Muhammad: (23) Those whom Allah has cursed...

(Those) is a reference to the addressed [audience], employed by way of turning [the speech] (iltifat) as an indication that the mention of their disgraceful deeds has rendered them unworthy of being addressed, even for the purpose of rebuke or narrating their heinous statements to others. It is a subject (mubtada'), the predicate (khabar) of which is the statement of the Exalted: (whom Allah has cursed), meaning: He has distanced them from His mercy—the Exalted and Majestic—(and He made them deaf) to listening to the Truth, due to their deafness toward it by their own evil choice, (and He blinded their sight).

(23) (For their intentional blindness) to the signs that they observe, which are set up within their own selves and upon the horizons. The structure (He made them deaf / fa-asamahum) was used, and it did not say "He made their ears deaf" (fa-asamahum adhannahum), as was said (and He blinded their sight / wa-a‘ma absarahum) or "He blinded them" (wa-a‘mahum), as was said "He made them deaf" (fa-asamahum). It is said: Because if the ear were to be afflicted by cutting or removal, the speech would [still] be heard, so there was no need to mention the ear. As for the sight, which is the eye, if it were afflicted, seeing would be impossible; thus, the eye has a role in vision, while the ear has no [similar] role in hearing. This is finished, and it is as you see.

Al-Khafaji said: Because when deafness is mentioned, there is no need to mention the ears. As for blindness, due to its commonality regarding both the physical sight and the insight—to the point where it is said that it is literally [applied] to both, which is the apparent meaning in al-Qamus—when one of the two is intended, it is appropriate to specify it.

It is also said regarding the reason for this, based on the fact that blindness is literal in regard to the physical sight, that the expression "Allah blinded their sights" (a‘ma Allahu absarahum) is, in appearance, from the category of "I saw him with my eye," and this is said in a context that requires emphasis. Since the blindness of those whose situation in the matter of Jihad was narrated was not as apparent as their deafness—how could it be otherwise, when the previous verses indicate their lack of benefit from what was heard of the Quran, which is one of the effects of their deafness, while there is nothing in them indicating their lack of benefit from the visible signs set up in the selves and the horizons, which is one of the effects of their blindness?—it was appropriate to follow in each of the two clauses what was followed, while observing the endings (fawasila) in the latter [clause]. This is more precise than what preceded it.

Al-Arham (the ties of kinship) is the plural of rahm, with a fatha on the ra and a kasra on the ha. According to al-Qamus, it is kinship, or its origin and causes. Al-Raghib said: The rahm is the woman's womb, i.e., the house where her child grows and its vessel. From this, rahm is metaphorically used for kinship, because they have emerged from a single womb. It is said of relatives that they are dhu rahim (possessors of a womb), just as it is said of them that they are arham. Ibn al-Athir explicitly stated that dhu al-rahim applies to everyone who shares a lineage with you. In the laws of inheritance (fara'id), it is used for relatives through the female line. What is mentioned in its books is its interpretation as every relative who is not a sharer (sahib sahmi) or an agnate (‘asabah). They counted among this the children of sisters through both parents or through one parent, and the aunts of the fathers. The apparent meaning of the Imams' words regarding his (peace and blessings be upon him) statement, "Whoever owns a forbidden relative (dhu rahim mahram), he is freed," is that parents and children are included in dhu al-rahim linguistically, as they reached a consensus that they are manumitted by whoever owns them according to this Hadith, even if they differed regarding the manumission of others. Ibn Hajar al-Haythami explicitly stated in al-Zawajir that children are among the arham. The apparent meaning of linking "the nearest" to "the parents" in the verse dictates that the parents are not included in "the nearest," and thus they are not included in the arham—because they are, as they said, "the nearest." The words of our jurists are explicit in the non-inclusion of the parents and child in that, as they said: "If one bequeaths to his relatives or to his kin or to his arham, it is for the nearest, then the next nearest, among every dhu rahim, and the parents and the child are not included."

