It is not permissible to say Yazeed "(r)"
In Fatawa Abdul Hai, the author states after condemning Yazeed, "one should not say Yazeed radhina or rahmathullah".
Barelvi Ulema have deemed Yazeed a fasiq Ahmad Reza Barelvi in Irfan al Shariat stated:
"There is an agreement amongst the Ahl'ul Sunnah that he was a fasiq and a fajir, the dispute is over whether he was a kaafir".
Shariat Mukhammad Majid 'Ali Shakir stated in Badh Shariat:
"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".
Deobandi Ulema have deemed Yazeed to be a fasiq
Whilst Azam Tariq claims to reflect the views of the Deobandi Sect, it is worthy to note that the founder of Dar al Ulum Deoband, Muhammad Qasim Nanuthee stated in Qasim al Ulum:
"Yazeed was a fasiq, he was irregular in Salat, committed Bidah and was Chief of the Nasibi".
Ashraf 'Ali Thanvi in Fatawi stated:
"Yazeed was a fasiq, there are different levels of fisq".
Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi in Fatawa said:
"One should refrain from calling Yazeed a kaafir, but there is no objection to referring to him as a fasiq".
In Shaheed ai Kerbala aur Yazeed, Deobandi scholar Muhammad Tayyib stated:
"Yazeed was a fasiq and a fajir and there is absolute unanimity amongst the scholars on this point".
Maulana Muhammad Shaafi in 'Imam Pak aur Yazeed Paleeth' stated:
"Yazeed was not pious rather but was a fasiq, fajir, dhaalim and a drunkard".
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 Mu'awiya who sent Muslim bin Uqba to pillage Madina"
In 'Siraaj Muneera', Allamah 'Ali bin Ahmad also stated that the hadith refers to Yazeed. The same comment can also be located in Ashiaath al Lamaat by al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Haq Dehlavi.
In al Bidaya wa al Nihaya we read:
"The Deen will be damaged at the hands of a man from Banu Ummaya whose name shall be Yazeed"
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 Tariq's and Abu Sulaiman's of this world would never be able to reply to these references.
Yazeed's attack on Harra
We read in 'au khanar al masalik' that Shaykh al hadith Muhammad Zakaria stated:
"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, no Sahaba who were [with the Prophet (saws)] at Hudaibiya were spared".
Ibn Katheer in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 222 stated:
"Muslim was ordered to ransack Medina for three days. Yazeed committed a major sin. Sahaba and their children were slaughtered openly; other heinous acts were also perpetuated. We have already mentioned that he had Ibn Ziyad kill the grandson of Rasulullah (s) Husayn and his companions. In those three days in Madina, it is difficult to mention the type of acts that were carried out. By doing this act Yazeed wanted to secure his governance, in the same way Allah (swt) broke the neck of every Pharoah, the true King (swt) also broke the neck of Yazeed".
One who attacks Medina is cursed We read inal Bidaya Volume 8 page 223
"Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice and frightened the residents of Medina, the curse (la'nat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is on such a person"
Yazeed was a homosexual
We read inal Bidayah wa al Nihayah page 64 Volume 9
"Dhikr Abdul Mulk"
"Abdul Malik bin Marwan said in a khutbah that unlike Uthman I am not weak and unlike Mu'awiya I am not cunning / dishonest and unlike Yazeed I am not a homosexual".
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 Azam Tariq is himself a closet homosexual who follows the Sunna attributed to 'Umar by some Sunni groups (see article'Akhth Umm-Kulthoom
(as)' on this site).
Yazeed used to copulate with his mother and sisters Here we shall cite the following authentic Sunni sources:
Tabaqath al Kabeera Volume 5 page 66 Dhikr Abdullah bin Hanzala and Volume 4 page 283
Tareekh ul Khulafa page 209 Dhikr Yazeed
Sawqih al Muhriqa page 132 Dhikr Yazeed
Mustadrak al Hakim Volume page 522
Al Isaba Volume 3 page 469
Ya Nabi al Mawaddath page 326
Tareekh Ibn Asakir Volume 7 page 275
Fatawi Abdul Hai page 79
Tareekh al Islam Volume 2 page 356
Al Masalaik Sharh Muwatta Imam Malik page 435
We read inTabaqath
:
"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"
Now we have these Nasibi such as Afriki and Sipaa-e-Sahaba 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).
