Official Reply to Dr. Zakir Naik on Karbala & Yazid

Do you remember Zakir Naik & his claiming “Radhi Allaho Anho” for Yazid?

Do you know the Only Argument of Zakir Naik that he used to justify it?

The Only Argument of Zakir Naik is only & only one Tradition of Bukhari.

Let us begin with Allah's name & let us expose the Lies of Zakir Naik regarding this tradition and after that no one would dare to say “Radhi Allho Anho” to Yazid. Insha-Allah.

The Fabricated Tradition by Nasibis of Syria

Nasibis of Syria were followers of Bani Umiyyah. Thus they fabricated a tradition through which they free Yazid of all his so many crimes against Islam & Ahlebait (as), and provided him with salvation to Jannah.

Here is the tradition.

حَدَّثَنِي إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ الدِّمَشْقِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَمْزَةَ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي ثَوْرُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ أَنَّ عُمَيْرَ بْنَ الْأَسْوَدِ الْعَنْسِيَّ حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّهُ أَتَى عُبَادَةَ بْنَ الصَّامِتِ وَهُوَ نَازِلٌ فِي سَاحَةِ حِمْصَ وَهُوَ فِي بِنَاءٍ لَهُ وَمَعَهُ أُمُّ حَرَامٍ قَالَ عُمَيْرٌ فَحَدَّثَتْنَا أُمُّ حَرَامٍ أَنَّهَا سَمِعَتْ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ أَوَّلُ جَيْشٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يَغْزُونَ الْبَحْرَ قَدْ أَوْجَبُوا قَالَتْ أُمُّ حَرَامٍ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنَا فِيهِمْ قَالَ أَنْتِ فِيهِمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَوَّلُ جَيْشٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يَغْزُونَ مَدِينَةَ قَيْصَرَ مَغْفُورٌ لَهُمْ فَقُلْتُ أَنَا فِيهِمْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ لَا

Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Jihad Volume 4, Book 52, and Number 175:

Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the seashore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'the first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."

We will prove that this narration is defective on the following 2 bases:

 It has defects in Asnaad.
    

A comparison of this alone tradition to all other Traditions 

It is totally against ALL other Traditions about “First Naval War” & “caesar's City”. (This is the most important Part of our Discussion).

Defects in Asnaad of this tradition
Please note about this Tradition is narrated by only & only one chain ,And all the narrators in this chain are Syrians (the headquarter of Muawiyyah and Bani Umiyyah). The people of Syria were famous for inventing narrations in support of Bani Umiyyah.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani (one of top most Alim who is even respected by Nasibis) writes under the commentary of this tradition:
قوله‏:‏ ‏(‏عن خالد بن معدان‏)‏ بفتح الميم وسكون المهملة، والإسناد كله شاميون i.e. all of it's narrators belong to Syria

Thawr bin Yazid [The Munafiq by Rasool's Standards]:
One of the Syrian Narrator is Thawr bin Yazid. Although none of the Syrian Narrator of this tradition had any love for Ahl al-Bayt, but this Thawr bin Yazid was the worst.
Ibn Saad (Sunni Scholar whose book is very important for Rajal Work) writes about him:
و كان جد ثور بن يزيد قد شهد صفين مع معاوية ، و قتل يومئذ ، و كان ثور إذا ذكر عليا قال : لا أحب رجلا قتل جدى

Translation:
The (Syrian Ancestors) of Thawr bin Yazid were along with Muawiyyah at battle of Saffin and they were killed in this war (by Army of Ali Ibn Abi Talib). Whenever this Thawr bin Yazeed used to hear the name of Ali (ibn Abi Talib), he used to say:"I don't like to hear the name of that person who killed my Ancestors.

Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol 7 under the topic: Thawr bin Yazid al Kalayee

And Yahya ibn Mueen, who is considered one of most authentic Authority in Rajal even by Nasibis, he writes:

"This Thawr bin Yazeed was included in that party which used to Curse Ali Ibne Abi Talib"..

And Imam Malik never used to narrate from this Thawr bin Yazeed.
Sheikh Ahmad Ali Suharanpuri is an Alim of Tableeghi Jama'at and he wrote a commentary of Bukhari. He writes (vol. 1, page 409):
"The tradition of caesar's city has been narrated by Thawr bin Yazid and he was (extreme) enemy of Ameer-ul-Momineen (Ali ibn Abi Talib).
And biggest of all, the grand Hadith Master Ibn Hajar Asqallani writes (Book: Tehdhib-ul-Tehdib, vol 2, page 33):
Thawr bin Yazeed bin Ziyad was a Qadarite قدرياً , his grandfather sided with Mu'awiya in Sifeen, and he was killed in this battle. When he referred to 'Ali, he would say 'I do not deem a person that killed my grandfather to be my friend'.
Rasool's (saw) testify those who hate Ali Ibn Abi Talib, they are Munafiqs

Sahih Muslim,Book 001, Number 0141:
Zirr reported: 'Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me.

So, mystery remains there why are these People taking this open Nasibi Manafiq to be their praiseworthy Narrator of Hadith? Don't they have any shame about this?

The Proof of Sending Curses(Lanat) on Yazid!

The Proof of sending Lanat upon Yazid is derived from this (ayah), as was mentioned by Al-Barzanji (rah) in his Al-Ashaat and Imam Haythami (rah) in As-Sawaiq from Imam Ahmed (rah) that his son Abdullah asked him about sending Lanah on Yazid, and how sending Lanah upon him is mentioned in the book of Allah (i.e. Quran). Imam Ahmed (rah) in proof of (sending Lanah upon Yazid) mentioned these verses:Would ye then, if ye were given the command, work corruption in the land and sever your ties of kinship? Such are the men whom Allah has cursed…(47:22-23), So could there be a greater fitnah than the actions committed by Yazid? 

[Ruh ul Ma’ani by Imam Al-Alusi, Volume 9 Under Surah Muhammad 22-23]
 

Cursing Yazeed from traditions (Ahadith) :

It has been narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Abu 'Ubaidah bin Jarrah (May Allah be well pleased with him) that the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said:  The affairs of my Ummah will continue with justice. The first person to disrupt it will be a person from Banu Ummayya, who will be called Yazid. 

(Musnad Abu Ya'ala, Musnad Abu 'Ubaidah Raziallahu anhu).

The famous Expert in interpretation of Holy Quran Abul Fida Ismail bin 'Umar who is famously known as Ibn Kathir has recorded this Hadith in his book Al Bidayah Wan Nihayah in Vol. 6 PG No 256

The great Hadith-expert Imam Shahabuddin Ahmed Bin Hajr Makki Haithami (May Allah shower His mercy on him) has also recorded this Hadith in As Sawaaiq Al Muhriqa, Pg No. 132.  He has also recorded another Hadith in this connection in the same book on Pg No. 132:

It has been narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Abu Darda (May Allah be well pleased with him), he said: I heard the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam): The first one to change my Sunnah will be a person from Banu Ummayya called Yazid.

Yazeed was indeed a Kafir!

"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".

Once in the gathering of Amir ul Momineen Hazrat Umar Bin Abdul Aziz [R.A] people talked about yazeed, someone among the people said ( Amir Ul Momineen to Yazeed ) Hazrat Umar Bin Abdul Aziz [R.A] replied in anger,'' you call Yazeed ( Bad Character Person ) as Amir ul Momineen?. Than Hazrat Umar Bin Abdul Aziz [R.A] gave order of 20 lashes to the person who called Yazeed Amir ul Momineen 

[ Tahdheeb Al' Tahdheeb Vol 1 Page 361]

Dear Readers,please tell how many lashes should be awarded to Zakir Naik for Praising Yazeed(may Allah cursed him)??

Yazeed Rejected the verses of Quran- References

REFER THESE SOURCES

1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihayah Volume 8 page 204 Dhikr Ras al Husayn

2. Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 2 page 249 Dkikr Yazeed

3. Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 73 Dhikr Yazeed

4. Sharh Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21 Surah Ibrahim

5. Shazrah al Dhahab page 69 Dhikr Shahadth Husayn

6. Maqatahil Husayn Volume 2 page 58 Dhikr Shahdath Husayn

7. Tadhkira Khawwas page 148

8. Tareekh Tabari Volume 11 pages 21-23 Dhikr 284 Hijri

9. Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani (commentary of Surah Muhammad)

Mr. Zakir Naik what would you about the person(Yazid) who openly mocked and rejected the verses of Quran!!!!

Would you say , may Allah be pleased with him.!!!!

Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to music, kept the company of boys with no facial hair,played drums, kept dogs,etc,etc!!

Ibn Kathir himself writes in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 1169 "Dhikr Yazeed bin Muawiyah":

"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], making frogs, bears and monkeys fight. Every morning he used be intoxicated and use to bind monkey with the saddle of a horse and make the horse run".

REFERENCE:AL BIDAYAH WAL NIHAYAH, VOL 8 PAGE  1169

Ibn Atheer's comments on Yazeed

 
In Tareekh 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".

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]."

Infamous speaker and so called Islamic Scholar Mr. Zakir Naik, how many books have you read before praising Yazid(may Allah cursed him and his followers)???

