Written in Urdu by Sayyid Mohsin Kashmiri | Translated by Sayyid Burair Abbas and Muhammad Jaffer

We recently had the privilege to explore a work written by the Indian scholar Sayyid Muhammad Razī Ḥusaynī Zangīpūrī (d. 1370 AH). The book—originally penned in Urdu as a manuscript entitled, “Qātilān-i-Husayn kī Giraftārī” (Apprehending the Killers of Ḥusayn)—was typographed, researched, and edited by our dear friend Sayyid Mohsin Hosaini Kashmiri and will soon be published in the Urdu language. The book was written as a powerful rebuttal to the common Sunni polemical claim that the Shī’a of Kūfa were the very ones who murdered Imam Ḥusayn (as) and that they grieve annually due to this betrayal.^[1] The esteemed author of this work presents a polemical tour de force, artfully dissecting the meaning of the term Shī’a in the early centuries of Islam, historically dismantling the narrative of the justice of all companions (‘adālat al-ṣaḥābah), and documenting the credal beliefs of the prominent perpetrators of Imam Ḥusayn’s (as) martyrdom.

In the preface to this work, Kashmiri presents a powerful discussion regarding the ascension of Yazīd to the caliphate and how this presents an insurmountable quagmire for traditional Sunni political theory. We have endeavored to translate this interesting discussion for the benefit of an English-speaking audience. We believe this piece is poignant and timely, especially since this year’s Muḥarram season has witnessed prominent Sunni figures emerging to discuss the Sunni position on Yazīd’s caliphate and the tragedy of Imam Ḥusayn (as) while skillfully dancing around the major ideological challenges it creates for the Ahl al-Sunnah. The discussion as outlined by Kashmiri in this introduction is a summary of a polemical thesis presented by another great scholar of the subcontinent ‘Allāmah Sayyid Muḥammad Naqvī Lucknawī in his work “Thamarat al-Khilāfah.”^[2]

Some may believe that polemical literature of this sort is no longer beneficial in the contemporary period and that we should focus instead on Islamic unity. Although we believe this view is well-intentioned, it carries a certain naivete. For Islamic unity to be significant, the convergent ground should be ideologically consistent for both Shī’a and Sunni sects; in other words, it is meaningless for our Sunni brethren to condemn Yazīd while in the same breath condoning the selfsame political ideologies that orchestrated his ascension to power. It is similarly meaningless to consider Imam Husayn a martyr while espousing the traditional Sunni position that revolt against an oppressive government is illegitimate. This is in fact precisely what this piece aims to elucidate in no uncertain terms. Unless the Ahl al-Sunnah are willing to return to the drawing board about these traditional views, their endorsement of Imam Ḥusayn and condemnation of Yazīd shall perpetually remain vacuous.[3] It is indeed a great disservice to pull the wool over the eyes of Sunni laity on Imam Husayn’s (as) stance while leaving the glaring ideological inconsistencies within traditional Sunni political theory untreated.

Finally, we would like to close this introduction by noting that the scholarship of the Indian subcontinent is highly underestimated, and that the centuries of scholars who devoted their lives towards spreading the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt remain unknown by most of the Urdu-speaking laity today. There are reasons for this, perhaps most prominent of which is that there is a heavy focus among contemporary Indo-Pakistani laypeople on majlis and mimbar culture rather than scholastic erudition and literature. Nonetheless, a complete treatment of this issue requires separate discussion. We are thankful in advance to Sayyid Kashmiri and his team at The Indian Sub-Continental Literal Revival Center for their indispensable work on this frontier and ask that God Almighty abundantly increase their successes.

The Roots of Saqifah and the Instability of the Sunni Position on Yazid

Undoubtedly, the gruesome martyrdom of Sayyid al-Shuhadā’ Imam al-Ḥusayn (as) in the desert of Nainawā poses a very embarrassing question for the school of Ahl al-Sunnah; as the Fourth Martyr Ḥakīm Mirzā Muḥammad Kāmil Kashmīrī al-Dehlavī (d. 1225 AH)^[4] has poetically remarked:

کرد شخصی سوال از دانا

که بگو کشته شد حسین کجا

گفت کاندر سقیفه اش کشتند

بهر دنیای جیفه اش کشتند

سبب قتل او چه بود یزید

این ستم بر وی از سقیفه رسید

A person once did solicit a scholar

“Pray tell — where was it Ḥusayn was martyred?”

He said: “Indeed at Saqīfah they killed him;

Not but for the wares of this world they killed him.

Although he was slain at the hands of Yazīd—

Since Saqīfah it was this crime was conceived^[5]

Of course, it is not just the Shī’a who have opined as such; rather, some sharp-sighted Sunni scholars have also acknowledged this, as the renowned 6th-century AH Sunni writer and critic, ʿAllāmah Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī, writes:

واعلم أن الحسين لم يقتل في يوم كربلاء وإنما قتل في يوم السقيفة

 “And know that al-Ḥusayn was not killed on the day of Karbalā, rather he was killed on the day of Saqīfah.”^[6]

Now on the one hand, it is indisputable that the foundation of the Sunni religion was laid upon the principles and values of Saqīfah; meanwhile, on the other hand — even if only outwardly — denigrating Imam al-Ḥusayn (a) is akin to bidding farewell to the Qurān and Sunnah. This supposed contradiction has led to the emergence of a strange ideological dilemma in the Sunni creed, which to this day remains an unresolved puzzle and whose solution is nowhere to be found.

History testifies that in accordance with the exigencies of the era, Sunni scholars have adopted new paradigms and approaches with respect to the caliphate of Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah. To preserve their standing, they devised various fatwas and established contradictory opinions. Thus, we find them at various times:

a) issuing fatwas of disbelief (kufr) against Yazīd and declaring cursing him to be permissible;^[7]

b) shamelessly referring to Yazīd with the title of Amīr al-Mu’minīn (Commander of the Faithful) and considering Imam Ḥusayn (a) a renegade; ^[8]

c) espousing the innocence of Yazīd by portraying him as blissfully unaware of Imam Ḥusayn’s martyrdom;^[9]

d) condemning his sinful behavior while prohibiting anyone from cursing him;^[10]

e) claiming that Karbalā was a battle between two princes — and that we should have nothing to do with it, to the extent that some issued fatwas forbidding the mere mention of the event of Karbalā;^[11]

f) foolishly refuting the occurrence of the incident of Karbala entirely!^[12]

Now the question arises: why have there been so many differences among the Ahl al-Sunnah regarding the event of Karbalā? According to the basic principles of this sect, a ṣaḥābī is to be given preference over a non-ṣaḥābī in all circumstances; therefore, one would expect the matter to be a no-brainer.

On the one hand, we have Yazīd ibn Mu‘āwiyah, who neither attained the honor of companionship to the Prophet nor enjoys any laudation in the Qurān and Prophetic ḥadīth. Per Sunni scholars themselves, even his father Mu‘āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān is not counted among the Khulafā’ al-Rāshidūn (Rightly Guided Caliphs). Moreover, Yazīd’s evil actions, injustices, and wrongdoings have been attested to by generation after generation of Muslim scholars and historians.

On the other hand, we have Imam Ḥusayn (as): unanimously accepted as a ṣaḥābī, the progeny of the Messenger of Allah (s) as per the Qurān,^[13] the chief of the youth of Paradise per explicit narrations, and historically the beloved son of the rightly guided caliph ‘Alī and the daughter of the Apostle Lady Fāṭimah (as). Aside from the Qurān and Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī/Muslim, other hadith books devote entire chapters to his virtues and merit.

Yet still, we find complex acrobatics being manufactured to absolve Yazid — despite his plethora of oppression, tyranny, and immoralities. This is indeed a complex knot whose only undoing lies in the throes of Saqīfah Banī Sā’idah. In fact, it is precisely this supposed miracle of Saqīfah’s consensus that explains why some Muslims are exerting their utmost effort to defend Yazīd. Even though this discussion demands full elaboration and its substantiation requires presenting a large body of evidence, due to the lack of space in these pages we are presenting only a summary of the discussion in a handful of premises while keeping brevity in view.

