Discussing the Kufr of Yazid

why do i love sayyid allama hafiz shaykh muhammad irfan shah mashadi musavi kazami so much? because he doesn't beat around the bush, he isn't scared of being politically correct, he tells it how it is (with daleel of course).

please listen to his series of speeches on karbala/shahadat e hussain/mawla ali etc.

 

brothers can we stick to the topic at hand please? that is whether it is okay or not to call yazid a kafir and it clearly is; i have already written that there are 3 point of view on this amongst sunnis.

but what is NOT a sunni view is that yazid was the rightful 'amir ul mumineen' or that he was in the right and that imam hussain did 'khurooj' and 'baghaawat' against him [naudhubillaH].

it is to such people--who authored the book rashid ibn rashid that i made my comments. insha allah in time scans too will be provided.

staying silent on whether yazid was kafir or not is one matter but making him out to be in the right and imam paak to be in the wrong [astaghfirullah] is something totally different and it is this which is being attacked as mal'oon by me.

you will see calltoallah that i am following the jumhoor. who amongst the jumhoor of ahle sunnat said yazid was the rightful amir ul momineen, or that he was a jannati and that imam paak was a 'baaghi'?

let me be blunt: the only people with this latter view are the nasibis and they include in their number certain ulama of deoband and the ahle hadis including mawdudi and shafi deobandi.

as for whatever sayyid abd al qadir may or may not have said in a given speech that is not the issue here. if u like you can start another thread on that.

as for your last point about sayyidina ali alayhisalam being given walayat even before his birth and distributing it, that is something many sunni ulama have written in the past including hazrat shaykh mujaddid alf-al-thaani ahmad sirhindi :ra: in his maktubaat sharif and i have heard many many sunni ulama repeating this not just sayyid abd al qadir shah sahib; allama sayyid irfan shah sahib also said it in his speech, 'youm e ali' i think it was. it is a common sunni belief.

it is nothing to do with shiaism. just cos you may not be aware of something (myself included in this) doesn't make such a thing a shia belief unless you are of those 'sunnis' who think any praise of imam e paak ali alayhisalam is shiasm!
listen to the speech 'youm e ali' on sunniport by sayyid irfan shah sahib.

i hope i have clarified my position.

 

just a note...i wasn't referring to irfan shah saab, i was referring to abdul qadir jilani when i wrote shah sahib. in fact from the talks i have heard of his, there are some very worrying things as far as his presentation of various ideas is concerned, namely his speaking of yazid in another talk, where he quoted the sayings of classical ulema regarding yazid but was very selective in presenting his argument. he, i would say, manipulated the sayings, or rather the conclusion of ibn hajar al-haytami when quoting from his sawaiq al-muhriqa. when i referred back to the text, i was quote shocked. this took place on various occasions. anyhow, i will verify what he is reported to have said about imam al-ghazali.

brother nj, why not just follow the classical ulema and the way of the jumhur? i think al-ghazali, al-haytami, ali al-qari amongst others are more worthy of being followed than the 'jazbaati' molwis we have today. and i say jazbaati based on the speakers i have heard, i'm not generalising.

secondly, i know this may be moving away slightly from the topic, but i have heard numerous talks of abdul qadir shah saab which i feel contained shi'i ideas. i don't want to start a discussion on this subject but one thing i'm hoping someone can clarify is his saying that sayyiduna ali has been and was given the duty of distributing wilaya even before his birth. in fact he stated in a talk i heard yesterday that the wilaya of the wali who carried the throne of bilqis for sayyiduna sulayman (alyhis salam) was authorised by sayyiduna ali (radiya allahu anhu). can anyone shed any light on this from the classical sunni understanding?

 

unless they repent of course but isn't shariah based on the outward, manifest since only Allah knows the hearts of men?

