You are incorrect. Yazid never issued the orders to kill Hussien. Do not become mislead by weak narrations on the subject. Ibn Ziyaad killed Hussein without permission from the Caliph Yazid.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah was born during the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him) and was not one of those who were well-known for religious commitment and righteousness. He was one of the Muslim youth, and he became caliph after his father’s death despite the objections of some of the Muslims and with the approval of others. He was courageous and generous, and he did not openly commit shameful deeds as his opponents said concerning him. During his reign several significant events occurred, one of which was the killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him). He did not issue orders that al-Husayn be killed, and he did not express joy at his killing, and he did not poke the teeth of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) with a stick or carry the head of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) to Syria. But he did issue orders that al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) be resisted and his efforts to become caliph were to be hindered, even if that meant fighting him. His deputies went too far in following his commands, and ash-Shamar ibn Dhi’l-Jawshan incited ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad to kill him, so ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad attacked him. Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) asked them to let him come to Yazeed, or go and guard the Muslim border, or to go back to Makkah. But they did not allow him (may Allah be pleased with him) to do any of these things, and the only choice they gave him was to surrender to them, and Ziyaad ordered ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d to fight him, and they killed him unlawfully, him and a number of his family members (may Allah be pleased with them). The killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was a great calamity, for the killing of al-Husayn and of ‘Uthmaan before him were two of the greatest causes of tribulation in this ummah. They were killed by the worst of people before Allah. When his family (may Allah be pleased with them) came to Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah, he honoured them and let them go to Madinah. It was narrated that he cursed Ibn Ziyaad for killing him and said: I would have been content with the obedience of the people of Iraq, without the killing of al-Husayn. Yet despite that, he did not take any action to show disapproval of his killing or to avenge him, when he should have done that. So the Muslims criticised him for not doing what he should have done, in addition to other things. As for his opponents, they added other lies and fabrications about him. End quote. Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa (3/410)
i'm sorry. thats what i had read in different books.
i'm sorry. thats what i had read in different books.
I think there has always been difference of opinion what had really happened in terms of Yazid. And some made it a matter of belief and non-belief. I would add something which would be beneficial to know for you. I think this quote is from Ali (R.A.) that when someone recited the Quranic ayah that there will be not dipute among the people in jannah and everything will be settled etc... He said that this ayah is for me and Muwaiyyah (R.A.)
So in short we are supposed to follow the sunnah, which is very clear in front of us and not cause divide among the ummah. Even the conflicts at that time were more or else caused by divide in the ummah due to some internal and external factors.
BTW just from historical perspective, also look at the life of Abdullah ibn Zubair (R.A.) He had also remained as caliph for some time after the death of Imam Husain (R.A.). SO there were again divide in ummah. One followed Yazid and other Abdullah ibn Zubair (R.A.). They kept fighting, and at the end Abdullah ibn Zubair was killed by the forces of Yazid in Makkah. And Hajjaj Bin Yousuf led the army to Makkah. It is also said that by his attacks on makkah, even Ka'ba was damaged.
So you see, division has always caused us harm, that's why in Quran we are told to hold strongly the rope of Allah and not be divided
Oh and even though Abdullah ibn Zubair (R.A.) was also among the companion, but even he is not considered among the rightly guided ones. Only starting four, and Umar bin Abdul Aziz.
Ok so who killed Ali's son in the battle at Karbala?
He was killed after he refused to give bayah to Yazid - Yazid does not have a favorable portrayal in Islamic history - sunni and shia.
Do you think the pious don't sin?
They merely:
Veiled themselves and didn't flaunt it
Sought forgiveness and didn't persist
Took ownership of it and don't justify it
And acted with excellence after they had erred - Ibn al-Qayyim
Now I looked it up, the person I meant is called ''Marwan Ibn Hakam Ibn Abu al-As'' مروان ابن حكم ابن ابي العاص
He later became Caliph of the Umayyads (Marwan I) and had served as the governer of Medina for some time. And during this time he gave Uthman (ra) false advises, which led to these mistakes. For example he demanded government positions for some people of his family etc.
It is also useful to bear in mind that it is recorded in numerous texts that the protesters from egypt had accepted the assurances given by Uthman ra and had turned back, but then a letter bearing the Caliph's official seal was apparently intercepted instructing the recipients to assassinate the leaders in question
'Uthman (ra) categorically denied having dictated or stamped that letter, so there are two very strong possibilities, there were intelligence agents from among the ghassanis/persians/romans stirring up turmoil in anticipation of a break-up of the Islamic State, this theory can be strengthened by the fact that the ghassani king tried to court Mu'aawiyah during the resulting turmoil with 'Ali.
Another possibility is that there was a power hungry internal government cell within government amongst the umayyads that had remained in jahiliyyah despite an expression of Islam after the conquest of Makkah and they were attempting to regain the control and supreme authority they had lost after Islam. A high proportion of the umayyads were later stage Muslims after subdual and it makes sense since they had the luxuries, the vices, and the most to lose. They would have had easy access to the seal if it wasn't a forged document.
i cannot see the logic of 'Uthman attempting to reassure delegate protesters and then killing the chosen popular leadership and lying on top of it given the fact that it would cause an outrage and ignite a rebellion in egypt.
it definitely appears like an attempt to stir tormoil - or a very cold and ruthless streak not characteristic of 'Uthman - but more fitting for the likes of marwan and yazeed.
hell they even killed the prophet pbuh's beloved grandsons, didn't something stop them when they remembered how he doted over them?
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks