Terrorism is commonly defined as the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. Though this terminology is modern, the word is applicable to numerous groups and uprisings throughout islamic history as well modern times. A common characteristic amongst these terrorist groups, is their adherence to Abu Bakr and Umar and of recent times commonly identifying with the so-called 'Salafi' movement.
For years now, the modern Sunni speakers and jurists (fuqaha) have tried their best to distinguish themselves from the terrorist groups that have been aligned with them through numerous proofs as well polemical works that they have published. They have even spent large amounts of money on conferences to promote this view. Despite having a house made out of glass, the Sunnis have resorted to accusing the Shi'a of being terrorist supporters and sympathizers, when in reality the Shi'a in the Islamic world have usually been the primary victims of these groups. Among the most ridiculous claims that the opponents of the Shi'a will try to bring up is that the infamous group known as the Qaramita, infamous for their sack of Mecca in 930 CE and the desecration of the Black stone (al-Hijr al-Aswad) and massacre of the pilgrims, were so-called Shi'a.
In this article we shall be refuting the misconception that the Qaramita were Imami Shi'a Muslims, as this slander has been used by Sunnis for hundreds of years to try to portray the Shi'a as advocates of terrorism, as well as showing who the true advocates of terrorism against the holy cities were.
Who are the Qaramita?
The Qaramita were a deviant heretical sect that terrorized the Islamic world during the late Abbasid period. Their most infamous attack was on the Holy city of Mecca as noted earlier, and they have their origins in Kufa. Their main areas of operation were northeastern Arabia in modern day Qatar, Bahrain, Eastern Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
The Encyclopedia of Islam vol. 4, p. 661 states the following regarding this group:
KARMATI, pl. Karāmita, name given to the adherents of a branch of the Isma'iliyah [9.v.). Originally it is generally reported to have referred to the followers of Hamdan Karmat, an Isma'ili leader in the sawad of al-Kufa, whose surname Karmat (also Karmațüya) is variously explained in the sources as meaning short-legged or red-eyed. It is to be noted, however, that the Imāmi scholar al-Fadl b. Shadhán of Naysābūr, who died in 260/873-4, already wrote a refutation of the Karamita (al-Radd 'ala 'l-Karāmita). Thus either the missionary activity of Hamdān must have commenced long before the year 261/874-5 or 264/877-8, which the sources give as the date of its beginning, or his surname was itself derived from the name of the sect. The movement directed by Hamdan was, in any case, merely part of the general Ismaili movement of his time whose leadership he recognized. After Hamdān's revolt against the leadership in 286/899 and his subsequent disappearance, the term Ķarāmița was generally used for those Ismāʻīlī groups which joined this revolt and consequently refused to recognize the claims of the Fățimid caliphs to the imámate. Sometimes it was pejoratively applied also to the Ismailis supporting the Fățimid imämate. The present article, however, will deal only with the history of the former groups and their relationship with the Fățimid Ismā'ilī movement.
From this we find that the Qaramita were an Isma’ili based group, and this is well-known in the books of history for anyone who reads into them. This is despite the pathetic claim usually thrown by Sunnis, that they were a twelver based group, when this is not true at all as they objected to them.
Shi'i views on the Qaramita
As we have already shown in the Encyclopedia of Islam, the major Shi'i scholar al-Fadhl b. Shadhan (ra) wrote a book refuting the Qaramita, but should the reader require a more primary source, al-Najashi mentions in his Rijal, pg. 306 - 7:
كتاب الردّ على القرامطة
Al-Kinji has mentioned that he wrote 180 books of which the following has reached us: … the book of refuting the Qaramita…
Al-Najashi has also mentioned that Muhammad b. Ya'qub al-Kulayni (رحمة الله عليه), the author of the famous Kitab al-Kafi al-Shareef, wrote a book on them as well in pg. 377:
وله غير كتاب الكافي كتاب الردّ على القرامطة
And he (al-Kulayni) has works other than the book of Al-Kafi such as the book of refuting the Qaramita…
From this evidence alone we can conclude that calling the Qaramita Shi'a is as absurd as calling Ibn Taymiyyah a Shi'a; how can these people be Shi'a when the major scholars wrote books refuting their nonsensical beliefs? The likes of Sheikh al-Saduq, Yusuf al-Bahrani, Muhsin al-Amini, and Sheikh Baqir Sharif al-Qureshi all made it clear that the Qaramita were heretics and the Shi'a are innocent of them and their beliefs.
