• Counter :
  • 544
  • Date :
  • 10/18/2011

Peshawar Nights: The Position of Infallible Imams

(Third Session-part 8)


*The infidelity of Yazid

*Sanction by Sunni Ulema for cursing Yazid

*Desecration of graves

*The descendants of the Holy Prophet are martyrs in the way of Allah and are alive

*The position of Infallible Imams



Among the facts proving Yazid's infidelity are his own poetic couplets. For instance, he writes:

"If drinking (wine) is prohibited in the religion of Muhammad, let it be so; I will accept Christianity."

"It is this world alone for us. There is no other world. We should not be deprived of the pleasures of this world."

These couplets appear in the collection of his poetical works, and Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi has recorded them in his Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid. Again he says:

"One who frightens us with the story of doomsday, let him do so. These are false things which deprive us of all the pleasures of sound and music."

Sibt Ibn Jauzi writes in his Tadhkira, page 148, that when the descendants of the Prophet were brought as captives to Syria, Yazid was sitting in the second story of his palace. He recited the two following couplets:

"When the camel litters carrying prisoners appeared, a crow cawed (a bad omen in Arabia). I said: O crow, whether you caw or not, I have taken vengeance on the Prophet."

"Vengeance" refers to the fact that his elders and near relatives were killed in the battles of Badr, Uhud, and Hunain. He avenged their deaths by killing the sons of the Prophet.

Another proof of his infidelity is that when he had a party to celebrate Husain's martyrdom, he recited the irreligious couplets of Abdullah Bin Uzza Ba'ri. Sibt Ibn Jauzi, Abu Raihan, and others have written that Yazid wished for the presence of his ancestors, who were all infidels, and were killed in the battle of Badr on the order of the Prophet.

 Yazid said: "I wish those of my clan who were killed at Badr, and those who had seen the people of the Khazraj clan wailing (in the battle of Uhud) on account of lancet wounds, were here. They would have hailed me with loud cries and said: 'O Yazid, may your hands never be paralyzed' because I have killed the chiefs of his (the Prophet's) clan. I did so as revenge for Badr, which has now been completed. The Bani Hashim only played a game with government. There has come no message from Allah, nor was anything revealed. I would not belong to the Khandaq family if I had not taken vengeance on the descendants of the Prophet. We avenged the murders of Ali by killing his son, a horseman and a brave lion."



Most of your ulema regard Yazid as an infidel. Even Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and many other great ulema of your sect suggest that curses on him should be recited. Abdu'r-Rahman Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi has written a book on this subject, Kitabu'l-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anidu'l-Mani'an La'n-e-Yazid La'natullah. Only a few of the fanatical ulema of your sect, like Ghazali, have shown partiality to Yazid and have fabricated ludicrous objections in defense of him. However, the majority of your ulema have noted his irreligious, tyrannical behavior. Muslim states that as caliph, Yazid attempted to do away with religion. Mas'udi, in his Muruju'z-Dhahab, Volume II, says that the character of Yazid was like that of Pharaoh, but that Pharaoh was more just to his subjects than Yazid was. Yazid's rule brought disgrace on the fair name of Islam. His wickedness included drinking wine, murdering the Prophet's son, cursing the Prophet's successor, Ali, demolishing the House of Allah (Masjidu'l-Haram), and mass killings. He committed countless transgressions against divine law, sins which are unforgivable.

Nawab: How was Yazid responsible for mass killings?

Well-Wisher: Many historians have related this fact. Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkira, page 63, says that some of the people of Medina went to Syria in 62 A.H. When they learned of the sinful deeds of Yazid, they returned to Medina, broke their allegiance to him, cursed him, and turned out his Governor, Uthman Bin Abi Sufyan. Abdullah Bin Hanzala (Ghusilu'l-Mala'ikat) said: "O people, we did not revolt against Yazid until we verified that he was an irreligious man. He killed the descendants of the Prophet, illegally associates with mothers, daughters, and sisters, drinks wine, and does not offer the ritual prayer."

When this news reached Yazid, he sent a large army of Syrians under Muslim Bin 'uqba against the people of Medina. The slaughter of Muslims continued for three days.

 Yazid's forces killed 700 noblemen of the Quraish, Muhajirs, and Ansars, and 10,000 common people. I am ashamed to say how the Muslims were humiliated. I will quote only one passage of Tadhkira, page 163, by Sibt Ibn Jauzi, reported by Abu'l-Hasan Mada'an: "After the mass slaughter of the people of Medina, 1,000 unmarried women gave birth to children."



Sheikh: These accounts indicate his sins. Sins are forgivable and may be condoned, and Yazid did show repentance. Allah, who is the Forgiver of sins, forgave him. So why do you always curse him and call him wicked?

Well-Wisher: Some lawyers go on arguing a client's case until the last moment because they have received fees from them, even though they know well the merits of the case. But I fail to understand why you are so interested in defending Yazid, in the face of his murders of Allah's Apostles and his slaughter of the people of Medina. Moreover, your assertion that he showed repentance is not proven. Don't his denials of the main principles of Islam, the Day of Resurrection, the revelation, and prophethood merit our condemnation? Hasn't Allah cursed the oppressors? If these arguments are not sufficient for the advocates of Yazid Bin Mu'awiya, I will, with your permission, quote two hadith from your distinguished ulema.

Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih, Allama Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina, Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi in Kitabu'r-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid, Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira-e-Khawasu'l-Umma, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal in Musnad and others quote the Holy Prophet as saying: "If anyone frightens and oppresses the people of Medina, Allah will frighten him (i.e., on the Day of Judgement). He will be cursed by Allah, by the angels, and by all humanity. And on the Day of Judgement, Allah will not accept any of his deeds."

