Why did Yazid ibn Mu’awiya not take qisas (retribution) from the killers of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)?
A bigger question than “Why did Yazid ibn Mu’awiya not take qisas for the blood of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)?” is this: Why did none of the contemporaries of the Karbala incident, or the Salaf of the blessed early generations, object to Yazid for not taking qisas for the blood of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)?
Forget objecting; none of them even demanded qisas. Not even a single demand for qisas came from the family of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Some answer this by saying that Yazid himself was the killer, which is why no demand for qisas was made of him.
However, this answer raises a new question: Did the people of that era also call Yazid the killer of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)? If he was the one behind this crime, and for that reason, no demand for qisas was made, then the accusation for this crime should have been leveled against him!
Now, no one should say that people didn’t make this accusation out of fear of Yazid, because when some people were not afraid to call Yazid a drunkard, what could have stopped them from calling Yazid the killer of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)?
In any case, to claim Yazid was the killer of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), one must answer why the people of that time did not consider him the culprit in this matter. This is especially true on the occasion of the Battle of al-Harra, when the people of Madinah broke their allegiance to Yazid and leveled many accusations against him, yet no one charged him with the crime of being the killer of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him).
Even more significantly, when the brother of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), Muhammad ibn al-Hanafiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), was questioned about Yazid’s crimes and sins, his opponents said many things, but no one said that he was the killer of his brother, Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)!
On the other hand, there are clear testimonies from the Sahaba and Ahl al-Bayt that they declared the Iraqis to be the killers of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him). Therefore, the truth is that Yazid was not the killer of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him).
Now, the question remains: if Yazid was not the killer, why did he not take qisas from the killers of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)???
To find the correct answer to this question, it is essential to know that in the blessed early generations, we see two types of martyrs. The first type was for whom the Salaf would demand qisas, and qisas would be carried out. At the same time, we also see a type of martyr for whom neither qisas was demanded nor was it carried out. This was the practice of that era. See the details below:
These are the martyrs who were killed in a state of peace. That is, at the time of their martyrdom, they had not gone out to fight anyone, were not part of any fighting group, nor were they near a battlefield. Rather, they were in their homes or busy with their daily routines when they were suddenly attacked and “martyred.”
For all such martyrs in Islamic history, qisas was taken for their blood, and the killer was executed. For example:
➊ The Second Caliph, Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him)
His martyrdom did not occur in a state of war but while he was in prayer in the mosque. It is obvious that qisas is necessary here. Consequently, the companions caught the killer, Abu Lu’lu’, in the mosque itself, after which he committed suicide by injuring himself [Sahih al-Bukhari 3700]. According to al-Waqidi, “Abdullah ibn Awf al-Zuhri” beheaded him [Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar Sader ed., 3/348]. In fact, when Umar’s (may Allah be pleased with him) son, Ubaydullah ibn Umar, found out that three more people from Abu Lu’lu’s household were involved in the conspiracy, he went to their house and killed all three of them [Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq 5/480, and its chain is authentic].
➋ The Third Caliph, Sayyiduna Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him)
His martyrdom also did not occur on a battlefield. He was in his home with his family and children. He had not gone out to fight anyone. In fact, he did not even fight back against his attackers and stopped other well-wishers from fighting, even though he was the Caliph [Tarikh Khalifa ibn Khayyat, p. 173, and its chain is authentic]. It is obvious that if such a peace-loving person who refrained from fighting—and who was also a Caliph and a Companion promised Paradise—was brutally murdered by entering his house, then taking qisas from such killers would be obligatory in every respect. That is why the esteemed Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) demanded qisas. Ultimately, every one of the killers of Uthman was either killed or executed in qisas by Mu’awiya (may Allah be pleased with him).