Al-Saduq says in his Kamal ad-Din, vol. 1, pg. 102:
وأما القرامطة فقد نقضت الاسلام حرفا حرفا، لأنها أبطلت أعمال الشريعة و جاءت بكل سوفسطائية، وإن الامام إنما يحتاج إليه للدين وإقامة حكم الشريعة فإذا جاءت القرامطة تدعي أن جعفر بن محمد أو وصيه استخلف رجلا دعا إلى نقض الاسلام والشريعة والخروج عما عليه طبايع الأمة لم نحتج في معرفة كذبهم إلى أكثر من دعواهم المتناقض الفاسد الركيك.
As for the Qaramita, they have transgressed Islām in all matters, for they have abolished the legal actions and brought all kinds of sophistry [to justify themselves]. And the Imām is required for the [existence of the] Religion, and for the establishment of the legal judgements. Then if the Qarāmiṭa come claiming that Jaʿfar b. Muḥammad or the Executor of his will has appointed a man who calls towards the violation of Islām and of the [Divine] Law, or [towards] the deviation from the traditions of the Ummah, we would not need more than their inconsistent, false and weak claims in order to recognize their lies.
Yusuf al-Bahrani says in his Al-Kashkūl, vol. 1, pg. 208:
اغارات القرامطة على العراق والشام والحجاز وفي : سنة ٢٥٨ مبدأ ظهور القرامطة بسواد الكوفة، وهم خوارج زنادقة مارقون من الدين.
The Attacks of the Qarāmiṭa in Iraq, Syria and Hijāz: “In the year 258 AH, the initial emergence of the Qarāmiṭa in Sawād al-Kūfa, and they are Khawārij, heretics and apostates from the Religion.”
Muhsin al-Amin says in his A’yan Al Shia, vol. 1, pg. 62:
(وعد) في صفحة 111 القرامطة من فرق الشيعة. (والشيعة) تبرأ من القرامطة ومن كل من خالف شيئا من شرائع الاسلام.
(And he - an opponent of the Shia - counted on) p. 111 the Qaramita among the Shi’a sects, (and the Shi’a) absolve themselves from the Qaramita and from anyone who violates any of the laws of Islam.
Baqir Sharif al-Qureshi says in his Mawsu’at Ali Ibn Abi Talib, vol. 6, pg. 133:
ظهرت القرامطة على مسرح الحياة الإسلامية ، فأشاعت الفساد والقتل والنهب والدمار ، وقد أحلّت ما حرم الله تعالى ، وحرمت ما أحل الله ، وهي كالشيوعية في تعاليمها ومروقها من الدين ، وقد استباحوا قتل السادة العلويين ، فقد قتلوا كوكبة من أعلامهم ذكر أسماءهم أبو الفرج الأصفهاني.
The Qaramita emerged on the stage of Islamic life, spreading corruption, murder, looting, and destruction. They violated what Allah Almighty prohibited and prohibited what Allah allowed. Their teachings and deviations from religion are similar to communism. They even permitted the killing of Alawite Sayyids, as they murdered a group of their prominent figures, including Abu al-Faraj al-Isfahani.
Sunni views on the Qaramita
The esteemed Sunni scholar Ibn Taymiyyah says the following in Majmu' al-Fatawa, Vol. 35, pg. 162:
وهم من القرامطة الباطنية الذين هم أكفر من اليهود والنصارى ومشركي العرب ، وغايتهم أن يكونوا « فلاسفة » على مذهب أرسطو وأمثاله أو « مجوسا » . وقولهم مركب من قول الفلاسفة والمجوس ، ويظهرون التشيع نفاقا . والله أعلم
“And they are the Qarāmiṭa Baṭiniyyah, who are worse than the Jews, Christians and than the Arab Idolaters, and their aspiration is to become “Philosophers” in the Aristotelian school and similar [doctrines], or then [they want to become] Zoroastrians. And their speech is a combination of that of the Philosophers and of the Zoroastrians, and they falsely show [belief in] Tashayyuʿ. And Allah knows best.”
