Who killed Imam Hussain (as)? (part 11)
Posted by
Unknown
at
06:09
This endorsement is further attested in Sahih al Bukhari. After the event of Harra, Ibn Umar reaffirmed his undying loyalty to Yazeed:
Narrated Nafi’:
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazeed bin Muawiya, Ibn ‘Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazeed, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227
So in the eyes of Abdullah ibne Umar the bayya of Yazeed that Imam Hussain (as) opposed was “in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle” i.e. Completely legitimate, and breaking the Jamaah would lead to individuals being raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement.
He gave bayya to Yazeed and yet the Ahl’ul Sunnah deem Ibn Umar to be a high authority figure! The son of Khalifa of Ahlul Sunnah Umar bin Khattab deemed the Khilafath of Yazeed to be rightful and deemed his obedience to be on par with obedience with Allah and His Rasul!
Abdullah bin Umar was no ordinary person the leading texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah inform us that he was one of the advisers to the Shura committee that had been established to choose the successor to Umar.
This tradition in al Bukhari clearly eludes to the fact that in Madina the people were seeking to turn their backs on Yazeed. Seeing such opposition Ibn Umar was advocating the religious duty to remain loyal to the Imam of the Jamaah – to Yazeed so much so that Ibn Umar was reconfirming Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa and that the duty was to obey him failure do so was such a sin that the perpetrator would be raised as a betrayer on the Day of Judgement. Ibn Umar warned against abandoning Yazeed and revoking Bayya – whoever separates from Yazeed “there will be separation between him and me”.
Tell us Ansar, was Ibne Umar a follower of Shi’a Madhab or an adherent what in this day and age is deemed Ahl’ul Sunnah? There is no doubting that Ibn Umar adhered to the faith which developed in to Ahl’ul Sunnah. This fact leaves actual ‘Sunnis’ with a somewhat difficult choice, you either you distance yourself from Ibn Umar or accept Yazeed as the rightful Khalifa. Clearly for Nasibis such as Ansar.org they have no qualms in affiliating themselves with Ibn Umar’s fatwa and they proudly declare:
“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”
Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui
Sharh Fiqh Akbar by Mulla ‘Ali Qari is the Hanafi Book of aqaid. On
the very first page it is stated that the book sets out the aqeedah of
Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. So there is no room for the Ansar.Org to
make the excuse that this is JUST a viewpoint. Everything set out in
this book is the aqeedah of Hanafi Sunni Muslims. Mulla Ali Qari sets
out who the 12 khalifas are:
Sharah Fiqha Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, page 70 (published by Qadeemy Kutub Khana, Aram Bagh, Karachi)
It would be quite appropriate to ask why Imam Hasan (as) is missing from this list? Do the Ahl’ul Sunnah not deem him to be a Khalifa? If so then why does this book of Hanafi fiqh remove his name from the list?
Of course remaining faithful to Hanafi aqeedah, later Sunni Ulema have defined this hadith in the same way. We now present Siratun Nabi by Allamah Shibli Numani and Syed Sulaiman Nadvi.
Sufficient as to its rank are the words of the Sunni scholar Muhammad Atiqul Haque in his “Heroes of Islam”:
“Sirat an Nabi is a unique book on the life of the Prophet and is acclaimed as one of the best books in the world. He wrote only four volumes of this book and the remaining four volumes were written by his disciple, Syed Sulayman Nadvi”. (p130)
These are Nadvi and Numani’s comments taken from Volume 3 page 380
“In Sahih Muslim Kitab ul Imara Rasulullah (s) said, This Islamic Government would last until it has been ruled over by 12 people. This Rulership will not end until these 12 Rulers are at the helm of the State. Islam will be “protected and respectable” (the Urdu says Mahfooz aur muazziz) during their reigns. Abu Daud in Kitab al Mahdi records these words “The Deen will remain intact as long as 12 people have ruled it and the Ummah will recognize them”. Among the scholars of Ahle Sunah Qadi Iyad explains these words (of Abu Daud) ‘Among all khalifas these 12 khalifas who aided Islam were pious’, Hafidh Ibn Hajar counts the following as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu’awiya, Yazeed, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazeed bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan”
Sirat un Nabi, (Urdu) Volume 3 page 380 published in Lahore
Writing on the 12 Khalifa hadith modern day Hanafi scholar, Hakeem Mahmood Ahmad Zafar Sialkoti, on page 261 of his book (Urdu) “Sayyadina Mu’awiya (ra), Shukhsiat aur kirdhaar”, sttaes:
“These 12 khalifas are good natured, pious men and in their reigns Islam shall be protected and respectable, their reigns shall be in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah and in their reign the rule of justice shall be apparent. Mulla Ali Qari put forward these 12 as “Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu’awiya, Yazeed, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazeed bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan – taken from Sharra Fiqa Akbar page 184; Fathul Bari Volume 3 page 182) According to Mulla Ali Qari’s above statements its quite evident that Mu’awiya is a Rightly Guided Khalifa”.
