TwelverShia.net Forum
Sunni Shia Discussion Forum => Sahabah-AhlulBayt => Topic started by: Zlatan Ibrahimovic on October 10, 2017, 12:08:19 PM
-
I believe this is the most correct possible explaination to why Imam Al-Husayn (as) and his companions (rah) decided to sacrifice themselves for the sake of Allah (swt).
والصحيح أن يمثل للتقية المحرمة بالقتل كما مر ، وبما إذا كانت المفسدة المترتبة على فعل التقيّة أشد وأعظم من المفسدة المترتبة على تركها ، أو كانت المصلحة في ترك التقيّة أعظم من المصلحة المترتبة على فعلها ، كما إذا علم بأنه إن عمل بالتقية ترتب عليه اضمحلال الحق واندراس الدين الحنيف وظهور الباطل وترويج الجبت والطاغوت ، وإذا ترك التقيّة ترتب عليه قتله فقط أو قتله مع جماعة آخرين ، ولا إشكال حينئذ في أن الواجب ترك العمل بالتقية وتوطين النفس للقتل ، لأن المفسدة الناشئة عن التقيّة أعظم وأشد من مفسدة قتله .
نعم ، ربما تكون المفسدة في قتله أعظم وأكثر ، كما إذا كان العامل بالتقية ممن يترتب على حياته ترويج الحق بعد الاندراس وإنجاء المؤمنين من المحن بعد الابتلاء ونحو ذلك ، ولكنه أمر آخر ، والتقيّة بما هي تقيّة متصفة بالحرمة في تلك الصورة كما عرفت . ولعله من هنا أقدم الحسين (سلام الله وصلواته عليه) وأصحابه (رضوان الله عليهم) لقتال يزيد بن معاوية وعرضوا أنفسهم للشهادة وتركوا التقيّة عن يزيد ، وكذا بعض أصحاب أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) بل بعض علمائنا الأبرار (قدس الله أرواحهم) وجزاهم عن الاسلام خيراً كالشهيدين وغيرهما .
-
Salam,
I'm assuming you understand the meaning of the text you pasted above, if you do then know that all it's saying is the following, I summarize:
"Sometimes sticking to Taqiyyah causes more harm to the religion, thus Husayn and his companions left Taqiyyah to save religion from perishing."
This is the same weak stuff you guys were repeating in the other threads, it's not an actual answer as to what needed saving and how it was saved.
-
Salam,
I'm assuming you understand the meaning of the text you pasted above, if you do then know that all it's saying is the following, I summarize:
"Sometimes sticking to Taqiyyah causes more harm to the religion, thus Husayn and his companions left Taqiyyah to save religion from perishing."
This is the same weak stuff you guys were repeating in the other threads, it's not an actual answer as to what needed saving and how it was saved.
There is no "save religion from perishing". This is something some Shi'a claim and it is debatable, and they look to the fact that the death of Imam Al-Husayn (as) caused revolutions to occur and it shook the throne of Umayyah as proof of this, thereby reviving Islam, and it also caused the number of Shi'a to grow. I do not strongly agree to this point and I do not wish to defend it.
My argument is that Imam Al-Husayn (as) did not want to give bay'ah to Yazid (la) because giving bay'ah to him would cause batil, and fisq, and kufr, to be more open - because like I said, the difference between Yazid and the other tawagheet is that he is an open sinner and a kafir, while the others would at least publically show Islam. Imam Al-Husayn (as) would be giving him tacit approval, and so he wanted to do nahi an al munkar.
-
...the difference between Yazid and the other tawagheet is that he is an open sinner and a kafir, while the others would at least publically show Islam. Imam Al-Husayn (as) would be giving him tacit approval, and so he wanted to do nahi an al munkar.
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman were sinners who acted openly by usurping Ali's rights & acting against Allah's command (according to shia) and now youre saying they didnt do it openly, only yazid did. Nice, keep changing your view to suit the topic
-
...the difference between Yazid and the other tawagheet is that he is an open sinner and a kafir, while the others would at least publically show Islam. Imam Al-Husayn (as) would be giving him tacit approval, and so he wanted to do nahi an al munkar.
Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman were sinners who acted openly by usurping Ali's rights & acting against Allah's command (according to shia) and now youre saying they didnt do it openly, only yazid did. Nice, keep changing your view to suit the topic
You need to start keeping up. The three whom you mentioned were not acting in a manner which constitutes public kufr, but Yazid was.
-
Killing Al Zahra and taking the seat of the appointed caliph is not kufr?
Please prove kufr of Yazeed pre-Karbala, since your claim is about pre-Karbala.
-
Killing Al Zahra and taking the seat of the appointed caliph is not kufr?
Please prove kufr of Yazeed pre-Karbala, since your claim is about pre-Karbala.