His student al-Dhahabi similarly said in his Tarikh al-Islam, Vol. 20, pg. 234:
وتحيلوا على المسلمين بطرق شتى . ونفق قولهم على الجهال وأهل البر. ويُدخلون على الشيعة بما يوافقهم، وعلى السنّة بما يوافقهم . ويخدعون الطوائف، ويُظهرون لكل فرقة أنهم منهم
The Qarāmiṭa: “They would mislead the Muslims in different ways, and [they would] dissimulate their speech for the ignorant and for the righteous. They associated with the Shiites through what they agreed upon, and they associated with the Sunnis through what they agreed upon [as well]. Thus they misled [all] the sects, giving them the impression that they belonged to them [i.e. to all the sects].”
From these two accounts we can clearly see that the Qaramita were not Shia, but would recruit the ignorant and the righteous into joining their cause by appealing to them through their own beliefs; when talking to Shi'a they professed Shi'ism, when talking to Sunnis they professed Sunnism. This is a common strategy employed by political groups in order to gain support.
Who eliminated the Qaramita?
The Shi'i Imami commander Husayn b. Hamdan was the uncle of the famous Shia Emir Sayf al-Dawla al-Hamdani and his brother Nasir al-Dawla. In 291 AH he participated in the decisive Battle of Hama, a battle which decided the fate of the Islamic world. In the lead up to the battle the Qaramita had ravaged Homs, Hama, Baalbek, Ma'arrat al-Numan, and even Salamiya. Had the Qaramita won at Hama would have conquered Syria, and from there only Allah knows the damage they could have done to the Islamic world.
The Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol 3, H - Iram, pg. 620 mentions the following:
Or Ibn al-Furāt may have been involved in a conspiracy designed to further the Shi'i cause to which both he and Husayn were devoted. Ideas on this matter can only be hypothetical. In any case the caliph must have feared that if Husayn were released he would once again start a revolt, either through a desire for independence or as a Shi'i.
How remarkable it is that while the Shi'a were responsible for the Qaramita, they were somehow the very people that tried to stop them and refute them while the Ahlul Sunnah were standing by. Reminds you of previous history doesn't it? Always one group fighting and another advocating for silence!
Nonetheless, al-Tabari's accounts of this help us understand this a little more as he recorded in his History of al-Tabari, vol. 38, pg. 137 - 8: [Arabic]
When we were in sight of each other, the squadron on their left wing attacked, whipping (their horses), and moved toward al-Husayn b. Hamdan, who was on the flank of the right wing. Al-Husayn-May God bless him and give him a good reward!-personally confronted them with all the men who were with him. Using their lances, they broke them in the Qaramita' breasts, whereupon (the Qaramita) withdrew from them. When the Qaramita resumed their attack against them, they took their swords, striking the enemy in their faces. During the first onslaught, six hundred horsemen of the wicked unbelievers fell. Al Husayn's men seized five hundred horses and four hundred silver necklaces. The Qarmatians turned their backs and fled, and al-Husayn pursued them. They counter-attacked incessantly, making onslaught after onslaught. In the course of these engagements, one group of theirs after the other fell, until Almighty God had annihilated them. Less than two hundred of their men escaped.
