Why do Shias cry so much during Muharrum?

Again, a rather simple answer - Shias are in mourning, crying is the natural response. People try to claim that somehow crying is wrong and un-Islamic but it has been encouraged by the Holy Prophet and is mentioned clearly in the Holy Quran.

"And when they listen to the revelation received by the Messenger, thou wilt see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: they pray: "Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses." (Quran, Surah 5, Verse 83)

Shia Women Mourning during Muharrum

 

Surah Yusuf (no. 12) goes on to describe what happened to Prophet Yacub when he discovered that Prophet Yusuf had gone missing.

"And he turned away from them, and said: "How great is my grief for Joseph!" And his eyes became white with sorrow, and he fell into silent melancholy." (Quran, Surah 12, Verse 29)

Prophet Yacub cried so much his eyes went "white with sorrow." During the time of the Holy Prophet after the Battle of Uhud and the martydom of his uncle Hamzah, Tabari narrates in his book: "The Messenger of God passed by a settlement of the Ansar of the Banu Abdal al-Ashhal and Zafat and heard sounds of lamentation and women weeping. The Messenger of God’s eyes filled with tears and he wept, but then he said “Yet Hamzah has no women weeping for him”. When Saad bin Muadh and Usayd b. Hudayr came back to the settlement of the Banu Abdal al-Ashhal, they told the women to gird themselves up and go and weep for the Messenger of God’s uncle." (The History of the Prophets and Kings, Vol 7, pg 137) The Holy Prophet encouraged his followers to cry and mourn the loss of his uncle and yet we are not meant to cry when remembering the death of Imam Hussain (as).

This idea that it is somehow wrong to cry, to get emotional over such a loss is absurd. Hanafi scholar Sheikh Sulayman ibn Ibrahim Qandoozi sums it up best: "The grief of Imam Husayn (as) is the grief on which not only Humans, but even jinnat, Angels, animals, birds, the sky and trees, all lament. Thus it is written that the sky wept for forty days on (the martyrdom of) Imam Husayn (as)"

Wasn't Imam Husain (as) wrong to revolt against the ruler of his time, Yazid?

In 2007, Peace TV owner Dr. Zakir Naik sparked controversy when speaking in his annual Peace Conference. He claimed that the tragedy of Karbala was merely a "political war," a "difference of opinion" and went on to call Yazid Radiallah ta'la anho (may Allah be pleased with him)! He was rightly condemned by Shia and Sunnis alike.

Zakir Naik - a well wisher of Yazid

 

Firstly, Yazid was never a legitimate rule of the Islamic kingdom. He was appointed as successor to his father Muawiya ibn Abu Sufyan after his death - totally going against the treaty that Muawiya has struck with Imam Hasan (as). After his death, the caliphate was meant to return to Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (as). If he wanted to, Imam Husain (as) was perfectly entitled to stand up against Yazid.

Secondly, Imam Husain (as) did not lead a revolt against Yazid. He never set out to fight against Yazid's army. When he was faced with Hur and his small battalion as they commanded him to turn his camp and escorted him to Karbala, he had the upper hand and could've resisted, but he never intended to fight or be the aggressor.

Charles Dickens perhaps understood it best when he said "If Hussain fought to quench his worldly desires, then I do not understand why his sisters, wives and children accompanied him. It stands to reason therefore that he sacrificed purely for Islam." Imam Husain (as) did not revolt against Yazid, he went out of his way leave Medina in order to avoid any bloodshed. He was happy to leave the rule of Yazid and be left alone

Were Shia's responsible for killing Imam Husain (as)?

Before the events of Karbala, Imam Husain (as) was living in Medina. He was facing increasing pressure to give allegiance to Yazid ibn Muawiya. Fearing violence in the holy city of Medina, Imam Husain (as) was looking for a way out of the city. The people of Kufa wrote several letters to the Imam inviting him to come and live amongst them, to lead as their Imam.

Imam Husain (as) sent his cousin Muslim ibn Aqeel to visit Kufa and see for himself how genuine the support was for the Imam. Upon his arrival, Muslim was greeted by thousands of well-wishers confirming their allegiance to Imam Husain (as), begging for his arrival. Yazid sent the cursed Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad to replace the sitting governor after Umar ibn Saad (leader of Yazid ibn Muawiya's army at Karbala) wrote to him, making him aware of the situation: "Muslim bin Aqeel has come to Kufa and the Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali. If you have any need of Kufah then send a strong man there who will carry out your orders and act in the same way as you would against your enemy. Al Nauman bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man" (Tabari, Chaper 19). Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad quickly spread fear around Kufa, threatening to kill anyone who supported the arrival of Imam Husain (as).

Unfortunately, the faith of the Kufans was not strong; Islam had only arrived in Kufa during the calpihate of Umar ibn Khattab. He had set it up as a military fort during his rule and it was then the hub of Imam Ali's (as) caliphate. When word of the threats of Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad spread, the supporters fled in their droves out of fear. Muslim ibn Aqeel was captured and executed after refusing to turn away from Imam Husain (as).

This idea that because the Kufans turned their back on Imam Husain (as) when threatened by torture and killings and therefore were responsible for the Imam's death is wrong. Ubaydullah's threats were not mere words, he imposed a curfew on Kufa, actively sent his army to look out for people who were supporting Muslim ibn Aqeel and even spread rumours that the Syrian army was arriving to support him in his quest to shut down any support for Imam Husain (as). "Women began to come to their sons and brothers, urging them to go away as the people would be enough without them. Every man went to his son or his brother telling him, ‘Tomorrow the Syrians will come against you. What have you to do with the war and this evil doing? Go away.’ Thus, each took someone away. They continued to disperse so that by the time evening came Muslim b Aqil only had thirty men with him in the mosque" (Tabari, Chapter 19).

 

Great fear was spread throughout Kufa by his aggressive actions and many supporters of Imam Husain (as) were executed in Kufa. Despite this, several Shia Kufans managed to escape the city and fought alongside Imam Husain (as), sacrificing their lives in Karbala.

Did Yazeed express sadness at the death of Imam Hussain (as)?

Nasibi Azam Tariq's lies continue as follows:

Azam Tariq stated:
THE FACT IS THAT WHEN THE NEWS OF HAZRAT HUSAYN'S MARTYRDOM REACHED YAZID, HE AND HIS FAMILY WEPT. YAZID EVEN SAID: "CURSE OF ALLAH BE ON UBAIDULLAH BIN ZIAD. BY ALLAH! IF HE HAD BEEN A RELATIVE OF HAZRAT HUSAYN HE WOULD HAVE NEVER KILLED HIM. I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF IRAQIS WITHOUT THE KILLING OF HAZRAT HUSAYN." THEN HE ACCORDED A VERY GRACIOUS HOSPITALITY TO THE REMAINING FAMILY MEMBERS OF HAZRAT HUSAYN AND ARRANGED THEIR RETURN JOURNEY TO MADINAH WITH GREAT HONOUR AND RESPECT. 

Reply One

The cited report about Yazeed getting upset over the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) is primarily in Tarikh Tabari contain an unknown arrator in its chain. We challenge Nawasib to either prove the authenticity of the narration or shut up and accept that Yazeed was the lead culprit in the murder of Imam Hussain (as).

Reply Two

Tariq's reference that we presume is a crude translation of the text in al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Was only partially translated the actual text that we are quoting from al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 235 is as follows:

إن يونس بن حبيب الجرمي حدثه قال: لما قتل ابن زياد الحسين ومن معه بعث برؤوسهم إلى يزيد، فسر بقتله أولا وحسنت بذلك منزلة ابن زياد عنده، ثم لم يلبث إلا قليلا حتى ندم

Yunus bin Habib al-Jarmi said: 'When Ibn Ziyad killed Husayn and his companions and sent their heads to Yazeed, he [Yazeed] became happy at the death of him (Husayn) which is why the position of Ibn Ziyad was elevated, but this happiness was only short lived and then he regreted'.

This text confirms that Yazeed was pleased that Imam Husayn (as) had been killed and the rank of his killer Ibn Ziyad had automatically increased in Yazeed's estimation. The happiness being short-lived means that rebellions arose to avenge Husayn (as)'s martyrdom that threatened to destroy Yazeed's khilafat - Madina, Makka and Iraq all rose up against him, which is why he sent his army in to burn the Ka'aba and sack Madina. Nawasib are not horrified by such actions by their khalifa, since they share the doctrine of Al Qaeda that deem it lawful to kill, maim and rape to attains ones objectives. This is as they have no sense of anything being sacred save the remembrance of the Santas. They even reproach other Sunnis for reciting blessings upon the Prophet (saws).

