What consensus was established on allegiance to Yazid?
The point after this is: Which authentic consensus from the elders of religion
made allegiance to Yazid justified for Ibne Umar. Yazid, who was hated by
companions and companions of companions and was a spurned one in view of
righteous members of community, who was well known for his profligacy,
shamelessness, drunkenness, lusts and disobedience and he was such that the
poet, Bulis Salamat, says in Mulhima Ghadeer:1
“1. O one, whose call has risen up and your call is for success, keep your
voice low in the Morning Adhan. 2. As the ruler is busy with attractive singers,
so take care you don’t disturb him. 3. A thousand ‘Allahu Akbar’ in view of
Yazid cannot equal a draught of liquor. 4. A wine that no has touched and which
is aged, but no one has tasted it; and which is unmixed with water.”
This was when the whole community has consensus that the imam should be
just (not one who commits greater sins openly).
Qurtubi has writes in his Tafseer:2
“The eleventh condition is that the imam should be just (not one who
commits greater sins openly), because there is no dispute regarding this in the
Ummah that establishment of Imamate is not allowed for the transgressor. And it
is necessary that he should be the most superior in knowledge and excellence,
because the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) said:
“Your imams are your intercessors; so mind whom you deem as your
intercessor.”
And it is mentioned in the Holy Quran in the description of Talut that:
إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةً فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ
“Surely Allah has chosen him in preference to you, and He has
increased him abundantly in knowledge and physique.”3
Thus, first He mentioned knowledge and then what has come regarding
physical strength.
And he has written:4
If the imam is appointed, and after his Imamate is established, he becomes a
transgressor, the majority says that: His Imamate automatically nullified; and
with open transgression he would be dismissed; because it is proved that imam is
responsible for establishments of limits and fulfillment of rights, and protecting
properties of orphans and insane; and supervising their condition, and other
instances, which were mentioned before, and the transgression present in him has
prevented him to perform these duties.
So if we regard his being a transgressors as lawful it would comprise of
invalidation of that through which Imamate is established. Do you not see that in
the beginning it is not lawful for Imamate to be established for a transgressor,
because it comprises of what invalidates his Imamate and this is also same as
this.
Yes, ten thousand, which came to him for the unjust allegiance of
Muawiyah,5 made conflict a consensus for Ibne Umar. As other also followed
greed like Ibne Umar, and rushed to his allegiance and Abdullah was in their
forefront, and after his father, paid allegiance to him and wrote a letter about his
allegiance whereas those, who staged an uprising against him were senior
companions led by Imam Hasan (a.s.).
Who was having precedence of being the near kindred of Prophet and also
had the seniority of Imamate and knowledge of Shariah and morals of prophets
and who was the chief of the youth of Paradise, and people were inclined to him.
Whereas those who opposed him were happy to follow Muawiyah and sidelined
others.
But none of these had any effect in this man and he did not see dispute in
this, and he neglected the advice of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and did not pay
attention to the statement of Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) that:
“Indeed, this son of mine would be killed on a land called Kerbala. Thus,
whoever of you is present there is obliged to support him.”
Yes, that victim and that dearest one of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) by
signing the pledge to Yazid and supporting him, at the time of return of people of
Medina from Shaam, forbid them to break the pledge, whereas they had seen
those mischiefs and evils and destructive acts, and believed that he has gone out
of the pale of Islam and they said:
“We are coming from a man, who has no religion, who imbibes liquor, plays
tambourine, slave girls play drums before him, he plays with dogs, and spend
nights of frolic with wanton youth; and we make you a witness that we have
dismissed him from Caliphate.” So people followed them.6
Ibne Falih has written: Amr bin Hafas, their representative and emissary
came to Yazid, who accorded respect to him and gave him nice gifts; and when
he returned to Medina, he stood besides the pulpit and he was a nice man; he
said:
“Was I not accorded love? Was I not accorded respect? By God, I saw Yazid
bin Muawiyah that he omitted prayer due to drunkenness.” So the people of
Medina united on his dismissal.
Miswar bin Makhrama a companion, who went to see Yazid bin Muawiyah.
When he returned from there he testified for his profligacy. This matter was
reported to Yazid and he wrote a letter to his agent, asking him to punish Miswar.
Abu Hirra intoned the following verses:
“Does Abu Khalid drinks red wine, which smells of musk, and Miswar
should be penalized?”7
Thus, Ibne Umar through the traditional report which he has himself
narrated from the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), forbid them to follow their
desire, and gathered his family members, slaves and servants and said:
“None of you should dismiss Yazid and none of you should go near this
matter as the sword would come between I and him.”8
It is mentioned in the words of Bukhari that: “Indeed, I don’t understand that
one of you has dismissed Yazid and has pledged allegiance in this matter, except
that a sharp sword would be placed between I and him.”
He justified that accursed pledge through the traditional report which he
attributed to the Prophet: “Indeed, on Judgment Day, the breaker of pledge would
be given a sign for having broken their pledge.”
This is ignorance about eloquence of discourse, because it is known to all
that the implication of this order is eligibility of religious allegiance that is he has
pledge of allegiance with God and His Prophet and not someone like Yazid the
profligate and his unjust father, who was away from Allah, the Mighty and the
High and His messenger.
No matter whatever we overlook, we cannot overlook the source of
allegiance of Yazid, which during the time of the son of Hind, the liver-eater, was
taken under compulsion and through bribes. And these two are such that they did
not regard Yazid to be worthy of Caliphate and this Caliphate was publicized in
the country through agents of greed and vested interests, and those, who had
obtained power through foul means. And no one opposed it, except at the peril of
his life and property, and those, who could not oppose it openly retreated to
inaccessible places and sought the refuge of God from it.
Abdullah was himself from those, who in the first instance and before he had tasted the hundred thousand as bribe, refused to pay allegiance.9