Yazeed's father Muawvia (L.A) was caliph of Sunnis. How he (Laeen) can be Shia then? The following videos are made by Sunnis to prove that Yazeed (Laeen) was a good person.

1.

2.

3.

These are in Urdu. However, the person who has uploaded this has written this under the description...

Yazid Bin Muawiyah Kon They? Its an challenge to Shias and Brelvis

I have edited and removed (ra) after the name of Yazeed (Laeen).

This Nawasib site has praised Yazeed (LA) and the poster is the administrator himself.

 http://    islamic-   forum.   net/  index.php?showtopic=1980 

Remove the spaces after copying the link.

It is settled fact that Yazeed (Laeen) is praised by Sunnis (Not all Sunnis) and he was Sunni's caliph.

But when the Nawasib and those Sunnis who consider Yazeed a good person saw that it is impossible for them to prove Yazeed innocent if they go straight in history. Therefore, they made a self concocted foolish claim that Yazeed (Laeen) did not order Kufans to martyr Imam Hussain (as) and he only ordered them to arrest imam (as). They further blamed that Kufans were Shias and not Sunnis therefore now Shias weep at Imam Hussain (as). But all these claims are utter ignorance and foolish. If Yazeed did not order his (as) martyrdom then why he ordered the arrest of family of Imam (as) and the family of Imam (as) remained in his imprisonment?

And secondly if Imam Hussain (as) was martyred by Shias then why all the descendants of Imam Hussain (as) [Nine Holy Imams] are Shia's Imams and not Sunni's Imams? Do they want to say that these Nine Imams started to educate and give religion and lead the killers of their father Imam Hussain (a.s)? Can they tell me the exact number of hadiths reported from these Nine Imams in their (Sunnis) books?

This proves beyond the shadow of doubt that Yazeed (Mal'oon) ordered the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) and the army of Kufans was not Shia rather it was Sunni army whose caliph was Yazeed (Laeen) the son of an other Sunni caliph Muawvia (Maloon).

so you got a relatively speaking handful of people claiming too be Sunni praising Yazid (la). I think you should get of the computer and go speak to a few more people before you act so self righteously.

Firstly tou say the Sunnis condemn the Shias for killing Imam Hussain (as) and then in the same breath you say they are praising Yazid. YOu cant have it both ways.

Real Sunnis condemn and abhor Yazid. A lot of Sunnis out of earshot of their Imams will also cindem the whole cursed line. Says it all.

In reality the btchers of Karbala were neither Sunnis or Shias. Thye had elements of belief within them that you could just as easily associate with Shias or Sunnis.

For a start the butchers must have believed in Khilafat not Imamate. Since those who believed in Imamnate believe it to be divine,If they truly belive him to be their Imam they cannot turn on him and kill him (as)

However if you believe in Khilafate you can turn on your Khlalifa and kill him because you believe him to have only worldly power. Look at the case of Hz Umar (ra)and Hz Uthman (ra) both assasinated by 'muslims'. Equally you have the Kharajis who also called themselves muslim but didnt believe in Imamate and subsequently killed Imam Ali (as).

As to the butchers they did have Shia characteristics as well in asuch they were former folowers of Imam Ali (as).

The point that a lot of 'Shias killed Imam Hussain (as) expounders' fail to understand is the concept of Imamate if they understood that concept then everything else would fall into place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

so you got a relatively speaking handful of people claiming too be Sunni praising Yazid (la). I think you should get of the computer and go speak to a few more people before you act so self righteously.

Firstly tou say the Sunnis condemn the Shias for killing Imam Hussain (as) and then in the same breath you say they are praising Yazid. YOu cant have it both ways.

Real Sunnis condemn and abhor Yazid. A lot of Sunnis out of earshot of their Imams will also cindem the whole cursed line. Says it all.

In reality the btchers of Karbala were neither Sunnis or Shias. Thye had elements of belief within them that you could just as easily associate with Shias or Sunnis.

For a start the butchers must have believed in Khilafat not Imamate. Since those who believed in Imamnate believe it to be divine,If they truly belive him to be their Imam they cannot turn on him and kill him (as)

However if you believe in Khilafate you can turn on your Khlalifa and kill him because you believe him to have only worldly power. Look at the case of Hz Umar (ra)and Hz Uthman (ra) both assasinated by 'muslims'. Equally you have the Kharajis who also called themselves muslim but didnt believe in Imamate and subsequently killed Imam Ali (as).