Premise One: Caliphate and Companionship

At the outset, it is important for us to understand the status of Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah and Imam Husayn (as) in the year 61 AH according to the Ahl al-Sunnah. To clarify this matter, it is inevitable that we begin by elucidating the principles governing the appointment of a caliph and the nature of the caliphate based on Sunni political theory. The esteemed Sunni scholar, ʿAllāmah Imām Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (d. 792 AH), while explaining this matter in detail, enumerates three principles upon which the election of a caliph is carried out within the Sunni understanding:

The Allegiance of Decision-Makers (ahl al-ḥall wa al-ʿaqd)

This denotes the pledge of obedience from scholars, dignitaries, and leading personalities, with no condition regarding their number. Moreover, it is not necessary for them to belong to different cities; rather, if only one person from among this decision-making group pledges allegiance to another, the latter’s caliphate becomes established.

Nomination of a Successor (al-istikhlāf)

If the previous caliph himself appoints a successor, then that individual becomes the caliph. Similarly, if he entrusts the matter of election to a council (shūrā), then whoever is selected by the council — his caliphate becomes established.

Dominance and Subjugation (al-qahr wa al-istīlā’)

If the caliph of the time dies, and another person — in whom the conditions of caliphate are found — gains dominance and becomes a caliph without bayʿah or appointment (istikhlāf), then he is considered a caliph, even if he is sinful (fāsiq) or ignorant (jāhil), according to the more apparent opinion (ʿalā al-aẓhar).^[14]

As it pertains to the first point, in his al-Mawāqif, Imām ʿAḍud al-Dīn al-Ījī (d. 756 AH), and his commentator, Qāḍī Sharīf al-Jurjānī (d. 816 AH) write:

“If someone attains the Imamate (leadership) through election and allegiance (al-bay’ah), then that attainment is not dependent on the consensus (ijmāʿ) of the decision-makers (ahl al-ḥall wa al-‘aqd), because there is no rational or transmitted evidence to prove such a requirement. In fact, if only one or two people from among the decision-makers pledge allegiance to someone, that alone suffices to establish his Imamate. Thereafter, it becomes obligatory upon all Muslims to follow that Imam or Caliph, because we know that the Companions — being extremely pious and protectors of the sharī’ah — still considered the allegiance of one or two individuals as sufficient for establishing the Caliphate. For example, Abū Bakr ibn Abī Quḥāfah became Caliph through the allegiance of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, and ʿUthmān obtained the Caliphate through the allegiance of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf. They did not condition this on the consensus of all the decision-makers of Madīnah — let alone the consensus of the entire Ummah! And neither was their Caliphate denied by anyone, nor has anyone objected to this method until today.”^[15]

From the above, it follows that that the Caliphate of Yazid ibn Muʿāwiyah is established through all three methods (mentioned previously). In fact, the purposed legitimacy of this caliphate was not attained by the Rightly Guided Caliphs (Khulafā’ al-Rāshidīn) themselves:

• the Caliphate of the first Caliph was established solely through the allegiance of ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb.
• ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb was appointed as Abū Bakr’s successor directly.
• ʿUthmān was selected by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf.
• ‘Alī ibn Abī Ṭālib (as) was elected by the people of Madīnah.

Meanwhile, consider how Yazīd’s caliphate aligns with all three aforementioned principles:

1. Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, as the Caliph of the Muslims, appointed his son Yazīd as his successor during his own lifetime (al-istikhlāf);
2. The decision-makers (ahl al-ḥall wa al-‘aqd) of both Madīnah and Shām (Greater Syria) pledged allegiance to Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah;
3. Furthermore, Yazid also waged war against his rivals and fully secured dominance over the Caliphate (al-qahr wa al-istīlā’).

Moreover, a highly esteemed Companion like ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar —who was not even willing to pledge allegiance to the noble hand of the Commander of the Faithful, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib (peace be upon him)^[16] —nonetheless endorsed Yazid’s Caliphate and firmly defended it. Hence, when the event of Ḥarrah took place and the people of Madinah raised the banner of rebellion against Yazid, it was ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar who intervened. As Imām al-Bukhārī narrates:

Narrated by Nāfiʿ: “When the people of Madīnah broke allegiance to Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah, Ibn ʿUmar gathered his household and children and said: ‘I heard the Messenger of Allāh (peace and blessings be upon him) say: “A banner will be raised for every traitor on the Day of Resurrection.” And indeed, we have pledged allegiance to this man (Yazīd) on the pledge of Allāh and His Messenger. I do not know of any betrayal greater than a man who pledges allegiance on the pledge of Allāh and His Messenger and then fights against him. And I do not know of anyone among you who strips him (from Caliphate) or follows others in this matter except that it will be the decisive separation between me and him.’”^[17]

Now we come to the status of Imam Ḥusayn (a) in the eyes of Ahl al-Sunnah. There is no doubt that according to Ahl al-Sunnah, Imam Ḥusayn (a) holds the rank of being the grandson of the Messenger of Allah (s). He is also counted among the Companions (ṣaḥābah), and based on the command of the Qurān, love for him is considered obligatory while charity (ṣadaqah) upon him is prohibited. The Ahl al-Sunnah even acknowledge the revelation of certain Qurānic verses regarding his virtue. Imām al-Bukhārī, Imām Muslim, and other eminent Sunni hadith scholars have dedicated chapters to the virtues (manāqib) of the two Imams, Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (a), in their ṣaḥīḥ works, musnads, and other reliable collections.

Considering all this evidence, we conclude that as per the foundational principles of the Sunni school, Imam Ḥusayn (peace be upon him) is undoubtedly a noble Companion and a person worthy of great respect. Yet, despite this, he was not granted the position of Caliph according to Ahl al-Sunnah. Accordingly, the eminent Sunni scholar Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852 AH) summarizes the Sunni belief on this issue in these lines:

ثم اجتمع الناس على معاوية عند صلح الحسن ثم اجتمعوا على ولده يزيد ولم ينتظم للحسين أمر بل قتل قبل ذلك

“Then, at the time of the treaty with Ḥasan, the people united upon the Caliphate of Muʿāwiyah. Then they united upon the Caliphate of his son Yazid. As for Ḥusayn — his Caliphate never materialized, rather, he was killed before that.”^[18]

Premise Two: The Number of Caliphs in Islam

The tradents (muḥaddithūn) of Ahl al-Sunnah have transmitted several important texts and narrations from the Messenger of Allah (s) concerning the number of caliphs (khulafāʾ). The renowned 10th-century AH Sunni scholar Imām Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī authored a dedicated book on the history of the caliphs. At the beginning of this work, he collected and listed—at least to some extent—the narrations reported on the number of caliphs, including chains (ṭuruq) from both Imām al-Bukhārī and Imām Muslim, as follows:

From Jābir ibn Samurah, from the Prophet (peace be upon him), who said: “This matter (i.e., the leadership) will remain strong and victorious over its opponents until there are twelve caliphs—all of them from Quraysh.”

 This narration was reported by al-Shaykhayn (i.e., Bukhārī and Muslim) and others. This hadith has multiple chains and wordings, among them:

“This matter will continue to be sound” and “This matter will remain in effect” — both reported by Imām Aḥmad

Among Muslim’s versions:

“The affairs of the people will continue as long as they are governed by twelve men.”

“This matter will not come to an end until twelve caliphs have passed among them.”

“Islam will remain strong and mighty until twelve caliphs have passed.”

From al-Bazzār: “The affair of my Ummah will remain established until twelve caliphs have passed—all of them from Quraysh.”

From Abū Dāwūd, there is an addition:

“When the Prophet returned to his house, the Quraysh asked: ‘Then what will happen?’ He replied: ‘Then there will be chaos (al-haraj).’”

And from him also: “This religion will continue to stand until there are twelve caliphs over you—all of them upon whom the Ummah is united.”

