An Analysis of The Legacy of Yazid b. Mu’awiyyah

But can tiny banca tiny but can tiny Ana them be women coming to me in Kirby

Lee

jelly either call up the aromas, the here da Seanie we're gonna show

up

today in Charlotte, 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 10th of 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 is no point hiding

this. The 10th mo Haram is a very disputed date amongst the two strands of Islam. We the people who follow the Sunnah, hello 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 incidence of Karbala. Today I wanted to touch briefly about another contentious issue and that is the persona or the figure of Yazeed Ibn mulawa. 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 uz them and Huawei. So

let us begin by setting up the stage who is either been Huawei he is of course the Khalifa that was given power by his father more aware more 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 Allah who is not who who Bashara, the Sahaba are many categories, even hatred 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 Allahu Allah. So he is a Sahabi because he is a Sahabi. So we have a theological belief about him, that he would never do something against Islam intentionally, he would never

intentionally want to iStockphoto or 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's gonna put his son use it. 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 Allahu 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 Mao we passed away, even as Zubayr 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 yo z, because he'd sent us forces. And why are we sorry, her sandal the Allahu Allah was killed a very, very huge tragedy. No Muslim is happy at the massacre of Karbala. No Muslim defends the death of her saying for the Allah one hour 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 malware is not a companion that's the first point. Hence he didn't see the process. He was born after the process.

Islam. 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 Saudi MW, of course, big tragedy, he is not a companion, the son of Saddam, nobody will cause drama, even Saudi may be with us was actually the general who was besieging Hussein or the Allah who won. The children of the Sahaba are not special status. Some are good and some are other than this. So yes, Eid is a child of somebody who

saw the Prophet system. It doesn't give him any special any special privilege. Now also of the things about yours either as well is that a number of things happened in his Khilafah that compounded his nose 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 Hussein that's always killer for begins, and it ends with the army, his army surrounding Maccha, throwing catapults

and destroying the cab because ibland Zubayr rebelled against Him, Ibn Zubin had his caliphate. And in the middle was the massacre of the people of Medina, spine, Allah. And he for those who don't know, all of these sorts of details, you can listen to electro 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 Khilafah

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 Khilafah. 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 your Z 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 Zubayr and they throw catapults against the Kaaba, and the only reason they stop you as he passes away dies, the news comes to the army so the army cannot continue. That's why they go back and Agnes 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 solve know that yes, EADS timeframe as Mr. mazahub He says, there was no Baraka in it. It began with the massacre of Hussein, it ended with the destruction of the Gabba, and in the middle was the pillage of Medina, what 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 Yazeed comes under a hadith, in which the Prophet system said Hadith isn't

Behati the Prophet system said that a widow J Shem. And OMA T the first arm the First Army of my ummah, that shall besieged the city of Constantinople shall be forgiven. This hadith is in Behati a what do Jason Yazoo Medina, Taka answer the city of Posadas Constantinople, the first army that is going to besieged the city of Isotta 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 a boy you been on Saudi was a part of an Abu you don't 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 upper right? How did his grave end up in Istanbul? How did a boy you been 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 zeal, and therefore Yazeed comes under the Hadith that the whole army shall be forgiven. And many of the scholars who were sympathetic to the persona of Yazidi, they use this hadith, and to respond back to this point actually have an agenda to buddy and have been Asaka and Khalifa bin Hayat 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 doesn't mean I'm disrespecting the camp who said this, but it is a historical fact. Actually, he as he 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 even hardly didn't worried the son of Paladin would lead an expedition to Constantinople and it had an influence over the sahaba. Then in the year 49, Hijra years, he led an army and it was available 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 that we'll look at 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 it 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 boom, 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 is 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 Asuna scholarship, there is a spectrum of opinion about your zt even more IWEA there's a spectrum of opinion, and you have the entire line there 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 from by 30 years, 40 years. See if 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 of her saying 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 too easy, 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 Sunni, 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? 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

