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

Some Questions

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Assalamoalikum

There are some questions from a sunni brother and i need some help


  1. When you said that Hussainiat defeated Yazidiaat…what does it mean…? Were they representing two different religions…they were both Muslims and this was an infight between two Muslim brothers and one killed the other one with his military might and that ended the fight. Hazrat Hussain (R.A) laid his life and went to heavens as that was his predetermined destiny… Yazid stayed longer in this world and what did he do to deface Islam & its further propagation…? Here I add your lines last address of Imam Hussain (A.S) in Karbala where he clearly said to Yazeedi's Army that He had come in Karbala only because to save the real picture of Islam. I believe today if Muslims have Islamic belief in correct form only because of this sacrifice (Otherwise Yazid was going to allow Drinking alcohol, Brother-Sister Nikkah, Adulteration, No believe in Prophets Etc.). Did Yazid do any of these things like allowed Drinking alcohol, Brother-Sister Nikkah, Adulteration, No believe in Prophets Etc…? Had he tried to do so, he could have been smashed as well there and then. When these things were forbidden in the Glorious Quran, how he would venture upon them to bring about such hideous changes in the Islamic norms & culture…? Was he not monitored by the head of the Muslim governorate at that time? Was he accountable for his actions to his superiors or he was an absolute monarch…? Pls remember I’m not advocating about Yazid at all.

  2. For Hazrat Ali (R.A) and Hazrat Hussain (R.A) we have to use R.A as abbreviation for Radi-Allah-Anho… This is what is to be used for all the Sihaba-e-Ikraam. A.S which you have used is abbreviation for Alai-hi-Salaam…This is to be used for Prophets/Rasools only. Keep everyone on their respective places of honor & dignity and address them appropriately without any exaggeration to enhance their ranks or vice versa.

  3. Any food which is given on name of any holy person other thn Allah is forbidden to eat

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Dear Brother

First You need to take a look at the history to gain the reality

here is the answer of your questions, please read them carefully and then judge:

1-

-who said "Hussainiat defeated Yazidiaat"?

-they were both Muslims and this was an infight between two Muslim brothers...

-He ( Imam Husain) had come in Karbala only because to save the real picture of Islam.

1- First of All who said Imam Husain defeated Yazid?! it was Yazid who killed all the army of Imam Husain

2-Then, Do call Yazid a Muslim, while his Fisq was clear for all, He was prominent in Drinking and other sins...there is no doubt (if you like I can reference you to history books)

so it was not a fight between 2 Muslims, it was a fight between a Fasiq and the grandson of our holy prophet(a.s) and I'll prove it.

3-Do you think Imam Husain with less than 30 people who was his family went to Karbala to fight with 30,000 army of Yazid to keep Islam Alive?!!!!

Nope, you need to know that Kufia people invited him by their letters to be their leader, so in Karbala, when Yazid army stopped him, He said ok I'll return to Medina and there is no fight between us...Omar ibn Sad accepted while Ibn Ziad refused and said only either Accept the Yazid or will martyr you!

so you see, it was a fight that Imam couldn't return and leave the battle filed...

------------------------------------------------------------------

2- Yazid was going to allow Drinking alcohol, Brother-Sister Nikkah, Adulteration, No believe in Prophets Etc.)....

If those so-called Muslim people knew Yazid will do these after becoming Caliph, they would never allow him to become that, while it was an so-called Islamic society, so this sentence is not mentioned in the history.

meanwhile let me do not make my mouth dirty of mentioning his hideous actions, we can discuss about him in another topic just to let you know, the history recorded that when Moawiah promised Imam Hasan in order not to choose any caliph after himself, He broke his promise and chose his Fasiq son, Yazid as the Leader of Muslim!!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------

3-A.S or Alaihi salam is used for Aemmah not as because they were Sahabah or companion, as because they were the family of the holy prophet.

Meanwhile in Arabic Language, all these titles are only for respect, you can not say ok A.S is better than R.A ....

each sentence has a special meaning,

while we use S.A for our holy prophet, not A.S ( S.A= Sallallhu Alaihe wa Aleh\ A.S= Alaihes Salam)

4-Any food which is given on name of any holy person other thn Allah is forbidden to eat

Who has made it forbidden?!

is it in Quran or Sunnah?

so why the grandfather of our holy prophet, Abdul Mutallib gave the food made by the meat of 100 camels to people which was for his son, Abdullah?!

In Islam we have Nazr, so I do Nazr (Islamic promise ) that if something happened, I for example feed a few people for Imam husain,ok?

so the holy Quran said: "Man Yuazzim Sha'aeerallah"....means Quran orders to respect and keep alive the signs of Allah, those which remembers Islam.

so don't Imam Husain or our holy prophet remembers us Islam?

which sign is more important than these?