From Imām Aḥmad and al-Bazzār, through a sound (ḥasan) chain from Ibn Masʿūd, it is narrated that: “The Prophet was asked, “How many caliphs will govern this Ummah?” He replied: “We asked the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) the same, and he said: ‘Twelve—just like the number of leaders among the Children of Israel.’” ^[19]

After quoting these ḥadīths, Imām al-Suyūṭī cites the opinion of ʿAllāmah Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ regarding this ḥadīth as follows:

 Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ said: “Perhaps what is meant by the twelve caliphs in these narrations and others similar to them is that they will appear during the period of the strength and glory of the Caliphate, when Islam is powerful, its affairs are stable, and there is unity upon the one who holds the caliphate. And this was indeed the case: the people united upon these twelve caliphs until the affair of the Banū Umayyah became turbulent, and internal conflict occurred among them during the time of al-Walīd ibn Yazīd. That disorder continued among them until the Abbasid state arose and uprooted their rule.”^[20]

In support of this view, Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī says:

“The statement of Qāḍī ʿIyāḍ is the best and most sound interpretation said regarding this ḥadīth, and it is the strongest, because it is supported by a version of the ḥadīth in some authentic chains which includes the phrase: ‘All of them will be agreed upon by the people.’ And the explanation of this is that the meaning of ‘agreement’ (al-ijtimā’) is that the people submit to his allegiance (bay’ah), and what actually occurred is that the people did unite upon (the caliphate of) Abū Bakr, then ʿUmar, then ʿUthmān, then ʿAlī — until the issue of arbitration (al-ḥakamayn) occurred at Ṣiffīn, and on that day Muʿāwiyah took the title of caliph. Then the people united upon Muʿāwiyah at the time of Ḥasan’s peace treaty. Then they united upon his son Yazīd. Ḥusayn’s matter did not materialize; rather, he was killed before that. Then, when Yazīd died, disagreement arose — until the people united upon ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān after the killing of Ibn al-Zubayr. Then they united upon his four sons: al-Walīd, then Sulaymān, then Yazīd (II), then Hishām. In between Sulaymān and Yazīd, ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ruled. Thus, these are seven (caliphs) after the Rightly Guided Caliphs. The twelfth is al-Walīd ibn Yazīd ibn ʿAbd al-Malik — the people united upon him when his uncle Hishām died. He ruled for about four years, then they uprose against him and killed him. From that day, turmoil spread and the circumstances changed. Never again did it happen that the people united upon a single caliph after that.” ^[21]

From the words and explanation of Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, it becomes entirely clear that the twelve caliphs mentioned explicitly in the ḥadīth are these very individuals and in this list, the name of Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah also appears! Even more astonishing is the fact that the aforementioned ḥadīths state that during the caliphate of these caliphs, the affairs of the Muslim ummah would remain sound (ṣāliḥ), and Islam would enjoy honor and stability.

Now, according to Ibn Ḥajar, was it a “righteous affair” (amr ṣāliḥ) that during Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah’s three-year rule, the family of the Prophet (s) was massacred in the desert of Karbalā, or that Madīnah was plundered, or that the Kaʿbah was set on fire? Well — only he can answer that!

Premise Three: The Prohibition of Rebellion (ʿAdam al-Khurūj)

Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karīm al-Shahrastānī (d. 548 AH) summarizes the Sunni belief on this matter as follows:

كل من خرج على الإمام الحق الذي اتفقت الجماعة عليه يسمى خارجيا سواء كان الخروج في أيام الصحابة على الأئمة الراشدين أو كان بعدهم على التابعين لهم بإحسان والأئمة في كل زمان

“Every person who rises up against the rightful Imam, upon whose caliphate the community has agreed, is called a renegade (khārijī)— whether that rebellion takes place during the days of the Companions against the Rightly Guided Caliphs, or afterward against the the succeeding generation (al-tābi’īn), or against the Imams of any time.”^[22]

Shahrastānī’s statement is derived from numerous hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (s), which have been reported by Sunni hadith scholars in their ṣaḥīḥ works and other reliable books.

One such narration is reported by Imām Muslim from ʿArfajah:

قال سمعت عرفجة قال سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول إنه ستكون هنات وهنات فمن أراد أن يفرق أمر هذه الأمة وهي جميع فاضربوه بالسيف كائنا من كان

 ʿArfajah said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say: ‘There will soon be chaos and tribulations, so whoever seeks to divide the affairs of this Ummah while it is united, strike him with the sword—whoever he may be.’”^[23]

Another narration is also reported by Imām Muslim, from Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī:

 عن أبي سعيد الخدري قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إذا بويع الخليفتين فاقتلوا الآخر منهما

Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī narrates that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “If two caliphs are given allegiance, then kill the one who was pledged allegiance later.”^[24]

In addition to this, other prominent Sunni tradents have transmitted similar narrations with various wordings and chains, and based on these hadiths, a legal principle was established in Sunni jurisprudence: “Anyone who rebels against the reigning caliph is to be considered a renegade (khārijī).”

In fact, Imām Muslim in his Ṣaḥīḥ dedicated a chapter titled: the chapter on the command to be patient under the oppression and subjugation of rulers” (bāb al-amr bi al-ṣabr ʿinda ẓulm al-wulāt wa isti’thārihim). In this chapter and others, Imām Muslim narrates several traditions indicating that even if the caliph is oppressive, it is still not permissible to rebel against him. As an example, consider the following ḥadīth:

قال سأل سلمة بن يزيد الجعفي رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال يا نبي الله أرأيت إن قامت علينا أمراء يسألونا حقهم ويمنعونا حقنا فما تأمرنا فأعرض عنه ثم سأله فأعرض عنه ثم سأله في الثانية أو الثالثة فجذبه الأشعث بن قيس وقال اسمعوا وأطيعوا فإنما عليهم ما حملوا وعليكم ما حملتم

“Salamah ibn Yazīd al-Juʿfī asked the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): ‘O Prophet of Allāh! Suppose rulers are appointed over us who demand their rights from us, but do not grant us our rights—what do you command us to do? The Prophet turned away from him. He asked again. The Prophet again turned away. When he asked a second or third time, al-Ashʿath ibn Qays pulled him toward himself. Then the Prophet (s) said: Listen and obey! Their burden is upon them, and your burden is upon you.’”^[25]

Based on such aḥādith, Sunni scholars concluded the impermissibility of rebelling against a tyrannical ruler. For example, Imām Saʿd al-Dīn ibn ʿUmar al-Taftāzānī presents this Sunni doctrine as follows:

ولا ينعزل الإمام بالفسق أي بالخروج عن طاعة الله تعالى والجور أي الظلم على عباد الله تعالى لأنه قد ظهر الفسق وانتشر الجور من الأئمة والأمراء بعد الخلفاء الراشدين والسلف كانوا ينقادون لهم ويقيمون الجمع والأعياد بإذنهم ولا يرون الخروج عليهم ولأن العصمة ليست بشرط الإمامة ابتداء فبقاء أولى

 “The Imam is not deposed due to immorality (al-fisq)—that is, through disobedience to Allah Almighty—nor by injustice (al-jawr)—that is, oppression against His servants—because after the Rightly Guided Caliphs, immorality and oppression became manifest from the imams and rulers. Yet the early generations (salaf) continued to submit to them, held Friday and Eid congregational prayers with their permission, and did not consider rebellion against them to be permissible. Moreover, since infallibility (‘iṣmah) is not a prerequisite for the initial appointment of an Imām, then it is even less a condition for his remaining in office.” ^[26]

Premise Four: The Obligation of Obeying the Imam

In every era, the obligation upon all Muslims to follow the Imam and Caliph has been documented by Sunni ḥadīth scholars, who have narrated dozens of hadiths from the Messenger of Allah (s) through various chains and wordings.

Likewise, Shī’a ḥadīth scholars have also recorded similar narrations in their books—through the Infallible Imāms (a)—from the Prophet (s).

Among these narrations, one well-known hadith, which has been transmitted by both Sunni and Shī’a sources, is as follows:

من مات ولم يعرف إمام زمانه مات ميتة جاهلية

“Whoever dies without recognizing the Imam of his time dies the death of ignorance (jāhiliyyah).”^[27]

This hadith is further corroborated by another narration found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:

عن نافع قال جَاءَ عبدُ اللهِ بنُ عُمَرَ إلى عبدِ اللهِ بنِ مُطِيعٍ حِينَ كانَ مِن أَمْرِ الحَرَّةِ ما كَانَ، زَمَنَ يَزِيدَ بنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ، فَقالَ: اطْرَحُوا لأَبِي عبدِ الرَّحْمَنِ وِسَادَةً، فَقالَ: إنِّي لَمْ آتِكَ لأَجْلِسَ، أَتَيْتُكَ لِأُحَدِّثَكَ حَدِيثًا سَمِعْتُ رَسولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عليه وَسَلَّمَ يقولُهُ: سَمِعْتُ رَسولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عليه وَسَلَّمَ يقولُ: مَن خَلَعَ يَدًا مِن طَاعَةٍ، لَقِيَ اللَّهَ يَومَ القِيَامَةِ لا حُجَّةَ له، وَمَن مَاتَ وَليسَ في عُنُقِهِ بَيْعَةٌ، مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً

Narrated by Nāfiʿ: ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar came to ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muṭīʿ during the incident of al-Ḥarrah, which took place in the time of Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah. Ibn Muṭīʿ said: “Place a cushion for Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān (i.e., Ibn ʿUmar). But Ibn ʿUmar said: “I have not come here to sit. I have come only to narrate a hadith that I heard from the Messenger of Allāh (peace be upon him): ‘Whoever removes his hand from obedience (to the ruler) will meet Allah on the Day of Judgment with no excuse for himself. And whoever dies without having a pledge of allegiance (bayʿah) on his neck dies a death of ignorance (jāhiliyyah).’” ^[28]

In addition to the chain of transmission, the meaning (dalālah) of this hadith is clear to every individual. Its significance is evident from the fact that a major Companion like ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar not only acted upon it but also strongly protested based on it. His tone of speech makes this evident. The only conclusion that can be drawn here is that in every era, it is necessary for Muslims to be under the pledge of allegiance (bayʿah) to an Imam or Caliph. Otherwise, their death would be a death of ignorance (mītat al-jāhiliyyah)—which in itself is a grave threat.

