On Cursing Yazd b.

Muwiyah 1
Imm Ibn ajar alal-Haytam
Translated by Sidi Abu Hasan
Released by www.marifah.net 1428 H

Know that the Ahl al-Sunnah differed in the matter of the ruling upon Yazd, the son of Muwiyah and his successor. That he was a disbeliever [takfr] is the opinion of the grandson of Ibn al-Jawz [Sib ibn al-Jawz] and others and that: When the blessed head of Imm usayn was brought to him, Yazd assembled the people of Shm and rapped at it with a stick and uttered the famous lines of Zabar:

layta ashykhi bi badrin shahid 2

He added some more lines to the above which are explicit in apostacy. Ibn al-Jawz as reported by his grandson said: It is not surprising that Ibn Ziyd murdered usayn; it is rather surprising that he humiliated usayn and rapped upon his front teeth and lips with a cane; and his forcing the blessed progeny of the Prophet to ride bareheaded on camels and he mentioned many other ugly things that are famous about Yazd. and that he sent the blessed head [of Imm usayn] back to Madinah and its smell transformed. [Ibn al-Jawz] then said, His sole purpose was to display the [blessed] head and cause a scandal. It is permissible to wash, shroud and pray even upon the corpses of Khawrij and other rebels, and bury them [in Muslim graveyards]. If he [Yazd] did not have the grudge of pagan times and the spite of Badr in his heart, he would have respected the blessed head of Imm usayn when it reached him and then
1 2

Excerpted from: Al-awyiq al-Muriqah by Imm Ibn ajar al-Haytam [Chapter Eleven pg.270] layta ashykh bi badrin shahid: were it that my forefathers [infidels who perished] in Badr witnessed this; jazal khazraji min waqayil asal: the wails of Khazraj on our getting even with them

washed it, shrouded it and buried it. He would have behaved respectfully towards the blessed progeny of the Prophet and been kind to them. [End of Ibn al-Jawzs comments reported from his grandson.] Another group says: He is not a kfir because the reasons to rule one a kfir are not proven for him and we have no evidence for the same. The fundamental rule is that he remains a muslim unless there is compelling proof that makes him an apostate. There are famous reports about Yazd contradicting those which have been mentioned above. It is said that when the blessed head of Imm usayn reached him, he said: May Allah have mercy on you O usayn. The man who murdered you did not recognize the right of kinship. He rejected Ibn Ziyd [and his actions] and said: He has planted my hate in the heart of every good and bad until doomsday. He then sent the women of usayns household and the blessed head with them to Madinah for a burial. Obviously, anything in the above two positions cannot be proven. Yet basically, he is considered a Muslim. So we must take this fundamental precept and examine anything that makes him go out of Islam. Therefore a group of researchers said that the most accurate position in this issue is to tarry upon his state and surrender [tafw] the matter to Allh because He knows of the mysterious, the covert, the secrets that are hidden and that which is concealed in the hearts. We do not propose for his apostasy and this is most accurate and the safest path. Yet, in spite of his being a Muslim, he was a transgressor, a sinner, a criminal, a drunk and a tyrant. The Prophet foretold this as reported in the Musnad of Abu Yal though it is a weak report from Abu Ubaydah that RaslAllh said: The affairs of my ummah shall not be fissured until a man from the Ban Umayyah named Yazd shall cleave it Ruyan reported in his Musnad from Ab Darda that he said: I heard the Prophet say: The first person to transmogrify my tradition is a man from the Ban Umayyah, who shall be called Yazd In these two hadith there is proof that the khilafah or rule of Muwiyah is not similar to that of his son or other successors of Ban Umayyah. Because the Prophet foretold that the first one to cause a split in the affairs of his nation and transmute his tradition would be Yazd; so, it is understood that Muwiyah did not alter the tradition of the Prophet nor disunited the nation it has been described earlier that he was a mujtahid. This position is aided by the actions of what the rightly guided Imm 3 did as described by Ibn Srn and others that: someone attacked Muwiyah in the presence of Umar ibn

the phrase used is al-Imam al-Mahdi: lexically, it means the rightly guided imam; there is a clever undertone to the usage. Ibn Srn is reported to have said that the Mahdi mentioned in the Hadith is none other than Umar ibn Abd al-Azz.

