Karbala – The ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and the Secrets Behind it [Part 2]

Continued from ➡Karbala – A ‘Bloody’ Conspiracy and The Secrets Behind it [Part 1]

The first call to stand up against the Ummayyad rule

During the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), despite the efforts of the satanic hypocrite forces not ceasing; due to the unique ability of leadership which Hadhrat Mu’awiyah had been blessed with, their efforts found hardly any success.

As mentioned in the previous part, the calls for overthrowing the government had been made numerous times during the rule of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), with letters being sent, firat to Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), and after his death, to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), but for various reasons, consideration was hardly given to their letters.

Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), after having seen the conduct of the people of Iraq first-hand, knew quite well that the voices of the many of its population was nothing but hypocritical. He had heard them proclaiming untold love for him, much more than even that which they had claimed for Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), but as soon as he expressed his desire to bring back unity for the Ummah, by handing over the caliphate to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), in a second all their claim of love disappeared and thereafter during his short stay in Iraq, he received nothing from these once-loyal supporters, except filthy remarks, criticism of the worst level, and even a physical attack on his most noble body.

Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) was thus most wary when letters began reaching him in Madinah Munawwarah, begging that he return to lead a revolt against the present Ummayyad government. Beside these numerous letters, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) could see another sinister plot hatching, with nothing but bloodshed, treachery and further shaitani schemes resulting from it.

Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) on numerous occasions, expressed his dissatisfaction from those fragments in Iraq, who were forever moaning and complaining regarding their rulers, and who were always eager to re-ignite some sort of fire amongst the Ummah.

The following statement from Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), recorded in Mu’jam Tabrani, with a strong chain of narrators, which has previously been mentioned, clearly indicates to most of what has been mentioned above:

Yazid ibn al-Asam narrates that once whilst on a journey with Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), a bundle of letters reached him, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) called for a container, and had water poured into it. He then threw the letters into the water, without even bothering to glance at its contents. I asked, O Abu Muhammad (Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu)), who have sent all of these letters?’ He replied, “It has come from the people of Iraq, a group that shall never accept the truth, and shall never desist from their evil! As for myself, I do not fear getting deceived by these people. However, I do fear that they may have an impact on him!” Saying this Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) pointed towards Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu).

The reason behind Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up against Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah

Understanding this issue is vital for anyone who is desirous of understanding the deeper reality of Karbala, and the role that Yazid played in the entire episode.

Due to immense Shia propaganda and influence, many have been unfortunately bluffed into believing that the underlining reason behind Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) proceeding towards Iraq was that Yazid had turned renegade, or he was oppressing the masses, or that he had begun committing open adultery, or that he had now become an open transgressor, oe he had fallen totally into drinking liquor, etc.

Yet, if one were to be asked to provide some sound evidence for the above, he shall find that despite these allegations been recorded in many books, none have ever provided any solid chain of narrators, reaching up to any reliable person, who had witnessed any of this act from Yazid.

It should be understood well, that the punishment for the acts of above nature, in Islamic circles, has been termed as ‘hadd‘ i.e punishment decreed by Divine Law, which no judge, leader, etc, can overrule. If one were to thus say that Yazid had indeed perpetrated these acts in the open, as mentioned in historical narrations, then one would be automatically admitting that during this period of Yazidi rule, all the scholars, Tabi’een and even the Sahabah of Sham and its surrounding areas, had either become cowards, or had themselves fallen into gross sin, by ignoring his vile acts of open tansgression, and not even voicing dissatisfaction that the Islamic law of ‘Hadd’ were being totally disregarded.

Had Yazid really been doing such acts, do you really think that Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Bashir (radhiyallahu anhu), a prominent Sahabi, would remain quiet and continue serving as Yazid’s close confidant?! Do you think that Yazid’s awe was such that it could subdue or silence every Tabi’ee and Tabe Tabi’ee in Sham, which as the Ahadith had describe, was the fort of Islam?! Why can the books of history not provide a single eye-witness report, from any reliable witness, who had seen Yazid doing these actions?

Taking it slightly further, in Islamic law, if one openly accuses another of adultery, he would be asked to present four reliable witnesses, and if he fails to comply, he himself would be subjected to eighty lashes, on account of Qazaf (a false accisarion of adultery). Had Yazid, in his era and in his land, really been accused of adultery, there would have been atleast one case, where a witness could have been asked, by some or the other judge, spread across the length and breadth of Sham, to bring forth witness.

Anyone, with a slight amount of knowledge regarding the strict conditions laid down for one’s witness for adultery to be accepted, would know well that had any accuser ever been asked to bring forth witnesses, he would most likely have failed to do so, and would then have been subjected to eighty lashes, whereas this too cannot be found in any historical narration! Why?

Could it be that the judges of that era, which was still the era of the Tabi’een, known as Khayrul Khuroon (the best of eras), could it be that all those judges had now, for some strange reason, decided unanimously to discard the laws of Qazaf (false accusation) and turn a deaf ear to all the accusations of adultery being openly made on the present Caliph?!

If one’s mind finds accepting the above difficult, then the only other possibility that exists, in my limited understanding, is that during the era of Yazid, in the lands of Sham, no open accusation of adultery, drinking, transgression, etc had been levelled against Yazid, thus the need to investigate these accusations never arose.

In fact, if one were to ponder deeply over what has been narrated in the books of history, one shall find ample evidence that the reasons behind Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up against Yazid had nothing ever to do with Yazid being an open transgressor, an adulterer, etc.

Some narrations and points of interest shall In Shaa Allah now be mentioned, through which, if studied with an open heart, one shall clearly see the truth of what has been just mentioned:

1) Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), had already, in the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) expressed his dissatisfaction with the decision to have Yazid appointed as the caliph. Obviously, during that time, Yazid could not have been committing vile acts in the palace of his illustrious father. What then was the reason, at that time, for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), to openly reject Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s (radhiyallahu anhu) decision to have his son, Yazid, appointed as the next Caliph?

Will it not make sense that the reason for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) later standing up against Yazid be the very same reason for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) not accepting the rule of Yazid? Yet, when one studies the reasons listed behind Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up against Yazid, the initial, true reason, forget being at the top of the list, hardly finds mention, even at the bottom of the list, why?

The reason for this, in my understanding, is that had the true reason for Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) dissatisfaction with Yazid’s rule been mentioned, the sympathy and tears for the Ahle Bayt, and the anger and resentment against the entire Ummayyad government, which the satanic/hypocrite forces were desirous of obtaining through the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), that would never have been attained.

The only way to create sympathy and support for their sinister plot to overthrow the present Ummayyad government was to create in the minda of all a picture of a blessed soul, devoted to the truth, i.e. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), without any support from the Sahabah and Tabi’een from Hijaz, Sham, Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world, standing up all alone to eradicate the evils of drinking, oppression, adultery, etc, which were now being committed openly by the leaders of Sham, and in fact by the Caliph, Yazid himself.

After ingraining this picture in the minds of the masses, through mass propaganda, it would only be natural that all would lend support to any and every movement that would later rise in a so-called rally to have revenge taken for the Ahle Bayt, irrespective of who would be spearheading the movement, and irrespective of the filth and atrocities that would accompany every such rally.

As with regards to the initial reasons for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) being dissatified with the rule of Yazid, had those reasons been allowed to come forth , all would have understood that the struggle between Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid was solely and only ijtihadi ikhtilaafi issue (i.e an issue in which parties differ, after having made a sincere exerted effory to find a solution).

In the battles between Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhuma), thousands of illustrious souls had attained martyrdom, yet all understood that this conflict was based solely on Ijtihad, in which each party, due to his sincerity and good intentions, was absolved, from the very beginning, by Almighty Allah, of retribution in the Hereafter. Due to this understanding, when Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) later took complete control, not a single sincere believer, despite his own family having being killed by the forces of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)  just a few years ago, would even entertain the thought of getting revenge, forget practically standing up to do so.

To make a successful call for ‘revenge’ it was vital for such a picture to be painted in the minds of all that would cause tears to pour from the eyes and blood to boil on the mere mention of Karbala, a picture that would include, amongst other things, the sad and sorrowful things of:

a) A struggle of truth against falsehood.

b) A struggle of one brave soldier against the united armies of evil

c) A bloody encounter, in which the leader of the youth of Jannah is left to die a dreadful death, suffering in thirst till the last moment of his blessed life.

d) An evil ruler mocking at the fate of the beloved geandson of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

e) A picture of the wives and daughters of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) being jeered, taunted, disgraced.

The actual purpose of the hypocrites of Iraq and surrounding areas behind Karbala was to initiate a call for ‘revenge’ and for their call to have effect, sorrowful scenes and open lies had to be propagated to such an extent, that it would reach a level of so-called ‘Absolute Truth’, which should never be questioned, similar to the so-called ‘gospel truth’ regarding the attacks of September 11, known as 9/11.

Amongst those lies, one batch of lies, in my understanding, is with regards to the character and private life of Yazid, in which Yazid has been portrayed as a villain, an evil monster, an adulterer, a drunkard, a renegade, etc.

2) If Yazid was really drinking liquor and committing adultery openly, why was this irritaring the people of Iraq, who were thousands of miles away, and not people of Sham, who lived right around Yazid?

Also, assuming that there really was some truth in the complaints that came from certain fractions of Iraq, regarding Yazid, if Yazid’s evil conduct was really the reason behind their calls for rebellion, the question would then arise as to why then had they sent to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) similar letters calling for rebellion during the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) himself. Was Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) also committing such filthy and vile acts?!

In Al-Bidayah, Allamah Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) has narrated that after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Musayyib ibn Utbah Al-Fazari, together with a group of Iraqis, came to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and begged him to break his allegiance from Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). What was the reason for these Iraqis bwing upset with the rule of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu)? Was it that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) was flagrantly breaking the commands of Almighty Allah (Na’udhubillah) or was it rather the cerrain satanic factions in Iraq, Egypt and sureounding areas were continuously on the lookput for some sort of excuse to reignite war amongst the Ummah, and if such excuses could not be found, they would then be prepared to themselves create such excuses?

3) When the first letters from Iraq reached Madinah Munawwarah, calling for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to come over to Kufa and spearhead their rally for a new leader, if one were to ponder over the contents of this letters, and the quick manner  that it reached Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), one would realize that:

⚫ In those letters no mention had been made that Yazid was committing open adultery, drinking, etc

⚫ In those letters, instead of complaining against Yazid, complaints were actually been made against the Ummayyad governor in Iraq, Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Bashir (radhiyallahu anhu), who was in fact a prominent Sahabi.

⚫ The speed with which these letters reached Madinah Munawwarah greatly indicate that these letters were already prepared, and were just being held back until the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) before it could be sent out.

Otherwise, in such a short space of time, could one ever imagine this possible that immediately after the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), Yazid throws open the doors of evil in the court of caliphate, the news of his evil rapidly spreads all the way to Iraq, the people of Iraq unite against him, letters are written and signed by different clans and prominent men, and all these letters get delivered to Madinah Munawwarah, reaching even before the news of the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhi) gets conveyed to the people, since Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) refusal to pledge allegiance to the new caliph occurred as soon as the news of the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) reached Madinah Munawwarah?

If the reason for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) refusal to pledge allegiance was due to Yazid being involved in all sort of evil, how could it be possible that the news of Yazid’s evil conduct could travel so fast, first to Iraq and from there to Madinah Munawwarah, arriving even before Yazid could send out  his own letter to Madinah Munawwarah directly from Sham, informing the people of the death of his father?!

Below are some extracts from the first letters that reached Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), addressed from the people of Iraq, as narrated in Tarikh al-Tabari, narrating from Abu Mikhnaf ( a staunch Shia, whose narration would normally be overlooked, but has been narrated here to show that even according to their own sources , the initial letters sent to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), had no mention of the evil of Yazid as the reason behind their calling Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq):

In the name of Allah, Most beneficient, Most Merciful.
To Hussain ibn Ali, from Sulayman ibn Sard, Musaayab ibn Najbah, Rifaa’ah ibn Shaddad, Habib ibn Muzaahir, and all his (Hussain’s) supporters of Kufa. May peace be upon you. We praise Allah, besides whom there is no deity. All praise is due to Allah, who has brought an end to your most oppressive enemy, the one who had pounced upon the Ummah and unjustly taken the seat of rule, who had killed the good of this Ummah, and left the evil, who had made the wealth of Allah as his own treasure. May he be far from Divine Mercy, as was the case of Thamud

(Na’udhubillah! As already mentioned, the narrator of this incident, Abu Mikhnaf, was a staunch Shi’i, who never felt shy to blurt out any and every type of filth. It is obvious that such a letter would never have been entertained by Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). The purpose of mentioning this alleged letter is merely to show that even their own sources, with all its lies, initially when discussing the letters they had sent to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) made no mention of Yazid being an evil man, an adulterer, a drunkard, etc. The next portion of his letter makes this even clearer). He continues:

At the present moment, we find ourselves with no leader, if ypu come over, it is hoped that through you, Almighty Allah shall gather all of us under your banner, to fight for truth, as for Nu’maan ibn Bashir, who at present occupies the seat of governing, we have nothing to do with him. We do not perform Jumu’ah behind him, nor do we go out with him for Eid. If the news reaches us that you are coming over, we shall immediately force him out and have him sent back to Sham Insha Allah!

May Almighty Allah’s peace, blessings and mercy always be upon you!

Continuing with his preposterous narration, Abu Mikhnaf  explains that this letter was then sent with Abdullah ibn Saba al Hamdaani and Abdullah ibn Waal. The letter was handed to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) on the 10th of Ramadhan, while he was in Makkah Mukarramah. Two days later, Qais ibn Mishar and a few others were sent with approximately thirty-five such letters, allegedly sent by individuals as well as groups. Then Hani ibn Hani as-Subai’i and Saeed ibn Abdullah al Hanafiyah were sent with the following letter:

In the name of Allah, Most Kind and Merciful. To Hussain ibn Ali from his believing supporters. Hasten over us, for verily people are waiting anxiously for you, and they want none but you! Please Hasten! Please Hasten! And may Almighty Allah’s peace be with you!

Like this, numerous other letters (written by the same party and ascribed to various influential people) were sent to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), but hardly in any of these letters can mention be found that Yazid had taken to drinking, adultery, etc. Rather, as mentioned in the first letter, these letters were in actual fact complaining about Nu’maan ibn Bashir (radhiyallahu anhu), who was a high-ranking Sahabi. As for Yazid, who was far away in Sham, had he been doing any such act, which history today attributes to him, at least one letter from Sham should have come, or at least one complainant should have stood up in the Masjid of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and spoken out against the so-called evil practices of Yazid. The fact that this did not happen, and the fact that even the forged letters  of Iraq made no mention of these acts lays ample indication to the fact that these accusations levelled against Yazid were not even heard of during his reign, and that Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) going over to Iraq had nothing to do with the so-called evil character, ruthless behavious, immoral practices, etc of Yazid, which are today described as what is known as ‘gospel truth’.

In the same narration of Mikhnaf, mention has also been made of a letter written by Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to the people of Iraq, the contents of which were:

In the name of Allah, Most Kind and Most Merciful.
From Hussain ibn Ali to the believing masses. Hani ibn Hani As Subai’i and Saeed ibn Abdullah al Hanafiyah have presented your letters before me, and they are the last of the messengers that have come to me, with messages from your side. I have understood what you have said, the crux of which is that you have no leader, and desire that I come over, so that all may be united, under the banner of truth, through me.

I have thus sent my brother, my cousin, a man from the Ahle Bayt, and one who I trust fully, i.e. Muslim bin Aqeel, to investigate the truth behind your claims. If he informs me that the leaders, scholars and masses have teuly united in the decision to take me as their leader, as your letters have described, I shall waste no time in setting out to Iraq, since a true leader can only be he who himself practices on that whichis right and who  rules with justice! And may Almighty Allah’s  blessings be upon you!

4) When Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) finally did intend setting out to Iraq, many influential men of Hijaz tried to dissuade him. Among these men, many were even the illustrious Sahabah. Had the purpose behind Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) setting out been that Yazid was committing vile acts in the court of Caliphate, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would have surely made mention of this in front of them, and would have in fact rebuked them for not joining his cause. Had Yazid really been doing such actions, would it not then mean that at that moment the fervour to defend Islam from all types of innovations and innovators had disappeared from practically the hearts of all the soldiers of Islam, situated in Iraq and Sham, and now it was only some unknown people in Iraq who were left to defend Islam from the rot which Yazid was apparently causing. Could any sane mind ever accept such nonsense, that in the fear of Yazid, the illustrious Sahabah and Tabi’een from the blessed lands of Hijaz and Sham all turned coward?! Na’udhubillah (May Allah protect us from such filth)

The fact of the matter is that, as mentioned above, Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) setting out for Iraq was never based upon any evil that Yazid had began perpetrating, but rather on account of something completely different. The shaitaani world could not however allow this reason to become known to the masses, for if known, their entire emotional escapade would get watered down to a practical zero, and the chance of spurring the masses against the Ummayyad empire would never be acquired.

In the next few paragraphs, a detailed explanation shall, Insha Allah, be given, highlighting the true reason behind Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) refusing to pledge allegiance to Yazid, the reason behind his setting out for Iraq, and the reason why all the soldiers of Islam, scattered throughout the Muslim world, dis not accompany him on his journey.

Fighting for the Caliphate, an issue of Ijtihad

A deeper study of Historical narrations shall clearly show that Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) displeasure with the Ummayyad government was not born during the era of Yazid, but ratger from the very beginning, when his brother, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), decided to hand over the Caliphate to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu).

As mentioned earlier, the issue of handing over the caliphate was one of ijtihad. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) understood well that, as the Ahadith had predicted, the issue of caliphate would no longer be judged on the basis of mutual consultation (mashwara), but rather wars would now decide on who the next caliph will be.

Fighting for the caliphate was no sin, but hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) did not want to see any more blood spillied over this issue. He thus decided to hand over the caliphate to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and through this action of his, the in-fighting amongst the Muslim came to an abrupt halt. Had Hadhrat Hasan (radhoyallahu anhu) wished, he could have fought for the caliphate, and this was exactly what many hypocrite fractions of Iraq were desirous of seeing.

Fighting for the caliphate woul also have been a meritorius deed, since when one makes ijtihad, Almight Allah has promised that reward shall be given upon his efforts, and not in accordance to whether the decision was the best for that moment or not.

The ijtihad of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) on the other hand was that as long as the caliphate remained in Iraq, the hypocrites of that area would continue utilizing their influence in stirring trouble, chaos and anarchy throughout the Muslim world. Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s view was that if the caliphate moves over to Sham, such an act would greatly weaken the plots of shaitaani elements who had already spread theoughout the Muslim Lands, but whose base had always been Iraq.

In the twenty years of peace and stability that thereafter followed, ample evidence was provided to show that Hadhrat Hasan’s (radhiyallahu anhu)  decision to hand over the caliphate was indeed one of the great wisdom and practicality, and at the same time, the decision of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) to be prepared to fight for the caliphate, that devision too was straight on target.

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), on the other hand, from the very beginning, held onto the view upon which he had found his illustrious father, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), i.e. to keep the seat of the caliphate in Kufa. When Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) came to know of his brother’s intention to hand over the caliphate, he clearly made known to his brother his feelings. The books of history provide numerous statements of his, in which he expressed his unhappiness with regards to the decision taken. The following passage of Al-Bidayah highlights this point more clearly:

When Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) intended  handing over the caliphate to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) through a peace treaty, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) disapproved the decision, and insisted instead that the war  against the people of Sham continue. Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) finally threatened to have him placed under house arrest until the peace-teeaty gets finalized. Realizing his brother’s determination to proceed ahead with the treaty, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) fell silent and accepted.

Afterwards, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would accompany his brother, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) on his regular visits to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), during which Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) would honour them greatly, and shower them with gifts.

Even after the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would continue paying regular visits to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) and would receive the same honours as before. In fact, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) even participated in the Battle of Constantinople, fighting under the leadership of Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, which occurred in the 51st year of Hijrah!

Subhan Allah!, this was the superb nature of the Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhuma), that despite not agreeing with the decisions of their leaders, once the decision would be passed, they would forget all their personal views and remain united under one banner. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was, from the very beginning, not at all in favour of seeing the caliphate placed in the hands of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), but once he pledge his allegiance to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) , he would never be prepared to pull his hands out.

The following passage of Al-Bidayah, is a clear proof of this:

After the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Musayyib ibn Utbah al-Fazari, together with a group of Iraqis, came to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and begged him to break his allegiance to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and accept their allegiance to him, saying:

‘We are well aware of your opinion regarding Mu’awiyah’ (referring to the fact that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was, feom the very beginning not happy with the decision to hand over the caliphate)

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) replied, I have hope that Almighty Allah reward my brother for his good intentions (i.e. to refrain from fighting, and thus save the blood of the Ummah), and I hope that He rewards me for my good intentions’ (i.e. the love of fighting against the oppressors)

When the governor of Madinah al Munawwarah, Marwan ibn Al-Hakm, received the news of these delegations, he had a message sent to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) saying, ‘I fear that Hussain shall become a rarget of fitnah (turmoil)’, Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) thus wrote to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), cautioning him from falling into the trap of the Iraqis. His advice was as follows:

‘Remember, it is only appropriate for the one who makes a pledge to a caliph now fulfils his pledge!, I have been informed that some people of Kufa have requested that you join them in breaking the unity. I am sure that through past experience you now realize that the people of Kufa can never be trusted. The have already betrayed you father and your brother. Thus, fear Almighty Allah and remember your pledge. If you attempt to plot against me, I shall punish you severely!’

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) replied to this letter saying,

I have no intention of doing that which you suspect. And Almighty Allah alone guides towards good. I have no intentions to fight against you, but at the same time I fear that if Almighty Allah has to ask as to why I abandoned Jihad against you, then I shall have no answer!

In Al-Akhbaar Al-Tiwaal, Hafiz Deenawari has quoted the following, which explicitly shows that some people of Iraq were continuously on the lookout for some excuwe to re-ignite the flames of disunity amongst the believers, bur due to the respect that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) held for the institution of allegiance, he was not at all prepared to lead any rebellion at that moment:

When the news of the death of  Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) reached the people of Kufa, the leadera of Kufa sent their condolences to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) via letters. Ja’dah ibn Hubayra, who would display the most love for the Ahle-Bayt, wrote:

‘Such friends of yours are present here (i.e. in Kufa and Iraq), who are eagerly awaiting your coming, who regard none as your equal! They are well aware that the opinion of your brother, Hasan, was to avoid war, whereas you are a man who shows kindness to friends and severity against the enemy, a man who fights bravely foe the Deen of Allah. Thus, if you are desirous of achieving these goals, come over to Kufa immediately, for we have, in your service, handed ourselves over to death!’

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) answered as follows:

‘I have hope that Almighty Allah trears my brother favourably. As for me, at the present moment, I do not feel rebellion to be appropriate. Thus, as long as Mu’awiyah remains alive, remain in Kufa, seek shelter in your homes, and avoid becoming targets of suspicion, if something happens to him (i.e. he passes away) whilst I am still alive, I shall write to you again, informing you of my intentions.

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), in the company of his elder brother, Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), had pledge allegiance to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), and no matter what his personal feelings were, he underatood very well that breaking allegiance was abhorred by the Shari’ah. As long as Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) remained alive, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) remained loyal to the demands of his allegiance. When Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) made known his plan to have his son, Yazid, elected as the next Caliph, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was amongst those in Hijaz who refused to accept this purposal. Such a proposal, despite it being made by the caliph, does not hold the status of a binding law of the Shari’ah, and thus those who did oppose the proposal were at full liberty to do so. By not pledging allegiance to Yazid, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu)  kept open for himself a door, through which, if he ever decided, he could once again stand up to fight foe the caliphate, and bring it back into the hands of Banu Hashim. This decision of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was one of Ijtihad, and as with every mujtahid, he was at full liberty to practice upon the dictates of his ijtihad.

Based upon the contents of the letters of Iraq, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) understood that there were many fractions in Iraq and its surrounding areas, who had either not yet pledged allegiance to Yazid, or had been forced into doing so, and that these people were eagerly awaiting his return to Kufa, so that they could happily pledged their allegiance to him.  As Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had once upon a time been prepared to fight fir the caliphate, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) also now had every right to do the same.

The vast majority of the inhabitants of Hijaz, however were not fully in favour of this decision of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), with many basing their opinion upon the fact that the letters and letter-bearers from Iraq had shown time and again, from the era of Hadjrat Uthmaan (radhiyallahu anhu) till the present-day, that they should never be trusted. These inhabitants had no problems with Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up to fight foe the caliphate, since they understood well that this was an issue of ijtihad, wherein each mujtahid was free to practice upon his own opinion. Their only worry was that it should not be that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) becomes bait for the liars of Iraq, who would merely be using him to re-ignite the flames of war within the Muslim world.