Yazid(l.a) rejoiced on killing of Imam Husain(a.s) and drank alcohol!!

Another great Mufassir and author of great books, a scholar accepted by all Sunni Muslims i.e. Qadhi Thana Ullah Panipati (rah) quoted Quranic ayah 14:28 and writes:

Quran states: Hast thou not seen those who gave the grace of Allah in exchange for thanklessness and led their people down to the Abode of Loss (14:28)

Tafsir: Bani Ummaiya had always rejoiced upon Kufr, however Abu Sufyan, Ameer Mu’awiya (RA) and Umaro bin Aas(RA) and others became Muslims. Later Yazid and his companions rejected the blessings of Allah and rose the flag of enmity towards Ahlul Bayt and finally brutally martyred Imam Hussain (RA) to the extent that Yazid even denied the Deen of Muhammad (salallaho alaihi wasalam). He after martyrdom of Imam Hussain(RA) said: Had my predecessors lived they would have seen how I took revenge from the family of Prophet (saw) and Bani Hashim, The couplet which Yazid made had this in the end: I will avenge Ahmed (i.e. Prophet Salallaho alaihi wasalam) for whatever he did with my predecessors in Badr (Naudhobillah). Yazid even declared alcohol as permissible and in praise of it he said: If liquor is Haram in the Deen of Muhammad (salallaho alaihi wasalam) then take it to be permissible according to the deen of Isa Ibn Marym (a.s). 

[Tafsir al Mazhari Volume 5, Pages 211-212]

Yazid (l.a) use to drink Wine!!

Imam Dhahabi Writes: Ziyad Haarthi narrated: 'Yazid gave me alcohol to drink, I had never drunk alcohol like that before and I enquired where he had obtained its ingredients from'. Yazid replied: 'it is made of sweet pomegranate, Isfahan's honey, Hawaz's sugar, Taif's grapes and Burdah's water'. Ahmed bin Masama' narrated: 'Once Yazid drank alcohol and started to dance, suddenly he fell down and his nostril began to bleed'. 

[Siyar al A'lam wa al Nubalah, Volume 004, Page No. 037,Publish al-Resalah, Beirut, Lebanoon ]

SCANNED PAGE 

Yazid was a confirmed Wine drinker

Yazid bin Muawiya(Faasik-o-Fajir)

It has been noticed that some people in their indirect or even direct hatred for Ahlul Bayt (Family of Prophet - Peace be upon him) try to cover the acts of Yazid and in this process they try to paint him into a great personality. With the Grace of Allah we shall see how this traitor to Islam (i.e. Yazid) got Imam Hussain (Radhi Allahu Anhu) martyred and how he ransacked Madina al-Munawwara and committed heinous crimes therein

Firstly we would like to present this beautiful sahih hadith of Prophet (Salallaho alaihi wasalam) regarding people who “Ransack” our beloved sanctuary called Madina al Munawara.

Imam Ahmed narrates this report from Sa’ib bin Khalad (RA) that the Prophet of Allah (Peace be upon him) said: Whosoever spreads injustice and frightened the people of Madina, then Curse (Lanah) of Allah, his Angels and all the people is upon such a person. 

[Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal as narrated by Imam Ibn Kathir in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah Vol 8 Page No. 274]

Quran states: Those who annoy Allah and His Messenger, Allah has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment (33:57)

 What could be a bigger annoyance to the Prophet than getting his grandson brutally martyred and ransacking the place which he had declared as Harram (i.e. Sacred)

1. The heinous crimes of Yazid
Imam Ibn Kathir (rah) says in his magnificent work of Tarikh under events of 63 AH
فقال ابن الزبير يا هؤلاء قتل أصحابكم فانا لله وإنا إليه راجعون
وقد أخطأ يزيد خطأ فاحشا فى قوله لمسلم بن عقبة أن يبيح المدينة ثلاثة أيام وهذا خطأ كبير فاحش مع ما انضم إلى ذلك من قتل خلق من الصحابة وأبنائهم وقد تقدم أنه قتل الحسين وأصحابه على يدى عبيد الله بن زياد وقد وقع فى هذه الثلاثة أيام من المفاسد العظيمة فى المدينة النبوية مالا يحد ولا يوصف مما لا يعلمه إلا الله عز وجل وقد أراد بارسال مسلم بن عقبة توطيد سلطانه وملكه ودوام أيامه من غير منازع فعاقبه الله بنقيض قصده وحال بينه وبين ما يشتهيه فقصمه الله قاصم الجبابرة وأخذه أخذ عزيز مقتدر وكذلك أخذ ربك إذا أخذ القرى وهى ظالمة إن أخذه أليم شديد

Translation:  Ibn Zubayr (Radhi Allaho Anho) said: O PEOPLE YOUR COMPANIONS HAVE BEEN KILLED – Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilaihi Rajiun

"Yazeed committed a mistake and that too a disgusting one by ordering Muslim bin Uqba to make Madina "mubah" for three days. This was his biggest and ugliest blunder. Many Sahaba and their children were slaughtered. As it has been mentioned before that Yazid made UbaydUllah Ibn Ziyad kill the grandson of Rasulullah (saw) Husayn and his companions, and in those three days huge heinous crimes happened in Madina about which nobody knows except Allah. Yazeed wanted to secure his governance by sending Muslim bin Uqbah but Allah did against his wishes and punished him. Verily Allah killed him likewise Allah made grip over the oppressing towns, no doubt His grip is painful and strict".[Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Vol 8 Page 283]

 2. Even Ibn Ziyad got outraged by Yazid

Yazid’s crimes were so heinous that even his loyal UbaidUllah Ibn Ziyad (whom he had sent to murder Muslim bin Aqeel and later Imam Hussain (ra) too) said:

كان يزيد كتب إلى عبد الله بن زياد أن يسير إلى الزبير فيحاصره بمكة فأبى عليه وقال والله لا أجمعهما للفاسق أبدا أقتل ابن بنت رسول الله ص وأغزو البيت الحرام وقد كانت أمه مرجانة قالت له حين قتل الحسين ويحك ماذا صنعت وماذا ركبت وعنفته تعنيفا شديدا قالوا وقد بلغ يزيد أن ابن الزبير يقول فى خطبته يزيد القرود شارب الخمور تارك الصلوات منعكف على القينات

Translation: When Yazid wrote to Ibn Ziyad that he should go to Makkah and besiege Abdullah Ibn Zubayr (RA) he refused to do so and said: By Allah I will not combine two things for a Fasiq (i.e. Yazid). I have already killed the son of Prophet (salallaho alaihi wasalam)’s daughter (on his order) and now (he asks me to) wage war on Bayt ul Harram? However when he martyred Imam Hussain (RA) his mother Marjana said to him: May you die! what have you done and what crime have you committed, she also scolded him severely. Yazid was informed that Abdullah Ibn Zubayr (RA) used to say in his speeches that Yazid was a fraud, drunkard, one who abandons Salaat and one who stays with singing women. 

[Al-Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Volume 8, Page No 279]

Imam Ibn Kathir (rah) further narrates:

ثم أباح مسلم بن عقبة الذى يقول فيه السلف مسرف بن عقبة قبحه الله من شيخ سوء ما أجهله المدينة ثلاثة أيام كما أمره يزيد لا جزاه الله خيرا وقتل خيرا خلقا من أشرافها وقرائها وانتهب أموالا كثيرة منها ووقع شر وفساد عريض على ما ذكره غير واحد فكان ممن قتل بين يديه صبرا معقل بن سنان وقد كان صديقه قبل ذلك ولكن أسمعه فى يزيد كلاما غليظا فنقم عليه بسببه


Translation: And he Muslim bin Uqba who is known as As-Salf Musraf bin Uqba, May Allah not do well to this leader of evil and ignorance, he made Madina legal for 3 days on the order of Yazid. May Allah also not grant Jaza and khayr to him(i.e. Yazid), he got many righteous killed and also looted the amwaal in Madina in great numbers, this has been multiply narrated that he created a lot of Shar and Fasad. It is mentioned that Hadrat Muafl bin Sanan (RA) was tied infront (of Ibn Uqba) and then martyred, you were his friend before but later you used strong words against Yazid due to which he became angry at you. [Al-Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Volume 8, Page No 280]

3. Yazeed’s aggression against the leading Tabi’i called Sa'eed Ibn Musaib (rah)

قال المدائنى وجىء إلى مسلم بسعيد بن المسيب فقال له بايع فقال أبايع على سيرة أبى بكر وعمر فأمر بضرب عنقه فشهد رجل إنه مجنون فخلى سبيله

Translation: Al Mudaini (rah) said: Sa’eed Ibn Musaib (rah) was brought to Muslim (bin uqba), He asked him to give bayah. (Sa’eed ibn Musab) said: I will give bayah on seerah of Sayyidna Abu Bakr and Sayyidna Umar (RA). (Muslim) ordered to get him killed but a man said This person (i.e. Sa’eed ibn Musaib) is a mad man (in order to save him), at this he was left alone. [Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Volume 8, Page No 281]

Imam Husain saved Islam-Confession by a Sunni Scholar

 

Yazid was deviated and  Islam was saved by Imam Husain(a.s)

Reply to the Question: Was Imam Husain (a.s) killed by Shias??

