Mumtaz ul Haq Debate I On Who Killed Imam Hussain (a.s)?

Our Involvement 

Whilst our approach is to steer clear from any direct confrontation with any particular individual, preferring the approach of polemical dialogue via academic articles, we were forced to take notice when we were bombarded with messages from Shi'ee brothers and sisters, pleading with us to enter into dialogue with this man. 

Our Approach

Having successfully acquired his mobile number, the team devised a series of questions to ascertain the intelligence levels of the Sheikh via one of the contacts whom is a follower of the Ahlulbayt (a.s). Since he is a vocal proponent of the doctrine that all the companions are truthful and guaranteed Paradise, we felt it was time to test this Aqeedah, and did so armed with books from his school of thought.

Lessons Learnt From The Conversation
  

The whole episode was very disappointing. Whilst we were hopeful of dialogue with a fluent, learned scholar; he appeared as a peevish, milquetoast character, bereft of manners and utterly ignorant of his books. The crucial thing that became clear during the course of the debate, was that Sheikh Mumtaz whilst refusing to condemn Yazid, showed his Nasibi colours in that he had no hesitation in attacking Imam Alee (a.s) by accusing him of shedding the blood of Muslims.

Whilst Sheikh Mumtaz refused to accept our words, we felt it necessary to show our readers ALL the sources to which we relied upon to evidence the accuracy of all what was said and to further prove it was pursuant to Sunni works. We invite all open minded individuals to listen to the recording and click on the links provided to gain a better understanding and only then, decide on whether Sheikh Mumtaz gave a good account of himself. 

A Challenge To Sheikh Mumtaz

Having conversed with the Sheikh, we have opined that it would be a waste of time to engage with a man with such an ornerier disposition. But we would be more than happy to do so via a debate on Paltalk (pursuant to rules that would be agreed upon by both parties). The Sheikh is more than welcome to post his challenge in the comments section found at the bottom of this article, or alternatively respond to the following questions below. 

We will now take a closer look at some individuals, rather some sahaba, who took part in the mistreatment and killing of Muslim ibn Aqeel (a.s), Imam Hussain (a.s) and his companions in Karbala and how the scholars accept these very individuals as being reliable and trustworthy for their sources. This is exactly what Sheikh Mumtaz accused the Shi'as of doing, in that we, as Shi'as, should not accept any narrations from the sahaba in regards to the event of Karbala since the accounts were written by no eye witnesses and (after being pointed out to him) some sahaba, who we do not deem as reliable in the first place. This, is of course not true since Imam Alee (a.s.) said, "Do not see who is saying it, rather look at what is being said." However, it is important to point out that this saying of Imam Alee (a.s) is with the condition that it is only acceptable so long as it does not contradict the Holy Qur'an, Prophet (saw) and the Ahlulbayt (a.s). Nevertheless, how can Mumtaz use such a weak argument when he and the rest of the so-called 'Ahl us Sunnah' take from such individuals who were outright liars, murderers, oppressors...and the list goes on...

References Quoted In The Conversation

Section 1

PERSON #  1

Amr Ibn Al-Hurayth

Muhammad ibn Jarir:

When Muslim ibn Aqeel saw that he had been left alone, he began to wander through the streets. He came to a door and stopped. A woman came out to him. He asked her to give him a drink. She gave him a drink and then returned inside her house. She delayed for as long as God decreed and then came back out to find him still at the door. She said, "Servant of God, your staying here is suspicious, Go Away!" He replied, "I am Muslim b. Aqeel, will you shelter me?" She told him to enter. Her son was a mawla of Muhammad Al-Ash'tah. When the boy recognized him, he went to Muhammad and told him. Muhammad went to Ubaydullah and told him. Ubaydullah sent Amr b. Hurayth the commander of his police to get him. With him went Abd Al-Rahman b. Muhammad b. Ash'tah.

Source: Tarikh Al-Tabari. Vol. 19, Pg. # 21.

 

Muhammad ibn Jarir: 

Ubaydullah sent Amr ibn Hurayth Makhzumi and he was the chief of the Police to catch him (Muslim ibn Aqeel) with him Abd Al-Rahman ibn Muhammad ibn Ash'ath, and Muslim did not know until he was surrounded in the house. When he saw this, Muslim went out to them with his sword and fought them. Then Abd Al-Rahman promised him safety, so Muslim stopped fighting, then they took him to Ubaydullah. Ubaydullah ordered to take Muslim to the roof of the palace and cut his head off and throw him down to the people and ordered Hani to take him to the garbage and crucified him there.

Source: Tarikh Al-Tabari. Vol. 5, Pg. # 350. 

Ibn Kathir:

Ubaydullah sent Amr ibn Hurayth Makhzumi and he was the chief of the Police to catch him (Muslim ibn Aqeel) with him Abd Al-Rahman and Muhammad ibn Ash'ath with 70 or 80 horsemen, and Muslim was not aware of it until he was surrounded in the house in which he resided. Then they entered the house and Muslim stood up against them with his sword and expelled them from the house three times. His upper lip and bottom were hit, and then they started throwing stones and burned alot of reeds and threw it over him. He was very tired. Then he went out with his sword and fought them, then Abd Al-Rahman promised him safety, so Muslim stopped fighting. They brought him an animal to ride and took his sword. He couldn't do anything else, so he cried, and he knew that he would be killed. He lost hope and said, 'We are from Allah (swt) and to him we return.'

Source: Al-Bidayah Wa'an-Nihayah. Vol. 11, Pg. # 487.

Ibn Athir:

... he became very rich, he was among the richest in Kufa, he was serving Bani Ummayah. They used to trust him very much and he was also with them. He also participated in Qadisiya.

Source: Usud Al-Ghaba Fi Ma'rifat Al-Sahabah. Vol. 4. Person # 3902. Pg. # 200.

Al-Dhahabi:

Ibn Amroo bin Uthmaan bin Abdullah bin Umar bin Makhzoum Al-Makhzoumi brother of Sa'eed bin Hurayth. Amroo was one of the remaining companions of the Holy Prophet (saw) who had accompanied him to Kufa.

Source: Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala. Vol. 3. Person # 69. Pg. # 417 - 418.  

Al-Dhahabi:

Amr ibn Hurayth Makhzoomi, he was a Sahabi (Companion of the Prophet), narrated from Aboo Bakr and ibn Mas'ood and his son Ja'far...

Source: Al-Kashif. Vol. 2. Person # 4140. Pg. # 74.

