Among the early Shīʿa, there was a group that preferred ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām) over ʿUthmān. However, none of them believed that ʿAlī was superior to Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. Rather, the majority of the early Shīʿa—those who loved ʿAlī—still considered Abū Bakr and ʿUmar superior to him. Yet among them, there existed a faction that gave preference to ʿAlī over ʿUthmān. During the period of tribulation, people became divided into two camps: the ʿUthmānī Shīʿa and the ʿAlawī Shīʿa. Not everyone who fought on the side of ʿAlī necessarily believed in his superiority over ʿUthmān. In fact, many among them considered ʿUthmān to be superior to ʿAlī—just as is the position of the rest of Ahl al-Sunna.
لَمْ يُتَّهَمْ أَحَدٌ مِنَ الشَّيعَةِ الْأُولَ بِتَفْضِيلِ عَلِيٍّ عَلَى أَبِي بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ، بَلْ كَانَتْ عَامَّةُ الشَّيعَةِ الأُولَى الَّذِينَ يُحِبُّونَ عَلِيًّا يُفَضِّلُونَ عَلَيْهِ أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ، لَكِنْ كَانَ فِيهِمْ طَائِفَةٌ تُرَجِّحُهُ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ، وَكَانَ النَّاسُ فِي الْفِتْنَةِ صَارُوا شِيعَتَيْنِ: شِيعَةً عُثْمَانِيَّةً، وَشِيعَةً عَلَوِيَّةً، وَلَيْسَ كُلُّ مَنْ قَاتَلَ مَعَ عَلِيٍّ كَانَ يُفَضِّلُهُ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ، بَلْ كَانَ كَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ يُفَضِّلُ عُثْمَانَ عَلَيْهِ، كَمَا هُوَ قَوْلُ سَائِرِ أَهْلِ السُّنَّةِ
As we can see, not all those who were called “Shīʿa” at that time used to believe in the superiority of Mawlā ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām) over Abū Bakr and ʿUmar.
In contrast, the contemporary Shīʿa today overwhelmingly acknowledge the superiority of Mawlā ʿAlī(ʿalayhi al-salām) over the Khulafāʾ, an evolution that only came later. It is important to emphasize that this view—that Mawlā ʿAlī was superior to the previous Khulafāʾ—was not the dominant position among the early Shīʿa of ʿAlī. Among those who identified as Shīʿa at the time, the faction known as the Shīʿa Khāṣṣāʾ, who believed ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām) to be the immediate and exclusive successor (khalīfa bilā faṣl) to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, was actually a small minority.
The majority of early Shīʿa instead regarded ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām) as the fourth legitimate khalīfa, following Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān, thereby aligning their doctrinal position on the caliphate closely with what is today held by Ahl al-Sunnah. This historical reality underscores that the strong conviction about ʿAlī’s superiority and immediate succession developed over time, evolving well beyond the views held by the early Shīʿa community during the tumultuous period following the Prophet’s ﷺ passing.
(Source: Minhāj al-Sunna, vol. 2, p. 139)
Nevertheless, even during that early period, there were true partisans of ʿAlī—those who believed that Amīr al-Muʾminīn was the immediate successor (khalīfa bi-lā faṣl) to the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ.
From Ibn Taymiyya’s statement, it becomes clear that a faction among the Shīʿa did not believe Imām ʿAlī (as) to be the immediate successor (khalīfa bilā faṣl). In summary, these individuals first pledged allegiance to the Shaykhayn (Abū Bakr and ʿUmar) and only afterward to Imām ʿAlī (as).
Ibn Taymiyya further writes in Minhāj al-Sunna:
وَهُمْ يُنْكِرُونَ عَلَى بَعْضِ النواصب ان الحسين لمَّا قَالَ لَهُمْ أَمَا تَعْلَمُونَ أَنِ ابْنُ فَاطِمَةَ بِنْتِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ؟ قَالُوا: وَاللَّهِ مَا نَعْلَمُ ذَلِكَ… لِأُولَئِكَ النَّوَاصِبِ الَّذِينَ قَتَلُوا الْحُسَيْنَ
Imām al-Ḥusayn (as) addressed these nawāṣib, saying: “Do you not know that I am the son of Fāṭima, the daughter of the Messenger of Allāh (s)?” They replied, “By Allāh, we do not know that.” These were the nawāṣib who killed al-Ḥusayn.
(Minhāj al-Sunna, vol. 7, p. 284)
What an absurd and historically unfounded claim it is, one that finds no support in authentic history nor in the theological works of our Sunni brethren, that Imām al-Ḥusayn (as) was killed by the Shīʿa. But what kind of Shīʿa were they, if they did not even know who he was? Was Ibn Ziyād a Shīʿī? Was ʿUmar ibn Saʿd a Shīʿī?
The above passage proves that those who stood against Imām al-Ḥusayn (as) did not even recognise him as the grandson of Fāṭima al-Zahrāʾ(as). Their being Shīʿa is not only far-fetched but categorically false. On the contrary, the so-called Shaykh al-Islām of the Ahl al-Sunna himself admits that it was nawāṣib who murdered Imām al-Ḥusayn (ʿalayhi al-salām) — and these very nawāṣib were the so-called ʿUthmānī Shīʿa. In the forthcoming chapters, we shall provide further evidence on this matter.
The legitimacy of a ruler over his people is never determined in a vacuum. It is heavily dependent on public perception, and more critically, on whether individuals of influence in the community are willing to back him, especially during moments when the masses may be wavering in support. In 61 Hijri, we see the role of men like ʿAbdullāh ibn ʿUmar becoming pivotal. Ibn ʿUmar actively supported Yazīd, even going so far as to seek textual evidence to legitimise Yazīd’s position before his followers. That an esteemed companion like Ibn ʿUmar felt it necessary to affirm Yazīd’s legitimacy speaks volumes about the climate of unrest and doubt among the people. It also demonstrates how the authority of a head of state can be bolstered or undermined based on endorsements from high-profile figures. Yazīd, despite the heinous murder of Imām al-Ḥusayn (as) under his watch, was still propped up by such endorsements, shielding him from immediate public rejection and granting him a degree of religious legitimacy in the eyes of the undecided. This strategic support from the likes of Ibn ʿUmar is key to understanding how Yazīd’s regime managed to survive the immediate aftermath of Karbalāʾ.
Now that it has become clear that those responsible for the killing of Imām al-Ḥusayn (ʿalayhi al-salām) were his adversaries and agents of compulsion and tyranny, it is necessary to also examine the origin and nature of the group responsible.
Murtada Al-Zabidi defined the Nawasib as follows:
Nawasib: “They are those who hate the chief of believers and the leader of Muslims Abu Al-Hassan Ali ibn Abi Taalib”
(Taj Al-Uroos. Vol. 4, Pg. 277)
If one wishes to pinpoint the origins of this belief system, it was prevalent in the so-called best of generations.
Ibn Taymiyyah acknowledged this:
“Verily Majority of Sahaba and Tabayeen used to hate, abuse and fight against Ali.”
(Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 7, page 137-138)
When the vast bulk of the Sahaba and Tabayeen hated ‘Ali, it’s perfectly logical to place them at Karbala, venting their hatred of Ali (as) by slaughtering his household.
By the time Imam Ali (as) took power, this anti-Ali (as) sentiment galvanized itself behind Muʿāwiya who refused to pledge allegiance to Imam Ali (as), and they referred to themselves as the Shīʿa of ʿUthmān. Ibn Taymiyya, in the introduction of his work Minhāj al-Sunna, under the section dealing with the emergence of the ʿUthmānī faction, writes:
فَبَالَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى عُثْمَانَ، وَمَالَ قَوْمٌ إِلَى عَلِيٍّ، وَاقْتَتَلَتِ الطَّائِفَتَانِ، وَالآنَ يُقَالُ شِيعَةُ عُثْمَانَ وَشِيعَةُ عَلِيٍّ
“When ʿUthmān was killed, the Muslims divided into two groups: one group leaned towards ʿUthmān, and the other group leaned towards ʿAlī. These two factions fought against each other, and from that point onward, there came to be known a group called the Shīʿa of ʿUthmān and a group called the Shīʿa of ʿAlī.”
(Minhāj al-Sunna, vol. 2, p. 95)
From this, it becomes evident that the division between these two camps began from that period itself. The ʿUthmānī Shīʿa who later played a role in the murder of Imām al-Ḥusayn (ʿalayhi al-salām) originated from here.
The most important point to investigate here is: what were the beliefs of these ʿUthmānī Shīʿa?
Ibn Taymiyya writes:
فَإِنَّ شِيعَةَ عُثْمَانَ أَكْثَرُ مَا نُقِمَ عَلَيْهِمْ مِنَ الْبِدَعِ انْحِرَافُهُمْ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، إِمَّا لِمَا جَرَى بَيْنَهُمْ وَبَيْنَهُ مِنَ الْقِتَالِ مَا جَرَى، لَكِنْ مَعَ ذَلِكَ لَمْ يُكَفِّرُوهُ، وَسَبُّهُمْ لَهُ عَلَى الْمَنَابِرِ، وَلَا كَفَّرُوا مَنْ يُحِبُّهُ
“The majority of the ʿUthmānī Shīʿa were known for one major innovation: their deviation from ʿAlī. This was either due to the conflict that had occurred between them and him. However, despite this, they did not declare him a kāfir, but they did revile him from the pulpits, though theydid not declare those who loved him to be disbelievers.”
Minhāj al-Sunna, vol. 8, p. 236 (with the edition by Dr. Muḥammad Rashād Sālim)
These statements make it absolutely clear that the faction responsible for the murder of Imām al-Ḥusayn (ʿalayhi al-salām) were none other than the ʿUthmānī Shīʿa — those who were ideologically hostile towards Imām ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām), reviled him publicly, and formed the earliest roots of the Nawāṣib.
He (Ibn Taymiyya) further writes:
There remained a faction of the deviant Shīʿa who consistently reviled ʿAlī and held the view that he was not a rightly guided caliph.
وَلَمْ تَزَلْ شِيعَةٌ مِمَّنْ شَانَ الْقَائِلِينَ لِعَلِيٍّ، تَعْلَمُ بِهَذَا، عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ خَلِيفَةً رَاشِدًا
They are those who always criticized ʿAlī and did not accept him as a rightly guided caliph.
Minhāj al-Sunna, vol. 8, p. 317
These individuals continuously maligned Amīr al-Muʾminīn ʿAlī (ʿalayhi al-salām) and did not recognise him as a rāshid (rightly guided) caliph. It is clear that their defining trait was this hostility—they would curse the Imām. Among them were Ṭalḥa, Zubayr, and many others who refused to give bayʿa (allegiance) to Amīr al-Muʾminīn and upheld the belief that he was not among the rightly guided caliphs.
What is truly astonishing is that among those who held this view was none other than the author of what the Ahl al-Sunna consider the most authentic book after the Qurʾān—Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī—namely, Ismāʿīl al-Bukhārī himself.
Regarding the beliefs of the ʿUthmānī Shīʿa, Ibn Taymiyya further writes:
But as for the Shīʿa of ʿUthmān, who bore animosity towards ʿAlī, many of them held the belief that once a caliph is appointed, it becomes obligatory to obey him in everything he commands, and that Allāh accepts his good deeds and overlooks his sins. This was the belief of many of the elders and scholars of the ʿUthmānī Shīʿa.
