Day of Ashura - Al-Islam.Org

[muslim720]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

Stumbled upon this interesting article on Al-Islam.org and I will share an excerpt from it.  I would like for my brothers and sisters to remember Imam Hassan (ra) making peace with Muawiya in the light of what Imam Hussain (ra), according to Al-Islam.org, said on the Day of Ashura.

"The illegitimate one, son of the illegitimate, has forced me to choose one of two things— either unsheathing of swords or ignominy.  Ignominy is impossible for us.  Allah, His Apostle, the (faithful) believers, the chaste laps, jealous noses (individuals), and noble souls (personalities) refuse for us to prefer obedience to the mean to the death of the honorable.  So, I am advancing towards them with this family despite the alliances formed by the enemies, their great numbers and the betrayal of the supporters."

https://www.al-islam.org/fr/node/37339

Ignominy can be defined as "public shame or disgrace".  So according to the "infallible" Imam (ra), ignominy or choosing to be obedient to a "kafir" is impossible.  However, the Prophet (saw) praised Imam Hassan (ra) specifically for making peace.

The travesty of abandoning Prophetic Sunnah and pursuing your own desires.

[Ijtaba]

Salaam alaykum wa rahmatullah,

Stumbled upon this interesting article on Al-Islam.org and I will share an excerpt from it.  I would like for my brothers and sisters to remember Imam Hassan (ra) making peace with Muawiya in the light of what Imam Hussain (ra), according to Al-Islam.org, said on the Day of Ashura.

"The illegitimate one, son of the illegitimate, has forced me to choose one of two things— either unsheathing of swords or ignominy.  Ignominy is impossible for us.  Allah, His Apostle, the (faithful) believers, the chaste laps, jealous noses (individuals), and noble souls (personalities) refuse for us to prefer obedience to the mean to the death of the honorable.  So, I am advancing towards them with this family despite the alliances formed by the enemies, their great numbers and the betrayal of the supporters."

https://www.al-islam.org/fr/node/37339

Ignominy can be defined as "public shame or disgrace".  So according to the "infallible" Imam (ra), ignominy or choosing to be obedient to a "kafir" is impossible.  However, the Prophet (saw) praised Imam Hassan (ra) specifically for making peace.

The travesty of abandoning Prophetic Sunnah and pursuing your own desires.

وعَلَيْكُمْ السَّلاَمُ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ

I want to know what do you think about Imam Hussain (a.s) decision of not making peace with Yazid unlike his (a.s) brother Imam Hassan (a.s) making peace with Muawiya?

Surely Imam Hassan's (a.s) peace treaty with Muawiya was praised by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) and thus an excellent example to be followed.

[muslim720]

وعَلَيْكُمْ السَّلاَمُ وَرَحْمَةُ اللهِ وَبَرَكَاتُهُ

I want to know what do you think about Imam Hussain (a.s) decision of not making peace with Yazid unlike his (a.s) brother Imam Hassan (a.s) making peace with Muawiya?

Brother, why are you, like many Shias, so keen on knowing our personal opinions on certain things?  Is it because the Sunnah stands against you and you try to find just about anything to latch on to by introducing personal opinions?

In our paradigm, both the brothers (ra) were right and upon haq; the one that made peace and the one that waged war.  However, within your own narrative, you have problems.  You have people claiming that Imam Hussain (ra) considered "obedience" to Yazid as ignominy.  Then what does that say about Imam Hassan (ra)?

According to your paradigm, they are both infallible.  Then how is one "infallible" negating the other in action?  And did Imam Hassan (ra) hand over the responsibility of the entire ummah to Muawiya, a kafir by your standards, out of infallibility or ijtihad?

Surely Imam Hassan's (a.s) peace treaty with Muawiya was praised by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) and thus an excellent example to be followed.