 

Nasibis and Kharijites are sects amongst the 73 and 'kullu hum fi'l naar illa wahida" (aw qamaa qaal alayhisalatu wa salaam) [all of them [the 73] will be in hell] therefore we can conclude nasibis and kharijis are going to go to Hell.

therefore those people who are nasibis/kharijis for defending yazid [in light of what mufti amjad ali azami wrote above] are going to hell.

 

"AQEEDAH: Yazid paleed fasiq fajir martakab e kabair tha ma'adhallah us se aur rehana e Rasool sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam Sayyidina Imam Husayn radhi allahu ta'ala anhu se kya nisbat? Aaj kal jo ba'z gumrah kehtay hain ke humein unkay muamalay mein kya dakhal hai humaaray woh bhi shehzaday, woh bhi shehzaday. Aisa baknay wala mardood, Khariji, Nasibi, mustahaq e jahannum hai. Haan, Yazid ko kaafir kehnay aur uss par la'anat karnay mein ulama e Ahle Sunnat kay teen qawl hain aur hamaray Imam e Azam radhi Allahu ta'ala anhu ka maslak sakoot ya'ani hum ussay fasiq fajir kehnay kay siwa na kaafir kehein na musulmaan." (Amjad Ali Azmi: Bahar e Shariat, hissa awwal, p.40, naashir: Zia ul Qu'ran publications, Lahore, 1995)


This is my translation for those who do not speak Urdu:

DOCTRINE: Yazeed the Impure was a fasiq and a fajir and embroiled in enormities [kabair]. God forbid! What commonality is there between the flower of the Prophet sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam, Sayyidina Imam Husayn (may Allah be well pleased with him) and him? Nowadays, some deviants [gumrah] say that why should we get involved in their personal matter, they are both our princes? A person who gabbles such things is diseased [mardood], a Kharijite, a Nasibi [hater of the Ahlul Bayt], and deserving of Hellfire. However, there are three opinions amongst the ulama of the Ahlus Sunnah about calling Yazid a kafir and cursing [sending la'anat on] him: Our Imam e Azam's (Abu Hanifa) (may Allah be pleased with him) opinion is silence [sakoot] i.e. apart from calling him a fasiq and fajir we neither consider him a kafir nor a Muslim." [Amjad Ali Azmi: Bahar e Shariat, part 1, p.40, Zia ul Qur'an Publications, Lahore, 1995]

In light of this i don't see what I said as wrong? Why have so many people rushed to defend these 'Nasibi, Khariji, mardood' people who are 'deserving of Hell'? Will not Nasibis go to Hell? Will not Kharijites go to Hell? Will not those who are mardood go to Hell?

So why do brothers rush to attack me if I then quote Mawlana Hassan Raza's verse:

Ahle Bayt e Paak se bay-adabiyaan, gustaakhiyaaN
La'anatullah alaykum ay dushmanaan e Ahle Bayt!

Amazing! Sunnis getting upset when someone sends la'anat on Yazid!
And it is perfectly okay, according to Ala Hazrat, to call Yazid a kafir. He says: ra: in an answer to a question whether or not it is okay to call Yazid a kafir:

"Agarche hum nahin kehte, agar koii aur kahe tau rokte bhii nahin"



Although I myself do not say it [prefering sakoot], if someone else says it [i.e. calls him a kafir in my presence] I do not stop him either.

So, what can we conclude from these quotes of classical 'Barelwi' ulama: 1) Calling Yazid a kafir is an accepted opinion of the Ahle Sunnah. (2) Sending lanaat on him is also an accepted opinion. (3) Those who defend him are 'Nasibis, Kharijites and diseased and deserving of Hell'.

I don't see, in light of this, why what I wrote then was so 'outrageous'.

 

erm, excuse me, but what have i personally said in this post which is outrageous?
is sending la'anat on yazid 'outrageous'? is saying that those who defend yazid and call him ameer ul momineen whilst calling imam hussain a khariji and a baaghi are 'dogs of hell' outrageous?


-----------------------------------------------------

what was erratic about what i said here?

jab tawwaqu' hii uTh gayee ho Ghalib?
Kyon kissi ka gilaa kare koii?