Yazeed bin Mu'awiya's rejection of the Qur'an
We shall rely on the following reputable books of Ahl'ul Sunnah:
Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah Volume 8 page 204 Dhikr Ras al Husayn
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 2 page 249 Dkikr Yazeed
Sharh Foqh Akbar page 73 Dhikr Yazeed
Sharh Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21 Surah Ibrahim
Shazrah al Dhahab page 69 Dhikr Shahadth Husayn
Maqatahil Husayn Volume 2 page 58 Dhikr Shahdath Husayn
Tadhkira Khawwas page 148
Tareekh Tabari Volume 11 pages 21-23 Dhikr 284 Hijri
Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani (commentary of Surah Muhammad)
We are citing Tadhkira, Maqathil and Shazarath al Dhabah. This is also found in the Arabic (non-Leiden) version of the History of Al-Tabari:
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 Ahl'ul 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 Ameer'ul Momineen?
InTafseer Ruh al Maani
it is stated clearly:
"Allamah Alusi stated, 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".
Problem is Sunni Islam accepts as a khalifa (literally 'successor' to the Prophet (saws)) a man who clearly did not believe in the Qur'an and instead believed the Holy Prophet (saws) was a fraud. This is part of Sunni doctrine. It is unacceptably and obviouslyFLAWED
, 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.
Yazeed bin Mu'awiya's declaration on the pulpit of the khalifa that Yazeed was not worthy of Khilafat: Yazeed's own son condemned his father and grandfather, stating they will be punished in the grave, and supported Shia claims that the khilafat was the right of the Shia Imams
We read inSawaiqh page 134
about what the khalifa succeeding Yazeed said in his inaugural address as khalifa:
"When Yazeed's son came to power he gave the speech: 'Khilafat is from Allah (swt). My grand father Mu'awiya 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.' Mu'awiya bin Yazeed then proceeded to cry, 'It is a terrible thing that we are fully aware of Yazeed's bad deeds: he slaughtered the family of the Prophet (s), he deemed alcohol halal, and set fire to the Ka'aba. I don't need this khilafat, you deal with it"
This is what a son said about his father and grandfather. This is what the khalifa said about his father and grandfather. Not surprisingly, this lone voice of conscience amongst the Umayyads didn't last long in power, and he was rapidly succeeded by the power-hungry branch of the Umayyads led by Marwan, whose devious and vile character are avouched for in the references at the start of this article. Here one khalifa is condemning in the strongest way two pervious khalifas. Yet Sunni Islam is content to believe that they were one happy family.
Similarly inTareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 301
, "Dhikr Mu'awiya the second" andHayaath al Haywan Volume 1 page 88
"Dhikr al Awaaz" we read that Mu'awiya Saneeh stated in a sermon: "My father Yazeed did not deserve to attain the position as khalifah over the Prophet's Ummah".
Yazeed bin Mu'awiya was such a fasiq that his own son sought to distance himself from his reign and he declared publicly that Yazeed was not entitled to be khalifah on account of his fasiq actions. These are the comments of Yazeed's son. Yet despite the testimony of the countless scholars we have cited, and the countless companions, and above all, Al-Hussain (as) himself, and here Yazeed's own son, the 21st century Nasibis of Ansar.org and Sipah-e-Sahaba think they know better, even better than their Grand Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya, whose words supersede all scholars according even to the Nasibis themselves. They seek to bring Yazeed to your hearts, a man whose own son said before the Ummah that his father is enduring the punishment of the grave.
Mu'awiya witnessed Yazeed's actions with his own eyes Tareekh Tabari, page 2173 Dhikr 284 Hijri
Tareekh Abu Fida Volume 2 page 57 Dhikr 284 Hijri
Tareekh Kamil Volume 7 page 192 Dhikr 284 Hijri
Tareekh ul Khulafa page 371 Dhikr 284 Hijri
Sharath al Dhahab Volume 2 page 185
Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 11 page 76 Dhikr 284 Hijri
Nasa al Kaafiya page 220
Maula aur Mu'awiya page 353
"And counted amongst the bad deeds of the Leaders of Syria, he [Mu'awiya] encouraged people to give bayya to his son Yazeed who was a drunkard, who brought up bears and Cheetahs. He [Mu'awiya] issued threats against good people to secure bayyaeven though he was aware of Yazeed's stupidity and transgressions that included his kufr, fisq and drunkardness...after slaughtering the family of the Prophet he said 'Banu Hashim staged a play for Kingdom [power], there was no revelation [the Qur'an is not revelation]'
Only a bafoon (also known as Nasibi) would claim that Mu'awiya had no idea of his son's transgressions. Is it believable that a father has no idea of his son's wrongdoings while literally thousands of witnesses to the palace intrigues do? How can an emperor who has spies and a secret service that knows what is going on from Africa to Persia have no idea of what is going on in his own palace? These spies told Mu'awiya every detail of what the people said about Yazeed.