Hope you'll think deeper about these issues ...

wassalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Brother, Asslamoalaiku, I will keep on posting small replies to questions. Answers will not be in sequence. First question is the most important one, the last two can be dealt later on. JazakAllah

A Sunni Scholar Hafiz Ibn Asakir records this tradition on the authority of 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

This same narration can be located in the following Sunni books:

  1. al Isaba Volume 1 page 81 Dhikr Uns bin Harith
  2. Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125
  3. Kanz ul Ummal Volume 6 page 223 Dhikr Husayn
  4. Sirush Shahadatayn page 80
  5. Kifayath al Talib page 429 Dhikr Husayn
  6. Neel al Autar page 88
  7. Zakhair al Uqba page 146

If two individuals are fighting and the Prophet (s) tells you to go to the aid of one of them, then that individual will be on the path of truth, since the Prophet (s) would never give an order to stand with falsehood. In Kerbala, on one side was the illegal Khaleefa Yazeed bin Mu'awiyah on the other was Imam Husayn grandson of the Prophet (s), an individual whom the Prophet (s) gave an order that his Sahaba come to his aid.

One who fights Husayn (as), fights the Prophet (s)

Please see the following Sunni sources:

  1. Adhaab al Mufraad page 17
  2. Sunan ibn Majah page 14, Manaqib Husayn
  3. Sunan Tirmidhi Volume 2 page 587 Manaqib Husayn
  4. Zakhair al Uqba page 133 Dhikr Husayn
  5. Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 114 Dhikr Husayn
  6. Ya Nabi al Mawaddth page 164 Chapter 54
  7. Jama al Usool Volume 10 page 21
  8. Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 177
  9. Kanz al Ummal Volume 6 page 220 Manaqib Husayn
  10. al Fusl al Muhimma page 171 Dhikr Husayn
  11. Ahsaaf al Raghibeen page 175 Dhikr Husayn
  12. Nuzlul Abrar page 55 Dhikr Husayn
  13. Mirqaat Sharh Mishqaat page 55

In Adaab al Mufarad, page 17 we read:

"The Prophet (s) said Husayn is from me and I am from Husayn"

In Mirqaat, Qadhi Iyad states:

"Our Prophet via Prophetic knowledge and revelation knew that his grandson Husayn would be martyred fighting Yazeed bin Mu'awiya, that is why the Prophet made a specific reference about him, stating he shared three qualities with him (s), 1. Loving both is compulsory 2. Disrespecting both is a sin 3. Fighting both is haraam and a sin"

This Hadeeth proves that in the same way one that fights the Prophet can never be on Haqq (Truth), likewise on that fights Husayn can never be on Haqq either, this proves that in Kerbala Yazeed was on the path of falsehood, and Husayn (as) on the path of truth.

One that fights the Ahl'ul bayt fights the Prophet

We have relied on the following Sunni works:

  1. Sunan Ibn Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81
  2. Fada'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350;
  3. image_ico.gif al-Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 149

"Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husayn (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom you make peace and I am at war with those with whom you make war"

Imam Ibn Habban has included this hadith in his collection of 'Sahih' Hadiths (Sahih Ibn Habban Volume 15 page 433), Imam Hakim declared it 'Hasan' (al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page 161) and Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi also declared it 'Hasan' (Al-Jame'a al-Saghir wa Ziadateh, page 235).

This Hadeeth proves that when Yazeed fought Imam Husayn (as) in Kerbala he was actually fighting the Prophet (s), and is automatically on falsehood.

The Prophet's distraught appearance before Ibn Abbas proves Husayn (as) was on truth and Yazeed was on falsehood

We have located this narration from the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. Sawaiqh al Muhirqah, page 642-643 published in Faisalabad
  2. Mishkat al Masabeeh, Volume 8, page 140
  3. al Isaba page 334, Dhikr Husayn
  4. al Istiab page 340, Dhikr Husayn
  5. Asad ul Ghayba, Volume 2 page 23 Dhikr Husayn
  6. Mirqaat Sharh Mishkaat, Volume 11 page 397 Dhikr Husayn
  7. Musnad Ibn Hnbal, Volume 4 page 29 Hadeeth number 2165
  8. Tareekh Islam by Dhahabi, Volume 2 page 349 Dhikr Husayn
  9. Tareekh Ibn Asakir, Volume 4 page 343 Dhikr Husayn
  10. Tareekh ul Khulafa, page 208 Dhikr Husayn
  11. Sirush Shahadatayn, page 88
  12. Tadhkirat ul Khawwas al Ummah, page 152, Dhikr Husayn
  13. Kifayat al Muttalib, page 428 Dhikr Husayn

In Mishkat we read:

"One afternoon I dreamt of Holy Prophet (s) standing with his hair disturbed and with dust tangled in them and he was holding a phial filled with blood. I said to the Prophet: "May my parents by sacrificed at you. What are you holding?" The Prophet (s) replied: "I am holding this phial filled with the blood of my son and his companions that I have been collecting all the day long."

