Was there an ijma in Yazeed's Khilafath? - Yazid [Electronic resources] نسخه متنی

Was there an ijma in Yazeed's Khilafath?

Kr-hcy.com states:ALL THE MUSLIM CITIZENS INCLUDING THE THEN LIVING SAHABA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HAZRAT HUSAYN AND ABDULLAH BIN ZUBAIR SWORE ALLEGIANCE TO YAZID. WHEN HAZRAT HUSAYN DECIDED TO GO FROM MAKKAH TO KUFA WHERE THE PEOPLE WERE CONSTANTLY INVITING HIM FOR BAYT (OATH OF ALLEGIANCE) HIS CLOSE ASSOCIATES AND WELL-WISHERS LIKE ABDULLAH BIN UMAR, HAZRAT ABU SAEED KHUDRI, HAZRAT ABU DARDA, HAZART ABDULLAH BIN ABBASS, HAZART MUHAMMAD BIN ABU HANIFA ETC. TRIED TO PERSUADE HIM NOT TO UNDERTAKE THIS JOURNEY AS IT WAS FULL OF RJSKS AND HAZARADS. THEY WERE HOWEVER, NOT SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR ATTEMPT AND HAZART HUSAYN PROCEEDED ON HIS MISSION OF REFORMATION CONCEIVED ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN IJTEHAD.

Mu'awiya planned the succession of Yazeed for seven years

We read in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 247 Dhikr Mu'awiya:

"Mu'awiya spent seven years seeking to galvanise the people's minds towards giving bayya to Yazeed and he rewarded those that ascribed to his views. He [Mu'awiya] tried to get closer to those that opposed this purpose [to intimidate them]".

Mu'awiya appointed Mugheera bin Shuba to carry through his objective of intimidation

As evidence we shall rely on the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 79 The events of 56 Hijri

Tarrekh al Kamil Voilume 3 page 252 The events of 56 Hijri

Tareekh Ibn Khaldun Volume 3 page 16

Tareekh al Khulafa page 205 Dhikr Mu'awiya

Al Imama wa al Siyasa page 152

Nasa al Kafiya page 38

For the sake of brevity we shall cite al Bidaya

"Mu'awiya made plans to remove Mugheera bin Shuba from his post of Governor of Kufa and replace him with Sa'eed bin Aas. When Mugheera caught wind of his intention, he arrived in Damascus and said to Yazeed bin Mu'awiya 'Your father should appoint you as khalifah after him'. When Yazeed asked Mu'awiya if this was indeed the case, he replied 'Who said this to you?' He [Yazeed] said Mugheera bin Shuba. This recommendation pleased Mu'awiya immensely; he kept Mugheera in post, and ordered him to drum up support for giving bayya to Yazeed. Upon his return to Kufa, Mugheera employed his trickery to secure the bayya for Yazeed".

Mu'awiya set the wheels in motion and wanted people to give bayya to Yazeed. It is critical to note that in doing so Mu'awiya was breaching the terms of the treaty that had been reached with Imam Hassan (as), namely that Mu'awiya would NOT appoint a successor after him and that the succession to the khilafat would return to the Imams of the Shia i.e. Al-Hassan (as) and after him his successor Al-Hussain (as). Mu'awiya is thus in breach of a solemn oath he took not to make the khilafat a monarchy by appointing his own son as Crown Prince.

Imam Hassan (as) made peace to avoid bloodshed

This issue is fundamentally tied up with the forced abdication of Al-Hassan (as) as khalifa in the face of Muawiya's rebellion against Imam Hassan (as)'s lawful and noble khilafat. Al-Hassan (as)'s is deemed by Jalal-ud-din Suyuti in his established Sunni account of the khilafat the fifth rightly guided khalifa, and while most Sunnis have not heard this he ruled for six months and was by their scholars rightly guided.

For this section we shall focus on the following texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

Irshad al Sari Sharh Bukhari Volume 1 page 198 Bab ul Fitan

Umdah thul Qari fi Sharh Bukhari Volume 11 page 361 Kitab al Fitan

Murqaath Sharh Mishqat Volume 11 page 379

Al Istiab Volume 1 page 370

For the sake of brevity we shall cite al Irshad:

"Imam Hasan did not abdicate on account of any bribe / wordly gain or weakness; rather he made peace so as to avoid fitnah and bloodshed."