As for the grandfather and the child of the child, Abu al-Sa'ud narrated from the scholar Qasim from al-Bada'i‘ that the correct view is their non-inclusion, and this was chosen in al-Ikhtiyar, justifying it by saying that a relative is one who draws near to another through someone else, and the part-whole relationship is absent. In Sharh al-Hamawi, it says that their inclusion is the most correct. In the text of al-Mawahib, [the author] included—i.e., Muhammad [al-Shaybani]—the grandfather and the grandchildren, and this is the apparent view from both of them. He mentioned that the grandmother is like the grandfather. It may be said that the non-inclusion of the parents and child in that—and likewise the grandfather and grandchildren according to those who say they are not included—is not because the word does not apply to them linguistically, but because it does not apply to them by custom (‘urf). They considered custom, as al-Tahawi said in most matters of bequests. In Jami‘ al-Fusulayn, it states that absolute speech among people is relegated to what is customary. What was mentioned in al-Mi‘raj regarding the report, "Whoever calls his father a relative, he has disowned him," does not indicate that he is not a relative linguistically; rather, it is a statement of a legal ruling based on the fact that this is an annoyance to the father and a degradation of his status by custom. This is like if he called him by his name while he disliked that.

The matter of the conjunction in the noble verse is simple, as it is permissible to conjoin the general to the specific, just as it is to conjoin the specific to the general. Thus, what is preponderant in my view is that the arham, as they explicitly stated, are the relatives by non-causal kinship, and what is intended by them is the opposite of strangers. Included in them are the ascendants, descendants, and collateral relatives from the side of the father or the mother. There is no doubt about the prohibition of severing any of them, because, according to what we said, they are rahm. The verse is clear regarding the prohibition of severing the rahm. Al-Qurtubi narrated in his exegesis the consensus of the Ummah on the prohibition of severing them and the obligation of maintaining them. One should not hesitate in the fact that severing them is a major sin. It is astonishing how al-Rafi‘i—may mercy be upon him—hesitated regarding the statement of the author of al-Shamil that it is one of the major sins, and likewise [the hesitation of] al-Nawawi—may his soul be sanctified—in his confirmation of his hesitation.

There is a difference regarding what is intended by "severance." Abu Zur‘a said: It should be restricted to harm. Others said: It is the abandonment of benevolence, even without harm, because the Hadiths order maintenance and forbid severance, [and] there is a middle ground between them. Maintaining the rahm is to deliver a kind of benevolence, as many have interpreted it. Therefore, severance is its opposite: it is the abandonment of benevolence. Al-Haythami examined this, based on the interpretation of "undutifulness" (‘uquq) as doing something to one of the parents which, if done to a stranger, would be a forbidden minor sin; thus, it would become a major sin in relation to one of them, and [knowing] that the parents are greater than the rest of the relatives. He then said: The conclusion that fits their words and their distinction between undutifulness and severing the rahm is that the former means to do something to one of the parents that causes them harm; if the harm is not insignificant by custom, it is a major sin, even if it were not forbidden had it been done to someone else. The latter [means] severing what the relative was accustomed to in terms of previous maintenance and benevolence without a legal excuse, because severing that leads to estrangement and harm of hearts. So, if we assume that his relative had never received any benevolence or harm from him, he would not be a sinner by that—because if this were assumed regarding the parents without doing anything to them that warrants great harm (due to their wealth, for example), it would not be a major sin, so it is even more so for other relatives. Even if we assume that a person did not sever the benevolence his relative was accustomed to, but he committed a minor forbidden sin toward him, or frowned in his face, or did not stand for him in a gathering, or did not care for him, that would not be a sin, unlike [doing so] toward one of the parents, because the firmness of their right necessitates that they be distinguished from the rest of the relatives with [rights] that have no parallel among them.

