हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम का जीवन परिचय

माता पिता

हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम के पिता हज़रत इमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम व आपकी माता हज़रत फ़तिमा ज़हरा सलामुल्लाह अलैहा हैं। आप अपने माता पिता की द्वितीय सन्तान थे।

जन्म तिथि व जन्म स्थान

हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम का जन्म सन् चार (4) हिजरी क़मरी में शाबान मास की तीसरी (3) तिथि को पवित्र शहर मदीनेमें हुआ था।

नाम करण

आप के जन्म के बाद हज़रत पैगम्बर(स.) ने आपका नाम हुसैन रखा। तथा आपके माथे पर चुम्बन कर के कहा कि तेरे सम्मुख एक महान् विपत्ति है। अल्लाह तेरी हत्या करने वाले पर लानत करे।

उपाधियां

हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम की मुख्य उपाधियां मिस्बाहुल हुदा, सैय्यिदुश शोहदा, अबु अबदुल्लाह व सफ़ीनातुन निजात है।

पालन पोषण

इतिहासकार मसूदी ने उल्लेख किया है कि इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम छः वर्ष की आयु तक हज़रत पैगम्बर(स.) के साथ रहे। तथा इस समय सीमा में  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम को सदाचार सिखाने ज्ञान प्रदान करने तथा भोजन कराने  का उत्तरदायित्व स्वंम पैगम्बर(स.) के ऊपर था।  पैगम्बर(स.)  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम से अत्यधिक प्रेम करते थे। वह उनका छोटा सा दुखः भी सहन नहीं कर पाते थे।  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम से प्रेम के सम्बन्ध में पैगम्बर(स.) के इस प्रसिद्ध कथन का शिया व सुन्नी दोनो सम्प्रदायों के विद्वानो ने उल्लेख किया है। कि पैगम्बर(स.) ने कहा कि हुसैन मुझसे हैऔर मैं हुसैन से हूँ। अल्लाह तू उससे प्रेम कर जो हुसैन से प्रेम करे।

हज़रत पैगम्बर(स.) के स्वर्गवास के बाद हज़रत  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम तीस (30)  वर्षों तक अपने पिता हज़रत इमामइमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम के साथ रहे। और सम्स्त घटनाओं व विपत्तियों में अपने पिता का हर प्रकार से सहयोग करते रहे।

हज़रत इमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम की शहादत के बाद दस वर्षों तक अपने बड़े भाई इमाम हसन के साथ रहे। तथा सन् पचास (50) हिजरी में उनकी शहादत के पश्चात दस वर्षों तक घटित होने वाली घटनाओं का अवलोकन करते हुए मुआविया का विरोध करते रहे । जब सन् साठ (60) हिजरी में मुआविया का देहान्त हो गय, व उसके बेटे यज़ीद ने गद्दी पर बैठने के बाद हज़रत   इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम से बैअत (आधीनता स्वीकार करना) करने के लिए कहा, तो आपने बैअत करने से मना कर दिया।और इस्लामकी रक्षा हेतु वीरता पूर्वक लड़ते हुए शहीद हो गये।

इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम का क़ियाम व क़ियाम के उद्देश्य

हज़रत  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम ने सन् (61) हिजरी में यज़ीद के विरूद्ध क़ियाम (किसी के विरूद्ध उठ खड़ा होना) किया। उन्होने अपने क़ियाम के उद्देश्यों को अपने 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। कि मैं अपने व्यक्तित्व को चमकाने या सुखमय 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 जारहा हूँ। तथा मेरा निश्चय मनुष्यों को अच्छाई की ओर बुलाना व बुराई से रोकना है। मैं अपने नाना पैगम्बर(स.) व अपने पिता इमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम की सुन्नत(शैली) पर चलूँगा।

2—एक दूसरे अवसर पर कहा कि ऐ अल्लाह तू जानता है कि हम ने जो कुछ किया वह शासकीय शत्रुत 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 अल्लसाह को प्रसन्न करने के लिए बहुत अच्छा है। ख़िलाफ़त पद के अन्य अत्याचारी व व्याभीचारी दावेदारों की अपेक्षा हम अहलेबैत सबसे अधिक अधिकारी हैं।

