An Analysis of the History of Yazid b. Mu’awiyyah Muharram

Today inshallah we're going to be doing something it is potentially controversial, but inshallah we're going to navigate this through without any controversy. It's a very sensitive topic, but it is a topic that needs to be discussed. We just finished the 10th of Muharram the fasting that we have done, and throughout the last week or two we talked about the blessings of the tender Muharram from our Hello sunnah tradition. I purposely delayed bringing the controversial stuff till we are finished with this timeframe. And today I wanted to touch briefly upon the issue of the controversy on this date, as most of us are aware, and the next generation is becoming aware and there's no

point hiding this. The 10th Muharram is a very disputed date amongst the two strands of Islam. We the people who follow the Sunnah of the Sunnah, we consider this a day of a bada a day of fasting a day of rituals, the other non Sunni movement they take this as a day of mourning as a day of importance because the grandson of the prophets Assam was massacred on this date and I have given a long talk about the incident of Karbala. today. I wanted to touch briefly about another contentious issue. And that is the persona or the figure of Yazidi Ibn Wow, we're yes even more aware. How do we view this person this Khalifa because he was a Khalifa Duma? Yes. How what is our position about

Yazidi women? Wow, we're so let us begin by setting up the stage who is he has either been Huawei he is of course the Khalifa that was given power by his father and where are we? Where are we is a young Sahabi by young Sahabi. I mean, he saw the process as a teenager, he is not to the level of Oba Karim Earthman, literally Allahu Anhu. He is not the actual who Bashara, the Sahaba are many categories, even 100 has 10 categories, the last batch of them, those who embraced Islam at the conquest of Makkah, that's the last batch and that is why we are the Allah one. So he is also hobby, because he is also hobby. So we have a theological belief about him, that he would never do

something against Islam intentionally, he would never intentionally want to stop for Allah lie about the process over something like this. So he comes under the general rubric of Sahaba. When he became the Khalifa, he decided to put his son iezzi as a nominator, he is going to put his son years eat. And as you know, this transformed the Khilafah from a shura to a dynasty. So this was a very historic by historic I don't mean positive or negative. Historic means something important happened that changed the course of history. He decided to put his son he is in charge. Many of the senior companions during more out of the law, his lifetime objected to this they did not give the oath of

allegiance, including Abdullah bin Omar, including Abdullah Mohammed Abu Bakr, including Abdullah Ibanez, obey these are all sons of the senior Sahaba they refuse to give the oath of allegiance to us Eid, when while we was alive, soon as now we have passed away even as obey as you're aware also, he broke away he established his own caliphate, and Hussein as well marched to Karbala and wanted to fight against USC, USC it centers forces and why are we sorry, her sandal the Allahu Ana was killed a very, very huge tragedy. No Muslim is happy at the massacre of Karbala. No Muslim defends the death of her st or the Allahu on our hearts are grieved and sad that the owner of the Prophet system

surrounded the grandson of the Prophet system, members of the Ummah surrounded the grandson of the process and played siege to women and children, including the grandson, including the great grandsons of Fatima and granddaughters of Fatima are in that caravan and eventually massacred many dozens of men, and all of the women were taken prisoner and then eventually set free and sent back to Medina. It is a tragedy, according to all interpretations of Islam, the question, what is the role of Yazeed in this tragedy? And how much blame does he have? So we began by saying that he has either been WowWee is not a companion. That's the first point. Hence, he didn't see the person who

was born after the process, and hence, there is no theological status given to the children of the sahaba. It's a very important point. The children of the Sahaba are completely normal, some are good, some are bad, doesn't matter. In fact, FYI, you can look up the books of history, the main general that was involved in the massacre of Karbala was one of the sons of Saddam who, of course, big tragedy, he's not a companion, the son of Saudi Arabia will cause your Omar even sadder may be with us was actually the general who was besieging her saying are the Allah who are the children of the Sahaba or not