Based on defining the latter [severance] by what I have mentioned, there is no difference whether the benevolence he was accustomed to from him was money, correspondence, visiting, or otherwise. Severing all of that after it had been established, without an excuse, is a major sin. The excuse regarding money should be defined as the loss of what he used to give him, or his own renewed need for it, or that the Lawgiver commanded him to prioritize someone else over the relative because they are more needy or more righteous. So, the absence of benevolence toward the relative, or prioritizing a stranger over him for this excuse, removes the sin from him, even if the relative's accustomed [support] is severed because of that—because he only observed the command of the Lawgiver to prioritize the stranger over him. It is clear that if a relative was accustomed to a specific amount of money from him that he gives him every year, for example, then reducing it is not a sin, unlike if he severed it from its root without an excuse. As for the excuse of "increase" [in benevolence], it should be governed by the excuse of Friday [prayer], that both are individual obligations (fard ‘ayn) and leaving them is a major sin. As for the excuse of abandoning correspondence or visiting, it is that he does not find anyone he trusts to deliver what he sends with him. The apparent [ruling] is that if he leaves the "increase" that was accustomed from him at a specific time for an excuse, he is not obligated to make it up at another time.

Children and paternal uncles are among the arham, and likewise the maternal aunt. Therefore, what was established regarding the difference between severing them and undutifulness to parents applies to them. As for the saying of al-Zarkashi: "It is authentic in the Hadith that the maternal aunt is in the position of the mother, and that the paternal uncle is the brother of the father," and the implication of them is that they are like the father and mother even in undutifulness—this is very far-fetched. It is sufficient that they resemble them in one matter, such as custody, which is proven for the maternal aunt just as it is for the mother, and likewise the prohibition of marriage (mahramiyyah), and like honoring the paternal uncle, and the mahramiyyah, and other things that were mentioned. This is the intended meaning.

If it were said: "A minor sin is considered a major one if done toward a relative, but it is less than if it were done toward one of the parents," this does not seem far-fetched to me, due to the variation in the ugliness of sins according to the attachments. Indeed, it is not far-fetched based on this that the ugliness of severing the rahm varies according to the person severing and the person severed. Once the variation is accepted, let it be said in undutifulness; thus, undutifulness toward the mother would be uglier than undutifulness toward the father, and likewise undutifulness toward a child who is cared for would be uglier than undutifulness toward a child who is not cared for. From this, [other] rulings branch out, which are not hidden from a jurist.

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab—may Allah be pleased with him—used this verse as evidence to forbid the sale of a mother of a child (umm al-walad). Al-Hakim narrated in al-Mustadrak and authenticated it, and Ibn al-Mundhir from Buraydah, who said: "I was sitting with ‘Umar when he heard a crier. He asked, and it was said: 'A slave-girl of Quraysh whose mother is being sold.' He sent for the Emigrants and the Helpers, and not an hour passed before the house and the courtyard were full. He praised Allah and extolled Him, then said: 'To proceed: Do you know that among what Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) brought is the severance of ties?' They said: 'No.' He said: 'It has become widespread among you.' Then he recited: (Would you then, if you were given authority, do mischief in the land and sever your ties of kinship?). Then he said: 'And what severance is more severe than selling a person's mother among you?' They said: 'Do what you see fit.' So he wrote to the regions that a free mother shall not be sold, for it is a severance of kinship, and it is not lawful."

It [the verse] was also used as evidence for the permissibility of cursing Yazid—may what he deserves from Allah be upon him. Al-Barzanji narrated in al-Isha‘ah and al-Haythami in al-Sawa‘iq that when Imam Ahmad was asked by his son ‘Abdullah about cursing Yazid, he said: "How can he not be cursed, whom Allah has cursed in His Book?" ‘Abdullah said: "I have read the Book of Allah the Exalted, and I did not find in it the cursing of Yazid." The Imam said: "Allah the Exalted says: (Would you then, if you were given authority, do mischief in the land and sever your ties of kinship? Those are they whom Allah has cursed). And what mischief and severance is more severe than what Yazid did?"