Now, making the claim today that these narrations are specific to the times wherein an Islamic government existed is bereft of evidence. These narrations do not at all specify such a condition, and therefore the default understanding should be that they ought to apply to all eras. However, even if we should concede to this point for the sake of argument, where exactly are the precise criteria for the caliphate found within the narrations, such that one can claim it does not exist any longer? The only description we find in the wording of the narrations themselves is that if a Muslim does not submit himself to the allegiance of the Imam of his era, then he dies a death of ignorance. Furthermore, the Ahl al-Sunnah themselves profess as per the testimony of ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar that even if a leader should be a fāsiq or ẓālim, it is obligatory upon the Muslims to obey him. In every era after the Prophet extending to today, there have been Muslims who have established governments; therefore, this contemporary contention that the ḥadīth only applies during periods of Islamic caliphate is extremely flimsy.

An Addendum to the Fourth Premise: The Lies of Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī

The well-known modern Salafi ḥadīth scholar ʿAllāmah Muḥammad Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī, in discussing the aforementioned narration (“whoever dies and does not know the Imam of his time dies a death of ignorance”), claimed: “This wording has no basis.”^[29]

To support this claim, he cites the opinion of his spiritual guide Ibn Taymiyyah, who said: “By Allah! The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him and his family) never said such a thing! Rather, the wording recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is the one that is well known.” Al-Albānī then adds that al-Dhahabī also agreed with this view, and therefore the statements of Ibn Taymiyyah and al-Dhahabī are binding (ḥujjah).

It is worth noting that Shaykh al-Albānī made such a bold oath without any evidence, and it appears such proclamations had become his penchant. As for the statement of al-Dhahabī which he claims as corroboration, perhaps the latter simply went along because he was summarizing Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s Minhāj al-Sunnah. However, we must be thankful that even ḥadīth scholars drowning in sectarian bias have at least accepted the version of this hadith recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Of course, the ideological quagmire facing al-Albānī and his ilk in reconciling this narration is not obviated by this ploy.

Nonetheless, to continue deceiving people, ʿAllāmah Nāṣir al-Dīn al-Albānī further states:

“I saw this hadith in some Shī’a books, and then later in some Qadiani books, where they use it to argue that belief in their impostor, the self-proclaimed prophet Mirzā Ghulām Aḥmad, is obligatory. Even if this ḥadīth were authentic, there would still be no indication whatsoever in it supporting what they claim. At most, it only establishes that it is obligatory for Muslims to appoint an Imam and pledge allegiance to him—and this is true, as is indicated by the hadith in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and others.”^[30]

Al-Albani’s claim is extremely astonishing and utterly false: that he found this hadith only in some Shī’a and Qadiani books. And to add deception to deception, al-Albani mentioned only the version of this ḥadīth that appears in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, as if this is the only authentic one. However, the truth is that prominent Sunni scholars and ḥadīth transmitters have not only cited this noble ḥadīth at various times but have also used it as a basis for legal and theological arguments—which in itself is solid evidence for its soundness and authenticity.

For instance, Imam Saʿd al-Dīn al-Taftāzānī (d. 792 AH), a foremost scholar of Ahl al-Sunnah, quoted this hadith using exactly these words: “Whoever dies without knowing the Imam of his time, dies a death of ignorance” in two of his works and used it in an evidentiary fashion.^[31] Likewise, Mullā ‘Alī Qārī (d. 1014 AH) even wrote that Imam Muslim himself narrated this hadith with exactly these words.^[32] Al-Taftazānī also narrates this wording in his other works in his attempts to justify it.^[33]

In addition, several Sunni tradents have narrated this hadith through various wordings and chains. For example, Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241 AH) narrated: “Whoever dies without an Imam dies a death of ignorance.”^[34]

Imam al-Ṭabarānī (d. 360 AH),^[35] ʿAlī al-Muttaqī al-Hindī (d. 975 AH),^[36] and others have transmitted this hadith in the wording of Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. Meanwhile, Ibn Abī ʿĀṣim (d. 287 AH) narrates it as: “Whoever dies without having an Imām over him, dies a death of ignorance.”^[37] Imam Abū Yaʿlā al-Mawṣilī (d. 307 AH) also reported it using the same wording.

Al-Ḥākim al-Nīshāpūrī (d. 405 AH) narrated it as follows: “Whoever dies and does not have over him an Imām of the community, then his death is a death of ignorance.”^[38]

Continuing onward, ‘Allāmah al-Albānī further says:

 “Then I saw this hadith in the book al-Uṣūl from al-Kāfī by al-Kulaynī, one of the scholars of the Shī’a. He narrates it from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbār, from Ṣafwān, from al-Fuḍayl, from al-Ḥārith ibn al-Mughīrah, from Abū ʿAbd Allāh in a marfūʿ (attributed to the Prophet) form. And this Abū ʿAbd Allāh is Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, may Allāh be pleased with them both.

 But this Fuḍayl—who is nicknamed al-Aʿwar—was mentioned by the Shī’ite al-Ṭūsī in his al-Fihrist and also by Abū Jaʿfar al-Sarawī in Maʿālim al-ʿUlamāʾ. However, neither of them mentions anything about him except that he authored a book! As for Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbār, they did not mention him at all. Likewise, there is no mention of him in any of our (Sunni) books either. This is the state of the chain of narration of the hadith that appears in their best book, al-Kāfī!” ^[39]

In the statement of the aforementioned scholar (i.e., al-Albānī), there are several points worthy of reflection, which expose the purported extent of the Shaykh’s scholarly ability. Firstly, the ḥadīth from al-Kāfī to which al-Albānī refers was narrated by Thiqat al-Islām Shaykh al-Kulaynī as follows:

 “Aḥmad ibn Idrīs narrated from Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbār, from Ṣafwān, from al-Fuḍayl, from al-Ḥārith ibn al-Mughīrah, who said: I asked Abū ʿAbdillāh (i.e., Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq): ‘Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) say: Whoever dies without knowing his Imam has died a death of ignorance?’ He replied: ‘Yes.’ I asked: ‘A death of simple ignorance or a death of not knowing the Imam?’ He replied: ‘A death of disbelief, hypocrisy, and misguidance.'”^[40]

Firstly, if al-Albānī—with his supposed precision in narrating ḥadīth—truly follows in the footsteps of his spiritual mentor Ibn Taymiyyah, swearing oaths in his claim that the Prophet (s) never uttered such a ḥadīth in those words and that only the version in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim is authentic, then he has no right to claim that the wording in question appear in al-Kāfī, because the wording found in al-Kāfī is slightly different:

من مات لا يعرف إمامه مات ميتة جاهلية

“Whoever dies without recognizing his Imam dies a death of ignorance.”

This argument of his is therefore misplaced, and it seems clear that the Shaykh did not actually pay attention to the wording in al-Kāfī.

Secondly, his claim that Abū ʿAbdillāh in this narration refers to Imam Ḥusayn (as) is in fact proof of his unfamiliarity with the traditions reported by Shī’a scholars from the Messenger and the Ahl al-Bayt (a). In this context, Abū ʿAbdillāh clearly refers to Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādiq (a), not Imam Ḥusayn (a), as Ḥārith ibn Mughīrah is known to have narrated from Imams Bāqir and Ṣādiq.^[41] So how can one expect such scholars to critically assess the books of the Shī’a? It is unfortunate that these kinds of pundits have caused so much damage to the Muslim community—issuing fatwas about others without understanding or even reading the material they are critiquing!

