Hadeeth Explanation: “Whoever died without an Imam he dies a death of jahilyyah”

Correct Meaning and Interpretation of the hadeeth.

In The Name of Allah, The Beneficent, The Merciful.

Below is the narration usually misinterpreted by Shias:

حدثنا عبد الله حدثنى أبى ثنا أسود بن عامر انا أبو بكر عن عاصم عن أبى صالح عن معاوية قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من مات بغير امام مات ميتة جاهلية
Prophet(saw) said: Whoever died without an Imam he dies a death of jahilyyah(pre-islamic times). (MusnadAhmed volume 4 page 96).

This hadeeth is usually misunderstood and misinterpreted by Shias, they cherry-pick the hadeeth and interpret it as per their desires, and ignore the other related authentic ahadeeth which provides the correct understanding of this hadeeth.

Insha Allah! In this article we will explain this narration with the help of authentic narrations which are related to this hadeeth, because the best explanation could only be derived from the Prophetic narrations, as they would further explain and clarify the actual meaning of the narration misinterpreted by Shias.Here are few narrations which provide the correct understanding of the narration misinterpreted by Shias:

Prophet (peace be upon him) said – as related by `Abd Allah b. `Umar – “Whoever dies without being bound by the oath of allegiance (bay`ah), dies the death of the time of jahiliyya(pre-islamic times).” [Sahîh Muslim (1851)]

The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever parts from obedience, and splits away from the Jama’ah and dies, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. Whoever rebels against my Ummah, killing good and evil people alike, and does not try to avoid killing the believers, and does not pay attention to those who are under a covenant, then he is not of me. Whoever fights for a cause that is not clear, advocating tribalism, getting angry for the sake of tribalism, and he is killed, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. [Sunan an-Nasa’i Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4119 ]

It has been narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbas that the messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who found in his Amir something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a hand span and then he died would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya(pre-islamic times).[Sahi Muslim Bk 20, Number 4559]

It has been narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: One who defected from obedience (to the Ruler) and separated from the main body of the Muslims−if he died in that state−would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya(pre-islamic times).[Sahi muslim Bk 20, Number 4555]

إن عبد الله بن عمر أتى ابن مطيع فقال : اطرحوا لأبي عبد الرحمن وسادة فقال : ما جئت لأجلس عندك ولكن جئت أخبرك ما سمعت من رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سمعته يقول : من نزع يدا من طاعة أو فارق الجماعة مات ميتة الجاهلية
الراوي: زيد بن أسلم المحدث: أحمد شاكر – المصدر: مسند أحمد – الصفحة أو الرقم: 9/23
خلاصة الدرجة: إسناده صحيح

Abdallah Ibn Omar came to Ibn Mutee’and said: “Ask Abi Abdul-Rahman for a cushion.” He said: “I didn’t come to sit with you, rather I came to inform you what I’ve heard from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, I heard him saying: “Whoever removes his hands from the obedience (i.e. disobeys the legal authorities of the Muslim rulers) or creates differences in the Jama’ah dies the death of the Jaahiliyyah.”[Musnad Ahmad vol 9, page 23, Isnad Sahih)

Thus in the light of these authentic reports which are related to the hadeeth in question, we found that, Prophet(saw) actually meant “whoever dies without giving allegiance and removing himself from obedience to the Imam will die the death of jahiliiya”. This hadeeth is regarding allegiance(bay’ah) and obedience to the Ruler. When there is a legitimate head of state for the Muslims (Imam), then it is not permissible for a Muslim to refrain from accepting him by not giving an oath of allegiance(bay’ah) to that Head of state, this is what the hadeeth means.

The oath of allegiance(bay`ah) is directly incumbent upon the leaders of the Muslim community(ahl al-hall wa al-`aqd) and must be given on the authority of the Qur’ân and Sunnah according to the conditions set forth in Islamic Law. As far as the general public is concerned, most scholars agree that the pledge of allegiance given by their community leaders will suffice them, so it is not necessary for every single individual to do so. This is what Abû Ya`lâ says in his work al-Mu`tamad (p. 254) and in his al-Ahkâm al-Sultâniyyah (p. 27). It is also the opinion stated by al-Mâwardî in his book by the same name (p. 15). Even though the individual in this case does not give the oath of allegiance directly, he is bound by it. He is required to obey in all matters that do not entail disobedience to Allah.

Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani(rah) stated:

“To die as those who died in the pre-Islamic period of ignorance(Jahiliyya) means the state of death: to die in a state of misguidance with no ruler to obey, as the inhabitants of that era had no such system of ruling. The hadith doesn’t mean that the Muslim will die as a kafir but as a disobeying Muslim. This Hadith has possible definitions:To resemble between the state of death between the disobeying Muslim and the Jahil, even if the Muslim was not in reality a Jahil; or, To frighten and reprimand, and this meaning is not the apparent one. Ibn Battāl said: this hadith is an argument to not disobey the ruler even if he is wronged. The scholars agreed unanimously on the obligation of obeying the empowered ruler and fighting under his commandment. As well as the scholars consider that obeying the ruler is better than disobeying him as this act prevents bloodshed and mitigates masses. “ (Fath Al-Bari,  commentary of #6530).

So to conclude, the death of Jahiliyyah means a death similar to those people who lived in pre-Islamic times, they were divided and not united upon one leadership, rather each tribe ruled itself and they declared wars on each-other. Islam stressed upon unity and loyalty for the sake of the greater good of the nation and this narration reflects this perfectly, it doesn’t mean that the disobedient person will become an idol worshiper like the people of Jahiliyyah.

Now after understanding the meaning of this hadeeth, it’s quite clear from these narrations which group of people are upon Jahiliyyah(ignorance), out of all groups the Imami Shiites have been the most popular for disobeying the rulers, not pledging allegiance to them and separating from the main body of Muslims to form their own small sect that opposes the rest of the Muslims politically and religiously.


The hadeeth about dying without an Imam isn’t applicable when the Muslim Ummah(community) is without an Imam[Such as the current situation].

From the authentic Prophetic narrations we presented above, it was clear that the phrase “whoever dies without an Imam dies the death of jahiliyya(pre-islamic times)” meant whoever died without removing himself from obedience to the Imam and without giving him allegiance, then he dies death of jahiliyya(pre-islamic times). This is only possible when Imam or the Caliph is present, if there is no Imam present then this hadeeth won’t be applicable.

Often Shias misinterpret this hadeeth and try to argue that this narration proves that every human being must die with an Imam, otherwise his/her death is upon Jahilliya(pre-islamic times). Shias also claim that this narration is referring to their 12 Imams whom they picked, their belief is that the world will always have an infallible divinely appointed Imam in it, without Imam world cannot exist and that everyone must pledge allegiance to the Imam of their time; they claim that their hidden Imam Mahdi is the Imam of this era, who from more than 1000 years is holding this position. This is false, incorrect and unrealistic  interpretation and belief of Shias.

The refutation to false Shia belief was given by Prophet(Saw), as one of his companions asked him about the days of the future and the Prophet(Saw) didn’t negate the idea that the Muslim Ummah could be WITHOUT an Imam, which nullifies the Shia misinterpretation.

In an authentic report from Sahi Muslim we read:

كان الناس يسألون رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن الخير ، وكنت أسأله عن الشر مخافة أن يدركني ، فقلت : يا رسول الله ، إنا كنا في الجاهلية وشر ، فجاءنا الله بهذا الخير ، فهل بعد هذا الخير من شر ؟ قال : ( نعم ) . قلت : وهل بعد ذلك الشر من خير ؟ قال : نعم ، وفيه دخن ) . قلت وما دخنه ؟ قال : ( قوم يهدون بغير هديي ، تعرف منهم وتنكر ) . قلت : فهل بعد ذلك الخير من شر ؟ قال : ( نعم ، دعاة إلى أبواب جهنم ، من أجابهم إليها قذفوه فيها ) . قلت : يا رسول الله ، صفهم لنا ؟ فقال : ( هم من جلدتنا ، ويتكلمون بألسنتنا ) . قلت : فما تأمرني إن أدركني ذلك ؟ قال : تلزم جماعة المسلمين وإمامهم ، قلت : فإن لم يكن لهم جماعة ولا إمام ؟ قال : ( فاعتزل تلك الفرق كلها ، ولو أن تعض بأصل شجرة ، حتى يدركك الموت وأنت على ذلك )

It has been narrated on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al−Yaman who said: People used to ask the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) about the good times, but I used to ask him about bad times fearing lest they overtake me. I said: Messenger of Allah, we were in the midst of ignorance and evil, and then God brought us this good (time through Islam). Is there any bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. I asked: Will there be a good time again after that bad time? He said: Yes, but therein will be a hidden evil. I asked: What will be the evil hidden therein? He said: (That time will witness the rise of) the people who will adopt ways other than mine and seek guidance other than mine. You will know good points as well as bad points. I asked: Will there be a bad time after this good one? He said: Yes. (A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call they will throw them into the fire. I said: Messenger of Allah, describe them for us. He said: All right. They will be a people having the same complexion as ours and speaking our language. I said: Messenger of Allah, what do you suggest if I happen to live in that time? He said: You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their Imam(leader). I said: If they have no (such thing as the) main body and have no Imam(leader)? He said: Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees (in a jungle) until death comes to you and you are in this state.(Sahi Muslim Bk 20, Number 4553)

Comment: This narrations shows that there could be a time when there will be no Imam(as this is happening in this era). Which shows that Prophet(Saw) destroyed the innovated beliefs of the Shias, that earth can’t survive without an Imam. Notice that He(saw) wasn’t surprised when questioner asked what should be done when there is no Imam. He(saw) didn’t reject the question of people saying how could earth survive with without an Imam. This is sufficient to understand the falsification of the home-made beliefs of Shias.

Moreover, Ibn Majah recorded that the Prophet’s(saw) last statement was, “Then if you die while you are biting on a stump of a tree, that is better for you than following one of them.” Al-Baydawi states that this expression means, “If there is no khalifah on earth, then you are obligated to be detached and endure the harshness of the time.” “Fiercely biting the roots of a tree” is allegorical for “suffering through and enduring difficulties.” This is similar to someone biting on a stone to cope with pain.

Here is a simple example to understand this in better way:

Suppose someone states: “Whoever dies without treating his wife in a good manner dies the death of jahiliyya”.

Now it would be stupidity to conclude from this statement that it proves each and every Man of this world should die treating his wife in a good way. However the fact is that, this statement is only directed towards married people, it doesn’t include bachelors in it.

Similarly, the narration in question explains us that, when there is a legitimate Ruler, then disassociating from his obedience and dying in that manner will mean the death of Jahiliyah. But this condition is not applicable to those people among whom there is no Ruler or Imam, like we explained in our example that the condition was not applicable to people who were bachelors(without a wife). Importantly Prophet(Saw) even affirmed that there could be a time when there would be no community and no Imam or Caliph, which leaves no space for Shia misinterpretations.

{Note: This Hadeeth which talks about the time when Muslim Ummah is without an Imam, is applicable in the present era we are living, where there is NO Imam/Caliph over the Muslim Ummah. Also note that, the self-proclaimed Caliph, Al-Baghdadi the fraud, the Khawariji is NOT recognized as a Caliph and doesn’t even qualify to be a Caliph, because Prophet(saw) said: We do not appoint to this position one who asks for it nor anyone who is covetous for the same.(Sahih Muslim, Book 20, Hadith 4489).}

Authentic Prophetic hadeeth destroys the Shia claim from its roots:

Hudhaifah (radhiAllaahu anhu) narrated in a long hadeeth that the Messenger of Allaah (sallAllaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) said, “There will come Imams(leaders) who will not follow my guidance nor will they follow my Sunnah. There will be amongst them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of humans.” He (Hudhaifah) asked, “What should I do O Messenger of Allaah if I reach that?” He replied, You should hear and obey the ruler. Even if he flogs your back and takes your wealth you should still hear and obey.”( Sahih Muslim book 20,Hadith 4554)

Comment: This hadeeth cleanly refutes the Shia belief that earth will always have a divinely appointed Imam by  the prophecy that there would be Imams who would be evil and deviant. If Shias believe that Imamah was only meant for their 12 Imams and no one else, then this prophesy would apply on them, which the Shias will never agree upon. This shows that Imamate(Rulership) was not restricted to certain infallibles, as the Shias claim.


The baseless and denounced version of this hadeeth.

Sheikh Nasiruddin al-Albani(rah) says in his book ‘Silsila ad-da’eefa’:
” من مات ولم يعرف إمام زمانه مات ميتة جاهلية “.
لا أصل له بهذا اللفظ.
وقد قال الشيخ ابن تيمية: والله ما قاله رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم هكذا، وإنما المعروف ما روى مسلم أن ابن عمر قال: سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول: ” من خلع يدا من طاعة لقي الله يوم القيامة ولا حجة له، ومن مات وليس في عنقه بيعة مات ميتة جاهلية “، وأقره الذهبي في ” مختصر منهاج السنة ” (ص 2 وكفى بهما حجة، وهذا الحديث رأيته في بعض كتب الشيعة، ثم في بعض كتب القاديانية يستدلون به على وجوب الإيمان بدجالهم ميرزا غلام أحمد المتنبي، ولوصح هذا الحديث لما كان فيه أدنى إشارة إلى ما زعموا، وغاية ما فيه وجوب اتخاذ المسلمين إماما يبايعونه، وهذا حق كما دل عليه حديث مسلم وغيره.
ثم رأيت الحديث في كتاب ” الأصول من الكافي ” للكليني من علماء الشيعة رواه (1 / 377) عن محمد بن عبد الجبار عن صفوان عن الفضيل عن الحارث بن المغيرة عن أبي عبد الله مرفوعا، وأبو عبد الله هو الحسين بن علي رضي الله عنهما

“He who dies and does not know the Imam of his time dies the death of ignorance”.
The Hadith has no basis in this current form.
Ibn Taymiyyah said: By Allah the prophet (saw) never said it in this way, what is popular is what’s in Muslim from ibn `Umar: I heard the prophet (saws) say: The one who removes his hand from obedience, will meet his Lord with no argument in his defense. And the one who dies not having given an oath of allegiance will die a death of ignorance. al-Dhahabi agreed with him in Mukhtasar Minhaj al-Sunnah pg2 and they are sufficient as proof, and I saw this narration in some of the books of the Shia, then in some Qadiyani books and they used it as proof for people to believe in their liar Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, even if this narration was authentic it has no proof for them, it simply says the Muslims must appoint a leader and pledge allegiance to him, and this is true as we read in Sahih Muslim.
Then I saw the narration in (Shia book)Usoul al-Kafi 1/377 from Muhammad ibn `Abdul-Jabbar, from Safwan from al-Fudayl, from al-Harith bin al-Mugheerah, from abu `Abdullah (as), Marfou`, and he is al-Husayn bin `Ali (ra). (Silsila ad-da’eefa 305).

Comment: Thus as per Sheikh Nasiruddin al-Albani(rah), this version of hadeeth, which is about “not knowing or not recognizing the Imam ” is baseless.


How did companions of Prophet Muhammad(Saw) understand the word ‘Imam’?

