Azam Tariq’s false attempts to represent Sunni
Azam Tariq’s objection to the terminology ‘Imam’
Azam Tariq then sets his sites on our Imam as follows:
ANOTHER THING TO GUARD AGAINST IS THE USE OF TITLE OF “IMAM” AND ALAYHI SALLAAM FOR HAZRAT HUSAYN. THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS UNCONSCIOUSLY REMEMBER HAZRAT HUSAYN AS “IMAM HUSAYN ALAYHI
SALLAAM”, ALTHOUGH THIS SMACKS OF SHIAISM. FOR ALL THE SAHABA, WE USE WORD (HAZRAT) OUT OF RESPECT AND REVERENCE FOR THEM SUCH AS HAZRAT ABU BAKAR, HAZRAT UMAR, HAZRAT USMAN, HAZRAT ALI ETC.
WE NEVER SAY IMAM ABU BAKAR OR IMAM UMAR.
Yet again this lying Nasibi is making a claim without any foundation. We could produce countless writings of the Ahl’ul Sunnah wherein Husayn (as) has been referred to as Imam. This Nasibi’s
objective has nothing to with bringing Sunni Islam back to the grand old days and way of the Salaf. It is to do with replacing Sunni Islam with Nasibi ideology that showers grand accolades on the
enemies of Ahl’ul bayt (as) such as Mu’awiya and Yazeed, something that none of the old ulema did save Ghazali, while Ghazali’s boss imam Shafi’i said cursing Yazeed was acceptable.
Azam Tariq Nasibi sought to set the alleged record straight by stating:
FOR ALL THE SAHABA, WE USE WORD (HAZRAT) OUT OF RESPECT AND REVERENCE FOR THEM SUCH AS HAZRAT ABU BAKAR, HAZRAT UMAR, HAZRAT USMAN, HAZRAT ALI ETC. WE NEVER SAY IMAM ABU BAKAR OR IMAM UMAR.
If the terms Imam are not used for Abu Bakr and Umar it is because they never viewed themselves as Imams nor did Rasulullah (s) view them as such. An Imam under Arabic terminology is one who
leads and a Khalifah is one who follows. Abu Bakr never viewed himself as an Imam and underlined his own failings in his inaugural speech to mark his momentous coming to power in Saqifa Bani
Sa’da, we are quoting from Tarikh Tabari Volume 9 page 201:
“Now then: O people, I have been put in charge of you, although I am not
the best of you. Help me if I do well; rectify me if I do wrong”.
If their own failings as Imams are proven it does in any way mean that no one can else can be referred to as Imam. Tariq’s patriarchal efforts to bestow his corrupt views on the unsuspecting
Ahl’ul Sunnah means nothing when we have specific hadith wherein the Prophet of Allah (s) referred to Imam ‘Ali (as) as an Imam, when he declared:
“Three things have been revealed to me about Ali: That he is the Sayyid al
Muslimeen (Chief of Muslims), Imam-ul-Muttaqeen (Imam of the Pious), and wa Qa’id ul Ghurrul Muhajj’ileen (Leader of the bright-faced people on Yaum al Qiyamah)” Taken from Al Mustadrak, by Imam Hakim, p 137 & 138 Riyadh al Nadira, by
Mohibbudin al Tabari, Vol 2, p 122
If Azam Tariq finds the term abhorrent then he is free to do so, for the only people that are entitled to refer to ‘Ali (as) as an Imam are those that are pious. Nasibi have no correlation with
piety. They extol Dhaalim Khalifahs, incite fitnah, lies and shed the blood of innocent Muslims. Imam ‘Ali (as) is not the Imam of Dhaalims and dog/bear/sister/mother/man/daughter/boy penetrator,
only the pious.
Azam Tariq’s objection to the terminology ‘Alaihi Salaam’ [peace be upon him]
SIMILARLY AFTER THE NAME OF EVERY SAHABI WE USE AND WRITE THE WORD (RADIALLAHU ANHU I.E. MAY ALLAH BE PLEASED WITH HIM) AND NEVER USE THE WORDS LIKE (ALAYHI SALLAAM I.E. PEACE AND BLESSINGS
OF ALLAH BE UPON HIM) WHICH ARE RESERVED FOR ONLY THE PROPHETS. AS SUCH, WE NEVER WRITE OR UTTER HAZRAT ABU BAKAR (ALAYHI SALLAAM) OR HAZRAT UMAR ALAYHI SALLAAM BUT IN CASE OF HAZRAT HUSAYN
WE USE ALAYHI SALLAAM. HAVE WE EVER GIVEN A THOUGHT WHY IT IS SO? IT IS BECAUSE OF THE INFLUENCE OF SHIAISM WHICH HAS IMPERCEPTIBLY CREPT INTO OUR MINDS.