They would also have told him what went on in the imperial palace. If Mu'awiya did not know what his son was like, why have the scholars condemned him for appointing Yazeed. Did not Mu'awiya's wives tell him that his son had had sex with his father's wives? Did not Mu'awiya's daughters tell their father that their brother had had sex with them? Or is it that the imperial family was almost to a person steeped in the worst forms of vice imaginable.
Mu'awiya was fully aware of Yazeed's transgression As evidence we shall rely on the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:
Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 228 "Dhikr Yazeed"
Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon page 176 Dhikr Bayya
Thatheer al Janaan page 52
Nasa al Kaafiya page 38
Tadkhira al Khawwas page 161 Dhikr Yazeed
Serra al Alam'an naba Volume 3 page 105
Tareekh Tabari Volume 2 page 174 Events of 56 Hijri
We read inal Bidayah
:
"Yazeed in his adolescence indulged in alcohol consumption and youthful exuberance, and this came to the attention of Mu'awiya, and he wanted to give him some kind advice so he said 'Refrain from such activities in public since this shall serve as ammunition for our enemies and they shall reject you on this basis.'"
The advocate of Mu'awiya then seeks to defend this action by stating:
"Mu'awiya's 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 Mu'awiya was fully aware of his son's disgraceful acts.
We also read inal Bidaya Volume 8 page 79
:
"Mu'awiya wrote to his [bastard] brother Ziyad to seek advice on attaining 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."
Yazeed's 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 Mu'awiya's own advocate Ibn Kathir highlights the fact that Mu'awiya knew of his son's faults.
Mu'awiya's motive behind appointing his Fasiq son as Khalifah Abu Sulaiman al Nasibi in his article on Mu'awiya sought to apply conjecture, seeking to defend Mu'awiya's appointment of his son by stating:
Ansar.org states:"Perhaps the reason that pushed Mu'awiyah 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, Mu'awiyah thought that by giving the leadership to Yazeed would be a good thing for the Ummah and it would prevent another affliction of happening.
Boy o boy, these Nasibis dig up the most bizarre excuses - the reason Mu'awiya made Yazeed his son was not for these namby-pamby 'maybe' reasons. It's because all kings want to make their sons the king after them. It's called monarchy and nepotism. It's why all the scholars say Mu'awiya made Yazeed khalifa. Do the Ansar team live on another planet? It is a fickle effort to cover up Yazeed's Nasibi father's sin. If we really want to know Mu'awiya's motive, why use guesswork when we have his own testimony. We thus read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 118 that Mu'awiya admitted his appointment of his son was based on his love for him, nothing else.
"Prior to his death Mu'awiya stated if it was not my love for Yazeed, I would have known the path of guidance."
This proves that Mu'awiya's motive to appoint Yazeed was not to prevent affliction as these Nasibi claim, rather his aim was only based on the love of his son and his regret that he was blinded by love is proof that Mu'awiya was fully aware that his son was a transgressor who had no right to be deemed as the Guide over Muslims. Here Mu'awiya confesses to being misguided - so the Nasibi cult reveres and follows an imam who admits he is misguided! Yes, I guess that's what it does mean.
In connection with these words of Mu'awiya, his great advocate Ahmad Ibn Hajr al Makki inThatheer al Janaan page 52
stated:
"Mu'awiya's 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. Mu'awiya's love for his son destroyed his thinking and political astuteness. Mu'awiya's allowing his personal feelings / love to decide how the Deen should be led, to the point that his son's 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".
We read in Sira alam al Naba:
"Mu'awiya said to his son, 'The thing that I fear most of all is my act of making you my successor".
Mu'awiya 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. His methods to make his fasiq son Khalifah over the Muslims are definitely a major sin.
Advocate of Mu'awiya, Ibn Khaldoon, stated in Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon:
"Mu'awiya was unaware that Yazeed was a fasiq and faajir, on the contrary during his lifetime he would tell his son to refrain from singing".
In addition to Ibn Hajr we also have another Nasibi advocate making admissions that destroy Mu'awiya. One admits that that during his lifetime Yazeed would sing music, the other admits that he would drink alcohol.
The Qur'an deems singing Raag (Scales) to be a major sin Surah Luqman verse 6 (Yusuf 'Ali transliteration):
But there are among men those who purchase idle tales 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 Ahl'ul Sunnah that have commented on this verse:
Tafseer Mazhari Volume 7 page 260 al Luqman verse 6
Tafseer Madharik Volume 3 page 25 Part 21
Tafseer Ibn Katheer page 221 al Luqman verse 6
Tafseer Fath'ul Qadeer Volume 4 page 226
Tafseer Janan Volume 4 page 177 al Luqman verse 6
Rafseer Ruh al Ma'ani page 67 Part 21 al Luqan verse 26
Tafsser Tabari page 39
Tafseer Qurtubi, commentary of verse 6 al Luqman
In Tafseer Mazhari we read: "The scholars have deem Raag (singing scales) to be haraam on the basis of this verse.