Yazid in the eyes of Ibne Hajar Asqalani

Yazid, according to Ibn Hajar Asqalani was not eligible to narrate a tradition of Holy Prophet(s.a.w).

Reference : http://referencelibarary.webs.com/apps/photos/photo?photoid=88118314

Zakir Naik, what do say about this?

Imam Hazm bin Zahiri writes about the crimes committed by Yazid(may Allah punished him in Hell forever):

1.He was responsibly for mass killing of  many companions of Holy Prophet in the event of Harrah in Medina.

2.He killed Imam Husain(a.s) and his Ahle Bayt.

3. He was responsible for the attack on Holy Kaaba.

4. He ill treated Zubair in Mecca.

All these facts are proven from history, still you believe Yazid was a 'nice' person!!!!

Yazeed bin Muawiya in the book of Ahle sunnat

 Deobandis Wahabis -Aur  Zakir Naik jaise log Yazeed ko Ameer ul Momineen Maante hai !!!

Aye Yazeed ke Haamiyon - Niche diye hua Reference ko dekh lo. Sirf Shia hi nahi Ahle Sunnat Hazraat bhi Yazid ko Kafir Jaante Hai.
Tum Kaun se Musalmaan ho jo Yazid ko Ameer ul Momineen Kehte Ho !!
Lanat ho tum per aur Tumhare Aaba o Ajdaad Yazeed per.

Supporters of Yazid, see the reference given below , even according to book of Ahle Sunnat Yazid was Kafir, adulterous, wine drunker. etc,etc.

Imam Husain(a.s) is Syed ush Shuhdah(Chief of Martyrs)

Objection : It was Hazrat Hamzah (ra) who was 'Syed ush Shuhdah' but later on Shias attributed this title to Imam Husayn

We would like to reply that till his period Hazrat Hamzah was exalted martyr among other martyrs that is because he was 'Syed ush Shuhdah' till that time but Imam Husayn touched the highest stage of martyrdom which entitled him to be called 'Syed ush Shuhdah'. And its not only Shias but a vast majority of Ahle Sunnah ulema also call him 'Syed ush Shuhdah'. For example Maulana Ahktar Shah of Merath (India) has called him as 'Syed ush Shuhdah' (see Tasdeeq e Shahadat, page 94), Maulana Shah Muhammad Suleman Phulwari in his 'Risala Shahadat Husayn o Risala Gham e Husayn' has written Imam Husayn as 'Syed ush Shuhdah', Maulana Muhammad Mubeen in his esteemed book 'Wasilat ul Nijaat ' (published in Lucknow) has written Imam Husayn as 'Syed ush Shuhdah' at many places. Moreover Imam of Ahle Sunnah and renowned anti Shia scholar Maulana Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi writes in his book:

"Syed ush shuhdah Imam Husayn (ra) attained martyrdom by the hands of enemies"
 

Reference :Tauhfa Athna Ashari, page 28 published by Fakhar al Matab`e 1268

Did Imam Hassan give bayah to Mu'awiya ? If yes, then why did Imam Husayn not likewise give bayya to Yazeed ?

Imam Hassan didn't give bayah to Mu'awyia rather he entered into a treaty with him. Authentic Sunni sources like Tareekh Abul Fida, Volume 1 page 182, Tareekh Khulfa page 130, Tareekh Kamil, Volume 3 page 190 and Tareekh Tabari, Volume 6 page 92 etc mention about the treaty and there is no mention of Bayah as one of the terms of the agreement. Moreover the most authentic Sunni work Saheeh Bukharee contains details of the treaty of Imam Hassan wherein there is no mention of bayah.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 49, Number 867:

Narrated Al-Hasan Al-Basri:
By Allah, Al-Hasan bin Ali led large battalions like mountains against Muawiya. Amr bin Al-As said (to Muawiya), "I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents." Muawiya who was really the best of the two men said to him, "O 'Amr! If these killed those and those killed these, who would be left with me for the jobs of the public, who would be left with me for their women, who would be left with me for their children?" Then Muawiya sent two Quraishi men from the tribe of 'Abd-i-Shams called 'Abdur Rahman bin Sumura and Abdullah bin 'Amir bin Kuraiz to Al-Hasan saying to them, "Go to this man (i.e. Al-Hasan) and negotiate peace with him and talk and appeal to him." So, they went to Al-Hasan and talked and appealed to him to accept peace. Al-Hasan said, "We, the offspring of 'Abdul Muttalib, have got wealth and people have indulged in killing and corruption (and money only will appease them)." They said to Al-Hasan, "Muawiya offers you so and so, and appeals to you and entreats you to accept peace." Al-Hasan said to them, "But who will be responsible for what you have said?" They said, "We will be responsible for it." So, what-ever Al-Hasan asked they said, "We will be responsible for it for you." So, Al-Hasan concluded a peace treaty with Muawiya. Al-Hasan (Al-Basri) said: I heard Abu Bakr saying, "I saw Allah's Apostle on the pulpit and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali was by his side. The Prophet was looking once at the people and once at Al-Hasan bin 'Ali saying, 'This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. a noble) and may Allah make peace between two big groups of Muslims through him."

We don't see any thing about bayah in the above cited tradition rather we learn that it was Mu'awiyah who had sent two people to Imam Hassan for the purpose of the treaty and Imam Hassan adopted the method which avoided bloodshed among Muslims.

Another comment supported by a question is often advanced from Nasibis, namely 'why didn't Imam Hassan choose to fight Mu'awiya rather than enter into a peace treaty?' We would like to reply that the Holy Prophet (s) had foretold that Imam Hassan will make treaty between two groups.

We read in Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 57, Number 89:

Narrated Abu Bakra: I heard the Prophet talking at the pulpit while Al-Hasan was sitting beside him, and he (i.e. the Prophet ) was once looking at the people and at another time Al-Hasan, and saying, "This son of mine is a Saiyid (i.e. chief) and perhaps Allah will bring about an agreement between two sects of the Muslims through him."
Thus it was not possible for Imam Hassan to oppose the words of the Holy Prophet (s) while rejecting the offer of treaty.

Sunni believe Yazid was superior to Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman!!!!

یزید خلیفہ ابوبکر عمر عثمان سے افضل تھا

یزید سنیوں کا وہ واحد خلیفہ ہے جس کا انتخاب پہلی بار امت کے عام استصواب سے ہوا -

بغض یزید سے دور رہیں ورنہ بغض یزید کی وجہ سے جہنم میں جانا پڑے گا

  

Sunni Caliphs v/s Shia Caliphs

Let us take a look at the two routes being adopted to reach the religion.
Sharra fiqa akbarby mulla ali qariis the hanafi book of aqaid.
On the very first page it is stated that the book sets out the aqeedah of ahl'ul sunna wa al jammah.

Everything set out in this book is the aqeedah of hanafi sunni muslim.Mulla ali qari sets out who the 12 khalifas are:

1) abu bakar
2) umar
3) usman
4) ali
5) mu'awiya (l)
6) yazeed bin mu'awiya (l)
7) abdul malik bin marwan
8) walid bin abdul malik bin marwan
9) sulayman bin abdul malik bin marwan
10) umar bin abdul aziz
11) yazeeb bin abdul malik bin marwan
12) hasham bin abdul malik bin marwan
 

Reference: Sharra fiqa akbar, by mulla ali qari, p176(publishers muhmmad saeed and son's, qur'an muhalla)

you might have noticed yazeed (the accursed - maloon) on 6th number.

This was one route, now lets have a look at the other path - the path of ahlul bait-e-muhammad

1) imam ali bin abi talib
2) imam hassan bin ali
3) imam hussain bin ali
4) imam sajjad bin hussain
5) imam baqir bin sajjad
6) imam jafar bin baqir
7) imam kazim bin jafer
8) imam ali bin kazim
9) imam muhammad bin ali raza
10) imam ali bin muhammad
11) imam hassan bin ali
12) imam mehdi bin hassan askari

If the caliphate (khilafat) had stayed with Ali bin abi talib as Shias claim and Abu bakr wasn't made the Caliph, the event of karbala would not have happened.
So these are two routes to reach and recognise deen.
Either you can choose the route of yazeed bin mu'awiya (maloon) or the route of imam hussain bin ali .

decision is yours!
But remember Abu bakr himself once said:
"No one will be able to cross the sirat (path) leading to heaven on the day of judgment unless he gets the stamp of Ali ."

