Mu'awiya's appointment of Yazeed as his successor - Muawiya [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

Mu'awiya's appointment of Yazeed as his successor

Abu Sulaiman claims:

Ansar.org states:"Mu'awiyah did not force people to give allegiance to his son Yazeed"

There is no evidence to support Abu Sulaiman's assertion. We learn from history that Mu'awiya used many methods at his disposal to secure his son's position as Khalifa. Methods included bribery and coercion [for those interested they can consult Khilafat wa Mulukiyyat, chapter 4, page 149, Ibn Atheer, vol 3, page249, Bidaya, vol 8, page 79, Tareekh Ibn Kahldoon, vol 3, page, 15-16]

Did Mu'awiya want to make Yazeed just a Crown Prince or Khalifa?

In his effort to protect Mu'awiya we see Abu Sulaiman to yet again use semantics stating:

Ansar.org states:Mu'awiyah was eager for people's agreement to give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district's governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdulghani Al-Maqdisay says: "His (Yazeed's) caliphate is rightful, sixty of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him gave him the allegiance. IbnUmar was one of them." [Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldoun, p.70]

Could Abu Sulaiman explain the definition of a Crown Prince? If this is indeed the case, is there any evidence in the Qur'an and Sunnah entitling individuals to give baya to a Crown Prince? In fact in Islam Kingship is rejected outright, so even if this was correct Mu'awiya had acted contrary to Islam. If for arguments sake we accept this argument could Abu Sulaiman kindly tell us what the difference is between him appointing Yazeed as Crown Prince or Khalifa? Did he appoint someone separate as Khalifa? Did he tell the people to give baya to another person? In any case this defence is unsubstantiated and we challenge Abu Sulaiman to cite us a single source where he had referred to Yazeed as his Crown Prince and ordered people to give baya on this position.

Mu'awiya made Yazeed his Khalifa during his lifetime

The sources of history tell us quite the opposite. Abu Sulaiman's claims are refuted by the last will and testament of Mu'awiya in which it is clear that he has made Yazeed his khalifa:

"O my son, I have arranged everything for you, and I have made all the Arabs agree to obey you. No one will now oppose you in your title to the caliphate, but I am very much afraid of Husayn b. Ali, Abd Allah b. 'Umar, Abd ar-Rahman b. Abi Bakr, and Abd Allah b. az- Zubayr. Among them Husayn b. Ali commands great love and respect because of his superior rights and close relationship to the Prophet. I do not think that the people of Iraq will abandon him until they have risen in rebellion for him against you. As far as possible, try to deal with him gently. But the man who will attack you with full force, like a lion attacks his prey, and who will pounce upon you, like a fox when it finds an opportunity to pounce, is Abd Allah b. az-Zubayr. Whenever you get a chance, cut him into pieces." (Iqd al Fareed Volume 4 page 226)

Here they also try to rid Mu'awiya of the crimes his son Yazeed committed against the Ahlul Bait at Kerbala.

From this text Mu'awiya had told his beloved son "No one will now oppose you in your title to the caliphate" - he is not telling Yazeed that he had made him Crown Prince he is informing him that he had laid the foundation for him to succeed him as khalifa.

To this effect we even have evidence from Sahih al Bukhari:

Narrated Yusuf bin Mahak:

Marwan had been appointed as the governor of Hijaz by Muawiya. He delivered a sermon and mentioned Yazeed bin Muawiya so that the people might take the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of his father (Muawiya). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, hadith 352).

From this source it is clear that the baya was given to Yazeed as khalifa, not Crown Prince, unless Abu Sulaiman is suggesting that Mu'awiya deemed himself to be a Crown Prince!

