Among the facts proving Yazid's infidelity are his own poetic couplets. For instance, he writes:
"If drinking (wine) is prohibited in the religion of Muhammad,
let it be so; I will accept Christianity."
"It is this world alone for us. There is no other world.
We should not be deprived of the pleasures of this world."
These couplets appear in the collection of his poetical works,
and Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi has recorded them in his Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid.
Again he says:
"One who frightens us with the story of doomsday, let him
do so. These are false things which deprive us of all the pleasures
of sound and music."
Sibt Ibn Jauzi writes in his Tadhkira, page 148, that when the
descendants of the Prophet were brought as captives to Syria,
Yazid was sitting in the second story of his palace. He recited
the two following couplets:
"When the camel litters carrying prisoners appeared, a crow
cawed (a bad omen in Arabia). I said: O crow, whether you caw
or not, I have taken vengeance on the Prophet."
"Vengeance" refers to the fact that his elders and near
relatives were killed in the battles of Badr, Uhud, and Hunain.
He avenged their deaths by killing the sons of the Prophet.
Another proof of his infidelity is that when he had a party to
celebrate Husain's martyrdom, he recited the irreligious couplets
of Abdullah Bin Uzza Ba'ri. Sibt Ibn Jauzi, Abu Raihan, and others
have written that Yazid wished for the presence of his ancestors,
who were all infidels, and were killed in the battle of Badr on
the order of the Prophet. Yazid said: "I wish those of my
clan who were killed at Badr, and those who had seen the people
of the Khazraj clan wailing (in the battle of Uhud) on account
of lancet wounds, were here. They would have hailed me with loud
cries and said: 'O Yazid, may your hands never be paralyzed' because
I have killed the chiefs of his (the Prophet's) clan. I did so
as revenge for Badr, which has now been completed. The Bani Hashim
only played a game with government. There has come no message
from Allah, nor was anything revealed. I would not belong to the
Khandaq family if I had not taken vengeance on the descendants
of the Prophet. We avenged the murders of Ali by killing his son,
a horseman and a brave lion."
Most of your ulema regard Yazid as an infidel. Even Imam Ahmad
Ibn Hanbal and many other great ulema of your sect suggest that
curses on him should be recited. Abdu'r-Rahman Abu'l-Faraj Bin
Jauzi has written a book on this subject, Kitabu'l-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anidu'l-Mani'an
La'n-e-Yazid La'natullah. Only a few of the fanatical ulema of
your sect, like Ghazali, have shown partiality to Yazid and have
fabricated ludicrous objections in defense of him. However, the
majority of your ulema have noted his irreligious, tyrannical
behavior. Muslim states that as caliph, Yazid attempted to do
away with religion. Mas'udi, in his Muruju'z-Dhahab, Volume II,
says that the character of Yazid was like that of Pharaoh, but
that Pharaoh was more just to his subjects than Yazid was. Yazid's
rule brought disgrace on the fair name of Islam. His wickedness
included drinking wine, murdering the Prophet's son, cursing the
Prophet's successor, Ali, demolishing the House of Allah (Masjidu'l-Haram),
and mass killings. He committed countless transgressions against
divine law, sins which are unforgivable.
Nawab: How was Yazid responsible
for mass killings?
Well-Wisher: Many historians
have related this fact. Sibt Ibn Jauzi in his Tadhkira, page 63,
says that some of the people of Medina went to Syria in 62 A.H.
When they learned of the sinful deeds of Yazid, they returned
to Medina, broke their allegiance to him, cursed him, and turned
out his Governor, Uthman Bin Abi Sufyan. Abdullah Bin Hanzala
(Ghusilu'l-Mala'ikat) said: "O people, we did not revolt
against Yazid until we verified that he was an irreligious man.
He killed the descendants of the Prophet, illegally associates
with mothers, daughters, and sisters, drinks wine, and does not
offer the ritual prayer."
