Chapter Two: Was There An Ijma in Yazeed's Khilafah?: Mu'awiya Planned The Succession of Yazeed For Seven Years
Chapter Two: Was There An Ijma in Yazeed's Khilafah?: Mu'awiya Planned The Succession of Yazeed For Seven Years
Chapter Two: Was There An Ijma in Yazeed's Khilafah?: Mu'awiya Planned The Succession of Yazeed For Seven Years
Khilafah?
ALL THE MUSLIM CITIZENS INCLUDING THE THEN LIVING SAHABA WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF HAZRAT HUSAYN AND ABDULLAH BIN ZUBAIR SWORE
ALLEGIANCE TO YAZID. WHEN HAZRAT HUSAYN DECIDED TO GO FROM
MAKKAH TO KUFA WHERE THE PEOPLE WERE CONSTANTLY INVITING HIM FOR
BAYT (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE) HIS CLOSE ASSOCIATES AND WELL-WISHERS LIKE
ABDULLAH BIN UMAR, HAZRAT ABU SAEED KHUDRI, HAZRAT ABU DARDA,
HAZART ABDULLAH BIN ABBASS, HAZART MUHAMMAD BIN ABU HANIFA ETC.
TRIED TO PERSUADE HIM NOT TO UNDERTAKE THIS JOURNEY AS IT WAS FULL
OF RJSKS AND HAZARADS. THEY WERE HOWEVER, NOT SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR
ATTEMPT AND HAZART HUSAYN PROCEEDED ON HIS MISSION OF REFORMATION
CONCEIVED ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN IJTEHAD.
Muawiya spent seven years seeking to galvanise the peoples minds towards giving bayya
to Yazeed and he rewarded those that ascribed to his views. He [Mu'awiya] tried to get
closer to those that opposed this purpose [to intimidate them].
1. Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 870. The events of 56 Hijri
2. Tarrekh al Kamil Volume, 3 page 252 The events of 56 Hijri
3. Tareekh Ibn Khaldun, Volume 3 page 16
4. Tareekh al Khulafa, page 205 Dhikr Muawiya
5. Al Imama wa al Siyasa, page 152
6. Nasa al Kafiya, page 38
Muawiya set the wheels in motion and wanted people to give bayya to Yazeed. It is critical to
note that in doing so Muawiya was breaching the terms of the treaty that had been reached with
Imam Hassan (as), namely that Muawiya would NOT appoint a successor after him and that the
succession to the khilafat would return to the Imams of the Shia i.e. Al-Hassan (as) and after him
his successor Al-Hussain (as). Muawiya is thus in breach of a solemn oath he took not to make
the khilafat a monarchy by appointing his own son as Crown Prince.
For this section we shall focus on the following texts of Ahlul Sunnah:
Imam Hasan did not abdicate on account of any bribe / worldly gain or weakness; rather
he made peace so as to avoid fitnah and bloodshed.
When Muawiya made peace with Hasan, he made a promise that leadership would go to
Hasan after him
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 871 (Nafees Academy Karachi)
Hasan said:I placed a condition on Muawiya that I will become leader after Muawiya
The fact that Muawiya wanted to make Yazeed his successor was hugely embarrassing for him,
since this contravened the peace treaty and hence the better option would be to remove Imam
Hasan (as) (this has been discussed in our article on Muawiya). In the meantime Muawiyas
flagrant breach of the treaty continued. This is an embarrassment for the Nasibis as this treaty
and its terms are not controversial and accepted by all. Thus the Nasibis might claim that this
happened after Imam Hasan (as) was martyred but the fact is
An Iraqi tribal chief said to Muawiya As long as Hasan is alive the people of Iraq and
Hijaz shall not give bayya to Yazeed.
Khalid bin Walids son Abdur Rahman was from amongst the brave men and was
popular in Syria hence Muawiya was against him and was poisoned
We read in al Istiab:
Abdurehman was againt Ali and Bani Hashim he had fought in Sifeen alongside
MuawiyahWhen Muaiywah decided to take bayah from people for his Yazeed, he gave a
sermon to the people of Syria in which he said: the time of my death is approaching, I am
elderly and I want to make a ruler for you people, what do you people want?. They said:
We like Abdurehman. Muawiya didnt like it but kept it within him and once
Abdurehman got ill, Muawiya told the doctor to treat him and gave him a syrup that could
kill him, the doctor administered it and killed him by giving him poison.
al Istiab, Volume 1 page 250, Dhikr Abdur Rahman bin Khalid
This Abdul Rahman was the son of Khalid bin Waleed, and he was Muawiyas general in
Siffeen. Muawiya was willing to shed his blood to secure the transition of power to his son.
While we the Shia have nothing but contempt for Khalid bin Waleed for reasons discussed
elsewhere (he murdered a Muslim general during the khilafat of Abu Bakr so as to marry the
generals beautiful wife, and prior to this had murdered thousands of innocent Shias in the
Yemen), Khalid is hailed as a great champion of the khilafat and a hero by the Sunnis.
When Marwan entered into discussions with the tribe of Salim, Abdul Rahman ibn Abu
Bakr stated In the same way that one king nominates another king to succeed him; one
Umayyad is seeking to appoint another Umayyad to succeed him. Marwan then told
Abdul Rahman to be silent.
when Abdul Rahman refused to give bayya to Yazeed, Muawiya sent Abdul Rahman
one thousand dirhams. Abdul Rahman replied Do you expect me to sell my religion for
dinars?
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 891, Nafees Academy Karachi
Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Mahmud Abu Riyyah in his excellent Shaykh al Mudira page 168 states
that Muawiya used force to secure bayya for Yazeed and discretely splayed with poison those
that he could not bribe
Even if that meant using methods such as poison, he used this method that led to the
deaths of Hasan, Abdul Rahman bin Abu Bakr and Abdul Rahman bin Khalid.
Whilst Nawasib such as Ansar have no love for Ahlul Bayt (as) we would at least urge them to
look at the case of the son of Abu Bakr, the natural brother of Ayesha and brother in law of
Rasulullah (s). Anyone who has the slightest love for Abu Bakr should have nothing to do with
Muawiya.
In 56 Hijri Muawiya arrived in Madina to get people to give bayya to Yazeed, in this
regard (the bayya) Ayesha became upset with Muawiya and openly expressed her
discontent. Muawiya then instructed an acquaintance to dig a hole, cover it up and place a
chair on the top of it and invite Ayesha to the house for a dinner. No sooner had Ayesha
settled down on the chair that she fell through the hole that had been dug. Muawiya order
the hole to be covered, he then made his way from Madina to Makka.
Ayesha is the mother of the believers and no momin would ever contemplate killing his mother.
This legitimate bayyah that these Nasibi like singing about cannot be deemed to be the correct by
anyone that has love for Ayesha in his heart. To secure this bayya, Muawiya murdered the son
and daughter of Abu Bakr, he killed Imam Hassan (as), Sad bin Abi Waqqas and Abdur
Rahman bin Khalid. Is there really any ground to deem an ijma that involved the murder of these
prominent personalities? If this is still deemed ijma then we would like to counter this by stating
that Uthman was also killed by the ijma of the people, do you accept this ijma? Contradictions
abound in Sunni Islam, really harsh ones that only those of the attitude I was born into a Sunni
family and will die a Sunni can accept.
Nafee narrated that Muawiya wanted Ibn Umar to give Bayya to Yazid, but he (Ibn
Umar) refused and said: I dont give bayya to two commanders. Then Muawyia sent
100,000 Dirham to him and he (ibn Umar) received it. Then he (Muawiya) sent a man to
him (Ibn Umar) and he (the man) said to him (ibn Umar): What is stopping you from
giving bayya? He (ibn Umar) replied: If this (money) is for that (bayya) if so then my
faith is of low price. When Muawyia died Ibn Umar gave bayya to Yazid.
Similarly w read in Siyar Alam al-Nubala, Volume 3 page 225 that has been graded as Sahih
by Shaykh Shoib Al-Arnaut:
:
Nafea narrated that Muawyia sent 100,000 Dirham to Ibn Umar, when he (Muawyia)
wanted him (Ibn Umar) to give bayya to Yazid, he (Ibn Umar) said: I see what he wanted
by it, if so then my faith is low price.
At the time that bayya was being given to Yazeed, Uthmans son Saeed approached
Muawiya, and said Commander of Syria, on what grounds are you making Yazeed your
successor, and why are you ignoring me? After highlighting some of his own faults he
[Sa'eed] then said If you object to making me the khalifa then at least give something to
me. Muawiya said Ill give you the province of Khurasan. Saeed accepted and recited a
eulogy Even if may father Uthman were alive he would not give me as much as Muawiya
just did.
We read in Tareekh ibn Asakir Volume 6 page 159 Dhikr Saeed bin Uthman:
The people of Medina such as Saeed bin Uthman disliked Muawiya. At the time of the
bayya to Yazeed, Saeed came to Muawiya, and Muawiya asked him My brothers son
why did the people say what they say? Saeed replied by citing a Madinan poem Verily by
Allah, Yazeed is not deserving of khilafat, after Muawiya our leader is Saeed. Saeed then
said Which part of this poem offended you? Saeed then began to highlight his own faults
saying Saeed is mischievous and witty. Muawiya sought to resolve the matter by sending
him 100,000 dirhams and appointing him as Governor over Khurusan.
Abu Sulaiman is chanting that his Imam Yazeed obtained the ijma of the Sahaba. The fact is, in
the first instance the leading families of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman wore opposed to the
khilafat of Yazeed, and Muawiya secured their consent via political assassination, intimidation
and bribery. Only the family of Ali (as) refused to be bought, and around them rallied the last
sincere companions, who were killed by Yazeed when they rallied to the side of Husayn (as) at
Karbala.
That did the trick and shut him up, Marwan was also on board now! We read in Muruj al Dhahab
Volume 3 page 38
When bayya was administered to Yazeed, Marwan became concerned and went to
Damascus, and began to cite his own merits citing his age. Muawiya calmed him down and
said After my successor, the caliphate shall go to you. Yazeed then appointed Marwan as
his successor and sent him back to Medina
When the Commander of Syria [Mu'awiya] initiated his desire [to appoint Yazeed] the
tribe of Rabia opposed this and the tribe of Abid al Qays joined them (i.e. refused to give
bayya). The tribe of Barr bin Wal and the tribe of Khalid bin al Muammar also joined in
opposition. When the tribe of Rabia refused to give bayya other Arab tribes followed suit.
This perplexed Muawiya immensely.
I am the son of the noble man of Thaqif and the noble women of Quraish, (I am the one)
who killed one hundred thousand people by this sword, all of them deemed your father
Kafir and alcoholic, until they recognized him as caliph
I killed one hundred thousand people with this sword, as they deemed your father
[Yazeed] to be a kaafir and drunkard
We read in Semt al-Nujum al-Awali by al-Esami, Volume 2 page 134:
I killed more than one hundred thousand people with this sword, as they deemed that you,
your father and your grand father are in the hell
Is this how this ijma was achieved through the slaughtering of opponents and witnesses? Is this
the legitimate method via which the people happily gave bayya to Yazeed? If the people had
been silenced through such methods, it does not in any way mean that they deemed Yazeeds
khilafat to be rightful. When they saw that Yazeed was not even prepared to spare the life of the
grandson of Rasulullah (s) they simply adopted taqiyyah through fear of death. Securing
allegiance under the threat of death can never constitute ijma. We see a situation in which the
whole Ummah was terrified of being killed by Muawiyas de facto secret police unless they
gave bayya to Yazeed.
Muawiya sent a letter to Husayn that stated Banu Hashim, Salaamun Alaykum, accept
Yazeeds leadership and refrain from opposing me.
Muawiya your actions are those of a Zaalim [unjust and also sadistic, cruel person].
Shaytaan is working with you. You are shedding the blood of pious Muslims. You have
declared Ziyad bin Sumayya [Abu Sofyan's bastard son] to be your brother and he has
turned your khilafat into an unjust one. It is clear from your actions that you are not from
the Ummah of Muhammad, Allah (swt) shall never forgive you for appointing that youth
[Yazeed] as a successor who plays with dogs [civil expression for bestiality] and drinks
alcohol. Not a single member of Banu Hashim accepted Yazeed as Khalifah. Sad
wrote to Muawiya and said the people of Medina had not accepted Yazeed as khalifah,
and none of Banu Hashim have accepted Yazeeds khilafat.
Ibn Abbas, I hear that you are refusing to recognise Yazeed as my successor. I am within
my rights to kill you to avenge Uthmans death since you were responsible for inciting
people against him and I have no proof of your imanwhen you receive this letter go the
Mosque of the Prophet, curse the killers of Uthman and give Yazeed bayya by placing your
hand into my governors hand. I have written this letter to warn you, and you know your
heart better than I.
I am in receipt of your letter and I understand its contents. I dont possess any proof of
your iman, neither are you in the position to weigh the iman of others nor can we rely on
your words. You are threatening to kill me, if you do, then I shall appear before the justice
of Allah (swt) in such a manner that my blood shall speak out against you, and Rasulullah
(s) shall also speak against you. Anyone that Rasulullah (s) speaks against shall never attain
salvation. With regards to the allegation on the killing of Uthman, his children are alive,
what is refraining them from cursing the killers of Uthman?
Ibn Qutaybah then records a letter from Muawiya to Banu Hashim that was sent to Ibn Jafer:
Up until now my view of you was a good one. I have now received information on some
matter about you that I dislike. If you dont accept my sons right to rule I shall pressure
you and threaten you.
I received your letter, your intention is to force me to accept the khilafat of Yazeed. Well,
we made you and your father accept Islam, and you only accepted out of desperation [i.e.
Mu'awiya is an hypocrite who only 'converted' when he was beaten, and never embraced
Islam in his heart].
Our Ahlul Sunnah brothers have an aqeedah that there were four rightly guided khalifahs. They
should know that the family of these four khalifahs all opposed the Khilafat of Yazeed.
At the time that bayya was administered to Yazeed, Muawiya asked Abdullah ibn
Zubayr for his views on giving bayya. Abdullah said before rushing forward on this
matter, you should think about the consequences carefully, to avoid embarrassment later.
Muawiya then said It seems that the deceptive fox has become somewhat brave in his old
age.
We read in Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 284 Dhikr Bayya Yazeed:
Muawiya came to Medina at the time that bayya was being given to Yazeed, he
approached Abdullah Ibn Zubayr and said Your welcome is not acceptable here. You are
like a mole that keeps his head buried in a hole and wags his tail outside, it may be that the
mole is captured and his back broken. With that Muawiya told him to go away and he
smacked his (ibn Zubayrs) ride.
Before his death Muawiya said to Yazeed, Ibn Zubayr wont accept your reign. He will
approach you like a lion. When he opposes you then rip him to shreds.
Abdullah Ibn Zubayr is a great figure of Ahlul Sunnah and they believe that he is a son of
Ashura Mubashra (The Heavenly Ten who seemed to be killing each other). Zubayr was also
the grandson of Abu Bakr and nephew of Ayesha. For Ahlul Sunnah it is indeed unfortunate
that Muawiya had the audacity to disregard Ibn Zubayrs close relationship to Abu Bakr, to the
point that he even advocated killing this esteemed personality.
When Ibn Saeed approached his door with firewood, and said Give bayya to Yazeed
otherwise I shall set your home alight, Abdullah then joined the majority by giving bayya
to Yazeed.
Yes, burning peoples homes was a favourite threat from the khalifa to get people to see things
their way. It didnt work to get the Bayya when Abu Bakr and Umar burned Ali (as) and Fatima
(as)s house, but it worked here and got the desired result!
Muawiya then personally went to Medina, summoned all five and threatened them.
We read in Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 455 Dhikr bayya Yazeed
Five people rejected the bayya of Yazeed. Muawiya approached Ayesha and said, If
these individuals dont give bayya to Yazeed then I will kill them. Ayesha replied I have
also heard news that that you are threatening the Khalifahs sons, in connection with the
bayya to Yazeed.
Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr refrained from giving bayya to Yazeed. Muawiya called
him and said You have the audacity to raise your hands and feet against me? By Allah I
am thinking of having you killed. Abdur Rahman said By killing me, then your
punishment shall be that Allah (swt) shall curse you in this world and throw you in Hell in
the next
When Muawiya made plans to make Yazeed the khalifah he consulted the people of
Syria. He then made his way to Medina and Makka, to raise this matter they voiced their
opposition. Muawiya then intimidated and threatened them.
Just look at the way that Muawiya secured the Khilafat that Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq
deem to be lawful. He threatened to kill the sons of the rightly guided khalifahs. If Yazeed were
really worthy of Khilafat then the situation would not have reached a stage where Muawiya was
issuing threats to kill people to secure bayya!
Muawiya sent stipends to the people of Medina he increased their amounts, with regards
to Banu Hashim stipends were withdrawn as they had rejected the bayya of Yazeed
When Muawiya made preparations to return to Syria, Ibn Abbas complained You have
perpetuated injustice against us. Muawiya replied Your chief Husayn bin Ali has not
given bayya.
This was the legitimate bayya; Muawiya was willing to apply economic sanctions as a
bargaining chip for Yazeeds bayya! It was like the United Nations. When Sunni Muslims
contemplate their khalifas they should know that their games were no different to those of
America and Britain in the UN acting holier-than-though, while slaughtering and getting away
with it through legal loopholes. The problem with the Sunni khalifas is their sincerity. Neither is
America sincere, nor was the khilafat sincere. This makes their protagonists pathetic.
If people analyse history, they shall realise how he (Muawiyah) obtained Bayah and how
he (Yazid) complied others with it, he (Yazid) did every evil deed.
Muawiya used every means at his disposal to secure bayya for his Nasibi son: bribery, threats,
intimidation and killing. Despite this we have Nasibi such as Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq
deeming his bayya to be legitimate simply because he got it. This is no dissimilar to what goes
on at the United Nations. The Sunni khilafat is one big legal loophole whereby the worst men are
revered as saints. It is part of the Nasibi religionone big sickening legal loophole. The
integrity, the honesty, the TRUTH is with Shia Islam and the 12 Shia Imams. Imam Husayn (as)
refused to play ball with the American President of his time, the Sunni khalifa Yazeed, appointed
like George Bush was through a legal loophole and through his fathers influence. Nawasibis
condemn Hussain (as). Real Muslims applaud him. The mentality of the Nasibis is that of
southern redneckers in America What MY President (Khalifa) does is ALWAYS right. God
bless America (Sunni Islam). How can WE be wrong? George Bush (Yazeed) is our leader. Hes
as good as his father George Bush Snr. (Muawiya). And just like George Bush Jr, Yazeed was
the vile (but stupid) son of a cunning father. And just like Bush, he has the media (Nasibi
scholars such as the Ansar site) feeding the masses his lies. Only difference is Muawiya and
Yazeed, father and son, were several times worse even than the Bushes in the White House.
The Sahaba were just, but on some occasions they would make such mistakes that were
not becoming of the Sahaba. Such mistakes can be highlighted. For example Muawiyas
appointing his son as Khalifah was a mistake, his love for his son clouded his eyes. This love
in effect made Muawiya blind, and his making Yazeed the khalifah was a mistake, may
Allah (swt) forgive him.
The acknowledgement that this appointment was a mistake destroys the Nasibi notion that
Yazeeds khilafat had ijma and was hence lawful. Had there been ijma then there would have
been no grounds to conclude that a mistake had taken place. Muawiya through his blind love of
his fasiq / fajir son sought to secure his Khilafat via the State machinery of terrorism and bribery.
Another defender of Muawiya, Allamah Abdul Hai states in Mahmuwa Naqwi Volume 2 page
94 states:
At the time of the bayya to Yazeed, Hadhrat Husayn and other Sahaba did not give bayya.
Those who did give bayya were forced to do so; it was known that Yazeed was a fasiq and
faajir.
This is further proof that people were pressured to give bayya, thus meaning that Abu Sulaimans
glowing curriculum vitae for Yazeed, namely that his khilafat had ijma, is a clear lie.
In Fatawa Azeezi page 227 al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz states as follows:
People in Makka, Medina and Kufa were unhappy at filthy Yazeed being made heir
apparent, and Imam Husayn, Abdullah bin Umar, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin
Zubayr and other Sahaba did not give bayya.
Medina was the capital and heart of Islam where the family of the Holy Prophet (saws) and
remaining companions lived. When the people of Madina rejected the khilafat of Yazeed then to
all extent and purposes Nasibi Abu Sulaimans claim that Yazeeds khilafat was legitimate on
account of ijma is an absolute lie. It doesnt get more clear-cut than this.
In Shaheed Karbala page 11 Part 19 the Hanafi scholar Mufti Muhammad Shaafi writes:
Yazeeds personal lifestyle was such that many in the vast Ummah did not deem him to be
the khalifah. The people (Sahaba) opposed this planning, many opposed it till their last
breath, and the situation got to a point where residents of Medina, Kufa and Kerbala were
massacred.
This author has also through his pen discredited the claim that Yazeed had attained ijma of the
people.
How could Yazeed be the Ameer when Imam Husayn was present? How was it a duty to
obtain ijma (in this circumstance) when the Sahaba and their children were present at that
time and when they had already voiced their opposition to this order? They were aware
that he was an enemy of Allah (swt), would drink, did not offer Salat, committed Zina
(adultery), he could not even refrain from copulating with his Mahram relatives (incest
having sex with sisters, daughters etc).
This further destroys Nasibi Abu Sulaimans false claim that ijma constitutes legitimacy.
The reality is Yazeed was born in 25 or 26 Hijri, and just like his father public disdain
was no barr on him attaining power.
i.e. father and son displayed a trait peculiarly common to many notorious families, who want
power at any cost, even human life.
Muawiyas securing bayya for his son during his lifetime was a major mistake, this
mistake was on account of his blind love for his son.
We have faithfully relied on Sunni sources to prove that the claims of any Muhaddith that ijma
was secured for Yazeed is an absolute lie.
Ansar.org states:
Muawiyah was eager for peoples 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 districts governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the
districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed.
Hahaha. What a bunch of lies for our readers to laugh at: Whats this grandest
companions? We have proved that Muawiya killed or bribed them all! This is called
whitewashing history, something very common in Sunni Islam. Sometimes the Nawasib even
rewrite history. Yes, its the Santa Claus fairytales again in a different guise. That Pinocchio
factor in Sunni Islam, like you have in todays world leaders, they just lie. Abu Sulaiman must
have a very rich plastic surgeon. What, how many nose jobs is it now? We would like to cite an
example of this wonderful consultation process that Muawiya adopted, and leave it to our
readers to think whether this bayya was really as popular as Abu Sulaiman would have us
believe. We read in Tareekh Kamil, Dhikr events of 56 Hijri Volume 3 pages 257:
In his efforts to secure bayya for Yazeed, whilst in Makka Muawiya summoned the key
members from the families of Abu Bakr, Umar, Banu Hashim and Ibn Zubayr to be
brought to him. He then said to them all I am about to make a speech and should any one
of you interrupt me, this shall be the last thing that he shall say, his head shall be removed
with this sword. He then called an officer and said that he should position two soldiers
next to each of these chiefs, should they oppose what I say then strike off their heads. The
chieftains were then brought before the podium accompanied by the guards. Muawiya
began to speak, he praised the chieftains and then said that these individuals have
expressed their pleasure at the bayya given to Yazeed and have also given bayya, with that
the speech was brought to an end. When these Chieftains left and the people asked them
about the situation, they said we have not given bayya to Yazeed. When they were asked
why they had not spoken up, they replied, we were under the threat of death.
Nasibi ideology justifies such methods of despotic government. For them, obedience to the
leader, be that man lawful or not, is mandatory. We the Shia do not regard as true Khalifas men
who broke the sacred rules by which leadership is bestowed. This is a cardinal difference
between Shia and Sunni. The Sunnis believe that a man who fixes the elections and becomes
leader must be obeyed, or even one who like Muawiya murdered to do so. There is no other
explanation other than this is as might is right, they believe, and all that counts is that mans
holding the leadership and the army. The Shia believe that the leader must be bestowed with
leadership in an honest and halal fashion. We believe that one who is unlawfully appointed is not
the lawful leader. The unlawful leader has no right to demand our obeisance. Unbiased men and
women can decide on who is right, Shia or Sunni. It is as obvious as the difference between day
and night. It is in this context that the case of Yazeed becomes an embarrassment for Sunnis. For
their khalifa Yazeed denied that Muhammad (saws) was even a prophet, in al Tabari stating that
the Quran was a fabrication. In the first year of his rule Yazeed slayed al-Husayn (as), in the
second year of his rule he put the people of Madina to the sword, and in the third year of his rule
he burned the Kaaba. All three actions are in the Sunna of Shia and Sunni acts which condemn a
man to hellfire. Yet by Sunni orthodoxy Yazeed must be obeyed, and those of the khalifas army
who refused to slay Husayn (as), slay the people of Madina, or burn the Kaaba, were
transgressors!
