Karbala Series Part 5: Mu’awiyah’s appointing of Yazid
Updated: Jun 27
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Muawiyah’s appointment of Yazid as his successor was highly controversial. He favored Yazid over numerous high-ranking companions who were still alive at the time. This decision also violated one of the key conditions stipulated in the treaty between him and Imam al-Hasan (AS), namely that Muawiyah would not appoint a successor to the caliphate.
In this article, we want to examine the motivations behind Muawiyah’s decision to appoint Yazid as his successor. The outcome of this analysis exposes the depravity of Muawiyah’s character and highlights the doctrinal inconsistency within Sunni beliefs regarding the caliphate.
Why did Mu’awiyah appoint Yazid?
The Sunni justification for Mu’awiyah appointing Yazid goes as follows: Since Mu’awiyah was an Umayyad, it follows that an Umayyad should lead after him as it would preserve unity in the Ummah. However, this reasoning falls short for three reasons:
Yazid was deeply unpopular as we have illustrated by the countless testimonies affirming that. Thus, appointing him had no chance in restoring peace, for that could only be achieved by appointing someone popular with the people.
Mu’awiyah did not appoint Yazid for this reason per his own words. Rather, he appointed him to maintain a monarchy and establish hereditary rule.
Mu’awiyah knew that appointing Yazid will cause instability as evident by his letters to Yazid, advice by his governors and the brutal and corrupt establishment for Yazid’s succession.
Mu’awiyah intended to establish a monarchy
The reality is that Mu’awiyah chose Yazid to establish a hereditary monarchy, transforming the caliphate from a position based on merit and consultation into a dynastic rule. Prior to Mu’awiyah, the Sunni concept of the caliphate emphasized leadership by merit and consensus rather than hereditary succession.
Mu’awiyah cites this reasoning in Musnad Abi Ya'la, vol. 13, pg. 121 - 123, Hadith # 7174:
Al-Hasan b. Umar b. Shaqiq b. Asma al-Jarmi narrated to us, saying: Jaʿfar from Hisham from Muhammad b. Sirin said:
When Muawiyah wanted to appoint Yazid as successor, he sent to the governor of Medina saying, “Bring to me whomever you wish.” So Amr b. Hazm al-Ansari went to him and sought permission.
Amr b. Hazm al-Ansari praised Allah and extolled Him, then said: “By my life, Yazid b. Muawiyah has become the center of Quraysh’s lineage, free from financial need, free from everything except from all goodness.
And I heard the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, say: ‘Indeed, Allah does not entrust a servant with leadership over a people except that He will question him about it on the Day of Resurrection: how he managed it.’ I remind you by Allah, O Muawiyah, regarding the nation of Muhammad (SAW) about whom you appoint over them.”
Muawiyah then began gasping and short of breath on a cold morning until he sweated and kept wiping the sweat from his face three times. Then he recovered, praised Allah and extolled Him, then said:
“As for what follows- indeed, you are a sincere man. You have spoken your opinion, reaching what it reaches. And there remains no one but my son and their sons. And my son is more entitled than their sons.
In another transmission of this report found in Amali ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani, pg. 99, it says:
Abu Ali Ismail narrated to us, Ahmad narrated to us, Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, from Ma'mar, from Ayyub, from Ibn Sirin, who said:
But he is my son, and their sons are their sons, my son is dearer to me than their sons."
This report clearly establishes two of our points and refutes this lie propagated by Mu'awiyah's followers. That is, Yazid lacked any popularity from the people, as even Amr b. Hazm al-Ansari testifies that Yazid ‘lacked any goodness’, meaning he was filled with immoral behaviour. What was Mu'awiyah's response to this? “My son is more entitled than their sons.” It was an admission about what Mu’awiyah truly intended- a hereditarial succession. Why is Yazid more entitled to the Caliphate than others?
The reality is had Yazid not been Muʿawiyah’s son, he would never have been considered for the caliphate. His only claim to authority was lineage, as he had no virtue or merit. But is the Caliphate a matter of personal inheritance? How does it differ from a monarchy then?
Testimonials to the Monarchical System of Banu Umayyah
When Yazid’s governor of Medina, Amr b. Sa’id, asked Ibn al-Zubayr regarding his view of Yazid, he calls him a monarch. We read this in Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 19, pg. 193:
Ibn Zubayr said, "I can only see that your leader is one of those kings whose affairs are successful for them until they die while they are still kings."
Sa’ad b. Abi Waqqas likewise said so in Musnannaf ‘Abd al-Razzaq Vol 10, pg. 15, Hadith # 20506:
We entered upon him at al-Rusafah, and he said: Sa'd b. Abi Waqqas entered upon Muawiyah and said: "Peace be upon you, O king!"
Muawiyah replied: "Why not something other than that! You are the believers, and I am your commander." Sa'd said: "Yes if we were the ones who appointed you."