Mu'awiya had agreed that the Khilafat would return to Imam Hasan (as) when he died

This is undeniable and is testified to, amongst numerous other Sunni works, in:

Fathul Bari fin Sharh Bukhari Volume 3 page 65 Kitab al Fitan

Mirqat Sharh Mishqat Volume 11 page 38 Bab Manaqib Ahl'ul Bayt

Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 80 events of 57 Hijri

Hayaath al Haywaan Volume 1 page 53 Dhikr Khilafa

Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 29 Dhikr Hasan

Al Imama wa al Siyasa page 18 Sulh Hasan

Al Istiab Volume 1 page 370 Dhikr Hasan

For the sake of brevity we shall cite al Bidaya:

"At the time of the peace treaty, Mu'awiya agreed that the khilafat would return to Hasan when he died"

In Fathul Bari we read:

"At the time that the peace treaty was agreed Hasan stated that 'I have made this treaty on the condition that after Mu'awiya I succeed as Khalifa'.

The fact that Mu'awiya wanted to make Yazeed his successor was hugely embarrassing for him, since this contravened the peace treaty and hence the better option would be to remove Imam Hasan (as) (this has been discussed in our article on Mu'awiya). In the meantime Mu'awiya's flagrant breach of the treaty continued. This is an embarrassment for the Nasibis as this treaty and its terms are not controversial and accepted by all. Thus the Nasibis might claim that this happened after Imam Hasan (as) was martyred but the fact is

Mu'awiya sought to secure the bayya for Yazeed whilst Imam Hasan was alive

We read Al Imama wa al Siyasa page 155 Dhikr bayya Yazeed

"An Iraqi tribal chief said to Mu'awiya 'As long as Hasan is alive the people of Iraq and Hijaz shall not give bayya to Yazeed."

Mu'awiya had potential successor and rival Abdur Rahman bin Khalid poisoned

We read in al Istiab Volume 2 page 400:

"Mu'awiya said to the people of Syria, 'I want to appoint a successor over you and need your advice'. The people liked Abdul Rahman bin Khalid, but Mu'awiya could not tolerate this, since his intention was to appoint Yazeed [his own son] as his successor. After this Abdul Rahman became ill and he [Mu'awiya] asked his Jewish physician Ibn Athaal to give him poison to drink. The physician then administered this poison to Abdul Rahman".

This Abdul Rahman was the son of Khalid bin Waleed, and he was Mu'awiya's general in Siffeen. Mu'awiya was willing to shed his blood to secure the transition of power to his son. While we the Shia have nothing but contempt for Khalid bin Waleed for reasons discussed elsewhere (he murdered a Muslim general during the khilafat of Abu Bakr so as to marry the general's beautiful wife, and prior to this had murdered thousands of innocent Shias in the Yemen), Khalid is hailed as a great champion of the khilafat and a hero by the Sunnis.

The opposition of the family of Abu Bakr towards Mu'awiya's plans

We read in al Baidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 89:

"Mu'awiyah wrote to Marwan [who was of the same Umayyad tribe as Uthman, Abu Sofyan, Mu'awiya and Yazeed] and told him to get the people of Madina to give bayya to Yazeed. When Marwan entered into discussions with the tribe of Salim, Abdul Rahman ibn Abu Bakr stated 'In the same way that one king nominates another king to succeed him; one Umayyad is seeking to appoint another Umayyad to succeed him'. Marwan then told Abdul Rahman to be silentwhen Abdul Rahman refused to give bayya to Yazeed, Mu'awiya sent Abdul Rahman one thousand dirhams. Abdul Rahman replied 'Do you expect me to sell my religion for dinars?"

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Mahmud Abu Riyyah in his excellent Shaykh al Mudira page 168 states that Mu'awiya used force to secure bayya for Yazeed and discretely splayed with poison those that he could not bribe

"Even if that meant using methods such as poison, he used this method that led to the deaths of Hasan, Abdul Rahman bin Abu Bakr and Abdul Rahman bin Khalid".