Conscience does not exist in Sunni Islam when it comes to the relationship of client/citizen to
leader. The notion of individual accountability for ones actions is dummed down when it comes
to obeying the leader. This strange and morally unacceptable position comes from the fact that
men like Muawiya and Yazeed had scholars in their pockets, on their payroll, bribed like the
men named above, to spin doctor Hadith that were falsely attributed to Muhammad (saws). Sahih
Bukhari notes Abu Hurayra being caught lying about the Hadith he would fabricate, yet the same
Sahih Bukhari, each word of which is Gospel and the truth for Sunnis, takes most of its Hadith
from the same Abu Hurayra.
It is ironic that the great Nasibi debater Abu Sulaiman in his pathetic defence of Muawiya (that
we have refuted) made the comment:
Muawiyah did not force people to give allegiance to his son Yazeed
Perhaps we are being a little nave, but can we not construe his methods of sanctions,
intimidation, violence and murder to secure this bayya as evidence of coercion on his part? Or
does this Nasibi have a different definition of the word force to the rest of the human race?
We appeal to those with brain cells, is this the way that ijma is attained? Can we really extol the
legitimacy of a Khalifah who comes to power under the shadow of such methods? Is this how
you sell the Islamic concept of khilafat to non-Muslims?
Yazeed (La'een)
o Introduction
o Was there an ijma in Yazeeds Khilafah?
o Was Yazeeds khilafah rightful?
o The stance of Imam Hussain (as)
o Yazeeds killing of Imam Hussain (as)
o The incident of Hara
o Hadith referring to Yazeed and his era
o Analysing hadith allegedly blessing Yazeed
o The alleged comments of Muhammad al Hanafiyya
o Cursing Yazeed
o Azam Tariqs false attempts to represent Sunni aqeedah
o Answering common Nasibi objections to the stance of Imam Hussain (as)
o Conclusion
Latest @shiapen
o No public Twitter messages.
Chapter Three: Was Yazeeds khilafah
rightful?
Abu Sulaiman al Nasibi in his article on Muawiya had tirelessly sought to canvass for his Imam
Yazeeds right to rule by stating:
Many Companions gave him the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdulghani Al-Maqdisay says:
His (Yazeeds) 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]
And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he
fulfilled: He said: I will make thee an Imam to the Nations. He pleaded: And also
(Imams) from my offspring! He answered: But My Promise is not within the reach of
evil-doers.
We will rely on the following classical Sunni tafseers to understand how the leading Sunni
Ulema interpreted this verse.
Allah (swt) said to Ibrahim (as) that we have made the condition of Imamate to be the
same as that of Prophethood, that he who amongst your descendants is Dhaalim cannot
attain it.
The verse clearly guarantees Imamate to be administered, but NOT to those that are unjust. The
Ahlul Sunnah Ulema in their tafseers have defined Dhalimoon (pronoun of the noun Dhaalim)
as kufr and fisq (transgression). Both of these traits were inherent in Abu Sulaimans Imam
Yazeed ibn Muawiya.
The author has then used the alleged comments of Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyah to prove that
Yazeed was a pious person. We will discuss the alleged tradition seperately in another chapter.
Let us begin the actual appraisal of Yazeed we find in Sunni books:
Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to music, kept
the company of boys with no facial hair [civil expression for paedophilia with boys, a form
of homosexuality], played drums, kept dogs [civil expression for bestiality], making frogs,
bears and monkeys fight. Every morning he would be intoxicated and would bind monkeys
to a horse saddle and make the horse run.
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1169, Nafees Academy Karachi
Moreover we read:
:
I say: The worst of offences amongst the bad deeds of Yazeed ibn Mauwiya are drinking
alcohol and engaging in some immoral acts.
He rewarded me with one hundred thousand, but this deed will not prevent me from
telling you honestly about his status, by Allah he drinks alcohol, by Allah he is drunkard
and even abandons prayer
Tareekh al Kamil, Volume 2 page 186
Ziyad Haarthi narrated: Yazeed gave me alcohol to drink, I had never drunk alcohol like
that before and I enquired where he had obtained its ingredients from. Yazeed replied: it
is made of sweet pomegranate, Isfahans honey, Hawazs sugar, Taifs grapes and
Burdahs water. Ahmed bin Masama narrated: Once Yazeed drank alcohol and started
to dance, suddenly he fell down and his nostril began to bleed.
After citing the above cited traditions, Imam Dhahabi then gave his own verdict regarding
Yazeed that has also been recorded by Allamah Ibn al-Emaad al-Hanbali (d. 1089 H) in
Shadharat al Dhahab Volume 1 page 69:
Al-Dhahabi said about him (Yazeed) that he was Nasibi, rude, harsh, would drink alcohol
and committed evil deeds. He commenced his reign by killing al-Hussain and concluded it
with the battle of al-Hara, so the people hated him and Allah didnt bless his life
Moreover, in his other authority work Tarikh Islam Volume 5 page 30, Imam Dhahabi states:
:
I say: When Yazeed did to the people of Madina what he did and killed al-Hussain and his
brothers and progeny, and Yazeed drank alcohol, and performed abominable things, then
the people hated him and rose up against him more than once. God didnt bless his life and
Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Adya al-Hanzali rose against him.
After the incident of Karbala, Yazeed appointed his cousin Uthman bin Muhammad bin
Abu Sufyan as Governor of Madina and asked him to secure Bayah his (Yazeeds) Bayah
from the people of Madina. He (Uthman) came to Madina and prepared a delegation and
sent it to visit Yazeed so that it can give Bayah to Yazeed. Yazeed gave them gifts but
despite this, when the delegation returned, it expressed negative things about Yazeed and
said: We have returned having visited a man who has no religion, he drinks alcohol, plays
instruments, keeps the company of singers and dogs [civil word for bestiality], we declare
that we have broken our allegiance to him Abdullah bin Abi Umro bin Hafs Mukhzomi
commented: Although Yazeed gave me gifts and other benefits but the reality is this man
is an enemy of Allah (swt) and a drunkard. I shall separate myself from him in the same
way that I remove my turban from my head and having said that he removed his turban
from his head and a person said: I come out from his Bayah in the way that I come out
from this shoe of mine then all people began to do this to the extent that there became a
pile of turbans and shoes
One group that includes Ibn Jauzi deem Yazeed a kaafir, another group says that he was
not a kaafir, this is a matter of dispute in the Ummah and the majority of Ahlul Sunnah
agree that he was a fasiq (transgressor), a fajir (one that commits debauchery) and a
drunkard.
Al-Waqidi has recorded from various ways that Abdullah bin Hanzallah narrated: verily
we opposed Yazeed at that time when we feared that Allah (swt) would send down stones
on us, Yazeed considered nikah (marriage) with mothers, daughters and sisters to be
permissible, drank alcohol and abandoned prayers.
Ibn Hajr al Makki like Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq was a major adherent of Muawiya, and in
fact wrote a book in honour of Muawiya. Yet even he deemed Yazeed to be a fasiq. The Ulema
of Ahlul Sunnah are united that Yazeed was a fasiq. Nasibis such as Abu Sulaiman and Azam
Tariq of course beg to differ as they support anyone who hates Ahlulbayt, even if that person
uses his penis to penetrate the anuses of young boys and dogs, and the vaginas of his sisters and
mother.
A Sahabis testimony that Yazeed was an incestuous
drunkard
We read the following testimony of the Sahabi Maqal bin Sinan in al-Mustadrak al-Hakim,
Volume 3 page 522:
he is a man who drinks alcohol and performs adultery with Mahram (blood relatives)
Verily, Hussain (as) rejected the proposal to give bayah to Yazeed because he was Fasiq,
drunkard and an oppressor and Hussain went Makkah.[Sirul Shahadatayn, page 12]
Imam Paak aur Yazeed Paleed, page 97 (Zia ul Quran publications, Lahore)
Moreover, he made alcohol Halal and these are his couplets for alcohol:
The treasure of alcohol is in a utensil which is like silver and the branch of grapes are
loaded by grapes which are like stars, the depth of the branch of grapes is alternate for the
stars over sun, the east of this sun (alcohol) is the hand of the drinker whilst the place for
the sunset (alcohol) is my mouth, thus, if one day alcohol was made Haram in Ahmads
religion, then O addressee, just take it according to the religion of Masih ibn Mariam (i.e.
deem it Halal)
Tafseer Mazhari [Arabic], Volume 5 page 271, commentary of 14:29
Tafseer Mazhari [Urdu], Volume 6 pages 202-203, commentary of 14:29
It is possible that this verse refers to Yazeed bin Muawiyah. Yazeed had martyred the
grandson of Holy Prophet (s) and his companions, those companions were actually the
members of the Prophets family. He disgraced the honor of the Prophet (s) and then
became proud of it and stated: Today, vengeance for the day of Badr has been taken. He
was the one who brought the army to storm Madina and destroyed it during the incident of
Hara, and he dishonored the mosque that had been founded on the basis of Taqwa and
which has been referred to as one of the gardens of heaven. He installed positions in order
to stone the house of Allah, he was the one who martyred Abdullah bin Zubair [ra] the
grandson of the first caliph Abu Bakr [ra]. He did such indecent things that he finally
denounced the religion of Allah and made alcohol Halal that had been made Haram by
Allah
Tafseer Mazhari [Urdu], Volume 8 page 268
Yazeed in his youth indulged in alcohol consumption and used to do other things youth
would do, and this came to the attention of Muawiya who wanted to advise him warmly so
he said to him: O my son, you do have capability of achieving what you want without
disgrace and debasement, which will destroy your youthfulness and value, and will make
your enemy happy at your adversity and your friend will treaty you badly. He then stated:
O my son, let me recite to you some couplets, try to learn manners from these couplets and
memorise them by heart. Thus, Muawiyah recited:
Stay all the day long in the pursuance of heights and have patience on the departure of a
close mate, until the darkness of night appears and your enemy falls asleep, thus, do
whatever you wish to do throughout the night, night is like a day for the wise, there are
plenty of Fasiq people whom you deem pious, but they spend their nights committing
strange things, night has provided veils to their acts and he has spent the night with calm
and pleasure, whilst the wish of a stupid person is of a visible nature.
Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1156 (published by Nafees Academy Karachi)
We appeal to our readers to ponder over this reference carefully. Who knows a mans character
better than his father? Abu Sulaiman relied on Ibn Kathirs narration wherein Ibn Hanafiyya said
he had never seen Yazeed drinking alcohol. In the same book Ibn Kathir records the testimony of
Muawiya himself, namely his advice that Yazeed keep his alcoholism a secret. Tell us Abu
Sulaiman whose word is more reliable yours or Muawiyas?
Due to his hatred of Allah (swt) Yazeed openly drank alcohol. In his deeds he followed the
Seerah of Pharoah, but Pharoah was more just to his own subjects.
In Wafyat al-Ayan Volume 3 page 287 popularly known as Tarikh Ibn Khalkan we read the
following testimony of the great Sunni scholar Ibn Khalkan:
Yazeed would hunt with cheetas play chess and drink alcohol and had famous poems
about alcohol.
We read the following testimony of Hassan al-Basri in Tarikh Abul Fida, Volume 1 page 288:
Yazeed would hunt with cheetas, play chess and drink alcohol.
The prominent people of Medina broke the bayya to Yazeed on account of his bad
character and drinking alcohol
Yazeed was such a fasiq that not a single hadith of his can be accepted, when this is the case then
his khilafat cannot be accepted either.
There is an agreement amongst the Ahlul Sunnah that he was a fasiq and a fajir, the
dispute is over whether he was a kaafir.
Some say Why should we discuss such a thing since he [Yazeed] was a King and he
[Husayn] was also a King one who makes such comments {refusing to hold opinion on
Yazeed and Husayn (as)] is accursed, a Kharijee, Nasibi and hell bound. The dispute is
over whether he [Yazeed] was a kaafir. The madhab of Abu Hanifa stipulates that he was a
fasiq and fajir, nor was he a kaafir nor a Muslim.
Yazeed was a fasiq, he was irregular in Salat, committed Bidah and was Chief of the
Nasibi.
One should refrain from calling Yazeed a kaafir, but there is no objection to referring to
him as a fasiq.
Yazeed was a fasiq and a fajir and there is absolute unanimity amongst the scholars on
this point.
Abu Ubaida al-Jarah narrated that Allahs messenger (s) said: My nations matter will
remain on justice until the first person who shall spoil it, who will be a man belonging to
the Bani Umaya namely Yazeed.
Shaykh Ahmed Aziz in his authority work Siraj al Munir Sharah Jami al-Saghir, Volume page
elobarated:
Yazid bin Muawyia and those is similar to him from the young rulers of Bani Umaya
killed the progeny of Ahlulbayt
Mulla Ali Qari in Sharh Shifa commenting on hadith that the Deen will be harmed by young men
states:
The destruction of the Deen at the hands of a young man refers to Yazeed bin Muawiya
who sent Muslim bin Uqba to pillage Madina
Mulla Ali Qari in Mirqat Sharah Mishkaat, commenting on hadith that the Deen will be harmed
by young men states:
It refers to those who came after the rightly guided caliphs such as Yazeed bin Muawiyah
and Abdul Malik bin Marwan
The amount of condemnation that the Sunni Ulema have vented against Yazeed is astounding.
The amount of material that we have presented should convince our readers that the appraisals
that these Nasibi present are lies, and the Azam Tariqs and Abu Sulaimans of this world would
never be able to reply to these references.
I am not weak like Uthman and I am not cunning like Muawiya and I am not a
homosexual like Yazid
The tradition is also recorded in old transcripts of Al Bidayah wal Nihayah whilst in the
present transcripts available on the internet, the filthy Nawasib have committed Tahreef bu
substituting the word Mabun (homosexual) with Maun (secure).
We would ask actual Sunnis to go and ask your imams whether a man that does such a thing is a
fasiq (transgressor) or not? Can he be an Imam or not? We congratulate Azam Tariq the pride of
Lut, who is advocating the piety of Yazeed, and deeming him to be a legitimate Imam. Perhaps
the late Azam Tariq was himself a closet homosexual.
1. Tabaqat al Kabeera, Volume 5 page 66 Dhikr Abdullah bin Hanzala and Volume 4 page
283
2. Tareekh ul Khulafa, (Urdu), page 210 Dhikr Yazeed
3. Sawqih al Muhriqa, page 132 Dhikr Yazeed
4. Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume page 522
5. Al Isaba, Volume 3 page 469
6. Ya Nabi al Mawaddah, page 326
7. Tareekh Ibn Asakir, Volume 7 page 275
8. Fatawi Abdul Hai, page 79
9. Tareekh al Islam, Volume 2 page 356
10. Aujaz al Masalaik Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik, page 435
We read in Tabaqat:
Abdullah bin Hanzala the Sahaba stated By Allah we opposed Yazeed at the point when
we feared that stones would reign down on us from the skies. He was a fasiq who copulated
with his mother, sister and daughters, who drank alcohol and did not offer Salat
Waqidi has narrated from Abdullah bin Hinzala al Ghaseel: We prepared to attack
Yazeed at the time when we were sure that stones would come from sky because people
were performing Nikah with their mothers, sisters and daughters. They were drinking
alcohol and have left prayers.
Tareekh ul Khulafa (Urdu) page 210 published by Nafees Academy Karachi
Imam Dhahabi has recorded the statement of Abdullah bin Hinzala al Ghaseel in the following
manner:
Oh people, we better start a movement to oppose Yazeed otherwise stones may reign
down on us because he is a man who performs zina with slave women, daughters and
sisters.
We read the following testimony of the Sahabi Maqal bin Sinan in al-Mustadrak al-Hakim,
Volume 3 page 522:
Now we have these Nasibi such as Afriki and Sipaa-e-Sahaba are praising a man who was so
filthy he indulged in incest to satisfy his lusts, and these Nasibi deem him to be the lawful
successor to Rasulullah (s).
When the head of Husayn (as), the grandson of the Holy prophet (saws), was presented before
Yazeed he recited the couplets of the kaafir Zubayri:
Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom there was no news from the skies nether was
there any revelation
We have proven from the sources of Ahlul Sunnah that Yazeed rejected the concept of
revelation; rather he deemed all this a stage for power by Rasulullah (s). This proves that Yazeed
was a kaafir, so what right do these Nasibi have to extol Yazeed, deem him to to the rightful
Khalifah over the Muslims and Ameerul Momineen?
Yazeed the impure denied the Prophethood of Rasulullah (s). The treatment that he meted
out to the people of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet proves that he was a
kaafir.
The problem is Sunni Islam accepts as a khalifa (literally successor to the Prophet (saws)) a
man who clearly did not believe in the Quran and instead believed the Holy Prophet (saws) was
a fraud. This is part of Sunni doctrine. It is unacceptably and obviously FLAWED, both logically
and also intuitively. So what can we make of this religion? Such ridiculous dogmas exist because
the whole structure is based on a fundamental lie and injustice: the usurpation of the true Khilafat
from Ali (as) which was his divinely sanctioned prerogative, and instead the institution of Abu
Bakr as khalifa. So the lies became bigger and bigger as time went on, to the degree that in the
21st century Yazeed is even hailed as a Santa-Saint by the modern-day Nasibi camp amongst
Sunnis.
When Yazeeds son came to power he gave the speech: Khilafat is from Allah (swt). My
grand father Muawiya bin Abu Sufyan fought for khilafat against that individual who was
more entitled to it, that being Ali. He [Mu'awiya] performed actions that you are all aware
of, and he is suffering in his grave for that. Then my father Yazeed became the khalifah
even though he was not deserving of khilafat. He fought the grandson of Rasulullah (s)
[Husayn (as)] and is suffering in the grave on account of his sins. Muawiya bin Yazeed
then proceeded to cry, It is a terrible thing that we are fully aware of Yazeeds bad deeds:
he slaughtered the family of the Prophet (s), he deemed alcohol halal, and set fire to the
Kaaba. I dont need this khilafat, you deal with it
This is what a son said about his father and grandfather. Not surprisingly, this lone voice of
conscience amongst the Umayyads didnt last long in power, and was rapidly succeeded by the
power-hungry branch of the Umayyads led by Marwan, whose devious and vile character are
vouched for in the references at the start of this article. Here one khalifa is condemning his two
predecessors. Yet Sunni Islam is content to believe that they were one happy family.
Similarly in Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 301, Dhikr Muawiya the second and Hayaat al
Haywan Volume 1 page 88 Dhikr al Awaaz we read that Muawiya the second stated in a
sermon:
My father Yazeed did not deserve to attain the position as khalifah over the Prophets
Ummah.
Yazeed bin Muawiya was such a fasiq that his own son sought to distance himself from his
reign and publicly declared that Yazeed was not entitled to be khalifah on account of his fasiq
actions. These are the comments of Yazeeds son. Yet despite the testimony of the countless
scholars we have cited, the countless companions, and above all, Al-Hussain (as) himself, and
here Yazeeds own son, the 21st century Nasibis of Ansar.org and Sipah-e-Sahaba think they
know better.
We read in Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya (urdu) Vol 8 page 1156 Dhikr Yazeed bin Muawiyah:
Yazeed in his youth indulged in alcohol consumption and used to do other things youth
would do, and this came to the attention of Muawiya who wanted to advise him warmly so
he said to him: O my son, you do have capability of achieving what you want without
disgrace and debasement, which will destroy your youthfulness and value, and will make
your enemy happy at your adversity and your friend will treaty you badly. He then stated:
O my son, let me recite to you some couplets, try to learn manners from these couplets and
learn them by heart. Thus, Muawiyah recited:
Stay all the day long in the pursual of heights and have patience on the departure of a
close mate, until the darkness of night appears and your enemy falls asleep, thus, do
whatever you wish to do throughout the night, night is like a day for the wise, there are
plenty of Fasiq people whom you deem pious, but they spend their nights commiting
strange things, night has provided veils to their acts and he has spent the night with calm
and pleasure, while the wish of a stupid person is of a visible nature.
Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1156 (published by Nafees Academy Karachi)
Muawiyas advice that Yazeed hide his acts is in accordance with Hadith wherein
Rasulullah (s) said that one should seek to cover up the faults of others.
This proves that Muawiya was fully aware of his sons disgraceful acts.
Muawiya wrote to his [bastard] brother Ziyad to seek advice on securing the bayya for
Yazeed. Ziyad was not receptive of this since he knew that he [Yazeed] was fond of hunting
and had done bad deeds.
Yazeeds own uncle was aware of his bad acts. Hence to suggest that his dear father had no idea
that his son possessed bad traits is an utter lie, after all he was the King over the nation who kept
news of all developments throughout his empire. Is it believable he had no idea of the deeds of
his own son? It is a testament to the truth that Muawiyas own advocate Ibn Kathir highlights
the fact that Muawiya knew of his sons faults.
Muawiyas motive behind appointing his Fasiq son as
Khalifah
Abu Sulaiman al Nasibi in his article on Muawiya sought to apply conjecture, seeking to defend
Muawiyas appointment of his son by stating:
Perhaps the reason that pushed Muawiyah to take allegiance to Yazeed was to push away the
disagreement and to be one in this crucial time at which the Ummah lived and where a lot of
people claimed the caliphate. Hence, Muawiyah thought that by giving the leadership to Yazeed
would be a good thing for the Ummah and it would prevent another affliction of happening
These Nawasib dig up the most bizarre excuses the reason Muawiya made Yazeed his son was
not for these namby-pamby maybe reasons. Its because all kings want to make their sons the
king after them. Its called monarchy and nepotism. Its why all the scholars say Muawiya made
Yazeed khalifa. Do the Ansar team live on another planet?
It is a fickle effort to cover up Yazeeds Nasibi fathers sin. If we really want to know
Muawiyas motive, why use guesswork when we have his own testimony. We thus read in al
Bidayah Volume 8 page 118 that prior to his death, Muawiya admitted his appointment of his
son was based on his love for him, nothing else.
If it was not my love for Yazeed, I would have known the path of guidance.
This proves that Muawiyas motive to appoint Yazeed was not to prevent affliction as this
Nasibi claims, rather his aim was only based on the love of his son and his regret that he was
blinded by love is proof that Muawiya was fully aware that his son was a transgressor who had
no right to be deemed as the Guide over Muslims. Here Muawiya confesses to being misguided
so the Nasibi cult reveres and follows an imam who admits he is misguided!
In connection with these words of Muawiya, his great advocate Ibn Hajr al Makki in Thatheer al
Janaan page 52 stated:
Muawiyas saying had it not been my love for Yazeed in my heart, although I know the
path of guidance, serves as testimony against him [Mu'awiya]. He placed his fasiq son over
the people. Muawiyas love for his son destroyed his thinking and political astuteness.
Muawiyas allowing his personal feelings / love to decide how the Deen should be led, to
the point that his sons transgressions [which were beyond the pale of the Sharia and
merited the death penalty] were an irrelevancy constitutes a major sin for which he shall be
called to answer for on the Day of Judgement.
Muawiya said to his son, The thing that I fear most of all is my act of making you my
successor.
Muawiya indulged in all manner of act to secure a smooth transition of power for his son:
threats, intimidation, and he even had Imam Hasan (as) martyred by poison. Such methods to
make his fasiq son Khalifah over the Muslims are definitely a major sin.
Yazeed showed Fisq during his Caliphate, therefore dont think that Muawiya [ra] knew
that about Yazid (and remained silent), surely he is just, nay he (Muawiya) used to make
him (Yazeed) refrain from listening to songs during his (Muawiyas) life time.
Now the method Muawiyah adopted to make his Fasiq son refrain from singing and other sins
has already been cited earlier from Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1156 according
to which Muawiyah asked Yazeed to refrain from all the sins during daylight and conduct them
uinder the protection of nights! As for the forbiddance of listening music, we read in Surah
Luqman verse 6 (Yusuf Ali transliteration):
But there are among men those who purchase idle tales (Lahw Al-Hadith) without
knowledge (or meaning) to mislead (men) from the Path of Allah and throw ridicule (on the
Path): for such there will be a humiliating Penalty.