By the same token, Yazeed is also a rightly guided khalifa since he describes the twelve as rightly guided, ruling by the Qur’an and Sunnah.
It is interesting that this Afriki asks the question:
“I heard Rasulullah (s) say ‘Verily my son [Hussain] will be killed in a land called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him”.
Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125 (Maktaba Nurree Rizvi Publishers, Pakistan
So Ansar, tell us:
“Q. What opinion should one hold of an individual that curses Yazeed, deems him a fasiq and encourages others to curse him? Did Yazeed intend to kill Hussain [r] or were his actions aimed at defending himself? Can we say (rahmathullah) after saying his name or is silence the best approach to adopt?
‘A. ‘It is not allowed to curse a Muslim at all and whosoever does so is himself cursed; and how can the curse of a Muslim be ever allowed when prohibitions in this matter are clear cut. Yazeed’s being a Muslim and his non-participation in killing Hadhrat Hussain (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) nor his being pleased with this are all established from authentic narration’s. When his involvement in the murder of Hadhrat Hussain (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) is not proven, it would not be correct to entertain any negative opinions about him for this is tantamount to harbouring evil thoughts about a Muslim without evidence which itself is Haraam. Allah Taãla says, ‘O believers! Abstain from suspicions as some suspicions are sinful.’ As to bless him with Duáss of mercy; not only is it permissible but in fact, Mustahabb (preferable) we do so in every Salaat for it is encompassed in this all-inclusive Duá: ‘O Allah forgive the believing men and women’ for he was a believer – quoted from: Tareekh Ibn Khalikkan Volume 1 page 413, “Dhikr Aqelbin Hairth”; Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani Volume 26 page 73 “Surah Muhammad verse 23″; Hayatul Hayawaan p. 196.
So in the eyes of Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Abdul Hamid Ghazzali:
Compare Ghazzali’s support for Yazeed to his opinion on discussing Imam Hussain (as)’s martyrdom:
“It is a sin for the people to narrate the martyrdom of Hasan and Hussain, as retelling the troubles of the family of the Prophet (s), creates enmity towards the Sahaba”.
This so called Hujutul Islam Abdul Hamid Ghazzali (d. 505 Hijri) on the one hand is issuing a Fatwa seeking mercy for Yazeed, and at the same time gave a fatwa deeming it haraam to even discuss the tragedy that befell Imam Hussain (as).
Another darling of the Salfi Nasibi’s is Qadhi ‘Abu Bakr Ibn Arabi. He is a clear authority figure for the Salafies since we have often come across Nasibi sites where his fatwa of takfeer against the Shi’a has been cited. So let us see the esteemed rank that Ibn Arabi gave to Yazeed and his adviser Marwan.
On Marwan, Ibn Arabi stated
“With regards to Marwan and Yazeed, critics who assert that they were both fasiq, are themselves fasiq. Marwan is in the eyes of the Sahaba, tabieen and fuquha a just individual, he was a high ranking member of the Ummah”.
al Awasim min al Kawasim page 88-89
In relation to Yazeed, Ibn Arabi states as follows:
“If we state that knowledge and justice are the key features to be a Khalifa, some will claim that Yazeed was neither Adil nor was he an Aalim. We will ask ‘Where is your source for claiming that these conditions were missing in Yazeed? If this was indeed the case then Ibn Zubayr and Hussain bin ‘Ali would have informed us”.