Moreover, in al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 235 we read that the situation reached a point of embarrassment for Yazeed that he said:

ثم يقول: لعن الله ابن مرجانة فإنه أحرجه واضطره، وقد كان سأله أن يخلي سبيله أو يأتيني أو يكون بثغر من ثغور المسلمين حتى يتوفاه الله، فلم يفعل، بل أبى عليه وقتله، فبغضني بقتله إلى المسلمين، وزرع لي في قلوبهم العداوة، فأبغضني البر والفاجر بما استعظم الناس من قتلي حسينا، مالي ولابن مرجانة قبحه الله وغضب عليه.

'Curse be upon Ibn Marjana [Ibn Ziyad] for he pained Husayn and made him desperate although Husayn had asked him to be allowed to go wherever he wanted to or to come to me or he be allowed to go to the border but Ibn Ziyad rejected this and killed him and it is now due to this, that Muslims shall bear enmity towards me, now every person, good and bad shall bear hatred in their hearts towards me, people shall be shocked at my killing Husayn. I have nothing to do with Murjana's son. May Allah destroy him and reap destruction upon him'.

Carefully analyse the final comments of Yazeed in this regard:

"now every person, good and bad shall bear hatred in their hearts towards me, people shall be shocked at my killing Husayn."

These words clearly prove that the killing of Imam Husayn (as) was upon the orders of Yazeed, and t his act of cursing Ibn Ziyad was in effect a tactical method to cover up his own culpability. These were crocodile tears shed to display false grief as the Ummah now wanted revenge and were blaming Yazeed. Indeed, the Islamic heartlands of Makka, Madina and Kufa were now in open armed rebellion and Yazeed had lost control there.

Ibn Katheer further commented as follows:

وقد لعن ابن زياد على فعله ذلك وشتمه فيما يظهر ويبدو، ولكن لم يعزله على ذلك ولا عاقبه ولا أرسل يعيب عليه ذلك

“And it appears that Ibn Ziad was cursed and insulted for what he did but he did not sack him nor did he punish him nor did he rebuke him for his actions”
al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 204

If the argument is Yazeed didn't physically kill Imam Husayn (as) then these Nasibi should know that Pharaoh is deemed the killer of the Israelites even though he only issued the order for boys to be executed and didn't use the sword himself. Irshad al Sari Volume 10 page 171 Bab ul Fitan states clearly that Yazeed was happy at killing Imam Husayn (as) and his disrespect of the family of Rasulullah (s) is a proven fact.

Let us see the comments of the Majid Ali in Bahar Shariat:

'Those who in this day and age state 'who are we to comment on Yazeed and Husayn and that they were both Princes' are cursed, Hell bound individuals.'

Thus, reports which show that Yazeed was very happy at the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (as) but later altered his opinion and became sad shall not assist the present day Nawasib since the sadness letter expressed by Yazeed was not on account of remorse for his unforgivenable sin but was to a response to the public opinion that had swelled against him. We read in Tarikh Khulfa:

ولما قتل الحسين وبنو أبيه بعث ابن زياد برؤوسهم إلى يزيد فسر بقتلهم أولا ثم ندم لما مقته المسلمون على ذلك وأبغضه الناس وحق لهم أن يبغضوه

“When Hussain and his family were killed, Ibn Ziyad sent their heads to Yazeed. He (Yazeed) was happy with it in the beginning but after that, when the people hated him for that, he then expressed regret but people should indeed have hated him”

The change in emotions was to quell public anger not due some remorse on his part.

Reply Three

Yazeed’s maltreatment of the blessed head of Imam Hussain which had the honor of being kissed by the Holy Prophet (s) shall suffice to evidence Yazeed’s actual reaction at the death of Imam Hussain (as). Imam Ibn Jauzi records in his book Al-Rad ala al-Mutaseb al-Aneed Al-Manee men Zam Yazeed, page 58:

قال ابن ابي الدنيا وثنا سلمة بن شبيب قال ثنا الحميدي عن سفيان قال سمعت سالم بن أبي حفصة يقول قال الحسن جعل يزيد بن معاوية يطعن بالقضيب موضع في رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم واذلاه

Ibn Abi Dunya recorded from Salamah bin Shabib from al-Humaydi from Sufyan from Salim bin Abi Hafsa from Hassan (al-Basri) saying: “Yazeed bin Mu'awyia was prodding with a stick that place kissed by Allah's messenger kissed, how shameful!”.

Al-Hassn al-Basri: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Salim bin Abi Hafsa al-Khayat: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Sufyan al-Thawri: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Abdullah bin al-Zubair al-Humaydi: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Salamah bin Shabib: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Abdullah ibn Abi Dunya: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Seduq’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Hassan al-Basri died in year 109 H and he was 89 years old as its mentioned in Tahdib al-Kamal, which means he was 41 years old when Imam Hussain was martyred. We should also point out that narrator Salim bin Abi Hafsa al-Khayat is not the only narrator to transmit the tradition rather there are three more reliable narrators from the same generation (tabaqa) as of Salim who have narrated the same incident in the same book and in the science of Hadith such a method of determining authentication of a tradition is called Mutab'a which has also been used by the Imam of Salafies Albaani. The three narrators are Imam Muhammad al-Baqar: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Khalid bin Yazid al-Saksaki: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib). Layth bin Saad: Ibn Hajar said: ‘Thiqah Thabt’ (Taqrib al-Tahdib).

Those who were involved in the murder of Imam Hussain (as) are Kafirs

Since we have proved the involvement of Yazeed (Laeen ibn Laeen) in the murder of Imam Hussain (as), let us now present the edict of one of the legendary Suni Imams, Imam Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Asad al Yameni popularly known as Al-Yaf’ee as recorded by Ibn Emaad al-Hanbali in his authority work Shazarat al-Dahab, Volunme 1 page 68:

قال اليافعي : وأما حكم من قتل الحسين ، أو أمر بقتله ، ممن استحل ذلك فهو كافر

Yaf’ee said: ‘Whoever killed Hussain or gave orders to kill him whilst he deemed it a lawful action, is a Kafir’

Yazeed Killed Imam Hussain (as)-Sunni Sources

Azam Tariq Nasibi stated:

"IT WOULD BE SEEN THERE FROM THAT YAZID HAD NO HANDS IN THE MURDER OF HAZRAT HUSAYN. MOST OF THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS ARE WRITTEN BY SHIAS AND AS SUCH HEAP ALL SORTS OF RUBBISH ON YAZID OUT OF SHEER CONTEMPT AND HATRED AND DEPICT HIM IN ALARMING COLOUR WHICH IS FAR FROM TRUTH AND REALITY. STILL SOME OF THE IGNORANT MUSLIMS ACCUSE HIM UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SHIAS. THE FACT IS THAT WHEN THE NEWS OF HAZRAT HUSAYN'S MARTYRDOM REACHED YAZID, HE AND HIS FAMILY WEPT. YAZID EVEN SAID: "CURSE OF ALLAH BE ON UBAIDULLAH BIN ZIAD. BY ALLAH! IF HE HAD BEEN A RELATIVE OF HAZRAT HUSAYN HE WOULD HAVE NEVER KILLED HIM. I WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF IRAQIS WITHOUT THE KILLING OF HAZRAT HUSAYN."

Here we shall cite the following reputable texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah, that confirm that Yazeed killed Imam Husayn (as):

1. Maqatil Husayn al Khuwarzmi Volume 2 page 80 Chapter 9
   
2. Ya Nabi al Mawadah page 223 Chapter 91
   
3. Tareekh al Yaqoobi Volume 2 page 299 Dhikr Yazeed
   
4. Matallib al Saul Volume 2 page 26
   
5. Nur al Absar page 139
   
6. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya page 219 Dhikr 63 Hijri
   
7. Tareekh Kamil Volume 4 page 69
   
8. Tareekh Tabari page 408 Dhikr Ibn Ziyad
   
9. Akhbar al Tawal page 384
   
10. Tadkira tul Khawwas page 159
    
11. Hayaat al Haywaan Volume 1 page 88
    
12. Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 301
    
13. Sawaiq al Muhriqa page 134
    
14. Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 73
    
15. Tauhfa Ithna Ashari page 6
    
16. Ash Shiaath al Lamaat Volume 4 page 623 Bab Manaqib Quraysh
    
17. Shazarat al Dhahab Volume 1 page 69 Dhikr 61 Hijri
    
18. Murujh al Dhahab Volume 3 page 71 Dhikr Yazeed
    
19. Tafseer Mazhari Volume 5 page 21 Part 13 Surah Ibrahim
    
20. Aqaid al Islam pahe 232 ny Maulana Abdul Haqq Haqani
    
21. Imam Pak aur Yazeed Paleed page 88
    
22. Aqaid Nafsee page 113
    
23. Sharh Maqasad Volume 2 page 309
    
24. Nuzul al Ibrar page 97
    
25. Irfan Shariat Volume 2 page 21
    
26. Fatawi Maulana Abdul Hai page 79
    
27. Shaheed ai Kerbala pages 11-12 by Mufti Muhammad Shaafi
    
28. Irshad al Sari (Sharh Bukhari) Volume 10 page 1717 Bab ul Fitan
    
29. Durre Maarif Volume 4 page 295 Dikr Zeyneb binte 'Ali
    
30. Sharh al Muneer Sharh al Sagheer Volume 1 page80
    

We read in Irfan ai Shariat:

"Yazeed tore away a piece of Rasulullah's heart, starving him for three days and then killing him, together with his companions and then he ordered horses to trample his body after his martyrdom, his body was ripped to shreds. Hi head was then placed on a spear, this was a head that Rasulullah (s) would kiss. The head was exhibited at various places, people of the household were arrested and brought before the wicked Yazeed, cursed is he who does not deem such acts as atrocious".

