The alleged comments of Muhammad al Hanafiyya
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: THE SHIAS HAVE DONE A LOT OF MUD-SLINGING ON THE CONDUCT AND CHARACTER OF YAZID TRYING OUT OF MALICE AND PREJUDICE TO FALSELY PROJECT HIM AS ADDICTED TO WINE AND PASSION ON ACCOUNT OF SHEER ILL-WILL AND ENMITY. THIS HAS BEEN REFUTED BY MUHAMMAD BIN-AL-HANIFA, THE ELDER BROTHER OF HAZRAT HUSAYN WHO REMARKED:
"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 SHARI'AH 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.
The reference comes from Ibn Katheer al Nasibi's 'al Bidayah wa al Nihaya' and both Azam Tariq and Abu Sulaiman produced this same reference as evidence of Yazeed's immense piety. We had already addressed this claim in this article on Yazeed and showed how it was taken out of context and sections deleted by the lying Nasibis. Incidentally, not one Sunni scholar prior to the current age ever took this Hadith they quote above as sahih (reliable). In fact, as we have proved beyond doubt, the consensus amongst Sunni scholars has been that Yazeed ordered the killing of Imam Husayn (as). That is, till the current age of the lying scholars like Azam Tariq.
So we don't need to go any further for our Sunni brothers as it is obvious that they will follow the opinions that Sunni scholarship, even that of Ibn Taymiyya, has held....that Yazeed did indeed slay Imam Husayn (as) and was thus evil. But we would also like to add some additional replies for the followers of Mu'awiya to mull over.
Reply One
We find no evidence in any Shi'a book, wherein Muhammad al Hanafiyya had made such a claim. This reference can only be located in a book belonging to the people of Mu'awiya, and such a reference has no bearing on the Shi'a.
Reply Two
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 Three
Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubaur and Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah bin Hanzala, are all counted by the Ahl'ul Sunnah as Sahaba and they openly condemned Yazeed's 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 Four
We read inal 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 Yazeed's 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.
Cursing Yazeed
Answering the Fatwa of Abu Hamid Ibn GhazzaliThe lovers of Yazeed have made efforts to exalt Yazeed as a pious and just khalifa who has been the victim of a 1,400 year hate campaign waged by (almost) ALL the scholars and Shia AND Sunni (including Wahabi) Islam. They have thus sought to rewrite history. In the midst of all these scholars who condemned Yazeed, including imam Ahmed ibn hanbal who issued Takfir on him (see above), the Nasibis found one, and only one 'father figure' of traditional Sunni Islam: Ibn Ghazzali. Now Ghazzali was a Sufi, and all other Sufi sheikhs condemn Yazeed.
It is also interesting to note that the Nasibis HATE Ghazzali usually because he was a Sufi. Suddenly, they forget that hate campaign against the Sufi on this issue, and these filthy Nasibi seek to pass him off as the greatest scholar after the four Fiqh Imams. Azam Tariq rants off the prized fatwa as follows:
Kr-hcy.com states: A QUESTION WAS PUT TO IMAM GHAZZALI WHETHER THERE IS A VALID GROUND FOR CURSING YAZID FOR HIS ALLEGED COMPLICITY IN THE MURDER OF HAZRAT HUSAYN. THE IMAM GHAZZALI REPLIED AS UNDER:
"IT IS NOT LAWFUL TO CURSE ANY MUSLIM. ANYONE WHO CURSES A MUSLIM IS HIMSELF ACCURSED. RASUL-ALLAH (SAW) SAID: "A MUSLIM IS NOT GIVEN TO CURSING." BESIDES THE ISLAMIC SHARIAH HAS PROHIBITED US FROM EVEN CURSING THE ANIMALS. HOW THEN IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO CURSE ANY MUSLIM WHEN THE HONOUR OF A MUSLIM IS MORE SACRED THAN THE HOLY KABA AS MENTIONED IN A HADITH (IBN MAJAH).