al Awasim min al Kawasim page 222
Ibn Arabi’s support for Yazeed continues:
“If it is claimed that Yazeed drank alcohol we should point out that such a claim cannot be verified until we have the word of two witnesses, who testified against Yazeed? On the contrary a just man Yahya bin Bakeer narrates from Lays bin Sa’d, ‘Ameer’ul Momineen Yazeed died on the following date…’ Lays referred to him as Ameer’ul Momineen when his rule had come to an end, if Lays did not feel that this was the case he would not have referred to Yazeed as Ameer’ul Momineen after his death”.
al Awasim min al Kawasim page 227
Interestingly Ansar also follow the way of their Salaf Imam Ibn Arabi – writer Abu Sulaiman had sought to deny that Yazeed drank alcohol. Alhamdolillah we have already refuted this in our article on Mu’awiya we are quoting it here to show the affection that these Nasibi have towards Yazeed.
“Hussain failed to take heed of the words of Ibn Abbas who was the greatest scholar of that time, nor did he listen to the Sahaba Ibn Umar. He rebelled, he wanted to be young when he was in fact old, people were not present around him, he did not have helpers to support his stance, nor did he have people that were willing to sacrifice their lives for him…No one supported him (Hussain) when he rebelled. His grandfather the most merciful of all Prophets, foretold disputes and warned of fitnah, it was on this basis that Yazeed fought Hussain”
al Awasim min al Kawasim page 231-232
So Ibn Arabi is seeking to inform the people that:
“Other than a kaafir, is is not permissible to curse a Muslim and Yazeed was not a kaafir but was a Sunni Muslim”
Sharah Qaseeda Amali, Page 16
When the Ulema of Ahl’ul Sunnah have themselves declared Yazeed to be a Sunni Muslim, is there any further need to discuss the beliefs of those that killed Imam Hussain (as)? Mullah Ali Qari al Hanafi, Hujutul Islam Ghazzali, Ibn Hajr al Makki and Ibn Katheer have forbade the cursing of Yazeed, and these are the Ulema that supported the killers of Imam Hussain (as), from their comments one can conclude that their Imam was Yazeed, Yazeed’s madhab can be determined on the basis of the madhab that these Ulema adhered to.
We have presented these examples to show that these are individuals that have been extolled as Sunni’s when they are actually Nasibis who had deep felt sympathies for Yazeed. We would urge our Sunni brothers not to be taken in by these Nasibis who claim to love Ahl’ul bayt (as) – their actual beliefs are derogatory towards the memory of Imam Hussain (as). Their tactic is to:
“Those who state that Yazeed was not responsible and should not be cursed, or that he committed no sin are in fact Yazeed’s helpers”.
Ruh al Ma’ani Part 26
1. In Mishkat al Masabih Volume 3 page 244 we read this hadith:
“Oh Allah I love these two (Hasan and Hussain) love those that love them” - Do you accept his hadith of Rasulullah (s)?
2. If you accept this du’a then does Allah (swt) not love the Shi’a?
3. When Allah (swt) loves the Shi’a tell us does he love their enemies or hate them?
4. When you and your Nasibi Imams deem Imam Hussain (as) to be a baghi, can we conclude that you love Imam Hussain (as)?
5. Ibn Asakir records (in Mishbaath ba Sunnath page 219) a hadith on the authority Hadhrath Ayesha:
“Oh Allah never shower your blessings on the cursed, killer Yazeed, he will rebel against my beloved Hussain and martyr him”
When we have this hadith on the authority of Ayesha how do your Salaf Imams have the audacity to claim that absolving Yazeed of any wrongdoing is the correct approach?
6. When Rasulullah (s) has coined Yazeed a cursed murderer then when why do your Imams such as Ghazzali deem cursing Yazeed as haraam, are such fatwas not in violation to the words of Rasulullah?
7. In this hadith Rasulullah (s) explicitly named Yazeed, as a cursed murderer then is this not clear proof of him being cursed and hell bound?
8. When Rasulullah (s) deemed Yazeed to be a baghi could you explain why your brother Abu Sulaiman relied on a fatwa that “His (Yazeed’s) caliphate is rightful”?