The evidence is clear that the people gave baya to Yazeed as the Khalifa. This is even evident from a source cited by Abu Sulaiman himself. Although we will examine the tradition at length afterwards suffice it to say Abdullah IbnUmar said:

Ansar.org states:"we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle [Saheeh Al-Bukhari, Book of "Afflictions", vol.7, #6694]"

According to IbnUmar baya was given to Yazeed "in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle" clearly these conditions are connected with giving baya to a khalifa not a Crown Prince.

Mu'awiya forced people to give bayya to Yazeed

We have discussed this topic with complete references in our article on Yazeed.

Please see our article: Yazeed (L'aenn)

Deobandi scholar Rasheed Akhtar Nadwi in "Tahzeeb au Tamadhun e Islami" comments on page 1:

"Mu'awiya forced people to give bayya to Yazeed".

Tahzeeb au Tamadhun e Islami

Sayyid Muhammad Rashid Raza the Syrian scholar echoes similar words in his book "Imamate al Uzma" page 99:

Mu'awiya introduced the bad practice of giving bayya to Yazeed by force".

Imamate al Uzma page 99

Professor Saeed Akbar Allahbadi in his book "Musalman ka 'Uruj-o-Zawal" (Urdu) page 53 likewise states:

"Mu'awiya attained power by force and secured it for Yazeed in the same manner. People who did not agree were forced to give it".

Musalman ka 'Uruj-o-Zawal page 53

Abu Sulaiman had proclaimed that Mu'awiya:

Ansar.org states:consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district's governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed

What Abu Sulaiman fails to explain is the method Mu'awiya used that resulted in delegates giving bayya to Yazeed. Let us shed light on his methods by citing the comments of Syed Qutb Shaheed in "Social Justice in Islam" (English translation pages 209-210):

"With the coming of Mu'awiya, the caliphate in Islam became a monarchy, a tyranny confined to the Umayyad family

It will be sufficient at this point to quote as proof of this the account of the oath of allegiance to Yazid. From here we may discover the foundation of Umayyad power and find out whether Mu'awiya who established that power was true to the spirit of Islam or to some other ideal. Mu'awiya summoned delegates to represent all the provinces at the taking the oath of allegiance to Yazid. Then Yazid Ibn al Muqaffa stood up and said "The Commander of the Faithful is here", and he indicated Mu'awiya, "If he dies his successor is here" and he indicated Yazid. "And if anyone refuses - here" and he pointed to his sword. The, said Mu'awiya, "Sit down O best of preachers".

After the oath was taken to Yazid in Syria Mu'awiya gave Said ibn al-'As the task of gaining the acceptance of the people of the Hejaz. This he was unable to do, so Mu'awiys went to Mecca with an army and with full treasury. He called together the principal Muslims and addressed them thus:

"You all know that I have lived among you, and you are aware also of my ties of kindred with you. Yazid is your brother and your nephew. It is my wish that you take the oath of allegiance to Yazid as the next Caliph; then it will be you who will bestow offices and depose from them, who will collect and apportion money". He was answered by Abdullah ibn Al Zubair, who gave him a choice of three things to do, first he might do as Allah's Messenger had done and appoint no successor, second he might do as Abu Bakr had done and nominate a successor, third he might do as Umar had done, and hand over the whole matter to a council of six individuals, none of whom was a member of his own immediate family. Mu'awiya's anger was kindled, and he asked "Have you any more to say?" "No". Mu'awiya turned to the remainder of the company "And you?" "We agree with what Ibn Al Zubair has said", they replied. Then he addressed the meeting in threatening terms: "The one who warns is blameless. I was speaking among you, and one of you was bold to get up and call me a liar to my face. That I will bear and even forgive. But I stand to my words, and I swear by Allah that if any of you speaks one word against the position that I take up, no word of answer will he receive, but first the sword will take his head. And no man can do more than save his life".