Yet even more damningly for himself, al-Albānī felt an urge to cast aspersions on the transmitter of this hadith. He remarked with apparent amusement that although Shaykh al-Ṭūsī and Abū Jaʿfar al-Sarawī in Maʿālim al-ʿUlamāʾ mentioned al-Fuḍayl in their respective works,^[42] neither of them said anything beyond the fact that he had authored a book. This further evinces al-Albānī’s misunderstanding, because both these books — al-Fihrist and Maʿālim al-ʿUlamāʾ — are not biographical dictionaries of scholars and hadith transmitters, but rather catalogues of authors and their works. This is evident from the titles, introductions, and style of composition of both books. How can a person acquainted with academic norms and the methodology of authorship expect anything else from books like these? And how can anyone expect someone like al-Albānī to not understand such distinctions?

Had the Shaykh been willing to make even a minimal scholarly effort, he would have found the biographical entry of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Jabbār in the Shī’a biographical (rijālī) literature, along with the status of the other narrators. He would have also seen that the principles of ḥadīth criticism (ʿilm al-dirāyah) among the Shī’a do not invalidate the ḥadīth or render it merely ascribed to the Prophet (marfū’) in the way he has imagined.

If that were the case, then we would have liked to see how he would still dare to say: “This is the state of the chain of narration in their best book.” Indeed, it is easy to say anything in passing. If only there was enough space, we would have held up a mirror to him from Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Indeed, such is the state of the reasoning presented by the purported muḥaddith of the era!

However, the real pain al-Albānī feels is not about the wording of this ḥadīth — as becomes apparent from the fact that he ends up affirming the meaning of the ḥadīth through Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Rather, the true reason for his objection lies in the final remarks he makes about the narration:

“Among the countless lies of the Shī’a is what al-Khomeinī wrote in Kashf al-Asrār:

‘There is a well-known ḥadīth among both the Shī’a and the Sunnis, narrated from the Prophet…’ And then [Khomeinī] quoted the hadith without mentioning blessings upon the Prophet (s) — and this is his habit throughout that book. As for his claim that ‘it is known among Ahl al-Sunnah’ then this is an open lie, because, as shown above, it is not known among them. In fact, on its face, it is invalid — unless it is interpreted as per the ḥadīth from Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, as demonstrated in al-Minhāj and its abridgment (Mukhtaṣar al-Minhāj). If interpreted that way, then the hadith becomes a proof against them, so refer to it.”^[43]

For all the disrespect shown by al-Albānī towards Shī’a scholars— especially toward Imām Khomeinī— by accusing him of lying and falsely attributing this hadith to the Ahl al-Sunnah, his words here are nothing but deceit and treachery. We have already detailed earlier which prominent Sunni tradents have authenticated this ḥadīth in these very same words. In fact, Mullā ‘Alī Qārī (d. 1014 AH) attributes this very wording to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim when he writes:

وقوله عليه السلام في صحيح مسلم: من مات ولم يعرف إمام زمانه مات ميتة جاهلية

“The statement of the Messenger (peace be upon him) in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim: ‘Whoever dies without knowing the Imam of his time, dies the death of ignorance (jāhiliyyah).'”^[44]

When the affair is as such, what crime did Sayyid Khomeinī commit by attributing this hadith to the Sunnis, such that al-Albānī became so agitated? To add insult to injury, al-Albānī even accused him of not mentioning blessings (ṣalawāt) upon the Prophet at that instance and claimed that this was his habit throughout the book!

Such accusations are like holding a candle to the sun — utterly meaningless and petty. al-Albānī gets upset over one missed ṣalawāt, while Sayyid Khomeinī strived with his entire being for the elevation of the truth and the practical implementation of the religion of Muḥammad.

Oh Shaykh! No one buys what you are selling. Even a fool would feel ashamed to make such a shallow accusation, but here you are doing so with the title “the muḥaddith of the era!” And then to boldly insist that this hadith is invalid unless interpreted through the wording of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim — this is nothing short of open stubbornness and a deliberate attempt to mislead the people. The readers have already seen that Sunni tradents have transmitted this hadith in their books with great emphasis. Thus, for al-Albānī to keep wailing over one version in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, trying to convince ordinary Sunni Muslims that this ḥadīth is found nowhere else — this is a prime example of deception at its finest.

Shaykh al-Albānī — in his statement that “thus this ḥadīth is a proof against them (the Shīʿa)” — seems to be attempting to comfort his blind supporters by suggesting that this ḥadīth is not binding upon the Ahl al-Sunnah but is exclusively binding for the Shīʿa. But how can the ḥadīth recorded in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim possibly be interpreted away? Indeed, among the Shīʿa, this ḥadīth is found not only with the mentioned wording, but also in other variations and chains, and in multiple reliable books. Had Shaykh al-Albānī taken a little more care, instead of pointing fingers at Uṣūl al-Kāfī, he could have easily quoted the ḥadīth from those other works and formed a proper argument. But what can one expect from biased scholars?

Let all followers of al-Albānī take note: this ḥadīth — reported from the Noble Prophet (peace be upon him and his family) — is accepted by all Shīʿas as binding proof upon themselves. That is precisely why they believe in the Imamate of the Twelfth Imam Master of the Age!

Yet to this day, we have no answer about whom the Sunnis espouse allegiance to in this era. And precisely which leader was it that Shaykh al-Albānī had pledged to when he departed for the hereafter?

As the people of Deccan proverbially say:

آسمان پوتھوکے، تو اپن پوچ گرتا

“Spitting at the sky only falls back on one’s own face.”

Conclusion: The Caliphate and the Faith of Yazīd

As per the previous discussions, it has become clear that per the political theory the Ahl al-Sunnah have espoused, Yazīd ascended to the caliphate completely legitimately and there is no room to deny his rulership. This is precisely because the preceding caliphs to Yazīd achieved their authority by the exact mechanisms as Yazīd did. Therefore, it stands to reason that if one were to reject the legitimacy of Yazīd’s caliphate, his predecessors’ right to authority also ought to be called into question. Indeed, this is why some of the prevailing scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have endorsed that Yazīd was the legitimate caliph of his time and that Imam Ḥusayn (as) was a renegade (God forbid), as espoused by a scholar we will discuss below. The prominent commentator of the Qurān, Ḥāfiẓ ibn Kathīr al-Dimishqī (d. 774 AH), has written:

“The jurist Abū Bakr ibn al- ‘Arabī al-Mālikī, the commentator on Sunan al-Tirmidhī, was a jurisconsult, scholar, ascetic, and devout worshipper. He procured ḥadīth after his career in fiqh; he was a confidante of al-Ghazālī and took knowledge from him. He used to accuse him of espousing the views of the philosophers. He used to say regarding him, “He became so privy to them and was never able to escape.” And God is most knowledgeable.”^[45]

It is this same Abū Bakr ibn al- ‘Arabī, whose eminence is so emphasized above, who believed that the murder of Imam Ḥusayn (as) was legitimate and rather that it was obligatory. As such he famously writes, “Al-Ḥusayn was not killed except by the sword of his grandfather.”^[46]

This same view has also been adopted by ibn Khaldūn, as reported by Ḥāfiẓ Sakhāwī from his teacher Ḥāfiẓ ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī as follows:

“He reported that our teacher al-Ḥāfiẓ Abū al-Ḥasan al-Haythamī was quite excessive in neglecting his views (i.e., ibn Khaldūn) and when I asked him the reason for that, he said that news had reached him that ibn Khaldūn had mentioned al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī in his book on history and had said that he was killed by the sword of his grandfather. After he uttered these words, our teacher began to curse and insult ibn Khaldūn while crying profusely.”^[47]

In fact, maintaining such a view should automatically exclude an individual from bearing to the dictates of faith, since the merits of Imam al-Ḥusayn (as) are well-attested to by verses of the Qurān and authenticated narrations of the Holy Apostle (saw), not to mention it is unanimously accepted by all Muslims that his personality was impeccable. Meanwhile, the disbelief, debauchery, and tyranny of Yazīd are well-attested to by both history and narrations, and there is no authentic evidentiary text that praises him. This confirms that this group has rejected the Qurān, the ḥadīth, and the consensus of the ummah in this belief of theirs. Furthermore, if the only reason that they have characterized Imam al-Ḥusayn (as) as an insurgent is because he went against the caliph of his time Yazīd, then by the same token those male and female companions who revolted against Imam ‘Alī (as) at Jamal, Ṣiffīn, and Nahrawān ought to also be seen as renegades.