وَلَكِنْ شِيعَةُ عُثْمَانَ، الَّذِينَ كَانَ فِيهِمْ انْحِرَافٌ عَنْ عَلِيٍّ، كَانَ كَثِيرٌ مِنْهُمْ يَعْتَقِدُ أَنَّ اللَّهَ إِذَا اسْتَخْلَفَ خَلِيفَةً، يَقْبَلُ مِنْهُ الْحَسَنَاتِ، وَيَتَجَاوَزُ لَهُ عَنِ السَّيِّئَاتِ، وَأَنَّهُ يَجِبُ طَاعَتُهُ فِي كُلِّ مَا يَأْمُرُ بِهِ، وَهُوَ قَوْلُ كَثِيرٍ مِنْ شُيُوخِ الشِّيعَةِ الْعُثْمَانِيَّةِ وَعُلَمَائِهَا
But the Shīʿa of ʿUthmān, who diverged from ʿAlī, many of them believed that when a caliph is appointed, God accepts from him the good deeds and pardons his sins, and that it is obligatory to obey him in everything he commands. This is the view of many of the elders and scholars of the ʿUthmānī Shīʿa.
Minhāj al-Sunna, vol. 6, page 199
Whether he steals or kills, God will forgive all his sins. According to Ibn Taymiyyah, it was the creed of those who followed the ‘Uthmani’ path that even if the caliph committed adultery or drank wine…
Another belief is as follows:
وَقَدْ كَانَ أَيْمَا لِي شِيعَةِ عُثْمَانَ مَنْ يُالجُمُ الصَّلَاةَ عَنْ وَاتِهَا: يُان الطهار الْعَصْرَ وَ المَاتَوَل وَلِهَذَ الهَا تَوَل بَنُ الْعَبَّاسِ كَانُوا أَحْسَنَ مُرَاهَا لِلْوَقْتِ مِنْ بَنِي أُمية
The Shi‘a of ‘Uthman used to delay the prayer from its prescribed time and would not offer it on time. In contrast, the Banu al-‘Abbas were better in maintaining its proper timing than Banu Umayyah.
(Minhaj al-Sunnah, vol. 8, p. 237)
A clearer statement is found in Mukhtasar al-Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyyah:
فلما قتل عثمان صار الناس شيعتين قوما يميلون إلى عثمان و قوما يميلون إلى على وصار قوم من بني أمية من شيعة عثمان ينهون عن المتعة ويعاقبون على ذلك ولا يمكنون أحدا من العمرة في أشهر الحج وكان في ذلك نوع من الظلم والجهل فلما رأى ذلك علماء الصحابة كابن عباس و ابن عمر و غيرهما جعلوا ينكرون ذلك ويأمرون بالمتعة اتباعا للسنة
After ‘Uthman was killed, the people split into two factions: some inclined toward ‘Uthman, and others toward ‘Ali. A group from Banu Umayyah, who were among the Shi‘a of ‘Uthman, prohibited mut‘ah (the joining of Hajj and ‘Umrah) and punished people for it. They would not allow anyone to perform ‘Umrah during the months of Hajj. This was a kind of injustice and ignorance. When the learned companions, such as Ibn ‘Abbas, Ibn ‘Umar, and others saw this, they denounced it and commanded the practice of mut‘ah, in obedience to the Sunnah.
(Mukhtaṣar al-Fatāwā, ed. ʿAbd al-Majīd Salīm, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut, p. 298)
The Shīʿat ʿUthmān, in contradiction to the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (s), used to forbid it. At the forefront of these individuals were Muʿāwiyah ibn Abī Sufyān, Ṭalḥah, Zubayr, and their followers.
At this point, the beliefs of the Shīʿat ʿUthmān become clear. But the important question remains: who founded this faction?
Ibn al-Athīr, under the account of the martyrdom of Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī, records:
فِي هَذِهِ السَّنَةِ قُتِلَ حُجْرُ بْنُ عَدِيٍّ وَأَصْحَابُهُ وَسَبَبُ ذَلِكَ أَنَّ مُعَاوِيَةَ اسْتَعْمَلَ الْمُغِيرَةَ بْنَ شُعْبَةَ عَلَى الْكُوفَةِ سَنَةَ إِحْدَى وَأَرْبَعِينَ، فَلَمَّا أَمَّرَهُ عَلَيْهَا دَعَاهُ وَقَالَ لَهُ: أَمَّا بَعْدُ، فَلَا تَتْرُكْ شَتْمَ عَلِيٍّ وَذَمَّهُ، وَالتَّرَحُّمَ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ وَالِاسْتِغْفَارَ لَهُ، وَالْعَيْبَ لِأَصْحَابِ عَلِيٍّ، وَالْإِقْصَاءَ لَهُمْ، وَالْإِطْرَاءَ بِشِيعَةِ عُثْمَانَ، وَالْإِدْنَاءَ لَهُمْ
In that year, the Companion of the Prophet Ḥujr ibn ʿAdī was martyred on the order of Muʿāwiyah. When, in 41 AH, Muʿāwiyah appointed al-Mughīrah ibn Shuʿbah as governor over Kūfah, he advised him: “Do not cease cursing and disparaging ʿAlī. Extol ʿUthmān, seek forgiveness for him, criticize the companions of ʿAlī, distance yourself from them, praise the partisans of ʿUthmān, and draw them near to you.”
قال: لا تَتْرُكْ شَتْمَ عَلِيٍّ وَذَمَّهُ، وَالتَّرَحُّمَ عَلَى عُثْمَانَ وَالِاسْتِغْفَارَ لَهُ، وَالْعَيْبَ لِأَصْحَابِ عَلِيٍّ، وَالْإِطْرَاءَ بِشِيعَةِ عُثْمَانَ، وَالْإِدْنَاءَ لَهُمْ
“He \[Muʿāwiyah] instructed: “Do not abandon cursing and insulting ʿAlī, and always express mercy and seek forgiveness for ʿUthmān. Criticise the partisans of ʿAlī and maintain closeness with the partisans of ʿUthmān.”
(Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh*, Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī, vol. 3, p. 326, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah, Beirut)
Muʿāwiyah had commanded all his deputies and operatives to act upon these instructions. These individuals went to various regions to implement his agenda. This is among the undeniable historical facts. Our opponents are well aware of who installed Muʿāwiyah and Yazīd, and every link in this chain ultimately leads back to Saqīfah.
If one rejects Saqīfah, then they are no longer considered Sunni. So what will they tell the people? That the one who appointed Muʿāwiyah was the second caliph, and ʿUthmān retained him in that position? And when the Master of the Universe, Imām ʿAlī, came to power, Muʿāwiyah refused to pledge allegiance, saying, “I will not give you bayʿah.”
In Nahj al-Balāghah, Imām ʿAlī (as) wrote to Muʿāwiyah by way of refutation:
إِنَّهُ بَايَعَنِي الْقَوْمُ الَّذِينَ بَايَعُوا أَبَا بَكْرٍ وَعُمَرَ وَعُثْمَانَ عَلَى مَا بَايَعُوهُمْ عَلَيْهِ
“The people who pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and ʿUthmān have pledged allegiance to me on the same terms upon which they pledged to them.”
(Nahj al-Balāghah, Letter number 6)
Some Crimes of the ‘Uthmānī Shīʿah:
[1]ʿUmar ibn Saʿd
The most significant admission regarding him has been made by Ibn Taymiyyah:
لِكَوْنِهِ كَانَ مِنْ شِيعَةِ عُثْمَانَl
He (ʿUmar ibn Saʿd) was from the partisans of ʿUthmān.
(Minhāj al-Sunnah, vol. 2, p. 22)
This is the same ʿUmar ibn Saʿd who killed Imām Ḥusayn. Yet according to Ahl al-Sunnah, he is considered a thiqah (reliable) person from whom they accept religious knowledge.
[2].Abū al-Ghādiyah al-Juhanī (the killer of ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir)
Ibn al-Athīr has written:
بَايَعَ النَّبِيَّ، وَجُهَيْنَةُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ قَبِيلَةٌ مِنْ قُضَاعَةَ، سَكَنَ الشَّامَ، يُعَدُّ مِنَ الشَّامِيِّينَ، وَانْتَقَلَ إِلَى وَاسِطٍ، وَكَانَ مِنْ شِيعَةِ عُثْمَانَ، وَهُوَ قَاتِلُ عَمَّارِ بْنِ يَاسِرٍ
Abū al-Ghādiyah pledged allegiance to the Prophet. Juhaynah ibn Zayd was a tribe from Quḍāʿah. He settled in Syria and was considered among the Syrians. He later moved to Wāsiṭ. He was from the partisans of ʿUthmān and he was the killer of ʿAmmār ibn Yāsir.
(Usud al-Ghābah*, Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī, vol. 6, p. 241, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah)
[3] Kuthayr ibn Shihāb
Regarding the wretched Kuthayr ibn Shihāb, who was present at Karbala, al-Balādhurī writes:
كَانَ كَثِيرُ بْنُ شِهَابِ بْنِ الْحُصَيْنِ بْنِ ذِي الْقَصَّةِ الْحَارِثِيُّ عُثْمَانِيًّا، يَسُبُّ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، وَيُثَبِّطُ النَّاسَ عَنِ الْحُسَيْنِ، وَمَاتَ قُبَيْلَ خُرُوجِ الْمُخْتَارِ بْنِ أَبِي عُبَيْدٍ فِي أَوَّلِ أَيَّامِهِ، وَلَهُ يَقُولُ الْمُخْتَارُ بْنُ أَبِي عُبَيْدٍ لَسَبْعَةٍ: أَمَا وَرَبِّ السَّحَابِ، شَدِيدِ الْعِقَابِ، سَرِيعِ الْحِسَابِ، مُنَزِّلِ الْكِتَابِ، لَأَنْبِشَنَّ قَبْرَ كَثِيرِ بْنِ شِهَابٍ الْمُفْتَرِي الْكَذَّابِ
Kuthayr ibn Shihāb ibn al-Ḥuṣayn ibn Dhī al-Qaṣṣah al-Ḥārithī was a ʿUthmānī (partisan of ʿUthmān), who used to revile ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and dissuade people from joining al-Ḥusayn. He died shortly before the uprising of al-Mukhtār ibn Abī ʿUbayd in its earliest days. Regarding him, al-Mukhtār used to say about seven men: “By the Lord of the clouds, the One mighty in punishment, swift in reckoning, the Revealer of the Book, I will surely exhume the grave of Kuthayr ibn Shihāb — the liar and fabricator!”
(Futūḥ al-Buldān, al-Balādhurī, Maʿārif Institute Edition, p. 432)
He was from the ʿUthmānī Shīʿah and used to curse Imām ʿAlī. Due to the curse of Imām al-Ḥusayn, he was killed even before Mukhtār’s uprising began. Al-Mukhtār harbored intense hatred for him and had he been able, he would have exhumed his grave. This man was a forger and a liar.
These historical testimonies are irrefutable: it was these very ʿUthmānī Shīʿah who stood against the Commander of the Faithful, who followed Muʿāwiyah, and who ultimately killed Imām Ḥusayn. Despite this, some among our Sunni brethren claim that the killers of Imām Ḥusayn were Shīʿah — but they were the ʿUthmānī Shīʿah, not the Shīʿah of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Will the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah now show scholarly honesty and inform their communities of who these individuals truly were?