We read in an authentic report from Sahi Bukhari:

دخل أبو بكر على امرأة من أحمس يقال لها زينب ، فرآها لا تكلم ، فقال : ما لها لا تكلم ؟ قالوا : حجت مصمتة ، قال لها : تكلمي ، فإن هذا لا يحل ، هذا من عمل الجاهلية ، فتكلمت ، فقالت : من أنت ؟ قال : امرؤ من المهاجرين ، قالت : أي المهاجرين ؟ قال : من قريش ، قالت : من أي قريش أنت ؟ قال : إنك لسؤول ، أنا أبو بكر ، قالت : ما بقاؤنا على هذا الأمر الصالح الذي جاء الله به بعد الجاهلية ؟ قال : بقاؤكم عليه ما استقامت بكم أئمتكم ، قالت : وما الأئمة ؟ قال : أما كان لقومك رؤوس وأشراف ، يأمرونهم فيطيعونهم ؟ قالت : بلى ، قال : فهم أولئك على الناس .

Narrated Qais bin Abi Hazim: Abu Bakr went to a lady from the Ahmas tribe called Zainab bint Al-Muhajir and found that she refused to speak. He asked, “Why does she not speak.” The people said, “She has intended to perform Hajj without speaking.” He said to her, “Speak, for it is illegal not to speak, as it is an action of the pre-islamic period of ignorance. So she spoke and said, “Who are you?” He said, “A man from the Emigrants.” She asked, “Which Emigrants?” He replied, “From Quraish.” She asked, “From what branch of Quraish are you?” He said, “You ask too many questions; I am Abu Bakr.” She said, “How long shall we enjoy this good order (i.e. Islamic religion) which Allah has brought after the period of ignorance?” He said, You will enjoy it as long as your Imams keep on abiding by its rules and regulations.” She asked, “What are the Imams?” He said, “Were there not heads and chiefs of your nation who used to order the people and they used to obey them?” She said, “Yes.” He said, “So they (i.e. the Imams) are those whom I meant.(Sahi Bukhari Vol. 5, Book 58, Hadith 175)

Comment: From this report we came to know that, as per the understanding of companions of Prophet Muhammad(saw), Imams were the fallible rulers and leaders who weren’t divinely appointed.  

Mullah Ali Qari in his book “Sharh Fiqh Akbar”, Chapter “Masala Nusbul Imamah” (Issue of appointment of the Imam) states:
“It is the majority opinion that there is a duty to appoint an Imam. But there is a difference, as to whether this is Allah’s duty or whether this is incumbent on the public. The belief in the eyes of Ahl’ul Sunnah and Muttazalites is that the duty to appoint an Imam is a duty of the public. In terms of hadith and logic this is a duty of the public.“(Sharh Fiqh Akbar, by Mullah Ali Qari, p 175).


Ahlelbayt rejected and refuted the Shia belief.

In an authentic hadith we read that, Member from Ahlelbayt, the great grandson of Imam Ali(ra) rejects and refutes the Shia belief.

في (الطبقات الكبرى) لابن سعد: حدثنا محمد بن عاصم حدثنا شبابة بن سوار عن الفضيل بن مرزوق قال: سألت عمر بن علي وحسين بن علي عمي جعفر قلت: هل فيكم أهل البيت إنسان مفترضة طاعته تعرفون له ذلك ومن لم يعرف له ذلك فمات مات ميتة جاهلية؟ فقالا: لا والله ما هذا فينا. من قال هذا فينا فهو كذاب. قال فقلت لعمر بن علي: رحمك الله، إن هذه منزلة تزعمون أنها كانت لعلي إن النبي (صلى الله عليه وسلم) أوصى إليه. ثم كانت للحسن إن عليا أوصى إليه. ثم كانت للحسين إن الحسن أوصى إليه. ثم كانت لعلي بن الحسين إن الحسين أوصى إليه، ثم كانت لمحمد بن علي إن عليا أوصى إليه. فقال: والله لمات أبي فما أوصى بحرفين. قاتلهم الله! والله إن هؤلاء إلا متأكلون بنا، هذا خنيس الخرؤ ما خنيس الخرؤ؟ قال قلت: المعلى بن خنيس، قال: نعم المعلى بن خنيس، والله لفكرت على فراشي طويلا أتعجب من قوم لبس الله عقولهم حين أضلهم المعلى بن خنيس. (الطّبقات الكبرى: 05/324)

(ibn Sa’ad) said in “al-Tabaqat al-Kubra 5/324″: Muhammad ibn ‘Asim from Shubabah bin Siwar from al-Fudayl ibn Marzuq; he said: I asked ‘Umar bin ‘Ali and Husayn bin ‘Ali the Uncles of Ja’far; I said, “Is there among you, Ahl al-Bayt, a person whose obedience (ie obedience to him) is obligatory and that whoever doesn’t recognize him dies the death of Jahiliyya(pre-Islamic times)?”
Both of them said: “No, by Allah! This is not from us! Whoever says that about us is a liar.”
I said to ‘Umar bin ‘Ali: “May Allah have Mercy on you. [It is said] that you claim that the Prophet (pbuh) appointed Ali as his successor, and then Ali appointed al-Hasan to be his successor, then al-Hasan appointed al-Husayn to be his successor, then al-Husyan appointed Ali bin al-Husyan as his successor then Ali appointed Muhammad bin Ali as his successor.“ So he said, “By Allah, my father died without uttering two letters with regards to succession. May Allah destroy them! By Allah, surely these people are nothing but a burden on us. This is (from) Khunays al-Kharu’?, was it Khunays al-Kharu’?” I said, “He is al-Mu’alla ibn Khunays.” He said, “Yes, al-Mu’alla bin Khunays, by Allah, I thought long in my bed wondering about people whom God had given knowledge as they were being lead astray by this al-Mu’alla bin Khunays. [(al-Tabaqat al-Kubra 5/324 ; Shaykh abi Nasr Muhammad bin `Abdullah al-Imam in  Book, Tu`oun Rafidhat al-Yaman on  page 17 says ” sanad Hasan”(chain is good).]

Comment: Thus from this authentic report we came to know that, as per member from Ahlelbayt (i.e) al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. al-Ḥasan b. ‘Alī – the great grandson of Ali(ra), there was no person present amongst his family(during his time) whose obedience was obligatory nor  anyone failing to recognize whom would be death of pre-islamic times.

Similarly Imam from Ahlelbayt rejected the view that, He was divinely appointed Imam.

In his “Siyar A’laam un-Nubulaa” at page 259 Dhahabi narrated:

كتب إلي عبد المنعم بن يحيى الزهري، وطائفة قالوا: أنبأنا داود بن أحمد، أنبأنا محمد بن عمر القاضي، أنبأنا عبد الصمد بن علي، أنبأنا أبو الحسن الدارقطني، حدثنا أحمد بن محمد بن إسماعيل الادمي، حدثنا محمد بن الحسين الحنيني، حدثنا مخلد بن أبي قريش الطحان، حدثنا عبد الجبار بن العباس الهمداني، أن جعفر بن محمد أتاهم وهم يريدون أن يرتحلوا من المدينة، فقال: ” إنكم إن شاء الله من صالحي أهل مصركم، فأبلغوهم عني: من زعم أني إمام معصوم مفترض الطاعة، فأنا منه برئ، ومن زعم أني أبرأ من أبي بكر وعمر، فأنا منه برئ “.

From Abdul Jabar ibn Al-Abbas al-Hamadani: ”Jafar as-Sadiq came to them when they were leaving Madinah and told them: You are inshallah from amongst the best of people from your country (or from your Egypt)  So report to them from me: He who claims that I’m an infallible imam who must be obeyed, I disassociate myself from him and he who claims that I disassociate myself from Abu Bakr and Umar, I disassociate myself from him.”

Also, we read in Shia book:

Shaykh at-Tabrasi in his book “al-Ihtijaj” (1/371) reports:
عن سعيد بن سمان قال :كنت عند أبي عبد الله إذ دخل عليه رجلان من الزيدية .فقالا له : أفيكم إمام مفترض الطاعة ؟ فقال الصادق :لا !!
“From Saeed ibn Samaan: I was near Abu Abdullah, when two men from zaydiyah entered upon him, and said: “Amongst you is there Imam, obedience to whom obligatory?”. As-Sadiq said: No”. [Shia book, “al-Ihtijaj” (1/371)]


The hidden Imam of Shias doesn’t fit in the criteria of Imam mentioned in Shia Hadeeth.

The Shias argue that their hidden 12th Imam is the Imam of this era and anyone who dies without believing in him dies death of jahiliyyah. So let us verify from Shia hadeeth that, does the hidden 12th Imam of Shias fit into the criteria of the Imam, without whom one would die death of jahiliyya?

We read in Shia books:
أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى، عن أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر قال: كتبت إلى الرضا عليه السلام …… وقد قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله: من مات وليس عليه إمام حي يعرفه مات ميتة جاهلية. وقال أبوجعفر عليه السلام: إن الحجة لا تقوم لله عزوجل على خلقه إلا بإمام حي يعرفونه.
Ahmed ibn mohammed ibn issa from Ahmed ibn mohamed ibn abi nasr he said : I wrote to Ridha(as) …..Ridha(as) answered : Abu jafar (as) said : Rasool allah(saw) said : whoever died without a living Imam that he knows then he dies a death of jahiliyah. Abu jafar(as) said: hujja cannot be used by Allah upon his creation without a living imam that they know.( Qurb al-Isnad).

Comment: This shows that Imam is living so that creation would know him.  But Shias cannot prove from any factual evidence that their hidden Imam is living, and due to this lack of evidence, He can’t even be known by people.

عن عمر بن يزيد، عن أبي الحسن الاول (عليه السلام)، قال: سمعته يقول: ” من مات بغير إمام، مات ميتة جاهلية، امام حي يعرفه ” قلت: لم أسمع اباك يذكر هذا، يعني إماما حيا، فقال: ” قد والله قال ذلك رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)، قال: وقال رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله): من مات وليس له امام يسمع له ويطيع، مات ميتة جاهلية ».

( بحارالانوار ج23 ص92 و الاختصاص شیخ مفید صص 268-269 و

Abi al-Hassan (as) said: One who dies without a living and known Imam, dies the death of ignorance. The narrator said: I never heard this from your father, I mean the living Imam? He replied: By Allah the Messenger of Allah said this, and said: One who dies without an Imam, who can be heard and obeyed, dies the death of ignorance.
– Mufid in al-ekhtisas p268-289
– Bihar al-Anwar v23 p92.

Comment: Can the hidden Imam of Shias be heard and obeyed? Surely not!  

ال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام: من مات وليس عليه إمام حي ظاهر مات ميتة جاهلية»
(بحارالانوار مجلسی ج23 ص 93 _ بیروت و مفید در الاختصاص ص269 _ بیروت)
Abu Abdilllah (as) said: One who dies without the living and Zahir (visible . i.e which can be seen) Imam, dies the death of ignorance.
– al-Mufid in Al-ekhtisas p269 Beirut
– Bihar al-Anwar v23 p93 Beirut.

«عن أبي الجارود قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: من مات وليس عليه إمام حي ظاهر مات ميتة جاهلية، قال: قلت: إمام حي جعلت فداك ؟ قال: إمام حي، إمام حي»
(بحارالانوار ج23 ص93 و مفید در الاختصاص ص269 و مستدرک وسائل و..)
Abu Abdillah (as) said: One who dies without having a living and Zahir (visible, i.e which can be seen) Imam dies the death of ignorance. The narrator asked: May I be sacrificed for you, the living Imam? He replied: the living Imam, the living Imam.
– al-Mufid in al-ekhtisas p269
– Bihar al-Anwar v23 p93
– Mustadrak Wasail

Comment: Is the hidden Imam of Shias, visible(Zahir)? Not at all!

From these Shia ahadeeth we came to know that, the Imam is the one who can be Heard, who is visible(Zahir), and who is living. But unfortunately the current hidden Imam of Shias, can neither be heard nor seen, and there is no factual proof which proves that he is living due to which we cannot know him. Thus the non-existing twelfth Imam of Shias in no way considered as the Imam without whom one would die death of jahiliyyah.


Death of jahiliyya(pre-islamic death) does not mean dying as a Kafir(disbeliever).

Shias have a serious misconception that, the hadeeth in question means that whoever died without an Imam, would die as Kafir. This is completely wrong definition of hadeeth. The death of Jahiliyyah here implies the death of the pre-islamic times, meaning if a person refuses to integrate himself into Islamic society and follow the Muslims and their leader, but he rather decides to cause division and set a bad example, these are from the habits of pre-Islamic times, or the times of ignorance as we call them, one who does this risks Allah’s wrath on the day of judgment. This is a sin, but this doesn’t take one out of the fold of Islam nor does it make him Kafir.

Insha Allah! we will try to clear this confusion using other authentic narrations and also by presenting some historical reports.

We read in Sunan an-Nasa’i:

The Messenger of Allah [SAW] said: ‘Whoever parts from obedience, and splits away from the Jama’ah and dies, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. Whoever rebels against my Ummah, killing good and evil people alike, and does not try to avoid killing the believers, and does not pay attention to those who are under a covenant, then he is not of me. Whoever fights for a cause that is not clear, advocating tribalism, getting angry for the sake of tribalism, and he is killed, then he has died a death of Jahiliyyah. [Sunan an-Nasa’i Vol. 5, Book 37, Hadith 4119 ]

In this report we found that, the one who is killed fighting for the sake of tribalism, would die a death of jahiliyyah(pre-islamic death). Here death without obedience to Imam and death for the sake of tribalism BOTH have been considered as death of Jahiliyyah. Now it would be illogical to believe that a person who fought and was killed for the sake of tribalism died as a Kafir(disbeliever), how could this effect the faith of a Muslim?

Sheikh Abu Muhammad Mahmud ibn Ahmad explains that a pre-Islamic(jahiliyya) death is not one in which a Muslim dies as a kafir, but one in which one dies in a state of disobedience. Therefore, a pre-Islamic killing does not mean a killing in a state of kufr. Rather, it means a killing in a state of disobedience. (See Umdah al-Qari, Kitab al-Fitn, Bab 2 Qawl an-Nabi(S) : Satarawna Ba’di Umuran).

Ibn Hajar Asqalani stated: The hadith doesn’t mean that the Muslim will die as a kafir but as a disobeying Muslim.(See Ibn Hajar’s Fath Al-Bari, commentary of #6530.)

Al-Nawawi commented on the hadith in his commentary of Saheeh Muslim by saying:

أي : على صفة موتهم من حيث هم فوضى لا إمام لهم .

They will die in a fashion similar to theirs (the people of Jahiliyyah) since they were in chaos and had no leader.

Al-Suyuti commented on the hadith in his explanation of Sunan Al-Nasa’ee:

أي كما يموت أهل الجاهلية من الضلال والفرقة

They die like the people of Jahiliyyah, lost and divided

Thus the correct understanding of hadeeth is that, death of jahiliyyah means death in a state of disobedience towards the Caliph or Imam.

As for the faulty Shi’ee interpretation, then this can be refuted using the Shia sources. We find in Shia book Al-Kafi in the second hadith in Next Chapter after the Chapter of Drinkers of Intoxicants:

Abu Ali Al-Ash’ari from Al-Hasan bin Ali Al-Kufi from Al-Abbas bin Amer from Dawud bin Al-Husain from Abi Abdullah (as): “Whosoever drinks an intoxicant, his prayer will not be accepted for forty days. If he dead within those forty days, then he will die a death of the jahiliyyah, but if he repented then Allah will forgive him.” (Al Kafi, H 11914, Ch. 5, h 2; Al-Majlisi declares this hadith reliable in Mir’at Al-Uqool).

As we know, Shias do not declare apostasy for those that drink intoxicants, so it makes perfect sense that what is meant here is not a death of apostasy, but a death of jahiliyyah, since people in the pre-Islamic ages used to drink a lot of intoxicants.