Reference : al sawaiqh al muhriqa,by Ahmad ibn hajar al makki, p126(a sunni book against shias)

امام حسین (ع) کے ناصبی قاتلوں کا پیروکار کون ہے؟

امام حسین (ع) کا قتل کر نے والے وہی لوگ تھے جو یزید (لا) کی خلافت کو جائز تسلیم کرتے تھے۔ ہم شیعان ِعلی اپنے آپ ک یزید (لا) اور اُس کے ناصبی پیروکاروں سے دور رکھتے ہیں ۔ اب سپاہ صحابہ اور دیگر ناصبی تنظیمیں اور ویب سائٹس ہمیں پوری ایمانداری سے بتائیں کہ کیا وہ بھی ایسا کرتے ہیں ؟ اور کیا یہ لوگ ان سب لوگوں سے نفرت کا اظہار کرتے ہیں جنہوں نے نواسہ ِ رسول (ص) امام حسین (ع) کو قتل کیا ؟ بدقسمتی سے ایسا بالکل نہیں ہے ۔ ناصبی حضرات جو اپنے آپ کو سُنی کہتے ہیں یزید (لا) کے دفاع اور اسکی ثنا میں لکھ کر اُسے ایک نیک انسان ظاہر کر نے کی کوششیں کی ہیں ۔ مثلأ ہمارے پاس پاکستانی حنفی اسکالر کی کتاب "خلافت ِمعاویہ و یزید" موجود ہے جس میں مصنف نے اپنے خلیفہ دوم عمر بن خطاب اور یزید کے طریقہ ِ خلافت کو یکساں تسلیم کرتے ہوئے یزید کی تعریف کی ہے۔

اگر بات یہیں رک گئی ہوتی تو ناصبی اپنے آپ کو یزید (لا) سے مبرہ قرار دینے کی ناکام کوششیں کر سکتے تھے لیکن سپاہ صحابہ جیسے نواصب اپنے پیروکاروں سے جو تلخ حقیقت چھپا دیا کرتے ہیں وہ یہ ہے کہ ان کے سلف اماموں نے اُن لوگوں کو معتبر راوی تسلیم کرتے ہوئے احادیث روایت کی ہیں جن کے ہاتھ امام حسین کے خون میں رنگے ہوئے ہیں ۔ چونکہ وہ لوگ جن کی آستینوں پر خون ِ حسین ہے ان ناصبیوں کے آبا و اجداد ہیں اس وجہ سے انہیں اُن سے احادیث قبول کرنے میں کوئی شرم محسوس نہیں ہوگی لیکن جن لوگوں کا امام حسین (ع) کے قتل سے کوئی تعلق نہیں وہ ہمیشہ اُن سے نفرت کا اظہار کرینگے اور دینی معاملات میں اُن قاتلوں سے کسی قسم کا واسطہ نہیں رکھینگے۔

جہاں ہم شیعان ِ اھل ِبیت (ع) یزید ، ابن زیاد ، ابن سعد ، شمر وغیرہ پر لعنت بھیجتے ہیں وہیں اہل ِسنت امام انہی قاتلین ِ امام حسین (ع) کو اپنے مذھب میں احادیث کے ' ثقہ' یعنی معتبر راوی تسلیم کرتے ہیں اور عزت و احترام کے ھار ان کے گلے میں بنا کسی شرم کے ڈالتے ہیں ۔ آئیے اس تلخ حقیقت پر مذید روشنی ڈالتے ہیں اور سپاہ صحابہ جیسی ناصبی تنظیموں کی پلیدگی کو عیاں کرتے ہیں۔

عمر بن سعد بن ابی وقاص




اھل ِسنت کے علماء میں ایک نامور اور معتبر نام امام ذہبی جو عمر ابن سعد کے بارے میں تحریر کرتے ہیں:

ابن سعد نے اُس فوج کی قیادت کی جس نے الحسین کو قتل کیا، مختار انے ابن سعد کو قتل کیا
سیرا علام النبلاء ، ج 4 ص 349

اہلِ سنت کے امام ابن حجر عسقلانی نے اپنی کتاب تھذیب التھذیب میں حدیث کے حوالنے سے عمر ابن سعد کی مذھبی اہمیت بیان کرتے ہوئے لکھتے ہیں:

عمر ابن سعد بن ابی وقاص زہری ابو حفص مدنی کوفہ میں رہے۔ انہوں نے اپنے والد اور سعید الخدری سے روایت کیں ہیں ۔ ان کے بیٹے ابراہیم ، پوتے ابو بکر حفص، ابو اسحاق سبیعی، عزار بن حریث ، یزید بن ابی مریم ، قتادہ ،زہری ، یزید بن حبیب اور دوسروں نے بھی ان سے روایت کی ہیں۔
تھذیب التھذیب ، ج 7 ص 450 ۔ 451

یہ مشہور کتاب انٹرنیٹ پر موجود اس ویب سائٹ سے بھی ڈائون لوڈ کی جاسکتی ہے۔
www.almeshkat.net
( جلد 7 ترجمہ 747 )

Who killed Imam Husain(a.s)- Yazid or Shias??

As for the stupid claim that the Shia killed Imam Husain (AS), I would like to first ask you what is the definition of Shia. If Shia means all those who claim to love Ahlul-Bayt, then I can tell you that ALL Muslims, with no exception from the time of the Prophet till today are Shia! Even the Wahhabis are Shia by your definition. Shia means "followers", and as such those who forsake their leader can not be considered his followers by any stretch of imagination.

The true followers (Shia) of Ahlul-Bayt have always been in minority. The Shia of Imam Husain were those who stayed with him in Karbala (beside those who did not have ability to join him due to justifiable reasons. Examples include, but are not limited to: Ibn Abbas and Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari who were both blind at that time.)

Those who fought Imam Husain comprise those you claim to be Tabi'een (disciples of companions) whom you believe you should follow! Those who fought Imam Husain were NEVER the followers of Ahlul-Bayt unless you believe in contradiction. Those who joined the army of Yazid were rather the followers of Satan. Yes, some of those who wrote to Imam Husain to come over Iraq, did not support him later, for the simple reason that they were not his followers but rather the followers of their own whims. They were people who were tired of the oppression of the Umayad, and they were looking for a an easy relief. Some of them thought if Imam Husain takes over the power and they will be able to get rid of oppression and more importantly they were thinking of reaching to money, position in his government. But after the pressure of the agent of Yazid in Kufah and the enforcement of marshal law, and when they saw that their lives are in jeopardy and their dreams are unlikely to take place, they forsook Imam Husain's deputy.

They were no better than Talha and Zubair who supported Imam Ali at the beginning for their own worldly interests, but when they found that the Imam will not fulfill such interests for them they went against him and
fought him. Do you ever claim that Talha and Zubair were the Shia of Ali?
Certainly not. Shia means "followers", and those who forsake their leader can not be considered his followers by any stretch of imagination.

Dear Brother, you, as a Sunni, acknowledge Imam Ali to be a righteous Caliph. Does that make you Shia? Certainly not. Similarly, most of those who were living under the government of Imam Ali were not his followers, and that was why they rebelled against him for their own worldly interest, the list include: Aisha/Talha/Zubair and their supporters, as well as those whom Imam Ali named them al-Khawarij (kharijites) who disobeyed Imam Ali in the battle of Siffin and announced that Ali is a polytheist (Mushrik). No doubt that Imam Ali gave an oath that he will fight and kill all of them except nine individuals who will be able to escape (one of which later murdered Imam Ali (AS)), and this exactly happened in the battle of Nahrawan. Imam Ali
never called them Shia, nor the historians claimed them as such, but you do! The Shia of Imam Ali are those for whom the Messenger of Allah as follows:

 The Messenger of Allah said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you an your companions and your Shia (followers) will be in Paradise."
                             

Sunni references:
(1) Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655
(2) Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p329
(3) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289
(4) al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani
(5) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22
(6) al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous  authorities.
(7) al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247

Thus the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) used to say the phrase of "Shia of Ali". This phrase is not something invented later! Prophet Muhammad PBUH&HF) said that the true followers of imam Ali will go to Paradise, and this is a great felicity. Also Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari narrated that:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "The Shia of Ali are the real victorious in the day of resurrection/rising"

  Sunni references:
- al-Manaqib Ahmad, as mentioned in:
- Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p62
- Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, who quotes the tradition as follows: "We were with the Holy Prophet when Ali came towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shia will aquire salvation on the day of judgment."

The "day of rising" could also refer to the day of rising of al-Mahdi (AS).But in more general term, it means the day of judgment.

The stupid claim that Shia killed Imam Husain follows that the Prophet states those who will kill Imam Husain will go to Paradise! Perhaps, you believe that's why Yazid did so.

Such claim by Wahhabis has been made solely to cover the nasty face of the tyrannical leaders of that time and to drift the attention from their horrible crime, and to justify their rule. It will not be surprising that they have gone as far as saying it was the legitimate right of Yazid to take all possible action to preserve his dynasty. In contrast with the claim of these individuals, the Sunni history confirms that Imam Husain was killed by the direct order of Yazid (LA):

     Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid in Kufah) was leaving Iraq to Syria after killing the battle of Karbala, with a guard of his followers. Shuraih (the payroll Judge who gave verdict that the blood of Imam Husain is Halaal) noticed that he was silent for a long time,  he approached him and said: "O Ubaydullah, I think it bothered you that you killed Husain?! Ubaydullah said: No! Indeed Yazid had ordered me to either kill Husain or he (Yazid) will kill me.