You misunderstood my post.  I was not saying that making peace was the example to be followed.  I was merely pointing out that among the two (ra), we see contradictory actions - one made peace, the other one fought gallantly - and the one who made peace was clearly praised by the Prophet (saw).  Yet, according to the Shia narrative, Imam Hassan (ra) making peace with Muawiya can be seen as "ignominy", as clearly spelled out by Al-Islam.org.  So in a haste to further their own desires, I'm afraid our Shia brothers have abandoned the Sunnah (which makes room for both actions, as contradictory as they may seem).

[Ijtaba]

Brother, why are you, like many Shias, so keen on knowing our personal opinions on certain things?  Is it because the Sunnah stands against you and you try to find just about anything to latch on to by introducing personal opinions?

To gain knowledge regarding how Ahlul Sunnah view certain things so that it may help better understand where we (Shias) agree with Ahlul Sunnah brothers and where we disagree with one another.

In our paradigm, both the brothers (ra) were right and upon haq; the one that made peace and the one that waged war. 

Its good to know that we both agree that both brothers (a.s) were right and upon Haq.

However, within your own narrative, you have problems.  You have people claiming that Imam Hussain (ra) considered "obedience" to Yazid as ignominy.  Then what does that say about Imam Hassan (ra)?

Please read the following article of TS on Yazeed to know what kind of person Yazeed was:
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/12/31/yazeed-war-people-madinah-makkah/

Brother, there is hadith in Sahih Bukhari regarding People of Madinah:

Narrated Sa`d:

I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "None plots against the people of Medina but that he will be dissolved (destroyed) like the salt is dissolved in water."

Reference :

Sahih al-Bukhari 1877 (this hadith is narrated under the Chapter: Sin of that person who harms the people of Al-Madina)
In-book reference : Book 29, Hadith 11
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 3, Book 30, Hadith 101

Do you still think that Yazeed is a person who should be given Bayah by Muslims?

According to your paradigm, they are both infallible.  Then how is one "infallible" negating the other in action?  And did Imam Hassan (ra) hand over the responsibility of the entire ummah to Muawiya, a kafir by your standards, out of infallibility or ijtihad?

We don't believe Muawiya was a kafir but what we Shias believe is that Muawiya was a hypocrite & a Nasibi because ruler of Muslims should be a Muslim as Kafir (disbeliever) cannot be made a Ruler of Muslims.

You misunderstood my post. I was not saying that making peace was the example to be followed.  I was merely pointing out that among the two (ra), we see contradictory actions - one made peace, the other one fought gallantly - and the one who made peace was clearly praised by the Prophet (saw).  Yet, according to the Shia narrative, Imam Hassan (ra) making peace with Muawiya can be seen as "ignominy", as clearly spelled out by Al-Islam.org.  So in a haste to further their own desires, I'm afraid our Shia brothers have abandoned the Sunnah (which makes room for both actions, as contradictory as they may seem).

Nowhere do we Shias believe Imam Hassan (a.s) making peace treaty with Muawiya as "ignominy" whereas giving bayah to Yazeed is viewed as "ignominy" by Shias (refer to the article of TS on Yazeed's war on People of Madinah)

[muslim720]

To gain knowledge regarding how Ahlul Sunnah view certain things so that it may help better understand where we (Shias) agree with Ahlul Sunnah brothers and where we disagree with one another.

Our lenses are Sunnah, not our own opinions or what we "think".  I have said this before and I'll say it again; I've seen brothers at ShiaChat (way back when) criticize a Shia hadith which was about 90 - 95% sahih according to Shia standards only because it did not fare well with their (limited) logic and intellect.

Its good to know that we both agree that both brothers (a.s) were right and upon Haq.

I pity the one who thought otherwise regarding us.

Please read the following article of TS on Yazeed to know what kind of person Yazeed was:
http://www.twelvershia.net/2017/12/31/yazeed-war-people-madinah-makkah/

Brother, there is hadith in Sahih Bukhari regarding People of Madinah:

Narrated Sa`d:

I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, "None plots against the people of Medina but that he will be dissolved (destroyed) like the salt is dissolved in water."