It was for this very reason that some requested that he first send someone to investigate the reality on the ground in Iraq, others pleaded that he choose any other direction but that of Kufa, and there were even those who adviced him against heading for any major city, but rather to move through villages and slowly gather around him an army of loyal followers.

Below shall follow some passages from the books of history, which if read with an unbiased and an open heart, one shall, Inshaa Allah, surely see the truth of much of what has just been mentioned:

a) Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah was the son of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), and the consanguine brother of Hadhrat Hasan & Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma). The love and honour that he held for his brothers was of an immense nature, which would make him say that even his own children do not occupy the same spot in his heart which Hadhrat Hasan & Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) would occupy. Despite being younger, due to his bodily and mental strength, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) would constantly remind him to keep a watchful eye of Hadhrat Hasan and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma), due to which, during battles, he would mostly be found in close proximity to them.

When the news of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) intending to set out reached him, he, after failing to dissuade Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) from leaving Madinah Munawwarah, offered the advive mentioned below, and ended with the plea that if Hadhrat Husaain had to leave, he should rather go over to Makkah Mukarramah, and from there give the matter a second thought.

O my brother!, you are indeed the most beloved to me, as well as the most honoured, thus I shall spare no effort in rendering the most sincere of advices. Avoid open confrontation with Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah and stay away from major cities as far as possible. Staying away from major areas, send your messages to the people and invite them to pledge allegiance to you. If they pledge allegiance, praise Almighty Allah and accept. However if they prefer someone over you, that shall not harm you religion nor your intelligence, and neither shall in cause any deficiency in your honour and status.

I fear that if you enter any major city, and due to your arriving, war breaks out between two parties i.e. the party supporting you against the party supporting the opposition, I fear that you may perhaps be the first to be shot down, and thereby the blood of the best of this world, at the present moment, shall get spilled in a ruthless manner.

(In the above advice, one can one can find any sort of indication that the setting out of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was due to some sort of oppression and evil that Yazid was perpetrating, or rather does the above words indicate something completely different, i.e. to return back the caliphate to Banu Hashim, which was purely an Ijtihadi issue.

Had the campaign been rid to Yazid’s so-called oppression and evil, Hadhrat Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah would never have disuaded Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) from proceeding forth, rather he would have been the first to join the campaign.

Due to the issue having nothi g to do with any oppression and evil of Yazid, but rather with the issue of fighting for the caliphate, and due to Hadhrat Muhammad ibn Al-Hanafiyyah, in this matter, agreeing more with Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), i.e. to leave the caliphate to others and not to ever fight for it; he not only refrained from joining the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), but in fact even prohibited his own children from participating in the expedition. (Al-Bidayah)

b) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), whose name had been taken many a time as a possible candidate for the caliphate, whose position during the years of internal conflict  had always been neutral, and who had initially also refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid, he too, after finding that the Ummah has practically united upon Yazid, not only pledges allegiance, but in fact even invites Hadhrat Hussain & Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhuma) to refrain from standing up against the government. An extract of the advice offered by Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), as quoted in Al-Bidayah, is as follows:

I beg you in the name of Allah to return to Madinah, and to again ponder over this matter. If you find the people had accepted Yazid, then do not be the ones who remain aloof.
And if the people themselves pull away from him, then that is exactly what you desire.

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) would thereafter say:

We are unable to dissuade Hussain ibn Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), from his intention to stand up against the government, whereas he himself had seen in the life of his father and brother, and in the strife that existed during that period, and in how that people (of Iraq) had deserted them, in all of this he had surely seen such lessons which should have been sufficient to hold him back from standing against the government, and making him accept what the majority had accepted. And in unity there is plenty of good!

c) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), upon being informed that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was planning to go over to Iraq, made the following plea to Hadhrat Hussain:

I am not happy with the direction you have chosen to take. You are heading to the very people qho had killed your father and slandered your brother, until finally he left angry and tired of their disloyalty.
I ask you in the name of Allah that you do not go

d) Hadhrat Abu Sa’eed Al-Khudri (radhiyallahu anhu), describing his efforts in trying to change the mind of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), is quoted as having said:

I failed in dissuading Hussain from standing up against the government. I pleaded with him, saying, ‘Fear Allah, with regards to your life, do not leave your house, and do not stand up against your Imam (leader)!

e) Hadhrat Abu Waqid al laythi (radhiyallahu anhu) narrates that when the news of Hadhrat Hussain ibn Ali leaving for Iraq reached him, he implored him not to go, saying that the direction he had chosen was leading to nowhere but his death.

f) Hadhrat Jabir ibn Abdullah (radhiyallahu anhu) is quoted as having said to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) on this occasion:

Fear Allah and do not become the cause of in-fighting amongst the believers!

g) Hadhrat Saeed ibn Musayyib (the most senior of the Tabi’een) is quoted having said:

Had Hussain never left for Iraq, it would have been much better for him!

h) Hadhrat Miswar ibn Makhramah (radhiyallahu anhu) wrote to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), and warned him not to be fooled with the letters of the people of Iraq (Al-Bidayah)

i) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) offered the following advice to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu):

Do not leave the Haram! If the people of Iraq are truthful in their claims, they will themselves come on the backs of their camels to find you, after which you may set out with a huge powerful army!

j) Hadhrat Amrah bint Abdur Rahmaan (the grand-daughter of Hadhrat Sa’d ibn Zurarah radhiyallahu anhu) wrote to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), emphasizing upon him to accept the new government and keep the unity. She also mentioned that if he had to leave for Iraq,  he would only be dragging himself towards his place of slaughter, since she had clearly heard from Hadhrat Aa’sha (radhiyallahu anha) Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had made mention of Baabil (Babylon- old name of Iraq) being the place at which Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would be killed. (Al-Bidayah)

k) Abu Bakr ibn Abdur Rahmaan ibn Haarith ibn Hisham (one of the famous amongst the seven Fuqaha of Madinah Munawwarah), while pleading with Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to abandon his idea to proceeding towards Iraq, made the following remark,  if which one ponders deeply over the secret realities behind Karbala, shall find to be one hundred percent on target. He said:

O my cousin, after having seen what the people of Iraq had done to your father and brother, how can you ever think of going back to them, whereas they are nothing but slaves of this world.
If you do proceed, it may well result in those very people fighting against you who are at present inviting you. Then those who truly love you  shall be unable to assist you.

l) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu), the son of Hadhrat Ja’far Tayyar (radhiyallahu anhu) wroted to hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) warning him of the people of Iraq and begging him, in the name of Allah, not to proceed towards them. [Al-Bidayah]

Despite the above mentioned pleas, as well as many others, from influential and prominent individuals of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) remained determined to proceed towards Iraq, perhaps on account of a dream in which he had seen his beloved grandfather, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), making some indication towards him, the details of which he felt best to not to disclose it to anyone. (Al-Bidayah)

Whatever the case may be, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) had his reasons for proceeding towards Iraq, despite receiving so much of advice not to do so, and none could ever dare to question his reasons. However, the above mentioned twelve advices, rendered by the prominent Sahabah and Tabi’een of his time, and their disapproving with his decision, that should surely cause a bell of doubt to ring against the story of Karbala that is popularily known.

Had Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) setting out was to fight against some oppression, evil and corruption of Yazid, could one ever fathom such luminaries discouraging him feom doing so?! Could it ever be possible, that after having placed their lives on the line in the defence of Islam on numerous occasions, these luminaries now, in the face of Yazid, turn coward?!

Had Yazid been drinking and committing open adultery, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) not have rebuked at least one of these personalities, that despite knowing in vice being committed openly in the court of the caliphate, they are not only lagging behind, but in fact attempting to prevent him fromnstanding against falsehood?! Forget rebuking, in not one of these narrations can any mention whatsoever be found of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) mentioning the evil, drinking, adultery, etc of Yazid as the reason behind his setting out, why?!

If, in the story of Karbala that is normally known, one finds himself unable to answer the above, then it shall be only fair that one now extends a just and unbiased ear, eye and heart in search of some sort of explanation that could answer the above.

One such explanation, which could provide answers to many unexplainable issues, is the one that has been rendered from the very beginning of the article, i.e. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) had not personal issue with Yazid, nor was there any issue of Yazid drinking, committing adultery, etc, but rather Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) leaving for Iraq was so that he could find an army prepared to stand with him in his fight to take back the caliphate, an act which was totally permissible and being based on Ijtihad, would in fact be rewardable. This and this alone, in my opinion, was the reason that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) set forward for Iraq, and in my understanding, it is only this explanation which can provide answers as to why Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was left alone in his fight against Yazid, and why the vast majority of the inhabitants of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah, as well as all the pious men of Iraq, Sham, etc abstained from joining the expedition of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu).

Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu) and the betrayal by the hypocrites of Iraq

After being warned numerous times of the common treacherous practices that the people of Iraq were famous for, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) decided to tread with slightly greater caution. For this he requested his cousin, Muslim ibn Aqeel to proceed ahead and send a report back on whether the facts on the ground conformed to the letters has has been receiving.

Had Muslim ibn Aqeel been sent in secrecy, without the hypocrites of Iraq being made aware of his coming, he most probably would have seen a completely different picture, just as how the investigators, sent in the era of Hadhrat Umar and Hadhrat Uthman (radhiyallahu anhuma) to investigate complaints been made against the governors, found that the accusations had practically no weight whatsoever.

Destiny however rules, thus the  news of Muslim ibn Aqeel’s coming was conveyed to the parties whose letters were continuously pouring in.

The hypocrites of Iraq wasted no time, and as reports suggests, hundreds were prepared to welcome Muslim ibn Aqeel into Iraq. The figure of ten to twenty thousand seems exagerrated, but whatever the matter is, the numbers that met him on his
arrival was definitely huge, which spurred him to immediately write to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), and give the glad tidings that the matter in Iraq is fully stable, and the people are in eager anticipation of Hadhrat Hussain’s coming.

If one were to ponder slightly over the recorded events regarding Muslim ibn Aqeel, from the time he arrived in Iraq until his death, one would surely notice many such points that indicate towards some sort of conspiracy,
in which Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was being called towards Iraq slolely so that his innocent blood could be later used for nefarious purposes. Amond these many points, one that I feel deserves the most attention is with regards to the identity of the ones who were begging Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to come over to Iraq.

If these men can be identified, and a glimpse into their life-history be made, I am certain that, that itself would be sufficient in exposing the lies and conspiracies behind Karbala. A glimpse at their lives would clearly show that, from the very beginning, they had no good intentions. Rather, if one were ro say that many were nothing but satanists, that too would not be far-fetched. Quoting from the books of history, some aspects of these individuals will now be put forward, whereby obe could get a good picture regarding those who were behind Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) coming to Iraq. If the intention and character of these inviters turn out evil, it would then only be fair that one accept that perhaps the complaint and calls made to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), which finally results in him going over to Iraq, all these calls and complaints were nothing but open lies!

From the names that have been recorded, who were in the forefront of bringing Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq, one individual stands out most vividly, an individual whose every act shows that he was totally under the influence of Shaitaan Mardud, an individual who would be the first to lay a claim of being appointed by Al-Mahdi, thereafter to advance to the claim of being a Nabi, and finally to take the step of declaring himself as the Almighty incarnated! (Nau’dhubillah) The individual I am referring to here is the one whom the Ummah would later,  in the light of the Sunnah and the disgusting deeds of this man, declare him as Al Dajjal Al Kadhdhab, one of the biggest liars in this Ummah. This liar is none other than Mukhtaar ibn Abu Ubaid al-Thaqafi (May Almight Allah deal with him as he deserves).

When Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu) reached Iraq, to ascertain whether the invitation to Iraq could be trusted, it was this very Mukhtaar ibn Ubaid Thaqafi who hosted him and arranged meetings between him and the ‘loyal’ supporters of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Finding the number of supporters to be adequate , Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel sends out a letter to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), informing him that Iraq does indeed have many supporters, eagerly awaiting his arrival. As soon as the letter leaves, Muslim ibn Aqeel finds that the attitude of Mukhtaar towards him has changed altogether. Hadhrat Muslim (radhiyallahu anhu) finally decides to leave to house of Mukhtaar, and finds himself completely deserted.

Mukhtaar ibn Ubaid thereafter practically disappears completely from the scene, and resurfaces only after the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), screaming for the revenge for Ahle-Bayt. The quesrion that the common Karbala story fails to answer is that if Mukhtaar really had so much of love for the Ahle-Bayt, why dis he have Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu) thrown into the streets??!

To answer this question, it is vital that a glimpse into the life of this open liar be made, which shall noe, Insha Allah, follow…

Mukhtaar ibn Abu Ubaid Al Thaqafi – a dajjal (open liar) of this Ummah

Mukhtaar’s father, Abu Ubaid Thaqafi (radhiyallahu anhu) was a great Sahabi of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), who enjoyed the privilege of being the first leader to be sent by Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) in the Muslim campaign against Kufa. From the children of Hadhrat Abu Ubaid al-Thaqafi (radhiyallahu anhu), two stood out in history, one reaching a height in piety and the other falling into the pits of disgrace, viz, his daughter Safiyah (rahmatullah alayha), who was amongst the most prominent and righteous women of the Tabi’een, especially noted for her position as the honourable wife of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), while on the other extreme was his infamous son, Mukhtaar, who in most probability, died in a state of kufr.

Mukhtaar, despite being born in the first year after the hijrah, was blessed with the companionship of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) (Umdat ul Qari). During his initial year, his displayed great qualities of virtues, knowledge and piety , but time would show that this was only purely  an outward show, as was the case with all the senior hypocrites of Iraq, who would display great humility and piety in front of the leaders of the Tabi’een, solely so that their prominence could one day aid them in spreading their evil amongst the ignorant masses.

After the death of his honourable father, Mukhtaar was placed under the care of his uncle, Sa’d ibn Masood, who was amongst the trusted aides of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu).

From the very beginning, Mukhtaar could be found playing the game of switching camp, solely to benefit his own whims and fancies. Initially he served under the authority of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), rarely showing signs of enmity, until one day, when words of eztreme hatred for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) slipped from his tongue, due to which he became known as Khariji.

After the death of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) however, he again stands in the frontline of the lovers of the Ahle-Bayt, being amongst those inviting Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq. His enmity for the Ahle Bayt again displays itself when he abandons Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu), at the most crucial of moments, but shortly thereafter he is found raising the call for ‘revenge for the Ahle Bayt’, displaying his ‘most sincere’ love for the Ahle-Bayt and open hatred for the entire Banu Ummayyah, irrespective of whether they physically participated in Karbala or not.

Mukhtaar’s chameleon colours also got displayed when he pledged allegiance to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) in Makkah Mukarramah, after the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), but upon his immediate return to Kufa, broke his allegiance and instead initiated his own campaign, inviting towards Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah, (the son of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), claiming him to not only be the Caliph, but in fact, the awaited ‘Mahdi’, a claim which Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah rejected openly, yet his rejection fell upon the deaf years of the people of Kufa, who would simple claim that Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah is practicing upon taqqiyah i.e concealing the truth, in the fear of the present Ummayyad government.

During the era of Hadhrat Ali ( radhiyallahu anhu), on one ocassion, Mukhtaar present fifteen dirhams in front of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), on behalf of his uncle. After putting the money down, he commented, “These coins are from the fares of prostitutes”, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), shocked at his audacity, explained, “May you be destroyed! What do I have to do with prostitutes?” Thereafter, when Mukhtaar stood up to leave, Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) noticed that he was wearing a red jubbah (cloak).  Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), upset with his dressing, remarked, “What is wrong with this man? May Almighty Allah destroy him! If his heart had to be opened, I am certain you would find it full of the love of Laat and Uzzah (two famous idols)”

During the short rule of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), an incident occurred, which is more than sufficient to display the hatred this hypocrite, Mukhtaar, bore for the Ahle-Bayt. Tabari has recorded this incident in the following words:

When Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) reached Mada’in, Mulhtaar indicated to his uncle, Sa’d ibn Masood, who was the governor over Mada’in, that if he desired wealth and honour, he should have Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) arrested, and through it acquire the guarantee of protection from Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). His uncle, Sa’d, disgusted at his intention, replied in astonishment, ‘May the curse of Almighty Allah be upon you! Do you expect me to lay ambush to the grandson of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? You are indeed a most wretched man!

When this was the condition of Mukhtaar, during the era of Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhuma), what then made him change his opinion and attitude with regards to the Ahle-Bayt, just a few months after, that he now becomes ready to saceifice his own life, just so that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) could become Caliph? Had Mukhtaar thereafter remained loyal till the end, one could perhaps have given him a benefit of doubt that his repentance is sincere, whereas this was not the case. No sooner did Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu) have his letter of assurance sent out to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), almost immediately the loving attitude of Mukhtaar changes, and Muslim ibn Aqeel, for some unmentioned reason, finds himself on the streets, searching for accomodation. Mukhtaar thereafyer disappears from the scenes, leaving Muslim ibn Aqeel abandoned to be killed, without making even a single cry in opposition.

Thereafter, when Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) reaches Karbala and finds himself led into a trap, then too, one finds no mention of Mukhtaar and the thousands of followers, who had just recently welcomed Muslim ibn Aqeel into Kufa. Where did they all disappear to? Then, amazingly, just after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and his loyal followers, suddenly Mukhtaar reappears, as a devout supporter of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), desiring nothing but revenge for the Ahle-Bayt.

Again, had Mukhtaar kept a pious outlook till the end, one, with a very heavy heart, would perhaps be ready again to forgive Mukhtaar, and accept his tears of repentance, but this was not the case. Mukhtaar now sheds all his outer coverings, and allows his true chameleon colours to shine. First he rebels against Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), to whom he had made all sorts of promises of loyalty. Then, after having the governor of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) removed from his post, he voices the claim that Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah, the son of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), is the promised ‘Mahdi’, and that he, Mukhtaar, has been appointed to accept allegiance on his behalf. This ridiculous claim gets followed with even more ridiculous calls, and he eventually ends up announcing himself to be The Almighty Himself. Na’udhubillah!

The majority of the evil forces operating behind the scenes of Karbala have till today escaped investigation, but none shall ever manage to escape the interrogation which shall occur tomorrow, on the Day of Qiyamah. Despite these great efforts by the satanists hypocrites to keep their members disguised and out of the limelight, Almighty Allah has always assured that some mention of these hidden elements spring to light, even if only for a brief while.

During the era of Hadhrat Uthman and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhuma), the name of Abdullah ibn Saba’ would time and again spring to light, and by the grace of Almighty Allah, there are many today who have at least understood this much, that this hypocrite was one of the evil elements behind many of the early conflicts that arose amongst the Muslims. Obviously, Abdullah ibn Saba’ was not only the one operating durimg his era, but at least one from the many evil forces of that era had been recognized.

However, when it came to Mukhtaar ibn Ubaid al-Thaqafi, for some unknown reason, this villian, despite his numerous appearances at many strategic points, somehow managed to avoid the attention that he deserves, especially when it came to his role in the assassination of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu).

In the following lines, a summary of some of Mukhtaar’s activities shall be outlined, whereby one may, to a greater extent, realize the role played by this hypocrite in instigating Yazid against the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), and thereafter in instigating the masses in Iraq against the rulimg Ummayyad government.

➡ As mentioned above, during the era of Hadhrat Ali and Hadjrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhuma), Mukhtaar openly displayed the hatred he bore against the men of Islam, and in particular, the Ahle-Bayt.

➡ Upon the death of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu), Mukhtaar, in chameleon style, switches sides, and is now found in the forefront of those inviting Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to Iraq, to lead the fight of the people of Iraq against the ruling government.

➡ When Muslim ibn Aqeel arrived in Kufa, to ascertain whether the people of Iraq were truthful in their claim of being ready to lend support to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), it was this very Mukhtaar, according to
one narration, who acted as his host (al-Tabari). Thereafter, due to some unclear reasons, Muslim ibn Aqeel left the residence of Mukhtaar and took shelter elsewhere.

➡ When Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad arrived in Kufa, replacing Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Bashir (radhiyallahu anhu) as the newly appointed governor, Muslin ibn Aqeel suddenly found himself in a predicament. The books of history describes the scenes that occurred thereafter, something to this effect, that in a effort to rally quick support, Muslim ibn Aqeel scream out the slogan which he had  been agreed upon  between him and the thousands of followers who had already pledge their allegiance for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Hearing his scream, about four thousand supporters gathered and staged some sort of attack upon the royal palace, which forced Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad to scramble for cover.

The book of history clearly mention that Mukhtaar ibn Ubaid was amondst those who gathered at that moment. Thereafter, through some incomprehensible technique, Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad managed to turn the tables completely. The books of history mentions that Ubaidullah sent out well-respected men to encourage their tribe men to return home and abandon Musim ibn Aqeel. Had the four thousand men around Muslim ibn Aqeel were genuine supporters, or even one-tenth of them,  this ploy would never have succeeded, yet as the books of history show, every single one of the followers of Muslim ibn Aqeel, disappeared, including Mukhtaar, leaving Muslim ibn Aqeel all alone, at the mercy of Ubaidullah. The numbers in these narrations and the manner in how these Iraqis abandoned Muslim ibn Aqeel seems exagerrated, but whatever the case may be, the question shall always remain as to why was Mukhtaar nat at the side of Muslim ibn Aqeel, at a time when he was most in need of support!

Finding himself completely abandoned, Muslim bin Aqeel went searching for some household which could offer him some sort of protection or at least act as a hide-out, and after much begging and pleading, was finally allowed refuge in the house of a woman, whose son had not as yet arrived at home.

During these tense moments, where were those 18,000 people who had just a few days ago pledged their allegiance to sacrifice their lives for the Ahle Bayt? Was it that they were too scared to show face, or rather was the entire episode an act of hypocrisy, just so that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) could be lured to Kufa, so that his blessed blood could serve as a tool to reignite the flames of internal war, which the Ummah had just recently come out from?

Shortly thereafter, Muslim ibn Aqeel was arrested, and later executed, just before his exection, he made a plea to Muhammad ibn Ash’ath, the officer who had been sent to arrest him. Before proceeding to the details of the plea that Muslim ibn Aqeel made, it would indeed seem appropriate to mention some history regarding this officer, Muhammad ibn Ash’ath, so that the issue of Karbala becomes even more clearer.

Muhammad ibn Ash’ath

Muhammad ibn Ash’ath was the son of Ash’ath ibn Qais (radhiyallahu anhu). His father, Ash’ath (radhiyallahu anhu), accepted Islam upon the hands of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), in the tenth year of Hijrah. During the period of Irtidaad, which occurred in the initial era of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Ash’ath (radhiyallahu anhu) was amongst those who misinformed and unfortunate souls that renegaded, Almighty Allah, however favoured him, and after being caught and brought in front of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), he repented sincerely and promised to recompense by continuously fighting in the path of Allah. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) understood that his repentance was indeed sincere, and even got him married to his own sister. From this union was born Muhammad ibn Ash’ath, who we are presently discussing.

Ash’ath ibn Qais (radhiyallahu anhu), in accordance to his promise, thereafter devoted his life to Jihad, and partook in many of the great and historic battles, viz. Qadisiyyah, Yarmuk, Nahawand, etc. During the Batrle of Siffin, he fought on the side of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu). His loyalty towards Islam and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) was well known, and in honour of this loyalty, Hadhrat Hasan ibn Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) married his daughter, and kept her as his wife till the end. Ash’ath ibn Qais (radhiyallahu anhu) passed away shortly after the death of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), and Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu) himself performed his Janaazah  (Usdul Gaabah)

Muhammad ibn Ash’ath was thus the nephew of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu), as well as the brother-in-law of Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhu). After being blessed with such close ties to Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu) and to the Ahle Bayt, what would be the reason that this very Muhammad ibn Ash’ath now allies himself with the ‘enemy’ of the Ahle-Bayt, and himself proceeds to arrest Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel?.

Shia hypocrites would love one to believe that this individual, as well as all the prominent Sahabah and the Tabi’een of Kufa, had no real love for Islam, but were only after fame and wealth. Na’udhubillah

Not only does a stain of hypocrisy fall upon this individual if one were to believe the normally-mentioned chain of events regarding Karbala, but rather, this stain would fall on practically every individual of Kufa, since none of the people of Kufa stood with Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel, whereas at that time Kufa was a centre of Islamic learning, thus many prominent figures were surely present at that time.

To understand this better, some names shall be provided of the individuals who were present at that time, yet they never affiliated themselves with the call of Muslim ibn Aqeel. After reading these names, one shall be forced to ask himself the question, that why did no individual of Kufa stand up in defence of Muslim ibn Aqeel, and neither in the defence of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu, who as all were well aware, was on his way to Kufa.

The answer that one would finally be forced to accept, would be the very reason why the majoeity of the Sahabah and Tabi’een did not accompany Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), when he set out towarda Iraq i.e. these individuals found no reason to stand up against the ruling government, especially after learning from Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that allegiance to a Caliph should never be broken, unless and except where the caliph is found guilty of open kufr, which was not the case with Yazid, even though Shia hypocrites would desire that we believe so.