Even further, according to the Ahl al-Sunnah, anyone who has reached the status of companionship with the Holy Prophet (saw) is incapable of being compared with someone who did not have that honor. As such, in the writings of ibn al-‘Imād al-Ḥanbalī (d. 1089 AH), we find that when Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal was asked to compare ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz with Mu’āwiyah and opine on who was more meritorious, he is reported to have said as such:

“Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal (rh) was asked which of the two are better: Mu’āwiyah or ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz? He answered: “Indeed, the dust which lodged itself in the nare of Mu’āwiyah’s horse in front of the Apostle of God is better than ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al- ‘Azīz (rh).”^[48]

On this basis, one should not even be able to compare Imam al-Ḥusayn (as) and Yazīd, since the former was a companion whilst the latter had never achieved that honor. Therefore, it is left up to this group to choose one of two options: either they consider Imam al-Ḥusayn (as) as a renegade and as such go against the Qurān, Sunnah, the merits of the companions, and the consensus of the ummah; as such they ought to also consider those who revolted against Imam ‘Alī (as) as rebels as well. The second option is for them to reject the legitimacy of Yazīd, and by so doing they will need to reconcile the consequences of denying his right to authority, which we will discuss in the coming section.

The Debauchery and Disbelief of Yazīd

Another group of Ahl al-Sunnah has issued edicts condemning Yazīd as a disbeliever and considering it permissible to curse him. The famous Sunnī scholar of the Indian subcontinent Moulvi Haidar ‘Alī Faizābādī has thus said:

“The legitimacy of the caliphate of Yazīd (upon him be what he deserves) in the view of the people of truth is that it is by all accounts nullified and negated, while the martyrdom of Imam Ḥusayn (as) is by all accounts established and affirmed. The reason of his caliphate not being legitimate is due to his disbelief given his instruction to kill Imam al-Ḥusayn (as) and other such grave affairs—this is the majority view, and it is equally espoused by the opposing party (i.e., the Shī’ah). As for those who adopt precaution on the matter and choose neutrality on the question of Yazīd’s disbelief and accursedness, believing that there is no definitive proof in his being a Muslim: his caliphate is also clearly repudiated by these very same grounds. The fact that Imam Ḥusayn (as) was martyred has no need for proof with either of these parties; meanwhile, someone who is a disbeliever or regarding whom one doubts about his credal faith is not worthy of leadership of Muslims.”^[49]

Similarly, Sa’d al-Dīn ibn ‘Umar al-Taftāzānī (d. 792 AH) has claimed that Ahl al-Sunnah have unanimity upon the permissibility of cursing Yazīd:

“The Ahl al-Sunnah are agreed upon the permissibility of cursing those who killed him (Imam al-Ḥusayn), commanded towards it, permitted it, or were pleased at its occurrence. The reality is that the pleasure of Yazīd regarding the murder of al-Ḥusayn (rh), his celebration of it, and his denigration of the family of the Prophet (saw) are successively reported in gist (mutawātir ma’nawī), even if the details regarding it are individual reports. Therefore, we do not suspend judgement about his status, rather we doubt even his faith in Islam. May God curse him, his entourage, and his helpers.”^[50]

Similarly, Qāḍī Thanā’allāh Pānīpatī has stated on his commentary of verse 23 of Sūrah Muḥammad:”^[51]

“Ibn al-Jawzī has said that Qāḍī Abū Ya’lā has narrated in his book “Al-Mu’tamad fī al-Uṣūl” on the authority of Ṣāliḥ ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal that he said, “I asked my father: “Oh dear father! Some people claim that we love Yazīd ibn Mu’āwiyah!” Thereupon Aḥmad said, “Oh my dear son! Is it appropriate that someone who believes in God should love Yazid? Rather why shouldn’t a man who was cursed by God in his book be cursed?” I said, “Oh dear father! Where did God curse Yazīd in his book?” He responded, “So would you perhaps, if you turned away, cause corruption on earth and sever your [ties of] relationship? It is those whom God has cursed, rendering them deaf and blinding their eyes.”^[52],[53]

While ibn Taymiyyah acknowledges that Yazīd was debauched, he yet still tries to absolve him of the crimes against Imam Ḥusayn (as), stating the following:

“Surely Yazīd did not command towards the murder of al-Ḥusayn, as unanimously recognized by the traditionists. Rather, he only wrote to ibn Ziyād that he should prevent him from taking over Iraq. The latter then fought al-Ḥusayn until the point al-Ḥusayn was martyred wrongfully slain, may God be pleased with him. When this news reached Yazīd, he displayed his agony about this and crying broke out in his household. He did not enslave Ḥusayn’s dependents at all, but rather he honored his family and allowed them to return to their homes.”^[54]

One of the current era’s great reformist thinkers Mawlānā Abū al-Ḥasan Nadawī, condemns Yazīd in a moderate fashion, leveraging another tenet of the dogma of Ahl al-Sunnah in doing so:

“The sect of Ahl al-Sunnah did not consider Yazīd worthy of governance during this period of illustrious companions and righteous individuals. The minimum criteria of piety, righteousness, and God-wariness that behoove a Muslim leader of that era to have possessed were altogether absent in him, as the books of history and biography attest. Rather, he was engaged and addicted to behaviors that were from a religious perspective completely abhorrent. Furthermore, his reign was also characterized by the Event of Ḥarrah, so tragic and embarrassing that it is impossible to propose any justification for it. This is also the opinion of Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal and Shaykh al-Islam Ḥafiẓ ibn Taymiyyah: both have criticized Yazīd in staunch words. Yet still, they eschewed cursing, denigrating, insulting, disparaging, or disassociating from him. They were disgusted by this and completely opposed these practices of the Rāfiḍis and the Shī’ah.”^[55]

The disbelief and debauchery of Yazīd is not necessarily a tenet that is hard to accept for Ahl al-Sunnah, just as they have done for other children of the Ṣaḥābah. For example, they have done so similarly for Mukhtār ibn Abī ‘Ubayd al-Thaqafī (rh) as well as the purported “most despicable companion of the Prophet,” Mālik ibn Nuwayrah (rh)^[56] whom they do not hesitate to claim an apostate.

However, when it comes to Yazīd’s calamitous actions, destruction, and pillaging, why is it that they are so hesitant to allow for his censure and condemnation? The underlying cause is because the hands of Ahl al-Sunnah are tied: if they are to allow the imprecation of Yazīd, there are certain repercussions that will be dangerous for the Sunni creed. This is alluded to as such by Allāmah Sa’d al-Dīn al-Taftazānī where he states:

“If it said that there are scholars among the madhhab that do not allow for the cursing of Yazīd, even though he deserves what exceeds that in disassociation, then this is in order to prevent this practice from ascending onto those who preceded him.”^[57]

From this statement of al-Taftāzānī, the readers can comprehend that this insistence is not simply to protect Yazīd, rather it is also to protect his father Mu’āwiyah and the rest of the individuals within this school of thought. It is very likely that this is the reason why al-Ghazālī has tried very hard to close off this anomaly by instructing as follows:

“It is prohibited for the preacher and those in a similar position to narrate the murder account of al-Ḥusayn and its stories, as well as to narrate the disagreements and skirmishes between the companions. For indeed, this riles up hatred against some of the companions and can precipitate denigration of them.”^[58]

The Disbelief and Debauchery of Yazīd in Three Contingencies

As for those scholars and muḥaddiths of Ahl al-Sunnah that uphold the disbelief and debauchery of Yazīd, there are only three possible scenarios by which they can continue to uphold onto this belief:

When Mu’āwiyah elected his heir, Yazīd had already become a fāsiq and kāfir. If they accept this scenario, then it also casts doubt and reservation about the faith of Mu’āwiyah ibn abī Sufyān. Perhaps this is the reason why when anyone proposes this to the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah, they react so vehemently and start defending Mu’āwiyah unabashedly. Thus, we find ibn Khaldūn state as follows:

“Beware ever assuming that Mu’awiyah (rh) knew the state of Yazīd, for he was more just and meritorious (than to appoint such an individual knowingly)!”^[59]

This is of course all while Mu’āwiyah had his spies all over the Islamic world who used to report back to him on every affair, be it trivial or dire. How far-fetched it is then for one to assume that he did not know of the vices of a son who was raised in his own home!

 

دل کے خوش رکھنے کو غالبؔ یہ خیال اچھا ہے

For the heart to remain happy, this fantasy is great oh Ghālib!