Al-Mizzi:

Abdullah bin Amr ibn Hurayth ibn Amr ibn Uthmaan ibn Abdullah ibn Umar Makhzum Al-Qurayshi, father of Sa'eed Al-Kufi, he was a Sahabi (Companion of the Prophet), and he is the brother of Sa'eed ibn Hurayth. He has narrated from the Prophet (saw) (in Bukhari and the four books) and from his brother Sa'eed ibn Hurayth (in Ibn Majah) and from Sa'eed ibn Zaid ibn Amr ibn Nufail (in Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah) and from Abdullah ibn Masood (in Muslim) and from Adi ibn Hatam (in Bukhari) and from Alee ibn Abi Talib, Umar ibn Khattab, Aboo Bakr Siddique (in Tirmidhi and ibn Majah).

Source: Tahdeeb Al-Kamal. Vol. 21. Person # 4345. Pg. # 580.

PERSON #  2

Umar Ibn Sa'ad 

Al-Bukhari:

Aboo Al-Muaali Al-Ijlli narrated from his father that he said: "When Hussain arrived in Karbala, Umar bin Sa'ad was the first individual who cut the ropes of the tents."

Source: Tarikh Al-Sagheer. Vol. 1, Pg. # 17.

Al-Dhahabi:

Umar bin Sa'ad, the commander of the troops that fought against Al-Hussain (r.a), then Al-Mukhtar killed him (Umar ibn Sa'ad).

Source: Siyar Al-A'lam Al-Nubala. Vol. 4. Person. # 123. Pg. # 349 - 350. 

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

Umar ibn Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas Al-Zuhri Aboo Hafs Al-Madani lived in Kufa. He narrated traditions from his father and Aboo Sa'eed Al -Khudri. His son Ibraheem and grandson Aboo Bakr bin Hafs ibn Umar, Aboo Ishaq Al-Sabayee, Ayzaar bin Hareeth, Yazid bin Abi Maryam, Qatada, Zuhri and Yazid bin Habeeb and others have narrated traditions from him.

Source: Tahdeeb Al-Tahdeeb. Vol. 3, Pg. # 227.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

Umar ibn Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas Al-Madani 'Truthful.'

Source: Taqreeb Al-Tahdeeb. Person # 4903. Pg. # 351.

Al-Mizzi:

Ahmad bin Abdullah Al-Ijlli said: "He used to narrate traditions from his father, and the people narrated from him, and he is the one who killed Al-Hussain, and he is Trustworthy Tabi'ee."

Source: Tahdeeb Al-Kamal. Vol. 21, Pg. # 357.

Al-Dhahabi:

He is not accused of lying.

 

Source: Mizan Al-I'tidal. Vol. 5. Person. # 6122. Pg. # 238 - 239.

Shu'aib Al-Arna'ut has authenticated a narration from Umar ibn Sa'ad as being Hasan (Reliable)

Source: Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. Vol. 3, Pg. # 82 / 113 / 142. H. # 1487.

PERSON #  3

Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad 

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

He is Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad, the prince of Kufa for Mu'awiyah and his son Yazid, and he is the one who prepared the armies from Al-Kufa to fight Al-Hussain (r.a) until he was killed in Karbala. He was known as ibn Marjana and she is his mother (Marjana). Ibn Asakir has mentioned his biography in Tarikh Dimashq and he was mentioned in Sunan Aboo Dawood. And he narrated from Sa'ad bin Abi Waqqas and Mu'awiyah and Ma'qel bin Yasir and ibn Umayyah the brother of Bani Ja'dah. And from those who narrated from him are Al-Hassan Al-Basri and Aboo Al-Malih bin Usama.

Source: Tajeel Al-Munfa Bazawayd Rijal Al-Aimaah Al-Arbah. Vol. 1, Pg.  # 840.

Al-Suyuti:

Yazid wrote to his ruler in Iraq 'Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad' for the murder of Hussain (r.a).

Source: Tarikh Al-Khulafa. Pg. # 125.

Abi Hanifah ibn Ahmad:

Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad: "I killed Al-Hussain due to the reason that he revolted against our Imam (Yazid) and the very Imam sent me the message to kill Al-Hussain. Now if the murder of Hussain is a sin, then Yazid is responsible for it."

Source: Al-Akhbar Al-Tawaal. Pg. # 278 - 279.

PERSON #  4

Shimr Ibn Thil Jawshan 

Al-Dhahabi:

Aboo Ish'aq said: Shimr used to pray with us and say: ‘O God, you know that I am a righteous man thus forgive me.’ I said (Aboo Ish'aq): ‘How shall Allah forgive you when you participated in killing the son of Allah's messenger (saw)?’ He replied: ‘Woe to you! What should I have done? Our rulers ordered us to do so, we therefore did not disobey them, if we disobeyed them we would be worse than these animals.’ I said: ‘This is an awful excuse, verily obedience is only in relation to good things.’

Source: Mizan Al-I'tidal. Vol. 3, Pg. # 385, Person # 3747.

Now let us take a look at the scholarly opinions on Aboo Ish'aq.

Al-Dhahabi:

The Sheikh, Jurist and Muhaddith (specialist in Narrating Hadeeth) of Kufa.

Source: Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala. Vol. 5. Person. # 180. Pg. # 392. 

Al-Dhahabi:

Fudhail ibn Ghazw'aan said: Aboo Ish'aq used to recite Qur'aan completely every three days and it has been said that he used to abundantly fast, perform night prayers and guard his chastity, he was a container of knowledge and he has a lot of virtues.’

Source: Tadhkirat Al-Huffaz. Vol. 1. Person # 99 - 100. Pg. # 114.

PERSON #  5

 Qadi Shureh Ibn Al-Harith

Ibn Kathir:

Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad said to Hani bin Urwah Muradi: "Allah has made your blood Halal for me because you are Haroori." Thus according to his orders he was locked up next to a house and his tribe Banu Mazhaj came and stood at the door of the palace along with Umro bin Al-Hajjaj. They thought that Hani had been killed. When ibn Ziyad heard their noise he asked Qadi Shureh who was near him to go to the people and tell them that the Ameer has detained him so that he could question him about Muslim bin Aqeel. Therefore Qadi told them: "Your master is alive and our king has beaten him up to a extent where there was no danger to his life."

Source: Al-Bidayah Wa'an-Nihayah. Vol. 11, Pg. # 484 - 485.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

Shureh ibn Al-Harith ibn Qays bin Al-Juham bin Mu'awiyah bin Amer Al-Kindi Aboo Amuaya Al-Kufi the Qadi, he is called Shureh bin Sharhabil or Sherahil narrated in Bukhari, Sunan Al-Nasa'i. Hanbal bin Ishaq narrate that ibn Moo'en said about him: ‘Trustworthy.’ Al-Ijlli said: ‘Kufi Tabi'ee 'Trustworthy.' Ibn Sa'ad said: ‘He died in year 79 A.H and he is Trustworthy.’

Source: Tahdeeb Al-Tahdeeb. Vol. 2, Pg. # 160 - 161.