Prominent figures present in Kufa, at the time of Karbala

Prominent figures, present in Kufa at the time when Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was called over and martyred, would include, amongst many others, individuals such as :

a) Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu)

When Muslim bin Aqeel arrived, this illustrious Sahabi, was the governor of Kufa, on behalf of Yazid. His love for the Ahle Bayt would not allow him to arrest Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel, but at the same time he made it clear that he would not delay in raising his sword, if he found anyone rising against the caliph. The acrion and words of this illustrious Sahabi, when informed of the work of Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel and the coming of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), has been narrated in Al-Bidayah. Ponder deeply over his conduct and words, and one shall soon realize that how Karbala has been explained today is far from the realities which those present in Kufa were witnessing. The text of Al-Bidayah is as follows:

When the news of Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) reached Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu), he behaved as though it had nothing to do with him. However, he did deliver a sermon, in which he forbade the people from causing strife and dissension, and ordered them to remain united and upon the teachings of the Sunnah. During his sermon, he announced,

‘I shall not fight against the one that does not fight against me, neither shall I attack the one who does not attack first! Also, merely on the basis of suspicion, I shall not arrest anyone.

However, by the oath of that Being in whose Hand lies my life, if you stand up against your Imaam and break your allegiance, I shall immediately raise the sword against you!

Thereafter, when Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad reached Kufa, Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) mistook Ubaidullah to be Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). In the love of the Ahle-Bayt he too felt it hard to issue any order against Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and locked himself up in the palace. When the sounds of the footsteps reached close, Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu), thinking it to be the footsteps of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), in an apologetic manner, announced,

I plead with you that you leave this area, since I am unable to hand over to you this trust, and I at the same time do not wish to fight against you! [Al-Bidayah]

Why was he not prepared to hand over his post to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu)? Was it his love for fame and power or was it that he did not like the Ahle-Bayt? Nay, rather due to not having found any reason in Kufa for an uprising, he could not umderstand why Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would even think of inciting the popularion against the ruling government. In accordance to what he had seen and was seeing on the ground in Kufa, the Ummayyad government had been happily accepted as the ruling party, and thus breaking the allegiance, without a valid reason, was not acceptable.

His holding onto power had absolutely nothing to do with love for fame, thus we find that as soon as he realised that it was Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad at the door, who has been sent to replace him, he handed over him his power immediately. Knowinh well the personality of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, and that he would hardly show mercy to the Ahle-Bayt. Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Bashir (radhiyallahu anhu) did express regret over Yazid’s choice, but, in accordance to the demands of Islamic teachings, obedience to the caliph is incumbent.

b) Qadhi Shureih

Regarded as one of the famous and prominent judges in Islamic history, so much so, that Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) himself declared him to be the best judge of the Arabs during his era (Tarikh al Islam of Dhahabi). Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) had appointed this personality as judge over Kufa, and he held his post for years thereafter. The great scholars of Kufa, like Sha’bi, Ibrahim al Nakh’ai, Muhammad ibn Siren, etc, narrated Ahadith from him.

When Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad reached Kufa, Muslim ibn Aqeel sought refuge in the house of the nobleman of the area, Haani ibn Urwah, since due to his close relationship with the Ummayyads the fear of his house being searched was minimial. However, through spies, the whereabouts of Muslim soon became known and Hani was summoned in front of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad

The news spread that Haani had been executed which, at that present moment, was not true. Upon hearing this, the tribe of Haani rushed towards the palace and were on the brink of storming it. Fearing their attack, Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad ordered Qadhi Shureih to inform them that Haani was still alive and that he was merely being kept for questioning. The words of Qadhi Shureih to the mob that had gathered outside the palace, as narrated in Al-Bidayah, shall hereunder be mentioned, which is worth pondering over. Addressing the crowd, Qadhi Shureih announced:

‘Your Companion is alive! The Sultan has indeed punished him, but nothing fatal.
Thus disperse, and do not interfere in this matter!’

Understanding the authority of Qadhi Shureih, the crowds dispersed. The question that arises is why did Qadhi Shureih at that tense moment, say what he said. Had he wished, he could easily have indicated to the crowds to attack, and that would have been the end of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad. Was this honourable judge of Islam a sell-out, or a coward, or one who hated the Ahle Bayt??! If the story of Karbala was truly in accordance to what is normally known, the basic demand of the love of the Ahle Bayt would have never allowed Qadhi Shureih to do what he had done. So what then spurred him on to make peace between the angry crowds and Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad?

The only reason behind him doing what he did was that he too saw no reason for fractions in Kufa to stand up against the state. Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, in Qadhi Shureih’s understanding, had been sent ro repress a possible uprising, and thus had every right to take into custody anyone accused of lending aid to the opposition.

Yes, the conduct of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad thereafter with Muslim ibn Aqeel and Haani ibn Urwah, wherein he had them executed without mercy, that was indeed an act of oppression, but Qadhi Shureih cannot be held accountable for that, since he had no knowledge of what was going to happen.

c) Muhammad ibn Ash’ath

The third individual, who played a major role in the incident of Karbala, was Muhammad ibn Ash’ath, the son of Ash’ath ibn Qais (radhiyallahu anhu), whose biography, as well as the close relationship between his father and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), has been discussed.

When Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad took over, Muhammad ibn Ash’ath, being the chief member of the police force, was ordered to arrest Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel. As with the two personalities mentioned above, here too, Muhammad ibn Ash’ath participating in the arrest of Muslim ibn Aqeel, and standing on the side of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, this had nothing to do with  hatred of the Ahle-Bayt and love for the Ummayyads. In fact, when one studies the words and actions of all these individuals, one would quickly come to realize that their hearts were brimming with the love for Ahle-Bayt. Their obedience to the Ummayyad government was only and solely due to the demands of Islaminc teachings that once one pledges allegiance to a ruler, he should never break his allegiance, nor disobey his ruler’s commands, as long as it is not clearly against the Shari’ah.

Thus one finds that when Muslim ibn Aqeel was arrested, after realizing that the inviters to Iraq were all hypocrites and that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was being led into a trap; at that juncture, Muslim ibn Aqeel did not trust any one the people who had just recently had pledged their allegiance at his hands, to deliver his second message to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), a message vital to save the life of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). At this critical juncture, Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel asks Muhammad ibn Ash’ath to ensure that his letter reaches Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Had he the slightest doubt regarding Muhammad ibn Ash’ath’s love for the Ahle-Bayt, he would never have entrusted him with delivering the letter, especially at such a crucial moment.

The crux of this message, as recorded from Tabari in Al-Bidayah, is as follows:

When Muslim ibn Aqeel was arrested, he was found crying. Ubaidullah ibn Abbas Sulaymi, finding this astonishing, remarked, ‘It is not befitting a man of your calibre, who has set out on a mission such as yours to cry in the face of difficulty!’ Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel replied, ‘I am not crying in the fear that I am about to be killed, but rather over the misfortune that is soon to befall Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and his family!’

Muslim ibn Aqeel thereafter turned to Muhammad ibn Ash’ath, saying,

‘O Abdullah, by Allah, I do not believe that Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad shall give any regard to the guarantee of safety that you have given me, I however would deeply appreciate if you could send someone to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), with a message from my side, the words of which are:

O Hussain, I am now a prisoner, and shall most probably soon be killed. Please return at once with your family, and do not fall for the trap of the people of Kufa, the very men from whom your father desired separation, even if it had to come through death. The people of Kufa had lied to you, and to me, and the requests and opinions of liars hold no weight.

Muhammad ibn Ash’ath promised to have the message conveyed, and he fulfilled his promise by sending out a messenger and taking full responsibility of the needs of the family of the messenger until his return. Muhammad ibn Ash’ath also informed Ibn Ziyad that he had promised Muslim ibn Aqeel that he would not be harmed, but as Muslim ibn Aqeel had already predicted, Ibn Ziyad showed no respect to his promise, and had Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu) executed. The messenger, sent by Muhammad ibn Ash’ath reached Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) about four days prior to his reaching Kufa, but after having come so far, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) felt it appropriate now to continue ahead.

From this incident, two important matters come to light, viz.

⚫ Despite working for the Ummayyad government, the Ahlus Sunnah of Iraq respected and loved the Ahle-Bayt, and till the very end did what was within their capacity to save Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) from falling into a trap.

⚫ In the warning that Muslim ibn Aqeel issued, he was not warning Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) from the dangers of the Ummayyads, but rather from falling into a trap that had been set up in Kufa, by the very people that had called him over.

d) Umar ibn Sa’d, the son of Sa’d ibn Waqqas (radhiyallahu anhu)

The fourth individual, acting on behalf of the Ummayyads, but brimming with the love of the Ahle-Bayt, was Umar ibn Sa’d. Books dealing with the issue of Karbala generally depict this personality as an evil, blood thirsty oppressor, solely due to him being the commander of the army sent out to halt Hadhrat Husaain (radhiyallahu anhu) and prevent him from entering Kufa. Here too, a mere introduction and a few statements made by this individual, during the sad episode of Karbala shall be more than sufficient to show that his obeidience to the commands of the state had nothing to do with hatred for the Ahle-Bayt, but was based solely and wholly upon the law of ‘obedience to the caliph is essential, as long as open, clear-cut kufr (disbelief) is not manifest’

Thus we find that when Muslim ibn Aqeel realized that he was going to be killed, he sought permission to have a word in privacy with Umar ibn Sa’d, and as he had done with Muhammad ibn Ash’ath, here too, instead of seeking help from one of those who had initially hosted him, or from one of those who that had initially pledged allegiance his hands, he sought the help of Umar ibn Sa’d, and at his hands made his final wasiyyah  (bequest), the first sentence of which, as narrated in Akhbaar Al Tiwaal  of Hafiz ad Dinawari, was:

I need to make a bequest in private, and at the present moment I find none that hold a closer relationship to me that you. (Hadhrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas was a family relative to Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), thus Umar ibn Sa’d and Muslim ibn Aqeel, enjoyed close family ties).

Muslim ibn Aqeel first asked Umar ibn Sa’d to pay back on his behalf the loans he had taken in Kufa, which equalled to about one thousand dirhams. (Will one ever ask his enemyto pay on his behalf his debts?). The second request was that Umar ibn Sa’d request from Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad that he does not mutiliate his body. The third request, which was the most important, was that Umar ibn Sa’d send a message to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) warning him of the impending danger. The wording of the  message that Muslim ibn Aqeel asked to be conveyed Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), indeed demands a few moments of contemplation, thus read it slowly and carefully, especially the part underlined:

Send a message to Hussain ibn Ali informing him of my condition and the plight I have ended up in , due to the deception of those who claim to be your helpers. Inform him of how the 18,000, who had pledged allegiance at my hands, have suddenly broken up the allegiance! Beg him to please return to the Haram (Makkah Mukarrah or Madinah Munawwarah) and to remain there, and to never allow himself to again be deceived by the people of Kufa!

Umar ibn Sa’d immediately set out to fulfil his bequest. The issue of paying of the debts was an easy matter. As for the other two requests, he needed the permission of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, thus Umar ibn Sa’d mentioned it before him. Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad however, instead of respecting the bequest, and the promise of Umar ibn Sa’d, mocked him for revealing the contents of the discussion, and against his wish, had the head of Muslim ibn Aqeel severed, and sent to Yazid.

Together with the head of Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu), Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad sent two men to explain what had happened, and obviously, being the confidants of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, the picture that they would portray to Yazid would only be their side of story, regarding the effort of Muslim ibn Aqeel to overthrow the government, and how Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad managed, just in time, to nip it in the bud.

After hearing their story, Yazid, due to being so far away and trusting  dully the words of his confidants, expressed pleasure at the achievements of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, and sent back with them a second command, regarding the coming of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), the details of which shall soon follow.

Summary of the Chapter Above

The crux of what had been mentioned above thus far is that before the death of Muslim ibn Aqeel, he clearly realized that the true lovers of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) were not those who had invited him over, or those who had come in large numbers to pledge their allegiance, but rather it was the very ones who were not desirous of seeing any new war starting amongst the Muslims, which would include people like Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Bashir (radhiyallahu anhu), Haani ibn Urwah, Muhammad ibn Ash’ath, Qadhi Shureih, Umar ibn Sa’d, etc. Thus when Muslim ibn Aqeel cursed and lamented, his complain was not against the people of Kufa, who were not prepared to break their allegiance to Yazid, but rather his curse and complain was against the liars and hypoceites of Kufa, who had absolutely no love for any of the Ahle-Bayt, and were desirous of nothing but re-igniting the flames of war amongst the Muslims, usimg the blood of the Ahle-Bayt as a bait for their satanic ambitions.

It is solely for this reason, when one ponders over the names of those who had invited Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over, or over the names of the thousands who had pledged allegiance to Muslim ibn Aqeel, and then suddenly abandoned him when he needed them most, one shall find no mention of any of the great Sahabah and Tabi’een of that time.

The fact that hardly any mention can be found of any illustrious students of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ud and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) joinimg the movement of Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu), that itself speaks volumes of the nature of this incident, and the liars who were behind it!

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), trusting the dozens of letters that he had received from hypocrites quarters, had due reason to march to Iraq, but the population of Iraq, having not seen any of the matters which these letters had described, were obviously not going to join any rebellion, without due reason. As for the love of the Ahle-Bayt, that was embedded deep in the hearts of practically every individual of Kufa, and similar is the case with every member from the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah, this love however in no way necessitated that they join the rebellion against the government. Then too, the love for the Ahle-Bayt forced many individuals of Kufa into a quarry, that on the one side obedience to the Caliph is essential, while on the other, they just could not bear to see harm coming to the Ahle-Bayt.

When one studies deeply the incident of Karbala, he shall find that the people that had made the greatest attempts to save the Ahle-Bayt were not the ones that had invited and begged Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to come over, but rather those that had nothing to do with the rebellion.

The Journey to Karbala

After receiving the news of the execution of Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel and hearing the story of the rebellion, as depicted by the two men sent by Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah sent a command back that Ubaidullah should now halt Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and prevent him from causing any uprising. The command issued by Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah however clearly showed, as his illustrious father had bequeathed, that he had absolutely no desire to see Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) killed.

Yazid was never thirsty foe the blood of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), neither before and not now. All he wanted was to ensure that an uprising does not occur, which would then result in years of in-fighting again. Had Yazid desired to have Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) martyred, he could easily have issued such a command to his governors of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah, that they murder Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) in the Holy Lands itself, or anywhere in the desert, after his departure from his city.

Rather, history itself shows that Yazid had great concern that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) not be led into a trap by the people of Iraq, which could easily result in his death. For this reason, we find that Yazid himself wrote to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), that he should somehow or the other discourage Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) from leaving Hijaz for Iraq. Hafidh ibn Kathir (rahimahullah), in Al-Bidayah, quotes:

Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah wrote to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), and after informing him that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) had already left for Makkah Mukarramah, expressed his concern in the following manner:

‘It is my understanding that some men from the East (Iraq) have tricked him into believing that they shall make him caliph, whereas you are well aware of their lies and tricks. If he had fallen for their offer, then indeed, he has cut a firm family tie. You are amongst the heads of this family, and one whose opinion is heard, thus stop him from doing such an act that shall result in division.’

Yazid, together with the above appeal, also included some verses of poetry, addressing Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) and the Quraysh of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah, a rough translation of which is:

O rider travelling upon a unique animal, as it flies across the deserts, on my behalf inform the Quraysh, who are very far away from me, that I have placed Allah and the demand of family ties between me and Hussain. And I will surely come to Makkah itself  to discuss this matter with him.

I beg him in the name of Allah, through whose Name responsibilities gets fulfilled (that he does not proceed ahead to Iraq) (if he does leave for Iraq) ypur tribe shall then have to bear great grief, such a tribe that has been blessed with the most noble and pure of mothers i.e. Hadhrat Fathima (radhiyallahu anha), who is the daughter of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the best that man has ever known. Her virtue is virtue for you , and through her all others also enjoy some virtue.

It is my strong feeling that the one in whom you take pride, (i.e. hadhrat Hussain radhiyallahu anhu) very soon he shall be leaving you, and shall perhaps end up killed, with vultures eating from his blessed body.
O my nation! Do not reignite the flames of war after it has died down, rather hold firm onto the rope of unity. Our forefathers and those of previous nations had indeed seen plenty of wars amongst themselves, thus I beg that your noble nation view this matter without any prejudice, and that you choose not to throw your bold warrior (Hussain radhiyallahu anhu) to his destruction, for verily at times bold warriors do have terrible slips!’

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) replied to this letter of Yazid, and again a brief ponder over his answer shall be more than sufficient to show that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) going over to Iraq had nothing to do with Yazid being an drunkard, an adulterer, etc. Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) answered:

‘I have hope that Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) leaving Madinah Munawwarah is not due to any matter that would displease you (i.e. I do not feel that he shall stand up against you). Then too, I shall continue advising him regarding all matters which deals with keeping the Ummah united and extinguishing the flames of infighting.

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) thereafter proceeded to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), and contrary to what he had assumed, found Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) determined to leave immediately to Iraq. The details of what thereafter transpired and how various other Sahabah and Tabi’een attempted to dissuade Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu)  from leaving, that has already been mentioned in the chapter titled ‘The issue between Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid’. We shall thus suffice with the mere mentioning of the names, so that again it can be made clear that no one, not even Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) had any issue with the character of Yazid.

Illustrious personalities, who tried to dissuade Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) from proceeding ahead to Iraq, include amongst others:

Hadhrat Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas

Hadhrat Abu Sa’id Khudri

Hadhrat Jabir ibn Abdullah

Hadhrat Miwar ibn Makhramah

Hadhrat Amrah bint Abdur Rahmaan (the grand-daughter of Hadhrat Sa’d ibn Zurarah)

Abu Bakr ibn Abdur Rahmaan ( one of the famous faqih of Madinah Munawwarah)

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far ( the son of Hadhrat Ja’far Tayyar radhiyallahu anhu)

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) however, after receiving assurance for Muslim ibn Aqeel that he had knowledge of eighteen-thousand die-hards in Kufa, and behind these eighteen thousand there were obviously thousands more just waiting for his arrival; after getting this assurance, accompanied by close family members, he left for Iraq. The intention of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was to settle in Iraq and join those who desired to become his warriors. For this reason, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) left with women and children.

The second letter of Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu), in which the treachery of the Iraqis was exposed, reached Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) after much of the journey had already been completed. Its contents greatly saddened Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), firstly because it got delivered together with the news of the death of Muslim ibn Aqeel (rashiyallahu anhu), and secondly because his trust and hopes in the people of Iraq had been crushed. At that juncture, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) actually did consider the acting upon the advice of the second letter, and returning back to Madinah Munawwarah, but two reasons finally made him move forward, viz

a) Some of the group suggested that perhaps when the people would see Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) personally, they woul abandon their cowardice and live upto their promise of supporting them till the very end.

b) Those very close to Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu) were intent on going forward and investigating the reasons behind the execution of Muslim ibn Aqeel, since there was no real reason to have Muslim ibn Aqeel executed. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) felt that since they had come all the way with him, he might as well continue ahead and at least question the reasons behind the execution of Muslim ibn Aqeel.

Arriving at Karbala

Yazid had already written to Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad that he should keep a strict eye on the movements on the movements of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and ensure that an uprising does not occur in Iraq. At the same time Yazid had also issued the instruction that the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) not be attacked, unless they attack first, which was most unlikely. Strict orders were given that no major decision be taken except after receiving guidance from the government of Sham.

In fact, if one were to scrutinize the pages of history,  one shall find that just before the arrival of Muslim ibn Aqeel, Yazid was on the verge of having Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad removed from his post as governor over Basrah, due to misgivings he had about him. When Muslim ibn Aqeel reached Kufa, the governor, on behalf of the Ummayyads, was Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu). Had Hadhrat Nu’maan (radhiyallahu anhu) remained as governor, the incident of Karbala, as it occurred, would perhaps not have transpired, and the flames of war amongst the Ummah would never have been re-ignited. Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) would have merely arrested Hadhrat Muslim ibn Aqeel, if he found the matter getting out of hand, and have him and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) sent over to Sham, so that the matter could be sorted out there properly.

Shaitaani forces were well aware of this, thus plans were made to have Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) removed and Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad brought in his place. This required just two moves, made at the right time, and backed with the propaganda and drama that the shaitaani forces are masters at.

The first of these two moves was to have Yazid’s faith in Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) broken. For this, letters from Kufa were sent to Yazid, warning of a rebellion that was on the verge of breaking out, and that Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) was doing practically nothing to sort out the problem. The contents of the letters, and the names and signatures that accompanied them (which were most probably forged) would have confused the greatest of leaders, and thus Yazid can never be blamed for falling for the trap. Describing the scene prevailing in the court of Yazid, Tabari writes:

(Abdullah ibn Muslim, after engaging in a heated debate with Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) regarding why he was acting so cowardly, wrote to Yazid:
‘Muslim ibn Aqeel has come to Kufa and many have already pledged their allegiance to Hussain. If you have any desire that Kufa remain yours, you must send immediately someone strong, who shall deal with your enemy as you would have dealt with them. As for Nu’maan ibn Basheer, he is a weak leader, or perhaps he is just acting weak!’

This was the first letter that reached Yazid regarding the dangerous situation in Kufa. Thereafter the letter of ibn Uqbah arrived, followed almost immediately by the letter of Umar ibn Sa’d, both mentioning the very same thing.

Hisham said, quoting from Awaanah, ‘After reading these latters, which arrived, one after the other, in the space of just two days, Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah acceded to the advice of Sarjoon, the freed-slave of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu),  that none but Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad could sort out the situation, whereas at the moment Yazid was not seeing eye-to-eye with ibn Ziyad). End of the quote.

Whether Umar ibn Sa’d really wrote such a letter, that is definirely questionable, especially considering the fact that from the arrival of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad till the very end, he continuously expressed displeasure with the commands being issued by Ibn Ziyad. This letter was thus most probably forged in the name of Umar ibn Sa’d. Whatever the case may be, such letters were most definitely going to get Yazid searching for a solution.

The second move of the shaitaani forces was to have Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad brought in, in the place of Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu), Yazid himself did not choose Ibn Ziyad, since at that time Yazid was having misgivings with regards him. Yazid was infact instigated into allowing ibn Ziyad to take charge, a move that would soon ruin the image of Yazid throughout the Muslim world.

Regarding this, Tabari narrates:
In search of a solution to the problem facung him, Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah sought the  counsel of Sarjoon, the freed slave of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). At that present moment, Yazid was not seeing eye-to-eye with Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad (and Sarjoon was well aware of that). Sarjoon thus asked, ‘ If Mu’awiyah himself would have to be brought alive, and he were to give advince in this matter, would you be prepared to accept his advice?’ Yazid responded in the affirmative. Sarjoon thereafter drew out a document in which it was stated that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had, just before his death, written that Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad be placed in-charge of Kufa. Seeing this letter, Yazid forgot his misgivings regarding ibn Ziyad, and ordered that together with Basrah (over which he was the governor) the rule of Kufa now also be handed over to him.

Whether Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had ever written such a thing that shall perhaps never be known with certainity. Whatever the case maybe, the narration above show clearly that the appointment of Ibn Ziyad was not a brain-storm of Yazid, but rather upon the inciting of the ‘forged’ letters from Kufa, followed with the pushing advice of Sarjoon ibn Mansoor.

Sarjoon, as the books of history explain, was one of the senior leaders of the Christian army that came out to face the Muslims during the era of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhu). After being taken as captive, he began serving in Sham, as a slave, in many top government posts due to his expertise in the field of finance, especially since the financial matters at that time were still being recorded in Persian, in registers known as Diwaan. In the era of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), he rose to the position of being one of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah’s right hand men, and perhaps due to his outward loyalty, or due to his accepting Islam at the hands of Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), he was finally set free. [Tarikh Dimashq]

Whether Sarjoon was sincere in his intentions or not when he proposed the name of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, that is for Almighty Allah alone to decide. However it is a point worth noting that Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad’s selection was not done by any Sahabi or illustrious Tabi’ee, but rather by a former Christian/recently reverted Muslim, freed-slave, Sarjoon ibn Mansoor.

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) speaks

From the time that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) found himself facing the army of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, in practically every statement that he uttered, some or the other indication can be found of whatever has been discussed above, i.e.

a) His coming to Iraq was merely on the basis that, as he had been led to believe, there were many in Iraq who had not as yet pledge allegiance to Yazid, and were rather desirous for pledging allegiance to him.

b) Besides the issue of fighting for the caliphate, he had no other issue with Yazid, i.e. he never held any misconception regarding Yazid’s deen, private life, etc.

c) The traitors and evil men in the entire episode were not Yazid and his government, situated in Sham, but rather hypocrites who had sent countless of forged letters, inviting him over, and who had deceived Muslim bin Aqeel into believing that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) did indeed have a huge following in Iraq.

d) If he had known from the beginning that the people of Iraq were happy with the Ummayyad rule, he would never have come over, but would rather had remained in Hijaz and allowed the Ummayyad’s the right to rule.