Among those who defend Yazīd today are some well-known scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah. But even among earlier Sunni scholars, there is the prominent figure of Ibn Taymiyyah al-Ḥarrānī—honored by Ahl al-Sunnah as “Shaykh al-Islām.” This man can be found repeatedly defending Yazīd in his writings. He writes:
فَإِنَّ يَزِيدَ ابْنَ مُعَاوِيَةَ وُلِدَ فِي خِلَافَةِ عُثْمَانَ بْنِ عَفَّانَ، وَلَمْ يُدْرِكِ النَّبِيَّ، وَلَا كَانَ مِنَ الصَّحَابَةِ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْعُلَمَاءِ، وَلَا كَانَ مِنَ الْمَشْهُورِينَ بِالدِّينِ وَالصَّلَاحِ، وَكَانَ مِنْ شُبَّانِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، وَلَا كَانَ كَافِرًا وَلَا زِنْدِيقًا، وَتَوَلَّى بَعْدَ أَبِيهِ عَلَى كَرَاهَةٍ مِنْ بَعْضِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَرِضًا مِنْ بَعْضِهِمْ، وَكَانَ فِيهِ شَجَاعَةٌ وَكَرَمٌ، وَلَمْ يَكُنْ مُظْهِرًا لِلْفَوَاحِشِ كَمَا يُحْكَى عَنْهُ خُصُومُهُ، وَجَرَتْ فِي إِمَارَتِهِ أُمُورٌ عَظِيمَةٌ: أَحَدُهَا مَقْتَلُ الْحُسَيْنِ، وَهُوَ لَمْ يَأْمُرْ بِقَتْلِ الْحُسَيْنِ، وَلَا أَظْهَرَ الْفَرَحَ بِقَتْلِهِ، وَلَا نَكْتَ بِالْقَضِيبِ عَلَى ثَنَايَاهُ، وَلَا حُمِلَ رَأْسُ الْحُسَيْنِ إِلَى الشَّامِl
Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah was born during the caliphate of ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān. He did not meet the Prophet, nor is he considered among the Companions by consensus of the scholars. He was not known for religious devotion or righteousness. He was simply one of the young men among the Muslims. He was neither a disbeliever nor a heretic. He assumed power after his father, despite the opposition of some Muslims and the approval of others. He possessed courage and generosity. He did not openly commit immoral acts as his opponents claim. During his rule, many grave events occurred—one of which was the killing of al-Ḥusayn. However, he neither ordered the killing of al-Ḥusayn, nor expressed joy at it, nor struck his teeth with a stick, nor was the head of al-Ḥusayn brought to Shām.
(Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā 4 page 481-484)
While Ibn Taymiyyah defended Yazīd, scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah themselves have refuted him. One of the most renowned scholars of the sixth century Hijri, Ibn al-Jawzī, narrates the following report in his book:
أنبأنا عبد الوهاب بن المبارك، قال: أنبأنا أبو الحسين بن عبد الجبار، قال: الحسين بن علي الطناجري، ثنا خالد بن خداش، قال: ثنا حماد بن زيد، عن جميل بن مرة، عن أبي الوصابي، قال: نحرت الإبل التي سلّ عليها رأس الحسين وأصحابه فلم يستطيعوا أكلها، كانت لحومها أمرّ من الصبر، فلما وصلت الرؤوس إلى يزيد، جلس ودعا بأشراف أهل الشام، فأجلسهم حوله، ثم وضع الرأس بين يديه، وجعل ينكت بالقضيب على فيه
‘Abd al-Wahhāb ibn al-Mubārak reported to us, who said: Abū al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbār reported to us, who said: al-Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī al-Ṭanājirī narrated to us, who said: Khālid ibn Khuddāsh narrated to us, who said: Ḥammād ibn Zayd narrated to us from Jamīl ibn Marrat, from Abū al-Waṣābī, who said:
The camels upon which the head of al-Ḥusayn and his companions were carried were slaughtered, but no one could eat their meat—it was more bitter than aloe. When the heads reached Yazīd, he sat down, called the nobles of Shām and had them seated around him. Then he placed the head in front of himself and began striking it with a stick upon its mouth.
(Al‑Rad ʿalā al‑Mutʿaṣṣib al‑ʿAnīd al‑Māniʿ min Dhamm Yazīpage 57)
The chain is authentic
First narrator: ‘Abd al-Wahhab ibn Mubarak
Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi writes:
“الشيخ الإمام الحافظ البعيد الثقة، المسيد”
This imam is a memorizer (Hafiz), trustworthy, and reliable.
Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, vol. 20, p. 134
Second narrator: Mubarak ibn ‘Abd al-Jabbar ibn Abu al-Husayn al-Baghdadi al-Mirni
Al-Samani said about him:
“كان محدثا مكثرا صالحا أمينا ، صدوقا، صحيح الأصول، صينا، ورعا، حسن السبت، وقورا، كثير الكتابة، كثير الخير”
He was a prolific hadith narrator, righteous, trustworthy, truthful, sound in origin, pious, modest, venerable, prolific writer, and very charitable.
(Dhahabi, Tarikh al-Islam, vol. 10, p. 840)
Third narrator: Husayn ibn Ali Abu al-Faraj al-Tanajiri
Al-Khatib says:
“كتبنا عنه، وكان ثقة دينا”
We narrated from him, and he was trustworthy in religion.
(Tarikh al-Islam, vol. 9)
Fourth narrator: Khalid ibn Khadash
بن عجلان. ويكنى أبا الهيثم مولى آل المهلب بن أبي صفرة و. كان ثقة.
Son of Ajlan, called Abu al-Haytham, client of the family of al-Muhallab ibn Abi Safra. He was trustworthy.
Ibn Saʿd writes that he is thiqah (trustworthy).
al-Ṭabaqāt al-Kubrā, vol. 8
Fifth narrator: Ḥammād ibn Zayd
Regarding him, al-Dhahabī writes:
العَلامَةُ الحَافِظُ ، الثَّبْتُ ، مُحَدِّثُ الوَقْتِ
He was a ḥāfiẓ (hadith memorizer), an ʿallāmah (great scholar), well-established, and the foremost hadith transmitter of his time.
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 7, p. 451
Sixth narrator: Jamīl ibn Murrah al-Shaybānī
وَثَقَهُ النَّسَائِيُّ
Imām al-Nasāʾī authenticated him and declared him trustworthy.
Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 3, p. 388
Seventh narrator: Ḥammād ibn Nasīb Abū al-Waḍā
مصغرا، أبوالوضى، ويقال، اسمه عبد الله : ثقة
Abū al-Waḍā, whose name is said to be ʿAbd Allāh, is thiqah (trustworthy), according to Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī.
Taḥrīr Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 2, p. 181
Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī considered Ḥammād ibn Nasīb among the soldiers of Imām ʿAlī and said:
عباد بن نسيب أبو الوضئ القيسى السحتنى وكان على شرطة على رضی الله عنه روى عن على وابي برزة، عن يحيى بن معين قال أبو الوضئ ثقة
ʿAbbād ibn Nasīb Abū al-Waḍāʾ al-Qaysī al-Saḥtanī was among the security forces of ʿAlī (ra). He narrated from ʿAlī and Abū Burzah. Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said: “Abū al-Waḍāʾ is trustworthy.”
Taḥrīr Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb, vol. 2, p. 1
He narrated from Abū Barzah and Imām ʿAlī, and Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn declared him thiqah (trustworthy).
Al-Jarḥ wa al-Taʿdīl, vol. 1, p. 87
According to Sunni methodological principles, it is sufficient for narrators to be contemporaries in order for hearing (samāʿ) to be accepted.
This same point is found in the introduction to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim:
وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ الْقَوْلَ الشَّائِعَ الْمُتَّفَقَ عَلَيْهِ بَيْنَ أَهْلِ الْعِلْمِ بِالْأَخْبَارِ وَالرِّوَايَاتِ قَدِيمًا وَحَدِيثًا ، أَنَّ كُنَّ رَجُلٍ ثِقَةٍ رَوَى عَنْ مِثْلِهِ حَدِيثًا، وَجَائِلٌ مُسْكِنْ لَهُ لِقَاؤُهُ وَالسَّمَاءُ
The well-known and agreed-upon position among the scholars of reports and transmissions — both early and later — is that if a trustworthy person narrates a ḥadīth from another trustworthy person, and it is possible that they could have met and heard from one another, then it is acceptable.
Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Introduction
In Sunni sources, ʿAbbād ibn Nasīb is recorded as having narrated from Abū Barzah al-Aslamī.
ويقال: خالد بن نضلة ، أبو برزة الأسلمي صاحب رسول الله. وكان مع معاوية بالشام وقدم دمشق على يزيد بن معاوية وكان عنده حين أتي برأس الحسين بن علي
It is said: Khālid ibn Naḍlah, Abū Barzah al-Aslamī, was a companion of the Messenger of Allah. He was with Muʿāwiyah in al-Shām and came to Damascus to see Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah, and he was present when the head of Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī was brought before Yazīd.
Tārīkh Madīnat Dimashq, vol. 12, p. 83, Dār al-Fikr li-l-Ṭibāʿah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzīʿ
Abū Barzah was an eyewitness to this event, and ʿAbbād ibn Nasīb also transmits a narration from him. Therefore, according to the foundational criteria of Ahl al-Sunnah, this narration is reliable in terms of its chain, and this refutes Ibn Taymiyyah and all those who exhaust themselves defending Yazīd.
The Killer of Imam Ḥusayn: ʿUmar ibn Saʿd and the Scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah
A narration is found in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī in which the Messenger of Allah said:
قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: خَيْرُ أُمَّتِي قَرْنِي، ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُمْ، ثُمَّ الَّذِينَ يَلُونَهُمْ
The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “The best of my Ummah is my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them.”
Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, vol. 4, p. 242
The killers of Imam Ḥusayn are counted among these ‘best’ individuals, who are not only considered reliable by Ahl al-Sunnah, but from whom they also take their religion. Among them is ʿUmar ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ — the son of a companion of the Messenger and a major figure from the Tābiʿīn.
About him, Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī writes:
عُمَرُ بْنُ سَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَاصِ الزُّهْرِيُّ، أَمِيرُ السَّرِيَةِ الَّذِينَ قَاتَلُوا الحُسَيْنَ رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ
ʿUmar ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ al-Zuhrī — the commander of the detachment who fought against Ḥusayn (may Allah be pleased with him).
ʿUmar ibn Saʿd is the one who encircled Imam Ḥusayn and was responsible for his killing — he was the military commander behind it.
التَّنَسِي وَاللَّهِ لِابْنِ مَاجَهِ الْقَزْوِينِيِّ وَمَا كَانَ مِنْ هَذِهِ الرِّجَالِ فِي مَعْرِضِ سِيَاقِ الْخَيْرِ فَقَدْ نَقَلْنَاهُ
Al-Tanāsī and Ibn Mājah al-Qazwīnī, and those among these men who were transmitted in the context of praise, we have narrated them accordingly.
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 4, p. 219
It is said that Imām al-Nasāʾī narrated from him.
Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ, vol. 4, p. 219
Ibn Khallāl writes:
سَأَلْتُ أَحْمَدَ عَنْ عُمَرَ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، فَقَالَ: لَا يَنْبَغِي أَنْ يُحَدَّثَ عَنْهُ، قُلْتُ: مَنْ هُوَ؟ قَالَ: ابْنُ عَامِرِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، وَأَخُو مُصْعَبِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ، قُلْتُ: لِمَ؟
قَالَ: لِأَنَّهُ صَاحِبُ الْجُيُوشِ، وَصَاحِبُ الدِّمَاءِ
I asked Aḥmad about ʿUmar ibn Saʿd. He said: “It is not appropriate that narration be taken from him.” I asked: “Who is he?” He said: “The son of ʿĀmir ibn Saʿd, and the brother of Muṣʿab ibn Saʿd.” I asked: “Why?”
He replied: “Because he was the commander of the armies and a man of bloodshed.”