As evidence we shall advance the following texts of Ahlul Sunnah that have commented on this
verse:
The scholars have deemed Raag (singing scales) to be haraam on the basis of this verse.
Ibn Masud commented about the Ayah: (And of mankind is he who purchases Lahu Al-
Hadith to mislead (men) from the path of Allah), This by Allah refers to singing.
Imam of the Salafies Ibn Qayim records in Eghathat al-Lahfan, Volume 1 page 241:
You never find some one that cares about songs and music save those who are misguided
from the right path
In the end of his life, he got a blot (on his face) and would cover his face and say: May
Allahs mercy be upon the one who invocates for my health, I have been blotted on my best
body part had it not been my love for Yazeed, I would have known the path of guidance.
Blinded by his love for his son, he was willing to impose his demonic fasiq son as the Khalifah
over the Muslims. How considerate! Clearly Muawiyas admission proves that even he did not
feel Yazeed was deserving of khilafat. Nasibi Warrior Abu Sulaiman asserts the imposition was
to save fitnah, but this is a lie. Muawiya never made such a claim, rather he stated that he made
his fasiq son the Khalifah on account of his blind love for him i.e. a fathers natural love for his
son. No doubt Nasibis will claim that Muawiya made a mistake in ijtihaad in this respect, but
they should know that one of the conditions for a mujtahid to give rulings is that he has to be adil
(just), and Muawiya was not adil, as we have proven in our article on Muawiya the Ulema of
Ahlul Sunnah have themselves defined Muawiya as a transgressor.
Muawyia said to Yazeed: The thing that I fear most is the fact that I have imposed you (as
my successor).
The khalifah should be a man and should be adil. By just we mean he should refrain
from major sins and should not repeat minor sins. He should also be a mujtahid.
The Imam over the Ummah should possess these merits have sense, be Muslim, be just,
free, a man, a mujtahid, and brave
It is incumbent on the Imam / Khalifah to be adil, he should not be zaalim, since a fasiq
deems the treasury to be his personal wealth, and will waste money.
Abu Yala in this same book, echoing the words of other Salaf Ulema stated that the contract of
Imamate can only go to one that is Adil, and the Quran stipulates that it cannot be bestowed on
one that is Dhaalim. We have the consensus from the Ulema of Islam that a fasiq cannot attain
the station of Imam; we can prove from the texts of Ahlul Sunnah that both Muawiya and
Yazeed were not adil. Muawiyas deeds throughout his reign, including efforts to secure
Yazeeds nomination via duress prove that he was not adil. When Muawiya was himself unjust
then he had no right to appoint his fasiq son as Imam over the Ummah. Moreover his methods of
intimidation to win backing for Yazeed, makes Nasibi claims that Yazeeds khilafat was
legitimate a complete farce.
Reply One
What this Nasibi has failed to recognise is the fact that opposition to Ahlul bayt (as) is
inexorably linked to the Deen; it cannot simply be watered down to a political dispute. In this
connection we shall cite a narration of a Sunni scholar Allamah Shibli:
Ali [r] said to Muawiya Guard yourself from hating me since Rasulullah (s) said that on
the Day of Judgement those that hate me shall be turned away from the Pond of Kauthar
and be thrown in the fire.
This one example serves as proof that Muawiyas hatred / opposition to Imam Ali (as) can
never be defined as a political dispute. Had it just been a political matter, Hadhrath Ali (as)
would not have threatened Muawiya his enemy with Hell Fire. This example serves as proof
that even the political enemies / opponents of Ahlul bayt (as) shall burn in Hell.
Reply Two
Hafiz Ibn Asakir records this tradition on the authority of Sahabi Anas bin alHarith:
) (
I heard Rasulullah (s) say Verily my son, means Husayn, will be killed in a land called
Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.
Tarikh Dimashq, Volume 14 page 223
If this was only a political dispute, then why did Rasulullah (s) deem it incumbent on the Sahaba
to help his grandson Husayn (as), who he called his son? Politics is something without
compulsion, for in Islam it is part of religion, for Islam is a system of life. And there is no
ordinance in Islam that compels a person to follow a certain political persuasion UNTIL that
person submits to Islam. But here Rasulullah (s) commands the companions to side with Imam
Husayn (as), making it a duty on them to side with Husayn (as). Hence it can only be deemed to
be a religious ordinance for THOSE WHO BELIEVE and have embraced Islam. The difference
between Husayn (as) and Yazeed was thus, incontrovertibly, a religious one, for the Holy
Prophet (saws) made it a duty for the Muslims who follow his religion to side with Husayn (as).
This logic is undeniable and crystal-clear.
THE BATTLE OF KARBALA IN 61 A.H. WAS NOT A BATTLE BETWEEN TRUTH AND
FALSEHOOD OR ISLAM AND KUFR AS IS ALLEGED BY THE SHIAS.
This is an attempt by the champions of the 21st century Nasibi movement to deny how all
Muslims, Shia and Sunni alike, view the Battle of Karbala. To most Muslims, Shia and Sunni
alike, Husayn (as) embodied faith and the true religion, while Yazeed embodied kufr and the
devil. After all, did not Husayn (as)s grandfather tell the Muslims to side with Husayn (as).
Thus most Muslims see in Karbala the ultimate battle between the forces of good and those of
evil. The Nasibis would instead have us see it another way, simply as the embodiment of good
happens also to be the Third Shia Imam, and this adulation for him by the Sunni world is
intolerable to the Nasibi cult. Ansar.Orgs favourite Nasibi son Afriki also sought to discredit the
martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) by mocking the notion of most Muslims that this was a battle
between truth and falsehood. In his article on Who killed Imam Husayn? he stated:
However, it is regrettable that despite the huge amount of attention the subject of Karbala enjoys,
the event is persistently portrayed as two-sided. It is always depicted as Husayn against Yazid,
Right rising up against Wrong, the Quest for Justice against the Forces of Oppression.
I heard Rasulullah (s) say Verily my son, means Husayn, will be killed in a land called
Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.
Comment
If two individuals are fighting and the Prophet (s) tells you to go to the aid of one of them, then
that individual will be on the path of truth, since the Prophet (s) would never give an order to
stand with falsehood. In Kerbala, on one side was the illegal Khaleefa Yazeed bin Muawiyah on
the other was Imam Husayn grandson of the Prophet (s), an individual whom the Prophet (s)
gave an order that his Sahaba come to his aid.
Reply Two One who fights Husayn (as), fights the Prophet
(s)
We will prove this by citing the following Sunni sources:
Our Prophet via Prophetic knowledge and revelation knew that his grandson Husayn
would be martyred fighting Yazeed bin Muawiya, that is why the Prophet made a specific
reference about him, stating he shared three qualities with him (s), 1. Loving both is
compulsory 2. Disrespecting both is a sin 3. Fighting both is haraam and a sin
This Hadeeth proves that in the same way one that fights the Prophet can never be on Haqq
(Truth), likewise on that fights Husayn can never be on Haqq either, this proves that in Kerbala
Yazeed was on the path of falsehood, and Husayn (as) on the path of truth.
Reply Three One that fights the Ahlul bayt fights the
Prophet
We have relied on the following Sunni works:
1. Sunan Ibn Majah, English translation by Muhammad Tufail Ansari, Volume 1 page 81
2. Fadail al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p767, Tradition #1350;
3. al-Mustadrak al-Hakim, Volume 3 page 149
Allahs Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said regarding Ali, Fatima,
Hasan and Husayn (Allah be pleased with them all): I am at peace with those with whom
you make peace and I am at war with those with whom you make war
Imam Ibn Habban has included this hadith in his collection of Sahih Hadiths (Sahih Ibn
Habban Volume 15 page 433), Imam Hakim declared it Hasan (al-Mustadrak, Volume 3 page
161) and Imam Nasiruddin Albaani al-Salafi also declared it Hasan (Al-Jamea al-Saghir wa
Ziadateh, page 235).
This Hadeeth proves that when Yazeed fought Imam Husayn (as) in Kerbala he was actually
fighting the Prophet (s), and is automatically on falsehood.
One afternoon I dreamt of Holy Prophet (s) standing with his hair disturbed and with
dust tangled in them and he was holding a phial filled with blood. I said to the Prophet:
May my parents by sacrificed at you. What are you holding? The Prophet (s) replied: I
am holding this phial filled with the blood of my son and his companions that I have been
collecting all the day long.
I remembered that day and when the news of Al Hussains (as) martyrdom came, and I
matched that day with the day I had dreamt the Holy Prophet (s), I came to know that it
was the same day.
The distressed state of the Prophet (s) at the time of the death of the Prophet (s) serves as clear
evidence that our Imam Husayn (as) was with the truth and Yazeed (l) was on falsehood. If
Nasibis argue that the words of Rasulullah (s) in a dream are not authentic then we suggest to
them to consider these words:
Abu Huraira narrates: The Prophet (pbuh) said: Whoever has seen me in a dream has in
fact seen me, for Satan does not appear in my form
Sahih Muslim, vol. 4 p 1225 no 5635
Reply Five
We have proven that Yazeed opposed the concept of revelation and denied the Prophethood. To
raise ones voice against such an enemy of God is certainly proof that Imam Husayn (as) was on
the party of truth and was seeking to counter Yazeeds falsehood. Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi, a
staunch Wahabi, in Taufa Ithna Ashari, Chapter 1 page 6 stated clearly that:
Imam Husayn was aware of the falsehood of Yazeed the Paleeth (impure)
If opposition to such a transgressor is not Jihad then what is? How can these same Nasibi define
the Banu Umayyad campaigns of conquests, pillaging / looting etc, to satiate Muslim greed and
maintain a life of luxury as Jihad? If Jihad is defined as fighting the kuffar then Yazeed and his
ancestors were kaafir, his father may have sought to cloak his hypocrisy but Yazeed openly
declared his kaafir beliefs, and al Istiab also gives clear proof over the hypocrisy of Abu Sufyan.
When people opposed Yazeed in Madina, amongst them were the largest concentration of still
living Sahaba, and the vast bulk were slaughtered. Amongst those who were martyred by the side
of Husayn (as) in actual battle were also Muhammad (saws)s sahaba, while at the actual battle
not one sahaba was found on the side of Yazeeds army. Were their actions [as Sahaba] false?
Against Yazeed ranged the majority of the surviving sahaba were all misguided waging war
against a man who did not even know the Holy Prophet (saws), was a man who used his penis to
penetrate men/ dogs/bears/sisters/daughters/mother? Yazeed expected the Bayya while he openly
expressed that Muhammad (saws) was a fraud. Yazeed and the clique of sahaba like Abdullah
bin Omar (son of the second khalifa) that supported him were scum of the worst kind.
Reply Six
Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 231 narrates this hadith on the authority if
Abu Ubaydah:
My Ummah shall be ruled with justice, until the first individual that shall destroy it, he
shall from the Banu Ummaya, his name will be Yazeed.
In a short time span of three years this Khalifah of Azam Tariq shed the blood of the family of
the Prophet, the residents of Medina and catapulted the Kaaba. Rasulullah (s) pinpointed the
man that would destroy the Deen BY NAME. When this is the case then opposition to him can
automatically be defined as opposition to falsehood. Why do the Nasibis support a man cursed
BY NAME by the Holy Prophet (saws) himself.
Some illiterates have said (Allah forbid) that Imam Husayn was a rebel, this is Batil
according to the aqaid of Ahlul Sunnah wa al Jamaah, this may not be palatable to those
that have fallen away from the truth.
This is a leading book of Hanafi aqaid that is clealrly stating that Hanafi Sunnis do not deem our
Imam to be a rebel, obviously those Sunnis that say otherwise are actually practising taqiyya,
posing as Sunnis when they are actually hardcore Nawasib.
Neel al Autar:
There are those people who aided the Deen, they opposed the leader of the time because
the leader was Unjust who had left the way of the Prophet, these people are the people of
truth and Imam Husayn is at the top of such individuals
Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Shaukani stated clearly that Yazeed was unjust and abandoned the way
of the Prophet (s), and Imam Husayn (as) aided the Deen by opposing Yazeed, and our Imam
was on truth and Yazeed was on falsehood.
Shadharat al Dhahab:
The people is Islam are in absolute agreement, that Imam Husayns opposition to
Yazeeds bad deeds was a good step, similarly the act of Ibn Zubayr and the Madinans
opposition against the Banu Umayya was also a good step.
Husayn was on the right path, he attained martyrdom for which he shall be rewarded.
Another Muawiya supporter, the Grand Sheikh of Wahabis Ibn Taymiyya states:
The middle way is that of the Ahlul Sunnah who dont deem Husayn a baghi or the
Khaleefa , and deem his murder to be martyrdom
Husayn did not oppose giving bayya to Yazeed because he wanted to become the Khalifa
his opposition was to elevate the kalima of Tauheed and Deen al Hanafeeya, in this regards
he was following the footsteps of his father.
Zaynab, page 157
When Imam Husayn, according the Ahlul Sunnah Sect, died a martyr then his difference with
Yazeed cannot be condensed down to a political dispute. These Nasibi need to understand that
you can only die a martyr if you are defending the Deen and Ibn Taymeeya said the Ahlul
Sunnah hold the opinion that Imam Husayn (as) was a martyr. Can we not therefore conclude
that the aqeedah of Ahlul Sunnah is that Imam Husayn (as) the martyr was slain upholding the
Deen and his killer Yazeed was following falsehood? This is self-implicit if one accepts, as Ahl
al Sunna do, that Husayn (as) achieved the rank of martyrdom.
These references prove that the scholars of Islam acknowledge that Imam Husayn (as) attained
Martyrdom, hence Imam Husayn (as) adhered to the truth in Kerbala. The Prophet (s) stated that
the Ummah must come to his (as) aid that he would be martyred in Kerbala
Reply Eight
Ibn Asakir records (in Mishbaath ba Sunnath page 219) a hadith on the authority of Hadhrath
Ayesha:
Oh Allah never shower your blessings on the cursed killer Yazeed. He will rebel against
my beloved Husayn and martyr him
Does this not act as conclusive proof that the battle of Kerbala was a battle between truth and
falsehood? Rasulullah (s) deemed Imam Husayn (as) a martyr and cursed Yazeed, his killer who
rebelled against Imam Husayn (as). Verily a martyr dies on the path of truth whilst a baghi
(rebel) dies on the path of falsehood. Need we say any more on this topic?
The acceptance that the Imam (as) was a martyr is proof that he adhered to the path of truth and
Yazeed was on falsehood.
Reply One
Azam Tariq seems to suggest that the Sahaba would not be so shameless as to ignore Jihad.
These Nasibi claim to be the defenders of the Sahaba, let us leave them aside for a moment and
focus on Muawiya and the Banu Ummaya clan. Did they not shirk their duties to defend
Uthman at the time of his murder? The entire Banu Umayya, including Muawiya stood back and
allowed their relative Khalifah be slaughtered. Poor old Uthman was left on his own with no
support, no son, brother in law or relative sought to protect his dear relative. Is this how the
passive Gandhi ethics of Uthman were met? If these Nasibi claim that they were merely
following the words of noble Uthman who stated no one whether that be his clan, the people of
Medina or Muawiyas army support him, then his desire is false since it is even incumbent on a
seventy year old man to protect his life. Failure to do so constitutes suicide that contravenes the
Sharia.
Reply Two
If the Sahaba could not shirk the responsibility of Jihad then we should point out that poor old
Uthman was cornered in his home for forty days before his end and the Sahaba did not have the
decency to fight and protect their imam even though this oppression occurred in the city in which
they resided. When they shirked jihad in their own hometown then what likelihood was there to
expect these same lions to defend Imam Husayn (as) who had been cornered two thousand
miles away by Yazeed in the remote plains of Kerbala? Can these Nasibi produce any evidence
that their Imam Yazeed had made a declaration via radio / television / papers that he was
intending to fight Imam Husayn (as) on a specific date at a specific venue and that despite this,
the Sahaba shirked their responsibilities?
Reply Three
Rather than protect poor Uthman history testifies that many played a key role in his downfall and
killing. Ayesha for example had issued takfeer against Uthman. Why did the Sahaba not raise
their objections and seek to head off these libellous claims? Why is this Nasibi trying to use the
Sahabas inaction with regards to supporting Imam Husayn (as) as proof when the same
Sahaba were involved in killing Uthman? On Azam Tariqs assessment can we therefore deem
their action against Uthman to be correct?
When the Sahaba had participated in the killing of Uthman, who as they claim was the Khilafah
over the Muslims, and this did not bother them in the slightest, then how can Azam Tariq ask us
why the Sahaba remained silent and failed to side with Imam Husayn (as)?
Its those Santas again the Nasibis keep hiding behind them while we lift their red Santa
kaftans and expose their uncircumcised privates.
Reply Four
If this Nasibi claims that the Sahabas inaction serves as evidence that no Jihad had taken place
then we should point out that in Medina a group of the companions openly advocated their
opposition to Yazeed and demonstrated this opposition by removing their shoes from their feet.
Then the people of Medina rebelled and fought the army of Yazeed. Tell us, can we describe the
Sahabas rebellion in Medina and fighting Yazeed, as Jihad on their part and a battle between
truth and falsehood? Were the people of Medina not on the path of truth? Or were all those who
narrated this event of Harra including great Nasibis such as Ibn Kathir Dimishqi misguided by
Ibn Saba in this regard?
Reply Six
Did the Sahaba and Tabieen not leave Ummul Momineen Ayesha during the battle of Jamal?
She was left on her camel, undefended. What happened to the honourable Sahaba on this
occasion. Did they not shirk their Jihad duties here?
Imam Husayn (as) fought Yazeeds army in hand-to-hand combat as he was brave, as were
the sahaba who joined him. Most of the other sahaba only fought Yazeed when Yazeed
attacked them in Madina i.e. they were set upon. This is because none had the courage of a
Shia Imam, who took on the might of the world most powerful empire rather than
abandon his principles. Meanwhile, the Santas were running scared.
I accompanied Husayn from Makka until the time that he was killed. I heard all of his
speeches and at no point did he state Take me to Yazeed so that I can give him bayya
The comments of an actual Sunni scholar, Allamah Shibli in his book Zeyneb page 156 are also
worthy of note:
Husayn said I am from the Ahlul bayt of the Prophet. Yazeed is not worthy of receiving
my bayya
Kr-hcy.com states:
WHEN HAZART HUSAYN WAS STILL ON HIS WAY TO KUFA HE RECEIVED NEWS
THAT HIS COUSIN, MUSLIM BIN AQEEL, WHO WAS SENT EARLIER BY HIM TO
KUFA TO ASCERTAIN THE CONDITIONS THERE, HAD BEEN MURDERED ON
RECEIVING NEWS OF THE DEATH OF MUSLIM BIN AQEEL, HAZRAT HUSAYN LOST
CONFIDENCE IN THE PEOPLE OF KUFA AND DECIDED TO RETURN BUT THE
RELATIVES OF MUSLIM BIN AQEEL UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SABAI ELEMENTS
INSISTED ON AVENGING THE MURDER OF MUSLIM BIN AQEEL AND HENCE
HAZRAT HUSAYN DECIDED TO RESUME HIS ONWARD JOURNEY TO KUFA.
Reply
If the brothers of Muslim wanted to avenge his death then what is the big deal here? The desire
to avenge the blood of an innocent is not a reprehensible act. The Quran prescribes an eye for an
eye and a tooth for a tooth. Yazeed was responsible for the killing of an innocent here, and the
state being controlled by Yazeed had committed the atrocity, so the innocents brothers decided
to follow Gods Word and carry out the penalty against the soldiers of Yazeed who had
committed this action as the state would do nothing having committed the atrocity. The family of
Rasulullah (s) were the rightful heirs of Hadhrath Muslim (as) if his brothers took action to
fulfil a desire to avenge their brothers unlawful murder at the hands of a demonic khalifa, then
what is the objection? It was no reason why Imam Husayn (as) should have halted his journey. If
the family of Rasulullah (s) had discussions amongst themselves and continued on the journey
then how exactly does this absolve the transgression of Yazeed? If Imam Husayn (as) was
intending to return to Medina, a view for which there is no historical or textual basis, then what
basis did Yazeed then have to kill Imam Husayn (as)?
We the Shia believe that Yazeed, in order to strengthen his reign, blocked Imam Husayn (as)s
march to Kufa at a place called Karbala. This is testified to in all historical sources e.g. whole
chapters in Tabari and the chapters in all the other historical works that chronicle 60-61 AH.
They also chronicle the fact that Yazeeds army then killed Husayn (as) in a pitched battle. This
sin is worse than kufr. Husayn (as) was the last voice of open dissension in the Ummah, and
dictators like Yazeed deal with those that speak out against their unjust ways by using their
armed forces to liquidate them. The choices that were put before Imam Husayn (as) were to
either accept the reign of Yazeed or die. If Imam Husayn (as) really was returning to give bayya
to Yazeed then there would have been no need for this battle. The objective of bayya could have
been carried out through via an intermediary, and indeed Yazeeds commanders at the Battle of
Karbala said to Husayn (as) that he would be free to go if he gave the bayya to Yazeed.
In fact it is manifestly clear that Yazeed wanted one thing and one thing only from Imam Husayn
(as) his bayat. Husayn (as)s refusal to give this bayya was the trigger that enabled Yazeed to
justify killing Imam Husayn (as) to the Muslims. But other Muslims objected and said, as most
do to this day, that Husayn (as) could not have given bayya to Yazeed as the latter was
unlawfully appointed khalifa in breach of treaty, and further Yazeeds character would have
destroyed Islam had the very grandson of the Prophet (saws) sanctioned such a demon as
Khalifah. It is like voting for a homosexual into power if he is elected it means that
homosexuality is not condoned by the people. This is the state in many western countries today.
Had the greatest and most learned Muslim of the age, indeed the closest male blood of the
Prophet (saws) given the bayat, it would mean that dog/sister/bear/mother daughter penetration
was acceptable in Islamic society. Given how fragile 60/61 AH was Islam was still a very new
religion Islam itself as a religion with laws for society would have been destroyed. This is why
Husayn (as) is called the Saviour of his grandfathers religion. Yazeeds ulterior motive was on
top of extracting the bayat, and thereby completing his agenda to decimate Islam as a religion in
society, to avenge the slaying of his family by Muhammad (saws) and Ali (as) by exacting tribal
blood revenge this is obvious from his words when the head of Husayn (as) was brought before
him, in which Yazeed claims that the Revelation to Muhammad (saws) was a power game of the
Hashim tribe, and one in which his own tribe of Umayyad had been the losers which was now
avenged by killing Muhammad (saws)s grandson who was also Ali (as)s son.
Reply One
Can this Nasibi cite us any proof that Imam Husayn set a date and venue to fight Yazeed? Yet
again the Nasibis adopt a tactic of using words that give the impression that they are supported
by historical facts. The reader might think that this premise of the Nasibis is based on some kind
of textual source. There is none it is just a fairytale of this Nasibi that Husayn (as) intended to
return to Madina rather than do battle. Not one book, page, sentence, word, letter or dot in any
book exists that says this was his intention or that he made plans to return to Madina. This is
what Nasibis do every day in their speeches. They just LIE to people. I am angry at being LIED
to like this. The most disturbing thing is that this man Azam Tariq and his deputies have
hundreds of thousands of followers in places like Pakistan who believe every word of his. See
how the Nasibis just lie. Here the Nasibi makes up a whole story that Husayn (as) was returning
to Madina as if he is an expert on history with academic references. This story has, literally,
just been made up by him in this sentence.
However we shall refute this fairytale that has come out of this Nasibis deranged mind (Is this
Nasibi on hallucinogenic drugs?) we are now having to refute the verbal diarrhoea that comes
out of a deluded mind: this is the level of argument the Nasibis have. If the Imam (as) had set a
date, and then not fought, then we would have to accept that Imam Husayn (as) abandoned Jihad.
We the Shia believe that Imam Husayn (as) declared that he was the true representative of
Rasulullah (s) and hence he rejected the authority / obedience to Yazeed. Yazeeds army, by
cornering and killing Imam Husayn (as), proves Yazeeds actions were false and Imam Husayn
(as) was on the path of truth. Had Imam Husayn (as) returned from Karbala that would not in any
way prove that Yazeed was on the right path, his returning without fighting in no way means that
Yazeed was right! What on Earth was that reply from the Nasibis about in the first place? It still
does nothing to exonerate Yazeed. What this nasibi said is called verbal diarrhoea. Its
malformed crap without any shape or substance that just comes out and you cant control it. This
is what Nasibis talk crap with a kaftan, a turban and an Arabic accent to pass off as something
more substantial. It is tragic that this turbaned crap is out there preaching to Muslims and taking
them astray.