As to the butchers they did have Shia characteristics as well in asuch they were former folowers of Imam Ali (as).

The point that a lot of 'Shias killed Imam Hussain (as) expounders' fail to understand is the concept of Imamate if they understood that concept then everything else would fall into

place

thank you! Like I said I've just recently started studying Islam and face a lot of critism for not knowing things. Thank you for explaining , it's cleared a lot of misconceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salam, I hope I don't sound silly, as I am very new shiaism. I was discussing yazid and what he did. And the person I was discussing it with said yazids children are Shia and that's why they do chains and make themselves bleed during muhram becuase of the regret that their ancesters killed imam hussain. Basically my question is, was yazid or his children Shia? Is that the purpose of matam ( regret?)

If you're looking for a straightforward and simple answer, here it is:

No, yazid's children are not shia, he was not Shia, and Yazid can hardly be considered a Muslim.

No Shia respects Yazid, Muwaiya or any of Abu Sufyan's lineage as they were enemies of Ahlulbayt, including the Prophet pbuh.

Matam is a way of expressing grief, and it is also a way people show their passion for Imam Hussein and his tragedy e.g. if they were there they would have given their blood etc. It has nothing to do with regret.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

so you got a relatively speaking handful of people claiming too be Sunni praising Yazid (la). I think you should get of the computer and go speak to a few more people before you act so self righteously.

Firstly tou say the Sunnis condemn the Shias for killing Imam Hussain (as) and then in the same breath you say they are praising Yazid. YOu cant have it both ways.

Real Sunnis condemn and abhor Yazid. A lot of Sunnis out of earshot of their Imams will also cindem the whole cursed line. Says it all.

In reality the btchers of Karbala were neither Sunnis or Shias. Thye had elements of belief within them that you could just as easily associate with Shias or Sunnis.

For a start the butchers must have believed in Khilafat not Imamate. Since those who believed in Imamnate believe it to be divine,If they truly belive him to be their Imam they cannot turn on him and kill him (as)

However if you believe in Khilafate you can turn on your Khlalifa and kill him because you believe him to have only worldly power. Look at the case of Hz Umar (ra)and Hz Uthman (ra) both assasinated by 'muslims'. Equally you have the Kharajis who also called themselves muslim but didnt believe in Imamate and subsequently killed Imam Ali (as).

As to the butchers they did have Shia characteristics as well in asuch they were former folowers of Imam Ali (as).

The point that a lot of 'Shias killed Imam Hussain (as) expounders' fail to understand is the concept of Imamate if they understood that concept then everything else would fall into place

Very interesting bro. That is a very very good point. The butchers of Karbala cannot have been the shia in the traditional sense as they are now. We shia now believe the imamate to be accepted by Allah. As in we believe Allah (swt) had blessed Imam Hussayn. So therefore yes the killers of Imam Hussayn cannot have been imamate people.

But even if they were khalifat, which they would have been, swearing allegiance to Yazid. It is still horrific for me to imagine what kind of animal would murder the prophets grandson. Were they possessed by Satan? Were they taken over by Jinn? Were they insane? Were they kafir and non muslim, or pagan? Or were they just incredibly evil, so evil we cant imagine? Moreover how can one do such a heinous act KNOWING that Allah (swt) and the Prophet (pbuh) would be watching. How can one honestly think that such an act would not land them with a first class ticket to the very depth of Hellfire.

Throughout the ages there have been and still are oppressors. Oppressors that carry out horrific and gruesome crimes, injustices, and killings that you think only Satan (may Allah curse him) would do.

Ultimately my opinion has always been that the world is divided simply into good and evil sides. You are either a part of good, or a part of the evil whether you are aware of it or you arent. We will all be made aware certainly on yaum ul qiyaam what we have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Basic Members

Yazid's father went to war with Imam Ali (A.S.), thereby successfully dividing the Muslim population into two sects, that of the followers of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) and those that are not.