Even Aisha presented this view about Mu’awiyah in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah Vol. 17, pg. 104:
Ibn Kathir in Al-Bidaya Wal-Nihaya, Vol. 11, pg. 430 - 431 recorded this narration without objection to it.
It’s clear as day that the Sahaba did not view Mu’awiyah rule as a legitimate Caliphate, but rather as a Kingdom that was ruled by Monarchs. We also want our readers to focus on the fact that A’isha compares the rule of Mu’awiyah to the rule of Fir'aun.
Even the brother of A’isha, Abdul-Rahman b. Abu Bakr, likewise testified to this when the announcement of Yazid’s caliphate was made by Marwan b. al-Hakam in Medina.
The censored version of this report was mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari 4827:
Marwan had been appointed as the governor of Hijaz by Muawiya. He delivered a sermon and mentioned Yazid b. Muawiya so that the people might take the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of his father (Muawiya).
Then `Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr told him something whereupon Marwan ordered that he be arrested. But `Abdur-Rahman entered `Aisha's house and they could not arrest him. Marwan said, "It is he about whom Allah revealed this Verse:-- 'And the one who says to his parents: 'Fie on you! Do you hold out the promise to me..?'"
On that, `Aisha said from behind a screen, "Allah did not reveal anything from the Qur'an about us except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence (of the slander).
The report doesn’t mention what Marwan said, and censors the full words of A’isha. We can find the full account by referring to Ibn Abi Khuthayma’s Tarikh al-Kabir, Vol. 3, pg. 22 - 23, Hadith # 6431:
Indeed, Mu'awiyah wrote to Marwan b. al-Hakam to make the people pledge allegiance to Yazid. So 'Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr said: “You have brought a Heraclean/Roman system (i.e. a Monarchy)! You pledge allegiance to your sons?!”
Marwan said: “O people, this is the one of whom Allah says: {He who said to his parents: 'Fie upon you! Do you promise me that I will be resurrected while generations have passed away before me?'}” [al-Ahqaf: 17].
A'ishah became angry and said: “By Allah, he is not that person, and if I wanted to name him, I would have. But Allah cursed your father while you were still in his loins, and you are a remnant of that curse.”
It was also recorded in Majalis Tha’lab, Ch. 10, pg. 451 and in Abu Hilal al-’Askari’s al-Awa’il, pg. 235 - 236 with independent paths to Juawariya b. Asma. Additionally, Ibn ‘Asakir has another independent chain for this in Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 35, pg. 34.
After this incident occurred, Mu’awiyah tried to make Abdul-Rahman pledge allegiance to Yazid by bribing him, and this is mentioned in Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 35, pg. 35:
Ahmad ibn Sulayman, who said: Al-Zubayr ibn Bakkar narrated to us, saying: Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Zuhri narrated from his father, from his grandfather:
Mu‘awiyah sent to ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr al-Siddiq one hundred thousand dirhams after he refused to pledge allegiance to Yazid b. Mu‘awiyah. ‘Abd al-Rahman returned it and refused to take it, saying: “Shall I sell my religion for my worldly life?” Then he departed for Mecca and died there.
Considering everything we’ve seen and what we will come to see from Mu’awiyah’s brutal attempts to suppress any objector to Yazid’s leadership, it would not be unreasonable to speculate that ‘Abd al-Rahman was later poisoned by Mu’awiyah as we find him suddenly dying upon his journey to Mecca.
This was mentioned in a report from Tarikh al-Tabari Vol. 18, pg. 186 - 187.
Mu’awiyah’s corruption in securing Yazid
Mu’awiyah killed and bribed people to secure Yazid’s succession to the throne, which shows the corruption of this system. Below we shall mention a few examples of this corruption.
Ibn ‘Umar bribed
Ibn Umar was the son of Khalifa Umar, and one of the remaining companions of the Prophet (SAW). From the perspective of Ahlus Sunnah, Ibn Umar had the most entitlement of the caliphate after Mu’awiyah, and Mu’awiyah knew this.
For this reason, he wanted to bring Ibn Umar on his side, and Ibn Umar did come to his side as he pledged allegiance to Yazid and called people to it as we read in Sahih al-Bukhari 7111:
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."
It must be noted that this pledging of Yazid to Umar is proof for his nifaq (hypocrisy), because Ibn Umar was the same man who refused to pledge to Imam Ali (AS). This was mentioned by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in Fath al-Bari, Vol. 6, pg. 145:
Ibn Umar did not mention the caliphate of Ali because he did not pay allegiance to Ali due to the opposition to his caliphate. This is famous in authentic narrations. Ibn Umar opined not to pay allegiance to someone about whom there is no consensus of people and that is why he did not pay allegiance to Ibn Zubayr and Abdul Malik because of their opposition. But he paid allegiance to Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah and then to Abdul Malik ibn Al-Marwan after Ibn Zubayr's death.
