Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Threats of physical violence to secure the bayya for Yazeed

In'Abu Hanifa ki Siyasi Zindagee page 51' al Misra page 115 Volume 2 it is cited the way that Abdullah bin Umro bin Aas gave bayya to Yazeed:

"When Ibn Sa'eed 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 people's homes was a favourite threat from the khalifa to get people to see things their way. It didn't 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. I wonder how the Nasibis live with their religion?

Please see our article "Burning the house of Fatima [sa]"

Mu'awiya's use of threats to secure Yazeed's khilafat We read in al Bidaya Volume 7 page 79 Dhikr events of 54 Hijri "5 people rejected the bayya to Yazeed.

Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr

Abullah bin Umar

Abdullah bin Zubayr

Abdullah bin Abbas

Husayn bin 'Ali

Mu'awiya then personally went to Medina, summoned all five and threatened them."

We read inTareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 455 Dhikr bayya Yazeed:

"Five people rejected the bayya of Yazeed. Mu'awiya approached Ayesha and said, 'If these individuals don't give bayya to Yazeed then I will kill them'. Ayesha replied 'I have also heard news that that you are threatening the Khalifah's sons, in connection with the bayya to Yazeed".

We read inTareekh Tabari Volume 7 page 177 Events of 56 Hijri:

"Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr refrained from giving bayya to Yazeed. Mu'awiya 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"

We read in Nuzul al Abrar page 89 Dhikr bayya Yazeed:

"When Mu'awiya 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. Mu'awiya then intimidated and threatened them".

Just look at the way that Mu'awiya 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 Mu'awiya was issuing threats to kill people to secure bayya!

Mu'awiya's withdrawal of stipends to Banu Hashim for their rejection of YazeedWe read inal Imama wa al Siyasa Volume 1 page 173 Dhikr Bayya as follows:

"Mu'awiya 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"

We read inTareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 256 :

"When Mu'awiya made preparations to return to Syria, Ibn Abbas complained 'You have perpetuated injustice against us'. Mu'awiya replied 'Your chief Husayn bin 'Ali has not given bayya".

This was the legitimate bayya; Mu'awiya was willing to apply economic sanctions as a bargaining chip for Yazeed's 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.

Mu'awiya adopted evil methods to secure the bayya to Yazeed We read inTafseer Ruh al Ma'ani page 73 Surah Muhammad Part 29 :

"If people analyse history, they shall realise how people were forced to give bayya to Yazeed, and that Mu'awiya adopted every wicked method to secure bayya".

Mu'awiya 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 religion...one 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 father's 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. He's as good as his father George Bush Snr. (Mu'awiya)." 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 Mu'awiya and Yazeed, father and son, were several times worse even than the Bushes in the White House.

Abu Sulaiman al Nasibi's claim that there was an ijma in Yazeed's khilafat is an absolute lie Advocate of Mu'awiya Ibn Hajr al Makki inThatheer al Janaan page 109 Dhikr Khalasa Jang Jamal states:

"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 Mu'awiya's appointing his son as Khalifah was a mistake, his love for his son clouded his eyes. This love in effect made

Mu'awiya blind, and his making Yazeed the khalifah was a mistake, may Allah (swt) forgive him."

This is a polite way to say nepotism.

According to Ibn Hajr al Makki, Mu'awiya was blinded by his love for his son Yazeed. Nasibis such as Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq are just as blind when they sing the praises of Yazeed and deem his khilafat to be legitimate.

The acknowledgement that this appointment was a mistake destroys the Nasibi notion that Yazeed's 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. Mu'awiya 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 Mu'awiya, Allamah Abdul Hai states inMahmuwa Naqwi Volume 2 page 94 states:

At the time of the bayya to Yazeed, Hadhrath 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 Sulaiman's glowing curriculum vitae for Yazeed, namely that his khilafat had ijma, is a clear lie.

InFatawa 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 Sulaiman's claim that Yazeed's khilafat was legitimate on account of ijma is an absolute lie. It doesn't get more clear-cut than this. InShaheed Karbala page 11 Part 19 the Hanafi scholar Mufti Muhammad Shaafi writes:

"Yazeed's 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.

We read inTakmeel al Iman page 178 by Shah Abdul Haq Dehlavi :

"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 Sulaiman's false claim that ijma constitutes legitimacy. Shah Abdul Haqq also wrote in Ba Shabaath basnaath page 36 as follows:

"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.