Sunnis, believe in the caliphate of Imam Ali (A.S.), only as the fourth caliph, when we all, in fact, know that he was to be the first caliph. And all those who challenged him are of the Sunni race. Therefore, yes, you can consider Yazid a Sunni, but the important thing to remember is that in the end, the 14 Masumeen are the ones that matter, and all the ones against them should be considered kafirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

According to imam Ahmed bin hamble he was kaafir (la)

.

.

Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody?

.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, part 4, p. 481-484

Edited by kamiljaffari
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Yazid's father went to war with Imam Ali (A.S.), thereby successfully dividing the Muslim population into two sects, that of the followers of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) and those that are not.

Sunnis, believe in the caliphate of Imam Ali (A.S.), only as the fourth caliph, when we all, in fact, know that he was to be the first caliph. And all those who challenged him are of the Sunni race. Therefore, yes, you can consider Yazid a Sunni, but the important thing to remember is that in the end, the 14 Masumeen are the ones that matter, and all the ones against them should be considered kafirs.

Its amazing how simple ideas please simple minds. The fitna mongers amongst will always try to propose these nice 'simple' ideas because it enables them to paint everything in black and white.

Is it not enough for you that the vast majority of people in this world condemn and hate Yazid. You want to classify as party A or party B becase it makes your life easier . Get up of your back side get of the computer go speak to real people you might learn something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yazid's father went to war with Imam Ali (A.S.), thereby successfully dividing the Muslim population into two sects, that of the followers of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) and those that are not.

Sunnis, believe in the caliphate of Imam Ali (A.S.), only as the fourth caliph, when we all, in fact, know that he was to be the first caliph. And all those who challenged him are of the Sunni race. Therefore, yes, you can consider Yazid a Sunni, but the important thing to remember is that in the end, the 14 Masumeen are the ones that matter, and all the ones against them should be considered kafirs.

That's like saying that the Khawarij are shia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Salaam,

he was not shia at all, and by his actions and manner, he wasnt even muslim! he may have said he believes in Allah, and the prophet muhammad (saw) is his messenger, but he didnt really believe that in his heart, or he would have repsect toward Imam Hussain (as). I dont think he should be called muslim, he was a tyrant.

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yazid's father went to war with Imam Ali (A.S.), thereby successfully dividing the Muslim population into two sects, that of the followers of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) and those that are not.

Sunnis, believe in the caliphate of Imam Ali (A.S.), only as the fourth caliph, when we all, in fact, know that he was to be the first caliph. And all those who challenged him are of the Sunni race. Therefore, yes, you can consider Yazid a Sunni, but the important thing to remember is that in the end, the 14 Masumeen are the ones that matter, and all the ones against them should be considered kafirs.

This is certainly disturbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Many of the Sahabah (ra) immediately swore allegiance to Yazid because they didn't want another civil war like the one fought between Ali (ra) and Mu'awiyah. That is one plausible reason why he had the allegiance of many.

Your conclusion is a overly simplistic. The allegiance was bought and coerced and Muwayia achieved this during his life. Ibn Umar was bought for 40,000 or some amount like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Your conclusion is a overly simplistic. The allegiance was bought and coerced and Muwayia achieved this during his life. Ibn Umar was bought for 40,000 or some amount like that.

So not only were there sahaba who pledged allegiance to someone who violated the laws of Islam but they were also corrupt individuals? No wonder why Muslim countries are champions at corruption...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yazid's father went to war with Imam Ali (A.S.), thereby successfully dividing the Muslim population into two sects, that of the followers of the descendants of the Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) and those that are not.

Sunnis, believe in the caliphate of Imam Ali (A.S.), only as the fourth caliph, when we all, in fact, know that he was to be the first caliph. And all those who challenged him are of the Sunni race. Therefore, yes, you can consider Yazid a Sunni, but the important thing to remember is that in the end, the 14 Masumeen are the ones that matter, and all the ones against them should be considered kafirs.

Can anyone tell me precisely what is the purpose of maintaining a belief about something that should have happened in a way but didn't happen't that way thereby dividing the religion ?

It's like a family dividing itself because one of their relatives was supposed to marry a specific man but finally decided to marry another man.