The hypocrisy of Ibn Umar is evident, because the people did not agree on the allegiance of Yazid as we have illustrated countless numbers of people including companions who opposed Yazid’s rule before he even became a caliph. So why the hypocrisy? For Ali (AS), he would refuse to pledge allegiance despite the several hundreds of companions pledging to him, but for Yazid he refused despite the small number of people pledging to him.
As for his opposition to Ali (AS)’s caliphate, the real reason was because of his dislike of him. For instance in Sahih al-Bukhari 3655 we read:
Narrated Ibn `Umar: We used to compare the people as to who was better during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). We used to regard Abu Bakr as the best, then `Umar, and then `Uthman.
As for Ibn Umar’s allegiance to Yazid, this was explained in Fath al-Bari, vol. 23, pg. 139:
In another version reported by al-Isma‘ili through Mu’ammal ibn Isma‘il from Hammad b. Zayd, there’s an additional statement from Nafi‘:
“Mu‘awiyah tried to make Ibn ‘Umar pledge allegiance to Yazid, but he refused, saying: ‘I will not pledge allegiance to two leaders.’ So Mu‘awiyah sent him one hundred thousand dirhams, which he accepted. Then Mu‘awiyah sent someone to him in secret and asked: ‘What is preventing you from pledging allegiance?’ Ibn ‘Umar said: ‘If that money was to buy my pledge, then my religion must be cheap to me.’” When Mu‘awiyah died, Ibn ‘Umar wrote to Yazid and gave him his allegiance. But when the people of Madinah later deposed Yazid, the events unfolded as mentioned.
Ibn Umar was bribed by Mu’awiyah to accept the caliphate of Yazid. However, to prevent this being publicised he didn’t pledge until Yazid died, justifying it by saying, “I will not pledge allegiance to two different Amir’s”. Nonetheless, the only reason Ibn Umar accepted Yazid’s caliphate was because he was bribed by Mu’awiyah.
Just to note, Ibn Umar was not the only one who was bribed. We have mentioned earlier how al-Mundhir b. Zubayr and Abdul-Rahman b. Abi Bakr were bribed by Mu’awiyah, but it wasn’t enough for them to accept the caliphate of Yazid. Ibn Umar was one of the people that were bribed, and it worked.
We remind our readers of the Hadith in Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1337:
"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) cursed the one who bribes and the one who takes a bribe."
Abdul-Rahman b. Khalid poisoned
Abdul-Rahman b. Khalid b. al-Walid lived during the time of the Prophet (SAW), and the son of the famous Khalid b. al-Walid. He was initially chosen by the people as a popular pick to become the next Khalifah, and due to this Mu’awiyah instructed a Kitabi doctor to poison him. The story highlights Mu’awiyah’s tactics in forcing people to accept Yazid’s caliphate and how people were assassinated for being in the way of this rule.
Moreover, it helps us prove how Mu’awiyah’s intentions were never about maintaining peace, otherwise he wouldn’t go and poison the sons of the Sahaba.
This account has been preserved to us in Tarikh Tabari, Vol. 18, pg. 88 - 89:
Abd al-Rahman b. Khalid b. al-Walid had become great in Syria and the Syrians favored him because of the reputation among them of his father, Khalid b. al-Walid, and because of his usefulness to the Muslims in Byzantine territory, as well as his bravery. They favored him so much that Muawiyah feared him. He was afraid for himself with regard to Abd al-Rahman, because of the affection of the people for him.
So he ordered Ibn Uthal to plot to kill him, and guaranteed to Ibn Uthal that, if he did so, his tax (kharaj) would be revoked for as long as he lived and that he would be put in charge of the collection of the tax revenues (kharaj) of Homs. As a result, when Abd al-Rahman b. Khalid reached Homs, returning from Byzantine territory, Ibn Uthal slipped him a poisoned drink with some of his slaves. He drank it and died at Homs. Muawiyah then fulfilled for Ibn Uthal what he had guaranteed to him. He put Ibn Uthal in charge of collecting the tax revenues (kharaj) of Homs and revoked his own tax (kharaj).
Tabari then records that ‘Abd al-Rahman’s son, who was also named Khalid, took vengeance over his father by killing Ibn Athal. Mu’awiyah then imprisoned him as a punishment.
The story was similarly recorded with a different chain in Kitab al-Awa’il, pg. 234 by Abu Hilal al-’Askari and al-Baladhuri in Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 5, pg. 118.
Note: The report by al-’Askari was quoted and accepted by Shaykh Muhammad b. Habib al-Baghdadi (d. 859 H) in Kitab al-Munamaq, pg. 360. Here, it’s clarified that the transmitter was Khalid b. Sa’eed b. Amr and not Khalid b. Sa’ad (which was probably a scribal issue).
All these primary sources are telling us the same story with different historians and sources, confirming to us the same thing. This would be the expected outcome if the event actually happened, which provides enough confidence to show historical accuracy.