PERSON #  6

Muhammad Ibn Al-Ashath

Muhammad ibn Jarir:

Kathir met a man from Kalb called Abd al-Ala ibn Yazid. He was carrying arms with the intention of joining Muslim bin Aq'eel with his fellow youths. He seized him (Abd al-Ala) and took him to Ibn Ziyad. Kathir told Ibn Ziyad about the man, but the man told Ibn Ziyad that he had been intending to come to him. Ibn Ziyad retorted “Sure, sure! I remember that you promised me that!” Ibn Ziyad ordered the man to be imprisoned.

Muhammad ibn. Al-Ashath went out until he reached the houses of the Banu Umarah. Umarah. Salkhan Al-Azdi came to him he was on his way to Muslim Ibn Aq'eel and was carrying arms. Muhammad ibn al-Ashath seized him and sent him to Ibn Ziyad who imprisoned him.

Source: Tarikh Al-Tabari, Vol. 5, 369 - 370.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

Muhammad b. Al-Ash'ath b. qays Al-Kindi, Aboo Al-Qasim Al-Kufi, from the second generation and is mentioned by the Companions that died in the year 67 A.H 

Source: Taqreeb Al-Tahdheeb, Vol. 2. Person # 5742. Pg. # 405.

Al-Mizzi:

Muhammad bin al-Ash'ath bin Qais al-Kindi, Abul-Qasim al-Kufi. His mother is Umm Farwa bint Abi-Quhafa, the sister of Aboo Bakr al-Siddiq. He narrated of: his father, al-Ash'ath bin Qais, and Abdullah bin Mas'ud, and Uthman bin Affan, and Umar bin al-Khattab, and A'isha the mother of the believers, and he was the son of her uncle (i.e. her cousin). Those who narrated of him: Bakr bin Qais, and Sulayman bin Yasaar, and Saleh bin Abi-Saleh al-Asadi. And it is 'Saheeh' (correctly) narrated of Saleh, of Amer, of Al-Shu'bi, who narrated of him, and Umar bin Qais al-Maasir, and his son Qais bin Muhammad bin al-Ash'ath bin Qais, and Mujahid bin Jabr, and Muhammad bin Muslim bin Shihab al-Zuhri, and Abu-Kabbash al-Kindi. Muhammad bin Saad said: The children of al-Ash'ath: Muhammad bin al-Ash'ath, and Ishaq, and Isma'il, and Habbaba, and Qariba, and their mother Umm Farwa, the sister of Aboo Bakr al-Saddiq. And as for Muhammad (i.e. Muhammad bin al-Ash'ath), had more than 30 male sons. 

And Aboo Abdullah bin Manda mentioned: that Muhammad bin al-Ash'ath was born during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah - may blessings be upon him - and this is not correct, because his father, al-Ash'ath, married his mother, Umm Farwa, during the caliphate of Aboo Bakr. And ibn Hibban mentioned him in the book "Al-Thuqat" (Authenticated Ones), and said: He was killed by Al-Mukhtar in the year 66 A.H. And Khalifa bin Khayyat said: His mother is Umm Farwa, and he was killed the year 67 A.H with Mus'ab bin al-Zubair during the days of Al-Mukhtar.

And Aboo Dawud narrated a narration of him, and Al-Nisa'i narrated another. And the narration of Al-Nisa'i has come to us in elevation. We were told of it by Abul-Hassan bin al-Bukhari, and Abul-Ghana'im bin 'Alaan, and Ahmad bin Shayban, they said: We were told by Hanbal, he said: We were told by Ibn Al-Hussain, he said: We were told by Inb al-Mazhab, he said: We were told by Al-Qatee'i, he said: We were told by Abdullah bin Ahmad bin Hanbal, he said: I was told by my father, he said: We were told by Wakee', he said: We were told by Zakariyya, of Al-Abbas bin Zaree', of Al-Shu'bi, of Muhammad bin al-Ash'ath bin Qais, of A'isha, she said: "The Prophet (saw) did not keep away from anything of my face when he was fasting." And in it, he said: I was told by my father, he said: We were told by Yahya bin Zakariyya bin Abi-Za'ida, he said: I was told by my father, of Saleh al-Asadi, of Al-Shu'bi, of Muhammad bin al-Ash'ath bin Qais, of Aisha - the same narration.

Source: Tah'dheeb Al-Kamal. Vol. 44. Person # 5074. Pg. # 495 - 497.

Albani Has Graded his Hadeeth as Saheeh in his 'Saheeh Sunnan Abo Dawood'

Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: Muhammad ibn al-Ash'ath said: Al-Ash'ath bought slaves of booty from Abdullah ibn Mas'ud for twenty thousand (dirhams. Abdullah asked him for payment of their price. He said: I bought them for ten thousand (dirhams). Abdullah said: Appoint a man who may adjudicate between me and you. Al-Ash'ath said: (I appoint) you between me and yourself. Abdullah said: I heard the Apostle of Allah (saw) say: If both parties in a business transaction differ (on the price of an article), and they have witness between them, the statement of the owner of the article will be accepted (as correct) or they may annul the transaction

Source: Saheeh Sunnan Aboo Dawood, Pg. 630, Pg. # 3511

As is evidenced, the killers of Imam Hussain (a.s) were actually the forefathers of the so-called 'Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah.' From those that have been discussed included companions of the Prophet (saw) and Tab'iee who have narrated throughout the Saheeh Sittah. These are just some of the many so-called 'Rightly guided Salaf' whom the present day so-called 'Ahl ul Sunnah' consider a pillar of their religion.

From more Nasbi and Kharji narrators in the Saheeh Sittah please refer to our two articles:

http://www.revisitingthesalaf.org/2012/07/ahl-nawasib-wal-jammah.html

http://www.revisitingthesalaf.org/2012/04/khawarij-wal-jammah.html

It is also worth pointing out that at the beginning of the discussion, Sheikh Mumtaz said Yazid was not the one who gave direct orders to kill Imam Hussain (a.s) and hence the matter should be left to Allah (swt). This is rather a bizarre comment since Al-Suyuti says Yazid wrote to Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad to murder Imam Hussain (a.s) which was further confirmed by Ubaydullah himself who said Yazid was responsible for the killing. Sheikh Mumtaz may admit to Yazid having 'certain elements of responsibility' but in reality, the drunkard was completely and utterly responsible for the killing of Imam Hussain (a.s) and not a single excuse should be of acceptance!

Section 2

Sheikh Mumtaz opposed the fact that there were two types of Shi'a in the time of Imam Alee (a.s), and claimed the Shi'a were only those who supported Imam Alee (a.s). It is a well known and established fact that the earlier Sunnis were known as Shi'as and later adopted the name, 'Ahl ul Sunnah Wal Jamaah.' According to the Sheikh, this is not the case. Let us now prove otherwise as was done in the discussion.