Rasullulah (s) said that whoever does not participate in the army of Usamah, Allahs lanath
be on such a person.
N.B. This is not the Usamah bin Ladin of today but the Usamah bin Zaid who was a companion
of the Holy Prophet (saws).
The Shaykhain were also present in this army. A battle that Rasulullah (s) prepares and sends out
is definitely a battle of truth, so why did Abu Bakr and Umar leave the battle and return without
fighting? This Nasibi clearly believes that martyrdom is dependant on Jihad, then how will these
two individuals be forgiven for failing to participate in Jihad whilst Rasulullah (s) was on his
deathbed? If these Nasibi are going to claim that the Shaykhains return without fighting does
not prove that their Kaafir opponents were on the right path, Imam Husayn (as)s ALLEGED (in
this Nasibis dream) returning to Medina does not prove the correctness of Yazeeds Fasiq
Government.
Reply Three
Riyadh al Nadira states that Abu Bakr returned without delivering the verses of Baraath to the
kuffar. The deliverance of these verses was definitely delivering truth against falsehood, and Abu
Bakrs return without delivering these verses in no way means that the kuffar were right.
IT WOULD BE SEEN THERE FROM THAT YAZID HAD NO HANDS IN THE MURDER
OF HAZRAT HUSAYN. MOST OF THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS ARE WRITTEN BY
SHIAS AND AS SUCH HEAP ALL SORTS OF RUBBISH ON YAZID OUT OF SHEER
CONTEMPT AND HATRED AND DEPICT HIM IN ALARMING COLOUR WHICH IS FAR
FROM TRUTH AND REALITY. STILL SOME OF THE IGNORANT MUSLIMS ACCUSE
HIM UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SHIAS. THE FACT IS THAT WHEN THE NEWS OF
HAZRAT HUSAYNS MARTYRDOM REACHED YAZID, HE AND HIS FAMILY WEPT.
YAZID EVEN SAID: CURSE OF ALLAH BE ON UBAIDULLAH BIN ZIAD. BY ALLAH!
IF HE HAD BEEN A RELATIVE OF HAZRAT HUSAYN HE WOULD HAVE NEVER
KILLED HIM. I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF IRAQIS WITHOUT
THE KILLING OF HAZRAT HUSAYN.
Here we shall cite the following reputable texts of Ahlul Sunnah, that confirm that Yazeed
killed Imam Husayn (as):
Yazeed tore away a piece of Rasulullahs heart, starving him for three days and then
killing him, together with his companions and then he ordered horses to trample his body
after his martyrdom, his body was ripped to shreds. Hi head was then placed on a spear,
this was a head that Rasulullah (s) would kiss. The head was exhibited at various places,
people of the household were arrested and brought before the wicked Yazeed, cursed is he
who does not deem such acts as atrocious.
Are all these men, together with the authorities cited at the start including the Grand Sheikh of
the Wahabis Ibn Taymiyya, and his successor Ibn Kathir, all SHIAS or influenced by SHIAS??
There must be a medical syndrome for this behaviour.oh yes, its called pathological liar [also
known as Nasibi Syndrome]. Maybe your local Sheikh has symptoms of it.
Yazeed wrote: Force Hussain, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn al-Zubair to give Baya
and dont spare them
We also read:
:
When he (Waleed) read Yazeeds letter for him (Marwan) and did consultation with him in
that matter and said: What do you think we shall do? He (Marwan) replied: I see to send
to them now and ask them to give baya and obey us, if they accept then we will let them go
but if they reject you shall arrest them and strike off their heads
Ibn Ziyad wrote to Husayn I have received information that you have arrived in Kerbala,
and Yazeed has told me not to kill you, provided you accept his authority and mine.
Yazeed wrote to his governor in Iraq Ubaidllah bin Ziyad ordering him to fight him
(Hussain) therefore he (Ibn Ziad) sent an army consisting of four thousand people lead by
Umar bin Saad bin Abi Waqas
Muhammad bin al-Dahak narrated from his father that he said: When Hussain marched,
Yazeed wrote to his governor Ibn Ziyad saying: Hussain is marching to Kufa and he is a
problem of your time not of other times, your state not of other states and you not for the
other governors. At that time you might be free or be slaved. Therefore Ibn Ziad killed
him and sent his head to him (Yazeed).
:
.
He (Yazeed) wrote to Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad ordering him to march towards Madina and
surround Ibn Zubayr in Makka. He (Ibn ziyad) replied: I cant give both these things to
this Fasiq, after killing the grandson of Rasulullah (s), Im not now going to assault the
Kaaba.
Notice how Azam Tariq says that Yazeed blamed Ibn Ziyad (his governor in Kufa at the time of
the Battle of Karbala) for the killing of Husayn (as). Yet we see here that Ibn Ziyad two years
AFTER Karbala is still in a position of authority in Yazeeds government and army. Had Yazeed
sincerely wept for Husayn (as) then he would have dismissed and executed Ibn Ziyad for
genocide. Indeed Yazeed kept Ibn Ziyad in a position of authority in Yazeeds government, and
indeed Ibn Ziyad outlived Yazeed, until Shia rebels killed him during the insurrection of Al
Mukhtar to avenge the blood of Imam Husayn (as).
Ibn Abbas replied to Yazeeds letter stating: You killed Husayn as well as the youth
from Banu Abdul Muttalib who were beacons of guidance and famed stars, your troops
marched on them at your orders .
Ibn Umar wrote to Yazeed, Hasnt your heart gone black yet? You murdered the family of
the Prophet?
The Nawasib want to drag the Muslims to hell to face the charge of taking to their heart the man
who hurt Muhammad (saws)s soul more than any other.
When Yazeed was succeeded to the throne by his son Muawiya he said in his first sermon
We are definite about Yazeeds wrongdoing, he killed the family of the Prophet, deemed
alcohol halal, and brought pain to the Kaaba.
This was the testimony of the succeeding khalifa, and Yazeeds own son, Muawiya The Second.
Yazeeds own admission that he killed the family of the
Prophet (s)
We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar:
Following the murder of Husayn, Yazeed said I avenged the killing of my kaafir relatives
in Badr through killing the family of the Prophet.
- -
- - - -
Yazid Amir ul Momineen, was an evil doer in Islam. During the last days of his rule he
massacred the people of Madina on the day of Hara. He killed the best of people and the
remaining companions (ra). During the initial part of his rule, he killed Husain (ra) and his
Ahle Bait. He surrounded Ibn Zubair in Masjid al-Haram. He violated the sanctity of
Kaba and Islam. And during these days Allah killed him
Jamharat Ansab al-Arab, page 112
I say: When Yazeed did to the people of Madina what he did and killed al-Hussain and his
brothers and progeny, and Yazeed drank alcohol, and performed abominable things, then
the people hated him and rose up against him more than once. God didnt bless his life and
Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Adya al-Hanzali rose against him.
From (amongst) the beliefs which overwhelmed the Sunni people is that Yazeed was right
and Hussain was wrong in his rebellion. If they consulted history books they would have
know how he (Yazeed) achieved bayya and how he forced the people and committed every
disgraceful thing for the sake (of bayya). If we assumed that his Caliphate was correct, on
other hand he committed many acts which are sufficient to abolish his bayya, such as
attacking Madina and Kaaba with ballista, killing Hussain along with his family and
striking his lips with a stick.
It is already mentioned that he (Yazeed) killed al-Hussain and his companions through
Ubaidullah bin Zyad
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 243
It is unusual that the one who condemned did not mention Yazeed when he was the one
who instructed Ibn Ziyad to carry out the killing.
It is possible that this verse refers to Yazeed bin Muawiyah. Yazeed had martyred the
grandson of Holy Prophet (s) and his companions, those companions were actually the
members of the Prophets family.
Tafseer Mazhari [Urdu], Volume 8 page 268
Yazeed and his associates did Kufr with the bounties of Allah. They deemed it their aim to
have a grudge against the progeny of the Prophet (s) and murdered Hussain (ra) with
oppression and Yazeed did Kufr with the religion of Prophet (s) to the extent that Yazeed
recited the following couplets over the murder of Hussain (ra)
Where are my ancestors, they should come and see that I have take revenge from the
progeny of the Prophet and Bani Hashim.
I would not be from the progeny of Jandab had I not taken revenge from the progeny of
Ahmad for whatever they had done.
Tafseer Mazhari [Arabic], Volume 5 page 271, commentary of 14:29
And even more strange is a person who praises Yazeed who reverted from Islam, the one
who insulted the honorable people of this Ummah, dishonoring the sanctity of Madina of
Messenger (Sale Allah Aleh Wa Aalihi Wasalam), killed Hussain the son of the Prophet
and his Ahlulbayt and humiliated them and he treated them in such a manner that even if
the enemies of Islam, the Christians were to do the same acts, they might have been more
reasonable.
Al-Ilm Al-Shamikh Fi Ethaar Al-Haq Ala Alaba wal Mashaikh, page 367
:
Yunus bin Habib al-Jarmi said: When Ibn Ziyad killed Husayn and his companions and
sent their heads to Yazeed, he [Yazeed] became happy at the death of him (Husayn) which
is why the position of Ibn Ziyad was elevated, but this happiness was only short lived and
then he regreted.
This text confirms that Yazeed was pleased that Imam Husayn (as) had been killed and the rank
of his killer Ibn Ziyad had automatically increased in Yazeeds estimation. The happiness being
short-lived means that rebellions arose to avenge Husayn (as)s martyrdom that threatened to
destroy Yazeeds khilafat Madina, Makka and Iraq all rose up against him, which is why he
sent his army in to burn the Kaaba and sack Madina. Nawasib are not horrified by such actions
by their khalifa, since they share the doctrine of Al Qaeda that deem it lawful to kill, maim and
rape to attains ones objectives. This is as they have no sense of anything being sacred save the
remembrance of the Santas. They even reproach other Sunnis for reciting blessings upon the
Prophet (saws).
Moreover, in al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 235 we read that the situation reached a
point of embarrassment for Yazeed that he said:
:
.
Curse be upon Ibn Marjana [Ibn Ziyad] for he pained Husayn and made him desperate
although Husayn had asked him to be allowed to go wherever he wanted to or to come to
me or he be allowed to go to the border but Ibn Ziyad rejected this and killed him and it is
now due to this, that Muslims shall bear enmity towards me, now every person, good and
bad shall bear hatred in their hearts towards me, people shall be shocked at my killing
Husayn. I have nothing to do with Murjanas son. May Allah destroy him and reap
destruction upon him.
now every person, good and bad shall bear hatred in their hearts towards me, people shall
be shocked at my killing Husayn.
These words clearly prove that the killing of Imam Husayn (as) was upon the orders of Yazeed,
and t his act of cursing Ibn Ziyad was in effect a tactical method to cover up his own culpability.
These were crocodile tears shed to display false grief as the Ummah now wanted revenge and
were blaming Yazeed. Indeed, the Islamic heartlands of Makka, Madina and Kufa were now in
open armed rebellion and Yazeed had lost control there.
And it appears that Ibn Ziad was cursed and insulted for what he did but he did not sack
him nor did he punish him nor did he rebuke him for his actions
al Bidaya wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 204
If the argument is Yazeed didnt physically kill Imam Husayn (as) then these Nawasib should
know that Pharaoh is deemed the killer of the Israelites even though he only issued the order for
boys to be executed and didnt use the sword himself. Irshad al Sari Volume 10 page 171 Bab ul
Fitan states clearly that Yazeed was happy at killing Imam Husayn (as) and his disrespect of the
family of Rasulullah (s) is a proven fact.
Those who in this day and age state who are we to comment on Yazeed and Husayn and
that they were both Princes are cursed, Hell bound individuals.
Thus, reports which show that Yazeed was very happy at the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as)
but later altered his opinion and became sad shall not assist the present day Nawasib since the
sadness letter expressed by Yazeed was not on account of remorse for his unforgivenable sin but
was to a response to the public opinion that had swelled against him. We read in Tarikh Khulfa:
When Hussain and his family were killed, Ibn Ziyad sent their heads to Yazeed. He
(Yazeed) was happy with it in the beginning but after that, when the people hated him for
that, he then expressed regret but people should indeed have hated him
The change in emotions was to quell public anger not due some remorse on his part.
Ibn Abi Dunya recorded from Salamah bin Shabib from al-Humaydi from Sufyan from
Salim bin Abi Hafsa from Hassan (al-Basri) saying: Yazeed bin Muawyia was prodding
with a stick that place kissed by Allahs messenger kissed, how shameful!.
Al-Hassn al-Basri: Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Salim bin Abi Hafsa al-
Khayat: Ibn Hajar said: Seduq (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Sufyan al-Thawri: Ibn Hajar said:
Thiqah (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Abdullah bin al-Zubair al-Humaydi: Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah
(Taqrib al-Tahdib). Salamah bin Shabib: Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah (Taqrib al-Tahdib).
Abdullah ibn Abi Dunya: Ibn Hajar said: Seduq (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Hassan al-Basri died in
year 109 H and he was 89 years old as its mentioned in Tahdib al-Kamal, which means he was
41 years old when Imam Hussain was martyred. We should also point out that narrator Salim
bin Abi Hafsa al-Khayat is not the only narrator to transmit the tradition rather there are three
more reliable narrators from the same generation (tabaqa) as of Salim who have narrated the
same incident in the same book and in the science of Hadith such a method of determining
authentication of a tradition is called Mutaba which has also been used by the Imam of Salafies
Albaani. The three narrators are Imam Muhammad al-Baqar: Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah
(Taqrib al-Tahdib). Khalid bin Yazid al-Saksaki: Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah (Taqrib al-Tahdib).
Layth bin Saad: Ibn Hajar said: Thiqah Thabt (Taqrib al-Tahdib).
Ibn Asakir in his history book states. When Husayns head was brought before Yazeed,
he recited the couplets of Ibn Zubayri: I wish my ancestors of Badr were here to see the
fright of al-Khazraj (tribe) as the spears hit.
Moreover we read:
Al-Qasim bin Bakhit said: When the head of Hussain was placed in front of Yazeed bin
Muawyia, he started to hit his (Hussains) teeth with his stick, then he (Yazeed) said: His
(Hussains) and my example is same as the saying of Hasain Ibn al-Hamaam al-Mari:
These swords split the heads of those men who pose harm to us and they were very
disobedient and oppressors.
Al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 209
The truth is that Yazeed was pleased with Hussains killing and Ahlulbayts humiliation
Yafee said: Whoever killed Hussain or gave orders to kill him whilst he deemed it a lawful
action, is a Kafir
The atrocities committed against the Ahlulbayt (as) and the brutal murder of the grandson of
holy Prophet (s), his family and his companions were not the only crimes perpetuated by Yazeed
rather that was just the beginning of his malicious reign. After the slaughter of the Ahlul bayt
(as) in Karbala, he continued from where he left off and exhibited further heinous and vicious
aspects of his persona against the people of Harra. To shed light on the incident, allow us to cite
the words that we read in the footnote of a tradition of Sahih Muslim:
The incident of Harra is indeed one of the most despicable events of early Islamic history.
It occurred in 63 H at the fag [sic] of the reign of Yazeed. The sum and substance of this
event is that the people of Madina on seeing the atrocities of his un-Islamic conduct in the
affairs f the state had raised the standard of revolt against him and turned his governor out
of the city and elected Abdullah b. Hanzala as the new Governor of Madina. When Yazeed
heard of it, he sent Muslim b. Uqba al-Murri at the head of 12,000 soldiers to attack
Madina. The city of Messenger (peace be upon him) was brutally attacked and such
horrifying atrocities were perpetuated upon the citizens as the very thought of them makes
ones hair stand on end. There was plunder and massacre on a large scale and ever a large
number of woman was (The details of this incident can be seen in Ibn Athir, Vol iii, pp-310-
13).
Sahih Muslim, Vol III-A page 259 Footnote No. 2 (Dar-ul-Ishat, Urdu Bazar, Karachi)
Whilst it is evident that the writer was ashamed of mentioning the historical fact that a large
number of women folk from the families of the Sahaba were raped by Yazeeds forces, let us cite
it from the History of al-Fakhri, translated by C.E.J. Whitting, London, 1947, pp. 113-115
wherein we learn that Yazeed initially instructed Ubaydullah bin Ziyad to lead an army assault
on Medina, who offered excuses, as a result of which he then appointed Muslim bin Uqbah to
lead the charge:
Then Muslim, son of Uqbah, for three days gave Madinah to the sack. He murdered,
looted and took prisoners, so that it was said that a man of Madinah thereafter, if he gave
his daughter to wed, would not guarantee her virginity, She may have been raped in the
battle of Harrah.
Saeed bin Abdul Aziz states that during the days of Hara, neither Adhan nor Iqamah was
given for three days in the Mosque of the Prophet (s) despite this Saeed bin al-Musayib did
not depart from the mosque, he would azquire receipt of the prayer times through faint
voice of the Adhan coming from the grave of the Holy Prophet (s).
:
] [ : !
And in year 63 hijri, he came to know that the people of Madina had separated from him,
so he sent a huge army to them and ordered that they be murdered and that they then head
to Makka and kill Ibn Zubair, so there was Hara on the gate tayyaba and how can one
realize what Hara was? Hassan said: By Allah! There was none that was saved, that
included companions of Prophet, and others, they looted the city, and took the virginity of
a thousand women.
The Holy Prophet (s) had said; Whosoever frightens the people of Madina, Allah (swt)
shall frighten him. The curse of Allah (swt), his angels, and all the people shall be upon
such an individual [narrated muslim].
We also read:
When the army of Hara left for Makka so as to fight Ibn Zubayr, the commander died, so
a new commander was appointed. They then surrounded Makka and proceeded to fight
Ibn Zubayr and fired stones from a catapault, the flames of which burnt down the curtains
of the Kaaba as well as its ceiling and the horn of the ram which was replaced as a scarifice
for Ismail (as) by Allah (swt).
.
.
Yazeed committed a big mistake by telling Muslim bin Utbah to continue with the
bloodshed in Madina for three days. This was a huge and Fahash mistake and the
bloodshed of Sahaba and their sons was further added to it while it has just been
previously mentioned that Hussain and his Sahaba had been killed at the hands of Ibn
Ziyad. During those three days, such huge crimes were committed that cannot be counted
and cannot be mentioned; only Allah knows about them. Yazeed by sending Muslim bin
Utbah had sought to strengthen the roots of his government and extend it without any
obstacle. But contrary to his wishes, Allah punished him and became an obstacle to his
desires and Allah, who (swt) breaks the backbone of the oppressors, likewise broke the
backbone of Yazeed and He (swt) apprehended him in the same manner that a powerful all
conquering individual apprehends someone Even thus is the grasp of thy Lord when He
graspeth the townships while they are doing wrong. Lo! His grasp is painful, very strong.
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1146; Nafees Academy Karachi
The army that Yazeed had sent to Medina comprised of 60,000 horsemen and 15,000 foot
soldiers. For three days they shed blood freely, 1000 women were raped and 700 named
Quraysh and Ansar were killed. Ten thousand women and children were made slaves.
Muslim bin Uqba forced people to give bayya to Yazeed in such a manner that people were
enslaved and Yazeed could sell them as he pleased, none of the Sahaba that were present
[with the Prophet (saws)] at Hudaibiya were spared.
Ibn Hazm has summarised the entire incident in the following manner:
The oath of allegiance administered to Yazeed occurred following the death of his father;
his title was Abu Khalid, Hussain bin Ali and Abdullah bin Zubair refused to pay the
allegiance; then Hussain (peace by upon him) left for Kufa, and he was martyred before
entering Kufa, this was the third sad incident following the death of Uthman and the fourth
one following the martyrdom of Umar and was an interruption in Islam because
oppression was openly declared against the Muslims with his martyrdom. Abdullah bin
Zubair the went to Makka wherein he sought refuge in the House of Allah and resided
there.
Yazeed sent his army towards Madina and Makka that amongst the holy sites of Allah
(swt), so in the battle of Hara, those of Muhajir and Ansar that remained therein were
killed and this horrendous incident is also amongst the worst tragic incidents of Islam,
creating a break in it because esteemed Muslims, the remnants of the Sahaba and the
honorable Tabayeen were openly killed in it or apprehended and then martyred. The
horses of Yazeeds army were present in the mosque of the Holy Prophet (s) and in Riadh
ul Jannah, between the grave of the Rasulullah (s) and his pulpit, they defecated therein;
no prayer was offered during those days. And there remained none, save Saeed ul Masayib,
he did not leave the mosque at all and had Amro bin Uthman bin Afan and Marwan bin
Hakam not testified to him being insane to Muslim bin Uqba [the leader of the army], he
would have likewise been killed. He (Muslim bin Uqba) also compelled people to
administer their oaths of allegiance on the condition that they were the slaves of Yazeed bin
Muawiya, whether he sells them or frees them and when an individual said that we would
pledge allegiance on the condition the allegiance was pursuant to the terms of the Quran
and Sunnah, an order was made to kill him, the said individual was subsequently captured
and killed; this sinner Muslim bin Uqba insulted Islam immensly; there was looting in
Madina for three days; the companions of Rasulullah (s) were insulted and maltreated;
their houses were robbed. The army then surrounded Makka and stoned the House of
Allah (swt) via catapaults and this was done under the supervision of Hussain bin Numair
by the Syrian battalions and this was because the sinner ibn Uqba died three days after the
battle of Harra and the leader was now Hussain bin Numair. Allah likewise apprehended
Yazeed in the same manner, the Owner of power and glory, apprehends others; he died in
under three months but over two months (that is between 2 and 3 months) and Yazeeds
forces returned from Makka. Yazeed died on 15 rabi ul awal, 64 hijri, his age was just
above 30, his mother was Maisoon bint Bajdal Kalbia, the era of his rule was three years,
eight months and a few days.
Jawamae al-Sirah, pages 357-358
Hara was a horrific event; it involved the ethnic cleansing of the last remnants of those with a
nexus with Rasulullah (s), the surviving Sahaba and Tabieen that followed them, individuals that
as per Sunni beliefs were the best of generations. Slaughter and rape are not uncommon in war,
we often hear such despicable crimes being perpetuated during the Rwandan civil war and when
the Serbs sought to ethnically cleanse Yugoslavia of its Muslim inhabitants. Anyone that hears of
such crimes is shocked, what is moir shocking is the fact that the ransacking of Madina, the
murder and rape of its female inhabitants was not by any non Muslim army during the crusades,
this was a crime perpetuated by the Muslim head of state we have already quoted the comments
of the translator of Sahih Muslim:
The city of Messenger (peace be upon him) was brutally attacked and such horrifying
atrocities were perpetuated upon the citizens as the very thought of them makes ones hair
stand on end.
Just reading about it makes ones hair stand on end, can one imagine how the Madinan
population would have felt, the men folk were slaughtered, the women sexually violated and
turned into captives, are these crimes not sufficient enough to cause an individual with a hear to
distance himself from Yazeed and all that he stood for? Was the ransacking of Madina not
sufficient evidence that Yazeed had nothing to do with the Deen? We are sure that any rational,
just individual would agree with us that this would be enough proof for anyone to distance
themselves from Yazeed, but not for one prominent individual by the name of Abdullah Ibn
Umar. Following Hara and all the horrors associated with it, Abdullah Ibn Umar convened a
private gathering of his near and dear ones and made clear his views on Yazeed and his views on
those that had opposed him at Harra, and this is how this fact has been recorded in Sahih Bukhari
Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227:
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.
There is no way that these comments can be put down to taqiyya. Ibn Umar was not making
some public declaration in the market it was a private audience with those closest to him and
took the form of firm religious advice. In that advice not only did he condemn those that rebelled
against Yazeed and made it clear that they would be raised as betrayers on the next world in
other words suffer eternal damnation, pursuant to a Hadith of the Prophet (s) he reaffirmed his
loyalty to Yazeed making it that he was a legitimate head of state, and his right to rule was in
accordance with conditions set by Allah (swt) and his Rasul, in other words he had the legal
backing of Shariah, negating the right of any individual to oppose him by breaking bayya. The
thought of an individual turning his back on Ibn Umar made him so irate that he made it clear
that he wanted nothing to do with such an individual.