We see that the Shi'a not only helped stop the Qaramita from taking Syria, but they also were responsible for ending the state of the Qaramita once and for all. The Qarmatian state was ended in 467 AH by the Uyunids under their leader Abdullah b. al-Uyuni as stated by the Encyclopedia of Islam, Vol 10, T - U , pg. 960:
The UYŪNIDS, a minor medieval Arabian dynasty with their capital in al-Katīf, ruled over al-Aħsā/al-Hasā in eastern Arabia during the 5th-7th/11th-13th centuries. They eradicated the Qaramita in 467/1076 and are linked to Al Ibrāhīm of Murra, a kabīla of 'Abd al-Kays. Their power waned in the 7th/13th century, as the ‘Uşfūrids took control of the region around the mid-century. References: Umar Ridā Kaḥḥāla, Mu'jam kabā'il al-'Arab, iii, Beirut 1982, 1071; also AL-BAHRAYN. (G.R. SMITH).
The celebrated Uyuni poet Ali b. al-Mugrab al-Uyuni recorded poetry confirming that it was indeed his family that vanquished the Qaramita. Reference for this can be found in Shaykh Ali al-Biladi al-Jarani's Anwar Al Badriyin, pg. 294:
الشاعر المهذب علي بن مقرب في بعض قصائده بقوله: سل القرامط من شظى جماجمهم
The celebrated poet Ali Ibn Mugrab in some of his Qasidas recorded: “And ask the Qaramita who slashed their skulls…”
What were their beliefs?
Regarding the beliefs that the Uyunids had, it is clear from archaeological evidence that they were Shi'a, specifically coins minted by the dynasty. In this image, it is clearly identified that the coins had the phrase 'aliyun waliyah' which can be translated as Ali is the authority [on behalf] of Allah.
This clearly shows that the Uyunids were of the Shi'a as stated by Nayef al-Shera'an; Nuqud al-Dawla, pg. 195:
الحقت هذه العبارت بشهادة التوحيد على معظم نقود الدولة العيونية -موضوع الدراسة- حيث نقشت في السطر الثالث من كتابات مركز الوجه. وتمثل هذه العبارة أهم مبادئ المذهب الشيعي
This phrase follows the phrases testifying to tawhid on the coins of the Uyunid state -the topic of research- and it was minted on the third line at the center of the face of the coin. And this phrase signifies one of the most foundational beliefs of the Shia sect.
We have demonstrated throughout this article that the Shi'a are innocent of the Qaramita and the reality is that the Shi'a were the ones who ended this terrorist group through scholarly refutations and actual fighting, while the Ahlul Sunnah remained quiet to only go and blame the Shi'a for this. However, what's interesting is the fact that in the eyes of the Sunnis, such acts should not even be looked down upon for they're famous for defending their criminal caliphs of numerous despicable crimes that outweigh any terrorist group.
Yazid Ibn Mu'awiyah & the Battle of Harra
We read from Tarikh al-Khulafa, pg. 167 by al-Suyuti:
وفي سنة ثلاث وستين بلغه أن أهل المدينة خرجوا عليه وخلعوه، فأرسل إليهم جيشًا كثيفًا وأمرهم بقتالهم، ثم المسير إلى مكة لقتال ابن الزبير، فجاءوا وكانت وقعة الحرة على باب طيبة، وما أدراك ما وقعة الحرة؟ ذكرها الحسن مرة فقال: والله ما كاد ينجو منهم أحد، قتل فيها خلق من الصحابة -رضي الله عنهم- ومن غيرهم، ونهبت المدينة، وافتض فيها ألف عذراء، فإنا لله وإنا إليه راجعون قال صلى الله عليه وسلم: "من أخاف أهل المدينة أخافه الله، وعليه لعنة الله والملائكة والناس أجمعين". رواه مسلم. وكان سبب خلع أهل المدينة له أن يزيد أسرف في المعاصي. وأخرج الواقدي من طرق: أن عبد الله بن حنظلة الغسيل قال: والله ما خرجنا على يزيد حتى خفنا أن نرمى بالحجارة من السماء إنه رجل ينكح أمهات الأولاد، والبنات، والأخوات، ويشرب الخمر، ويدع الصلاة
In the year sixty-three, news reached him that the people of Al-Madinah had rebelled against him and removed him from power. He sent a large army to confront them and ordered them to fight. Then he proceeded to Makkah to confront Ibn Al-Zubayr. They arrived, and the Battle of Al-Harrah took place at the gate of Taybah. What do you know about the Battle of Al-Harrah? Al-Hasan mentioned it once and said, "By Allah, hardly anyone escaped from them. In it, people from the Companions - may Allah be pleased with them - and others were killed, the city was plundered, and a thousand virgins were taken captive." "Indeed, to Allah we belong and to Him we shall return." The reason the people of Al-Madinah rebelled against him and removed him from power was that Yazid had indulged in excessive sins. Al-Waqidi mentioned in his narrations: Abdullah ibn Hanzalah al-Ghusayl said, "By Allah, we did not rebel against Yazid until we feared that stones would rain down upon us from the sky. He is a man who commits incest with the mothers of children, with daughters, and with sisters, and he drinks alcohol and neglects prayer."