The above points can be easily picked up from the numerous statements made by Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) before his martyrdom. From these statements, two statements however deserve a little extra attention, viz.

1) A man, who had met Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) shortly before his death, narrated to Yazid ar-Rashk:

I noticed some tents pitched in an open area. Upon inquiry, I was informed that these were the tents of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), I approached and found within one tent an elderly man reciting Qur’an, whilst tears flowed down his cheeks and beard.  I asked, ‘O grandson of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), what has brought you to this barren area? He replied,

‘The letters of the people of Kufa, and I have a strong feeling that these very people are now going to kill me!   [Al-Bidayah]

2) When Umar ibn Sa’d, the leader of the army sent by Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, came in front of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), he (radhiyallahu anhu) said,

‘O Umar! Allow me one of three options:

a) Either let me return to where I have come from, i.e. Madinah Munawwarrah.

b) If that is too difficult, then allow me to proceed to Yazid, at whose hands I shall pledge allegiance, and he can thereafter judge regarding me as he wills

c) And if that is not acceptable, then place me in an army heading towards the Turks, against whom I shall continue fighting until death!

Umar was happy with these options, but as a mere formality, sent a message to Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad enquiring regarding which option to choose. Shimr ibn Haushab (a senior of the cabinet of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad), objected severely and demanded that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) be brought in front of ibn Ziyad. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was not happy with the decision of Shimr and refused to present himself in front of Ibn Ziyad. Umar ibn Sa’d was ordered to attack, but he showed unwillingness. Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad thus  had him removed from his post and appointed Shimr in his place, and in fact even ordered him to execute Umar ibn Sa’d, if he found him to be a barrier.

While both of the above statements serve as an eye-openers, it is the second one that really puts the nail into the entire episode of lies, which shaitaani forces desire all to believe regarding Karbala. Had Yazid really been a drunkard, an adulterer, etc and had that been the basis of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) standing up against him, why would he now, right at the end of his life, be prepared to himself to proceed to Sham and pledge allegiance at the hands of Yazid? Could it ever be possible that this lion of Islam, merely in the fear of death, would forget his mission of fighting against sinful rulers, and would actually agree to even join under their ranks? Na’udhubillah!

Had Yazid been committing open acts of Kufr and evil in the court of caliphate, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would never have been prepared to even present himself in front of Yazid, forget pledging allegiance at his hands!

It was for this reason that the shaitani hypocrites have made great efforts to keep this statement of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) hidden from public eye, either by branding the narrator of this incident as unreliable, or by fabricating statements attributed to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), which show a different meaning, or just by branding the incident as unacceptable, without giving any reason for its denial, except that only a coward could have uttered such a statement, and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was no coward.

Due to the importance of this narration, especially in exposing the lies of the shaitani version of Karbala, a discussion regarding the strength of this narration is essential, which shall Insha Allah, now follow:

The statement of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), in which he agreed to pledge allegiance to Yazid, this can be found in practically all the major works of Islamic history. For example, Tabari has narrated it in his Tarikh, Ibn Kathir has narrated it in his Al-Bidayah, ibn e Abdul Barr has mentioned it in his Al-Isti’aab, Safdi in Al-Waafi, as well as many others. However, as mentioned previously, a narration merely appearing in numerous history books does not really increase its strength, since it is quite possible that all are narrating from the same one source. If that one source is unreliable, hundreds narrating it thereafter shall do nothing in making it reliable. To find the strength of a narration, itw chain of narrators has to be studied, and only after that can some verdict be passed.

Below shall follow a few of the chains, through which Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) statement has been narrated:

1) Hafidh Mizzi in Tahzeebul Kamaal, and Hafidh Dhahabi in Siyar un Nubala, has narrated this statement, from Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) grandson, Abu Ja’far, Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Hussain, through the following narrators:

Abu Waleed, Ahmad ibn Janaab Maseesi, who narrates from Khalid ibn Yazid Qisri, who narrated feom Ammaar ibn Abi Mu’awiyah, Dhuni, who narrates from Hadhrar Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) grandson, Abu Ja’far, Muhammad ibn Ali

All the narrators of the above tradition have been termed as reliable, except for Khalid ibn Yazid Qisri.

2) Allamah ibn Kathir, in Al-Bidayah, has narrated the above statement of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), through the following chain: Abu Ubaid Qasim ibn Salaam, who narrates from Hajjaj ibn Muhammad (A’war), who narrates from Abu Ma’shar, Najeeh ibn Abdur Rahmaan, who narrates from some of his elders.

Abu Ubaid and Hajjaj ibn Muhammad are not only regarded as reliable narrators, but in fact Imams in the field of narrating. As for Abu Ma’shar, he had been described as ‘one of the vessels of knowledge’, due to his vast knowledge regarding Islamic history. His memory has been criticized slightly, due to the certain errors he made in narrating chains of transmission. Regarding his honesty in narrating, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Az-Zura’a have termed him as ‘Sadooq‘ (truthful).

Thus, the only issue that can be raised with this chain is that the names of those whom Abu Mash’ar has narrated  from has not been established. Even though the word ‘from some of his elders‘ does lend indication that he had heard this narration from those who he constantly narrated from and trusted.

The summary of the above is that the incident of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) agreeing to pledge allegiance to Yazid has been narrated with chains, which for histoeical purposes, is indeed quite strong. Together with the above, indication towards these three options, i.e. returning to Madinah Munawwarah, moving into the wilderness and engaging in Jihaad against the Turks; or pledging allegiance to Yazid in Sham, indication towards these options can easily be noticed in other narrations as well.

One example of such an indication is what has been narrated by Hafiz ibn Asakir in Tarikh e Dimashq that the last request made by Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) before being martyred was that he be allowed to proceed to Yazid. His exact words were:

Then allow me to proceed to Amir al Mu’minin

This statement of his can be narrated through a very strong chain of narrators, which is as follows:

Ibn Asakir narrates from Abu Ghalib, Ahmad ibn Hasan, who has been termed as ‘The leading of hadith’ in his time, in Baghdad, he narrates from Abdus Samad ibn Ali (ibn Ma’moon), who has also been described as the leading scholar of Hadith is Baghdad during his era. He narrates from Ubaidullah ibn Muhammad ibn Is’haaq who has been described as ‘an authority in Ahadith. He narrates from Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn Abdul Aziz who has been described as a leading scholar in Ahadith of his era, he narrates from Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Isa (Barti) , who has been described as Hafidh of Hadith. He narrates from Amr ibn Aun who has been described as an ‘Imam’ in the field of Hadith. He narrates from Khalid (Hazza) who has been described as an Imaam i  this field and an Hafidh of Ahadith. He narrates from Jurayri, who also gas been described as an Imaam in the field of Ahadith. At this point there is a slight doubt whether Jurayri narrates from Abd e Rabbi, who has been described as reliable by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal or someone else.

When one ponders over the men mentioned in this sanad, he shall find practically all to be narrators of the highest standard. In Siyaar A’laam al Nubala, Hafidh Dhahabi has made mention of each of these narrators separately, describing each one with the highest of praises. The only issue with this sanad is at the end, where slight doubt is shown whether the final narrator is Abd e Rabbi or someone else.

The fact that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) himself agreed to go to Sham and pledge allegiance to Yazid, that was definitely going ro create a thorn in the shia description of what happened on that fateful day, thus we find that from the very beginning shaitaani hypocrites went out of their way to ensure that this incident never becomes famous, despite its strength being much more than most of the narrations commonly mentioned when discussing Karbala.

The crux of the Shia’ effort to discredit this narration can ve condensed in two points, viz.

1) Shaitani hypocrites invented their own narrations in which the willingness of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to proceed to Sham was totally denied.

2) The credibility of Umar ibn Sa’d (the son of Hadhrat Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas radhiyallahu anhu) was attacked, since he was the main narrator of the proposal of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). To discredit him, the shaitani propagandists left no stone unturned in having him declared as the killer of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), then propagating this to such an extent that it soon became ‘gospel truth’, despite so much of evidence proving his innocence from this act.

With regards to the first effort, i.e. inventing contradictory narrations, one example of that is what Abu Mikhnaf (a famous Shia narrator, and a great liar) would falsely narrate from Abdur Rahmaan ibn Jundub, from Uqbah ibn Sam’aan, the wording of which is as follows:

I accompanied Hussain (alayhissalaam) from Makkah until his death. By Allah, during that journey he did not utter a word, except that I heard it, he never asked permission to proceed to Yazid, so that he could place his hands in his hands, nor did he ask to be sent to the Islamic frontier, rather all that he asked was that he be allowed to return from where he had come, or that he be allowed to wander in the open lands, so that he could see the outcome of Yazid’s rule and thereafter make a decision’

Wherever one finds Abu Mikhnaf narrating, one can be sure to find plenty of exagerration, at times vivid lies and some sort of attack on some personality or the other. For this reason the masters of the science of scrutinizing narrator were practically unanimous that the narrations of Abu Mikhnaf cannot be trusted. Yahya ibn Ma’een described him as ‘unreliable’. Ibn Adi in Al-Kamil has described him as a stauch Shia, whose narrations are not worth mentioning, especially due to his habit of criticizing the pious predecessors. Abu Hatim Al Razi would not narrate from him and Dar-e-qutni termed him as ‘weak’. Hafidh Dhahabi summed up his reality in only one word, Haalik i.e. one that has destroyed himself, which means that he was from the worst of narrators. Hafidh ibn Hajar has described him as a narrator of history who can never be trusted. In fact, when Abu Haatim Razi was asked regarding Abu Mikhnaf , he replied in ashonisment, ‘Is there even a need to ask regarding him!’ What he meant was that his unreliabilty is so vivid, that the need to enquire regarding him should not even arise. [Lisaan al Meezan]

Another issue with Abu Mikhnaf was that he was a strong supporter of the Shia movement against the Ummayyads, and actually even died for this corrupt movement. [Abu Mikhnaf was killed in the seventy fourth year after Hijrah, fighting along Sulayman ibn Sard, one of the leaders in the war of so-called ‘Revenge for the Ahle-Bayt’ , a movement initiated by the infamous group known as the ‘Tawwabeen’, who were in fact the very liars who had the Ahle-Bayt (the familiy of Hadhrat Hussain) martyred]. On this basis too, one would find it necessary that all his narrations regarding Karbala and its aftermath be looked at with suspicion.

Thus, had Abu Mikhnaf been the only problem with this narration, that itself would have been sufficient to have it rendered baseless. Together with the above is however is the issue with the wording of the narration itself, especially this portion, I accompanied Hussain (alayhissalaam) from Makkah until his death. By Allah, during that journey he did not utter a word, except that I heard it. If these words were true, it would demand that Uqbah ibn Sam’aan be present, at the side of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), right until his death, whereas, according to what history has narrated, there were many instances during this journey when Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was alone with the women of his family. Also, in the majority of the events recorded regarding Karbala, no mention has been made of this man, whereas if he was a permanent companion in every occasion, in every decision and in every discussion, which is quite improbable, his name would surely have been mentioned much more than just in a few places.

Thus, after having proven the first sentence being narrated from Uqbah ibn Sam’aan ro be an open exagerration, or a lie, how could one thereafter entertain possibility that the rest of his narration is true! From the above one can easily realize the status of the narrations of Abu Mikhnaf, and that it hardly hold any weight in refuting what Umar ibn Sa’d would narrate, regarding Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) willingness to pledge allegiance at the hands of Yazid. A point which can however be learnt from his narration is that during his time (which was just after the death of Hadhrat Hussain radhiyallahu anhu) the word was already going around that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), at the very end of his life, expressed his willingness to proceed to Yazid and pledge allegiance. This was obviously going to create huge thorns in the shaitani propaganda, and thus the need arose for Abu Mikhnaf to forge narrations to refute it totally.

a) As for the second attempt of shaitani forces i.e. to discredit the reliability of  Umar ibn Sa’d, shaitani hypocrites left no stone unturned in painting him as a ‘the evil butcher/killer’ responsible for the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). By having the Ummah regard him as evil, there would obviously be no question of anyone ever regarding his narration of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) being prepared to pledge allegiance ro Yazid, as reliable.

Their efforts in this regard did reap some fruits and certain great authorities in the field of scrutinizing narrators ended up branding Umar ibn Sa’d as unreliable, solely due to his ‘assumed inhumane acts’ on the field of Karbala. For example, when Yahya ibn Ma’een (rahimahullah) was asked regarding Umar ibn Sa’d, he replied, ‘How can a man ever be considered as reliable after having killed the grandson of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)?!

Deapite the fact that Umar ibn Sa’d was from the very beginning right till the end  in the frontline of trying to salvage the situation and bring about a peaceful result in the affair between Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid, shaitani forces succeeded to a great extent in portraying him as the villain of the plains of Karbala, whereas the reality is something completely different. As previously mention, the first villian to be pin-pointed in this entire episode is none other than Mukhtar ibn Ubaid Thaqafi, whereas his name is hardly to be found in any of the basic booklets written regarding Karbala! Why?? The answer is clear. In the episode of Karbala, due to it being narrated and depicted almost entirely by shaitani hypocrites,  the truthful and innocent have been framed, and the guilty have been made to disappear from the scene completely.

Just as how proving the innocence of Yazid was never the actual purpose of this article, but rather to expose how much of the common story of Karbala really conforms with what actually happened on that fateful day. So too is the case with Umar ibn Sa’d. It is not our responsibility to prove  that he is to be completely absolved from all responsibility, however, if we were to accuse him and brand him guilty, then it would be necessary that we have valid proof to substantiate our claim. If we are unable to do so, the obvious demand of the Shari’ah would then be that a believer gives his fellow believer the benefit of the doubt, as per Qur’anic guidance, viz.

Why do the believers, when they hear an accusation, not think good of their own people, i.e. other believing men and women

In the next few lines, a little time shall be spared to describe Umar ibn Sa’d, thereby enabling the reader to view of Umar ibn Sa’d, the supposed killer of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), from a different angle.

⚫ In the lines that have passed, mention had been made that Muslim ibn Aqeel (radhiyallahu anhu) found himself abandoned by the so-called supporters of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), the only person that he felt could be trusted with the responsibility of conveying his message to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), a message upon which rested the life of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and the Ahle-Bayt, was Umar ibn Sa’d. And as expected, Umar Ibn Sa’d, ensured that he had the entire message conveyed. (By way of reminder, a portion of what has already been mentioned, shall be repeated)

Muslim ibn Aqeel first asked Umar ibn Sa’d to pay back on his behalf the loans he had taken in Kufa, which equalled to about one thousand dirhams. The second request was that Umar ibn Sa’d requeat from Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad that he does not mutiliate his body.  The third request which was the most important, was that Umar ibn Sa’d send a message to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) warning him of the impending danger. The wording of the message, which Muslim ibn Aqeel asked to be conveyed to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), is as follows:

Send a message to Hussain ibn Ali, informing him of my condition, and the plight that I have ended up in, due to the deception of those who claim to be your supporters. Inform him of how the 18,000 who had pledged allegiance at my hands, have suddenly broken their allegiance! Beg him to please return to the Haram (Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah), and to remain there, and to never allow himself to again be deceived by the people of Kufa!

⚫ In Iraq, the fact that Umar ibn Sa’d played the greatest role in the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), that was at one time, due to intense shaitaani propagation, regarded as ‘absolute truth’. As time passed, another version did come up to the fore, but very few were the ones who would be prepared to discard what they had always known and look at the event again in the light of new information received.

⚫ The statement of Yahya ibn Ma’een (rahimahullah), while describing Umar ibn Sa’d, is sufficient to understand the extent of propaganda, regarding this individual, that had, in his time, already filtered throughout Iraq. His words were:

‘The people of Iraq say that the one who had killed Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was none other than Umar ibn Sa’d.
Ibrahim ibn Umar ibn Sa’d would deny this and narrate a statement showing that his father was not the killer’ [isti’aab]

⚫ Hafiz A’jali, in his book dealing with reliable narrators had described Umar ibn Sa’d thus:

A reliable narrator, hailing from Madinah Munawwarah, who would narrate Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), which he had heard from his father (Hadhrat Sa’d ibn Abi Waqqas radhiyallahu anhu), and those who came after would then narrate from him. (It has been said that) he is the one who had killed Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), I say, he was the Amir of the army, but played no physical part in the killing’

⚫ Historical narrations clearly show that Umar ibn Sa’d had no desire to engage in a battle Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu. Rather, when Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) made his proposal, agreeing to one of the three things (as mentioned above), Umar ibn Sa’d happily agreed, and wrote to Ibn Ziyad, seeking his approval. Certain narrations even show Ibn Ziyad inclining to accept Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) proposal of allowing him to proceed to Yazid but retracting upon being reprimanded by Shimr ibn Dhil-Jaushan. Thereafter, narrations make clear mention that Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad had Shimr ibn Dhil-Jaushan sent over to the battlefield to ensure that Umar ibn Sa’d engages in battle, with the order that if Umar ibn Sa’d is found reluctant, he should be beheaded, and Shimr should take over. A few examples of such narrations are as follows:

⚫ In Al-Bidayah, the following appears:
Umar ibn Sa’d delayed in launching an attack upon the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad thus sent Shimr ibn Dhil Jaushan with the command that if Umar ibn Sa’d proceeds forward to attack, then he should allow him to do so. If he is found unwilling, he should be killed and Shimr should take his place.

⚫ ibn al-Athir has recorded the following in Usdul-Ghabah:
Some have said that Umar ibn Sa’d had killed Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), whereas this is totally incorrect. Rather, it was Sinaan ibn Anas Nakh’ai who had killed him. As for the statement that Shimr and Umar ibn Sa’d had killed Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), what was really meant was that Shimr was the one spurring the people ontp have Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) killed, and Umar ibn Sa’d was the Amir of the army, thus the act of killing has been attributed to him’

⚫ In fact, stronger narrations even show Umar ibn Sa’d being absent from the scene, when the fatal attack upon Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was made. Imam Bukhari has narrated the following in his Tarikh:

Muhammad ibn Miswar (radhiyallahu anhu) has narrated feom Qareen ibn Ibrahim that he heard Umar ibn Sa’d proposing to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) one of three options, either that he return…….
He (i.e Qareen) then said, ‘ I was with Umar ibn Sa’d when the announcement was made that Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) had been martyred. At that time we were taking bath at the Euphrates river.   [Al Tarikh al Kabir]

Imam Bukhari thereafter comments that Nur al-Muadhib (a reliable narrator has narrated this to him, saying that Ibrahim ibn Sa’d (a most reliable narrator had narrated this to him.

The sanad through which the above has been narrated is indeed quite strong, yet amazingly, cotradicting incidents, with practically no sanad or very weak sanads, have become more well-known. This is indeed something noteworthy in this entire chapter i.e. if the event had to be looked at in the light of strong narrations, an entire different picture shall emerg, as compared to what is presently  common knowledge regarding the affair of Karbala. This can be seen when one investigates the role of Umar ibn Sa’d in the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), as well as the incidents that followed immediately thereafter, especially with regards to Yazid’s conduct with the head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), when it was presented in front of him, and his conduct with the Ahle-Bayt, when they were brought in front of him. (Details of this shall insha Allah soon be mentioned).

To end the discussion regarding Umar ibn Sa’d, it would be wise to ponder over a few statements and qctions of Umar ibn Sa’d, during and after the calamity of Karbala, which also lends a clear indication this was not a man desirous of the blood of the grand-son of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but was rather an army lieutenant who found himself in a quagmire, between obedience to the rules of those appointed by the caliph, and between the love for the Ahle-Bayt, which every believing soul has been blessed with. On the one hand he could not rebel against the command coming from above, while on the other hand he understood well that if Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) refused to submit, he would be gorced to raise the sword against him. Umar ibn Sa’d also realized that Shimr ibn Dhil-Jaushan was intent on having blood spilled, thus as long as he could, he regarded it wiser to keep the reigns of leadership in his hands and comply with the commands of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad. The statements that shall follow clearly show that it was Umar ibn Sa’d’s desire to somehow avert battle, and when that hope was lost, he found himself with no other option but to have Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) arrested and taken to Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad.

The final point, for some reason, have always gone unnoticed, which is that just as how Umar ibn Sa’d had arrested Muslim ibn Aqeel, and not killed him, here too, had Umar ibn Sa’d been present during the fatal attack upon Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), he would never have allowed that he be killed, as long as the possibility existed that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) can be taken alive.  The shaitani forces were well aware of this, and for their plans to later materialize, it was essential that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) not be taken alive.

As for Umar ibn Sa’d, neither was he initially eager to meet Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) in the battlefield, nor did he ever take pleasure thereafter in the outcome of what had occurred. Rather, from the very second that he saw the mutiliated body of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), he expressed his displeasure with the outcome of the incident.

The few sentences that shall now be mentioned, shall, Insha Allah, open many eyes to the points made above:

a) Initially, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) refused to hand himself over to Yazid, but later, after realizing that the had pulled him into a trap and had deserted him in his most needed hour, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) called Umar ibn Sa’d over, and expressed his willingness to allow himself to be taken to Yazid. As mentioned previously, this offer was turned down by Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, due to the pressure of Shimr ibn Dhil-Jaushanm. The point worthy of not however, is the eagerness with which Umar ibn Sa’d sent the proposal, hoping that the matter could somehow be solved and fighting avoided. The news of Ibn Ziyad not accepting caused him great pain, which he made apparent suring the battle, when asked by Hur ibn Yazid as to how such a proposal be refused. His reply at that moment was:

“By Allah, had I been in charge, I would have surely accepted.
Rather, it is your Amir who does not want to accept”

b) As mentioned previously, Umar ibn Sa’d, despite being present when the initial attack wad launched, was absent when the fatal attack upon Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) took place. Had he been present, he would have insisted that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) be arrested and would never have allowed him to be murdered. During his absence the hypocrites who were there to ensure that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) be killed, took advantage of the situation. First they martyred Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and looted most of his and his family’s possessions. They then proceeded to the bed upon which lay Hadhrat Hussain’s, twenty-three years old ill son Ali ibn Hussain (rahimahullah) known famously as Zainul-Aabideen.

Humayd ibn Muslim tried his best to keep them away from Hadhrat Zainul Aabideen (rahimahullah), but it was only upon the arrival of Umar ibn Sa’d that they dispersed. Describing this, Tabari narrates from Humayd ibn Muslim the following:

I (Humayd ibn Muslim) reached the tent of Hadhrat Ali ibn Hussain (Zainul Aabideen) and found him ill, lying in the bed. I heard Shimr ibn Dhil Jaushan saying to his men, ‘Why have we not yet kill this one?’ I exclaimed SubhanAllah! Do you wish to kill a child? I continued pushing them back until Umar ibn Sa’d arrived. Seeing the situation, he immediately ordered that none should enter the tent in which the women were present and that the ill youngster be left alone. He also ordered that all the looted possessions be returned, but nothing was brought back. Ali ibn Hussain at that time thanked Umar ibn Sa’d, saying, may you be rewarded, for verily your words have saved us from great danger!

What becomes clear from the above narrarion is that Shimr ibn Dhil-Jaushan and his band of thus were not merely fighting to suppress a possible uprising, but were rather carrying out a satanic attack upon the innocent family members of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Their motive and mission was to ensure that none of the male members of the Ahle-Bayt remain alive, even if they posed no possible threat to the government. As for Umar ibn Sa’d, from the very beginning he was desirous of averting the need for battle, and when it unfortuantely did occur, at that time too his desire was merely to have the noble members of the Ahle-Bayt brought under arrest, having them slain was far from what he imagine going to occur. Thus, as soon as he reached the tent of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) he expressed lament over what he saw, and he ordered that all attacks be stopped immediately. Certain narrations make mention that he even had a force loyal to him appointed to guard the living inhabitants of the tent, and protect them from any further attack. (The unfortunate aspect of this narration is that Tabari has only recorded this narration from Abu Mikhnaf, the Shia famous for polluting narrations with his poisonous short additions. Here too Abu Mikhnaf ensured that before ensing the narration, some sort of poison be added, due to which one shall find in the next few lines of this narration a completely different Umar ibn Sa’d, as compared to the one described in the lines just before. To end the narration and ensure that no sympathy gets lent to Umar ibn Sa’d, Abu Mikhnaf concludes the narration by saying that after leaving the tent, he had it surrounded by his loyal men, to ensure no further attack. Umar ibn Sa’d then summoned his horsemen and ordered that they first trample the blessed body of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) before severing his head. (May Allah protect all from such filthy acts) After what has been described of Umar ibn Sa’d, it seems quite far-fetched that he would ever stoop to such a level, and merely trusting upon the words i.e. Abu Mikhnaf, to blindly accept this as true and have Umar ibn Sa’d lebelled as demon in human disguise, this is indeed far from the demands of justice! And Allah Almight alone knows beast and He alone guides towards that which is correct.)

