Are Shias Really Grateful to Imam Hussain (ra) for Saving Islam?

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

We have all heard, perhaps also reminded a dozen times, that we must be thankful to Imam Hussain (ra) for his sacrifice (at Karbala) without which we may have lost Islam.  It is said that the Imam's (ra) sacrifice prevented Yazeed's distortion of the religion from propagating and spreading throughout the Islamic world.  While Yazeed is accused of corrupting Islam, I have yet to see any Shia prove that from authentic sources.  In other words, there is nothing which suggests that Yazeed was destroying Islam.  No doubt he was a corrupt man, deserving the highest of condemnations but there is a difference between nature and intent.  Yazeed was rogue by nature, however, his intent to purposefully distort Islam has not been proven (via authentic text).  This, while I also argue that I cannot perceive anyone who had a direct or indirect hand in the killing of Imam Hussain (ra) to enter Paradise.

Having established the background, let us now introduce the case of Malik bin Nuwayrah.  Known for actually violating the Islamic injunction of Zakat, Malik sought to do away with Zakat through his logic and actions.  In other words, Malik adopted a different view or belief towards Zakat and urged others to do the same (which was to stop paying the Zakat).  So why is it that Shias (rightfully) condemn Yazeed for violating the Shariah but type "radhiAllahu anhu" after they make mention of Malik bin Nuwayrah, a man whose intent to change the Shariah has been well-established?

We know the answer to the question.  I only wonder if Shias can see their own dichotomy.

[iceman]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

We have all heard, perhaps also reminded a dozen times, that we must be thankful to Imam Hussain (ra) for his sacrifice (at Karbala) without which we may have lost Islam.  It is said that the Imam's (ra) sacrifice prevented Yazeed's distortion of the religion from propagating and spreading throughout the Islamic world.  While Yazeed is accused of corrupting Islam, I have yet to see any Shia prove that from authentic sources.  In other words, there is nothing which suggests that Yazeed was destroying Islam.  No doubt he was a corrupt man, deserving the highest of condemnations but there is a difference between nature and intent.  Yazeed was rogue by nature, however, his intent to purposefully distort Islam has not been proven (via authentic text).  This, while I also argue that I cannot perceive anyone who had a direct or indirect hand in the killing of Imam Hussain (ra) to enter Paradise.

Having established the background, let us now introduce the case of Malik bin Nuwayrah.  Known for actually violating the Islamic injunction of Zakat, Malik sought to do away with Zakat through his logic and actions.  In other words, Malik adopted a different view or belief towards Zakat and urged others to do the same (which was to stop paying the Zakat).  So why is it that Shias (rightfully) condemn Yazeed for violating the Shariah but type "radhiAllahu anhu" after they make mention of Malik bin Nuwayrah, a man whose intent to change the Shariah has been well-established?

We know the answer to the question.  I only wonder if Shias can see their own dichotomy.

VERY INTERESTING. First of all why is this only addressed to the Shias? The Shias as well as vast majority of the Sunnis believe that Hussain sacrificed his life to save and protect Islam, its principles and teachings. It's only a minority, a relatively small amount of Sunnis who hold your view.

Secondly you mention the companion Malik bin Nuwayrah, we hold a very different view from you concerning Malik. I will mention it.

[muslim720]

VERY INTERESTING. First of all why is this only addressed to the Shias?

...because only Shias believe that if not for Imam Hussain (ra), Islam would have been damaged without repair, possibly perished.  Sunnis, however, commemorate the sacrifice of Imam Hussain (ra) while also remembering the promise of Allah (swt) to protect the Qur'an and make the Deen victorious. 

Secondly you mention the companion Malik bin Nuwayrah, we hold a very different view from you concerning Malik. I will mention it.

No need to mention it!  I know he is "radhiAllahu anhu" for you.  While you cannot categorically prove how Yazeed intended to change the Shariah, you invoke Allah (swt) to be pleased with a man (Malik bin Nuwayrah) who exactly intended to do just that (that is, tried to change the Shariah on Zakat).