Whilst Nasibis such as Ansar have no love for Ahl'ul Bayt (as) we would at least urge them to look at the case of the son of Abu Bakr, the natural brother of Ayesha and brother in law of Rasulullah (s). Anyone who has the slightest love for Abu Bakr should have nothing to do with Mu'awiya.

Mu'awiya even killed Hadhrath Ayesha so as to secure the bayya for his son

We read in Ahl'ul Sunnah's authoritative work Habeeb as Sayyar Volume page 58:

"In 56 Hijri Mu'awiya arrived in Madina to get people to give bayya to Yazeed, in this regard (the bayya) Ayesha became upset with Mu'awiya and openly expressed her discontent. Mu'awiya then instructed an acquaintance to dig a hole, cover it up and place a chair on the top of it and invite Ayesha to the house for a dinner. No sooner had Ayesha settled down on the chair that she fell through the hole that had been dug. Mu'awiya order the hole to be covered, he then made his way from Madina to Makka".

Ayesha is the mother of the believers and no momin would ever contemplate killing his mother. This legitimate bayyah that these Nasibi like singing about cannot be deemed to be the correct by anyone that has love for Ayesha in his heart. To secure this bayya, Mu'awiya murdered the son and daughter of Abu Bakr, he killed Imam Hassan (as), Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas and Abdur Rahman bin Khalid. Is there really any ground to deem an ijma that involved the murder of these prominent personalities? If this is still deemed ijma then we would like to counter this by stating that Uthman was also killed by the ijma of the people, do you accept this ijma? Contradictions abound in Sunni Islam, really harsh ones that only those of the attitude 'I was born into a Sunni family and will die a Sunni' can accept.

The family of Umar's opposition towards the bayya of Yazeed

We read in Fathul Bari Volume 13 page 80:

"Mu'awiya asked Abdullah ibn Umar to give bayya to Yazeed. Mu'awiya then sent 100,000 dirhams to Abdullah ibn Umar, he refused to accept this. He then sent a treasure chest to Hifa with the message that he gives bayya. Ibn Umar said 'These dirhams are because he is chasing bayya'

The family of Uthman's opposition towards the bayya of Yazeed and Mu'awiya's use of bribery to secure compliance

We read in al Imama was al Siyasa Volume 2 page 184:

"At the time that bayya was being given to Yazeed, Uthman's son Sa'eed approached Mu'awiya, and said 'Commander of Syria, on what grounds are you making Yazeed your successor, and why are you ignoring me? After highlighting some of his own faults he [Sa'eed] then said 'If you object to making me the khalifa then at least give something to me'. Mu'awiya said 'I'll give you the province of Khurasan. Sa'eed accepted and recited a eulogy 'Even if may father Uthman were alive he would not give me as much as Mu'awiya just did'.

We read in Tareekh ibn Asakir Volume 6 page 159 Dhikr Saeed bin Uthman:

"The people of Medina liked Saeed bin Uthman disliked Mu'awiya. At the time of the bayya to Yazeed, Sa'eed came to Mu'awiya, and Mu'awiya asked him 'My brother's son why did the people say what they say?' Saeed replied by citing a Madinan poem 'Verily by Allah, Yazeed is not deserving of khilafat, after Mu'awiya our leader is Sa'eed'. Saeed then said 'Which part of this poem offended you?' Sa'eed then began to highlight his own faults saying 'Sa'eed is mischievous and witty'. Mu'awiya sought to resolve the matter by sending him 100,000 dirhams and appointing him as Governor over Khurusan".

Abu Sulaiman is chanting that his Imam Yazeed obtained the ijma of the Sahaba. The fact is, in the first instance the leading families of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman wore opposed to the khilafat of Yazeed, and Mu'awiya secured their consent via political assassination, intimidation and bribery. Only the family of Ali (as) refused to be bought, and around them rallied the last sincere companions, who were killed by Yazeed when they rallied to the side of Husayn (as) at Karbala.

Marwan's opposition towards the bayya of Yazeed and Mu'awiya's use of bribery to secure his compliance

We read in al Imama wa al Siyasa Voume 1 page 164, Bayya Yazeed:

"At the time that bayya was given to Yazeed, Marwan became perturbed, he reached Damascus and began to outline his own personal merits such as his age [experience over Yazeed]. Mu'awiya then gave Marwan a 1000 dinar reward."

