It is quite logical that those that deemed Yazid to be the rightful khalifa were the same individuals that killed Imam Hussain (as).
We the Shi’a distance ourselves from Yazid and his supporters.
So Ansar.Org, kindly tell us, do you?
Do the Ahl’ul Sunnah and Nasibi express hatred towards those that supported Yazid and killed Imam Hussain (as)?
Unfortunately this is not the case. Nasibi claiming to adhere to the Sunni faith have written, praised and defended Yazid as a pious man. We have Pakistani Hanafi scholar Mahmood Abadi who wrote "Khilafat Muawiya aur Yazid”- wherein he praised Yazid, deeming the method of ruling used by Umar and Yazid to be the same.
Had the matter stopped there then no doubt that would be proof in itself, but what Ansar.Org are hiding from their followers is the fact that their Salaf Imams took ahadith from those that killed Imam Hussain (as). Proof of guilt lies with ‘association’ those with blood on their hands will have no shame / guilt in taking hadith from the killers of Hussain (as) since these are their descendants. Those who had no part in killing the Imam (as) would naturally revile his killers and have no association with these killers on matters pertaining to Deen. The ultimate criterion for determining WHO the actual killers of Hussain (as) lies in hadith. No doubt a group whose Salaf ancestors supported the Khilafah of Yazid and killed Imam Hussain (as) will have no shame in taking hadith from those same individuals.
Whilst we deem the cursing of Yazid, Ibn Sad, Ibn Ziyad etc to be a compulsory act, compare this to the respect afforded to Imam Hussain (as)’s killers by the Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema…
Umar bin Sad bin Abi Waqqas
The role played by the notorious Kufi character Umar bin Saad, the son of famous Sahabi Saad bin Abi Waqas in killing Imam Hussain [as] is evidenced clearly in the books of history.
Imam Bukhari for example wrote in Tareekh al Sagheer:
Abu al-Muaali al-Ejli narrated from his father that he said: ‘When Hussain arrived in Karbala, Umar bin Sa'ad was the first individual who cut the ropes of the tents’
Tareekh al Sagheer, Volume 1, page 75
Dhahabi whilst writing on the life of Ibn Sa’d states in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 4 page 349:
“Umar bin Saad, the commander of the troops that fought against al-Hussain [ra], then al-Mukhtar killed him (Umar ibn Saad)”.
This accursed enemy of Ahlulbayt [as] was also not a Shia that affirmed belief in the divine Imamate of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) but was amongst the ancestors of the present day Ahle Sunnah and the Imams of Ahle Sunnah have accordingly relied upon him as a source of deriving religious instruction in the form of Hadiths narrated on his authority.
Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes in Tahdheeb al Tahdheeb Volume 7 page 396:
“Umar Ibn Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas al-Zuhri Abu Hafs al-Madani lived in Kufa. He narrated traditions from his father and Abu Said al Khudri. His son Ibraheem and grandson Abu Bakr bin Hafs ibn Umar, Abu Ishaac Al-Sabayee, Ayzaar bin Hareeth, Yazid bin Abi Maryam , Qatada, Zuhri and Yazid bin Habeeb and others have narrated (hadith) from him”
The book can also be downloaded from a Wahabi/Salafi website:
Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb, Vol 7 No. 747 - (Cached)
Regarding the level of truthness of this Nasibi ancestor of the Ahle Sunnah, we read that Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani has declared him ‘Seduq’ in Taqrib al-Tahdib, Volume 1 page 717 whilst Imam Ejli went expressed his satisfaction even further, as we read in Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 21 Biography No. 4240:
وقال أحمد بن عبد الله العجلي كان يروي عن أبيه أحاديث وروى الناس عنه وهو الذي قتل الحسين وهو تابعي ثقة
Ahmad bin Abdullah al-Ejli said: ‘He used to narrate traditions from his father, and the people narrated from him, and he is the one who killed al-Hussain, and he is Thiqa Tabayee’
Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 21 Biography No. 4240
Imam Dhahabi in his book Mizan al-Etidal, Volume 3 page 198 maintained the following opinion about this Nasibi:
هو في نفسه غير متهم
“He as a person is not criticized”
One of the most beloved Salafi scholars Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut in his margin of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal declared traditions narrated by Umar bin Saad as ‘Hasan’.