I said public kufr, not just kufr in general. The first three did not display public kufr, their intentions for what they were doing was dunyawi as far I'm concerned.
Yazid was not displaying public kufr pre-Karbala, but Imam Al-Husayn (as) knew that pledging allegiance to him would give a tacit approval on public kufr and batil to be displayed and haqq to be silenced - which is a legitimate excuse to leave taqiyya as the Arabic above says.
-
Killing Al Zahra and taking the seat of the appointed caliph is not kufr?
Please prove kufr of Yazeed pre-Karbala, since your claim is about pre-Karbala.
I said public kufr, not just kufr in general. The first three did not display public kufr, their intentions for what they were doing was dunyawi as far I'm concerned.
Yazid was not displaying public kufr pre-Karbala but he was a public fasiq, but Imam Al-Husayn (as) knew that pledging allegiance to him would give a tacit approval on public kufr and batil to be displayed and haqq to be silenced - which is a legitimate excuse to leave taqiyya as the Arabic above says.
-
Also, I want to add, I'm of the people Imam Al-Husayn (as) was fighting were kafirs, as opposed to the ones who fought Imam Ali (as) previously for dunyawi reasons. Why? Because these guys were full-fledged nasibis.
Fighting them was for the purpose of ithaar al-haqq and martyrdom was the best way to do so.
-
As-Salam 'Aliekum,
My argument is that Imam Al-Husayn (as) did not want to give bay'ah to Yazid (la) because giving bay'ah to him would cause batil, and fisq, and kufr, to be more open - because like I said, the difference between Yazid and the other tawagheet is that he is an open sinner and a kafir, while the others would at least publically show Islam. Imam Al-Husayn (as) would be giving him tacit approval, and so he wanted to do nahi an al munkar.
According to the Imamiyah, Abu Bakr (ra) took Fadak, Umar (ra) was responsible of killing the unborn Mohsin and Fatima (raa), Uthman (ra) gave the ummah a Muharrif Quran with jumbled up verses, Mu'awiyah (ra) fought against Imam Ali (ra) and poisoned Imam Hasan (ra), Ayesha (ra) committed zina and betrayed the Prophet (saw)...how was any of this private? And what is the difference between Public and Private Kufr? Whilst approving that Imam Husayn (ra) was forbidding the evil in his actions at Kerbala - which is a praise for him, it is a mark against his brother and father (raa) before him as they gave tacit approval for the evil of those before Yazid.
You need to start keeping up. The three whom you mentioned were not acting in a manner which constitutes public kufr, but Yazid was.
Please give us evidence of Yazid's public Kufr; as for non-public Kufr of the other companions (ra) if the public didn't know about it how did you find out about it 1400 years later?
I said public kufr, not just kufr in general. The first three did not display public kufr, their intentions for what they were doing was dunyawi as far I'm concerned.
Again Public Kufr, how did you find out about their private kufr? Dunyawi? What do you mean by this? As far as I know, Kufr isn't broken into Dunyawi and Ruhaniyyah.
Yazid was not displaying public kufr pre-Karbala, but Imam Al-Husayn (as) knew that pledging allegiance to him would give a tacit approval on public kufr and batil to be displayed and haqq to be silenced - which is a legitimate excuse to leave taqiyya as the Arabic above says.
Eh? So why would Imam Husayn (ra) not give his bayah, according to you Muawiyah, Uthman, Umar, Abu Bakr (raa) also didn't display public kufr - hence why Imam Hasan and Imam Ali (raa) gave Bayah to them - please elaborate.
Also, I want to add, I'm of the people Imam Al-Husayn (as) was fighting were kafirs, as opposed to the ones who fought Imam Ali (as) previously for dunyawi reasons. Why? Because these guys were full-fledged nasibis.
Are you saying those Dunawayi reasons were not Kufr? If it is the same, what difference does it make? If not then you should pray for them instead of cursing them as Allah says: وَالَّذِينَ جَاءُوا مِن بَعْدِهِمْ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لَنَا وَلِإِخْوَانِنَا الَّذِينَ سَبَقُونَا بِالْإِيمَانِ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ فِي قُلُوبِنَا غِلًّا لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ رَءُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ
Ma' As-Salama.
-
come on, the more you answer the more it looks desperate.
Abu Bakr usurped imam rights, stole Fatima's wealth, Umar abused and killed their unborn baby, they changed quran, everything they did were act of kufr and done publicly (maybe except tahreef). That is what shia believe. And now you want to dance around and say yazid sin publicly but Abu Bakr didnt.
Everytime shia try to explain something, it only contradict their other explanation.
-
Also, I want to add, I'm of the people Imam Al-Husayn (as) was fighting were kafirs, as opposed to the ones who fought Imam Ali (as) previously for dunyawi reasons. Why? Because these guys were full-fledged nasibis.