It special status, some are good and some are better than this. So he has he is a child of somebody who saw the Profit System. It doesn't give him any special any special privilege. Now also of the things about USC as well is that a number of things happened in his Khilafah that compounded his notes his notoriety in history, not just this other hobby mentions, his helluva began he was only clear for for two and a half years very short period of time, barely three years. In those three years, three tragedies one after the other, each one of which is a huge tragedy. Imagine happening in one caliphate in one reign. His Khilafah begins with the massacre of who he was saying, that's

always Khilafah begins and it ends with the army, his army surrounding Maccha, throwing catapults and destroying the caliber because Evelyn's obair rebelled against Him. Ibn Zubair had his caliphate, and in the middle was the massacre of the people of Medina, spine, Allah, Yanni. For those who don't know, all of these sorts of details, you can listen to a lecture of mine online. It's a very generic title on purpose. It is called some incidents in the first year of the Hijra. That's the title of my video lecture. Some incidents in the first year of the hijra, you can find that online, you will find this entire episode. And the reason I say this is because we need to know

our religion is divine. Our history is human. Our religion is divine. Our history is human, and having a laugh and having political independence. There's a lot of perks, a lot of positives. But just because we have political independence doesn't mean we're going to be gender on Earth. Everything will be rosy. No, we have sometimes the worst massacres and the most brutal things happen under a great offer. All of this happened under a time when the philosopher was actually pretty strong, yet still, so many things happen. So yes, to have political independency is good. But we should not romanticize this notion of just because we'll have a head off all problems will be

solved. Does it work that way? Read history, and you will understand this reality in the first century of the Hijra. In this timeframe. Three things happen the massacre of her saying about the Allahu I'm the plunder of Medina, which was a very brutal plunder three days and three nights, the forces of yours Eve were killing and looting and raping and pillaging the entire city of Medina. And then after that, the Army goes to Makkah and wants to fight even a Zubayr and they throw catapults against the Kaaba, and the only reason they stop you as it passes away dies, the news comes to the army. So the army cannot continue. That's why they go back and even as Zubaydah is given a respite

of another few years, so he remains in Makkah as another potential rival for many many years, until finally he is brutally killed by hijab and use of and that is, I also spoke about that in another lecture that I have given so another point we need to so know that you as EADS timeframe as your mama the hubby says, there was no Baraka in it. It began with the massacre of Hussein, it ended with the destruction of the GABA, and in the middle was the pillage of Medina, what to evil legacy overall. And because of this, from the beginning of time, the majority of people did not like this persona, the vast majority of people did not like this persona. Now one other point needs to be

added before I go over the spectrum. And that is some people say that, yes, Eid comes under a hadith, in which the prophets Islam said hadith is in Behati. The Prophet system said that a widow J Shem. And OMA T the first arm the First Army of my OMA that shall besieged the city of Constantinople shall be forgiven. This hadith isn't Behati Oh, what do Jason Yazoo Medina Taka is Sir, the city of Kaiser is Constantinople. The first army that is going to besieged the city of Mysore shall be forgiven. And a number of early and medieval historians they said and they made the claim Yazeed was the leader of that Jaysh and that was the J show the army that annoy you but on

Saudi was a part of an Ebola and Saudi passed away. Okay, pause here footnote a boy you been on Saudi the famous companion whom the process of them lived with when he migrated to Medina? Where's his cover? In the modern city of Istanbul in Istanbul today? You can go and visit his alleged cover right? How did his grave end up in Istanbul? How did Abu you burn inside his grave ended up in Istanbul? How? Because he was a part of the army that besieged Constantinople but they were not successful. Now, the claim is that about you but on Saudis army was led by your XID and therefore you as Eid comes under the Hadith that the whole army shall be forgiven, and many of the scholars

who were sympathetic to the persona of voz

They use this hadith. And to respond back to this point actually even agenda to buddy and had been Asaka and Khalifa had been hayyat and others, they mentioned the fact that seems to have overlooked some of these great giants with utmost respect to them. And if I point out this, it doesn't mean I'm disrespecting the camp who said this, but it is a historical fact. Actually Yazeed was the commander of the Second Army, not the first. And this is well known authority mentioned this. If you look up the history of authority, he says in the year 45 Hijra in the year 45, hijra, Abdul Rahman Ibn Khalid Ibn Al Walid the son of hotter than what he led an expedition to Constantinople, and it had

an influence over the sahaba. Then in the year, 49, Hegira years, he led an army and it was unbelievable in Saudi Arabia Saudi passed away. So you see, is not the commander of the First Army that went to