Did the tragedy of Karbala highlight the Shi’a / Sunni schism?
Ansar.org stated:
However, it is regrettable that despite the huge amount of attention the subject of Karbalâ enjoys, the event is persistently portrayed as two-sided. It is always depicted as Husayn against Yazîd, Right rising up against Wrong, the Quest for Justice against the Forces of Oppression. Many an opportunist has even gone to the extent of superimposing upon the event the theme of Shî’ah against Ahl as-Sunnah.It certainly was since here stood the difference between the two concepts of Imamate. Those that deemed the station of Imamate to be man appointed and than it was based on ijma. This school of thought developed into what is today Ahl’ul Sunnah. Those that deemed the station to be based on the appointment of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) a school today deemed Shi’a Ithna Ashari. On the one side we head the Imam of the people [ie. The Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah] and on the other side was the Imam appointed by Allah (swt) – the Imam of the Shi’a. As Shi’a we reject the claim that Yazeed was a legitimate khalifa, rather we make it clear that a fasiq can not occupy the position of Khalifa of Rasulullah (s). Hence we believe that the duty was to support Imam Hussain (as) as we deem him to be the legitimate Khalifa of Rasulullah (s). This automatically places us at logger heads with Ahl’ul Sunnah who believe that:
- Appointment of the Khalifa is the based on the ijm’a of the public.
- Once bayya is given the Khalifa rule is legitimate.
- Once bayya is given it is incumbent upon the people to support the Khalifa
Ahl’ul Sunnah deem Yazeed to be the legitimate Khalifa of Rasulullah (s)
Ansar.org’s Nasibi writer Abu Sulaiman gave a glowing endorsement of Yazeed’s legitimate right to rule in his article on Mu’awiya, stating:Mu’awiyah was eager for people’s agreement to give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district’s governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdulghani Al-Maqdisay says: “His (Yazeed’s) caliphate is rightful, sixty of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him gave him the allegiance. Ibn Omar was one of them.” [Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldoun, p.70]This is an interesting fact since according to Ahl’ul Sunnah aqeedah opposition to the rightful Imam constitutes rebellion – by relying on this fatwa taken from Nasibi Ibn Khaldun’s work, Ansar are covertly indicating that Imam Hussain (as) was a baghi (Allah forbid) as he opposed the rightful khalifa. Are actual Sunnis content with this type of thinking, one that endorses Yazeed’s right to rule and in effect makes Imam Hussain (as) a baghi?
This endorsement is further attested in Sahih al Bukhari. After the event of Harra, Ibn Umar reaffirmed his undying loyalty to Yazeed:
Narrated Nafi’:
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazeed bin Muawiya, Ibn ‘Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazeed, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.”
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227
So in the eyes of Abdullah ibne Umar the bayya of Yazeed that Imam Hussain (as) opposed was “in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle” i.e. Completely legitimate, and breaking the Jamaah would lead to individuals being raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement.
He gave bayya to Yazeed and yet the Ahl’ul Sunnah deem Ibn Umar to be a high authority figure! The son of Khalifa of Ahlul Sunnah Umar bin Khattab deemed the Khilafath of Yazeed to be rightful and deemed his obedience to be on par with obedience with Allah and His Rasul!
Abdullah bin Umar was no ordinary person the leading texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah inform us that he was one of the advisers to the Shura committee that had been established to choose the successor to Umar.
This tradition in al Bukhari clearly eludes to the fact that in Madina the people were seeking to turn their backs on Yazeed. Seeing such opposition Ibn Umar was advocating the religious duty to remain loyal to the Imam of the Jamaah – to Yazeed so much so that Ibn Umar was reconfirming Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa and that the duty was to obey him failure do so was such a sin that the perpetrator would be raised as a betrayer on the Day of Judgement. Ibn Umar warned against abandoning Yazeed and revoking Bayya – whoever separates from Yazeed “there will be separation between him and me”.