Fighting them was for the purpose of ithaar al-haqq and martyrdom was the best way to do so.
No, they were Muslims despite their transgression.
May Allah (SWT) forgive them.
-
As-Salam 'Aliekum,
My argument is that Imam Al-Husayn (as) did not want to give bay'ah to Yazid (la) because giving bay'ah to him would cause batil, and fisq, and kufr, to be more open - because like I said, the difference between Yazid and the other tawagheet is that he is an open sinner and a kafir, while the others would at least publically show Islam. Imam Al-Husayn (as) would be giving him tacit approval, and so he wanted to do nahi an al munkar.
According to the Imamiyah, Abu Bakr (ra) took Fadak, Umar (ra) was responsible of killing the unborn Mohsin and Fatima (raa), Uthman (ra) gave the ummah a Muharrif Quran with jumbled up verses, Mu'awiyah (ra) fought against Imam Ali (ra) and poisoned Imam Hasan (ra), Ayesha (ra) committed zina and betrayed the Prophet (saw)...how was any of this private? And what is the difference between Public and Private Kufr? Whilst approving that Imam Husayn (ra) was forbidding the evil in his actions at Kerbala - which is a praise for him, it is a mark against his brother and father (raa) before him as they gave tacit approval for the evil of those before Yazid.
You need to start keeping up. The three whom you mentioned were not acting in a manner which constitutes public kufr, but Yazid was.
Please give us evidence of Yazid's public Kufr; as for non-public Kufr of the other companions (ra) if the public didn't know about it how did you find out about it 1400 years later?
I said public kufr, not just kufr in general. The first three did not display public kufr, their intentions for what they were doing was dunyawi as far I'm concerned.
Again Public Kufr, how did you find out about their private kufr? Dunyawi? What do you mean by this? As far as I know, Kufr isn't broken into Dunyawi and Ruhaniyyah.
Yazid was not displaying public kufr pre-Karbala, but Imam Al-Husayn (as) knew that pledging allegiance to him would give a tacit approval on public kufr and batil to be displayed and haqq to be silenced - which is a legitimate excuse to leave taqiyya as the Arabic above says.
Eh? So why would Imam Husayn (ra) not give his bayah, according to you Muawiyah, Uthman, Umar, Abu Bakr (raa) also didn't display public kufr - hence why Imam Hasan and Imam Ali (raa) gave Bayah to them - please elaborate.
Also, I want to add, I'm of the people Imam Al-Husayn (as) was fighting were kafirs, as opposed to the ones who fought Imam Ali (as) previously for dunyawi reasons. Why? Because these guys were full-fledged nasibis.
Are you saying those Dunawayi reasons were not Kufr? If it is the same, what difference does it make? If not then you should pray for them instead of cursing them as Allah says: وَالَّذِينَ جَاءُوا مِن بَعْدِهِمْ يَقُولُونَ رَبَّنَا اغْفِرْ لَنَا وَلِإِخْوَانِنَا الَّذِينَ سَبَقُونَا بِالْإِيمَانِ وَلَا تَجْعَلْ فِي قُلُوبِنَا غِلًّا لِّلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا رَبَّنَا إِنَّكَ رَءُوفٌ رَّحِيمٌ
Ma' As-Salama.
Wa Alaykum Al Salam
I can tell by your comment your knowledge of tashayyu is quite weak and by the way you talk I would assume your source of knowledge is TV shows and YouTube videos. It is a sad reality on this website, the only three people who actually have a fairly sound grasp of Shi'i views are Hani, Farid and Noor Al-Sunnah.
What I mean by public kufr is the act of deleting the face of Islam from the public sphere. An example of that, and it never happened, but just as a hypothetical example, if one of the Caliphs had brought back idol worship. That would be an example of instituting public kufr, and causing mass apostasy. I am of the opinion that the first three did what they did for the sake of power control - which is what I mean by dunyawi reasons. They did not attack the Ahlulbayt (as) and usurp their rights for religious reasons, they knew the Haqq and they knew they were angering Allah, but they just chose to disobey. Basically, they were lured by power. Now, the question is, were they kafir? This is a debate among Imami scholars and it is irrelevant to my discussion, because I am seperating public kufr from private kufr.
And your poor knowledge is displayed by you saying "Uthman gave the Ummah jumbled Verses and Aisha committed zina" as if these are concrete beliefs amongst all Shi'a. These are the beliefs of some Shi'a - both scholars and laymen. But they are not consensus views at all and not all Shi'a agree to it, once again your lack of knowledge is for all to see.
