melo, salahadiin other intellectuals so gal

[grandpakhalif]

What is your position on Yazid and his heridatary Khalifah? Although it was short many argue it was brutal, but afterwards the Ummayad became one of the most successful khalifas. So what is your position on them and their work in Andalusia? What led to the downfall?

Please hutuking, yalaxow and other harbis stay away from this thread as its not meant for intellectuals who speak about fact not shia/kufr heresay.

[melo]

The majority of the imaams of ahlussunah conclude that Yaziid was to say the least, not a good man. The Majority however do not make takfir upon him. Furthermore, he still ruled by Islamic law.

Umayyads were the best empire the Islamic world had seen. It is thanks to them (Obviously by the power of Allah SWT) that Islaam reached its heights. As for their downfall, well there is a secular understanding of this and a religious understanding.

[melo]

i should point out, that one of Ali's RA sons, Muhammad al-hanafiyya defended Yaziid against claims that he was a drunkard.

[grandpakhalif]

The majority of the imaams of ahlussunah conclude that Yaziid was to say the least, not a good man. The Majority however do not make takfir upon him. Furthermore, he still ruled by Islamic law.

Umayyads were the best empire the Islamic world had seen. It is thanks to them (Obviously by the power of Allah SWT) that Islaam reached its heights. As for their downfall, well there is a secular understanding of this and a religious understanding.

Yes you are right melo, Yaziid he is still one hundred percent better than all secular rulers today because he ruled with Allah's law.
So what do you think the downfall of great Ummayad was? Religiously speaking ofcourse.

[melo]

Like all other empires, it is Allah's Sunnah that empires rise and fall. The umayyads as they drifted upon started to depart from Islamic law, and innovations started creeping into practice. Their leaders started to lend their ears to heretical groups (like the murjiah and the qaadriyaa), and this practice continued through to the Abbasids, with the mu'tazilis gaining influence.

Allah SWT sends Muslims crashing down when they disobey him.

[Addoow]

There is a hadiith narrated by Mohammed ismail Bin al-Bukhari which states that the first army to wage Jihad against Constantinople is forgiven and since Yaziid bin Mucawiyah was the first one to engage the Christian infidels in constantinople we should conclude that he was a decent man danbigiisa iyo wanaagsiisana ilaah baa ka jizeeynaya.

Sheikhal Al-islam Raximahullah Ibn Taymiyyah view on yaziid was that of neutral one.Only twisted shia zanaadiiq or wanna be shia indulges in curse this leader.

[melo]

There is a hadiith narrated by Mohammed ismail Bin al-Bukhari which states that the first army to wage Jihad against Constantinople is forgiven and since Yaziid bin Mucawiyah was the first one to engage the Christian infidels in constantinople we should conclude that he was a decent man danbigiisa iyo wanaagsiisana ilaah baa ka jizeeynaya.

Sheikhal Al-islam Raximahullah Ibn Taymiyyah view on yaziid was that of neutral one.Only twisted shia zanaadiiq or wanna be shia indulges in curse this leader.

This is not true, as some of the most luminary figures in Sunni Islamic scholarship insulted Yaziid ibn Mucaawiyah, accusing him of being a drunkard, fisq. The man murdered the prophet saw's grandson, Al-xussein RA while he had no one supporting him, and he was not a saxaabi, so excuses for his actions cannot be made. He was a man of transgression. Sheikh Ibn taymiyya admits this, but says that we should not curse Yaziid as he was still a muslim. Most of the major imaams do not make takfiir upon Yaziid.

Irrespective of Yaziid's personal status, the empire he ruled was Islamic. He implemented Islamic law, and most of the sahabah said it was impermissible to rebell against him- Proof that most didn't consider him a kaafir.

[Addoow]

There is a hadiith narrated by Mohammed ismail Bin al-Bukhari which states that the first army to wage Jihad against Constantinople is forgiven and since Yaziid bin Mucawiyah was the first one to engage the Christian infidels in constantinople we should conclude that he was a decent man danbigiisa iyo wanaagsiisana ilaah baa ka jizeeynaya.

Sheikhal Al-islam Raximahullah Ibn Taymiyyah view on yaziid was that of neutral one.Only twisted shia zanaadiiq or wanna be shia indulges in curse this leader.

This is not true, as some of the most luminary figures in Sunni Islamic scholarship insulted Yaziid ibn Mucaawiyah, accusing him of being a drunkard, fisq. The man murdered the prophet saw's grandson, Al-xussein RA while he had no one supporting him, and he was not a saxaabi, so excuses for his actions cannot be made. He was a man of transgression. Sheikh Ibn taymiyya admits this, but says that we should not curse Yaziid as he was still a muslim. Most of the major imaams do not make takfiir upon Yaziid.

Irrespective of Yaziid's personal status, the empire he ruled was Islamic. He implemented Islamic law, and most of the sahabah said it was impermissible to rebell against him- Proof that most didn't consider him a kaafir.