Al-Sunnah li Ibn Khallāl, vol. 3, p. 518, edited by ʿAṭiyyah al-Zahrānī, Dār al-Rāyah – Riyadh
However, Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal did not remain consistent with this stance, as he himself narrates in his *Musnad* from ʿUmar ibn Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ — and the narration is considered ḥasan:
أَنَّ أَبَا حَازِمٍ ، حَدَّثَهُ عَنِ ابْنِ لِسَعْدِ بْنِ أَبِي وَقَاصٍ، قَالَ: سَمِعْتُ أَبِي،
يَقُولُ: سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ
Abū Ḥāzim narrated from the son of Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, who said: I heard my father say: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say…
Musnad Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, vol. 3, p. 157, edited by Shuʿayb al-Arnāʾūṭ, Muʾassasat al-Risālah
This exposes the double-faced nature of the senior scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah: on one hand they denounce these individuals, and on the other, they take their religion from the very killers of Imam Ḥusayn. Here is yet another example.
Imam Muẓī narrates:
وقال أحمد بن عبد الله العجلّي : كان يُروى عن أبيه أحاديث، وروى الناس عنه، وهو الذي قتل الحسين، وهو تابعى ثقة.
وقال أبو بكر بين أب عيشمة: سألت يحيى بن معين عن عمر بن سعد الثقة هو فقال: كيف يكون من قتل الحسين ثقة؟
عمر بن علي يقول : سمعت يحيى بن سعيد يقول : حدثنا إسماعيل بن أبي خالد، قال: حدثنا العيزار بن حريث عن عمر بن سعد، فقال له رجل من بني ضبيعة يقال له موسى: يا أبا سعيد هذا قاتل الحسين. فسكت، فقال: عن قاتل الحسين تحدثنا، فسكت.
فَقَامَ إِلَيْهِ رَجُلٌ، فَقَالَ: أَمَا تَخَافُ اللَّهَ تَرْوِي عَنْ عُمَرِ بْنِ سَعْدٍ. فَبَكَى، وَقَالَ: لَا أَعُودُ أُحَدِّثُ عَنْهُ أَبَدًا.
Aḥmad ibn ʿAbdullāh al-ʿAjallī said: Narrations were reported from his father, and people narrated from him; he is the one who killed Ḥusayn, and he is a trustworthy Tābiʿī.
Abū Bakr ibn Abī ʿĪshmah said: I asked Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn about ʿUmar ibn Saʿd and whether he is trustworthy. He said: How can the one who killed Ḥusayn be trustworthy?
ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī says: I heard Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd say: Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Khālid narrated to us, saying: Al-ʿAyzār ibn Ḥarīth narrated from ʿUmar ibn Saʿd. Then a man from Banū Ḍubayʿah named Mūsā said to him: “O Abū Saʿīd, this is the killer of Ḥusayn.” He fell silent. The man said again: “You are narrating from the killer of Ḥusayn.” He remained silent.
Then a man stood up and said to him: “Do you not fear Allah while narrating from ʿUmar ibn Saʿd?” He wept and said: “I will never narrate from him again.”
He was narrating, then he began to cry and said, “I will never curse him again.”
Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn said:
سَمِعْتُ بِحَيٍّ يَقُولُ: تَفِيدُ كِتَابٌ كَانَ يَبْشِتُ عُثْمَانَ وَكُلُّ مَن بَشَتُ عُثْمَانَ أَوْ طَلْحَةَ أَوْ أَحَدًا مِنْ أَصْحَابِ النَّبِيِّ، دَجَّالٌ لا يُكْتَبُ عَنْهُ، وَعَلَيْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ
I heard Ḥayy say: “There was a book that used to curse ʿUthmān, and everyone who cursed ʿUthmān or Ṭalḥah or anyone from the companions of the Prophet is a Dajjāl; nothing should be recorded from him, and upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all people.”
Ṭalḥah and the companions who curse them are Dajjāl and their narrations are not to be accepted.
Tārīkh Ibn Maʿīn, vol. 3, p. 546, published by Markaz al-Baḥth al-ʿIlmī wa Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Islāmī, Makkah al-Mukarramah
It is astonishing that the killer of Imam Ḥusayn is considered trustworthy (thiqah) in the eyes of Ahl al-Sunnah, while the one who curses and insults is labelled a Dajjāl whose narrations are rejected.
ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Sabrah al-Juʿfī and Kathīr ibn Shiḥāb
Many respected Sunni personalities fall under the accusations of being killers of Imam Ḥusayn, while these individuals for a long time deceived the public by claiming that it was the Shīʿah who killed Imam Ḥusayn.
Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmāʾ al-Rijāl, vol. 21, p. 421
It is said that one of the commanders was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Sabbārah al-Juʿfī, who is from the tribe of Rasūl. Abū Nuʿaym al-Aṣbahānī writes:
سَمَاءُ التَّرَى عَبْدَ الرَّحْمَنِ
The sky sees ʿAbd al-Raḥmān
رسول الله میں کیا ہم نے اسکا نام عبد الرحمن رکھا
In the Messenger of Allah’s company, we named him ʿAbd al-Raḥmān.
Maʿrifat al-Ṣaḥābah, p. 1830
Companion 5141:𝐀𝐛𝐝𝐮𝐫-𝐑𝐚𝐡𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐒𝐚𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡,His name Abi sabrah yazid bin Malik bin Abdullah bin salamah bin Amro al-Ju’fi
He was from Kufa…...
Sunni source:al-Isabah fi Tameyyz al-Sahaba, Volume 4,page 260
Proof of Companionship
Ibn Barr also stated:
عبد الرحمن بن أبى سبرة الجعفى واسم أبى سبرة زيد بن مالك معدود فى الكوفيين وكان اسمه عزيرا فسماه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عبد الرحمن
His name was ʿAzīr, but the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) renamed him ʿAbd al-Raḥmān.
(Al-Istiʿāb, vol. 2, p. 834, Beirut edition)
Ibn Athir states:
وجعل عمر بن سعد علي ربع أهل المدينة عبد الله بن زهير الأزدي، وعلي ربع ربيعة وكندة قيس بن الأشعث بن قيس، وعلي ربع مذحج وأسد عبد الرحمن بن أبي سبرة الجعفي، وعلي ربع تميم وهمدان الحر بن يزيد الرياحي، فشهد هؤلاء كلهم مقتل الحسين
ʿUmar ibn Saʿd appointed over the quarter of the people of Madinah: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Zuhayr al-Azdī; over the quarter of Rabīʿah and Kindah: Qays ibn al-Ashʿath ibn Qays; over the quarter of Madhḥij and Asad: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Subrah al-Juʿfī; and over the quarter of Tamīm and Hamdān: al-Ḥurr ibn Yazīd al-Riyāḥī. All of them witnessed the killing of al-Ḥusayn (as).
(Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, vol. 3, p. 417, Beirut edition)
Ibn Jawzī records:
“ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Sabrah was appointed for this task so that no one from the tribes of Asad or Muḍḥij could go to support Imam Ḥusayn.”
Mirʾāt al-Zamān, vol. 8, p. 141 — authored by as Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī
Another individual that needs to be discussed is Kathīr ibn Shihāb al Harithi although there is a difference if opinion as to whether he is a Sahabi or Tabi’i that thus places him in the best of generations grouping.
Regarding him, Ibn Athir al-Jazari writes:
كَثِير بْن شِهَابٍ الحَارِثِيّ فِي صُحْبَتِهِ نَظَرٌ، عَدَادُهُ فِي الكُوفِيِّينَ، وَهُوَ الَّذِي قَتَلَ جَالِينُوسَ الفَارِسِيَّ يَوْمَ القَادِسِيَّةِ وَأَخَذَ سُلْبَهُ، وَقِيلَ: قَتَلَهُ زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حُوَيْهِ.
رَوَى عَنْهُ: عُدَيّ بْنُ حَاتِمٍ إِنْ كَانَ مَحْفُوظًا.
Kathīr ibn Shihāb al Harithi
There is some discussion about his status as a companion. He is counted among the people of Kufa. He killed Jalinus the Persian on the day of Qadisiyyah and took his armor. Some say that he was killed by Zuhra bin Huwayyah. If his companionship is confirmed, it was narrated by Uday bin Hatim, provided it is preserved.
Asad al-Ghabah fi Ma’rifat al-Sahabah – by Ibn Athir al-Jazari
There is some discussion about his status as a companion. He is counted among the people of Kufa. He killed Jalinus the Persian on the day of Qadisiyyah and took his armor. Some say that he was killed by Zuhra bin Huwayyah. If his companionship is confirmed, it was narrated by Uday bin Hatim, provided it is preserved.
With regards to those that argue that Kathīr ibn Shihāb was a Sahabi, we have a direct statement by a classical scholar Imām Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī stated:
كثير بن شهاب قد رأى النبي ﷺ
Kathīr ibn Shihāb saw the Prophet ﷺ.”
(Tārīkh Iṣfahān, vol. 2, p. 136 — authored by Imām Abū Nuʿaym al-Iṣfahānī)
Furthermore we have the statement by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī strengthening his status as a companion
قال ابن حجر: يُقَالُ إِنَّ لَهُ صُحْبَةً … قُلْتُ: وَمِمَّا يُقَوِّي أَنَّ لَهُ صُحْبَةً مَا تَقَدَّمَ أَنَّهُمْ مَا كَانُوا يُؤَمَّرُونَ إِلَّا الصَّحَابَةَ، وَكِتَابُ عُمَرَ إِلَيْهِ بِهَذَا يَدُلُّ عَلَى أَنَّهُ كَانَ أَمِيرًا
“It is said that he had companionship. I say, what further supports the claim that he was a Companion is the earlier point that only Companions were appointed as commanders at that time — and the fact that ʿUmar wrote to him in this capacity is proof that he held a position of command.”
(Al-Iṣābah fī Tamyīz al-Ṣaḥābah, vol. 5, p. 427 — authored by Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī)
Ibn ʿAsākir states:
قال أبو عمر في صحبته نظر، وذكره ابن حبان وغيره في التابعين، وأبو الفضائل في المختلف في صحبتهم
Abū ʿUmar said that his companionship is doubtful. Ibn Ḥibbān and others listed him among the Tābiʿīn, and Abū al-Faḍāʾil included him among those disputed in their companionship
Al-Inābah ilā Maʿrifat al-Mukhtalaf fīhim min al-Ṣaḥābah, vol. 2, p. 113)
Ibn Ḥibbān states:
Kathīr ibn Shihāb al-Kūnī was a Tābiʿī and trustworthy (thiqqah).
Tārīkh al-Thiqāt, p. 296 — authored by Ibn Ḥibbān al-Bustī
His Role in the Events of Karbalāʾ
He delivered a speech in support of Yazīd and announced the movement of his troops:
انظروا قد جاءتكم جنود أمير المؤمنين يزيد
“Behold! The armies of the Commander of the Faithful, Yazīd, are advancing towards you.
Tārīkh al-Ṭabarī, vol. 4, p. 164 — authored by Imām Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī
Ibn al-Athīr records:
ولما ولى المغيرة الكوفة استعمل كثير بن شهاب على الري، وكان يكثر سبّ علي على منبر الري
When al-Mughīrah was appointed over Kūfa, he made Kathīr ibn Shihāb governor of al-Ray, and he frequently cursed ʿAlī from the pulpit of al-Ray.
Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, Volume 3 p. 13 — authored by Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī
كان كثير بن شهاب بن الحصين بن ذي الغصة الحارثي عثمانياً، يقع في علي بن أبي طالب، ويثبط الناس عن الحسين
Kathīr ibn Shihāb ibn al-Ḥuṣayn ibn Dhī al-Ghuṣṣah al-Ḥārithī was an ‘Uthmānī (supporter of ʿUthmān). He used to revile ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib and discourage people from supporting Ḥusayn.
Balādhurī states:
“He followed the doctrine of the people of Shām; he would revile ʿAlī and dissuade people from supporting Ḥusayn.”