That did the trick and shut him up, Marwan was also on board now! We read in Muruj al Dhahab Volume 3 page 38

"When bayya was administered to Yazeed, Marwan became concerned and went to Damascus, and began to cite his own merits citing his age. Mu'awiya calmed him down and said 'After my successor, the Khilafat shall go to you'. Yazeed then appointed Marwan as his successor and sent him back to Medina"

That's right Yazeed, keep the khilafat in the family.

The opposition of the Arab tribes to the bayya of Yazeed

We read in Thalkhees ibn Asakir Volume 5 page 92 Dhikr Khalida bin al Mu'ammar

"When the Commander of Syria [Mu'awiya] initiated his desire [to appoint Yazeed] the tribe of Rabia opposed this and the tribe of Abid al Qays joined them (i.e. refused to give bayya). The tribe of Barr bin Wa'l and the tribe of Khalid bin al Mu'ammar also joined in opposition. When the tribe of Rabia refused to give bayya other Arab tribes followed suit. This perplexed Mu'awiya immensely."

Nasibi Hujjaj bin Yusuf's admission that he used violence to secure the khilafat for Yazeed

We read in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 20 about the assassination of witnesses to Yazeed's playboy lifestyle in Mu'awiya's palace:

"Hujjaj bin Yusuf once told Mu'awiya's grandson Khalid bin Yazeed

'Listen, I killed one hundred people with this sword, as they deemed your father [Yazeed] to be a kaafir, and they would testify to his drinking, to the point that that their blood on this sword would testify that Yazeed was the khalifa.'"

Is this how this ijma was achieved - through the slaughtering of opponents and witnesses? Is this the 'legitimate' method via which the people happily gave bayya to Yazeed? If the people had been silenced through such methods, it does not in any way mean that they deemed Yazeed's khilafat to be rightful. When they saw that Yazeed was not even prepared to spare the life of the grandson of Rasulullah (s) they simply adopted taqiyyah through fear of death. Securing allegiance under the threat of death can never constitute ijma. We see a situation in which the whole Ummah was terrified of being killed by Mu'awiya's de facto secret police unless they gave bayya to Yazeed.

Banu Hashim's opposition to the bayya of Yazeed was the reason for their genocide

We shall now quote directly from al Imama wa al Siyasa page 163:

"Mu'awiya sent a letter to Husayn that stated 'Banu Hashim, Salaamun Alaykum, accept Yazeed's leadership and refrain from opposing me'.

Husayn replied saying:

'Mu'awiya your actions are those of a Zaalim [unjust and also sadistic, cruel person]. Shaytaan is working with you. You are shedding the blood of pious Muslims. You have declared Ziyad bin Sumayya [Abu Sofyan's bastard son] to be your brother and he has turned your khilafat into an unjust one. It is clear from your actions that you are not from the Ummah of Muhammad, Allah (swt) shall never forgive you for appointing that youth [Yazeed] as a successor who plays with dogs [civil expression for bestiality] and drinks alcohol.' Not a single member of Banu Hashim accepted Yazeed as Khalifah. Sa'd wrote to Mu'awiya and said the people of Medina had not accepted Yazeed as khalifah, and none of Banu Hashim have accepted Yazeed's khilafat".

The opposition of Abdullah ibn Abbas towards the bayya given to Yazeed

We are continuing from where we left off in al Imama wa al Siyasa:

Mu'awaiya wrote to Abdullah ibn Abbas (both men are accepted as reliable, honest transmitters of Hadith and Santa Clauses by the Sunnis):

"Ibn Abbas, I hear that you are refusing to recognise Yazeed as my successor. I am within my rights to kill you to avenge Uthman's death since you were responsible for inciting people against him and I have no proof of your imanwhen you receive this letter go the Mosque of the Prophet, curse the killers of Uthman and give Yazeed bayya by placing your hand into my governor's hand. I have written this letter to warn you, and you know your heart better than I.

Ibn Abbas replied:

'I am in receipt of your letter and I understand its contents. I don't possess any proof of your iman, neither are you in the position to weigh the iman of others nor can we rely on your words. You are threatening to kill me, if you do, then I shall appear before the justice of Allah (swt) in such a manner that my blood shall speak out against you, and Rasulullah (s) shall also speak against you. Anyone that Rasulullah (s) speaks against shall never attain salvation. With regards to the allegation on the killing of Uthman, his children are alive, what is refraining them from cursing the killers of Uthman?'"