C) From this very same Humayd ibn Muslim, who had kept the forces of Shimr back until the arrival of Umar ibn Sa’d, it has been narrated that after the battle, he approached Umar ibn Sa’d, who was a close friend of his, and asked regarding his well-being. Umar ibn Sa’d replied,

“Do not ask regarding me, for verily none could ever return home with such a calamity, as that with which I am returning with. I have cut extremely close ties and have taken part in a major calamity!.

d) In Tarikh of ibn Asakir, the following has been narrated from Abu Mikhnaf, whose narrations as a general rule shall always include some sort of allegation or poisonous attack against the Ahle-Sunnah. Those narrations of his without any such slander and accusations could perhaps be considered, but to be fair, it would be appropriate that none of his narrations be used to prove any point. The narration mentioned above and below are thus being mentioned merely as a conclusion to what has already been proven, and not as a proof itself.

Abu Mikhnaf narrates from Mujaalid ibn Saeed and Saqab ibn Zuhayr that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and Umar ibn Sa’d met three or four times to discuss their matter. Umar ibn Sa’d thereafter wrote to Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, ‘Verily Almighty Allah has extinguished the flames of in-fighting and has brought about unity. Hussain has agreed to return from where he has come, or to proceed to the borders of the Islamic State and join the Muslim forces protecting the Islamic borders, or to proceed to Yazid and pledge allegiance at his hands and let Yazid decide regarding him. In this there is great goodness for the Ummah and it is exactly what you want.

When ibn Ziyad read the letter, he said, ‘This is a letter, containing good advices for the Amir. Indeed I have accepted his request!’ Hearing this Shimr ibn Dhil Jaushan stood up and said, ‘Are you going to accept this? By Allah, if he does manage to escape from this land, without first pledging allegiance at your hands, his strength shall surely increase and yours shall decrease.  Accepting his request is a sign of weakness from your side. Rather, order that he submit to your decision. Thereafter, if you choose to punish him, so indeed he is deserving of punishment. And if you choose to forgive, then that is in your hands. By Allah, I have received news that Hussain and Umar ibn Sa’d had spent great amount of time together, discussing their plans!’ Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad acceded to Shimr’s advice and said, ‘Your opinion is indeed worthy of acceptance!’

Summary of the discussion regarding Umar ibn Sa’d

In the above discussion regarding the credibilty of Umar ibn Sa’d, many lessons can be learnt, especially with regard to how quick man is to pass judgement upon individuals , based merely upon oft-related narrations and tales, yet when the narrations are dissected, many a time a completely different version of events emerge, which reveals the flaws of the judgement and leave the ‘self appointed judge’ hiding his head in shame. The lesson however, only he shall learn who has been blessed with the bounty of ‘justice’ and has been saved from the sickness of ‘prejudice’ and ’emotional judgements’.

As for the narrations of Umar ibn Sa’d, in which mention has been made of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) ultimately showing willingness to pledge allegiance to Yazid, which was in fact the actual purpose of this discussion, from these narrations a great deal can be learnt regarding how Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) viewed his cousin, Yazid. Had Yazid really been a drunkard, transgressor, renegade, etc, as depicted in the Shia-influenced narrations, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) would never have agreed to pledge allegiance.

Thereafter, when one accepts that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) had no personal grudge against Yazid, the question shall resurface as to why then did Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) proceed ro Iraq. If one now finds himself unable to provide a satisfactory answer to this question, it would then only be fair that the answer provided in this article be considered, which is that this fight was based solely upon an Ijtihad Ikhtilaafi issue (differences in reasoning, with both views based upon Islamic principles).

Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) felt the need to bring the caliphate back to the family of Banu Hashim, and having not as yet pledged allegiance to Yazid, he was fully entitled to fight for this felt need. He (radhiyallahu anhu) was not on a mission to remove any tyrant, drunkard, etc, but rather his journey was to find an army ready to support him in his mission, an army who not as yet pledged allegiance to the new government. Based upon the false letters of the hypocrites of Iraq, in which promises were made that such an army was eagerly awaiting his arrival in Iraq. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) set out in that direction. When he finally did realise that the letters were fake, and that the promises were lies, he now felt it best to abandon his quest to take back the caliphate, and enter into allegiance with the new government, as his other friends of Hijaz had done. Unfortunately, the hypocrites of Iraq had at this stage reached too far in their plans, and were easily able to ensure that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) never be allowed to reach Yazid.

As for Yazid, due to the great distance between Sham and Iraq, his ijtihad would obviously be based upon the reports he would be receiving from men who held senior posts in his cabinet. When even a man like Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) failed to recognise the scores of hypocrites amongst his army, except until they exposed themselves as the ‘Khawarij’, how then could one ever blame Yazid for not being able to differentiate between true and false reports, especially when it concerned matters occurring thousands of miles away?

Many statements, expressions and actions of Yazid, before and after the incident of Karbala, lend clear indication that his war with Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) had nothing to do with enmity, but rather was an ijtihadi error, due to it being based upon news received from hypocrite quarters.

The battle of Karbala and its Aftermath

As with most of the issues regarding the lead-up to Karbala, where nothing definite can be deduced, due to the vast collection of lies and exaggeration that has always surrounded it, so too is the issue with the battle itself. Prior to the battle and on the day of the fatal battle itself, many sermons were delivered, many discussions were held, and many statements were made, which had they been recorded in an authentic manner, would have shed much more light on who really was responsible for the massacre of Karbala, nd what was the true motive behind it. Unfortunately, Divine wisdom did not allow that to happen, and shaitani forces were allowed to write their own version of history regarding this great calamity. Despite this, historians did still managed to gather statements and narrations showing an entire different chain of events, but as mentioned previously,  these narrations have always been kept hidden in the pages of history, as though they never existed.

It is not my intention to prove that only these narrations be accepted which portray the event of Karbala different to what is normally known. Rather, the purpose of drawing light to these narrations is to merely to show that when contradictory statements in every issue of Karbala can be found, what then shall the basis of accepting and rejecting be? Why is it that whatever shows Yazid guilty and evil, only those narrations are considered and narrations showing the opposite are immediately rejected, without any bother of even viewing its chain of narrators?

What really happened?
Stage One: The battle itself

Sad and emotional scenes have always been painted of the fateful battle of Karbala, which ended with the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and his entire cqravan of men. Besides the women in the tents, Hadhrat Zainul Aabideen (rahimahullah), and one slave, no other member of the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) survived. From these, perhaps only the slave was present on the field the day Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was martyred.

Yet, when one reads about the battle, expecting that very little be known regarding it, due to the absence of survivors, one amazingly finds the reporting of the incident explicit to the finer detail, was it the lone slave that was able to freely move around the battle-field and record the different scenes that occurred on that fateful day, or was there perhaps some other force working in drawing up a tearful, sorrowful picture  of blood, oppression and torment?

It is obvious that none, except one slave, from the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) lived to explain the true happenings of the 10th of Muharram, the only source that could have been narrating it would either be the very men who had come out to fight against Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), or people who had never witnessed the battle. Whatever the case may be, such narrators,  can never be gauged as reliable, due to them either not being first-hand witnesses, and if they were, then due to the doubt that falls upon their integrity, that after having themselves taken part in the slaying of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and his caravan, what suddenly made them repent? When they could not be trusted before the battle, what then transformed them now into reliable, trustworthy narrators? Also, when one takes part in a battle, he baturally endeavours to conceal the errors of his party, whereas here we find the opposite, i.e. fighters describing their own acts of aggression and violence in such a manner, as though their desire was naught, but to bring the anger of the entire Ummah against the caliphate of the Ummayyads.

Stage Two: In the Court of Yazid

Scenes of the wives and daughters of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) being dragged, without any consideration to their modesty, across the vast plains of Iraq, until arriving finally at Yazid’s palace in Sham; then being presented in a shameless manner in front of the caliph; and then having to witness Yazid,  boldly and mockingly scratch the noble, blessed face of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), etc, such scenes have become so entrenched in the minds of many, that had they to hear that the possibility of these incidents not having occurred at all only exists, but rather seems most probable, many, I am sure, shall desire nothing but to tear up the papers that dare make such a claim. Indeed, it is only the share of a few, who shall afford themselves time to re-investigate the matter, and allow themselves themselves the opportunity to view all angles justly.

If you are one such person, the following narrations shall surely be sufficient to make you understand that many issues regardin Karbala have never been throughly investigated, while numerous statements of unknown and unreliable narrators have been treated as though they are ‘authentic’, without any question and the need for further verification.

What happened when the news of the outcome of Karbala reached Yazid?

The following narration may help in answering that question…

a) Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad wrote to Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, informing him of what had occurred and seeking his counsel with regards to the children of Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and the women of his caravan. When the news reached Yazid, he cried and said:

‘O people of Iraq! I would have been more than pleased with your  submitting to my rule, without the need to have Hussain killed! This then is the result of rebelling and disobedience!
May Allah curse ibn Marjaana (i.e. Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad)! Just because Hussain was not his close family (he found no need to show mercy!) By Allah! Had I been there, I would have surely pardoned Hussain. May Allah show mercy to Hussain!

b) Yazid thereafter sent a reply to Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, ordering that the captives be sent to him, Zakhwan Abu Khalid had ten thousand dirhams given to them, (i.e. the family of Hadhrat Hussain radhiyallahu anhu), with which they could prepare for the journey.

c) The following has been narrated from a man from the tribe of Himyar, Ghaaz ibn Rabi’ah Jurashi:

By Allah, I was in Damascus with Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah when Zuhayr ibn Qais  [* Historians have generally given the names of the man who came with the head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) as Zuhayr ibn Qais al Jufi. Ibnul Adeem has expressed hia reservations about whether this too is authentic, since Zuhayr ibn Qais al Ju’fi was a man very close to Hadhrat Ali and Hadhrat Hasan (radhiyallahu anhum) and was regarded as a noble man of his tribe. For such a man to bring the blessed head of Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) in the manner described above, and to say what has been quoted above, that indeed seems quite far-fetched. Either another man having the same name beought it, which made historians mistakenly assume that it was this very Zuhayr al-Jufi, or perhaps, as with many aspects of Karbala, the inclusion of this ‘name’  is also a false allegation against this noble man. And Almighty Allah knows best). arrived. Yazid questioned him as with regards to what had happened at Karbala. He replied, ‘Glad tidings! O leader of the faithful! Allah has aided you and blessed you with victory. Hussain ibn Ali came upon us with seventeen of his family members and seventy of his devout followers. We asked them to surrender to the decision of the Amir, Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, or else be prepared to fight, they chose to fight.

Just as the sun was rising, we attacked from all sides and our swords had its full share in severing the necks of many of them, they then tried to flee, but in vain. In a very shoet space of time, the battle came to an end, with their bodies burning under the scorching sun, with winds blowing across, and vultures pecking at their bodies

As the eyes of Yazid swelled with tears, he said, I would have been pleased with your submitting (people of Iraq) without the need to have Hussain ibn Ali killed. May Allah curse ibn Marjaana (i.e. Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad)! Just because Hussain was not his close family (he found no need to show mercy!) By Allah! Had I been there, I would have surely pardoned Hussain. May Allah show mercy to Hussain!
Yazid gave no reward to the man who brought the head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to him. When the head was placed in front of Yazid, Yazid remarked, ‘By Allah, Had I been there, I would have never killed you!

Yazid thereafter recited the following from the poetry of Hussain ibn Hammaan:

‘He severs the head of men, who are indeed most beloved to us,
merely due to their disobedience and unjust attitude with us’

d) Allamah Haythami has narrated, with a sound chain of narrators, from the great jurist of Islam, Hadhrat Laith ibn Sa’d, regarding what transpired when the blessed head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was brought in front of Yazid. This narration shows a completely different picture to what is normally narrated, and deserves to be placed at the top of the list of the narrations dealing with this aspect of history.

The unique feature of this narration is that it has been narrated with a sound and strong chain of narrators, right upto Hadhrat Laith ibn Sa’d, which is something quite rare, when it comes to historical narrations. Tabrani has narrates this incident from Abu Zanba, who narrates from Yahya ibn Bukheir who narrates from Laith ibn Sa’d, both Yahya and Abu Zanba had been declared as reliable.

As for Laith ibn Sa’d, his status amongst the illustrious scholars of Islam is well known. Regarding him, Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) said, ‘Laith was a greater jurist than even Imam Malik, except that his students did not preserve his teachings’. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said regarding Laith, ‘I had seen many, but I have never seen a man like Laith ibn Sa’d!’ Hafidh Dhahabi has described Laith ibn Sa’d in the following words:

Layth ibn Sa’d, the Imam, Hafidh of Ahadith, Shaykh of Egypt and its leader!

Layth ibn Sa’d was born thirty years after the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), thus the narration which shall now be mentioned was obviously not what he had himself witnessed, but rather what he would be narrating from one of his seniors. Narrators like Laith ibn Sa’d would only leave out mentioning the name of the one they had heard from whom they were sure of his narration being reliable. If not, they would clearly make mention of his name, so that the responsibility to prove the authenticity of their narrations rest upon their shoulders.

The narration of Layth ibn Sa’d is as follows:

Hussain ibn Ali refused to be taken as captive and fell as a martyr, fighting against the forces of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, he and his companions were martyred at a place called ‘Tuff’
Ali ibn Hussain, Fatimah bint Hussain and Sakeenah bint Hussain were taken as captive and presented in front of ibn Ziyad.
Ali ibn Hussain had just turned mature. From where they were sent to Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, who ordered that Sakeena be placed at the back, attempting thereby to prevent her eyes falling upon the sight blessed head of her father, Hussain as well as upon her male family members, especially Ali ibn Hussain, who were in chains.

(* the last sentence, if correct, makes clear indication that chains were placed upon the surviving men of the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), and not upon the women. End of the note)

When the head was placed in front of Yazid, he tapped at the teeth of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and recited the following couplets:

‘We sever the heads of men, who are indeed most beloved to us
Merely due to their disobedience and unjust attitude with us’

Hearing this, Ali ibn Hussain (rahimahullah) spoke out, reciting the verse:

Whatever afflicts one, either in the lands or within one himself, it has all been recorded and predestined. Verily, that for Allah Almighty is most easy!

Yazid felt a pinch that after poetry to describe the situation, a young lad had answered him with the verse of Holy Qur’an. Yazid thus also read a verse:

Rather, this is due to what your hands have earned, and indeed Almighty Allah forgives plenty!

Ali ibn Hussain then said, ‘Listen, had Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had seen us in this condition, he would surely have desired that our chains be removed! Yazid replied ‘You are correct’, and ordered that the chains be immediately taken off. Ali ibn Hussain (rahimahullah) continued, By Allah, had we be standing in front of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) at such a distance, he would surely have desired that we be brought closer, Yazid again accepted and ordered that they be brought forward.

Fatimah and Sakeena then began raising their necks, to have a closer look at the blessed head of their illustrious father. Noticing this, Yazid attempted strerching out his body, in order to somehow obscure their view. Yazid then gave orders that preparations be made for their journey back to home. Yazid himself saw to all their needs and affairs until they left for Madinah Munawwarah. [Majmauz Zawaa’id]

e) Yaafi’i has quoted from Hafidh  Abul A’la Hamdani that when the blessed head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was brought in front of Yazid, he sent a message to Madinah Munawwarah, summoning the freed slaves of Banu Hashim. When they arrived, he joined with them many of the freed-slaves of Abu Sufyan, and with this party was the blessed head  as well as the surviving family of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) sent. Yazid made every possible arrangement to make the journey comfortable and ordered that their every need be fulfilled in Madinah Munawwarah. [Miratul Jinaan]

f) Allamah Zarkali, in his monumental work, Al A’laam, while discussing the life of Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) daughter, Fatimah (rahmatullahi alayha) has quoted the following incident:

When her father (Hadhrat Hussain) was martyred, she was taken to Sham, together with her sister, Sakeena, and her two aunts, Umme Kulthum bint Ali and Zaynab bint Aqeel. When they came in front of Yazid, she (Fatimah) said, ‘O Yazid, are the daughters of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) be treated as captives?’ Yazid immediately replied, ‘Rather they are free and noble! Enter upon your cousins (i.e. the women of the household of Yazid). Fatimah said, ‘I entered upon the women of the household of Yazid, and did not find a single one of them, except that she was mourning the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu)’

Discussing the issue of Yazid, Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah has written the following:

‘As for what some have mentioned, that the women of the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) were made captives, and taken around the town disgracefully, upon camels with no saddles, these narrations are nothing but clear-cut lies and fabrications. By the grace of Almighty Allah, the Muslim Ummah has never taken a Hashimi women as a captive, nor have they ever taken one as a slave. It is the ignorant and those drowned in their base desires that have spoken many lies in this regard!’

At another juncture, Ibn Taymiyyah has written:

‘Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, in accordance to what all have narrated, never gave the order that Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) be killed. All that he did was that he wrote to ibn Ziyad ordering that he prevent Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) from taking over Iraq.
Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) felt that the people of Iraq would support him and would fulfill the promises they had made in the letters they had sent to him. He thus sent his cousin, Muslim ibn Aqeel over to them, but when they had Muslim ibn Aqeel killed and pledged their allegiance to ibn Ziyad. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) decided to return to Madinah Munawwarah.
Unfortunately, an oppressive army of ibn Ziyad caught up with him. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) requested that he be allowed to proceed to Yazid, or to any of the borders of the Uslamic State, or to return to Madinah Munawwarah, but the army refused and demanded that he hand himself over to be arrested. Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) refused and in the fighting that followed attained martyrdom.
When the news of killing of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) reached Yazid, he expressed great remorse over it and his entire household went into mourning. Yazid never took any of the women of the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) as captive, rather him honoured them and rewarded them with gifts until their return to home.
As for the narrations which appear in the books of the Shia, which show that the women of the Ahle-Bayt were disgraced and taken into Sham as captive and disgraced there as well, these narrations are nothing but lies and fabrications. In fact, the Banu Ummayyah would show great respect to the Banu Hashim.

Imam Ghazali, in explaining why cursin Yazid should not be deemed permissible, made mention of this very point, i.e. since it has never been established that Yazid gave the command for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to be killed, it is not correct to accuse him of the deed. Imam Ghazali writes:

‘If one were to ask, ‘Is it permissible to curse Yazid, since he was the killer of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) or at least he was the one who gave the order that he (radhiyallahu anhu) be killed? Our reply shall be, ‘This has never been proven, thus forget cursing him, just to say that Yazid killed Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) or issued the order for him to be killed, that too shall not be permissible, since, without proof, to attribute a major sin to a Muslim is not permissible!’

Famous accusations levelled against Yazid

In an attempt to turn the Ummah against the Ummayyad rule, and to conceal the actual reasons for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) proceeding towards Iraq, many filthy stories and accusations were levelled against Yazid, all of which, as mentioned above, has never been proven. From these accusations, few have always headed the list, and thus deserve that some time be taken out for its refutation.

Accusation No. 1

The women of the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) were brought in front of Yazid in a disgraceful manner.

Answer to this accusation:

In what has this far been mentioned, much of this issue has already been discussed, wherein the following has come to light:

a) When the first news of the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) reached Yazid, he cried and expressed anger over why Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad had not first consulted with him. Yazid even mentioned that had he been there, he would have surely pardoned Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Even if Yazid was not sincere in this statement of his (as some would want us to believe), then too, no leader, no matter how foolish, will express sorrow and regret over a military error, announcing that he himself would never have done such an act, and immediately thereafter issue an order that the very women whose husbands and sons had just been killed in this error, an error which he wished could have been averted, now be disgraced, humiliated, and robbed of their honour and modesty.

b) Try to imagine, in the era of the Tabi’een, the wives, the sisters and daughters of the family of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), the most noble women of the Banu Hashim, being paraded around the streets, and being led through Iraq, all the way to the capital of the Muslim state in Sham, bareheaded, in a most wretched and humiliated condition, with not a single Tabi’ee standing up anywhere aling the journey in opposition, not even when they enter the most blessed land of Sham. Anyone, with a little knowledge of the virtues of the land of Sham and its people, especially during the era of the Tabi’een and Tab e Tabi’een would never be prepared to accept that such a thing could ever have occurred.

c) In the narrations that passed above, clear mention was made that chains were never put on the women of the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), and that when they arrived in front of Yazid, his first concern was that the eyes of Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) daughter does not fall upon the sight of the blessed head of her illustrious father, lest it cause her pain. Does it not seem improbable that on one hand a man is disgracing and humiliating a group of women, and at the very same time, he is concerned that their feelings should not be hurt?

d) Mention has already been made that when Yazid sent the order to Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad to have the family of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) sent over to him, this order was issued just after Yazid’s crying  over the misfortune that had occurred at Karbala. The order that the family be sent immediately, issued after shedding of tears, would indeed be more likely to be the one in which Yazid’s intention was to now make amends for the dreadful calamity that had befallen on them, and to offer them his condolence. This point is further proven from the fact that when the women arrived at the dwelling of Yazid, they found that the people of the house had already begun mourning. When Yazid’s intention was to offer his condolences, would he first have them humiliated and disgraced, and then express his sorrow over their loss??

e) In the narrations that have passed, mention has been made that when the order of Yazid reached Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad to have the family of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) sent over to Sham, a man named Abu Zakwan Khalid immediately had ten thousand dirhams handed over to them, so that they could make preparations for their journey. If the women were going ro be dragged to Sham in a humiliating manner, what then was the need to hand them such a huge some of money? Money is given so that items can be purchased to make a journey comfortable. Who bothers to ensure that captives travel comfortably.

In the points mentioned above, it has become quite clear that the narrations portraying the women of the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) being dragged, in a humiliating and disgraceful manner all the way to Sham, is nothing but fabrications and lies, intended to ebrage rhe Muslim Ummah against the Ummayyad caliphate. The fact of the matter is that Yazid, after hearing the calamity of Karbala, desired nothing but to immediately have the family of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) brought over to him, whereby he may share in their sorrow, and allow them to be consoled through the women of his house-hold. Then too, when the women of the caravan of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) finally appeared in front of Yazid, despite the efforts made to make their journey comfortable, Yazid still express disappointment when he saw their state, and remarked that had there been that relationship between ibn Ziyad and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) which existed between him and Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), Ibn Ziyad would never have sent the women in the condition that he did, i.e. he would have gone ro even further lengths in ensuring that their journey be even more comfortable and easy.

Accusation No. 2: When the blessed heas of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was placed in front of Yazid, he poked at it mockingly, and when a Sahabi rebuked him saying that he had seen Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) kissing those very lips of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), Yazid became angry and reprimanded the Sahabi.

Answer to this Accusation:

If one were to ponder over the poem which Yazid read when Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) blessed head was placed before him, and the tears that he shed at that moment, it would indeed seem very peculiar that one who had just cried and expressed sorrow over the death of a close family member, would the very next second mock and poke at the blessed head of the deceased.

b) The actual reason for many believing that Yazid mocked at the blessed head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) is due to a narration mentioned in the Tarikh of Tabari, quoting from the infamous Abu Mikhnaf (the Shia liar). The narration is as follows:

‘A Sahabi, by the name of Abu Barazah al-Aslami (radhiyallahu anhu) stood up and said, ‘Are you poking your stick into the mouth of Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), whereas this very mouth has been blessed that the lips of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) itself touched it!
O Yazid! You shall appear on the day of Qiyamah, with ibn Ziyad as your intercessor, whilst Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) shall appear with Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as his intercessor!

When one ponders over the narrations in which mention has been made that a Sahabi became irritated when witnessing the blessed head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) being mockingly poked at by Yazid, he shall find mention being made of one of two names, viz. Hadhrat Anas ibn Malik and Hadhrat Abu Barazah Al Aslami (radhiyallahu anhuma).

With regards to these men, Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah writes:

“It is known without any doubt that Abu Barazah and Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhuma) were in Iraq and not in Sham, whilst Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah was in Sham, not in Iraq, when Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was martyred. Thus, whoever narrates that Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah poked at the blessed of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), in the presence of these two men, he should be regarded as an open liar, one whose lies have been refuted with tawatur!”

Rather, what is known, and what has been narrated with much better and stronger sanads is that this incident actually occurred when the blessed head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was placed in front of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad. Later, either by mistake, or by evil intent, as shaitani liars are well known for, this filthy act had been attributed to Yazid, since he too had used a stick to touch the face of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), except that his act was done in love, not in mock.

The narrations that show this are as follows:

⚫ Imam Bukhari narrates from Hadhrat Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) that when the blessed head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was brought i  front of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, he began poking at it and he said something regarding the handsomeness of the face.

⚫ In the Musnad of Bazzar, with a sound sanad, it has been mentioned that Hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) rebuked ibn Ziyad, saying, ‘By Allah, I shall say something that shall put you to shame. Verily I had seen the blessed lips of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) on the very spot that you are poking at!’ Hearing this, ibn Ziyad pulled his hand back.