Are all these men, together with the authorities cited at the start including the Grand Sheikh of the Wahabis Ibn Taymiyya, and his successor Ibn Kathir, all SHIAS or influenced by SHIAS??

There must be a medical syndrome for this behaviour....oh yes, it's called pathological liar [also known as Nasibi Syndrome]. Maybe your local Sheikh has symptoms of it.

Yazeed ordered his Governor Waleed kill Imam Hussain (as)

We read in Maqtal Hussain:

وكتب إليه في صحيفة كانها أذن فأرة : أما بعد فخذ حسينا وعبد الله بن عمر وعبد الله بن الزبير بالبيعة أخذاً شديداً ليست فيه رخصة حتى يبايعوا والسلام

Yazeed wrote: ‘Force Hussain, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdullah ibn al-Zubair to give Baya and don’t spare them’

We also read:

فلما قرأ عليه كتاب يزيد استرجع وترحم عليه ، واستشاره الوليد في الامر وقال كيف ترى ان نصنع ؟ قال : فاني ارى ان تبعث الساعة إلى هؤلاء النفر فتدعوهم إلى البيعة والدخول في الطاعة فان فعلوا قبلت منهم وكففت عنهم ، وان ابوا قدمتهم فضربت اعناقهم

When he (Waleed) read Yazeed's letter for him (Marwan) and did consultation with him in that matter and said: ‘What do you think we shall do?’ He (Marwan) replied: ‘I see to send to them now and ask them to give baya and obey us, if they accept then we will let them go but if they reject you shall arrest them and strike off their heads’

Yazeed wrote to Ibn Ziyad telling him to kill Imam Hussain (as)

We read in Mataalib al Saul that:

"Ibn Ziyad wrote to Husayn 'I have received information that you have arrived in Kerbala, and Yazeed has told me not to kill you, provided you accept his authority and mine.'"

Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Tarikh Khulfa:

فكتب يزيد إلى واليه بالعراق عبيد الله بن زياد بقتاله فوجه إليه جيشا أربعة آلاف عليهم عمر بن سعد بن أبي وقاص

“Yazeed wrote to his governor in Iraq Ubaidllah bin Ziyad ordering him to fight him (Hussain) therefore he (Ibn Ziad) sent an army consisting of four thousand people lead by Umar bin Saad bin Abi Waqas”

Imam Dhahabi records in Siar Alam al-Nubala, Volume 3 page 305:

Muhammad bin al-Dahak narrated from his father that he said: ‘When Hussain marched, Yazeed wrote to his governor Ibn Ziyad saying: ‘Hussain is marching to Kufa and he is a problem of your time not of other times, your state not of other states and you not for the other governors. At that time you might be free or be slaved.’ Therefore Ibn Ziad killed him and sent his head to him (Yazeed).

Ibn Ziyad's own admission that he killed Imam Husayn on the orders of Yazeed

We read in Tarikh Kamil, Volume 4 page 112:

وبعث إلى عبيد الله بن زياد يأمره بالمسير إلى المدينة ومحاصرة ابن الزبير بمكة، فقال: والله لا جمعتهما للفاسق، قتل ابن رسول الله وغزو الكعبة. ثم أرسل إليه يعتذر

"He (Yazeed) wrote to Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad ordering him to march towards Madina and surround Ibn Zubayr in Makka. He (Ibn ziyad) replied: 'I can't give both these things to this Fasiq, after killing the grandson of Rasulullah (s), I'm not now going to assault the Kaaba'.

Notice how Azam Tariq says that Yazeed blamed Ibn Ziyad (his governor in Kufa at the time of the Battle of Karbala) for the killing of Husayn (as). Yet we see here that Ibn Ziyad two years AFTER Karbala is still in a position of authority in Yazeed's government and army. Had Yazeed sincerely wept for Husayn (as) then he would have dismissed and executed Ibn Ziyad for genocide. Indeed Yazeed kept Ibn Ziyad in a position of authority in Yazeed's government, and indeed Ibn Ziyad outlived Yazeed, until Shia rebels killed him during the insurrection of Al Mukhtar to avenge the blood of Imam Husayn (as).

Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

We read in Tareekh Kamil:

فكتب إليه ابن عباس:...وقد قتلت حسيناً وفتيان عبد المطلب مصابيح الهدى ونجوم الأعلام غادرتهم خيولك بأمرك

Ibn Abbas replied to Yazeed’s letter stating: “… You killed Husayn as well as the youth from Banu Abdul Muttalib who were beacons of guidance and famed stars, your troops marched on them at your orders ."

The testimony of Abdullah Ibn Umar that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

We read in Maqatil al Husayn:

Ibn Umar wrote to Yazeed, 'Hasn't your heart gone black yet? You murdered the family of the Prophet?'

The Nawasib want to drag the Muslims to hell to face the charge of taking to their heart the man who hurt Muhammad (saws)'s soul more than any other.

Mu'awiya The Second's testimony that his father Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

We read in Hayaat al Haywaan:

"When Yazeed was succeeded to the throne by his son Mu'awiya he said in his first sermon 'We are definite about Yazeed's wrongdoing, he killed the family of the Prophet, deemed alcohol halal, and brought pain to the Ka'aba."

This was the testimony of the succeeding khalifa, and Yazeed's own son, Mu'awiya The Second.

Yazeed's own admission that he killed the family of the Prophet (s)

We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar:

"Following the murder of Husayn, Yazeed said 'I avenged the killing of my kaafir relatives in Badr through killing the family of the Prophet".

The testimony of Shah Abdul Aziz that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

We read in Tauhfa:

“When the cruel people of Syria and Iraq upon orders of impure Yazeed and due to the efforts of chief of hatred and fitnah Ibn Ziyad martyred Imam Hussain..”
 Tauhfa Ithna Ashari (Urdu), page 8 Published in Karachi

The testimony of Shah Abdul Haqq that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

We read in Ashiath al Lamaath:

"It is unusual that some say Yazeed did not kill Husayn when he instructed Ibn Ziyad to carry out the killing".

The testimony of Imam Dhahabi that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

Now let us cite words of a Sunni Imam whose words cannot be denied by any Nasibi. Imam Dhahabi in his authority work 'Tarikh Islam' Volume 5 page 30 states:

قلت: ولما فعل يزيد بأهل المدينة ما فعل، وقتل الحسين وإخوته وآله، وشرب يزيد الخمر، وارتكب أشياء منكرة، بغضه الناس، وخرج عليه غير واحد، ولم يبارك الله في عمره، فخرج عليه أبو بلال مرداس بن أدية الحنظلي

I say: 'When Yazeed did to the people of Madina what he did and killed al-Hussain and his brothers and progeny, and Yazeed drank alcohol, and performed abominable things, then the people hated him and rose up against him more than once. God didn't bless his life and Abu Bilal Mirdas bin Adya al-Hanzali rose against him.'

The testimony of Ibn Khaldun that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

Now let us cite the testimony of a scholar who despite his known Nasibi tendencies confirmed the fact that it was Yazeed who killed Imam Hussain (as). We read in Al-Muqadima by Ibn Khaldun, page 254:

فلا يجوز نصرة يزيد بقتال الحسين ، بل قتله من فعلات يزيد المؤكدة لفسقه ، والحسين فيها شهيد

“It is impermissible to support Yazeed in the matter of killing Hussain, nay (Hussain's) murder is Yazeed's deed that proves him to be a Fasiq and Hussain a martyr.”