Ibn Qutaybah then records a letter from Mu'awiya to Banu Hashim that was sent to Ibn Jafer:

'Up until now my view of you was a good one. I have now received information on some matter about you that I dislike. If you don't accept my son's right to rule I shall pressure you and threaten you."

Ibn Qutaybah records Ibn Jafer's reply as follows:

"I received your letter, your intention is to force me to accept the khilafat of Yazeed. Well, we made you and your father accept Islam, and you only accepted out of desperation [i.e. Mu'awiya is an hypocrite who only 'converted' when he was beaten, and never embraced Islam in his heart]".

Our Ahl'ul Sunnah brothers have an aqeedah that there were four rightly guided khalifahs. They should know that the family of these four khalifahs all opposed the Khilafat of Yazeed.

The opposition of the sons of Ashra Mubashura [the supposed 10 companions promised Paradise in Sunnidom] to the bayya of Yazeed, Mu'awiya's cursing them and advising Yazeed to kill them

We read in Iqd al Fareed Volume 2 page 247 Bayya Yazeed as follows:

"At the time that bayya was administered to Yazeed, Mu'awiya asked Abdullah ibn Zubayr for his views on giving bayya. Abdullah said 'before rushing forward on this matter, you should think about the consequences carefully, to avoid embarrassment later. Mu'awiya then said 'It seems that the deceptive fox has become somewhat brave in his old age'.

We read in Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 284 Dhikr Bayya Yazeed:

"Mu'awiya came to Medina at the time that bayya was being given to Yazeed, he approached Abdullah Ibn Zubayr and said 'Your welcome is not acceptable here. You are like a mole that keeps his head buried in a hole and wags his tail outside, it may be that the mole is captured and his back broken'. With that Mu'awiya told him to go away and he smacked his (ibn Zubayr's) ride".

al Bidayah Volume 8 page 115 Dhikr Wafaath Mu'awiya

"Before his death Mu'awiya said to Yazeed, Ibn Zubayr won't accept your reign. He will approach you like a lion. When he opposes you then rip him to shreds."

Abdullah Ibn Zubayr is a great figure of Ahl'ul Sunnah and they believe that he is a son of Ashura Mubashra (The 'Heavenly Ten' who seemed to be killing each other). Zubayr was also the grandson of Abu Bakr and nephew of Ayesha. For Ahl'ul Sunnah it is indeed unfortunate that Mu'awiya had the audacity to disregard Ibn Zubayr's close relationship to Abu Bakr, to the point that he even advocated killing this 'esteemed' personality.

Threats of physical violence to secure the bayya for Yazeed

In 'Abu Hanifa ki Siyasi Zindagee page 51' al Misra page 115 Volume 2 it is cited the way that Abdullah bin Umro bin Aas gave bayya to Yazeed:

"When Ibn Sa'eed approached his door with firewood, and said 'Give bayya to Yazeed otherwise I shall set your home alight', Abdullah then joined the majority by giving bayya to Yazeed".

Yes, burning people's homes was a favourite threat from the khalifa to get people to see things their way. It didn't work to get the Bayya when Abu Bakr and Umar burned Ali (as) and Fatima (as)'s house, but it worked here and got the desired result. I wonder how the Nasibis live with their religion?

Please see our article "Burning the house of Fatima[sa]"

Mu'awiya's use of threats to secure Yazeed's khilafat

We read in al Bidaya Volume 7 page 79 Dhikr events of 54 Hijri

"5 people rejected the bayya to Yazeed.

Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr

Abullah bin Umar

Abdullah bin Zubayr

Abdullah bin Abbas

Husayn bin 'Ali

Mu'awiya then personally went to Medina, summoned all five and threatened them."

We read in Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 455 Dhikr bayya Yazeed

"Five people rejected the bayya of Yazeed. Mu'awiya approached Ayesha and said, 'If these individuals don't give bayya to Yazeed then I will kill them'. Ayesha replied 'I have also heard news that that you are threatening the Khalifah's sons, in connection with the bayya to Yazeed".