Tell us Ansar, was Ibne Umar a follower of Shi’a Madhab or an adherent what in this day and age is deemed Ahl’ul Sunnah? There is no doubting that Ibn Umar adhered to the faith which developed in to Ahl’ul Sunnah. This fact leaves actual ‘Sunnis’ with a somewhat difficult choice, you either you distance yourself from Ibn Umar or accept Yazeed as the rightful Khalifa. Clearly for Nasibis such as Ansar.org they have no qualms in affiliating themselves with Ibn Umar’s fatwa and they proudly declare:
“It is proven in Saheeh Bukhari that Ibn Omar gave allegiance to Yazeed”It clear that the killers of Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful Khalifa, so which religion did they adhere to? Yazeed’s supporters were those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa over the Ummah as is proven from Al Bukhari. Clearly Ibn Umar can never be deemed to have adhered to the Shi’a Madhab. He is the leading authority of Ahl’ul Sunnah, in fact is one of their key narrators of Hadith.
The Hanafi Fiqh deems Yazeed to be the Sixth Khalifa of Rasulullah (s)
As Shi’a we believe that our 12 Imams were Rasulullah (s)’s legitimate successors, appointed by Allah (swt). We deem Imam Hussain (as) to be the third in the chain. As part of the proof from Sunni traditions we cite hadith such as this:“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”
Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui
Sharh Fiqh Akbar by Mulla ‘Ali Qari is the Hanafi Book of aqaid. On
the very first page it is stated that the book sets out the aqeedah of
Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. So there is no room for the Ansar.Org to
make the excuse that this is JUST a viewpoint. Everything set out in
this book is the aqeedah of Hanafi Sunni Muslims. Mulla Ali Qari sets
out who the 12 khalifas are:- Abu Bakr
- Umar
- Uthman
- Ali
- Mu’awiya
- Yazeed
- Abdul Malik bin Marwan
- Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan
- Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan
- Umar bin Abdul Aziz
- Yazeed bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan
- Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan
Taken from Sharah Fiqah Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 176 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur’an Muhalla)]”
Sharah Fiqha Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, page 70 (published by Qadeemy Kutub Khana, Aram Bagh, Karachi)
It would be quite appropriate to ask why Imam Hasan (as) is missing from this list? Do the Ahl’ul Sunnah not deem him to be a Khalifa? If so then why does this book of Hanafi fiqh remove his name from the list?
Of course remaining faithful to Hanafi aqeedah, later Sunni Ulema have defined this hadith in the same way. We now present Siratun Nabi by Allamah Shibli Numani and Syed Sulaiman Nadvi.
Sufficient as to its rank are the words of the Sunni scholar Muhammad Atiqul Haque in his “Heroes of Islam”:
“Sirat an Nabi is a unique book on the life of the Prophet and is acclaimed as one of the best books in the world. He wrote only four volumes of this book and the remaining four volumes were written by his disciple, Syed Sulayman Nadvi”. (p130)
These are Nadvi and Numani’s comments taken from Volume 3 page 380
“In Sahih Muslim Kitab ul Imara Rasulullah (s) said, This Islamic Government would last until it has been ruled over by 12 people. This Rulership will not end until these 12 Rulers are at the helm of the State. Islam will be “protected and respectable” (the Urdu says Mahfooz aur muazziz) during their reigns. Abu Daud in Kitab al Mahdi records these words “The Deen will remain intact as long as 12 people have ruled it and the Ummah will recognize them”. Among the scholars of Ahle Sunah Qadi Iyad explains these words (of Abu Daud) ‘Among all khalifas these 12 khalifas who aided Islam were pious’, Hafidh Ibn Hajar counts the following as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu’awiya, Yazeed, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazeed bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan”
Sirat un Nabi, (Urdu) Volume 3 page 380 published in Lahore
Writing on the 12 Khalifa hadith modern day Hanafi scholar, Hakeem Mahmood Ahmad Zafar Sialkoti, on page 261 of his book (Urdu) “Sayyadina Mu’awiya (ra), Shukhsiat aur kirdhaar”, sttaes:
“These 12 khalifas are good natured, pious men and in their reigns Islam shall be protected and respectable, their reigns shall be in accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah and in their reign the rule of justice shall be apparent. Mulla Ali Qari put forward these 12 as “Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu’awiya, Yazeed, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazeed bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan – taken from Sharra Fiqa Akbar page 184; Fathul Bari Volume 3 page 182) According to Mulla Ali Qari’s above statements its quite evident that Mu’awiya is a Rightly Guided Khalifa”.