The testimony of Ibn Hazm that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

Athough the 'Nasb' of Imam Ibn Hazm made him to call Yazeed 'Amir ul-Momineen' but despite that he did ackowledge all the evil deeds committed by his Amir al-Momineen:

ويزيد أمير المؤمنين؛ وكان قبيح الآثار في الإسلام؛ قتل أهل المدينة، وأفاضل الناس، وبقية الصحابة -رضي الله عنهم- يوم الحرة، في آخر دولته؛ وقتل الحسين -رضي الله عنه- وأهل بيته في أول دولته؛ وحاصر ابن الزبير -رضي الله عنه- في المسجد الحرام، واستخف بحرمة الكعبة والإسلام؛ فأماته الله في تلك الأيام

"Yazid Amir ul Momineen, was an evil doer in Islam. During the last days of his rule he massacred the people of Madina on the day of Hara. He killed the best of people and the remaining companions (ra). During the initial part of his rule, he killed Husain (ra) and his Ahle Bait. He surrounded Ibn Zubair in Masjid al-Haram. He violated the sanctity of Ka'ba and Islam. And during these days Allah killed him"
Jamharat Ansab al-Arab, page 112

The testimony of Ibn Kathir that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

Let us read the veiws of Ibn Kathir regarding the role of Yazeed in the murder of Imam Hussain. While dicussing the events of 63 H, He stated:

وقد تقدم أنه قتل الحسين وأصحابه على يدي عبيد الله بن زياد‏

"It is already mentioned that he (Yazeed) killed al-Hussain and his companions through Ubaidullah bin Zyad"
 Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 243

The testimony of Qadhi Thanaullah that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

Qadhi Thanaullah Pani Pati Uthmani under the commentary of 24:55 records:

"It is possible that this verse refers to Yazeed bin Muawiyah. Yazeed had martyred the grandson of Holy Prophet (s) and his companions, those companions were actually the members of the Prophet's family.
 Tafseer Mazhari [Urdu], Volume 8 page 268

At another place he stated:

Yazeed and his associates did Kufr with the bounties of Allah. They deemed it their aim to have a grudge against the progeny of the Prophet (s) and murdered Hussain (ra) with oppression and Yazeed did Kufr with the religion of Prophet (s) to the extent that Yazeed recited the following couplets over the murder of Hussain (ra)

'Where are my ancestors, they should come and see that I have take revenge from the progeny of the Prophet and Bani Hashim'.

And the last prose is:

'I would not be from the progeny of Jandab had I not taken revenge from the progeny of Ahmad for whatever they had done.'
 Tafseer Mazhari [Arabic], Volume 5 page 271, commentary of 14:29

Testimony of Qadhi Saleh bin Mahdi al-Maqbali that Yazeed killed Imam Hussain (as)

Prominent Mujtahid of era namely Allamah Qadhi Saleh bin Mahdi al-Maqbali (d. 1108) who is much liked by Ahle Hadith/Salafies confirms in his authority work Al-Ilm Al-Shamikh Fi Ethaar Al-Haq Ala Alaba wal Mashaikh, page 367 that it was Yazeed who killed al-Hussain:

“And even more strange is a person who praises Yazeed who reverted from Islam, the one who insulted the honorable people of this Ummah, dishonoring the sanctity of Madina of Messenger (Sale Allah Aleh Wa Aalihi Wasalam), killed Hussain the son of the Prophet and his Ahlulbayt and humiliated them and he treated them in such a manner that even if the enemies of Islam, the Christians were to do the same acts, they might have been more reasonable.”
 Al-Ilm Al-Shamikh Fi Ethaar Al-Haq Ala Alaba wal Mashaikh, page 367

Yazeed's pride at killing Imam Hussain (as)

We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 204:

Ibn Asakir in his history book states…. When Husayn's head was brought before Yazeed, he recited the couplets of Ibn Zubayri: 'I wish my ancestors of Badr were here to see the fright of al-Khazraj (tribe) as the spears hit’.

Moreover we read:

Al-Qasim bin Bakhit said: 'When the head of Hussain was placed in front of Yazeed bin Mu'awyia, he started to hit his (Hussain's) teeth with his stick, then he (Yazeed) said: 'His (Hussain's) and my example is same as the saying of Hasain Ibn al-Hamaam al-Mari:
'These swords split the heads of those men who pose harm to us and they were very disobedient and oppressors''.'
 Al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 209

Imam Husain and Divine Leadership-Excellent Speech by Maulana Mirza Mohd Athar(Urdu)

Did Imam Hussain Commit Suicide? (English) Syed Ammar Nakshawani

Truth Behind Karbala Episode( Urdu) -Must Watch !!!!

Why Shias do Matam and Azadari?

सच के लिए शहीद हो गए इमाम हुसैन

इस्लामी कैलेंडर यानी हिजरी वर्ष का पहला महीना है मोहर्रम। इसे इस्लामी इतिहास की सबसे दुखद घटना के लिए भी याद किया जाता है। इसी महीने में 61 हिजरी में यजीद नाम के एक आतताई ने इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम और उनके 72 अनुयाइयों का कत्ल कर दिया था। सिर्फ इसलिए क्योंकि इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम ने यजीद को खलीफा मानने से इनकार कर दिया था। इनकार इसलिए किया था, क्योंकि उनकी नजर में यजीद के लिए इस्लामी मूल्यों की कोई कीमत नहीं थी, जबकि यजीद चाहता था कि वह खलीफा है, इसकी पुष्टि इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम करें। क्योंकि वह हजरत मोहम्मद साहब के नवासे हैं और उनका वहां के लोगों पर काफी अच्छा प्रभाव है।

यजीद की बात मानने से इनकार करने के साथ ही उन्होंने यह भी फैसला लिया कि अब वह अपने नाना हजरत मोहम्मद साहब की कर्मभूमि मदीना छोड़ देंगे, ताकि वहां का अम्नो-अमान कायम रहे। और निकल पड़े इराक स्थित कुफानगरी के लिए। वहां के लोगों ने उन्हें अपने यहां आने का पैगाम भेजा था। लेकिन कुफानगरी के रास्ते में करबला के पास यजीद की फौज ने उनके काफिले को घेर लिया। उनके पास खाना-पानी तक नहीं पहुंचने दिया। इस काफिले में औरतें और बच्चे भी शामिल थे। यजीद के फौजियों को उन पर भी रहम नहीं आया। सबको भूखे-प्यासे घेरे रखा। इस तरह से इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम पर उसने जबरदस्ती जंग थोप दी। इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम और उनके साथियों की तादाद सौ से भी कम थी, जबकि यजीद के फौजी हजारों में थे। फिर भी उन लोगों ने हार नहीं मानी और पूरी बहादुरी के साथ लड़े। उनकी बहादुरी से एकबारगी तो यजीद के फौजियों के दिल भी दहल गए। सबसे आखिर में लड़ते-लड़ते इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम ने सजदे में अपना सिर कटा दिया। इससे पहले अपने तमाम साथियों को अपनी आंखों से उन्होंने शहीद होते देखा। वह तारीख थी 10 मोहर्रम। उसके बाद इन सबके शव को तलवार की नोंक पर लेकर यजीद के फौजी दमिश्क आए, जो उस वक्त यजीद की राजधानी थी और वहां दहशत फैलाने के लिए उन शवों को पूरे शहर में घुमाया। इसी कुरबानी की याद में मोहर्रम मनाई जाती है। इसलिए भी मनाई जाती है, क्योंकि इससे हक की राह में कुरबान हो जाने का सबक मिलता है। ताकतवर से ताकतवर के सामने हक के लिए डटे रहने का जज्बा पैदा होता है। अंजाम की परवाह किये बिना सच पर कायम रहने की हिम्मत पैदा होती है। सबसे बड़ी बात तो यह कि इसके साथ ही यह पता चलता है कि हार-जीत, जीने-मरने से नहीं, बल्कि इस बात से तय होती है कि आप का रास्ता क्या था। आप किन उद्देश्यों के लिए लड़े, डटे रहे। करबला की जंग यही बताती है कि इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम हक के लिए शहीद हुए। सच्चई के लिए जान देने वाले हारते नहीं, हमेशा जीतते हैं। मिसाल कायम करते हैं। यही वजह है कि आज भी इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम को लोग याद करते हैं। लेकिन न कोई यजीद को याद करता है और न उसकी कौम को। भारत में तो इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम यह मुकाम है कि जब शादी कर के बहू पहली मरतबा घर आती है, तो सास उसे दुआ देती है कि गमें हुसैन के अलावा तुम्हें और कोई गम न हो। लोकशाही के लिए भी यह जंग मिसाल है, क्योंकि यजीद को विरासत में खलीफा का पद मिला था, जिसका विरोध इमाम हुसैन अलैयहिस्सलाम ने किया था। भारत में भी मोहर्रम को सच के लिए कुरबान हो जाने के जज्बे से मनाते हैं और इसे सिर्फ मुस्लिम नहीं मनाते, हिंदू भी मनाते हैं। दत्त और हुसैनी ब्रह्मण तो मोहर्रम में पूरे 10 दिन का शोक मनाते हैं।

प्रस्तुति: मज्कूर आलम

यज़ीद के विरूद्ध हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम का क़ियाम व उसके उद्देश्य