The difference between public and private kufr is the difference between the Earth and the sky. Public kufr affects the Ummah and has the potential to cause mass apostasy, private kufr is simply being a kafir and keeping it between yourself. There is a reason why the Sharia - both in Shi'i Fiqh and Sunni Fiqh - differentiates between someone announcing his apostasy and some who keeps it private. Another point which you seem to forget is that Nahi An Al Munkar is only wajib against sin if you see it, not if it is kept hidden. Imam Al-Husayn (as) therefore wanted to publicise haqq, as opposed to giving bay'ah to Yazid which would keep haqq hidden from the people.
Like I said the first three and Mu'awiyah would keep a public Islamic image, as opposed to Yazid who was an open fasiq and a kafir. There is a difference between them. Mu'awiyah as bad as he is, he would not sack Medina.
You asked for evidence of Yazid's public kufr: he displayed public nasibism, which is kufr according to us Shi'a, and he sacked Medina. These are 2 examples of Yazid's kufr. As for how do I know of other people's kufr, this is because I have hadiths which tell me what is kufr and what isn't. You are asking me as if there isn't a circular argument in every religion and sect lol.
And I do not understand your last point. Please elaborate.
Also, I want to add, I'm of the people Imam Al-Husayn (as) was fighting were kafirs, as opposed to the ones who fought Imam Ali (as) previously for dunyawi reasons. Why? Because these guys were full-fledged nasibis.
Fighting them was for the purpose of ithaar al-haqq and martyrdom was the best way to do so.
No, they were Muslims despite their transgression.
May Allah (SWT) forgive them.
No they are zanadiqa and whoever doesn't curse those people then may Allah curse him.
-
come on, the more you answer the more it looks desperate.
Abu Bakr usurped imam rights, stole Fatima's wealth, Umar abused and killed their unborn baby, they changed quran, everything they did were act of kufr and done publicly (maybe except tahreef). That is what shia believe. And now you want to dance around and say yazid sin publicly but Abu Bakr didnt.
Everytime shia try to explain something, it only contradict their other explanation.
Lol it is obvious you lack knowledge so why do you reply? You only expose your own ignorance. It is obvious that you have comprehension problems.
Whether those three are kafir or not, I am not debating that. The difference is they kept a public Islamic image, whilst Yazid didn't.
-
My argument is that Imam Al-Husayn (as) did not want to give bay'ah to Yazid (la) because giving bay'ah to him would cause batil, and fisq, and kufr, to be more open - because like I said, the difference between Yazid and the other tawagheet is that he is an open sinner and a kafir, while the others would at least publically show Islam. Imam Al-Husayn (as) would be giving him tacit approval, and so he wanted to do nahi an al munkar.
The below option given by Hussain(ra) destroys your myth from its base.
Al-Hussain attempts to leave Karbala by telling Omar bin Sa’ad and his men to give him three options (Maqtal Al-Hussain by Abi Mikhnaf, p. 102), “Allow me to return from where I came, or to put my hand in the hand of Yazeed and to let him judge what has happened between us, or send me to a Muslim borderline town.” Abu Mikhnaf states that this is according to the majority of the hadithists of his time. The three options that Al-Hussain gives is alluded to later on in a conversion with Al-Hurr bin Yazeed later on as well. (Maqtal Al-Hussain, Abi Mikhnaf. Page. 118).
And this is supported by a reliable hadeeth in Tareekh tabari:
فناشدهم الحسين الله والإسلام أن يسيروه إلى أمير المؤمنين فيضع يده في يده، فقالوا: لا إلا حكم ابن زياد
Al-Husain beseeched them by Allah and Islam to allow him to go to the Commander of the Believers and to put his hand onto his. They said, "No, Ibn Ziyad gets to decide what to do with you."( Tabari 3/1028).
-
@ Zlatan:
You asked for evidence of Yazid's public kufr: he displayed public nasibism, which is kufr according to us Shi'a, and he sacked Medina.
First of all, I'd like to thank you and all the other Shia brothers for taking part in this discussion. It seems that we are all getting closer and closer to understanding one another.
Brother, you have the option of not answering these questions. It is best to reflect silently than to give an irrational polemically-charged answer. It seems as though you are making excuses for the three caliphs even though we all know that according to Shiasm that they are Nawasib.
Secondly, both killing of Al-Hussain and attacking Madinah occurred AFTER Al-Hussain left for Kufa. You are arguing that Al-Hussain fought against his public kufur, so you cannot use examples of public kufur that occur after Al-Hussain left. You need to provide examples of kufur that caused Al-Hussain to make a move.
The reason though that such a thing is impossible is because Al-Hussain started to move on the very day that news got to Madinah that Mu'awiyah died. There was not enough time for Yazeed to establish his kufur.
So again, the apparent nature of Al-Hussain's action show that it was not a rebellion against one who would erase Islam. Please refer to the new article on the main site again.