Lest not forget this Islamic advice is being made after the Hara and all the heinous crimes that
flowed from it. Crimes such as murder, mass rape and the pillaging of Madina may well have
taken place but to Ibn Umar there was no Islamic basis to oppose Yazeed he remained the legal
head of State in accordance with the conditions set by Allah and his Rasul (s), such conditions
were not in any way negated by what Yazeed ordered either at Karbala or Hara!
This was not the single episode of Ibn Umars advocacy, he also went to the home of people to
vouch for Yazeeds Khilafat as can be gauged from this tradition in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al
Imara Book 020, Number 4562:
It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to
Abdullah b. Muti in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the People Of Medina)
at Harra in the time of Yazeed b. Muawiya. Ibn Muti said: Place a pillow for Abu Abd
al-Rahman (family name of Abdullah b. Umar). But the latter said: I have not come to sit
with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah
(may peace be upon him). I heard him say: One who withdraws his band from obedience
(to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day
of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to
an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya.
NOTE
In the Bukhari tradition he gathered his close ones together and pledged his support for Yazeed,
relying on a Hadith to support his stance. In this tradition he personally goes to the home of an
acquaintance with one specific objective, to reiterate the legitimacy of Yazeeds khilafat and the
Islamic rulings for one that opposes him. He cites two traditions to evidence his support for
Yazeed:
one who withdraws his hand from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his
defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment,
one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die
the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya
If we bring together all the traditions relied upon by Ibn Umar from the Sahihayn as part of his
representing his client Yazeed we learn three things:
Those that break the bayya to Yazeed will be raised as betrayers in the next world
Those that break the bayya to Yazeed will have no defence in the next world
Those who died without having given bayya to Yazeed as their leader will die the death
of jahliyya
This Fatwa of Ibn Umar, based on his reliance on three traditions means that in his eyes:
All of the Sahaba in Madina that broke their bayya will be punished in the next world
accordingly
All those Sahaba that died without having given bayya to Yazeed whether that be by not
having even given (Imam Hussain (as), his family and Sahaba) or broke it (all the Sahaba
and Tabieen in Hara) died the death of apostates.
1. How does the Sunni aqaid that all the Sahaba are just, truthful and guaranteed Paradise
concur with the viewpoint of Ibn Umar that all those that opposed Yazeed by either not
giving him bayya or breaking died the death of jahilyya? Dying the death of jahilyya
cannot be deemed to be the stance of people that are just and truthful.
2. If Ibn Umar was so worried that failing to give Yazeed bayya, results in people dying the
death of jahiliyya, why did he not inform Imam Hussain (as) as such before he left
Madina?
3. If the Hadith relied on by Ibn Umar for Yazeed were correctly applied why is it that no
other Sahaba of the Prophet (s) alive at that time recollected it as proof of Yazeeds
Khilafat?
4. If Ibn Umar was warning people not to died in a state wherein they have not accepted
Yazeed, since doing so leads to an individual dying the death of Jahilyya, why did he not
rely on this Hadith himself, after all according to Fatah ul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, v6
p145 Ibn Umar never gave bayya to Imam Ali (as) but gave it to Yazeed. Was he not
fearful that he might die the death of Jahiliyya by not giving baya to his Amir of time? If
so why was he prepared to take a risk and wait until Muawiyah became Khalifa to give
bayya to an Amir? Was Yazeed more worthy of recognition to avoid the death of
Jahiliyya than Yazeed?
Fatah ul Bari, volume 6 page 145
5. If those that break their bayya to Yazeed will die the death of Jahiliyya and be raised as
Baghis in the next world, why is the same Hadith not applied to those that broke the
bayya to Ali (as), fought him and died in a state wherein they had not recognized him?
This Fatwa of Ibn Umar carries major implications for the Sunni belief system:
Most Sunnis regard Imam Hussain (as), his family and supporters who lost their lives in
Karbala as martyrs, Ibn Umar views them as dying the death of jahiliyya
Must Sunnis regard those Sahaba that broke the bayya to Yazeed and died in that stat,
laying their lives against the principle that he was not the legitimate head of state died as
martyrs, Ibn Umar views them as dying the death of jahilyya, and persons who will be
raised as betrayers in the next world
Sunnis believe that all the Sahaba that fought in wars after the Prophet (s) during the
Caliphate of Ali (as) will be forgiven, as they exercised ijtihaad, for which they will get
one reward if wrong and two if right. The Fatwa of Ibn Umar negates that completely he
stated that those Sahaba that lost their lives Hara, will have no defence whatsoever on the
Day of Judgment rather they will die the death of kaafirs and will be raised as rebels in
the next world. Why did he not say they will forgiven as they exercised ijtihad, for which
they will get one reward if wrong and two if right? Who knows the Shariah better todays
Sunni Mullah or Abdullah Ibn Umar?
The above points leave Sunni Muslims in a serious quandary. As a Sahabi he is regarded as just
and truthful meaning that his Fatwa on those that opposed Yazeed by either not recognizing him
or breaking bayya and dying in that state will die the death of jahiliyya was also accurate as it
was given by a just and truthful man. Once they accept his reliance upon these Hadith then that
automatically means all the other Sahaba died kaafirs then means that they cannot be regarded as
just and truthful.
If Ibn Umars interpretation of Hadith to evidence his pro Yazeed stance was wrong then that
destroys his credibility, it openly leads to one questioning his probity, he can no longer be
viewed as just and truthful after all he was relying on Hadith to prove the legitimacy of a major
transgressor, a view that was not shared by all of the other Sahaba of the time. If that approach is
taken then questions need to be asked of all that he says, that means that Sunnis will have to
reject the thousands of his narrations in Sahih Bukhari. So what can they do?
The tragedy of Hara and the open advocacy of Ibn Umar create serious questions for those
Sunnis that love Imam Hussain (as) and support the stance that he took, deeming it one that
revived the faith. The ordinary person on the street might be moved by what happened to the
Ahlul bayt (as) at Karbala and the Sahaba at Hara and hate Yazeed, but not Ibn Umar .Abdullah
Ibn Umar does not concur with modern day popular Sunni opinion, he was an out and out
advocate of Yazeed and supported him through thick and thin at every stage of his life of
debauchery, even when Madina rose up against him having recognized his atrocious conduct, Ibn
Umar loyally stood behind him insisting to the people that his Khilafat was pursuant to the
conditions set by Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s) and that anyone opposing him would die the death
of Jahiliyya and that he wanted nothing to do with anyone that abandoned him. Perhaps it was
for this very reason that the Urdu translator of Sahih Bukhari, Maulana Syed Naib Hussain
(revision done by Maulana Syed Muhammad Ali) adopted blatant tahreef when translating this
tradition when he replaced the name Yazeed with Muawiyah, so that it seemed as if Ibn Umar
was rebuking those that had broken their bayya to Muawiyah, when the original/Arabic text has
the words Yazeed ibn Muawiyah!
Sahih Bukhari, Arabic to Urdu translation by Maulana Syed Naib Hussain, Vol 3 page 657
Hadith 54 (Ghulam Ali & Sons publications, Lahore)
The tragedy of Hara and the Fatwa of Ibn Umar after it has major implications for those that
adhere to the thought that all the Sahaba are just and truthful on its head, and highlights how
baseless this doctrine is.
Chapter Eight: Hadith referring to Yazeed
and his era
Abu Hurraira would walk through the markets and O Allah dont accept the events of 56
Hijri and I dont see this boys reign
Abu Said al Khudri narrates that he heard Rasulullah (s) say after 60 Hijri undeserving
people shall ignore prayers and enter the deepest part of Hell.
This hadith is also a condemnation of Yazeed since he became the Leader immediately after 60
Hijri.
Justice shall rule my Ummah until the first individual who shall destroy my Deen, from the
Banu Ummayaa his name shall be Yazeed.
Yes, imam of the Nawasib Yazeed is accused of destroying the Deen by the Holy Prophet (saws)
himself. I say we destroy the Deen of the Nasibis. Their Deen is different to that of other
Muslims, Shia or Sunni.
Let us analyse the complete tradition from Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Jihad Volume 4, Book 52,
and Number 175:
These filthy Nasibi have only one hadith that they claim absolves their Imam of any wrongdoing,
namely his participation in the army that conquered Caesars City. They allege that this allege
attendance has assured him of Paradise. We all have to die one day and answer our Creator we
have cited scores of Sunni sources that highlight Yazeeds deeds, his love of incest,
homosexuality, drinking, singing, kufr aqeedah and his killing of Imam Husayn (as). Are we
really going to just accept this single hadith in Bukhari to neutralise all of Yazeeds deeds? We
appeal to justice and shall cite the following replies:
The tradition relating to Caesars City was narrated by Thawr bint Yazeed he was an
enemy of Commander of the Faithful Ali.
If this doesnt convince these Nawasib then we shall cite the following glittering obituary of the
man recorded by Imam Ibn Saad:
He is Thiqa in Hadeeth. It is said that he was a rejecter of Taqdeer. He died in 152 H in
Bait al Muqaddas during the era of Abu Jaffar over the age of 60. The grandfather of
Thawr was present in Siffeen and participated along side Muawiyah and was killed in the
same war. Therefore whenever the name of Ali was taken before Thawr he used to say: I
do not love the man who killed my grandfather
Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol 7 under the topic: Thawr bin Yazid al Kalayee
Moreover, when we read the biography of another narrator of the tradition namely Khalid bin
Madan, we learn that he used to narrate from Imam of Nawasib while second category Nawasib
used to narrate from him, this shall suffice to prove his firm association with Nasibism. We read
in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 3 page 102:
Khalid bin Madan bin Abi Kuraib al-Kalaaei Abu Abdullah al-Shaami al-Hemsi, he
narrated from Thawban, Ibn Amro, Ibn Umar, Utbah bin Abdulsalami & Muawyia bin
Abi SufyanNarrated from him by Buhair bin Saeed, Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin al-
Harith al-Taimi, Thawr bin Yazeed and Hariz bin Uthman
As we can see that one of his teachers was Imam of the Nasibi cult namely Muawiyah and
notorious Nawasib such as Thawr bin Yazeed and Hariz bin Uthman used to narrate from him,
this shall suffice to evidence the ideology that Khalid adhered to. What reliance can we have on a
hadith narrated by a scholar whose source of knowledge came from three KingPins of the Nasibi
cult? These so called defenders of Ahlul Sunnah are trying to get us to accept a hadith narrated
by Nawasib to absolve their Imam of all wrongdoings!
Additionally why convey this to a woman, who was his (s) non-mahram that meant that she
would have had to observe strict purdah (veil) in his presence? After all Rasulullah (s) had nine
wives, could he not have conveyed this hadith to any of them? Why convey this to a woman that
was not his (s) wife, relative or sister in law? And why did her husband not take this hadith and
declare it to the masses in the battlefield? Surely this would have instilled true fighting spirit
amongst masses, if they knew that they were to attain Paradise. Rather than do this, why did Um
Haram choose to only convey this to her student Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi?
Worthy of note, when we read this hadith in sources other than Sahih Bukhari wherein Um
Haram has narrated the tradition to her nephew Uns bin Malik there is no mention of maghfoor
[Paradise], yet when she narrates it to a non mahram Umair she remembers that the participants
are blessed with Heaven! Why did she forget to convey the words Paradise to her nephew but
then chose to entertain a non-mahram in her home and convey the hadith with this word to him?
We would like to ask our unbiased and prudent readers that if this tradition was true then doesnt
it mean that importance of first naval war and attacking Caesers city was equal to Bait Ridhwan
(allegiance under tree) in terms of nature and its merits? Surely the answer would be in the
affirmative since in both cases there are either glad tidings of Allah being pleased or guaranteed
paradise for the respective participants. Now the importance of Bait Ridhwan is that Allah (swt)
Himself mentioned it in the Holy Quran, it was then that the Sahaba bore their allegiance upon
the blessed hands of the Prophet (s), Bait Ridhwan appeared on the tongues of each and every
Muslim child. The companions who participated in that were respected and possessed a rank
above those who didnt participate.
If the first naval war was associated with glad tidings of earning paradise then:
The Prophet (s) should have repeatedly cascaded these glad tidings of earning paradise
and forgiveness of sins for participating in the first naval war and invading Caesars city
to his Sahaba so as to encourage them to strive towards getting into that rank.
The Sahaba should have likewise propagated these crucial glad tidings associated with
the first naval war and gathered together the Muslims to attack the city of Caesar and
attain Paradise in the process.
Rather than this happening, NONE of Sahaba knew of such glad tidings of Jannah, in fact, even
the Sahaba that participated in the first naval war were unaware that their participation had
erased their sins and guaranteed them Paradise! The reality is long after the invasion of Caesars
city the main objective behind fabricating such a tradition was to provide a safe path to Yazeed
but since the genetic makeup of the Nasibi species has always comprised of imbeciles those with
rational minds can easily distinguish truth from falsehood and identify basic weaknesses in the
text of the tradition.
Let us now cite some historical accounts which shall prove that the Sahaba were unaware of any
traditions indicating that glad tidings were associated with the first naval war.
First & second traditions: Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab didnt know of any glad
tidings for the first naval war nor did he authorize such a campaign
We also read:
After reading these traditions, we see that in the years that followed the the death of the Prophet
(s)) no efforts were made to establish and float the Paradise guaranteed first naval expedition.
This omission can better be explained if break down the relevant periods:
1. The Caliphate of Abu Bakr followed the death of the Prophet (s) and lasted for two and a
half years, yet during that entire period there was no mention of glad tidings being
associated with the first naval war. This non compliance to the alleged words of the
Prophet (s) was very different to the enthusiasm shown by Abu Bakr in sending the
remaining army of Usama.
2. Then came the lengthy 10 year tenure of Umar Ibn Khattabs caliphate. In his time,
Muslim Armies were sent were sent out to capture land that expanded the Islamic
territory to regions such as Africa, Iran and North Asia. Despite this no first naval war
was every mentioned or conducted in his reign.
3. Whilst Muawiyah as Governor became the first person that expressed a desire to attack
the Byzantine Empire through the sea he remained ignorant of any glad tidings associated
with the first naval war. Muawiyah didnt get permission from the Caliph and made no
mention of glad tiding associated with such an expedition to convince him. He simply
mentioned the barking of dogs of Byzantine Empire and the squawking of their chickens
as his argument.
4. Muawiyah spent years failing to convince Umar Ibn Khattab of the merits of his
proposal. Subsequently, Umar began to have some interest in it but again after reading
the letter of Amr bin Al-Aas he made an oath not send a single Muslim on the naval war.
Do the najis Nawasib believe that Umar became afraid after hearing about the sea? Didnt Umar
believe in the Prophecy of Muhammad (s) that participating in first naval war would guarantee
entry into paradise? Why was he preventing his soldiers from getting the chance to attain
Paradise? Was it not selfish if him to restrict such a beneficial opportunity? And why didnt a
single Sahabi during this lengthy period mention the alleged glad tidings attributed to the Prophet
(s) in the tradition of Bukhari?
We read:
In this tradition we learned that no where the alleged glad tidings associated with the first naval
war were discussed between the two popular Sahaba, Umar ibn Khattab admonished Muawiyah.
Had there been really any such glad tidings associated wit the first naval war, would the
followers of the Sahaba accept such a response from Umar Ibn Khattab?
1. Muawiyah failed to convince Umar Ibn Khattab during his ten years reign to conduct a
naval war.
2. When Uthman became caliph he did not prepare a naval war until four years into his
reign. Readers should remember that Uthman became caliph in year 24 H while first
naval was conducted in year 28 H. People who have studied history know the influence
Muawiyah yielded over Uthman due to their relationship and thus, Uthman would
without hesitation accept his demands yet when it came to the first naval war, it took four
years for Muawiyah to persuade Uthman.
3. After four years, permission was given to Muawiyah on the condition that the people
should not be forced to join the army put forward by Uthman. This fact destroys all the
efforts of Nawasib to associate alleged glad tidings to the first naval war. Why the issue
of forced recruitment in the naval army would not have even come into the equation,
rather the Sahabah would be forcing their way onto the naval boats if they new that all
participants attained a passport to Paradise!
By now, any rational and unbiased reader would understand that the tradition of Bukhari was
fabricated by the Nawasib in their feeble attempt to provide some merits to the son of their
master Muawiyah. Since the first part of the Bukhari tradition which alleges glad tidings of
paradise for the participants of first naval war proved to be a fabricated the second part of the
tradition which alleges glad tidings and the erasure of sins of the army invading Caesars City
automatically becomes fabricated.
Not only is this hadith a lie but so is the claim that Yazeed led this campaign and as evidence for
this we have relied on the following authentic texts of Ahlul Sunnah:
In this year (49 Hijri) and some says 50 H, Muawiyah made preparations to take the
towns and cities of Rome under Sufyan bin Auf. He sent out the army and ordered his son
Yazeed to join him but Yazeed was lax in this regard, Muawiya therefore became silent on
the matter. The army during the conquered suffered from sickness and hunger and upon
receipt of this news, Yazeed recited a couplet:
Why shall I care about what the army facing in Farqadona from fever and smallpox
While I lay comfort in deluxe clothes at the house of Marwan with Um Kulthom.
Um Kulthoom bint Abdullah Ibn Aamir was Yazeeds wife. When Muawiyah heard the couplets
of Yazeed, he vowed to send him to Rome to Sufiyan bin Auf so that he also confronts hardship
Muawiya received information on the progress of the army and conveyed this news to
Yazeed who said, In this case I shall convene a function in home, joined by my fellow
drunkards.
I say that it appears that those Sahaba were with Sufyan (bin Auf) not with Yazeed bin
Muawiyah because he (Yazeed) didnt deserve to have those Sahaba at his service
Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199
1. Unlike the propaganda of Azam Tariq al-Nasibi al-Malaoon, it was Sufyan bin Auf who
was the commander of the army that went to Caesars City and not Yazeed.
2. Yazeed had no interest in participating in the Jihad and thus didnt go with the army
which clearly excludes him from the first army promised forgiveness in the alleged
hadith.
3. On hearing the hardships the army confronted there, Yazeed became pleased at his
decision of not going which is not a sign of a person worthy enough to have a glance at
Paradise let alone enter it.
4. On hearing Yazeeds satisfaction, Muawiyah decided to send him as a punishment.
Reply Sunni scholars have discounted Yazeed from the
glad tidings of forgiveness mentioned in the tradition
Even if for the sake of argument it is believed that the tradition of Bukhari is not fabricated, the
present day Nawasib would still attain no advantage for their father Yazeed through this tradition
since the Sunni Imams, have asserted that the tradition guarantees glad tidings for those worthy
of it, not Yazeed. To evidence this we have relied on the following esteem Sunni sources:
Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contain a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first
one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazeed because he invaded Cesars city.
I say that what kind of merits could there be for Yazeed while his status is known! If you
say that He (s) said about this army that their sins are forgiven then I say its not necessary
to include each and every one without any exception because the scholars agree that the
forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because had some
one among the invaders become apostate after the invasion, he would have not been
included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the
hadith) is conditional.
Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199
Likewise Imam Abdul Rauf Munawi while commenting on this tradition records:
It is not necessary that Yazeed is forgiven just because he was with them, since the
forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness while Yazeed is not
so and there is an exception in his case according to a reliable proof, but if we want to be
stubborn in dealing with this tradition that it include every one then we have to include
who ever become apostate among the invaders, in addition a group of scholars declared the
lawfulness of cursing Yazeed
Faydh al-Qadir, Volume 3 page 109 Tradition 2811
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari presents
his arguments relying on the arguments of two more Sunni scholars namely Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn
al-Munir:
Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contain a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first
one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazeed because he invaded Cesars city.
Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir answered back and said that it is not necessary to include
every one without any exception because the scholars agree that forgiveness is conditional
by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because if some one among the invaders
became apostate after the invasion, he will not be included among those who had been
forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional.
Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 102
Similarly, Imam Qastalani in his famed commentary of Sahih Bukhari namely Irshad al Sari,
Volume 5 page 101 stated:
In this hadith, Muhalab has inferred about Yazeeds caliphate and he being worthier to
enter paradise by saying that he was included in the generality of the word Maghfoor
lahum in this hadith. This has been refuted in the manner that this has been said just in
support of Bani Umayah and Yazeed being included in its generality doesnt mean that he
is unable to be excluded from it on the basis of some special reason because there isnt any
dispute in the fact that the aforesaid words of Maghfoor lahum by Prophet (s)are
conditional for those people deserving of forgiveness (Maghfarah), if somebody among
them becomes apostate after the war then there is a consensus that such a person will no
longer be included in this glad tiding. This has been said by Ibn Munir and verily some
scholars have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed for example Saaduddin Taftazani
By giving examples of one apostatizing after falling into the category of those who are forgiven,
the Imams of Ahle Sunnah sought to prove that even if an individual falls under the category of a
group that has been given the glad tiding of forgiveness, he must be a deserving candidate, once
he falls into that category he shall be held accountable for the subsequent sins committed by him.
This can further be explained by the following Hadith recorded in Musnad Abi Yala, Volume 7
page 32 which has been declared Sahih by the margin writer of the book Hussain Salim Asad:
: : : :
Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: Oh Maaz. Muaz said: Yes Allahs
messenger. He (s) said: Tell the people, who ever said there is no God except Allah will
enter paradise.
If we interpret the aforesaid words of Prophet (s) literally, that would mean that all those who
after reciting there is no God except Allah commit adultery, take bribes, consume alcohol,
commit theft, murder the innocent and commit all other sorts of sin will not be held accountable
for them, which is illogical and unIslamic. Reciting the Kalima certainly makes one eligible to
enter paradise as long as one also obeys the other Islamic injunctions.
The Nasibi have left no stone unturned in their efforts to protect Yazeed, and what a surprise!
They find a tradition that they deem to be so solid that they in effect destroy everything that the
Sunni Ulema had stated before!
Kr-hcy.com states:
WHATEVER ILL YOU SAY ABOUT HIM (YAZID), I HAVE WITNESSED NONE OF THE
SAME. I HAVE STAYED WITH HIM AND FOUND HIM A REGULAR WORSHIPPER (I.E.
FAST OBSERVER OF SALAT), WELL WISHER OF OTHERS, FONDER OF THE
KNOWLEDGE OF SHARIAH AND ABIDING BY THE SUNNAH OF THE PROPHET
(SAW). (VOL. VIII P. 233 ).
THEREFORE, UNENLIGHTENED MUSLIMS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SHIAS
SHOULD NOT TRANSGRESS THE LIMITS OF CURSING YAZID IN THEIR LOVE FOR
HAZRAT HUSAYN AND AHLE-BAIT.
Reply One
The reference comes from Ibn Kathirs famed work al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaya and both Azam
Tariq and Abu Sulaiman produced this same reference as evidence of Yazeeds immense piety
but the episode is not going to help the Nawasib since Ibn Kathir quoted it without mentioning
the original source or its chain of narration which was quite unusual on Ibn Kathirs part. Thus,
this episode will be considered baseless and weak until our opponent proves that it is considered
as authentic in their school. Still for the sake of arguments we would also like to add some
additional replies for the followers of Muawiya to mull over.
Reply Two
We find no evidence in any Shia book, wherein Muhammad al Hanafiyya had made such a
claim. This reference can only be located in a book belonging to the people of Muawiya, and
such a reference has no bearing on the Shia.
Reply Three
This is a fabricated tradition for no Shia or Sunni scholar with the exception of some Nasibis,
and only those of this age and none of the past, believe to be authentic. For they all state that
Yazeed was a fasiq and a fajir. If, however, he had made these comments, which he did not, then
he would have been in clear error. It should be pointed out that neither was Muhammad al
Hanafiyya a Prophet or an Imam. These are not the words of an Imam (as) or Prophet (s) so they
mean absolutely nothing in our eyes.
Reply Four
Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubaur and Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah bin Hanzala,
are all counted by the Ahlul Sunnah as Sahaba and they openly condemned Yazeeds character.
In addition when our own Imam Husayn (as) condemned Yazeed, then any attempts to present
him in a favourable light are worthless to us.
Reply Five
We read in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Volume 8 page 217 under the events of 63 Hijri when a
movement began against Yazeed, and the Sahaba began to testify with regards to Yazeeds fasiq
status, every person began to say they would revoke the bayya in the same way that they remove
a shoe. Soon there was an entire stack of shoes. We can judge the extent to which the Sahaba
hated Yazeed, by the fact that compared bayya to Yazeed to a shoe. It is highly improbable that
Muhammad al Hanafiyya would have heaped criticism on the people of Medina for opposing
Yazeed.