When this news reached Yazid, he sent a large army of Syrians
under Muslim Bin 'uqba against the people of Medina. The slaughter
of Muslims continued for three days. Yazid's forces killed 700
noblemen of the Quraish, Muhajirs, and Ansars, and 10,000 common
people. I am ashamed to say how the Muslims were humiliated. I
will quote only one passage of Tadhkira, page 163, by Sibt Ibn
Jauzi, reported by Abu'l-Hasan Mada'an: "After the mass slaughter
of the people of Medina, 1,000 unmarried women gave birth to children."
Sheikh: These accounts indicate
his sins. Sins are forgivable and may be condoned, and Yazid did
show repentance. Allah, who is the Forgiver of sins, forgave him.
So why do you always curse him and call him wicked?
Well-Wisher: Some lawyers go
on arguing a client's case until the last moment because they
have received fees from them, even though they know well the merits
of the case. But I fail to understand why you are so interested
in defending Yazid, in the face of his murders of Allah's Apostles
and his slaughter of the people of Medina. Moreover, your assertion
that he showed repentance is not proven. Don't his denials of
the main principles of Islam, the Day of Resurrection, the revelation,
and prophethood merit our condemnation? Hasn't Allah cursed the
oppressors? If these arguments are not sufficient for the advocates
of Yazid Bin Mu'awiya, I will, with your permission, quote two
hadith from your distinguished ulema.
Bukhari and Muslim in the Sahih, Allama Samhudi in Ta'rikhu'l-Medina,
Abu'l-Faraj Bin Jauzi in Kitabu'r-Radd Ala'l-Muta'asibu'l-Anid,
Sibt Ibn Jauzi in Tadhkira-e-Khawasu'l-Umma, Imam Ahmad Bin Hanbal
in Musnad and others quote the Holy Prophet as saying: "If
anyone frightens and oppresses the people of Medina, Allah will
frighten him (i.e., on the Day of Judgement). He will be cursed
by Allah, by the angels, and by all humanity. And on the Day of
Judgement, Allah will not accept any of his deeds."
The Prophet also said: "Curse be on him who frightens my
city (the people of Medina)." Didn't this mass slaughter
frighten the people of Medina? If it did, then acknowledge along
with the Prophet, the angels, and all the people that that wicked
malefactor was cursed and will go on being cursed until the Day
The majority of your ulema have cursed Yazid. Abdullah Bin Muhammad
Bin Amir Shabrawi Shafi'i in Kitabu'l-Ittihaf be Hubbi'l-Ashraf
Raji' ba La'n-e-Yazid, page 20, writes that when the name of Yazid
was mentioned before Mulla Sa'd Taftazani, he said: "Curse
be on him and on his companions and helpers." Allama Samhudi
in his Jawahiru'l-Iqdain, is reported to have said: "The
ulema in general have concurred that it is permitted to curse
him who murdered Imam Husain, or who ordered him to be murdered,
or who sanctioned his murder, or who agreed to his murder."
Ibn Jauzi, Abu Ya'la, and Salih Bin Ahmad, arguing from the verses
of the Holy Qur'an write that, "It is proven that cursing
Yazid is permissible. It is the duty of all Muslims that they
should know the rights that Imam Husain has over them, and how,
with the strength of his suffering oppression and tyranny, he
watered the tree of Islam with his own blood and the blood of
his family. Otherwise, that blessed tree might have died because
of the tyranny of the Bani Umayya. It was Husain who gave Islam
a new life."
I regret that, instead of recognizing the services that these
holy people rendered for Islam, you raise objections about pilgrims
who visit their tombs and call them worshippers of the dead. We
often read that in the central places of countries, like Paris,
London, Berlin, and Washington there are tombs honoring the "unknown
soldier." It is said that, suffering the tyranny of the enemy
and in defense of his country, he sacrificed his life. But there
was no mark on his body or clothes to indicate his family or city.