Reference :

Sahih al-Bukhari 1877 (this hadith is narrated under the Chapter: Sin of that person who harms the people of Al-Madina)
In-book reference : Book 29, Hadith 11
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 3, Book 30, Hadith 101

Do you still think that Yazeed is a person who should be given Bayah by Muslims?

May Allah (swt) bless Adnan Rashid for his knowledge, manners and patience.  I watched his most recent discussion with Raza and Syed Ali at Speakers Corner and I will repeat what I learned from him.  Yazeed took bayah from people by force; it was nothing like what had preceded before.  The other point he made, since you like to know what we think (personally), is that it is hard for him (Adnan) to imagine any person entering Jannah if he had a role to play in killing Imam Hussain (ra).  I am of the same line of thinking.  Insha'Allah that answers your question of whether Yazeed was someone who should be given bayah.

My question to you is this: how is giving bayah to Muawiya any different than giving bayah to Yazeed?  An "infallible" Imam (ra) forsakes his Imamah and trusts a "hypocrite and Nasibi" (as your words will confirm in due time) with the affairs of the believers.  How is this acting in accordance to "infallibility"?  How can such an action be seen as haq?

We don't believe Muawiya was a kafir but what we Shias believe is that Muawiya was a hypocrite & a Nasibi because ruler of Muslims should be a Muslim as Kafir (disbeliever) cannot be made a Ruler of Muslims.

Whoa, what?  Don't you believe that a nasibi is worse than a kafir?

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri says about a “Nasibi” in al-Anwar al-Nu`maniyya [2:306]:
“What is reported is that he is worse than the Jew, Christian and the Magian; and he is an impure kafir by the unanimity of the scholars of Shi`a Imamiyya ridwanullahi `alayhim; and what the majority of scholars have opined is that what is meant by nasb [i.e., the trait that makes one Nasibi] is enmity for the progeny of Muhammad sallallahu `alayhi wasallam.”

Read the rest of the "praises" for Nawaasib here: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/enemies-and-haters-of-ahlelbayt-according-to-shias/

Nowhere do we Shias believe Imam Hassan (a.s) making peace treaty with Muawiya as "ignominy" whereas giving bayah to Yazeed is viewed as "ignominy" by Shias (refer to the article of TS on Yazeed's war on People of Madinah)

So giving bayah to a nasibi (Muawiya) is not ignominy - although Al-Islam.org clearly alludes to it - but giving bayah to a kafir (Yazeed) is ignominy?!  This while we know that a nasibi is worse than a kafir. 

Never a dull moment, my brother

[Ijtaba]

Our lenses are Sunnah, not our own opinions or what we "think".  I have said this before and I'll say it again; I've seen brothers at ShiaChat (way back when) criticize a Shia hadith which was about 90 - 95% sahih according to Shia standards only because it did not fare well with their (limited) logic and intellect.

Sunnah prevails over logic and intellect.

May Allah (swt) bless Adnan Rashid for his knowledge, manners and patience.  I watched his most recent discussion with Raza and Syed Ali at Speakers Corner and I will repeat what I learned from him.  Yazeed took bayah from people by force; it was nothing like what had preceded before.  The other point he made, since you like to know what we think (personally), is that it is hard for him (Adnan) to imagine any person entering Jannah if he had a role to play in killing Imam Hussain (ra).  I am of the same line of thinking.  Insha'Allah that answers your question of whether Yazeed was someone who should be given bayah.

My question to you is this: how is giving bayah to Muawiya any different than giving bayah to Yazeed?  An "infallible" Imam (ra) forsakes his Imamah and trusts a "hypocrite and Nasibi" (as your words will confirm in due time) with the affairs of the believers.  How is this acting in accordance to "infallibility"?  How can such an action be seen as haq?

After taking bayah from people by force and becoming Caliph of Muslims... the new ruler Yazeed decided to wage war against People of Makkah and Madinah. May I know was this decision (by Yazeed) of fighting People of Makkah and Madinah in accordance with the laws of ALLAH (SWT)?

