All of us as human beings desire a peaceful and easy death; some people consider euthanasia as a way to achieve this end. The word Euthanasia comes from Greek origin (eu: well, good- Thanatos: death) and is commonly known as the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. It is classified into three types: voluntary (with the consent of the patient), non-voluntary (the approval of the patient is unavailable) and involuntary (against the will of the patient). Voluntary euthanasia has been legalized in some countries such as Netherlands, Belgium and some states of America. It seems that proponents of euthanasia developed a strictly materialistic view of life and death; in other words, the existence of God and the value of human life are ignored. Moreover, the patient’s condition when consenting for euthanasia is not considered at all.  

Euthanasia Yes or No?

The first issue that can be argued against euthanasia is that being terminally ill does not seem to have a precise definition. There is no way to determine the life expectancy of a person even if he/she is diagnosed as terminally ill. There are cases in which the patient healed miraculously and without any explanation; the proponents of it seem to ignore the God’s will in the human’s life and death.

What's more, the consent that a patient who is suffering severely gives to end his/her life is not really of much validity. Obviously, due to the health condition of the patient, he/she is in a depressed mood and cannot think clearly. In some cases, such as an older adult who has lost his common sense, the consent given by him/her is apparently not valid. On the other hand, in non-voluntary in which a patient’s relative gives permission, the patient’s will is not included; it seems more like murdering rather than helping that patient.

Euthanasia activists ignore the value and importance of human life and the fact that the more you fight for life, the more precious your soul becomes. People who support this, often say that it is already considered permissible to take human’s life under some circumstances such as self-defense -e.g., in the case of wars- while, they miss this point that when one kills for self-defense, they are saving innocent lives either their own or someone else's. With euthanasia no one's life is being saved; life is only taken [3]. Human beings have the instinct for survival and immortality; euthanasia is clearly against the nature of human being. Somehow, it overlooks the spiritual side of human beings. Besides, it is an absolute act of suicide which many religions including Islam do not approve of [1].

Finally, the decision to take someone’s life is not for anybody even that person to make; God has given life to us, and He will take it as He wishes [2].  The proponents of Euthanasia have ignored moral issues and the spiritual side of human beings. Even in the hardest situations still, we can find hope if we have faith. By committing it, we lose the opportunity to see our unpredictable future; there may be a chance to embrace a beautiful life!  

References:

1. Euthanasia
2. 5:32, 6:151, 4:29.
3. what is Euthanasia

After Imam Ali (AS) was martyred, Imam Hassan (AS) took over as his successor who like his father fought against Mu’aviah but he couldn’t defeat him because his army was not sufficiently loyal. His reliable followers were inadequate and he feared that they could be killed in the battle. Thus, Imam Hassan (AS) made a peace treaty with Mu’aviah, under the duress against his own will. 

Mu’aviah became the Caliph under specific circumstances. For instance, he wasn’t allowed to choose the next Caliph and his son (Yazid) couldn’t be his successor. On the other hand, when Mu’aviah died, Imam Hussain (AS) was opposed to and fought against Yazid and he and his followers were brutally martyred. Both Imam Hassan (AS) and Imam Hussain (AS) had few collaborators/ associates/ helpers; however, this did not stop him from protesting against Yazid and his tyranny. 

One of the most controversial questions about Imam Hussain (AS) is that why he did not make peace with Yazid just like his bother did with Mu’aviah? 

The Wrong Belief

It is worth noting that it would be so irrational to think that Imam Hussain (AS) had a different disposition from Imam Hassan (AS), for example one was more of a diplomat while the other was more of a fighter. In fact the objective conditions at the times of two Imams were rather different hence, their approach apparently differed. 

1.    Mu’aviah was willing to make peace with Imam Hassan (AS) but Yazid wasn’t like his father. Mu’aviah did not want to fight against either Imam Hassan (AS) or Imam Hussain (AS) and they were not prepared to do so. Once the governor of Medina wrote to Mu’aviah that Hussain (AS) does not want to take over the kingdom for now but he may do in the future. Mu’avia wrote to the ruler:
Leave Hussain (AS) and do not bother him because we don’t want to conflict with him while he is in peace with us (1)

On the other hand, when Yazid became the Caliph, he ordered the  governor of Medina to make Imam Hussain (AS) to either obtain the oath of loyalty (to the Caliphate of Yazid) or failing that, kill Imam Hussain (AS), cut off his head and send it to Yazid.

2.    In public Mu’aviah was, at least superficially, a pious person who would not commit sins or harm innocent people. Sometimes even the followers of Imam Ali (AS) had doubts about the impiety of Mu’aviah. While Yazid had no reservations, he would commit sins in public including drinking wine, playing with dogs and monkeys and etc. As in  this regard Imam Hussain (AS) said:
Yazid is an alcoholic person and kills innocent people and does sins in public, so a person like me wouldn’t accept a person like him as their king (2)

3.    Mu’aviah was a very powerful king with strong army but Yazid was not as clever and strong.

4.    The loyalty of many of Imam Hassan’s (AS) followers was questionable.   Some abandoned him and some others tried to kill him or even surrender him to Mu’aviah. But the companions of Imam Hussain (AS), as he himself said, were of a better and more loyal caliber. (3)

5.    Mu’aviah was among the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) which earned him the respect of Muslims in general whereas Yazid was not a companion of the Prophet (PBUH) was so important to Muslims in that time and people would respect him so much. But Yazid wasn’t a companion of the Prophet. 

6.     Mu’aviah’s sister (Um Habibah) was the Prophet’s wife. Since the prophet’s wives are called ‘’the mothers of the believers ‘’; therefore, Mu’aviah was called “the uncle of the believers”. Yazid, however, did not have such status.

7.    Although he did not meet any of his commitments that he had already made, Mu’aviah could say that he is legally the caliph because of the peace agreement between him and Imam Hassan (AS) because Yazid could not claim such legitimately. 

Imam Hussain (AS) and respect to the Peace

Some people think that Imam Hussain (AS) didn’t agree with his brother in making peace with Mu’aviah however because of his respect for his brother, he observed the peace treaty and did not oppose Muaviah. However, this view about Imam Hussain is not right.

If we assume/Supposing that Imam Hussain (AS) did not actually agree with his senior brother, he could fight against Mu’aviah; because, the latter broke his agreement that he had made with Imam Hassan (AS), when he made his son, Yazid, his successor and Imam Hussain (AS) had no agreement with Muaviah however the circumstances of Imam Hussain were unsuitable for an uprising against Muaviah.

References 

1.  Bihar al-anvar, Majlesi, vol.44, pg.212
2.  Maghtal al-Hussain (AS), Abd ar-Razzaq al-Muqarram, pg.129
3. Musnad al-Imam ash-Shahid, al-Atarodi, vol.2, pg.4