सन्60 हिजरी क़मरी में मुआविया के मरने के बाद उसका बेटा यज़ीद शाम के सिहासन पर बैठा और उसने स्वयं को पैग़म्बर का उत्तराधिकारी घोषित किया। सत्ता पाने के बाद उसने इस्लामी मान्याताओं को बदलने और क़ुरआन के आदेशों का विरोध करने के साथ साथ मानवता विरोधी कार्य करने भी शुरू कर दिये। इमाम हुसैन ने जब यज़ीद को इस्लाम विरोधी कार्य करते देखा तो सन् (61) हिजरी में यज़ीद के विरूद्ध क़ियाम (क़ियाम अर्थात किसी के विरूद्ध संघर्ष करना) किया। हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम ने अपने क़ियाम के उद्देश्यों को आपने प्रवचनो में इस प्रकार स्पष्ट किया कि----

1— . जब शासकीय यातनाओं से तंग आकर हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम मदीना छोड़ने पर मजबूर हो गये तो उन्होने अपने क़ियाम के उद्देश्यों को इस प्रकार स्पष्ट किया। “ मैं अपने व्यक्तित्व को चमकाने या सुखमयी जीवन यापन करने या उपद्रव फैलाने के लिए क़ियाम नहीं कर रहा हूँ। बल्कि मैं केवल अपने नाना (पैगम्बरे इस्लाम) की उम्मत (इस्लामी समाज) में सुधार हेतु जा रहा हूँ तथा मेरा निश्चय मनुष्यों को अच्छाईयों की और बुलाना व बुराईयों से रोकना है। मैं अपने नाना पैगम्बर व अपने पिता इमाम अली की शैली पर चलूँगा। ”

2— . एक दूसरे अवसर पर कहा कि “ ऐ अल्लाह तू जानता है कि हम ने जो कुछ किया वह शासकीय शत्रुता या सांसारिक मोहमाया के कारण नहीं किया। बल्कि हमारा उद्देश्य यह है कि तेरे धर्म की निशानियों को यथा स्थान पर पहुँचाए तथा तेरी प्रजा के मध्य सुधार करें ताकि तेरी प्रजा अत्याचारियों से सुरक्षित रह कर तेरे धर्म के सुन्नत व वाजिब आदेशों का पालन कर सके। ”

3— . जब आप की भेंट हुर पुत्र यज़ीदे रिहायी की सेना से हुई तो आपने कहा कि “ ऐ लोगो अगर तुम अल्लाह से डरते हो और हक़ को हक़दार के पास देखना चाहते हो, तो यह कार्य अल्लाह को प्रसन्न करने के लिए बहुत अच्छा है। हम अहलेबैत ख़िलाफ़त पद के, अन्य अत्याचारी व व्याभीचारी दावेदारों की अपेक्षा सबसे अधिक हक़दार हैं। ”

4— . एक अन्य स्थान पर कहा कि हम अहलेबैत शासन के उन लोगों से अधिक हक़दार हैं जो शासन कर रहे है।

. इन चार कथनों में जिन उद्देश्यों की और संकेत किया गया है वह इस प्रकार हैं-------

1- . इस्लामी समाज में सुधार।

2- . जनता को अच्छे कार्य करने का उपदेश।

3- . जनता को बुरे कार्यो से मना करना।

4- . आदरनीय पैगम्बर व आदरनीय अली की कार्य शैली को किर्यान्वित करना।

5- . समाज को शांति व सुरक्षा प्रदान करना।

6- . अल्लाह के आदेशो के पालन हेतु भूमिका तैयार करना।

नोट--यह समस्त उद्देश्य उसी समय प्राप्त हो सकते हैं जब शासन की बाग़ डोर स्वंय इमाम के हाथो में हो जो कि इसके वास्तविक अधिकारी हैं। अतः इमाम ने स्वंय कहा भी है कि शासन हम अहलेबैत का अधिकार है न कि शासन कर रहे उन लोगों का जो अत्याचारी व व्याभीचारी हैं।

इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम के क़ियाम के परिणाम

1- . बनी उमैया के वह धार्मिक षड़यन्त्र छिन्न भिन्न हो गये जिनके आधार पर उन्होंने अपनी सत्ता को शक्ति प्रदान की थी।

2- . बनी उमैया के उन शासकों को लज्जित होना पडा जो सदैव इस बात के लिए तत्पर रहते थे कि इस्लाम से पूर्व के मूर्खता पूर्ण प्रबन्धो को क्रियान्वित किया जाये।

3- . कर्बला के मैदान में इमाम हुसैन की शहादत से मुसलमानों के दिलों में यह चेतना जाग्रत हुई कि हमने इमाम हुसैन की सहायता न करके बहुत बड़ा पाप किया है।

इस चेतना से दो चीज़े उभर कर सामने आयीं, एक तो यह कि इमाम की सहायता न करके जो गुनाह (पाप) किया उसका परायश्चित होना चाहिए। दूसरे यह कि जो लोग इमाम की सहायता में बाधक बने थे, उनकी ओर से लोगों के दिलो में घृणा व द्वेष उत्पन्न हो गया।

इस गुनाह के अनुभव की आग लोगों के दिलों में निरन्तर भड़कती चली गयी। तथा बनी उमैया से बदला लेने व अत्याचारी शासन को उखाड़ फेकने की भावना प्रबल होती गयी।

अतः तव्वाबीन नामक समूह ने अपने इसी गुनाह के परायश्चित के लिए क़ियाम किया ताकि इमाम की हत्या का बदला ले सकें।

4- . इमाम हुसैन के क़ियाम ने लोगों के अन्दर अत्याचार का विरोध करने के लिए

प्राण फूँक दिये। इस प्रकार इमाम के क़ियाम व कर्बला के खून ने हर उस बाँध को तोड़ डाला जो इन्क़लाब (क्रान्ति) के मार्ग में बाधक था।

5- . इमाम के क़ियाम ने जनता को यह शिक्षा दी कि कभी भी न किसी के सम्मुख झुको न अपने व्यक्तित्व को बेंचो । शैतानी ताकतों से लड़ो व इस्लामी सिद्धान्तों को क्रियान्वित करने के लिए प्रत्येक चीज़ को नयौछावर कर दो।

6-समाज के अन्दर यह नया दृष्टिकोण पैदा हुआ कि अपमान जनक जीवन से सम्मान जनक मृत्यु श्रेष्ठ है।

Would Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) really want us to punish ourselves for him?!

If you talk to the Sunnis, they ask certain questions about our mourning of Hussein(AS).They ask the following things:

Q.1. Why do we only mourn Hussein(AS) when we believe the other Aimmah(AS) were martyred also?

Q.2. Would Hussein(AS) really want us to punish ourselves for him?

Q.3. Why is mourning Hussein(AS) more important then mourning Rasul-Allah(SAW)?

Answers :

In His Name the Most High,

Answer 1. We do not only mourn and commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him), but we also mourn and commemorate the memory of all the other Infallibles (peace be upon them) and hold mourning programmes on their martyrdom anniversaries. However, the reason why we may put greater emphasis on the mourning and weeping for Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) is because our pure Infallibles (peace be upon them) themselves strongly encouraged us to do so.

According to the traditions of the pure Imams (peace be upon them), the tragedy of Karbala is the most tragic event of Islam and for the Ahlulbayt (peace be upon them). It has been narrated that Imam al-Hassan al-Mujtaba (peace be upon him) said: “There is no day like your day, O’ Aba Abdullah” (al-Amali by Saduq, p. 177).  It has also been narrated that Imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: “There is no tragedy like ours at Karbala“(al-Hidayah al-Kubra by al-Khusaibi, p. 417), which means that the day of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) is the most calamitous of all days for Aal Muhammad (peace be upon them).

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him and his pure family) was in fact the first individual who held a mourning Majlis for Imam Hussain (peace be upon him). This fact is reported by authentic Sunni resources.

Ammul Fadl bint al-Harith narrated that she took Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) to the Prophet and put him on his lap. The Prophet’s (peace be upon him and his pure family) gaze turned away from her and his both eyes were flowing with tears. She said: “(May I ransom you) with my father and mother Apostle of God, what is the matter with you? ‘Gabriel, peace be on him, came to me’ he said. ‘He told me that my community will seek to kill this son of mine and he brought me dust made red by his (blood)."

  (This was reported by: al-Hakim al-Nisaburi in Al-Mustadrak alaa Al-Sahihain 176 / 3, al-Hafidh al-Bayhaqi in Dalael al-Nubouwa, al-Hafidh ibn Asakir in Tarikh al-Sham and al-Hafidh bin al-Khawarizmi 1 / 158 – 162)

Therefore, we follow the example of the holy Prophet and his pure family in mourning Imam Hussain (peace be upon them all).

Answer 2. We do not punish ourselves in any shape or form when we mourn and commemorate the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him). This is an incorrect interpretation of the essence of al-Sha’aer al-Hussainiyah (The mourning rituals of Imam Hussain peace be upon him). When we practice the mourning rituals of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) such as beating the chest (known as, al-Latm or Seeneh-Zani) or wounding the top of the head with a sword (known as, al-Tatbir, Qameh-Zani or Teegh-Zani), we try to recognise and feel some of the pain our master Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) had felt.