Sunni reference: History of Ibn Athir, v4, p140

The above gives evidence to the fact that he was Yazid who gave the direct order to kill Imam Husain (AS). Later, when the scandal of his horrible crime and the abuse of the household of the Prophet started shaking his regime, he condemned the act of Ibn Ziyad in public and disassociated himself. It has also been reported that:

Yazid ordered the head of Husain brought to Syria, when it was put tohim he started abusing it and beating it with his stick and said the following Poetry:

 I wish that my elders in Badr witness the fear of Khazraj from the falling of the swords. Then they would have cherished and savored (my act) and by saying O Yazid may your arm be powerful (for getting revenge by killing Husain).

Sunni refernces:
- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch. 11, pp 331-332
- al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48
- Tarikh Alisalm v5, p18-19

Ibn al-Jawzi comments:

     It is not difficult to understand why Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid  in Kufah) fought Husain, but the more surprising was the brutality of Yazid in abusing the head of Husain and whipping Husain's mouth with his stick, and ordering to carry the household of the Prophet on camels without saddle, and many other shameful acts such as displaying his head in the city. It is certain that he (Yazid) did not have any intention but to humiliate (the household of the Prophet) by displaying the head. Such action is permissible only for al-Khawarij and transgressors. Had not Yazid have the rancor of the al-Jahiliyyah(the era before Islam) and the malice of (the defeat of his clan in the battle of Badr, he would have respected the head (of Imam Husain)when he had received it and he would have buried it with shroud.

Sunni references:
- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, pp 331,quoted from Ibn al-Jawzi.
- al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p48

Also Ibn Jawzi in his commentary about Ibn Hanbal's damning of Yazid said:

     "would there be a greater crime than killing Husain?!"
    
It should be noted that many Sunni scholars allow explicit curse of Yazid, among them are Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn al-Jawzi. Ahmad proves his opinion by Quran. (See al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v8, p223; also Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of Ch. 11, pp 331-332; also al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48). However, as Ibn Hajar wrote, the least thing that is agreed upon by ALL the Sunni scholars (including the pseudo ones) is as follows:

     It is unanimously agreed that it is permissible to curse those who killed Husain (may Allah be pleased with him) and those who ordered his killing and those who allowed it and those who were pleased witt that action, without explicitly mentioning the name of Yazid.

Sunni reference: Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, p334

Let us now see the opinion of the son of Yazid about his father and grandfather, who was the witness from within the royal family!

     ...When (Yazid) offered the kingdom (throne) to his son, Muawiyah the second, in order that the flag of caliphate continues to wave in the house of Abi Sufyan!!

     After his death, Muawiyah the second, gathered the people on a well known day, he stood in them preaching, he said:

     "My grandfather Muawiyah stripped the command from those who deserve it, and from one who is more justified of it, for his relation to the Messenger of Allah and his being first in Islam, and that is Ali Ibn Abi Talib, he (Muawiyah) took over it by your help as you are full  aware."

     "Then following it my father Yazid wore the command after him, and he did not deserve it. He quarreled with the son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and by that he shortened his own life... He rode his whim and hope left him behind." Then he cried and continued:

     "Surely, the greatest problems of us is our knowledge of his bad behavior and his awful ending, and that he killed the progeny (Itrah)of the Messenger of Allah, and he permitted drinking alcohol, and he fought in the sanctuary of Mecca, and destroyed the Ka'ba."

     "And I am not the one who is dressing up for your command, nor the one to be responsible for your followers... You choose for yourselves..!!"

Sunni References:
- Khulafaa al-Rasool, by Khalid Mohammed Khalid, p531 (The above Quote included author's punctuation.)
- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, pp 336

Now, please offer these reports to your Wahhabi friend and see if they to know better than the son of Yazid as to who killed Imam Husain.

Also Shabrawi wrote in his book that:

     "Would any man of reason doubts that Yazid killed Husain?"

Sunni reference: Alethaf, by Shabrawi, pp 62,66

Moreover, In Ibn Abbas's reply to a letter by Yazid, he said:

     Do not think that I will forget your crime of killing Imam Husain (AS)

Sunni reference: Tarikh Ya'qubi, v2, p249

Then can any man of reason think that Yazid did not order killing Imam Husain?!!! The above was just few Sunni documents out of many, to prove this fact.
Throughout Islamic history many mass conversions between Sunni and Shia occured. Two big examples are Egypt (Shia mostly and then mass conversion to Sunni) and Iran (Sunni mostly at one time and then mass conversion to Shia).

Dear brother, you have very distorted information for which you have no evidence. I am afraid, you are confusing between the government and people.
Most people of Persia were the followers of Ahlul-Bayt from the beginning of their conversion to Islam. One reason for their tendency to Shia was the discrimination that Umar enforced between the rights of Arabs and non- Arabs. Another reason was the injustice of some governors and their misconduct that was being carried on in the name of Islam, and so on. This gave reason to people for searching the truth and they found the shining light of Ahlul-Bayt and their followers such as Salman al-Farsi who was also an important factor. However, later, Umayad and Abbasid oppressive governments continued their injustice to Arabs and non-Arabs alike! They prosecuted the followers of Ahlul-Bayt in Persia, Iraq, Hijaz, and other places. The early Sunni government in Iran did not represent the belief of people as much as the today's governments in Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, United Arab Emirate, Amman, and Bahrain (which are all Shia dominated) do not represent the belief of their people.

As for the Fatimid rule in Egypt, you should better know that they were the offshoot of Ismailis. We do not consider Fatimid to be Shia of Imam Ali at all. They were among the political movements appeared centuries later.
Again the difference between the belief of people and the government should be noticed. Your claim concerning the conversion in Egypt is false. Based on "The Encyclopedia of Islam," the majority of people in Egypt were Sunnis during the entire reign of Fatimid, and as such, no conversion occurred when the Fatimid government collapsed. It was politically started and politically ended.

Thus neither in Iran nor in Egypt mass conversion from Sunni to Shia or vice versa occurred. No body can force a person to convert into another religion or school of thought, since belief is in the heart of People and not in ID. Those who convert their religion in their heart due to the pressure of government, did not have religion at all!  Recall the existence of many Arabs inside Hijaz in the Arabian Peninsula (what is now known as the kingdom of Saudi Arabia) who have been Shia of Imam Ali (AS) from the time of Imam Ali till now despite the fact that Hijaz has had the most oppressive regimes since the early history of Islam.

Did the Shias hit themself as a Punishment that they left Imam Husain(a.s)??

 Dear Brothers in Islam, 

If your father (may Allah grant him long life if he is still alive) dies, what will be your reaction to his death?
If you loved him a lot, you or other members of your family will cry for him. crying is a sign of missing a highly dear one for a person who has human heart.

Now, suppose he has been killed on the path of Allah with some noble ideas to implement. What will be your reaction to his martyrdom? Do you pass from it as in the case of a simple death? Or you raise your voice and try to keep his noble ideas alive by REMINDING people of his actions and thoughts and give them a LESSON on his bravery and sacrifices, and asking people to join his path and to KEEP ALIVE his noble thoughts?

[ One side remark here is that, just imagine that you and your brothers and sisters mourn for your father who has been martyred, and meanwhile some body jumps and accuses you of killing your father because you are mourning for him and based on his logic mourning is a sign of feeling guilty of murdering. What will be your reaction to such corrupted logic? I am really interested to hear from you. ]

Now, let us go further and consider a religious leader who has spent his lifetime in learning the religion and teaching others the way one should live and explaining the Islamic duties and thoughts. If such person is martyred by the tyrannical rulers, then our commemoration will include a much wider aspect, since this man is no longer a father of an individual, but rather a father for all those who were benefiting from his knowledge and guidance.

Finally, if we consider the supreme level of the Prophet Muhammad and his Ahlul-Bayt who were the best of mankind, the most knowledgeable, the most illustrious, the most god-fearing, the most pious, the best in personal virtues, and the most honored before Allah and the leaders for all the generations till the day of judgment, then one can comprehend that keeping their path alive is a DUTY upon us as their followers.

By commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Husain (AS), we learn lessons from his noble thoughts and convictions. Learning about what happened to him and his companions in the history will provide us a light for the future.
Learning about his actions has inspiring effects on our actions as well.

Question from a Muslim Brother: The other more puzzling thing is what happens during the celebration. Again I might be wrong and please correct me in a gentle way if I am. Usually during this celebration, my Shia brothers start hitting themselves on the head (Is it at that time or am I wrong ?) until in some cases they faint or blood starts getting out of their heads. I have even seen (on TV) pictures of small children being hit or being made to hit themselves (I admit that those could be fabrications and out of context pictures but that's what I've seen and I am ready to be corrected). I ask my Shia brothers and sisters, is this the way to celebrate ? Why do you hit yourselves ? 

Our Answers: I have never heard of small children being hit, nor have ever seen adults are being hit. What you pictured should be really an amazing ceremony. No my dear friend, there is no such silly actions. These are propagated by those who hate to see the remembrance of Ahlul-Bayt, and they resort to all possible means to mock to Followers of the Members of the House of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). And you has become their voice unwittingly, I presume.