Thereupon the commander of Mu'awiya's guard ordered two men to stand over each of the nobles of the Hejaz who opposed him and to each he said, "If your man leaves his guards to speak one word, either for me or against me, then let the guards strike off his head with their swords". Then he mounted the pulpit and proclaimed: "These men are the Leaders and the choicest of the Muslims; no matter can be successfully handled without them, nor can any decision be taken without their counsel. They are now satisfied to take the oath to Yazid , and have indeed already taken that oath by the name of Allah". So the people took the oath.

Mu'awiya bribed people to give bayya to Yazeed

We read in al Kamil Volume 3 page 350:

"Mu'awiya kept Mugheera in his post. Mugheera arrived at Kufa and spoke to his close representatives, bribing them with 30,000 dirhams to maintain their support. Mugheera sent his son Musa bin Mugheera to Head a delegation that visited Damascus, there they [the group] reiterated their support for the nomination of Yazeed as Khalifa. Mu'awiya summoned Musa and asked him how much money his father had spent to buy these individuals, he replied 30,000 dirhams".

Why did Imam Hussain (as) refuse to give bay'a to Yazeed?

Abu Sulaiman claims:

Ansar.org states:Ibn Al-Zubair and Al-Hussain (as) disagreed on this allegiance but it does not defame this allegiance because it must have some objectors. From this we know that Mu'awiyah was eager to have the acceptance of the Ummah in giving the allegiance to Yazeed.

The objection was not some simple matter like a difference of opinion over a dinner table. This was a matter intrinsically linked to the Deen (religion), that ultimately asks the question, 'was it legitimate for a fasiq to be the khalifa of Rasulullah (s)?' On the one hand we had the opinion of IbnUmar who deemed it correct, and on the other we had Imam Hussain (as) who said that this was a sin in the eyes of Allah (swt). The clearest proof comes from his letter to the Shi'a of Kufa:

"From Husayn b. Ali to the believers and the Muslims. Hani and Sa'id came to me with your letters, they being the last among your messengers and delegations to come to me. I have understood what you said and that you have invited me to come to you because you have no Imam to guide you, and that you hope my arrival there will unite you in the right path and in the truth. I am sending my cousin and the trusted one from my family [Muslim b. Aqil] to report to me about your affairs. If his report conforms with what you have written, I will soon come. But you must be clear about the fact that the Imam is only one who follows the Book of God, makes justice and honesty his conduct and behaviour, judges with truth, and devotes himself to the service of God. Peace." (Tareekh Tabari Volume 2 page 235)

The last sentence of the letter, explaining the duties of an Imam and the nature of the Imamate, helps us to understand Husayn's approach and attitude towards the whole problem. The Imam was one who:

Followed the Quran and Sunnah

Was just and trustworthy

Was of good character

Was a true devotee of Allah (swt)

It is evident that Imam Hussain (as) did not see these conditions inherent in Yazeed which is why he refused to give him baya.

Tabari also records this letter of Imam Hussain (as) to the Shi'a of Basra:

"God has chosen Muhammad from among his people, graced him with His Prophethood and selected him for His message. After he admonished the people and conveyed His message to them God took him back unto Himself. We, being his family (ahl), his close associates endowed with the quality of guardianship (awliya'), his trustees and vice regent (awsiya'), and his heir and legatee (warith), are the most deserving among all the people to take his place. But the people preferred themselves over us for this [privilege]. We became contented, disliking dissension and anxious to preserve the peace and well being [of the community], though we were fully aware that we were more entitled to this [leadership] than those who had taken it for themselves . . . I have sent my messenger to you and I call you to the Book of God, and the Sunna of his Prophet, the Sunna which has become obliterated and innovations have become active and energetic. If you listen to me and obey my orders I will guide you to the right path. May the Peace and the Mercy of God be upon you." (Tareekh Tabari Volume 2 page 240)

So Imam Hussain (as) felt that the Deen had been corrupted and he was calling on the people to turn to him for guidance. This was far more than just a difference of opinion it was a difference at the heart of Deen, who has the right to call oneself the khalifa?

