Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid

Salam alakum Softheart,

Briefly, The Shia argument for the Imam Ali (a.s.) being the rightful successor to the Prophet is based on the fact that the Prophet (a.s.) nominated (named) him as his successor EXPLICITLY (see Hmmmm topic in this forum, begining on page 5 for details). As a result, other selection criteria are not needed. Based on this same principle, Imam Ali (a.s.) nominate his successor in the same manner as the prophet, naming Imam Hassan (a.s.), etc.

Speaking for myself, I use the predicate (a.s.) (alayhim as-salam) because this is the tradition among the Shia when refering to the 12 Imams, although Imams are Imams and not Prophets. I have seen, however, this term of respect (i.e., a.s.) used (in Shia literature) even with highly respect persons who were not Prophets or Imams (such as the prominant companion of the Prophet (a.s.) Salman Al-Farsi).

 

Salam Rami,

Thank you for your replies. I am fortunate for the opportunity to understand the Sunni position from someone as knowledgable as you.

A GENERAL POINT REGARDING THE IMAM HASSAN AND IMAM HUSSIEN

It seems that most our disagreements are a result of our referal to different sources for the events that occured. I have searched, however, I have had a hard time finding credible Sunni sources of information for these events. I would appreciate it is you (or other Sunni brothers) could give me some authentic sources (not modern, academic sources), i.e., traditions from those who actually witnessed the events first hand. If all you have is Arabic, thats fine, I have many friends who can translate.

"Unlike what you are implying we do not throw out the Quran and Hadith specifically mentioning obedience simply because we do not like it.."

"Do not follow those who have forgotten mention of Me and pursue their own fancies." (18:27) 

ALSO, there is substantial proof that the "Ul Al'Amr referes ONLY to the Ahl Al'Bay (and specifically to Imam Ali). This is agreed to by ALL Shia and THE MAJORITY OF Sunni Scholars.

" The Noble Qur'an restricts authority over the Muslims to God, the Messenger, and to those who pay zakat while bowing down. Thus it says: "Authority over you belongs to God and the Prophet and those believers who establish regular prayer and pay their zakat while bowing down" (5:55). This verse refers to an occurrence that happened only once, for there is no general injunction in Islam that zakat must be paid while one is bowing; this is neither obligatory nor recommended, and we cannot assume that some people used to do it as a matter of practice.

The event in question is the following. A certain poor main entered the Prophet's Mosque while 'Ali, peace be upon him, was bowing in prayer. The beggar asked him for his help, and 'Ali stretched out his finger toward him, meaning that he should remove the ring and take it The beggar complied and left the mosque.

At this point the angel of revelation came to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, and revealed to him the verse we have just cited. 

Sunnis and Shi's agree unanimously that the verse was revealed with reference to 'Ali and that he manifested the action that is mentioned in it 186 The verse then is a concise allusion to 'Ali. Although the verse uses a plural ("those believers who ... pay their zakat while bowing down") it refers to a single individual. While the reverse the use of a singular with the intention of a plural is not permissible in the Arabic language, the use of a plural with singular meaning is quite common and by no means restricted to this instance. For example, the Qur'an uses a plural to refer to Na'im b. Mas'ud al-Ashja'i, in 3:172 and to refer to 'Abdullah b. Ubayy in Surah al-Munafiqun, apart from other instances that might be cited. [188]

Considering the admission of Sunni scholars that this verse refers to 'Ali, no doubt can remain that the leader and ruler of the Muslims after the Prophet, peace and blessing be upon him and his family, was 'Ali, peace be upon him, for here his authority is conjoined with that of God and the Messenger. "

SOURCE: http://www.al-islam.org/leadership/13.htm#r184

Sources Cited in passage:

See the creed of Abu Bakr al-Mu'min as cited in al-Mar'ashi, Ihqaq al-Haqq, Vol. III, p. 425; Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi, al-Bahr al-Muhit, Vol. III, p.276; al-Qunduzi, Yanabi' al-Mawaddah, pp. 114-16.

ALSO: [188] al-Tabari, al-Tafsir, Vol. XXVIII, p. 270; al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur, Vol. VI, p. 223.

" we don�t like Ahl al bayt or don�t get upset when we are reminded of what occurred at Karbala."

I don't think that at all. My Sunni brothers respect (and some do) love Alhy Al'Bayt. What I said was " the majority of the Muslim Umma does not recognize it's (the tragic events at Karbala's)importance. I stand by this. If the Muslim Umma in general understood and appreciated the relevence of this event today, they would not accept oppression so easily.

I am aware of the uprisings you are speaking of. However, these uprising have been the exception, rather then the rule in Muslim history. Generally, we find that "rulers who forget Allah and follow their own fancies" have been obeyed (or at least tolerated) by the majority of Muslims. This applies from the "Golden Age" of Islam until today. The solution to this is a correct understading of the events of Karbala and what Imam Hussien stood for (and sacrificed his life for). This correct understanding and appreciation is what is lacking among the majority of Muslims today.

