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

Matam

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

May Allah curse him. If performed Matam, which i doubt, he is worthy of all condemnation. No offence to some of our dear and beloved sunni brothers (because even our brothers in the ahlus-sunnah hate Yazid, but some - and i only say some - have a habit of white-washing history]:

 

4)    Ambiguous position on Yazīd.

"At various points throughout the talk there are attempts where Dr. Qadhi seems to not only defend, but even praise, Yazīd ibn Mu‘āwiyah (esp. in the reference to Yazīd’ participation in a raid against Constantinople) . Despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, Dr. Qadhi insists that Yazīd was largely innocent from the murder of al-Ḥusayn; we are informed that the bulk of the blame rests with the Kufans, Ibn Ziyad, Shimr, and ‘Umar ibn Sa’d. He even suggests that Yazīd  was upset by the fact that al-Ḥusayn was murdered, yet admits that absolutely no action was taken to punish those responsible. Strangely, Dr. Qadhi does not even mention how the women and children of the Ahl al-Bayt were massively mistreated and paraded like slaves in the streets of Damascus and in the court of Yazīd…even though this is a major part of the tragedy of Karbala and is recorded by a vast majority of the chronicles. To those well-versed in history, it is quite clear that Yazīd did in fact play a central role in the murder of al-Ḥusayn, whose refusal to pledge allegiance to him as caliph threatened his very legitimacy. Any denial of Yazīd’s major responsibility is a massive distortion of history and anyone who wishes to learn the truth of these matters can easily learn the truth through a very cursory glance at the historical texts, which are quite unambiguous about Yazīd’s culpability; medieval Sunni, Shi’i, and even Christian sources written in Arabic all make this fact very clear. Although, to be fair, Dr. Qadhi does not claim that Yazīd is a positive role model—which is clear from his showing how no less a figure than Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal exclaimed “How can anyone with true belief claim to love Yazīd?!”—he fails to show the full extent of his tyranny and depravity (again, these are facts of history). Nowhere does he discuss how Yazīd was a sadist and debauched individual (even though these points are underscored by Ibn Taymīyya and Ibn Kathīr, Qadhi’s main sources) nor does he even mention how Yazīd was responsible for the sack of Medina (in which thousands of the Companions of the Prophet were killed) and the bombardment of Mecca, a siege which led to the destruction of the Ka‘ba. Yet, throughout the lecture we are led to believe that such an individual was unwilling to kill one political opponent…"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
1 hour ago, Tawheed313 said:

May Allah curse him. If performed Matam, which i doubt, he is worthy of all condemnation. No offence to some of our dear and beloved sunni brothers (because even our brothers in the ahlus-sunnah hate Yazid, but some - and i only say some - have a habit of white-washing history]:

 

4)    Ambiguous position on Yazīd.

"At various points throughout the talk there are attempts where Dr. Qadhi seems to not only defend, but even praise, Yazīd ibn Mu‘āwiyah (esp. in the reference to Yazīd’ participation in a raid against Constantinople) . Despite all the historical evidence to the contrary, Dr. Qadhi insists that Yazīd was largely innocent from the murder of al-Ḥusayn; we are informed that the bulk of the blame rests with the Kufans, Ibn Ziyad, Shimr, and ‘Umar ibn Sa’d. He even suggests that Yazīd  was upset by the fact that al-Ḥusayn was murdered, yet admits that absolutely no action was taken to punish those responsible. Strangely, Dr. Qadhi does not even mention how the women and children of the Ahl al-Bayt were massively mistreated and paraded like slaves in the streets of Damascus and in the court of Yazīd…even though this is a major part of the tragedy of Karbala and is recorded by a vast majority of the chronicles. To those well-versed in history, it is quite clear that Yazīd did in fact play a central role in the murder of al-Ḥusayn, whose refusal to pledge allegiance to him as caliph threatened his very legitimacy. Any denial of Yazīd’s major responsibility is a massive distortion of history and anyone who wishes to learn the truth of these matters can easily learn the truth through a very cursory glance at the historical texts, which are quite unambiguous about Yazīd’s culpability; medieval Sunni, Shi’i, and even Christian sources written in Arabic all make this fact very clear. Although, to be fair, Dr. Qadhi does not claim that Yazīd is a positive role model—which is clear from his showing how no less a figure than Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal exclaimed “How can anyone with true belief claim to love Yazīd?!”—he fails to show the full extent of his tyranny and depravity (again, these are facts of history). Nowhere does he discuss how Yazīd was a sadist and debauched individual (even though these points are underscored by Ibn Taymīyya and Ibn Kathīr, Qadhi’s main sources) nor does he even mention how Yazīd was responsible for the sack of Medina (in which thousands of the Companions of the Prophet were killed) and the bombardment of Mecca, a siege which led to the destruction of the Ka‘ba. Yet, throughout the lecture we are led to believe that such an individual was unwilling to kill one political opponent…"

 

When you're the Caliph, no important person or even an insignificant person can be killed without having some kind of hand within your sphere of influence, it's ridiculous to suppose that some kind of foul/up or screw of that magnitude could even take place under any Khalifah.  You don't mistakenly not tell your general what to do with the grandson of the new religion founded by the new empire/structure applicable to the whole nation.

If by some miraculous stupid chance that this did happen unintended by Yazid, then it's the biggest demonstration of his incapacity to be the Khalifah, as an utter and complete failure.  He was clearly knew what happened and what could happened and could have done something to prevent it... judging by his governing skills... I'm going to default to he had a hand in it.   I grew up reading in Sunni literature that he was sobbing to Umar ibn Saa'd saying if he only knew the character of Hussayn AS, that this would never have happened.  Whether its true or not, I don't care.  I wasn't there and I can't truly know what happened, only God knows best. 

I've not read or heard of Yazid using matam.

This is all is my opinion, personally. 

Edited by wmehar2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, wmehar2 said:

When you're the Caliph, no important person or even an insignificant person can be killed without having some kind of hand within your sphere of influence, it's ridiculous to suppose that some kind of foul/up or screw of that magnitude could even take place under any Khalifah.  You don't mistakenly not tell your general what to do with the grandson of the new religion founded by the new empire/structure applicable to the whole nation.

If by some miraculous stupid chance that this did happen unintended by Yazid, then it's the biggest demonstration of his incapacity to be the Khalifah, as an utter and complete failure.  He was clearly knew what happened and what could happened and could have done something to prevent it... judging by his governing skills... I'm going to default to he had a hand in it.  

WELL SAID!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member
14 hours ago, Samad07 said:

Was it true that yazid started the practice of matam. Yazid seem to pretend that he was in sad condition about the death of Imam Husein a.s, so he started matam...

matam was done in arabia well before Yazid, Ashura, Karbala, etc.

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...