4—एक अन्य स्थान पर कहा कि हम अहलेबैत शासन के उन लोगों से अधिक अधिकारी 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 के करने से रोकना।

4-हज़रत पैगम्बर(स.) और हज़रत इमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम की सुन्नत(शैली) को किर्यान्वित करना।

5-समाज को शांति व सुरक्षा प्रदान करना।

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

यह समस्त उद्देश्य उसी समय प्राप्त हो सकते हैं जब शासन की बाग़ डोर स्वंय इमाम के हाथो में हो, जो इसके वास्तविक अधिकारी भी 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 मूर्खतापूर्ण प्रबन्धो को क्रियान्वित किया जाये।

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

इस चेतना से दो चीज़े उभर कर सामने आईं 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 समूह ने अपने इसी गुनाह के परायश्चित के लिए क़ियाम किया। ताकि इमाम की हत्या का बदला ले सकें।

4- इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम 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 किसी के सम्मुख अपनी मानवता को न 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।
Extracted from : www.shiyat.ewebsite.com/

Reasons Behind the Commemoration of Imam al-Husain (AS)

Let me put it in simple words. 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?

A Mourning Shia Muslim

[ 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 : 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 ?
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 :  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.
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).
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 moreimportantly 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.
BTW, 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 and 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 to him 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 with 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 deserved 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 fully 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. Please refer to the articles of Br. Abbas which were posted in SRI for more.


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.

Excerpt from http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/

You can download it here: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?u8s29wc88gcct3i

Why Arab States align themselves with Israel against Shias?

On tenth day of Ashura Muslims and in particular Shias commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, the Prophet Mohammed’s grandson about whom he said “Hussein is from me and I am from Hussein”.

Pictures of Shias beating themselves with hands and chains will be beamed around the world by western media, happy to perpetuate the myth that Muslims are violent.

And this year Americans in particular will be paying a closer attention, after the Oscar winning Jewish Director Oliver Stone’s son Sean Stone astonished America by articulating his conversion to being a Shia and accused Piers Morgan who tried to portray him as some nutter, ‘a warmonger’ while defending Iran.

What the TV screens will not be showing is the grief and pain felt by the Shias for the death of a leader about whom Mahatma Ghandi said “I learnt from Hussein on how to achieve victory while being oppressed”.

Shias are also mourning a time in history when the Prophets message and teachings were subverted by the forces against humanity, which not only attempted to wipe out the whole of the Prophets family, but ensured that every direct descendant who followed the 11 Imams were all systematically put into prisons and murdered.

The followers of the ahlalbayt (the 12 infallible Imams) as they are called have tried throughout years of persecution to keep the practices of the Prophet alive as well as the incident where Prophet Mohammed stood in Ghadeer e Qum where he picked up Imam Ali’s hand and said “to whomever I am the Mawla (supreme authority) so is Ali the Mawla” in front of over 120,000 pilgrims (a historically recorded event)

Today Shia’s have grown in strength because of the rise of Iran after the Iranian revolution in 1979, however the need to ‘wipe them out’ is still continuing.

According to Director for External Affairs at ‘The Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies’ Shias is the real threat. In 2009 he said:
“Israel is now a strange partner of the Sunni Arab states,”

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan however this alliance according to him is an “alliance of anxiety for Israel” as the Sunni Arabs are not as confident as the Shias and Iran and as a result he believes that Israel cannot rely on the Sunni states in the same way that the Sunni states can rely on Israel.

This alliance must come as a real surprise to critics of Israel, who are aware the lengths the Zionists have gone to pump millions into Islamophobic think tanks and organisations like (Rand, Centre for Social Cohesion) and through the pro Israel media to misrepresent Islam and ferment hatred.

Their propaganda has been so successful that a 2011 Pew research poll found that 40% of US adults think that Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions. Even though a Europol study of terrorism found 99.6% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2008 were committed by non Muslims.