"THE ISLAMIC FAITH OF YAZID IS PROVED WITHOUT ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT. AS REGARDS THE MURDER OF HUSAYN, THERE IS NO DEFINITE EVIDENCE THAT YAZID EITHER KILLED HIM OR ISSUED ORDERS FOR HIS KILLING OR APPROVED ANY SUCH PLANS. WHEN NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVED IN THIS
REGARD, HOW WOULD IT BE LAWFUL TO CAST DOUBTS AND ASPERSIONS ON YAZID WHEN ENTERTAINING SUSPICION ABOUT A MUSLIM IS UNLAWFUL IN ISLAM."
ALMIGHTLY ALLAH SAYS IN THE QUR'AN "O YE WHO BELIEVE! SHUN MUCH SUSPICION; FOR LO! SOME SUSPICION IS CRIME. AND SPY NOT, NEITHER BACKBITE ONE ANOTHER. WOULD ONE OF YOU LOVE TO EAT THE FLESH OF HIS DEAD BROTHER? YE ABHOR THAT (SO ABHOR THE OTHER). AND KEEP YOUR DUTY (TO ALLAH)." (49: 12).
HAZRAT ABU HURAIRAH REPORTED ALLAH'S MESSENGER AS SAYING "DESPISING HIS BROTHER MUSLIM IS ENOUGH EVIL FOR ANY ONE TO DO. EVERY MUSLIM'S BLOOD, PROPERTY AND HONOUR ARE SACRED TO A MUSLIM." (MUSLIM).
IMAM GHAZZALI REITERATES:
"ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT YAZID ORDERED THE KILLING OF HUSAYN OR LIKED THE KILLING OF HUSAYN SUCH A PERSON IS ABSOLUTELY FOOL ."
"AS REGARDS SAYING (RADIALLAHU ANHA) AFTER THE NAME OF YAZID, THIS IS NOT ONLY PERMISSIBLE BUT COMMENDABLE. IT IS RATHER INCLUDED IN OUR DUA WHEN WE PRAY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF ALL MUSLIMS AND YAZID WAS CERTAINLY A MOMIN (BELIEVER)." (BERIRUT, P. 288).
Here Ghazzali takes on every single other Sunni scholar from the year dot to the present-day, excepting the contemporary Nasibis. Ghazzali had knowledge, but he was not in the same category of knowledge in the field of either history or traditions as the numerous Sunni scholars we have quoted. It seems he took the principle of piety in not cursing another seriously... and it reflected his PERSONAL LACK of knowledge of history and the traditions that deal with this issue.
As we saw earlier, imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who outranks Ghazzali in this realm of knowledge, issued Takfir on Yazeed. INDEED all 4 Sunni madhabs, including the 4 sheikhs Abu Hanifa, Ahmed ibn Hanbal, imam Malik and imam Shafi'i have said it is permissible to curse Yazeed (see below). Furthermore, unlike the Nasibi scholars of today, Ghazali was not lying but he did misinform...the misinformation that came from his tongue was due to lack of in-depth knowledge. Ghazali is in fact easily dealt with.
We don't have to, as every other substantial Sunni scholar (except modern-day Nasibis) has disagreed with him on this point and have said Yazeed killed Husayn (as) and should be cursed. This includes eminent Sufi Sheikhs who some may say outrank Ghazali. So the Nasibis producing Ghazali's viewpoint is not very substantial at all. But we might as well rebut him to be comprehensive.
First 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 Allah's curse, and the curse of angels, and of all mankind"
In Surah Aal-e-Imran verse 61 we read:
"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!"
It is stated in Surah Hud verse 18:
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!
And Surah Hud verses 59-60:
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!
Surah Maida verse 78:
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 Ahl'ul bayt (as), the Qur'an stipulates love for them to be a part of Deen; he killed them and openly rejected the Prophethood of Rasulullah (s)?
Second 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 one's 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?
Third Reply
It is very amusing that these Nasibi 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 Shi'a 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 a Sufi.
Fourth Reply
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"
We have already presented the event of Harra before our readers and shown how Yazeed ordered his Nasibi troops to attack the city of Medina. Rasulullah (s) cursed those that caused fear to Medina. When Rasulullah (s) cursed an individual that perpetrated such an act then what right does this third rate Nasibi Jamaat have to demand that we refrain from cursing Yazeed? Whoever adheres to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (s) shall definitely curse Yazeed.
Fifth 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!
Surah Ash Shura verse 151-2:
"And follow not the bidding of those who are extravagant, - Who make mischief in the land, and mend not (their ways)."