" The moral coruption that is caused by cursing people and hating them is far worse than any imagined or real benefit in sending messages. "

I disagree. To hate and curse evil is a complementary action to praising and encouraging good. The problem is that most people are not very good at correctly identifing which is which. For this reason we should confine ourselves to only hating and cursing something when it is clearly and explicitly evil, or when the evil thing is also cursed by the Quran, The Prophet (a.s.) or his purified progeny. However, we should also be careful not to remain silent when a clear and obvious example of evil behavior is occuring.

" The prophet was free from sin but not making a mistake as is shown in the Quran in Surat Abbasa, regarding his lapse in judgment when the blind man came to him."

I would encourage you to read Surat Abbasa again. The Quran does not say that the Prophet frowned, it says "HE frowned". The Sunni scholars have INTERPRETED this to refer to the prophet, however, our scholars do not agree with this interpretation.

If the Prophet could have a "lapse in judgement", then this calls into question every other judgement the prophet made. This is not true. The prophet is a member of the Ahly Al'Bayt, and has been "purified" from sin AND error. The Quran testifies many times to the infallibility of the Prophet and the fact that he does not take any action (even on small matters) that effects the Umma unless he receives revelation from Allah (s.w.a) directing him.

" Alegiance does not mean agreement this is an exageration of events, it was for peace, he was making a sacrefice by agreeing"

This is the difference between the situation of Imam Hassan and Imam Hussien. In the case of Imam Hassan, I would agree with you. In some cases it is neccessary to give allegience to preserve peace and prevent bloodshed. However, this is not applicable in the case of Imam Hussien as he had no choice but to defend Islam with his and his families blood.

" Muawiyah died a muslim Allah will eventually forgive him for his sins like everybody else and admit him to heaven. "

That is a very presumtious statement. If you do not know whether or not Allah (s.w.a.) will forgive your sins and admit you to heaven, how can you speak for Allah's (s.w.a.) decision regarding someone else.

"O believers, turn toward God, all of you, in repentance, in hope of attaining success and salvation" (24:31).

"O believers, turn toward God in sincere repentance, and it may be that God will veil and efface your sins" (66:8).

There is no guarantee of salvation even for the Mumin (believer) (which is a higher status then "Muslim"). You're statement sounds alot like the teaching of the Chrisitians.

Salam,

 

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

Assalamu alaikum

This is a lie�The Sunni scholars can only get away with saying this because they do not accept any authentic sources for the speech given by Imam Hussien himself. I will include the speech, however, just to illustrate my point.

Your accusation is refuted by your later comments, If the source for the speech is not accepted as being authentic then accusing a scholar of lying is ridiculous. Are we to throw away our scholarship simply because the result is your evidence does not stand up to scrutiny, how can you honestly expect a scholar to accept evidence after the source is shown to be fabricated or what ever the case may be.

What ever is said in the speech is not relevant, no scholar can honestly be accused of lying if he does not accept a piece of evidence as being authentic, this is plain logic.

O what a tragedy it is that our Sunni brothers believe that the Uhl al'Amr include the Thalimeen. How sad it is that our Sunni brothers believe it was wajib to follow Saddam (who was recorded on video praying with his shoes on, while not facing the Quibla) while he was murdering millions of Shia. So if someone, like Gandi (a non-Muslim) was the ruler it is permissible to rebel against him because he is a non-Muslim while it is wajib to obey Sadam. Wow!

This is simplistic and emotional, you honestly believe the above Quote is the explanation for Saddam hussain. Unlike what you are implying we do not throw out the Quran and Hadith specifically mentioning obedience simply because we do not like it, �we hear and we obey�. How can you suggest we ignore what Rsul Allah (sallah llahu alaihi wa sallam) has said, if you do not have these ahadith that is for you and your Aqeedah but for us the hadith are there and they are many.

Maybe you are suggesting this rule is a lie since there wasn�t mass uprising against saddam after the entire country supposedly saw him praying with his shoes on in the wrong direction, Statements which don�t consider reality have little value. Interstingly enough I recently met an unfortunate brother who was forced into exile for possessing anti Saddam material he left behind his wife and children and moved to Syria for I think 10 years before coming here a few years ago, he hadn�t spoken or seen his family in all that time, Don�t imagine people were simply blind to Saddam.

Imam Ahmad once said an hour of Anarchy is worse than thirty years of oppression.

By cursing Yazid, it does not change what happened, however, it sends a message to the Yazids who are alive today.(and oppressing the Muslims as we speak.)

The moral coruption that is caused by cursing people and hating them is far worse than any imagined or real benefit in sending messages. These emotions open the door for shaytan. In the Quran it says do not approach the Quran in an impure state, the outward meaning is to have wudu while the inward meaning is to be Tahar or cleanse your self of bad qualities, so when you combine the two the door for shaytan to influence you while reading it is closed and therefor you are able to grasp its deep meanings.

It affects a persons mentality and spiritual cleanliness and stops a person from getting closer to Allah as no person can approach him except in a clean state he is al Qudus, there is no benefit to your Islam, Iman or Ihsan what so ever in practicing this.