However, despite all of this evidence, Sunnis will turn around and quote the words of Ibn Kathir in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, vol. 11, pg. 173:
Abd al-Rahman b. Khalid b. al-Walid al-Qurashi al-Makhzumi was among the well-known brave warriors and famous champions, like his father. He had risen in prominence in the lands of al-Sham to the point that Muawiyah feared him. He died from poisoning.
Ibn Mandah and Abu Nuaym al-Asbahani said that he encountered the Prophet ﷺ.
Ibn Jarir and others mentioned that a man named Ibn Athal, who was the leader of the dhimmis in the land of Hims, gave him a drink containing poison, and he died. Some claimed that this was done on the order of Muawiyah, but this is not authentic. And Allah knows best.
It is unsurprising that we find Ibn Kathir making this claim, as he had a diseased heart afflicted by his Umayyad bias. This was demonstrated in our Hadith al-Tayr series for those who have read it.
Nonetheless, this claim of Ibn Kathir is contrary to the evidence we have demonstrated, and other scholars more authoritative and knowledgeable in the historical reports have confirmed it.
This includes the likes of Ibn Abd al-Barr in al-Isti’ab Fi Ma’rifat al-Sahaba, vol. 3, pg. 540:
Then, ʿAbd al-Rahman fell ill, so Muʿawiya instructed a Jewish physician he trusted, who held a high position with him, to go to ʿAbd al-Rahman and administer to him a drink that would kill him. The physician went, gave him the drink, and his stomach burned from it and so he died.
And likewise by Ibn al-Athir in his Usd al-Ghaba, pg. 721 and Kamil Fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3 pg. 309:
The cause of his death was that his status had grown greatly among the people of al-Sham, and they inclined toward him due to what they remembered of his father, his military success in the lands of the Byzantines, and his fierce bravery. Muawiyah feared him and was concerned for his own position.
So he (Mu’awiyah) ordered Ibn Athal, the Christian, to devise a way to kill him, and guaranteed him that he would exempt him from paying taxes for the rest of his life and appoint him as the tax collector for Hims.
When Abd al-Rahman returned from the Byzantine front, Ibn Athal sent him a poisoned drink through one of his servants. He drank it and died in Hims. Muawiyah fulfilled the promises he had made to Ibn Athal.
Ibn Kathir’s words hold no authority in and of themselves, and the available evidence concerning the event presents a clear and coherent account of how Abd al-Rahman died.
No contradictory evidence has reached us. Ibn Athal was a Kitabi scholar with no apparent motive to poison Abd al-Rahman of his own accord.
He later attained an official position in his homeland and faced no consequences for his actions, which strongly implies that he acted under the orders of Muawiyah.
Objection 1: Did Allah want Yazid in power?
In order to justify his decision, Mu’awiyah made the following dua recorded in Musnad Abi Bakr by Ibn Kathir, pg. 466 - 467:
Abu Zur‘ah al-Dimashqi said: Hakam b. Nafi‘ narrated to us, Abu Bakr b. Abi Maryam narrated to us, from Atiyyah b. Qays, who said:
Mu‘awiyah gave a sermon and said:'O Allah, if I appointed Yazid only because of the virtue I saw in him, then cause him to reach what I intended for him and assist him in it. But if what drove me to do what I did was the love of a father for his son, and he is not deserving of what I have done, then seize him before he reaches it.'"
If Donald Trump said to the people “If God doesn’t want me in power, let him strike me down”, and he is not struck down. Does this then mean that God does indeed want Trump to remain in power? What if someone says “If God doesn’t want us to be married, let him strike me now”, and the person is not struck. Does it mean God wants them to be married now?
Mu’awiyah’s making of this du’a in reality exposes his true intentions, because he wouldn’t be publicising this du’a unless the people had been accusing him of choosing Yazid because of his love for him as a father.
Objection 2: Yazid was selected to avoid fitna
As we have seen, Mu‘awiyah sought to convince the people that Yazid was chosen on account of his virtue, as this would shield him from the accusation of having established a monarchy. One of the arguments Mughira used to justify Yazid’s entitlement to the Caliphate was that appointing Yazid would prevent fitna and unite the Ummah, since he was an Umayyad and the people desired an Umayyad ruler.
This, however, is as false as claiming the sky is green. Appointing Yazid would not unite the Ummah, and Mu‘awiyah knew this for three reasons:
Mu‘awiyah instructed Yazid to fight his opponents.
Mughira himself admitted that this claim was untrue.
Mu‘awiyah’s own governors advised him not to appoint Yazid.
Additionally, we can cite Mu‘awiyah’s poisoning of Yazid’s rivals for the Caliphate, as well as his own admission that he chose Yazid out of personal affection, as evidence that he was unconcerned about whether or not fitna would occur. Since these proofs have already been mentioned, there is no need to repeat them here.