We read in Tareekh Tabari Volume 7 page 177 Events of 56 Hijri

"Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr refrained from giving bayya to Yazeed. Mu'awiya called him and said 'You have the audacity to raise your hands and feet against me? By Allah I am thinking of having you killed'. Abdur Rahman said 'By killing me, then your punishment shall be that Allah (swt) shall curse you in this world and throw you in Hell in the next"

We read in Nuzul al Abrar page 89 Dhikr bayya Yazeed:

"When Mu'awiya made plans to make Yazeed the khalifah he consulted the people of Syria. He then made his way to Medina and Makka, to raise this matter they voiced their opposition. Mu'awiya then intimidated and threatened them".

Just look at the way that Mu'awiya secured the Khilafat that Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq deem to be lawful. He threatened to kill the sons of the rightly guided khalifahs. If Yazeed were really worthy of Khilafat then the situation would not have reached a stage where Mu'awiya was issuing threats to kill people to secure bayya!

Mu'awiya's withdrawal of stipends to Banu Hashim for their rejection of Yazeed

We read in al Imama wa al Siyasa Volume 1 page 173 Dhikr Bayya as follows:

"Mu'awiya sent stipends to the people of Medina he increased their amounts, with regards to Banu Hashim stipends were withdrawn as they had rejected the bayya of Yazeed"

We read in Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 256:

"When Mu'awiya made preparations to return to Syria, Ibn Abbas complained 'You have perpetuated injustice against us'. Mu'awiya replied 'Your chief Husayn bin 'Ali has not given bayya".

This was the legitimate bayya; Mu'awiya was willing to apply economic sanctions as a bargaining chip for Yazeed's bayya! It was like the United Nations. When Sunni Muslims contemplate their khalifas they should know that their games were no different to those of America and Britain in the UN - acting holier-than-though, while slaughtering and getting away with it through legal loopholes. The problem with the Sunni khalifas is their sincerity. Neither is America sincere, nor was the khilafat sincere. This makes their protagonists pathetic.

Mu'awiya adopted evil methods to secure the bayya to Yazeed

We read in Tafseer Ruh al Ma'ani page 73 Surah Muhammad Part 29:

"If people analyse history, they shall realise how people were forced to give bayya to Yazeed, and that Mu'awiya adopted every wicked method to secure bayya".

Mu'awiya used every means at his disposal to secure bayya for his Nasibi son: bribery, threats, intimidation and killing. Despite this we have Nasibi such as Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq deeming his bayya to be legitimate simply because he got it. This is no dissimilar to what goes on at the United Nations. The Sunni khilafat is one big legal loophole whereby the worst men are revered as saints. It is part of the Nasibi religion...one big sickening legal loophole. The integrity, the honesty, the TRUTH is with Shia Islam and the 12 Shia Imams. Imam Husayn (as) refused to play ball with the American President of his time, the Sunni khalifa Yazeed, appointed like George Bush was through a legal loophole and through his father's influence. Nawasibis condemn Hussain (as). Real Muslims applaud him. The mentality of the Nasibis is that of southern redneckers in America - "What MY President (Khalifa) does is ALWAYS right. God bless America (Sunni Islam). How can WE be wrong? George Bush (Yazeed) is our leader. He's as good as his father George Bush Snr. (Mu'awiya)." And just like George Bush Jr, Yazeed was the vile (but stupid) son of a cunning father. And just like Bush, he has the media (Nasibi scholars such as the Ansar site) feeding the masses his lies. Only difference is Mu'awiya and Yazeed, father and son, were several times worse even than the Bushes in the White House.

Abu Sulaiman al Nasibi's claim that there was an ijma in Yazeed's khilafat is an absolute lie

Advocate of Mu'awiya Ibn Hajr al Makki in Thatheer al Janaan page 109 Dhikr Khalasa Jang Jamal states:

"The Sahaba were just, but on some occasions they would make such mistakes that were not becoming of the Sahaba. Such mistakes can be highlighted. For example Mu'awiya's appointing his son as Khalifah was a mistake, his love for his son clouded his eyes. This love in effect made Mu'awiya blind, and his making Yazeed the khalifah was a mistake, may Allah (swt) forgive him."