Reply One – Sunni Imams allowed using ‘Alaihi Salaam’ for Ahlulbayt (as)
Although this Nasibi’s comments have no bearing on the Shi’a, we would like to point out that he is yet again falsely claiming to represent Ahl’ul Sunnah aqeedah. What greater evidence can we
cite to counter this Nasibi than the fatwa of Sunni Islam’s most beloved opponent of the Shi’a, al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi? When this question was posed to him he replied as follows:
“The term ‘Alaihi Salaam’ [peace be upon him/her] can also be referred to
for non-prophets, and evidence of this can be ascertained from the fact that in the old books of hadith, such as Abu Daud and Sahih Bukhari, the term ‘Alaihi Salaam’ can be found next to the
names of Ali, Hasan, Husayn, Fatima, Khadija, Abbas. However some scholars have opposed this, in opposition to the Shi’a, but this terminology is not prohibited under the
Shari’a” Fatawa Azeezi, pages 260- 261 (H.M Saeed & Co. Karachi)
Similarly Allamah Alusi wrote:
“Sending blessings on other than the prophets & angels on this matter
the views of the Ulema are different. In the view of Qadhi Ayadh and most of the Ulema, it is permissible. They have sought to prove this in reliance of this verse:
‘Allah and his Angels send blessings on Rasulullah (s), Salute him with the best salutation”‘
and also the sahih hadith: 1. the Prophet said, “O Allah! Send your blessings upon the offspring of
2. Rasulullah (s) opened his hands and stated: ‘O Allah send your blessing & mercies upon the family Sa’d ibn
3. ibn Haban corrected a tradition that a woman approached Rasulullah and
requested ‘O Allah send blessings on me and my husband’ and Rasulullah (s) sent blessings in this manner.
4. according to Muslim’s report the Angels recite for every momin ‘Sala
Allah alayka wa ala jasdhaak’”
Tafseer Ruh al-Ma’ani, Volume 22 page 85
We read in Sahih Sharh al-Aqida al-Tahawyia by Shaykh Hassan al-Saqqaf, page 223:
لفظة (عليها السلام) بعد ذكر السيدة فاطمة ولفظة (عليه السلام) بعد ذكر سيدنا علي أو سيدنا الحسن أو سيدنا الحسين رضي الله عنهم وأرضاهم من خصوصياتهم وخصوصيات آل البيت أي من المستحبات
The term (Alaiha Salaam) after mentioning the name of lady Fatima, and the
term (Alaihi Salaam) after mentioning the name of Ali, or Hassan or Hussain may Allah be pleased with them, is one of the exclusives for Ahlulbayt, which means that its mustahab.
Reply Two – Sunni Imams themselves used ‘Alaihe Salaam’ for Ahlulbayt (as)
It is quite interesting that a moderny day Nasibi has tried to persuade his adherents not to use ‘Alaihi Salaam’ for the members of Ahlulbayt (as) in an attempt to bring the merits of Ahlulbayt
(as) closer to common companions but the fact is that the early Sunni Imams had themselves used ‘Alaihi Salaam’ for the members of Ahlulbayt (as) distinguishing them from other companions and its
biggest proof comes from none other than Imam Bukhari who has used ‘Alaihi Salaam’ for Ali bin Abi Talib (as):
حدثنا يحيى حدثنا وكيع عن الأعمش عن سعد بن عبيدة عن أبي عبد الرحمن عن علي عليه السلام قال كنا جلوسا عند النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال : ما منكم من أحد إلا وقد كتب ۔۔۔
Sahih Bukhari, book on the commentary of Quran, Hadith 4664
Imam Bukhari also used ‘Alaiha Salaam’ for Fatima Zahra (as):
حدثنا سليمان بن حرب حدثنا حماد عن ثابت عن أنس قال لما ثقل النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم جعل يتغشاه فقالت فاطمة عليها السلام وا كرب أباه فقال لها ليس ۔۔۔
Sahih Bukhari, Kitab al-Maghazni, Hadith 4193