However the issue of misrepresentation not only involves Muslims but all who question the status quo, as European groups realised at the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement which according to the media had nothing to do with Zionists bankers and the Federal Reserve Bank, but rather people annoyed at losing their jobs.

In order to understand why Arab States are in an unspoken alliance with Israel, we need to look at the growth of sectarianism and why Shias are seen as the biggest threat.

In a documentary about Iraq war, an American soldier said something on the lines of…

    “We don’t have a problem with the Sunnis it’s the Shias who we are afraid of its something to do with their leader who was killed centuries ago and they are willing to lay their life down for him”.

The Kufr of Yazeed by a Sunni Speaker

Salafi Mufti says bayat of Yazeed was islamic!!!

In this video, you will see that Salafi Mufti said that Yazeed was caliph on truth and Imam Hussain(AS) naudobillah erred by coming up against him.

Modarrsi replies to him

video is having english subtitles

This is a speech being delivered by Ayatollah Modarresi at the shrine of Imam Hussein in response to the slanderous comment made by the top Wahhabi cleric in Saudi Arabia.. Keep watching to see the fury of the audience..

One would think that after almost 14 centuries, the mission of Imam Hussein and the pristine nature of his message is transparently clear. On the same token, one would also think that the demonic nature of Yazeed and his cohorts is also as abundantly obvious.

For how could anyone exploit people's ignorance of the hard historical facts and justify the barbaric murder of Imam Hussein? How can anyone conceivably explain the vicious slaughtering of the 6 month old infant and the starving of women and children to death? And after all the atrocities committed by Yazeed's army, how can anyone brand his authority as "legitimate" or even go as far as to have the audacity to blame Imam Hussein for the crimes committed on Ashura 61 A.H.?!

And if an ignorant individual were to be found who is blind to the manifest truth, they might be dismissed as illiterate or simply insane, but when a the top ranking, government appointed cleric makes those outrageous assertions, it reveals deeply rooted malice and venomous scorn towards every divine ideal and every ethical standard. It speaks of far ranging moral dilemmas and a seriously flawed and perverted sense of judgment.

The attached video shows one such individual. He is Abdul Aziz Aal Al Sheikh, the grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and the direct grandson of Bin Abdul Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabi religion which is responsible for every atrocity, and every act of terror around the world. The video also includes footage from people's reaction to the comments and the utter outrage at the shrine of Imam Hussein in the holy city of Karbala and the historic speech by one of Iraq's leading Shia scholars, Ayatollah Sayed Hadi Al Modarresi, in which he emphatically denounced the comments by the Wahhabi cleric and challenged him to reveal his true intentions during the Arba'een processions.

 

Is Crying for Dead causes Punishment to the Dead ??

We would have heard this 100′s of times and people are fed up with this idea that Holy prophet asws had said this : "Crying for Dead causes Punishment to the Dead"
 

And so if someone cries for dead, the dead is punished;and this propaganda increases in moharram

so let us see what ayesha had to offer in this regard

we find in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal :

Abu bakar says that when rafi’I bin khadeej died, we heard ibn umar that dead is punished when his neighbors cry for him. I came to umra and told him so he replied that Ayesha said that holy prophet asws said this about a jew lady that these people are crying and she is being punished; then Ayesha recited the verse that none will bear the weight of others

[Musnad ahmad, urdu, vol 11, page 31, narration 24616]

Sheikh hamza says isnaad is sahih
[Musnad ahmad, takhreej of ahmad shakir and hamza ahmad, vol 17, page -234]

We further find

Ibn umar said that Holy Prophet asws said that dead is punished when his family cries for him; when someone asked this from Ayesha, she said that he has hallucinated, holy prophet asws said that people are crying where as he is being punished for his sins

[Musnad ahmad, urdu, vol 11, page 84]

Sheikh hamza says isnaad is sahih [Musnad ahmad, takhreej of ahmad shakir and hamza ahmad, vol 17, page 287]

Sheikh shoaib says isnaad is sahih on condition of sheikhain [musnad ahmad, vol 40, page 347-348, narration 24302 ]