The sum total of these two verses is as follows:
We should steer away from mischief makers
Allah (swt) has cursed those that indulge in mischief through the land
With these two verses in mind, now contemplate this verse:
Surah Baqarah verse 220:
"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 Ahl'ul 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 Medina, slaughtering and raping its inhabitants not an act of Fitnah?
Was the assault on Makka that included catapaulting the Kaaba with fire which set the House of Allah alight not an act 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 Ka'aba 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.
Reply Six: The Ulema of Ahl'ul Sunnah deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed
The Fiqh Imams deemed cursing Yazeed to be an act of worship Ibn Khalikan in Wafayaath page 412 whilst discussing the biography of the Shafi'i scholar Abu Hassan bin 'Ali bin Muhammad bin 'Ali al Tabari al Amadadeen al Maroof al Bakeeya al Iraas al Shafeeya, states that:
"He (the above) was once asked 'Can Yazeed who was born during the Khilafat of Hadhrath Umar be counted as a Companion, and what have the Salaf elders said in relation to cursing him?
He replied, 'There are two statements of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal on this; one is an indication (that you can), the other direct (both that you can). These two views were also given by Imam Malik and by Imam 'Abu Hanifa. We (those who follow imam Shafi'is fatwas) have only one fatwa in this regard, that it is permissible to curse Yazeed, he should be cursed since he used to play chess, would hunt with Cheetahs and drank alcohol".
Allamah Taftazani said Yazeed was worthy of more than just cursing We read in Sharh Muqassad:
"The harms that were inflicted on the Ahl'ul bayt after the Sahaba are acts that cannot be covered up. These acts were so heinous that they cannot be hidden - all including animals testify to their suffering. Their pain was such that the earth and skies shed tears and beat themselves when their suffering is retold - and retelling this shall continue until the Day of Judgement. May Allah's curse be upon those that perpetuated injustices, and those that helped them (to carry out these acts). The curse on these individuals shall be even greater in the next world. If some Ulema are opposed to cursing, then it should be known that Yazeed deserves more than just cursing".
Allamah Baghdadi's Fatwa - Yazeed denied the Prophethood, to curse him is an act of IbadathWe read in Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani page 72 commentary of Surah Muhammad:
"The wicked Yazeed failed to testify to the Prophethood of Hadhrath Muhammad (s). He also perpetrated acts against the residents of Makka, Medina and the family of the Prophet (s). He indulged in these acts against them during their lives and after their deaths. These acts are so conclusively proven that had he placed the Qur'an in his hands it would have testified to his kuffar. His being a fasiq and fajir did not go unnoticed by the Ulema of Islam, but the Salaf had no choice but to remain silent as they were living under threat.
If we for arguments sake accept that Yazeed was a Muslim who lapsed and committed wrongs, one should know that a man of the rank of Alusi deemed it permissible to curse him by name as he [Yazeed] was a living example of atrocious acts and it is a well-known fact that he never sought forgiveness for killing the family of the Prophet (s) and other acts. The claim that he asked for forgiveness is even weaker than the claim that he possessed iman. When cursing him the names of Ibn Ziyad and Umar bin Sa'd should also be added, may Allah's curse be on them all. curse till the Day of Judgement, until then our eyes shall shed tears for Husayn's suffering.
If someone does not wish to curse by name through fear [that they might be wrong, such as Ghazali], then he should say 'May God's curse be upon those that were pleased at Husayn's killing, those that subjected sufferings on the family of the Prophet, who usurped their rights - when making such a curse Yazeed's name comes to the top of the list.
No one can oppose this method of cursing save Ibn Arabi and his like minded supporters and this is major misguidance on their part - it is worse that the misguidance of Yazeed".
Taftazani, a mainstream Sunni scholar, is reprimanding certain Sufi elements for taking one of their principles too far - that harbouring feelings of hatred to someone impairs progress on the spiritual path, which is not the case when cursing Yazeed as it falls into the realm of forbidding evil. Some Sufis reconcile this as they all accept Husayn (as) as possessed of great spiritual munificence by 'distancing' themselves from Yazeed. Others curse Yazeed.