Imam Bukhari also used ‘Alaihi Salaam’ for Imam Hussain (as):
حدثني محمد بن الحسين بن إبراهيم قال حدثني حسين بن محمد حدثنا جرير عن محمد عن أنس بن مالك رضي الله عنه أتي عبيد الله بن زياد برأس الحسين عليه السلام فجعل في طست فجعل ينكت ۔۔۔
Sahih Bukhari, Kitab Fadhail Sahaba, Hadith 3538
Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal used ‘Alaiha Salaam’ for Fatima Zahra (as):
۔۔۔ قال وضأت النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ذات يوم فقال هل لك في فاطمة رضي الله عنها تعودها فقلت نعم فقام متوكئا علي فقال أما إنه سيحمل ثقلها غيرك ويكون أجرها لك قال فكأنه لم يكن علي شيء حتى دخلنا
على فاطمة عليها السلام فقال لها كيف تجدينك ۔۔۔
Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Tradition 19796
Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal used ‘Alaihi Salaam’ for Ali bin Abi Talib (as):
۔۔۔ فقلت أبا هريرة قرأت بسورتين قرأ بهما علي عليه السلام قال قرأ بهما حبي أبو القاسم صلى الله عليه وسلم ۔۔۔
Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal, Tradition 9265
One of the beloved scholars of Salafies namely Imam Shawkani also used ‘Alaihi Salaam’ and ‘Alaiha Salaam’ for Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and Fatima Zahra (as) respectively at various places Nail
al-Awtar, such as Volume 2 page 90:
إن في لبس الثوب الأحمر سبعة مذاهب : الأول الجواز مطلقا جاء عن علي عليه السلام وطلحة وعبد الله بن جعفر والبراء وغير واحد من الصحابة
“There are seven opinions about wearing red cloth: The first (opinion) is
that it is absolute lawful and this is the opinion of Ali ‘Alaihi Salaam’ , Talha, Abdullah bin Jaffar, al-Bara and other companions.”
We also read in Nail al-Awtar, Volume 2 page 162:
وسيأتي حديث فاطمة عليها السلام
“The statement of Fatima ‘Alaiha Salaam’ is on the next (page)”
Imam Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari al-Hanafi (d. 1371 H) in his famed work al-Hawi fi Sirat al-Tahawi, page 27 used ‘Alaihi Salaam’ for Ali bin Abi Talib (as):
وتبدو على كلامه آثار بغضه لعلي عليه السلام في كل خطوة من خطوات تحدثه
“The signs of hatred against Ali ‘Alaiha Salaam’ appears in his (Ibn
Tamiyah’s) words in every line of his statement”.
Late Salafi/Ahle Hadith scholar Maulana Waheed uz Zaman also used ‘Imam’ and
‘Alaihe Salaam’ for both Hasan and Hussain (as) in his Urdu translation of Sahih Bukhari:
Sahih Bukhari, volume 2 page 315 (Maktaba Rehmania Lahore)
Similarly terms ‘Imam’ and ’Alaihe Salaam’ have respectively been used
for Hussain (as) by Maulana Akber Shah Khan Najeebabadi in his famed work:
Tarikh Islam, Volume 2 page 75 (Nafees Academy, Karachi)
In one of the vital books of Azam Tariq’s own Deoband sect namely Fatawa
Rashidiyah by Mufti Rasheed Ahmed Gangohi, we see ‘Alaihe Salaam’ written after the name of Hussain (as):
Fatawa Rashidiyah, page 149 ‘Kitab al-Ilm’ (Daar ul Ishat, M.A. Jinnah Road, Karachi)
It is rather strange that Azam Tariq’ has advanced his objection on using the
term ‘Imam’ with the name of Hussain (as) where as Azam Tariq’s own Imam Qasi Nanatovi’s persian book has been rendered into Urdu language by the name of “Shahadat Imam Hussain (ra) aur
Kirdar e Yazeed [Martyrdom of Imam Hussain and the character of Yazeed]” by ”Tahreek e Khudam Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat” which was perhaps a front name of Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), the
banned terrorist organization Azam Tariq was the leader of:
“Shahadat Imam Hussain (ra) aur Kirdar e Yazeed, published by ”Tahreek e Khudam Ahle Sunnat wal Jamat” Karamabad, Wahdat Road, Lahore.