Yet again, we find

Urwa said that once Ayesha told him that o nephew! Ibn umar erred in listening, actually holy prophet asws passed by a grave and he said that he is being punished due to his deeds and his family is crying for him; otherwise by god! None will bear the weight of others 

[Musnad ahmad, urdu, vol 11, page 178-179, narration 25144]

Sheikh hamza says isnaad sahih [Musnad ahmad, takhreej of ahmad shakir and hamza ahmad, vol 17, page 390]

Sheikh shoaib says isnaad are sahih, narrators are all thiqa and narrators of sheikhain
[musnad ahmad, takhreej of sheikh shoaib; vol 41, page 181-182 narration 24637]

Again we find

Abu bakar said that when rafi’I bin khadeej died, I heard Abdullah bin umar that dead is punished due to weeping of his neighbors. I came to umra and told him about this; he said that Ayesha said that may allah forgive abu abdurrehman, he is not lying but he has forgotten; holy prophet asws passed by grave of a jew lady on which people were crying, so he said that people are crying where as she is being punished

{molvi zafar iqbal says that narration is sahih as per bukhari, muslim and ibn haban}

[musnad ahmad, urdu, vol 11, page 210]

Yazeed: a killer of sahaba and a thief:- Ahmad bin Hanbal (sahih sanad)

We find in al-sunnah by al khalal that he mentioned with a sahih chain from Ahmad bin Hanbal  who said

أخبرني محمد بن علي قال ثنا مهنى قال سألت أحمد عن يزيد بن معاوية بن أبي سفيان قال هو فعل بالمدينة ما فعل قلت وما فعل قال قتل بالمدينة من أصحاب النبي وفعل قلت وما فعل قال نهبها قلت فيذكر عنه الحديث قال لا يذكر عنه الحديث ولا ينبغي لأحد أن يكتب عنه حديثا قلت لأحمد ومن كان معه بالمدينة حين فعل ما فعل قال أهل الشام قلت له وأهل مصر قال لا إنما كان أهل مصر معهم في أمر عثمان رحمه الله

narrator asked ahmed bin hanbal about yazeed ibn mawia and he replied : he did to madina what he did , so i asked : and what did he do ? he  said : he killed in madina from companions of rasool Allah and did other things ,so i asked him : what did he do ; so he said : robbed it , so i said : can hadith be narrated from him so he answered : hadith must not be narrated from him and nobody should write his hadith . so i asked ahmed : and who was with him when he did in madina what he did ? he said : people of syria so i said : what about people of egypt? he said :people of Egypt were with them in matter of uthman

[kitab-us-sunnah, vol 3, page 520]

researcher of the book, atiya zehrani termed it

“isnaad sahih”

scans can be seen here

http://ahlubait.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/yazeed-a-killer-of-sahaba-and-a-thief-ahmad-bin-hanbal-sahih-sanad/

Yazid Vs Zakir Naik [Lies of First Navel War/Caesar's City]

Zakir Naik ( A well wisher of Yazeed (la))

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 & All other Nasibies is only & only one Tradition of Bukhari.

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

The Fabricated Tradition by Nasibies of Syria

Nasibies of Syria were followers of Bani Umiyyah. Thus they fabricated a tradition through which they made first 2 Caliphs of Bani Umiyyah free of all there so many crimes against Islam & Ahlebait (as), and provided them 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

Link

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:

1. It has defects in Asnaad.
2. 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 that:

1. This Tradition is narrated by only & only one chain.
2. 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 Nasibies) 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 Nasibies, 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 (a misguided sect for Ahle-Sunnah), 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

These people have no shame.
They are absolutely not ashamed to praise the Open Munafiqeen & declare them their Imams and Reliable Narrators of Hadith.
Shame on these people who all the time cry that Shias are Kafirs while they crticize Sahaba, but when any of their Nasibi Imam curse Imam Ali and Ahl al-Bayt, then he becomes the praiseworthy Reliable Narrator of their Ahadith.
Here is the the true face of their Nasibi Imam & Praiseful Reliable Narrator:

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, mystry remains there why are these People taking this open Nasibi Manafiq (& Kafir according to their Standards while cursing Sahaba is Kufr according to them) to be there praiseworthy Narrator of Hadith? Don't they have any shame about this?