It is important to note that Sufi Sheikhs are not usually experts on the religious traditions (Hadith), law or history, whatever their spiritual standing might be. This is not denied by any Sufis except fanatical devotees. In this realm the four Sunni imams supersede, all of whom said it was permissible to curse Yazeed.
The Fatwas of Qadhi Abu Ya'ala and Abu Husayn deeming it permissible to curse Yazeed Ibn Katheer in al Bidaya stated:
"Whoever frightens Medina incurs the wrath of Allah, His Angels and all the people - and some Ulema have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed. This includes individuals such as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Allamah Hilalee, Abu Bakr Abdul Aziz, Qadhi Abu Ya'ala and his son Qadhi Abu Husayn. Ibn Jauzi wrote a book deeming it permissible to curse Yazeed".
Nasibi grounds for NOT cursing Yazeed
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 quite and thus took Ibn Katheer's 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 Mu'awiya or the other Sahaba did nothing wrong, then what on earth is there to worry about? You're hiding the Sahaba's atrocities beneath that kaftan Ibn Kathir.
We praise Abu Ya'ala 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.
Al Suyuti personally cursed Yazeed
In Tareekh ul Khulafa page 207, Dhikr Shahadath Husayn we read as follows:
"May Allah's curse be upon the killers of Husayn and Ibn Ziyad".
Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Pathee deemed it permissible to curse the kaafir Yazeed We read in Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21, under the commentary of Surah Ibrahim verse 28 as follows:
"The Banu Umayya were initially kaafir, then some of them presented themselves as Muslim. Yazeed then became a kaafir. The Banu Umayya maintained their enmity towards the family of the Prophet, and killed Husayn in a cruel manner. The kaafir Yazeed committed kufr in relation to the Deen of Muhammad proven by the fact that at the time of the killing of Husayn he made a pointed reference to avenging the deaths of his kaafir ancestors slain in Badr. He acted against the family of Muhammad (s), Banu Hashim and in his drunken state he praised the Banu Umayya and cursed the Banu Hashim from the pulpit".
Yazeed's actions that mean that he turned to apostasy is within itself grounds for deeming him to be cursed.
The Fatwa of Imam Ahmad that Yazeed has been cursed in the Qur'an We also read in Tafeer Mazhari as follows:
"Qadhi Abu Ya'ala in his own book al Muthamud al Usul that Saleh Ibn Hanbal asked his father Ahmad: 'Some people state, 'We are the friends of Yazeed'. Abu Hanifa replied 'If people have faith in Allah, then it is unlikely that they also have faith in Yazeed, and why should they for this is a man that has been cursed in the Qur'an. I asked 'Where is Yazeed cursed in the Qur'an?' He replied "Have fear when spread Fitnah through the land - these are people that Allah has cursed" - can there be a greater fitnah that killing Husayn?'"
The Fatwa of Ibn Jauzi: Hadith can testify to the fact that Yazeed can be cursed InTadhkira Khawaas
Ibn Jauzi al Hanafi states
"If someone states that the Prophet of Allah had blessed those that partook in the conquest of Caesar's city, then we will reply by pointing out that the Prophet of Allah (s) said whoever frightens Medina is cursed. This incorporates Yazeed and abrogates the first hadith".
Very logical too.
The Shaafi Ulema deem it permissible to curse Yazeed
We should point out that Ghazzali was an adherent of the Shaafi madhab. Another Shaafi scholar Allamah Alusi set out the viewpoint of the Shaafi Ulema on this topic as follows: "Amongst the Shaafi's we are in agreement that it is permissible to curse Yazeed"Haseeya Nabraas page 551
When a renowned Shaafi scholar has taken the responsibility to reflect the opinion of the Shaafi Ulema, confirming that they deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed, then the opposite voice of Imam Ghazzali's fatwa becomes batil (false).
We have cited actual Sunni texts wherein the supreme Sunni scholars of all time 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 Ghazzali's 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 matter that has attained broad consensus by the Sunni Ulema? In reality by quoting Ghazzali they are trying to divide the Sufis, who they are well-known to despise. Our du'a is that Allah (swt) guide these advocates of Yazeed to disown and hate Yazeed and to develop faith and love for the family of the Prophet (s).
0%
Author: Rafed Network