-
Wa Alaykum Al Salam
I can tell by your comment your knowledge of tashayyu is quite weak and by the way you talk I would assume your source of knowledge is TV shows and YouTube videos. It is a sad reality on this website, the only three people who actually have a fairly sound grasp of Shi'i views are Hani, Farid and Noor Al-Sunnah.
As-Salam 'Aliekum, despite your ad homenim attacks, I am a recovering Ex-Shiite and count Syed Nakshawani as a personal friend of mine, but that's neither here nor there - my source of knowledge are family members and the books from the scholars that I have. I agree that Hani, Farid and Noor are exceptional in their understanding of Twelver Shiism - hence why people are abandoning Shiism, may Allah reward them and others like them.
What I mean by public kufr is the act of deleting the face of Islam from the public sphere. An example of that, and it never happened, but just as a hypothetical example, if one of the Caliphs had brought back idol worship. That would be an example of instituting public kufr, and causing mass apostasy. I am of the opinion that the first three did what they did for the sake of power control - which is what I mean by dunyawi reasons. They did not attack the Ahlulbayt (as) and usurp their rights for religious reasons, they knew the Haqq and they knew they were angering Allah, but they just chose to disobey. Basically, they were lured by power. Now, the question is, were they kafir? This is a debate among Imami scholars and it is irrelevant to my discussion, because I am seperating public kufr from private kufr.
There are narrations in Al-Kafi which state that the Ummah has apostasized en masse, except Miqdad, Salman and Abu Dhar - this is related in Al-Kafi, Bihar Al-Anwar, Safi's Tafsir and others - even if we include the period of time when others came back to Ali (ra) they number 20-30 individuals; so all the other people, including the wives and the close companions of Rasulallah (saw) all caused mass apostasy in that they didn't obey the greatest of the commandments of Allah, the Imamate of Ali (ra). Abu Bakr, Umar were lured by power? After the death of the prophet (saw) most of the tribes had rebelled and the Persians and Romans were getting ready to crush Islam, Abu Bakr (ra) saved Islam by his actions, and he took no worldly recompense for that. What power are you talking about? What did they leave behind and what did they gain from usurping the power from Ali (ra)? For you to state that they knew the Haqq and yet opposed it requires evidence, where did any of them state that Ali (ra) should be Khalifah, Fatima should have Fadak and obedience is to Ali and his sons (ra) - but we are going to oppose him anyway! As for whether they are Muslim or Kafir - I think it is a very important discussion because, if they are Muslims who erred then you should ask Allah to have mercy on them and not expose their sins to the world, secondly if they erred then Imamate can not be from the Usul Ad-Din as anyone who denies these cannot be a Muslim, one does not err on whether Allah is 1,2 or 3.
And your poor knowledge is displayed by you saying "Uthman gave the Ummah jumbled Verses and Aisha committed zina" as if these are concrete beliefs amongst all Shi'a. These are the beliefs of some Shi'a - both scholars and laymen. But they are not consensus views at all and not all Shi'a agree to it, once again your lack of knowledge is for all to see.
When did ijma' become an usul in the Imami school? Please give me a reference from a jurisprudential text that states ijma' is hujjah for the 12ers. To try and bat away these issues by saying that some Shia believe in such and such but I don't is a cop out - if you don't believe these things then why do you oppose/hate/make tabarra of those personalities?
The difference between public and private kufr is the difference between the Earth and the sky. Public kufr affects the Ummah and has the potential to cause mass apostasy, private kufr is simply being a kafir and keeping it between yourself. There is a reason why the Sharia - both in Shi'i Fiqh and Sunni Fiqh - differentiates between someone announcing his apostasy and some who keeps it private. Another point which you seem to forget is that Nahi An Al Munkar is only wajib against sin if you see it, not if it is kept hidden. Imam Al-Husayn (as) therefore wanted to publicise haqq, as opposed to giving bay'ah to Yazid which would keep haqq hidden from the people.
As I said previously according to your books the majority of the people who met and were taught by the prophet (saw) became murtad for rejecting Ali (ra) because of the actions of Abu Bakr and Umar (ra); hence this was public - if you believe that the Quran is distorted by Uthman (ra), then this was public, Aisha (ra) opposing Ali in a battle was public; Mu'awiya (ra) poisoning Hasan (ra) was adverse for the public and his opposition to Ali (ra) was public; they were motivated by Kufr and not Islam and the Ummah has sufferred as a result ergo public as per your definition of harming the ummah.
What was the sin of Yazid that Husayn opposed it?
Like I said the first three and Mu'awiyah would keep a public Islamic image, as opposed to Yazid who was an open fasiq and a kafir. There is a difference between them. Mu'awiyah as bad as he is, he would not sack Medina.