Mu'awiya's development of lineal succession

Ansar.org states:Mu'awiyah did not invent a new system for the caliphate by inheriting the leadership to his son Yazeed. Abu Bakr was the first to do it when he gave the leadership to Umar bin Al-Khattab andUmar did the same when he limited the leadership in six Companions.

Mu'awiya created a completely new system. Abu Bakr deemedUmar the most worthy for the role of succession and Umar selected six people who he himself stated that were the most worthy to succeed him. For Mu'awiya he created a system where succession was NOT based upon merit but upon lineage character did not come in to the equation.

He then states that Imam Ali (as) in fact started the lineal succession that appointed Imam Hasan (as). He accuses the Shi'a of applying contradiction condemning:

Ansar.org states:"Mu'awiyah giving the leadership as an inheritance to his son Yazeed yet the greatest doctrine of the Imamiyah Rafidites is their belief that the leadership is a hereditary in the sons of Ali bin Abi Talib by the father giving the leadership as an inheritance to his son! Is it allowed for them and forbidden on others?"

This type of hereditary succession is in accordance with the will of Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s). The Shi'a concept of succession is that the Imam is appointed by Allah (swt) BECAUSE he has the right to succeed on account of his perfection / merits. Imam Ali's appointment of Imam Hasan (as) is not on account of the fact that he is his son, but because he is the most superior in the Ummah to lead the Ummah. Rasulullah had made it clear that if you follow the Qur'an and Ahl'ul bayt (as) you will NEVER go astray. Hence the succession of Hasan (as) was not in any way shaped by nepotism rather it was on account of his entitlement to lead as he was the legitimate Imam appointed by Ali (as) through the will of Allah (swt) who would prevent the people from going astray. Imam Hasan (as) was qualified to take power, whilst the Banu Umayya possessed no such qualities. Is Abu Sulaiman going to suggest to us that no one in the entire Ummah was superior to Yazeed?

Yazeed the 'protector of afflictions'

In his defence of Mu'awiya, Abu Sulaiman comments:

Ansar.org states:"Perhaps the reason that pushed Mu'awiyah to take allegiance to Yazeed was to push away the disagreement and to be one in this crucial time at which the Ummah lived and where a lot of people claimed the caliphate. Hence, Mu'awiyah thought that by giving the leadership to Yazeed would be a good thing for the Ummah and it would prevent another affliction of happening

And what wonderful affliction was prevented. Yazeed reigned for three years. In the first year Imam Hussain his family and companions were martyred. In the second year Yazeed ordered an attack on Harra that led to the slaughter of the companions and the mass rape of their women folk.

In History of al-Fakhri, translated by C.E.J. Whitting, London, 1947, pp. 113-115 we learn that Yazeed first asked Ubaydullah bin Ziyad to lead an army against Medina, who made excuses, then he asked Muslim bin Uqbah who led the army:

"Then Muslim, son of 'Uqbah, for three days gave Madinah to the sack. He murdered, looted and took prisoners, so that it was said that a man of Madinah thereafter, if he gave his daughter to wed, would not guarantee her virginity, "She may have been raped in the battle of Harrah." (from page 114)

Ta'rikh Duwal al-Islam, al-Dhahabi, Hyderabad, page 31 provides list of those Sahaba who were killed in Harra.

Yazeed's protection from affliction did not just end there. Fakhri on page 114-115 states that Yazeed issued an order to go to Mecca, though Muslim died before he reached Mecca and so that another person (who Yazeed had nominated should Muslim die, since he was old led attack:

"The son of Zubair, with the men of Meccah, made a sally against him, battle was joined and a Syrian versifier said:- "'Artillery' like a foaming stallion, with which he shoots at the timbers of this mosque." A footnote says 'timbers' refers to the Prophet's pulpit and other relics.

In al-Isabah fi tamyiz al-Sahaba, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani volume 3, page 470 also mentions the pillage of Medina, and stoning of Ka'bah during Yazeed's reign.

