The Alleged Comments of Muhammad al Hanafiyya

The Alleged Comments of Muhammad al Hanafiyya

The Nasibi have left no stone unturned in their efforts to protect Yazeed, and what a surprise! They find a tradition that they deem to be so solid that they in effect destroy everything that the Sunni Ulema had stated before!

Kr-hcy.com states:

THE SHIAS HAVE DONE A LOT OF MUD-SLINGING ON THE CONDUCT AND CHARACTER OF YAZID TRYING OUT OF MALICE AND PREJUDICE TO FALSELY PROJECT HIM AS ADDICTED TO WINE AND PASSION ON ACCOUNT OF SHEER ILL-WILL AND ENMITY. THIS HAS BEEN REFUTED BY MUHAMMAD BIN-AL-HANIFA, THE ELDER BROTHER OF HAZRAT HUSAYN WHO REMARKED:

“WHATEVER ILL YOU SAY ABOUT HIM (YAZID), I HAVE WITNESSED NONE OF THE SAME. I HAVE STAYED WITH HIM AND FOUND HIM A REGULAR WORSHIPPER (I.E. FAST OBSERVER OF SALAT), WELL WISHER OF OTHERS, FONDER OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF SHARI’AH AND ABIDING BY THE SUNNAH OF THE PROPHET (SAW).” (VOL. VIII P. 233 ).

THEREFORE, UNENLIGHTENED MUSLIMS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SHIAS SHOULD NOT TRANSGRESS THE LIMITS OF CURSING YAZID IN THEIR LOVE FOR HAZRAT HUSAYN AND AHLE-BAIT.

Reply One

The reference comes from Ibn Kathir’s famed work ‘al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaya’ and both Azam Tariq and Abu Sulaiman produced this same reference as evidence of Yazeed’s immense piety but the episode is not going to help the Nawasib since Ibn Kathir quoted it without mentioning the original source or its chain of narration which was quite unusual on Ibn Kathir’s part. Thus, this episode will be considered baseless and weak until our opponent proves that it is considered as authentic in their school. Still for the sake of arguments we would also like to add some additional replies for the followers of Mu’awiya to mull over.

Reply Two

We find no evidence in any Shi’a book, wherein Muhammad al Hanafiyya had made such a claim. This reference can only be located in a book belonging to the people of Mu’awiya, and such a reference has no bearing on the Shi’a.

Reply Three

This is a fabricated tradition for no Shia or Sunni scholar with the exception of some Nasibis, and only those of this age and none of the past, believe to be authentic. For they all state that Yazeed was a fasiq and a fajir. If, however, he had made these comments, which he did not, then he would have been in clear error. It should be pointed out that neither was Muhammad al Hanafiyya a Prophet or an Imam. These are not the words of an Imam (as) or Prophet (s) so they mean absolutely nothing in our eyes.

Reply Four

Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubaur and Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah bin Hanzala, are all counted by the Ahl’ul Sunnah as Sahaba and they openly condemned Yazeed’s character. In addition when our own Imam Husayn (as) condemned Yazeed, then any attempts to present him in a favourable light are worthless to us.

Reply Five

We read in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Volume 8 page 217 under the events of 63 Hijri when a movement began against Yazeed, and the Sahaba began to testify with regards to Yazeed’s fasiq status, every person began to say they would revoke the bayya in the same way that they remove a shoe. Soon there was an entire stack of shoes. We can judge the extent to which the Sahaba hated Yazeed, by the fact that compared bayya to Yazeed to a shoe. It is highly improbable that Muhammad al Hanafiyya would have heaped criticism on the people of Medina for opposing Yazeed.

At the time that Constantinople was Attacked Yazeed was at Home Drunk

Reply – At the Time that Constantinople was Attacked Yazeed was at Dome Drunk

Azam Tariq Nasibi sought to bless his Khalifah Yazeed by stating:

YAZID WAS THE COMMANDER OF MUSLIM FORCES ON THIS EXPEDITION WHO WAGED JIHAD IN CAESAR’S CITY AND AS SUCH HE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETER OF ABOVE HADITH OF THE PROPHET (SAW).