Moreover, we find in Shia book  Jami Ahadith al Shia, there is a whole chapter as:
باب ما ورد في أن الوصية حق على كل مسلم ، وأن من مات بغير وصية مات ميتة جاهلية
Chapter on what has been narrated regarding that will(wasiyyah) is haqq on all the Muslims , and who died without making will dies upon the death of jahiliyyah.

Here is one hadeeth from the above chapter of Shia book:
المقنعة 101 – قال صلى الله عليه وآله من مات بغير وصية فقد مات ميتة جاهلية.
(9) al-Muqni`ah 101- He Peace be upon him and his family said: He who dies without a Will then he died a death of Jahiliyyah.

Now if we go by the faulty Shia interpretations then, any Shia who died without making a will would die as a Kafir. Will the Shias agree with this interpretation? We believe, they won’t, because this would be an illogical conclusion, similarly even in regards to the hadeeth in question, they should stop applying the illogical and incorrect interpretations to it, because death of jahiliyyah doesn’t mean dying as Kafir even in the case of dying without an Imam.

Even Ahlelbayt understood this hadeeth the same way as Ahlesunnah does, that is why these were their view regarding those who fought fourth Caliph of Muslims Ali(ra) as found in Shia books.

Jafar Sadiq narrates from his father (Baqir) that Ali never accused the ones with whom he fought of Shirk (i.e polytheism) or hypocrisy, rather he would say , they are our brothers who  rebelled against us. [(shia books) Wasail Shia, 15/83 , also Qurbul Asnad p. 45, Majleese reported in “Biharal anwar” 32/324]

فلقد كنا مع رسول الله صلى
الله عليه وآله وإن القتل ليدور على الآباء والابناء والاخوان والقرابات ،
فما نزداد على كل مصيبة وشدة إلا إيمانا ، ومضيا على الحق ، وتسليما
للامر ، وصبرا على مضض الجراح . ولكنا إنما أصبحنا نقاتل إخواننا
في الاسلام على ما دخل فيه من الزيغ والاعوجاج والشبهة والتأويل

Hz Ali addressing his companions and his opponents said: We were with prophet(saw) , that time our fathers and sons were killed , our near one and brothers were killed ,but after every problem and calamity our Eman used to get increase. We used to standstill on truth, We used to obey the commands, at times of difficulties we used to do sabr(patience). But now we are fighting our own Muslim brothers.(nahjul balagha tahqeeq subhi saleh, page 179)

Shia scholars Majlisi in “Bihar” (32/324); Burjardi in “Jamiu ahadeth ash-shia” (13/93) transmitted:
٢٩٧ – قرب الإسناد: ابن طريف عن ابن علوان عن جعفر عن أبيه أن عليا (عليه السلام) كان يقول لأهل حربه: إنا لم نقاتلهم على التكفير لهم ولم نقاتلهم على التكفير لنا ولكنا رأينا أنا على حق ورأوا أنهم على حق

Furat by his chain: ibn Tareef – Ibn Alwan – Jafar – Father – Ali (alaihi salam) who said about those who fought against him: We don’t fight with them due to their takfir, and don’t fight with them due to their takfir of us. But we see that we are upon truth, and they see that they are upon truth.


Refutation of Shia arguments.

Shia Argument 1:

According to Shia and Sunni sources, Fatima Al Zahraa, rejected Abu Bakr and never gave him allegiance. She was the first women in Islam rejecting the leadership of Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr was the Imam of the Islamic Nation. Have Fatima died the death of Jahiliyyah (Ma’azAllah)?


Regarding the issue of Bay`ah or in English “Pledge of allegiance”, it was not recorded in history that women gave allegiance to the Caliphs, usually it is Ahlul-Hall wal-`Aqd who give the pledge then the women and children just follow along, what is meant by Ahlul-Hall wal-`Aqd are the leaders of the society, and it is common knowledge that the leader of the Islamic society at that time were the closest companions of The Prophet (SAWS), the Mouhajirun and the Ansar and they all gave Abu Bakr (ra) a pledge of allegiance.

Aside from the fact that women do not give a pledge of allegiance, In Islam not every single person is required to go and give the pledge of allegiance, so for the women it was enough that their husbands or male relatives or tribal leaders went and gave a pledge of allegiance, also there was no need for every single man to go and give a pledge and put his hand in the hand of the Caliph.

Let us give an idea to the readers, of what we are talking about, let’s say that the tribe of bani Hanifa in the land of Hijaz had a population of 5,000 people, and let’s say that they wanted to give allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra), does it means that the entire tribe of 5,000 men, women and children would travel all the way to Madinah, and each of them would give Abu Bakr (ra) allegiance and place their hands in his hand one by one? That is unheard of in Islam, what actually happens is that each tribe would send some representatives, maybe 13 men, maybe 4, and these men who are considered the leaders of those tribes would then give allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra), as for distant lands let’s say for example in the city of Kufa in `Iraq there would be a governor appointed by the Caliph, and the leaders of each tribe in `Iraq would meet up with this appointed governor and give him allegiance.

So for Fatima (ra) and all other women from bani Hashim, it was enough that the head of the family would go and give Abu Bakr (ra) allegiance, that would basically mean that all of them gave allegiance. And we know `Ali (ra) was appointed as head of bani Hashim, he was responsible for their affair and he gave Abu Bakr (ra) a Bay`ah.

And `Ali (ra) gave Abu Bakr (ra) Bay`ah(allegiance) on the very first day as is recorded in the authentic narration:

Abu Sa’eed al Khudri may Allah be pleased with him said: When the Prophet’s (SAWS) soul passed away and when the people gathered at the place of Sa’ad bin Ubadah and amongst them were Abu Bakr and `Umar, a Khatib(Speaker) from the Ansar(Supporters) spoke: “You know that the Prophet of Allah (SAWS) was from the Mouhajirun(immigrants) and his Caliph(Successor) must also be from the Mouhajirun, we were the supporters of the Prophet (SAWS) and we will be the supporters of his successor(Caliph) just as we were his supporters”. then `Umar bin al Khattab stood up and said: “This Man from amongst the Ansar speaks truth, and if it were anything other than this then we would not give you a bay’ah(Pledge of allegiance).” Then he grabbed the hand of Abu Bakr and said: “This is your close companion so give him Bay’ah.” Then `Umar and the Mouhajirun and the Ansar all gave him Bay’ah. Abu Bakr stood on the Mimbar and he looked at the faces of all the people there but he never saw al-Zubair so he called for him and and he came so he told him: “O son of the Prophet’s (SAWS) aunt and his disciple would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” al-Zubair said: “Not at all O Caliph of the Prophet of Allah.” then he stood up and gave him Bay’ah, Then he looked at the faces of the people again but did not spot `Ali so he called for `Ali bin abi Talib and he came to him so he said: “O cousin of the prophet of Allah and the husband of his daughter would you want to split the cause of the Muslims?” So `Ali replied: “Not at all O Caliph of the Prophet of Allah.” then he stood and gave him Bay’ah.

-Mujama’a al Zawa’ed (5/183) with its Rijal being those of the SAHIH.
-Al Bidayah wal nihayah (5/281) with its Isnad being Thabit and SAHIH.
-Al Mustadrak (3/76) and al Sunan al Kubrah (8/143) with two SAHIH Isnads.

So we came to know that, in the case of Fatima(ra) it was her husband(ra) who gave a pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr (ra) and she just followed along, the Caliphs never demanded or asked for the pledge of allegiance from women, so whether she went or didn’t go doesn’t matter.

Moreover, We read in an authentic narration from “Ithaf al-Khayarah al-Maharah” by al-Bouwaysiri, that
وَقَالَ أَبُو يَعْلَى الْمُوصِلِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ صَالِحٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ فُضَيْلٍ ، عَنِ الْوَلِيدِ بْنِ جُمَيْعٍ ، عَنْ أَبِي الطُّفَيْلِ ، قَالَ : جَاءَتْ فَاطِمَةُ إِلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ ، فَقَالَتْ : يَا خَلِيفَةَ رَسُولِ الله.
Abi al-Tufayl said: Fatima came to Abu Bakr and said: “O Khalipha of Rasool-Allah (SAWS)

This is a clear proof that like her husband(Ali) and the rest of believers, even Fatima(ra) accepted Abubakr(ra) as the Khalipha of Prophet(saw). Had it been that she didn’t accept Abubakr(ra) as the Khalipha, she wouldn’t have used those terms, since we know that dignified Arabs would never call a person with a sacred title, unless they truly believe that the person deserves that sacred title. For example, Suhail bin Amr who was a disbeliever at the time of treaty of Hudaibiyah, didn’t allow Muslims to write the words “(Messenger of Allah)” after name Muhammad(saw) in the treaty. So how could Fatima(ra) the leader of women in paradise call Abubakr(ra) Khalipha of Rasool Allah, if she don’t consider him to be so.

Also one of the biggest scholars of the Muslims and Fatima’s (ra) great-grandson Muhammad bin `Ali stated that he does not know of anyone from his family was not loyal and obedient to Abu Bakr (ra), it is narrated:
from Bassam bin `Abdullah al-Sayrafi: I asked Abu Ja`far(al-Baqir): “What do you say about Abu Bakr and ‘Umar may Allah be pleased with them?” He replied: “By Allah I am loyal to them and I ask Allah to forgive them and we never knew anyone from our family who was not loyal to them. (“Fadael al-Sahaba wa Manaqibihim wa Qawl Ba’adihim fi Ba’ad” by al-Imam al-Darqutni.
grading: Hadith Hassan(good).

Based on the above the matter is as clear as daylight. Fatima(ra) was pleased with Abu Bakr(ra) and loyal to him and so was her entire family, how can she not be pleased with the beloved companion of her father (SAWS)?

Thus, as for Fatima(ra) giving Abubakr(ra) a pledge of allegiance or a Bay`ah, this is not required from women in Islam and we have never read any Caliph demanding women to offer such a pledge. Moreover, it was never recorded in any instance that Fatima (ra) disobeyed Abu Bakr (ra).

Moreover, the report from Sahi bukhari, which states that Fatima(ra) was angry and didn’t speak to Abubakr(ra) until she died, is usually used by Shias to assume that Fatima(ra) didn’t give allegiance to Abubakr(ra), but the fact is that this report is from the idraaj(interpolations) of famous narrator Zuhri, who was criticized for interpolations. The part which Shias use from the hadeeth is from his interpolations, because he misunderstood and equated silence with anger. A detailed research has been done in our article on this subject where we have proven that, this part is not reliable. (Refer this link).

Secondly even if supposedly one accepts this unreliable interpolation then too, this is not a proof that Fatima(ra) removed herself from obedience to Caliph Abubakr(ra). It would be considered as a disagreement between them, and the history is filled with cases where people disagreed with the decision of their Caliphs, but this doesn’t imply in any way that they refused to give allegiance nor that they broke their allegiance. Especially, when we know the noble character of Fatima(ra) and Abubakr(ra), as these were the people who never preferred worldly possessions over the hereafter. It’s in fact thinking low of Fatima(ra), that because of a worldly possession(land of fadak), Fatima(ra)  didn’t give allegiance or broke it. Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal(rah) was tortured by the Caliph of his time, but this doesn’t implies that He broke allegiance from the Caliph. These are assumptions of Shias which has no basis.


Shia Argument 2:

A common Shia argument is that, what is the Islamic verdict on Imam Hussain’s rebellion against the corrupt leadership of Yazeed? Was this permissible according to the Shariah?


As far as Sayyiduna Imam Husain’s (Allah be pleased with him) uprising against Yazid is concerned, firstly, it should be understood that according to the majority of scholars, the status of a heir to the throne (wali al-ahd) is only one of recommendation that requires approval from the nations prominent and influential figures after the demise of the Khalifa.

Qadhi Abu Ya’la al-Farra al-Hanbali states in his Ahkam al-Sultaniyya:

Khilafah (leadership) is not established merely with the appointment of the Khalifa, rather (after his demise) it requires the approval of the Muslim Ummah. (al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyya, p. 9).

In view of the above, the majority of the Umma’s scholars are of the view that if a Khalifah or ruler appoints his successor without the approval of those in power, then this is permissible, but it will only serve as an suggestion. After his demise, the nation’s influential and powerful people have a right to accept his leadership or reject it.

Keeping this in mind, the leadership of Yazid was also subject to the same criterion other leaderships are. His leadership could not be established after the demise of Sayyiduna Mu’awiya (Allah be pleased with him) until it was approved by the major personalities of the nation.

Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) from the outset did not approve of Yazid being designated a leader. This was his personal opinion that was based on purely religious grounds and there was nothing wrong in holding this view.

After the demise of Sayyiduna Mu’awiya (Allah be pleased with him), Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) saw that the major personalities of Hijaz including Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) had not yet approved of Yazid’s leadership. Furthermore, he received heaps of letters from Iraq which made it clear that the people of Iraq had also not accepted Yazid as their leader. The letters clearly stated that they had not given their allegiance to anyone. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/262 & al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, 8/151).

In such circumstances, Sayyiduna Husain’s (Allah be pleased with him) stand with regards to Yazid’s leadership was that the pledge of allegiance by the people of Sham can not be forced upon the rest of the Muslims. Therefore, his leadership was as yet not established.

In Sayyiduna Husain’s view, Yazid was a tyrant ruler who desired to overcome the Muslims, but was not yet able to do so. In such a circumstance, he considered his religious duty to prevent a tyrant ruler prevailing over the Muslim Ummah.

For this reason, Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) sent Muslim ibn Aqeel (Allah be pleased with him) to Kufa in order to investigate the truth about Yazid’s rule. His journey was not of an uprising nature, rather to discover the truth.

Had Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) thought that Yazid had imposed his rule and established his power all over the Muslim lands, the case would have been different. He would certainly have accepted his leadership without choice and would not have opposed it. But he thought that this was a tyrant ruler that had no authority as of yet, and can be stopped before he establishes his authority.

This is the reason why when he came close to Kufa and discovered that the inhabitants of Kufa have betrayed him and succumbed to Yazid’s rule, he suggested three things, of which one was Or I give my hand in the hand of Yazid as a pledge of allegiance. (See: Tarikh al-Tabari, 4/313).

Similar can be read in Shia books:

لما رأى الحسين نزول العساكر مع عمر بن سعد بنينوى ومددهم لقتاله أنفذ إلى عمر بن سعد: ” اني أريد أن ألقاك فاجتمعا ليلا فتناجيا طويلا، ثم رجع عمر بن سعد إلى مكانه وكتب إلى عبد الله بن زياد: أما بعد: فإن الله قد أطفأ النائرة وجمع الكلمة وأصلح أمر الامة، هذا حسين قد أعطاني أن يرجع إلى المكان الذي أتى منه أو أن يسير إلى ثغر من الثغور فيكون رجلا من المسلمين، له ما لهم وعليه ما عليهم،أوأن يأتي أمير المؤمنين يزيد فيضع يده في يده، فيرى فيما بينه وبينه رأيه، وفي هذا لكم رضى وللامة صلاح.

When al-Husein saw the coming of the soldiers of ‘Umar bin Sa’ad and their reinforcements, he sent him a message saying: I want to meet you, and they met at night and negotiated for a long time, then ‘Umar bin Sa’ad went back and wrote to Ibn Ziad: Allah has put out the fire and has united the word of the Muslims and fixed the affair of the nation, al-Husein has given me three options: either we let him return to the place that he came from, or that he may head to make Jihad against the Kouffar in the distant lands like any other Muslim, or that he may go to Ameer al-Mumineen Yazid and place his hand in his hand and discuss with him the differences in opinion, with this you and the nation shall be pleased.( al-Mufid in al-Irshad 2/87).