If Yazid was an open fasiq and kafir, like you say - please show us example of this kufr and fisq from pre-Kerbala which motivated the actions and stance of Husayn (ra) to be different from his father and brother (ra). Sacking of Medina was after Kerbala.
You asked for evidence of Yazid's public kufr: he displayed public nasibism, which is kufr according to us Shi'a, and he sacked Medina. These are 2 examples of Yazid's kufr. As for how do I know of other people's kufr, this is because I have hadiths which tell me what is kufr and what isn't. You are asking me as if there isn't a circular argument in every religion and sect lol.
According to some Shia so did his father (ra) where he cursed/ordered the cursing of Ali (ra) in the Khutbah - again public. Sacking of Medina was after Kerbala so has no bearing on Husayn's (ra) opposition to him.
And I do not understand your last point. Please elaborate.
If a Muslim dies, we mention only good and ask Allah's forgiveness for them - if companions are sinful Muslims we should pray for their forgiveness and not have hatred in our hearts for them, as per the verse and the thinking of the Zaidiyyah. If you believe that they are Kuffar, private or public, there is no difference is the manner that they should be treated by Ali and his sons (ra)
Glorfindel.
-
@ Zlatan:
You asked for evidence of Yazid's public kufr: he displayed public nasibism, which is kufr according to us Shi'a, and he sacked Medina.
First of all, I'd like to thank you and all the other Shia brothers for taking part in this discussion. It seems that we are all getting closer and closer to understanding one another.
Brother, you have the option of not answering these questions. It is best to reflect silently than to give an irrational polemically-charged answer. It seems as though you are making excuses for the three caliphs even though we all know that according to Shiasm that they are Nawasib.
Secondly, both killing of Al-Hussain and attacking Madinah occurred AFTER Al-Hussain left for Kufa. You are arguing that Al-Hussain fought against his public kufur, so you cannot use examples of public kufur that occur after Al-Hussain left. You need to provide examples of kufur that caused Al-Hussain to make a move.
The reason though that such a thing is impossible is because Al-Hussain started to move on the very day that news got to Madinah that Mu'awiyah died. There was not enough time for Yazeed to establish his kufur.
So again, the apparent nature of Al-Hussain's action show that it was not a rebellion against one who would erase Islam. Please refer to the new article on the main site again.
Nawasib or not, that is beside the point I am making. I would rather a nasibi leader who keeps Islamic institutions then a leader who does not.
Imam Al-Husayn knew the person who Yazid (la) was, which is why it is stated he said, according to Al-Khawarizmi, "the likes of me does not pledge allegiance to the likes of him i.e Yazid". This is because even before he committed kufr, he was an open fasiq and a murderer (qatil an-nafs al-muhtarrama). Imam Al-Husayn refused to put the Muslims under the leadership of such a person, this is also what seperates Shi'a from Sunnis, which is we don't bow down to the hukam because they are subjected to nahi an al munkar just like anyone else if the circumstances call for it.
Would you disagree with the above? And why?
@glorfindel I will reply to you later. Your comment is very long.
-
This is because even before he committed kufr, he was an open fasiq and a murderer (qatil an-nafs al-muhtarrama).
Good, so he was a fasiq before ruling and not a kafir.
Please try to reflect on all the crimes of the first three caliphs and Mu'awiyah. I'm sure you can list many due to your beliefs. Can you say that Yazeed displayed more fisq than them pre-Karbala?
Inshallah you will soon realize how unreasonable the Shia understanding of these events are.
-
The Shia excuses are filled with contradictions.
-
The Shia excuses are filled with contradictions.
And what are your excuses filled with, undermining the Shias where ever, when ever and how ever possible? Why don't you tell us and discuss what you believe in. What's your story.
-
The Shia excuses are filled with contradictions.
And what are your excuses filled with, undermining the Shias where ever, when ever and how ever possible? Why don't you tell us and discuss what you believe in. What's your story.
If imam rebelled because he wanted to save Islam from yazeed it means pre-yazeed islam is still quite safe in Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiya's hands. That is huge contradiction to shia belief. Why are you so mad when people are pointing that out?
-
Wa Alaykum Al Salam
I can tell by your comment your knowledge of tashayyu is quite weak and by the way you talk I would assume your source of knowledge is TV shows and YouTube videos. It is a sad reality on this website, the only three people who actually have a fairly sound grasp of Shi'i views are Hani, Farid and Noor Al-Sunnah.
As-Salam 'Aliekum, despite your ad homenim attacks, I am a recovering Ex-Shiite and count Syed Nakshawani as a personal friend of mine, but that's neither here nor there - my source of knowledge are family members and the books from the scholars that I have. I agree that Hani, Farid and Noor are exceptional in their understanding of Twelver Shiism - hence why people are abandoning Shiism, may Allah reward them and others like them.