This is a polite way to say nepotism.

According to Ibn Hajr al Makki, Mu'awiya was blinded by his love for his son Yazeed. Nasibis such as Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq are just as blind when they sing the praises of Yazeed and deem his khilafat to be legitimate.

The acknowledgement that this appointment was a mistake destroys the Nasibi notion that Yazeed's khilafat had ijma and was hence lawful. Had there been ijma then there would have been no grounds to conclude that a mistake had taken place. Mu'awiya through his blind love of his fasiq / fajir son sought to secure his Khilafat via the State machinery of terrorism and bribery.

Another defender of Mu'awiya, Allamah Abdul Hai states in Mahmuwa Naqwi Volume 2 page 94 states:

At the time of the bayya to Yazeed, Hadhrath Husayn and other Sahaba did not give bayya. Those who did give bayya were forced to do so; it was known that Yazeed was a fasiq and faajir.

This is further proof that people were pressured to give bayya, thus meaning that Abu Sulaiman's glowing curriculum vitae for Yazeed, namely that his khilafat had ijma, is a clear lie.

In Fatawa Azeezi page 227 al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz states as follows:

"People in Makka, Medina and Kufa were unhappy at filthy Yazeed being made heir apparent, and Imam Husayn, Abdullah bin Umar, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Zubayr and other Sahaba did not give bayya".

Medina was the capital and heart of Islam where the family of the Holy Prophet (saws) and remaining companions lived. When the people of Madina rejected the khilafat of Yazeed then to all extent and purposes Nasibi Abu Sulaiman's claim that Yazeed's khilafat was legitimate on account of ijma is an absolute lie. It doesn't get more clear-cut than this.

In Shaheed Karbala page 11 Part 19 the Hanafi scholar Mufti Muhammad Shaafi writes:

"Yazeed's personal lifestyle was such that many in the vast Ummah did not deem him to be the khalifah. The people (Sahaba) opposed this planning, many opposed it till their last breath, and the situation got to a point where residents of Medina, Kufa and Kerbala were massacred."

This author has also through his pen discredited the claim that Yazeed had attained ijma of the people.

We read in Takmeel al Iman page 178 by Shah Abdul Haq Dehlavi:

"How could Yazeed be the Ameer when Imam Husayn was present? How was it a duty to obtain ijma (in this circumstance) when the Sahaba and their children were present at that time and when they had already voiced their opposition to this order? They were aware that he was an enemy of Allah (swt), would drink, did not offer Salat, committed Zina (adultery), he could not even refrain from copulating with his Mahram relatives (incest - having sex with sisters, daughters etc)."

This further destroys Nasibi Abu Sulaiman's false claim that ijma constitutes legitimacy.

Shah Abdul Haqq also wrote in Ba Shabaath basnaath page 36 as follows:

"The reality is Yazeed was born in 25 or 26 Hijri, and just like his father public disdain was no barr on him attaining power".

i.e. father and son displayed a trait peculiarly common to many notorious families, who want power at any cost, even human life.

Maulana Akbar Shah Abadi in Tareekh Islam Volume 2 page 56 stated:

"Mu'awiya's securing bayya for his son during his lifetime was a major mistake, this mistake was on account of his blind love for his son".

We have faithfully relied on Sunni sources to prove that the claims of any Muhaddith that ijma was secured for Yazeed is an absolute lie.

Mu'awiya's securing support for Yazeed via his political rally in Makka

We have already given some examples with regards to Mu'awiya's intimidation tactics to gain support for his son. At this point it would be fitting to take apart this romantic notion that Ansar.Org's Abu Sulaiman had portrayed in his article on Mu'awiya:

Please see our article "Mu'awiya"

Ansar.org states:Mu'awiyah was eager for people's agreement to give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district's governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed.