Chapter Eleven: Cursing Yazeed
Here Ghazzali takes on every other classical Sunni scholar from the year dot to the present-day,
by presenting a supporting statement for Yazeed. All four Sunni madhabs, including the four
sheikhs deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed (see below).
First Reply
Ghazzali has linked his defense for Yazeed with the murder of Imam Hussain but the fact is that
that was not the only crime Yazeed had committed but the list is way too lengthy. Thus this very
fact is suffice to bring down the building that Ghazzali had created in defence of Yazeed.
Second Reply
Allah (swt) in his pure book sends curses on various types of people, for example in Surah
Baqarah verse 161 we read:
Those who reject Faith, and die rejecting, on them is Allahs curse, and the curse of
angels, and of all mankind
If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge hath come to thee,
say: Come! Let us gather together, our sons and your sons, our women and your
women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah
on those who lie!
Who doth more wrong than those who invent a life against Allah? They will be turned back
to the presence of their Lord, and the witnesses will say, These are the ones who lied
against their Lord! Behold! The Curse of Allah is on those who do wrong!
Such were the Ad People: they rejected the Signs of their Lord and Cherisher; disobeyed
His messengers; And followed the command of every powerful, obstinate transgressor.
And they were pursued by a Curse in this life, and on the Day of Judgment. Ah! Behold!
For the Ad rejected their Lord and Cherisher! Ah! Behold! Removed (from sight) were
Ad the people of Hud!
Curses were pronounced on those among the Children of Israel who rejected Faith, by the
tongue of David and of Jesus the son of Mary: because they disobeyed and persisted in
excesses.
These verses prove that it is the Sunnah of Allah (swt) and his prophets (peace be upon all of
them) to curse rejecters. Can there be a greater rejecter that Yazeed who rejected the Ahlul bayt
(as), the Quran stipulates love for them to be a part of Deen; he killed them and openly rejected
the Prophethood of Rasulullah (s)?
Third Reply
Ghazzali supporters should refrain from cursing the Devil since according to Ghazzali the act
of cursing someone that you do not know is pointless, and it is better to use ones tongue to recite
Surah Fateha. This type of logic contradicts the practice Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s) for no
man can be as forgiving and pious as Rasulullah (s), and yet we learn that at various points
during his life that he would curse his enemies and those of Allah (swt). If Ghazzali would deem
this practice to be a sin then is he accusing Rasulullah (s) of indulging in sinful actions?
Fourth Reply
It is very amusing that these Nawasib afford Ghazzali this rank because he gave this pro Yazeed
fatwa but fail to apply the Fatwa to their own lives. They have issued takfeer and cursed other
Muslim Sects such as the Shia and Barelvi, indeed no one has escaped their takfeer tirade. They
accept one part of the fatwa and then leave the part that serves no benefit to them if they deem
Ghazzali to be a reliable Hujjut-ul-Islam then should they not be adhering to everything that their
dear imam had said? Instead they curse the Sufis, and Ghazali is famous for being his Sufi
leanings.
Fifth Reply
We read in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1147:
Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice and frightened the residents of Madina,
the curse (lanat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is on such a person
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1147, Nafees Academy Karachi
We have already presented the event of Harra before our readers and shown how Yazeed ordered
his Nasibi troops to attack the city of Madina. Rasulullah (s) cursed those that caused fear to
Madina. When Rasulullah (s) cursed an individual that perpetrated such an act then what right
does this third rate Nasibi group have to demand that we refrain from cursing Yazeed? Whoever
adheres to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) shall definitely curse Yazeed.
Sixth Reply
Sura Rad verse 25:
But those who break the Covenant of Allah, after having plighted their word thereto, and
cut asunder those things which Allah has commanded to be joined, and work mischief in
the land; on them is the curse; for them is the terrible home!
And follow not the bidding of those who are extravagant, Who make mischief in the
land, and mend not (their ways).
Their bearings on this life and the Hereafter. They ask thee concerning orphans. Say:
The best thing to do is what is for their good; if ye mix their affairs with yours, they are
your brethren; but Allah knows the man who means mischief from the man who means
good. And if Allah had wished, He could have put you into difficulties: He is indeed Exalted
in
Power, Wise.
We would appeal to those with open minds to decide for themselves whose intention was
mischief and whose intention was good in this circumstance? There are two paths: one of the
Banu Ummayya with Yazeed at the helm (the Nasibi path) and one of Ahlul bayt (as) with a
Shia Imam in Husayn (as) at the helm which of these two individuals was working for the
benefit of the Deen and for the salvation of our souls? Who was the mischief monger whose
actions have been cursed by Allah (swt)?
Was the killing of Imam Husayn (as) not an act of Fitnah? Was the attack on Madina,
slaughtering and raping its inhabitants not an act of Fitnah? Was the assault on Makka that
included catapulting the Kaaba with fire causing it to catch fire not acts of Fitnah. Was killing
men in the most sacred of all sanctuaries where it is forbidden to kill even an ant an act of
Fitnah? It is forbidden to kill a man in the sanctuary of the Kaaba even if that man is about to
kill you, yet Yazeed slaughtered innocents there! There is no need to exercise caution when one
is cursing an enemy of Allah (swt). It is a praiseworthy act so long as it does not create Fitnah.
One: Imam Ahmad issued Takfeer against drunkard Yazeed and deemed it
permissible to curse him
The Salafi cult share a close nexus with the Hanbali doctrine. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbals
unequivocal Takfeer against Yazeed has such difficulties to the Salafies and other Nawasib that
they have sought to cast doubts on the existence of such a Fatwa and have instead suggested hat
Imam Ahmed urged his adherents to remain neutral and maintain silence on the matter of
Yazeed. Curiously in this period of post modernity, we are witnessing a phenomenon wherein
those professing adherence to Sunni Sufi influenced belief system are advocating a neutral
viewpoint of Yazeed, at the forefront of this is Cyber Shaykh de jour Gibrael Hadad who has
sought to (just like the Salafies) corroborate his point by falsely suggesting that Imam Ibn
Hanbal adopted silence towards Yazeed.
wondered what the position of the scholars of Ahl us sunna towards Yazid is. I ask this because I
have read claims from Shia sources that quote:
Most of your ulema regard Yazid as an infidel. Even Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and many other
great ulema of your sect suggest that curses on him should be recited.
Wa `alaykum as-Salam:
What would be the source for this new concoction?
Abu Muhammad al-Tamimi said in `Aqidat al-Imam Ahmad as narrated from him by Ibn Abi
Ya`la in Tabaqat al-Hanabila (2:273): He [Imam Ahmad] withheld saying anything about Yazid
ibn Mu`awiya but rather committed his matter to Allah. He would refrain from speaking against
anyone from the first century. But our [Hanbali] colleagues differ concerning him [Yazid]. Some
declared it permissible to blame him because he terrified Madina, and the Prophet cursed
whoever terrifies Madina.
Others withheld from taking any position.
Imam Ahmad was asked about it and he said: People prayed behind him and took his alms.
Others considered him among the Muslims that sinned and it is better to refrain from taking any
position in what is not obligatory. It was impermissible to curse any Muslim unless the Law
provided a proof-text to that effect. For it is narrated and transmitted that To curse a Muslim is
like killing him and The believer is not one given over to cursing.
We shall rebut this assertion by pointing out that this approach is otiose when we have the
testimonies of esteemed Sunni scholars who confirmed the fact that Imam Ahmed did issue
Takfeer against Yazeed and deemed it permissible to curse him. For example, we read in the
prominent Sunni work Sharh Fiqh Akbar, page 88 that has also been quoted by the Mufti of
Daarul Uloom Qadriyah Jilaniyah London namely Mufti Ghulam Rasool in:
Hasab wa Nasab, Volume 2 pages 89-90 (published in London)
He considered alcohol halal and at the time of killing Husayn and his companions, he
stated: I have avenged the death of my ancestors at Badr and other statements like this.
This is the reason that Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal declared Yazeed to be a kaafir as the
copy of Yazeeds statement was proved authentic to him (Imam Ahmed)
Similarly, Ibn Hajar Makki al-Haythami in his book al-Menah al-Makkia fi Sharh al-Hamzia,
page 220 recorded:
Yazeed attained the worst level of corruption and moral degeneracy to the point that
committing such evil actions had become the norm.This was to such an extent that Imam
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal declared him a Kafir . Given that he (Ahmad Ibn Hanbal) is highly
knowledgeable and a scholar of high integrity, he would only issue such statements on
account of the actions perpetuated by Yazeed that would thus prove such a statement.
Haddad has relied upon a report recorded by Qadhi Abu Yala regarding his and Imam Ahmeds
stance on Yazeed, later in this chapter we will be citing none other than but Imam Ibn Katheer
who himself comfirmed that both of these esteemed personalities, amongst others, deemed it
permissible to curse Yazeed and the affirmation by Ibn Katheer shall sreve as the final nail in the
coffin such Yazeed apologetics.
Allamah Syed Mahmood Alusi al-Baghdadi (d. 1270 H) under the commentary of 47:22-23 as
well as other Sunni scholars quoted the following opinion of Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal regarding
Yazeed:
Al-Barzanji in al-Ishaat and al-Haythami in al-Sawaiq have recorded that Imam Ahmad
bin Hanbals son (Saleh) narrated that he said to his father that he had seen people saying
that they love Yazeed bin Muawiya. To this Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal said For a person
having belief in Allah there was no reason to love Yazeed bin Muawiya. Why should the
person not be cursed who has been cursed by Allah in the Quran. To this Saleh asked that
where in the Quran had Allah cursed Yazeed bin Muawiya. Imam Ahmed replied quoting
the verse: Then, is it to be expected of you, if ye were put in authority, that ye will do mischief
in the land, and break your ties of kith and kin? Such are the men whom Allah has cursed for
He has made them deaf and blinded their sight. Do they not then earnestly seek to understand
the Quran, or are their hearts locked up by them? [47:22-24].
1. Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 26 page 227
Online Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 26 page 72
2. Tafsir Mazhari (Urdu), volume 10 page 326 (Published by Darul Ishaat Karachi)
3. Ghidha al-albab li-Sharh Manzumat al-Adab by Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Saffarini al-
Hanbali (d. 1188), Volume 1 page 182
4. Adab Sharia by ibn Muflih al-Hanbali, Volume 1 page 342
5. al-Rad ala al-Mutaseb al-Aneed al-Mane le zam Yazeed, page 41
In Sawaiq al-Muhriqa (Urdu), page 734, the conversation ends with the words of Imam Ahmed:
Can there be any worse fitna than this murder (of Hussain)?
Sawaiq al-Muhriqa (Urdu), pages 733-734
We should point out that the above cited stance of Imam Ahmed has been narrated by out and
out authentic personalities of Ahle Sunnah therefore, any other statement, if any, of Imam
Ahmed contradicting the above stance automatically loses its credibility. Now in order to know
the authenticity of the said tradition, let us see the chain of narration recorded by Imam Ibn Jauzi
in his book al-Rad ala al-Mutaseb al-Aneed al-Mane le zam Yazeed, page 41:
Abu Jaffar al-Akbari from Abu Ali al-Hussain bin al-Junaid from Abu Talib bin Shahab
al-Akbari from Abu Bakr Muhammad bin al-Abbas from Saleh bin Ahmad bin Hanbal
who said:
Abu Jaffar al-Akbari: Dahabi said: Thiqah (Tarikh al-Islam, v23 p218). Al-Hussain bin
Junaid: Dahabi said: Authenticated (Al-Kashif, v1 p332). Abu Talib bin Shehab al-Akbari:
Dahabi said: Thiqah (Tarikh al-Islam, v25 p380). Abu Bakr Muhammad bin Abbas: Dahabi
said: Muhadith Imam (Siar alam alnubala, v15 p513). Saleh bin Ahmad bin Hanbal: Dahabi
said: Imam Muhadith Hafiz (Siar alam alnubala, v12 p529).
Two: Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafiyee and Imam Malik deemed it permissible
to curse Yazeed
Prominent Shafiyee scholar Shaykh Sulaiman bin Muhammad bin Umar al-Bejarmi (d. 1221 H)
records:
.
Imam Ahmad has statements about cursing Yazeed both Talweeh (directly) and Tasreeh
(indirectly) and so has Imam Malik and Abu Hanifa and we have similar statements in the
madhab of our Imam Shafiyee and al-Bakri also said the same. Some of his (al-Bakris)
followers said about Yazeed may Allah increase his disgrace and put him in the lowest
level of hell
Hashyat al-Bejarmi, Volume 12 page 369
Shaykh Kamaluddin Muhammad bin Musa Damiri in his famed work Hayaat ul Haywaan,
Volume 2 page 175 records:
Abu Hanifa, Malik and Ahmad have two statements about cursing Yazeed, Tasreeh (i.e.
to curse him by taking his name) and another one is with Talweeh (i.e. to curse without
taking his name and only by using hint (e.g. May Allah curse the killers of Hussain)
Allamah Syed Mahmood Alusi al-Baghdadi (d. 1270 H) in his famed commentary of Quran
namely Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 26 page 73 under the commentary of the verse 47:22-23,
wrote his views about Yazeed in the following words:
And I say what is prevalent over my mind that (Yazeed) Khabeeth did not testify to the
messengership of the Holy Prophet (s) According to me it is correct to curse a person like
Yazeed, although one cannot imagine a Fasiq like him and apparently he never repented,
the possibility of his repentance is weaker than the possibility of his faith (Iman). Along
with Yazeed, Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Saad and his group shall also be included. Verily, may Allahs
curse be upon all of them, their friends, their supporters, their group and upon everyone
who inclines towards them until Qayamah and until an eye sheds a tear for Abu Abdullah
Hussain (ra)
Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 26 page 73
So what will you say about damn Yazeed, did he have love or hate for Ali (kr)? I assume
you will not have any doubt that Yazeed, curse be upon him, had a strong hatred against
Ali (ra) and also against both of his sons Al-Hassan and Al-Hussain may blessings and
peace be upon their grandfather, parents and upon them. Therefore as proved from
Mutawatur (reliable) Hadith it becomes apparent to say that he, the accursed one, was a
hypocrite.
Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 26 page 79
We should point out that Ghazzali was an adherent of the Shafiye madhab and so was Allamah
Alusi who set out the viewpoint of the Shafiye Ulema on this topic as follows:
When a renowned Shafiye scholar has taken the responsibility to reflect the opinion of the
Shafiye Ulema, confirming that they deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed, then the opposite
voice of Imam Ghazzalis fatwa becomes batil (false).
We have cited actual Sunni texts wherein the grand Sunni Ulema deemed it permissible to curse
Yazeed. Azam Tariq seeks solace in the fatwa of al Ghazzali. Now whose fatwa bears greater
value, the sole fatwa of Ibn Ghazzali or the fatwas of all the Sunni Ulama that we cited? Why
should this single Ghazzali fatwa be deemed to be strong and conclusive enough to nullify the
fatwas of all these Sunni Ulema? Would the more correct approach not to be to reject Ghazzalis
fatwa and give greater credence to these Salaf Ulema who had an ijma (consensus) that it was
permissible to curse Yazeed? Why are the Salafi and Deobandi seeking to create doubts over a
matter that has attained a broad consensus amongst the Sunni Ulema? In reality by quoting
Ghazzali they are trying to divide the Sufis, who they are well-known to despise. Our dua is that
Allah (swt) guides these advocates of Yazeed to disown and hate him and to develop faith and
love for the family of the Prophet (s).
Four: Qadhi Thanaullah Paani Pattis takfeer against Yazeed and deeming it
permissible to curse him
Qadhi Thanaullah Paani Patti (d. 1225) was a Sunni scholar of the twelfth century, who studied
under the teachings of Shah Waliullah Muhadith Dehalvi (d. 1176 H) while his anti-Shia son
Shah Abdul Aziz Muhadith Dehalvi (d. 1239 H) would call Qadhi Thanaullah the Behaqqi of
his time. He was also the Khalifa of Mirza Mazhar Jaan Janan (d. 1195 H) who would refer to
Qadhi Thanaullah as Ilm al-Huda. His commentary of the Holy Quran, Tafseer Mazhari is
popular among the Sunni masses particularly amongst the Deobandies. The following views of
Qadhi Thanaullah about Yazeed will silence those Deobandies who adhere to the Salafi/Wahabi
stance of absolving Yazeed from his Kufr. Qadhi wrote:
Yazeed and his associates did Kufr with the bounties of Allah. They deemed it their aim to
have a grudge against the progeny of the Prophet (s) and murdered Hussain (ra) with
oppression and Yazeed did Kufr with the religion of Prophet (s) to the extent that Yazeed
recited the following couplets over the murder of Hussain (ra)
Where are my ancestors, they should come and see that I have take revenge from the
progeny of the Prophet and Bani Hashim.
I would not be from the progeny of Jandab had I not taken revenge from the progeny of
Ahmad for whatever they had done.
Moreover, he made alcohol Halal and these are his couplets for alcohol:
The treasure of alcohol is in a utensil which is like silver and the branch of grapes are
loaded by grapes which are like stars, the depth of the branch of grapes is alternate for the
stars over sun, the east of this sun (alcohol) is the hand of the drinker while the place for
the sunset (alcohol) is my mouth, thus, if one day alcohol was made Haram in Ahmads
religion, then O addressee, you just take it according to the religion of Masih ibn Mariam
(i.e. deem it Halal)
Tafseer Mazhari [Arabic], Volume 5 page 271, commentary of 14:29
Tafseer Mazhari [Urdu], Volume 6 pages 202-203, commentary of 14:29
Verily, the Kufr of Yazeed is proven from authentic traditions, thus he is worthy of being
cursed, though there isnt any benefit in cursing him but Al-Hub fi Allah (love for the sake
of Allah) and Al-Bughz fi Allah (hatred for the sake of Allah) demands it. [Maktubaat,
page 203]
Imam Paak aur Yazeed Paleed, page 104 (Zia ul Quran publications, Lahore)
Five: Shafiyee jurist Ibn Ali bin Emaaduddin deemed it permissible to curse
Yazeed
Let us proceed with the views of the great Shafiyee scholar al-Kesa al-Harsi. The prestigious
rank of this Shafiyee scholar and his views about Yazeed are recorded by Ibn Katheer:
Ibn Ali bin Emaaduddin Abu Hassan Tabari, who was known as al-Kesa al-Herasi and
was amongst the activist pioneer jurists (Fuqaha) of Shafiya (sect), he was born in 450 H.
He benefited from Imam al-Harmayn, he and Imam Ghazzali are amongst his prominent
studentsat Nizamamiyah in Nishapur, he used to curse Iblis seven times at every stair of
Nizamiya and there were 70 stairs in all. He heard plenty of hadiths, he debated, issued
edicts, taught and was amongst the Akabir Fuzala and master of juristsAnd he was
asked an edict about Yazeed bin Muawiyah to which he mentioned that Yazeed was a
cheater and immoral and deemed it permissible to slander him
Al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 12 page 213
Shaykh Kamaluddin Muhammad bin Musa Damiri (742-808 H) in Hayaat ul Haywaan Volume
2 page 196 recorded the views of this great Shafiyee scholar in detail. When he was asked
whether it is permissible to curse Yazeed, he replied:
: . :
:
As for cursing him, there are two types of statements from the Salaf Saliheen, Imam Abu
Hanifa, Imam Malik and Imam Ahmed Hanbal, one statement is with Tasreeh (i.e. to curse
him by taking his name) and another one is with Talweeh (i.e. to curse without taking his
name and only by using hint e.g. May Allah curse the killers of Imam Hussain) but
according to us, there is only one statement which is Tasreeh, not the Talweeh and why
should that not be the case since Yazeed used to play the game of hunting cheetahs, chess
and always used to drink alcohol thus amongst his couplets, the one regarding alcohol is:
I say to my friends who have been gathered by the alcohol and the warmness of romance
are calling in rhythm to take your portion of bounties and enjoyment because every person
shall die no matter how long his age is (thus do all kinds of enjoyment you want to do in
this short time span).
Allamah Ibn Khalikaan (d. 681 H) in Wafayat al-Ayan, Volume 3 page 287 also recorded the
very text with difference of words.
Wafayat al-Ayan, Volume 3 page 287
Imam of Ahle Sunnah Saaduddin Taftazani also cursed and issued takfeer against Yazeed, as
recorded by Imam Ibn Emaad Hanbali (d. 1089 H) as well as by Allamah Mahmood Alusi under
the commentary of 47:22-23:
We dont delay in his (Yazeeds) case, not even in his kufr and faith, may Allah curse him,
his supporters and his helpers
1. Shadharat al Dhahab, Volume 1 pages 68-69
2. Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 26 page 72
Shafiyee scholar Shaykh Sulaiman bin Muhammad bin Umar al-Bejarmi (d. 1221 H) while
referring to Imam Saduddin Taftazanis authority work Sharah Aqaid records:
The injustices perpetuated against Ahlulbayt are so clear that no one can deny
themmay Allah curse those who committed injustices against themif they say that
there are some scholars who dont allow the cursing of Yazeed whilst the acknowledge he is
worthy of it, we say that he deserves ithow can such legitimacy remain unclear to them?
how can there be no agreement on this?
Allahs curse be upon all three Ibn Ziyad, Yazeed and the murderer of Imam Hussain
Tareekh ul Khulafa (Urdu) page 208, published by Nafees Academy Karachi
Qadhi Shawkani who enjoys authority amongst the Salafi cult also cursed Yazeed. We read in
Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 201:
The alcoholic drunk, who disgraced the pure divine law, Yazeed bin Muawiya may Allah
curse him
Nail al-Awtar, Volume 7 page 201
Nine: Hanafi Imam Mullah Ali Qari deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed
While answering a question over whether it is permissible to curse Muawiyah, Imam of Ahle
Sunnah Mullah Ali Qari replied:
It is not permissible but it is permissible to curse Yazeed, Ibn Ziyad and their likes.
[Sharah Shifa, Volume 2 page 556]
Imam Paak aur Yazeed Paleed, page 93 (Zia ul Quran publications, Lahore)
Now comes the discussion of one of the revered jurists of Ahle Sunnah namely Abul Faraj Ibn
al-Jauzi (d. 597 H) who deemed the act of cursing Yazeed so important that he wrote a separate
book on this topic and this has caused such a serious damage to the lovers of Muawiyahs vile
family that they have sought to deny the aforesaid stance of their Imam Ibn Jauzi. A modern day
Sunni scholar G F Haddad also joined the camp:
Abdur-Rahman Abul-Faraj Bin Jauzi has written a book on this subject, Kitabul-Radd lal-
Mutaasibul-Anidul-Manian Lan-e-Yazid Lanatullah.
Ibn al-Jawzi was a prolific author of over seven hundred books, but I doubt very much that the
above is one of them. This can be checked by looking up the Kuwaiti publishing house of Idarat
al-Buhuth wa al-Turath who brought out a complete bibliography and manucriptography of his
works a few years ago
http://www.abc.se/~m9783/fiqhi/fiqha_e83.html
It is strange to see that a modern day Sunni is trying to cast doubts on the existence of such a
book on the basis of personal opinion without any corroborative evidence to support his stance
and relied on the bibliography of a recent publishing house that had no details of this Ibn Jauzis
work in their list. How can a famed scholar advance such feeble arguments! We should state that
it doesnt require rocket science to check his book and confirm the same moreover the
testimonies of some of the esteemed (early) Sunni scholars about the stance of Ibn Jauzi should
suffice to water down Nasibi denials and Hadads personal baseless guess work. To enable this
let us cite the testimony of the orthodox early Sunni Imam Ibn Kathir (774 H):
Abul Faraj Ibn Jauzi wrote a separate book deeming it permissible to curse Yazeed.