I remembered that day and when the news of Al Hussain's (as) martyrdom came, and I matched that day with the day I had dreamt the Holy Prophet (s), I came to know that it was the same day".

The distressed state of the Prophet (s) at the time of the death of the Prophet (s) serves as clear evidence that our Imam Husayn (as) was with the truth and Yazeed (l) was on falsehood. If Nasibis argue that the words of Rasulullah (s) in a dream are not authentic then we suggest to them to consider these words:

Abu Huraira narrates: The Prophet (pbuh) said: "Whoever has seen me in a dream has in fact seen me, for Satan does not appear in my form"

Sahih Muslim, vol. 4 p 1225 no 5635

It has been proven that Yazeed opposed the concept of revelation and denied the Prophethood. To raise one's voice against such an enemy of God is certainly proof that Imam Husayn (as) was on the party of truth and was seeking to counter Yazeed's falsehood. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, a staunch Wahabi, in Taufa Ithna Ashari, Chapter 1 page 6 stated clearly that:

"Imam Husayn was aware of the falsehood of Yazeed the Paleeth (impure)"

If opposition to such a transgressor is not Jihad then what is? How can these same Nasibi define the Banu Umayyad campaigns of conquests, pillaging / looting etc, to satiate Muslim greed and maintain a life of luxury as Jihad? If Jihad is defined as fighting the kuffar then Yazeed and his ancestors were kaafir, his father may have sought to cloak his hypocrisy but Yazeed openly declared his kaafir beliefs, and al Istiab also gives clear proof over the hypocrisy of Abu Sufyan.

When people opposed Yazeed in Madina, amongst them were the largest concentration of still living Sahaba, and the vast bulk were slaughtered. Amongst those who were martyred by the side of Husayn (as) in actual battle were also Muhammad (saws)'s sahaba, while at the actual battle not one sahaba was found on the side of Yazeed's army. Were their actions [as Sahaba] false? Against Yazeed ranged the majority of the surviving sahaba - were all misguided waging war against a man who did not even know the Holy Prophet (saws), was a man who used his penis to penetrate men/ dogs/bears/sisters/daughters/mother? Yazeed expected the Bayya while he openly expressed that Muhammad (saws) was a fraud. Yazeed and the clique of sahaba like Abdullah bin Omar (son of the second khalifa) that supported him were scum of the worst kind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

I would just like to say that the Brothers above answered the question excellently and Alhumdulila, it has made some thing more clearer to me.

Firstly, When we say that Imam Hussain (as) conquered at Karbala, we do not mean physically, not at all. It is true that Yazid's army won and that his 30,000 (estimated) troops killed the Companions and family of the Grandson of the Prophet (SA). But is that really winning?

Let's go deeper, by looking at this in a Islamic perspective, this Dunya, this world ; does not mean anything or is rather un-comparable to the afterlife. With that being said, I would like to add, did Imam Hussain (as) not sacrifice, his whole family, companions and his LIFE for the sake of Allah (SWT) and Islam? Yes, Let's elaborate with a famous quote by Charles Darwin.

“If Husain had fought to quench his worldly desires…then I do not understand why his sister, wife, and children accompanied him. It stands to reason therefore, that he sacrificed purely for Islam'

If you did not understand that fully , let me explain. Imam Hussain (as) arrived at Karbala because he had been invited by the people of Kufa, but after certain events took place, he was stopped by the army of yazid (la). He had with him only his close companions, family members, children and wife. WHY would any HUMAN BEING! bring his FAMILY with him to a battlefield! NO ONE! , THAT'S WHO!. So it stands to reason that Imam Hussain (as) did not fight the army of yazid (la) because he wanted the caliphate and wanted to stay alive and indulge in the acts of this dunya, but rather to save Islam. To save it from a ruler, who would of abandoned the teaching of his Grandfather, The Holy Prophet (SAW) which was sent down by Allah, The Exalted, The High. So let's get back to our original first point, By looking at the information above, one can say that Imam Hussain (as) did everything he could, he gave up his LIFE for the sake of Islam. So therefore, perhaps he did not physically win in this Dunya but in the Eternal Afterlife; for sacrificing everything for the One and True Allah سبحانه وتعالى. he clearly won. Also, even looking at it in a philosophical perspective, Imam Hussain (as) won, as did he not fight against an oppressor, who forced everyone to obey him, and if they did not, kill them? Did he not save them from a ruler who allowed no on to stand against him, a ruler who's wish he believed was his command. Lets very quickly elaborate with another quote from Gandhi '

“I learnd from Hussein how to achieve victory while being oppressed.”