Maulana Akbar Shah Abadi inTareekh Islam Volume 2 page 56 stated:

"Mu'awiya's 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.

Mu'awiya's securing support for Yazeed via his political rally in Makka We have already given some examples with regards to Mu'awiya's intimidation tactics to gain support for his son. At this point it would be fitting to take apart this romantic notion that Ansar.Org's Abu Sulaiman had portrayed in his article on Mu'awiya:

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. Ha...ha...ha. What a bunch of lies for our readers to laugh at: What's this 'grandest companions'? We have proved that Mu'awiya killed or bribed them all! This is called whitewashing history...something very common in Sunni Islam. Sometimes the Nawasibis even rewrite history. Yes, it's the Santa Claus fairytales again in a different guise.

That Pinocchio factor in Sunni Islam, like you have in today's 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 Mu'awiya 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 inTareekh Kami l, Dhikr events of 56 HijriVolume 3 pages 257 :

"In his efforts to secure bayya for Yazeed, whilst in Makka Mu'awiya 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. Mu'awiya 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 Mu'awiya 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 man's 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 Qur'an 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 Ka'aba.

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 khalifa's army who refused to slay Husayn (as), slay the people of Madina, or burn the Ka'aba, 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 one's actions is dummed down when it comes to obeying the leader.

This strange and morally unacceptable position comes from the fact that men like Mu'awiya 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.

Summary of these references

We have only selected a few highlights depicting the wonderful methods that Mu'awiya had adopted to secure his son's position as Khilfat'ul Muslimeen. He employed the following tactics:

Bribery, financial indictments and political positions

Economic sanctions

Physical intimidation

Threats of violence

State sponsored executions and state terrorism

Poison administered by his secret police

It is ironic that the great Nasibi debater Abu Sulaiman in his pathetic defence of Mu'awiya (that we have refuted) made the comment:

Mu'awiyah 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?

Was Yazeed's khilafat rightful?

Abu Sulaiman al Nasibi in his article on Mu'awiya had tirelessly sought to canvass for his Imam Yazeed's right to rule by stating:

Ansar.org states: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. IbnUmar was one of them."[Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldoun, p.70]

The concept of ijma is null and void since Allah (swt)'s opposition to the bayya to Yazeed can be proven from the Qur'an Here we shall rely upon the following sources of Ahl'ul Sunnah and their commentaries of Surah Baqarah verse 124 (Yusuf 'Ali transliteration):

"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 tafseer's to understand how the leading Sunni Ulema interpreted this verse.

Tafseer Khazana volume 1 page 89

Ma'am al Tazeel Volume 1 page 89

Fathul Qadeer Volume 1 page 140

Faseer Mudharik al Tazeel Volume 1 page 84

Tafseer Durre Manthur Volume 1 page 118

Tafseer Jama al Mubeen Volume 1 page 118

Tafseer Gharab al Qu'an Volume 1 page 439

Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 1 page 167

Ahkam al Quir'an Volume 1 page 69

Tafseer al Kabeer Volume 1 page 494

Let us first of all see what Allah (swt) says in Surah Baqarah verses 124:

In Tafseer Khazana volume 1 page 89 we read as follows:

"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 Ahl'ul 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 Sulaiman's Imam Yazeed ibn Mu'awiya.

The opinions of Ahl'ul Sunnah on the kufr and fisq of Yazeed As evidence we are relying on the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 pages 232,224 and 248

Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala" Volume 4 pages 37-38

Al Sawaiqh al Muhroqa page 131

Thatheer al Janaan page 115

Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 73

Fatawa Azeezi pafe 80 Dhikr Yazeed

Nuzool al Abrar page 97 Dhikr Yazeed

Ya Nabi al Mawaddath Volume 2 page 325 Part 60

Al Nasaa al Kaafiya page 120

Tareekh Ibn Khaldun Volume 1 page 179

Sharh Aqaid Nasfee page 113 Dhikr Yazeed

Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 pages, 152, 153 and 156 and 450 events of 52 Hijri