By the same token, Yazeed is also a rightly guided khalifa since he describes the twelve as rightly guided, ruling by the Qur’an and Sunnah.
It is interesting that this Afriki asks the question:
And were we to assume that many, or even most of them were not Shî’ah in the “religious” sense, the question which next presents itself is: Where were the real Shî’ah when their Imâm required their help?We have already proven in Chapter one that the vast bulk of the Shi’a had been exterminated. If (as you assert) the Shi’as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahl’ ul Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their position at that time? Did the Ahl’ul Sunnah side with Imam Hussain (as) and support him OR were they with Yazeed? This is something that Ansar have no answer to, whilst they will assert that it was not mandatory to support Imam Hussain (as), the words of Rasulullah (s) prove otherwise…
It was incumbent upon ALL Muslims to support Imam Hussain (as)
Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah al Hafidh Jalaladun Suyuti records this tradition in Khasais al Kubra, on tha authority of Sahaba Uns bin Harith:“I heard Rasulullah (s) say ‘Verily my son [Hussain] will be killed in a land called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him”.
Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125 (Maktaba Nurree Rizvi Publishers, Pakistan
So Ansar, tell us:
- Did those that you deem as Salaf (Sahaba and Tabieen) take heed of this hadith and support Imam Hussain (as)?
- Did your lead figure Abdullah Ibn Umar come to the aid of Imam Hussain (as)?
- If the duty was to pledge support to Imam Hussain (as) then why did the Salaf pledge loyalty to Yazeed, and continue to support him – even after Kerbala?
- Ibn Umar’s unwavering support for Yazeed was such, that he declared that one who leaves Yazeed “there will be separation between him and me” -. Rasulullah (s) stated that it was incumbent to support Imam Hussain (as). Whose words do Ahl’ul Sunnah attribute greater credence to, Ibn Umar or Rasulullah (s)?
Nasibi support for Yazeed
Let us see how the Salaf Imam’s treated Yazeed in their writing’s. Let us begin with Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Abdul Hamid Ibn Ghazzali. Ibn Khallikan records one of his fatwas in reply to the following question:“Q. What opinion should one hold of an individual that curses Yazeed, deems him a fasiq and encourages others to curse him? Did Yazeed intend to kill Hussain [r] or were his actions aimed at defending himself? Can we say (rahmathullah) after saying his name or is silence the best approach to adopt?
‘A. ‘It is not allowed to curse a Muslim at all and whosoever does so is himself cursed; and how can the curse of a Muslim be ever allowed when prohibitions in this matter are clear cut. Yazeed’s being a Muslim and his non-participation in killing Hadhrat Hussain (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) nor his being pleased with this are all established from authentic narration’s. When his involvement in the murder of Hadhrat Hussain (Radhiallaahu Ánhu) is not proven, it would not be correct to entertain any negative opinions about him for this is tantamount to harbouring evil thoughts about a Muslim without evidence which itself is Haraam. Allah Taãla says, ‘O believers! Abstain from suspicions as some suspicions are sinful.’ As to bless him with Duáss of mercy; not only is it permissible but in fact, Mustahabb (preferable) we do so in every Salaat for it is encompassed in this all-inclusive Duá: ‘O Allah forgive the believing men and women’ for he was a believer – quoted from: Tareekh Ibn Khalikkan Volume 1 page 413, “Dhikr Aqelbin Hairth”; Tafseer Ruh al Ma’ani Volume 26 page 73 “Surah Muhammad verse 23″; Hayatul Hayawaan p. 196.
So in the eyes of Imam of Ahl’ul Sunnah Abdul Hamid Ghazzali:
- One that curses Yazeed is himself cursed
- Yazeed was a momin
- There is no clear evidence that he killed Imam Hussain
- To say Yazeed rahmathullah is a permissible action
- We should supplicate in favour of Yazeed after every Salat
Compare Ghazzali’s support for Yazeed to his opinion on discussing Imam Hussain (as)’s martyrdom:
“It is a sin for the people to narrate the martyrdom of Hasan and Hussain, as retelling the troubles of the family of the Prophet (s), creates enmity towards the Sahaba”.