➌ Abdullah ibn Khabbab ibn al-Aratt (may Allah have mercy on him)
The Khawarij unjustly killed him [Al-Mustadrak lil-Hakim, Hind ed., 2/153, and its chain is authentic]. He was not involved in any of the Muslims’ battles; rather, he kept himself separate from all kinds of fighting. Humaid ibn Hilal narrates from an eyewitness (whose name was withheld so the Khawarij would not kill him) that one day he was traveling with his pregnant wife. The Khawarij asked him to narrate a hadith of the Prophet, so he narrated the hadith in which the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) commanded staying away from infighting among Muslims. Upon hearing this, the Khawarij laid him down on the bank of a river and slaughtered him. They then ripped open his wife’s stomach, killed her child, and killed her as well. [Al-Mu’jam al-Kabir lil-Tabarani, no. 3629, its chain is hasan li-ghayrihi, and the unnamed man is the companion of Humaid]. When Sayyiduna Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) found out, he told the Khawarij to hand over his killers to him so he could take qisas, because they had unjustly killed a harmless person. They replied, “We all killed him.” So Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “Then we will fight all of you.” [Musaddad, as cited in Al-Matalib al-Aliyah 18/219, hasan li-ghayrihi except for a few words]. The killing of this harmless Muslim, along with his wife and child, by the Khawarij and Ali’s (may Allah be pleased with him) subsequent demand for qisas became the cause of the Battle of Nahrawan.
➍ The Fourth Caliph, Sayyiduna Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him)
When he was martyred, he was not in a state of war either. Rather, he was on his way to the prayer mat for salah when Abd al-Rahman ibn Muljam launched a murderous attack on him [Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah 21/182, and its chain is authentic], after which he passed away a few days later (may Allah be pleased with him). [Maqtal Ali li-Ibn Abi al-Dunya, p. 82, and its chain is authentic]. Later, after Hasan (may Allah be pleased with him) became the Caliph, the killer was also executed in qisas by his command. [Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra, Dar Sader ed., 3/39, hasan bi-al-shawahid].
➎ Sayyiduna Kharijah ibn Hudhafah (may Allah be pleased with him)
He was on his way to the prayer mat to lead the prayer in place of Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him) upon his order when the assassin attacked him, causing his martyrdom. [Futuh Misr wa al-Maghrib, p. 131, and its chain is authentic]. Then the governor of Egypt, Amr ibn al-As (may Allah be pleased with him), had this killer executed in qisas. [Tarikh al-Tabari 5/149; Futuh Misr wa al-Maghrib, p. 131, and its chain is authentic].
✿ ◄ ◄ Ponder this: The common factor in the martyrdom of all these individuals is that they were all in a state of peace at the time of their death. That is, these personalities were in the mosque, at home, or in their local area. None of them were in a state of war or near a battlefield at the time of their martyrdom. This is why an account was taken for the blood of each of these martyrs, and the killer of each was executed in qisas.
These are the martyrs who were killed in a state of war. That is, at the time of their martyrdom, they had gone out to fight a group, were with the fighters, or were near a battlefield, and were martyred in that state.
For any martyrs of this nature in Islamic history, qisas was neither taken for their blood, nor was it ever demanded. For example:
➊ Sayyiduna Zubayr ibn al-Awwam (may Allah be pleased with him)
He participated in the Battle of the Camel but withdrew at the end. Ahnaf treacherously martyred him on the road. This cursed man beheaded him (may Allah be pleased with him) and presented his head to Ali (may Allah be pleased with him). Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) gave this killer the news of Hellfire. [Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra by Ibn Sa’d: 3/110, and its chain is authentic]. A question arises in the minds of many here: when Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) did not consider the killing of Zubayr (may Allah be pleased with him) to be right, and was in fact giving his killer the news of Hellfire, then why did Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) not take qisas from this killer, even though he was a confessed criminal, alone, and present before Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)??? Read this article to the end, and Insha’Allah, you will find a reasonable answer.
➋ Sayyiduna Talha ibn Ubaydullah (may Allah be pleased with him)
He also participated in the Battle of the Camel. One narration indicates that Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) was also aware of who killed him. [Al-Mustadrak lil-Hakim, Hind ed., 2/353, no. 3348, and its chain is authentic].
