What should our belief be about yazeed?

[Optimus Prime]

@ imam ali Again u r relying on the false facts of the history. Yazeed was in his darul khilafa damascus which was about 700 miles from karbala. The incident took place in just one day. Back then there was no radio contact or high speed vehicles.

I want you to respond to these questions:

what was the age of Zain ul Abideen at that time and why did the "yazidis" spare him?
How many male members of Hussaini carvan came out alive of karbala?
What was the age of Sakina Ra at that time and why did she marry in a ummavi family laters?
Why did Hazrat zainab Ra decide to live in the same city in which yazid was living after the accident of karbala?
what was the total number of people with Hussain Ra? From where this "72" figure came?

How do you know they're false facts? Please explain and elaborate, kindly. Your turn to answer a question or two. You're evading my point about who he selected to handle the situation, as though it is irrelevant?

[Husayn]

Al-Husayn (ra) did not fight "Yazid's forces" in Karbala - he fought the miscreants of Ahlul Kufa who betrayed him and murdered his cousin (Muslim ibn 'Aqeel).

I believe that Yazid would have much preferred al-Husayn (ra) alive and either pledging bay'a or off in some distant land, or fighting on the frontlines against the Byzantines (which al-Husayn (ra) offered to do).

Ibn Ziyad refused this, because he felt that his power would be undermined if he let al-Husayn (ra) go - ofcourse he was convinced of this by Ahlul Kufa.

Can you blame Yazid for the actions of Ahlul Kufa? I personally believe that unless we have explicit authentic proof that Yazid ordered his killing, laying the blood of al-Husayn (ra) at his feet based on mere conjecture is a very serious charge that people should avoid.

[Invoker]

@ imam ali Again u r relying on the false facts of the history. Yazeed was in his darul khilafa damascus which was about 700 miles from karbala. The incident took place in just one day. Back then there was no radio contact or high speed vehicles.

I want you to respond to these questions:

what was the age of Zain ul Abideen at that time and why did the "yazidis" spare him?
How many male members of Hussaini carvan came out alive of karbala?
What was the age of Sakina Ra at that time and why did she marry in a ummavi family laters?
Why did Hazrat zainab Ra decide to live in the same city in which yazid was living after the accident of karbala?
what was the total number of people with Hussain Ra? From where this "72" figure came?

How do you know they're false facts? Please explain and elaborate, kindly. Your turn to answer a question or two. You're evading my point about who he selected to handle the situation, as though it is irrelevant?

Because the tragedy of karbala was first written by Abu mukhanaf loot bin yahya who was a shia.

& what troubles me more is that why 3500 sahabas didnt revolt against yazeed after Hussayns death?

Why did Hazrat zainab Ra decide to live in the same city in which yazid was living after the accident of karbala?

Why was Zainul abideen spared & all the  rest killed?

[Invoker]

Al-Husayn (ra) did not fight "Yazid's forces" in Karbala - he fought the miscreants of Ahlul Kufa who betrayed him and murdered his cousin (Muslim ibn 'Aqeel).

I believe that Yazid would have much preferred al-Husayn (ra) alive and either pledging bay'a or off in some distant land, or fighting on the frontlines against the Byzantines (which al-Husayn (ra) offered to do).


Ibn Ziyad refused this, because he felt that his power would be undermined if he let al-Husayn (ra) go - ofcourse he was convinced of this by Ahlul Kufa.

Can you blame Yazid for the actions of Ahlul Kufa? I personally believe that unless we have explicit authentic proof that Yazid ordered his killing, laying the blood of al-Husayn (ra) at his feet based on mere conjecture is a very serious charge that people should avoid.

Exactly. Why would yazeed kill the grandson of the Holy Prophet & shoot himself in the foot? alot of myths have been included in the story of karbala so we need some filtration.

[Hani]

Yazeed is a prick because he was, among other things:

1. The killer of al-Husayn (ra)
2. An alcoholic
3. Corrupt
4. Illegitimate ruler (it was supposed to go to al-Hassan)

As for who first recorded the incident of Karbala, I do not know.

He was not the killer of husayn. The kufans were.

by calling him an alcoholic & corrupt u not only insult Sayyidna Ameer muawiya who raised such a child like that but u also insult the 3500 sahabas who were living at that time & paid allegiance to yazeed & yes that includes the Abdullah bin Umar.