Al Imama wa al Siayasa page 165

Iqd al Fareed Voume 2 page 258 Dhikr Yazeed

Tareekh Abu al Fala Volume 1 page 186 Dkihr al Khabar Mu'awiya

Al Akbar al Taweel page 268 Dhikr Yazeed

Tareekh Tabari Volume 7 page 146

Rasail page 129 by Abu Bakr Jauzi

Maqathil Husayn page 172 Ch 9

Tadkhira Khawwas page 164

Shazath al Dhabab Volume 1 page 69 events of 61 Hijri

Tareekh al Khulafa page 204 Dhikr Mu'awiya

Al Khabar al Awal page 61 Dhikr Hukumith Ibn Ziyad

Tareekh Khamees oage 300 Dhikr Yazeed

Hayaath al Haywaan Volume 2 page 196

Tareekh Islam Volume 2 page 356 events of 63 Hijri

Ahsan aur Meezan Volume 5 page 284

Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 61 Surah Ibraheem part 13

Murudjh al Dhahab Volume 3 page 78 Dhikr Yazeed

Taufa Ithna Ashari page 6 Chapter 1

Muttalib al Saul Volume 2 page 26 Dhikr Husayn

Nur al Absar page 139 Dhikr Husayn

Sharh Muqassid Volume 2 page 309 Part 6

Al Tabaqat al Akbar Volume 5 page 96

Mustadrak al Hakim Volume 3 page 522

Tareekh Ibn Asakir page 275

Al Isaba page 181

Meezan al Itidal Volume 4 page 440

Wafa al Wafa Volume 1 page 127

Tahdheeb al Itidal Volume 11 page 361

Tabthaseer wa al Sharaf page 265 Dhikr Yazeed

Mujum al buldan Volume 2 page 253 Dkikr Harra

Fathul Bari Volume 13 page 70 Dhikr Yazeed

Irshad al Sari Volume 10 pages 171 and 199 Bab ul Fitan

Sirush Shahadathayn page 26 Dhikr Shahadath Imam Hasan

Minhajj al Sunnah page 239 Dhikr Yazeed

Takmeel al Iman page 178

Shaheed Karbala pages 11-12 by Mufti Muhammad Shaafi

Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik Volume 5 page 435 by Shaykh Muhammad Zakaria

Tareekh Milat page 55 Part 3 by Qadhi Zaynul Abideen

Tarrekh Islam Volume 2 page 56 by Akbar Najeeb Abadhi

Bahar Shariat Volume 1 page 76

Hidayaath al Shi'a Volume 1 page 95 by Allamah Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi

Isthaklah ai Yazeed page 312 by Maulanan Lal Shah Bukhari

Fitna Kharijee Volume 1 page 267 by Qadhi Madhar Husayn

Mukthubaath Shaykhul Islam Volume 1 page 267 by Maulana Husayn Hamdani

Sharh Shifa Volume 1 page 694 by Mulla 'Ali Qari al Hanafi

Siraaj Muneer Sharh Jama Sagheer Volume 3 page 382

Hujutul Balagha page 507

Qasim al Ulum page 221

Nabraas ala Sharh Aqaid page 553

Ahsaaf al Ghaneen page 210

Yazeed bin Mu'awiya page 30 by Ibn Taymeeya

Muktobaath page 203 by Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee

Al Shabeeya page 60 by Barelvi

Al Mafooz page 114 Barelvi

Ahsaan alwa page 52 by Barelvi

Ahkam Shariat Volume 2 page 88 Barelvi

Fatawi Volume 5 page 51 by AA Thanvi

Fatawa Rasheediya Volume 1 page 7

Skahyk al Islam bu Muhammad Qaim Nanothi Voluime 1 page 258

Imam Pak aur Yazeed paleeth by M Shaafi page 33

Tabat Ibn Sa'd page 283 Dhikr Ma'aqil bin Sanan

Mirqaat Sharh mishkaat Volume 1 page 120

Umdah Qari fo Sharh Bukhari Volume 11 page 334

Fatawa Azeezi Volume 1 page 21

Izalath al Ghaneen Volume 1 page 368 by Maulana Haydher 'Ali

Muttalib al Saul page 26

Nur al Absar page 139

Neel al Authar Volume 7 page 181 Dhikr Jihad

Tahdheeb Abu Shakur Shaami page 15

Al Samra page 317 by ibn Shareef Shaami

Mujmua al Zadhaar page 241

Khilafat Mu'awiya aur Yazeed page 378 Dhikr Yazeed

Muruj al Nubuwat Volume 1 page 126

Ahkam al Qur'an Volume 3 page 119

Tareekh Ibn Asakir Volume 5 page 107

Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani page 72 Surah Muhammad

Siraj Muneera Sharh Jama al Sagheera Volume 2 page 80 Letter Alif

Shadharat al Dhahab page 69, Volume 1

Wafa al-Wafa Volume 1 page 217

Ibn Kathir's comments on Yazeed

Ibn Kathir is the Wahabi's biggest historian and a student of Ibn Taymiyya himself. As far as Wahabis are concerned, his words are written in gold. Yet Ibn Kathir himself writes in al Bidayah:

"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], not a day would go by when he was not in a drunken state".