ولما رأى أن لا سبيل له إلى العود ولا إلى دخول الكوفة، سلك طريق الشام سائرا نحو يزيد بن معاوية لعلمه عليه السلام بأنه على ما به أرق من ابن زياد وأصحابه، فسار عليه السلام حتى قدم عليه عمر بن سعد في العسكر العظيم، وكان من أمره ما قد ذكر وسطر، فكيف يقال إنه القى بيده إلى التهلكة؟ وقد روى أنه صلوات الله وسلامه عليه وآله قال لعمر بن سعد: اختاروا منى إما الرجوع إلى المكان الذي أقبلت منه، أو ان أضع يدي في يد يزيد ابن عمى ليرى في رأيه، وإما ان تسيروني إلى ثغر من ثغور المسلمين، فأكون رجلا من أهله لي ماله وعلي ما عليه. وان عمر كتب إلى عبيد الله بن زياد بما سئل فأبى عليه

When he (al-Husein) saw that he had no means of returning or entering al-Kufa, he took the road of al-Sham heading towards Yazid bin Mu’awiyah as he knew that he was much softer than Ibn Ziad and his men, he walked until ‘Umar bin Sa’ad met him with a great army, what happened then is known so how can some say that he cast himself with his own hand towards ruin? and it was narrated that he (as) said to ‘Umar bin Sa’ad: “Choose for me one of three: either I go back from where I came, or I put my hand in the hand of my cousin Yazid so that I may change his opinion, or that you lead me to one of the battle fields of Jihad so that I can be a like any man.” ‘Umar bin Sa’ad then wrote to Ibn Ziad and he refused it.( al-Sharif al-Murtada in Tanzeeh al-Ambiyaa page 229).

This clearly shows that when Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) discovered that Yazid had established his authority, he agreed to accept him as a leader. However, Ubaid Allah ibn Ziyad was not ready to listen to Sayyiduna Husain and ordered him to come to him unconditionally. Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) was in no way obliged to obey his command and he also feared his life, thus had no option but to fight him. This was the beginning of the unfortunate incident of Karbala. (See, for details, Imam Tabari’s Tarikh al-Umam wa al-Muluk & Imam Ibn Kathir’s al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya).

In conclusion, it is impermissible to rebel against authority even if the ruler is oppressive or a sinner. The opposition of Sayyiduna Husain (Allah be pleased with him) was due to the fact that Yazid’s rule had not yet been established and he intended to prevent his rule before it being established.


Shia Argument 3:

Sa’ad ibn ‘Ubaadah(ra) didn’t except the caliphate of Abu Bakr(ra) and died in that state.


The answer to this argument was taken from the book of Dr. Ali Muhammad Sallaabee -“The biography of Abu Bakr as-siddeeq”.

We read:

{Certain fabricated and weak narrations indicate that there was a serious crisis and power struggle that occurred in the courtyard of Banu Saa’idah. Based on authentic narrations, however, we know that no crisis or power struggle took place; rather, in a very short span of time everyone came to a unanimous agreement that Abu Bakr(ra) should become the Leader of the Believers.

So in spite of what is claimed in certain false narrations, Sa’ad ibn Ubaadah(ra) was among the first to pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr(ra). Yes, it is true that, prior the arrival of Abu Bakr(ra) and ‘Umar(ra) to the courtyard of Banu Saa’idah, Sa’ad(ra) did indicate that he should be appointed ruler of the Muslim nation. But no sooner did Abu Bakr(ra) remind him of what the Prophet(SAW) had said about the matter than Sa’ad (ra) yielded and said, “You are the leaders, and we are your ministers”. Also, I should point out that Abu Bakr(ra), ‘Umar(ra), and Abu ‘Ubaidah (ra) did not conspire among themselves to make sure that one of them would be appointed the Khaleefah of the Muslim nation. I mention such lies only because they are mentioned in false accounts that are related in certain history books.

Some historians paint an unfair and dark picture of Sa’ad ibn ‘Ubaadah(ra), claiming that he plotted against the Muhaajiroon, so as to prevent them from taking away his right to the caliphate. The claims such historians make are founded upon accounts that are not only fabricated, but that also contradict Sa’ad’ s past and lifelong dedication to the cause of Islam. To be sure, Sa’ad(ra) was among the best of the Prophet’s Companions; he participated in the Second Pledge of Al-‘Aqabah; he was perhaps the sole native inhabitant of Al-Madeenah that was tortured in Makkah because of his beliefs; he took part in the Battle of Badr; and he was a paragon of generosity and righteousness. The Prophet(SAW)depended on his counsel, as well as the counsel of Sa’ad ibn Mu’aadh(ra), during the Battle of Al-Khandaq, and with the counsel they gave the Prophet(SAW), they both proved their willingness to make sacrifices for the cause of Islam. It is inconceivable that a man with such a past could have had rekindled feelings of xenophobic tribalism, resenting the fact that the leader of all believers was chosen from a different tribe.

The false narrations I am referring to state that, after Abu Bakr(ra) became Khaleefah of the Muslim nation, Sa’ad(ra) refused to pray behind Abu Bakr(ra), acting as if he was completely withdrawing himself from Muslim society. This is categorically false. It is clearly mentioned in authentic narrations that Sa’ad(ra) pledged allegiance to Abu Bakr(ra) and that, when Abu Bakr(ra) said to Sa’ad(ra), “And you indeed know, O Sa’ad, that the Messenger of Allah(SAWS) said while you were sitting down (and listening to him), ‘The people of the Quraish are in charge of this matter (i.e., of the caliphate): all righteous people are followers of their righteous people, and all evildoers are followers of their evildoers,” Sa’ad replied, “You have spoken the truth. We are your ministers, and you are our leaders.” [Musnad Imam Ahmad (18). This narration is authentic by dint of other narrations that strengthen it.]  One cannot rely on a false narration that smears the reputation of Sa’ad(ra) and ignore many authentic narrations that remind us of the many sacrifices that Sa’ad(ra) made for the cause of Islam. As for the aforementioned false narration, we know that it is false for two main reasons: First, its narrator was one of the people of desires, and his narrations were universally rejected by the scholars of Hadeeth.[ Meezaan Al-‘Aitidaal Fee Naqd Ar-Rijaal,by Adh-Dhahabee (3/2992)] As Imam Adh-Dhahabee said about his narration, “As you can clearly see, its chain is utterly weak.”[ Siyyar ‘Alaam An-Nubalaa (1/277). ] And second, the actual text of the narration contradicts every piece of information we know about Sa’ad ibn ‘Ubaadah(ra) regarding his upright character and his lifelong dedication to promoting the cause of Islam.}

(Source:“The biography of Abu Bakr as-siddeeq” by Dr. Ali Muhammad Sallaabee, pages 213-215.)


May Allah’s (swt) blessings be upon Messenger of Allah, his household, and his companions.


29 thoughts on “Hadeeth Explanation: “Whoever died without an Imam he dies a death of jahilyyah”

  1. So does this mean that Aisha, Muawyah and all their followers died the death of a jahil for not paying allegiance to the caliph of their time which was Ali?

    • Not at all, Ayesha(as) acknowledged the correct stance of Ali(ra) after battle of Jamal, which implies she accepted Caliphate of Ali(ra). And women were never known for giving allegiance to the Caliphs. As for Muawiyah(ra) then, he didn’t die during the Caliphate of Ali(ra), infact he himself became the leader Muslims, eventually.

  2. A baseless article. Saad bin UBada(ra) didnt except the caliphate of both Abu Bakr(ra) and Omar(ra), did he die the death of jahiliya. As far as your recording that Hussain(ra) wanted to give his hand in the hand of yazid as allegiance it is false. By stating three conditions it is evident that Hussain was not ready to offer bayyah to Yazid. Uqba bin Sumaan(ra) an eye witness at karbala said that Hussain(ra) never said i give my hand in the hand of yazid but he said i move to the expanse of the region or return back. this is validated by the statement of Hur(ra) on the battlefield of Karbala in Ashura. Secondly, Sulaiman ibn Suroo(ra) the sahabi who invited Hussain(ra) to kerbala attested to this fact that Hussain wanted to return or move to the expanse of the land. Sulaiman didnt pay allegiance to yazid himself. Lastly, please study history correctly. Hazrat Adi bin Hatim(ra) was pursued by the Kufan governor and in order to discuss the matter personally with him he said to his representative, i want to put muy hand in the hand of Ziyad. Now everyone recognizes that it meant discussion not bayyah or allegiance. Same was the case with Hussain if you accept this narration of hands in hands of yazid. Furthermore, ibn Hajar Asqalani, Ibn Kather, Ibn Taimiyah, Abul faraj ibn al Jauzi etc who recorded this narration didnt deem it bayyah to Yazeed. IN FACT NO HISTORIAN HAS TERMED IT BAYYAH OR ALLEGIANCE. Lastly, how can transgessors be imams when Quran says, dont accept the dictates of transgessors and at other place Ibrahim(as) is promised Imamah in his progeny except for tyrants. Clearly, these hadith of even following tyrants as obligatory is against Quran.

    • An article rich with authentic Sunni traditions and views of notable Sunni scholars is Baseless? Well this just exposes where you are coming from.

      (1) – Sa’ad ibn Ubaadah(ra) did accept the Caliphate of Abu Bakr(as). Get your facts straight. And we are aware of certain reports which state otherwise, however those reports are weak and forged therefore unreliable. For a detailed answer, refer the book “The biography of Abu Bakr as-siddeeq” by Dr. Ali Muhammad Sallaabee, pages 213-215.

      (2) – As for your arguments which are without any reference, then the simple answer is that, by admitting that, “Sayyiduna Imam Hussain(as) wanted to move to the expansion of the land”, you indirectly admitted that Hussain(as) accepted the leadership of Yazeed, because the expansion of land was going on under the ruler-ship of Yazeed.

      (3) – Also by attesting that Hussain(as) made two choices one of returning and one of moving to the expansion of land, you destroyed the myth propagated by Shiites that, this was a fight between Islam or Kufr, or a Jihad, because retreating from a battle field is considered a sin.

      (4) – Yazid was not narrating ahadeeth or news, which Quran prohibits. As for the Imamah of Ibrahim(as) then Quran states:{My covenant includes not Zalimoon}; the word Zulm(injustice) is defined in several ways, in Quran Shirk(polytheism) was considered a great Zulm(injustice). We read: {Indeed, association [with him] is great injustice(Zulm). (31:13).

      (5) – If you believe that giving bayah to Tyrant is against Quran, then please let us know what is your stance on Muawiyah(ra), because we have proved in our article on relationship between Muawiyah(ra) and Ahlelbayt that, Hassan(as) did give bayah(allegiance) to Muawiyah(ra). Due to which some extremist Shia insulted Hasan(as).

      • 1/ Saad ibn Ubaada didnt pay allegiance to Abu Bakr(ra) and Omar(ra). It is a fact testified by nearly all classical and formative historians and muhaditheen. If the reports according to you are weak please bear in mind that the chains of transmission in this regard are many. As Bukhari has recorded his intitial opposition to the caliphate also.
        2/ As regards moving in the expansion of reign is recorded you seem to have lost common sense here. As Quran mentions that in times of fitna migrate, this is exactly what Syeddina Hussain (ra) was trying. Ibn Omar didnt allow Hafsa(ra) to go to the battle of Jamal, does it mean then that he was accepting the caliphate of Ali(ra)? If Hussain accepted Yazid as caliph why was he moving in the expanse of land.
        3/ Prophet Muhammad(saw) didnt fight the battle of tabuk and returned without fighting the kuffars, does it deem it devoid of jehad. Besides, study hadith. Anas bin Harith(ra) records that Prophet (saw) said that my son Hussain will be killed in karbala, aid him. This is deemed sahih by ibn Hajar Asqalani, Ibn Athir, Ibn Kathir etc.
        4/ As for the tyrants are considered there is explicit verse of Quran that dont even incline towards the unjust people, leave aside paying allegiance to them. that is why Abu Hanifa, Imam Shafii, Imam Malik supported the opposition to the fasiq rulers.
        5/ As far as your article about Hassan(ra) giving bayya to Muawiya is recorded let me clarify that Muawiya(ra) was no tyrant. He did committ mistakes though. Besides, as ibn Kathir has himself admitted that Muawiya repented going against Ali(ra) to Umme Salma(ra), it makes his rebellion subject to the mercy of Allah, as he forgives anyone who repents.

        Besides, my brother study the science of hadith and you will come to know that obedience to tyrants is rejected in many of them. Kaanb ibn Ujra(ra) records that Prophet (saw) told us that there will be rule of unjust young men. People who are from me and i am from them will oppose it. I give you in the refuge of Allah from that rule of 60 AH. ( Tirmizi, Kanzul Ammal, Sahih Nisai). that is exactly what happened Kaab died before the rule of yazid and Hussain went against it. For your information, all the sons of Kaab(ra) were matyred fighting against the rule of Yazid. (Ibn Saad in Tabaqat).

        Furthermore, study the hand of rulers in hadith formulation.

        Wasalam brother

      • 1. Brother, had you bothered to look up the source we recommended you would have realized that as per authentic reports Sa’ad did pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr(ra). As for you claim that the chains of the weak/forged reports many then it doesn’t helps your case because these reports are Munkar, regardless of their number they would still be considered unreliable. Anyways please present those chains in Arabic, so that we could scrutinize them for your benefit. Meanwhile, we again recommend you to refer the book “The biography of Abu Bakr as-siddeeq” by Dr. Ali Muhammad Sallaabee, pages 213-215, which dealt this issue perfectly.

        2. We don’t get your point for you bringing up the example of Ibn Umar(ra) and Hafsa(as). As for Hussain(ra) then let us quote what was the option he gave{…or that he may head to make Jihad against the Kouffar in the distant lands like any other Muslim…}. But we know that the Jihad that was going on at that time was under the ruler-ship of Yazeed, hence Hussain(ra) asking to join the forces under the rulership of Yazeed would imply that He(ra) is under the ruler-ship of Yazeed. As for migrating(hijrah) at time of Fitnah, then Hussain(ra) didn’t wish to go to a place where the rule of Yazeed was not implemented but rather the place which where the Muslims were fighting against the Kuffar under the rulership of Yazeed; Hence you are comparing apples with oranges.

        3. As for Prophet(SAWS) not fighting the battle of Tabuk, then it was because upon learning of the Muslims march, the Byzantines and their allies were so terrified that none of them dared set out to fight. The Muslim army returned from Tabuk victoriously, undeceived or wronged. [For Details refer the book Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum] .So please gain some proper knowledge before making these ridiculous claims. As for the hadeeth which talks about aiding Hussain(ra), then this seems to be dubious, because we know from history that Sahaba who were alive that time didn’t join Hussain(ra) infact they themselves advised him not trust the Kufi shia of his, as they were treacherous people. So please provide the Arabic text along with the chain of this hadeeth you mention.

        4. The verse you are quoting is (11:113), it is about not helping the unjust, it shows the illegality of helping the unjust. Because if even a slight inclination towards unjust people is prohibited, then how can helping them be permitted. As helping them would be the greatest form of inclining towards them. So there is no need to make your batil Qiyas(false analogy) and equate helping the unjust with paying allegiance to tyrant ruler. Because your qiyas goes against the authentic traditions of Prophet Mohammad(SAWS). Also take example of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, who suffered oppression from the tyrant ruler of his time but did not revolt against him.