[iceman]

https://www.quora.com/profile/Umar-Suharwardy-1

https://www.quora.com/profile/Ali-Shams-12

[iceman]

Surah An Nisaa, verse 93,

"Whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment."

(4:93)

[muslim720]

Surah An Nisaa, verse 93,

"Whoever kills a believer intentionally - his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allah has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment."

(4:93)

Displaying the characteristics of a bot, you have not surprised me with your two links that have nothing to do with the topic.  As for the verse, the stipulation for Hell is that if you kill a believer intentionally.  Khalid ibn Waleed (ra) presented his case for killing Malik bin Nuwayrah which was far from intentional killing of an innocent believer.  By the way, who said Malik was a believer?  Refusing to pay Zakah is apostasy, punishable by death, even according to Shi'i narrations.

Here are three narrations from Al-Kafi declaring those who refuse to pay Zakah as apostates:
   
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim from his father from Isma’il ibn Marrar fromYunus from Ibn Muskan … on the authority of Abu Ja’far (Muhammad ibn ‘Ali Al-Baqir): “The Messenger of Allah addressed a group of people in the mosque telling some of them to get up [of the mosque] until he threw out five persons, then he said: “Get out of our mosque and do not pray in here whilst you haven’t paid your Zakah.” [Al Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]

Yunus from ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah from Abu Basir on the authority of Abu ‘Abdillah (Al-Sadiq), who said: “We refuses to pay even a single ounce of the Zakah is not a believer nor a Muslim and this is the statement of Him (Allah), may He be glorified and exalted […].” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]

Abu ‘Ali Al-Ash’ari, from the one who mentioned it, from Hafs ibn ‘Omar, from Salim, from Abu Basir, (It has been narrated) from Abu ‘Abdullah (Al-Sadiq), who said: “Whoever refuses to pay a carat of Zakat, let him choose to die as a Jew or a Christian (i.e. kafir).” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]

And what is the punishment for refusing to pay Zakah?

....from Sahl from ibn Shamun from Al-Asam from Malikk ibn ‘Utbah from Ibn Taghlub who said: “Abu Abdullah (i.e. Al-Sadiq) told me: “Allah has declared the blood of two types of people permissible to be shed in Islam, nobody must judge with regards to these two types until Allah sends our Qa’im (Shia Mahdi) from Ahl Al-Bayt, and when Allah sends him, he will judge with regards to these two types according to the ruling of Allah, without requiring any testimony, which is: The adulterer will be stoned and the one who refuses to pay the Zakah will get beheaded.” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]

The above narration can be found in many other primary and secondary Shia sources, such as:

1. Man La Yahduruhu Al-Faqih, vol. 2, p. 11
2. Wasa’il Al-Shia, vol.6, p. 19
3. Al-Mahasin, p. 87, in Kamal Al-Din, v. 2, p. 671
4. Al-Khisal, v. 1, p. 169
5. Raudah Al-Wa’idhin, v. 2, p. 356
6. Wasa’il Al-Shia, vol.6, p. 19
7. Basa’ir Al-Darajat, p. 170
8. Bihar Al-Anwar, vol. 52, p. 309

[iceman]

Displaying the characteristics of a bot, you have not surprised me with your two links that have nothing to do with the topic.  As for the verse, the stipulation for Hell is that if you kill a believer intentionally.  Khalid ibn Waleed (ra) presented his case for killing Malik bin Nuwayrah which was far from intentional killing of an innocent believer.  By the way, who said Malik was a believer?  Refusing to pay Zakah is apostasy, punishable by death, even according to Shi'i narrations.

Here are three narrations from Al-Kafi declaring those who refuse to pay Zakah as apostates:
   
‘Ali ibn Ibrahim from his father from Isma’il ibn Marrar fromYunus from Ibn Muskan … on the authority of Abu Ja’far (Muhammad ibn ‘Ali Al-Baqir): “The Messenger of Allah addressed a group of people in the mosque telling some of them to get up [of the mosque] until he threw out five persons, then he said: “Get out of our mosque and do not pray in here whilst you haven’t paid your Zakah.” [Al Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]

Yunus from ‘Ali ibn Abi Hamzah from Abu Basir on the authority of Abu ‘Abdillah (Al-Sadiq), who said: “We refuses to pay even a single ounce of the Zakah is not a believer nor a Muslim and this is the statement of Him (Allah), may He be glorified and exalted […].” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]

Abu ‘Ali Al-Ash’ari, from the one who mentioned it, from Hafs ibn ‘Omar, from Salim, from Abu Basir, (It has been narrated) from Abu ‘Abdullah (Al-Sadiq), who said: “Whoever refuses to pay a carat of Zakat, let him choose to die as a Jew or a Christian (i.e. kafir).” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]

And what is the punishment for refusing to pay Zakah?