Nasibi appraisal of 'pious' Yazeed

Abu Sulaiman states:

Ansar.org states:"It is also a lie that Yazeed was an alcohol drinking person". We will let Muhammad bin Ali bin Abi Talib to answer this claim because Muhammad knew Yazeed the best because he lived with him for a while. Ibn Katheer says in Al-Bidayah: (When the people of Al-Medina returned from Yazeed, Abdullah bin Mutee'a and his companions walked to Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyah. They wanted Muhammad to agree to dismiss Yazeed, but Muhammad refused. Ibn Mutee'a said: "Yazeed drinks alcohol, does not pray, and ignores the rule of the Book." Muhammad answered them: "I never saw what you are saying about him. I came to him, and stayed with him for a while and I saw him taking care of his prayers, looking for goodness, asking about jurisprudence, and clinging to the Sunnah.[Al-Bidayah wa Al-Nihayah for IbnKatheer,vol.8,p.236]

It is agreed by Sunni and Shi'a alike that Yazeed was an ill character individual, and he is reviled throughout the world in Muslim circles. Curiously Abu Sulaiman seems to depart from the common Sunni line and all of a sudden endorses the piety of Yazeed! No true Sunni would ever utter praise for Yazeed. It is extremely insulting to see that yet again Abu Sulaiman is presenting his Nasibi thinking and cloaking it as Sunni Islam.

In any case Abu Sulaiman has failed to substantiate his claim. Assuming that this statement attributed to Ibn al-Hanafiyya is not a fabrication, Muhammad bin Hanafiyya is stating that he (personally) had NOT seen Yazeed drinking this so could not verify the allegation. Had Abu Sulaiman had an ounce of honesty in him, this was a fact that few ulama of Ahlul Sunnah deny.

Ibn Kathir's comments on Yazeed the drunkard

Interesting the very same text al Bidaya from where Abu Sulaiman had sought to extol the virtues of his Imam Yazeed, also contains these comments of Ibn Kathir proving that he was indeed a drunkard. Ibn Kathir writes in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 239:

"Traditions inform us that Yazeed loved worldly vices, would drink, listen to music, kept the company of boys with no facial hair, played drums, kept dogs, not a day would go by when he was not in a drunken state".

Ibn Atheer's comments on Yazeed 'the drunkard'

In Tareekh al Kamil Volume 3 page 450 Ibn Atheer narrates from Munzir bin Zabeer:

"Verily Yazeed rewarded me with 100,000 dirhams but this cannot stop me from highlighting his state, By Allah he is a drunkard"

Allamah Dhahabi's naration and verdict on Yazeed 'the drunkard'

Yazeed's drinking despite Abu Sulaiman's denials is such an established fact that even Dhahabi, relied on as an authority by Abu Sulaiman, testifies to this fact.

In "Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala" Volume 4 pages 37-38, Dhahabi narrates:

"Ziyad Hurshee narrates 'Yazeed gave me alcohol to drink, I had never drunk alcohol like that before and I enquired where he had obtained its ingredients'. Yazeed replied 'it is made of sweet pommey granet, honey from Isfahan, sugar from Hawaz and grapes from BurdahYazeed indulged in alcohol and would participate in actions that opposed the dictates set by Allah (swt)".

In "Shadharat al Dhahab" page 69, Volume 1, Ibn al-'Imad al-Hanbali cites these comments of Dhahabi:

"Mu'awiya's son Yazeed was an enemy of 'Ali, a Nasibi, a man of evil nature, and a drunkard".

