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

Muslim religious scholars and the Muslim masses paid a heavy price for the Yazid-style kingship which inflicted untold suffering on the Muslim world by forestalling the intellectual development of Muslim nations, and hindered the development of the justice systems Muslims were obliged to establish.

The period from Yazid's genocide (ca 680) to the killing of Abu Hanif (ca 767) was
the first serious and deep black mark on the evolving Muslim system of governance. Later on, many Muslim leaders tried, but had a hard time, attempting to bring about "Islamic revolution" in the Muslim governance and judicial systems.

The vast majority of Muslim scholars, irrespective of their shia or sunni affiliations, have condemned Yazid categorically and have concluded that "governmental Islam" is a necessary evil which must be under continuous, comprehensive scrutiny by the governed subjects (i.e., "unofficial Islam"). So-called "official Islam" might even prove to be very dangerous for the Muslim masses. Such a case occurred in Bangladesh in 1971, when we witnessed violence and killing, directly, under official "Pakistani Islam."

An Islamic judicial system is supposed to stop all kinds of killing, and even prevent such crimes before they can occur in Muslim territories. But in reality, we find that Muslims are killing Muslims everywhere, and Muslim governments are the main culprits behind all kinds of massacre, atrocities, and genocide. These inhuman governmental crimes are different than the smaller crimes usually committed by ordinary individuals.

Kadis (judges) were allowed to handle ordinary criminal cases according to the standard of economic and cultural development of the people under their jurisdictions. No one, including the Muslim rulers, had any right to reinforce any severe punishments directly mentioned in the letters of Quranic laws. Kadis could simply ignore any fiqh-laws or fatwah prescribed by the Muftis (juris-counsel) and, moreover, Kadis were not bound to explain why, in their own localities, they chose to avoid any particular corporal punishment prescribed in the main scriptures of Islam (i.e., the Quran and Hadiths).

But Kadis, acting under their own initiative, were not allowed to use any leniency in murder cases. Under a full independence of judiciary, the Kadi al-Qudat (chief Justice) would have been able to initiate many murder charges against Yazid, and could have sentenced him to death for instigating genocide in the Karbala ca 680.

After ca 750, many Yazidi traditions began to change and the Muslim polity began to successfully revitalize many principles of Islamic systems of governance. But the ideal period of the rule of righteous Caliphs was never returned in Muslim civilization. From Ghazali (died 1111) to Ibn Khaldun (died 1406), most of the highly reputed Muslim scholars warned that Yazidi traditions could not serve any good to Muslims and humanity. The clarion call for the revival of true Islam remained active in all inner circles of Islamic polity and religiosity.

Abu Hanifa tried to correct Muslim rulers and declared that no pious person with financial solvency should serve as a Kazi, even under the Abbadists who were million times better than Yazid. Abu Hanifa was possibly the first Faqi (jurist) of great eminence who declared categorically that Muslim rulers had no right to administer corporal punishment under any circumstances for any ordinary theft of food or other basic commodities for daily use.

Most Fuqaha (jurists) have created an Islamic consensus (ijma) that the Islamic state is essentially a Welfare State intended to put the public interest above all kinds of individual luxury, and that envisions a complete eradication of poverty at all levels, if it is to be a truly Islamic state. Many modern researchers feel that Salman Farsi (a great Companion and strategist of the Prophet of Islam) was the main architect of the comprehensive ideal of the Universal Caliphate as an Islamic Welfare state.

The second Caliph declared that a Muslim ruler would be accountable in front of God, if even a dog dies from hunger or cruelty, in any corner of the Islamic Caliphate. Our prophet stated that at his visit to Miraj (observing heaven and hell directly) he saw that a pious woman was thrown into hell because of her cruelty to a cat.

This is the guiding spirit or principle of an Islamic state based on al-masalih al-mursalah (public interest). Mercy is the cornerstone of Islam, and the Quran declares the Prophet of Islam to be the model of Rahmatul lil Alamin (kindness toward all of humanity). Yet, today, many Muslim political forces give Islam a very bad name, as they cry out in favor of corporal punishment for poverty-stricken people and ignore the fundamental right of all to live in peace and dignity without any intimidation.


There might be many reasons why a particular system of criminal justice, based on corporal punishment, cannot be regarded as a cornerstone of any form of Islamic governance, and thus can be suspended for a definite or indefinite time. That does not mean that I am supporting the Western jail systems which keep millions of people behind bars. Perhaps a good many of Western prisoners are also the victims of a faulty criminal justice system. The idea that, by reviving some corporal punishments in the name of Islam, we would be able to solve many or all of the problems Muslim nations and societies confront today is, indeed, based on un-Islamic or anti-Islamic theory.

Throughout its pages, the Quran identifies itself as a book of guidance for a moderate and straight path. In addition, the Quran provides some specific rules and regulations to regulate one's human behavior as a trader or cultivator, husband or wife, employer or employee, and so forth.

Although the Prophet emerged as the head of the first Islamic State in Medinah, none of the contracts he signed with the tribal leaders had any mention of Quranic verses. Why is it that, for such a long time, Muslims have shown disregard for such Prophetic traditions? Nowadays, most Muslim scholars don't even regard the Quran as one of the miracles or mysteries given into the hands of the Prophet of Islam. Many Muslims tend to treat the Quran as if it is merely a law book or history book.

If one chooses to treat the Quran as a law book, presumably one could still derive some specific rules and regulations from it, to be enforced for all Muslims, all of the time. But the Quran itself warns Muslims not to treat it as a literal list of rules. Likewise, in many hadiths, the Prophet of Islam prohibited the imposition of any rigid rule pertaining to worldly affairs or spiritual matters.


by Dr. Maimul Ahsan Khan from USA