Shah Abdul Aziz:

 

It should be known that the first Shi'as (who are the Sunnis and the Tafdiliyyah) were known in the old days as Shi'as. When the Ghulat and the Rawafid Zaydiyyah and Isma'iliyyah took the name for themselves, Sunnis and Tafdiliyyah did not like this name for them and so hence adopted the name of 'Ahlus-Sunnah wa'al Jamaah.'

Source: Tauhfa Athna Ashari. Pg. #  25 - 26.

Taufah ithna Ashari was originally written in Persian, but over the years the Nawasib have attempted to change some of the original contents of the book.

Shah Abdul Aziz:

The different categories of Shi'as and showing their states and how they came to light and their different schemes:

You must know that the Shi'as, who claim to support the Amir (i.e. Amir ul momineen) whom Allah (swt) has honoured his face and follow 'him' (Imam Alee (a.s)) and to have for 'him' the love that Allah (swt) has ordered His worshippers to have, are four categories;

The first category: The first Shi'a and they are called, 'the sincere Shi'ee' also and they are those whom were at the time of the Khilafah of the Amir (i.e. Imam Alee (a.s)) whom Allah (swt) has honoured his face grouping Muhajirun and Ansar and the ones who followed them sincerely (i.e. Tabi'een), and they all recognized 'his right' and acknowledged 'his' praised status, and they did not defame any of his brothers amongst the companions of the Messenger of Allah peace and prayers of Allah be upon him. Neither they did insult them or judge them as unbelievers, and there were amongst them some whom they fought with 'him' for the interpretation of the Qur'aan as they had fought with the Messenger of Allah [peace and prayers of Allah be upon him] for the revelation of the Qur'aan and there were with 'him' may Allah be pleased with him at the battle of Siffeen around eight hundred companions who had given pledge at Al-Radwan (i.e. in Hudaybiyya) and three hundred of them martyred under 'his' flag.

Pg. # 3

And when the sincere Shi'a revealed the true meaning of the title Shi'a, then they got rid of this title to avoid any vagueness [with the bad Shi'a since they carry the same title] and due to the repugnance of having anything common with those indecent people [i.e. Saba'iyya] and called themselves the sect of Ahl Sunnah Wal Jammah (group, gathering). And whatever has been mentioned in some books like 'Tarikh Al-Waqidi' and 'Al-Isti'ab' that someone was Shi'a is not in contradiction with what has been mentioned in other books that the same previously mentioned person, "Shi'ee" is among the chiefs of the sect of Sunnah and Jama'ah, because the Shi'ee meant here are the first Shi'ee and 'Ahl-al-Sunnah' were from them.

Pg. # 7.

Source: Tauhfa Athna Ashari.

Al-Dhahabi: 

“Most of the Syrian populations from the days of (the battle of) Siffeen rejected the Caliphate of Amir-al-Momineen Alee (a.s) and considered themselves and their ancestors righteous for doing so. The Kufans likewise deviated from Uthman and loved Alee (a.s) over him because their ancestors were the Shia's and helpers. Whilst we, the Ahle Sunnah love all four of the Caliphs. There was also a third group of Shi'as in Iraq who loved both Alee (a.s) and Uthman but still preferred Alee (a.s) over Uthman and had an extreme dislike of those that fought Alee (a.s). At the same time they would supplicate, asking forgiveness of those that fought Alee (a.s). This was a softer version of Shi'ee.”

Source: Mizan Al-I'tidaal. Vol. 6, Pg. # 153.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: 

 

“According to the early scholars, Shiat meant to have faith on Alee (a.s) having preference over Uthman, and Alee (a.s) was correct in his wars and those who opposed him were in error, although they preferred the Shaykhayn over them (Uthman and Alee (a.s)).

(But Ibn Hajar does not stop there he continues to say)

And maybe some of their beliefs was that Alee (a.s) was the best creation after the Messenger of Allah (saw), and if they believe that, and have devout faith, truthful and diligent, then there is no disallowing his narrations, and if it is not with other motives. As for the Shee'ism that is known to the muta'akhireen (later scholars), it is the pure Rafd (rejection), and it is not permissible to accept narrations from a Raafidee, ghaali and not from a kiraami."

Source: Tahdheeb Al-Tahdheeb. Vol. 1, Pg. #  94.

Al-Dhahabi:

The mitigating conclusion is that the ‘Shi'as of Kufa’ accepted the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn (Aboo Bakr and Umar). Some Kufan Shi'as rejected the Caliphate of Uthman bin Affan in the same manner that the people of Syria rejected the Caliphate of  Imam Alee (a.s). Others while sympathetic to Uthman bin Affan, still preferred Imam Alee (a.s). This particular faction not only believed in the Caliphate of the first three Caliphs but also prayed for forgiveness of all of those who fought against Imam Alee (a.s) such as A'isha, Talha, Zubair, Mu'awiyah and so forth.

Note: There are other Shi'ee factions Al-Dhahabi discusses. Among them were also those who would be termed ‘Ghulat Shi'ee’ (extremist Shi'ee), who had beliefs that differed with the ‘Ghulat Shi'ee’ of later periods i.e. Those who claimed Imam Alee (a.s) was God.

“The extreme Shi’ee at the time of the Salaf, as known to them, was one who spoke against Uthmaan, Al-Zubayr, Talhah, Mu'awiyah and some of those who fought against Alee (a.s), and reviled them. The extreme Shi'ee in our time, as known to us, is the one who regards these leaders as kafirs and also disavows the two Shaykhs [Aboo Bakr and Umar]. Such a one is misguided and lost."

Source: Mizan Al-I'tidaal. Vol. 1, Pg. #  118 - 119.

Section 3

We will now show you the references quoted in the discussion pertaining to ibn Abbas advising Imam Hussain (a.s) not to go to Kufa since his (a.s) followers were but few and that this move from Makkah to Kufa was not at all politically motivated.

Al-Dhahabi:

 
Sufyan ibn Uyaina from Ibraheem ibn Maysara from Tawoos from ibn Abbas who said: Al-Hussain (a.s) has consulted me about his migration, I said: "If it wasn't for the sake of people, I would have held you by neck (and not let you go)." Then he (a.s) said: 'I prefer to be killed in the land of such and such rather than letting the sanctity of this place be violated i.e. Makkah.' Ibn Abbas then said: 'That is why I was pleased (with his decision).'

Footnote: It's narrators are Thiqa 'Trustworthy' and is narrated by Al-Tabarani, and Al-Haythami has said that its narrators are narrators of Saheeh (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim.)

Source: Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala. Vol. 3, Pg. # 292.

Ibn Al-Athir:

“Ibn Abbas replied to a letter of Yazid saying: ‘I can never forget the fact that you forced the grandson of the Prophet (saw) to leave Madinah and seek refuge in Makkah. You sent soldiers on horses in his direction to disturb him, so you forced him to make his way towards Iraq, he left Makkah through fear.”