As a salafi,we would take the "Dariiqul-wisaadah" in this issue since some of the people went to curse yaziid like most raafidiyah who make takfiir on Abubakar and cumar.Others exaggerated His status and made him a saint.We can see that they followed a wrong way regarding this issue.according to sheikhal al-islam ,ibn yaymiyyah he writes

"وقال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية أيضا: الْغُلُوُّ فِي يَزِيدَ مِنْ الطَّرَفَيْنِ خِلَافٌ لِمَا أَجْمَعَ عَلَيْهِ أَهْلُ الْعِلْمِ وَالْإِيمَانِ. فَإِنَّ يَزِيدَ بْنَ مُعَأوِيَةَ وُلِدَ فِي خِلَافَةِ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عفان - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ - وَلَمْ يُدْرِكْ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وَلَا كَانَ مِنْ الصَّحَابَةِ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْعُلَمَاءِ ؛ وَلَا كَانَ مِنْ الْمَشْهُورِينَ بِالدِّينِ وَالصَّلَاحِ وَكَانَ مِنْ شُبَّانِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ ؛ وَلَا كَانَ كَافِرًا وَلَا زِنْدِيقًا ؛ وَتَوَلَّى بَعْدَ أَبِيهِ عَلَى كَرَاهَةٍ مِنْ بَعْضِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَرِضًا مِنْ بَعْضِهِمْ وَكَانَ فِيهِ شَجَاعَةٌ وَكَرَمٌ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ مُظْهِرًا لِلْفَوَاحِشِ كَمَا يَحْكِي عَنْهُ خُصُومُهُ. وَجَرَتْ فِي إمَارَتِهِ أُمُورٌ عَظِيمَةٌ : - أَحَدُهَا مَقْتَلُ الْحُسَيْنِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَهُوَ لَمْ يَأْمُرْ بِقَتْلِ الْحُسَيْنِ وَلَا أَظْهَرَ الْفَرَحَ بِقَتْلِهِ ؛ وَلَا نَكَّتَ بِالْقَضِيبِ عَلَى ثَنَايَاهُ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ - وَلَا حَمَلَ رَأْسَ الْحُسَيْنِ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ - إلَى الشَّامِ لَكِنْ أَمَرَ بِمَنْعِ الْحُسَيْنِ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ وَبِدَفْعِهِ عَنْ الْأَمْرِ.
وَلِهَذَا كَانَ الَّذِي عَلَيْهِ مُعْتَقَدُ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ وَأَئِمَّةِ الْأُمَّةِ أَنَّهُ لَا يُسَبُّ وَلَا يُحَبُّ قَالَ صَالِحُ بْنُ أَحْمَدَ بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ " قُلْت لِأَبِي : إنَّ قَوْمًا يَقُولُونَ : إنَّهُمْ يُحِبُّونَ يَزِيدَ. قَالَ : يَا بُنَيَّ وَهَلْ يُحِبُّ يَزِيدَ أَحَدٌ يُؤْمِنُ بِاَللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ؟ فَقُلْت : يَا أَبَتِ فَلِمَإذَا لَا تلعنه ؟ قَالَ : يَا بُنَيَّ وَمَتَى رَأَيْت أَبَاك يَلْعَنُ أَحَدًا ؟
ومَا عَلَيْهِ الْأَئِمَّةُ : مِنْ أَنَّهُ لَا يُخَصُّ بِمَحَبَّةِ وَلَا يُلْعَنُ. وَمَعَ هَذَا فَإِنْ كَانَ فَاسِقًا أَوْ ظَالِمًا فَاَللَّهُ يَغْفِرُ لِلْفَاسِقِ وَالظَّالِمِ لَا سِيَّمَا إذَا أَتَى بِحَسَنَاتِ عَظِيمَةٍ. وَقَدْ رَوَى الْبُخَارِيُّ فِي صَحِيحِهِ عَنْ ابْنِ عُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ قَالَ : { أَوَّلُ جَيْشٍ يَغْزُو الْقُسْطَنْطِينِية مَغْفُورٌ لَهُ } وَأَوَّلُ جَيْشٍ غَزَاهَا كَانَ أَمِيرُهُمْ يَزِيدَ بْنَ مُعَأوِيَةَ وَكَانَ مَعَهُ أَبُو أَيُّوبَ الْأَنْصَارِيُّ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ"
Even if he was a faasiq,allah SWT can forgive the sins of the faasiq if he makes towbah.If we believe and follow the Hadith of Rasul allah which says "the first army to attack constantinople is forgiven" and we also know that Yaziid was the amir of that army then we should stick to our "Wisaadah" in accordance with allahs saying "قال الله تعالى : ( وكذلك جعلناكم أمة وسطا )"
The most notable Sunni scholar to disfavor Yaziid was Ibn-khathir,This issue is trivial because loving Yaziid or not loving him is not related to iiman and on the day of judgement we will not be asked our views on yaziid.