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, v1, p173 H 1487
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, v1, p177 H 1531
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, v1, p182 H 1575
Similarly Shaykh Ahmed Shakir also wrote the margin of book Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal and he declared Hadith having Umar bin Saad in the chain as Sahih (see Musnad Ahmed, v3 p51). Imam Ibn Hajar in his book 'Hidayat al-Rawat' Volume 2 page 229 has also declared a tradition having this enemy of Imam Hussain (as) in the chain as 'Hasan'.
From here it should have dawned that the killers of Imam Hussain (as) were actually the ancestors of the present day Ahle Sunnah. Your Salaf followed their way and deemed these figures to be reliable / respected personalities, basing the cornerstone of Deen – hadith in accordance with traditions that had been passed down by them.
Ubaydullah bin Ziyad
On Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Hajr Asqalani states:
He is Ubaydullah bin Ziyad , the prince of Kufa for Mu'awiya and his son Yazid and he is the one who prepared the armies from Al-Kufa to fight Al-Hussain [ra] until he was killed in Karbala. He was known as Ibn Marjana and she is his mother (Marjana) .
Ibn Asakir has mentioned his biography in Tarikh Dimashq and he was mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawood… And he narrated from Sa'ad bin Abi Waqas and Mu'awiya and Ma'qel bin Yasir and Ibn Umayyah the brother of Bani Ja'dah. And from those who narrated from him are Al-Hasan al-Basri and Abu al-Malih bin Usama.
Tajeel al Munfa Bazawaid Rijal al Aimah al Arbah, page 180
The book can also be downloaded from one of the favorite website of Wahabies/Salafies:
No. 686
Ibn Kathir in Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252 Under the topic ‘Ibn Ziyad’ also recorded the place of Ibn Ziyad in the Sunni Hadith works.
Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252
If the Ansar claim that they bear enmity towards the Shi’a as they killed Imam Hussain (as) could they be so kind to comment on why their madhab take hadith from those that killed him? This proves that their leading recorders were at peace with taking hadith from the killers of Imam Hussain (as). Ansar, you claim to be the true adherents of Ahl’ul bayt (as) tell us, would true lovers of Ahl’ul bayt (as) take traditions from their killers?
If some ignorant Nasibi is still going to assert their ancestor Ibn Ziyad as Shia then allow us to present the words of Ibn ziyad which clearly proves that just like other Nasibis Ibn Ziyad also deemed Yazid as his Imam. Ibn Kathir records that Ibn Ziyad wrote to Umar Ibn Sa`d:
“Become obstacle between Hussain and water, treat them in the way Ameer al Momineen Uthman was treated and ask him and his companions to give bayah to Ameer al Momineen Yazid bin Muawiyah”al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu) Volume 8 page 1058
Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinawari records the statement of Ibn Ziyad:
“I killed Al Hussain due to the reason that he revolted against our Imam [Yazid] and the very Imam[Yazid] sent me the message to kill Al Hussain. Now if the murder of Hussain is a sin then Yazid is responsible for it”Akhbaar Tawaal, page 279 (Egypt) by Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinwari
Hence we come to know that Ibn Ziyad likewise prominent Sunni scholars deemed Yazid as one of the caliphs of Islam or Ameer al Momineen.
“I killed Al Hussain on the orders of Yazid to kill him otherwise he would kill me therefore I chose to kill Hussain”
Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 55 (Egypt)
Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Tareekh Khulfa, page 182:
فكتب يزيد إلى واليه بالعراق عبيد الله بن زياد بقتاله
“Yazid wrote his ruler in Iraq Ibn Ziyad for the murder of Hussain”
We read that it was Yazid who gave orders to Ibn Ziyad for the murder of Imam Hussain[as] and those people who deemed Yazid as their caliph and Ibn Ziyad as their ruler made the instructions of Yazid practical. The case is clear like mirror. The army which Abu Bakr sent during his caliphate deemed him as their caliph not somebody else, same was the case with Umar when he send troops to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Those armies followed the instructions of their respective caliphs because they deemed them their caliphs or Imams and suppose if there was someone who didn’t deem Umar or Abu Bakr as his caliph, he could have easily refused to follow the instructions what ever the result might have been. Thus we see that Ibn Ziyad & Co. thoroughly obeyed Yazid without any hesitation.