Usually the ceremony includes speech by a learned man with regard to the movement of Imam Husain and his aims and his message. Then the speech continues to reminding the heart-breaking events of the catastrophe of
Ashura and those who have human heart will cry, and mourn. Of course, there are traditions transmitted by Ahlul-Bayt which state, crying for Imam Husain, or making others to cry for him (through speech and reminding the events) has a lot of rewards. In fact, all the prophets of God without any exception cried for Imam Husain and commemorated Ashura, including Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF). Not only that, but also the Jinns (unseen creatures) mourn for Imam Husain. I have mentioned some of traditions affirming this fact in my previous posts quoting from Sunni collections.

Nonetheless, we affirm that hurting own body is forbidden. Some people may get very emotional and do that, yet the rest are not to be blamed. An analogy is the case when a person loses a dear one, where s/he will cry for him. Due to the height of emotion one (specially women) may start beating herself to the extent that it causes harm for her body. This is what is forbidden, while what has no harm to body (including beating chest) is allowed. Thus the commemoration can not be questioned by the innocent overreaction of certain individual(s).

Question from a Muslim Brother:The explanation that I was given (by Non-Shia's mind you),  that Shia hit themselves as a punishment that they left Imam Hussein go from Koufah alone with a few men and did not help him. At the same time it was them who sent for him to come and lead them to fight for his right to be the Khalifah.

Our Answers: It is really amazing that you readily accept such rumor without even giving it a second thought. Even I suppose the Shia killed Imam Husain in year 61 AH, why should I feel guilty about what some people did in the history?
Even suppose my father killed Imam Husain, then why should I feel guilty of what my father did? The sin of a sinner will never be inherited to his offspring. (The ancestors may have a share of such sin if they mislead their offspring, but the reverse is never true). Thus such argument that we cry for Imam Husain since our fathers allegedly killed him would be the most stupid interpretation on the reason behind commemoration of Imam Husain (AS). I shouldn't expect any more intelligence from the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt.

My dear brother, we cry in the memory of Imam Husain, for:

1- all the messengers of God cried for him;

2- all the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt cried for him;

3- we love him more than we love our fathers and our dear ones;

4- he is a Symbol of resistance against tyranny and the leader of the Martyrs for us;

5- we want to swear allegiance to him and his path and keep aloof from their enemies;

6- his aims have not been fully achieved and his blood has not been revenged yet. As such, we keep this event with all its emotion alive until such time that Imam Mahdi (AS) appears who will cleanse the surface of the Earth form all such tyrants;

7- condolence to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) and the members of Ahlul-Bayt;

8- abiding the instruction of Ahlul-Bayt in remembering this event and seeking the reward associated with it.
And there are much more reasons that you will find if you switch the books at your disposal and study some Shi`ite literature regarding to Imam Husain (AS).

Nadeem Sarwar says why shias are considered Kafirs by Enemies of Islam?

Is Aashura a day of mourning or rejoicing?

Doubt: The tenth day of Muharram is ‘Aashura’. The Jews of Madinah fasted on this day, the day on which Prophet Moses (a.s.) and his followers crossed the Red Sea miraculously. So the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) directed the Muslims to fast on the day of Aashura.

Reply: The report is inaccurate. The real report is:

The Prophet (s.a.w.a) on migrating to Madinah found the Jews fasting on the 10th of Muharram. On enquiry, he was told: It is an auspicious day; it is the day when Allah delivered the children of Israel from their enemy (i.e. Pharaoh); and, therefore, Moses fasted on that day.

The Prophet (s.a.w.a) said, ‘I am worthier of Moses than you.’

Thereupon, he fasted on that day and ordered (the Muslims) to fast.

Saheeh-e-Bukhaari vol. 3 Egypt ed.pg 54, Mishkaat al-Masaabih Delhi ed. 1,307 A.H. pg l72

It is noted by the commentator of Mishkaat al-Masaabih that ‘it was in the second year, because in the first year the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had arrived in Madinah after Aashura, in Rabi al-Awwal.

It should be noted that the Jews had their own calendar and monthly cycles. There is no logic in saying that they fasted on the 10th of Muharram unless it could be proved that this date always coincided with a Jewish day of fast.

The first month of the Jews (Abib, later named Nisan) coincided with Rajab of the Arabs. W.O.E. Oesterley and Theodore H. Robinson have written that in Arabia the most important of all the new-moon festivals was that which fell in the month of Rajab, equivalent to the Hebrew month Abib, for this was the time when the ancient Arabs celebrated the Spring festival. (Hebrew Religion S.P.C.K., London 1955pg128)

Probably, in ancient times the two branches of Hazrat Ibrahim’s (a.s.) household followed the same system of intercalating an additional month. And in this way the 7th Jewish month, Tishri I, coincided with Muharram. And the Aashura of Muharram synchronized with 10th of Tishri I, the Jewish Day of Atonement �” a day of fast. The two calendars lost their synchronization when Islam, in the 9th year of Hijrah, disallowed intercalation. But on deeper consideration it transpired that this parity was lost long before the advent of Islam, because the Arabs did not follow any mathematical calculation in their intercalation. That was why Muharram of the 2nd year of Hijrah began on 5th July, 623 C.E. (Al-Munjid, 21st ed.), months before Tishri I (which always coincides with September-October).

Clearly, Aashura of Muharram in that year (or, for that matter, during the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) whole life at Madinah) had no significance whatsoever for the Jews.


Doubt: In the beginning, fasting on this day was obligatory but later, the fasts of Ramadan were made obligatory and the fast on the day of Aashura was made optional.

The sanctity of Aashura cannot be ascribed to this event for the simple reason that the sanctity of Muharram and the day of Aashura was established during the days of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), much before the birth of Husain (a.s.).

Reply:

The question is: Why did they fast on that day?

The Jewish Midrashic literature relates the 10th day of the 7th month (Yom Hakippurim �” Day of Atonement) to the event of bringing the tablets of the Covenant from Mount Sinai, as Dr. Mishael Maswari-Caspi has written in his letter.

The question is: If the Jews had wanted to keep the long-lost synchronization of Tishri I and Muharram in view, how was it that they forgot to narrate this tradition to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?

The month in which God delivered the Israelites from Pharaoh was Abib (i.e. Rajab), as the Bible clearly states: Observe the month of Abib, and keep the pass-over unto the Lord thy God: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. (Deut. 16:1)

The question is: How could the Jews transfer an event of Abib (originally coinciding with Rajab) to Muharram, in open defiance of their Torah?

Here is a point to ponder for the Muslims: The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was sent with a religion to abrogate all previous religions and Shariah. How was it that he deigned to imitate the custom of the Jews?

It is clear from above-mentioned facts that the Jews had no reason at all to fast on Aashura of Muharram at that period; and this story, built on that premise, is just that ” a fiction. Obviously, it was invented by a narrator who only knew that once upon a time Muharram coincided with the Jews’ Tishri I, but was totally unaware of contemporary Jewish religion and culture.

One feels constrained to mention here that this and other such traditions were forged by camp-followers of the Umayyads, after the martyrdom of Imam Husain (a.s.), as a part of their campaign to turn the 10th of Muharram into a day of rejoicing. These traditions are of the same genre as those which say that it was on the 10th of Muharram that Nuh’s (a.s.) ark rested on the mount, the fire became cool and safe for Hazrat Ibrahim (a.s.) and Hazrat Isa (a.s.) ascended to the heavens. In the same category came the traditions exhorting the Muslims to treat Aashura as a festival of joy, and to store one’s food-grains on this very day, as it would increase one’s sustenance and bring the blessings of Allah to the household.

Doubt: In fact, it is one of the merits of Husain (a.s.) that his martyrdom took place on this day. Another misconception is that it is an inauspicious month since Husain was killed during Muharram. Hence people avoid conducting marriages during this period.

This is baseless. If the death of an eminent person on a particular day renders that day unlucky for all times to come, no day of the year would be free from bad luck. The Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) have liberated us from such superstitious beliefs.

Reply:

This is nothing but blind prejudice since there are no traditions which state that it is haraam (unlawful) to conduct weddings on Aashura or in the month of Muharram and Safar. But what needs answering is whether a Muslim will choose to get married on the day his father or mother has passed away or on the day the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has passed away? Or will he exercise discretion and postpone the marriage by a few days as a mark of respect?

Are lamentations for Imam Husain (a.s.) part of Islam?

Doubt:
Lamentations, breast-beating and mourning in memory of Husain’s martyrdom are not sanctioned by Islam. Though such martyrdoms are tragic, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has forbidden holding mourning ceremonies on the death of any person.
People of Jaahiliyyah (ignorance) used to mourn over their deceased then the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) stopped the Muslims.

Shia Muslims mourning Martydom of Imam Husain(a.s)

Reply:
Azaadaari (mourning) is a means to express sorrow for the hardships suffered by the Ahle Bait (a.s.) at the hands of the caliphs of their time. The words of Imam of Ahle Sunnah Allamah Fakhrudeen Raazi are notable:

‘It is our firm belief that one who dies with love for the descendants of Muhammad (s) dies a martyr.’