Benefit:-
The Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) prophesied the martyrdom of Zubayr and Talha (may Allah be pleased with them both) during his lifetime and called them “martyrs” [Sahih Muslim 2417]. This is evidence that Zubayr and Talha (may Allah be pleased with them both) were also martyred in the path of truth; they were not rebels, God forbid, otherwise the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) would not have called their death a “martyrdom.”
Imam Abu Abdullah Shams al-Din al-Qurtubi (d. 671 AH) says:
« فلو كان ما خرج إليه من الحرب عصيانا لم يكن بالقتل فيه شهيدا… لأن الشهادة لا تكون إلا بقتل في طاعة»
“If Talha’s (may Allah be pleased with him) participation in the war had been an act of disobedience, he would not be considered a ‘martyr’ for being killed in it… because martyrdom is only attained by being killed in the path of obedience.” [Al-Jami’ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an by al-Qurtubi: 16/321].
In fact, it is absolutely incorrect to call any companion martyred in any internal conflict among Muslims a rebel.
➌ Ka’b ibn Sur al-Azdi (may Allah have mercy on him)
Sayyiduna Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed him as the judge of Basra. He stayed away from the internal conflicts of the Muslims and invited people to do the same, forbidding them from participating in infighting. On the occasion of the Battle of the Camel, some people asked him to go and advise the two parties so that people would stop fighting each other. He went to the battlefield with the intention of making peace and reconciliation and tried to stop both sides by appealing to them in the name of Allah. In this state, he too was martyred. [Akhbar al-Qudat 1/281; Tarikh Khalifa p. 185].
➍ Sayyiduna Ammar ibn Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him)
His martyrdom occurred in the Battle of Siffin. [Al-Mustadrak lil-Hakim, Hind ed., 3/389, and its chain is authentic].
➎ Sayyiduna Husayn ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with him)
The martyrdom of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) occurred in the Battle of Karbala. This battle took place between the caravan of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), including the people of Kufa present in it, and the army of Umar ibn Sa’d. People from both sides killed each other. [Tarikh al-Tabari 3/299, and its chain is authentic]. The number of people killed on both sides is not transmitted through any authentic chain, but the oldest reference in this regard is Tabaqat Ibn Sa’d, in which it is narrated through multiple chains:
«وقتل مع الحسين. اثنان وسبعون رجلا. وقتل من أصحاب عمر بن سعد. ثمانية وثمانون رجلا»
“72 men were killed from Husayn’s (may Allah be pleased with him) side, and 88 men were killed from Umar ibn Sa’d’s army.” [Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra 1/475; see also: Ansab al-Ashraf 3/411; Tarikh al-Tabari 5/455].
This narration indicates that the number of casualties on both sides was almost equal, but even this number seems exaggerated. Only Allah knows the correct number of casualties on both sides. Regarding Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), Ibn Sa’d narrated:
« يقاتل قتال الفارس الشجاع »
“He was fighting like a brave knight.” [Al-Tabaqat al-Kubra 1/470].
The Shia claim that Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) single-handedly killed a thousand men. In fact, al-Mas’udi wrote:
«قتل بيده ذلك اليوم الفا وثماني مائة مقاتل»
“On that day, he (Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him) killed one thousand eight hundred combatants with his own hands.” [Ithbat al-Wasiyyah lil-Mas’udi: p. 178; and in another version, p. 147].
None of these claims are proven by an authentic chain of narration.
Only Allah knows best what Husayn’s (may Allah be pleased with him) conduct was in this battle. It is possible that Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) did not kill anyone and was only urging both sides to refrain from fighting, and was martyred during this effort, just as in the Battle of the Camel, the judge of Basra, Ka’b ibn Sur al-Azdi (may Allah have mercy on him), went not to fight but to stop the two sides from fighting, yet he was also martyred. And Allah knows best.