Because he gave his life in defense of his country, even though
he was unknown, he is worthy of respect. When a king or any prominent
personality visits such cities, he visits the grave of the unknown
soldier and places wreaths of flowers on it. An unknown soldier
receives much respect, but I regret that, instead of respecting
the pilgrims who visit the tombs of learned, pious Muslims, we
criticize them. Some of them knew the entire Qur'an by heart.
They sacrificed their lives in the defense of Islam. These people
include the trustees of Allah, the Holy Prophet, and descendants
of the holy Prophet.
Some Muslims have actually demolished such tombs and made tea
on the chests placed over the graves! Such a tragedy occurred
in 1216 A.H. on the Eidi'l-Ghadir, when most of the residents
of Karbala go to Najaf for pilgrimage. The Wahhabis of Najaf attacked
Karbala and murdered the Shias. They demolished the tombs of those
who sacrificed their lives for the sake of Islam. About 5,000
residents of Karbala, including the ulema, the elderly, women,
children, were slaughtered. The treasury of Imam Husain was looted
and precious stores, gold lamps, and valuable carpets were taken.
The precious chest above the tomb was burned and tea was made
on it. Many people were taken away as prisoners. Woe be to such
How regrettable it is that in all civilized countries the tombs
of kings, intellectuals, and even unknown soldiers are respected,
but Muslims, who are expected to show a better sense of the importance
of the preservation of the tombs of those who are their pride,
plunder and destroy them like savages. In Mecca and Medina the
Wahabis destroyed the tombs of the martyrs of Uhud, including
that of Hamza, the ancestors of the holy Prophet, like Abdu'l-Muttalib,
Abdullah, and others. They also destroyed the tombs of the family
of the Prophet, his sons, like Imam Hasan, Imam Zainu'l-Abidin,
Imam Muhammad Baqir, Imam Ja'far Sadiq, Bibi Fatima, daughter
of the Holy Prophet, and many others of the Bani Hashim and distinguished
ulema. Still they call themselves Muslims. Of course they construct
huge mausoleums for their own great men and kings. The fact is
that the ulema of both sects have quoted many hadith inviting
us to visit the graves of the faithful, so that the tombs may
be saved from destruction. The Holy Prophet himself visited the
graves of the faithful and invoked Allah for their deliverance.
Do you think that the exalted family of the Prophet who gave their
lives in the way of religion are martyrs? If you say they are
not martyrs, what is your argument? If they are martyrs, how can
you call them "dead?" The Holy Qur'an states: "They
are alive (and) are provided with sustenance from their Lord."
(3:169) So according to the Holy Qur'an and the hadith, those
holy people are alive. Hence, we are not worshippers of the dead.
We do not salute the dead, we praise the living. And no Shia,
educated or uneducated, regards them as the sole remover of his
difficulties. He regards them as pious servants of Allah and a
means of approach to Allah. We place our desires before the righteous
Imams so that they may invoke Allah to show kindness to us. When
we say, "O Ali, help me," " Husain, help me,"
it is just like a man who wants to approach the king. He may go
to the prime minister and ask him for help. He certainly does
not consider the prime minister of the king as the final resort
for removal of his difficulties. His only aim is to approach the
king through him since, by virtue of his position, he can easily
approach the king. The Shias do not regard the descendants of
the Prophet as partners in divine actions; they consider them
as his pious servants.
Since they are the representatives of Almighty Allah, they submit
the desires of the needy to Him. If the request is worthy, He
accepts it. Otherwise, its recompense is given in the hereafter.
One point should not be allowed to remain unexplained: the Shias
regard the position of the faultless Imams as higher than that
of the other martyrs of Islam.
Hafiz: This statement requires
an explanation. What is the difference between your Imams and
all other Imams except that they are related to the Prophet?
Well-Wisher: If you look at
the position of the Imamate, you will see a clear contrast between
the conception of the Imamate held by Shias and Sunnis.