(Tafseer-e-Kabir, vol 7, pg 390)

We read in Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah of Ibne Kasir in vol. 4, pg. 45, Beirut ed.
It is narrated by Abu Hurariah that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to visit the graves of martyrs every year. When he (s.a.w.a.) would reach the entrance of the mountain, he (s.a.w.a.) would say (to the martyrs): ‘Assalamoalaikum bi maa sabartum’. This means ‘Peace be on you due to your patience and you have reached a pleasant place due to this.’ Then after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Abu Bakr also used to come (every year), and after him Umar used to do the same and then Usman also did the same.

We read in Al-Bidaayahwa al-Nihaayah vol. 6 pg. 360:

Umar said ‘Whenever I venture out at sunrise, I remember the death of my brother Zaid b. Khattab.’

Obviously the remembrance of his brother’s death did not make him laugh; he was sorrowful (azaadaar).

We find in Taarikh-e-Yaqoobi, vol. 1, pg. 3:

The father and mother of humanity (Hazrat Adam (a.s.) and his wife Hazrat Hawwa (a.s.)) wept for their son Haabeel for so long that their tears turned into a stream.

In Rauzah al-Shuhadaa, pg 30 the same incident has been quoted by Mulla Husain Waaiz Kashifi who adds:

Tears from Adam’s (a.s.) right eye were flowing like the River Dajla and like the River Euphrates from his left eye.

Perhaps the following tradition may prove more convincing:
After the burial of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), the companions in a state of sorrow were virtually throwing dust over themselves, and were crying due to the separation from their beloved. Especially Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) was inconsolable; she was looking at the faces of her sons Imam Hasan (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) and was crying at their plight and her own plight. Even Aaesha was continuously crying and wailing. For several days and nights the voices of crying and mourning rose from this house which became house of grief (Baytul Huzn) and separation.

(Madaarij al-Nubuwwah, vol 2, pg. 753-754)

Mulla Ali Qaari in his book Al-Mirqaat fi Sharh al-Mishkaat from a narration by Imam Ahmed b. Hanbal quotes Imam Husain (a.s.):

‘Whoever weeps and cries upon me remembering my pain and miseries, Allah shall grant him Paradise.’

(Al-Mirqaat fi Sharh al-Mishkaatwith reference to Taarikh-e-Ahmedi, pg 277, printed in Kanpur)

One can refer to the Holy Quran via this hadis in Ahle Sunnah’s authoritative work Tafseer-e-Durr al-Manthoor,  vol. 4 pg 31:
The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was asked: What was the extent of Hazrat Yaqoob’s (a.s.) mourning for his son? He (s.a.w.a.) replied, ‘It was on par with mourning of 70 men and women.’ And what was the reward for this? He (s.a.w.a.) retorted, ‘It is on par with one hundred martyrs.’

And we read in Tafseer Khazaan vol.3 pg 253:

Yusuf (a.s.) said to Hazrat Jibrail (a.s.): Is my father adhering to mourning? Hazrat Jibrail (a.s.) said: The mourning of Yaqoob (a.s.) is on par with 70 men and women mourning. He then asked, ‘What is the reward for this mourning?’

He said: The reward for this mourning is on par with mourning of 100 martyrs.

Doubt: The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) stopped the Muslims from doing all this and directed them to observe patience by saying ‘Innaalillaahi wa innaa ilayhiraaji’oon’. A number of authentic traditions are available on the subject.
To quote one of them: He is not from our group who slaps his cheeks, tears his clothes and cries in the manner of the people of Jaahiliyyah. (Saheeh Bukhari).

Reply:

Please refer to the Holy Quran, which permits crying:

‘And he turned away from them, and said: O my sorrow for Yusuf! And his eyes became white on account of the grief, and he was a repressor (of anger).’

(Surah Yusuf (12): 84)

If you refer to the exegesis of this verse, it will be clear how much Prophet Yaqoob (a.s.) cried for his son ultimately forfeiting his eyesight in the process.
In Surah Nahl (16): 53, Allah declares: ‘And whatever favor is (bestowed) on you it is from Allah; then when evil afflicts you, to Him do you cry for aid.’
When Umar heard of Numan b. Muqrin’s death he beat his head and screamed, ‘O what a pity that Nu’man died.’

(Kanz al-Ummal, vol.8, pg. 117, Kitaab al-Maut)

As narrated by Tabari in his Taarikh vol. 9 pg. 183 (English translation by Ismail Poonawala):
Abbas narrates:
I heard Aaesha say: The Messenger of Allah died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of Allah died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women.

(Ibn Katheer in al Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah vol 5, pg 420)

Also refer to Ibn Katheer in al Bidayah wan Nihayah:
The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my face along with other women.

According to Saheeh-e-Bukhaari:
Anas b. Malik narrated:
We went with Allah’s Apostle (s.a.w.a.) to the blacksmith Abu Saif, and he was the husband of the wet-nurse of Ibrahim (the son of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)). Allah’s Apostle took Ibrahim, kissed him and smelled him. Later, we entered Abu Saif’s house at that time, Ibrahim was breathing his last and the eyes of Allah’s Apostle (s.a.w.a.) started shedding tears.

Abdul Rahman b. Auf said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Even you are weeping!’

He said, ‘O Ibn Auf, this is mercy.’
Then, he wept more and said, “The eyes are shedding tears and the heart is grieved, and we will not say except what pleases our Lord, O Ibrahim! Indeed we are grieved by your separation.”

Saheeh-e-Bukhaari, vol 2, book 23, tradition 390

We read in the traditions about the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.):
‘The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) was in a state where he was beating his chest.’

References:

1.   Saheeh-e-Bukhari vol. 2 pg 50

2.   Sunan-e-Nesaai vol. 3 pg 305

3.   Adhaan al Mufreed pg 426

4.   Saheeh-e-Muslim vol 1 pg 291

5.   Musnad-e-Abi Awaana vol. 2 pg 292

‘There is nothing against Islam in expressing grief, sorrow or in crying and weeping at the loss of a loved one.’

Fayz al Bari fi Sharh-e-Saheeh Bukhari, vol 12, pg 462, Egypt ed.

We read in Ahle Sunnah’s authority work Maarij al-Nubuwwah chap 1 pg 248:
Hazrat Adam (a.s.) was so distressed that he smashed his hands onto his knees and the skin from his hands caused gashes from which bone could be seen.

We read in Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah vol. 5, pg 243:
‘When Prophet (s.a.w.a.) died on the bed, the women who were around him (s.a.w.) had made their faces red by beating their faces.’

Doubt: Even Husain (a.s.), shortly before his demise, had advised his beloved sister Zainab (a.s.), not to mourn over his death in this manner.
He said, ‘My dear sister! I swear upon you that in case I die you shall not tear your clothes, nor scratch your face…’

Reply:

It is obvious from the numerous incidents of Zainab’s (s.a.) weeping in the presence of Imam Husain (a.s.) before his martyrdom that these statements are false and misleading.

When the forces of Yazid planned to attack the camp of Imam Husain (a.s.), Hazrat Zainab (s.a.) came to Imam Husain (a.s.) and asked why was there so much noise outside their tents, Imam replied that I just saw Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in a dream and he (s.a.w.a.) said that I will be meeting him (s.a.w.a.) tomorrow, hearing this Hazrat Zainab (s.a.) started crying and beating herself on the face.

Al-Bidaayahwa al-Nihaayah, vol 8, pg 176, Beirut ed.

In the same book it is mentioned:
Hazrat Zainab (s.a.) heard the elegies from Imam (a.s.). Reflecting on the tragedy of Karbala and the martyrdom of Imam Husain (a.s.) she cried, lamented and beat herself on the head until she fainted.

Al-Bidaayahwa al-Nihaayah, vol 8, pg 177, Beirut ed.

Similarly, we read in Sunan-e- Ibn Maajah, vol. 2, pg 285, published 1313 AH in Egypt.
Saad b. Abi Waqqaas reported from Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said ‘…shed tears and cry and if you can’t cry then make a crying face.’

The death of Imam Husain (a.s.) is an event on which not only humans, but even the jinn, angels, animals, birds, the sky and trees, have lamented. Thus, it is written that the sky wept for forty days on (the martyrdom of) Imam Husain (a.s.).

Yanabi al-Mawwaddah by Allamah Shaikh Sulaiman Hanafi Qundoozi, Constantinople ed. pg 392

Hafiz Abu Noaim writes in Hilyah al-Awliyaa on the authority on Imam Sha’bee, Zuhri, and Abu Qataadah:

When Imam Husain (a.s.) was martyred, the sun was eclipsed (so long) so that the stars appeared.

Waqiyaat-e-Karbala pg 75

Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi has narrated the lamenting and wailing of the jinn on pg. 96 of his book titled Sirr al-Shahaadatain. He has also quoted the verses of the elegy recited by the jinn while weeping over Imam Husain (a.s.).

Umme Salmah (r.a.) has also narrated: I heard the jinn mourning for Husain.

1.      Tarikh al-Kabir by al-Bukhari (the author of Saheeh), vol 4, part 1, pg 26

2.      Fazaa’il al-Sahaabah, by Ahmed b. Hanbal, vol 2, pg 776, tradition 1,373

3.      Tabarani, vol 3, pg 130-131

4.      Tahzib vol. 7

Suyuti states: When Imam Husain was martyred, the corners of the sky remained red for a four month period.