The second scenario is that it was only after Mu’āwiyah died and Yazīd ascended the throne that he suddenly overnight became a kāfir and fāsiq. This option is also hard for Ahl al-Sunnah to accept, even though there are some who take this view out of exigency. This is because this necessitates one must also deem kāfir and fāsiq the people of Damascus and Madīnah, who gave him allegiance despite him being a kāfir and fāsiq. Among this group are major companions and tābi’īs such as ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar, who alluded to the fact that he believed Yazīd was worthy of the caliphate when he heard that the people of Madīnah were revolting, as we quoted before from Saḥīḥ Muslim.

Now then, the Sunnis have complete freedom to choose one of two options: a) either they choose to preserve the repute of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Umar and accept the caliphate of Yazīd, thus rendering al-Ḥusayn a renegade who flouted the Qurān and Sunnah; or b) they consider al-Ḥusayn a martyr in the way of God and deem the people of Damascus and Madīnah as disbelievers and depraved individuals.

The third option is that Yazīd only became a kāfir and fāsiq after he issued the command for al-Ḥusayn (as) to be murdered. This option is also not tenable for Ahl al-Sunnah to accept, because as soon as Yazīd ascended the throne he had demanded the allegiance of Imam Ḥusayn (as) and not his execution. However, the latter refused and instead took towards Kūfa after which orders for his execution were issued; therefore, according to the political theory of Ahl al-Sunnah, al-Ḥusayn in this situation was a renegade and killing him was legitimate by the ḥadīth from the Holy Prophet that are narrated in Ṣaḥīḥ Bukhārī and Muslim. We have alluded to this already in the previous discussions; thus, how can one blame Yazīd when he was simply implementing the narrations of the Holy Prophet (saw)?

Now, even if one were to assume that it was because of Yazīd’s debauchery that he was disallowed from holding this position of caliphate, yet still according to the narrations of Ahl al-Sunnah it is not permissible to revolt against him. We had demonstrated this previously and quoted the clear statements of Sunni scholars and jurists about this point.

Furthermore, the deeming of Yazīd as a debauched individual unworthy of the caliphate also creates another problem for Ahl al-Sunnah in that it entails this period had no legitimate caliph. Thus, one would have to accept that all the Muslims who died during the reign of Yazīd ibn Mu’āwiyah died in a state of ignorance, just as the narrations of the Holy Prophet attest.

In front of these obvious contradictions, the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah have major divergences about the personality of Yazīd, and the reality is that this sect cannot properly adjudicate the issue, neither based on rationality nor the Qurān. They nonetheless have harsh words for the Shī’ah who espouse the doctrine of infallible Imams, and they even surmise that they are disbelievers because of it. Meanwhile, these Imams are all attested to as having been immaculate, pious, and virtuous by the muḥaddiths of Ahl al-Sunnah century after century. These Sunnis themselves would go to their graves to seek their wishes and as an example we have the famous traditionist of Ahl al-Sunnah Ḥāfīẓ ibn Ḥibbān who narrates this as an eyewitness regarding the 8^th Imam of the Shī’ah, ‘Alī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā (as):

“His grave is by Sanābādh outside of al-Nūqān and is famous, in the vicinity of the grave of al-Rashīd. I visited him many times and no hardship befell me during my time in Ṭūs expect that I found my supplication answered and my hardship removed whenever I would visit the grave of ‘Alī ibn Mūsā al-Riḍā (as) and ask for it to be lifted. I have trialed this many times and found it as such, may God make us die on the love of al-Muṣṭafā and his Holy Progeny (sawas).”^[60]

At the same time, it is a great surprise that despite Ahl al-Sunnah not believing that the companions were infallible, they seek to justify their killing, pillaging, and committing major sins under the auspices of the doctrine of the “Justice of the Companions,” employing the pretext of intellectual error (khata’ ijtihādī) to justify their crimes. Rather it seems this doctrine is even more extreme than the “extremism” of infallibility: that an individual who is not even deemed infallible is deemed morally upright despite his heinous crimes! As such, we see this faction pulling the wool over such grievous tragedies: Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī (rh) who died in exile, Mālik ibn Nuwayrah (rh) who was barbarically slaughtered by night, the battles of Jamal, Ṣiffīn, and Nahrawān, and the assassination of Hujr ibn ‘Adī and his companions. This creed holds that the perpetrators of these crimes have a carte blanche to do so, simply due to their companionship. Rather further, they extol the many virtues of these criminals! Even more agonizing is the fact is that the Holy Prophet (saw) had specifically condemned these killers in clear and authentic ḥadīth.^[61] Notwithstanding how they try to justify the crimes of this lot on the basis of the Qurān, you find that this group also comes forth to bully and question you: why it is that you do not honor these murderers?

Despite Yazīd being a ruthless oppressor and irreligious tyrant, there is a trivial narration upon whose basis some individuals who are wont to pawn off their religion use to defend Yazīd and stand against the Prince of the Youth of Paradise Imam al-Ḥusayn (as).^[62]  Now just think if Yazīd had been a companion, there would surely not have been all this hullabaloo. Rather, the muḥaddiths would quickly have rushed to justify what he did under the guise of an intellectual mistake! All the while, this same group of scholars nearly without exception rushes to claim that Abū Ṭālib (as) is a kāfir without the least bit of hesitation. They rush to claim that those who insult the companions are worthy of murder and are disbelievers, while these same individuals quibble about whether Yazīd can be called a kāfir and believe that it is prohibited to curse him. An individual such as this, who has not only killed the Prophet’s household but in fact murdered thousands of companions ought to be even more worthy of cursing! On the contrary they rush to defend him, and to escape from the stark historical reality they concoct all sorts of ways to salvage him, even if the core of this very faith should be burnt in the process.

Footnotes

^[1] In fact, this book was written as a rebuttal to Muftī Muḥammad Khalīl Sāhib’s Mazlūmān-i-Karbalā kī Kahānī Khud Unkī Zubānī, wherein exactly this thesis was exposited.

^[2] This latter work has also been typographed and researched from its Persian manuscript by Sayyid Mohsin Kashmiri and can be found at this link for advanced readers: https://archive.org/details/ThamaratulKhilafa

[3] Of course, this prerogative of maintaining ideological consistency in understanding history should equally be equally applied to the Shi’a; for instance, consider how Shi’a scholars have presented their solutions in reconciling the intermarriages between the Caliphs’ families and the Ahl al-Bayt (https://iqraonline.net/intermarriages-between-ahl-ul-bayt-a-and-companions-caliphs/) while remaining ideologically consistent to their credal positions.

^[4] This well-reputed Indian scholar was poisoned at the hands of the Nawab of Jhajhar after writing a complete refutation to Shāh ‘Abdul ‘Azīz Dehlavī’s famous polemical refutation of Shi’ism Toḥfa Ithnā ‘Ashariyyah. He is buried at Dargah Panja Sharīf at Kashmiri Gate in Delhi.

^[5] Nuzhat Ithnā ‘Ashariyyah vol. 1, pg. 89

^[6] Al-Washā al-Marqūm pg. 383

https://archive.org/details/alwshialmrqom-ebnalaceir/page/382/mode/1up

^[7] This is a major Sunni position; for more details refer to Sharḥ ‘Aqā’id al-Nasafiyyah pg. 345.

https://www.arabicdawateislami.net/bookslibrary/982

^[8] This position is adopted by Abū Bakr ibn Al- ‘Arabī al-Makkī (d. 543 AH, as quoted by Ibn Ḥajr al-Haythami in Al-Minaḥ al-Makkiyyah pg. 519).

https://archive.org/details/minahmakia/page/n518/mode/1up

Other scholars from among the nawāṣib have also followed suite, such as Abū Yazīd in his Rashīd ibn Rashīd.

^[9] This is the position of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728 AH). For more details on this see his Minhāj al-Sunnah vol. 4, pg. 472.

https://shamela.ws/book/927/2176

^[10] This is the view of several Sunni scholars such as Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī al-Nadawī (d. 1420 AH) in his Hādsa-i-Karbalā kā Pasmanzar pg. 11.

^[11] This is in accordance with a famous fatwā of Abū Ḥāmid al-Ghazālī (d. 505 AH) as well as Ibn Ḥajar al-Makkī (d. 974 AH) cf. Al-Ṣawā’iq al-Muḥriqah vol. 2, pg. 640.

https://shamela.ws/book/6544/612

^[12] This view was espoused by the editor of Curzon Gazette Mirzā Hayrat Dehlavi in his book entitled Afsanah-i-Karbalā.