⚫ Certain narrations with a weaker sanad, mention at that very moment Hadhrat Zayd ibn Arqam spoke out saying, ‘Lift up your stick, for verily I had seen the lips of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) on that very spot!’

From the above it has become clear that Hadhrat Anas ibn Malik (radhiyallahu anhu) had rebuked ibn Ziyad when he poked at the blessed face of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), and not at Yazid,  since he (hadhrat Anas (radhiyallahu anhu) was not in Sham at that time. As with regards to Hadhrat Abu Barazah al-Aslami (radhiyallahu anhu), what is known for certain, as pointed out by Hafidh ibn Taymiyyah is that he too was not in Sham when the blessed head of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was brought there. In fact, so much can be said for certain that Hadhrat Abu Barazah al-Aslami (radhiyallahu anhu) was present in Iraq, not Sham, during the era of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad. If he had rebuked anyone with regard to poking at the blessed face of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), it would have been Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, and not Yazid.

Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah), in his Tarikh e Awsat, describing, Abu Barazah (radhiyallahu anhu), has stated:

Nadlah ibn Ubayd, Abu Barazah al-Aslami (radhiyallahu anhu), a resident of Basrah. After the death of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) he came in the presence of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad.

Accusation No. 3

Yazid was an evil man, whose acts of adultery, drinking of liquor, abolishing the Islamic punishments, keeping wild animals and monkeys as pets, etc, were common knowledge.


The first issue that needs to be discussed with regards to these accusations is regarding who had seen Yazid doing these acts. Merely stating that many books of history have narrations regarding this can in no way be sufficient, especially when it has now become clear that the entire Karbala episode was merely to crush the Ummayyad caliphate. The possibility that these shaitani forces would be working tirelessly to portray the rulers of the caliphate as evil, merely to instigate the masses against them, now becomes most probable. In the light of the above, the need arises to allow every accusation made against Yazid to be brought under the spotlight.

Let us accept that which is proven through Shari’i proofs. What need is there for us to insist that we accept as truth beyond doubt which fails to stand up in court?

Is this approach of ours not against what Almighty Allah has asked for in the following verses:

O people of Imaan!, if a man whose honesty and uprighteousness has not been established, if such a man brings you news, first authenticate it (before accepting and practicing upon its demands), lest you wrongly attack a nation in your ignorance, an act which you shall then have to lament!

With regards to lending an ear to an accusation of adultery, Almighty Allah says:

Why is it not that believing men and women hear such an accusation, they do not think good of their own people?

In fact, if such an accusation is made against a chaste women, and she asked for her right, the ones levelling the accusations would have been ordered to bring four just witnesses to back up their accusation, failing which they themselves would then be subjected to eighty lashes each.

Almighty Allah says,

Why do they not bring forth four witnesses?
If they cannot do so, they themselves are, in the court of Almighty Allah, the biggest liars.

Thus, when so much emphasis is laid when it comes to lending an ear to accusation, it seems only fair that Yazid also be allowed this right. Also, let it be understood that asking for an investigation into the accusations levelled against Yazid, this has nothing to do with love or hatred (Na’udhubillah) for the Ahle-bayt.

When one studies the narrations spread throughout the books of history, describing Yazid as transgressor, adulterer, etc, one shall perhaps find that the prime source of all these narrations is a narration which Tabari has narrated in his Tarikh. The narration, with its sanad is as follows:

Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah ordered that Walid handed the governorship of Madinah Munawwarah to Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Sufyan. A young inexperienced man thus came overto Madinah as governor, one who hardly paid any attention to the needs of the state and to what he had been made responsible over. He (Uthman ibn Muhammad) sent a delegation from the people of Madinah Munawwarah to Yazid, amongst whom were Abdullah ibn Hanzalah (radhiyallahu anhu); Abdullah ibn Abu Amr ibn Hafs ibn Mughira al Makhzumi; Munzir ibn Zubayr; and other influetial individuals of Madinah Munawwarah.
When they came to Yazid, he showered them with gifts and honoured them greatly. After departing, all returned to Madinah Munawwarah, except Munzir ibn Zubayr who proceeded to Basrah, to spend time with Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad. When these men returned to Madinah Munawwarah, they stood up amongst the people and began criticizing and pointing at faults of Yazid.
They said, ‘We have come from a man, who has no Deen (religion), who drinks liquor, plays with drums, keeps dogs as pets, spends his private time with rot of the society. We thus make you witness that we have broken our allegiance from this man’ After hearing this, the people of Madinah Munawwarah followed suit.

The problems with this narration:

a) Tabari narrates this incident from Abu Mikhnaf, who narrates from Abdul Malik ibn Nawfal, who narrates from Humayd ibn Hamza. The sad state of Abu Mikhnaf, especially when it comes to lending fuel to Shia propaganda, has previously been mentioned. His name appearing in the sanad of this narration is itself more than sufficient reason  for this entire accusation to be discarded.

b) ibn Asakir has also narrated regarding this incident, with a much stronger chain, but in his narration, a completely different picture comes to the fore.

Ibn Asakir narrates from Abu-Ghalib, Muhammad ibn Hasan al Basri (a high-ranking, reliable narrator), who narrates from Mubarak ibn Abdul Jabbar (a high-ranking, reliable narrator), who narrates from Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahid ( a reliable narrator) who narrates from Ahmad ibn Ibraheem Bazzaz (a very high-ranking, reliable narrator), who narrates from Abu Bakr, Ahmed ibn Muhammad ibn Abi Shaybah (a high-ranking, reliable narrator), who narrates from Abu Bakr, Ahmad ibn Haarith, Kharraz (a high-ranking, reliable narrator), who narrates from Abu Ali, al-Mada’ini (a very high-ranking, reliable narrator, whose historical narrations holds great weight), who narrates from Maslamah ibn Muhaarib (who has been classified as reliable by ibn Hibban).

Maslamah ibn Muhaarib narrates this incident from four men, viz.

1) Dawud ibn Abi-Hind (who has been classified as reliable by ibn Hibban).

2) Ali ibn Zaid (the writer has been unable to ascertain the status of this narrator, due to his full name not being known).

3) Salamah ibn Uthman (who has been classified as reliable by ibn Hibban).

4) Aamir ibn Hafs (also known as Suhaym ibn Hafs, who has been classified as reliable by Ibn Nadeen in his al-Fahrist)

These four narrate from:

1) Ashyakh min Ahl Madinah ‘senior members of Madinah Munawwarah. The name of the seniors have not been given, but in the mere mention that they were ‘seniors’, this itself lends great indication that their words can be trusted.

2) Awanah (ibn al-Hakam, who has been classified as reliable by Hafidh al-A’jeli)

3) Yazid ibn Iyadh (the scholars have termed him as unreliable and some have labelled him as fabricator of Ahadith).

This then is the state of the sanad of the narration that is now going to be  mentioned. As a historical narration, it indeed seems quite strong, much stronger than what Tabari has narrated from Abu Mikhnaf, since the only major issue is with Yazid ibn Iyadh, but as the sanad shows, he is not the sole narrator of this incident. (And Almighty Allah knows best).

The narration is as follows:

Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah appointed Uthman ibn Muhammad ibn Abu Sufyan as governor over Madinah Munawwarah. When the time of Hajj approached, he ordered that he lead the Hajj. This was in the 62nd year of Hijrah. After Hajj, when Uthman ibn Muhammad returned to Madinah Munawwarah, the people of Madinah Munawwarah requested that a delegation be sent to the Amir (i.e. Yazid) to clarify and explain some issues, the news of which had reached the ears of Yazid.

Uthman ibn Muhammad complied and sent and sent a delegation comprising of members from the Quraysh, as well as other tribes. Amongst these members were Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far, Abdullah ibn Abi Amr ibn Hafs; a man from Banu Adi, from the Suraqah tribe; Uthman ibn ‘Ata; Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm, Abdullah ibn Hanzalah (radhiyallahu anhu), Abbas ibn Sahl ibn Sa’d (radhiyallahu anhu) and Hadhrat Ma’qeel ibn Sinan (radhiyallahu anhu)

When they reached Sham, they were hosted by Walid ibn Utbah for ten days, due to Yazid being at another place, called Huwwareen (a famous place in Sham). Finally, on the day of Jumu’ah, the delegation got the chance to meet Yazid, in the presence of Walid ibn Utbah and Amr ibn Saeed. Yazid welcomed them and sought forgiveness for the delay, explaining that he was at present suffering with severe pain in the leg, so much so that even if a fly were to sit on it, it would feel as though a rock had fallen upon it.

First the old man from the Suraaqah tribe went forward, but due to having a sickness which caused his body to shake, he tumbled and landed upon the aching leg of Yazid. (Without showing any anger) Yazid ordered his minister to fulfil whatever requests the Suraaqi man had. Abbad ibn Sahl ibn Sa’d stood up next and came forward (without realizing) he leaned upon the very leg which was aching, causing Yazid to shiver in pain. Abbas ibn Sahl had twenty requests, all of which Yazid promised to fulfil.

Uthman ibn ‘Ata stood up next. He lifted his upper garment, ecposing his back and scars made most probably by a whip. He pointed to Walid ibn Utbah, indicating that he had unjustly ordered that he be whipped. Walid ibn Utbah reasponded, ‘I had never issued such an order, neither have I ever ordered the people of Iraq to remove Saeed (ibn Aas) from Kufa!’ The argument continued until Yazid intervened and ordered both to remain quiet. Yazid thereafter issued an order that the requests and needs of the delegation be fulfilled.
After granting them all their needs, Yazid added further gifts from his sides and thereafter permitted them to take leave.

The delegation returned, upset with Yazid and intent on breaking their allegiance. Walid ibn Utbah returned to Madinah Mubawwarah and Abdullah ibn Ja’far chose to remain by Yazid. (According to one narration, Abdullah ibn Ja’far was not part of the delegation, but rather he only reached after the delegation had departed, and he thereafter remained with Yazid, until the war of Harrah.

From this narration, many things can be learnt regarding Yazid’s manner of rule, and the tolerance he showed in his court. This is something that is hardly ever heard regarding Yazid. Besides this, there are three points indeed worthy of consideration:

1) The reason of sending the delegation was mentioned, i.e. to clarify and explain some issues, the news of which had reqched the ears of Yazid. What were these issues? It seems that already in Madinah Munawwarah there were some issues regarding Yazid  and his ministers that had upset certain prominent men of Madinah Munawwarah and had made them utter statements, which were thereafter conveyed to Yazid. The group now wished to be able to directly speak with Yazid and to explain the reasons behind their criticizing his government.

2) When the group left, despite receiving what they received, they were still upset with Yazid and intent on breaking their allegiance. Why?

The reason could either be what was mentioned in the narration of Tabari, i.e. they had witnessed, during the one meeting which they had with him, on the day of Jumu’ah, acts of immorality, drinking of liquor, playi g with dogs and monkeys, etc. If this was really the reason, then why would Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu), the nephew of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and the son of Hadhrat Ja’far Tayyar (radhiyallahu anhu), after seeing much filth being committed  from the seat of caliphate, still chose to remain with Yazid after the delegation left, as the narration mentions. Even if it is said that he only came after the  after the delegation, then too the question would arise, how was it possible for the delegation, in only one meeting, on the say of Jumu’ah, to see such happenings, yet Abdullah ibn Ja’far, Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhuma) and so many other prominent figures, who spent great amounts of time with Yazid, they had never witnessed such affairs?

The other possibility is that the reason for them being upset with Yazid had nothing to do with Yazid’s personal life at all, but was rather the very reason for which the delegation had come, i.e they were not happy with certain ministers and felt Yazid was not doing enough to address the situation. Thus, in the narration we read that Yazid gave them whatever they asked, but when the issue of Walid ibn Utbah having unjustly lashed the old man from Suraaqah tribe was brought up, Yazid ordered that the matter be left aside. If one were to now ask why did Yazid not punish Walid for his wrong acts, the answer would be that such accusations against ministers were not uncommon, rather from the era of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), ministers were being accused of wrong behaviour, but whenever a thorough investigation would be conducted, a different picture would come to the fore, proving the innocence of the minister. Yazid was well aware of this and felt that there was no real need to ask now for an investigation, especially since Walid ibn Utbah had already been removed from his post as governor over Madinah Munawwarah. (And Allah Almighty knows best)

Thus then brings an end to the discussion of the narration of Tabari, quoted from Abu Mikhnaf, wherein Yazid has been described as an open transgressor.

The fact of the matter is that the shaitani forces, as they had done in the past, and continue doing till today, were working tirelessly in spreading propaganda against Yazid, in the land of Hijaz. Those who believed this propaganda cannot be blamed for falling in the trap, since they were not able to see the picture of the various happening in all the Muslim states at that time, as we see it today. The knowledge and statements that they had made regarding Yazid would be based on the news that the messengers would convey to them. When many messengers would come with the same story, it would only seem correct that one believe it, since why should so many people be speaking lies?

Today however, after it has been made apparent that a shaytani scheme, spread out throughout the Muslim-lands, was being put in place, to bring an end to the Islamic caliphate, in which hypocrites carrying false messages were made to stand up in different areas, giving the impression that the news they were conveying was one hundred percent true, now if one still falls foe the shaitani propaganda of that era, without making any effort to verify the original source of the information, that would indeed be a foolish deed.

In fact, even at the time when the people of Madinah Munawwarah, afyer having heard the shaitani version of what had happened at Karbala, and so many reports regarding the evil personality of Yazid, decided to break their allegiance, prominent members from the Sahabah and Tabi’een forbade them from doing so, and refused to support them in their act.

Prominent men who refused to break their allegiance to Yazid

1) Hadhrat Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah, the illustrious son of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu)

Allamah ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) narrates the following in Al-Bidayah, as well as Dhahabi in his Tareekhul Islam:

When the delegation of Madinah Munawwarah returned feom Yazid, Abdullah ibn Mut’ee (radhiyallahu anhu) and his companions came to Hadhrat Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah (the son of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and requested that he too break his allegiance to Yazid.
Ibn Hanafiyyah flatly refused to do so. Abdullah ibn Mut’ee then mentioned that Yazid is an alcoholic, one who abandons Salaah, and breaks the command of Almighty Allah.
Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah replied, ‘I had never seen such things, whereas I had spent a good amount of time with Yazid. Rather, I found him to be punctual in his Salaah , always desirous of good, always enquiring regarding the Shari’i law in matters which arose in front of him, a man firm on the Sunnah!
The group answered that perhapsYazid had behaved that way  during his stay just to put on a show and deceive him. Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah replied, ‘What reason was there for him to pretend in front of me? He has no reason to fear me, nor did I have anything which he needed from me! What, did Yazid allow you the opportunity to watch him drinking liquor? If Yazid had drunk this liquor in your presence, then you are just as guilty, since you took part in the gathering (without making any objection at that time)! Amd if you were not present, and never personally saw Yazid drinking liquor, then it is not permissible for you to give witness of what you do not know for certain!
The group replied, ‘These are known facts, even though we did not personally witness it’ ibn Hanafiyyah answered, ‘Almighty Allah has not allowed this, Almighty Allah states, ‘Unless one gives witness of matters one knows for certain’

The group responded, ‘Perhaps you fear that when we choose a new leader, we shall overlook you and choose someone else? We promise that you alone shall be appointed as your leader. Ibn Hanafiyyah replied, ‘I do not regard this fight of yours with the caliph as permissible Irrespective of whether I am made your leader or I am made a follower’

The group then asked, ‘Then why did you fight with your father (Hadhrat Ali) against Hadhrat Mu’awiyah?’ Ibn Hanafiyyah replied, ‘Bring someone like my father, and I shall join him, fighting for what my father fought for!’ The group then requested that he atleast allow his two sons to join them in their fight, to which Ibn Hanafiyyah replied that if he felt it right for them to join the fight, he would have himself joined.

Finally the group asked that the minimum he do is to stand up and encourage the people to fight them in their fight against the caliph, Ibn Hanafiyyah replied, ‘SubhanAllah! Do you want that I encourage towards that which I do not regard as right. If I had to do such a thing, I would not be sincere to Almighty Allah’.

The group then threatened that they would then force him to say what they wanted. He replied, ‘If you do so, I shall stand up and warn the people that they should fear Allah, and should not please the creation by doing that which displeases the Creator!’ Saying this, Ibn Hanafiyyah left for Makkah Mukarramah.

Understand well whose testimony is this. Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah is the son of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), whose love and respect for his two brothers, Hadhrat Hasan and Hussain (radhiyallahu anhuma) was unimaginable, and whose piety and bravery was metaphorical. On the plains of Karbala, it was his beloved brother, Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and his family members that were martyred. Had he seen or known anything evil of Yazid, would he ever have concealed it?

From this testimony in favour of Yazid, together with the accusations of fisq (open transgression, etc) being refuted, another accusation that gets clearly refuted is the accusation that Yazid had treated the family of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) with great disrespect and dishonour, when they were brought to him, after the battle of Karbala. Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah gave this testimony after having heard from his sister Zaynab bint Ali and his nephew, Zainul Aabideen (Hadhrat Hussain’s son) what had transpired on the plains of Karbala, and what treatment they had received at the hands of Yazid. Had they seen anything evil or had they received any form of ill-treatment from Yazid, they would have surely mentioned it to him, and he would have at the very least, made some indication towards it in the testimony of his.

For this reason, in the book Bil Zillat, written in refutation of tijani’s filthy book, Thumma Ahtadeet, the author, while refuting the accusations made against Yazid, writes the following:

As for the slander made against Yazid, regarding being an open transgressor, drinking liquor, etc, these are nothing but blatant lies.
And it would seem best that we let Hadhrat Muhammad ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib (Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah) himself answer these accusations, since he had spent time by Yazid, so he should know better!

In fact, during ibn Hanafiyyah’s stay by Yazid, an interesting dialogue took place between him and Yazid, which is indeed worth mentioning:

Balaazari, in Ansaab ul Ashraaf narrates:
When Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah went to bid farewell to Yazid, after having spent a considerable amount of time by Yazid in Damascus, (which occurred after the incident or Karbala, as reported in other narrations), Yazid, who had showed him great respect all along, asked him the following question, ‘O Abul Qasim!, if you have seen any evil trait or unbecoming quality in me, please inform me. I promise that I shall immediately refrain from that and I shall do as you advice’ Ibn Hanafiyyah replied, ‘By Allah, had I seen you doing any wrong, I would have immediately rebuked you and prohibited you therefrom, for Almighty Allah has made it obligatory upon the people of knowledge to never conceal the truth!, I have not seen from you, but that which is good!’

2) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), the illustrious son of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).

After the incident of Karbala, when many people of Madinah Munawwarah were breaking the pledge of allegiance they had made to Yazid, on account of what they were hearing regarding him, Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) not only remained firm on his pledge, but in fact severely reprimanded those who had broken theirs.

Imam Ahmad narrates in his Musnad, with a strong (Saheeh) sanad:

‘When the people were breaking their allegiance, Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) gathered his sons and family members and said to them, ‘We have pledged allegiance to this man, and I have heard Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, ‘One who deceives shall have a flag raised for him on the Day of Judgement, which shall expose him as a deceiver’. Verily, after ascribing partners to Allah, the greatest act of deception one could do  is that he breaks his allegiance (which he has made to the Muslim leader) . O my family! Let not anyone of you pull his hand away from Yazid, nor even entertain this thought. If you do such an act, Abdullah ibn Umar shall cut off from you totally!”

3) ibn Kathir, in Al-Bidayah, narrates that Abu Ja’far (Baqir) said, ‘On the day of Harrah (when army of Yazid attacked Madinah Munawwarah) from the family of Abu Talib and from the family of Abdul Muttalib, not a single person rose to fight the army. And when the leader of the army, Muslim ibn Uqbah arrived, he (Muslim) honoured Abu Ja’far, made him sit close to him, and handed him a document promising them safety’.

The reason that these illustrious personalities refused to take part in the upeising against Yazid could either be that they never at all believed the accusations made against Yazid, as Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah clearly stated, or it coule have been for the reason that the Ahadith of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) strongly condemned breaking one’s allegiance, merely on account of news that reaches one, poetraying the Muslim leader ro be evil. Ubaadah ibn Samit (radhiyallahu anhu), discussing the pledge that they had made with Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), explained one of the points to be, as narrated by Imam Bukhari in his Sahih:

And we do not fight against our leaders, until and unless we find them involved in open disbelief, for which we have substantial proofs’

In fact, when one studies these words of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), one shall realize that the Ummah were being warned that shaitani forces shall time and again try to incite the masses in standing up against their leaders, ensuring that in-fighting continues, and government stability is never attained. The words used by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), i.e., ‘until and unless we find them involved in open disbelief’ this phrase makes clear indication that such propaganda shall one day be made against Muslim leaders which many shall  open-heartedly believe, despite not having seen or heard the actual witness and not having verified the report. In such conditions, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) showed the safest route for the Ummah, that as long as open disbelief is not proven, no matter what accusations reach your ears regarding your leader, do not fall prey to the propaganda, but rather remain true to your pledge.

To better understand this point, in recent history, for the purpose of totally destroying the Muslim Caliphate (known as The Ottoman Empire), an all-out effort was made to paint an evil picture of the Sultan in the minds of the masses. So strong was the propaganda against the Sultan, that in the lands of Hijaz, high-ranking scholars signed verdicts which showed the permissibility and in fact ordered the Arab masses to rise up against the Turkish ruler. At that time, Shaykhul Hind, Hadhrat Maulana Mahmudul Hasan al-Deobandi, was also in Makkah Mukarramah. Due to the high position he held, especially in the eyes of the Muslim public of India and surrounding areas, he too was ordered to sign. Shaykhul Hind, even after being threatened with life imprisonment, flatly refused.

The grand Mufti of Makkah Mukarramah summoned Shaykhul Hind in an attempt to get his signature and questioned the reason behind his refusal to sign, despite the fact that the present Caliph, Sultan Abdul Hamid, has openly committed acts of Kufr and fisq. The crux of Shaykhul Hind’s answer is the very point that this article is attempting to drive forward, i.e. as long as there is no concrete evidence of open kufr, breaking one’s allegiance merely on the basis of ‘widespread allegations’ could never be deemed permissible. Shaykhul Hind understood well that lending an ear  to the allegations being made to the present Caliph and calling for a better caliph, despite this call seeming so ‘rosy’, would ultimately end in disaster for the entire Muslim world.

Shaykhul Hind would years later meet Ashraf Baig, a genral from the cabinet of Sultan Abu Hamid, who would reveal that most of the allegations  against the caliph had in fact been fabricated solely to incite the Muslim world, and especially the Arabs, against the Turkish rule. Discussing this meeting, Hadhrat Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani quotes in Aseer al Malta:

Ashraf Baig was amongst the favorites of Sultan Abdul Hamid Marhoom. He had a unique talent to recognize  talents of others and from childhood he developed a concern for all the internal and external political matters.

Many a time, when the mention of Sultan Abdul Hamid Marhoom would spring up in our discussions, he would speak out saying,

“People criticize the Sultan with regards to his piety. The truth however is that the Sultan was an extremely pious and ascetic man. His abstinence from that which has been forbidden was of a very high level. I should know better, since I had the opportunity to observe him from the closest of ranges.

I still remember him spanking me when he found me involving myself in acts of childhood mischief. The misconception regarding the Sultan arose due to evil elements that surrounded him, whose intention was nothing but to make the masses lose faith in his manner of rule. We made continuous efforts to remove these misconceptions and answer the objections and accusations that were being levelled against the Sultan, but it could never match the propaganda of the evil forces all around.’

The efforts of these evil elements finally led to Ashraf Baig himself being exiled from Turkey.  (End of the quote from Aseer e Malta)

The outcome of lending an ear to the allegations being made against Sultan Abdul Hamid, the Turkish Caliph, as Maulana Shaykhul Hind had feared, resulted in the caliphate shortly thereafter being totally abolished, the Muslim world being torn into separate states, kuffar forces now freely pouncing upon Muslim lands, knowing fully well that no Muslim country shall stand up for the next, and many other disastrous consequences.

Today, when one ponders over the heart-breaking scenes that the Ummah has already seen, and continues seeing, due to the Arab rebellion against the Ottoman Empire, one gets some glimpse of the foresight that Almighty Allah had blessed Shaykhul Hind with, regarding world politics and shaitani trap, and of the deep understanding he had of the Qur’an and the Sunnah, but alas!, and that time none were willing to accept his words!.

From the brief history of how Shaykhul Hind viewed the Arabs decision to revolt against the Ottoman Empire, due to the many allegations against its leader that had reached their ears, and the outcome of the rebellion, much can be understood regarding how shaitani forces operate, how they incite the masses against their own leaders, and how they ensure that Muslim government stability is never attained.