 

Why am I not surprised? What is Irfan Shah's credentials anyway? Can someone please list it here. And CalltoAllah, I highly advise you to somehow get this statement confirmed please.

Gosh, the audacity of some of these speakers. They get all into their talks and say whatever comes to their lips. Have some self-restraint for God's sake or else dont speak.

 

salam alaikum all,

erm...i'm not a fan of yazid and i don't think many people are but i wouldn't go as far as to curse him and slander him. the problem i have noticed with a lot of the jalsey we have in our community and especially the muharram ones, is that speakers often use the occassion to launch an unnecessary attack on yazid. and i do believe it is unneccessary because it is not the way of ahl al-sunnah and our ulama.

firstly the case of yazid is not clear...yes, sharh aqa'id does say that the crimes of yazid have come to us through tawatur and that he is a kafir but mulla ali qari questioned this in his sharh fiqh al-akbar. he said the truth is that the reports are not mutawatir and what's more there are plenty of reports to the contrary. mulla ali qari goes onto state that we follow the position of Imam al-ghazali who spoke of yazid in the ihya, stating that it is best to observe silence on him (giving him husn-e-zann) because his being a believer is established and his being a kafir is NOT established. ibn hajar al-haytami states the same in his as-sawa'iq al-muhriqa quoting that certain ulema allowed the la'n upon him but the way of the jumhur is that we cannot invoke la'n on him specifically. we can say as sidi abu hasan mentioned in an earlier post "may Allah curse the fasiqeen" but we cannot say "may Allah curse Yazid" because it is haram to invoke la'n on a believer. Shaykh Na'im ud-Din Muradabadi in his atyab al-bayan writes regarding ismail dehlwi: "he is NOT a kafir amongst our scholars. rather, his case stands similar to that of yazid ibn muawiya".

imam al-ghazali's view on the matter was endorsed by both ibn hajar and mulla al-qari from what i read, all stating that we count him from the believers and if his killing of Imam al-Husayn is established then this does not constitute kufr because the qai'da amongst ahl al-sunnah is that a perpetrator of a kabira does not commit kufr as opposed to what the khawarij believe.

i would also like to mention that shah sahib 'attacked' imam ghazali for writing this. in fact he stated that his aqida was not sound concerning the ahl ul-bayt and his tariqa did not last long because of his lack of love for them! i heard this from a very trustworthy friend of mine who has the statement on video. this talk is not available on the net as far as i am aware. therefore, i ask everybody to re-evaluate their conclusions based on what the jumhur say and not the minority, and IF shah sahib did speak of imam al-ghazali in this way, then his view on the matter ought to be rejected.

ma'as salam

 

hazrat hind :ra: ate the liver of hazrat sayyidina hamza :ra: BEFORE she accepted islam whilst she was still a kafir; yazid mal'oon khabis killed imam husayn and 71 other flowers of the Prophetic garden AFTER claiming to be a Muslim as well all the other things he did in his 3 years as king such as raping and pillaging women in madina etc. etc. so the principle is not the same. (What shocks me is how these people RUSH to defend that dog Yazid using any excuse possible.)

As for the book Rasheed ibn Rasheed I have not personally seen it but I am relaying what Shaykh Sayyid Irfan Shah sahib has said, as well as other trustworthy Sunnis, and therefore I believe it is true that this book contains the endorsements of approval of mufti shafi deobandi and mawdudi etc. nevertheless i hope some brother can scan the book in.

as for calling those people who try to rid Yazid of his guilt and make excuses for him and blame the pure Imam instead, as 'dogs of hell' that is perfectly in line with Sunni aqidah as is written in Bahar e Shariah, Bab al Aqaid. The exact phrase, 'jahannam kay kuttay' is contained therein to describe those who try to excuse Yazid Khabis. It i also in Sharh al Aqaid that we believe that all those who were involved in any manner in the murder of Hussain, or who are happy with it, are kafirs.