Mu’awiyah’s brutality for securing Yazid
We have mentioned earlier how Yazid threatened the lives of the Sahaba, including of al-Husayn b. ‘Ali (AS), and killed many of the other Sahaba, such as Sa’ad b. Abi Waqqas and Abdul-Rahman b. Abi Bakr. How can he claim that he chose Yazid to preserve unity in the Ummah if he needed to cause so much bloodshed and killing over more popular figures than Yazid?
Does killing and threatening the Sahaba who were more popular and more deserving of the caliphate show that Mu’awiyah chose Yazid out of a desire to avoid fitna? Certainly not.
A second point is that when Muawiyah was leaving a will for Yazid and offering him advice, one of the things he told him is recorded in Tarikh al-Tabari, vol. 18, pg. 209 - 210 and Kamil Fil Tarikh, Vol. 3 pg. 119 - 120:
I only fear three persons of the Quraysh - Husayn b. 'Ali, 'Abdallah b. 'Umar, and 'Abdallah b. al-Zubayr. As far as Ibn 'Umar is concerned, he is a man whom religion has overwhelmed, so he would not ask anything from you. As far as al-Husayn b. 'Ali is concerned, he is an insignificant man, and I hope that God would protect you from him by means of those who killed his father and deserted his brother. He has close kinship, a great claim, and is a relative of Muhammad. I don't think the people of Iraq would leave him alone until they make him rebel. If you should overpower him, pardon him, for if I were his master, I would pardon him. As far as Ibn al-Zubayr is concerned, he is a heaving reptile, so if he appears to you, stick to him unless he asks for peace from you. If he does, then accept [it] and spare the blood of your folk as much as you can.
The letter highlights a key point: Mu’awiyah is aware of the fact that choosing Yazid will cause fitna, and his response to that issue is instructing Yazid to take them down or let them be killed.
As a side point, this letter also reveals the fact that Imam al-Husayn (AS) is more entitled to the caliphate than Yazid, because Yazid’s right is established by his kinship to Mu’awiyah while Husayn’s right is established by his kinship to Rasulullah (SAW). Nonetheless, Mu’awiyah ignores this argument and justifies Yazid’s caliphate.
Mughira’s testimony to this evil
Al-Mughira assisted Mu’awiyah in bribing the people to give their allegiance to Yazid. He was one of the first people to support Mu’awiyah in selecting Yazid, and the reason he did this was because Mughira was going to be removed from power as we mentioned in Chapter 1. While Mughira only helped in securing Yazid’s support for the sake of keeping himself in power, he himself testified to the wickedness of this action.
We read in Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 30, pg. 286 - 287 by Ibn 'Asakir:
Al-Mughira b. Shuba was the governor of Kufa under Muawiya. He wrote to Muawiya, saying: “When you read this letter of mine, consider yourself deposed and come.” But he was delayed in his journey.
When he arrived, Muawiya said to him, “O Mughira, what delayed you?” He replied, “By Allah, I was preparing and setting up something.” Muawiya asked, “What is it?”
He said, “The pledge of allegiance for Yazid after you.” Muawiya asked, “Did you do that?” He replied, “Yes.” So Muawiya said, “Return to your post; you are still in office.”
When al-Mughira came out from Muawiya’s presence, his companions asked him, “What happened?” He said, “By Allah, I have placed Muawiya’s foot in a stirrup of tyranny that he will remain stuck in until the Day of Judgment.”
Al-Hasan al-Basri said: “Because of this, these men pledged allegiance to their sons. Had it not been for that, the matter would have remained a consultation (shura) until the Day of Judgment.”
The same was recorded in al-Awa'il, pg. 233 by Abu Hilal al-’Askari with a different chain to al-Sha’bi. It was also affirmed by Ibn al-Athir in al-Kamil Fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3, pg. 97 - 98.
Mughira’s words are truly astonishing, for he openly acknowledges that his act of securing support for Yazid would lead to fitna and tyranny, as it legitimised a monarchical system, as Hasan al-Basri explains. The Caliphate was no longer determined by who was most suited for the Ummah; it had become a monarchy in which a son could appoint his own son to power. Mughira’s own admission to this reality exposes the falsehood of both Mu‘awiyah’s claim and his own that Yazid was chosen on the basis of merit.
Mughira went on to bribe people to secure Yazid’s caliphate in Tarikh Dimashq, vol. 40, pg. 298
When al-Mughira ibn Shu‘bah wanted Mu‘awiyah to establish allegiance for Yazid, he sent forty of Kufa’s notables under the leadership of his son Urwah b. al-Mughira; they entered upon Mu‘awiyah and delivered speeches, claiming they came out of concern for the ummah of Muhammad (SAW), saying: “O Commander of the Faithful, you have grown old and we fear division after you, so assign for us a clear successor.”
Mu‘awiyah said: “Advise me.” So they said: “We advise Yazid, son of the Commander of the Faithful.” He asked: “Are you pleased with him?” They replied: “Yes,” He asked: “Is this your view?”
