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
Adapted from the book: "Yazeed"
Share this article