Ha...ha...ha. What a bunch of lies for our readers to laugh at: What's this... 'grandest companions'? We have proved that Mu'awiya killed or bribed them all! This is called whitewashing history...something very common in Sunni Islam. Sometimes the Nawasibis even rewrite history. Yes, it's the Santa Claus fairytales again in a different guise. That Pinocchio factor in Sunni Islam, like you have in today's world leaders...they just lie. Abu Sulaiman must have a very rich plastic surgeon. What, how many nose jobs is it now? We would like to cite an example of this wonderful 'consultation' process that Mu'awiya adopted, and leave it to our readers to think whether this bayya was really as popular as Abu Sulaiman would have us believe. We read in Tareekh Kamil, Dhikr events of 56 Hijri Volume 3 pages 257:

"In his efforts to secure bayya for Yazeed, whilst in Makka Mu'awiya summoned the key members from the families of Abu Bakr, Umar, Banu Hashim and Ibn Zubayr to be brought to him. He then said to them all 'I am about to make a speech and should any one of you interrupt me, this shall be the last thing that he shall say, his head shall be removed with this sword'. He then called an officer and said that he should position two soldiers next to each of these chiefs, 'should they oppose what I say then strike off their heads'. The chieftains were then brought before the podium accompanied by the guards. Mu'awiya began to speak, he praised the chieftains and then said that these individuals 'have expressed their pleasure at the bayya given to Yazeed and have also given bayya', with that the speech was brought to an end. When these Chieftains left and the people asked them about the situation, they said 'we have not given bayya to Yazeed'. When they were asked why they had not spoken up, they replied, 'we were under the threat of death'.

Nasibi ideology justifies such methods of despotic government. For them, obedience to the leader, be that man lawful or not, is mandatory. We the Shia do not regard as true Khalifas men who broke the sacred rules by which leadership is bestowed. This is a cardinal difference between Shia and Sunni. The Sunnis believe that a man who fixes the elections and becomes leader must be obeyed, or even one who like Mu'awiya murdered to do so. There is no other explanation other than this is as might is right, they believe, and all that counts is that man's holding the leadership and the army. The Shia believe that the leader must be bestowed with leadership in an honest and halal fashion. We believe that one who is unlawfully appointed is not the lawful leader. The unlawful leader has no right to demand our obeisance. Unbiased men and women can decide on who is right, Shia or Sunni. It is as obvious as the difference between day and night. It is in this context that the case of Yazeed becomes an embarrassment for Sunnis. For their khalifa Yazeed denied that Muhammad (saws) was even a prophet, in al Tabari stating that the Qur'an was a fabrication. In the first year of his rule Yazeed slayed al-Husayn (as), in the second year of his rule he put the people of Madina to the sword, and in the third year of his rule he burned the Ka'aba. All three actions are in the Sunna of Shia and Sunni acts which condemn a man to hellfire. Yet by Sunni orthodoxy Yazeed must be obeyed, and those of the khalifa's army who refused to slay Husayn (as), slay the people of Madina, or burn the Ka'aba, were transgressors!

Conscience does not exist in Sunni Islam when it comes to the relationship of client/citizen to leader. The notion of individual accountability for one's actions is dummed down when it comes to obeying the leader. This strange and morally unacceptable position comes from the fact that men like Mu'awiya and Yazeed had scholars in their pockets, on their payroll, bribed like the men named above, to spin doctor Hadith that were falsely attributed to Muhammad (saws). Sahih Bukhari notes Abu Hurayra being caught lying about the Hadith he would fabricate, yet the same Sahih Bukhari, each word of which is Gospel and the truth for Sunnis, takes most of its Hadith from the same Abu Hurayra.

Summary of these references

We have only selected a few highlights depicting the wonderful methods that Mu'awiya had adopted to secure his son's position as Khilfat'ul Muslimeen. He employed the following tactics:

Bribery, financial indictments and political positions

Economic sanctions

Physical intimidation

Threats of violence

State sponsored executions and state terrorism

Poison administered by his secret police

It is ironic that the great Nasibi debater Abu Sulaiman in his pathetic defence of Mu'awiya (that we have refuted) made the comment:

Ansar.org states:Mu'awiyah did not force people to give allegiance to his son Yazeed

Perhaps we are being a little nave, but can we not construe his methods of sanctions, intimidation, violence and murder to secure this bayya as evidence of coercion on his part? Or does this Nasibi have a different definition of the word 'force' to the rest of the human race?

We appeal to those with brain cells, is this the way that ijma is attained? Can we really extol the legitimacy of a Khalifah who comes to power under the shadow of such methods? Is this how you sell the Islamic concept of khilafat to non-Muslims?