Imam Hussain’s going against Yazid

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

Imam Hussain's going against Yazid, and the Sunni view
on Yazid. Can we curse him? 

Answered by Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam

In view of this
statement, what is the Islamic verdict on Imam Hussain's (radiyAllahu-Anhu)
rebellion against the corrupt leadership of Yazeed? Was this permissible
according to the Shariah? Also, what view should Muslims hold of Yazeed. I
notice Shia often curse him. Is this allowed?

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

The answer to your question will be given in two parts. The first deals with
Sayyiduna Husain�s (Allah be pleased with him) uprising against the leadership
of Yazid, and the second deals with the opinion of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama�ah
regarding Yazid. 

As far as the first question is concerned, it is an accepted fact among the
Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama�ah that to challenge authority is generally not
permissible. 

Imam al-Tahawi (Allah have mercy on him) states in his famous al-Aqida
al-Tahawiyya: 

�We do not recognize uprising against our Imam or those in charge of our
affairs even if they are unjust, nor do we wish evil on them, nor do we
withdraw from following them. We hold that obedience to them is part of
obedience to Allah, The Glorified, and is therefore obligatory as long as they
do not order us to commit sins. We pray for their guidance and their
wrongdoings to be pardoned�.  (al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya with the Sharh of
al-Ghunaymi, P. 110-111). 

The commentators of al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya have mentioned many evidences for
this. Allama al-Ghunaymi al-Maydani and other commentators on this work
elaborated on this topic by mentioning the relevant evidences. 

Allah Most High says: 

1) �O you who believe! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged
with authority among you� (al-Nisa, 59). 

2) Sayyiduna Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the
Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Whoever obeys
me, obeys Allah, and whoever disobeys me, disobeys Allah. And whoever obeys my
ruler (amir), obeys me, and whoever disobeys my ruler, disobeys me� (Sahih
al-Bukhari, no. 6718 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1835). 

3) Sayyiduna Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the
Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Listen to and
obey your ruler, even if he is an Abyssinian slave whose head looks like a
raisin� (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6723 & Sahih Muslim). 

4) Sayyiduna Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the
Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �Whoever sees
his ruler doing something he disapproves of, he should be patient, for no one
separates from the (Muslim) group even for a span and then dies, except that he
will die a death of (pre-Islamic) ignorance. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6724 &
Sahih Muslim, no. 1849). 

5) Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the
Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: �A Muslim must
listen to  and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or
dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to
disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari,
no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839). 

The above evidences are clear in establishing the fact that one must obey
the ruler even if he is corrupt or a sinner (fasiq). The reason for this, in
the words of Allama al-Ghunaymi, is that, there have been many corrupt rulers
in  Islamic history and never did the predecessors (salaf) rebel against
them, rather they used to submit to their rule and establish Jumu�ah and Eid
prayers with their permission. Also, piety is not a pre-requisite for leadership.
(Sharh al-Ghunaymi, p. 110). 

Other scholars emphasize that uprising against corrupt leadership results in
more tribulation and destruction then the initial oppression of the ruler. With
forbearance and tolerance, one�s sins will be forgiven. And in reality, the
corrupt ruler is imposed by Allah due to our own wrongdoings, thus it becomes
necessary that we repent and seek Allah�s forgiveness coupled with good
actions, as Allah Most High says: �Whatever misfortune happens to you, is
because of the things your hands have wrought� (42:30)��.. And He says: �Thus
do we make the wrongdoers turn to each other, because of what they earn�
(6:129). Therefore, if a nation wants to free themselves from the oppression of
their leader, they must refrain themselves from oppressing others. 

However, if the ruler commands to do something that is a sin, then there is
no obedience, as mentioned earlier in light of the many evidences found in the
Sunnah. 

Also, uprising and challenging a corrupt ruler becomes permissible when he
openly transgresses in a way that his action is not open to any interpretation,
provided one has the means to do so. (This was explained in detail in one of
the earlier posts.         