Shimer bin Zil Joshan
Whilst we initially felt no need to write anything on this cursed Nasibi character that played a major role in the murder of Imam Hussain [as], the need has arisen from our very opponents whose association with him is such that they take Hadith from him. Before doing so let us consider the evidence submitted by today’s Nawasib champion to prove that Shimer was a Shia In his article with this sensational titled ‘A Shia Killed Sayyiduna Hussain’
Ibn al Hashimi states:
The man who killed Sayyiduna Hussain (i.e. gave the death-blow) was a man by the name of Shimr bin Thil-Jawshan and he was a Shia, as recorded in both Sunni and Shia books. Shimr was part of the Shia, and then he betrayed Sayyiduna Hussain and joined Yazid’s men, giving Sayyiduna Hussain the death-blow.
To provide a solid proof of this fact (i.e. that Shimr was a Shia), we refer to the esteemed and classical Shia scholar, Al-Qummi. Al-Qummi, author of the famous book “Mafaatihul-Jinaan”, writes in his book: “I say, Shimr was in the forces of Ameer al-Mu’mineen on the Day of Siffin.” (Al-Qummi, “Safinatun-Najaat”, vol.4, p. 492, Chapter Sheen Followed by Meem)
Reply One – In 37 Hijri anyone that deemed Ali (as) to be the legitimate Khalifa and fought enemies was counted as Shia
If anything this references simply exposes the utter ignorance of Ibn al Hashimi. If Shimer was a Shia due to his participation alongside Ali (as) at Siffeen, will he acknowledge that other participants such as the famous companions Ammar Yasir (ra) and Umawya Qarni (ra) were also Shia and not Sunnis as Salafis always insist? Why should the Shia label be used for Shimer and not these two Sahaba? The fact of the matter is during the Caliphate of Ali (as) there were two distinct groups the Shia of Ali (as) and the Shia of Uthman. There was no such thing as the Ahl’ul Sunnah Sect. People were split into one of these two groups. Shia was a generic term for those that supported Ali (as) during his Khilafah of Ali (as) and the term incorporated:
Those that deemed it a religious obligation to support Ali (as) as he was the true immediate successor of the Prophet (s), belief that is today referred to as those of the Imami Shia
Those whose association with Ali (as) was linked to a belief that is in this day and age recognised as the belief of the Ahle Sunnah, these individuals were the early remnants of Sunnism, as they deemed Ali to be the fourth legitimate Head of State and accordingly fought alongside him, a fact succinctly attested to by Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi the Salaf of the Ahl’ul Sunnah were the pioneer Salaf in the army of Ali (as) that fought Muawiyah.
"The title Shi'a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave allegiance (bay'ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali's) caliphate. They remained close to him, they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali's commands and prohibitions. The true Shi'a are these who came in 37 Hijri"
Tauhfa Ithna Ashari (Urdu) page 27, published in Karachi
Now Ibn al Hashimi, tell us:
Were all "Sunnis" in the party of Imam Ali (as) during his Khilafate part of the "Shi'a" as we know them today?
Certainly not, they merely followed their belief of following the Head of State that acquires the bayya of the people. The army of Ali (as) comprised of two categories, those that believed that Ali (as) had to be obeyed because:
he was the legitimate Khalifa as he had been divinely appointed as such by the Prophet (s) – Those that are now referred to as Shias.
he was the legitimate Khalifa as he had secured the ijma of the Sahaba to the leader after Uthman – Those that are now referred to as Sunnis.
Now the onus is on Ibn al Hashimi to evidence that Shamir believed that Ali (as) was the divinely appointed leader after the Prophet (s) through any admission made by him? If he cannot he has no right to arrive at such an absurd conclusion.
Reply Two - People are judged by their beliefs at the time of committing an offence, not their past history
It is common sense that anyone is judging a person’s crime one looks at their beliefs at that time, their past is completely irrelevant. If we are to adhere to this approach would it be right for us to describe:
Salman Rushdie author of ‘The Satanic Verses’
Ibn Warraq author of ‘Why I am not a Muslim’
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, screen play writer of the anti Islam movie ‘Submission’
Magdi Allam baptized by the Pope in 2008
as Sunni Muslims because they were at some point in their lives Sunni?