And last but certainly not the least, the Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Albaani
also used ‘Alaiha Salaam’ [peace be upon her] for Fatima Zahra in his book Adaab al-Zafaf, page 217:
شكوى ابنته فاطمة عليها السلام
“The complain of his daughter Fatima peace be upon her….”
Reply Three – A Salafi scholar used ‘Alaihi Salam’ for his Imam
While recording the biography of one of the most famous Salafi Imams namely Ibn Qayim al-Jawzi, a Salafi scholar Muhammad Ali Qutub stated in his book Aemat al-Fiqh al-Islami, Volume 11 page 15:
سلام على الإمام … الإمام شمس الدين محمد أبي عبدالله بن أبي بكر قيم الجوزية بن أيوب بن سعد الزرعي الدمشقي سلام عليه في الأولين والآخرين
“Peace be upon the Imam …the Imam Shamsuddin Muhammad Abi Abdullah bin Abi
Bakr Qayim al-Jawzia bin Ayub bin Saad al-Zar’ai al-Demashqi, peace be upon him in the first and the last”.
Azam Tariq’s attack on the concept of Imamate
REMEMBER THAT IMAMATE IS AN ARTICLE OF FAITH WITH THE SHIAS AND ACCORDING TO THEIR BELIEF IMAM IS SINLESS LIKE THE PROPHET AND APPOINTED AND COMMISSIONED BY ALLAH. HAZRAT HUSAYN IS ONE OF
THEIR (SHIA) TWELVE IMAMS. AS SUCH THE SHIAS USE THE TITLE OF “IMAM” FOR HAZRAT HUSAYN ALTHOUGH IN THE SIGHT OF SUNNI MUSLIMS, HE IS A SAHABI AND NOT A “SINLESS IMAM” APPOINTED AND
COMMISSIONED BY ALLAH. WE DO NOT SUSCRIBE TO THE SHIA BELIEF OF IMAMATE.
Whilst Ahl’ul Sunnah may not ascribe to the concept of Imamate within their pillars it still forms a part of their aqeedah, and their Ulema have confirmed this fact in their books of aqaid. Both
Sunni and Shi’a schools hold Imamate as a part of aqeedah. Rather the difference lies over the method of appointment.
Quoting Mulla Ali Qari’s book “Sharh Fiqh Akbar”, which sets out the madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa, this is what we read in the Chapter “Masala Nusbul Imamah” (Issue of appointment of the Imam):
“It is the majority opinion that there is a duty to appoint an Imam. But
there is a difference, as to whether this is Allah’s duty or whether this is incumbent on the public. The belief in the eyes of Ahl’ul Sunnah and Muttazalites is that the duty to appoint an Imam
is a duty of the public. In terms of hadith and logic this is a duty of the public. In accordance with this belief, there is a hadith in Sahih Muslim, narrated by Abdullah ibne Umar ‘He who dies
without giving bayah to an Imam dies the death of one belonging to the days of jahiliyyah’. This is why the Sahaba viewed the appointment of the Imam as so important that they preferred it to
attending the Prophet’s funeral, because the Muslims need an Imam so that orders can be made on Jihad, and so that Islamic Laws can be implemented” Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 175 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son,
Qur’an Muhall, Karachi)
Maulana Abdul Aziz Fehrawi expands on this matter yet further:
“The appointment of the Imam is compulsory, its foundation is based on the
fact that Rasulullah (s) said whoever dies in a state where he has failed to recognise the Imam of his time…. who dies at a time when the Imam is present and fails to recognise him, or dies when
no Imam exists (nevertheless), his death shall be the death of jahiliyyah (one belonging to the time of ignorance). We have a hadith in Sahih Muslim by Ibn Umar – whoever dies without an Imam
dies the death of jahiliyya. In the tradition of Muslim we find these precise words “Whoever dies in state, having not had bayya over his neck shall die the death of one belonging to the time of
jahiliyyah”. al Nabraas Sharh al aqaid page 512
Incidentally the last sentence of this discourse on the Sunni concept of Imamate also shows the real reason why the modern-day Nasibi ulema oppose Imam Husayn (as) being called as such by the
majority of Sunnis. Since imamate is linked here to the bayya, by calling him Imam Husayn (as) the Nasibis are aware of the fact that most Sunnis accept Imam Husayn (as) as their imam and
rightful khalifa and not Yazeed. This is a perplexing phenomenon of which the Nasibis are aware, for Husayn (as) was not appointed by man, and could thus only have been appointed by Allah, as the
Shias claim their Imams are. Yet such was the vindication of truth that he achieved over a demonic khalifa that Husayn (as) is accepted as the rightful Imam in the spiritual sense by the Sunni
majority, and the khalifa of the time Yazeed is cursed. The Shia Imam embodying pure goodness fought against the Sunni imam embodying pure evil. Yet the Sunni majority to this day side with the
Shia Imam. This is intolerable to the Nawasib.