This so called Hujutul Islam Abdul Hamid Ghazzali (d. 505 Hijri) on the one hand is issuing a Fatwa seeking mercy for Yazeed, and at the same time gave a fatwa deeming it haraam to even discuss the tragedy that befell Imam Hussain (as).
Another darling of the Salfi Nasibi’s is Qadhi ‘Abu Bakr Ibn Arabi. He is a clear authority figure for the Salafies since we have often come across Nasibi sites where his fatwa of takfeer against the Shi’a has been cited. So let us see the esteemed rank that Ibn Arabi gave to Yazeed and his adviser Marwan.
On Marwan, Ibn Arabi stated
“With regards to Marwan and Yazeed, critics who assert that they were both fasiq, are themselves fasiq. Marwan is in the eyes of the Sahaba, tabieen and fuquha a just individual, he was a high ranking member of the Ummah”.
al Awasim min al Kawasim page 88-89
In relation to Yazeed, Ibn Arabi states as follows:
“If we state that knowledge and justice are the key features to be a Khalifa, some will claim that Yazeed was neither Adil nor was he an Aalim. We will ask ‘Where is your source for claiming that these conditions were missing in Yazeed? If this was indeed the case then Ibn Zubayr and Hussain bin ‘Ali would have informed us”.
al Awasim min al Kawasim page 222
Ibn Arabi’s support for Yazeed continues:
“If it is claimed that Yazeed drank alcohol we should point out that such a claim cannot be verified until we have the word of two witnesses, who testified against Yazeed? On the contrary a just man Yahya bin Bakeer narrates from Lays bin Sa’d, ‘Ameer’ul Momineen Yazeed died on the following date…’ Lays referred to him as Ameer’ul Momineen when his rule had come to an end, if Lays did not feel that this was the case he would not have referred to Yazeed as Ameer’ul Momineen after his death”.
al Awasim min al Kawasim page 227
Interestingly Ansar also follow the way of their Salaf Imam Ibn Arabi – writer Abu Sulaiman had sought to deny that Yazeed drank alcohol. Alhamdolillah we have already refuted this in our article on Mu’awiya we are quoting it here to show the affection that these Nasibi have towards Yazeed.
Ansar.org stated:Ibn Arabi’s writing do not just include an appraisal of Yazeed, they also contain attacks on Imam Hussain (as) that clearly point to his Nasibi aqeedah. Writing on the position taken by Imam Hussain (as) he states:
It is also a lie that Yazeed was an alcohol drinking person. We will let Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib to answer this claim because Muhammad knew Yazeed the best because he lived with him for a while. Ibn Katheer says in Al-Bidayah: (When the people of Al-Medina returned from Yazeed, Abdullah bin Mutee’a and his companions walked to Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyah. They wanted Muhammad to agree to dismiss Yazeed, but Muhammad refused. Ibn Mutee’a said: “Yazeed drinks alcohol, does not pray, and ignores the rule of the Book.” Muhammad answered them: “I never saw what you are saying about him. I came to him, and stayed with him for a while and I saw him taking care of his prayers, looking for goodness, asking about jurisprudence, and clinging to the Sunnah.” They said: “He was acting like that!” Muhammad answered: “And what did he scare from me or please so that he shows piety to me? Did he show you what you saying about drinking alcohol? If he did, then you are his partners, but if he did not, then it is not lawful for you to testify what you do not know.” They said: “It is the truth for us even if we did not see it.” Muhammad said: “Allah refused that on the people of witness, Allah says: “Except for those who testified with truth and they know,” and I have nothing to do with you anymore.” They said: “Perhaps you did not like someone to take control rather than yourself, therefore, we give you our leadership.” He said: “I do not make this fight lawful for me, either as a leader or as a follower.” They said: “But you fought with your father!” He answered: “Give me someone like my father to fight the like of what my father fought.” They asked: “Then, order your sons Abu Al-Qassim and Al-Qassim to fight with us.” He answered: “I would have fight if I ordered them.” They said: “At least join us to urge people to fight.” He said: “Praise be the Lord! Do you want me to order the people to do what I do not do and do not accept? I would not then advised Allah’s slaves for the sake of Allah.” They replied: “Hence, we will force you.” He said: “Then I will order the people to fear Allah and do not make a creature happy at the expense of the Creator’s anger.” Then Muhammad left to Makkah.” [Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah for IbnKatheer,vol.8,p.236]
“Hussain failed to take heed of the words of Ibn Abbas who was the greatest scholar of that time, nor did he listen to the Sahaba Ibn Umar. He rebelled, he wanted to be young when he was in fact old, people were not present around him, he did not have helpers to support his stance, nor did he have people that were willing to sacrifice their lives for him…No one supported him (Hussain) when he rebelled. His grandfather the most merciful of all Prophets, foretold disputes and warned of fitnah, it was on this basis that Yazeed fought Hussain”
al Awasim min al Kawasim page 231-232
So Ibn Arabi is seeking to inform the people that:
- Yazeed was with the truth
- Yazeed’s stance was supported by hadith that he relied when taking the action he did.