....from Sahl from ibn Shamun from Al-Asam from Malikk ibn ‘Utbah from Ibn Taghlub who said: “Abu Abdullah (i.e. Al-Sadiq) told me: “Allah has declared the blood of two types of people permissible to be shed in Islam, nobody must judge with regards to these two types until Allah sends our Qa’im (Shia Mahdi) from Ahl Al-Bayt, and when Allah sends him, he will judge with regards to these two types according to the ruling of Allah, without requiring any testimony, which is: The adulterer will be stoned and the one who refuses to pay the Zakah will get beheaded.” [Al-Kafi vol. 3 – The Book Of Zakah ch. 2]

The above narration can be found in many other primary and secondary Shia sources, such as:

1. Man La Yahduruhu Al-Faqih, vol. 2, p. 11
2. Wasa’il Al-Shia, vol.6, p. 19
3. Al-Mahasin, p. 87, in Kamal Al-Din, v. 2, p. 671
4. Al-Khisal, v. 1, p. 169
5. Raudah Al-Wa’idhin, v. 2, p. 356
6. Wasa’il Al-Shia, vol.6, p. 19
7. Basa’ir Al-Darajat, p. 170
8. Bihar Al-Anwar, vol. 52, p. 309

I'm not here to surprise you since that is out of the question because I'm dealing with someone who has a mindset and is absolutely and completely blind due to that mindset. Not to worry a lot of people are like that. They just live by what they have been told and taught as they have been raised and brought up.

Everyone starts off with a mindset but as we become older, mature and wiser it is down to us if we wish to continue with that mindset or develope an open mind and start looking at things with a broader perspective.

I'm not here to surprise you or challenge you. I'm here to challenge what you say and put forward since I consider it to be wrong and false either based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation. You say and speak as though you are attacking my faith and belief. And it is my duty to challenge what is wrong and false.

Lets talk about Yazeed first and then we will address the situation of Malik bin Nuwayrah.

[iceman]

Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan ibn Harb ibn Umayaah al-Umawi al-Dimashqi.

Al-Dhahabi said: he was the commander of that army during the campaign against Constantinople, among which were people such as Abu Ayyoob al-Ansaari. Yazeed was appointed by his father as his heir, so he took power after his father died in Rajab 60 AH at the age of thirty-three, but his reign lasted for less than four years.

Yazeed is one of those whom we neither curse nor love. There are others like him among the khaleefahs of the two states (Umawi/Umayyad and ‘Abbaasi/Abbasid) and the governors of various regions, indeed there were some among them who were worse than him. But the issue in the case of Yazeed is that he was came to power forty-nine years after the death of the Prophet SAWS (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); it was still close to the time of the Prophet and some of the Sahaabah were still alive such as Ibn ‘Umar who was more entitled to the position than him or his father or his grandfather.

His reign began with the killing of the martyr al-Husayn and it ended with the battle of al-Harrah, so the people hated him and he was not blessed with a long life. There were many revolts against him after al-Husayn, such as the people of Madeenah who revolted for the sake of Allaah, and Ibn al-Zubayr.

(Siyar A’laam al-Nubalaa’, part 4, p. 38)

[iceman]

The Ulema of Ahl’ul Sunnah deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed

The Fiqh Imams deemed cursing Yazeed to be an act of worship

Ibn Khalikan in Wafayaath page 412 whilst discussing the biography of the Shafi’i scholar Abu Hassan bin ‘Ali bin Muhammad bin ‘Ali al Tabari al Amadadeen al Maroof al Bakeeya al Iraas al Shafeeya, states that:

“He (the above) was once asked ‘Can Yazeed who was born during the Khilafat of Hadhrath Umar be counted as a Companion, and what have the Salaf elders said in relation to cursing him?