This is based on the permissibility of cursing a specific sinner from among a group who were cursed by description. There is disagreement regarding this. The majority hold that it is not permissible to curse a specific person, whether he is a sinner, a dhimmi, alive, or dead, unless his death in a state of disbelief is known—due to the possibility that his end might be good, or he ended his life with Islam, unlike one whose death in disbelief is known, such as Abu Jahl.

Shaykh al-Islam al-Siraj al-Bulqini went to the permissibility of cursing a specific sinner due to the Hadith of the two Sahihs: "If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses, and he spends the night angry, the angels curse her until morning." In another narration: "If a woman spends the night deserting her husband's bed, the angels curse her until morning." The possibility that the cursing of the angels—peace be upon them—is not specific to her, but general—by saying: "May Allah curse whoever spends the night deserting her husband's bed"—is far-fetched, even if his son, al-Jalal al-Bulqini, discussed it with him.

In al-Zawajir, [he said]: If one were to use as evidence for this the report of Muslim that he (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by a donkey branded on its face and said: "May Allah curse the one who did this," it would be more apparent, as the reference with "the one who" is explicit in cursing a specific person, unless it is interpreted as meaning the genus (jins). There is what there is in that.

Based on this opinion, there is no hesitation in cursing Yazid due to his many attributes and his commission of major sins throughout the days of his legal accountability. Sufficient is what he did during the days of his subjugation of the people of Medina and Mecca. It has been narrated by al-Tabarani with a hasan chain: "O Allah, whoever wrongs the people of Medina and terrifies them, terrify him, and upon him be the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people, neither a mandatory nor a voluntary deed will be accepted from him." And the greatest misfortune is what he did to the Family of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt) and his pleasure at the killing of al-Husayn—upon his grandfather be peace and blessings—and his rejoicing at that, and his insulting of the members of his family, which is mutawatir in meaning, even if its details are ahad. In the Hadith: "Six I have cursed"—and in another narration "Allah has cursed them, and every Prophet whose prayer is answered: The one who alters the Book of Allah"—and in another narration "The one who adds to the Book of Allah, the one who denies the decree of Allah, the one who gains authority by tyranny to honor whom Allah has humbled and humble whom Allah has honored, the one who makes lawful [the killing of] my progeny, and the one who abandons my Sunnah." A group of scholars have affirmed his disbelief and explicitly declared him cursed, among them the preserver of the Sunnah, Ibn al-Jawzi, and he was preceded by the Judge Abu Ya‘la. The scholar al-Taftazani said: "We do not hesitate regarding his situation; indeed, [we do not hesitate] in his faith—may the curse of Allah be upon him and his supporters and his aides." Among those who explicitly declared him cursed is al-Jalal al-Suyuti—may mercy be upon him.

In Tarikh Ibn al-Wardi and the book al-Wafi bi-al-Wafiyyat, it is mentioned that when the captives arrived from Iraq to Yazid, he went out and met the children and women from the offspring of ‘Ali and al-Husayn—may Allah be pleased with them—and the heads were on the tips of spears, and they had overlooked the pass of Jayrun. When he saw them, a crow croaked, and he began to say: When those camels appeared, and those heads overlooked the brink of Jayrun, / The crow croaked, so I said: 'Croak or croak not, for I have exacted my debts from the Messenger.' He meant that he had killed, for those killed by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) on the day of Badr, like his grandfather ‘Utbah, his maternal uncle, the son of ‘Utbah, and others. This is explicit disbelief; if it is authentic from him, then he has disbelieved by it. Similar to this is his quoting of the lines of ‘Abdullah ibn al-Ziba‘ri before his conversion: "Would that my elders..." [the verses].