(Futūh al-Buldān, vol. 2, p. 378)
“قد دعا ابن زياد كثير بن شهاب الحارثي وأمره أن يخرج فيمن أطاعه من مذحج، فيسير ويخذل الناس عن ابن عقيل ويخوفهم، وخرج أولئك النفر يخذلون الناس حتى أن المرأة تأتي ابنها وأخاها وتقول: يكفيك الناس، ويفعل الرجل مثل ذلك… فبقي ابن عقيل في المسجد في ثلاثين رجلاً”
He said: “Ibn Ziyād summoned Kathīr ibn Shihāb al-Ḥārithī and ordered him to go out among those of Muḍḥij who obeyed him, so that he might march and dissuade people from Ibn ʿAqīl and frighten them. Those individuals caused people to abandon him—until a woman would come and take away her son or brother, saying, ‘Others suffice you,’ and men did likewise… until Ibn ʿAqīl was left in the mosque with only thirty men.”
Al-Kāmil fī al-Tārīkh, Volume 3 p. 162 — authored by Ibn al-Athīr al-Jazarī
ثم قال:
“ثم دعا ابن زياد كثير بن شهاب الحارثي ومحمد بن الأشعث بن قيس والقعقاع بن سويد بن عبد الرحمن المنقري وأسماء بن خارجة الفزاري، وقال: طوفوا في الناس فمروهم بالطاعة والاستقامة وخوفوهم عواقب الأمور والفتنة والمعصية، وحثوهم على العسكرة، فخرجوا فعزروا وداروا بالكوفة، ثم لحقوا به غير كثير بن شهاب قاتلین امام قاتلین امام حسین ایلام کیا افسانہ ، کیا حقیقت ؟
Then he (Ibn Ziyād) summoned Kathīr ibn Shihāb al-Ḥārithī, Muḥammad ibn al-Ashʿath ibn Qays, al-Qaʿqāʿ ibn Suwayd ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Minqarī, and Asmā’ ibn Khārijah al-Fazārī, and said:
“Go around among the people and command them to ṭāʿah(obedience) and istiqāmah (uprightness). Warn them about the consequences of matters, of fitnah (discord), and maʿṣiyah (disobedience), and urge them to assemble (ʿaskarah).”
So they went out, rebuked (the people), and moved around al-Kūfah, then they returned to him — all except Kathīr ibn Shihāb.
(Ansab al-Ashraf, Volume 3 page 388)
Ansab al-AshrafAnsab al-Ashraf
Abdullah Ibn ‘Umar the legal backer of Yazid
The legitimacy of a head of state especially in a tribal and early Islamic society was not simply a matter of military power or inherited authority. Rather, it heavily depended on prominent figures of religious standing and social influence lending their support and calming the population in times of crisis. These men, by virtue of their knowledge, piety, or lineage, served as stabilizing forces. Their endorsement functioned as a form of religious and moral validation for the ruler’s claim to power, especially in moments when public opinion began to turn or falter.
In the year 61 Hijri, following the brutal massacre of Imām Ḥusayn (as) at Karbalā’, the image of Yazīd was deeply tarnished across the Muslim world. His culpability in the killing of the Prophet’s grandson (s), along with other atrocities committed during his reign including the violation of Madinah in the Harrah incident and the siege of the Kaʿbah — sparked widespread discontent. Yet in this moment of crisis, ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar, a figure known for his asceticism and perceived religiosity, played a pivotal role in stabilizing support for Yazīd among certain circles.
Rather than distancing himself from a ruler whose actions had shocked the Muslim conscience, Ibn ʿUmar instead offered Yazīd a veneer of legitimacy when the regime was on shaky ground. This was not passive neutrality; it was active reinforcement of a criminal regime at a time when moral clarity was most needed.
We read in Sahih al-Bukhari hadith number 7111
حَدَّثَنَا سُلَيْمَانُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادُ بْنُ زَيْدٍ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، قَالَ لَمَّا خَلَعَ أَهْلُ الْمَدِينَةِ يَزِيدَ بْنَ مُعَاوِيَةَ جَمَعَ ابْنُ عُمَرَ حَشَمَهُ وَوَلَدَهُ فَقَالَ إِنِّي سَمِعْتُ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ “ يُنْصَبُ لِكُلِّ غَادِرٍ لِوَاءٌ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ ”. وَإِنَّا قَدْ بَايَعْنَا هَذَا الرَّجُلَ عَلَى بَيْعِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ، وَإِنِّي لاَ أَعْلَمُ غَدْرًا أَعْظَمَ مِنْ أَنْ يُبَايَعَ رَجُلٌ عَلَى بَيْعِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ، ثُمَّ يُنْصَبُ لَهُ الْقِتَالُ، وَإِنِّي لاَ أَعْلَمُ أَحَدًا مِنْكُمْ خَلَعَهُ، وَلاَ بَايَعَ فِي هَذَا الأَمْرِ، إِلاَّ كَانَتِ الْفَيْصَلَ بَيْنِي وَبَيْنَهُ.
Narrated Nafi`: When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn `Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet (ﷺ) saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.”
https://sunnah.com/bukhari:7111
The implications of this narration are unambiguous:
• Ibn ʿUmar was not making a public declaration out of fear or diplomacy. This was private, intimate advice to his inner circle his own children and trusted companions.
• His counsel came at a pivotal moment: when the people of Madīnah had openly rejected Yazīd’s authority.
• He invoked a serious Prophetic warning that anyone who breaks a legitimate bayʿah will be raised on the Day of Judgment as a kā’in, a flag-bearing betrayer, signifying humiliation and divine condemnation.
• Ibn ʿUmar affirmed that Yazīd’s rule fulfilled the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Messenger, granting Yazīd full Sharʿī legitimacy.
• Most importantly, he declared personal disassociation from anyone who opposed Yazīd no exceptions, not even for his own family.
This is not taqiyyah. Ibn ʿUmar wasn’t trying to survive a dangerous political climate by appeasing the regime he was issuing theological advice based on fiqh and hadith, expressing not fear but moral conviction.
He did not merely refrain from supporting Imām Ḥusayn; he proactively condemned those who rose against Yazīd including those of Madīnah, who had witnessed firsthand Yazīd’s crimes. His words reflect an unwavering endorsement of Yazīd’s rule even after the tragedies of Karbala and Ḥarra, the latter involving mass murder, rape, and the desecration of Madīnah.
In other words, to Ibn ʿUmar, neither the blood of the Prophet’s grandson nor the violation of the Prophet’s city invalidated Yazīd’s legitimacy.
This presents a moral and theological crisis:
In 61 Hijri, whose side would today’s Sunni be on — Imām Ḥusayn’s or that of the “Paradise-bound” companions like Ibn ʿUmar?
Why do Sunni scholars shy away from acknowledging this uncomfortable truth — that the son of the second caliph was ideologically aligned with Yazīd, not Imām Ḥusayn? That he remained indifferent to the slaughter at Karbala and chose religious loyalty to Yazīd over any kinship or moral allegiance to the Prophet’s family?
This was not an isolated incident. Ibn ʿUmar’s support for Yazīd is further confirmed in Sahih Muslim, Kitāb al-Imārah, hadith 1851a:
حَدَّثَنَا عُبَيْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ مُعَاذٍ الْعَنْبَرِيُّ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبِي، حَدَّثَنَا عَاصِمٌ، – وَهُوَ ابْنُ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ زَيْدٍ – عَنْ زَيْدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدٍ، عَنْ نَافِعٍ، قَالَ جَاءَ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عُمَرَ إِلَى عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ مُطِيعٍ حِينَ كَانَ مِنْ أَمْرِ الْحَرَّةِ مَا كَانَ زَمَنَ يَزِيدَ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ فَقَالَ اطْرَحُوا لأَبِي عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ وِسَادَةً فَقَالَ إِنِّي لَمْ آتِكَ لأَجْلِسَ أَتَيْتُكَ لأُحَدِّثَكَ حَدِيثًا سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُهُ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم يَقُولُ “ مَنْ خَلَعَ يَدًا مِنْ طَاعَةٍ لَقِيَ اللَّهَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ لاَ حُجَّةَ لَهُ وَمَنْ مَاتَ وَلَيْسَ فِي عُنُقِهِ بَيْعَةٌ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّةً ” .
It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that ‘Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti’ in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the People Of Medina) at Harra in the time of Yazid b. Mu’awiya. Ibn Muti’ said: Place a pillow for Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman (family name of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar). But the latter said: I have not come to sit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). I heard him say: One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya.
https://sunnah.com/muslim:1851a
An important point to note is that ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿUmar did not consider ʿAlī (as) to be a legitimate khalīfah. This is not a claim we fabricate from our own pockets; rather, it is the scholars and commentators of Ahl al-Sunnah who themselves have explained this matter.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī explains this in his commentary:
وَإِنَّمَا لَمْ يَذْكُرِ بن عُمَرَ خِلَافَةَ عَلِيٍّ لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يُبَايِعْهُ لِوُقُوعِ الِاخْتِلَافِ عَلَيْهِ كَمَا هُوَ مَشْهُورٌ فِي صَحِيحِ الْأَخْبَارِ، وَكَانَ رَأْيُهُ أَنَّهُ لَا يُبَايِعُ لِمَنْ لَمْ يَجْتَمِعْ عَلَيْهِ النَّاسُ، وَلِهَذَا لَمْ يُبَايِعْ أَيْضًا لِابْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ وَلَا لِعَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ فِي حَالِ اخْتِلَافِهِمَا، وَبَايَعَ لِيَزِيدَ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ
“Ibn ʿUmar did not mention ʿAlī’s caliphate because he had not pledged allegiance to him, due to the division that occurred regarding him, as is well known in sound reports. His view was that he should not pledge allegiance to anyone over whom the people were not united. For this reason, he also did not pledge allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr or ʿAbd al-Malik during their period of contention, but he did pledge allegiance to Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiyah.”
Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 1, p. 125 — by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī
Thus, Ibn ʿUmar did not mention the caliphate of ʿAlī because he had not pledged allegiance to him, while he had pledged allegiance to Yazīd.
At this point, it is astonishing that during the time of Imām ʿAlī (as), Ibn ʿUmar did not recall the ḥadīth of the Prophet that he would later narrate to others. To him, a corrupt and cursed man like Yazīd was worthy of allegiance, but he refused to pledge allegiance to Imām ʿAlī — the very person to whom the Ḥadīth al-Thaqalayn referred.
On the other hand, there are also reports that show Ibn ʿUmar later expressed regret — although remorse after the fact was of no benefit.
وَعَنِ ابْنِ عُمَرَ قَالَ: مَا أَسِفْتُ عَلَى شَيْءٍ فَاتَنِي إِلَّا الصَّوْمَ وَالصَّلَاةَ وَتَرْكِي الْفِئَةَ الْبَاغِيَةَ إِلَّا أَنْ أَكُونَ قَاتَلْتُهَا وَاسْتَقَالَتِي عَلِيًّا الْبَيْعَةَ
Ibn ʿUmar said: “There is nothing I regret missing except fasting, prayer, and not having fought the rebellious faction — I wish I had fought it — and my withdrawal from pledging allegiance to ʿAlī.”
(Fatḥ al-Bārī, vol. 1, p. 125 — by Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī)
Here is the corrected translation fully in line with your standard requirements — Arabic text is preserved where quoted, Arabic phonics are used for names and book titles, no Urdu is included, and the reference is placed directly after the translated text.
Good catch — thanks for that. I mistakenly used the wrong name earlier. Below is the corrected translation following your standard requirements exactly: Arabic text retained where quoted, Arabic phonics for names and book titles, no Urdu, no asterisks, and the bibliographic reference placed **immediately after the translated quoted text**.
Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ / ʿAmr ibn Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ
Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ and ʿAmr ibn Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ — these two brothers, according to established Sunni transmissions, are counted among the Tābiʿīn, are considered thiqāt (trustworthy), reliable, and among the best of the Ummah.
Imām al-Bukhārī transmits narrations from them in al-Adab al-Mufrad, and Muslim transmits narrations from them in his Ṣaḥīḥ.
Ibn Kathīr al-Dimashqī writes regarding Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd:
وذكره يحيى بن معين فى تابعى أهل المدينة ومحدثيهم. وقال الشان : ثقة. وذكره ابن حبان في «الثقات».
“Yaḥyā ibn Maʿīn listed him among the Tābiʿīn of al-Madīnah and its ḥadīth transmitters, and said: ‘Trustworthy.’ Ibn Ḥibbān also mentioned him in al-Thiqāt.”
Al-ʿAmīl fī al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl, vol. 2, p. 2305, Markaz al-Nuʿmān lil-Buḥūth wa-al-Dirāsāt al-Islāmiyyah wa Taḥqīq al-Turāth.
According to the well-known Sunni library software Maktabah Shāmilah, ʿAmr ibn Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ is counted among the Tābiʿīn, and Muslim, Abū Dāwūd, al-Tirmidhī, al-Nasaʾī, Ibn Mājah and others have narrated many reports from him.
These two brothers are among those who confronted Imam Hussain. Baladhuri narrates
قَالُوا: وَاعْتَرَضَتِ الْحُسَيْنَ رُسُلُ عَمْرِو بْنِ سَعِيدٍ الْأَشْدَقِ وَعَلَيْهِمْ أَخُوهُ يَحْيَى بْنُ سَعِيدٍ بْنِ الْعَاصِ (كَذَا) بْنِ أَبِي أُحَيْحَةَ، فَقَالُوا لَهُ: انْصَرِفْ إِلَى أَيْنَ تَذْهَبُ؟ فَأَبَى عَلَيْهِمْ وَتَدَافَعَ الْفَرِيقَانِ فَاضْطَرَبُوا بِالسِّيَاطِ. ثُمَّ إِنَّ الْحُسَيْنَ وَأَصْحَابَهُ امْتَنَعُوا عَنْهُمْ امْتِنَاعًا قَوِيًّا، وَمَضَى الْحُسَيْنُ عَلَى وَجْهِهِ، فَنَادَوْهُ: يَا حُسَيْنُ أَلَا تَتَّقِي اللَّهَ؟ أَتَخْرُجُ مِنَ الْجَمَاعَةِ؟
“They said: ‘The envoys of ʿAmr ibn Saʿīd al-Ashdaq intercepted al-Ḥusayn, and with them was his brother Yaḥyā ibn Saʿīd ibn al-ʿĀṣ (as the text reads) ibn Abī Uhayḥah. They said to him, “Turn back — where are you going?” He refused them, and the two parties clashed and struck one another with whips. Then al-Ḥusayn and his companions strongly resisted them, and al-Ḥusayn continued on his way. They called to him: “O Ḥusayn, will you not fear Allah? Are you leaving the jamāʿah?”’ ”
(Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 3, p. 1409; Dār al-Fikr, Beirut)
Observe that those named here figures counted in Sunni sources among the khayr al-qurūn / Tābiʿīn and described as thiqāt (trustworthy) confronted Imām al-Ḥusayn in an admonitory and confrontational manner, urging him to “fear God” and not to “leave the jamāʿah.” This passage underlines how actors who are later presented in Sunni biographical literature as respectable transmitters nonetheless participated directly in the coercive pressure against Imām al-Ḥusayn.
Muhammad ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Kindī
For Ahl al-Sunnah, this respected individual was the brother of Caliph Abu Bakr and the son of Umm Furūdah bint Abī Qa‘id. He is from the tribe of Yath‘īn. Not only that, but Abū Dāwūd and An-Nasā’ī have also transmitted narrations from him, and according to Ibn Ju‘bān, he is reliable.
Taqrīb al-Tahdhīb al-Kabīr, vol. 1, p. 95
Ibn Sa‘d reports:
وَأُمُّهُ أُمُّ فُرُودَةَ بِنْتُ أَبِي تُحَافَةَ، وَكَانَ يَدْخُلُ عَلَى عَائِشَةَ وَذَكَرَهُ ابْنُ جُعْبَانَ فِي كِتَابِ التَّقَاتِ
His mother was Umm Furūdah bint Abī Tuḥāfah, and he used to frequently visit Lady ‘Ā’ishah.
(Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmā’ al-Rijāl, p. 693)
Ibn Ḥibān included him among the trustworthy narrators.
(Tahdhīb al-Kamāl fī Asmā’ al-Rijāl, p. 693)
So far, his reliability is established. Now observe his character in the following context:
فاجتمع في سجن زياد من الشيعة أربعة عشر رجلا وهم: حجر بن عدى الأدبر، فأمر زياد وجوه أهل المصر أن يكتبوا شهادتهم عليهم، فكتب أبو بردة بن أبي موسى أولهم: هذا ما شهد عليه الشهود أبو بردة بن أبي موسى الله رب العالمين، شهد أن حجر بن عدى خلع الطاعة وفارق الجماعة، ولعن الخليفة، ودعا إلى الحرب والفتنة، وجمع إليه جموعاً يدعوهم إلى نكث البيعة، فَقَالَ زياد: اشهدوا على مثل شهادته فشهد والمنذر بن الزبير بن العوام، وعمر بن سعد بن أبي وقاص، ومحمد بن الأشعث الكندى وقال البَدَائِنى: شهدوا أن حجرًا وأصحابه شتموا عثمان ومُعاوية وبروا منهما،
Fourteen men from the Shi‘a gathered in the prison of Ziyād, among them: Ḥujr ibn ‘Adī al-Adbar. Ziyād ordered the notable people of Egypt to write their testimonies against them. Abū Burdah ibn Abī Mūsā was the first to write:
This is what the witnesses testified: Abū Burdah ibn Abī Mūsā—may Allāh, Lord of the Worlds, bear witness—testified that Ḥujr ibn ‘Adī abandoned obedience and left the community, cursed the caliph, called for war and sedition, and gathered crowds inviting them to break their pledge of allegiance.
Ziyād said, “Testify like his testimony.” So, al-Mundhir ibn al-Zubayr ibn al-‘Awām, ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d ibn Abī Waqāṣ, and Muḥammad ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Kindī testified accordingly.
Al-Badā’īnī said: They testified that Ḥujr and his companions insulted ‘Uthmān and Mu‘āwiyah and cleared themselves of them.
(Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 3, p. 2925)
On the next page of the same book, we read that among those who testified were Shammār ibn Dhī al-Jawshan, Ḥijjār ibn Abjar al-‘Ajlī, and ‘Azrah ibn Qays al-Aḥmī.
Abū Ḥanīfah al-Dīnawarī narrates in his book:
وقال عبيد الله بن زياد لمن كان عنده من أشراف أهل الكوفة: ليشرف كل رجل منكم في ناحية من السور، فخوفوا القوم
فأشرف كثير بن شهاب، ومحمد بن الأشعث، والقمقاع بن شور، و شبت ابن ربعي، وحجار بن أبجر، وشمر بن ذي الجوشن، فتنادوا: (يا أهل الكوفة، اتقوا الله ولا تستعجلوا الفتنة، ولا تشقوا عصا هذه الأمة، ولا توردوا على أنفسكم خيول الشام، فقد ذقتموهم، وجريتم شوكتهم).
ʿUbayd Allāh ibn Ziyād said to those notables of Kūfah who were with him: “Let each man of you appear at a section of the wall and frighten the people.”
So Kathīr ibn Shihāb, Muḥammad ibn al-Ashʿath, al-Qamqāʿ ibn Shūr, Shabath ibn Ribʿī, Ḥijjār ibn Abjar, and Shammar ibn Dhī al-Jawshan appeared and called out: “O people of Kūfah, fear Allah, do not hasten into tribulation, do not break the unity of this Ummah, and do not bring upon yourselves the cavalry of Shām. You have tasted their might and experienced their strength.”
Ibn Ziyād commanded some of his men in Kūfah to frighten the people so they would not go towards Muslim ibn ʿAqīl and Ḥusayn. Among these men were Kathīr ibn Shihāb, Muḥammad ibn al-Ashʿath, Mundhir ibn Zubayr, and Shammar ibn Dhī al-Jawshan. They surrounded Kūfah and proclaimed: “O people of Kūfah! Fear Allah, do not rush into tribulation, and do not cause division in the Ummah. Do not go towards Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī — this is the order of the caliph.”
(Al-Akhbār al-Ṭiwāl, p. 439, Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Kutub al-ʿArabiyyah)
Al-Baladhuri records:
درجه (ابن زياد محمد بن الأشعث الكندى وأسماء بن خارجة بن حصين الفزاري إلى هاني بن عروة، فرفقا به حتى أتى ابن زياد، فأنبه على إيوائه مسلم بن عقيل، وقال له: إن أمر الناس مجتمع وكلمتهم متفقة أفتعين على تشتيت أمرهم بتفريق كلمتهم وألفتهم رجلاً قدم لذلك؟
Ibn Ziyad sent Muḥammad ibn al-Ash‘ath al-Kindī and Asmā’ ibn Khārijah ibn Ḥusayn al-Fazārī to Hānī ibn ‘Urwah, advising him gently until they reached Ibn Ziyad. He warned him about sheltering Muslim ibn ‘Aqīl, saying:
(The people’s affair is united and their speech in agreement. Why then do you cause division among them by scattering their speech and breaking their unity with a man who came for that purpose?)
(Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 2, p. 447)
فوجه محمد بن الأشعث بن قيس وكثير بن شهاب الحارثي وعدة من الوجوه ليخذلوا الناس عن مسلم بن عقيل والحسين بن علي ويتوعدونهم بيزيد بن معاوية وخيول أهل الشام وبمنع الأعطية وأخذ البريء بالسقيم والشاهد بالغائب (كذا) فتفرق أصحاب ابن عقيل عنه، حتى أمسى وما معه إلا نحو من ثلاثين رجلاً،
Muḥammad ibn al-Ash‘ath ibn Qays, Kathīr ibn Shihāb al-Ḥārithī, and several notable men were sent to discourage the people from supporting Muslim ibn ‘Aqīl and Ḥusayn ibn ‘Alī. They threatened them with Yazīd ibn Mu‘āwiyah and the cavalry of the people of al-Shām, withheld gifts, punished the innocent for the sick, and accepted the testimony of the absent witness (thus). The companions of Ibn ‘Aqīl dispersed from him until evening, leaving him with only about thirty men.
(Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 2, p. 448)
The Killers of Imam Hussain (PBUH): Myth or Reality
Muhammad bin al-Ash’ath and the Historical Accounts
Historical accounts often overlook certain nuances, yet verses of poetry regarding Muhammad bin al-Ash’ath have been preserved:
وَقَالَ عُبَيْدَةُ بْنُ عَمْرِو الْبَدِي فِي غَدْرِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ الْأَشْعَثِ:
وَقَتَلْتَ وَافِدَ آلِ مُحَمَّدٍ وَسَلَبْتَ أَسْيَافًا لَهُ وَدُرُوعًا
“You killed the representative of the family of Muhammad and snatched his swords and armor through treachery.”
Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 2, p. 85
The Ahl al-Sunnah should reflect: in what manner will the killers of the grandson of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) face him on the Day of Judgment?
