The difference between the two concepts of Imamate.
Those that deemed the station of Imamate to be man appointed and than it was based on ijma. This school of thought developed into what is today Ahl'ul Sunnah.
Those that deemed the station to be based on the appointment of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) a school today deemed Shi'a Ithna Ashari.
On the one side we head the Imam of the people [ie. The Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah] and on the other side was the Imam appointed by Allah (swt) - the Imam of the Shi'a. As Shi'a we reject the claim that Yazeed was a legitimate khalifa, rather we make it clear that a fasiq can not occupy the position of Khalifa of Rasulullah (s). Hence we believe that the duty was to support Imam Hussain (as) as we deem him to be the legitimate Khalifa of Rasulullah (s).
This automatically places us at logger heads with Ahl'ul Sunnah who believe that:
1)Appointment of the Khalifa is the based on the ijm'a of the public.
2) Once bayya is given the Khalifa rule is legitimate.
3)Once bayya is given it is incumbent upon the people to support the Khalifa
In accordance with these principles the Ahl'ul Sunnah deem Yazeed to be the legitimate Khalifa of the time, and that it was incumbent upon the people to support him by any means necessary. The struggle was indeed a battle of two concepts and can be deemed to be a struggle between Sunni / Shi'a viewpoints on Imamate.
Ahl'ul Sunnah deem Yazeed to be the legitimate Khalifa of Rasulullah (s)
Nasibi writer Abu Sulaiman gave a glowing endorsement of Yazeed's legitimate right to rule in his article on Mu'awiya, stating:
Mu'awiyah was eager for people's agreement to give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district's governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdul ghani Al-Maqdisay says: "His (Yazeed's) caliphate is rightful, sixty of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him gave him the allegiance. Ibn Umar was one of them." [Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldoun, p.70]
This is an interesting fact since according to Ahl'ul Sunnah aqeedah opposition to the rightful Imam constitutes rebellion - by relying on this fatwa taken from Nasibi Ibn Khaldun's work Ansar are covertly indicating that Imam Hussain (as) was a baghi (Allah forbid) as he opposed the rightful khalifa. Are actual Sunnis content with this type of thinking, one that endorses Yazeed's right to rule and in effect makes Imam Hussain (as) a baghi?
This endorsement is further attested in Sahih al Bukhari. After the event of Harra, Ibn Umar reaffirmed his undying loyalty to Yazeed:
Narrated Nafi':
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazeed bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazeed, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227
So in the eyes of Abdullah ibne Umar the bayya of Yazeed that Imam Hussain (as) opposed was "in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle" i.e. Completely legitimate, and breaking the Jamaah would lead to individuals being raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement.
He gave bayya to Yazeed and yet the Ahl'ul Sunnah deem Ibn Umar to be a high authority figure! The son of Khalifa of Ahlul Sunnah Umar bin Khattab deemed the Khilafath of Yazeed to be rightful and deemed his obedience to be on par with obedience with Allah and His Rasul!
Abdullah bin Umar was no ordinary person the leading texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah inform us that he was one of the advisers to the Shura committee that had been established to choose the successor to Umar.
This tradition in al Bukhari clearly eludes to the fact that in Madina the people were seeking to turn their backs on Yazeed. Seeing such opposition Ibn Umar was advocating the religious duty to remain loyal to the Imam of the Jamaah - to Yazeed so much so that Ibn Umar was reconfirming Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa and that the duty was to obey him failure do so was such a sin that the perpetrator would be raised as a betrayer on the Day of Judgement. Ibn Umar warned against abandoning Yazeed and revoking Bayya - whoever separates from Yazeed "there will be separation between him and me".
Tell us , was Ibne Umar a follower of Shi'a Madhab or an adherent what in this day and age is deemed Ahl'ul Sunnah?
There is no doubting that Ibn Umar adhered to the faith which developed in to Ahl'ul Sunnah. This fact leaves actual 'Sunnis' with a somewhat difficult choice, you either you distance yourself from Ibn Umar or accept Yazeed as the rightful Khalifa. Clearly for Nasibis they have no qualms in affiliating themselves with Ibn Umar's fatwa and they proudly declare:
"It is proven in Saheeh Bukhari that Ibn Umar gave allegiance to Yazeed"
It clear that the killers of Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful Khalifa, so which religion did they adhere to? Yazeed's supporters were those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa over the Ummah as is proven from Al Bukhari. Clearly Ibn Umar can never be deemed to have adhered to the Shi'a Madhab. He is the leading authority of Ahl'ul Sunnah, in fact is one of their key narrators of Hadith.
Comments
Post a Comment