We read in Tafseer Ibn Katheer:
The Sahaba Ibn Masud said 'How al Hadeeth' refers to Raag and he stressed this three times. Tafseer Ruh al Maani records the fact that Imams Abu Hanifa, Ahmad, Malik and Shaafi issued fatwas that raag is haraam.
Mu'awiya's own admission that Yazeed did not deserve to be khalifa For this section we shall rely on the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:
Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 118
Thatheer al Janan page 52
Nasa al Kaafiya page 38
Tadhkira Khawwas page 161 Dhikr Yazeed
Seerath al alam al Naba Volume 3 page 105
We read in al Bidaya:
"Towards the end of his life Mu'awiya expressed regret at fighting the family of Rasul (s) and appointing Yazeed as his successor, and he admitted 'if it was not for my love of Yazeed the guidance would have shone on me"
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 Mu'awiya's 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.
Mu'awiya 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 father's natural love for his son. No doubt Nasibis will claim that Mu'awiya 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 Mu'awiya was not adil, as we have proven in our article on Mu'awiya - the Ulema of Ahl'ul Sunnah have themselves defined Mu'awiya as a transgressor.
In Sira alam we read:
"The thing that I fear most is the fact that I have imposed Yazeed as my successor over you, of all matters I am fearful of this most."
Deobandi scholar Aadhi Zaynul Abdideen inTareekh Milat page 55
states
"Mu'awiya was aware of the situation, having witnessed Yazeed's acts he deemed him to be unacceptable".
This is more proof that Mu'awiya fully knew the reality of his son's demonic personality. Mu'awiya was fully aware of his son's fasiq actions and yet he still sought to position him as khalifah over the Muslims. Mu'awiya's regret was a faade, the reality is he had a hatred for Ahl'ul bayt (as) in his heart and he wanted to keep them out of power. We would like to ask these Nasibi: you assert that khilafat is not an exclusive right of the Ahl'ul bayt (as). Could you kindly tell us which merits were missing in the members of Ahl'ul bayt (as) but were present in the Banu Ummayya Clan? Did Allah (swt) keep traits of knowledge, sense, guidance away from the Ahl'ul bayt (as), and prefer to give worldly reign to the cursed tree of Banu Ummayya? Or should we blame the Muslims in general for turning their backs on religious righteousness?
The stipulation by the Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema that the khalifah be just makes the khilafat of Mu'awiya and Yazeed batil For this section we shall rely on the following authentic texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:
Izalathul Khifa page 20 Dhikr Sharth Imamate
Sharh Muwaffaq page 731 Muqassad Saneeh
Sharh Muqassad Volume 2 page 271 Fadail Imama
Al Ahkam al Sultaneeya page 8 by Al Mawardi
Ahkam al Sultaneeya page 9 by Qadi Abu Yala
Taufa Ithna Ashari page 178 Bab 7 Imamate aqeedah
We read inIzalath ul Khifa
:
"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".
We read in Sharh Muqassad:
"The Imam over the Ummah should possess these merits - have sense, be Muslim, be just, free, a man, a mujtahid, and brave"
We read in Sharh Muwaffaq
"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".
Ahl al Sunna
believe that no khalifa has the right to appoint his son as khalifa without shura (consultation) Al Mawardi in Al Ahkam al Sultaneeya page 8 states:
"When a khilafat intends on appointing a successor the khilafah should make efforts to locate the individual that is most deserving, and the condition of khilafat is if after this extensive search a person is located, provided he is not the Khalifah's father or son, then he can be appointed without seeking the counsel of anyone else."
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 Qur'an 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 Ahl'ul Sunnah that both Mu'awiya and Yazeed were not adil.
Mu'awiya's deeds throughout his reign, including efforts to secure Yazeed's nomination via duress and coercion proves that he was not adil. When Mu'awiya 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 Yazeed's khilafat was legitimate a complete farce.
Our open challenge to Nasibis such as Abu Sulaiman and Tariq Azam is to produce a single reference from the Qur'an / hadith that deems the Imamate of a fasiq khalifah to be legitimate. We are aware that there are ridiculous coined traditions deeming it lawful to pray salat behind a fasiq Imam, but we want proof with regards to the Imam (khalifa) of Muslims not the Imam of a salafi / Deobandi mosque
0%
Author: Rafed Network