What I mean by public kufr is the act of deleting the face of Islam from the public sphere. An example of that, and it never happened, but just as a hypothetical example, if one of the Caliphs had brought back idol worship. That would be an example of instituting public kufr, and causing mass apostasy. I am of the opinion that the first three did what they did for the sake of power control - which is what I mean by dunyawi reasons. They did not attack the Ahlulbayt (as) and usurp their rights for religious reasons, they knew the Haqq and they knew they were angering Allah, but they just chose to disobey. Basically, they were lured by power. Now, the question is, were they kafir? This is a debate among Imami scholars and it is irrelevant to my discussion, because I am seperating public kufr from private kufr.
There are narrations in Al-Kafi which state that the Ummah has apostasized en masse, except Miqdad, Salman and Abu Dhar - this is related in Al-Kafi, Bihar Al-Anwar, Safi's Tafsir and others - even if we include the period of time when others came back to Ali (ra) they number 20-30 individuals; so all the other people, including the wives and the close companions of Rasulallah (saw) all caused mass apostasy in that they didn't obey the greatest of the commandments of Allah, the Imamate of Ali (ra). Abu Bakr, Umar were lured by power? After the death of the prophet (saw) most of the tribes had rebelled and the Persians and Romans were getting ready to crush Islam, Abu Bakr (ra) saved Islam by his actions, and he took no worldly recompense for that. What power are you talking about? What did they leave behind and what did they gain from usurping the power from Ali (ra)? For you to state that they knew the Haqq and yet opposed it requires evidence, where did any of them state that Ali (ra) should be Khalifah, Fatima should have Fadak and obedience is to Ali and his sons (ra) - but we are going to oppose him anyway! As for whether they are Muslim or Kafir - I think it is a very important discussion because, if they are Muslims who erred then you should ask Allah to have mercy on them and not expose their sins to the world, secondly if they erred then Imamate can not be from the Usul Ad-Din as anyone who denies these cannot be a Muslim, one does not err on whether Allah is 1,2 or 3.
And your poor knowledge is displayed by you saying "Uthman gave the Ummah jumbled Verses and Aisha committed zina" as if these are concrete beliefs amongst all Shi'a. These are the beliefs of some Shi'a - both scholars and laymen. But they are not consensus views at all and not all Shi'a agree to it, once again your lack of knowledge is for all to see.
When did ijma' become an usul in the Imami school? Please give me a reference from a jurisprudential text that states ijma' is hujjah for the 12ers. To try and bat away these issues by saying that some Shia believe in such and such but I don't is a cop out - if you don't believe these things then why do you oppose/hate/make tabarra of those personalities?
The difference between public and private kufr is the difference between the Earth and the sky. Public kufr affects the Ummah and has the potential to cause mass apostasy, private kufr is simply being a kafir and keeping it between yourself. There is a reason why the Sharia - both in Shi'i Fiqh and Sunni Fiqh - differentiates between someone announcing his apostasy and some who keeps it private. Another point which you seem to forget is that Nahi An Al Munkar is only wajib against sin if you see it, not if it is kept hidden. Imam Al-Husayn (as) therefore wanted to publicise haqq, as opposed to giving bay'ah to Yazid which would keep haqq hidden from the people.
As I said previously according to your books the majority of the people who met and were taught by the prophet (saw) became murtad for rejecting Ali (ra) because of the actions of Abu Bakr and Umar (ra); hence this was public - if you believe that the Quran is distorted by Uthman (ra), then this was public, Aisha (ra) opposing Ali in a battle was public; Mu'awiya (ra) poisoning Hasan (ra) was adverse for the public and his opposition to Ali (ra) was public; they were motivated by Kufr and not Islam and the Ummah has sufferred as a result ergo public as per your definition of harming the ummah.
What was the sin of Yazid that Husayn opposed it?
Like I said the first three and Mu'awiyah would keep a public Islamic image, as opposed to Yazid who was an open fasiq and a kafir. There is a difference between them. Mu'awiyah as bad as he is, he would not sack Medina.
If Yazid was an open fasiq and kafir, like you say - please show us example of this kufr and fisq from pre-Kerbala which motivated the actions and stance of Husayn (ra) to be different from his father and brother (ra). Sacking of Medina was after Kerbala.
You asked for evidence of Yazid's public kufr: he displayed public nasibism, which is kufr according to us Shi'a, and he sacked Medina. These are 2 examples of Yazid's kufr. As for how do I know of other people's kufr, this is because I have hadiths which tell me what is kufr and what isn't. You are asking me as if there isn't a circular argument in every religion and sect lol.
According to some Shia so did his father (ra) where he cursed/ordered the cursing of Ali (ra) in the Khutbah - again public. Sacking of Medina was after Kerbala so has no bearing on Husayn's (ra) opposition to him.
