Could Yazid's Murder of Imam Hussain (ra) be a Myth?

[fahid]

Imam Al-Ghazali's (ra) position:

"The person who entertains the idea that Yazid had given orders to kill Hussain is a fool. The details of this incidence cannot be fully ascertained as the facts are shrouded by narrow mindedness." (EDIT: I cannot find this quote in the Ihya, perhaps someone can find some light on this...)

Proper Position as proven: "It is not proven; it is not permissible to say that he murdered Husayn or ordered it, because it is not proven, let alone curse him. It is not permissible to say that a Muslim committed an enormity without evidence. True, it is permissible to say that Ibn Muljam murdered 'Ali, and Abu al-Lulu'a murdered Umar because it has been proven unanimously"

The Irony:

"...The first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins..." (Bukhari 4.52.175) - This city is Constantinople as to when the Prophet (salalahu alahi wasalam) referred to Caesar he referred to the Byzantine Emperor. Yazid was the Commander of that first Army to invade the City.

The Myth in the Date of the Massacre at Karbela:

According to Imam Tabari (ra) the actual date was the 22nd Safar in 61 AH. The 10th of Muharram date was established 291 years later for mourning.

Oath of Allegiance:

Ali bin Hussain (ra) declared allegience after the events of Karbela in Damascus. Yazid was not accused of murder at the time. The Political atmosphere had apparently changed a decade later as well as the Revolt that was to happen that even the leader of the Revolt did not accuse him. (this is according to Dr. Hasanuddin Ahmed)

Is it possible that the whole story about him being a drunken and evil person who would go down as one of the most hated leaders of Islamic history be of a myth? Meaning that it was completely exaggerated as we love the Ahlul-Bayt so much that the blame of the opposing army has been directed to Yazid falsely?

I am not looking for a debate, if you disagree just say so and if there are other positions that's fine but please NO debate.

[MohammadMufti]

Asalamu alaikum and JazakAllahKhair akhi

According to Imam Tabari (ra) the actual date was the 22nd Safar in 61 AH. The 10th of Muharram date was established 291 years later for mourning.

Can you cite this akhi, I wasn't even aware of this particular point. It is known though that amongst the 12ers, the Bektashi Sufis still perform the fast like the Muslims in Muharram with the difference being that they give it a new connotation (that they fast for Hussein -ra- while we for the victory of Musa-as-).

As to his purported drunkenness, a brother Fatah once mentioned a narration in Bidhaya wan Nihaya where Muhammad ibn Al Hanafiyyah (rah) dismissed the claims of those who made this accusation. This doesn't necessarily mean Amir Yazid was necessarily a good person because there are some mistakes that are attributed to him with more certainty than the claims of the exaggerators.

Ma'asalamah

[coloreal]

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...33&postcount=4

[Sad ibn Abu Waqqas]

Imam Al-Ghazali's (ra) position:

"The person who entertains the idea that Yazid had given orders to kill Hussain is a fool. The details of this incidence cannot be fully ascertained as the facts are shrouded by narrow mindedness."

Do you have a reference for this?

[JayshAllah]

It is wellknown that the Rawaafidh exaggerated a lot about Yazid. And because of this (i.e. exaggerated reports), it is difficult to ascertain the truth about him, and so the best position is to remain silent on him.

As for Brother Salman's post, then I think this part is extremism:

As for those who mouth an accusation of baghi (rebellion) against Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi talib: Such should be identified and denounced by every Muslim as Nasibis.

This is the attitude of the Shi`a...it is the McCarthyism that is present in Shia culture, whereby they "identify" and "denounce" people as "Nasibis"...this is not proper. There were Sahabah who disagreed with Hadrat Husayn [ra] so do we call them to be Nasibi! If one is to take such an aggressive stance about Sayyiduna Husayn [ra], then be fair and display the same attitude when people accuse Sayyiduna Aisha [ra] of being a rebel.

Let us not be cowed by the Rawaafidh...

The proper stance is that neither Hadrat Husayn [ra] nor Sayyiduna Aisha [ra] were rebels. As for any who disagree with this, then we say that they are wrong, but should we name and shame them, as brother Salman seems to indicate? I disagree, dear brother. May Allah reward you. I do not mean any offense. I am an ant compared to you in knowledge, dear brother Salman.

Fi Aman Allah.

[MohammadMufti]

Do you have a reference for this?

Wa'alaikum Asalam

I had a scanned copy of the fatwa in question from another brother but I can't find it on this computer. For the time being, the fatwa of Ghazzali was mentioned in al Haytami's tract which was brought up here sometime ago. But it is preferable to read the entire extract from Ghazzali's (rah) work to get the full gist and daleel for his saying so I will try to find it inshaAllah.

[faqir]

Imam Ghazali's opinion can be gleaned from this:

http://www.************/index.php?opt...=129&Itemid=53

[al_Zayn]

Brothers, you should go and read the dreams interpretations thread and read one of my posts

[Sylheti-Beta]

the whole thing sort of starts at the coronation of Yazid, after years of grooming and of Mu'awiyah paving the way for an easy transition.

Before his death, Mu'awiyah charged Dhhak b. Qyas and Muslim b. Uqba al Murri with stemming all opposition to Yazid.

The biggest threat, he felt, wasn't Husseian but Ibn Al-Zubeir (as it proved to be)

Upon his coronation, Yazid instructed the Governor of Medina at the time, Walid b. Utba to compel baya from Ibn Zubair, Ibn Umar and Hussein (the sons of Al-Zubyer b. Al-Awwam, Umar al Khattab and Ali b. Abi Talib respectively).

....and then Walid b. Utba commissioned Muslim b. Uqba al Murri to fulfill his oath to Mu'awiyah and enforce allegiance of the three young counter-claimants to the Caliphate.

Ibn Zubair escaped to Mecca,

Ibn Umar was considered to be no longer a threat..

and sadly, Hussein rather unwisely set out from Mecca at the behest of the men of Kufa urging him to come and at least listen to their pleas of loyalty. (this was seen as provocative)

...meanwhile, in Medina Walid was deposed by Amr b. Said . As - who, intent on stopping Hussein from reaching Kufa dispatched Udaydallah b. Ziyad [ the son of Ziyad b. Abihi (Mu'awiyas adopted brother)].

When Udaydallah arrived at the juncture near Kufa...he forwarded Shamir b. Dhil Jaushan to make terms, and if necessary capture Hussein.

What happened next, is an anomaly and something no one had either planned or anticipated. Shamir basically overstepped the mark and went on a frolic of his own.

the result was brutal and awful.

So the whole sorry affair boils down to a chain of loose agreements and delegations - you can't blame Yazid directly for the Murder of Hussein.