& i now recommend u to find out who first wrote the incident of karbala.

`abdullah bin al zubayr as i recall accused him of being an alcoholic.

[Hani]

Hani, having said all that, but do you not agree because of Yazid's decision making in terms who he selected to handle the situation at Kufa it resulted in the killing of Hussain (RA)?

Thus he is also partly to blame.

obviously he's to blame directly for it.

[Optimus Prime]

Hani, having said all that, but do you not agree because of Yazid's decision making in terms who he selected to handle the situation at Kufa it resulted in the killing of Hussain (RA)?

Thus he is also partly to blame.

obviously he's to blame directly for it.

There you go.

[Optimus Prime]

Because the tragedy of karbala was first written by Abu mukhanaf loot bin yahya who was a shia.

& what troubles me more is that why 3500 sahabas didnt revolt against yazeed after Hussayns death?

Why did Hazrat zainab Ra decide to live in the same city in which yazid was living after the accident of karbala?

Why was Zainul abideen spared & all the  rest killed?

Read my earlier post again, and understand where I read up the story of Karbala.

3500 companions alive 50 years after the Prophet (SAW)? Where'd you get that figure from?

Ali ibn Hussain (RA) was sick in the tent, and therefore was unable plus denied entry on the Battlefield. I believe he was about 18/19 years of age at that time.

Sakina, was a young child at the time, and the ones who attacked him or carried out the knock-out blow are the ultimate asssiains no doubt, but it was ibn Ziyad who replace the gentle fella' Numan ibn Bishr, why? He had a sound reputation, so why did Yazid send ibn Ziyad to boot him out and take charge? So, they could have a cold drink together? He's responsible for the death of Muslim ibn Aqeel (RA) who refuse to cooperate or was it a ghost who shoved him off the edge of the tower? I'm sure it was his cronies.

It was ibn Ziyad calling the shots then, and who commanded the army to block Hussain (RA) from entering calling the shots. Since he was too pig-headed to accept one of the conditions Hussain (RA) forward it resulted in war, so he's to blame for the death of all the members of Ahlul Bhait (RA).  Thus by extension Yazid also takes a share of the blame for appointing him to begin with.

[Husayn]

obviously he's to blame directly for it.

If we are going to use that logic, then Mua'wiyah was also responsible for al-Husayn (ra)'s death. And then 'Umar (ra) was responsible because he appointed Mu'awiyah. And then Abu Bakr (ra) was responsible for recommending 'Umar (ra). And then Rasul Allah (ra) was responsible for giving Abu Bakr (ra) such a high status.

Yazid had no way of knowing what Ibn Ziyad would do.

Unless he gave him a direct order, you cannot make him directly responsible for al-Husayn (ra)'s death.

[Optimus Prime]

obviously he's to blame directly for it.

If we are going to use that logic, then Mua'wiyah was also responsible for al-Husayn (ra)'s death. And then 'Umar (ra) was responsible because he appointed Mu'awiyah. And then Abu Bakr (ra) was responsible for recommending 'Umar (ra). And then Rasul Allah (ra) was responsible for giving Abu Bakr (ra) such a high status.

Yazid had no way of knowing what Ibn Ziyad would do.

Unless he gave him a direct order, you cannot make him directly responsible for al-Husayn (ra)'s death.

Brother, Husayn, I don't think Hani means Yazid is to blame that way, but ibn Ziyad had a reputation for being a bit of an aggressive brute, and wasn't exactly the diplomatic type.

Yazid, for obvious reasons sent a dicating tryant to get the job done swiftly which was to stop Hussain (RA) from accomplishing his mission.

I'm not saying Yazid sent him there to kill Hussain (RA), no, but he was obviously overly concerned of his throne.

[Invoker]

@imam ali


Yes, i once read in a book where the writer mentioned the possibility of this figure. Why r u amazed by 3500? those who were young when the Prophet died may have survived.  They also count among the companions.

The way Ibn saad and his companions have been sketched in Maqtal e Hussain (by abu mukhanaf), it seems hard to accept that they left a 24 year old guy just cz he was ill. They killed ali asghar ibn hussain didnt they?  who was just six months old! same goes for sakina.