        5. It is good to hear that you don’t consider Muawiya(ra) as a tyrant but only a fallible Muslim, because all the Sahaba including Ahlulbayt were fallible Muslims, who did commit mistakes.

        As for your advice to study science of hadeeth, then my brother, We’re not just studying the science of hadeeth but we’re also implementing on it, but you seems to have not made a good study. Let us show how you failed in implementing one of the basic of hadeeth sciences, that is to understand a hadeeth based on the other related ahadeeth about that topic. You referred the hadeeth from Kab ibn Ujra. Here is the full hadeeth:

        It was narrated that Kab bin Ujrah said: “The Messenger of Allah came out to us, and there were nine of us. He said; ‘After me there will be rulers, whoever believes in their lies and helps them in their wrongdoing is not of me, and I am not of him, and he will not come to me at the Hawz. Whoever does not believe their lies and does not help them in their wrongdoing, he is of me, and I am of him, and he will come to me at the Hawz.”‘ [Sunan an-Nasa’i #4207].

        So brother if you read this hadeeth properly then you find that its about not helping the rulers in their wrongdoing, and this is agreed upon issue. This no where says that one shouldn’t give a tyrant allegiance. Now let us present some other reports which disapproves your misunderstanding.

        It his been narrated through a different chain of transmitters, on the authority of Hudhaifa b. al-Yaman who said: Messenger of Allah, no doubt, we had an evil time (i. e. the days of Jahiliyya or ignorance) and God brought us a good time (i. e. Islamic period) through which we are now living Will there be a bad time after this good time? He (the Holy Prophet) said: Yes. I said: Will there be a good time after this bad time? He said: Yes. I said: Will there be a bad time after good time? He said: Yes. I said: How? Whereupon he said: There will be leaders who will not be led by my guidance and who will not adopt my ways? There will be among them men who will have the hearts of devils in the bodies of human beings. I said: What should I do. Messenger of Allah, if I (happen) to live in that time? He replied: You will listen to the Amir and carry out his orders; even if your back is flogged and your wealth is snatched, you should listen and obey.[ Sahih Muslim #1847]

        Comment: This hadeeth clearly shows that tyrant ruler is to be obeyed, however this doesn’t contradict the hadeeth which says that one shouldn’t help the ruler in his wrongdoing or the one which says if ruler orders to commit sin then there is no obedience to the ruler in that command.

        Sayyiduna Abd Allah (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: A Muslim must listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) in things that he likes or dislikes, as long as he is not ordered to commit a sin. If he is ordered to disobey Allah, then there is no listening and no obedience. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 6725 & Sahih Muslim, no. 1839).

  3. Asalamun Alykum, dear brother i am preparing answers with references and will soon get to you. i will only say here that the analogy between ibn Omar (ra) and Hussain(ra) is that ibn Omar didnt accept Ali as caliph but prevented opposition to him. it cant be deemed his acceptance of Ali as caliph. similarly, Hussains going to the expanse does deem it bayyah to yazid.
    i am busy with my exams. I will get back to you soon InshAllah after a week or two. Stay blessed.

    • Wa’alaykum salam.

      Respected brother, you are comparing apples with oranges. Ibn Umar(ra) took a neutral position he neither opposed him nor join him, even when insisted by Ali(ra). So the example of neutral position doesn’t helps you, because in the case of Imam Hussain(ra), he(ra) wanted to participate in a process which was being done under the ruler-ship of Yazeed.

      As for the claim He stopped Hafsa(ra) from joining battle of Jamal or prevented opposition to him, then please elaborate on this, what are your views, do you believe that it was a deliberate battle or deliberate opposition? Because we don’t believe that it was an opposition or deliberate battle. If you are confused about this battle then please refer this link: https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2012/05/05/part-2-defence-of-ahlelbaytwives-of-prophetmothers-of-believers-from-the-religious-slanderers/

      • Asalamu Alykum. First of all there is clear verse of Quran not to accept those who transgress the bounds of Allah. Secondly there are hadith narrated both to be patient with an unjust ruler and also to oppose him. According to Imam Nawawi and Ibn Hajar Asqalani Imam Hussain took the way of opposition in light of Quran and those hadith. Now do you neo nasibis mean you knew deen more than Imam Hussain? Secondly as said above hand in hand comes in five places in historical events and NONE of this means bayyah. I challenge u to get one scholar who explicitly deems it bayyah to yazid bin muawiyah. As regards your presumption that Hussain going to frontiers meant acceptance of yazid please prove it as it clearly means going to frontiers or back to Medina without bayyah. These hadith of obligatory adherence to rulers is a fabrication of regimes. Check history. Hajjaj deemed those who rose against the ruler as kaafirs. Ibrahim Nakahiye, Saeed ibn Jubyr the student of Ibn Abbas rose against rulers. They were more well versed with deen than Ibn taimiyah and his followers. I challenge you to prove from One grear scholar of the past that Hussain was ready to offer bayah explicitly. Even your Imam yazeed said Hussain opposed my rule and got reward for it.. Albidayah ibn kathir.

      • Walaykumsalam. Brother it appears from your argument that you haven’t properly understood our stance on this issue. I suggest you carefully re-read the article for understanding our perspective. As for the argument that giving hand in hand doesn’t mean giving bay’ah(pledge of allegiance), then please refer to what Kitab Maqtal al-Hussain says, that will clarify to you what it meant. We read in this Shia book:

        “…or we send him to Yazid, the Commander of the faithful, to offer his pledge of allegiance to him and resolve their differences”.[ Kitab Maqtal al-Hussain, page 112]

  4. Bro.Islam is a complete religion, it is the misguided who take a certain hadeeth. To prove he is teaching Islam by only proving on a certain hadeeth. It is a duty of every muslim to learn Islam and living to its best ability.

  5. We read:

    “When Zayd ibn ‘Ali found out about that, he sent for him to ask about this rumour. Zayd said to him(Momin at-taq) : “I have heard that you are claiming that among the family of Muhammad, there is an Imam to whom obedience is obligatory.” Momin at-Taq said: “Yes, your father ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn was one of them.” He said “How can that be, when he would take a mouthful of food, and if it was hot, he would cool it with his hand and then put it in my mouth? Do you think that he could protect me from the heat of this mouthful and not protect me from the fire of hell?” Momin at-Taq said: “He did not want to tell you lest you reject it and thus become a disbeliever, then he would not be able to intercede for you”. [Shia book, Rijal Kashi, page 139 ; Taken from, biography of Ali(ra) by Ali Muhammad Sallaabi.[Vol 2, pages 384-385].

  6. Dear Slave, you seem to be ignorant about history. The link you have send for Abu Mikhnaf’s maqtal is translated one not verbatim. The verbatim does not include the words allegiance for Yazid. As i mentioned in Tabari itself hand in hand is meant seeing the other person in person. Yazeed said that Hussain offered three conditions go to frontier, come to see me in person or to return ( Albidayah wa Al nihayah by Ibn Katheer). Clearly my point is proven. Secondly, i asked you and now i challenge you to give me SINGLE verdict of any great scholar of the past who deemed it bayyah to yazeed. Secondly, verdicts of Dhahabi, Ibn Katheer, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Hajar Makki, Ibn Hajar Asqalani etc clearly show that Hussain ibn Ali didnt accept you imam Yazeed as caliph.

    • Brother, the point I’m making is that, the meaning of giving hand in hand in that context was to give Bayah(pledge of allegiance), this is why the Shia Translator, translated it likewise. I don’t consider you to be more knowledge than the Shia Translator who translated it as per its meaning.

      • Dear Slave, please understand that two notions prevail in all communities and religions- mainstream and non mainstream. The notion of the Shias is first of all not mainstream. The notion of the above author you quoted is unconventional and not a mainstream opinion. In every sect there are notions made by some scholars that are conventional. For example as per Ibn Hazm(ra), Javaid Ghammidi etc Essa ibn Maryam is dead. Now if a Qadiyani states these opinions of scholars the logical answer would be that these are aberrant views not conventional and general opinion. Same is the case here. of all scholars you are giving opinion of one tashayyu scholar. I asked you opinion of the salaf on it and you come with lame excuses. The statements of yazid, ibn ziyad, Hazrat Sulaiman ibn Suroo(ra), Ibn Zubair (ra) and other eminent personalities prove that Imam e Aali Muqaam Imam Hussain did not accept the bayyah of yazid bin muawiya. Please give a valid proof of your argument. Secondly, please show is history books that it was written that i give my hand in the hand of yazid as bayyah as you have stated. Khidri Misri (who had nasibi leanings) in Mohaziraat writes that it is a wrong notion of some people that Hussain was giving his hand in hand of yazid as bayyah. Ibn Hajar Haytami writes in Sawaiqul Muhariqah (a book to refute shias) that Hussain ibn Ali (ra) did not accept yazid’s bayyah and died in this condition. Ibn Khaldun the greatest historian and political commentator has clearly mentioned that Hussain did not accept yazid as caliph because he was not imam e haqq. Ibn Hajar Asqalani and Dhahabi clearly state Hussain opposed the rule of yazid. Young man please dont come with notions based on falsehood just because you want to refute shias. Hussain ibn Ali was beacon of resistance for all.
        Aasif Najar

      • Brother Aasif Najar, the problem is that Shias have a bad habbit of shifting goal posts. Whenever they find that their challenge is met, they conveniently shift the goalpost, which eventually makes the discussion futile. Like you said{I challenge u to get ONE SCHOLAR who explicitly deems it bayyah to yazid bin muawiyah.} Hence I provided you the translation from a Shia scholar/Translator Hamid Mavani, who understood from the text that the option(of giving hand in the hand of Yazeed) meant giving pledge of allegiance. When you found the challenge was met, where a Shia scholar was cited, you changed your tone of ad hominem attacks of Nasibism, you came up saying its unconventional and not a mainstream opinion. However, in your challenge this wasn’t the condition given, you conveniently shifted the goalpost. Moreover, its true that its not a mainstream Shi’ee opinion, however my argument wasn’t that it is a mainstream Shi’ee opinion rather, I quoted the Shia translator to prove the most appropriate understanding of the that text as per the context. So your excuse gets invalidated, the Shia translator could hold mainstream Shi’ee opinion, yet chose to translate the text as per its appropriate meaning, even though he may not believe in that report.

        Also, from some sentences which the Shia Translator Hamid Mavani translated, it appears that he is from the mainstream. For example, in regards to the wording said by Imam Hussain(RA) when he heard the death of Muawiya(RA), this Shia translator didn’t translate the complete sentence, because those complete wordings wouldn’t go down the throat of any mainstream Shia. He translated(See page 16) it as: { “We are from God and to Him is our return” } , whereas the complete wording are {فقال حسين : انالله وانا إليه راجعون ورحم الله معاوية وعظم لك الاجر (Hussain said: “We are from God and to Him is our return and May Allah have mercy on Muawiya and give him great reward.)} there fore, your speculation that the Shia translator is not from mainstream gets discarded.

        Moreover, here is a Sunni scholar, who understood the same way that, the option(of giving hand in the hand of Yazeed) meant giving pledge of allegiance. He is [Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam, you may read his Fatwa here : http://www.daruliftaa.com/node/6098 , and you may switch back to your original ad hominem tone, which got mild towards Shia translator.

        Secondly, as for the claim that many Sunni scholars believed that Imam Hussain(RA) didn’t pledge his allegiance to Yazeed, then that is very true, even we never claim that Imam Hussain(RA) pledged allegiance to Yazeed. This didn’t happen. Imam Hussain(RA) was martyred before any of his three wishes/conditions were fulfilled.

        Thirdly, Inorder to demonstrate how inconsistent the Shia arguments are, let’s reflect upon the claim you made in your previous comment. You said: {First of all there is clear verse of Quran not to accept those who transgress the bounds of Allah…} and you challenged me to bring one hadeeth or view of scholar who said, what Hussain(RA) said meant giving pledge of allegiance to Yazeed. So now adhering this same condition which you set, let me ask you, Do you believe that Muawiya(RA) didn’t transgress the bounds of Allah, that is why Imam Hassan(RA) gave him pledge of allegiance, and followed Quran in this regards? If you believe this, then know that you will be accused of Nasibism by Shias. And if you don’t then would you like to see the ahadeeth which explicitly state that Hassan(RA) gave pledge of allegiance to Muawiya(RA), along with the views of scholars? If your answer is no and you reject them and change the conditions and your approach, in this situation, then know that its futile to discuss things which such inconsistent people. It would be merely a waste of time, and you would keep changing your conditions and shift your goalposts.

        Fourthly, these reports from Tareekh Tabari imply that Imam Hussain(RA) meant pledge of allegiance, because he left the judgement on Yazeed.

        And in another report, Imam Hussain(RA) rejected the offer to put hand in the hand of Ibn Ziyad, if it didn’t mean pledge of allegiance, then there wouldn’t have been any issue for Hussain(RA) to accept that demand. He rejected it because it meant pledge of allegiance.

        May Allah Guide you to correct path.

  7. stupid pure nasibi page, even can’t refute Quranic verse that all man will be called upon their respective Imams in the day of Qiyamah, or I believe that very verse are also not applicable for pure nasibi like you because you are definitely will be thrown in the Hellfire without any questioning for slandering and spreading fitnah against the Prophet saww and his holy progeny a.s., la’nat on you for eternally!!!

