Hazrat Hussain and Yazid: Facts and Fallacies (Tragedy Of Karbala)

Hazrat Hussain and Yazid

Facts and Fallacies (Tragedy Of Karbala)

The battle of Karbala in 61 A.H. was NOT a battle between truth and falsehood or Islam and Kufr as is alleged by the Shias. It was not jihad ether otherwise all the Sahabah would have sided with Hazrat Hussain. All the Muslim citizens including the then living Sahaba with the exception of Hazrat Hussain and Abdullah bin Zubair swore allegiance to Yazid. When Hazrat Hussain 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, Hazrat Abdullah bin Abbass, Hazrat Muhammad bin Abu Hanifa etc. tried to persuade him not to undertake this journey as it was full of risks and hazards. They were however, not successful in their attempt and Hazrat Hussain proceeded on his mission of reformation conceived on the basis of his own ijtehad. There was however, no notice of fighting as he went with 60 or 70 people which mostly comprised members of his own household. It was only a political difference with Yazid, and Hazrat Hussain wanted to rectify the situation. It was never a confrontation between Islam and Kufr as none of the contestants even once called each other as Kafir (infidel). The Kuffite (who had mostly Sabai elements in their ranks) were playing their own game against Islam and Ummah under the cover of love and loyalty for Hazrat Hussain as we will see later.

When Hazrat Hussain was still on his way to Kufa, he received news that his cousin, Muslim bin Aqeel, who was sent earlier by him to Kufa to ascertain the conditions there, had been murdered on receiving news of the death of Muslim bin Aqeel, Hazrat Hussain lost confidence in the people of kufa and decided to return but the relatives of Muslim bin Aqeel under the influence of Sabai elements insisted on avenging the murder of Muslim bin Aqeel and hence Hazrat Hussain decided to resume his onward journey to Kufa. When Hazrat Hussain reached Karbala the governor of Kufa, Ibn Zaid, sent Umar bin Saeed as the head of a contingent to halt the advance of Hazrat Hussain. Umar bin Saeed held discussions with Hazrat Hussain where he latter offered to make a compromise if one of the three conditions are accepted:

(i) He may be allowed to participate in jihad on the frontiers of Islamic empire.

(ii) Or he may be permitted to return to Madinah.

(iii) Or he may be allowed to see Yazid -------- (in certain narrations like Tahrik e Tabari it is stated that he (Hussain) will personally offer allegiance to Yazid & not through any intermediary).

Umar bin Saeed accepted the last condition and solicited the approval of the governor (Ibn Zaid) who however, insisted that allegiance for Yazid must be offered at his hand which Hazrat Hussain didn't accept. Consequently the battle ensued which resulted in the martyrdom of Hazrat Hussain.

It would be seen there from that Yazid had no hands in the murder of Hazrat Hussain. 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 Hussain's martyrdom reached Yazid, he and his family wept. Yazid even said: "curse of Allah be on Abaidullah bin Zaid. By Allah! If he had been a relative of Hazrat Hussain he would have never killed him. I would have accepted the submission of Iraqis without the killing of Hazrat Hussain." then he accorded a very gracious hospitality to the remaining family members of Hazrat Hussain and arranged their return journey to Madinah with great honor and respect.

Had Yazid got any involvement in the murder of Hazrat Hussain the remnants of his family would have never stayed with Yazid as his guests for several days immediately after the incident of Karbala. How can one stay and dine with the murderers of one's blood relations? All the vile propaganda against Yazid is a latter innovation of the Shias. Even some of the innocent Muslims like Muhammad Ali Jauhar have been deceived when he said in a couplet:

"the martyrdom of Hussain in effect is death of Yazid; islam rises to new heights after every incident like that of Karbala."

This is highly misleading as it is evident from the fact that several hundreds of Sahaba were alive at that time but all of them kept aloof from this event to save Ummah from entanglement and bloodshed. Had it been an encounter between good and evil, the Sahabah who throughout their lives had not shirked jihad would have definitely thrown all their weight behind Hazrat Hussain.