^[13] This is attested to in the famous verse of mubāhalah (3:61), wherein the children of the Prophet summoned for mutual imprecation with the Christians of Najran are taken unanimously by both Shī’a and Sunni commentators as referring to none other than Imam Ḥasan and Ḥusayn (as). A subtle point to note is that it was entirely possible for the Prophet to have summoned the entirety of the Muslim community to engage in this duel, especially since one would assume a supplication’s efficacy is maximized by including the largest number of people. However, the fact that the Prophet only included the People of the Cloak is a testament to their status, as noted by al-Zamakhshari in his al-Kashshāf:
وفيه دليل لا شيء أقوى منه على فضل أصحاب الكساء عليهم السلام

We also find a clear mention of this mubāhalah incident in Ṣaḥīh Muslim vol. 7, pg. 120 ḥadīth 2404, wherein Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqāṣ recounts it to Mu’āwiyah when he is asked why he does not curse ‘Alī.

https://sunnah.com/muslim:2404d

^[14] Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid vol 5, pg. 233

https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/71426/5/233/%D9%82%D9%87%D8%B1

^[15] Sharḥ al-Mawāqif vol 8, pg. 352-353

https://dl.islamic-sources.com/ar/filebase/book%201380/B243.sharh-al-maghef-8.pdf

^[16] Refer to al-Istī’āb vol. 3, pg. 1418 (under the tarjumah of Mu’āwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, no. 2435)

https://shamela.ws/book/12288/1411

as well as Minhāj al-Sunnah vol. 1, pg. 535.

https://shamela.ws/book/927/533

^[17] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī vol. 6, pg. 2603 ḥadīth 2294 (Arabic version)

Sunnah.com reference – https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7111

^[18] Fatḥ al-Bārī vol. 13, pg. 214

https://shamela.ws/book/1673/7645

^[19] Tārīkh al-Khulafā pages 14-15

https://shamela.ws/book/11997/13#p1

^[20] Ibid, pg. 15

https://shamela.ws/book/11997/14#p1

^[21] Ibid.

^[22] Al-Milal wa al-Niḥal vol. 1, pg. 114

https://shamela.ws/book/11812/130

^[23] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim vol.  2, pg 898, ḥadīth 1852

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1852a

^[24] Ibid, vol. 2,  pg 899,  ḥadīth 1853

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1853

^[25] Ibid vol. 2, pg. 896 ḥadīth 1846

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1846a

^[26] Sharḥ al- ‘Aqā’id al-Nasafiyyah pg. 338

https://www.arabicdawateislami.net/bookslibrary/982/page/338

^[27] Ikmāl al-Dīn wa Tamām al-Ni’mah vol. 2,  pg. 409

https://lib.eshia.ir/27045/2/409

Kifāyah al-Athar vol. 1,  pg. 296

https://lib.eshia.ir/16054/1/296

^[28] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim vol. 2, pg. 898, ḥadīth 1851

https://sunnah.com/muslim:1851a

^[29] Silsilah al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍa’īfah al-Mawḍū’ah wa Atharuhā al-Sayyi’ fī al-Ummah vol. 1, pg. 525

https://shamela.ws/book/12762/591

^[30] Ibid.

https://shamela.ws/book/12762/591

^[31] Sharḥ al- ‘Aqā’id al-Nasafiyyah pg. 328

https://www.arabicdawateislami.net/bookslibrary/982/page/329

Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid vol. 5, pg. 239

https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/71426/5/239

^[32] Manāqib al-Imām al-A’ẓam pg. 457

https://shamela.ws/book/1137/8#p1

^[33] Mirqāt al-Mafātīḥ vol. 6, pg. 2398 ḥadīth 3674

https://shamela.ws/book/8176/5122

^[34] Al-Musnad vol. 28, pg. 88, ḥadīth 16876

https://shamela.ws/book/25794/13388#p1

^[35] Al-Mu’jam al-Kabīr vol. 19, pg. 388

https://shamela.ws/book/1733/20316#p1

^[36] Kanz al- ‘Ummāl vol. 1, pg. 103, no. 464 and vol. 6 page 65 no. 14863

https://shamela.ws/book/2677/107

^[37] Al-Sunnah vol. 2, pg. 503, no. 1057

https://shamela.ws/book/5930/1063

^[38] Al-Mustadrak ‘alā al-Ṣaḥīḥayn vol. 1, pg. 495, ḥadīth 408

https://shamela.ws/book/1424/488#p1

^[39] Silsilah al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍa’īfah al-Mawḍū’ah wa Atharuhā al-Sayyi’ fī al-Ummah vol. 1, pg. 525-526

http://lib.efatwa.ir/43370/1/525

^[40] Al-Kāfī vol. 1,  pg. 377

https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/11005/1/377

^[41] Khulāsat al-Aqwāl pg. 123

https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/14022/1/123

^[42] Al-Fihrist pg. 324

https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/14010/1/324

Ma’ālim al- ‘Ulamā’ pg. 91

https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/86879/1/91

^[43] Silsilah al-Aḥādīth al-Ḍa’īfah al-Mawḍū’ah wa Atharuhā al-Sayyi’ fī al-Ummah vol. 1, pg. 526

http://lib.efatwa.ir/43370/1/526

^[44] Manāqib al-Imām al-A’ẓam pg. 510

https://shamela.ws/book/1137/61#p1

^[45] Al-Bidāyah wa al-Nihāyah vol. 12, pg. 228

https://shamela.ws/book/23708/4118#p1

^[46] Al-Minaḥ al-Makkiyyah pg. 519

https://archive.org/details/minahmakia/page/n518/mode/1up

^[47] Al-Ḍaw’ al-Lāmi’ vol. 4, pg. 147

https://shamela.ws/book/6675/1176

^[48] Shudhurāt al-Dhahab vol.1,  pg. 65

https://al-maktaba.org/book/31616/14664#p2

^[49] Basārat al- ‘Ayn, leaflet 1

^[50] Sharḥ al- ‘Aqā’id al-Nasafiyyah pg. 345

https://www.arabicdawateislami.net/bookslibrary/982/page/345

^[51] Surah Muḥammad, verse 23

^[52] Surah Muhammad, verses 22-23

^[53] Al-Tafsīr al-Maẓharī  vol. 8 pg. 434

https://shamela.ws/book/21766/3613

^[54] Minhāj al-Sunnah vol. 4, pg. 472

https://shamela.ws/book/927/2176

^[55] Hādisa Karbalā kā Peshmanzar page 11

^[56] Mālik ibn Nuwayrah (rh) was a brave and poetic literarian among the chiefs of the tribe of Banū Tamīm. He was among those honored with companionship with the Prophet and appointed as a deputy over official taxation. Abū Bakr ibn Abī Quḥāfah sent Khālid ibn Walīd to him due to his resistance and this latter raided his clan by night and martyred him and his companions. In the same night, Khālid then slept with his wife completely flouting the dictates of Islam and ethics. For more details regarding him, the relevant literature may be consulted.

^[57] Sharḥ al-Maqāṣid vol. 5,  pg. 311

https://ar.lib.eshia.ir/71426/5/311

^[58] Al-Ṣawā’iq al-Muḥriqah vol. 2, pg. 640

https://shamela.ws/book/6544/612#p1

^[59] Tārīkh ibn Khaldūn vol. 1, pg. 264

https://shamela.ws/book/12320/262#p1

^[60] Al-Thiqāt vol. 8, pg. 457

https://shamela.ws/book/5816/3735#p1

^[61] For instance, when it comes to ‘Ammār ibn Yāsīr the Holy Prophet is narrated to have said, “Behold ‘Ammār! He will be killed by a rebellious faction: he will be calling them to Heaven, and they will be calling him to Hell.” (Saḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, ḥadith 2812)

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:2812

Regarding Hujr ibn ‘Adī, ‘Ā’ishah is narrated to have said, “I heard the Messenger of God stating that he will be killed at ‘Adhrā’ by a people whom God and the angels despise.” (Kanz al- ‘Ummāl vol. 11, pg. 126, hadith 30887)

https://shamela.ws/book/2677/7823#p1

^[62] This narration has to do with the Conquest of Constantinople and is quoted by some Nawāṣib. The Shī’ah and Ahl al-Sunnah have responded to this narration numerous times and refuted it.