I will find the quote from Bahar e Shariat and post it on here. I am not being emotional.

 

like i said i have seen the book but could not see the endorsements.

 

Well..Either we could have scans

or naqshbandijamati is lying

 

if they talk on the issue it needs be in a scholarly manner. not in public gatherings like this because it seems they just get carried away by the atmosphere and make really strange comments as has been pointed out above.

 

this book you refer to about the yazid. i did see the copy of the book but could not see any endorsements as such from the above named scholars. it seems they were quoted about the subject matter from their works by the author/publishers but they weren't endorsements of the entire book.

by endoresements - i mean in the manner in which they are common at the head or the back cover of books where the scholar says i have read the contents of the book and find them in accordance with my beliefs or a good contribution to the subject area.

can somebody please clarify who has also seen a copy of the book.

 

Naqshbandi...
How then do you accept the imaan of Hind the wife of abu sufyaan
that ate the liver of The prophet's(saw) uncle.

Every time he saw her..even after she accepted islam, he felt grieved and asked her not to come in front of him as it reminded him of this.

How will you accept her imaan..based on your theories??

I follow your posts and it seems your approach to islam is purely emotive and this is the problem with all muslims today -be they deobandi/barelwi etc
People just get riled away by emotive passionate talks.

 

brother tazkiyya,

if u are asking with a good niyyah then i am sure it will be possible to find out.
just some people mean it in a sarcastic way which is why i am careful. as sidi aqdas said whoever they were they did a good job!

i will try to find out for you. insha allah.

-----------------------------------

sidi Abu Hassan,
did you listen to the whole speech? 95% of it is in Urdu with a few odd

comments in panjabi. this is because the shaykh himself hails from the punjab and so many of his mureeds are from there. sometimes he addresses kind comments to these simple mureeds of his in a dialect of punjabi called 'potohari'. [eg one of these people shouts a naarah, 'shahensah zindabad!' and mufakkir e islam explains in potohari to the others present that this man is from such and such a village and in that village the people call me by that name' [due to him being a sayyid and a direct descendent of ghaus paak too].

as for the couplet you quoted you heard it correctly as it was quite powerfully said.
i think the shaykh was quoting some other poet--it is not his. obviously it was not meant to be taken literally as Allah is pure from sleeping! It was an example of poetic license to make a point the point in this case the zulm done on imam hussain.

the shaykh did **not** say hussain kay gadda ko salam. you must have misheard. he says, ' hussain! tere jad e kareem ko salam..'



brother abu hasan i'd strongly recommend you and everyone else to listen to the whole speech. there is SO much in it! ilm, poetry, passion...

as to those who dont see the 'point' of such speeches, as brother aqdas said there is a group of 'muslims' who even call themselves sunnis who have written books defending yazid the damned, and gone as far as to say he was the rightful amir ul mumineen, that imam hussain did khurooj by rising up against yazid and that the imam was a baaghi [rebel]. they even call yazid a jannati. astaghfirullah. these sick people even wrote a voluminous book in praise of yazid and against imam hussain and called it 'rasheed ibn rasheed' [the rightly-guided son of the rightly-guided]. a lot of well-known deobandi and ahle hadis scholars signed this perverted book and put their seals on it thus signalling their approval of its contents [ie wrote taqriz to it as aqdas says]. here are some of their dastardly names as listed by sayyid irfan shah in one of his speeches [which i believe i uploaded]:

-mawlana maudoodi
-mufti muhammad shafi' [father of taqi usmani] - these two are considered giants amongst contemporary deobandi scholars.
etc.

will give full list of :edit: names asap.

 

Btw, I am not from the same land as he and so I've never seen anyone wear that style of an 3imamah(turban). I'm just wondering, but does it have a special significance? I'm guessing in his 3urf, it signifies a sufi murshid perhaps? It seems very gaudy, it reminds me of what some asian brothers wear during their weddings.

edit: no need for that comment.