These two references from classical Hanafi scholars confirm that the Imamate is a part of aqeedah and that:
Man has the duty to appoint the Imam
Failure to recognise the Imam leads to the individual dying a kaafir.
If an issue as the difference between dying a Momin or a kaafir has nothing to do with aqeedah then what on earth does?
The Shi’a, as Azam Tariq has (for a change) correctly said, believe that the Imam is appointed by Allah (swt) and is infallible. We have proven this belief from the Qur’an and Sunni sources in
the article ‘The creed of the Shi’a’ available on this
site. It is the difference in the two approaches that came to loggerheads at Karbala: the khalifa appointed by man – imam Yazeed, versus Allah’s appointed Imam Husayn (as). And the Sunni majority
supports the Shia imam against their own imam. Sometimes whole populations oppose their leader over an issue of conscience and an intuitive understanding, deep down, as to who is right and who is
wrong. We see this in the phenomenon of peace demonstrations by western civilians against the various wars that western governments have fought in their name. It is the same thing here with the
Sunni majority’s attitude to Imam Husayn (as) and Yazeed. Azam Tariq cannot stand this as it destructures the whole edifice of Sunni Islam. We would like to end this section with a simple
question to our brothers from Ahl’ul Sunnah:
‘Supporting which Imam at that time meant the difference between dying the
death of jahiliyyah and attaining salvation, Yazeed or Husayn?’.
Azam Tariq has implied above that he cannot stand the fact that the Sunni majority say it is Imam Husayn (as) that they choose.
We pray that this question, in light of our analysis of Yazeed’s character, leads our Ahl’ul Sunnah brothers to understand the serious flaw that exists in believing that man NOT Allah (swt)
decides on Imamate over a people. We saw what happens when a man rules. Yazeed was one of several similarly degenerate khalifas. But he embodied these degenerate traits to an unrivalled degree,
This is what man’s appointment of khalifa means. This is why the Nasibis come up with the most ridiculous lies to hide his reality, for it is so scathing for the Sunni notion of khilafat. Not
only scathing because Yazeed was so low, it is ten times more scathing because good was represented by an Imam of the Shia.
Why do these Nasibi vigorously defend the reign of Yazeed?
This is one of those questions that automatically comes to mind when one analyses the character of Yazeed. The reason lies in aqeedah, and goes to the heart of where the Sunni / Shi’a viewpoints
diverge. The core difference between the two schools is on the topic of Imamate: who has the right to lead the Ummah. Shi’a Muslims believe that this leadership is religious guidance and hence
the appointment is the sole right of Allah (swt), for He (swt) knows what is best for his Servants and He (swt) shall appoint the man best suited / most superior to lead the Ummah through all
times. Allah (swt) will select an Imam who is best in character, most excelled on the components of Deen, who shall only rule via justice (if you want details see a ‘moderate’ article by a
separate author but which we have copied and pasted onto this site called “The Khalifatullah in Shia Belief” for proof of this). There is no need for ijma, or votes since Allah (swt) appoints and
no one has a voice in the matter.
The Ahl’ul Sunnah believe that the appointment of the Imam is a duty of the Public – they decide on who comes to power. The importance in relation to appointment is the act of giving bayya – once
the Khalifah has received ijma then his imamate is legitimate. The act of bayya is the crucial factor here – the people decide who is in power (a democratically elected dictatorship for life),
and the khalifa’s character has no further bearing since once in power the Khalifah has to be obeyed. Any opposition is squashed, with violence. From the time of Mu’awiya onwards, all the
khalifates become monarchies.