Is it right to refer to all the above as Sunnis even though we know that they are now apostates?
When we refer to Holy Prophet' (s)’ companions do we refer to them as idol worshipping, child murdering, drunks. No because that was during the period of Jahiliya . When we refer to them we refer to them respectfully because we recognise that they entered a different episode of their lives when they took the Shahada.
If for arguments sake Shimer was a Shia the fact is he was, if we want to judge him at the time of killing Imam Hussain (as) we need to know of his beliefs at that time. Was he a Shia of Ali (as) when he decapitated the head of Imam Hussain (as)? Certainly not, and the only relevant thing is to know of what he believed at that time. The fact of the matter is when he committed this vile deed he was from the Shia of Yazeed. What he was before has no bearing on his historical allegiances apart from the fact it demonstrates that he was probably not a true Shia of Ali (as) when he gave him bayya and then converted from a Khawarij into a Nasibi.
Even if he was a true Shia of Ali, it has no bearing on his deed apart from the fact it illustrates that even the best can be corrupted.
We can also cite the case of Ibless to understand matters further. He was undoubtedly from amongst the Shia of Allah but he rebelled and formed his own party. Shamir may have just been a run of the mill Shia from the thousands that of Shia that stood alongside Ali (as) at Siffeen, but Shaitan had an esteemed recognised position, he was once Chief of all angels. Do we cite the example of Ibless in order to discredit Allah as is the approach being adhered to by Ibn al Hashimi?
We can see from the example of Ibless that anyone can deviate the only important thing for us to decide is when Shamir turned 'evil' whose side he was on? He had taken the conscientious decision to side alongside the Caliph Yazid. So by siding with Yazeed and fighting under his flag he had lost his faith just like Shaitan had done
Reply Three – Shimer’s grounds for killing the Imam (as) evidences his beliefs mirror those of Sunnis not Shias
We read in Mizan al Itidal, Volume 2 page 280 Biography 3742:
Abu Isaac said: Shimer used to pray with us and say: ‘O God, you know that I am a righteous man thus forgive me’. I said: ‘How shall Allah forgive you when you participated in killing the son of Allah's messenger?’ He replied: ‘Woe to you! What should I have done? Our rulers ordered us to do so, we therefore did not disobey them, if we disobeyed them we would be worse than these animals’.
I said: ‘This is an awful excuse, verily obedience is only in relation to good things’.
We can see that Shimer believed that he was under a religious duty to kill the Imam (as) as it was incumbent on him to implement the orders of his rulers no matter how perverse. We would challenge Ibn al Hashimi to show us the belief of any Shia of Ali (as) whether from that era through to know that believes that there was a religious duty to kill Imam Hussain (as), as one had to adhere to the orders of the ruler. The Shia that believe Imamate is a divine right of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) have from the outset rejected all forms of man made leadership, and only believe that it is a right of Imam Ali (as) and his divinely appointed descendants – we are compelled to unconditionally obey them and them alone as Heads of State. An individual that believes that he had the legal mandate to kill the divinely appointed Imam (as) upon the orders of the illegitimate Head of State can never fall within the definition of a Shia. On the contrary, to believe that one must adhere to bad rulers unconditionally is the belief of the the Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah, as attested to by the Salafi scholar Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql:
"It is not permissible to revolt against the Muslim ruler except in cases where he manifests clear unbelief (kufr buwaah), for which there is decisive proof from Allah concerning it".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 34 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam
Shimer as a Tabieen adhered to the very belief system on adhering to a ruler as Shaykh al-‘Aql comments on, which proves that he adhered to a belief system that would in this day and age be described as the Sunni belief system. Alhamdolillah Shimer beliefs had nothing to do with Shi’ism.
We can see from this admission that Shimer supported Ali (as) at Siffeen for the very reason that he supported Yazeed, a belief that the Head of State must be obeyed unconditionally because he is the Head of State. For Shimer it was nothing to do with some religious obligation to follow Ali (as) as the divinely appointed Imam, he (as) was the Caliph and had to be obeyed, he applied the same principle when Yazeed attained power.