(See:  http://www.daruliftaa.org/what_does_open_kufr_mean.htm)  ;

As far as the actions of Sayyiduna Imam Husain (Allah be pleased with him)
and his uprising against Yazid is concerned, firstly, it should be understood
that according to the majority of scholars, the status of a heir to the throne
(wali al-ahd) is only one of recommendation that requires approval from the
nations prominent and influential figures after the demise of the Khalifa. 

Qadhi Abu Ya�la al-Farra al-Hanbali states in his Ahkam al-Sultaniyya:

�It is permissible for a Khalifah to appoint a successor without the approval
of those in power, as Abu Bakr appointed Umar (Allah be pleased with them both)
as his successor without the backing and presence of the prominent figures of
the community. The logical reason behind this is that appointing someone a
successor to the throne is not appointing his a Khalifa, or else, there will be
two Khalifas, thus there is no need for the influential people to be present.
Yes, after the demise of the Khalifah, there presence and approval is
necessary�.

He further states:

�Khilafah (leadership) is not established merely with the appointment of the
Khalifa, rather (after his demise) it requires the approval of the Muslim
Ummah� (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, p. 9).

In view of the above, the majority of the Umma�s scholars are of the view that
if a Khalifah or ruler appoints his successor without the approval of those in
power, then this is permissible, but it will only serve as an suggestion. After
his demise, the nation�s influential and powerful people have a right to accept
his leadership or reject it.

Keeping this in mind, the leadership of Yazid was also subject to the same
criterion other leaderships are. His leadership could not be established after
the demise of Sayyiduna Mu�awiya (Allah be pleased with him) until it was
approved by the major personalities of the nation.

Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) from the outset did not approve of
Yazid being designated a leader. This was his personal opinion that was based
on purely religious grounds and there was nothing wrong in holding this view.

After the demise of Sayyiduna Mu�awiya (Allah be pleased with him), Sayyiduna
Husain (Allah be pleased with him) saw that the major personalities of Hijaz
including Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) had not yet
approved of Yazid�s leadership. Furthermore, he received heaps of letters from
Iraq which made it clear that the people of Iraq had also not accepted Yazid as
their leader. The letters clearly stated that they had not given their
allegiance to anyone. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/262 & al-Bidaya wa
al-Nihaya, 8/151).

In such circumstances, Sayyiduna Husain�s (Allah be pleased with him) stand
with regards to Yazid�s leadership was that the pledge of allegiance by the
people of Sham can not be forced upon the rest of the Muslims. Therefore, his
leadership was as yet not established.

In Sayyiduna Husain�s view, Yazid was a tyrant ruler who desired to overcome
the Muslims, but was not yet able to do so. In such a circumstance, he
considered his religious duty to prevent a tyrant ruler prevailing over the
Muslim Ummah.

For this reason, Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) sent Muslim ibn
Aqeel (Allah be pleased with him) to Kufa in order to investigate the truth
about Yazid�s rule. His journey was not of an uprising nature, rather to
discover the truth.

Had Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) thought that Yazid had imposed
his rule and established his power all over the Muslim lands, the case would
have been different. He would certainly have accepted his leadership without
choice and would not have opposed it. But he thought that this was a tyrant
ruler that had no authority as of yet, and can be stopped before he establishes
his authority.

This is the reason why when he came close to Kufa and discovered that the
inhabitants of Kufa have betrayed him and succumbed to Yazid�s rule, he
suggested three things, of which one was �Or I give my hand in the hand of Yazid
as a pledge of allegiance�. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/313).

This clearly shows that when Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him)
discovered that Yazid had established his authority, he agreed to accept him as
a leader. However, Ubaid Allah ibn Ziyad was not ready to listen to Sayyiduna
Husain and ordered him to come to him unconditionally. Sayyiduna Husain (Allah
be pleased with him) was in no way obliged to obey his command and he also
feared his life, thus had no option but to fight him. This was the beginning of
the unfortunate incident of Karbala. (See, for details, Imam Tabari�s Tarikh
al-Umam wa al-Muluk & Imam Ibn Kathir�s al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya).