Hajar bin Abjar al-Ijli
This individual is considered a reliable and trustworthy thiqa authority by the Ahl al-Sunnah. Regarding Hajar bin Abjar al-Ijli, Al-Din Qasim Hanfi writes:
حِجَارُ بْنُ أَبْجَرَ الْكُوفِيُّ يَرْوِي عَنْ عَلِيٍّ وَمُعَاوِيَةَ
“Hajar bin Abjar al-Kufi narrates from Ali AS and Muawiyah.”
Al-Thiqat, Vol. 4, p. 193; Nashir: Daira al-Ma’arif al-Uthmaniyya, Hyderabad Deccan, India
It is documented that Hajar bin Abjar was originally a Christian who desired to enter Islam. He told his father:
أَنْ حِجَارَ بْنَ أَبْجَرَ كَانَ نَصْرَانِيًّا فَرَغِبَ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ، فَأَتَى أَبَاهُ فَقَالَ: يَا أَبَهْ إِنِّي أَرَى أَقْوَامًا قَدْ دَخَلُوا فِي هَذَا الدِّينِ لَيْسَ لَهُمْ مِثْلُ قَدَمِي وَلَا مِثْلُ آبَائِي فَشَرِّفُوا، فَأُحِبُّ أَنْ تَأْذَنَ لِي فِيهِ. قَالَ: يَا بُنَيَّ إِذَا أَزْمَعْتَ عَلَى هَذَا فَلَا تَعْجَلْ حَتَّى أَقْدَمَ مَعَكَ عَلَى عُمَرَ فَأُوصِيَهُ بِكَ
“Hajar bin Abjar was a Christian and desired Islam. He said to his father: O my father! I see people entering this religion who do not have my status or the status of my ancestors, yet they have become honored. I wish for you to permit me to join. His father replied: O my son, if you are determined, do not hurry until we go to Umar so I may recommend you to him.”
Al-Fakhir, Vol. 1, p. 338, Tahqiq: Abdul Alim al-Tahawi
This indicates his conversion was motivated by a pursuit of worldly honor and status rather than the love of the Prophet.
Ibn Sa’d records:
أَسْلَمَ عَلَى يَدَيْ عُمَرَ بْنِ الْخَطَّابِ وَكَانَ شَرِيفًا
“He accepted Islam at the hands of Umar bin al-Khattab and was a nobleman.”
Shams al-Ulum, Vol. 3, p. 1335; Nashir: Dar al-Fikr al-Mu’asir, Beirut, Lebanon
وَكَانَ شَرِيفًا رَوَى عَنْ عَلِيٍّ
“He was a nobleman and narrated from Ali.”
Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 6, p. 231
The Betrayal of Hani bin Urwa
Baladhuri narrates:
وَوَجَّهَ ابْنُ زِيَادٍ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ الْأَشْعَثِ الْكِنْدِيَّ وَأَسْمَاءَ بْنَ خَارِجَةَ بْنِ حِصْنِ الْفَزَارِيَّ إِلَى هَانِئِ بْنِ عُرْوَةَ، فَرَفَقَا بِهِ حَتَّى أَتَى ابْنَ زِيَادٍ، فَأَنَّيَا عَلَى إِيوَائِهِ مُسْلِمَ بْنَ عَقِيلٍ، وَقَالَ لَهُ: إِنَّ أَمْرَ النَّاسِ مُجْتَمِعٌ وَكَلِمَتَهُمْ مُتَّفِقَةٌ أَفَتَعِينُ عَلَى تَشْتِيتِ أَمْرِهِمْ بِتَفْرِيقِ كَلِمَتِهِمْ وَأَلْفَتِهِمْ رَجُلًا قَدِمَ لِذَلِكَ؟
“Ibn Ziyad sent Muhammad bin al-Ash’ath and Asma bin Kharija to Hani bin Urwa. They pressured him until he came to Ibn Ziyad. They confronted him regarding harboring Muslim bin Aqeel and said: The people are united; do you intend to scatter their unity by supporting a man who has come for that purpose?”
Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 2, p. 77
Muhammad bin al-Ash’ath and Katheer bin Shihab used threats of the Syrian army and the withholding of stipends to disperse the supporters of Muslim bin Aqeel:
فَوَجَّهَ مُحَمَّدَ بْنَ الْأَشْعَثِ بْنِ قَيْسٍ وَكَثِيرَ بْنَ شِهَابٍ الْحَارِثِيَّ وَعِدَةً مِنَ الْوُجُوهِ لِيُخَذِّلُوا النَّاسَ عَنْ مُسْلِمِ بْنِ عَقِيلٍ وَالْحُسَيْنِ بْنِ عَلِيٍّ، وَيَتَوَعَّدُونَهُمْ بِيَزِيدَ بْنِ مُعَاوِيَةَ وَخُيُولِ أَهْلِ الشَّامِ وَبِمَنْعِ الْأَعْطِيَةِ وَأَخْذِ الْبَرِيءِ بِالسَّقِيمِ وَالشَّاهِدِ بِالْغَائِبِ فَتَفَرَّقَ أَصْحَابُ ابْنِ عَقِيلٍ عَنْهُ، حَتَّى أَمْسَى وَمَا مَعَهُ إِلَّا نَحْوٌ مِنْ ثَلَاثِينَ رَجُلًا
Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 2, p. 77
The Siege of the Prophet’s Grandson
Ibn Ziyad dispatched Hajar bin Abjar with a thousand riders against Imam Hussain AS. In a final appeal, the Imam called out:
ثُمَّ نَادَى عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ: يَا شَبَثَ بْنَ رِبْعِيٍّ يَا حِجَارَ بْنَ أَبْجَرَ، يَا قَيْسَ بْنَ الْأَشْعَثِ يَا يَزِيدَ بْنَ الْحَارِثِ أَلَمْ تَكْتُبُوا إِلَيَّ أَنْ قَدْ أَيْنَعَتِ الثِّمَارُ وَاخْضَرَّ الْجَنَابُ وَطَمَّتِ الْجِمَامُ وَإِنَّمَا تَقْدَمُ عَلَى جُنْدٍ لَكَ مُجَنَّدٍ؟
“O Shabath bin Rib’i, O Hajar bin Abjar, O Qays bin al-Ash’ath, O Yazid bin al-Harith! Did you not write to me saying the fruit has ripened, the fields are green, and the waters are overflowing, and that I should come to an army ready for me?”
Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 3, p. 188
When they denied it, the Imam challenged their conscience:
ثُمَّ قَالَ الْحُسَيْنُ: فَإِنْ كُنْتُمْ فِي شَكٍّ مِمَّا أَقُولُ أَوْ تَشُكُّونَ فِي أَنِّي ابْنُ بِنْتِ نَبِيِّكُمْ فَوَاللَّهِ مَا بَيْنَ الْمَشْرِقِ وَالْمَغْرِبِ ابْنُ بِنْتِ نَبِيٍّ غَيْرِي مِنْكُمْ وَلَا مِنْ غَيْرِكُمْ أَخْبِرُونِي أَتَطْلُبُونِي بِقَتِيلٍ مِنْكُمْ قَتَلْتُهُ أَوْ بِمَالٍ لَكُمُ اسْتَهْلَكْتُهُ أَوْ قِصَاصٍ مِنْ جِرَاحَةٍ فَلَمْ يُكَلِّمُوهُ فَنَادَى يَا شَبَثَ بْنَ رِبْعِيٍّ وَيَا حِجَارَ بْنَ أَبْجَرَ وَيَا قَيْسَ بْنَ الْأَشْعَثِ وَيَا يَزِيدَ بْنَ الْحَارِثِ أَلَمْ تَكْتُبُوا إِلَيَّ فِي الْقُدُومِ عَلَيْكُمْ قَالُوا لَمْ نَفْعَلْ ثُمَّ قَالَ بَلَى وَاللَّهِ قَدْ فَعَلْتُمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِذْ كَرِهْتُمُونِي فَدَعُونِي أَنْصَرِفُ إِلَى مَأْمَنِي مِنَ الْأَرْضِ
Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 3, p. 188
Uzra bin Qays: The Uthmani Commander
Uzra bin Qays was a prominent Tabi’i of Kufa who participated in the murder of the Imam.
Al-Dhahabi notes:
مِنْ قُدَمَاءِ التَّابِعِينَ بِالْكُوفَةِ
“From the early Tabi’in in Kufa.”
Mizan al-I’tidal fi Naqd al-Rijal, Vol. 3, p. 11
Ibn Kathir records that while the Imam’s camp was in prayer, the Yazidi guard was commanded by Uzra:
وَبَاتَ الْحُسَيْنُ وَأَصْحَابُهُ طُولَ لَيْلِهِمْ يُصَلُّونَ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَ وَيَدْعُونَ وَيَتَضَرَّعُونَ، وَخُيُولُ حَرَسِ عَدُوِّهِمْ تَدُورُ مِنْ وَرَائِهِمْ، عَلَيْهَا عَزْرَةُ بْنُ قَيْسٍ الْأَحْمَسِيُّ
Al-Bidaya wa’l-Nihaya, Vol. 11, p. 532
The Role of Abdul Malik bin Umayr
Abdul Malik bin Umayr, a judge and high-ranking Tabi’i in the Sunni tradition, was directly involved in the execution of the Imam’s messengers.
Baladhuri narrates the killing of Abdullah bin Yaqtar:
فَأَمَرَ بِهِ أَنْ يُعْلَى بِهِ الْقَصْرُ لِيَلْعَنَ الْحُسَيْنَ وَيَنْسُبَهُ وَآبَاءَهُ إِلَى الْكَذِبِ، فَلَمَّا عَلَا الْقَصْرَ قَالَ: أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ إِنِّي رَسُولُ الْحُسَيْنِ ابْنِ بِنْتِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ إِلَيْكُمْ لِتَنْصُرُوهُ وَتُؤَازِرُوهُ عَلَى ابْنِ مَرْجَانَةَ وَابْنِ سُمَيَّةَ أَوِ الدَّعِيِّ وَابْنِ الدَّعِيِّ لَعَنَهُ اللَّهُ. فَأَمَرَ بِهِ فَأُلْقِيَ مِنْ فَوْقِ الْقَصْرِ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ فَتَكَسَّرَتْ عِظَامُهُ، وَبَقِيَ بِهِ رَمَقٌ فَأَتَاهُ رَجُلٌ فَذَبَحَهُ فَقِيلَ لَهُ: وَيْحَكَ مَا صَنَعْتَ؟ فَقَالَ: أَحْبَبْتُ أَنْ أُرِيحَهُ.
“He was ordered to climb the palace and curse Hussain. Instead, he called out: O people! I am the messenger of Hussain, grandson of the Messenger of Allah, seeking your help against the son of Marjana. He was thrown from the palace; his bones broke but he still breathed. A man came and slaughtered him. When asked why, he said: I wanted to relieve him.”
Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 3, p. 1305
Legal Decrees and Scholarly Silence
Scholars like Abdullah bin Muslim bin Qutaybah Dinawari have noted how certain Muhaddithin treated the Imam’s stance as a rebellion:
وَتَعَامَى كَثِيرٌ مِنَ الْمُحَدِّثِينَ أَنْ يُحَدِّثُوا بِفَضَائِلِهِ كَرَاهَةَ أَنْ يَظْهَرُوا مَا يَجِبُ لَهُ، وَكُلُّ تِلْكَ الْأَحَادِيثِ لَهَا مَخَارِجُ صِحَاحٌ، وَجَعَلُوا ابْنَهُ الْحُسَيْنَ عَلَيْهِ السَّلَامُ خَارِجِيًّا شَاقًّا لِعَصَا الْمُسْلِمِينَ حَلَالَ الدَّمِ لِقَوْلِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: مَنْ خَرَجَ عَلَى أُمَّتِي وَهُمْ جَمِيعٌ فَاقْتُلُوهُ كَائِنًا مَنْ كَانَ
“Many Muhaddithin avoided narrating his virtues so that his due status would not become apparent, even though all these narrations possess authentic chains. They regarded his son Hussain AS as a rebel who divided the unity of Muslims and whose blood was lawful due to the saying of the Prophet PBUH: Whoever rises against my Ummah while they are united, kill him whoever he may be.”