It may be mentioned here the close affinity of Yazid with the family of Hadhrat Ali. In 53 H when Yazid as Amir-ul-Hujjaj went to Makkah and after Haj reached Madinah, at that occasion he was married to Sayyeda Umm Muhammad, the daughter of Aabdullah bin Jaffar yahyar who was the son-in-law of Hazrat Ali and brother-in-law of Hassan and Hussain. Today people remember Yazid's name only as an abuse under the direction of investigate themselves to sift truth from the untruth.

There is no denying the fact that realising the faithlessness of Kuffites, Hadhrat Hussain lost his heart and wanted to proceed to Damascus and offer allegiance to Yazid but the plotters who had accompanied Hadhrat Hussain (i.e. so-called partisans of Ali) saw their own end in such a reproachment so they issued from their camps and murdered Hadhrat Hussain along with his kith and kin.

When we study the chronology of events, the inevitable conclusion drawn is that

(1)  Kuffite invited Hazrat Hussain to Kufa and wrote him letters

(2)  the inviters were the Shias

(3)  those very people who called Hazrat Hussain murdered him, captured his family member and robbed them of their property

(4)  the women of the members of Hazrat Hussain raised hue and cry to defraud the people and

(5)  murderers of Hazrat Hussain being Shias are outside the pale of Ummah of Rasul-Allah (saw).

For searching details about the tragedy of Karbala from Shia sources please see Maulana Allahyar's book (pp. 114-134). The book in urdu is available from Dar-ul-Irfan, Manara, Distt: Chakwal (Pakistan). The late Maulana dedicated his whole life in confrontation with the Shias and have exploded their myth and falsity in his writings which merit to be translated in English and other languages.

Yazid is only projected by the Shias as a tyrant, lewd, drunkard and pervert. How would they account for his piety and eminence when the contingent of which he was commander remained out from Damascus for nine months in the campaign of Constantinople (more details about it are given in the ensuing pages) & during this period all the senior Sahabah as well as Hadhrat Hussain offered prayers behind Yazid? Similarly in 50 & 53 A.H. Yazid was appointed as Amir-ul-Hujjaj and in this capacity he led Muslims to perform haj rites and rituals and Muslims of the entire world of Islam offered their prayers behind him.

A question was put to Imam Ghazzali whether there is a valid ground for cursing Yazid for his alleged complicity in the murder of Hazrat Hussain. The Imam Ghazzali replied as under:-

"it is not lawful to curse any Muslim. Anyone who curses a Muslim is himself accursed. Rasul-Allah (saw) said: "a Muslim is not given to cursing." besides the Islamic Shariah has prohibited us from even cursing the animals. How then it would be permissible to curse any Muslim when the honour of a Muslim is more sacred than the holy Kaaba as mentioned in a hadith (Ibn Majah).

"the Islamic faith of Yazid is proved without any shadow of doubt. As regards the murder of Hussain, there is no definite evidence that Yazid either killed him or issued orders for his killing or approved any such plans. When nothing has been proved in this regard, how would it be lawful to cast doubts and aspersions on Yazid when entertaining suspicion about a Muslim is unlawful in Islam."

Almighty Allah says in the Qur’an "o ye who believe! Shun much suspicion; for lo! Some suspicion is crime. And spy not, neither backbite one another. Would one of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Ye abhor that (so abhor the other). And keep your duty (to Allah)." (49 : 12).

Hazrat Abu Hurairah reported Allah's messenger as saying "despising his brother Muslim is enough evil for anyone to do. Every Muslim's blood, property and honour are sacred to a Muslim." (Muslim).

Imam Ghazzali reiterates:

"anyone who thinks that Yazid ordered the killing of Hussain or liked the killing of Hussain such a person is absolutely fool. . . . . . . . ."

"as regards saying (radiallahu anha) after the name of Yazid, this is not only permissible but commendable. It is rather included in our dua when we pray for the forgiveness of all Muslims and Yazid was certainly a momin (believer)." ( ,berirut, p. 288).