The Importance of First Naval War V Bait-e-Ridhwan

Dear Readers,

Please tell if this tradition is true then doesn't it mean that importance of First Naval War and attacking caesar's City was EQUAL to Bait-e-Ridhwan?

Surely you would answer in "Yes" while in all these cases there is prediction of "Allah being Radhi" or prediction of "Jannah".

Now look at the importance of Bait-e-Ridhwan. Allah himself mentioning it in Quran. Then Rasool (saw) took himself the Bait on his hand. Then this Bait-e-Ridhwan becomes popular on tongues of each and every Muslim child. The companions who participated in that War were respected and kept above those who didn't participate.

Yazid (la) Cursed By Sunni/Salafi Scholars

Here The Idol Of Salafis Cursed By Many Salafi/Sunni Scholars:-

..

Shawkani Who Said in Nail Al-Awtar Volume 7 page 362:

لا ينبغي لمسلم أن يحط على من خرج من السلف الصالح من العترة وغيرهم على أئمة الجور، فإنهم فعلوا ذلك باجتهاد منهم، وهم أتقى لله وأطوع لسنة رسول الله من جماعة ممن جاء بعدهم من أهل العلم، ولقد أفرط بعض أهل العلم كالكرامية ومن وافقهم في الجمود على أحاديث الباب حتى حكموا بأن الحسين السبط رضي الله عنه وأرضاه باغ على الخمير السكير الهاتك لحرم الشريعة المطهرة يزيد بن معاوية لعنهم الله، فيالله العجب من مقالات تقشعر منها الجلود ويتصدع من سماعها كل جلمود

No muslim must blame whoever came out with the sword from salaf and itrah and others against the imams of oppression because they did this based on their ijtihad and they are more fearfull of allah and more obedient to sannah of rasool allah compared to people who came after them and many people of knowlegde have exaggerated like karamyyah and those agreeing with them in bigotry who judged that hussein the descendant of rasool allah radhiallah anh is wrongful against the drunkard.. Yazid ibn Muawya May Allah Curse Them .....

The Worst Nasibi Ibn Katheer In Bidayt Wannihayat Volume 8 Page 243

وقد أخطأ يزيد خطأ فاحشا في 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 يدي عبيد الله بن زياد.

He said yazid committed a grave mistake by telling muslim ibn okbah to do what he wants in madinah three days and this is a grave mistake and adding to this the many poeple he killed from sahabah( companions) and their sons and it was mentioned earlier that He (Yazeed (la) Killed Hussein And His Companions at the hands of ubaidullah ibn ziad

Manawi Narrated That Taftizani Said :-

الحق أنَّ رضى يزيد بقتل الحسين وإهانته أهل البيت مما تواتر معناه، وإن كان تفاصيله آحاداً، فنحن لا نتوقّف في شأنه، بل في إيمانه، لعنةُ الله عليه وعلى أنصاره وأعوانه

the truth is that yazeed was pleased by the killing of hussein and his humiliation of ahlbait is mutawatir even if the details are narrated by single individuals , we dont stop about his matter or about his belief( Taftazani Believed Yazid Was Kaffir )May Allah Curse Him and his supporters and partisans
Faidh Al-Qadeer Volume 3 Page 109

.....

جهلة وضلالاً، ويعتبر يزيداً معطلاً لحدود الله في قتلة الحسين، بل يقول انه لم ينتصر له ولم يأخذ بثأره وقتل أعوانه لاقامة ملكه، ويقول عن الذين يخطئون الحسين ويصفونه بأنه خارج علي الخليفة بأنهم غلاة ونواصب أي أعداء لأهل البيت, بل انه يُجيز اللعنة العامة على قتلة الحسين الشهيد
...
This is a summary of the position of Ibn Taymiyah about Yazid and his reign: Recognizes that the kings of darkness evildoers, and describes who are increase the amount of the imams of guidance and the benefit of the faithful are ignorant, and misguided, and is Esida hang of the limits of God's Hussein's killers, but says he did not vote for him did not take revenge and kill his aides to set up his property, he says, those who make mistakes Hussein, calling him out on the caliph as the ghulat and Nawasibs any enemies of the ahlul bayt AS, but it allows the general curse the killers of Hussain Shaheed