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1148, Nafees Academy Karachi
Similarly Imam Abdulrauf al-Munawi in his authority work Faidh al-Qadir Sharah Jami al-
Saghir, Volume 1 page 204 stated:
Abu al-Faraj bin al-Jauzi stated in his book al-Rad ala al-Mutasib al-Aneed al-Mane
men zam Yazeed that the pious scholars allowed cursing him
Faidh al-Qadir, Volume 1 page 204 Tradition 281
Moreover Shaykh Sulaiman bin Muhammad bin Umar al-Bejarmi (d. 1221 H) also testified:
Ibn al-Jauzi said: The pious scholars permitted the cursing of Yazeed and he wrote a
book about its permissibility
Hashyat al-Bejarmi, Volume 12 page 369
Now for the pathetic argument that a modern day publishing house has not recorded the name of
this book along with the names of the books written by Imam Ibn Jauzi, we should point out that
the following esteem biographical Sunni works confirm that the book under discussion was
authored by Imam Ibn Jauzi:
1. Kashf al-Zunun, by Haji Khalifa, v1, p839
2. Hidyat al-Arafeen, by Allamah Ismail Pasha Baghdadi, v1, p521
3. Muajam al-Moalafeen, by Umar Raza Kahala, v6, p178
As a final slap in the ugly face of Nasibism, we herewith attach a scan of the cover of Ibn Jauzis
book under discussion i.e. Al-Rad ala al-Mutaseb al-Aneed Al-Manee men Zam Yazeed (The
answer to the stubborn fanatic who prevents the cursing Yazeed) revised by a Sunni shcolar Dr.
Haytham Abdulsalam Muhammad:
Al-Rad ala al-Mutaseb al-Aneed Al-Manee men Zam Yazeed (published in Beruit)
Eleven: Al-Khilal, Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz, Qadhi Abu Yala and Qadhi Abul
Husayn deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed
Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidayah Wal-Nihayah has recorded the stance of some of the prominent Imams
of Ahle Sunnah such as Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal (d. 241 H), Imam Abi Bakar Ahmed bin
Muhammad bin Harun al-Khalal (d. 311 H), Imam al-Qadhi Abu Yala ibn al-Farra
Muhammad ibn al-Husayn ibn Muhammad ibn Khalaf (d. 458) and his son Imam Muhammad
ibn al-Qadhi Muhammad Abi Yala ibn al-Husayn, Al-Qadhi Abu al-Husayn al-Farra polularly
known as Ibn Abi Yala (d. 526):
Whoever frightens Madina incurs the wrath of Allah, His Angels and all the people.
Those people who deem it permissible to curse Yazeed bin Muawiyah deem this and other
similar kinds of hadiths as a base and this tradition is from Ahmad ibn Hanbal and has
been taken by Al-Khilal, Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz, Qadhi Abu Yala and his son Qadhi Abul
Hussain. Abul Faraj Ibn Jauzi wrote a separate book deeming it permissible to curse
Yazeed.
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1148, Nafees Academy Karachi
Regarding the view of Qadhi Abu al-Hussain mentioned by Ibn Kathir, Shaykh Kamaluddin
Damiri in his book Hayaat ul Haywaan, Volume 2 page 174 has elaborated the same:
( ) :
:
The Qadhi Abul Hussain Muhammad bin al-Qadhi Abu Yala al-Faraa al-Hanbali wrote a
book about those who deserve to be cursed and he included Yazeed and said: Whoever
forbids cursing Yazeed must be unaware of the lawfulness of cursing him or he is a
hypocrite who wants to give the false impression or may be he gives false impression to the
ignorant ones by (the prophets (s)) statement: The believer never curses while this
(Hadith) is about those who dont deserve to be cursed.
Twelve: Amr bin Bahr al-Laythi (d. 255 H) deemed Yazeed to be an accursed
One of the early Sunni scholars Amr bin Bahr al-Laythi (d. 255 H) popularly known as Al-
Jahidh stated in his book Al-Risalah al-Hadyia Ashar, page 398:
)(
.
The evil deed which Yazeed committed by killing Hussain and took the daughters of
Allahs messenger as slaves and hit the lips of Hussains (head) with the stick and scared
the people of Madina and destroyed the Kaaba, shows that he (Yazeed) was rough, stone
hearted, Nasibi, possessed bad thoughts, venom, hatred, hypocrite, was out of the pale of
faith, Fasiq and an accursed, and who ever forbid cursing the accursed is himself an
accursed person.
Thirteen: Ahmad bin Sulayman bin Kamal al-Hanafi (d. 944 H) deemed it
permissible to curse Yazeed
Another Hanafi scholar namely Ahmad bin Sulayman bin Kamal al-Hanafi (d. 944 H) deemed it
permissible to curse Yazeed. Imam Abdulrauf al-Munawi in his authority work Faidh al-Qadir
Sharah Jami al-Saghir, Volume 1 page 204 stated:
Mawula ibn al-Kamal said: The truth that cursing is lawful though its popularly known
that he is a kafir and his horribleness and evil deeds are successively narrated in detail
Faidh al-Qadir, Volume 1 page 204 Tradition 281
The book Khulasa tul Fatawa authored by Shaykh Imam Tahir bin Ahmed bin Abdul Rasheed
al-Bukhari is deemed as one of the most prestigious edict works in the Hanafi school of thought
(d. 542 H). He states in Volume 4 page 390:
One should curse Yazeed bin Muawiyah and likewise Hajjaj. I heard Shaykh Al-Imam
Al-Zahid Quamuddin al-Safari narrating from his father that it is permissible to curse
him. He used to say: There is no harm in cursing Yazeed.
Imam Quamuddin al-Safari (d. 576) has been introduced in the following words by Imam Abdul
Hai Lucknawi:
Whilst he relied upon his fathers edict regarding the permissibility to curse Yazeed, the said
individual was himself acknowledged as a notable scholars of his era. He was Imam Ibrahmi bin
Ismaeel popularly known as al-Zahid al-Safari (d. 534). He was a contemporary of Imam
Ghazzali and was a teacher of Imam Hassan bin Mansur Qadhi Khan the author of the famous
Fatawa Qadhi Khan. Imam Samani in his authority work Al-Ansab has recounted him in the
following manner:
His entire family was known for their knowledge and piety, a fact acknowledged by Allamah
Abdul Qadir Qarshi in Al-Jawahir al-Muziyah fi Taabqat al-Hanafiya page 32 who stated:
Imam Abdulrauf al-Munawi in his authority work Faidh al-Qadir, Volume 1 page 204 has also
recorded the edict of Imam Quwam al-Deen al-Safari:
Ibn al-Kamal narrated that Imam Quwam al-Deen al-Safari who said: There is no harm
in cursing Yazeed
Faidh al-Qadir, Volume 1 page 204 Tradition 281
Shaykh Imam Hafizuddin Muhammad bin Muhammad ibn Shahab popularly known as Ibn
Bazzaz al-Kurdari al-Hanafi (d. 827 H) states in Fatawa Bazzazia, Volume 6 page 344:
It is permissible to curse Yazeed and likewise Hajjaj but it is better to refrain from doing
so, it is narrated from Imam Quamuddin al-Safari that there is no problem in cursing
YazeedKurdari states that the truth is the popular position with regards to the Kufr of
Yazeed coupled with the Mutawatur reports of his evil acts, the details of which are known,
supports him being cursed
Shaykh Abdullah bin Muhammad al-Shebrawi (d. 1172 H) who the in year 1137 H was the
Sheikh at Al-Azhar University recorded the folllowing about Shaykh Abdulrahman bin Yusuf al-
Ajhwari al-Maliki (d. 960 H) in his book al-Itehaf Behub al-Ashraf, page 69:
Allamah Ajhwari said: Imam Muhammad bin Arafa and the scholars who followed him
chose to consider Hajaj as kafir and there is no doubt that his (Hajajs) crime is similar to
Yazeeds crime, nay its less.
One of the most prominent Hanafi Imams namely Abu Bakar Ahmed Ali al-Razi al-Jassas (d.
370 H) recalled Yazeed in the following manner in his authority work Ahkam al-Quran, Volume
3 page 154:
After the four caliphs, the companions ofthe Prophet (s) participated in Jihad alongside
Fasiq leaders, thus Abu Ayub Ansari participated in Jihad with Yazeed Laeen.
Ahkam al-Quran al-Jassas,Volume 3 page 154
It is strange to note that Nawasib belonging to Sipah-e-Sahaba claim to be the adherents of the
Hanafi sect, yet they tend to defend Yazeed when we see the abovementioned stance of a great
Hanafi jurist and Imam!
Abul Hassan Ali Ibn Usman al-Jullabi al-Hajveri al-Ghaznawi is a name that requires no
introduction for Sunnis that frequent from the Indian Subcontinent. Better known as Daata Ganj
Bakhsh, this 11th Century Persian Sufi Saint is a renowned learned Sunni figure and his burial
place in Lahore is attended by thousands of followers on a daily basis. He penned a number of
works the most famous being Kashf al Mahjhub regarded as the first treatise on Sufism. It is this
very book on page 76 whilst discussing Imam Zainul Abideen (as) he states as follows:
When Husayn and his children were killed at Karbala there was none left except Ali to
take care of them; and he was ill. The women were brought unveiled on camels to Yazid b.
Muawiya may God curse him, but not his father!
Kashf al Mahjhub, page 76 English translation by Prof. Renold A. Nicholson]
Prominent Mujtahid of era namely Allamah Qadhi Saleh bin Mahdi al-Maqbali (d. 1108) who is
much liked by Ahle Hadith/Salafies writes in his authority work Al-Ilm Al-Shamikh Fi Ethaar
Al-Haq Ala Alaba wal Mashaikh, pages 367-368:
And even more strange is a person who praises Yazeed who reverted from Islam, the one
who insulted the honorable people of this Ummah, dishonoring the sanctity of Madina of
Messenger (Sale Allah Aleh Wa Aalihi Wasalam), killed Hussain the son of the Prophet
and his Ahlulbayt and humiliated them and he treated them in such a manner that even if
the enemies of Islam, the Christians were to do the same acts, they might have been more
reasonable.
And amongst those praising Yazeed is Hujut Al-Islam A-Ghazzali, but in all of his acts, he
is like a person who collects wood in the dark, who alongside the wood, also unknowingly
collects snakes and scorpions.
And only that person would deem Yazeeds act as normal who is secluded from the
generosity of Allah and who has been wretched by taking part in such evil deeds. Therefore
neither exaggerate nor understate this. To observe patience in this matter is like holding a
red hot coal whilst ignorance is on the increase in our era. We seek blessings and protection
from Allah. Ameen.
Amongst the strange matters of Jurisprudence (Fiqh) is one that has been mentioned by
Ibn Hajar Haythami in Sawaiq al-Muhriqa (namely that) it is not permissible to curse
Yazeed even though there is strong agreement (Ijma) that it is permissible to curse one who
was a drunkard, did not exhibit mercy, dishonored the sanctity of Madina of the
Messenger, murdered Al-Hussain, gave the order for his murder and who was pleased with
his murder, as for Yazeed as a person its not permissible even though he had committed
all these acts and he was an absolute evil-doer (Fasiq).
So the logic of comparing evidence should be as follows: that Yazeed is he who consumed
alcohol, the one who drinks alcohol is an accursed one, therefore this Yazeed is accursed.
However if they claim that cursing should be avoided based on the saying of the Prophet
(Sale Allah Aleh Wa Aalihi Wasalam): A believer does not curse copiously then this
would be better for God fearing individuals and God knows best.
Al-Ilm Al-Shamikh Fi Ethaar Al-Haq Ala Alaba wal Mashaikh, pages 367-368
Allamah Abdul Ali Muhammad Sahalwi al-Ansari al-Lucknawi in his authority work Fawateh
al-Rehmut Ba-Sharah Musalam Al-Sabut, Volume 2 page 273:
()
And his son Yazeed was the most deceptive of all evil doers (Fasiq) and was so far away
from the status of Imamate, in fact his faith (Iman) is questionable, may Allah not bless
him. All those various types of evil acts he committed are well known
Fawateh al-Rehmut, volume 2 page 273
Continuing on from the above text we read Ibn Katheer tried to explain why some concerned
parties opposed cursing Yazeed. This is the bit that Azam Tariq failed to quote and thus took Ibn
Katheers words out of context (yet again):
Some have opposed cursing Yazeed and written books urging people to refrain from such
a practice since by making Yazeed a waseela for cursing, the curse may fall back onto his
father and other Sahaba.
By this reasoning, Ibn Katheer has in effect placed the ropes into the hands of his Nasibi
brethren; the only reason that Yazeed should not be cursed is because by doing so his dear old
father might also be at risk of being cursed. If Muawiya or the other Sahaba did nothing wrong,
then what on earth is there to worry about?
One should applaud Imam Abu Yaala and his son who sided with the truth. It is also interesting
that Ibn Kathir, whose work is quoted by Azam Tariq, actually does nothing to exonerate
Yazeed.
Loving and glorifying him is not done except by a heretic who has void belief because he
(Yazeed) had such characteristics that his lover deserves to be faithless, because to love and
hate just in the sake of God is the sign of faith
Al-Emta bil al-Arbaeen, page 96
Chapter Twelve: Azam Tariqs false attempts
to represent Sunni aqeedah
Reply One
Yet again this lying Nasibi is making a claim without any foundation. We could produce
countless writings of the Ahlul Sunnah wherein Husayn (as) has been referred to as Imam. This
Nasibis objective has nothing to with bringing Sunni Islam back to the grand old days and way
of the Salaf. It is to do with replacing Sunni Islam with Nasibi ideology that showers grand
accolades on the enemies of Ahlul bayt (as) such as Muawiya and Yazeed, something that none
of the old ulema did save Ghazali, while Ghazalis boss imam Shafii said cursing Yazeed was
acceptable.
Reply Two
Azam Tariq Nasibi sought to set the alleged record straight by stating:
FOR ALL THE SAHABA, WE USE WORD (HAZRAT) OUT OF RESPECT AND
REVERENCE FOR THEM SUCH AS HAZRAT ABU BAKAR, HAZRAT UMAR, HAZRAT
USMAN, HAZRAT ALI ETC. WE NEVER SAY IMAM ABU BAKAR OR IMAM UMAR.
If the terms Imam are not used for Abu Bakr and Umar it is because they never viewed
themselves as Imams nor did Rasulullah (s) view them as such. An Imam under Arabic
terminology is one who leads and a Khalifah is one who follows. Abu Bakr never viewed
himself as an Imam and underlined his own failings in his inaugural speech to mark his
momentous coming to power in Saqifa Bani Sada, we are quoting from Tarikh Tabari Volume 9
page 201:
Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of you, although I am not the best of you.
Help me if I do well; rectify me if I do wrong.
If their own failings as Imams are proven it does in any way mean that no one can else can be
referred to as Imam. Tariqs patriarchal efforts to bestow his corrupt views on the unsuspecting
Ahlul Sunnah means nothing when we have specific hadith wherein the Prophet of Allah (s)
referred to Imam Ali (as) as an Imam, when he declared:
Three things have been revealed to me about Ali: That he is the Sayyid al Muslimeen
(Chief of Muslims), Imam-ul-Muttaqeen (Imam of the Pious), and wa Qaid ul Ghurrul
Muhajjileen (Leader of the bright-faced people on Yaum al Qiyamah)
Taken from Al Mustadrak, by Imam Hakim, p 137 & 138 Riyadh al Nadira, by Mohibbudin al
Tabari, Vol 2, p 122
If Azam Tariq finds the term abhorrent then he is free to do so, for the only people that are
entitled to refer to Ali (as) as an Imam are those that are pious. Nasibi have no correlation with
piety. They extol Dhaalim Khalifahs, incite fitnah, lies and shed the blood of innocent Muslims.
Imam Ali (as) is not the Imam of Dhaalims and dog/bear/sister/mother/man/daughter/boy
penetrator, only the pious.
SIMILARLY AFTER THE NAME OF EVERY SAHABI WE USE AND WRITE THE WORD
(RADIALLAHU ANHU I.E. MAY ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HIM) AND NEVER USE
THE WORDS LIKE (ALAYHI SALLAAM I.E. PEACE AND BLESSINGS OF ALLAH BE
UPON HIM) WHICH ARE RESERVED FOR ONLY THE PROPHETS. AS SUCH, WE
NEVER WRITE OR UTTER HAZRAT ABU BAKAR (ALAYHI SALLAAM) OR HAZRAT
UMAR ALAYHI SALLAAM BUT IN CASE OF HAZRAT HUSAYN WE USE ALAYHI
SALLAAM. HAVE WE EVER GIVEN A THOUGHT WHY IT IS SO? IT IS BECAUSE OF
THE INFLUENCE OF SHIAISM WHICH HAS IMPERCEPTIBLY CREPT INTO OUR
MINDS.
Sending blessings on other than the prophets & angels on this matter the views of the
Ulema are different. In the view of Qadhi Ayadh and most of the Ulema, it is permissible.
They have sought to prove this in reliance of this verse:
Allah and his Angels send blessings on Rasulullah (s), Salute him with the best salutation
3. ibn Haban corrected a tradition that a woman approached Rasulullah and requested O
Allah send blessings on me and my husband and Rasulullah (s) sent blessings in this
manner.
4. according to Muslims report the Angels recite for every momin Sala Allah alayka wa
ala jasdhaak
Tafseer Ruh al-Maani, Volume 22 page 85
We read in Sahih Sharh al-Aqida al-Tahawyia by Shaykh Hassan al-Saqqaf, page 223:
) ( ) (
The term (Alaiha Salaam) after mentioning the name of lady Fatima, and the term (Alaihi
Salaam) after mentioning the name of Ali, or Hassan or Hussain may Allah be pleased with
them, is one of the exclusives for Ahlulbayt, which means that its mustahab.
Imam Bukhari also used Alaiha Salaam for Fatima Zahra (as):
Imam Bukhari also used Alaihi Salaam for Imam Hussain (as):
Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal used Alaiha Salaam for Fatima Zahra (as):
Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal used Alaihi Salaam for Ali bin Abi Talib (as):
One of the beloved scholars of Salafies namely Imam Shawkani also used Alaihi Salaam and
Alaiha Salaam for Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and Fatima Zahra (as) respectively at various places
Nail al-Awtar, such as Volume 2 page 90:
There are seven opinions about wearing red cloth: The first (opinion) is that it is absolute
lawful and this is the opinion of Ali Alaihi Salaam , Talha, Abdullah bin Jaffar, al-Bara
and other companions.
We also read in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 2 page 162:
Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari al-Hanafi (d. 1371 H) in his famed work al-Hawi fi Sirat
al-Tahawi, page 27 used Alaihi Salaam for Ali bin Abi Talib (as):
The signs of hatred against Ali Alaiha Salaam appears in his (Ibn Tamiyahs) words in
every line of his statement.
1. Late Salafi/Ahle Hadith scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman also used Imam and
Alaihe Salaam for both Hasan and Hussain (as) in his Urdu translation of Sahih
Bukhari:
Sahih Bukhari, volume 2 page 315 (Maktaba Rehmania Lahore)
2. Similarly terms Imam and Alaihe Salaam have respectively been used for Hussain
(as) by Maulana Akber Shah Khan Najeebabadi in his famed work:
Tarikh Islam, Volume 2 page 75 (Nafees Academy, Karachi)
3. In one of the vital books of Azam Tariqs own Deoband sect namely Fatawa Rashidiyah
by Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi, we see Alaihe Salaam written after the name of
Hussain (as):
Fatawa Rashidiyah, page 149 Kitab al-Ilm (Daar ul Ishat, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi)
4. It is rather strange that Azam Tariq has advanced his objection on using the term Imam
with the name of Hussain (as) where as Azam Tariqs own Imam Qasi Nanatovis persian
book has been rendered into Urdu language by the name of Shahadat Imam Hussain (ra)
aur Kirdar e Yazeed [Martyrdom of Imam Hussain and the character of Yazeed] by
Tahreek e Khudam Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat which was perhaps a front name of Sipah-
e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), the banned terrorist organization Azam Tariq was the leader of:
Shahadat Imam Hussain (ra) aur Kirdar e Yazeed, published by Tahreek e Khudam
Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat Karamabad, Wahdat Road, Lahore.
5. And last but certainly not the least, the Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Albaani also used
Alaiha Salaam [peace be upon her] for Fatima Zahra in his book Adaab al-Zafaf, page
217:
Peace be upon the Imam the Imam Shamsuddin Muhammad Abi Abdullah bin Abi
Bakr Qayim al-Jawzia bin Ayub bin Saad al-Zarai al-Demashqi, peace be upon him in the
first and the last.
Whilst Ahlul Sunnah may not ascribe to the concept of Imamate within their pillars it still forms
a part of their aqeedah, and their Ulema have confirmed this fact in their books of aqaid. Both
Sunni and Shia schools hold Imamate as a part of aqeedah. Rather the difference lies over the
method of appointment.
Quoting Mulla Ali Qaris book Sharh Fiqh Akbar, which sets out the madhab of Imam Abu
Hanifa, this is what we read in the Chapter Masala Nusbul Imamah (Issue of appointment of
the Imam):
It is the majority opinion that there is a duty to appoint an Imam. But there is a
difference, as to whether this is Allahs duty or whether this is incumbent on the public.
The belief in the eyes of Ahlul Sunnah and Muttazalites is that the duty to appoint an
Imam is a duty of the public. In terms of hadith and logic this is a duty of the public. In
accordance with this belief, there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne
Umar He who dies without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the
days of jahiliyyah. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so
important that they preferred it to attending the Prophets funeral, because the Muslims
need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be
implemented
Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Quran
Muhall, Karachi)
Incidentally the last sentence of this discourse on the Sunni concept of Imamate also shows the
real reason why the modern-day Nasibi ulema oppose Imam Husayn (as) being called as such by
the majority of Sunnis. Since imamate is linked here to the bayya, by calling him Imam Husayn
(as) the Nasibis are aware of the fact that most Sunnis accept Imam Husayn (as) as their imam
and rightful khalifa and not Yazeed. This is a perplexing phenomenon of which the Nasibis are
aware, for Husayn (as) was not appointed by man, and could thus only have been appointed by
Allah, as the Shias claim their Imams are. Yet such was the vindication of truth that he achieved
over a demonic khalifa that Husayn (as) is accepted as the rightful Imam in the spiritual sense by
the Sunni majority, and the khalifa of the time Yazeed is cursed. The Shia Imam embodying pure
goodness fought against the Sunni imam embodying pure evil. Yet the Sunni majority to this day
side with the Shia Imam. This is intolerable to the Nawasib.
These two references from classical Hanafi scholars confirm that the Imamate is a part of
aqeedah and that:
If an issue as the difference between dying a Momin or a kaafir has nothing to do with aqeedah
then what on earth does?
The Shia, as Azam Tariq has (for a change) correctly said, believe that the Imam is appointed by
Allah (swt) and is infallible. We have proven this belief from the Quran and Sunni sources in
the article The creed of the Shia available on this site. It is the difference in the two
approaches that came to loggerheads at Karbala: the khalifa appointed by man imam Yazeed,
versus Allahs appointed Imam Husayn (as). And the Sunni majority supports the Shia imam
against their own imam. Sometimes whole populations oppose their leader over an issue of
conscience and an intuitive understanding, deep down, as to who is right and who is wrong. We
see this in the phenomenon of peace demonstrations by western civilians against the various wars
that western governments have fought in their name. It is the same thing here with the Sunni
majoritys attitude to Imam Husayn (as) and Yazeed. Azam Tariq cannot stand this as it
destructures the whole edifice of Sunni Islam. We would like to end this section with a simple
question to our brothers from Ahlul Sunnah:
Supporting which Imam at that time meant the difference between dying the death of jahiliyyah
and attaining salvation, Yazeed or Husayn?.
Azam Tariq has implied above that he cannot stand the fact that the Sunni majority say it is
Imam Husayn (as) that they choose.
We pray that this question, in light of our analysis of Yazeeds character, leads our Ahlul
Sunnah brothers to understand the serious flaw that exists in believing that man NOT Allah (swt)
decides on Imamate over a people. We saw what happens when a man rules. Yazeed was one of
several similarly degenerate khalifas. But he embodied these degenerate traits to an unrivalled
degree, This is what mans appointment of khalifa means. This is why the Nasibis come up with
the most ridiculous lies to hide his reality, for it is so scathing for the Sunni notion of khilafat.
Not only scathing because Yazeed was so low, it is ten times more scathing because good was
represented by an Imam of the Shia.
The Ahlul Sunnah believe that the appointment of the Imam is a duty of the Public they decide
on who comes to power. The importance in relation to appointment is the act of giving bayya
once the Khalifah has received ijma then his imamate is legitimate. The act of bayya is the
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 Khalifah has to
be obeyed. Any opposition is squashed, with violence. From the time of Muawiya onwards, all
the khalifates become monarchies.
When this is the basis for Ahlul Sunnah aqeedah, then over time their jurists have sought to
revise the concept of imamate with stipulations over certain characteristics that Imam should
possess, such as bravery, piety, and justice, especially after the embarrassing debacle (for Sunni
Islam) with Yazeed and certain other members of the Banu Umayyad dynasty for example the
khalifa Waleed who expressed his desire to drink alcohol on the roof of the Kaaba.