Constantinople. So this is something you could look up historically, and those who claim so utmost respect, they seem to have overlooked there was one army that went before hence, that hadith does not apply to you, as he now other scholars point out even if you want to say that this is a generic Hadith, this does not mean that every single person will automatically be forgiven. Rather, the hadith is general and there can be specific exceptions, and especially when somebody does extreme volume like this person didn't doesn't mean we take a general Hadith and use it to forgive specific balloon Nonetheless, these are generic points to point out that what am I trying to say before we

get to the the actual lecture here, that is there is nothing special that we can mark you as either with as having been forgiven or a Sahabi? No, rather he is just like any person of his era. Now we look at the negatives he has done now. The brief lecture I'm going to give because this is a very detailed topic. I wanted to introduce for you to you that within our Allah sunnah scholarship, there is a spectrum of opinion about yours eat even more aware, there's a spectrum of opinion, and you have the entire line the entire spectrum from outright Kaffir. To defending him. We have this entire spectrum historically, I'm just giving you the facts right now, I'm not giving you my opinion,

right. I'm simply telling you, you should be aware, why is this the spectrum? Because and this is the key point. We do not believe that the incident of Kabbalah is a theological one, it is a historical one. So if somebody has another opinion about the interpretation of the events, it doesn't make that person a deviant a heretic, no. Karbala took place after the death of the process. And I'm by 30 years, 40 years, sorry, 50 years, you cannot there can be no theology, the Quran has been finished Revelation, the prophet system is no longer amongst us, cutter Bella and the Master COVID. Hussein is a historical tragedy, not a theological one, our theology doesn't change Imam

doesn't change Allah and His Messenger doesn't change the Quran does not change. It is a historical tragedy. Therefore, if a person differs about interpreting the blame of Yazeed, we can disagree, but the person doesn't become a heretic or wrong belief. You understand the point here, right? From our perspective, the tragedy of Kabbalah is not something that is a part of our theology, it's a historical tragedy. And therefore, if a person disagrees about what percentage of blame to give to your z, because that's really the question. That's really the question. The question is not was it good to massacre with Avila nobody says this, nobody says this. Everybody is angry and curses the

actual killers of the Prophet systems grandson who can possibly sympathize with them? No SUNY, much less anybody else is going to sympathize with them. The question is, what percentage of the blame is on

his eat? How much did he know? How much did he command? How much was he tacitly aware? Or was he innocent? Completely? And it happened? And he didn't want it to happen? You understand the question here, right? Depending on how you answer that question, you will get the spectrum of opinion. Right? And we do not say that this is a theological question. It's a historical question. So if a person has a different analysis, if somebody says yes, either is 100% Guilty, well, then that person is going to curse eat, right? And if somebody says no, no, no, you as he did not commanded. Rather, this was Edna Ziad who did it. The governor of Iraq, not yours either himself. You see this in

Damascus. inizia is in Kufa the governor so the governor and the Khalifa there's no phone call. There's no what's happened messages. It'll take three weeks for the messages to come. So if somebody says, Yes, he did not command the killing, even as he had commanded it, then he's gonna get angry Ignizio.

And he's gonna say even as young as the governor, he's gonna say Yahtzee this faultless in our understanding as we said, whatever position you hold, you can agree or disagree you are not an evil person for historical analysis as long as we agree that the killing of the provinces grandson is a major sin. It is a one of the worst crimes no doubt, we all agree to this, but who's guilty now, with this caveat with this intro insha Allah Allah, let us go over the quick spectrum. And of course, I have a much longer lecture online this just to introduce you. We'll begin from the far right, who is the far right, those who excommunicated you see, they said he is a cafard. He's not

even a Muslim. And you have small groups of small groups here, the far right, the far left minority opinions. So those who said he's a Kaffir, they're very few a number of them is the historian almost Rudy, he's not a theologian. And in fact, some say he's not even Suniva. So Rudy could be from the other group, but he's a famous historian. Mr. Moody has a remark that says, Let me quote it for you. Even fit around was more just amongst his people than you as Eid to the Muslims is either is worse than fit out. Okay. So he's completely excommunicating him, you have also been activated, humbly consider him to be a non Muslim, I'll lose you the famous professor, and I lose the great scholar of

the mainstream Sunni, he said that the one who killed the grandson of the Prophet system, it is not possible that he has Iman. Not possible, just like he said, If somebody threw the most half on the ground, and he knows us the most half, are you going to say he's a Muslim? No. So to the one that intentionally killed and then he says that he has he gave the command. So if you believe he has either gave the command, you believe this, then you are going to go to the position of he is not a Muslim, but this is a small minority opinion. Another opinion which is more mainstream, is that he is an evil Muslim, and we should curse we should put Allah as Latina. The general rule we don't give