[samadoon-waaxid]

addow:I never seen that hadith,I shall investigate inshallah.
overall yazid was a bad guy,he ruled with sharica so what?its not like he had a choice.did you guys even know that he invaded makah,spilled the blood of its residents and even burned down the kacbah? that besides being a drunkard and killing the hussein.the guy was a bad azz over all

[AhlulbaytSoldier]

The fact that he said: "i have avenged my forefathers(all were mushrikeen)".Many of his forefathers were killed by the lions of Islam Hamza and amir al mumineen Ali r.a . And the fact that he laughed while holding the head of ameer Al-Hussain r.a. This tells us weither he was from the muslim ummah, apostate, munafiq or a mushrik hiding with muslim clothes.


He was a apostate worthy of curse of Allah, His angels, his prophets and the whole believers.
Only faasiqeen and murtaddeen defend him.

As for his father muawiya(may Allah forgive him) he was muslim, allthough rebellious against the ameer /imam of muslim ummah. Just like amr ibn al aas(May Allah forgive him) and many who were mislead by their leader.
Rebelling is a sin, but not apostacy.


P.s Murtad grand, this is general discussion. If you wanna discuss this only with your khaariji snetters ask the mods to make for you private room.

[Addoow]

The fact that he said: "i have avenged my forefathers(all were mushrikeen)".Many of his forefathers were killed by the lions of Islam Hamza and amir al mumineen Ali r.a . And the fact that he laughed while holding the head of ameer Al-Hussain r.a. This tells us weither he was from the muslim ummah, apostate, munafiq or a mushrik hiding with muslim clothes.


He was a apostate worthy of curse of Allah, His angels, his prophets and the whole believers.
Only faasiqeen and murtaddeen defend him.

As for his father muawiya(may Allah forgive him) he was muslim, allthough rebellious against the ameer /imam of muslim ummah. Just like amr ibn al aas(May Allah forgive him) and many who were mislead by their leader.
Rebelling is a sin, but not apostacy.


P.s Murtad grand, this is general discussion. If you wanna discuss this only with your khaariji snetters ask the mods to make for you private room.

These views are the same ones held by the rafidah jews sect.Since you already fell on the kufr and shirk, It is no wonder that you follow the path which take you away from islam and into kufr.

[melo]

The fact that he said: "i have avenged my forefathers(all were mushrikeen)".Many of his forefathers were killed by the lions of Islam Hamza and amir al mumineen Ali r.a . And the fact that he laughed while holding the head of ameer Al-Hussain r.a. This tells us weither he was from the muslim ummah, apostate, munafiq or a mushrik hiding with muslim clothes.

We have to be just, even with faasiqs. The claims that Yaziid said this are unsubstantied, with the Isnaad being daciif. It is a shiica innovation.

He was a apostate worthy of curse of Allah, His angels, his prophets and the whole believers.
Only faasiqeen and murtaddeen defend him.

If that was the case, why do the majority of Ahlussunah wal jamaaca scholars not make takfiir upon yaziid? Are they naasibis? Faasiqs? Murtadiin?

As for his father muawiya(may Allah forgive him) he was muslim, allthough rebellious against the ameer /imam of muslim ummah. Just like amr ibn al aas(May Allah forgive him) and many who were mislead by their leader.
Rebelling is a sin, but not apostacy.

Glad to hear that you have come to your senses about Mucaawiya ra. No one in Sunni Islaam, not the grand "naasibi" ibn Taymiyya ra argues that mucaawiya was right. Everyone realizes that he was wrong and rebellious when he fought Amiirul-Mu''mineen Cali ibn abi talib RA. The same is said about Caaisha RA, Talha ra and Zubair RA. There were many sahabas that rebelled against Cali. Ahlussunah position is to point out who is right or wrong, while holding our tongue from cursing individual sahabas. This is not the way of Islaam. It is the way of Shiica jews, who make takfiir upon not only Mucaawiya and Caaisha, but also the shaykhayn.


The suggestion that Abu Bakr and Cumar RA's caliphates were not legitimate is apostacy from the diin. This is because there was an Ijmaac of the sahabah that their leadership was legit. Every sahabah pledged allegiance to the shaykhan, including Cali RA and ahlu-bayt. In fact, Cali RA was a senior aide to both the shaykhs. Anyone who goes against the Ijmaac of the sahabah is not from the Diin of Islaam. The imaams of Fiqh and sunnah, have proven why this the case. The Quran is loaded with evidence as well as the sunnah. Our nabi said "My ummah will never UNITE (IJMAAC) on error". Once an ijmaac is reached by the sahabah, it can never ever be superseded.

Shiicas even go further however. They curse the shaykhan and most of the sahabah. This is again without the doubt apostacy of the diin.

So hutu, i suggest you stop attacking people who defend Yaziid (who's kufr is questionable) and attack the people who curse the BEST of Muslims, the sahabah.