 Again u mention the facts as it was a conversation on the radio chatter. Remember yazeed was 700 miles away form karbala.

[Optimus Prime]

@imam ali


Yes, i once read in a book where the writer mentioned the possibility of this figure. Why r u amazed by 3500? those who were young when the Prophet died may have survived.  They also count among the companions.

The way Ibn saad and his companions have been sketched in Maqtal e Hussain (by abu mukhanaf), it seems hard to accept that they left a 24 year old guy just cz he was ill. They killed ali asghar ibn hussain didnt they?  who was just six months old! same goes for sakina.

 Again u mention the facts as it was a conversation on the radio chatter. Remember yazeed was 700 miles away form karbala.

I didn't realise or read Sakina (RA) was also murdered.

Again, I didn't read upon Karbala by reading that source, but from ibn Kathir and Hajr (RA). I made this clear in my third post.

No, like I said (again) ibn Ziyad was calling the shots once arrived in Kufa, but he was sent with a simple instruction from Yazid to prevent Hussain (RA) from entering Kufa and becoming leader of the Kufans. He (ibn Ziyad) dealt with the entire episode dismally and hence many lost their lives.

Shimr, Umar ibn Sa'ad, Kufans who chickened out and was hiding in their homes are the real villains, but Yazid is not exempt entirely. I hope that's clear. This is my position, and many other Sunni scholars I know.

Allah (SWT) knows best.

[Suleiman]

Yazeed didn't bring the killers to justice either...

[Invoker]

obviously he's to blame directly for it.

If we are going to use that logic, then Mua'wiyah was also responsible for al-Husayn (ra)'s death. And then 'Umar (ra) was responsible because he appointed Mu'awiyah. And then Abu Bakr (ra) was responsible for recommending 'Umar (ra). And then Rasul Allah (ra) was responsible for giving Abu Bakr (ra) such a high status.

Yazid had no way of knowing what Ibn Ziyad would do.

Unless he gave him a direct order, you cannot make him directly responsible for al-Husayn (ra)'s death.

Brother, Husayn, I don't think Hani means Yazid is to blame that way, but ibn Ziyad had a reputation for being a bit of an aggressive brute, and wasn't exactly the diplomatic type.

Yazid, for obvious reasons sent a dicating tryant to get the job done swiftly which was to stop Hussain (RA) from accomplishing his mission.

I'm not saying Yazid sent him there to kill Hussain (RA), no, but he was obviously overly concerned of his throne.

It is not proved from sunni sources that ibn ziyad was ibn ziyad was aggressive or brutal.


As for the character of Ibn ziyad we read in Sahih Muslim:


Ubaidullah b Ziyad visited Ma'qil b. Yasir al-Muzani in his last iliness. Ma'qil said (to him): I am narrating to you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). If I knew that I am to survive this illness. I would, not narrate it to you. I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: If God appointed anyone ruler over a people and he died while he was still treacherous to his people, God would forbid his entry into Paradise. Ibn Ziyad asked: Why didn't you narrate this tradition to me before this day? Ma'qil reprimanded him and said: I did not narrate it to you or I was not going to narrate it to you.


Sahih Muslim Hadith 4501.


Its clear from the hadith that Ibn ziyad was not a hot headed guy or  aggressive as he is shown in the tale of karbala.

[Optimus Prime]

Yazeed didn't bring the killers to justice either...

That's a fair point.

[Invoker]

Yazeed didn't bring the killers to justice either...

the killers(kufans) were already brought to justice by the Hurr's men who were sent for the protection of Hussain's family. Ever wondered why the tents were burned? Thats because when the caravan stopped during a journey for a rest the three parties (hussayn's family, the kufans who were in the caravan & hurrs men) setup tents in a distance from each other. That was the turning point of the whole story. Hussain recieved the news that Muslim bin aqeel has been murdered in kufa. He decided to divert his caravan to damascus & talk to yazid. The kufans who were in the caravan panicked as the letters were to be presented to yazeed. So they were the one who burned the tents & killed hussains family. Hurrs men jumped in & than killed the kufans on the spot & oh yes the way to damascus is not from kufa but from karbala. So it is proved that Hussayn wanted to meet Yazid.