Doesn't this show, How Imam Hussain (as) may have lost against the army of tyrants but truly he inspired the hearts of others to fight against oppression, to fight for Truth and to fight for Justice! Isn't that winning.....?

2.) and 3.) The other Brother answered with an answer I do not think I could add any useful points to.

Hope i helped :)

(wasalam)

Edited by Brother Ali
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The Sunni Ulema have accepted that in Kerbala Imam Husayn (as) adhered to the truth and Yazeed was on falsehood

As evidence we shall cite the following esteemed Sunni works:

  1. Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 72
  2. Neel al Autar Volume 7 page 181, Kitab al Jihad
  3. Shadharath al Dhahab Volume 1 page 69 Dhikr the events of 61 Hijri
  4. Tareekh Ibn Khaldun Volume 1 page 180
  5. Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page 370 Chapter 11 part 3
  6. Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 2 page 241 Dhikr Yazeed
  7. al-Awasim min al Qawasim, page 232

In Sharh Fiqh Akbar we read:

"Some illiterates have said (Allah forbid) that Imam Husayn was a rebel, this is Batil according to the aqaid of Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah, this may not be palatable to those that have fallen away from the truth".

This is a leading book of Hanafi aqaid that is clealrly stating that Hanafi Sunnis do not deem our Imam to be a rebel, obviously those Sunnis that say otherwise are actually practising taqiyya, posing as Sunnis when they are actually hardcore Nasabis.

Neel al Autar:

"There are those people who aided the Deen, they opposed the leader of the time because the leader was Unjust who had left the way of the Prophet, these people are the people of truth and Imam Husayn is at the top of such individuals"

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Shaukani stated clearly that Yazeed was unjust and abandoned the way of the Prophet (s), and Imam Husayn (as) aided the Deen by opposing Yazeed, and our Imam was on truth and Yazeed was on falsehood.

Shadharat al Dhahab:

"The people is Islam are in absolute agreement, that Imam Husayn's opposition to Yazeed's bad deeds was a good step, similarly the act of Ibn Zubayr and the Madinans opposition against the Banu Umayya was also a good step".

Even advocate of Mu'awiya Ibn Khaldun in Mudaqqimah states:

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

Another Mu'awiya supporter, the Grand Sheikh of Wahabis Ibn Taymiyya states:

"The middle way is that of the Ahl'ul Sunnah who don't deem Husayn a baghi or the Khaleefa , and deem his murder to be martyrdom"

In this connection Allamah Shibli also makes an important observation:

"Husayn did not oppose giving bayya to Yazeed because he wanted to become the Khalifa - his opposition was to elevate the kalima of Tauheed and Deen of Hanafeeya, in this regards he was following the footsteps of his father".

Zaynab page 157

When Imam Husayn, according the Ahl'ul Sunnah Sect, died a martyr then his difference with Yazeed cannot be condensed down to a political dispute. People who are confused need to understand that you can only die a martyr if you are defending the Deen - and Ibn Taymeeya said the Ahl'ul Sunnah hold the opinion that Imam Husayn (as) was a martyr. Can we not therefore conclude that the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah is that Imam Husayn (as) the martyr was slain upholding the Deen and his killer Yazeed was following falsehood? This is self-implicit if one accepts, as Ahl al Sunna do, that Husayn (as) achieved the rank of martyrdom.

These references prove that the scholars of Islam acknowledge that Imam Husayn (as) attained

Martyrdom, hence Imam Husayn (as) adhered to the truth in Kerbala. The Prophet (s) stated that the Ummah must come to his (as) aid that he would be martyred in Kerbala

Ibn Asakir records (in Mishbaath ba Sunnath page 219) a hadith on the authority of Hadhrath Ayesha:

"Oh Allah never shower your blessings on the cursed killer Yazeed. He will rebel against my beloved Husayn and martyr him"

Does this not act as conclusive proof that the battle of Kerbala was a battle between truth and falsehood? Rasulullah (s) deemed Imam Husayn (as) a martyr and cursed Yazeed, his killer who rebelled against Imam Husayn (as). Verily a martyr dies on the path of truth whilst a baghi (rebel) dies on the path of falsehood. Need we say any more on this topic?

The acceptance that the Imam (as) was a martyr is proof that he adhered to the path of truth and Yazeed was on falsehood.

Edited by Toronto110
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thanks a ton brothers...you all replied really well and comprehensively ...we have this assurity that sunni brothers condemn yazeed as well but the guy actually asked me that "Did Yazid do any of these things like allowed Drinking alcohol, Brother-Sister Nikkah, Adulteration, No believe in Prophets Etc…?" I know he used to play with a monkey....but the other things stated...how can these be proved?

And i would be really really greatful for a comprhensive reply on my other two questions

Link to post
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...