Listen up you Nasibi scholars! This is what the second highest ranking Wahabi scholar in history says, so why do you come out with this nonsense about Yazeed? Can the religion of truth confusion?

Ibn Atheer's comments on Yazeed

InTareekh al Kamil Volume 3 page 450 Ibn Atheer narrates from Munzir bin Zabeer:

"Verily Yazeed rewarded me with 100,000 dirhams but this cannot stop me from highlighting his state, By Allah he is a drunkard"

Allamah Dhahabi's naration and verdict on Yazeed

Yazeed's drinking despite Azam Tariq's denials is such an established fact that even Dhahabi, relied on as an authority by Abu Sulaiman, testifies to this fact.

In "Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala" Volume 4 pages 37-38, Dhahabi narrates:

"Ziyad Hurshee narrates 'Yazeed gave me alcohol to drink, I had never drunk alcohol like that before and I enquired where he had obtained its ingredients'. Yazeed replied 'it is made of sweet pomegranate, honey from Isfahan, sugar from Hawaz and grapes from BurdahYazeed indulged in alcohol and would participate in actions that opposed the dictates set by Allah (swt)".

In"Shadharat al Dhahab" page 69, Volume 1 , Ibn al-'Imad al-Hanbali cites these comments of Dhahabi:

"Mu'awiya's son Yazeed was an enemy of 'Ali, a Nasibi, a man of evil nature, and a drunkard".

Ibn Jauzi's comments on Yazeed 'the drunkard'Ibn Jauzi in Wafa al-Wafa:

"Yazeed appointed his cousin Uthman bin Muhammad bin Abu Sufyan as Governor of Madina. He sent a delegation to visit Yazeed who bore gifts so that they might take the oath of allegiance to him. Upon their return they said 'We have returned having visited a man who has no religion, he drinks, 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 Mukhzumee commented 'Yazeed gave me gifts. 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]."

Ibn Hajr's comments on Yazeed

In his book written against the Shi'a, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Ibn Hajr sets out the traditional Sunni position on Yazeed:

"There is difference between Ahl'ul Sunnah over whether Mu'awiya's heir apparent Yazeed was a kaafir. One group have deemed Yazeed to be a kaafir, another has stated he was a Muslim but a fasiq (transgressor), a fajir (one that commits debauchery) and a drunkard. There is consensus over his fisq (transgression). One party of Ulema have stated that you can curse him by name, this includes individuals such as Ibn Jauzi and Ahmad. One group made up of individuals such as Ibn Jauzi deem Yazeed a kaafir, others say

he was not a kaafir but rather this is a matter that has caused a difference of opinion.

The majority ofAhl'ul Sunnah all agree that he was a fasiq (transgressor), a fajir (one that commits debauchery) and a drunkard. Waqidi had recorded a narration 'Verily we opposed Yazeed fearing Allah (swt) would reign stones down on us, Yazeed considered nikah (marriage) with mothers and sisters to be permissible and drank alcohol".

In Thatheer al Janaan, Ibn Hajr al Makki had stated:

"Rasulullah (s) witnessed a dream in which thirty individuals were jumping on his pulpit like monkeys. This pained Rasulullah (s) so much that until his death no one ever witnessed him smiling. The thirty include the family of Marwan and Yazeed, Yazeed was the worst of them and the greatest Fasiq, and there is a group amongst the [Sunni] imams that have issued fatwas deeming Yazeed to be a Fasiq and a kaafir. Rasulullah (s) said that the Deen would be destroyed at the hands of the youth from Quraysh. This refers to Banu Marwan, Yazeed bin Mu'awiya and others. Yazeed ranks amongst the most debased dhaalims and fasiqs of all time".