When this is the basis for Ahl’ul Sunnah aqeedah, then over time their jurists have sought to revise the concept of imamate with stipulations over certain characteristics that Imam should
possess, such as bravery, piety, and justice, especially after the embarrassing debacle (for Sunni Islam) with Yazeed and certain other members of the Banu Umayyad dynasty – for example the
khalifa Waleed who expressed his desire to drink alcohol on the roof of the Ka’aba. Unfortunately these writings have been nothing more than a ‘Dear Santa Wish List’ since an analysis of early
Islamic history will quickly lead to us learning that characteristics such as justice were completely devoid in these Khalifahs, and there is no better example than Yazeed. Indeed with the
exception of perhaps Umar bin Abdul Aziz in 1,100 years of khilafat after Yazeed, barely a pious man acceded to this position. Most were as bad as kings anywhere were. This left many classical
Salaf scholars with a very difficult problem:
If they reject Yazeed, they are then rejecting the concept of ijma that had
been allegedly created at Saqifa Bani Sa’ada, and underpins Sunni Islam
Rejecting this ijma’a in effect discredits Sunni aqeedah that the duty to
appoint the imam is the right of the public.
If this concept is discredited, by highlighting Yazeed’s demonic character and
satanic actions, then the Ummah is forced to consider the alternative option of appointment as ascribed to by the Shi’a school of thought.
The Salaf Ulema, faced with this difficult problem, have decided to uphold the legitimacy of Yazeed’s reign since this is the only way that their belief in man made appointment can be maintained.
This accounts for their pathological and indeed blatant lying, which embarrasses even the Nasibis. We shall now seek to set out the consequence of this belief…
Rasulullah (s) said that he would be suceeded by twelve caliphs
We are quoting from Sahih Muslim hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid Siddiqui:
“The Islamic religion will continue, until the hour has been established,
or you have been ruled over by 12 Caliphs, all of them being from Quraish”.
This is what we read in Mishkat al Masabih:
“I heard the Apostle of Allah say ‘Islam shall not cease to be glorious up
to twelve Caliphs, every one of them being from the Quraish”. (And in a narration) “The affairs of men will not cease to decline so long as twelve men will rule over them, every one of them
coming from Quraysh.” And in a narration: “The religion will continue to be established till the hour comes as there are twelve Caliphs over them, everyone of them coming from the
Quraish” Mishkat al Masabih: (Vol 4 p 576), Hadith 5
The Salafi and Hanafi Schools of thought have graded Yazeed as the Sixth caliph of Rasulullah (s)
Sharh Fiqh Akbar page 50 Dhikr Fadail Uns Bad un Nabi
Sawaiqh al Muhriqa page 12 Chapter 3
Tareekh al Khulafa page 11 Fadail Dhikr Khilafath Islam
Tareekh Khamees Volume 2 page 291 Dhikr Khilafat Hasan
Umdah’ thul Qari fi Sharh Bukhari Volume 11 page 435, Kitab al Ahkaam
We read in Sharh Fiqh Akbar:
Rasulullah (s) said that the Deen shall remain strong as long as these
twelve Khalifahs are at the helm, and the twelve are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, ‘Ali Mu’awiya, Yazid, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan,
Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan
The sixth Imam of truth according to Abu Sulaiman and Azam Tariq is Yazeed, but this is a fact that these Ulema often don’t mention to the public.
Abdullah Ibn Umar deemed the bayya to Yazeed to be in accordance with the conditions set by Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s)
We read in Sahih al Bukhari, Narrated Nafi’:
When the people of Medina dethroned Yazeed bin Muawiya, Ibn ‘Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the
Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more
faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has
agreed to dethrone Yazeed, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.” Sahih al-Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227
This fatwa epitomises the entire Sunni aqeedah on Imamate. We leave it to those with open minds to now decide which concept of Imamate holds true. One that deems this to be based purely on Allah
(swt)’s selection, or one that deems it man’s choice no matter who, so much so that reign of Yazeed, a drunk, fornicating, Dhaalim homosexual is also in accordance with the conditions prescribed
by Allah (swt) and Rasulullah (s). Would Allah (swt) really bless the reign of such a man?
Our Ahl’ul Sunnah brothers should know that ‘you can’t keep your cake and eat it’ – if you want to reject the khilafat of Yazeed, then you are in effect rejecting Sunni aqeedah on Imamate. If you
accept the khilafat of Yazeed, you are in effect joining the camp of the Salafi and Deobandi Nasibi shaped around the fatwa of Abdullah ibn Umar. On the plains of Kerbala the two concepts of
Imamate came to a head – man-made appointment (Yazeed) versus Allah’s appointment (Imam Husayn (as)). We pray that this article shall shed light over the consequence of believing that man, not
Allah (swt) decides on the appointment of the Imam. It took the Imam appointed by Allah (swt) to lay down his life and that of his dearest blood family to save the religion for you.