The first is that he was a Muslim entrusted with governing the community during the time of the Companions, and those of them who remained followed him. He possessed praiseworthy qualities and acted on an interpretation in the matters for which he is condemned, including the affair of al-Harra. Thus, they say that he exercised independent judgment but was mistaken. They also say that the people of al-Harra were the first to break their pledge of allegiance to him, and that Ibn ‘Umar and others condemned them for this. As for the killing of al-Husayn, he neither ordered it nor approved of it. Rather, he showed grief over his killing and condemned those who killed him. The head was not brought to him; it was brought only to Ibn Ziyād.

(The second ground is that it is established in Sahīh al-Bukhārī, on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar, that the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said:

“The first army to attack Constantinople will be forgiven.”

The commander of the first army to attack it was Yazīd.

“The sound conclusion” is that both these positions allow scope for independent judgment. Cursing those who commit sins is a matter open to independent judgment, as is loving those who perform both good and evil deeds. Indeed, in our view, there is no contradiction in a person deserving both praise and blame, both reward and punishment. Likewise, there is no contradiction in offering the funeral prayer for him and supplicating for him, while also cursing and reviling him, each on account of a different aspect of his conduct.

For Ahl al-Sunnah agree that flagrant sinners among the Muslims—even if they enter the Fire or deserve to enter it—must eventually enter Paradise. Thus, they receive both reward and punishment. The Khawārij and the Mu‘tazila, however, deny this. They hold that whoever deserves reward does not deserve punishment, and whoever deserves punishment does not deserve reward. This is a well-known issue, and its detailed exposition belongs elsewhere.