‘Caliph Yazid’ really a bad character of Islam or the Savior of Sunni
Islam? A debate with an Islamist.
Syed Kamran Mirza
This subject of historical character ‘Caliph Yazid’ has
been debated by me with a Bangladeshi Islamist living in the infidel land.
The Islamist did not participate in this debate. My honest intention to
post this debate in the internet forums is to dig out the real historical
truth about ‘Yazid’ the most hateful character of Islam! I urge
knowledgeable persons to participate in this debate to bring about the
truth on the surface, which had been buried by the century long dishonest
negative propagandas by the Mullahs.]
the son of Muabhiya was portrayed as the most malevolent human being in
the early Islamic history. It’s quite possible that the story of Yazid
with which majority of Muslims have been brainwashed does not match at all
with the reality of this ancient incident. Especially, as the Muslims of
the sub-continent have perceived by studying the famous novel by Mir
Mussarraf ‘Bishad Shindhu’ and also from one sided biased and
fabricated history created by the appeasing characters of Islamic mullahs,
the Yazid was the most hateful Character of Islam. Their intention was to
highly eulogize grandsons of Prophet Muhammad in order to please Allah by
creating saintly character of Prophet’s grandsons (though they were not
at anywhere near to be called saint) in exchange of heavenly reward from
Allah. One such attempt by one
of the Islamists of Bangladesh origin Dr. Mainul Ahsan Khan from the
wrote an essay in the internet daily journal (News From Bangladesh) to
eulogize grandsons of Prophet Muhammd. His essay could be read in the
essay the writer has strongly condemned Yazid (son of Umayyad Caliph
Mu’awiyya:661-680 C.E.) and his ascension to Caliphate of Islam and by
doing so he tried to soft-selling of Islamic hoax! In one hand, the author
strongly discards Islamic administration/guidance for public life; on the
other hand he highly praises ancient Islamic administration that was
existed in the Arab lands. Especially,
I am greatly troubled by some comments made by the author about the
ancient Islamic governance which I think not factual. If I have understood
well, the author has claimed pre-Yazid era as the golden period of Islam and
post-Yazid era as the Jahiliyah
period (according to him) which I believe not correct. In my
conclusion, I have more to say about the so called golden age of Islam.
The following were my comments after each remarks made by the author Dr.
Khan in his essay.
cannot be regarded as a Caliph. He was a killer of the most heinous type.
Saying that Yazid was a killer does not make one a shia. Moreover, to be a
Muslim or Yazid, you don't even have to be a shia or sunni. With the
establishment of the Abbasid Caliphate around the year 750, many
traditions inherited from Yazid began to change. Around 680, Yazid,
indeed, revived a full jahiliyah at the top of Muslim governance.”
As per Islamic history and on the basis of Sahih Hadiths we came to
know that actually Islamic golden period was emerged after Yazid.
Yazid’s ascending to power was the golden period of Umayyad dynasty in
which led to the formation of Abbasid dynasty in
. It was the Abbasid dynasty
during which Islamic golden era was emerged through the famous rationalist
movement called mu’atazila.
This mu’atazila (rationalist) movement by freethinkers of all race and
religions was responsible for bringing golden era which was erroneously
known as Islamic golden era. Fundamental puritanical Islam had nothing to
give to this movement of mu’atazila which brought intellectuals/
freethinkers of all race and religions together in
. It was the re-emergence of pure Islam (under
the leadership of great Islamic scholar
Imam Gazzali) by toppling the movement of mu’atazila the golden era
of Abbasid dynasty was stopped for ever. Therefore pure Islam of Prophetic
standard had nothing to do with the so called Islamic golden era.
In fact, before CaliphYazid there was nothing good about Islamic
rule that we can count on, which had brought any good thing for public.
Yazid the son of Muabhiya was not that bad human being as he was perceived
by studying the famous novel by Mir Mussarraf ‘Bishad Shindhu’ and
also from one sided biased history by Islamic mullahs.
there was power struggle as to who will rule
after Prophet Muhammad and Prophet himself wanted that his son-in-law Hz
Ali be the successor to him but others did not like it. Therefore, a
vibrant power struggle between the two camps of Prophet’s household,
Ayesha-Hafsa (Abubakar’s and Omar’s daughters) vs. Fatima-Ali
was genuinely evolved. Ultimately Sahabis were divided too, in support of
(Shia) or against (Sunni) Ali’s first leadership; hence the birth of
Sunni-Shiate sect of Muslims came to exist. Had there been no
action taken by Yazid the Sunni sect of Muslim could be in dire minority
today, just like Shiite sect today! Yazid virtually saved Prophetic
version of Islam (Sunni) from virtual extinction.
Besides, Prophet’s grandson Hussain’s own character was not
that rosy or better than Yazid either.
History before Yazid was full of treachery,
reactionary, restrictive, harsh, coercion, cruelty, rivalry, fighting,
killings, and bloodsheds. All those four Caliphs after Prophet
Muhammad’s demise were ruling
by the sword with brutal force. Intolerance was widespread and draconian
punishments like stoning, flogging, beheadings were the random rules of
punishment. Three out of four Caliphs (who are called rightly guided
Caliphs) were assassinated brutally and killings and bloodsheds were daily
Page 1 ||
Page 2 || Page 3