Continuing with the accusations made against Yazid, if one were mere going to ponder over these accusations, one shall relaize that those around Yazid, i.e. the illustrious Sahabah and the Tabi’een of Sham, had never spoken out against Yazid. After having just come out of the period where the chair of the Caliphate had been occupied by the Sahabah, afyer having seen such pious personalities rule from their courts with justice and piety, can one ever imagine that in Yazid’s short period of rule, he (Yazid) could immediately stand up with the courage and audacity to commit such filthy acts, as has been ascribed to him, in full view of those around, yet not a single Sahabi nor a Tabi’i of Sham finds the courage to speak out against his wrongs!.

Could one ever entertain the possibility that all the great jurists, judges, mufassirieen, mujahideen of that era, of the blessed land of Sham, and particularly, the area of Damascus, were guilty of the crime of abandoning their duty of ‘inviting to good and prohibiting crom evil’ and none had that Imaani fervour to speak the truth in front of an ‘oppressive’ ruler? Understand well, that when one accepts the accusations levelled against Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, one is in fact also accepting an accusation which has been made against the rest of the Ummah of that era, since they showed their happiness with the Ummayyad dynasty.

Eight Points Worth Pondering Over

Together with the above, ponder slighty over the following eight points:

1) Ali ibn Hussain (Zainul Aabideen), the son of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), spent over a month with Yazid, just after the incident of Karbala, during which time, as narrations mention, Yazid would not eat a meal except that he was present, yet not a single narration has come from the lips of Zainul Aabideen (rahimahullah) in which mention is made that Yazid would drink liquor, or commit filthy acts in his court. Had Yazid been perpetrating these acts so openly, at least once he would have seen something, and the demand of his Imaan would surely have made him speak out, if not in front of Yazid, then atleast in front of others.

2) Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far and Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhuma) were amongst those who enjoyed a very close and strong relationship with Yazid. Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) served as Yazid’s governor over Kufa, and thereafyervwas appointed as Yazid’s senior advisor in Sham itself, in the matters of the state.

As for Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu), that noble Sahabi, regarding whom Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam said, ‘Abdullah resembles me in appearance and character’, mention had already been made in the above passages, that Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far, after coming to Yazid, remained with him until the incident of Harrah (the attack made by Yazid’s army against the people of Madinah Munawwarah).

Despite the closeness that these two illustrious men enjoyed with Yazid, we find no record of any of them ever criticizing or even mentioning with regards to Yazid drinking liquor, abandoning Salaah, etc. How could it be that those who were far had witnessed these affairs, whereas those close by remained totally unaware of it?

3) Qadhi Abu Bakr ibn al-Arabi (rahimahullah) has mentioned the following in Al-Awaasim:

If one were to say that Yazid was addicted to the battle, we shall say, ‘This accusation shall not be heard and considered as long as two witnesses are not presented, who are your witnesses?’

4) In the footnotes of Al-Awaasim, under the above quotation, weitten by Muhibbudeen al-Khateeb and Mahmood Mahdi al-Istanbuli, the following has been mentioned:

(‘The fact of the matter is that the Rawafid (Shia) had attributed many lies to Yazid, attempting thereby to create doubt in the authenticity of the Qur’an, by thereafter implicating Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu( as the guilty one, since he had instated Yazid as caliph, and after Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu), to implicate the Khulafa-e-Rashideen, since they had instated Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) as governor during their rule. After implicating all these illustrious men in the so-called ‘crimes’ of Yazid, the question would then be posed that when these men were in the forefront of preserving the Noble Qur’aan, how can the Qur’an ever be accepted as authentic? (Naudhubillah)

When Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) passed away, Yazid was absent. When he returned to Damascus, a fresh allegiance was pledged at his hands. He thereafter gathered rhe people and delivered a sermon, which greatly indicates towards his fear of Almighty Allah. He said after praising Allah and sending salutation upon Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

O people! Mu’awiyah was the servant of Almighty Allah, whom Almighty Allah had greatly favoured and Almighty Allah has now called him back. He (Hadhrat Mu’awiyah was greater than those after him, but lower in rank to those who passed before him. I shall not extol his virtues in front of Almighty Allah, for verily Almighty Allah knows best regarding him. If Almighty Allah pardons him, it is solely through his mercy, and if Almighty Allah chooses to punish him, then it shall be due to what he had committed.

Now that I have been made in-charge of your matters you shall neither find me too hard in attaining what I desire, nor offering excuses when I err. And only that occurres what Almighty Allag wishes! Verily Mu’awiyah had ordered that you go out for Jihad on the sea. As for me, I shall not force anyone to go into the Roman lands during the winter season. Mu’awiyah would grant you in stipends, which would be spread out in three portions a year. As for me, I shall grant you your entire yearly stipend all at once.’

The narrator says that after the sermon the people departed, regarding none better suited for the job than him. (Al-Bidayah)

From among the sermon of Yazid that indicates towards his intelligence, far-sightedness and piety, is the following, as quoted from Iqdul Fareed:

‘All praise belongs solely to Almighty Allah. I praise him and seek his help. I trust upon him and seek his protection against the evil within me, and from the evil of my deeds. Whosoever Allah guides, none can lead astray, and whosoever Allah misguides, none can bring him to the straight path. I bear witness there is none worthy of worship but Allah alone, and I bear witness that Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is the servant and the messenger of Allah, who Allah had selected and chosen to receive revelation of a Book, which Allah has sent down bit by bit, which Allah had honoured all over else, which Allah has himself protected. In it, Allah Almighty has explained all important matters through beautiful parables, has defined what is permissible and what is not, and has issued severe warnings for disobedience and not heeding to His call. All this has been done so that man can now never say that he was not properly informed.

O Allah’s servants, I advice you with the fear of Allah, who is The Most Great, Who initiated all affairs unto whom, when its time is up, shall all affairs return  once again.
I warn you of the harms of this world , for verily it seems sweet and lush, but in fact gives only little and its fruits are indeed temporary. Its pleasures are not eternal and it cannot be trusted. It is nothing but a destroyer of one’s deeds and a deceiver!
When it finally comes to those who are greedy for it, it only remains by him for a short while, as Almighty Allah has described in Surah Kahf with the verse:

We implore Almighty Allah, who is our Sustainer, Lord, Creator and Master, that he grants us protection from the horrors of the Day of Judgement.
Verily, the greatest and most unidue advice is that of the Qur’an.
Almighty Allah commands: ‘When the Qur’an is recited, listen attentively. Perhaps you shall become the recipient of Divine mercy’

Yazid thereafter ended his sermon by reciting the last words of Surah Taubah

(End of the quotation from the footnotes of Al Awaasim)

5) Hadhrat Ali ibn Abi Talib (radhiyallahu anhu) displayed his love for the three Khulafa that preceded him by naming his sons after them. The sons that were born after Hadhrat Hasan, Hadhrat Hussain and Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah (radhiyallahu anhuma), were named Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthmaan . Also he got his daughter, Umme Kulthum married to Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu).
In a similar manner Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu) (the nephew of Hadhrat Ali and the son of Hadhrat Ja’far Tayyar (radhiyallahu anhu), also displayed his love for the Khulafah by naming one of his sons as Abu Bakr and another Mu’awiyah.

This Mu’awiyah (the grand-nephew of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), thereafter named one of his sons as Yazid. Had he regarded the Caliph, Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, to be evil, he would never have tolerated that his son now become known amongst all as Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah!.

6) Ibn Aasim has narrated the following through a sound sanad:

Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) once asked his son, Yazid, after noticing within him, ardent love to be just and to emulate the Khulafa e Rashideen, as to how would he rule and conduct himself with the Ummah when he would be made the Caliph. Yazid replied,
O my beloved father, By Allah, I will deal with them how Umar ibn Khattab (radhiyallahu anhu) would deal with them!’

7) Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) recorded the statement of Abdur-Rahmaan ibn Abi Mad’ur regarding Yazid. He said:

Some of the men of knowledge informed me that the last words of Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah before his death were:

‘O Allah! Do not take me to task for that which I never intended, nor was I ever happy with’
O Allah! Decide between me and Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad!’
Abdur Rahmaan has also narrated that the writing on the ring of Yazid was:

‘I believe in Allah, the Supreme Authority’

8) Muhibbudeen Khateeb, after having made thorough research into the life of Yazid and the allegation levelled against him, has summarized his understanding of Yazid in the rootnotes of Al-Awaasim. His words are indeed worthy of atleast a few minutes of sincere pondering. He writes:

If the barometer for Yazid being worthy of the Caliphate was that he reached the levels of Abu Bakr and Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma) in all their traits and manners of governing, then this is something that, in the history of Islam none has ever reached, not even Hadhrat Umar ibn Abdul Azeez (rahimahullah). And if the Barometer is of that one’s character be stable; that one be firm on the shariah; just; concerned with the affairs of the masses; desirous that Jihaad continues and that Islamic borders continues expanding, and that one be gentle and kind to all, irrespective of whether the one in front is a lane individual or a party, if the barometer for being worthy of caliphate, then after having made a thorough research into the life of Yazid and viewing him from an extremely close angle. One shall surely agree that Yazid was not less superior than many that appeared later, whom history continues lauding and praising till today.


Then this is the other picture of Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, one that perhaps many had never dreamt of before. The purpose behind providing these details is not in any way meant to classify Yazid as an angel, for Almighty Allah aline knows the conditions of the heart. Rather the intention was merely to show that Yazid’s personal life had nothing to do with the issue of Karbala, and that the accusations made famous after the battle by shaytani forces, in an attempt to make the Ummah obvilious of the reality of Hadhrat Hussain’s (radhiyallahu anhu) going over to Iraq, have hardly any substance which would be acceptable in any court. Now that one has understood the reality behind these accusations, it would indeed be an act of immaturity if one were to remain adamant that Yazid is still and  shall always be guilty, no matter what.

Yes, if one were to now jump to the other extreme, and start singing the praises of Yazid, such a person should indeed be flogged, since not only is his expression of happiness over the fateful events of that era a sign of hypocrisy, but in fact a match with which the flames of infighting are re-kindled.

It is for this reason, in my understanding, that when a man spoke highly of Yazid in front of Hadhrat Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah), and boldly referred to him (Yazid) as Ameerul Mumineen, despite his already having passed away, Umar ibn Abdul Aziz (rahimahullah), understanding that such sentences could suddenly reignite the flames of internal war that has just been extinguished, ordered that the man been given twenty lashes.   [Siyar A’laam al Nubala]

The After-math of Karbala and the Battle of Harrah

Justice to the incident of Karbala can only be done if one looks at it from ten years before the incident and ten years after. This rule in fact applies to all political events. If one studies an event only by looking at the few days during which it occurred, in all probability, one shall accuse a party that has been framed. To find the truth, one needs to search in the past, to see which parties were deeply active in preparing the scene of what had just occurred, and then one has to wait patiently until the future shows which party benefitted the most from what had occurred. In the incident of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) and Yazid, the past and the future clearly indicate towards the existence of evil forces operating from Iraq, manipulating scenes and instigating one group of sincere men against the other.

When the battle of Karbala ended, many felt that this sad episode in history has now terminated, whereas in reality it was only beginning.

The blood of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was taken, so that it could be used as a bait to be dangled in front of the Muslim world, forcing them to once again draw the swords of infighting, which Hadhrat Mu’wiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had just managed to have sheath.

Before the incident of Karbala, the inhabitants of Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah had accepted Yazid as their ruler, thus very few joined Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) when he left for Iraq. The attitude of the people of Hijaaz however changed after hearing exagerrated stories of what had transpired on the plains of Karbala, from shaytani hypocrites who were streaming in from all sides, each with a story more more dreadful than the one than preceded it.

Just as the Shaytani forces has desired, the fire of infighting had now been rekindled, and talks of rebelling against the caliph could be heard feom all the corners. When Yazid received this news, in accordance to what any leader would do, he too ordered that an army be sent out immediately to suppress the rebellion.

In the battles that occurred thereafter, many illustrious figures lost their lives, and shaytani forces, after having painted the scenes of these battles in the ugliest of ways, could now spread out into the Muslim lands fully armed with the propaganda required to make the Muslim world rebel against the Ummayyad Caliphate. After the painted images of Yazid’s cruelty in Karbala, followed by the massacres he had caused in Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawwarah, there was now no way anyone could stand in support of Yazid. The time was now ripe for shaytani forces to cry for revenge and go out in full force to tear the caliphate to the ground.

To spearhead this shaytani movement, the devil that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had labelled as the dajjal of Thaqeef, i.e. Mukhtar ibn Abu Ubaid Thaqafi, was now ready to rise. However, before proceedin with Mukhtar’s rise against the caliphate, it would indeed seem appropriate to shed some light on the battles that occurred in Makkah Mukarramah and Madinah Munawaarah, between the army of Yazid and the inhabitants of these two holy lands.

When the details of these battles are read from the surface level, one can easily be forgiven if he starts hating Yazid and his entire army, since the love of Madinah Munawwarah and its inhabitants is a trait which has been ingrained within the hearts of every believer and is the case with the love for Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). However, when deeper investigation is done, a picture starts to emerge, completely different from what has over the years been understood.

In describing the battle that had occurred against the inhabitants of Madinah Munawwarah, famously known as  ‘the battle of Harrah’, shaytani elements went one step further in adding spice to what was already a hot curry, with some taking the bold step to spoil the pages of history with such filthy lies, the likes of which perhaps no other leader or army has been ever accused of.

Examples of such lies, which spilled from the filthy tongues of shaytani hypocrites, which would later innocently be narrated in the compliation of the historians, are the following:

a) During the battle over one thousand virgins were raped at the hands of the oppressive soldiers that had come from Sham. Naudhubillah

b) As a result of being raped, one thousand women of Madinah Munawwarah gave birth. Naudhubillah

c) A soldier from Sham entered the house of an Ansari women who was breatfeeding her child. He threatened her that if she dis not hand over her gold, he would kill her and her child. The women screamed out ‘How dare you kill this boy, Whose father is Abu Kabasha, the companion of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and I am from the women who had pledged allegiance to Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)!’ The soldier, taking no notice of her words, grabbed the child whose mouth was still on the women’s breast, and bashed him upon a nearby wall, smashing his brains. In frustration, the women cried and said, ‘O my child, had I anything which i could give to save you, I would surely have given it!’ As the soldier left the room, half his face turned black and he had to walk amongst the people disfigured. Naudhubillah

d) A virgin was raped right in front of the Prophet’s chamber, and after raping the woman, when the soldier could not find anything with which to wipe away the blood that was on him , he took a page of the Noble Qur’an and used it to wipe himself clean. Naudhubillahi min Zaalik

This, i.e. (d) is perhaps the most filthy and despicable lie that has found its way into the books of history, but the narration mentioned before it, (a), (b) and (c) are not any better. Besides these, there are many more such narrations, not only with regards to Yazid, but rather, even with regards to the illustrious Khulafa e Rashideen, the wives of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahabah in general, and many of the great personalities that came after. When shaytani agents target any individual, they spare no effort in painting them with the worst propaganda one could ever dream of, and they do it in such a manner that the one who refutes it is regarded as the biggest liar.

If every narration of history gets afforded the status of ‘accepted without question’, merely due to in appearing in a history book, comprising of a couple of volumes, or having a fancy title and a beautiful binding, then perhaps not a single saint’s saunthood shall remain in Islamic history, since surrounding every great man would always be vreat enemies, whose tongues and limbs would tire themselves out in the attempt to defame and disgrace them, and what their hearts would conceal, that would even be far worse.

In the blatant lies mentioned above, i.e. (a), (b), (c) and (d), the lineage of over a thousand Tab e Tabi’een has been tainted, yet amazingly no mention can be found in the books regarding the great men born in Madinah Munawwarah, that so and so individual was born as a result of his mother being raped by a Shaami soldier!

To understand the reality of these narrations, one needs only to ponder over the fact that despite rape being the most hideous of crimes in Islam, especially if it has to occur in the most sacred of cities, with the most purest of women, affecting over a thousand families, yet no mention of it can be found in any of the books of Sunnah, through even one solid chain, Sahih, Haasan nor even what is known as Dha’if. Besides the books of Sunnah, even the first books written about Islamic History, viz, the Tarikh of Tabari and Balazaari, whose authors narrated greatly from Abu Mikhnaf, the infamous Shia liar, in these books too no mention can be found of any woman of Madinah Munawwarah being raped during these battles.

Any reader of Islamic history who finds such narrations acceptable, should understand well that the accusations  levelled are not only being directed against the Ummayyad army served under Yazid, but rather towards the Islamic armies of Sham, which Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had praised, the very armies that carried the flag of Islam through many lands, holding firmly upon the piety, justice and mercy that Islam has always taught, yet in these narrations those very armies have been depicted as barbarians, void of all morals and basic human character. (If the filth of shaytani propaganda cannot be smelt even in these narrations, then to Allah alone do we complain of our plight!)

Another major lie that becomes apparent when one studies the incident of ‘the battle of Harrah’ is with regards to the number of Sahabah martyred during this battle. Many book of history show that between three to seven hundred Sahabah were martyred during this battle, whereas when one searches for narrations with strong chains, one fails to find  the mention of even ten Sahabah’s losing their lives during this battle.

Hafidh Dhahabi has recorded in Al-‘Ibar that during the battle of Harrah three hundred and six of the children of the Muhajireen and Ansaar were martyred, and from the Sahabah, Hadhrat Ma’qeel ibn Sinaan, Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Hanzalah and Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zaid ibn ‘Aasim (radhiyallahu anhum) were martyred.

According to a narration, quoted in Al-Bidayah, which can be traced through a strong chain to Imam Malik, the amount of men of the Qur’an that were martyred during the battle of Harrah were seven hundred. After narrating this portion, Ibn Wahhab, the famous student of Imam Malik says, ‘If I am correct, Imam Malik also says, ‘Among the martyrs, three or four were  from the Sahabah.

Even though Ibn Wahhab narrated this portion with the words, ‘If I am correct’, then too the very fact that he thought  that Imam Malik had said this, that show that during his era, which was not very long after these wars, the people of Madinah Munawwarah knew nothing of these narrations which made mention that during the battle of Harrah between three to seven hundred Sahabah were martyred. If such a large number of Sahabah had really been martyres on that fateful day, it would have been common knowledge to the people of Madinah Munawwarah, and ibn Wahhab have never have made such an error.

The writings of Imam Abu Ja’far Tahawi, the great jurist of the Hanafi Madhab, also indicates that the number of Sahabah who were martyred during this battle were few. While discussing the chain of narrators, Imam Tahawi wrote the following:

‘The Ashja’i, from whom sha’bi has narrated, is none other than Hadhrat Ma’qil ibn Sinaan (radhiyallahu anhu), that Sahabi, whose death occurred quite later  than the other companions of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). He, in fact, only passed away during the day of Harrah. He was one of those Sahabah martyred during that battle.’

By Imam Tahawi saying, ‘he was one of those Sahabah who got martyred during that battle’, instead of ‘he was amongst the many Sahabah that passed away during that battle’, there is clear indication that only a few Sahabah had passed away of this occasion.

From what has been mentioned avove, one can clearly understand that, as with Karbala, the incident of Harrah has also been filled with countless lies, merely so that the image of the ruling party could be tarnishes in the eyes of public, enabling shaytani forces to gather support for their well-planned future attack on the Muslim Caliphate.

As was the case of Karbala, the picture that history generally painted of the battle of Harrah fails to answer many questions, which has conveniently thereafrer been swept under the carpet. Among those questions are the following:

a) Had the soldiers of Yazid really been raping the women of Madinah Munawwarah, as the books describe, why then did Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), and the other senior Sahabah not speak out against these oppressive and filthy demonic acts? Rather, what has been clearly proven is that not only did these senior Sahabah refrain from speaking out, they in fact ordered their families to remain obedient with the caliph, and not break their allegiance. This point has been proven fron many authentic sources, a few of which are:

⚫ Imam Ahmad narrates in his Musnad with a strong sanad:

When people were breaking their allegiance, Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) gathered his sons and his family members and said to them, ‘We have pledged allegiance to this man and I have heard Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) saying, ‘One who deceives shall have a flag raised from him on the Day of Judgement, which shall expose him as a deceiver’. Verily, after ascribing partners to Allah, the greatest act of deception one could do is that he breaks his allegiance (which he has made to the Muslim leader). O my family, let not anyone of you pull his hand away from Yazid, nor even entertain this thought. If you do such as act, Abdullah ibn Umar shall cut himself off from you totally!”

⚫ Ibn Kathir, in Al-Bidayah, narrates that Abu Ja’far (Baqir) said:
‘On the day of Harrah (when the army of Yazid attacked Madinah Munawwarah) from the family of Abu Talib and the family of Abdul Muttalib, not a single person arose to fight the army. And when the leader of the army, Muslim ibn Uqbah arrived, he (Muslim) honoured Abu Ja’far, made him sit close to him, and handed him a document promising them safety’

b) Had Yazid really ordered that his soldiers plunder and raid Madinah Munawwarah, and rape its noble women, would the people of Sham have remained sitting back quietly, without raising a single objection. At least his close advisors would have been aware of the filthy orders he had issued, and atleast one of them would have raised an objection. Rather, history itself records that when the news of what had occurred during the battle at Madinah Munawwarah, reached the ears of Yazid, he expressed shock and grief, and immediately set out to try and  make amends for the losses the people of Madinah Munawwarah had suffered, due to the war.

Mada’ini narrates:
‘Muslim ibn Uqbah sent Raoh ibn Zanbaa to Yazid, to give him the glad-tidings of victory at Harrah. When Yazid heard the details of the battle, the words that emitted from his lips were, ‘Alas! How sad is he plight of my people’. He thereafter called Hadhrat Dhahaak ibn Qais (radhiyallahu anhu) and asked him what could be done to ease the plight of the people of Madinah Munawwarah, Dhahaak replied, ‘Food and generous handouts, Yazid immediately complied and had food, money and all other kinds of necessary aid deluvered to Madinah Munawwarah’

After narrating this, Allamah ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) comments: ‘This is quite contrary to what the lying Rawaafidh narrate!’

c) When Yazid dispatched his army to Madinah Munawwarah and Makkah Mukarramah, the general appointed over the Palestinian garrison was Raoh ibn Zan’baa, and it was this very person who was sent to inform Yazid of the victory of his army. According to what the authentic sources have quoted, Raoh ibn Zan’ba was a ardent worshipper of Almighty Allah, a true Islamic warrior, from the Sayyids of Sham. He narrated from Hadhrat Tamim al-Dari (radhiyallahu anhu) and the people of Sham narrated Ahadith from him. Abdul Malik ibn Marwan described Raoh ibn Zan’ba as follows, “Raoh has encompassed the worship of the people of Sham, the cunningness of the people of Iraq and the fiqh of the people of Hijaaz”.

As for the Damascan garrison, the general appointed over them was in fact, a Sahabi of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Mas’ada (radhiyallahu anhu), one who had enjoyed the privilege of being reared in the lap of Hadhrat Fatimah (radhiyallahu anha).

If such men were appointed as the leaders of different garrisons when the army of Yazid advanced towards Madinah Munawwarah, could it ever be conceived that  they would just stand by  watching as the so-called ‘bloodthirsty’ soldiers of Yazid’s army raped noble women and killed innocent chilren around them?!

d) In Akhbaarul Qudaat, it has been mentioned that despite being defeated by the army of Yazid, a few weaks later, upon receiving the news of the death of Yazid, the people of Madinah Munawwarah again stood up against the ruling party, and this time achieved success. This governor and leaders from Sham were exiled and Ubaidah ibn Zubayr, the brother of Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), was brought in as their new governor.

Hadh Yazid’s army really caused the massacre, which certain paragraphs of history describe, would the people of Madinah Munawwarah  ever have been able to recoup so quickly and stage a successful attack within just a few days of their initial defeat?!

The above are some of the points that clearly indicate that, as with the issue of Karbala, here too a lots of exagerration and lies have surrounded the episode, thus rendering one incapable of properly understanding what had really occurred during the unfortunate episode of Harrah. As with Karbala, which had turned the hearts of the people of Hijaaz against the Ummayyads, the battle of Harrah would now be used to turn the hearts of the rest of the Muslim Empire against the Ummayyad Dynasty. As the Karbala episode had been blown out of proportion, so too was the case of Harrah.

If one were to merely read the basic historical text of what occurred just prior to Harrah, one could easily ascertain that this was a war which could have been easily averted, had there been no shaytani prodding from behind the scenes, continuously angering each party against the other.

Allamah ibn Kathir, whilst discussing the incident of Harrah, recorded the narration mentioned below, from which much can be learnt regarding the backdrop of events that finally led to the disastrous incident of Harrah. The crux of what he wrote was:

‘The reason for this battle was that when the people of Madinah Munawwarah broke their allegiance from Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah, they appointed Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Muti’i (radhiyallahu anhu) over the Quraysh, and Abdullah ibn Hanzalah (radhiyallahu anhu) over the Ansaar. They gathered at the pulpit and openly announced their breaking away from the Ummayyad leadership.