Imam Hussain (a.s) knew that Yazeed if given ruler-ship would not act in accordance with the laws of ALLAH (SWT)... it was for this reason that Imam Hussain (a.s) avoided giving pledge of allegiance to Yazeed.

Whoa, what?  Don't you believe that a nasibi is worse than a kafir?

Ni`matullah al-Jaza’iri says about a “Nasibi” in al-Anwar al-Nu`maniyya [2:306]:
“What is reported is that he is worse than the Jew, Christian and the Magian; and he is an impure kafir by the unanimity of the scholars of Shi`a Imamiyya ridwanullahi `alayhim; and what the majority of scholars have opined is that what is meant by nasb [i.e., the trait that makes one Nasibi] is enmity for the progeny of Muhammad sallallahu `alayhi wasallam.”

Read the rest of the "praises" for Nawaasib here: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2011/10/07/enemies-and-haters-of-ahlelbayt-according-to-shias/

No doubt, I do believe that a nasibi is worse than a kafir.

So giving bayah to a nasibi (Muawiya) is not ignominy - although Al-Islam.org clearly alludes to it - but giving bayah to a kafir (Yazeed) is ignominy?!  This while we know that a nasibi is worse than a kafir. 

Never a dull moment, my brother

It is well-known fact which both Sunnis and Shias agree that Imam Hassan (a.s) made peace treaty with Muawiya and Imam Hussain (a.s) never gave bayah to Yazeed as well as both Sunnis and Shias agree that both Brothers (a.s) were right and upon Haq.

Now I ask you a question: Why did Imam Hussain (a.s) avoid giving bayah to Yazeed when Yazeed sent governor of Madinah, Waleed bin Utbah to take bayah from Imam Hussain (a.s)?

[muslim720]

Sunnah prevails over logic and intellect.

This just isn't true in case of Shia Islam, my brother.  Go to ShiaChat and see the number of narrations that are weakened because it does not sit well with some "keyboard scholar's" knowledge.

After taking bayah from people by force and becoming Caliph of Muslims... the new ruler Yazeed decided to wage war against People of Makkah and Madinah. May I know was this decision (by Yazeed) of fighting People of Makkah and Madinah in accordance with the laws of ALLAH (SWT)?

What does this have to do with anything?

Imam Hussain (a.s) knew that Yazeed if given ruler-ship would not act in accordance with the laws of ALLAH (SWT)... it was for this reason that Imam Hussain (a.s) avoided giving pledge of allegiance to Yazeed.

Imam Hussain (ra) wasn't the only one to withhold giving bayah to Yazeed, you understand?

No doubt, I do believe that a nasibi is worse than a kafir.

EXACTLY!  Now explain why Imam Hassan (ra) accepted "ignominy" and trusted a "hypocrite and nasibi" - twice as bad as a kafir - with the affairs of Muslims and yet remain upon haqq?

It is well-known fact which both Sunnis and Shias agree that Imam Hassan (a.s) made peace treaty with Muawiya and Imam Hussain (a.s) never gave bayah to Yazeed as well as both Sunnis and Shias agree that both Brothers (a.s) were right and upon Haq.

Not within your paradigm!  How can handing your "Divinely Ordained Leadership" over to a "hypocrite and nasibi" be in accordance to being upon haq?  A "hypocrite and nasibi" being worse than a kafir, how is making peace with a "hypocrite and nasibi" being upon haq when the younger brother declares obedience to a kafir (not as bad as a hypocrite and nasibi) an "ignominy"?

Now I ask you a question: Why did Imam Hussain (a.s) avoid giving bayah to Yazeed when Yazeed sent governor of Madinah, Waleed bin Utbah to take bayah from Imam Hussain (a.s)?

For the same reason Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) did not give bayah to Yazeed.

I would appreciate it if you can answer my questions regarding how Imam Hassan (ra) was upon haq.  Gracias!