Latin on another Muslim, right? The general rule we do not say Allah, Yolanda, Calandra, to Allah, Allah, Allah. We don't say this. But a group of scholars said, we should curse us eat. Exceptions are made. And you see there's one of those exceptions, and this is a very well known opinion. And we have, for example, a boo Yaga, the famous somebody scholar allowed this, the famous Shafi scholar in Kal el Rossi, he was very explicit in this regard. He said so and so has two opinions, you should curse you should not curse So and so has two opinions, you should curse you should not curse. As for me, I have one opinion it is wajib to curse, I'm going to curse to z. So you have this opinion as

well, the famous theologian at Tufts Zanny, who wrote a book of archive archive that if there's any he puts it as a point of al Qaeda, a Sunni it that that we are going to curse us even while we are so you have a position that you're going to curse him Ibanez Josie the famous humbly Adam Morpha Civ share. And historian if no, Josie is an all rounder, he's one of the luminaries died 595 If no, Josie wrote a booklet and in that booklet, the point of the booklet to prove that we're supposed to curse us even more, are we so we have that opinion, it is fairly mainstream. Now. The next on the spectrum. So you have we cursed him the next on the spectrum we strongly criticize, but we don't say

that in the Tula. We don't use Lana. We strongly criticize but no need to give Allah's liner on a person who said the Kalima whatever his crime, no need to say the liner. This position, perhaps, I would say is the majority opinion of Allah, sunnah, historians and theologians. If you look at and compiled and I've done my little bit of research in this regard, in my humble analysis and opinion, this is the majority of our scholars they are on this wavelength. We don't like you as eat. There is no defense of yours either. We criticize his eat, we harshly criticize eat, but there's no need to invoke that inner on anybody who says the Kalima and this is the position of many scholars have been

Asaka Athena Ibn Taymiyyah has many times said this, if it's a me I said that people went to extremes with regards to Z, some defended him and some consider him to be a saint and the others consider him to be a kafir and said you must give it to Anna. And he goes as for us, he has it was a king amongst the kings, and he has many evil things that he has done. And his biggest crimes, according to Ibn Taymiyyah is that he did not reprimand the killers of of Hussein Ibn Taymiyyah analysis is that he has he did not command the killing of Hussein. But when the news reached him, he did not punish the perpetrators. So that's a problem. If you didn't command it, then you should

punish those who did it but he didn't punish. So even Taymiyah says he deserves to be criticized for

This and that is his analysis of the hobby as well. As I said, the hobby says Allah did not put any Baraka in your seeds right era, there was no Baraka in Year Zero. He began with the massacre. He ended with the direction of the Gabba in the middle was the village of Medina, there was no good in the time of year zero. Also even cathedra has a lot of harsh words for even cathedra, the professor even considered historian has a lot of harsh words for easy, but he doesn't curse him. So this is the I would say the majority middle position. Now we turn towards the other side. Now we're going on the barometer right from Khafre to Lana, to get angry, but no Nana. Now we go to the next position,

what is the next position? We stay silent, and it is prohibited to give Lana and maybe even we shouldn't criticize, maybe we shouldn't criticize. So this is the position of a number of scholars, most famously Imam Al Ghazali. Imam Al Ghazali had this position that we should be silent and not criticize and definitely don't give the answer to you as he also Imam and no, we had the same opinion that we leave his affair to Allah subhanho wa taala. And we should not give an answer to any Muslim. So they were very much opposed to criticizing and just be silent and don't give any diner. So this is one position, then we get to the final opinion or the final spectrum. What is the final

spectrum? Did anybody defend your zt? There is a small group of people who defended the persona but not as we said the massacre of Karbala as we said nobody in AD Asuna defended the massacre of Karbala. Hamdulillah. Nobody can do that. It goes against a man to do that. But there were few people, they said yes, see this 100% innocent, no blame whatsoever. He has no blame for Karbala, and therefore they defended some of the good, whatever good they found in the history books wherever they defend it. And in particular, there was a theologian in fifth century, Damascus, by the name of Abdul Malik al Baghdadi. He wrote an entire book fee for the elite. He has it regarding the

blessings of zt. And in it, he tried to find ways to exonerate and whatnot. And it was because of this book, we said remember that, that Ibn Al Josie wrote a book criticizing his eat remember that? It was because this scholar wrote a book praising his eat that Ibla Josie wrote his counter to this, and he blasted the scholar and he said yes, he would be cursed at cetera, et cetera. So we have this entire spectrum over here to conclude, the position that a person holes regarding his Eid is not a point of theology. Hence, we should not make it more important than then it is, is a point of history. We should also avoid sectarianism and disregard sectarianism. It is my humble opinion. You

heard me speak a lot about this, that these sensitive issues, there is no point ignoring them. Because our children are asking, if I don't talk about it, they're gonna listen to other people, and they're gonna give a different perspective. The internet has opened the floor for everything. So there's no point ignoring we cannot tell our children don't ask. They're worried. They're concerned. They're asking questions. So I believe the best way to present as neutral as possible without riling up hatred without making people hate other people we can teach without preaching hatred. That's what we're trying to do over here. And you know, by the way, it needs to be said in Albuquerque, the

