Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

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

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.