This is one of those question that automatically come to mind when one analyses the character of Yazeed.
The reason lies in aqeedah, and goes to heart of where the Sunni / Shia viewpoint diverge. The core difference between the two schools is on the topic of Imamate: who has the right to lead the ummah.
Shia muslims believe that this leadership is religious guidance and hence the appointment is the sole right of Allah, for He knows what is best for his servant and He shall appoint the man best suited / most superior to lead teh Ummah through all times. Allah will select Imam who is best in character, most excelled on the components of Deen, who shall only rule via justice. There is no need for ijma, or votes since Allah appointsand no one has a voice in the matter.
The Ahlul Sunnah believe that appointment of Imam is a duty of Public - the decide on who come to power. The importance in relation to appointment is the act of giving bayya - once the Khalifa received ijma the his imamate is legitimate. The act of bayya is crucial factor here - the people decide who is in power (a democratically elected dictatorship for life), and the khalifas character has no further bearing since once in power, the khalifa has to be obeyed. any opposition is squashed, with voilence. From the time of Muawiya onwards, all the Khalifa become monarchies.
When this is the basis of Ahlul sunnah aqedah, then over time their jurists have sought to revise the concept of Imamate with stipulations over certain characteristics, that Imam should posses, such as bravery, piety, and justice, especially after embarrassing debacle (for sunni islam) with yazeed and certain other members of Banu Umayyad dynasty - for example Khalifa Waleed, who expressed his desire to drink alcohol on the roof of Ka'aba.
Unfortunately these writings have been nothing more than a "Dear Santa Wish List" since an analysis of early islamic history will quickly lead to us learning that characteristics such as justice were completely devoid in these Khalifas, and there is no better example than Yazeed. Indeed with the exception of perhaps "Umar bin Abdul Aziz" in 1100 years of Khilafat after Yazeed, barely a pious man acceded to this position. Most aere as bad as Kings anywhere were.
This left many classical salaf scholars with a very difficult problem: If they reject Yazeed, they are then rejecting the concept of Ijma that had been allegedly created as Saqifa Bani Sa'ada, and underpins Sunni Islam.
Rejecting this Ijma in effect discredits Sunni aqeeda that the duty to appoint the Imam is right of Public. If this concept is discredited , by highlighting Yazeed's demonic character and satanic actions, then the Ummah is forced to consider the alternative option of appointment as described to by the Shia school of thoughts.
The salaf ulema faced with this difficult problem, have decided to uphold the legitimacy of Yazeed reign since this is the only way that their belief in man made appointment can be maintained. This account for their pathological and indeed balant lying, which embrasses even the Nasibis.
The reason lies in aqeedah, and goes to heart of where the Sunni / Shia viewpoint diverge. The core difference between the two schools is on the topic of Imamate: who has the right to lead the ummah.
Shia muslims believe that this leadership is religious guidance and hence the appointment is the sole right of Allah, for He knows what is best for his servant and He shall appoint the man best suited / most superior to lead teh Ummah through all times. Allah will select Imam who is best in character, most excelled on the components of Deen, who shall only rule via justice. There is no need for ijma, or votes since Allah appointsand no one has a voice in the matter.
The Ahlul Sunnah believe that appointment of Imam is a duty of Public - the decide on who come to power. The importance in relation to appointment is the act of giving bayya - once the Khalifa received ijma the his imamate is legitimate. The act of bayya is crucial factor here - the people decide who is in power (a democratically elected dictatorship for life), and the khalifas character has no further bearing since once in power, the khalifa has to be obeyed. any opposition is squashed, with voilence. From the time of Muawiya onwards, all the Khalifa become monarchies.
When this is the basis of Ahlul sunnah aqedah, then over time their jurists have sought to revise the concept of Imamate with stipulations over certain characteristics, that Imam should posses, such as bravery, piety, and justice, especially after embarrassing debacle (for sunni islam) with yazeed and certain other members of Banu Umayyad dynasty - for example Khalifa Waleed, who expressed his desire to drink alcohol on the roof of Ka'aba.
Unfortunately these writings have been nothing more than a "Dear Santa Wish List" since an analysis of early islamic history will quickly lead to us learning that characteristics such as justice were completely devoid in these Khalifas, and there is no better example than Yazeed. Indeed with the exception of perhaps "Umar bin Abdul Aziz" in 1100 years of Khilafat after Yazeed, barely a pious man acceded to this position. Most aere as bad as Kings anywhere were.
This left many classical salaf scholars with a very difficult problem: If they reject Yazeed, they are then rejecting the concept of Ijma that had been allegedly created as Saqifa Bani Sa'ada, and underpins Sunni Islam.
Rejecting this Ijma in effect discredits Sunni aqeeda that the duty to appoint the Imam is right of Public. If this concept is discredited , by highlighting Yazeed's demonic character and satanic actions, then the Ummah is forced to consider the alternative option of appointment as described to by the Shia school of thoughts.
The salaf ulema faced with this difficult problem, have decided to uphold the legitimacy of Yazeed reign since this is the only way that their belief in man made appointment can be maintained. This account for their pathological and indeed balant lying, which embrasses even the Nasibis.
No comments:
Post a Comment