We were in fact recommended by the pure Infallibles to practice such rituals, as they ordered us to perform ‘Muwasat’ for Imam Hussain (peace be upon him), which means imitating and sharing some of his pain. 

Similarly, we find that Allah the Most Exalted has made the Muwasat for Lady Hajar (peace be upon her) among the rituals of Hajj and Umra; as all Muslims are ordered to perform Sa’i between Safa and Marwa to commemorate and share some of the pain and difficulties Lady Hajar went through when she ran back and forth between the two hills (Safa and Marwa) seven times in search of water for her infant Isma’il (peace be upon him). So do we really punish ourselves when we perform Sa’i?!

Therefore, when we mourn, beat our chests and wound the top of our heads upon the loss of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him), we try to imitate and share some of his pain, and this is among the core teachings of our pure Imams (peace be upon them). As it has been narrated that imam al-Sadiq (peace be upon him) said: “The family of Fatima (peace be upon her) tore off their collars and slapped their cheeks upon the loss of Hussain son of Ali (peace be upon them), upon the likes of Hussain, cheeks must [certainly] be slapped and collars must be torn” (Wasa’il al-Shia by Al-Hurr al-`Amili, Vol. 15, p. 583).

It is ironic to see the opponents of Ahlulbayt attacking and ridiculing the mourning rituals of Imam Hussain, the grandson of the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) and falsely claiming that these practices are nothing but Bid’ah; when it has not only been reported in their own books that the Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family) performed Latm but also threw dust on his head and beard upon the martyrdom of his grandson!

Narrated Salma: "I went to visit Umm Salamah and found her weeping. I asked her what was making her weep and she replied that she had seen Allah's Messenger (peace be upon him) (in a dream) with dust on his head and beard. She asked him what was the matter and he replied, `I have just been present at the slaying of al-Hussain.'”

Sunni References:

 al-Tarikh al-Kabir by al-Bukhari vol. 3 p. 324, Sunan al-Tirmidhi vol. 5 p. 323, al-Mu’jam al-Kabir by al-Tabarani vol. 23 p. 373, Mustadrak al-Hakim vol. 4 p. 19.

Furthermore, the opponents of Ahlulbayt might be unaware that their mother Aisha herself claimed that she slapped her face and beat her chest upon the loss of the holy Prophet (peace be upon him and his pure family). 

Al-Thahabi reported that she said: “I got up weeping, beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women". 

 (Tarikh al-Islam by al-Thahabi vol. 1, p.154) 

So why do the opponents of Ahlulbayt not attack their mother Aisha for indulging in such a Bid’ah?!

In fact, mourning the martyrdom of the holy Prophets and Imams (peace be upon them) by beating the chest is a permissible act; it washes one’s sins away, strengthens his faith and keeps him ever closer to the religion and its symbols; as Imam al-Ridha (peace be upon him) said: “Those who weep should weep over the likes of Hussain (peace be upon him) for surely, weeping over him does away with one's great sins” (al-Amali by al-Saduq, p. 190).

Answer 3. The answer has already been provided in Answer 1.

Misconception about shias and Muharrum

The general public of Muslims say that the Shia of Iraq killed Imam Hussain and that's why they do not stop crying and beating themselves
 

Question :

The general public of the Moslem world say that we the Shia, especially the ones in Iraq, killed our Imam, Imam Al Hussain peace be upon him and now that we regret it, we never stop crying and beating ourselves for failing to support him or maybe for our crime of murdering him and his family and companions.
 

Answer :

In His Name the Most High,

This is really a silly idea that is widely circulating in the hearts and minds of many people especially with the so called Ahlul- Sunna Wal Jammaa in the middle east and elsewhere.

Ok! If we want to use the same naïve basis of forming decisions and perceptions that they use, we can say that you people of Mecca, Hejaz and Arabian Peninsula fought against the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) and then killed his uncle Hamza (peace be upon him), but they will say it was not us, it was our disbelieving ancestors who did this and we believe in the message of Islam so you cannot blame us.

Ok! We can also say in the same context that you people were the ones who did a runner and fled during the battles of Ahud and Hunayn, and left the Prophet (peace be upon him and family) on his own with few faithful ones around him and you caused his injuries and allowed his blessed blood to drench his beard, they would say but it was not us, it was some Sahaba who did so and those Sahaba (i.e. companions) showed remorse for their shameful action of retreat later on.

But we can add that they are the ones you refer to, they are your heroes and role models, they might, just might say in return, we did not attend those battles and those retreating fleeing ones were wrong to do so.
And as such we can confidently say that we did not kill Imam Al Hussain (peace be upon him), but the ones who participated in that atrocious crime were you, the Nawasib - the Shia of Bani Umayyah, and it is still you because you are loyal and committed to those olden Nasibi characters.

They might say that some of you people are the descendents of those criminals, we can safely reply that if some of us are traced by blood relation to those people, then we do Bara’a from them (i.e. we shun and disassociate ourselves from them) and curse them and their deeds, but you will not dare and do the same Bara’a and send your la’anat against those who fled and allowed the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) to get severely wounded,  we dare you?

It is ok for the prophet that you claim you love to bleed and get injured due to the fleeing of many of your beloved Sahaba,  you would rather get the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) get pain and harm and not to say that you perform Bara’a from those who allowed that to happen.

My God,  we wonder sometimes; who is your prophet? Is he Mohammed (peace be upon him and his family)? Or is he Umar?

Looking at the prayers performed with crossing hands over each other, dropping Haya ala Khair al a’Amal from the Adhan (i.e. Call to prayer), adding Hebrew language to your prayers by saying “amen”, doing your Taraweeh in the month of Ramadan, jumping straight up to stand after Sujood (i.e. prostration in prayer) without pausing, washing your feet and legs up to your knees in Wuthou (i.e. ablution performed in preparation for prayers) and not to mention, this finger pointing during and while half way in the prayer ritual,  we do wonder who is your prophet?  Or who are your prophets?

We have also given a detailed reply to this question in many of our previous posts.

معاویہ ، قاتل امام حسن علیہ السلام

قدیم مورخ ابوزید احمد بن سہل بلخی اپنی کتاب میں لکھتے ہیں

معاویہ نے جعدہ بنت اشعت بن قیس سے خفیہ سازش کی کہ اگر وہ امام حسن علیہ السلام کو زھر دے کر شہید کر دے تو وہ اس کا نکاح یزید کے ساتھ کر دے گا جب جعدہ نے معاویہ کے ایما پر امام حسن علیہ السلام کو زھر دغا سے شہید کر دیا تو معاویہ نے ایک لاکھ درھم دے کر جعدہ سے کہا کہ یزید ہمیں عزیز ہے ، کیسے گوارا کیا جا سکتا ہے کہ جو فرزند رسول (ع) کے لئے ہو وہی اس کے لئے ہو

کتاب البدء و التاریخ // بلخی// ص 238// طبع بیروت

Original Sunni Reference: 

قاتلان امام حسین علیہ السلام

ناصبی اپنے روحانی باپ یزید ابن معاویہ ابن ھند کو بچانے کے لیے اور روز اول سے یزید کی بے گناہی ثابت کرنے کے لیے تمام تر وسائل استعمال کر رہے ہیں کہ یزید قاتل امام حسین علیہ السلام نہیں ہے بلکہ شیعہ قاتل امام حسین علیہ السلام ہیں اور اپنے جھوٹے استدلال کو ثابت کرنے کے لیے مختلف شیعہ کتب کے حوالہ جات استعمال کرتے ہیں
یزید ملعون ابن ملعون تھا اور ہے جس نے اپنے اباواجداد کی طرح بغض محمد و آل محمد میں نواسہ رسول (ص) کو شہید کیا


سب سے پہلے امام حسین (ع) کے کچھ مخصوص قاتلین اور معاونین یزید کا ذکر کرنا چاہوں گا جن کی تفصیل بعد میں پوسٹ کی جائے گی





یزید - صحابی رسول معاویہ ابن ھند کا بیٹا
عمر ابن سعد - صحابی رسول سعدبن ابی وقاص کا بیٹا

ابن ذیاد - معاویہ ابن ھند کا بھائی اور صحابی رسول سفیان کا بیٹا

محمد بن اشعث - خلیفہ اول ابوبکر کا بھانجا

انس بن مالک - صحابی رسول

سلمان بن صرد - صحابی رسول

ابن عمر - خلیفہ عمر ابن خطاب کا بیٹا

شداد مولا عثمان - خلیفہ عثمان کا خادم

شمر - صحابی رسول ذی الجوشن کا بیٹا

قاضی شریح
حارث بن یزید کوفی - راوی صحاح ستہ

حصین بن نمیر - راوی صحاح ستہ

شیعث بن ربعی - راوی ابوداود و نسائی
زید بن حارث بدری - راوی صحاح ستہ

Why does the ahlul sunnah wa jamaah vigrously defend the reign of yazeed?