Allam Aloosi In Its Tafseer Rooh Al-mayni In The Commentry Of Surah Muhammad Says:-
...
يقول رحمه الله :
[ { فَهَلْ عَسَيْتُمْ إِن تَوَلَّيْتُمْ أَن تُفْسِدُواْ فِى ٱلأَرْضِ وَتُقَطّعُواْ أَرْحَامَكُمْ }
. واستدل بها أيضاً على جواز لعن يزيد عليه من الله تعالى ما يستحق

And also quoted by more than one may Yazid cursed by God what he deserves

His Words Are Crystal Clear That This Ayah Is The Daleel To Curse Yazid (ln)

Ibn e Kathir Says:-

ورغم امتناع أغلب علماء السنة من لعن المعين، تنزيها للسان عن فحشاء القول، فقد رأى بعض أهل العلم أن لا بأس بلعن يزيد بن معاوية "وهو رواية عن أحمد بن حنبل اختارها الخلال وأبو بكر عبد العزيز والقاضي أبو يعلى وابنه القاضي أبو الحسن. وانتصر لذلك أبو الفرج بن الجوزي في مصنف مفرد وجوز لعنته"

ابن كثير: البداية والنهاية 8/223 وقارن مع منهاج السنة 4/574
..

Despite the failure of most of the Sunni scholars of the curse-designate, the high esteem of the fornication of the tongue to say, was considered by some scholars that there is nothing wrong with a curse Yazid......

Imam Ahmed Bin Hambal Said:-

Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody?
. Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, part 4, p. 481-484
وابن جرير، وغيرهم.. وقد حكم أحمد بن حنبل بكفر يزيد لعنه الله
.
And Ibn Jarir, and others ..
Yazid (ln) was sentenced Kafir By Ahmad ibn Hanbal

الإتحاف بحب الأشراف ص68 و63. وراجع: البداية والنهاية ج8 ص245 ط دار إحياء التراث العربي.

Imam Sayyuti Said:-

وقال السيوطي: «لعن الله قاتله، وابن زياد، ومعه يزيد

..Suyuti said: «May God curse the murderer, Ibn Ziad, and Yazdi (ln)

Tareekh Ul Khulfa Page No 207

وسئل ابن الجوزي عن لعن يزيد لعنه الله، فقال: قد أجاز أحمد لعنه، ونحن نقول: لا نحبه لما فعل بابن بنت نبينا، وحمله آل رسول الله سبايا إلى الشام على أقتاب الجمال

.Ibn e Jozi Also Cursed Yazid (ln)

-مرآة الزمان ج8 ص496 حوادث سنة 597. وراجع الصواعق المحرقة ج2 ص634 و635 وراجع منهاج السنة ج4 ص565 ـ 573

Al-Dhabi Said:-

وقال الذهبي: «كان ناصبياً غليظاً، يتناول المسكر، ويفعل المنكر، فتح دولته بقتل الحسين، وختمها بوقعة الحرة

He Said Yazid Was Nasibi,Ghaleez,Evil Doer,He (la)Killed Hussain AS......

Khwarzmi In Maqtal:-

أما فيما يرتبط برضا يزيد لعنه الله بقتله عليه السلام، وسروره بذلك، فنقول:
 

قد صرح يزيد، لعنه الله، نفسه برضاه وبسروره بهذا الأمر، فقد قال للنعمان بن بشير: «الحمد لله الذي قتل الحسين

Maqta Al Hussain Al-Khwarzmi Vol 2 Page 59

اَللّـهُمَّ الْعَنْ اَبا سُفْيانَ وَمُعاوِيَةَ وَيَزيدَ ابْنَ مُعاوِيَةَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنْكَ اللَّعْنَةُ اَبَدَ الاْبِدينَ