They replied: “Yes, and the view of those after us.” So he leaned toward Urwah, the closest to him, and said: “May your father perish, how much did he pay these men for their religion?” Urwah said: “Four hundred,” and Mu‘awiya said: “Their religion was indeed cheap in their eyes.”
The Advice of al-Ahnaf b. Qays
Mu’awiyah was advised by his own governors to not choose Yazid, which testifies to his insincerity. If you see the words of Amr b. Hazm al-Ansari, he clearly calls Yazid out for having no goodness in him. Mu’awiyah knew this, but did not care. Ziyad b. Abihi is another one of those that opposed Yazid, but he was assassinated for this objection.
Another governor who did not see Yazid as a fit for Caliphate was al-Ahnaf b. Qays in Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 12, pg. 324:
Al-Mada’ini narrated from Idris b. Qadim from Umar b. Maymun that al-Dahhak b. Qays al-Fihri said to Muawiyah, after the people had taken their seats and this had been arranged by Muawiyah:
“O Commander of the Faithful, unify this Ummah through Yazid, for he is the most forbearing among us and the most knowledgeable.”
Then al-Ahnaf (b. Qays) said: “O Commander of the Faithful, disobey the one who commands you and advises you without considering your best interest. You are more aware of unity and more knowledgeable of uprightness.”
Muawiyah laughed and said: “That’s enough, may Allah have mercy on you.” It is also said that he (Ahnaf) replied: “You know more about Yazid’s nights and days than we do. We fear you if we believe you, and we fear Allah if we deny you.” So Muawiyah fell silent.
In a separate version, al-Ahnaf says ibn Uyun al-Akhbar, vol. 2, pg. 234 by Ibn Qutaybah and in Kamil Fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3, pg. 101:
Al-Aḥnaf said to Muʿāwiya: "You know Yazīd better than all of us in his night and day, in his secret and open affairs, so do not hand him the world while you are heading to the Hereafter."
Here, al-Ahnaf advises Mu’awiyah to not follow his personal desires and whims. Even though he knows more about Yazid than they do, they are aware of the immorality of Yazid and the consequences it would bring to the Ummah of choosing him. Hence, he says, ‘we fear you if we believe you, and fear Allah if we deny you’.
It means that if they accept Muʿāwiyah’s judgment about Yazid, it is out of fear of Muʿāwiyah. But if they reject his judgement, they do so out of fear of disobedience to Allah and accountability before Him. Why else would Ahnaf tell Mu’awiyah to not put Yazid in power?
If so many of Mu’awiyah’s governors objected to Yazid’s caliphate, then how can we argue in any way that Mu’awiyah chose Yazid for the sake of preserving the Ummah from fitna?
Objection 3: What’s wrong with a monarchy?
The evidence that Muʿawiyah appointed Yazid to establish hereditary rule is overwhelming. Arguing that this was acceptable ignores how the Companions themselves viewed monarchy. Figures such as Ibn al-Zubayr, ʿAʾisha, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakr all used the term "monarchy" as a criticism of Muʿawiyah and Yazid, while Muʿawiyah and the Umayyads themselves objected to being described in those terms. Even ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb feared being regarded as a king. This demonstrates that hereditary monarchy was widely viewed by the early Muslims as a blameworthy departure from the proper model of leadership.
This was recorded in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, Vol. 3, pg. 233:
Umar asked: “Am I a king or a caliph?” Salmān replied: “If you take from the land of the Muslims a single dirham or more or less, and place it where it does not belong, then you are a king, not a caliph.” So ‘Umar wept.
Umar asked: “By Allah, I do not know whether I am a caliph or a king. For if I am a king, that is a grave matter.” A man said: “O Commander of the Faithful, there is a difference between the two.” He said: “What is it?”
The man said: “The caliph takes only what is right and places it only where it is right; and by the praise of Allah, you are such. But the king rules harshly over the people, taking from one and giving to another.” So ‘Umar remained silent.
The narration of ‘Umar makes it very clear that kingship or monarchy is a sign of injustice, and only corrupt individuals desire to establish a monarchy. This is how all the companions like Umar, Salman, ‘A’isha, Sa‘d, and others understood monarchy. This is why ‘A’isha compared Mu‘awiyah’s rule to that of Pharaoh, as they collectively recognized the inherent wrongdoing in a monarchical system.
Lack of establishment for monarchy in scripture or reason
One of the major problems that comes with a system of monarchy, where the ruler is selected by virtue of lineage, instead of an ordinary caliphate, where the ruler is selected by virtue of merit, is that it lacks precedence from the Qur’an, Sunnah or reason. Allah (swt) says in his Holy book:
[This is] the established way of Allāh which has occurred before. And never will you find in the way of Allāh any change. (48:23)
Allah’s (swt) tradition never changes, he rewards those who do good and punishes those who do evil. His way of holding people accountable remains universal and consistent without change or contradiction ever.