He replied, ‘There are two statements of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on this; one is an indication (that you can), the other direct (both that you can). These two views were also given by Imam Malik and by Imam ‘Abu Hanifa. We (those who follow imam Shafi’is fatwas) have only one fatwa in this regard, that it is permissible to curse Yazeed, he should be cursed since he used to play chess, would hunt with Cheetahs and drank alcohol”.

[iceman]

Allamah Taftazani said Yazeed was worthy of more than just cursing

We read in Sharh Muqassad:

“The harms that were inflicted on the Ahl’ul bayt after the Sahaba are acts that cannot be covered up. These acts were so heinous that they cannot be hidden – all including animals testify to their suffering. Their pain was such that the earth and skies shed tears and beat themselves when their suffering is retold –

and retelling this shall continue until the Day of Judgement. May Allah’s curse be upon those that perpetuated injustices, and those that helped them (to carry out these acts). The curse on these individuals shall be even greater in the next world. If some Ulema are opposed to cursing, then it should be known that Yazeed deserves more than just cursing”.

Allamah Baghdadi’s Fatwa – Yazeed denied the Prophethood, to curse him is an act of Ibadath

We read in Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani page 72 commentary of Surah Muhammad:

“The wicked Yazeed failed to testify to the Prophethood of Hadhrath Muhammad (s). He also perpetrated acts against the residents of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet (s). He indulged in these acts against them during their lives and after their deaths. These acts are so conclusively proven that had he placed the Qur’an in his hands it would have testified to his kuffar. His being a fasiq and fajir did not go unnoticed by the Ulema of Islam, but the Salaf had no choice but to remain silent as they were living under threat.

If we for arguments sake accept that Yazeed was a Muslim who lapsed and committed wrongs, one should know that a man of the rank of Alusi deemed it permissible to curse him by name as he [Yazeed] was a living example of atrocious acts and it is a well-known fact that he never sought forgiveness for killing the family of the Prophet (s) and other acts.

The claim that he asked for forgiveness is even weaker than the claim that he possessed iman. When cursing him the names of Ibn Ziyad and Umar bin Sa’d should also be added, may Allah’s curse be on them all�. curse till the Day of Judgement, until then our eyes shall shed tears for Husayn’s suffering.

If someone does not wish to curse by name through fear [that they might be wrong, such as Ghazali], then he should say ‘May God’s curse be upon those that were pleased at Husayn’s killing, those that subjected sufferings on the family of the Prophet, who usurped their rights – when making such a curse Yazeed’s name comes to the top of the list.
No one can oppose this method of cursing save Ibn Arabi and his like minded supporters and this is major misguidance on their part – it is worse that the misguidance of Yazeed”.

Taftazani, a mainstream Sunni scholar, is reprimanding certain Sufi elements for taking one of their principles too far – that harbouring feelings of hatred to someone impairs progress on the spiritual path, which is not the case when cursing Yazeed as it falls into the realm of forbidding evil. Some Sufis reconcile this as they all accept Husayn (as) as possessed of great spiritual munificence by ‘distancing’ themselves from Yazeed. Others curse Yazeed.

It is important to note that Sufi Sheikhs are not usually experts on the religious traditions (Hadith), law or history, whatever their spiritual standing might be. This is not denied by any Sufis except fanatical devotees. In this realm the four Sunni imams supersede, all of whom said it was permissible to curse Yazeed.

[iceman]

The Shaafi Ulema deem it permissible to curse Yazeed

We should point out that Ghazzali was an adherent of the Shaafi madhab. Another Shaafi scholar Allamah Alusi set out the viewpoint of the Shaafi Ulema on this topic as follows:

Amongst the Shaafi’s we are in agreement that it is permissible to curse Yazeed”
Haseeya Nabraas page 551

When a renowned Shaafi scholar has taken the responsibility to reflect the opinion of the Shaafi Ulema, confirming that they deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed, then the opposite voice of Imam Ghazzali’s fatwa becomes batil (false).