Reply Four – The fact that the Sunni Hadith scholars narrated from Shimr and evidences his Sunni credentials
Shimer also acted as a source of knowledge for the respected Tabayee and scholar of Ahle Sunnah Abu Ishaaq al-Sabayee (d. 129 H) about whom Imam Dhahabi has recorded in Syar alam al-Nubala, Volume 5 page 392:
“The Sheikh, the scholar and Muhadith of Kufa”
In his other book Tazkirak al-Hufaz, Volume 1 page 114 Dhahabi recorded the following about Abu Ishaaq:
Fudhail bin Ghazwan said: ‘Abu Ishaaq used to recite Quran completely every three days and it has been said that he used coupisly fast, perform the the night prayers and guard his chastity, he was a container of knowledge and he has a lot of virtues’
This knowledgeable, pious and venerated Sunni scholar and Tabayee deemed Shimer worthy enough to be a trusted Hadith narrator as recorded by Dhahabi in Mizan al-Itidal under the biography of Shimer:
وعنه أبو إسحاق السبيعي
“And (narrated) from him Abu Ishaaq al-Sabayee”
We can hence see that a Hadith narrated by this filthy creature has been given a place in one of the most important Sunni Hadith books i.e. Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal.
Shabath bin Rab’I
The Ansar had claimed that the Shia of Kufa had written letters to Imam Hussain (as) inviting him to join them in Kufa. One of the leading figures who no doubt Ansar will claim was Shia was Shabath bin Rab’i. His writing to Imam Hussain (as) is stated clearly in History of Tabari English translation, Volume 10 pages 25-26 and
Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1013.
We should point out that neither do we take hadith from this individual, nor do we praise him. He had no link to the Shi’a madhab rather has been declared as Huroori by the Sunni scholars. This ‘betrayer’ whom the Ansar would no doubt label as Shi’a is actually an authority narrator in the eyes of Ahl’ul Sunnah.
Dhahabi writes on him in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla, Volume 4 page 150:
“He was from amongst those that rebelled against Ali, he rejected the arbitration, and then subsequently repented. He narrated (hadith) on the authority of Ali and Hudhaifa. Muhammad bin Ka’ab Al-Qarzi and Sulayman Taimee narrated (hadith) from him, in Sunan Abu Daud there is one hadith recorded from him”
Ibn Hajr writes in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 4 page 226:
Shabath bin Rab'i al-Tamimi Al-Yurbo'i Abu Abd al-Quddous Al-Kufi, narrated from Hudhaifa and Ali may Allah be pleased with them, and from those who narrated from him are Mhammad bin Ka'ab Al-Qarzi and Sulayman A Taimee …. Darqatni states that he (Shabath) was a caller (Mu'azzen) for Sajah then he converted to Islam. Ibn Habban mentioned him in Al-Thuqat and states that he committed errors (in narrating hadith), they have narrated hadith on his authority where Fatima [r] had asked to be given a Servant۔ Al Ejli said that this wa the first individual who assisted in the killing of Uthman and also participated in the killing of Hussain [r].
Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb - (Cached)
We appeal to justice. Examine the life of this Nasibi / Khwaarijee. No rational person would ever conclude that he was a Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as). This so called ‘Shia’ Kufan that wrote letters to Imam Hussain (as) is a narrator of your Saha Sittah – Sunan Nasai and Abu Daud – you deem him to be an authority figure. Despite his writing to the Imam (as) he can never be defined as Shi’a – he never was a true Shi’a – simply a troublemaker who dedicated his entire life to playing an integral role in dissension. Despite this Imams of Ahl’ul Sunnah Nasai and Abu Daud deemed him to be a reliable source – tell us Afriki should we deem the killers of Imam Hussain (as) to be reliable honest individuals – or should we distance ourselves from such personalities? We should point out to Nasibi al Afriki that the harsh reality is it was your Salaf that invited Imam Hussain (as) and then subsequently killed him – that is why you still love the individuals and prove your appreciation for them by narrating hadith on their authority. Would you respect and rely on the words of an individual that murdered your grandson? If not, then why do you respect and accept the word of those that killed the grandson of Rasulullah (s)? Is such behaviour not an insult to the memory of Imam Hussain (as) and Rasulullah (s)? Would true followers of Ahl’ul bayt (as) behave in such a manner?