However, this tradition of Allah (swt) extends not to just how he accounts for the people’s actions, it extends further on how he establishes his proof over the people. He, Might and Majestic, says:
[We sent] messengers as bringers of good tidings and warners so that mankind will have no argument against Allāh after the messengers. (4:165)
The key point to this being that Allah (swt) appoints the guides and messengers by virtue of their merit because choosing a corrupt man to represent His argument would be unwise of Allah (swt) and leave room for excuse for the people in rejecting his message.
Never do we find in the history of any stories about great men that were chosen by Allah (swt) filled with vices and evil before their appointment. Allah (swt)’s measure has always revolved around virtue, hence he says:
Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allāh is the most righteous of you. (49:13)
We began this point with the fact that Allah (swt) never changes his tradition, and his system for choosing a representative for His religion was based on merit and virtue, not on lineage alone. Therefore, the system of a monarchy, where the leader and representative of the religion is chosen by virtue of lineage instead of by merit, is a system that contradicts the tradition of Allah. He only selects those who are most deserving by virtue of their merit to represent and lead His religion, and not by merely being the son of another leader. The key point being: only.
Contradicts the Prophecy about caliphate
The second issue with the system of a monarchy is its open contradiction to authentic Hadiths from the Sunni corpus that Rasulullah (SAW) said that the caliphate will only last for 30 years. This was recorded in Jami` at-Tirmidhi 2226:
Sa'eed b. Jumhan narrated: "Safinah narrated to me, he said: 'The Messenger of Allah(s.a.w) said: "Al-Caliphate will be in my Ummah for thirty years, then there will be monarchy after that."' Then Safinah said to me: 'Count the Caliphate of Abu Bakr,' then he said: 'Count the Caliphate of 'Umar and the Caliphate of 'Uthman.' Then he said to me: 'Count the Caliphate of 'Ali."' He said: "So we found that they add up to thirty years."
Sa'eed said: "I said to him: 'Banu Umaiyyah claim that the Caliphate is among them.' He said: 'Banu Az-Zarqa' lie, rather they are a monarchy, among the worst of monarchies."'
The last sentence in red was mentioned in Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Vol. 20, pg. 187 - 188, Hadith # 38754 with another authenticated chain.
The report highlights that the caliphate ends after 30 years, which would be the end of Imam al-Hasan (AS)’s reign. Afterwards, monarchy takes over, and as Safina says, “they are the worst of monarchies”. This is another testimony from a companion that the Umayyads are a monarchy. How then can we claim that the Umayyad Dynasty had legitimacy in being recognised as caliphs?
Banu Umayyah are accursed
It is very well-attested, if not mutawatir, that Rasulullah (SAW) had cursed Banu Umayyah, Banu Zarqa and Banu Marwan according to many authentic traditions. This is the same group that would rule the majority of the Umayyad dynasty. For this reason, it delegitimises the entire monarchical system that the Sunnis uphold for the Umayyads, because a system cursed by Allah and His Messenger cannot be endorsed by them as well.
Below we shall mention the traditions:
Chain 1: Abu Hurarayh in Musnad Abu Ya'la in Vol. 11, pg. 348 and al-Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihain Vol. 4, pg. 527 Hadith # 8481:
Muṣʿab ibn ʿAbd Allāh narrated to us, he said: Ibn Abī Ḥāzim narrated to me, from al-ʿAlāʾ, from his father, from Abū Hurayrah:
The Messenger of Allah (saw) saw in a dream that the Banū al-Ḥakam were leaping upon his pulpit and descending from it. In the morning, he appeared upset and said: "Why is it that I saw Banū al-Ḥakam leaping upon my pulpit like monkeys?" He was never seen fully smiling again after that until he passed away.
Chain 2: Abdullah b. Amr in Musnad Ahmad Vol. 11, pg. 1, Hadith # 6520:
Narrated to us Ibn Umayr from Uthman b. Hakim from Abi Umama b. Sahl b. Hunayf from Abdullah b. Amr, who said:
We were sitting in the presence of Rasulullah (SAW), then Amr b. Aas wore his garments to join us, then Rasulullah (SAW) said while we were sitting in his presence: "An accursed man will enter upon you." By Allah (swt) we did not move, watching who enters and who goes out, until we saw so and so entered - meaning Al-Hakam.
Chain 3: Abdullah b. Zubayr in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, Vol. 26, pg. 51, Report # 16128:
Abd al-Razzaq narrated to us, Ibn ʿUyaynah informed us, from Isma'il b. Abi Khalid, from al-Shaʿbi, who said:
I heard ʿAbdullah b. al-Zubayr while leaning against the Kaʿbah, saying: “By the Lord of this Kaʿbah, indeed the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) cursed so-and-so and whatever was born from his loins.”
Note: This version of the report is censored, and only says “so-and-so”, but the same report with the same chain of ‘Abdul Razzaq is mentioned in Musnad al-Bazzar, Vol. 6, pg. 159, Hadith # 2197 and it mentions al-Hakam’s name, and al-Haythami certifies it. Al-Dhahabu likewise records al-Hakam’s name and certifies the report in Tarikh al-Islam. Vol. 3, pg. 368.