Source: Al-Kamil Fi Tarikh. Vol. 3, Pg. # 366.

Ibn Al-Athir:

“By Allah! I will prefer to be murdered a step outside Makkah than to be murdered inside Makkah even its one step inside Makkah...By Allah! Even if I go inside the holes of insects, these people will bring me out of that and will slay me.”

Source: Al-Kamil Fi Tarikh. Vol. 3, Pg. # 400.

 

Section 4

  

Now we come to the issue of the letters received by Imam Hussain (a.s) and whether the letters received were from the Shi'a of Imam Hussain (a.s) or those who had no regard for the Imam (a.s). While Sheikh Mumtaz denies letters and says they can easily be forged, we shall now see what we have in the books of history and what the scholars have narrated. We find that some of these very letters were written by single individuals, others contained two, three or four signatures, all requesting Imam Hussain (a.s) to go to Kufa because they did not have an Imam. Many letters were delivered to him (a.s), so much so that he (a.s) received a total of as many as twelve thousand letters. He (a.s) did not answer any of them. The last letter he received was sent by Shabath ibn Rab'i, Ijar ibn Abjar, Yazid ibn Al-Harith, Izrah ibn Qays, Amr ibn Al-Hajjaj, and Muhammad ibn Ummayr ibn Utarid. The latter's letter stated the following:

Muhammad ibn Jarir:

 

[“The people are waiting for you. They accept no views other than yours; so, hurry, O son of the Messenger of Allah (saw), for] the grass is green, the fruits are ripe, and the trees are full of leaves. Come, if you will, for you will be coming to hosts already recruited for you.”

Source: Tarkih Al-Tabari. Vol. 5, Pg. # 353.

Muhammad ibn Jarir:

Imam Hussain (a.s) cried out: Shabath ibn Rab'i, Ijar ibn Abjar, Yazid ibn Al-Harith, didn't you write to me that, "Fields are flourishing again and trees are bearing fruits. Come to us, if you come to us it is as you came towards an army, that is prepared for you?!" They replied to him: "No, we didn't." The Imam (a.s) replied: "SubhanAllah! Surely by Allah (swt) you did write."

Source: Tarikh Al-Tabari. Vol. 5, Pg. # 425.

Upon arrival in Kufah, the Imam (a.s) presented himself to the majority Uthmani Shi'as, particularly those who wrote him (a.s) a letter. These very individuals denied they had any role in writing these letters, and so Imam Hussain (a.s) confronted and exposed these very hypocrites. We shall take a close look at Shabath ibn Rab'i who proved to be a Kharijite as mentioned in the discussion with Sheikh Mumtaz, and who has also narrated in the Saheeh Sittah.

Ibn Al-Jawzi:

When Alee (a.s) turned his army away from Siffeen and entered Kufah, about twelve thousand of his followers did not enter the city with him. Instead, they camped at the town of Harooraa and raised their voices in unison reciting the slogan, 'Judgement belongs only to Allah (swt)!' This incident marks the first appearance of the Khawaarij as a sectarian movement. They subsequently appointed Shuaib ibn Rib'ee at-Tameemee as their Ameer for battle...

Source: Devils Deception Revised by Bilal Philips. Pg. # 40.

Al-Ijli:

Shabath ibn Rib'i from the tribe of Tamim, he was the first one who contributed in Uthmans assassination and the first who headed up the battle of Al-Haruriya (battle of Khawarij) and contributed in Hussain ibn Alee's (a.s) killing.

Source: M'arifat Al-Thiqat. Vol. 1. Person # 814.  Pg. # 448.

Al-Dhahabi:

"He was from amongst those that rebelled against Alee (a.s), he rejected the arbitration, and then subsequently repented. He narrated on the authority of Alee (a.s) and Hudhaifa. Muhammad bin Ka'ab Al-Qarzi and Sulayman Ta'imee narrated from him, in Sunan Aboo Dawood there is one narration recorded from him." 

Source: Siyar Al'am Al-Nubala. Vol. 4. Person. # 51. Pg. # 150.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

Shabath ibn Rab'i Al-Tamimi Al-Yurbo'i Abu Abd Al-Quddous Al-Kufi, narrated from Hudhaifa and Alee (r.h), and from those who narrated from him are Muhammad bin Ka'ab Al-Qarzi and Sulayman At Ta'imee. Darq'aatni states that he was a caller of prayer for Sajah then he converted to Islam. Ibn Hibban mentioned him in Al-Thuqat and states that he committed errors in narrating traditions, they have narrated  on his authority where Faatima (r.a) had asked to be given a Servant۔ Al Ijlli said that this was the first individual who assisted in the killing of Uthman and also participated in the killing of Hussain (r.a).

Source: Tahdeeb Al-Tahdeeb. Vol. 2, Pg. # 149.

Ibn Hibban:

Shabath ibn Rab'i from the children of Yarbu ibn Hanzala Al-Tamimi, he has narrated from Alee (a.s) and Hudhaifa and Muhammad ibn Ka'b has narrated from him, he used to make some mistakes in hadeeth.

Source: Al-Thuqat. Vol. 3, Pg. # 371.

Section 5

We will now highlight that Sulayman bin Surad was infact a Sahabi who, along with his Shi'a, failed to aid Imam Hussain (a.s) after sending him letters and inviting him (a.s) to Kufa. Sheikh Mumtaz was very adamant in his claim that the people of Kufa were the Shi'a of Alee (a.s). Why is it that we find the Sahabi of the Prophet (saw), who is understood to be a star of guidance deceiving the grandson of the Prophet (saw) and the son of Imam Alee (a.s)?

Ibn Kathir:

It is said that Sulayman bin Surad was a companion of great pride and honour, and he was the virtuous companion of Holy Prophet (saw). Many of the Prophetic traditions in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim have been narrated from Sulayman bin Surad. He was present with Imam Alee (a.s) in the battle of Sifeen and he was among those senior Shi'ee in whose house the meetings (in regard to Imam Hussain's (a.s) allegiance) used to be held. Sulayman is counted among those people who wrote letters to Imam Hussain (a.s) in order to call for him. When Imam Hussain (a.s) reached Kufa, these people deserted him and he (a.s) was then martyred. After the martyrdom of Imam Hussain (a.s), these people were of the view that they were responsible for the arrival of Hussain (a.s) in Kufa, and they deserted him in time of trouble and as a result of it, Imam Hussain (a.s) and people of his (a.s) house were martyred. There upon this group felt ashamed for what they did to Imam Hussain (a.s). After this, these people assembled in the form of a group and they named that group as 'Tawwabun' (repenters) and named  Sulayman bin Surad as commander of Tawwabun. Accordingly, Sulayman was martyred in the battle which occurred on the location Ayn Al-Warda in 65 hijri (The Battle of Ayn al-Warda was fought in early January 685 between the Umayyad army and the group known as the "Penitents" (Tawwabun).

