Author: m.salahi

11:48 - 2023/07/22

Examining the material presented by the opponents of the curse of Yazid bin Muawiya, who have doubted the movement of Hussain and his martyrdom in various ways, shows that they have emphasized several main axes:

1-Regarding the suppression of the Karbala uprising, Yazid, as the rightful caliph of the Muslims, had the right to prevent this danger in any way possible, and he used his ijtihad in this regard 2-The Karbala movement was already doomed to failure

English›Ahlulbayt

Uprising of Imam Hussain (AS)

What do Wahhabis think about the uprising of Imam Hussain (AS)? Do they believe in Yazid's curse and Yazid's acquittal or not?!

Wahhabism, which has grown and developed as a current of thought in the Islamic world, certainly has thoughts about these questions that deserve to be examined and explained.

This school of thought was being destroyed before the emergence of Wahhabism by Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab (1111-1207), and after the birth of Wahhabism, the above thought became the exclusive theory of this religion and was followed by some people.

Among this architects, although few people, such as Sheikh Muhammad Al-Khizri in Egypt, showed a tendency towards this idea and wrote:

"All in all, Imam Hussain (AS) made a big mistake because of the uprising against Yazid; because with his martyrdom, the Islamic Ummah became weak and divided. And a dispute arose that continues to this day.

Another person named "A.D. Muhammad Ibrahim" in Kuwait, has published a book under the title "Yazid Ibn Muawiya Men Dam al-Hussein" by the Faculty of Literature of that country in recent decades. In it, he tries to prove Yazid's competence for the Islamic caliphate from a scientific and practical point of view, and his innocence in the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) on the other hand.

The mentioned person, while rejecting the accusations of Yazid's drinking and corruption, considers him to be the caliph of the Muslims and calls any uprising against him as sedition, which has no possibility of victory and adds:

1. Yazid was the caliph of Muslims;

2. Allegiance to Yazid was obligatory and violating them was not permissible for any Muslim, not even Imam Hussain (peace be upon him);

3. Accepting the invitation of Kufians was not wise and this move of Imam Hossein (peace be upon him) was already doomed to failure;

4. Yazid did not want to kill Hussain (peace be upon him) and he is not responsible for it, and he cannot be considered as a killer of Hussain.[1]

Conclusion

On the one hand, they exonerate Yazid and Ibn Ziyad during the murder of Imam Hussain (peace be upon him) and even write a book under this title, and this means that Yazid was never involved in the Karbala disaster and there is no reason to worry!

On the other hand, they raise the issue of Yazid's ijtihad and do not consider the killing of Hussein by Yazid as a reason to weaken Yazid's religious and political position and add that he acted with his ijtihad in this act and in case of error, he is not even a guilty; Let alone an unbeliever.

In this way, sometimes they justify Yazid's crime in Karbala under the title of his being a mujtahid and sometimes under the pretext of being legitimate caliph.[2]

Imam Hussain