[Optimus Prime]

obviously he's to blame directly for it.

If we are going to use that logic, then Mua'wiyah was also responsible for al-Husayn (ra)'s death. And then 'Umar (ra) was responsible because he appointed Mu'awiyah. And then Abu Bakr (ra) was responsible for recommending 'Umar (ra). And then Rasul Allah (ra) was responsible for giving Abu Bakr (ra) such a high status.

Yazid had no way of knowing what Ibn Ziyad would do.

Unless he gave him a direct order, you cannot make him directly responsible for al-Husayn (ra)'s death.

Brother, Husayn, I don't think Hani means Yazid is to blame that way, but ibn Ziyad had a reputation for being a bit of an aggressive brute, and wasn't exactly the diplomatic type.

Yazid, for obvious reasons sent a dicating tryant to get the job done swiftly which was to stop Hussain (RA) from accomplishing his mission.

I'm not saying Yazid sent him there to kill Hussain (RA), no, but he was obviously overly concerned of his throne.

It is not proved from sunni sources that ibn ziyad was ibn ziyad was aggressive or brutal.


As for the character of Ibn ziyad we read in Sahih Muslim:


Ubaidullah b Ziyad visited Ma'qil b. Yasir al-Muzani in his last iliness. Ma'qil said (to him): I am narrating to you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). If I knew that I am to survive this illness. I would, not narrate it to you. I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: If God appointed anyone ruler over a people and he died while he was still treacherous to his people, God would forbid his entry into Paradise. Ibn Ziyad asked: Why didn't you narrate this tradition to me before this day? Ma'qil reprimanded him and said: I did not narrate it to you or I was not going to narrate it to you.


Sahih Muslim Hadith 4501.


Its clear from the hadith that Ibn ziyad was not a hot headed guy or  aggressive as he is shown in the tale of karbala.

It is clearly confirmed in Sunni sources he was exactly the sort of character. You clearly haven't researched ibn Kathir or Hajr's version have you? It carries more weight than this one Hadith collectively, but thanks for sharing.

Try hader, mate.

If you want to defend the people who contributed to the death of the Grandson of the Prophet (SAW) then go right ahead. As for me my position is clear, and I stand by the fact Yazid was indeed a first class prick who'll be judged according on the Day of Judement.

[Optimus Prime]

Yazeed didn't bring the killers to justice either...

the killers(kufans) were already brought to justice by the Hurr's men who were sent for the protection of Hussain's family. Ever wondered why the tents were burned? Thats because when the caravan stopped during a journey for a rest the three parties (hussayn's family, the kufans who were in the caravan & hurrs men) setup tents in a distance from each other. That was the turning point of the whole story. Hussain recieved the news that Muslim bin aqeel has been murdered in kufa. He decided to divert his caravan to damascus & talk to yazid. The kufans who were in the caravan panicked as the letters were to be presented to yazeed. So they were the one who burned the tents & killed hussains family. Hurrs men jumped in & than killed the kufans on the spot & oh yes the way to damascus is not from kufa but from karbala. So it is proved that Hussayn wanted to meet Yazid.

You still haven't stated from your version of events how Muslim ibn Aqeel died and who was at fault.

Yes, from the 3 conditions Hussain (RA) put forward to Umar ibn Sa'ad he was more comfortable ironing out matters with Yazid in a bid to protect his family instead of deliberating with ibn Ziyad?

I wonder why?

[Invoker]

& here is a very interesting hadith for all those who represent the Ahlus sunnah:


Narrated Ibn AN Nu' aim : A person
asked 'AbdullAh bin 'Umar whether a
Muhrim (a person in the state of Ihram)
could kill flies. I heard him saying (in reply),
"The people of Iraq are asking about the
killing of flies while they themselves
murdered the son of the daughter of Allah's
Messenger ;. And the Prophet saw said,
'They (i.e., Al-klasan and A]-Husain) are my
two sweet basils 1 in this world.'"

http://sunnah.com/bukhari/62/100

This hadith is pretty much clear as to who killed Hussaun ibn Ali [ra]. HAd yazid killed Husayn & his family Abdullah ibn Umar would have blamed him & not the people of  Iraq.

[Hani]

tell me when you want me to lock this topic, it's going nowhere fast.