Can't you just get over it and forget it ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Can anyone tell me precisely what is the purpose of maintaining a belief about something that should have happened in a way but didn't happen't that way thereby dividing the religion ?

It's like a family dividing itself because one of their relatives was supposed to marry a specific man but finally decided to marry another man.

Can't you just get over it and forget it ?

I am sorry this is a gross over simplification of the situation. A more thorough reading of Shiah/Sunni theology and Islamic history may help you to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me precisely what is the purpose of maintaining a belief about something that should have happened in a way but didn't happen't that way thereby dividing the religion ?

Well it's quite important to see God's way and the truth through history. This is why Quran told us what really happened to Bani-Israel, what really happened with Isa (as),etc... because a false view of what God wanted, will change your view of God. This is why the story of Talut (as) is relevant till today, what their Nabi (as) really told them about Talut (as) as opposed to the what Jews say regarding him (and being jealous of Dawood (as), and God picking someone he regretted later for picking...)...

It's really important to know the the truth of Sulaiman (as) and to know truly where the people whom lost the teachings of the Anbiya (as) inherited their teachings from...

It's really important and vital to know, that when God sealed Messengerhood and Nubuwa, that he did so by vesting leadership in those whom were are worthy of leadership and aided his religion with his chosen ones as he always did.

It's necessary to know God would never demand of a society to submit to a tyrant and would never allow them to turn away from the authority of God's Friends whom have truly understood the religion by the Divine Name that embraces all creation.

It's important to know that God's plan counter acts those of the Satan, and without God repelling by his friends, the whole earth would be subjugated to the tyrany, massive oppression, and complete corruption of the Satanic Taghootic Evil of the evil hidden forces talked about through out the Quran.

It's important to realize that without Divine appointment and having repelled his enemies through this divine grace, we , like the people of the past, would be left with no inheritence from the divine springs, no drink but that it's mostly impure, and utmost ignorance and heigtening of the unclean false word.

You think people inclinination to for example, Imam Retha (as), causes corruption? It's the opposite, it's what makes the Shah and his likes, and will continue to make, the lowest of the low in the eyes of the lovers of Imam Retha (as).

Ofcourse, I am not saying we should disunite and hate one another, but it's quite important to realize what ocurred and God's actions is directly related to his Essence. It's obligatory to believe he provides guidance and aides his cause.

When did God not aide his religion with his Select ones and when were they ever not a central part of the religion, that now the question of where God continued to aide us with his chosen ones, and that like the past, the flag continued to be carried by the exalted ones, is insignificant. Do you choose what part you deem significant enough when you read Quran? You want to say the significant is "be good", and that's it, that's all, something every religion will tell you to do? Or is that the outer rituals now are more important then the light that gives those rituals meaning?

May God guide us into his ways and make us grateful to his favors and aiders of his cause.

And May God bless Mohammad and the family of Mohammad, the True Blessed with treasures, Servants for God that he has bestowed up his Favor, the sought by all travelers, the inclined to by all lovers, and may God make us their aiders and consequently get aided by Him through them.

Edited by Awakened
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well aparently. And this i do say as aparently because i honestly dont know the authenticity of this at all. Muawiyah II son of Yazid did convert to Shia islam, well thats what wikipedia seems to say lol. Anyway it says that he converted as he could 'smell the blood of ahlul bayt on his hands'.

(salam)

Yazid's (LA) son Muawiyah was a follower of the ahlul bayt. This thread has a snippet of his speech after Karbala

I am still trying to locate the complete speech. I remembered posting the speech, years ago. Unfortunately, I am unable to locate my own topic. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is anachronistic (wrong, putting our own ideas onto the past) to say that, in those days, there were two groups called "Sunni" and "Shi'a". Just because have that nowadays does not mean it was simple like that before.

There were a number of groups/sects of Muslims that were in existence throughout early Islamic history, and the "Shi'a Ali" were identified as a group fairly early (some will point to hadith saying during the time of Rasul Allah (S), or if not then immediately afterwards) For instance, the Kharijites were one group. "Shi'a" was also a more flexible term and included people who had political leanings towards the Alawids but not theological ones.

The concept of "Sunni" did not really develop strongly until later.

However people generally could identify whether or not they were a Shi'i. So, to answer the question, no Yazid was not a Shia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...