✿ ◄ ◄ The common factor among all the martyrs of the second type is that their martyrdom occurred in a state of war and battle, whether someone participated in the fighting or went to the battlefield for some other reason. Abdullah ibn Amr (may Allah be pleased with him) went to the Battle of Siffin not to fight but merely out of consideration for his father. Had he been martyred, his martyrdom would have been of the same nature. Even if someone went to the battlefield with the intention and effort of making peace and was martyred, his martyrdom is of the same category, as was the case with the judge of Basra, Ka’b ibn Sur al-Azdi (may Allah have mercy on him), in the Battle of the Camel, as mentioned before.
For the latter type of martyrdom, qisas was neither demanded nor taken. This was the practice of the Salaf, and this is also established from their statements. For instance:
● Imam Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib (d. 94 AH) (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
«إذا التقت الفئتان فما كان بينهما من دم أو جراحة، فهو هدر، ألا تسمع إلى قول الله عز وجل: ﴿ وَإِنْ طَائِفَاتَانِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ اقْتَتَلُوا﴾ [الحجرات: 9] فتلا الآية حتى فرغ منها، قال: فكل واحدة من الطائفتين ترى الأخرى باغية»
“If two factions clash, then whatever blood is shed or injury is inflicted between them is considered hadr (void, without liability for retaliation). Have you not heard the saying of Allah the Almighty: ﴿And if two factions among the believers should fight﴾ [Al-Hujurat: 9].” Then Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib recited the entire verse and said, “So each of the two factions considers the other to be the aggressor.” [Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq: 10/122, and its chain is authentic].
● Imam Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (d. 125 AH) (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
« أدركت الفتنة الأولى أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فكانت فيها دماء وأموال فلم يقتص فيها من دم ولا مال ولا قرح أصيب بوجه التأويل إلا أن يوجد مال رجل بعينه فيدفع إلى صاحبه »
“I witnessed the first fitna (the Battles of Camel and Siffin) when the companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) were present. In it, blood was shed and property was lost (during the war) based on ta’wil (differing interpretations), but no qisas was taken for the blood, no compensation was sought for the financial losses, and no blood money was taken for the wounds inflicted. However, if a specific person’s specific property was found intact with someone, it was returned to its owner.” [Al-Umm 4/227, its chain to al-Zuhri is authentic through a supporting narration, Mutarrif is supported by Abd al-Razzaq no. 18584].
● This is also the established position of Imam al-Shafi’i and Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on them). [Al-Umm by Imam al-Shafi’i 4/227, Al-Sunnah by al-Khallal 1/152].
✿ This detailed explanation not only answers why Yazid ibn Mu’awiya did not take qisas for the blood of Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), but it also resolves the puzzle of why none of the Sahaba, Tabi’in, or even the members of the Ahl al-Bayt of that era made any demand for qisas.
In truth, during that era, there was no law or custom of taking qisas or demanding it for martyrdoms that occurred in a state of war. As soon as the war ended, all the matters that occurred during the war also ended. This is the harsh reality of war, which is why the Prophet of Allah (peace be upon him) commanded people to stay away and remain in their homes or move to a distant area during times of civil strife. And in such situations, this was the practical and stated position of the majority of the Salaf.
(Abul Fawzan Kifayatullah Sanabili)
Discover the Islamic belief on the soul’s fate after death, its journey through Barzakh, and eternal life in Paradise or… Read More
Explore the Islamic ruling on hosting Walimah after Nikah or consummation, with scholarly views on its obligation and timing. Read More
Discover how Muslim women’s faith and obedience can transform society. Learn key Islamic teachings from the Quran and Hadith Read More
Explore the authentic Sahih al-Bukhari narration refuting claims that Hind bint Utbah ordered Hamza's death Read More
Explore the profound significance of Fajr prayer in Islam, its immense rewards, and why it's a crucial test of faith Read More
Explore the often-overlooked third group of Companions who chose to abstain from internal fighting during a tumultuous period in Islamic… Read More