Ibn Hajr al Makki like Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq was a major adherent of Mu'awiya, and in fact wrote a book in honour of Mu'awiya. Yet even he deemed Yazeed to be a fasiq. The Ulema of Ahl'ul 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. Nasibis portray the most debased sinners as saints. The Santa Claus fairytale is taken to new heights of lying with Yazeed. Yes, I said he had sex with his mother also, for we read in Tareekh al Islam:

"Dhahabi narrates that when Abdullah bin Kuzai returned from Damascus he stated that Yazeed performs zina with his mother, sister and daughters. We had better start a movement to oppose Yazeed otherwise stones may reign down on us".

This is one reason why Ibn Hajar al Makki (above) calls Yazeed one of the most debased men in history.

A Sahaba's testimony that Yazeed was an incestuous drunkard In Isaba we read:

"The Sahaba Maqil stated that 'Yazeed drank alcohol, committed zina with his mahram relatives, infact he performed every type of bad action"

al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz's comments on Yazeed In Sirush Shahadhathayn, Shah Abdul Aziz states:

"Imam Husayn did not give bayya to Yazeed because he was a drunkard, a fasiq and Dhaalim".

Ibn Taymeeya's condemnation of unjust Yazeed Ibn Taymeeya inMinhajj :

"Yazeed had the sword and hence he had the power to deal with anyone that opposed him. He had the power to reward his subjects with the contents of the treasury, and could also withhold their rights. He had the power to punish criminals; it is in this context that we can understand that he was the khalifah and king. Issues such as Yazeed's piety or lack of it, or his honesty

or lack of it, is another matter. In all of his actions Yazeed was not just, there is no dispute amongst the people of Islam on this matter".

Ibn Taymeeya here acknowledges that none of Yazeed's actions were just, and then this automatically means some of his actions also fall within the category of fisq. For a Nasibi such as Ibn Taymeeya to acknowledge such a fact is a major coup, it seems that Azam Tariq and Abu Sualiman's al Nasibi aqeedah is worse than Ibn Taymeeya for these Mullah's are seeking to portray Yazeed in a pious just manner that even Ibn Taymiyya does not! Tell me this you 21st century Nasibis. This is damming for you. The grand sheikh of the Nasibis, Ibn Taymiyya himself, says that Yazeed's evil character and actions are indisputable and unanimously accepted by all scholars. So why have YOU taken it upon yourselves to glorify Yazeed as a Santa Claus and saint? After all, you say Ibn Taymiyya's opinion overrides that of any scholar. This proves that Nasibi'ism /Wahabi'ism is no religion for it has no order or logic in it. It is a confused cult. It feeds on the deep resentment and hatred within the hearts of men. It is a vicious, irrational cult that is pathetically humiliated when asked to debate in the open arena. Ibn Taymiyya's own fatwa on Yazeed damns Nasibi'ism/Wahabism, which he is the leading scholar of. Just recite this fatwa toANY Nasibi and you will stop him dead in his tracks.

Yazeed's rule was dogged by alcoholism and transgression We read inMuruj al Dhahab :

"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."

Ibn Khaldun states:

"Yazeed's time of governance can be seen as fisq and debauchery, and the blame is on Mu'awiya who should have controlled him".

We read in Tareekh Kamil:

"The narrator states 'By Allah, Yazeed drinks alcohol and abandons Salat"

We read in Tareekh Abul Fida:

"Yazeed played the tambourine, drank alcohol and raised bears [civil expression for bestiality]".

Hayaath al Haywaan states:

"Yazeed would hunt with cheetas, play chess and drink alcohol".

People opposed Yazeed due to his atrocious deeds We read in Tareekh Khamees:

"The people of Medina broke the bayya to Yazeed on account of his bad acts, he used to drink alcohol"

Qadi Thanaullah's comments on Yazeed's kufr poetry We read in Tafseer Mazhari:

"Yazeed deemed drinking alcohol to be Halaal, and he recited these couplets 'if the Deen of Ahmad deems alcohol to be haraam Any narrations by Yazeed are to be rejected In Ahsan aur Meezan:

"Yazeed was a fasiq, faajir, we cannot rely on his narrations"

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. Shah Abdul

Haqq Dehlavis comments on impure Yazeed the drunkard InTakmeel al Iman page 97 Shah Abdul Haqq Dehlavi gives Yazeed a number of titles such as impure, fasiq and drunkard.