Chain 4: Aisha, whose report we have mentioned before but we will repeat it from Ibn Abi Khuthayma’s Tarikh al-Kabir, Vol. 3, pg. 22 - 23, Hadith # 6431:
And Musa b. Isma'il narrated to us, he said: Hammad b. Salamah narrated to us, from Muhammad b. Ziyad:
Indeed, Mu'awiyah wrote to Marwan b. al-Hakam to make the people pledge allegiance to Yazid. So 'Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Bakr said: “You have brought a Heraclean/Roman system (i.e. a Monarchy)! You pledge allegiance to your sons?!”
Marwan said: “O people, this is the one of whom Allah says: {He who said to his parents: 'Fie upon you! Do you promise me that I will be resurrected while generations have passed away before me?'}” [al-Ahqaf: 17].
A'ishah became angry and said: “By Allah, he is not that person, and if I wanted to name him, I would have. But Allah cursed your father while you were still in his loins, and you are a remnant of that curse.”
Chain 5: Imam al-Hasan (AS) in Musnad Abi Ya’la, Vol. 22, pg. 130, Hadith # 6764 and in Al-Matalib al-'Aliya, Vol. 18, pg. 265 where it was certified by Ibn Hajar:
Ibrahim ibn al-Hajjaj al-Sami narrated to us, Hammad ibn Salamah narrated to us, from Ata’ ibn al-Sa’ib, from Abu Yahya who said:
I was between al-Husayn and al-Hasan, and Marwan, and they were insulting one another. Hasan kept trying to calm Husayn. Then Marwan said: “A cursed household!” So Hasan became angry and said: “You said: ‘A cursed household’? By Allah, indeed Allah has cursed you upon the tongue of His Prophet while you were still in the loins of your father.”
Other chains:
It’s also recorded that Ya’la b. Murra narrated that the Prophet (SAW) had a vision that Banu Umayyah will be on his mimbar and it disturbed him in Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim, vol. 7, pg. 2336.
It also mentions that Sa’id b. al-Musayyab narrated this, and this was also mentioned in Tafsir al-Tha'labi, Vol. 4, pg. 59 - 60 alongside another chain going back to Sahl b. Sa’ad.
In another report we also read in Musnad Abi Ya'la, Vol. 13, Pg. 417 and al-Busri’s Itihaf al-Mahra, Vol. 8, Pg. 81:
Abu Barza said: ‘The people that Allah’s Apostle hated the most were the Banu Umaya, Banu Thaqif and Banu Hanifa’.
Our conclusion: The Prophet (SAW) would not approve of the mayyad dynasty as majority of their Kings were from Banu Umayya/Hakam/Marwan/Zarqa, while he would of his Ahl al-Bayt (AS) as they are descendants of Banu Hashim whom Allah has favored from amongst the ‘Arabs.
Objection 4: Are the Ahl al-Bayt a monarchy?
Some Sunnis argue that the Shi'a concept of Imamate is no different from hereditary monarchy because the Imams succeeded one another through the same family. However, the crucial distinction is that, in Shi'a belief, the Imams were appointed by Allah based on divine merit, not lineage. Their shared lineage is a consequence of God's choice, not the basis of it. Allah placed His chosen leaders within the same family to affirm their noble status, remove excuses for rejecting them, and make it easier for people to identify His divinely appointed representatives.
This is highlighted by a Hadith narrated in Jami' at-Tirmidhi 3606:
The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Indeed, Allah chose Kinanah from the children of Isma'il, and He chose Quraish from Kinanah, and He chose Hashim from Quraish, and He chose me from Banu Hashim.”
Bani Hashim was an exalted tribe, and thus it follows that the Imamate would be chosen from it, as it had the most noble of lineages that Allah (swt) had favoured.
Moreover, the famous Hadith in Sahih Muslim 1822a states:
I wrote (a letter) to Jabir b. Samura and sent it to him through my servant Nafi', asking him to inform me of something he had heard from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ). He wrote to me (in reply): I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say on Friday evening, the day on which al-Aslami was stoned to death (for committing adultery): The Islamic religion will continue until the Hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by twelve Caliphs, all of them being from the Quraish.
Thus, there are meant to be 12 caliphs. These 12 have religious authority over their people, which means they must be obeyed. If Allah (swt) chose Bani Hashim from the people, then would it make sense for anyone besides them to be of these 12 caliphs?
If the number of caliphs prophesied by Rasulullah (SAW) remained to be 12, then how is it that we find more than 100 caliphs within Sunni Islam? Clearly, there was a select number of caliphates per the command of Allah (swt), and they are not chosen through a monarch system, but rather through the virtue of their merit in the eyes of God. This conforms more with the Shi’a understanding of imamate.
« Full Series: Karbala: Between Secrets & Lights »
Comments