Some more proofs of the killers of Imam Hussain [as] being Nasibis while supporters of Imam Hussain [as] being Shia
Proof one
When Imam Hussain [as] left Makka and arrived at a place near Kufa, upon the orders of Hasees bin Tamim he was met by Hur bin Yazid who was accompanied by 1000 of his army men. Hur bin Yazid remained with Imam Hussain [as] so that he could not let Hussain [as] go to Madina and then both of those groups reached at Nainawa. Suddenly there appeared a rider on a fast mount coming from Kufa. He was bearing weapons and carrying a bow on his shoulder. They all stopped and watched him. When he reached there he greeted Hur and his followers but did not greet al Hussain and his followers. He handed Hur a letter from Ibn Ziyad. It said the following:
“… When this letter reaches you and my messenger comes to you, make al Hussain come to a halt. Let him stop at an open place without protection and water…”
History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102
Yazid bin Ziyad bin al Muhasir Abu al-Sha`tha al Kindi who was with al Hussain [as] looked at the messenger of Ibn Ziyad and recognized him. He asked him:
“Are you Malik bin Nusayr al Baddi? The other replied: “Yes”. He was the member of the tribe of Kindah. Yazid bin Ziyad exclaimed: “May your mother be deprived of you! What is the business you have brought!”. The other man retorted: “What is this that I have brought, I have obeyed my Imam and have remained faithful to my oath of allegiance”. Abu al-Sha`tha responded: You have been disobedient to your Lord and have obeyed your imam in bringing about the distruction of your soul. You have aquired shame and punishment of Hell-fire.Indeed God has said: “ We have made them imams, who summon people to the Hell-fire and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped”. You imam is one of those”
History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102
Dear readers, who was this messenger of Ibn Ziyad Malik bin Nusayr? This was the same individual who approached Imam Husasin (as) on the day of Ashur when he [as] fell from his horse suffering from severely injuries and struck him [as] on the head with his sword. The sword cut the hood of his (as) cloak and injured his head.
See: History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 153
The words of that brutal person i.e “I have obeyed my Imam and have remained faithful to my oath of allegiance” clearly shows that he deemed Yazeed [la] to be his imam which is a conclusive proof of him being aloof from the madhab of Ali/Hussain [as], and his association with the Sunni madhab that deems Yazeed [la] to be their 6th imam a belief that Sahih Bukhari proves that Abdullah bin Umar the son of second caliph adhered to.
Proof Two
When Muslim bin Aqeel [as] was taking bayah from the Kufans who had gathered there on account of their disaffection with with the tyranny that the Bani Umayyah were subjecting them to, Yazeed [la] received a letter from Kufa written by Abdullah bin Muslim al Hadrami which contained the following text:
“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 Numan bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man”
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 30
He was the first man who wrote to Yazeed [la] and then Umarrah bin Uqbah and Umar bin Sa`ad also wrote along the same lines to Yazeed. Yazeed on receiving this letter wrote to Ibn Ziyad:
“My followers [Shia] among the people of Kufa have written to me to inform me that Ibn al Aqeel is in Kufa gathering units in order to spread rebellion among the Muslims. Therefore when you read this letter of mine go to Kufa and search for Ibn Aqeel as if you were looking for a bead until you find him. Then bind him in chains, kill him or expel him”
History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 31
Yazeed [la] used the word “Shia” for his adherents in Kufa which has been translated as “followers” in English version but can be read in its original Arabic and Urdu version. Tarikh Tabari (Urdu), Volume 4 part 1 page 154, Nafees Academy Karachi
Dear readers, you must have recognized the writer of this letter Umar bin Sa`d. This was same cursed individual who was sent as an army chief for the murder of Imam Hussain [as] and he was the one who fired the first arrow at Imam al Hussain [as].