  8. Dear slave. First of all i am not shia but a student of Islam, Hanafi sunni. You still haven’t replied to my argument because of following reasons:-
    Number one:- I asked you opinion of earliest scholars on the issue and you again come up with translator Hamid Mavani’s translation. It is a literal interpretation as Qadianis interpret raffa anna as spiritual elevation of Essa not physical. Please get the opinion of earlier scholars or opinions of people living at that time which has been recorded by history.
    Number two:- The english translation clearly gives sanad of the narration and it contains mujallid bin saeed who is a unknown. Secondly as i said the three options clearly mean that Imam Hussain wanted dialogue but it was not bayyah which is clearly shown by the subsequent letter of Ibn Ziyad after recieving this letter. Ibn ziyad wrote back:- I DID NOT SEND YOU TO PAVE EASE FOR HUSSAIN. If Hussain accepts my order then SEND HIM TO ME or else fight him as he is a rebel ( Tarikh Tabari, Al bidayah wa Al nihayah). It clearly means that Hussain ibn Ali didnt accept the first order which if you look into history was to offer allegiance to Yazeed. (This order is recorded before 7th of Muharram and another order to close water comes after that…see Tabari, Al bidayah etc) Also it shows another order which is to bring them here or in phrase give his hand in mine (As u have pasted) . It clearly proves my point that hand in hand meant to see the person in his presence and come before him. It is again proved by a narration on the day of Ashura when Hussain(ra) is asked to submit to his cousins(Yazid’s) order. He replies i will not submit like a slave NOR GIVE MY HAND IN YOUR HAND. It clearly proves my point. The orders were two by Ibn Ziyad- accept allegiance of Yazid and come before me.
    Third:- The darul ifta thing you mentioned is from Zahid Kawthari who is a Deobandi student of nasibi Mufti Taqi Usmani who is son of great Mufti Mohammad Shafi Uthmani(ra) who wrote a book on Karbala called Shaheed e Karbala https://pdfbooksfree.pk/shaheed-e-karbala-by-mufti-muhammad-shafi-r-a/. He was the foremost scholar in Deoband and in his book he accepts that it means dialogue not bayyah to Yazeed.
    Fourth:- Reports after Karbala of Yazid, Ibn Ziyad, Omer bin Saad, Hajjaj, among the enemies of Imam Hussain and Ibn Abbas, Ibn Zubair, Sulaiman ibn Suroo among others prove that Hussain ibn Ali hadnt accepted Yazid’s caliphate. In Tabari the sermon of Ibn Zubair(ra) is mentioned wherein he protested against Yazid and highlighted the matyrdom of Hussain (ra) before Meccans who pledged support against Yazid.The sermon is also mentioned by Ibn Kathir and Ibn Athir in their books Albidayah and Tareekh Kamil. Now a logical question will be how can Ibn Zubair relate the matyrdom and opposition of Hussain against Yazid and rouse people against his rule when Hussain(ra) had accepted Yazid as caliph?
    Fifth:- As i told you there are hadith mentioned like in Ibn Majah and other books that Prophet also forbade obedience to disobedient rulers. Imam Hussain at Baida cited same hadith in opposing the rule of hadith as recorded in history books. As Islam is the middle path it has not constrained Muslims the can be patient if circumstances demand it and they can be trying to change political structure if circumstances demand them. Also if you study hadith and history you will come to know that great people from salaf like Hussain, Ibn Zubair, Maqil, Saeed ibn Jubayr etc opposed the political structures and people in Rashidoon period were allowed to refuse the allegiance like Saad bin Ubadah, Ibn Omar, Saad bin Waqqas. ( In the above discussions with a person you have mentioned saad bin Ubaadah (ra) did offer bayyah quoting Dr Sallabi. First of all the narration of it is weak as detailed biography of Saad ibn Ubaadah mentions he stayed aloof from Bayah. In fact one of the last sermons of Farooq e Azam (ra) mentions the refusal of Saad as is recorded in history and even Bukhari. Later historians like Ibn Khaldun also accept Saad did not accept bayyah. Furthermore, please check Mr Sallabi’s book on Ali karamullahwajhu and you will see that Ibn Omar repented at not supporting Ali against rebels. In other words regret at not accepting Ali as caliph which means he didnt offer bayyah to righteous caliph but he was not forced into submission which clearly proves Islam gives a person right to have his opinion but not go against a righteous caliph. Also hadith give choice to be patient or take action against corrupt regimes as Quran mentions Islam is the middle path.
    On a parting note does the opinion of Ibn Khaldun the greatest historian and political commentator count, Does the opinion of Sheikhul hadith Ibn Hajar count, does the opinion of Dhahabi count or some modern molvi like Adam Kawthari whose own school of thought deems Hussain as beacon of resistance. One of the things he overlooked in the fatwa are hadith which allow opposition to injust regimes and also the sayings of Imam e Aali muqaam (ra) which validate his opposition.

    • Brother Aasif najar, from your reply, I have come to the conclusion that you are neither an objective person, nor are you moderate in your approach. Instead you are an extremist person, who falsely accuses Sunni scholars of Nasibism due to your ignorance(Jahl). And you have become so blind in your bigotry that, you fail to read a proper sentence or you purposely misrepresent things. Allah knows the best. Such a person in my view holds no credibility, and its better for you to educate yourself properly and its futile to discuss with such ignorant people, who can’t even read a text properly.

      ANSWER TO POINT ONE: I have already, mentioned that the Shia Translator of Maqtal Hussain translated the expression as per the common meaning of the expression. The expression giving hand in the hand of a person who is in the position of authority, means giving pledge of allegiance, this is the most reasonable understanding of this expression. And I don’t see how does your disagreement with this, weakens this view. If you disagree, then its fine. But your disagreement doesn’t prove that the translation done by a Shia translator of Maqtal Hussain is wrong. Add to it that even the Translator of Tareekh Tabari, IKA Howard, too understood this expression in the same manner as giving pledge of allegiance, which you can read in the introduction of this chapter. So you have two different Translators who understood this expression of giving hand in the hand(of a person in authority) meant giving pledge of allegiance. Also to add to the list is Sunni Mufti whom I quoted.

      ANSWER TO POINT TWO: You said {The english translation clearly gives sanad of the narration and it contains mujallid bin saeed who is a unknown…} Yes, the translation “CLEARLY” gives the sanad as you claimed, and it has two different narrators who narrated this report. One was Mujallid bin Saeed AND the other was al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi. So there are CLEARLY two different people narrating it, not just one, which is apparent from the comma(,) separating their names, as the translation CLEARLY gives the Sanad(chain). For your convenience, here is the chain in Arabic:

      قَالَ أَبُو مخنف : وأما مَا حَدَّثَنَا بِهِ الْمُجَالِدُ بن سَعِيدٍ ، والصقعب بن زهير الأَزْدِيّ ، وغيرهما من المحدثين ، فهو مَا عَلَيْهِ جماعة المحدثين قَالُوا

      The other narrator who narrated the report, al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi was a Thiqa(trustworthy) narrator. He was declared as Thiqa(trustworthy) by some prominent scholars of Jarh wa Tadeel, such as Abu Zura’a al Raazi, Al-Hakim Nisapuri, and Ibn Hajr al Asqalani, you may read these view in this link under the tab of Jarh wa Tadeel

      Also, He narrated a hadeeth in Adab al Mufrad of Imam Bukhari, and this hadeeth was classed as Sahih by Sheikh Al-Albani. https://sunnah.com/adab/30/11

      Therefore, This was your comment, based on which I conclude that you can’t even read and understand a text and you have been blinded in your bias.

      In regards to your theories then we have seen your understanding skills, and how messed up it is. The text of the report is clear, anyone blessed with basic understand skills can understand it. Let me quote you the text, so that it becomes easy for you to understand: The report states {…By God! If he left your land, without putting HIS HAND IN YOURS, he would be in a position of power and strength and you would be in a position of weakness and impotence. Do not give this concession , for it would be a mark of weakness. Rather let him and his followers SUBMIT TO YOUR AUTHORITY}. It’s quite clear that the expression “HIS HAND IN YOURS” meant submitting to the authority of Ibn Ziyad. And we can also see in the next report as well where Ibn Ziyad wrote to Ibn Saad. We read {“Take this message to `Umar b. Sad and let him offer al-Husayn and his followers the option of submitting to MY AUTHORITY}. Therefore, it is clear as sky in a cloudless day, that the demand of Ibn Ziyad was to make Hussain(RA) surrender to HIS AUTHORITY and this is what was meant by “HIS HAND IN YOURS”. Moreover, the demand of Ibn Ziyad was changed, due to suggestion of Shimr. Notice, when Ibn Saad wrote to Ibn Ziyad about the three options Hussain(RA) gave, Ibn Ziyad said: {This is the letter of a sincere man to his governor, one who is anxious for his people. YES I ACCEPT.”} If Hussain(RA) hadn’t accepted to pledge allegiance to Yazeed, then how could Ibn Ziyad, accept this condition initially? Rather the fact is that, he accepted it because one of Hussain’s(RA) option was to pledge allegiance to Yazeed directly. However due to suggestion of Shimr, Ibn Ziyad changed his mind and demanded that Hussain(RA) submit to HIS AUTHORITY instead of going to Yazeed directly. And the evil man Ibn Ziyad was and as what he had done to Muslim ibn Aqeel, Hussain(RA) never wanted to submit to Ibn Ziyad’s authority. That’s why Ibn Saad said: { By God! Husayn will not surrender, for there is a proud spirit in his body.” page 111}.

      So the point is that due to your poor understanding skills, you failed to understand a clear report where in the expression “giving hand in hand” meant submitting to authority. Please try to improve your understanding skills.

      ANSWER TO POINT THREE: If you consider that Muft Taqi Uthmani was a Nasibi due to no reason, then even I can consider you to be an under cover Rafidi. Secondly, I have demonstrated your reading and understanding ability in the previous response, your empty claims have no weight and can’t be relied upon, especially when you can’t even read and understand a text which you claimed was CLEAR. So please spare us with your claims without proper quoting along with reference.

      ANSWER TO POINT FOUR: As replied in last comment, none said that Hussain(RA) accepted the Caliphate of Yazeed, meaning Hussain(RA) didn’t get the chance to give pledge of allegiance to Yazeed. He was martyred before it. And know that Caliphate is a political station it isn’t a spiritual station. In regards to accepting a person Caliph, people have to meet and give pledge of allegiance or send someone who represents them to give pledge of allegiance. As for Ibn Zubayr(RA) using the martyrdom of Hussain(RA) then that’s not an issue to help your case, because a grandson of Prophet(SAWS) – who was innocent was martyred by those who were placed in-charge by Yazeed, and they got away without being punished. Similarly we know that people held a legitimate Caliph like Ali(RA) accountable to punish the killers of Uthman(RA), even though martyrdom of Uthman(RA) occurred when Ali(RA) wasn’t a Caliph, whereas Martyrdom of Hussain(RA) occurred when Yazeed was a Caliph, so obviously he would be held accountable for the actions of his governor.

      ANSWER TO POINT FIVE: There are ahadeeth about disobeying Rulers when they command you to commit sin, however the issue here is of revolting against a ruler not a mere act of disobedience. So don’t mix both. Disobedience to ruler in his command to commit sin, is specific to that command only. it doesn’t mean disobeying in every matter. For example, if even a father commands his son to stop praying Salah, then the son should disobey his father, but that doesn’t mean the father is to be obeyed in other matters or that he looses his authority over his son. The issue has been explained thoroughly, in the link I gave from the Fatwa of Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam, who explained it using authentic ahadeeth and Aqwaal of classical scholars, regarding the belief of Ahlus-sunnah. Secondly, Ahlus-sunnah doesn’t believe that Sahaba were infallible, they were fallible, and if a particular Sahabi made a mistake in his ijtihad then that doesn’t means it becomes hujjah for us, rather hujjah are the ahadeeth of Prophet(saws). This is a general answer, even though I don’t believe it applies on all the examples you mentioned, because there are different interpretations to those scenarios.

      Lastly, after answering your questions, I would like to ask you a question. Please don’t ignore this question. You wrote in your comment that narrator “{mujallid bin saeed who is a unknown}”, which basically means this narrator is Majhool. So please quote with reference those Muhadditheen who said this narrator is Majhool(unknown). Note that your reply shouldn’t be without the answer to this question.

      May Allah guide you.

  9. And before you go through misinterpreting hadith read the names of all those who opposed tyrannical regimes you will find Ahl Bayt, Sahaba, tabaeen, taba tabaeen and great scholars. Abu Hanifa and Imam Malek supported oppositions to regimes too. This false consciousness imposed from the factory of rulers of only being patient with rulers was the reason fools and tyrants ruled the moslems for centuries and manipulated religion as they wanted in certain cases.

    • Dear Aasif Najar,

      When you aren’t following proper rules and etiquette of a discussion. In my response, I asked you to back your claims with quotations along with proper reference, which you have failed to abide. And I have displayed that how incompetent you are in reading and understanding a text or a chain. That’s why without proper and accurate quotations along with accurate reference, its a waste of time to continue discussion with you.

      Secondly, In regards to Mujallid you again didn’t follow the request properly, you didn’t quote the exact Hukm of scholars, nor did you give an accurate reference. Moreover, I’m well aware of the condition of Mujallid, that’s why I’m asking you to quote the hukm of scholars, its just to expose your incompetent, who can’t even differentiate between simple terms such as Da’eef and Majhool.

      Thirdly, you built your whole hypothesis on the narrations of Uqba bin saman. But the report is weak and unreliable due to below reasons:

      (i). Because it contains the narrator Abdur rahman bin Jundub who is majhool. Here is the chain in Arabic:
      الَ أَبُو مخنف : حَدَّثَنِي عبد الرَّحْمَن بن جندب ، عن عقبة بن سمعان ، قَالَ
      And Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani considered Abdur rahman bin Jundub as Majhool in Lisan al Meezan. Refer entry #4611 it says (مجهول.) in this link:

      (ii). The second reason is that, this weak and unreliable report from the Majhool narrator on which you based your theories has been contradicted not just by an authentic chain which I mentioned in my previous response, but this was even contradicted by the report of Imam Abu Jafar Mohammad Baqir(RA), who was the son of the survivor of Karbala, Ali ibn Hussain Zain al Abideen(RA). Even though this report isn’t detailed like the one of al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi but this report refutes the one you are using, it shows that Hussain(RA) did give three options to Ibn Saad, one of which was to go to Yazeed.

      جع الحديث إِلَى حديث عمار الدهني ، عن أبي جَعْفَر فَحَدَّثَنِي زكرياء بن يَحْيَى الضرير ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا أَحْمَد بن جناب المصيصي ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا خَالِد بن يَزِيدَ بن عَبْدِ اللَّهِ الْقَسْرِيّ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا عمار الدهني ، قَالَ : قلت لأبي جَعْفَر حَدَّثَنِي عن مقتل الْحُسَيْن حَتَّى كأني حضرته ، قَالَ : فأقبل حُسَيْن بن علي بكتاب مسلم بن عقيل كَانَ إِلَيْهِ حَتَّى إذا كَانَ بينه وبين القادسية ثلاثة أميال لقيه الحر بن يَزِيدَ التميمي ، فَقَالَ لَهُ : أين تريد ؟ قَالَ : أريد هَذَا المصر ، قَالَ لَهُ : ارجع ، فإني لم أدع لك خلفي خيرا أرجوه ، فهم أن يرجع وَكَانَ مَعَهُ إخوة مسلم بن عقيل ، فَقَالُوا : والله لا نرجع حَتَّى نصيب بثأرنا أو نقتل ، فَقَالَ : لا خير فِي الحياة بعدكم ، فسار فلقيته أوائل خيل عُبَيْد اللَّهِ ، فلما رَأَى ذَلِكَ عدل إِلَى كربلاء ، فأسند ظهره إِلَى قصباء وخلا ؛ كي لا يقاتل إلا من وجه واحد ، فنزل وضرب أبنيته وَكَانَ أَصْحَابه خمسة وأربعين فارسا ومائة راجل ، وَكَانَ عُمَر بن سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَّاص قَدْ ولاه عُبَيْد اللَّهِ بن زياد الري وعهد إِلَيْهِ عهده ، فَقَالَ : اكفني هَذَا الرجل ، قَالَ : أعفني ، فأبى أن يعفيه ، قَالَ : فأنظرني الليلة ، فأخره فنظر فِي أمره ، فلما أصبح غدا عَلَيْهِ راضيا بِمَا أمر بِهِ ، فتوجه إِلَيْهِ عُمَر بن سَعْد ، فلما أتاه قَالَ لَهُ الْحُسَيْن : اختر واحدة من ثلاث ؛ إما أن تدعوني فأنصرف من حَيْثُ جئت ، وإما أن تدعوني فأذهب إِلَى يَزِيد ، وإما أن تدعوني فألحق بالثغور ، فقبل ذَلِكَ عمر فكتب إِلَيْهِ عُبَيْد اللَّهِ : لا ، وَلا كرامة حَتَّى يضع يده فِي يدي ، فَقَالَ لَهُ الْحُسَيْن لا ، وَاللَّهِ لا يكون ذَلِكَ أبدا ، فقاتله فقتل أَصْحَاب الْحُسَيْن كلهم ، وفيهم بضعة عشر شابا من أهل بيته ، وجاء سهم فأصاب ابنا لَهُ مَعَهُ فِي حجره فجعل يمسح الدم عنه ، ويقول : اللَّهُمَّ احكم بيننا وبين قوم دعونا لينصرونا فقتلونا ، ثُمَّ أمر بحبرة فشققها ثُمَّ لبسها ، وخرج بسيفه فقاتل حَتَّى قتل ، صلوات اللَّه عَلَيْهِ ، قتله رجل من مذحج وحز رأسه وانطلق بِهِ إِلَى عُبَيْد اللَّهِ ، وَقَالَ : أوقر ركابي فضة وذهبا فقد قتلت الملك المحجبا قتلت خير الناس أما وأبا وخيرهم إذ ينسبون نسبا وأوفده إِلَى يَزِيد بن مُعَاوِيَة وَمَعَهُ الرأس ، فوضع رأسه بين يديه وعنده أَبُو برزة الأسلمي ، فجعل ينكت بالقضيب عَلَى فِيهِ ، ويقول : يفلقن هاما من رجال أعزة علينا وهم كَانُوا أعق وأظلما فَقَالَ لَهُ أَبُو برزة : ارفع قضيبك ، فَوَاللَّهِ لربما رأيت فا رَسُول اللَّهِ ، صلى الله عليه وسلم ، عَلَى فِيهِ يلثمه ، وسرح عُمَر بن سَعْد بحرمه وعياله إِلَى عُبَيْد اللَّهِ ، ولم يكن بقي من أهل بيت الْحُسَيْن بن علي ، عَلَيْهِ السلام ، إلا غلام كَانَ مريضا مع النساء ، فأمر بِهِ عُبَيْد اللَّهِ ليقتل ، فطرحت زينب نفسها عَلَيْهِ ، وقالت : وَاللَّهِ لا يقتل حَتَّى تقتلوني ، فرق لها فتركه وكف عنه ، قَالَ : فجهزهم وحملهم إِلَى يَزِيد ، فلما قدموا عَلَيْهِ جمع من كَانَ بحضرته من أهل الشام ، ثُمَّ أدخلوهم فهنئوه بالفتح ، قَالَ رجل مِنْهُمْ أزرق أحمر : ونظر إِلَى وصيفة من بناتهم ، فَقَالَ : يَا أَمِيرَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ ، هب لي هَذِهِ
      (Tareekh Tabari, English, vol 19, page 74-77, hadeeth from Imam Abu Jafar.)