The Shias have done a lot of mud-slinging on the conduct and character of Yazid trying out of malice and prejudice to falsely project him as addicted to wine and passion on account of sheer ill-will and enmity. This has been refuted by Muhammad bin-al-Hanifa, the elder brother of Hazrat Hussain who remarked:

"whatever ill you say about him (Yazid), i have witnessed none of the same. I have stayed with him and found him a regular worshipper (i.e. fast observer of salat), well wisher of others, fonder of the knowledge of shari'ah and abiding by the sunnah of the prophet (saw)." (vol. Viii p. 233 ).

Yazid was the commander of Muslim forces who marched to Constantinople. This expedition was sent during the reign of Hazrat Muawiyah and in this task force were included elderly and illustrious Sahaba like Hazrat Abu Ayyub Ansari whose funeral prayer was led by Yazid according to the will of Hazrat Ayyub Ansari himself. This expedition took place in 51 h in which Hazrat Hussain fought under the leadership of Yazid. This was the pioneering Muslim force which landed in Constantinople and according to a hadith narrated by Abdullah bin Umar which has been recorded by Bukhari, Rasul-Allah said:

"the army which will first embark on the expedition of Constantinople will blessed." (Bukhari).

Yazid was the commander of Muslim forces on this expedition who waged jihad in Constantinople and as such he falls within the parameter of above hadith of the prophet (saw). In view of this it is not becoming on any Muslim to cast aspersions on Yazid as the entire army which took part in this campaign has been blessed by Allah in the context of above hadith. Therefore, unenlightened Muslims under the influence of Shias should not transgress the limits of cursing Yazid in their love for Hazrat Hussain and Ahle-bait.

Another thing to guard against is the use of title of "imam" and alayhi sallaam for Hazrat Hussain. The majority of Muslims unconsciously remembers Hazrat Hussain as "imam Hussain alayhi sallaam", although this smaks of Shiaism. For all the Sahaba, we use word (Hazrat) out of respect and reverence for them such as Hazrat Abu Bakar, Hazrat Umar, Hazrat Usman, Hazrat Ali etc. We never say imam Abu Bakar or Imam Umar. Similarly after the name of every Sahabi we use and write the word (radiallahu anhu i.e. may Allah be pleased with him) and never use the words like (alayhi sallaam i.e. peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) which are reserved for only the prophets. As such, we never write or utter Hazrat Abu Bakar (alayhi sallaam) or Hazrat Umar (alayhi salaam) but in case of Hazrat Hussain we use alayhi sallaam. Have we ever given a thought why it is so? It is because of the influence of Shiaism which has imperceptibly crept into our minds.

Remember that imamate is an article of faith with the Shias and according to their belief imam is sinless like the prophet and appointed and commissioned by Allah. Hazrat Hussain is one of their (Shia) twelve imams. As such the Shias use the title of "imam" for Hazrat Hussain although in the sight of Sunni Muslims, he is a Sahabi and not a "sinless imam" appointed and commissioned by Allah. We do not subscribe to the Shia belief of imamate. As such we should call and write "Hazrat Hussain radiallahu anhu" and not "imam Hussain alayhi sallaam" which is the way and technique of Shias in accordance with their fallacious beliefs and misleading practices.

Notes

1. The so-called imams of the Shias and their near relations named several of their children after the names of Hadhrat's Abu Bakr, Umar Usman, Muwaiyah and Yazid etc. Out of love and affection for these personalities. This shows that there was no rancour in their hearts against them and they considered them legitimate caliphs and monarchs. The Shias should follow the Sunnah of their "imams" in this regard. Similarly the marriage of Hadhrat Fatimah took place on 21st Muharram. The Shias instead of prohibiting nikah during the month of Muharram should try to revive this dead Sunnah among their midst.

2. Sometime back a Shia mujtahid while delivering a speech on t.v. on the occasion of Ashura remarked: "why do you people give so much importance to the trunk (of a tree) although its branches deserve more care and attention since those provide shade and fruit."
it is obvious that the Shia mujtahid meant Rasul-Allah when he referred to trunk (of the tree) and Ali and his children in regard to its branches. Such is the strategy and approach of Shias to de-thrown Rasul-Allah (saw) from the pedestal of honour and glory!

source: kr-hcy