Source: Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah. Vol. 1, Pg. # 702 - 703.

Ibn Abdul Barr: 

“Sulayman bin Surad….. was a good, pious and religious man. During jahiliyyah his name was ‘Laseer’ – the Prophet (saw) changed it to Sulayman. He was amongst those that wrote to Hussain ibn Alee (a.s) and invited him to Kufa. When he [Hussain (a.s)] arrived, he abandoned him and then he (Hussain (a.s)) was killed. Sulayman bin Surad, Mussayib bin Najbah Al-Fazari and others expressed regret for having failed to aid Hussain (a.s) and die with him.”

Source: Al-Isti'ab. Vol. 2. Person # 1056. Pg. # 649 - 650.

 

Ibn Al-Jawzi:

A group of the Shee'ah under Sulyman ibn Surad armed themselves vowing to fight to death against the Umayyads by doing penance at Al-Hussain's (a.s) grave four years after the battle of Karbala. They hoped to atone for the guilt which they had brought upon themselves for having not fought for or died with the dead Al-Husayn (a.s).

Source: Devils Deception Revised by Bilal Philips. Pg. # 26.

Section 6

And last but not least, we arrive at Abdullah ibn Umar who supported the Caliphate of the drunkard, monkey loving man Yazid. Sheikh Mumtaz did not and would not accept the fact that Abdullah ibn Umar spoke in favour of Yazid and that he claimed the oath of allegiance to him was in accordance to the conditions enjoined by Allah (swt) and his Apostle (saw). We would like to ask what Abdullah ibn Umar meant by this. Was he implying Allah (swt) and our beloved Prophet (saw) would accept a man like Yazid to be a ruler of the Muslims?  Abdullah ibn Umar made a very bold claim directed at those who went against Yazid as being faithless and ignorant. According to this theory, what would that make Imam Hussain (a.s) who went out to defend the pure religion of Islam against this tyrant? Astaghfirullah! Why do we find Sunnis often rejecting such hadith when they are clear as crystal in their own books. It may be that Sheikh Mumtaz was unaware of the existence of these hadith in the Sihah as Sittah and so claimed whatever was being narrated as, "Bogus, Da'if and Fabricated" and thus vouched his life against it. It is often said that wise men think before they speak whereas fools speak before they think, this saying would come in handy at this point since a wise man would not allow themselves to be put in such a destructive position, especially when evidence can be given and will be given below.

Al-Bukhari:

Narrated Nafi: When the people of Madinah dethroned Yazid bin Mu'awiyah, ibn Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet (saw) 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 (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah (swt) and His Apostle (saw) 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 (swt) and His Apostle (saw), and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

Source: Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Pg. # 1759, H. # 71.

 

Al-Bukhari:

Narrated Nafi': When the people of Madinah dethroned Yazid bin Mu'awiyah, ibn Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet (saw) 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 (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah (swt) and His Apostle (saw) 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 (swt) and His Apostle (saw), and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

Source: Saheeh Al-Bukhari. Vol. 9. H # 227, Pg. # 175 - 176.

Muslim ibn Hajjaj:

It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti' in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the People Of Madinah) at Harra in the time of Yazid b. Mu'awiyah. Ibn Muti' said: "Place a pillow for Abu Abd al-Rahman (family name of Abdullah b. Umar)." But the latter said: "I have not come to sit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). I heard him say: 'One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah (swt) on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah.'" 

Source: Saheeh Muslim. Pg. # 898, H. # 1851.

Al-Bukhari: 

Narrated Nafi': When the people of Madinah dethroned Yazid bin Mu'awiyah, ibn Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet (saw) 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 (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah (swt) and His Apostle (swt) 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 (swt) and His Apostle (saw), and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

Source: Saheeh Al-Bukhari (Urdu Version). Pg. # 844.

Muslim ibn Hajjaj: 

It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti' in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the People Of Madinah) at Harra in the time of Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah. Ibn Muti' said: "Place a pillow for Abu Abd al-Rahman (family name of Abdullah b. Umar)." But the latter said: "I have not come to sit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). I heard him say: 'One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of  Jahiliyyah.'"

Source: Saheeh Muslim.Vol. Pg. # 259, H. # 1851.

Objection One

In this narration, we find ibn Umar quoting the hadeeth of the Prophet (saw) about the betrayers. However, there is no indication that these betrayers are to be raised as apostates. All that the narration says is that a flag will be raised for them and according to the commentators of Hadeeth, they are sinners. An apostate, on the other hand, is one that is taken out of the fold of Islam and is destined for the hellfire. Nothing in the narration of the Prophet (saw), nor the words of ibn Umar, indicate that those that rebelled against Yazid are disbelievers. 

Response One

Abdullah ibn Umar as per his religious ruling condemned those that rebelled against Yazid as betrayers and made it clear that they would be raised in the next world pursuant to a Hadeeth of the Prophet (saw). Ibn Umar believed Yazid was a legitimate head of state, and his right to rule was in accordance with conditions set by Allah (swt) and his Prophet (saw). In other words, he had the legal backing of Shari'ah, negating the right of any individual to oppose him. The thought of an individual turning his back on Yazid made ibn Umar so irritated that he made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with such an individual and regarded them to be faithless!

Al-Bukhari:

"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 (swt) and His Apostle (saw), and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then----->there will be separation between him and me<---.

Source: Saheeh Al-Bukhari (Arabic Only). Pg. # 1759, H. # 71.


Muhammad Amin ibn Abidin:

Baghi (rebel) commonly means "to demand." It is commonly used to refer to one that "demands unlawfully" such as in terms of injustice and tyranny. From a legal perspective it refers to, "one that rebels against the legitimate Imam without having any legal justification for doing so."

Source: Radd Al-Muhtar Ala Al-Dur Al-Mukhtar. Pg. # 351.

The Incident Of Al-Harrah

Al-Suyuti:

Nawfl bin Abi Furaat said that once he was sitting with Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz when a man called Yazid as, "Amir ul Mo'mineen Yazid bin Mu'awiyah." At this, (Umar bin Abdul Aziz said in anger): "You call this person as Amir ul Mo'mineen?!' And then he ordered that person to be "lashed 20 times."

