পৃষ্ঠা 48: প্রথম অধ্যায়: দূরবর্তী আলামতসমূহ যা ইতিমধ্যে প্রকাশ পেয়ে অতিক্রান্ত হয়েছে

Mention of what occurred between the Umayyads and those who opposed them and contested them regarding the Caliphate

The author's statement regarding his opinion on this matter

[It is argued] that his father had appointed him as successor, and with succession appointment this is not conditioned; and there is no doubt that his father had indeed become a rightful caliph by al-Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) stepping down in his favor and the people uniting upon him.

This is refuted by the fact that this [prohibition of rebellion] only applies after the stabilization of legal rulings and the establishment of consensus on the impermissibility of rebelling against an unjust ruler. As for prior to that, the matter was subject to ijtihad (independent juridical reasoning), and the ijtihad of al-Husayn (may Allah Exalted be pleased with him) necessitated the permissibility, rather the obligation, of rebelling against Yazid; due to his injustice and atrocious deeds that deafen the ears. Furthermore, Yazid's allegiance was never established in the view of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) and others who did not pledge allegiance to him, while those who did pledge allegiance to him were coerced into doing so.

The utmost that can be said of Yazid's condition, if he was not a disbeliever, is that he was an unjust, transgressive, usurping ruler. And the prohibition of rebelling against an unjust ruler applies only after the stabilization of affairs and the passing of those early eras. [End of quote].

I say: Moreover, Yazid was an immoral, ignorant person, whereas the prerequisite for appointing a successor from the outset is knowledge of legal rulings and uprightness ('adalah). As for their statement: 'The supreme leader is not deposed on account of transgression,' this only pertains to continuance in office, not to the initial appointment, for transgression indeed prevents the pledge of allegiance from taking effect initially.

As for Yazid's usurpation of power by force, it only occurred after the martyrdom of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), and even after the event of al-Harrah, wherein most of those who were truly deserving of the caliphate were killed.

Furthermore, the people of Makkah never pledged allegiance to him, and they insisted, alongside Ibn al-Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with them both), on fighting during his time and during the time of his father Mu'awiyah.

Then, after the death of Mu'awiyah ibn Yazid, the people of all regions pledged allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr, and rule was established for him over the Hijaz, Yemen, Egypt, Iraq, the entire East, and all of the lands of the Levant, even Damascus. None held back from giving him allegiance except the Umayyads and those who followed their inclinations, who were situated in Palestine.

Marwan even intended to journey to Makkah to pledge allegiance to him, but the Umayyads dissuaded him and instead pledged allegiance to him for the caliphate. He then set out with those who obeyed him toward Damascus and fought al-Dahhak ibn Qays, who had pledged allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr. They clashed at Marj Rahit, where al-Dahhak was killed, and Marwan gained dominance over the Levant. Thereafter, he headed toward Egypt and besieged Ibn al-Zubayr's governor there until he seized control of it in Rabi' al-Akhir in the year sixty-five [AH]. He died in that very year, so his reign lasted only six months.