We have cited actual Sunni texts wherein the supreme Sunni scholars of all time deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed. Azam Tariq seeks solace in the fatwa of al Ghazzali. Now whose fatwa bears greater value, the sole fatwa of Ibn Ghazzali or the fatwas of all the Sunni Ulama that we cited? Why should this single Ghazzali fatwa be deemed to be strong and conclusive enough to nullify the fatwas of all these Sunni Ulema?

Would the more correct approach not to be to reject Ghazzali’s fatwa and give greater credence to these Salaf Ulema who had an ijma (consensus) that it was permissible to curse Yazeed? Why are the Salafi and Deobandi seeking to create doubts over matter that has attained broad consensus by the Sunni Ulema? In reality by quoting Ghazzali they are trying to divide the Sufis, who they are well-known to despise. Our du’a is that Allah (swt) guide these advocates of Yazeed to disown and hate Yazeed and to develop faith and love for the family of the Prophet (s).

[iceman]

Al Suyuti personally cursed Yazeed

In Tareekh ul Khulafa page 208, Dhikr Shahadath Husayn we read as follows:

“Allah’s curse be opon all three Ibn Ziyad, Yazeed and the killer of Imam Hussain”

Tareekh ul Khulafa (Urdu) page 208, published by Nafees Academy Karachi

Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee deemed it permissible to curse the kaafir Yazeed

We read in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21, under the commentary of Surah Ibrahim verse 28 as follows:

“The Banu Umayya were initially kaafir, then some of them presented themselves as Muslim. Yazeed then became a kaafir. The Banu Umayya maintained their enmity towards the family of the Prophet, and killed Husayn in a cruel manner. The kaafir Yazeed committed kufr in relation to the Deen of Muhammad proven by the fact that at the time of the killing of Husayn he made a pointed reference to avenging the deaths of his kaafir ancestors slain in Badr. He acted against the family of Muhammad (s), Banu Hashim and in his drunken state he praised the Banu Umayya and cursed the Banu Hashim from the pulpit”.

Yazeed’s actions that mean that he turned to apostasy is within itself grounds for deeming him to be cursed.

The Fatwa of Imam Ahmad that Yazeed has been cursed in the Qur’an

We also read in Tafeer Mazhari as follows:

“Qadhi Abu Ya’ala in his own book al Muthamud al Usul that Saleh Ibn Hanbal asked his father Ahmad: ‘Some people state, ‘We are the friends of Yazeed’. Abu Hanifa replied ‘If people have faith in Allah, then it is unlikely that they also have faith in Yazeed, and why should they for this is a man that has been cursed in the Qur’an. I asked ‘Where is Yazeed cursed in the Qur’an?’ He replied “Have fear� when spread Fitnah through the land – these are people that Allah has cursed” – can there be a greater fitnah that killing Husayn?'”

The Fatwa of Ibn Jauzi – Hadith can testify to the fact that Yazeed can be cursed

In Tadhkira Khawaas Ibn Jauzi al Hanafi states

“If someone states that the Prophet of Allah had blessed those that partook in the conquest of Caesar’s city, then we will reply by pointing out that the Prophet of Allah (s) said whoever frightens Medina is cursed. This incorporates Yazeed and abrogates the first hadith”.

[muslim720]

I'm not here to surprise you since that is out of the question because I'm dealing with someone who has a mindset and is absolutely and completely blind due to that mindset.

While I did not expect anything better, we will see who is blinded by a certain mindset.

I'm here to challenge what you say and put forward since I consider it to be wrong and false either based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation.

Very good!  However, from past experiences, if my memory serves me right, you are the one to (almost) come to the point and then dance around it (as we will see in your next statement).

Lets talk about Yazeed first and then we will address the situation of Malik bin Nuwayrah.

...and this is what I was talking about!  Yazeed, lanatullah alayh!  May Allah's (swt) curse be upon Yazeed.  You could have just asked me and I'd have saved you from all that cut-paste.  Now that we have addressed Yazeed, you have the following points to account for:

1.  Prove that Yazeed intended to change the Shariah.

2.  Prove that Malik bin Nuwayrah was a believer despite Al-Kafi's narrations saying that those who withhold Zakah should be killed.