قال الذهبي: ولما فعل يزيد بأهل المدينة ما فعل، مع شربه الخمر وإتيانه المنكرات، اشتد عليه الناس، وخرج عليه غير واحد، ولم يبارك الله في عمره، وسار جيش الحرة إلى مكة لقتال ابن الزبير، فمات أمير الجيش بالطريق، فاستخلف عليه أميرًا، وأتوا مكة، فحاصروا ابن الزبير وقاتلوه ورموه بالمنجنيق، وذلك في صفر سنة أربع وستين، واحترقت من شرارة نيرانهم أستار الكعبة وسقفها وقرنا الكبش الذي فدى الله به إسماعيل وكانا في السقف، وأهلك الله يزيد في نصف شهر ربيع الأول من هذا العام، فجاء الخبر بوفاته والقتال مستمر، فنادى ابن الزبير: يا أهل الشام إن طاغيتكم قد أهلك، فانقلبوا وذلوا وتخطفهم الناس، ودعا ابن الزبير إلى بيعة نفسه, وتسمى بالخلافة، وأما أهل الشام فبايعوا معاوية بن يزيد، ولم تطل مدته كما سيأتي
Al Dhahabi said: When Yazid did such things with people of Medina although "he was indulging in drinking and other evil deeds even before," then the people of Mecca also revolted against him and rose against him from 4 sides, and then Allah (swt) did not put Barakah in life of Yazid and then the army of Harrah went to Mecca to fight ibn Al-Zubayr. Then the commander of the army died on the way, then someone else succeeded him and and then they went to Mecca and surrounded ibn Al-Zubayr and fought with him and threw on them fireballs with catapults, and that happened in the month Safar of the year 64 A.H, and as a result, their fire covered the Kaba, its roof and the horn of the goat which was sacrificed for Isma'il which was on the roof all burned down. Then Allah (swt) destroyed Yazid in the middle of the month Rabi Ul Awwal of that year, and the news of his death came to Mecca when the fight was still going on. Then ibn Zubayr announced: "O people of Shaam, your tyrant died!" They were disturbed and people arrested them. Then Ibn Al-Zubayr called people to pay him allegiance and called himself Caliph, and the people of Shaam paid allegiance to Mu'awiyah son of Yazid, but his reign was not so long as it will be mentioned later.
Ibn Kathir mentions Yazid's crimes of allowing a man to enter Medina in al-Bidayah wal-Nihaya, vol. 11, pg. 619 - 627:
ثم أباح مسلم بن عقبة، الذي يقول فيه السلف مسرف بن عقبة قبحه الله من شيخ سوء ما أجهله المدينة ثلاث أيام كما أمره يزيد، لا جزاه الله خيرًا، وقتل خلقًا من أشرافها وقرائها وانتهب أموالًا كثيرة منها، ووقع شرٌ عظيم وفساد، عريض على ما ذكره غير واحد، قال المدائني، عن شيخ من أهل المدينة، قال: سألت الزهري كم كان القتلى يوم الحرة، قال: سبعمائة من وجوه الناس من المهاجرين والأنصار، ووجوه الموالي وممن لا أعرف من حر وعبد وغيرهم عشرة آلاف، وقد أخطأ يزيد خطأً فاحشًا في قوله لمسلم بن عقبة أن يبيح المدينة ثلاثة أيام، وهذا خطأٌ كبيرٌ فاحش، مع ما انضم إلى ذلك من قتل خلق من الصحابة وأبنائهم، وقد تقدم أنه قتل الحسين وأصحابه على يدي عبيد الله بن زياد، وقد وقع في هذه الثلاثة أيام من المفاسد العظيمة في المدينة النبوية ما لا يحد ولا يوصف، مما لا يعلمه إلا الله عز وجل، وقد أراد بارسال مسلم بن عقبة توطيد سلطانه وملكه، ودوام أيامه من غير منازع، فعاقبه الله بنقيض قصده، وحال بينه وبين ما يشتهيه، فقصمه الله قاصم الجبابرة، وأخذه أخذ عزيز مقتدر وكذلك أخذ ربك إذا أخذ القرى وهي ظالمة، إن أخذه أليم شديدًا.