This is one of those question that automatically come to mind when one analyses the character of Yazeed.
The reason lies in aqeedah, and goes to heart of where the Sunni / Shia viewpoint diverge. The core difference between the two schools is on the topic of Imamate: who has the right to lead the ummah.
 

Shia muslims believe that this leadership is religious guidance and hence the appointment is the sole right of Allah, for He knows what is best for his servant and He shall appoint the man best suited / most superior to lead teh Ummah through all times. Allah will select Imam who is best in character, most excelled on the components of Deen, who shall only rule via justice. There is no need for ijma, or votes since Allah appointsand no one has a voice in the matter.

The Ahlul Sunnah believe that appointment of Imam is a duty of Public - the decide on who come to power. The importance in relation to appointment is the act of giving bayya - once the Khalifa received ijma the his imamate is legitimate. The act of bayya is crucial factor here - the people decide who is in power (a democratically elected dictatorship for life), and the khalifas character has no further bearing since once in power, the khalifa has to be obeyed. any opposition is squashed, with voilence. From the time of Muawiya onwards, all the Khalifa become monarchies.

When this is the basis of Ahlul sunnah aqedah, then over time their jurists have sought to revise the concept of Imamate with stipulations over certain characteristics, that Imam should posses, such as bravery, piety, and justice, especially after embarrassing debacle (for sunni islam) with Yazeed and certain other members of Banu Umayyad dynasty - for example Khalifa Waleed, who expressed his desire to drink alcohol on the roof of Ka'aba.

Unfortunately these writings have been nothing more than a "Dear Santa Wish List" since an analysis of early islamic history will quickly lead to us learning that characteristics such as justice were completely devoid in these Khalifas, and there is no better example than Yazeed. Indeed with the exception of perhaps "Umar bin Abdul Aziz" in 110 years of Khilafat after Yazeed, barely a pious man acceded to this position. Most are as bad as Kings anywhere were.

This left many classical salaf scholars with a very difficult problem: If they reject Yazeed, they are then rejecting the concept of Ijma that had been allegedly created as Saqifa Bani Sa'ada, and underpins Sunni Islam.

Rejecting this Ijma in effect discredits Sunni aqeeda that the duty to appoint the Imam is right of Public. If this concept is discredited , by highlighting Yazeed's demonic character and satanic actions, then the Ummah is forced to consider the alternative option of appointment as described to by the Shia school of thoughts.

The salaf ulema faced with this difficult problem, have decided to uphold the legitimacy of Yazeed reign since this is the only way that their belief in man made appointment can be maintained. This account for their pathological and indeed balant lying, which embrasses even the Nasibis.

By Iqbal

Extracted from : http://www.shiaforums.com/vb/blogs/iqbal12/why-does-ahlul-sunnah-wa-jamaah-vigrously-defend-reign-yazeed-352/

قبر مطہر سیدالشُہداء کی زیارت

بحار میں امام محمد باقر علیہ السلام سے روایت ہے کہ آپ علیہ السلام نے فرما  
سرزمین کربلا وہ زمین ہے جس میں اللہ نے حضرت مُوسیٰ علیہ السلام کو کلیم بنایا۔ حضرت نوح علیہ السلام کی مناجات سُنی ، یہ (کربلا) اللہ کی محترم زمین ہے۔ اگر یہ مقدس ترین زمین نہ ہوتی تو اللہ اسے اپنے اولیاء کا امین، انبیاء کی گزرگاہ نہ بناتا۔

امام باقر علیہ السلام نے فرمایا کربلا جا کرہمارے مزارات کی زیارت کیا کرو۔اور تمام شیعوں سے کہہ دو کہ کربلا جائیں اور امام(حُسین)علیہ السلام کی زیارت کریں۔
فرزندِ رسول ص کی زیارت سے غم دُود ہوتے ہیں۔ زائر جل کر اور ڈوب کر نہیں مرتا۔زائرِ حُسین علیہ السلام کو درندے اذیت نہیں دیتے۔
جو بھی آپ کی امامت کے قائل ہیں اس پر فرض ہے کہ کربلا کی زیارت کو جانا۔اگر کوئی شخص ہر سال حج کر کے مرے اور فرزند رسول ص کی زیارت نہ کرے تو حقوق نبویہ میں سے ایک بہت بڑے حق کا تارک محشور ہو گا۔ ہر مسلمان پر اللہ کی طرف سے حق امام حُسین علیہ السلام واجب ہے۔

Was Yazeed's khilafah 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. Ibn`Umar 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

We read in 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 Khazan, volume 1 page 89
    Ma'lam al Tazeel, Volume 1 page 89
    Fathul Qadeer, Volume 1 page 140
    Tafseer Madarak al Tazeel, Volume 1 page 84
    Tafseer Durre Manthur, Volume 1 page 118
    Tafseer Jama al Mubeen, Volume 1 page 118
    Tafseer Gharaib al Qu'an, Volume 1 page 439
    Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Volume 1 page 167
    Ahkam al Quran, Volume 1 page 69
    Tafseer al Kabeer, Volume 1 page 494


In Tafseer Khazan, 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(Urdu), Volume 8 pages 1146, 1147 & 1165
    Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala, Volume 4 pages 37-38
    Al Sawaiq al Muhriqa, page 131
    Tat-heer al Janaan, page 115
    Sharh Fiqh Akbar, page 73
    Fatawa Azeezi, page 80 Dhikr Yazeed
    Nuzlul Abrar, page 97 Dhikr Yazeed
    Yanabi al Mawadah, 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 Fida, Volume 1 page 186 Dkihr al Khabar Mu'awiya
    Al Akbar al Tawaal, page 268 Dhikr Yazeed
    Tareekh Tabari, Volume 7 page 146
    Rasail, page 129 by Abu Bakr Jauzi
    Maqatil Husayn, page 172 Ch 9
    Tadkhira Khawwas, page 164
    Shadraat al-Dhahab, 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
    Hayaat 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
    Muruj al Dhahab, Volume 3 page 78 Dhikr Yazeed
    Tauhfa Ithna Ashari, page 6 Chapter 1
    Mutalib al Seul, Volume 2 page 26 Dhikr Husayn
    Nur al Absar, page 139 Dhikr Husayn
    Sharh Maqassid, Volume 2 page 309 Part 6
    Al Tabaqat al Kabir, Volume 5 page 96
    Mustadrak al Hakim, Volume 3 page 522
    Tareekh Ibn Asakir, page 275
    Meezan al Itidal, Volume 4 page 440
    Wafa al Wafa, Volume 1 page 127
    Tabthaseer wa al Sharaf, page 265 Dhikr Yazeed
    Mujma al Buldan, Volume 2 page 253 Dkikr Harra
    Fatah ul Bari, Volume 13 page 70 Dhikr Yazeed
    Irshad al Sari, Volume 10 pages 171 and 199 Bab ul Fitan
    Sirush Shahadatayn, page 26 Dhikr Shahadat Imam Hasan
    Minhaj 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
    Hidayaat 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
    Muktubaat Shaykh ul Islam, Volume 1 page 267 by Maulana Husayn Hamdani
    Sharh Shifa, Volume 1 page 694 by Mulla 'Ali Qari al Hanafi
    Siraj Muneer Sharh Jama Sagheer, Volume 3 page 382
    Hujutul Balagha, page 507
    Qasim al Ulum, page 221
    Nabraas ala Sharh Aqaid, page 553
    Asaaf al Raghbayn, page 210
    Yazeed bin Mu'awiya, page 30 by Ibn Taymeeya
    Maktubaat, page 203 by Qadhi Thanaullah Panee Patee
    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 ul Islam by Muhammad Qaim Nantovi Volume 1 page 258
    Imam Pak aur Yazeed paleed, by M Shaafi page 33
    Tabat Ibn Sa'd, page 283 Dhikr Ma'aqil bin Sanan
    Mirqaat Sharh Mishkaat, Volume 1 page 120
    Umdah tul Qari, Volume 11 page 334
    Fatawa Azeezi, Volume 1 page 21
    Izalat al Ghaneen, Volume 1 page 368 by Maulana Haydher 'Ali
    Muttalib al Saul, page 26
    Nur al Absar page 139
    Neel al Auwtar Volume 7 page 181 Dhikr Jihad
    Tahdheeb by 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 Quran, Volume 3 page 119
    Tareekh Ibn Asakir, Volume 5 page 107
    Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani, page 72 Surah Muhammad


The Nasibi author's insistence that Yazeed was not a drunkard


Before we unveil the evil character of Yazeed, let us first cite the daring claim of Nasibi author:

Ansar.org stated:
It is also a lie that Yazeed was an alcohol drinking person.