[iceman]

While I did not expect anything better, we will see who is blinded by a certain mindset.

Very good!  However, from past experiences, if my memory serves me right, you are the one to (almost) come to the point and then dance around it (as we will see in your next statement).

...and this is what I was talking about!  Yazeed, lanatullah alayh!  May Allah's (swt) curse be upon Yazeed.  You could have just asked me and I'd have saved you from all that cut-paste.  Now that we have addressed Yazeed, you have the following points to account for:

1.  Prove that Yazeed intended to change the Shariah.

2.  Prove that Malik bin Nuwayrah was a believer despite Al-Kafi's narrations saying that those who withhold Zakah should be killed.

Lets not beat around the bush and leave the dancing out of it. Have you got enough proof that it's not just the Shias but also vast majority of the Ahle Sunah who believe as such about Yazeed? The thread you've started and the subject you've raised is not just a challenge to the Shias but also to the vast majority of the Ahle Sunah as well. So you need to address it both to Shias as well as those Ahle Sunah who share the same concept and view.

[iceman]

What would you say about the following?

Yazid
Having seen Yazid’s perversities cited by prominent Sunni authorities, let us now look at the contents of the Traditions of the Prophet (S), as reported by the Sunni authorities

For our purposes today, we shall dwell upon only those Traditions reported in Sahih Bukhari. As known by the majority of the people, to the Sunnis as well as the Wahabis, this book is regarded as the most authentic, surpassed only by the Holy Quran. To them, Traditions from this book are most reliable, beyond any doubt!

In Tradition Number 180 on page 147 of Volume Nine, it is stated that: “Amr bin Yahya bin Said bin Amr bin Said said: ‘My grandfather narrated to me thus: I was in the company of Abu Hurayra and Marwan in the mosque of the Prophet (S) in Madina. Abu Hurayra then said: I heard the truthful and trusted by Allah (i.e. the Prophet (S)) saying, “The destruction of my followers will be through the hands of young men from Quraish.” Marwan retorted: ‘May the curse of Allah be on these youths.’ Abu Hurayra said: If I could, I would have named these youths, and their parentage.’ Accompanied by my grandfather, I went to Syria to meet the progeny of Marwan at the time when they were the rulers there. Whenever my grandfather saw that these rulers were young men, he would tell us: Probably, these are among them (those young men mentioned by the Prophet (S)), and we used to reply, saying, You know better than us’.”

Before quoting the explanations of the above mentioned Tradition, those working with the English version should note that it does not fully correspond with the original Arabic text. The translator has omitted the significant part of the Tradition, printed in italics above, in the English version -- advertently or inadvertently.

Nonetheless, in his book, Fat’hul Baari, on page 10 of Chapter Thirteen, Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asqalaani mentions a narration of Ibn Abi Shayba which says that: “Abu Hurayra used to go to the market saying: ‘O Lord! Do not let me live to the year 60 A. H. nor witness the reign of the youths.’” Having said this, Imam Ibn Hajar adds, “In these words there is an indication that the first youth to come to power was in the year 60 A. H., and indeed, this is what actually happened. Yazid bin Muawiya’s succession took place in that year, and he remained in power till his death in 64 A. H. He was succeeded by his son, Muawiya, who died after a few months.”

Therefore, according to Imam Ibn Hajar, among “the Quraish youths” prophesized by the Prophet (S) to be the ones through whose hands the destruction of his followers would be, and whom Abu Hurayra wished the Almighty to keep him away from in the year 60 A. H., was Yazid. Did the Prophet’s prediction prove wrong? Wasn’t the Prophet’s community led astray through the massacres of Karbalaa, Madina and Macca as expounded hitherto? Or were those who were killed there polytheists and not Muslims? Despite all these, do we still insist that Yazid was Amirul Mu’minin?