[Ijtaba]

This just isn't true in case of Shia Islam, my brother.  Go to ShiaChat and see the number of narrations that are weakened because it does not sit well with some "keyboard scholar's" knowledge.

In Shia Islam, Sunnah is followed.

What does this have to do with anything?

Because it showed that on assuming power Yazeed acted contrary to the commandments of ALLAH (SWT) - thus justifying that he is not to be given bayah as he is not eligible to become Ruler of Muslims.

Imam Hussain (ra) wasn't the only one to withhold giving bayah to Yazeed, you understand?

Bayah of Imam Hussain (a.s) would had legitimize the rule of Yazeed even if others had not given bayah before Imam (a.s).

EXACTLY!  Now explain why Imam Hassan (ra) accepted "ignominy" and trusted a "hypocrite and nasibi" - twice as bad as a kafir - with the affairs of Muslims and yet remain upon haqq?

Imam Hassan (a.s) never accepted "ignominy" and Imam (a.s) making peace treaty was an act which was praised by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) himself

Not within your paradigm!  How can handing your "Divinely Ordained Leadership" over to a "hypocrite and nasibi" be in accordance to being upon haq?  A "hypocrite and nasibi" being worse than a kafir, how is making peace with a "hypocrite and nasibi" being upon haq when the younger brother declares obedience to a kafir (not as bad as a hypocrite and nasibi) an "ignominy"?

"Divinely Ordained Leadership" is not something which could be handed over to someone by people. It is Only ALLAH (SWT) who chooses and gives. Can Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) give his Nubuwwah to Nimrod (l.a) or can Nabi Musa (a.s) give his Nubuwwah to Firawn (l.a)? It is Only ALLAH (SWT) who gives Nubuwwah, Risalah and Imamah to whomsoever HE (SWT) Wills.

Imam Hassan (a.s) did not hand his Imamat to Muawiya but he (a.s) only handed the ruler-ship to Muawiya in order to make peace between Muslims and save Islam from internal war and conflict which would had weakened the religion.

Imam Hassan (a.s) nor Imam Ali (a.s) nor Imam Hussain (a.s) had any interest in ruler-ship neither did they seek ruler-ship. Seekers of ruler-ship are disliked by ALLAH (SWT) and HIS (SWT) Messenger (s.a.w.w) and they (seekers) would be Judged by ALLAH (SWT) Harshly.

For the same reason Abdullah ibn Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubayr and Abdullah ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) did not give bayah to Yazeed.

And may I know that reason?

I think that particular reason was not strong enough for Abdullah ibn Umar as he not only gave bayah to Yazeed but cited Prophet's (s.a.w.w) hadith (of betrayer on the day of Judgement) to those people who had dethroned Yazeed and seperated himself from those people who dethroned Yazeed.

I would appreciate it if you can answer my questions regarding how Imam Hassan (ra) was upon haq.  Gracias!

Imam Hassan (a.s) making peace treaty was praised by Prophet (s.a.w.w) himself which shows that Imam Hassan (a.s) was upon Haq.

[muslim720]

In Shia Islam, Sunnah is followed.

Really?  Is that why you also have annual commemorations of Imam Hassan (ra) making peace with Muawiya?  Oh wait, you don't have such a day. 

Because it showed that on assuming power Yazeed acted contrary to the commandments of ALLAH (SWT) - thus justifying that he is not to be given bayah as he is not eligible to become Ruler of Muslims.

I'm fine with that.

Bayah of Imam Hussain (a.s) would had legitimize the rule of Yazeed even if others had not given bayah before Imam (a.s).

....and bayah of Imam Hassan (ra) did not legitimize the rule of Muawiya, a "hypocrite and nasibi" (according to you)?  Why was legitimizing the rule of a kafir (Yazeed) worse than legitimizing the rule of a "hypocrite and nasibi" (Muawiya)?