See: History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 129
His words i.e “Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali” clearly shows that he did not have any connection with the the Shia of Ali/Hussain [as] in fact we have already highlighted the prestigious place this individual enjoys among the hadith works of the Ahl’ul Sunnah. Crucially, the words of Yazeed [la] i.e “My Shia among the people of Kufa have written to me” strengthen our stance that Umar bin Sa`d was the Shia of Yazeed [la] and from the group/sect that deemed him [la] to be their Imam. Moreover the belief that Hussain rebelled against Yazeed accurately tallies with that of the present age Nasibis like Ibn Arabi etc. Are the Nasibis still going to show their stubbornness and remain shouting that the “killers of al Hussain were his own Shias” while we have already made the sect of His [as] killers known to everyone?
Proof Three
We read in history that on the day of Ashur when the war began and the majority if helpers of Imam Hussain [as]’s helpers were martyred a man namely Yazeed b. Maqil of the Banu Salimah of Abd Qays, came forward from the army of Umar bin Sa`d and called out to Burayr b. Hudayr who was the companion of Imam al Hussain [as]:
“How do you think God has treated you? Burayr replied, “By God! God has treated me well and treated you badly”. He answered “You are a liar. Even before today you were always a liar. Do you remember when I used to go with you among the Banu Lawdhan? Then you used to say that Uthman was a man who indulged himself excessively, that Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan was one who was in error and who caused people to go astray, and that the Imam of guidance and truth was ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. Burayr retorted: “I testify that this is my opinion and belief”. Yazeed b. Maqil replied: “And I testify that you are one of those who are in error. Burayr called out: Then I challenge you to contest of curses. Let us call on God that the lair be cursed and the spreader of falsehoods be killed. Then come out for combat.” They both advanced and raised their hands to God, calling upon Him to curse the lair and the one who was truthful should kill the one who was false.
Each of them came advanced against the other. They exchanged blows. Yazeed b. Maqil struck Burayr b. Hudayr a light blow that did not do him any harm. Burayr b. Hudayr struck Yazeed b. Maqil a blow that cut through his halmet and penetrated his brain”.
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 132-133
Dear readers, do we still need to prove the madhab of the killers of Imam al Hussain [as] and the madhab of his helpers? Burayr b. Hudayr deemed:
Uthman a man who indulged himself excessively,
Mu’awiyah a follower and a guide of wrong path
‘Ali b. Abi Talib as Imam of guidance and truth
The above three beliefs tally up with the belief of the Shia Athna Asharis. Compare this to Yazeed b. Maqil who was among the opponents of Imam Hussain [as] and deemed Burayr b. Hudayr misguided for having those three beliefs in the same way that modern day Sunnis deem the Shi’as misguided for adhereing to these three believes.
If the filthy Nawasib like that of Sipah e Sahaba still insist that Shi’a killed Imam Hussain [as] whilst that are the true lovers of Ahllubait [as] then we have a simple and straight question to them:
“Do you Nawasib like the helper of Imam Hussain [as] Burayr b. Hudayr deem Uthman a man who indulged himself excessively, Mu’awiyah a follower and a guide of wrong path and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib as Imam of guidance and truth ?”
If your answer is in positive only then you have every right to to call yourselves the lovers of Ahlulbait [as] if you do not then you adhere to the school of thought followed by Yazeed b. Maqil who was among the killers of Imam Hussain [as].
Moreover the thing on which Mubahila took place between Burayr b. Hudayr and Yazeed b. Maqil along with its result is clear to all readers and that makes it clear as to which side adhered to the truth and which side adhered to misguidance.
Proof Four
After immense fighting that resulted in Burayr b. Hudayr being martyred his killer Ka`b bin Jabir Al Azdi left the scene, his wife or his sister said to him:
“You have given help against son of Fatimah and you have killed the leader of reciters of Quran. You have brought great disgrace. By God! I will never speak a word to you”
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134
Ka`b bin Jabir Al Azdi then proudly recited a poetry:
“Ask that you be told about me - and you are blameworthy
at the battle against Hussain, while the spears were pointed….
I had with me a spear from Yazan- whose joints had not betrayed it,
And white sword which was sharpened, and both edges of it were cutting.
I singled him out amid a group whose religion was not my religion, for I am satisfied with Ibn Harb (i.e Yazid)…..