Al-Ghazali—may Allah forgive him—issued a fatwa on the prohibition of cursing him. Al-Safarini the Hanbali scrutinized the transfer of al-Barzanji and al-Haythami mentioned earlier from Ahmad—may Allah have mercy on him—and said: "The preserved view from Imam Ahmad is the opposite of what they narrated. In al-Furu‘ it is stated: 'Some of our companions have expelled al-Hajjaj from Islam, so the same applies to Yazid and his like.' But the text of Ahmad is contrary to that, and this is the view of the companions. It is not permissible to specify [him] with a curse, contrary to Abu al-Husayn, Ibn al-Jawzi, and others. Shaykh al-Islam—I mean, and Allah knows best, Ibn Taymiyyah—said: 'The apparent meaning of Ahmad's words is dislike.' I [the author] say: The chosen view is what al-Jawzi, Abu Husayn the Judge, and those who agreed with them went to." This is the end of al-Safarini’s words.

Abu Bakr ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maliki—may what he deserves from Allah be upon him—fabricated a great lie, claiming that al-Husayn was killed by the sword of his grandfather (peace and blessings be upon him), and he has some ignorant people who agree with that. (A monstrous word that comes out of their mouths; they say nothing but a lie). Al-Jawzi—may mercy be upon him—said in his book al-Sirr al-Masun: "Among the common beliefs that have prevailed over a group of those affiliated with the Sunnah is to say: 'Yazid was correct, and al-Husayn—may Allah be pleased with him—erred in rising against him.' If they had looked at the biographies, they would have known how the oath of allegiance was contracted for him and how he forced people to it, and he committed every ugly act in that. Then, if we assume the validity of the oath of allegiance, everything that emanated from him warrants the dissolution of the contract. No one inclines toward that except an ignorant, common-minded person who thinks that he is thereby provoking the Rafidah."

This is so, and it is known from all that has been mentioned that people differ regarding his situation: some say he is a sinner who committed what he did against the pure family, but it is not permissible to curse him; some say he is such, and it is permissible to curse him with or without dislike; some say he is a disbeliever and cursed; and some say he did not sin by that and it is not permissible to curse him—and the utterer of this should be included in the chain of Yazid's supporters.

As for me, what preponderates in my thought is that the wicked one did not believe in the message of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and that the sum of what he did with the people of the Sacred Sanctuary of Allah, the people of His Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and his pure and holy progeny in life and after death, and the disgraceful acts that issued from him, is not weaker in evidence of his lack of belief than throwing a page of the Noble Quran into filth. I do not think that his affair was hidden from the eminent Muslims at that time, but they were overcome and suppressed, and they heard nothing but "patience, until Allah passes a matter that was to be done." If it were granted that the wicked one was a Muslim, he is a Muslim who collected major sins that the scope of explanation cannot encompass. I hold the view of the permissibility of cursing such a person specifically, even if it is not imagined that there could be another like him among the sinners. It is apparent that he did not repent, and the possibility of his repentance is weaker than his faith. Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Sa‘d, and a group [of others] are attached to him; so the curse of Allah—the Exalted and Majestic—be upon them all, and upon their supporters, their aides, their factions, and whoever inclined toward them until the Day of Judgment, as long as an eye tears for Abu ‘Abdullah al-Husayn.

I am pleased with the words of the poet of the era, the one with clear virtue, ‘Abd al-Baqi Efendi al-‘Umari al-Mawsili, when he was asked about cursing the cursed Yazid: Yazid is broad in the scope for my cursing, / So I shall remain, throughout my days, cursing the most cursed.

Whoever fears gossip and talk from explicitly cursing that misleader, let him say: "May Allah—the Exalted and Majestic—curse whoever was pleased with the killing of al-Husayn, and whoever harmed the family of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) without right and usurped their right," for he would be cursing him by his entry under the generalization, an entry that is primary in the reality of the matter. No one disagrees on the permissibility of cursing with these words and their like except Ibn al-‘Arabi, who was mentioned, and those who agree with him; for they, according to the apparent [meaning] of what is narrated from them, do not permit cursing those who were pleased with the killing of al-Husayn—may Allah be pleased with him—and that, by my life, is the far-reaching misguidance that almost exceeds the misguidance of Yazid.