Imam Hassan (a.s) never accepted "ignominy" and Imam (a.s) making peace treaty was an act which was praised by the Prophet (s.a.w.w) himself

The Prophet (saw) praised Imam Hassan (ra) as per the authentic sunnah not as per your madhhab.  Is there praise for Imam Hassan (ra) within your madhhab for handing over his "Divinely Ordained Leadership" to a "hypocrite and nasibi"?  Does it rationally make sense for an Imam (ra) to forsake his "Divinely Ordained" responsibilities and trust a "hypocrite and nasibi" with it?

As I alluded to in my opening post, without authentic Sunnah, you're lost.  You can either accept that Imam Hassan (ra) chose "ignominy" while Imam Hussain (ra) fought valiantly OR you have to praise Imam Hassan (ra) and reprimand Imam Hussain (ra) for disregarding his older brother's (ra) legacy and going about things his own way (naudhubillah).

"Divinely Ordained Leadership" is not something which could be handed over to someone by people. It is Only ALLAH (SWT) who chooses and gives. Can Nabi Ibrahim (a.s) give his Nubuwwah to Nimrod (l.a) or can Nabi Musa (a.s) give his Nubuwwah to Firawn (l.a)? It is Only ALLAH (SWT) who gives Nubuwwah, Risalah and Imamah to whomsoever HE (SWT) Wills.

You cannot bring Prophethood in a conversation to support Imamah.  The former is established by Qur'an and Sunnah; the latter is alien to both the Qur'an and Sunnah.  It is a made up concept and its' rules are too.  As far as actions are concerned, Imam Hassan (ra) did concede power to Muawiya.

Imam Hassan (a.s) did not hand his Imamat to Muawiya but he (a.s) only handed the ruler-ship to Muawiya in order to make peace between Muslims and save Islam from internal war and conflict which would had weakened the religion.

Again, that is the authentic Sunnah, not your narrative; you keep saying it because I subscribe to authentic Sunnah.  As for as you are concerned, the action of Imam Hassan (ra) flies in the face of everything your madhhab preaches and is quite discomforting for Shias.  Don't you find it problematic that when Saqifah happened, Shias say Imam Ali (ra) remained silent due to lack of power (although he had control over atoms) but when Imam Hassan (ra) had power, he gave it up.  Then, Imam Hussain (ra), with only 72 people, stood up to Yazeed.

Imam Hassan (a.s) nor Imam Ali (a.s) nor Imam Hussain (a.s) had any interest in ruler-ship neither did they seek ruler-ship. Seekers of ruler-ship are disliked by ALLAH (SWT) and HIS (SWT) Messenger (s.a.w.w) and they (seekers) would be Judged by ALLAH (SWT) Harshly.

Imam Ali (ra) did not have any interest in rulership?  Then what was the Sermon of Shiqshiqiyah about?  Playing harps and singing hymns?

I think that particular reason was not strong enough for Abdullah ibn Umar as he not only gave bayah to Yazeed but cited Prophet's (s.a.w.w) hadith (of betrayer on the day of Judgement) to those people who had dethroned Yazeed and seperated himself from those people who dethroned Yazeed.

Raza brought up the same point to brother Adnan Rashid and got schooled.  Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) was only advising a group of people to not withdraw their bayah after they had already pledged allegiance to Yazeed.  Please read the entire narration and you'll find the reason why Abdullah ibn Umar (ra) suggested them not to withdraw their bayah or go against Yazeed.

And bear in mind that this was the same Abdullah Ibn Umar (ra) who rode to meet Imam Hussain (ra) and begged him not to go to Kufa; he even cried while beseeching Imam Hussain (ra) to change his mind.

Imam Hassan (a.s) making peace treaty was praised by Prophet (s.a.w.w) himself which shows that Imam Hassan (a.s) was upon Haq.

Is it praiseworthy, according to you, to deliver your "Divinely Ordained Leadership" into the hands of a "hypocite and nasibi"?  You keep running away from this point while equating it to prophethood when it has nothing to do with it.