series of murders that occurred right is because of now we found out sectarian hatred. We don't want to do this with a biller, we need to rise above this, there must be a way to teach the differences without teaching hate, I hope inshallah I can and others can do this. So bottom line to conclude,

the massacre of her saying, is a tragedy of the highest magnitude. And it is a historical tragedy. No mainstream Muslim, defended and was happy at the death of her saying Radi Allahu Tada and whoever is responsible for that murder will have to face Allah with the most precious blood on his hands, the most precious blood the grandson of the prophets, Assam, that person will have to face the wrath of ALLAH SubhanA wa taala. The question though, how much was dizzy? liable? What percentage did he have in all of this? And I said, there's a whole spectrum of opinion. And I will give you now at the end of this my own personal opinion, take it or leave it. It's not a point of theology. I have read

with my own research, you can take it or leave it. I have a point as an opinion, that it is not fair to exonerate Yazeed even 80% 90% 70% On the contrary, you see, it was the one who sent a brutal military general with the commands make

Sure, Hussein does not get to Kufa and that's it, he left it open. He left it open. If he wanted to protect her sanral The Allahu, and it was his job to make that point. You know, when the government wants to catch a criminal, they say dead or alive, or they say we want him alive, correct. You know, to this day, when the government wants a criminal, they'll give you two options, dead or alive, or no, we need this guy alive, make sure you don't kill them, man, whoever wants to get the bounty you have to give into our life. This is the way of the world. Everybody does this. The fact that you're XID was ambiguous is a crime right here. Now, on top of this, the claim that your seed was not happy

at the death of her saying about the Allah who I'm, in my opinion is not correct. Multiple early textbooks mentioned that he was initially happy, even Ibn cathedra records this also, in my opinion, and this is very gruesome, but I'm sorry, to be blunt, you should know this. This is our history. And it's better you hear it from me, the head of Hussein was brought to Damascus, and it was displayed to you as either in the palace of your seat. And Yazeed poked it with a stick. And one of the Sahaba stood up and in anger said How dare you poke the face of the grandson of the process of my saw the process and kiss that very face? And here you are poking it? I'm sorry, we have to be

clear here. How can this person be defended? Not saying you have to give him that? No, but there is no question that this is a person who will have to answer to Allah on top of this. If you know what happened in Medina, and the evils that happened for three days and three nights at the explicit command of yours eat and you know that he told them to attack the Kaaba. How can you have any sympathy for such a person? My position is that to be my mama didn't humble her with this we conclude. Imam Muhammad the humble was asked by his son saw the his son Silas asked him that. Do you narrate Hadith from us it? He said how can we narrate from a faster? How can we know from him? So he

said that so you're saying we don't we don't have any love for us eat? And Imam Muhammad said, can anybody have a man have love for the one who commanded what He commanded? Can you have love for this tyrant? Wallahi we get angry when the tyrants kill people in misogyny when the tyrants do things in our modern lands, right? How about somebody killing the grandson, somebody attacking Makkah, somebody attacking Medina, both holy cities were attacked explicitly at his command explicitly, and the attack of Mecca and Medina no ambiguity. You know he is Eid, okay. I admit he didn't say killed Hussein, but he left it open. And when it happened, he showed happiness as for Makkah and Medina

there is no ambiguity. He said attack Medina and do as you please for three days. He said, attack MCCA and get rid of Edna zubaid Colosse. He has made the Haram halal, the Haram of Makkah and Medina. Why is it called haram? It's sacred. He made it halal. So Mr. Mahama said, How can anybody have Iman love this person? That's what I agree with. Then his son said so then should we curse him? And Imam Muhammad said, Have you ever heard me my tongue being vulgar and saying Lana to Allah, Allah Allah Tala? Have you seen this edit for me? That's not my tip. I don't need to do this. We leave his affair to Allah. But there is no love at my heart at all for this person. And what he did,

he has to answer to Allah subhana wa Tada for and the one who curses I understand. And the one who follows Him on Muhammad, I personally sympathize. But the one who defends or goes to the other extreme in my eyes. I don't agree with this, but he doesn't become a hermetic. He doesn't become somebody who has a wrong opinion because his analysis is different than my analysis with this inshallah hope that I have clarified some points. I know other questions will be raised, but inshallah maybe we'll answer them in another lecture. And I encourage you to listen to a number of lectures I've given online and I've given you the references in my library chats, which is like more

located with what I'm going to lie about to catch on