Muslim ibn 'Uqbah, who is considered by the early Muslims as an evil man and may Allah curse him, was allowed by Yazid to enter Madinah for three days. During this time, he killed many noble and knowledgeable individuals, looted a great deal of wealth, and caused immense evil and corruption. These events were mentioned by more than one source. Al-Madaini reported from a scholar from Madinah who said, "I asked Al-Zuhri how many people were killed on the Day of Harrah, and he said, 'Seven hundred from among the people, including muhajireen, Ansar, their allies and others whom I do not know, such as free men, slaves, and others. The total reached ten thousand.'" Yazid made a grave and heinous mistake by allowing Muslim ibn 'Uqbah to violate Madinah for three days. This was a major and outrageous mistake, considering the killing of the Companions and their children. It has been previously mentioned that he was also responsible for the killing of Husayn and his companions at the hands of 'Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad. During those three days, unspeakable and unimaginable atrocities were committed in the sacred city of Madinah, known only to Allah Almighty. Muslim ibn 'Uqbah was sent to solidify Yazid's power and control, ensuring undisputed reign for him. However, Allah punished him by thwarting his intentions and preventing him from attaining what he desired. Allah shattered his pride and took him down with force, just as Allah seizes cities while they are in a state of wrongdoing. Indeed, the punishment of Allah is severe and painful.
Ibn Asakir mentions one of the men under Yazid in his Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 40, pg. 385:
قال الحافظ رحمه الله : وكان فيهم حصين ، وهو الذي حاصر ابن الزبير بمكة ، ورمى الكعبة بالمنجنيق فسترت بالخشب فاحترقت
Among them was Haseen (a commander under Yazid), the one who besieged Ibn Al-Zubayr in Mecca and bombarded the Kaaba with catapults, causing it to be covered with wood and subsequently catching fire.
Ibn Hazm mentions in Jawami' al-Sira, pg. 357 - 8:
فقتل بقايا المهاجرين والأنصار يوم الحرة. وهي أيضاً أكبر مصائب الإسلام وخرومه، لأن أفاضل المسلمين وبقية الصحابة وخيار المسلمين من جلة التابعين قتلوا جهراً ظلماً في الحرب وصبراً. وجالت الخيل في مسجد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وراثت وبالت في الروضة بين القبر والمنبر، ولم تصل جماعة في مسجد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، ولا كان فيه أحد، حاشا سعيد بن المسيب
وأكره الناس على أن يبايعوا يزيد بن معاوية على أنهم عبيد له، إن شاء باع، وإن شاؤ أعتق؛ وذكر له بعضهم البيعة على حكم القرآن وسنة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، فأمر بقتله فضرب عنقه صبراً. وهتك مسرف أو مجرم الإسلام هتكاً، وأنهب المدينة ثلاثاً، واستخف بأصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، ومدت الأيدي إليهم وانتهبت دورهم؛ وانتقل هؤلاء إلى مكة شرفها الله تعالى، فحوصرت، ورمي البيت بحجارة المنجنيق، تولى ذلك الحصين بن نمير السكوني في جيوش أهل الشام،
They killed the remaining sahaba on the Day of Harrah. This event marked one of the greatest tragedies for Islam as Muslims, companions, and the best Tabi'in were unjustly killed during the battle. Horses roamed freely in the Prophet's Mosque, trampling and defiling it between the grave and the pulpit. No congregation gathered in the Prophet's Mosque, and no one remained there except Sa'id bin Al-Musayyib...