In 63 A.H, Yazid was informed that people of Madinah have rejected him and are preparing to wage war upon him. Knowing this, Yazid sent a huge army to Madinah and declared war upon the people of Madinah. After looting Madinah, he sent the army to fight Abdullah bin Zubayr in Makkah and so the incident of Harrah took place. Do you know what Harrah is? Regarding it, Hassan (Al-Basri, a Tabi'i) said: "By Allah (swt)! When Madinah was attacked, there remained not a single person who was safe from it, a group of Sahaba and others were killed and Madinah was looted and thousands of virgin girls were raped." Inna Lillahi Wa Inna Ilaihi Raji'oon...The Prophet (Peace be upon him) said: "Whosoever frightens People of Madinah, then Allah (swt) will frighten them (the attackers) plus Curse (La'nah) of Allah (swt), his Angels and all the people is upon such a person (Saheeh Muslim). The reason why people of Madinah did not give bayah to Yazid was because he was indulged in "too many sins."

Imam Waqidi narrates from Abdullah bin Hanzala son of Al-Ghasil (a companion) that he said: "By Allah (swt)! We did not revolt against Yazid until we feared that, "WE WILL BE SHOWERED WITH STONES FROM SKY." He was a man who used to penetrate his mothers (his father's wives), sisters and daughters, and he used to drink openly and neglected prayers!"

Imam Dhahabi said: When Yazid did such things with people of Madinah although "he was indulging in drinking and other evil deeds even before," then the people of Makkah 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 Makkah 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 Makkah 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 Kaaba, its roof and the horn of the goat which was sacrificed for Isma'eel 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 Makkah 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.

Source: Tarikh ul Khulafa. Pg. # 167.

Just reading the incident of Harrah make's one's hair stand on end. One can only imagine how the people of Madinah felt. People slaughtered, looted, virgin women raped and abused, the crimes are endless. Are these crimes not sufficient enough to cause an individual with even an ounce of decency to distance himself from Yazid? Was the ransacking of Madinah not sufficient evidence that Yazid had nothing to do with Islam? We are sure that any rational, just individual would agree with us that this would be enough proof for anyone to distance themselves from Yazid, but not according to Abdullah ibn Umar who was acting in violation of the Prophetic teachings.

Allegiance To A Transgressor

Al-Bukhari:

Narrated Alee (a.s): The Prophet (saw) sent an army unit (for some campaign) and appointed a man from the Ansar as its commander and ordered them (the soldiers) to obey him. (During the campaign) he became angry with them and said, "Did not the Prophet (saw) order you to obey me?" They said, "Yes." He said, "I order you to collect wood and make a fire and then throw yourselves into it." So they collected wood and made a fire, but when they were about to throw themselves into it they started looking at each other, and some of them said, "We followed the Prophet (saw) to escape from the fire. How should we enter it now?" So while they were in that state, the fire extinguished and their commander's anger abated. The event was mentioned to the Prophet (saw) and he said, "If they had entered it (the fire) they would never have come out of it, for obedience is required only in what is good." 

Source: Saheeh Bukhari. Vol. 9, Book 89, Number 259.


Al-Bukhari:

Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet (saw) said, "A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah (swt)), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah (swt)) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it.

Source: Saheeh Bukhari. Vol. 9, Book 89, Number 258.

Al-Bukhari:

Narrated Junada bin Abi Umaiya: We entered upon Ubada bin As-Samit while he was sick. We said, "May Allah (swt) make you healthy. Will you tell us a Hadith you heard from the Prophet (saw) and by which Allah (swt) may make you benefit?" He said, "The Prophet (saw) called us and we gave him the pledge of allegiance for Islam, and among the conditions on which he took the pledge from us, was that we were to listen and obey (the orders) both at the time when we were active and at the time when we were tired, and at our difficult time and at our ease and to be obedient to the ruler and give him his right even if he did not give us our right, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah (swt)."  

Source: Saheeh Bukhari. Vol. 9, Book 88, Number 178.

Generally, under the Shari’ah, rebellion against the Khalifah, whether peaceful or violent, is tantamount to Kufr. 

Al-Albani:

Al-Harith ibn Al-Harith Al-Ash'ari said that the Prophet (saw) said: "Whosoever separates from the Jama'ah (majority body) even to the extent of a handspan has verily removed the rope of Islam from his or her neck until he or she returns [to the Jama'ah).

Al-Albani: It is Saheeh (Authentic) 

Source: Saheeh wa Da’if al-Jami’ al-Saghir wa Ziyadatuh. Vol. 1, Pg. # 356.

Al Albani:

Ibn Abbas said that the Prophet (saw) said: "Whosoever comes to you while your affairs are managed by a single man (i.e. Khalifah), seeking to break your stick (i.e. unity), and separates from your Jama'ah, then kill him or her.  

Al-Albani: It is Saheeh (Authentic) 

Source: Irwa Al-Ghalil. Vol. 2, Pg. # 1073, H # 6249.

This is Allah's (swt) Shari'ah, and it does not exclude any one, whether that be a companion or not. Whosoever breaks off from the Khalifah becomes a Kafir, and must be killed by the believers.

Al-Albani:

Ibn Abbas said that the Prophet (saw) said: "Whosoever sees anything he does not like in his Amir (i.e. Khalifah), let him or her exercise patience upon it. This is because whosoever separates from the Jama'ah by a handspan, then his death is that of Jahiliyyah [i.e. as a Kafir]."

Al-Albani: It is Saheeh (Authentic)

Source: Saheeh wa Da'if Al-Jami Al-Saghir wa Ziyadatuh. Vol. 2, Pg. # 1073, H. # 6249.

These hadeeth nullifies all excuses of Ta'wil (interpretation) or Ijtihad! No matter how one perceive's the Khalifah, he must never be revolted against. It is absolutely obligatory to always maintain Bay'ah (oath of allegiance) to him, and whosoever breaks this Bay'ah or refuses to make one to the Khalifah of his time and dies in that state, one dies a Kafir. Of course, a person remains outside of Islam if they do not give Bay'ah in the first place to the Khalifah. Anyhow, it would be logical to state that if one should die under such a condition, one dies a Kafir. Moreover, if one is against the Khalifah, their end is death in the eyes of the Shari'ah of Allah (swt) according to the so-called, 'Ahl ul Sunnah.' 

There is absolutely no doubt that Imam Hussain (a.s) separated from the Jama'ah (majority body) and refused to give Bay'ah. Now according to the principles of the so-called, 'Ahl Sunnah' he was a rebel! Astaghfirullah! Do our opponents really have the audacity to make a claim that the followers of the Ahlulbayt (a.s) have no concept of leadership (Imamah)? In fact, the grand Mufti of Saudia Arabia was honest and consistent based on the ideological understanding of leadership according to the so-called 'Ahl ul Sunnah' in that the pledge of Yazid was given by many of the companions of the Prophet (saw), and Astaghfirullah, Imam Hussain (a.s) was wrong for opposing Yazid.

Al-Haythami:

Abi Salaam Mamtoor said that the Prophet (saw) said: ..."Whosoever separates from the Jama'ah by a bow-length, his Salaah or fast will never be accepted from him and such people are the fuel for Hellfire." 