      Fourthly, I have already explained to you what the hadeeth of Ibn majah meant, I gave a very basic example of Father and Son, to make you understand. This explanation is in accordance to the principles of Ahlus-Sunnah.

      Lastly, I have clearly established that giving hand in hand meant giving pledge of allegiance, I have demonstrated that using the text of reports, especially the sound reports with proper reference. Hence your speculations based on weak and unreliable reports get discarded. Moreover, If you want to reject an authentic report like the one from al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi, and rely on any other contradictory report, you need to first establish its authenticty. Just because the content seems appealing to you, doesn’t make the hadeeth authentic.

      And I would like to repeat that, It’s a waste of time arguing with a person, who doesn’t follow the standard rules of discussion. When you are failing to give accurate quotes along with accurate references, then its futile. I don’t have time to go through a voluminous book, when you just say refer this book or that book, without proper quotation and accurate reference, with volume and page no.

  10. Dear Slave, As expected young man you came back with more confusion than you already had in your head. First:- Mujalid bin Saeed is deemed mehjool by Ibn Saad, Dhabi and Ibn Hajar Asqalani in the books i stated earlier. However, as i said the idea was to present it before anybody who is hell bent on claims. Now coming to your citation that narration from Uqba bin Samaan is from mehjool author i will simply state that mehjool from muhaditheen is mehjool in hadith. A very wrong criteria is to equate the standing of a narrator from a muhaddith point of view.Furthermore, logically an eye witness to the event is more to be trusted in historical events and therefore the narration of Uqba bin Samaan has edge over others as it is written in history books that Uqba was a servant of Imam Hussain and was present in Karbala. The narration of Uqba is supported by three very good narrations:-
    1/ Hur bin Yazid in a sermon on Ashura before the nasibis clearly stated that you are not allowing him(Imam Hussain) to move to the expanse of land as he desired. (Tabari vol 5 page 254 Deoband )
    2/ Ibn Abbas wrote to nasibi imam yazid” Hussain wanted peace and offered to return but you seeing that the opportunity is availed overcame him with swords (Ansaf ul Ashraf from Baladhuri, Tarikh Al Kamil, Majma ulZawaid).
    3/ Sulaiman ibn Suroo(ra) in his sermon to Tawabeen said” Hussain wanted to move to the expanse of the land or return back but they stopped his way and killed him and his family(Tarikh al Tabari page 375 vol 5 Deoband)
    Since you are so stuck up with hand in hand phrase open IKA Howards Tabari translation vol 18 page 140 and find this…everyone
    in the city belonging to the Yaman and the Rabi’ah and the
    Mudar concerned themselves with ‘Adi. They came to Ziyad,
    and interceded with him on ‘Adi’s behalf. Meanwhile, ‘Abdallah
    was taken out and hidden with the Buhtur.O14 He then sent
    word to ‘Adi, “If you wish me to come out so that I would put
    my hand in yours, I will do so.” At that, ‘Adi sent word back to
    him, “By God, if you were right under my feet, I would not lift
    them from you.” Ziyad then summoned ‘Adi, telling him, “Indeed,
    I shall release you on condition that you undertake to expel
    ‘Abdallah from al-Kiifah for me and lead him to the mountains.”
    ‘Adi replied that he would, returned, and sent word to
    ‘Abdallah b. Khalifah, “Leave, and if his anger subsides, I shall
    speak with him about you so that you may return if God
    wills.” Thus ‘Abdallah left for the mountains.
    It clearly means meeting Uday bin Hatim(ra) and not offering bayyah. Similarly you can find many examples in Tabari itself.
    Regarding yoir narration of Mohammad Al Baqir(ra) it simply proves my point. As per this narration Hussain offered three options. Return back, go to yazeed or go to frontiers. There is no mention of bayyah and if you read my responses carefully i said hand in hand means to meet or present one self before a person and thus my point is proven by this narration that if we consider hand in hand narration it means to go to yazeed. To add to your knowledge the same ibn Hajar Asqalani wrote on Fath al Bari vol 12 page 240.. Imam Hussain and his like rose against tyrannical regimes and Hazrat Ali (ra) has said that if people rebel against a tyrant it is forbidden to oppose them”. How many sahabas fought for yazeed in Karbala and Harra and please go though Tabaqat ibn Saad to get the names of all sahaba and tabayeen who fought Yazid

    And regarding the facile analogy of father and son with the hadith of Ibn Majah let me clarify the obedience to a power structure and an individual are two things. It is very not so wise of you to relate the two. The Prophet did not suggest disobedience to a specific act in this hadith but a general disobedience to a fasiq. When there is no obedience there is no bayya logically. Quran clearly says dont obey transgressors. Then other hadiths corroborate it. For example Khalid (ra) narrated that the Prophet said if people see a tyrant and dont hold his hands then no wonder they will also come under the wrath of Allah(Abu Dawood v 2 p 217) Similarly Umro bin Haytam(ra) narrated that Prophet said if nations fall in sin and people who have the ability to stop it dont stop then the wrath of Allah envelopes that nation (Abu Dawood) Hussain ibn Ali said in one of his sermons… O people transgression has perpetrated the nation, and injustice prevails. If people dont stop them with their acts or tongues then they will be part of Allah’s displeasure(Tabari, Ibn Athir). The same words are found in another hadith. Abu Saeed Khudri narrates that Prophet said that if you see evil stop it by your arm(might) or by tongue (Mishkat). So Imam Hussain acted on hadith of opposition because he felt he had the ability. And as per Ibn Khaldun he was the Imam of those people. (Muqaddimah).
    Coming to that point i didnt reject a report on facile basis but with proofs from personalities who were part of the event which you did not. Secondly the gist of my argument remains unanswered and therefore i am repeating it.
    REPEAT:-Also to add please show that Hussain was ready to offer bayyah as opinion of any scholar from salaf. Secondly, when the first order of Ibn Ziyad came on 7th of Muharram to offer bayah to Yazid it didnt order to come to Kufa for offering bayah but to offer it on the hand of Omar ibn Saad, If Hussain was ready to offer bayah then why didnt he then because at that time there was no pressure to come to Ibn Ziyad for it. If dying without bayyah is jahilliyah then didnt Hussain accept the obligation and offer bayah on the hand of Omar ibn Saaf? And if you accept that he wanted it only on hand of Yazid then he complicated matters himself and died without accepting the Imam. What will the fatwa of nasibis now?
    REPEAT:- Did any person recorded in the history books who lived at the time of Karbala accepted the notion of Hussain was ready for bayyah? Did any scholar of the past explicitly accept that Hussain was ready to offer bayyah? What about people who deemed Hussain as example to fight Yazeed both in direct or indirect way? If Hussain had accepted bayyah then how can Ibn Ziyad kill him and Yazeed let him free without punishment? Why were the first choice for raid on Hijaz by Yazeed as Ibn Ziyad and Hussayn ibn Numair the murderers of Hussain? If he was dissatisfied with their deed why did he try to send them on a very important mission of attacking Hejaz? If Hussain was ready for bayyah and Ibn Ziyad killed him then Ibn Ziyad weakened the position of Yazid because Hussain’s support would have ensured no opposition in Iraq and Hejaz. Why was he still kept on his post?
    At the end i would quote that Maulana Abdushakoor Farooqi(ra) who was the Imam of deoband including grand imam of Kawthari accepted all narrations of hand in hand for Yazid but wrote in subsequent book Imam Hussain did not accept bayyah of yazeed and his illustrious father accepted the caliphate of Abu Bakr which proves the logic of shias wrong that Ali was derived of khilafah because Ahl Bayt dont accept tyrants as caliphs.
    A word of advice from a brother. Better die a servant of Hussain than an advocate of yazeed. Hussain is chieftain of the youth of paradise atleast tommorow on the die of judgement you can show your face to him.

    Asif Najar

    • Brother Asif Najar, your views would be respected, even if I disagree with them, however the evidences based on which you form your views they must abide the conditions, I mentioned in last comment. But unfortunately, it seems you neither care and nor respect the view of others. If you refer my last comment I mentioned three conditions.

      (i). I asked you to provide accurate quotes of scholars, like what a scholar said exactly.
      (ii). I asked you to provide accurate references(volume & page), since I can’t go through voluminous books, just to find a random quotes, it would be waste of time.
      (iii). I asked you to prove the authenticity of the evidence you are using, since we found an example where you based your argument on a report which was weak and unreliable.

      But in your recent comment, you insulted the conditions I set, for the benefit of readers, so that they could get a proper picture of the discussion, which would help them in making a judgement. You have again repeated the empty claim that Mujallid bin Saeed is Majhool, but you didn’t cite the exact words of scholars whom you referred, nor did you cite the exact reference(volume and page) of the books you are quoting. And you didn’t prove the reliability of reports you are quoting, as I said before, anything which appears appealing to you, doesn’t necessarily become reliable.

      So, again I demand you to stick to these conditions for your benefit and the benefit of readers. Quote the words of scholars like Ibn Hajar etc, whom you claimed to have called Mujallid bin saeed as Majhool, which an accurate reference, you can do that even by citing an online reference, like how I did to back my claim, since the books of Ibn Hajar are AVAILABLE ONLINE. So it shouldn’t be a problem for you. For other quotes you gave without accurate reference, provide the proper reference for them, and for the reports you are using prove their authenticity, before using them.

      1. As for you quoting three reports WITHOUT proving their authenticity, then let’s see the first one, to judge your credibility. This is the first one:{1/ Hur bin Yazid in a sermon on Ashura before the nasibis clearly stated that you are not allowing him(Imam Hussain) to move to the expanse of land as he desired. (Tabari vol 5 page 254 Deoband )}

      This is a misquotation brother, this is deceitful attempt from your part, this report you are referring isn’t in your favour nor does it support the report of Uqba, rather it strengthens those reports which state that Hussain(RA) gave three choices.

      According to al-Husayn (b. `Abd al-Rahman)-Hilal b. Yasaf: Ibn Ziyad ordered that the area between Waqisah” toward the road to Syria and toward the road to al-Basrah should be occupied, and that they should allow no one to enter and no one to leave. Al-Husayn had set out without being aware of any of this until he met some of the Bedouin . He asked them about the situation, and they said, “No, by God! We don’t know anything except that we cannot get in and get out of al-Kufah.” Then al-Husayn began to move toward the road to Syria, TOWARD YAZID…..Al-Husayn appealed to them before God and Islam to LET HIM GO TO THE COMMANDER OF THE FAITHFUL . Then he would PUT HIS HAND IN HIS HAND. They said, “No, there is nothing else for you to do but submit to the authority of Ibn Ziyad.” Among those who had been sent against him was al -Hurr b. Yazid al-Hanzali, of the clan of Nahshal, in command of some cavalry. When he heard what al-Husayn was saying, he said to them, “Will you not accept what these men are offering you? By God if a Turk or a Daylamite’ asked this of you, it would not be lawful for you to refuse it .”(Tareekh Tabari vol 19, page 79)

      Similarly, in another report According to Abu Mikhnaf-Abu Janab al-Kalbi–Adi b. Harmalah: When `Omar b. Sad began to march forward, al-Hurr b. Yazid said to him, “May God make you prosperous , are you going to fight this man?” He replied, “Yes, by God! It will be a battle, the least part of which will be heads falling and severed hands flying.” Al-Hurr said, “Aren’t you satisfied with one of the THREE PROPOSALS that he offered you?” Umar b. Sa`d answered, “If the matter rested with me, I would accept, but your governor has refused…” (Tareekh Tabari vol 19, page 127).

      So you see al-Hurr did acknowledge that Hussain(RA) asked for Three choice, which refutes your claim that the misquote you provided supports the report of Uqba. Have some shame, and apologize for misquotations.

      2. As for you claiming that the report of Imam Baqir (which destroys all those ahadeeth which you are using) is in your support as it only mentions that Imam Hussain(RA) wanted to go to Yazeed, without mentioning the detail of putting hand in hand of Yazeed then, this argument stems due to your ignorance of Hadeeth Science. The authentic hadeeth of f al-Saq’ab bin Zuhayr al-Azdi, gives the detailed account(Ziyadah), where as the Hadeeth of Imam Baqir doesn’t gives details, No knowledgeable person blessed with wisdom would call it contradiction. We have numerous examples even in Sihah Sittah, where we find some ahadeeth give summarized info, and other reports gives detailed information on the same subject, so the one giving detailed information isn’t considered wrong. The Ziyadah(detail) given by reliable narrators is acceptable in the sight of Ahlus-sunnah.

      Haakim Nisaaburi said: “According to all the fuqaha of Ahl al-Islaam, the condition of a Saheeh (hadeeth) is that the Ziyaadah of a Thiqah is Maqbool (Acceptable) both in Asaneed (chain) and Mutoon (texts).” [al-Mustadrak: 1/3]

      Imaam Bukhaari said, at one place in his Saheeh, that: “Waz-Ziyaadatu Maqboolatun (And the Ziyaadah is acceptable)” [Vol 2 Pg 156 H. 1483].

      So please educate your self brother, before making unacademic and ignoramus arguments.

      3. As for you using the phrase “put hand in someone’s hand” then this phrase has got different meanings and is to be understood as per the context. I have explained using the context in my previous replies, that in the context of Hussain(RA) it was clear as a cloudless day that it meant giving pledge of allegiance, and I supported this claim using other report having the same wordings. Even though you don’t accept it, but you weren’t able to refute it. Hence my explanation stands strong.