- Imam Hussain decided to rebel, having failed to listen to Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar.
- By rebelling Imam Hussain (as) was causing fitnah
- Imam Hussain (as) was acting in violation to the words of Rasulullah (s)
Yazeed was a Sunni Muslim
We read in Sharh Qaseeda page 16:“Other than a kaafir, is is not permissible to curse a Muslim and Yazeed was not a kaafir but was a Sunni Muslim”
Sharah Qaseeda Amali, Page 16
When the Ulema of Ahl’ul Sunnah have themselves declared Yazeed to be a Sunni Muslim, is there any further need to discuss the beliefs of those that killed Imam Hussain (as)? Mullah Ali Qari al Hanafi, Hujutul Islam Ghazzali, Ibn Hajr al Makki and Ibn Katheer have forbade the cursing of Yazeed, and these are the Ulema that supported the killers of Imam Hussain (as), from their comments one can conclude that their Imam was Yazeed, Yazeed’s madhab can be determined on the basis of the madhab that these Ulema adhered to.
We have presented these examples to show that these are individuals that have been extolled as Sunni’s when they are actually Nasibis who had deep felt sympathies for Yazeed. We would urge our Sunni brothers not to be taken in by these Nasibis who claim to love Ahl’ul bayt (as) – their actual beliefs are derogatory towards the memory of Imam Hussain (as). Their tactic is to:
- protect Yazeed,
- praise Yazeed’s character
- absolve Yazeed of wrongdoing
- oppose cursing Yazeed
“Those who state that Yazeed was not responsible and should not be cursed, or that he committed no sin are in fact Yazeed’s helpers”.
Ruh al Ma’ani Part 26
Some questions for Ansar and their Nasibi brethren
Whilst we have highlighted Nasibi support for Yazeed perhaps Afriki would be kind enough to answer us these questions:1. In Mishkat al Masabih Volume 3 page 244 we read this hadith:
“Oh Allah I love these two (Hasan and Hussain) love those that love them” - Do you accept his hadith of Rasulullah (s)?
2. If you accept this du’a then does Allah (swt) not love the Shi’a?
3. When Allah (swt) loves the Shi’a tell us does he love their enemies or hate them?
4. When you and your Nasibi Imams deem Imam Hussain (as) to be a baghi, can we conclude that you love Imam Hussain (as)?
5. Ibn Asakir records (in Mishbaath ba Sunnath page 219) a hadith on the authority Hadhrath Ayesha:
“Oh Allah never shower your blessings on the cursed, killer Yazeed, he will rebel against my beloved Hussain and martyr him”
When we have this hadith on the authority of Ayesha how do your Salaf Imams have the audacity to claim that absolving Yazeed of any wrongdoing is the correct approach?
6. When Rasulullah (s) has coined Yazeed a cursed murderer then when why do your Imams such as Ghazzali deem cursing Yazeed as haraam, are such fatwas not in violation to the words of Rasulullah?
7. In this hadith Rasulullah (s) explicitly named Yazeed, as a cursed murderer then is this not clear proof of him being cursed and hell bound?
8. When Rasulullah (s) deemed Yazeed to be a baghi could you explain why your brother Abu Sulaiman relied on a fatwa that “His (Yazeed’s) caliphate is rightful”?
0 comments:
Post a Comment