Ibn Jauzi's comments on Yazeed 'the drunkard'

Ibn Jauzi in Wafa al-Wafa Volume 1 page 217:

"Yazeed appointed his cousin Uthman bin Muhammad bin Abu Sufyan as Governor of Madina. He sent a delegation to visit Yazeed who bore gifts so that they might take the oath of allegiance to him. Upon their return they said 'We have returned having visited a man who has no religion, he drinks, plays instruments, keeps the company of singers and dogs, we declare that we have broken our allegiance to him. Abdullah bin Abi Umro bin Hafs Mukhzumee commented 'Yazeed gave me gifts, the reality is this man is an enemy of Allah (swt) and a drunkard, I shall separate myself from him in the same way that I remove my turban [from my head]."

Ibn Hajr's comments on Yazeed 'the drunkard'

In his book written against the Shi'a, Sawaiqh al Muhriqa, Ibn Hajr sets out the Sunni position on Yazeed:

"One group made up of individuals such as Ibn Jauzi deem Yazeed a kaafir, others say he was not a kaafir but rather this is a matter that has caused a difference of opinion, the majority of Ahl'ul Sunnah agree that he was a fasiq (transgressor), a fajir (one that commits debauchery) and a drunkard.

Waqidi had recorded a narration 'verily we opposed Yazeed fearing Allah (swt) would reign stones down on us, Yazeed considered nikah (marriage) with mothers and sisters to be permissible and drank alcohol".

These comments are indeed interesting. Ibn Hajr asserts that in the eyes of the vast bulk of Ahl'ul Sunnah, Yazeed was "a fasiq, a fajir and a drunkard" while Abu Sulaiman who claims he is Ahl'ul Sunnah wants us to believe in a tradition portraying him as a pious worshipper who never drank alcohol.

Imam Ahmad issued Takfeer against Yazeed

In Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 77 we read:

"He considered alcohol halal and at the time of killing Husayn and his companions, he approached the pulpit and said that he had avenged the death of his ancestors at Badr. It is for reasons such as this that Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal declared Yazeed to be a kaafir"

The Sunni Ulema have deemed it permissible to curse the drunkard Yazeed

Both Allamah Damiri in Hayaat ul Hayawaan page 196 Volume 2 and Ibn Khallikaan in Wafayat al-A'yan Volume 3 page 287 both record that:

"Ali bin Muhammad al Qiya al Harasee al Shafi'i was asked about what evidence existed that deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed. He replied 'in our opinion it is unanimous, that we curse Yazeed. He sat in the company of hunting animals, played chess and drank alcohol".

We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 355:

"Some Ulema and Imams have declared it permissible to curse Yazeed, because by ordering the killing of Husayn he had committed kufr".

Ibn Kathir in al Bidaya Volume 7 page 223 notes that:

"Ibn Jauzi wrote a book proving that it was permissible to curse Yazeed".

An appeal to our Sunni brethren

We have faithfully cited the comments of grand Sunni Ulema who have deemed Yazeed to be a drunkard and issued fatwas declaring it permissible to curse him on account of his deeds. Sunni's likewise the world over are united in their hatred of Yazeed ibn Mu'awiya, he is despised and cursed whenever his name is mentioned. Curiously by citing this tradition Abu Sulaiman has sought to present an alternative viewpoint of Yazeed, one of an ardent pious worshipper. This is a belief that is alien to Sunni aqeedah and one has to ask 'what is this new belief system that Abu Sulaiman is seeking to pass off as 'the truth'? Clearly his views bear no correlation with Sunni Islam; the only group that would have the audacity to praise Yazeed, killer of Imam Husayn (as) would be Nasibis. Would it not simply be better for Abu Sulaiman to stop adopting taqiyya and instead acknowledge that his appraisal of Yazeed is in line with his Nasibi ideology? Why is he seeking to make false misleading representations on behalf of Sunni Muslims? Perhaps Abu Sulaiman is seeking to amalgamate his Nasibi endorsement of Yazeed with mainstream Sunni aqeedah. Whatever his motives, we would urge our Sunni brethren to distance themselves from Nasibis like Abu Sulaiman who are seeking to indoctrinate Sunnis with the false thinking that Yazeed was a pious Muslim.