Al-Ikhtilaf fi al-Lafz wa al-Radd ’ala al-Jahmiyyah wa al-Mushabbihah, Vol. 1, p. 53; Nashir: Dar al-Raya
Based on these principles, Yazid was viewed as a legitimate Caliph and the Imam’s uprising was deemed forbidden.
The Slayers of the Sons of Ali AS
Ibn Sa’d narrates the killing of Ja’far and Abdullah, the sons of Ali AS:
جَعْفَرُ بْنُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ الْأَكْبَرُ، قَتَلَهُ هَانِئُ بْنُ ثُبَيْتٍ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ. عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ عَلِيِّ بْنِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ، قَتَلَهُ هَانِئُ بْنُ ثُبَيْتٍ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ
“Ja’far bin Ali bin Abi Talib was killed by Hani bin Thubayt al-Hadrami. Abdullah bin Ali bin Abi Talib was also killed by Hani bin Thubayt al-Hadrami.”
Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Vol. 3, p. 574
Daraqutni confirms that this same Hani bin Thubayt is a narrator within the Sunni legal tradition:
هَانِئُ بْنُ ثُبَيْتٍ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَابْنِ عُمَرَ رَوَى عَنْهُ سَلَمَةُ بْنُ كُهَيْلٍ وَأَبُو جَنَابٍ هَانِئُ بْنُ ثُبَيْتٍ الْحَضْرَمِيُّ يَقُولُ: رَأَيْتُ ابْنَ عُمَرَ بَالَ بِالْمُزْدَلِفَةِ فَتَوَضَّأَ فَأَدْخَلَ يَدَهُ تَحْتَ إِزَارِهِ لَا يَغْسِلُ ذَكَرَهُ.
Al-Mu’talif wa’l-Mukhtalif, Vol. 1, p. 325
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐚 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐞’𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐦𝐚𝐦 𝐇𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐧 عليه السلام
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1CA4wxuj6c/
𝑨𝒎𝒓 𝒃𝒊𝒏 𝒂𝒍-𝑯𝒂𝒋𝒋𝒂𝒋 𝒂𝒍-𝒁𝒖𝒃𝒂𝒚𝒅𝒊 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒂𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝒕𝒉𝒐𝒔𝒆 𝒘𝒉𝒐 𝒘𝒓𝒐𝒕𝒆 𝒍𝒆𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒕𝒐 𝑰𝒎𝒂𝒎 𝒂𝒍-𝑯𝒖𝒔𝒂𝒊𝒏 علیه السلام 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒔𝒌𝒆𝒅 𝒉𝒊𝒎 𝒕𝒐 𝒈𝒐 𝒕𝒐 𝑲𝒖𝒇𝒂. 𝑯𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒓, 𝒐𝒏 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝑫𝒂𝒚 𝒐𝒇 ‘𝑨𝒔𝒉𝒖𝒓𝒂, 𝒉𝒆 𝒘𝒂𝒔 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒂𝒏𝒅𝒆𝒓 𝒐𝒇 𝒕𝒉𝒆 𝒓𝒊𝒈𝒉𝒕-𝒘𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒐𝒇 ‘𝑼𝒎𝒂𝒓 𝒃. 𝑺𝒂’𝒅’𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒎𝒚 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒍𝒔𝒐 𝒊𝒏 𝒄𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒈𝒆 𝒐𝒇 𝒃𝒍𝒐𝒄𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒂𝒄𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝑬𝒖𝒑𝒉𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒔
Proof of His Status as a Companion
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852 AH) stated:
عبد الله بن حصن بن سهل، ذكره الطبراني في الصحابة.
“ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥiṣn ibn Sahl, al-Ṭabarānī mentioned him among the Companions.”
Al-Iṣābah fī Tamyīz al-Ṣaḥābah, vol. 4, p. 54, no. 4646 — authored by Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī
Al-Balādhurī records his role in the event of Karbalāʾ as follows:
وَنَادَاهُ عَبْدُ اللَّهِ بْنُ حِصْنٍ الْأَزْدِيُّ: يَا حُسَيْنُ أَلَا تَنْظُرُ إِلَى الْمَاءِ كَأَنَّهُ كَبِدُ السَّمَاءِ، وَاللَّهِ لَا تَذُوقُ مِنْهُ قَطْرَةً حَتَّى تَمُوتَ عَطَشًا
ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ḥiṣn al-Azdī shouted to Imām Ḥusayn (ʿalayhi al-salām): “O Ḥusayn, do you not see the water as if it were the liver of the sky? By Allāh, you shall not taste a single drop of it until you die of thirst!”
Ansāb al-Ashrāf, vol. 1, p. 389 — authored by Imām Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā al-Balādhurī
𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐛𝐧 𝐑𝐚𝐛𝐢( 𝐚 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐞𝐭 صلي الله عليه واله وسلم & 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐍𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫) 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐚𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐦𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐢𝐧 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐞
️Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani
Companion No. 3974: Shabath ibn Rabi al-Tamimi al-Yarbu’i ,Abu ‘Abd al-Quddus al-kufi, Shabath has narrated from Ali عليه السلام and Hudhayfa. Muhammad b. Ka’b Qarzi, Sulayman al-Taymi, he was a khariji and one of the killer of Husain عليه السلام.
Sunni source:Al-Isabah Fi Tameyiz Al-Sahabah,Volume 3,page 303
️Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani
Shabath ibn Rabi al-Tamimi al-Yarbu’i ,Abu ‘Abd al-Quddus al-kufi, he was a khariji and also one of the killer of Husain, he attended to killing Mukhtar,Shabath died in Kufa ,80 Hijri
Sunni source:Taqreeb Al-Tahdeeb,Page 263,NO# 2735
Shabath was among rich people in Kufa,and one of thoes people who had send invitations to Imam Husainعليه السلام asking him to come to Kufa and lead Muslims ,he betrayed Muslim bin Aqil and while Imam Husain عليه السلام was approaching kufa, under the effects of yazid’s money,he preferred his life in this world over that of the next, he was Commander of Umar bin Sa’d’s army, on the day of Ashura he fought against Imam Husain علیه السلام.
In the Uprising of al-Mukhtar and the revolt of the nobles of Kufa, he stood against al-Mukhtar and also played a role in provoking Mus’ab a. Al-Zubayr and killing al-Mukhtar
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/bC1zsQnRSMHpbVcT/
𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐫 𝐢𝐛𝐧 𝐃𝐡𝐢 ‘𝐥-𝐉𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐧 (𝐚 𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐢’𝐞 & 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 )𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐦𝐚𝐦 𝐇𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐧 علیه السلام
️Ibn Aasaker Al-Shafei
Shimr bin Dhi’ l-Jawshan,from the family of bani Kilab,his father was a Companion of Prophet صلی الله عليه واله وسلم, He(Shimr) is a Tabi’e and one of killer of Al-Hussain bin Ali.
Shimr has narrated from his father, and Abu Ishaq al-Subay’i has narrated from Shimr.
Sunni suorce:Tarikh Madinah damishq,Volume 23,NO#2762,Page 186
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/A2wBQAw42cErq5RZ/?mibextid=oFDknk
𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐫 𝐝𝐡𝐢 𝐚𝐥-𝐉𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐧:𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬(𝐘𝐚𝐳𝐢𝐝) 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐇𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐧(عليه السلام)
️Dhahabi
Abu Ishaq says when Shimar used to say prayers with us he used to make supplication saying, “O Allah Most High you know that I am a good person, for that reason forgive me.” On hearing this I said to Shimar how will Allah Most High forgive you when you have martyred the grandson of the Prophet (صلی الله علیه واله وسلم), and you were the one who helped to have him martyred. Shimar said, “What do you know? We could not do anything other than obey the orders of our leaders. Had we gone against his commands, we would have been treated worse than the donkeys.
Sunni source:Tarikh al-Islam,Volume 5,page 125,126
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19LgvaDfwe/
𝐒𝐡𝐢𝐦𝐫 𝐢𝐛𝐧 𝐃𝐡𝐢 ‘𝐥-𝐉𝐚𝐰𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐧 (𝐚 𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐢’𝐞 & 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡𝐲 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧 𝐒𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢 𝐛𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 )𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐦 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐝 𝐈𝐦𝐚𝐦 𝐇𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐧 عليه السلام
️Salahuddin Khaleel ibn Aibak Safdi
7962-Killer of Hussain(علیه السلام):Shimr ibn Dhi Jawshan….. he was a Tabi’e and one of killer of Hussain (علیه السلام)….
Muhammad ibn Amr ibn al-Husan said: “We were with Husain ibn Ali علیه السلامat the river of Karbala, and he looked at Shimr ibn Dhi al-Jawshan, who had vitiligo. Then he said: Allah and His Messenger have spoken the truth. The Messenger of Allah صلي الله علیه واله وسلم said: “It is as if I see a vitiligo dog lapping up the blood of my household.”’”
Sunni source:Al-Waafi bil Wafayaat,Volume 13,page 38 ,39
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16gvUS1Kph/
𝐔𝐦𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐛𝐧 𝐒𝐚’𝐚𝐝(𝐚𝐓𝐚𝐛𝐞’𝐢 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐍𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫) 𝐒𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐒𝐚’𝐚𝐝 𝐛.𝐀𝐛𝐢 𝐖𝐚𝐪𝐪𝐚𝐬(𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧) 𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐤𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐦𝐚𝐦 𝐡𝐮𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐧علیه السلام(𝐬𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞)
️Al-Dhahabi:
Umar bin Sa’ad, the commander of the troops that fought against Al-Hussain (r.a), then Al-Mukhtar killed him (Umar ibn Sa’ad).
Sunni source: Siyar Al-A’lam Al-Nubala. Volume. 4, Page. # 349 – 350.
️Al-Bukhari:
When Al-Hussain arrived in Karbala, Umar bin Sa’ad was the first individual who cut the ropes of the tents.
Sunni source: Tarikh Al-Saghir, Volume 1, Page 17
️Al-Tabari
Another letter came from Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad (la) addressed to Umar ibn Sa’ad (la) “Prevent Imam Husain (علیه السلام ) and His companions from reaching the water supply. They should not be allowed to taste a single drop of it – as was done with the righteous, pious, and oppressed caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (RA).”
Sunni source:Tarikh al- Tabari,Volume 5,page 412
️Al-Tabari
Umar bin Sa‘ad called out to his Army: “Who will volunteer [to go] to al-Hussain and make his horse trample on [his body]?” Ten [men] volunteered. Of these, Ishaq bin Haiwah al-Hadhrami and Ahbash bin Mirthad al-Hadhrami came forward and trampled on [the body of] al-Hussain عليه السلام with their horses until they had crushed his back and chest.
عُمَر بن سَعْد نادى فِی أَصْحَابه: من ینتدب للحسین ویوطئه فرسه؟
فانتدب عشره: مِنْهُمْ إِسْحَاق بن حیوه الحضرمیّ، وَهُوَ الَّذِی سلب قمیص الْحُسَیْن- فبرص بعد- و احبش بن مرثد بن علقمه بن سلامه الحضرمی،، فأتوا الْحُسَیْن بخیولهم حَتَّى رضّوا ظهره و صدره، فبلغنی أن أحبش بن مرثد بعد ذَلِکَ بزمان أتاه سهم غرب، وَ هُوَ واقف فِی قتال ففلق قلبه، فمات.