In conclusion, it is impermissible to rebel against authority even if the ruler
is oppressive or a sinner. The opposition of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased
with him) was due to the fact that Yazid�s rule had not yet been established
and he intended to prevent his rule before it being established.

The position of Yazid

With regards to your second question that, is it permissible to curse Yazid? 

Firstly, it must be remarked here that this is not an issue on which one�s Iman
depends, nor will one be asked on the day of Judgement as to what opinion one
held about Yazid. This is a trivial matter, thus many scholars have advised to
abstain from indulging and discussing the issue and concentrate on the more
immediate and important aspects of Deen.

Secondly, it should be understood that there is a general and accepted
principle among the scholars that it is impermissible to curse a Muslim no
matter how great of a sinner he is. 

Imam Nawawi (Allah have mercy on him) states:

�Cursing an upright Muslim is unlawful (haram) by unanimous consensus of all
Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said:
�Cursing a believer is like killing him� (Sahih al-Bukhari).

As far as the sinners are concerned, it is permissible (but not rewarded) to
curse them in a general manner, such as saying �Allah curse the corrupt� or
Allah curse the oppressors� and so forth. It has been narrated in many
narrations that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace)
cursed sinners in a general manner. However, to curse a particular person who
commits some act of disobedience, such as oppression, murder, adultery, etc,
there is a difference of opinion. The Majority of Scholars Including Imam
al-Ghazali hold the view that this is impermissible.

Yes, it will be permissible to curse a person regarding whom it has been
decisively established that he died on disbelief (kufr), such as Abu Lahab, Abu
Jahl, Pharaoh, Haman and their likes. (See: al-Adhkar by Imam Nawawi &
Reliance of the traveller, P. 772-773).

In view of the above, if it is established that Yazid died as a non-Believer or
he regarded the killing of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him)
permissible and died without repentance, then it would be permissible to curse
him. However, it this is not established, then it would not be permissible.

Indeed some scholars did curse him (Sa`d al-Din al-Taftazani, for example, See:
Sharh al-Aqa�id al-Nasafiyya, P. 2845), but the majority of the Ulama have
cautioned against cursing him. Firstly, because it has not been decisively
established that Yazid himself killed or ordered the unfortunate killing of
Sayyiduna Husain (Allah have mercy on him). There are some reports that he
expressed his remorse on the actions of his associates, and even if he did,
then murder and other sins do not necessitate Kufr. 

Imam al-Ghazali (Allah have mercy on him) states that it is even impermissible
to say that Yazid killed or ordered the killing of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be
pleased with him) let alone curse him, as attributing a Muslim to a sin without
decisive evidence is not permissible. (See: Sharh Bad al-Amali by Mulla Ali
al-Qari, P. 123-125).

He further states:

�If it is established that a Muslim killed a fellow Muslim, then the
understanding of the people of truth is that he does not become a Kafir.
Killing is not disbelief, rather a grave sin. It could also be that a killer
may have repented before death. If a disbeliever dies after repentance, then it
is impermissible to curse him, then how could it be permissible to curse a
Muslim who may have repented from his sin. And we are unaware whether the killer
of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) died before or after
repentance�. (ibid).

All of the above, whilst keeping in mind that (when cursing becomes
permissible), it is not something that is obligatory (fard), necessary (wajib)
or recommended (mandub). It only falls into the category of permissibility
(mubah).

Therefore, it would best be to abstain from cursing Yazid, as there is no
reward in cursing him, rather one should abstain from discussing about him
altogether and concentrate on more practical aspects of Deen. May Allah
Almighty give us the true understanding of Deen, Ameen.

And Allah knows best

Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari, UK