Syed Kamran Mirza

[email protected]

June 6, 2005    

[Authors Note:   This subject of historical character ‘Caliph Yazid’ has been debated by me with a Bangladeshi Islamist living in the infidel land. The Islamist did not participate in this debate. My honest intention to post this debate in the internet forums is to dig out the real historical truth about ‘Yazid’ the most hateful character of Islam! I urge knowledgeable persons to participate in this debate to bring about the truth on the surface, which had been buried by the century long dishonest negative propagandas by the Mullahs.]  

Yazid the son of Muabhiya was portrayed as the most malevolent human being in the early Islamic history. It’s quite possible that the story of Yazid with which majority of Muslims have been brainwashed does not match at all with the reality of this ancient incident. Especially, as the Muslims of the sub-continent have perceived by studying the famous novel by Mir Mussarraf ‘Bishad Shindhu’ and also from one sided biased and fabricated history created by the appeasing characters of Islamic mullahs, the Yazid was the most hateful Character of Islam. Their intention was to highly eulogize grandsons of Prophet Muhammad in order to please Allah by creating saintly character of Prophet’s grandsons (though they were not at anywhere near to be called saint) in exchange of heavenly reward from Allah.  One such attempt by one of the Islamists of Bangladesh origin Dr. Mainul Ahsan Khan from the kaffir land USA wrote an essay in the internet daily journal (News From Bangladesh) to eulogize grandsons of Prophet Muhammd. His essay could be read in the following URL address:  

In this essay the writer has strongly condemned Yazid (son of Umayyad Caliph Mu’awiyya:661-680 C.E.) and his ascension to Caliphate of Islam and by doing so he tried to soft-selling of Islamic hoax! In one hand, the author strongly discards Islamic administration/guidance for public life; on the other hand he highly praises ancient Islamic administration that was existed in the Arab lands.  Especially, I am greatly troubled by some comments made by the author about the ancient Islamic governance which I think not factual. If I have understood well, the author has claimed pre-Yazid era as the golden period of Islam and post-Yazid era as the Jahiliyah period (according to him) which I believe not correct. In my conclusion, I have more to say about the so called golden age of Islam. The following were my comments after each remarks made by the author Dr. Khan in his essay.  

Dr. Khan said:  “Yazid cannot be regarded as a Caliph. He was a killer of the most heinous type. Saying that Yazid was a killer does not make one a shia. Moreover, to be a Muslim or Yazid, you don't even have to be a shia or sunni. With the establishment of the Abbasid Caliphate around the year 750, many traditions inherited from Yazid began to change. Around 680, Yazid, indeed, revived a full jahiliyah at the top of Muslim governance.”  

My Comments:  As per Islamic history and on the basis of Sahih Hadiths we came to know that actually Islamic golden period was emerged after Yazid. Yazid’s ascending to power was the golden period of Umayyad dynasty in Damascus which led to the formation of Abbasid dynasty in Baghdad .  It was the Abbasid dynasty during which Islamic golden era was emerged through the famous rationalist movement called mu’atazila. This mu’atazila (rationalist) movement by freethinkers of all race and religions was responsible for bringing golden era which was erroneously known as Islamic golden era. Fundamental puritanical Islam had nothing to give to this movement of mu’atazila which brought intellectuals/ freethinkers of all race and religions together in Baghdad . It was the re-emergence of pure Islam (under the leadership of great Islamic scholar Imam Gazzali) by toppling the movement of mu’atazila the golden era of Abbasid dynasty was stopped for ever. Therefore pure Islam of Prophetic standard had nothing to do with the so called Islamic golden era.  In fact, before CaliphYazid there was nothing good about Islamic rule that we can count on, which had brought any good thing for public. Yazid the son of Muabhiya was not that bad human being as he was perceived by studying the famous novel by Mir Mussarraf ‘Bishad Shindhu’ and also from one sided biased history by Islamic mullahs.  

In brief there was power struggle as to who will rule Arabia after Prophet Muhammad and Prophet himself wanted that his son-in-law Hz Ali be the successor to him but others did not like it. Therefore, a vibrant power struggle between the two camps of Prophet’s household, Ayesha-Hafsa  (Abubakar’s and Omar’s daughters) vs. Fatima-Ali was genuinely evolved. Ultimately Sahabis were divided too, in support of (Shia) or against (Sunni) Ali’s first leadership; hence the birth of Sunni-Shiate sect of Muslims came to exist. Had there been no action taken by Yazid the Sunni sect of Muslim could be in dire minority today, just like Shiite sect today! Yazid virtually saved Prophetic version of Islam (Sunni) from virtual extinction.  Besides, Prophet’s grandson Hussain’s own character was not that rosy or better than Yazid either. 

History before Yazid was full of treachery, reactionary, restrictive, harsh, coercion, cruelty, rivalry, fighting, killings, and bloodsheds. All those four Caliphs after Prophet Muhammad’s demise were ruling Arabian Peninsula by the sword with brutal force. Intolerance was widespread and draconian punishments like stoning, flogging, beheadings were the random rules of punishment. Three out of four Caliphs (who are called rightly guided Caliphs) were assassinated brutally and killings and bloodsheds were daily affairs.

 Page 1 || Page 2 || Page 3