Remember: Abu Hurayra did not disclose the names and the parentage of the Quraishi youths, not because he did not know them, but because he feared that if he did so he would endanger his life. This becomes clear when we revert to Sahih Bukhari (Tradition Number 121 on page 89 of Volume One). Which says: Narrated by Abu Hurayra: I have memorised two kinds of knowledge from Allah’s Apostle (S) I have propagated one of them to you and if I propagated the second, then my pharynx (throat) would be cut (i.e. killed).’”

Commenting on this Tradition, on page 216 of Chapter One of Fat’hul Baari, Imam Ibn Hajar says: “Scholars believe that the knowledge that Abu Hurayra did not disclose, relates to the Tradition in which names, life-style and the times of the evil monarchs have been mentioned. Abu Hurayra used to make a tacit reference about some of them, but would never mention their real names, fearing for his own life. For instance, by seeking refuge in the Almighty from year 60 and from the reign of the youths, he was making a tacit reference to the kingship of Yazid bin Muawiya whose reign was in the year 60 A.H.”

However, Imam Ibn Hajar was not the only person to draw this conclusion. Shihaabuddin Ahmad Al Qastwalaani too comes out with a similar interpretation of these Traditions. Those who know Arabic may refer to page 374 of Chapter One, and pages 11-12 of Chapter Fifteen of Irshaadus Saari.

Abu Hurayra, therefore, did not name Yazid, not because he did not know it, but because he was afraid that if he did so, his life would be in danger. In other words, he observed taqiyya (dissimulation)!

Was Abu Hurayra alone in practising taqiyya or others, too, observe it?

[muslim720]

Have you got enough proof that it's not just the Shias but also vast majority of the Ahle Sunah who believe as such about Yazeed?

A day does not go by in the lives of Shias without the mention of Yazeed, Muawiyah, Saudi Arabia, Abdul Wahab, etc.  However, please pretend you are intelligent and try to follow the point I'm trying to make and then offer your rebuttal.

Without worrying about the authenticity of all the reports you have shared, I agree with you that Yazeed should be, and is, condemned.  For a bigger crime - withholding Zakah and asking for others to do the same - I also condemn Malik bin Nuwayrah.  While Yazeed violated the Shariah, Malik sought to change it because he (Malik) argued that Zakah was no longer obligatory since the Prophet (saw) had passed away.  The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, therefore, condemn both. 

My question to you, and Shias in general, is this: why do you condemn Yazeed but not Malik?  Why is Yazeed "la'anatullah alayh" while Malik is "radhiAllahu anhu" when Malik blatantly opposed, disobeyed and sought to change the Shariah?  Why is Malik "radhiAllahu anhu", according to Shias, when Kulayni reports (in Al-Kafi) that those who deliberately choose not to pay Zakah are apostates and must be killed?

If you ignore my questions and fail to directly address the points, I will request the moderators to delete all your psychobabble diarrhea.

[iceman]

A day does not go by in the lives of Shias without the mention of Yazeed, Muawiyah, Saudi Arabia, Abdul Wahab, etc.  However, please pretend you are intelligent and try to follow the point I'm trying to make and then offer your rebuttal.

Without worrying about the authenticity of all the reports you have shared, I agree with you that Yazeed should be, and is, condemned.  For a bigger crime - withholding Zakah and asking for others to do the same - I also condemn Malik bin Nuwayrah.  While Yazeed violated the Shariah, Malik sought to change it because he (Malik) argued that Zakah was no longer obligatory since the Prophet (saw) had passed away.  The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, therefore, condemn both. 

My question to you, and Shias in general, is this: why do you condemn Yazeed but not Malik?  Why is Yazeed "la'anatullah alayh" while Malik is "radhiAllahu anhu" when Malik blatantly opposed, disobeyed and sought to change the Shariah?  Why is Malik "radhiAllahu anhu", according to Shias, when Kulayni reports (in Al-Kafi) that those who deliberately choose not to pay Zakah are apostates and must be killed?

If you ignore my questions and fail to directly address the points, I will request the moderators to delete all your psychobabble diarrhea.