Yazid compelled people to pledge allegiance to him by considering them his slaves. If he wished, he would sell them, and if he wished, he would free them. Some of them mentioned the allegiance based on the Quranic rulings and the Sunnah of the Prophet, but Yazid ordered their execution, and their heads were cut off mercilessly. The criminal and transgressor of Islam committed acts of violation and looted Medina three times. He showed disrespect to the companions of the Prophet, extended his hands towards them, and confiscated their property. These companions sought refuge in the honorable city of Mecca, where they were besieged. The Kaaba was bombarded with stones from catapults...
Do Sunnis condemn Yazid for terrorism?
While the Ahlul Sunnah have differed on this opinion, many of them are strong adherence of a group that say Yazid can not be accounted, cursed or takfired for the actions he has done.
Ibn Taymiyyah says in his Minhaj al-Sunnah, vol. 4, pg. 567:
- .... والجواب أن القول في لعنة يزيد كالقول في لعنة أمثاله من الملوك الخلفاء وغيرهم ، ويزيد خير من غيره خير من المختار بن أبي عبيد الثقفي أمير العراق الذي أظهر الانتقام من قتلة الحسين فإن هذا أدعي أن جبريل يأتيه ، وخير من الحجاج بن يوسف فانه أظلم من يزيد باتفاق الناس ، ومع هذا فيقال : غاية يزيد وأمثاله من الملوك أن يكونوا فساقا فلعنة الفاسق لمعين ، ليست مأمورا بها إنما جاءت السنة بلعنة الأنواع كقول النبي (ص) : لعن الله السارق يسرق البيضة.
Answer: The answer regarding the cursing of Yazid is like the answer regarding cursing similar Kings, Caliphs, and others (Not allowed). And Yazid is better than them, better than Al-Mukhtar ibn Abu 'Ubayd Al-Thaqafi who (falsely) sought vengeance on al-Hussein's killers, for he said Gabriel used to visit him. And he's also better than al-Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf, for he is more oppressive than Yazid by agreement of the people.
Al-Ghazali simarily says in his Ihya Ulum Al Din, Vol 3, Pg 125:
So if it were said: Is it allowed to curse Yazid for killing Al-Hussein or for ordering for it to happen? We say: No it is not allowed. For neither claims could be proven, therefore we cannot curse him.
We see the modern day Wahabbiyah, may Allah curse them, follow in the footsteps in Yazid b. Mu'awiyah (la) as we read in al-Durrar al-Sanniyah, vol. 9, pg. 264 - 284:
"As for your saying that we invaded Karbala, killed its people, and took its money: Alhamdullillah Rab Al'Alamin, and we don't apologize for this and say: "Likewise it is for the unbelievers" [Surat Muhammad, 10]
Conclusion
As we have shown, the Qaramita and their terrorist movement were not in any way Shia, in fact they were enemies of the Shia, and the Imami scholars devoted much energy to refuting the movement. When this did not prove enough, and it was the honor of the Imami emirs to defeat them and crush their movement permanently. Even more appalling is the fact that the people who defend the so-called “Caliph” who attacked Mecca and Medina, ordering the sack of the Prophets city and the use of Catapult on the sacred house of God have the audacity to accuse another sect of being terrorists, or having their origin in terrorism. We conclude with an ayah of the Holy Qur'an:
يٰۤاَيُّهَا الَّذِيۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا لَا يَسۡخَرۡ قَوۡمٌ مِّنۡ قَوۡمٍ عَسٰٓى اَنۡ يَّكُوۡنُوۡا خَيۡرًا مِّنۡهُمۡ
O you who have believed, let not a people ridicule [another] people; perhaps they may be better than them. (49:11)
Kommentare