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 Khalifahs, and there is no better example than Yazeed.
Indeed with the exception of perhaps Umar bin Abdul Aziz in 1,100 years of khilafat after
Yazeed, barely a pious man acceded to this position. Most were 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 at Saqifa Bani Saada, and underpins Sunni Islam
Rejecting this ijmaa in effect discredits Sunni aqeedah that the duty to appoint the imam
is the right of the public.
If this concept is discredited, by highlighting Yazeeds demonic character and satanic
actions, then the Ummah is forced to consider the alternative option of appointment as
ascribed to by the Shia school of thought.
The Salaf Ulema, faced with this difficult problem, have decided to uphold the legitimacy of
Yazeeds reign since this is the only way that their belief in man made appointment can be
maintained. This accounts for their pathological and indeed blatant lying, which embarrasses
even the Nasibis. We shall now seek to set out the consequence of this belief
The Islamic religion will continue, until the hour has been established, or you have been
ruled over by 12 Caliphs, all of them being from Quraish.
I heard the Apostle of Allah say Islam shall not cease to be glorious up to twelve Caliphs,
every one of them being from the Quraish. (And in a narration) The affairs of men will
not cease to decline so long as twelve men will rule over them, every one of them coming
from Quraysh. And in a narration: The religion will continue to be established till the
hour comes as there are twelve Caliphs over them, everyone of them coming from the
Quraish
Mishkat al Masabih: (Vol 4 p 576), Hadith 5
The sixth Imam of truth according to Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq is Yazeed, but this is a fact
that these Ulema often dont mention to the public.
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 al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227
This fatwa epitomises the entire Sunni aqeedah on Imamate. We leave it to those with open
minds to now decide which concept of Imamate holds true. One that deems this to be based
purely on Allah (swt)s selection, or one that deems it mans choice no matter who, so much so
that reign of Yazeed, a drunk, fornicating, Dhaalim homosexual is also in accordance with the
conditions prescribed by Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s). Would Allah (swt) really bless the reign
of such a man?
Our Ahlul Sunnah brothers should know that you cant keep your cake and eat it if you want
to reject the khilafat of Yazeed, then you are in effect rejecting Sunni aqeedah on Imamate. If
you accept the khilafat of Yazeed, you are in effect joining the camp of the Salafi and Deobandi
Nasibi shaped around the fatwa of Abdullah ibn Umar. On the plains of Kerbala the two
concepts of Imamate came to a head man-made appointment (Yazeed) versus Allahs
appointment (Imam Husayn (as)). We pray that this article shall shed light over the consequence
of believing that man, not Allah (swt) decides on the appointment of the Imam. It took the Imam
appointed by Allah (swt) to lay down his life and that of his dearest blood family to save the
religion for you.
Chapter Thirteen: Answering common
Nasibi objections to the stance of Imam
Hussain (as)
The martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) is actually the death of Yazeed and Yazidism hence over
the last few centuries Nawasib have been advancing some objections over the stance of Imam
Husayn (as) and his merits and on some other aspects of the tragedy of Karbala. We would like
to offer our replies to their criticisms of our Imam (as) which are actually geared towards
defending Yazeed (la).
We dont see any thing about bayah in the above cited tradition rather we learn that it was
Muawiyah who had sent two people to Imam Hassan (as) for the purpose of the treaty and Imam
Hassan (as) adopted the method which avoided bloodshed among Muslims.
Another comment supported by a question is often advanced from Nasibis, namely why didnt
Imam Hassan (as) choose to fight Muawiya rather than enter into a peace treaty? We would
like to reply that the Holy Prophet (s) had foretold that Imam Hassan (as) will make treaty
between two groups. We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 89:
Narrated Abu Bakra: I heard the Prophet talking at the pulpit while Al-Hasan was sitting
beside him, and he (i.e. the Prophet ) was once looking at the people and at another time
Al-Hasan, and saying, This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. chief) and perhaps Allah will bring
about an agreement between two sects of the Muslims through him.
Thus it was not possible for Imam Hassan (as) to oppose the words of the Holy Prophet (s) while
rejecting the offer of treaty.
Objection Two: Why did Imam Husayn (as) not give bayah
to Yazeed?
We should begin by pointing out that Imam Husayn (as) was not given the offer of a treaty. Our
Imam (as) was sitting at home in Madina wherein he was ordered to give bayah to Yazeed.
Secondly there wasnt any prediction by Holy Prophet (s) that would have allowed Imam Husayn
(as) to enter into a treaty. Imam Hassan (as) made a treaty with Muawiya and his supporters in
the same manner that the Holy Prophet (s) made peace with the Kuffar of Makkah. After
agreeing the treaty our Prophet (s) opted to fight the Kuffar of Makkah after migrating to
Madina, and his (s) younger grandson Imam Husayn (as) did likewise and fought the supporters
of Muawiya during the reign of Yazeed. In brief, both Imam Hassan (as) and Imam Husayn (as)
were the mirror image of the Makki and Madani life of Holy Prophet(s). The reason for Imam
Hassan (as) making a treaty with Muawiya rather than fight was the same reason that the Holy
Prophet (s) chose not to fight the Kuffar of Makkah, rather entered into a treaty with them.
Similarly when the decision was taken by Rasulullah (s) to fight the same Kufar of Makkah
Imam Husayn (as) adopted the same position by fighting against Yazeed.
If we go into detail about the two different stances adopted by Holy Prophet (s) and his
grandsons we will come to know that Holy Prophet (s) by making treaty with the pagans of
Makkah offered a final resort to them so that they might accept guidance during the said time but
when they didnt leave the path of ignorance and intolerance and kept committing oppression.
This left our Holy Prophet (s) with no other choice but to migrate to Madeena and to respond
against all attacks by the pagans of Makkah. Similarly Imam Hassan (as) by making treaty
offered a final chance to Muawiya and his supporters so that they could come to the path of
guidance and abandon the methods of oppression on earth but when those people didnt abandon
irreligiousness and kept destroying Islam Imam Husayn (as) responded by fighting the Yazeedi
forces. In short, the stance of Holy Prophet (s) of making treaty first and then making Jihad was
done jointly by His(s) grandsons, as had been the case with the previous Prophets. They would
initially offer guidance to the ignorant of their time and when faced with stubborn refusal to the
point of ruthlessness, Allah(swt) would send his wrath onto them.
Objection Three: Why did Imam Husayn (as) not pay heed
to the words of the eminent Sahaba not to go Iraq, a land
wherein he was ultimately slain?
Reply One
It was the words of Holy Prophet (s) which prevented him The way Prophet (s) had foretold that
Allah will bring about an agreement between two sects of the Muslims through Imam Hassan
(as). Similarly (as we mentioned earlier) the Prophet (s) had told him that he would have to travel
to Iraq and be martyred on the path of truth. Imam Husayn (as) was aware of these words of the
Prophet (s) so how could he have accepted the advice of others proving the words of Holy
Prophet (s) false? When the Prophet (s) had instructed him to proceed in this manner, then after
the order of the Prophet (s) the advice of the Sahaba becomes irrelevant, no Sahaba is entitled to
express a different opinion. At the time of the peace treaty of Hudaibiya, Umar opposed the
decision of the Prophet (s), yet the Prophet (s) gave no consideration to Umars objections,
likewise in this instance the order of the Prophet (s) was one that placed a specific duty on Imam
Husayn (as). That is why Imam Husayn (as) deemed the advice of the Sahaba to be irrelevant,
the words of the Prophet (s) made their advice null and void.
Reply Two
The Prophet (s) deemed the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) so important for Islam that he(s)
instructed his companions to go and aid Imam Husayn (as) if they are alive by that time. We had
already cited this Hadeeth in the previous chapter from several esteemed works:
I heard Rasulullah (s) say Verily my son [Husayn] will be killed in a land called Kerbala,
whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.
Bearing this Hadeeth in mind, how could Imam Husayn (as) ignore theses words, when the
Prophet (s) had stressed such great importance on them ? Thats why right from the beginning till
the end of the tragedy of Karbala we see that Imam Husayn (as) kept showing his satisfaction
whenever he found the predictions made by Holy Prophet (s) becoming true even when He(as)
was being slaughtered, He(as) showed his satisfaction that the prediction of Prophet (s) was
being confirmed. We shall evidence this from the following esteemed Sunni works:
1. Kanz ul Ummal, Volume 7 page 11
2. Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (urdu), Volume 8 page 1083. Nafees Acadmy Karachi
Kanz ul Ummal:
Muhammad bin Umer bin Husayn narrates that we were with Husayn(as) at Karbala and
when He(as) saw Shimer zil Joshan he said: Allah and His Prophet had told truth.
Prophet (s) had said: I see a dog with white spots on its body putting his mouth into the
blood of my Ahlubait and licking it. Verily this statement of Holy Prophet (s) turned out so
true.
Reply Three:
If the above reply is not sufficient to destroy the Nasibi objection on Imam Husayns stance then
we would like to present the fact that a renowned Sunni historian Ibn Athir Jazri has written that
even after the death of Muawiyah, Imam Husayn (as) didnt give bayah to Yazid and moved to
Makkah from Madina. It was in Makkah where he received letters from the people of Kufa
therefore he started preparations for the journey but some people like Muhammad bin Hanafia,
Ibn Umer and Ibn Abbas suggested him not to go Iraq but Imam Husayn (as) replied: I have
seen Holy Prophet (s) in a dream and I will definitely do what has been instructed by
Prophet(s). Hence Imam Husayn (as) left for Iraq. (Usdal Ghaba, Volume 3 page 27). Scholar
Dyar Bakri has written same thing in Tareekh Kamees, Volume 2 page 332.
We can read same text in many other books. For example in histories of Tabari and Kamil we
read:
Husayn(as) expressed the following reason for not accepting their suggestions: I have
seen Holy Prophet (s) in a dream and He(s) has instructed my such a thing which I cannot
refuse whether it is goes in my favor or not. People asked him about that instruction of
Holy Prophet (s) to which Husayn(as) replied: I havent told this dream to anyone yet and
I will not tell it to anyone until I meet my lord.
1. Tareekh Tabari, Volume 6 page 219
2. Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 17
Reply Four:
The extreme honor of Baitullah was one of the reasons which made Imam Husayn (as) to leave
Makkah. Imam Husayn (as) was also aware of another prediction by Holy Prophet (s) about a
person who will commit severe bloodshed Makkah and will abandon the honor offered to
Baitullah / Kabah . Therefore by deeming the prediction of Prophet (s) true, Imam Husayn (as)
left Makkah so that He(as) would not become the reason of attacking the house of Allah(swt).
When some people suggested him not to leave Makkah, He replied:
Prophet (s) had said that there will be a frog in Makkah which will abandon and destroy
its honor. Hence I dont want to become that frog
1. Tareekh Tabari, Volume 6 page 217
2. Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 16
By Allah! I will prefer to be murdered a step outside Makkah than to be murdered inside
Makkah even its one step inside Makkah.
1. Tareekh Tabari, Volume 6 page 27
2. Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 16
Objection Four: Had Imam Husayn (as) not left Makkah his
blood might have been saved as opponents would have taken
the honor of Kabah into account
Reply One:
First of all this assumption is incorrect as it was certain at that time that people were not going to
spare Imam Husayn (as) at any cost even Imam Husayn (as) himself was aware of this fact
therefore He said:
By Allah ! Even if I go inside the holes of insects, these people will bring me out of that
and will slay me
1. Tareekh Tabari, Volume 6 page 27
2. Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 16
As for the assumption that the opponents would have spared Imam Husayn (as) by taking the
honor of Kabah in concerned, we would like to present the historical fact that Yazeeds army
didnt spare the blood of Abdullah Ibn Zubair and murdered him inside the Kabah without
keeping in mind any importance of that esteemed place.
Reply Two: Yazeed sent assassins to kill Imam Husayn within in Makka
Ibn Abbas replied a letter of Yazeed saying I can never forget the fact that you forced the
grandson of the Prophet (s) to leave Madeena and seek refuge in Makka, you sent soldiers
on horses in his direction to disturb him, so you forced him to make his way towards Iraq,
he left Makka through fear.
As we can see Yazeed had not care for the pure soil of Makka and sent troops to kill the Imam
(as) there.
Reply One:
The order to practice taqiyya is a common one, whereas the order to fight Yazeed was a specific
edict.
Al Bidayah:
Whilst making preparations for Iraq, Husayn said I witnessed my grandfather the
Prophet in a dream, he gave me an order, and said that I must act upon it, and I cannot
disclose this order to any Kufan, until I pass through this matter
Ya Nabi al Mawaddah:
When efforts were made to dissuade Imam Husayn from leaving for Iraq, his brother
Muhammad bin Hanafeeya tried hard, the Imam said I witnessed my grandfather in a
dream, he ordered me to travel to Iraq, and said Allah desires that you are martyred on
his path covered in blood. Muhammad Hanafeeya said, If this is the case, then why are
you taking women with you? The Imam said My grandfather had also told me that Allah
(swt) desires that his Deen is protected via the imprisonment of these women
If Nasabi still refuse to accept this line of reasoning then we will point out that when mass
opposition turned into rebellion against Khaleefa Uthman, and he was pressured into abandoning
his post, so mush so that the Sahaba on Madeena constantly told him to resign, he replied The
Prophet told me not to remove the Shirt of Khilafath, even if it means me being killed. If these
Nasabi wont accept the words of Uthman then they will likewise not accept the word of Imam
Husayn (as).
Reply Two:
The scholars of Islam are fully aware that the knowledge of Usul (principles) that if general
ruling is overtaken by a specific ruling, that specific ruling takes precedence. We will provide an
example:
If a teacher says to his teacher You can all go home now, the lesson has finished they will all
leave, BUT if he says to one of those students You cant go the first order is a general one, the
second is specific, that referred only to that student that had been asked to stay.
The order to practice taqiyya is a general one, whilst the order to be slain to protect the Deen of
Allah (swt) at Kerbala, was an order specific to Imam Husayn (as). It is clear that when the
Prophet (s) told Imam Husayn to make his way to Kerbala and be slain there, then any Nasabi
objection as to why taqiyya was not utilized becomes redundant.
Reply Three:
Imam Husayn (as) was a divinely appointed Imam whose task is to protect the religion of
Allah(swt) and guide the people and making their faith alive or more strong. Had Imam Husayn
(as) practiced Taqiyyah at that time, the said purpose would have not been achieved, Islam
would have been perished and Kufr would have been spread. The task which was given to him
by Allah(swt) and the expectation Holy Prophet (s) had from him(as) about the protection of the
religion of Allah(swt) would have been foiled. Imam Husayn (as) practicing taqiyyah at that time
means that he could have given bayah to Yazeed making all of his immoral and anti Islam acts
lawful while everyone know that Yazeed [la] used to commit acts which were totally against the
teachings of Allah and his Prophet(s). Had Imam Husayn (as) practiced taqiyyah at that time,
kufr would have re-emerged making all the efforts of Holy Prophet[s null and void.
There is a difference between the things permissible for followers and the duties of a Imam or
guide. We read in history that:
The non-believers once caught Ammar-bin-Yaser (ra) and they forced him to say praise
their false gods and to condemn Prophet Muhammad (s). They forced him to an extent that
Ammar bin Yasir (ra) gave in an exceeded to their demands. After that, when he returned
to the Prophet Mohammed (s), Ammar (A.S) narrated the whole story to him (s). Prophet
Muhammad (S) asked him, how do you feel in your heart? To which Ammar (A.S) replied,
I am fully content with Allah's religion in my heart. To this Prophet Mohammed (S) said, if
non-believers ask you to say the same again, say it.
1. Tareekh Kamil, Volume 2 page 24
2. Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 4 page 132, (Cairo edition)
Hence we came to know that Holy Prophet (s) gave clear permission to Ammar Yasir(ra) for
practicing taqiyyah but Prophet (s) himself didn't perform taqiyyah during that particular time as
he(s) was divinely appointed Imam of the time and practicing taqiyyah would have foiled all of
his previous efforts for Islam.
Objection Six: It was Hazrat Hamzah (ra) who was 'Syed
ush Shuhdah' but later on Shias attributed this title to Imam
Husayn (as)
We would like to reply that till his period Hazrat Hamzah (as) was exalted martyr among other
martyrs that is because he was 'Syed ush Shuhdah' till that time but Imam Husayn (as) touched
the highest stage of martyrdom which entitled him to be called 'Syed ush Shuhdah'. And its not
only Shias but a vast majority of Ahle Sunnah ulema also call him 'Syed ush Shuhdah'. For
example Maulana Ahktar Shah of Merath (India) has called him(as) as 'Syed ush Shuhdah' (see
Tasdeeq e Shahadat, page 94), Maulana Shah Muhammad Suleman Phulwari in his 'Risala
Shahadat Husayn o Risala Gham e Husayn' has written Imam Husayn (as) as 'Syed ush Shuhdah',
Maulana Muhammad Mubeen in his esteemed book 'Wasilat ul Nijaat ' (published in Lucknow)
has written Imam Husayn (as) as 'Syed ush Shuhdah' at many places. Moreover Imam of Ahle
Sunnah and renowned anti Shia scholar Maulana Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi writes in his book:
"Syed ush shuhdah Imam Husayn (ra) attained martyrdom by the hands of enemies"
Tauhfa Athna Ashari, page 28 published by Fakhar al Matab`e 1268
"Holy Prophet (s) said that a caller from sky called that Yahya (as) is the leader of all
people while Geor Jis is Shaheed ush Shuhdah"
Tafseer Dur e Manthur, Volume 2 page 32
So we came to know that Geo Jis was Shaheed ush Shuhdah during his time, Hamzah (ra) was
Shaheed ush Shuhdah during his time but Imam Husayn (as) is the leaders of all martyrs hence
he will remain Shaheed ush Shuhdah.
As for the comment that the martyrdom of Hazrat Hamzah (ra) was more superior to the
martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) due to the fact that Hamzah (ra) fought along with Prophet (s)
in battle of Uhud while that is not the case with Imam Husayn(as), we would like to mention that
the martyrdom of Hamzah (ra) was no doubt in the service of Islam but Shah Abdul Aziz
Dehalvi writes that the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) added certain merits to Holy Prophet(s).
The martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) is in reality the martyrdom of his Muhammad (s)
and it completed all the aspects of prophet hood of Prophet(s)"
Risala sar al-Shahadatein Dar Tehreer al-Shahadatein, published in Lucknow
"Now the Zulfiquar of Husayn Ibn Ali was unleashedHe jumped into his enemies like Ali
went for Khayber.. 410 enemies were killed by the hands of Husayn(as)"
Kitab Shahadatain, page 179, published Gorakh Pur. India
Even being thirsty Imam Husayn (as) managed to reach river Tigris and the enormous army of
Ibn Sa`d wasn't able to do anything. [Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 32]. Ibn Hajar Makki
writes:
If the army of Yazid had not ditched Husayn(as) by coming between Him and river, they
would never have been able to over come Him because He was such a brave person who
would never move from his place.When all of His companions got killed and Husayn(as)
became alone, He made such a strong attack on the army of Yazid that He killed many of
their strong men and then many groups collectively attacked Him
Sawaiq e Muhirqah, page 118. (Egypt)
The army of Yazid used to say: We havent seen any courageous person than Husayn
because even after being injured and weak and loosing his companions and brother he used
to attack the opponent army like an experienced lion
Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Volume 3 page 482. Published in Egypt
Ibn Athir Jazri while mentioning the last moments of His(as) life writes:
Even after resorting on his feet Husayn(as) used to fight like a brave person and used to
rigorously attack enemies while saving himself from the mass arrows and jumping into the
empty spaces and used to say: Are you people gathering for my murder ? By God ! After
my murder there will not be any human being on whose murder Allah would be enraged
Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 31
When enemies started attacking Husayn(as) from both sides He(as) too jumped on them
and then the situation was that when Husayn(as) would attack the enemies on left hand
side He would perished them and when He would attack the enemies of his right hand side
He would make all of them unconscious. Narrator says: By Allah ! I havent found anyone
firm, brave and strong hearted than Husayn infact I havent seen anyone similar than him
although he was collapsed at that time due to the fact that his brother, nephew, friends and
companions had been killed. By Allah ! The army of Yazid used to run from his attack as if
a goats run after the attack of beast
1. Tareekh Tabari, Volume 6 page 259
2. Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 22
The status of courage, strong heartedness and martyrdom of Imam Husayn (as) can be known
from the above cited quotations. We see intense fighting by a person who was hungry and thirsty
that the army of Ibn Ziyad used to run as if they were attacked by a lion.
Another point is that in the situation of Karbala, to stay alive required more courage and bravery.
Everyone there knew that they were to be killed, then there was no point in being scared or
lengthening the life that had turned worse than death. At that time in the extreme hunger and
thirst, Imam Husayn (as) showed that he indeed is the grandson of Rehmatul-Lil-Aalameen, and
sent his companions to the battlefield first, as they were already there to die, but of course they
were under an unbelievable spell of thirst and hunger, death was no problem for them, but yes,
the starvation was a problem, therefore Imam Husayn (as) stayed in the battlefield till the end,
bore the thirst and hunger, lifted all the corpses of his family and companions, and he was
hungry and thirsty throughout that time, and finally he himself fought and achieved martyrdom
himself.
Any rational sensible person would agree that in Karbala, life had become more difficult than
death, hence Imam Husayn (as) eased up the things for his companions.
I am leaving amongst you two things; if you follow them you shall never go astray after
me. These two compliment one another. One is the Book of Allah, the other is my Ahlul
bayt (as).
This is one of the most Mutawatur (Successively transmitted) Hadiths in Sunni Hadith
methodology. It is shocking that the most incontrovertibly correct statement that Sunni scholars
accept that ever came from the tongue of the Prophet (saws) is rarely recounted to the Sunni
public. It really is shocking and it smells of a cover-up of the truth by paternalistic-minded Sunni
scholars.
From here it can be ascertained in relation to the Sharia of Allah that man must adhere to
following both these two significant things. It is clear that the aqeedah and deeds are false of one
who does not follow these two weighty things any authority and anyone that denies these two
has rebelled against the Deen. At Karbala, Imam Husayn (as) was the symbol of Allah (swt), and
it was Yazeed who was the rebel against the sign of Allah (swt). The Sunni khilafat had turned
against Allah (swt) and had done so before all mankind. This is why Yazeed is such an
embarrassment to the Sunni establishment. Yet Husayn (as) was so good, that even they cannot
help but revere him.
Their raising doubts over the teachings upheld by the Ahlul bayt in Karbala,
Their rejection of the great sacrifice of Imam Husayn (as) in Karbala,
Their refusal to accept that the stance of Ahlul bayt (as) was a stance between truth and
falsehood
Their belief that Imam Husayn (as)s opposition was dangerous agitation and that he
was a baghi
These facts have been presented before you, and we appeal to those who claim themselves to be
Ahlul Sunnah, why do you remain silent and allow the Nasibi to bark in the manner that Azam
Tariq and Co. do?
If your silence is on account of the fact that to speak out to defend Imam Husayn (as), may be
misconstrued as support for the Shia as he is their Imam, then what judgement can we give on
the state of your claiming to have iman, shahada and love for Ahlul bayt (as)? When it comes to
the issue of disrespecting the Sahaba your honour is immediately challenged and you stand up
vocally and attack the Shia on your websites, and yet when these Nasibi openly bark against the
Ahlul bayt (as) in this type of manner then you all remain silent on the matter. You might not
know it but the Nasibi plague is subconsciously affecting your hearts. The true scholars of ahl-al-
Sunna vehemently condemned Yazeed. Yet the Nasibi ulema, for reasons we have exposed,
blatantly lie and say that in the battle between good and evil, good was evil and evil was good.
Yet are you becoming those masses of whom the Prophet (saws) said that the Ummah would, in
the last days, listen to ulema who lie? You should know that even if the entire Sunni world sides
alongside the Nasibi on this issue, it shall not effect the Ahlul bayt in the slightest. It is your
soul in the balance, not that of Imam Husayn (as). All Muslims accept he is the Chief of the
Youths of Paradise. And we are all youths in Paradise. Will you be one of those youths?
For more details on the supreme sacrifice of Karbala access any Shia bookshop. We plan to
produce details on the ultimate battle of good versus evil on this site.
The Holy Prophet [s] said: "The honour of a believer lies in his vigilance at night and his esteem
lies in his autonomy from people."