Abd al-Azz, so he lashed him thrice along with another person for calling Yazd, his son, as the Leader of Believers 4, who was lashed twenty. So ponder on the huge difference between the two [father and son]. Ab Hurayrah had this knowledge informed by the Prophet on that which shall come to pass concerning Yazd. Therefore he used to pray: O Allah I seek your refuge from the head of [the year] Sixty and the rule of youth 5 Allh accepted his prayer and he passed away in the year fifty nine; the death of Muwiyah and the succession of Yazd is in the year sixty. Thus, Ab Hurayrah knew about the succession of Yazd in that year hence he sought refuge from the evil of that year. He knew the ugliness of these events because the True and Veritable Prophet had informed him of these events. Nawfal ibn Abu Furt said: I was with Umar ibn Abd al-Azz and a man said: The Leader of Believers, Yazd the son of Muwiyah said.. Umar remarked: Did you say Yazd, the Leader of Believers? And he ordered this person to be lashed twenty times. His extravagance in sinning terrorized the people of Madinah. Wqid reports in a chain from Abdullh ibn Hanalah, the son of al-Ghasl 6 : By Allh! We did not go out with Yazd except fearing that stones may rain from the heavens. Because he was a person who married the bondswoman-mothers 7 and his own sisters and daughters and drank wine and forsook prayer. Dhahab says: When Yazd dealt with the people of Madinah in the manner he did, along with his drinking wine and committing sins, the people revolted and many rebelled; Allah did not give him a bounteous life. After what he did in the year 63 and this reached the people of Madinah, they went out against him and to oust him; Yazd sent a huge army with orders to exterminate them [the noble rebels]. On the outskirts of Taybah the battle of arrah took place, and how can one describe the event of arrah! asan 8 mentioned it once and said: It was nigh that none in that battle would survive; a great host of Sahabah and others were martyred in this battle. We belong to Allah Alone and to Allah is our return. Even though they9 are all unanimous that he was a fsiq, a transgressor, a sinner; they differed whether it is permissible to curse him specifically by his name. Some have permitted it, like Ibn al-Jawzi who reports from Imm Amad and others in his book named: Al-Radd ala al-Mutaib al-And al-Mniy liman Dhamma Yazd 10:
4 5

Amr al-Muminn, the title given to the Muslim ruler. allahumma inn adhu bika min raasis sittn wa imratis ibyn 6 al-Ghasl is the title given to the martyred companion whose martyred body was washed by the angels.
Abdullh in question here, is his son. umm walad means the mother of the child; if the bondswoman becomes the mother of the child, she becomes free upon the death of her master and it is illegal to sell her. The word used is ummht al-awld. 8 most likely Imam asan al-Bar 9 that is all groups [regarding Yazd] among the Ahl al-Sunnah.
7

A questioner asked me about Yazd, the son of Muwiyah. I said: What he did, is sufficient for him. He asked: Is it permissible to curse him? I said: Scrupulous and pious scholars have permitted it among whom is Amad ibn anbal because he mentioned Yazd and he said may he be accursed. Ibn al-Jawz then reports from Q Ab Yal that he reported it in his book AlMutamad through the chain reaching upto lih ibn Amad ibn anbal that he said: I said to my father [Amad ibn Hanbal] that people say that we love Yazd. He said: My son. Does anyone who believes in Allh bear love for Yazd? And why should one hesitate to send curses on him, he who has been cursed by Allh in His Book? I said, Where did Allah curse Yazd in His Book? He replied: Then, do you expect that if you were given the rule of the land to . [Imm Amad said]: Is there any mischief or evil greater than this murder? In another report, he said: My son! What can I say about that man whom Allh has cursed in His Book and then mentioned the verse [above]. Ibn al-Jawz said: Q Ab Yal wrote a book on those who deserve to be accursed and mentioned Yazd as one of them. He then quoted the adth: Whosover caused fear for the people of Madinah and oppressed them, Allh shall make him afraid; and the damnation of Allh, His angels and all the people be upon him. Nobody disputes the fact that Yazd fought with the people of Madinah and sent an army that terrorized the people of Madinah. [End of Ibn al-Jawzs comment] The adth mentioned above has been reported in Muslim. The army sent by Yazd killed and terrorized the residents of Madinah; they committed atrocities and Madinah was pillaged freely; this is well known. They were so horrific that more than 300 virgins were violated and about the same number of companions were killed along with about 700 people who were reciters of the Qurn. Madinah was pillaged without restraint and the congregation [jamah] in the Prophets Mosque was abandoned for many days. Nobody could enter the holy mosque; dogs and wolves entered the mosque and urinated on the blessed pulpit of RaslAllh . This came true just as it was foretold by RaslAllh .
11

cause evil and mischief on earth and severe the bonds of kinship? These are blinded inded their sight the ones whom Allh has cursed and made them deaf and bl

10

Al-Radd ala al-Mutaib al-And Al-Mniy liman Dhamma Yazid : Refutation of the Adamant Bigot

who Prevents people from condemning Yazd.

fa hal asaytum in tawallaytum an tufsid fil ari wa tuqai armakum. ulyikal ladhna lanahumullh fa aammahum wa am abrahum. [srah Muammad, v.22-23]