(Tafseer-e-Durr al-Manthoor vol. 6, pg. 31)

We find in the traditions that even the first and the second caliphs didn’t find lamenting loudly un-Islamic or against the Sunnah.

Refer to Kashf al-Ghummah pg. 175:

Abu Bakr and Umar would cry in such a way that the neighbors could hear them.

Again in the same book we read:
When Saad Ibn Maaz died, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Abu Bakr and Umar cried. Ayesha narrates ‘I recognized the cries of Abu Bakr and Umar although I was in my house”.

(Kashf al-Ghummah, pg. 174)

Ummul Momineen Aisha called people to read elegies on her father’s death and she herself lamented.

(Tarikh Kaamil, vol 2, pg 288; Iqd al-Fareed, vol 3, pg 65)

On the day that Abu Bakr died, the situation seemed as if Madinah would be flooded with tears.

(Tarikh al-Khamees, vol 2, pg 330)

There are numerous other traditions which prove the permissibility of Azaadaari in the light of the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and his revered companions. However, some Muslims choose to ignore them and raise the bogey of azaadaari being a form of innovation and deviation.

Conclusion

It’s an undeniable fact that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has given all Muslims the bounty of Islam for which we collectively cannot repay him. However, the only way we could try to do that is to follow the Holy Quran which states:

Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives..

Surah Shura (42): 23

The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has also stated, ‘Husain (a.s.) is from me and I am from Husain (a.s).
The Quranic verse and prophetic tradition are more than enough for any Muslim worth his salt to acknowledge the excellence of Ahle Bait (a.s.). The least one can do is remember and love the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his family (a.s.) rather than remaining partial to those who were responsible ever since the advent of Islam for hurting the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a) like Abu Sufyan, his son Muawiyah and his grandson Yazid.

Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddis-e-Dehlavi while explaining the philosophy of martyrdom writes in the preface of his book ‘Sirr al-Shahaadatain’:

‘The martyrdom of Imam Husain (a.s.) is in reality the martyrdom of his grandfather Muhammad Mustafa (s.a.w.a).’

Last few traditions from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
It has been mentioned in reliable traditions that often Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) mourned for Imam Husain (a.s.), which was obviously before his martyrdom.
The well-known scholar of 10th century A. H. Allauddin Muttaqi Hindi in his book ‘Kanz al-Ummaal’ has quoted Ibn Abi Shaibah, who has related from Umme Salmah, the wife of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), that ” Once Imam Husain (a.s.) came to Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) when I was sitting near the door. I saw that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had something in his palm, which affected him, making him weep profusely. By now Imam Husain (a.s.) had fallen asleep in his lap. I asked about the matter. He replied: ‘Jibrail has brought the earth of the place where Husain (a.s.) will be martyred and informed me that people of my Ummah will slay him.’

Kanz-ul-Ummaal vol. 2

One day, Umm Fazl, wife of Abbas ” the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) uncle ” approached the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and informed him (s.a.w.a.), ‘O Prophet of Allah! I had a nightmare. I dreamt as if a piece of your flesh was flung in my arms.’

The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informed, ‘The dream is true. Faatemah will give birth to a son and he will be brought to you.’ As predicted on Husain’s (a.s.) birth, he was brought in my lap. One day, I brought the infant to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). For some time, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) took his eyes away from the infant. When he (s.a.w.a.) glanced at the infant again, his eyes welled up with tears.

I said, ‘May my father and mother be sacrificed on you O Prophet of Allah, why are you crying?’


He (s.a.w.a.) informed, ‘I have just been informed by Jibrael that my nation will kill him.’


I asked, ‘Will it be this son?’ He replied in the affirmative. Jibraeel also brought reddish sand for me.’

Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Saheehain by Haakim Neishapouri, vol 3, pg 176

Yazid b. Muawiyah – A Branch of the Cursed Tree

His father’s name was Muawiyah and that of his grandfather ” Abu Sufyan. His grandmother was Hinda ” the one who ate the liver of Hazrat Hamzah (a.s.), the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) uncle, after the battle of Ohad. She was notorious throughout Mecca as being a woman of loose character. She had a string of lovers and paramours. Abu Sufyan’s cousin Musaafir b. Amr who was famous among the Quraish for his good looks, generosity and skill as a poet, became Hinda’s lover. Even after marrying Abu Sufyan, Hinda did not severe her amorous and illicit relationship with Musaafir. And so Musaafir is one of the four people considered to have possibly fathered Muawiyah.

Sharho Nahjil Balaghah by Ibne Abil Hadid, vol. 1, pg. 30

One Eye man,Mufti of Mecca defending Maloon Yazeed

Yazid’s mother’s was Maisoon b. Bakhdal Kalbi, a Christian. She was extremely beautiful due to which Muawiyah became inclined towards her. However when she conceived Yazid, Muawiyah abandoned her. Hence, Yazid was born in her house where she and many other women of immoral character breast-fed him.

Yazid’s genealogy and the immoral deeds of his parents and grandparents have been widely chronicled. Abu Sufyan, Hinda the liver eater, Marwaan and their cronies were in the forefront in opposing the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the Ahle Bait (a.s.).

The despicable attributes of Yazid
Every society and all religions of the world declare alcoholism, gambling, genocide, incest, fornication and the like to be the worst of actions. Humanity deems that any person who indulges in these acts should be condemned. Islam has denounced these activities, declared them to be unlawful (Haraam) and threatened with severe punishment, both in this world as well as the hereafter, for those who commit them. Moreover, a friendly relationship with such people too is prohibited in Islam. A far cry indeed from declaring such persons to be caliphs and leaders. 

The Holy Quran says:‘And obey not from among them any sinner or ungrateful one.’(Surah Insaan (76):24)

According to Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanavi, sinner or ungrateful implies “a wrongdoer or an unbeliever”.

The word of Quran is clear. They have no one to blame but themselves for having chosen such persons as their leaders. Now let us throw some light on Yazid’s character.

Yazid relieved Walid of his position as Governor of Medina and appointed Usman b. Muhammad b. Abu Sufyan in his place. Usman despatched a delegation of notables of Medina which included Abdullah b. Amr-e-Makhzoomi, Abdullah b. Hanzala Ansari, Fandar b. Zubair and others to Yazid who gave them a great reception and on their departure, showered them with lavish gifts. However, when the same delegation returned to Medina, its members spoke out against Yazid and his deeds, saying:

‘We have visited a person who has no faith whatsoever. One who drinks wine, plays the tambourine and has prostitutes thronging his court. He plays with dogs and sleeps with children and slave-girls. O people, bear witness that we hereby dismiss Yazid from the post of Caliphate.’

On hearing this, many refused to acknowledge Yazid as a Caliph.

Tarikh-e-Tabari, vol. 4, pg. 3, The Events of 62 A.H.

Here we have Tabari bringing to light the gist of Yazid’s abominable qualities by narrating one incident. However other writers like Masoodi in Murooj al-Zahab, Sibt b. Jawzi in Tazkeratul Khawaas, Tabari in Taarikhul Umam, Ibn Athir in Al-Kaamil, Yaqoobi in his Taraikh and others have also recorded numerous unabashed sins and iniquities of Yazid. Here, we restrict ourselves to mentioning a few incidents.

After the tragedy of Karbala, Yazid invited Ibn Ziyaad to his court, bestowed gifts upon him and gave him a free rein in his harem. One night, while lying intoxicated with his head in Ibn Ziyaad’s (l.a.) lap, he ordered that songs be sung and then addressed the wine bearer thus:

‘O wine bearer! Give me wine enough to fill my heart with joy. Then let Ibn Ziyaad drink similarly, for he is the one who is aware of my secrets and possessions. The one whose hands strengthen my caliphate, the one who fills my coffers with war-booty, the one who killed the Kharijite (Imam Husain (a.s.), God forbid), and has vanquished my enemies and those envious of me.’

Tazkirah al-Khawaas by Sibt ibn Jauzi, pg 290

This and several other incidents also serve as reminders to those who deny Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.).

Proclamation of enmity with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the denial of the Day of Judgment.

Yazid while addressing Aalia, a concubine of his harem sung the following verses:

‘O Aalia! Come near me, give me wine and sing me a song,
Because I dislike praying to Allah, 0 Aalia! Speak to me of Aby Sufyan who was a great man,
As he moved with great swiftness towards Ohad (to battle the Muslims),

He showed great valour against Muhammad (i.e. he killed many Muslims),

And caused the wailing and grieving Muslim women to gather in a large group,

O Umme Ahim (Aalia’s acronym), after I die, marry again,

And hope not to meet me on the Day of Reckoning,

For all that has been said about that day is meaningless and untrue;

Spoken merely to pacify the heart.’

Tazkirah al-Khawaas by Sibt ibn Jauzi pg 291

The following poem proves that Yazid never submitted to Islam nor to the teachings of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

‘Neither has any divine information descended nor any revelation made (to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)).

Naasekh al-Tawaarikh, ch. 3, pg.136, Taarikh-e-Tabari, vol. 11, pg. 358