Then then gathered to have the Ummayyad governor, Uthman ibn Muhammad as well as the rest of the Banu Ummayyah exiled from Madinah Munawwarah. Upin getting the news of this, to ensure their protection, the Banu Ummayyah gathered in the dwelling of Marwan ibn Hakam, which the people of Madinah Munawwarah then surrounded. Hadhrat Zainul Aabideen (the son of Hadhrat Hussain radhiyallahu anhu) and the household of Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) refused to break their allegiance to Yazid.

The Banu Ummayyah wrote to Yazid, describing their miserable plight, i.e. their being kept under seige, being disgraced and being deprived of food and drink, and that if he does not immediately send an army over to rescue them from their plight, they could face total annihilation. When this letter reached Yazid, it threw him in shock. Yazid also expressed anger over the fact that despite the Banu Ummayyah in Madinah Munawwarah comprising over a thousand, they had not stood up to fight, but instead allowed themselves to be placed under seige.

Yazid consulted with Amr ibn Saeed and requested that he lead the army, bur Amr refused, saying that after having already been removed from his post as governor over Madinah Munawwarah, he did not now desire that he be at the centre of Qurayshi bloodshed. Amr ibn Yazid advised Yazid to rather select such a person for the job who did not enjoy close family relationahip with the Quraysh. The job was then presented to Muslim ibn Uqbah al Mu’zani, who, despite being weak and old, accepted almost immediately.

(Not trusting Muslim ibn Uqbah,) Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer (radhiyallahu anhu) pleaded with Yazid to allow him to lead the army, in the hope that his close family relationship with the new leader of the Ansaar, Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Hanzalah (radhiyallahu anhu), would facilitate an easy reconciliation process. (Hadhrat Nu’maan (radhiyallahu anhu) was the uteeine brother of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Hanzalah radhiyallahu anhu). Yazid refused to accept his plea, and said, ‘By Allah! I have shown compassion and tolerance to them on so many occasions, yet, their behaviour remains such. By Allah! I shall now not accept for them except this destroyer! 

Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhu) then interceded, with the following question, ‘If the people of Madinah Munawwarah return to their pledge of obedience, will you accept it from them? Yazid replied, ‘If they do so, none shall harm them!’.

Yazid thus ordered Muslim ibn Uqbah to first invite the people of Madinah Munawwarah, over the period of three days, to return to their pledge. He was only to attack if they refused to obey. Yazid also ordered that if the army were able to enter into Madinah Munawwarah, they would be allowed only three days within the city to find and punish the ones behind the rebellion. As for Ali ibn Hussain (Hadhrat Zainul Aabideen), he was to be honoured and left alone, since he had not joined the rebellion.

The accusation generally levelled against Yazid is that he had ordered Muslim ibn Uqbah to plunder, raid and destroy Madinah Munawwarah. This accusarion is based upon a sentence attributed to him, said at the time of sending out the army, which was:

‘If you gain a upper hand (and are able to break through the opposition’s defence), you will have three days, during which Madinah shall be an ‘open ground’ for you. After the passing of three days, order your men to withdraw from the people’

What dis Yazid really mean when he said, you will have three days, during which Madinah shall be an ‘open ground’ for you’.? Did he mean that during these three days his soldiers could do in Madinah Munawwarah whatever impermissible act that they desired? Had this been his intention, it would have been a statement of kufr, which would surely have cause the Sahabah and senior Tabi’een around him to stand up and make an outcry. The statement, as the narration above shows clearly, was made in front of Hadhrat Nu’maan ibn Basheer and Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Ja’far (radhiyallahu anhum), yet the most that these two Sahabah’s did was to intercede on behalf of the people of Madinah Munawwarah, and beg Yazid to forgive them, due to their being from the family of Ansaar. Had these Sahabah’s understood Yazid’s statement to mean ‘open permission to do as the soldiers pleased’, they would have themselves broken their allegiance and rallied the masses of Sham against Yazid.

Many a time, the meaning of a sentence is easily understood at the time that it is said, and by the audience to whom it is said, yet when that sentence leaves that environment and it is now interpreted by merely looking towards it words, a different meaning emerges, totally contrary to what the speaker had intended, a meaning so filthy in nature, that had the speaker later had come to know what was now being attributed to him, he would have great difficulty in even establishing which sentence of his has unintentionally indicated towards that meaning.

Many factors indicate that Yazid’s above mentioned statement falls into this very category, especially since he said this statement of his, not in privacy, but in front of noble, pious men, and none of them objected. Also, Yazid’s very nect sentence, i.e., After the passing of three days, order your men to withdraw from the people’, this sentence itself indicates that the order of Yazid to his commander was not one asking for brutal force, mass killings, and total destruction, but rather that since the city of Madinah Munawwarah was one of great sanctity, in which before this no Muslim ruler had ever dared to take in his army, the army were thus required to be quick in moving through the city of Madinah Munawwarah whilst searching for the one responsible for the rebellion. They had three days after entering the city to find and apprehend all responsible, in such a manner that after their exit from the citythe rebellion does not rise again. Yazid did not feel it appropriate that the sanctity of the noble city of Madinah Munawwarah be violated for more than three days, even if those responsible for the rebellion were still at large.

Perhaps this meanimg may be hard for many to digest, but it is the only meaning that why the Sahabah and the senior Tabi’een of Sham, who heard this statment directly, did not object. It also explains how the parties responsible for the first rebellion were able to so quickly re-organize their troops after the exit of the Ummayyad army, and retake the city of Madinah Munawwarah. It also explains why Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), his entire family, the family of Abdul Muttalib, Hadhrat Zainul Aabideen (rahimahullah) and many others of Madinah Munawwarah, did not support those rebelling against the Ummayyads, neither before their entry into the city nor after. Had these great individuals seen those scenes which histpry would later paint regarding Harrah, they would surely have broken their allegiance and themselves lifted the flags against the Ummayyads.

Yes, there is no denying that certain atrocities did occur from the hands of certain soldiers, but there is a great possibility that  these acys were in fact committed by hypocrites serving in the army, carried out in their private capacity, with the aim to defame the entire Muslim army  and set the wheels in motion for a plan constructed years previously, i.e. to crumble the Muslim caliphate and replace it with another, which would operate under shaytani influence and direction.

In Karbala, as discussed earlier on, it was such evil men who had ensured that Hadhrat Hussain (rashiyallahu anhu) never left the field alive, and it was such men who attacked the tents housing the noble women from the family of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). Yet, when it comes to laying down accusations, sincere Muslim leaders were implicated, despite them having nothing to do with atrocities committed. So too, in my humble opinion, is the case of Harrah, but only he shall believe who is ready to read between the lines and review this entire episode again. And it is Almighty alone who knows the complete truth, and He alone shall expose it, when and how He has decreed it appropriate.

After the battle of Harrah, the army of Yazid moved forward towards Makkah Mukarramah, where Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) had risen the flag against them. But before the fighting could reach its peak, the news of the death of Yazid spread, which brought a halt to the fight, and on his death our discussion regarding him shall also be closed.

As a closing statement I repeat,that in the writings above, the intention is not at all to prove the piety of Yazid,  since that is in the knowledge of Almighty Allah alone.  What I have merely shown is that the evudence that has been used to prove his guilt is not as solid as many have been made to believe. Islamic law has never demanded that every individual’s innocence be proven beyond doubt, since that is not within one’s capacity. Yes, it is a demand of the Islamic teaching that each individual be given the benefit of the doubt, and that an accusation only be accepted when supported with solid evidence.

The purpose of the article is merely to highlight tge possibility that Yazid had been framed, in a shaytani operation that had begun years previously, utilizing hundreds of hypocrites, spread all over the Muslim empire, with the aim of crushing the Muslim caliphate, stopping the forward march of the Muslim armies into non-Muslim territories and tearing into pieces the unity that Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu) had just managed to restore. This plan would only prove successful if the hearts of the Ummah could turn against their leader, and Yazid was the unfortunate target against whom this hatred was going to be sowed.

This post has now reached its end, in which many ‘bloody’ secrets regarding Karbala have been unearthed. As a conclusion, it would only be fair that the last few paragraphs be devoted to discussing of the true culprits behind Karbala, one who, through cunning ways and the support he enjoyed from Shaytani circles, almost achieved his shaytani aspiration of tumbling the caliphate, had it not been for Divine interjection.

The Mastermind  behind Karbala – Mukhtar ibn Abu Ubaid al-Thaqafi – a dajjal of this Ummah

At the beginning of this series of Article, the discussion regarding this filthy, shaytani agent, was initiated. As discussed already, Mukhtar ibn Abu Ubaid Thaqafi was the first host of Muslim ibn Aqeel, when he came over to Iraq to verify the contents of the letters that had been sent to Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu). The fact that Mulhtar was the first host speaks volumes of the reality of the ones who had begged Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) to come over.

When Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad arrived in Kufa, Mukhtar was also arrested, but where the sincere friends of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) were put to the sword, the lives of the hypocrites responsible for bringing Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq were ‘amazingly spared’, as though Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad was intentionally or unintentionally being controlled by orders by orders coming from a higher shaytani secret order. Mukhtar ibn Ubaid would spend a mere few days in prison, due to which his fame would spread as being a true lover of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), whereas just a few years earlier he had attempted to have Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) arrested and handed over to Hadhrat Mu’awiyah (radhiyallahu anhu). By spending just a few days in prison, all the previous enmity that Mukhtar had showed to the household of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would now be forgotten and Mukhtar would take the title of ‘The true defender of the honour of the Ahle Bayt’.

Mukhtar was the perfect candidate that shaytan could have chosen to cause chaos amongst the Muslim Ummah, since he enjoyed the privilegeof being the brother-in-law of the great Sahabi of that era, Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), a privilege which would surely earn him much recognition in Iraq. Upon the martyrdom of Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu), Mukhtar would thereafter enchance his reputation by working upon the sentiments of the people, and making the loudest call of “revenge for the Ahle-Bayt”. From Iraq, Mukhtar would have expensive gifts sent to the leading Sahabah’s of Hijaz, and in fact even presented himself in front of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) and pledged allegiance.

By the time the reality of Mukhtar’s kufr beliefs became public knowledge, his army had already reached into the thousands, and the gullible souls of Iraq who now viewed Mukhtar as the ‘Saviour of the Ummah’, they were in no way going to listen to the verdicts of the scholars around them, even after Mukhtar proclaimed himself to be a ‘Nabi’.

Below shall follow a brief time-line of Mukhtar ibn Ubaid, extracted from the reports regarding him in the books of history, whereby the reader shall gain a great understanding of how shaytani forces operate when it comes to promoting its agents in the eyes of the public and raising them to high seats, from which they are able to carry out major shaytani operations, all in the guise of ‘Islam’.

1) Mukhtar ibn Ubaid is the first recorded host of Muslim ibn Aqeel, despite being declared, just a few years ago, as a Khaariji (one who hates the Ahle-Bayt). Muslim ibn Aqeel stays at the dwelling of Mukhtar for only a few days, after which he himself decides to shift to another location.

2) Mukhtar, together with many others, get arrested for their role in inviting Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq, but Mukhtar’s life gets spared, whilst others, who had played a much less significant role, are executed.

3) After the battle of Karbala, upon being released, Mukhtar travels to Hijaz, pledges allegiance to Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubaur (radhiyallahu anhu), and soon takes the position of one of the senior generals under Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu). Mukhtar also fights under the flag of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), during Yazid’s seige upon Makkah Mukarramah. When the news of Yazid’s death spreads, and the war comes to a temporary halt , Mukhtar finds an excuse to break away from Hadhrat Abdullah ibn  Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu) and return to Iraq. Upon reaching Iraq, Mukhtar starts inviting the masses towards  Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah, the son of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), with the claim that he, Muhammad, is the ‘promised Mahdi’ and that Mukhtar is his representative in Iraq. When Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah receives the news of this, he openly declares its falsehood, but Mukhtar’s beguiled followers remain deaf to his words, in the belief that Muhammad ibn Hanafiyyah is merely practicing ‘Taqiyyah’ (concealing the truth from the Ummayyad leaders that surround him in Hijaz).

4) Mukhtaar raises the call of ‘revenge for Ahle-Bayt’, a call that finds tremendous support from all circles, until finally Mukhtar removes, Abdullah ibn Muti’i, the governor of Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), to take control over Iraq.

5) Mukhtar’s movement in Iraq gains momentum as he goes in search of all that had taken part in the battle of Karbala. Umar ibn Sa’d and other Ummayyad generals are hunted down and Mukhtar’s fame as ‘defender of Ahle-Bayt’ spreads. His armies continue taking area upon area, and now pose a major threat to the Ummayyad Caliphate, which forces the new Ummayyad leader, Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, to gather his forces and bring them face to face with that of Mukhtar’s. Mukhtar’s forces deliver a severe blow to Ummayyad army, and their fame grows even more.

6) Being aided with shaytani forces, Mukhtar beguiles thousands and amasses an army that ravages Iraq, killing not only those who were involved at Karbala, bit rather every group that is linked to the Ummayyad government. So sure is Mukhtar of victory that before each battle he announces that Almighty Allah has informed him of victory for his army. This lie of his attracts many more followers, but lands him in trouble when his army suffers their first defeat.

Certain followers demanded to know how could they be defeated after having received Divine assurance of victory. In response, Mukhtar produces perhaps one of the most flithiest lies ever said regarding of  the Being of Allah Ta’ala i.e. that Almighty Allah had forgotten! Naudhubillah! Despite his answer being so filthy and absurd, his shaytani agents ensure that the masses accept even this, and this belief, known as ‘ Ba daa’ is made a fundamental belief of the Shia creed.

7) Mukhtar’s words of kufr breaks all the barriers, with him now declaring himself first as the representative of the Awaited Mahdi, then as the Mahdi himself, then as a Nabi and finally as  ‘The Almighty uncarnated’. Naudhubillah!

Amongst the filth that Mukhtar propagates is the claim that he has in his possession a chair, which is from the hidden treasures of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), a chair which holds the position in this Ummah like that which the Taboot (the Ark of the Covenant) enjoyed during the era of the Bani Israa’il. Mukhtar would order that this chair be placed at the front of his army, and would proclaim that victory was assured on account of the blessings of the chair. Naudhubillah!

8) The Sahabah of Madinah Munawwarah, with Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Umar, Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Abbas and Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhuma) in the forefront, openly declare the kufr of Mukhtar, but that too cannot pull the masses away from him. Mukhtar takes control over all the major Muslim lands, except Sham, Egypt and Hijaz.

9) When on the verge of taking over the entire Muslim world, Almight Allah sets up a barrier in Mukhtar’s path and slowly but surely his shaytani dreams starts collapsing. The crux of Mukhtar’s collapse is as follows:

⚫ First, the Arabs in Iraq, who had accepted him as their saviour, start noticing that Mukhtar is favouring ‘Ajam’ Iraqis (non-Arabs from Iraq/Iran) over them, and instigating them to kill and usurp the wealth of the Arabs, wherever and whenever they find the opportunity.

⚫ Ibraheem ibn Ashtar, the senior general of Mukhtar’s army, who had been beguiled into entering into his service, now starts receiving numerous complaints regarding Mukhtar, and authentic reports that Mukhtar is making claims of being a Nabi. After much thought, and great difficulty, Ibraheem ibn Ashtar finally pulls away from his support for Mukhtar, and encourages his loyal followers to do the same.

⚫ Mu’sab ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), the brother of Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu), after finding the Arabs of Iraq begging for protection from Mukhtar’s now-exposed evil and filthy intentions, calls for reinforcements from all loyal followers of his brother, Hadhrat Abdullah ibn Zubayr (radhiyallahu anhu).

⚫ Almighty Allah finally destroys Mukhtar and his mighty army at the hands of Hadhrat Mu’sab ibn Zubayr, after a reign of terror which had taken the lives of thousands and robbed many of their Imaan. So strong was Mukhtar’s web of deception that even his wife, despite being the daughter of a Sahabi,  was duped into believing him to be a Nabi. Musab ibn Zubayr makes great efforts to correct her beliefs, but finally finds no alternative but to have her executed, on account of her apostasy.

⚫ With the death of Mukhtar, much of his secrets, cunning plots, satanic statements, etc, gets exposed, which convince all around that the warning issued by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) regarding the emergence of a ‘dajjal’ from the tribe of Thaqeef, that dajjal was none other but this very Mukhtar.

In shaytani, dajjali circles, hundreds of thousands of agents are employed, each with a different role, and unaware of many of the other agents that work around him, with each enjoying a different level of superiority and closeness to their master, who is none other than Iblis Mardud himself, with dajjal at the head of all operations. In every era, certain shaytani agents stand out amongst the rest, whose influence, teachings, acts of oppression, deseption, etc, is felt the most. During the era that followes the death of Hadhrat Umar (radhiyallahu anhu), it was this Mukhtar ibn Ubaid that was one of Shaytan’s and dajjal’s most selected agent, chosen for the task of destroying the Muslim Caliphate, and spreading  chaos amongst the masses.

As with all high-ranking satanists, in order to ease his satanic task, the shaytani world, with all its human and Jinn resources, placed itself at the service of Mukhtar, thus providing him with:

⚫ never ending treasure of wealth, through which he purchased the loyalty of the non-Arabs of Iraq/Iran and surrounding areas.

⚫ the ability to beguile the ignorant by displaying to them signs which indicated that Almighty Allah’s help with was him. Accorsing to what has been reported, Mukhtar gathered around him the fighters of the numerous villages by pointing to the sky and displaying to them his heavenly soldiers, i.e. huge men on horses, flying above his head, which were nothing but Jinn, in the guise of angels.

⚫ the ability to predict forthcoming events, by utilizing the information that the Jinn would relate to him, after stealing news from the talks of the angels of the lowest heaven.

⚫ the ability to deceive through the art of forgery, an art that was taught to him by his shaytani masters.

Mukhtar, in the love of the power that shayatin had offered him, had sacrifice his soul to the devil,and carved out his  place in the pits of hell. In attempting to reach his goal of reproducing in this Ummah, what Paul, the hypocrite, had done to the teachings of Nabi ‘Eesa (Alayhissalaam), Mukhtar ibn Ubaid, with direction from his satan masters, conjured many plots and conspiracies, which took the lives of thousands, and robbed as just as many of their faith, but the plot that stood out the most, and had the furthest reaching consequences was the plot that the world would later call ‘Karbala’!.

It was through this satanic plot that Mukhtar would draw Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) over to Iraq; have him mercilessly slaughtered; have the leaders of the Ummayyad caliphate in Sham framed fir this demonic act; and thereafter draw the entire Muslim world into the chaos, turmoil and in-fighting which they had just recently come out of.

Where the world continues cursing Yazid for his evil act of murdering the grandson of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), an act which Yazid till the end declares himself innocent of, it is indeed unfortunate that this shaytani agent, Mukhtar ibn Ubaid, has managed to evade the public eye, due to the blanket thrown upon his satanic deeds by the shaytani agents that followed after him.

Had the eye of the Ummah been of Mukhtar ibn Ubaid, the Ummah would perhaps have been saved from much of the confusion and bloodshed that had occurred, as he pulled strings from behind the curtains, during his lifetime, and as other shaytani agents pulled strings after his death, which finally resulted in the first collapse of an Islamic Caliphate, about seventy years later, surrounded by scenes of mass execution, torture and the opening of all doors of fitnah (religious confusion, evil and turmoil) by the new Abbasi Caliphate, which was in fact a shaytani backed government that had originated in Iran, with nineteen of its twenty ‘founding-fathers’ being non-Arabs from Iraq/Iran itself.

An in-depth study of the rise of the new caliphate (the Abbasid caliphate) shall reveal a massive shaytani conspiracy which laid its foundation the day Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu) was martyred, a movement that continued its work underground during the era that followed the defeat of Mukhtar ibn Ubaid (i.e. the era of Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, Hadhrat Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, etc), and finally succeeded about seventy years later in crushing the Ummayyad caliphate, by utilizing the name of Hadhrat Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu) and the slogan of ‘love for he Ahle-Bayt’ as a magnet to attract the support of the masses and to conceal their filthy identity. By naming the new caliphate as ‘Abbasid’ shaytani elements were able to ensure that none from the family of Hadhrat Fatimah (radhiyallahu anha) could demand to be its leader.

Under the new Abbasid Caliphate, satanic and irreligious group found the opportunity to spread freely their evil ideologies, without any fear of being reprimanded, arrested or executed. Enjoying this freedom, the Qadariyah, Mutazilah, Khawarij and Shia were now able to create hundreds of zindeeq groups and ideologies which very quickly attained prominence throughout the Muslim world, amongst which are:

⚫ The issue of Khalqul-Qur’an (a satanist effort to deceive the masses into understanding that the noble Qur’an was created), which threw the Muslim world into confusion, until Almighty Allah made scholars like Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rahimahullah) and others stand up.

⚫ the translating of ancient philosophical writings into Arabic which corrupted the belief of thousands and could have resulted in widespread irtidaad (apostasy) had Almighty Allah not created scholars like Imam Ghazali (rahimahullah) and others.

⚫ The fabricating of thousands of Ahadith, and spreading it amongst the masses, which could have destroyed the treasure-house of Sunnah, had Almighty Allah not created the scholars like Sufyan ibn Uyainah (rahimahullah) and others.

Due to the concealed support evil forces operating from Iraq/Iran received from this caliphate, they were able to establish the first Shia empire in Egypt, the Fatimid empire, which would for years thereafter act as the hidden dagger of the kuffaar, stabbing the Ummah from behind and rendering them helpless from advancing further in their Islamic conquests. These very Fatimids would later open the road for the massive invasion of the Tartars upon the entire Muslim world, an invasion that would have indeed uprooted Islam, had it not been for Divine intervention.

Thus, when Sultan Salahuddin al-Ayyubi rose to power, he first concern was to break the threat posed by the Fatimid empire, knowing well that as long as the evil empire remains standing, Muslim efforts to ward off and attack kuffaar powers would always prove futile. Instead of advancing with his forces towards Masjid al-Aqsa, he directed his effort towards Egypt, where he succeeded in crushing the Fatimid empire and ridding the Ummah of the hidden dagger that had caused havoc amongst the Muslims for so long. With this shaytani group dismantled, Muslims were able to make great advancements, and succeeding in taking back Masjid al-Aqsa, as well as finally conquering Constantinople (Istanbul), the fort of the Christian Empire, which had succeeded in holding out against the Muslim invasion for over four hundred years.

This in brief is the history that followed after the fateful battle at Karbala, a battle drenched in ‘bloody’ lies, and one that till today remains as a tool to attract public sympathy and support, playing a role similar to that of ‘Holocaust’ and ‘9/11’.


1) If one were to act as a lawyer, to show that the evidence against ‘the one accused of murder’ is not solid, this in no way implies he hates the one murdered. Nay, rather is purpose is merely to expose the fact that since there is a lot of conflicting evidence in the issue, it would indeed be appropriate to consider the possibility of another ‘suspect’ being involved, and the ‘accused’ having been framed.

Similar is the case of Karbala, the purpose of the writings of this article is merely to re-open the files of this case, and to consider the possibility of an international conspiracy, towards which many factors and event indeed do indicate.

2) In the writings above, one point that has been proven quite strongly is that Hadhrat Hussain (radhiyallahu anhu)’s journey to Iraq, had nothing to do with the character of Yazid, whether he was evil or not, but rather with the issue of who should be caliph. After understand this, one should ask the question as to why now are we adamant to delve into the personal, private life of Yazid, and prove that he indeed was a drunkard, adulterer, etc. Have we not been taught to hold good opinion of fellow believers, and to avoid prying into their personal affairs?  

3) Whosoever attempts to question any issue regarding Karbala immediately gets labelled as harboring hatred for Ahle Bayt, whereas, as mentioned in point ‘one’ when a lawyer stands to question the strength of the proof against the ‘accused’, it in no way implies that he is harboring  hatred against the ‘murdered party’. Labelling anyone questioning the facts regarding ‘Karbala’ as ‘enemies of the Ahle-Bayt’, is similar to the practice of labelling those who question the truth behind the truth of the ‘holocaust’ and ‘911’ as ‘Anti Semitic’ and ‘terrorist’.

Just as how the love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is an integral part and an obvious demand of Imaan, so too is the love of those that were beloved to Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), with the pure daughters of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), his pure grandchildren, his pure wives, his believing pure uncles and aunts, (collectively known as the Ahle-Bayt) and those Sahabah who accepted Islam right at the beginning, being in the forefront of those who Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) loved the most. Any doubt harbored against any one of these illustrious personalities places one’s Imaan on the being of ruin. May Almighty Allah save us all from saying, writing or making any type of indication which displeases Almighty Allah and causes hurt to Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

May Almighty Allah forgive this servant, Let the Ummah rectify the many errors that definitely  exist in this compiliation, and allow the truth to manifest in this world already. He alone is The Ultimate Truth, He alone knows the entire truth, and He alone exposes the truth  wherever and whenever He wishes.

Jazakumullah Khayran!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s