11

The commander of that army spared no quarter and he was pleased with nothing less than swearing allegiance to Yazd on the pain of slavery, that if he [Yazd] wished he could manumit them or if he wished he could sell them. One of the Medinians swore on the Book and Sunnah or RaslAllh . The commander smote his neck. This was what happened in the event of arrah. This army then proceeded to [Makkah to] fight Ibn al-Zubayr. They surrounded it and began pelting stones on the holy Kabah with catapults; and then they burned down the Kabah 12. What can be worse or more depraved than these evil and horrendous acts which were committed in his [Yazd] time and by his orders? This is a fulfilling of the prophecy described in the adth: The affairs of my nation shall be steadfast and firm until they are split asunder by a man in Ban Umayyah named Yazd. Some others said that it is not permissible to curse him because we have no [definitive] proof that necessitates it. Imm Ghazl ruled it thus and he wrote a lengthy justification; this is in accordance with the principles of our Imms [Shfis] who wrote clearly that it is not permissible to curse a person specifically by his name, except those who are confirmed to have died as kfir. Like, Ab Jahl and Ab Lahab etc. As for those whom we do not know for certain if that they died as kfirs, it is not permissible to curse them. It is not permissible to curse even those disbelievers in the present who are inimical [to Muslims]. Because damnation [laan] means to be rejected from the Mercy of Allh and to despair. Only those who can know [with certainty] that the person died as a disbeliever can say so; and those who dont, cannot. Because it is quite possible that a disbeliever might die upon Islm in his last breath. If you understand this, you will see that [it is therefore] they made it impermissible to curse Yazd, even though he was a transgressor, a sinner and a filthy person. Even if we suppose that he [truly] ordered the assassination of usayn and he was pleased with the murder it is a filthy thing unless he considered it as a permissible act. Even if you extrapolate it with erroneous reasoning, it is still remains an enormity; not disbelief, that he ordered the murder and was pleased with the act. There is no authentic evidence that he ordered the murder. Rather, the opposite of it [that he disavowed the murder] has been reported as I have described earlier. As for the proof given by Imm Amad that it is permissible to curse him using the verse They are those whom Allh has damned [mentioned earlier]; and the evidence used by others from the adth of Muslim that RaslAllh said: Whosoever terrorized the

12

The roof of Kabah was made of wood and they bombed it with fire-laden stones.

residents of Madinah..: There is no proof in it to curse Yazd specifically and by his name. If one says, he was among those [who deserved damnation] then there is no dispute as long as it is not specifically by his name. Therefore it is unanimously agreed that it is permissible to send damnation upon the murderer of usayn or anyone who ordered his murder or permitted it or was pleased with it without mentioning the name of Yazd. Just like it is permissible to send damnation upon one who drinks wine without naming anyone specifically. This is how it is in the verse and the tradition. Because the damnation there is not specific and for a person, but rather it is generic for one who cuts the bonds of kinship and one who terrorizes the people of Madinah. It is unanimously permitted because it is generic and not specific. Then, how can Imm Amad or others use this as an evidence to curse a person by his name? To summarize, it is not permissible to curse Yazd specifically and by his name; and there is no proof in the Book or tradition to do so [curse by the name]. Ibn al is among the greatest and prominent imams of [Shfi] fiqh and adth. I have seen his fatw in which he was asked about sending damnation upon Yazd because he ordered the murder of Al-usayn. [He answered:] We have no evidence that he ordered the assassination of Imm usayn . That which is preserved is that the person who ordered the murder of Imm usayn may Allh honor him was Ubaydullh ibn Ziyd and he was in Iraq at that time. It has been reported in adth that cursing a Muslim is like killing him. The murderer of Imm usayn will not be ruled a disbeliever on account of this deed; rather, he committed an egregious act and an enormity. Only the murderer of prophets will be ruled an apostate [not anyone else]. Concerning Yazd, there are three groups: 1. People who love him and patronize him; 2. People who curse him and revile him; 3. The moderate among these, who neither love him nor damn him and consider him [Yazd] like other kings in Islm and the unrighteous khalfahs. 13 This [third] group is the correct one and is the path [madhhab] of those who are well versed in history and know the principles of the Pure Sharah. May Allh make us among the best and the righteous ones in this path. [End of what Ibn al said, quoted verbatim.]
13

Those rulers who have been depraved and debauched; examples abound in history and present in this age. But we cannot say that all of these rulers became kfir unless there is hard evidence.

In the book Al-Anwr, by one of our latter day imams: Rebels are neither transgressors nor disbelievers. They are merely mistaken in what they have chosen and follow; it is not permissible to revile [aan] Muwiyah because he is among the prominent companions [kibr al-abah]; neither is it permissible to curse Yazd, nor rule him kfir, because he is considered among the group of Muslims. And what he did or [deserves for that] is surrendered to Allhs Wish whether to punish him or pardon him. That is what Ghazl and Mutawall have said.