is a historical question. So if a person has a different analysis, if somebody says yes he is 100% Guilty, well then that person is going to curse you as he right? And if somebody says no, no, no, he has he did not command it. Rather this was him the zeod Who did it the governor of Iraq, not yours either himself. You see this in Damascus if the Ziad 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 the other is 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 us eat, they said he is a Kaffir. 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, there are very few number of them is the historian almost Rudy, he's not a theologian. And in fact, some say he's not even Sunni was Rudy could be from the other group. But his 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 see the famous more facile and elusive great scholar of tafsir, mainstream Sunni, he said

that the one who killed the grandson of the Prophet system, it is not possible that he has Eman not possible, just like he said, If somebody threw the most half on the ground, and he knows it's 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's 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. 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 Cambodia 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 you as you so you have this opinion as well. The famous theologian a

tough Dasani, who wrote a book of acquired oxidative design, he put it as a point of aqidah as soon as you agree 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 Mufasa, share and historian it will Josie is an all rounder, he's one of the luminaries died 595 If not, Josie wrote a booklet and in that booklet, the point of the booklet to prove that we're supposed to curse us even while we have so we have that opinion. It is fairly mainstream. Now the next on the spectrum. So you have we curse him the next on the spectrum we strongly criticize, but we don't say that and Atolla we don't use Lana.

We strongly criticize but no need to give Allah as Lana 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 your seat. There is no defense of yours either. We criticize his eat, we harshly criticize his eat, but there's no need to invoke Lana on anybody who says the Kalima and this is the position of many scholars have an eye socket, even a theory even

Taymiyah has many times said this. Even a Tamia said that people went to extremes with regards to your zeal. 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 ask for us

Yazeed 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. His analysis is that he did not command the killing of her saying, 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 Tamia says he deserves to be criticized for this. And that is his analysis of the hobby as well. As I said, as a hobby. He says, Allah did not put any Baraka in your zetes right era, there was no Baraka in Jersey he began with

the massacre. He ended with the direction of the Kaaba in the middle was the pillage of Medina, there was no good in the time of years he also had been cathedra has a lot of harsh words for him and Kathy are the professor Eben cathedra 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 Kaffir to Latina to get angry, but Dona Ana, 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 eyelid 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

Allah sunnah defended the master 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 law at USC. It's regarding the blessings of zt and in a tea tried to find ways to exonerate and what not. And it was because of this book, we said, remember that, that YBNL Josie wrote a book criticizing

gizi Remember that? It was because this scholar wrote a book praising as eat that Ibla Josie wrote his counter to this and he blasted the scholar and he said, Yes, he should be cursed, etc, etc. So we have this entire spectrum over here to conclude, the position that a person holds regarding his EAD is not a point of theology. Hence, we should not make it more important to them than it is as 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 going to listen to

other people. And they're going to 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 Hussein is a tragedy of the highest magnitude, and it is a historical tragedy. No mainstream Muslim, defended and was happy at the death of Hussein Radi Allahu taala. 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 Jersey 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. It's an opinion that it is not fair to exonerate Yazeed, even 80% 90% 70%. On the contrary, he is the 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 Yazeed was not happy at the death of her saying about the Allah who won, in my opinion is not correct. Multiple early textbooks mentioned that he was initially happy, even Ibn katheer 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 eat in the palace of us eat. 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 I saw the process and kiss that very face and here we 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 carrabba 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 your mama handed the humble was asked by his son saw that his son Salah has asked him that. Do you narrate Hadith from us it? He said how can we narrate from 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 Eman 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 Maccha 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 kill 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 eminence zubaid Call us 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 Imam Muhammad said how can anybody have eemaan 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 lander to Allah Allah Allah Tala? Have you seen this other for me? That's not my job. 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 with Zack McLaughlin with cinematic Warahmatullah wabarakatuh

You

either call

me Mr. Heaton doll seni wanna tell

me what to feed

it

feels

to me Janita, Aza down to

me down

the