The author has then used the alleged comments of Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyah to prove that Yazeed was a pious person. We will discuss the alleged tradition seperately in another chapter. Let us begin the actual 'appraisal' of Yazeed we find in Sunni books:

Ibn Kathir's comments on Yazeed

Interesting the very same text al Bidaya from where Abu Sulaiman had sought to extol the virtues of his Imam Yazeed, also contains comments of Ibn Kathir proving that he was indeed a drunkard. 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' Volume 8 page 1169 "Dhikr Yazeed bin Muawiya":

"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 would be intoxicated and would bind monkeys to a horse saddle and make the horse run".

 Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1169, Nafees Academy Karachi

To Read full article please click on the following link :

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap3.php

Was there an ijma in Yazeed's Khilafah?

Azam Tariq stated:
ALL THE MUSLIM CITIZENS INCLUDING THE THEN LIVING SAHABA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HAZRAT HUSAYN AND ABDULLAH BIN ZUBAIR SWORE ALLEGIANCE TO YAZID. WHEN HAZRAT HUSAYN DECIDED TO GO FROM MAKKAH TO KUFA WHERE THE PEOPLE WERE CONSTANTLY INVITING HIM FOR BAYT (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE) HIS CLOSE ASSOCIATES AND WELL-WISHERS LIKE ABDULLAH BIN UMAR, HAZRAT ABU SAEED KHUDRI, HAZRAT ABU DARDA, HAZART ABDULLAH BIN ABBASS, HAZART MUHAMMAD BIN ABU HANIFA ETC. TRIED TO PERSUADE HIM NOT TO UNDERTAKE THIS JOURNEY AS IT WAS FULL OF RJSKS AND HAZARADS. THEY WERE HOWEVER, NOT SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR ATTEMPT AND HAZART HUSAYN PROCEEDED ON HIS MISSION OF REFORMATION CONCEIVED ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN IJTEHAD.


Mu'awiya planned the succession of Yazeed for seven years

We read in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 247 Dhikr Mu'awiya:

فلم يزل يروض الناس لبيعته سبع سنين، ويشاور، ويعطى الأقارب ويداني الأباعد، حتى استوثق له من أكثر الناس.

"Mu'awiya spent seven years seeking to galvanise the people's minds towards giving bayya to Yazeed and he rewarded those that ascribed to his views. He [Mu'awiya] tried to get closer to those that opposed this purpose [to intimidate them]".

Mu'awiya appointed Mugheera bin Shuba to carry through his objective of intimidation

As evidence we shall rely on the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:


    Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 870. The events of 56 Hijri
    Tarrekh al Kamil Volume, 3 page 252 The events of 56 Hijri
    Tareekh Ibn Khaldun, Volume 3 page 16
    Tareekh al Khulafa, page 205 Dhikr Mu'awiya
    Al Imama wa al Siyasa, page 152
    Nasa al Kafiya, page 38


For the sake of brevity we shall cite al Bidayah:

"Mu'awiya made plans to remove Mugheera bin Shuba from his post of Governor of Kufa and replace him with Sa'eed bin Aas. When Mugheera caught wind of his intention, he arrived in Damascus and said to Yazeed bin Mu'awiya 'Your father should appoint you as khalifah after him'. When Yazeed asked Mu'awiya if this was indeed the case, he replied 'Who said this to you?' He [Yazeed] said Mugheera bin Shuba. This recommendation pleased Mu'awiya immensely; he kept Mugheera in post, and ordered him to drum up support for giving bayya to Yazeed. Upon his return to Kufa, Mugheera did actions to secure the bayya for Yazeed".

 Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 870, Nafees Academy Karachi

Mu'awiya set the wheels in motion and wanted people to give bayya to Yazeed. It is critical to note that in doing so Mu'awiya was breaching the terms of the treaty that had been reached with Imam Hassan (as), namely that Mu'awiya would NOT appoint a successor after him and that the succession to the khilafat would return to the Imams of the Shia i.e. Al-Hassan (as) and after him his successor Al-Hussain (as). Mu'awiya is thus in breach of a solemn oath he took not to make the khilafat a monarchy by appointing his own son as Crown Prince.

Imam Hassan (as) made peace to avoid bloodshed

This issue is fundamentally tied up with the forced abdication of Al-Hassan (as) as khalifa in the face of Muawiya's rebellion against Imam Hassan (as)'s lawful and noble khilafat. Al-Hassan (as)'s is deemed by Jalal-ud-din Suyuti in his established Sunni account of the khilafat the fifth rightly guided khalifa, and while most Sunnis have not heard this he ruled for six months and was by their scholars rightly guided.

For this section we shall focus on the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:


    Irshad al Sari Sharh Bukhari, Volume 1 page 198 Bab ul Fitan
    Umdah thul Qari fi Sharh Bukhari, Volume 11 page 361 Kitab al Fitan
    Mirqaat Sharh Mishqat, Volume 11 page 379
    Al Istiab, Volume 1 page 370


For the sake of brevity we shall cite al Irshad:

"Imam Hasan did not abdicate on account of any bribe / worldly gain or weakness; rather he made peace so as to avoid fitnah and bloodshed."

Mu'awiya had agreed that the Khilafat would return to Imam Hasan (as) when he died

This is undeniable and is testified to, amongst numerous other Sunni works, in:


    Fathul Bari fi Sharh Bukhari, Volume 3 page 65 Kitab al Fitan
    Mirqat Sharh Mishqat, Volume 11 page 38 Bab Manaqib Ahl'ul Bayt
    Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 871 'The events of 56 Hijri'
    Hayaat al Haywaan Volume, 1 page 53 Dhikr Khilafa
    Tareekh Khamees, Volume 2 page 29 Dhikr Hasan
    Al Imama wa al Siyasa, page 18 Sulh Hasan
    Al Istiab, Volume 1 page 370 Dhikr Hasan



Ibn Kathir records:

وقد كان معاوية لما صالح الحسن عهد للحسن بالأمر من بعده

"When Mu'awiya made peace with Hasan, he made a promise that leadership would go to Hasan after him"

 Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 871, Nafees Academy Karachi

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalaini records in Fathul Bari:

اني اشترطت على معاوية لنفسي الخلافة بعده

"Hasan said:'I placed a condition on Mu'awiya that I will become leader after Mu'awiya"

The fact that Mu'awiya wanted to make Yazeed his successor was hugely embarrassing for him, since this contravened the peace treaty and hence the better option would be to remove Imam Hasan (as) (this has been discussed in our article on Mu'awiya). In the meantime Mu'awiya's flagrant breach of the treaty continued. This is an embarrassment for the Nasibis as this treaty and its terms are not controversial and accepted by all. Thus the Nasibis might claim that this happened after Imam Hasan (as) was martyred but the fact is…

Mu'awiya sought to secure the bayya for Yazeed whilst Imam Hasan was alive

We read Al Imama wa al Siyasa page 155 Dhikr bayya Yazeed

"An Iraqi tribal chief said to Mu'awiya 'As long as Hasan is alive the people of Iraq and Hijaz shall not give bayya to Yazeed."

Mu'awiya had potential successor and rival Abdur Rahman bin Khalid poisoned

We read in Al-Bidayah:

عبد الرحمن بن خال بن الوليد
القرشى المخزومى وكان من الشجعان المعروفين والأبطال المشهورين كابيه وكان قد عظم ببلاد الشام لذلك حتى خاف منه معاوية ومات وهو مسموم

"Khalid bin Walid's son Abdur Rahman was from amongst the brave men and was popular in Syria hence Mu'awiya was against him and was poisoned"

 al Bidaya wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 31 Dhikr 31 Hijri

We read in al Istiab:

"Abdurehman was againt Ali and Bani Hashim … he had fought in Sifeen alongside Muawiyah…When Muaiywah decided to take bayah from people for his Yazeed, he gave a sermon to the people of Syria in which he said: 'the time of my death is approaching, I am elderly and I want to make a ruler for you people, what do you people want?'. They said: 'We like Abdurehman'. Muawiya didn't like it but kept it within him and once Abdurehman got ill, Muawiya told the doctor to treat him and gave him a syrup that could kill him, the doctor administered it and killed him by giving him poison."
 al Istiab, Volume 1 page 250, Dhikr Abdur Rahman bin Khalid

This Abdul Rahman was the son of Khalid bin Waleed, and he was Mu'awiya's general in Siffeen. Mu'awiya was willing to shed his blood to secure the transition of power to his son. While we the Shia have nothing but contempt for Khalid bin Waleed for reasons discussed elsewhere (he murdered a Muslim general during the khilafat of Abu Bakr so as to marry the general's beautiful wife, and prior to this had murdered thousands of innocent Shias in the Yemen), Khalid is hailed as a great champion of the khilafat and a hero by the Sunnis.

To read full article click on the following link :

http://www.answering-ansar.org/answers/yazeed/en/chap2.php