"A day does not go by in the lives of Shias without the mention of Yazeed, Muawiyah, Saudi Arabia, Abdul Wahab, etc.  However, please pretend you are intelligent and try to follow the point I'm trying to make and then offer your rebuttal"

😊 You need to take a look at yourself, the lives of certain people have become dependent on undermining the Shias and their belief at all costs. Certain people have become so desperate that accusing and attacking the Shias and their belief has become a habbit or regular part of their life just as worship. But lets leave it to that.

The majority of the Muslims believe that Hussain'sstance and sacrifice saved Islam. Now the minority of the Muslims, along with you, believe otherwise. The minority want the majority to explain themselves? No problem.

[zaid_ibn_ali]

"A day does not go by in the lives of Shias without the mention of Yazeed, Muawiyah, Saudi Arabia, Abdul Wahab, etc.  However, please pretend you are intelligent and try to follow the point I'm trying to make and then offer your rebuttal"

😊 You need to take a look at yourself, the lives of certain people have become dependent on undermining the Shias and their belief at all costs. Certain people have become so desperate that accusing and attacking the Shias and their belief has become a habbit or regular part of their life just as worship. But lets leave it to that.

The majority of the Muslims believe that Hussain'sstance and sacrifice saved Islam. Now the minority of the Muslims, along with you, believe otherwise. The minority want the majority to explain themselves? No problem.

Please quote classical sunni scholars who said ‘hussain saved Islam’.

Believing Hussain died as a martyr & that it was a symbolic brave martydrom is not the same as saying he saved Islam.

[iceman]

Please quote classical sunni scholars who said ‘hussain saved Islam’.

Believing Hussain died as a martyr & that it was a symbolic brave martydrom is not the same as saying he saved Islam.

First this needs to be acknowledged that this is not a Sunni Shia issue or a difference between Sunnis and Shia thought. It's a view of majority of the Muslims against minority. Let me first deal with the case of Malik bin Nuwayrah which is so desperately asked for.

[iceman]

A day does not go by in the lives of Shias without the mention of Yazeed, Muawiyah, Saudi Arabia, Abdul Wahab, etc.  However, please pretend you are intelligent and try to follow the point I'm trying to make and then offer your rebuttal.

Without worrying about the authenticity of all the reports you have shared, I agree with you that Yazeed should be, and is, condemned.  For a bigger crime - withholding Zakah and asking for others to do the same - I also condemn Malik bin Nuwayrah.  While Yazeed violated the Shariah, Malik sought to change it because he (Malik) argued that Zakah was no longer obligatory since the Prophet (saw) had passed away.  The Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama'ah, therefore, condemn both. 

My question to you, and Shias in general, is this: why do you condemn Yazeed but not Malik?  Why is Yazeed "la'anatullah alayh" while Malik is "radhiAllahu anhu" when Malik blatantly opposed, disobeyed and sought to change the Shariah?  Why is Malik "radhiAllahu anhu", according to Shias, when Kulayni reports (in Al-Kafi) that those who deliberately choose not to pay Zakah are apostates and must be killed?

If you ignore my questions and fail to directly address the points, I will request the moderators to delete all your psychobabble diarrhea.

"My question to you, and Shias in general, is this: why do you condemn Yazeed but not Malik?  Why is Yazeed "la'anatullah alayh" while Malik is "radhiAllahu anhu" when Malik blatantly opposed, disobeyed and sought to change the Shariah?  Why is Malik "radhiAllahu anhu", according to Shias, when Kulayni reports (in Al-Kafi) that those who deliberately choose not to pay Zakah are apostates and must be killed?"

You should only ask us this question if we considered the case of Yazeed and Malik to be of a similar nature, when you clearly know that we don't. Our view concerning the case of Malik is different. Allow me to explain.

First of all why on earth would a Companion of the Prophet s.a.w, (Malik bin Nuwayrah) who also happened to be a tax collector, all of a sudden and out of the blue deny the giving of Zakat and reject that it's got anything to do with Islam. This is something that is absolutely and completely clear. It's like shooting yourself in the foot intentionally and knowingly.

This is our perspective that during the Prophet's pbuh time certain companions were given the role of tax collectors. Their duty and job was to collect the money of Zakat given by people of their tribe/clan/area/town and were given the authority to use that money according to their initiative where they deemed necessary within their community.

Will continue.