And I do not understand your last point. Please elaborate.
If a Muslim dies, we mention only good and ask Allah's forgiveness for them - if companions are sinful Muslims we should pray for their forgiveness and not have hatred in our hearts for them, as per the verse and the thinking of the Zaidiyyah. If you believe that they are Kuffar, private or public, there is no difference is the manner that they should be treated by Ali and his sons (ra)
Glorfindel.
Sorry for the late response. I was off the internet for the past few weeks because of personal reasons. I apologise.
Now, first of all, you being friends with Sayyed Ammar is not a surprise to me, since he himself is known to make lots of mistakes both in Islamic history and in Islamic Fiqh, including Shi'i Fiqh.
Yes, it is true the Ummah did partake in mass apostasy, but the outward image of Islam was kept amongst the first three and the general populas. That although they were evil, in fact worde than atheists, according to us Shi'a, the fact is that keeping them in power was more appropriate than rebelling against them, and these reasons are stated in Shi'i hadiths. Like this, see why Imam Ali (as) didn't rebel:
قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.
This hadith is sahih, narrated by Al-Saduq. As you can see, Imam Ali (as) loved it more that the people would remain astray, rather than calling them and causing mass apostasy.
Secondly, other hadiths also state that if Imam Ali (as) had enough support, he would have used the sword to take back his right. The fact is the Ummah turned its back on him.
Imam Al-Husayn (as) is different in this regard, since the people themselves (Kufans) claimed that they were ready to get rid of the zindeeq Yazeed (la), only to turn their backs.
As for telling me I "require proof about Abu Bakr" - this is quite interesting. This is a discussion which involves me defending why Shi'i Imams like Husayn rebelled and others didn't, so the premise that this whole debate is on is that those "Caliphs" were illegitimate - and to explain why Husayn rebelled and others didn't.
Also, your poor knowledge my brother shows when you talk about "when was ijma usul for Shi'a"? What does that have to do with anything? You claimed that we believe Aisha is this and Uthman did that and you claimed it a Shi'i belief, so now I tell you, do you have proof that these two beliefs you stated are usul among Shi'a? These are the beliefs of some Shi'a, yes, but it is not a wajib belief. It does not take you out of the fold of tashayyu to not believe in that. So that is literally a contradiction.
-
Yes, it is true the Ummah did partake in mass apostasy, but the outward image of Islam was kept amongst the first three and the general populas. That although they were evil, in fact worde than atheists, according to us Shi'a, the fact is that keeping them in power was more appropriate than rebelling against them, and these reasons are stated in Shi'i hadiths. Like this, see why Imam Ali (as) didn't rebel:
قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.
This hadith is sahih, narrated by Al-Saduq. As you can see, Imam Ali (as) loved it more that the people would remain astray, rather than calling them and causing mass apostasy.
The ummah had already mass apostated. For him i.e. Ali to stop calling them in fear of them becoming apostate (which they already did) does not make any sense.
-
Yes, it is true the Ummah did partake in mass apostasy, but the outward image of Islam was kept amongst the first three and the general populas. That although they were evil, in fact worde than atheists, according to us Shi'a, the fact is that keeping them in power was more appropriate than rebelling against them, and these reasons are stated in Shi'i hadiths. Like this, see why Imam Ali (as) didn't rebel:
قال: إن عليا " ع " لم يمنعه من أن يدعو الناس إلى نفسه إلا انهم ان يكونوا ضلالا لا يرجعون عن الاسلام أحب إليه من أن يدعوهم فيأبوا عليه فيصيرون كفارا كلهم.
This hadith is sahih, narrated by Al-Saduq. As you can see, Imam Ali (as) loved it more that the people would remain astray, rather than calling them and causing mass apostasy.
The ummah had already mass apostated. For him i.e. Ali to stop calling them in fear of them becoming apostate (which they already did) does not make any sense.
You need to read this:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/blogs/entry/233-did-the-sahaba-become-kafir/
-
The Shia excuses are filled with contradictions.
And what are your excuses filled with, undermining the Shias where ever, when ever and how ever possible? Why don't you tell us and discuss what you believe in. What's your story.
If imam rebelled because he wanted to save Islam from yazeed it means pre-yazeed islam is still quite safe in Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Muawiya's hands. That is huge contradiction to shia belief. Why are you so mad when people are pointing that out?
Take a look at the meaning of rebellion. Hussein didn't rebel he just thought and believed that Yazeed is not fit for governance and not worthy of allegiance and Islam and its teachings are not safe under him and his rule. That is all and what is the need to stretch this out. What's so difficult to understand here?
-
i see many yazeeds supporter here thanks for admitting guys that you like him and will end up with him also InshAllah