If Washington Irving, a non-Muslim living in the West, was able to see the importance and relevence of the tragedy of Karbala, then how is it that the majority of the Muslim Umma does not recognize it's importance.  Is religion just the performance of rituals? Is there any more "practical aspect" of religion than working for justice in one's own life, in owns own family, in ones community or in the world as a whole? Is there any more practical aspect of religion than standing up for principles in the face of tremendous obstacles?

Who is Washington irving?

What exactly do you mean by not seeing the importance, some shia actually think we don�t like Ahl al bayt or don�t get upset when we are reminded of what occurred at Karbala. Have you ever read anything from any major Sunni scholar saying Karbala means nothing to sunni�s or we don�t care about Ahl al bayt.

You wrote in another forum that, " i sugest you study what the colonial powers have done to the muslim people throught history as well as other countries." I am glad to hear you say this however, one of the reasons that colonial powers like Britian and U.S. were able to "divide and conquer" in the Middle East is by making sure that the sow (i.e., pig, oppresive ruler) that they choose carried his silk purse (i.e., the outward proffesion and superficial practice of Islam). Ditto for the Muslim "Caliph's" and their lackies (i.e., Yazid ibn Muawiyah, Marwan ibn Hakim, Haroon Rasid, etc.) See the connection...?

What makes you think muslims did not resist in the colonial times, there is such a thing as loosing, if I am not mistaken the Shia consider westerners to be yajooj wa majooj and as such they can not be defeated until the time of Isa and the mahdi according to that understanding.

If you like I can send you some material about the muslim resistance in mecca and madinah in the time of the salafi uprising against the Ottoman khalifah, it is a translation of a work written in the Ottoman period some time before the Collapse of the Khalifah, the human tragedy is almost as sad as Karbalah br. I think we both mourne the loss of janat al baqi and what was to the local people.

 

Abu Hadi wrote

It has become clear from our discussion (see hmmm topic on this forum) that Our Holy Messenger(p.b.u.h) appointed Imam Ali(a.s.) as his sucessor. If this is not yet clear to people, then we will continue this discussion. All other discussions are based on this point. Therefore, if a muslim or muslima would give their Bayya' to anyone other that whom the Prophet(p.b.u.h.) has specifically told them to make Bayya' to, then they would be disobeying the prophet, and therefore would be committing a sin. If their leaders asked them to do this, then they would be under no obligation to obey their leaders, according to Imam Tahawi. Right ?

What ever discussion has occurred in another thread is not relavent to me since I am not involved in it, it is the Shia position that Rasul Allah (sallah llahu alayhi wa saalam) appointed Imam Ali (ra) as his successor not the Sunni position, we have our own evidence and ahadith about the matter. I do not see how this discussion is based on this point.

Even if imam Ali was meant as his successor Islam is not a monarchy  and successor ship to Ahl Al bayt alone has much weaker evidence then that for imam Ali being appointed as the first Khalifah.

You make to many conclutions which are nothing more than theories with a modern day mentality. The Arabic in that time was different the mentality was different, the reality and the way Allah treated Mankind according to there actions and what was in there hearts was different, add to this that no person can fully or properly understand another person�so how do you expect to explain the events by drawing conclusions from basic evidence.

 

Ali Zaki wrote 

Muawiyah ibn Abu Sufiyan was an open and declared enemy of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahyl al-Bayt.

 
Muawiyah died a muslim Allah will eventually forgive him for his sins like everybody else and admit him to heaven.

Don�t interprate (ra) to mean may Allah be pleased with his sins no one has ever said or implied this.

   
is said that before the last battle he wrote to Moawiyah, proposing certain conditions; but that Moawiyah, before he received his letter, had sent him a blank paper signed at the bottom, bidding Hasan write what terms he pleased in it, and he would take care to see them punctually performed. Hasan took the paper and doubled the conditions which he had demanded in his letter; and when he and Moawiyah came together, he insisted upon the terms written in the blank paper: which Moawiyah refused, and told him, that it was reasonable he should be contented with those that he had expressed in his letter, since it was his own proposition. The articles that Hasan then stipulated for were these. First, that Moawiyah should give him all the money in the treasury of Cufah. Secondly, the revenues of a vast estate in Persia



In this conference (according to Abulfeda and some others) Hosein proposed one of these three conditions for Amer�s decision: either that he might go to Yezid, or else have leave to return back to Arabia, or else be placed in some garrison where he might fight against the Turks. Amer wrote word of this to Obeidollah, who seemed at first to look upon it as a reasonable proposal; till Shamer stood up and swore that he ought not to be admitted to terms till he had surrendered himself; adding, that he had been informed of a long conference between him and Amer. This remark totally changed Obeidollah�s mind. There is a tradition from one that attended Hosein all the way from Mecca, and overheard this conference; according to which, Hosein did not ask either to be sent to Yezid, or to be put into any of the garrisons, but only that he might either have leave to return to the place from whence he came, or else be at liberty to go where he would about the country, till he should see which way the inclinations of the people would turn.
BY SIMON OCKLEY, B.D.

PROFESSOR OF ARABIC IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.