Al-Haythami: Ahmad recorded it and its narrators are narrators of the Saheeh (Bukhari and Muslim) with the exception of Ishaq Al-Salami and he is trustworthy. And Al-Tabarani has narrated it briefly with the addition, "and WHOSOEVER separates from the Jama'ah by a bow-length, his Salaah or fast will never be accepted from him and such people are the fuel for Hellfire."

Source: Majma Al-Zawa'id. Vol. 5, Pg. # 280, H. # 9094.

From these narrations we can establish that obedience to the one in authority is necessary. However, when a dispute arises, the result should undoubtedly be in favour to the side of those in line with the teachings of the Prophet (saw). However rebellion against the Khalifah, whether peaceful or violent, is tantamount to kufr. 

Let us not forget this Islamic advice still applied at the incident of Al-Harrah and all the heinous crimes that flowed from it. But according to Abdullah ibn Umar, there was no Islamic basis to oppose Yazid, he remained the legal head of State in accordance with the conditions set by Allah (swt) and his Prophet (saw).

If we bring together all the traditions we learn numerous things:

Clear Facts On Abdullah ibn Umar: 

• He was advising people not to break their pledge with Yazid.

• It was at a time when the people of Madina had a plan to overthrow Yazid.

• He relied upon a Hadeeth of the Prophet (saw) that any individual that breaks the pledge will be raised as a betrayer on the Day of Judgment.

• In his own words, he most certainly underlined that the pledge to Yazid was pursuant to the conditions enjoined by Allah (swt) and His Apostle (saw). 

• He said that anyone that opposes Yazid having previously given him (Yazid) a pledge is devoid of faith.

• He would distance himself from anyone that broke the pledge to Yazid.

• He visited the home of an acquaintance wherein he declared his backing of Yazid.

• He said that those who broke the pledge to Yazid and those who did not give a pledge to a Amir (Yazid) shall die the death of Jahilliyah (non Muslim) i.e. All their deeds would be nullified and thus die as non Muslims (apostates).  

Now, Sheikh Mumtaz vouched on his life that narrations in reference to Umar deeming the opponents of Yazid as apostates as being non-existent. Let us see whether these narrations exist or not, or is it true that the Shi'a lie as the Sheikh suggested? (Please refer to the scans provided below).

Questions For Mumtaz Ul Haq: 

1. Do you accept that a companion by definition is an individual who dies on Iman?
2. Do you believe all the companions are stars of guidance and that they shall be raised on the Day of Judgement in a good successful state?
3. Do you believe that those companions who did not give ba'yah to Yazid and died in such a state (whether that be naturally or during the battle of Karbala) died the death of apostates?
4. Do you believe that those Sahaba who broke their ba'yah to Yazid and were then slaughtered in Harra, died as apostates and shall face the humiliation of being raised as rebels on the Day of Judgement?
5. Do your answers to questions 1-4 above concur with the two fatwas of Abdullah ibn Umar?
6. If not, why not? Do you know more about your religion than Abdullah ibn Umar?
7. Will an apostate be raised in a humiliating or successful state on the Day of Judgement?
8. Does a person that dies the death of an apostate enter Jannah?
9. How do the two fatwas of Abdullah ibn Umar concur with your belief that all the companions are in Paradise rather some will die as rebels?

If ANYONE can satisfactorily answer the above questions we pledge to: REMOVE this video and shut down the channel and site, seek repentance for the error of our ways and publicly covert to Sunnism on the hands of Sheikh Mumtaz.

Hypocrisy Of ibn Umar

Al-Shawkani:

"You have to know that there is consensus (Ijma) regarding the lawfulness of fighting the rebels as it is written in Al-Bahr (book), and it can also be obligatory based upon His Almighty's statement: "Then fight ye (all) against the one that transgresses." And it is also written in Al-Bahr (book) that all of the progeny said, 'Fighting them is superior to fighting the disbelievers in their homeland because their act of rebellion on Muslims' homeland is like performing adultery inside a mosque.'" And in Al-Bahr also it is written: The rebellion is sin in consensus.

Source: Nayl Al-Awtaar. Vol. 9, Pg. # 197.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

Ibn Umar did not mention the caliphate of Alee (a.s) because he did not pay allegiance to Alee (a.s) due to the opposition on his caliphate. This is famous in authentic narrations. Ibn Umar opined not to pay allegiance to someone about whom there is not consensus of people and that is why he did not pay allegiance to Ibn Zubayr and Abdul Malik because of their opposition. But he paid allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah and then to Abdul Malik ibn Al-Marwan after Ibn Zubayr's death.

Source: Fath Al-Bari Bi-Sharh Saheeh Al-Bukhari . Vol. 6, Pg. # 145.

Often we Shi'a are left perplexed as to where Sunnis learn their techniques on inconsistency. It certainly is not from the same Prophet (saw) we claim affinity to. But perhaps the example of the Sahaba can bring light to the matter. On the one hand, Abdullah ibn Umar regurgitates a fascinating Hadeeth that aids in the Shi'ite argument in demanding mandatory allegiance to appointed rulers. Yet he only uses it for those figures who suit his fancy. 

Why did ibn Umar suffer from amnesia when this narration was brought forward in support of Imam Alee (a.s)? Often we find whilst tackling Sunnism is that the Hadeeth which go against the herd are valued highly when it comes to those figures to whom the Sunnis revere, but not when they do not favour those they deny. This is exactly what has happened here. So now we have an answer for where Sunni inconsistency is derived from, which is that it goes right back to the "Sunnah" of the Sahaba.

It is true what Abdullah ibn Umar quoted from the Prophet (saw) in that, "One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah." These Amirs being from those of the pure and righteous who are no other than the pure and sinless Ahlulbayt (a.s).

He vouched his life on it. Is he a man who sticks to his words or a man who breaks his promise and becomes a Munafiq?!

Section 7

The claim was made in that there is not a single Rafidi narrator in the Saheeh as Sittah. We shall present at least two to counter this claim. 

First Rafidi Narrator  

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:

Salim ibn Abi Hafsa (Shi'i Ghali i.e 'extremist') = Sadooq (truthful) narrated in (Bukhari in Adab Al-Mufrad and Al-Tirmidhi)

Source: Taqreeb Al-Tahdeeb. Person #  2171. Pg . # 166.

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani: 

Second Rafidi Narrator

Abbad ibn Yaqoon Al-Rawajini (Rafidhi)= Sadooq (truthful) narrated in (Bukhari, Tirmidhi, Sunan ibn Majah).

Source: Taqreeb Al-Tahdeeb.  Person #  3153. Pg. # 234.

We earnestly pray for the guidance of the Ummah such that they become true followers of this great religion, Al-Islam. Truly the sincere hearts will achieve this success only when their belief is strengthened and thus solidified by logical reasoning along with proof and evidences as has been cited in this discussion/article.