Tell Ubaydallah if you meet him,
That I am obedient and attentive to the Caliph…”
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134
His words “whose religion was not my religion” clearly shows that his religion was different than the relgion of the helpers and followers of Imam al Hussain [as] while the religion of Imam Hussain [as] and his followers was affirmed through the words of Burayr b. Hudayr. Yet again his belief of deeming Yazeed as his caliph corroborates Sunni ideology espoused by Abdullah ibn Umar in Sahih al Bukhari. If Nawasib like that of Sipah e Sahaba and ansar.org accept the religion and beliefs told by Burayr b. Hudayr only then they should rightly deem themselves the followers of Ahl’lubait [as] otherwise they should be ashamed of sharing the same religions as the killers of Imam al Hussain [as].
Proof Five
Ibn Kathir records that when Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad caught Hani bin Urwah, he started to torture him. When the relatives of Hani gathered at his palace Ibn Ziyad through Qadi Shureh sought to turn them away by calming them:
“Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad said to Hani: ‘Allah has made your blood Halal for me because you are Haroori’. Thus according to his orders he was locked up in next to a house and his tribe Banu Mazhaj came and stood at the door of the palace along with Umro bin al-Hajaj. They thought that Hani had been killed. When Ibn Ziyad heard their noise he asked Qadi Shureh who was near to him to go to the people and told them that the Ameer has detained him so that he could question him about Muslim bin Aqeeel. Therefore Qadi told them: ‘Your master is alive and our king has beaten him up to a extent where there was no danger to his life”
Al Bidayah wal Niihayah, (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1018-1019 topic "Incident of Hussain bin Ali, reason of his exit from Makkah and situation of his murder"
If Nawasib have not recognized this Qadi Shureh; yet another follower of Ibn Ziyad then allow us to reveal his revered place in the madhab of Ahl’ul Sunnah. This main is not only praised by the Sunni Ulema but he has also narrated hadiths in principle hadith books like Bukhari. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:
البخاري في الأدب المفرد والنسائي شريح بن الحارث بن قيس بن الجهم بن معاوية بن عامر الكندي أبو أمية الكوفي القاضي ويقال شريح بن شرحبيل ويقال بن شراحيل۔۔۔ وقال حنبل بن إسحاق عن بن معين شريح بن هانئ وشريح بن أرطاة وشريح القاضي أقدم منهما وهو ثقة وقال العجلي كوفي تابعي ثقة۔۔۔ المفرد وقال بن سعد توفي سنة 79 وكان ثقة
Shureh bin Al-Harith bin Qais bin Al-Juham bin Muawya bin Amer Al-Kindi Abu Amuaya Al-Kufi the Qadi, he is called Shureh bin Sharhabil or Sherahil narrated in Bukhari, Sunan Al-Nesa'i … Hanbal bin Ishaq narrate that Ibn Meen said about him: ‘Thiqah’. Al-Ejli said: ‘Kofi Tabee Thiqah’… Ibn Sa`ad said: ‘He died in year 79 and he is Thiqah’.
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 4 No. 574
If any Nasibi still accuse Shias of being involved in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] then it is just pure stubbornness, for the truth is that Sunni Ulema not only praised the associate of Ibn Ziyad but also deemed him worthy enough to derive their religion from him.
Proof Six
Apart from all the individuals we have discussed in this chapter that contributed to the murder of Imam Hussain [as] and his people, we would like to remind our readers of those personalities that we had discussed in previous chapters such as:
Muhamad bin Ashath, who arrested Muslim bin Aqeel [as] and sent him to his master Ibn Ziyad, who was not only a Sunni narrator of Sunni hadith books such as Mu'wata, Sunnan Abu Dawoud, Sunnan al-Nisai, and Sunnan Kubra but was also graded a reliabile authority by Sunni scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ibn Habban.
Umro bin Hareeth, a Sahabi, who narrated hadith in Sunni books, was the Police Chief in Kufa who was dispatched by his master Ibn Ziyad to arrest Muslim bin Aqeel’s.
Kathir bin Shihab was also an Ibn Ziyad henchman that narrated traditions from Umar bin al-Khatab in Sunni books.
Hajaar bin Abjur, another henchman of Ibn Ziyad who was also one of those who had written letters inviting Hussain [as]. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Habban included him in his collection of Thiqa narrators while Imam Ibn Saad graded him as an honorable man.
May Allah guide all muslims to the right path(i.e Path of Ali and his pure sons).Amen