      4. In regards to you claiming that {“mehjool from muhaditheen is mehjool in hadith. A very wrong criteria is to equate the standing of a narrator from a muhaddith point of view”} This is an extremely flawed and a foolish argument, because a historical report is also a kind of hadeeth, even though its not a prophetic hadeeth, but its a hadeeth in general terminology and is verified based on the standard principles of hadeeth science.

      Ameer al-Momineen fi’l-hadeeth Abdullah ibn al-Mubarak, states:“Al-Isnad (the chain of transmission) is a necessary part of deen(religion). If it were not for the Isnad anyone would say whatever he wishes to say.” [Related by Muslim in al-Muqaddima to his as-Sahih, vol. 1, p. 15.]

      Al-Imam Malik said:“Be God fearing and scrutinize the credibility of the person whom you are receiving this knowledge from.” [al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, al-Kifaya fi ‘Ilm ar-Riwaya, p. 124.]

      The irony is that, you tried to reject a hadeeth which I used saying narrator is Majhool, but when I pointed out that the report you are using has a Majhool narrator so its unreliable, you exposed your double standards, saying its wrong criteria. Just look at your inconsistencies, you will realize who is hell bent to prove his point.

      May Allah guide you.


      • Salam Slave i am glad that you have responded back. Now i will respond you in a different fashion. I will reply to your questions and you will have to reply to mine(You still haven’t).
        First reply -the report of al-Husayn (b. `Abd al-Rahman)-Hilal b. Yasaf is erroneous because there is no mention of the killing of Muslim bin Aqeel(ra), the narrator is so ignorant he uses unknown persons which are not found elsewhere in reports and illogical events like Hurr bin Yazeed( The narrator is so ignorant of events he uses Hurr bin Yazid Hanzali) attacking the troops of Yazid and starting battle while as Hussain categorically ordered his troops not to attack first (Tabari vol 6 page 238-244). Secondly, the narration mentions only one condition while as according to you conditions were three. Thirdly the one of the chains doesn’t have a complete sanad after Husayn. Secondly, another narrator Mohd bin Amar is not unknown. Fourthly, Saeed bin Sulaiman bin Khalid is weak and Abu zarahh says let us be protected from his lies (Tahzeeb ul Tahzeeb 4/ 39)( The weak and fabricated reports by Hafiz Mohammad Anwar Zahid vol 4 page 261). If you contemplate the narration you will understand it is indirect speech and the use of word amirul momineen is used by narrator not Hussain ibn Ali(ra).Since you laid emphasis on sanad what about this narration now?
        Second reply:- the use of words three conditions by Hurr bin Yazeed is erroneous translation from IKA Howard( who incidentally accepts three conditions in introduction and extends his personal opinion here) but Tabari simply mentions Hurr saying why dont you accept his conditions( Tabari vol 5, page 255-56, Deoband). The matter is clearly stated when he says why dont you let him go to the extent of his land so that his family and himself will be in peace. Why doesnt Hurr state all three conditions before them. Secondly, it shows that even if you take three conditions the most important one was not to go to Yazid.
        Third reply:- You have been proved that hand in hand was not deemed bayyah here which is proved by opinions of Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, Yazid, Ibn Ziyad, Hajjaj. I have given references above. To repeat, it simply means to go to Yazid as is reported by the narration of Baqir. Furthermore, as i said the three condition narration has been reported by Ibn Kathir as going back, going to yazid, going to frontiers. My opinion is further proved by likes of Ibn Hajar Asqalani who recorded all narrations and accepted narration of Baqir. But clearly wrote in atah ul Bari (see above) that Hussain ibn Ali fought the tyrannical regime of Yazid and people like them are to be supported as per Ali karamullahwajhu.
        Fourth reply:- you did not understand my contention of mehjool. I clearly stated it was not for you. However, as you have put so my stress on sanad then you need to understand that even weak reports can be authentic, and conversely, it implies even sometimes matn is most important. Mujalid bin Saeed has been deemed mehjool by Ibn Hajar Aqalani in Tehzeeb ul Tehzeeb vol 10 p 39, and Hafiz Dhabi in Meezan e Eitdaal in vol 3 page 8). Now please answer my questions:-
        1/ Imam Hussain gave sermon that it was incumbent for him to rise against tyranny of yazeed bin Muawiya. And his stand is supported by ahadith i gave. So why would he offer bayah to yazeed? Your contention that he did it after he came to know that Iraq has been subjugated is wrong because this sermon is after Imam Hussain came to know of treachery and subjugation of Iraq.
        2/ When Imam Hussain was asked for bayyah he offered three conditions why did not he accept bayah. his offering of three conditions means negotiations and dialogue not bayyah. As proven hand in hand means dialogue in this situation as all reports show it for example yazeed said ” If Hussain had come here i would have accepted his opinion even if it weakened my authority.. Tabari vol 5 deoband. Similarly the shia scholar above has stated he wanted to discuss the difference in opinion. So it meant dialogue. Please come with proof from any tabaee or scholar of past to show Hussain was ready to offer bayyah.
        3/ If you think Hussain did not want to go to Ibn Ziyad for bayyah it is wrong because the first order was for bayyah of Yazeed with Omar Ibn Saad not Ibn Ziyad. Please show that Hussain was ready for bayyah and why did he not do it with Omar ibn Saad.
        4/ Ibn Ziyad was not an autonomous governor how did he reject bayyah of Hussain and get him killed which, consequently, led to weakening of Yazid’s authority and Yazid did not punish him. Why did Yazid want him to attack Hejaz and why did Yazid include Husayn ibn Numayr in that expedition. Doesnt it show he was satisfied with their conduct and hence it is only possible if Hussain rejected yazeed as caliph. Please come up with your views?
        5/ I have given direct opinions of Yazid, Ibn Ziyad, Hajjaj that Hussain was not ready to accept yazeed as caliph. Please come up with same direct opinions?
        6/ Isnt it hypocrisy on your part that above just the opinion of Dhahbi makes you believe contrary to everything that Saad bin Ubadah did accept Abu Bakr(ra) as caliph while as the same Dhahabi plus Ibn Hajar Asqalani, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Hajar Haytami, etc acknowledge Hussain did not accept yazid as caliph and rose against this tyrant? Why these double standards or is it nasibism in you?
        Please come up with your answers.

        Wasalam and prayer for your aqeedah

      • Brother Aasif Najar from Kashmir,

        1. (a). In your First Point you have raised some arguments which are no less than being called as foolish. Had you ever analysed reports in a proper manner, you wouldn’t have raised foolish and desperate arguments like these. You claim that {Hurr bin Yazid Hanzali attacking the troops of Yazid and starting battle while as Hussain categorically ordered his troops not to attack first} however the report doesn’t suggest that Hurr bin Yazid attacked first. It was your misunderstanding of a simple hadeeth as we find couple of examples prior. The narrator narrated the event in a summarized form, and didn’t go into details, the report merely states what occurred eventually, and it’s that Hurr bin Yazid attacked and killed two soldiers of Ibn Ziyad and was then killed. So I don’t know whether you seriously lack understanding skills or you are fond of making straw man arguments.

        (b). Secondly, You then continued with your silly argument that, there is only one condition mentioned not three. So replied, the narrator narrated in a summarized way, without going in details. If you would have ever read a hadeeth book, you wouldn’t have made such a silly argument. You will event find ahadeeth in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim, where narrators narrated ahadeeth in summarized form and details are found in other reports. The narrator mentioned only one condition, because this was THE MOST IMPORTANT CONDITION, as simple as that, you just need common sense to understand this issue.

        (c). Thirdly you said: { another narrator Mohd bin Amar is not unknown. Fourthly, Saeed bin Sulaiman bin Khalid is weak and Abu zarahh says let us be protected from his lies}. It seems you made a typo, you wrote not unknown, it should be not known, since you are criticizing the chain. Here is the chain of this report which you are referring:

        حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَمَّارٍ الرَّازِيُّ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا عَبَّادُ بْنُ الْعَوَّامِ ، قَالَ : حَدَّثَنَا حُصَيْنٌ قَالَ فَحَدَّثَنِي هلال بن يساف
        (Al-Tabari said) Mohammad bin Ammar Al-Razi said: Sa’eed bin Sulaiman told us: Abbad bin Awwam told us that Ḥusain(bin Abd al-rahman) said: Hilal bin Yasaaf told me…..

        (i). Narrator Mohammad bin Ammar al-Razi IS NOT UNKNOWN rather he is known and a Thiqa.

        Ibn Hibban said about him: Mustaqeem al-hadeeth(upright in hadeeth)
        Ibn Abi Hatim said: Saduq thiqa(truthful trustworthy).

        You can read about him in this link:

        So either you lied that he is unknown, or you are a jahil. Let the readers decide. Allah knows the best.

        (ii). The next narrator IS NOT Sa’eed bin Sulaiman bin Khalid as you claimed, rather it is Sa’eed bin Sulaiman bin Kinanah. And he is also a Thiqa.

        Abu Hatim said: Thiqa Mamoon.
        Ahmad bin Saleh Ijli said: Thiqa
        Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: Thiqa Hafidh.

        Refer this link:

        (iii). Next narrator is Abbad bin Awwam, He is also Thiqa.

        Abu Hatim said: Thiqa
        Ali bin Madeeni said: Thiqa
        Abu Dawud said: Thiqa
        Nasai said: Thiqa
        Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: Thiqa

        Refer this link:

        (iv). Next narrator is Ḥusain bin Abd al-rahman he is Thiqa as well.

        Ahmad bin Hanbal said: Thiqa min Kibaar ashaab al hadeeth(Trusthworthy, He is from Major narrators of hadeeth)
        Abu Zura’a Razi: Thiqa
        Yahya ibn Maeen said: Thiqa
        Dhahabi said: Thiqa Hujjah.

        Refer this link:

        (v). The last narrator is Hilal bin Yasaaf. He is Thiqa.

        Ibn Hibban included him in his Thiqaat.
        Ahmad bin Saleh al-Ijli said: Thiqa
        Ibn Hajar Asqalani said: Thiqa.
        Dhahabi said: Thiqa
        Yahya ibn Maeen said: Thiqa

        Refer this link:

        (d). You Said: {Since you laid emphasis on sanad what about this narration now?}
        I Say: You falsely claimed that Mohammad bin Ammar is not known. As for Saeed bin Sulaiman bin Khalid being weak, then the narrator here is Saeed bin Sulaiman bin Kinanah not Khalid. So either you lied or you are a jahil. Let the readers decide. Allah knows the best.

        (2). (a). You said: { the use of words three conditions by Hurr bin Yazeed is erroneous translation from IKA Howard( who incidentally accepts three conditions in introduction and extends his personal opinion here) but Tabari simply mentions Hurr saying why dont you accept his conditions}.

        You raised this argument due to your ignorance of Arabic. The text in Arabic says ( أفما لكم فِي واحدة من الخصال الَّتِي عرض عَلَيْكُمْ رضا ؟ ) It says: Al-Hurr said, “Aren’t you satisfied with ONE OF THE PROPOSALS that he offered you?”

        The reason, why IKA Howard translated it as, “ONE of the THREE proposals”, because the word (الخصال) is Plural. If the word was dual(two proposals) then it would have been (خصلتين OR خَصْلَتَانِ). So, It’s neither singular nor dual, hence it has to be atleast three(plural). It can’t be one or two. That’s why IKA Howard who knew much better Arabic, translated it has THREE proposals, and we know from other reports that there were three proposals given by Hussain(RA).

        Therefore, it’s your Jahalah(ignorance) of Arabic grammar, which you should blame, not IKA Howard. The readers can see that quite clearly.

        (b). You said: {The matter is clearly stated when he says why dont you let him go to the extent of his land so that his family and himself will be in peace.} I say: Due to you poor comprehension understanding skills(as we witnessed in your previous comments) you have misunderstood this statement.

        وأحطتم بِهِ من كل جانب ، فمنعتموه التوجه فِي بلاد اللَّه العريضة حَتَّى يأمن ويأمن أهل بيته ، وأصبح فِي أيديكم كالأسير
        Hurr said: And you have encircled him on every side in order to prevent him going to God ‘s broad land, where he may be secure and where his family may be secure. He has come into your hands like a prisoner….[Tareekh Tabari, vol 19, page 128]

        What Hurr bin Yazid is saying here that, Ibn Ziyad and his army, encircled and confined Imam Hussain(RA) and his family at one place, not allowing him to move freely anywhere. It doesn’t mention the destination where Hussain(RA) wants to go. It could be anywhere, this sentence doesn’t specifies any particular destination.

        (c). You said { Secondly, it shows that even if you take three conditions the most important one was not to go to Yazid.} I Say: Firstly, as I explained above, this argument is based on your misunderstanding of the sentence. Secondly, just see your inconsistencies. Initially you tried to argue that this report supports the fabricated report of Uqba which rejected there being three conditions. When I pointed out your blunder, you took a U-turn saying, going to Yazeed was not the most important. By this attempt you have nailed down the fabricated report of Uqba. And it exposed your deceitful nature, where you tried to use this in support of the report of Uqba.

        3. (a). You said: {You have been proved that hand in hand was not deemed bayyah} I Say: My point stands unharmed, because I have proven my claim using a report which is related to this scenario, what you use isn’t related. The report related to this event states {…By God! If he left your land, without putting HIS HAND IN YOURS, he would be in a position of power and strength and you would be in a position of weakness and impotence. Do not give this concession , for it would be a mark of weakness. Rather let him and his followers SUBMIT TO YOUR AUTHORITY. (Tareekh Tabari vol 19,, page 110)}. It’s quite clear that the expression “HIS HAND IN YOURS” meant submitting to the authority of Ibn Ziyad. And we can also see in the next report as well where Ibn Ziyad wrote to Ibn Saad. We read again in Tareekh Tabari vol 19,, page 110 {“Take this message to `Umar b. Sad and let him offer al-Husayn and his followers the option of submitting to MY AUTHORITY}. Therefore, it is clear as sky in a cloudless day, that the demand of Ibn Ziyad was to make Hussain(RA) surrender to HIS AUTHORITY and this is what was meant by “HIS HAND IN YOURS”

        Therefore, these reports related to this same scenario which describe what is meant by giving hand in hand is to surrender to the authority, not a meeting. What you use are conjectures based on unrelated scenarios. And views aren’t formed on conjectures.

        (b). You Said: {atah ul Bari (see above) that Hussain ibn Ali fought the tyrannical regime of Yazid and people like them are to be supported as per Ali karamullahwajhu.}
        As said earlier, We believe that Imam Hussain(AS) did fight the tyrannical regime of Yazid, he fought when there was no choice left for him and all his proposals were up down by the governor Ibn Ziyad. But this doesn’t reject the fact that Imam Hussain(AS) gave the proposal of pledging allegiance to Yazeed, which Ibn Ziyad put down and wanted Hussain(RA) to submit to HIS authority first.

        4. You Said: {Mujalid bin Saeed has been deemed mehjool by Ibn Hajar Aqalani in Tehzeeb ul Tehzeeb vol 10 p 39, and Hafiz Dhabi in Meezan e Eitdaal in vol 3 page 8).}

        If you read Tareekh Tabari vol 19, page 42, the footnote describes {Mujalid bin Sa’eed was a well -known historical authority in al-Kufah, who died in 144}. Here is a known not majhool, but Da’eef narrator named Mujalid bin Sa’eed who was from Kufa, who died in 144. Ibn Hajar said Mujalid bin Sa’eed was Da’eef not Majhool. See the link: http://library.islamweb.net/hadith/RawyDetails.php?RawyID=6712

        Was it another lie from you? Wallahu Alam. Let the readers decide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s