The Prophet also said: "Curse be on him who frightens my city (the people of Medina)." Didn't this mass slaughter frighten the people of Medina? If it did, then acknowledge along with the Prophet, the angels, and all the people that that wicked malefactor was cursed and will go on being cursed until the Day of Judgement.

The majority of your ulema have cursed Yazid. Abdullah Bin Muhammad Bin Amir Shabrawi Shafi'i in Kitabu'l-Ittihaf be Hubbi'l-Ashraf Raji' ba La'n-e-Yazid, page 20, writes that when the name of Yazid was mentioned before Mulla Sa'd Taftazani, he said: "Curse be on him and on his companions and helpers." Allama Samhudi in his Jawahiru'l-Iqdain, is reported to have said: "The ulema in general have concurred that it is permitted to curse him who murdered Imam Husain, or who ordered him to be murdered, or who sanctioned his murder, or who agreed to his murder."

Ibn Jauzi, Abu Ya'la, and Salih Bin Ahmad, arguing from the verses of the Holy Qur'an write that, "It is proven that cursing Yazid is permissible. It is the duty of all Muslims that they should know the rights that Imam Husain has over them, and how, with the strength of his suffering oppression and tyranny, he watered the tree of Islam with his own blood and the blood of his family. Otherwise, that blessed tree might have died because of the tyranny of the Bani Umayya. It was Husain who gave Islam a new life."

I regret that, instead of recognizing the services that these holy people rendered for Islam, you raise objections about pilgrims who visit their tombs and call them worshippers of the dead. We often read that in the central places of countries, like Paris, London, Berlin, and Washington there are tombs honoring the "unknown soldier." It is said that, suffering the tyranny of the enemy and in defense of his country, he sacrificed his life. But there was no mark on his body or clothes to indicate his family or city. Because he gave his life in defense of his country, even though he was unknown, he is worthy of respect. When a king or any prominent personality visits such cities, he visits the grave of the unknown soldier and places wreaths of flowers on it. An unknown soldier receives much respect, but I regret that, instead of respecting the pilgrims who visit the tombs of learned, pious Muslims, we criticize them. Some of them knew the entire Qur'an by heart. They sacrificed their lives in the defense of Islam. These people include the trustees of Allah, the Holy Prophet, and descendants of the holy Prophet.



Some Muslims have actually demolished such tombs and made tea on the chests placed over the graves! Such a tragedy occurred in 1216 A.H. on the Eidi'l-Ghadir, when most of the residents of Karbala go to Najaf for pilgrimage. The Wahhabis of Najaf attacked Karbala and murdered the Shias. They demolished the tombs of those who sacrificed their lives for the sake of Islam. About 5,000 residents of Karbala, including the ulema, the elderly, women, children, were slaughtered. The treasury of Imam Husain was looted and precious stores, gold lamps, and valuable carpets were taken. The precious chest above the tomb was burned and tea was made on it. Many people were taken away as prisoners. Woe be to such Muslims!

How regrettable it is that in all civilized countries the tombs of kings, intellectuals, and even unknown soldiers are respected, but Muslims, who are expected to show a better sense of the importance of the preservation of the tombs of those who are their pride, plunder and destroy them like savages. In Mecca and Medina the Wahabis destroyed the tombs of the martyrs of Uhud, including that of Hamza, the ancestors of the holy Prophet, like Abdu'l-Muttalib, Abdullah, and others. They also destroyed the tombs of the family of the Prophet, his sons, like Imam Hasan, Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, Imam Muhammad Baqir, Imam Ja'far Sadiq, Bibi Fatima, daughter of the Holy Prophet, and many others of the Bani Hashim and distinguished ulema. Still they call themselves Muslims. Of course they construct huge mausoleums for their own great men and kings. The fact is that the ulema of both sects have quoted many hadith inviting us to visit the graves of the faithful, so that the tombs may be saved from destruction. The Holy Prophet himself visited the graves of the faithful and invoked Allah for their deliverance.



Do you think that the exalted family of the Prophet who gave their lives in the way of religion are martyrs? If you say they are not martyrs, what is your argument? If they are martyrs, how can you call them "dead?" The Holy Qur'an states: "They are alive (and) are provided with sustenance from their Lord." (3:169) So according to the Holy Qur'an and the hadith, those holy people are alive. Hence, we are not worshippers of the dead. We do not salute the dead, we praise the living. And no Shia, educated or uneducated, regards them as the sole remover of his difficulties. He regards them as pious servants of Allah and a means of approach to Allah. We place our desires before the righteous Imams so that they may invoke Allah to show kindness to us. When we say, "O Ali, help me," " Husain, help me," it is just like a man who wants to approach the king. He may go to the prime minister and ask him for help. He certainly does not consider the prime minister of the king as the final resort for removal of his difficulties. His only aim is to approach the king through him since, by virtue of his position, he can easily approach the king. The Shias do not regard the descendants of the Prophet as partners in divine actions; they consider them as his pious servants.



Since they are the representatives of Almighty Allah, they submit the desires of the needy to Him. If the request is worthy, He accepts it. Otherwise, its recompense is given in the hereafter. One point should not be allowed to remain unexplained: the Shias regard the position of the faultless Imams as higher than that of the other martyrs of Islam.

Hafiz: This statement requires an explanation. What is the difference between your Imams and all other Imams except that they are related to the Prophet?

Well-Wisher: If you look at the position of the Imamate, you will see a clear contrast between the conception of the Imamate held by Shias and Sunnis.

Source: al-islam.org

Other Links:

Peshawar Nights: Third Session-part 1

Peshawar Nigh: Third Session-part 2

Peshawar Nights: Third Session-part 3

Peshawar Nights: Second Session-part 1

Peshawar Nights: Second Session-part 2

  • Print

    Send to a friend

    Comment (0)

  • Most Read Articles