Not only is this hadith a lie but so is the claim that Yazeed led this campaign and as evidence for this we have relied on the following authentic texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah:

1. Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 231 Events of 49 Hijri
2. Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon Volume 3 page 15
3. Murujh al Dhahab Volume 3 page 33
4. Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

We read in Tareekh Kamil:

في هذه السنة، وقيل: سنة خمسين، سير معاوية جيشاً كثيفاً إلى بلاد الروم للغزاة وجعل عليهم سفيان بن عوف وأمر ابنه يزيد بالغزاة معهم، فتثاقل واعتل، فأمسك عنه أبوه فأصاب الناس في غزاتهم جوعٌ ومرض شديد، فأنشأ يزيد يقول

“In this year (49 Hijri) and some says 50 H, Mu’awiyah made preparations to take the towns and cities of Rome under Sufyan bin Auf. He sent out the army and ordered his son Yazeed to join him but Yazeed was lax in this regard, Mu’awiya therefore became silent on the matter. The army during the conquered suffered from sickness and hunger and upon receipt of this news, Yazeed recited a couplet:

Why shall I care about what the army facing in Farqadona from fever and smallpox
While I lay comfort in deluxe clothes at the house of Marwan with Um Kulthom”.

Um Kulthoom bint Abdullah Ibn Aamir was Yazeed’s wife. When Muawiyah heard the couplets of Yazeed, he vowed to send him to Rome to Sufiyan bin Auf so that he also confronts hardship”

We read in Muruj al Dhahab:

“Mu’awiya received information on the progress of the army and conveyed this news to Yazeed who said, “In this case I shall convene a function in home, joined by my fellow drunkards”.

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini stated:

قلت الأظهر أن هؤلاء السادات من الصحابة كانوا مع سفيان هذا ولم يكونوا مع يزيد بن معاوية لأنه لم يكن أهلا أن يكون هؤلاء السادات في خدمته

“I say that it appears that those Sahaba were with Sufyan (bin Auf) not with Yazeed bin Mu’awiyah because he (Yazeed) didn’t deserve to have those Sahaba at his service” 

Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

By citing these references, it has become clear that:

1. Unlike the propaganda of Azam Tariq al-Nasibi al-Mala’oon, it was Sufyan bin Auf who was the commander of the army that went to Caesar’s City and not Yazeed.
2. Yazeed had no interest in participating in the Jihad and thus didn’t go with the army which clearly excludes him from the first army promised forgiveness in the alleged hadith.
3. On hearing the hardships the army confronted there, Yazeed became pleased at his decision of not going which is not a sign of a person worthy enough to have a glance at Paradise let alone enter it.
4. On hearing Yazeed’s satisfaction, Muawiyah decided to send him as a punishment.

Reply – Sunni scholars have discounted Yazeed from the glad tidings of forgiveness mentioned in the tradition

Even if for the sake of argument it is believed that the tradition of Bukhari is not fabricated, the present day Nawasib would still attain no advantage for their father Yazeed through this tradition since the Sunni Imams, have asserted that the tradition guarantees glad tidings for those worthy of it, not Yazeed. To evidence this we have relied on the following esteem Sunni sources:

1. Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199
2. Faydh al-Qadir, Volume 3 page 109 Tradition 2811
3. Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 102
4. Irshad al Sari, Volume 5 page 101
5. Siraj al-Munir Sharah Jami al-Saghir by Shaykh Ali bin Ahmed Azeezi, Vol 1 page 79
6. Sharah Tarajum

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini in commentary of this tradition records:

وقال المهلب في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر انتهى قلت أي منقبة كانت ليزيد وحاله مشهور فإن قلت قال في حق هذا الجيش مغفور لهم قلت لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله مغفور لهم مشروط بأن يكونوا من أهل المغفرة حتى لو ارتد واحد ممن غزاها بعد ذلك لم يدخل في ذلك العموم فدل على أن المراد مغفور لمن وجد شرط المغفرة

Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contain a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazeed because he invaded Cesar’s city.

I say that what kind of merits could there be for Yazeed while his status is known! If you say that He (s) said about this army that their sins are forgiven then I say its not necessary to include each and every one without any exception because the scholars agree that the forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because had some one among the invaders become apostate after the invasion, he would have not been included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional. 

Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

Likewise Imam Abdul Rauf Munawi while commenting on this tradition records:

لا يلزم منه كون يزيد بن معاوية مغفورا له لكونه منهم إذ الغفران مشروط بكون الإنسان من أهل المغفرة ويزيد ليس كذلك لخروجه بدليل خاص ويلزم من الجمود على العموم أن من ارتد ممن غزاها مغفور له وقد أطلق جمع محققون حل لعن يزيد

“It is not necessary that Yazeed is forgiven just because he was with them, since the forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness while Yazeed is not so and there is an exception in his case according to a reliable proof, but if we want to be stubborn in dealing with this tradition that it include every one then we have to include who ever become apostate among the invaders, in addition a group of scholars declared the lawfulness of cursing Yazeed” 

Faydh al-Qadir, Volume 3 page 109 Tradition 2811

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari presents his arguments relying on the arguments of two more Sunni scholars namely Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir:

قال المهلب في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر وتعقبه بن التين وبن المنير بما حاصله أنه لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله صلى الله عليه و سلم مغفور لهم مشروط بأن يكونوا من أهل المغفرة حتى لو ارتد واحد ممن غزاها بعد ذلك لم يدخل في ذلك العموم اتفاقا فدل على أن المراد مغفور لمن وجد شرط المغفرة فيه منهم

Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contain a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazeed because he invaded Cesar’s city.

Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir answered back and said that it is not necessary to include every one without any exception because the scholars agree that forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because if some one among the invaders became apostate after the invasion, he will not be included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional. 

Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 102

Similarly, Imam Qastalani in his famed commentary of Sahih Bukhari namely Irshad al Sari, Volume 5 page 101 stated:

“In this hadith, Muhalab has inferred about Yazeed’s caliphate and he being worthier to enter paradise by saying that he was included in the generality of the word ‘Maghfoor lahum’ in this hadith. This has been refuted in the manner that this has been said just in support of Bani Umayah and Yazeed being included in its generality doesn’t mean that he is unable to be excluded from it on the basis of some special reason because there isn’t any dispute in the fact that the aforesaid words of ‘Maghfoor lahum’ by Prophet (s)are conditional for those people deserving of forgiveness (Maghfarah), if somebody among them becomes apostate after the war then there is a consensus that such a person will no longer be included in this glad tiding. This has been said by Ibn Munir and verily some scholars have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed for example Saaduddin Taftazani”

By giving examples of one apostatizing after falling into the category of those who are forgiven, the Imams of Ahle Sunnah sought to prove that even if an individual falls under the category of a group that has been given the glad tiding of forgiveness, he must be a deserving candidate, once he falls into that category he shall be held accountable for the subsequent sins committed by him. This can further be explained by the following Hadith recorded in Musnad Abi Yala, Volume 7 page 32 which has been declared Sahih by the margin writer of the book Hussain Salim Asad:

أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : يا معاذ قال : لبيك يا رسول الله قال : بشر الناس أنه من قال : لا إله إلا الله دخل الجنة

Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: “Oh Ma’az”. Mu’az said: “Yes Allah’s messenger”. He (s) said: “Tell the people, who ever said ‘there is no God except Allah’ will enter paradise”.

If we interpret the aforesaid words of Prophet (s) literally, that would mean that all those who after reciting ‘there is no God except Allah’ commit adultery, take bribes, consume alcohol, commit theft, murder the innocent and commit all other sorts of sin will not be held accountable for them, which is illogical and unIslamic. Reciting the Kalima certainly makes one eligible to enter paradise as long as one also obeys the other Islamic injunctions.

Has Yazeed been guaranteed Paradise? - 2

Analysing Hadith Allegedly Blessing Yazeed

Reply – The Sahaba’s ignorance of guaranteed Paradise issued by the Prophet (s) proves the tradition is fabricated

The fabricated tradition of Bukhari attributed two predictions to the Holy Prophet (s), firstly the glad tidings of paradise for the participants of the first naval war and then the glad tidings fabricated for the benefit of Yazeed according to which the sins of the army invading Caesar’s City would be forgiven. Let us now point out some visible defects in the first alleged glad tiding so that the second part will automatically be proven to be a fabrication.

We would like to ask our unbiased and prudent readers that if this tradition was true then doesn’t it mean that importance of first naval war and attacking Caeser’s city was equal to Bait Ridhwan (allegiance under tree) in terms of nature and its merits? Surely the answer would be in the affirmative since in both cases there are either glad tidings of Allah being pleased or guaranteed paradise for the respective participants. Now the importance of Bait Ridhwan is that Allah (swt) Himself mentioned it in the Holy Quran, it was then that the Sahaba bore their allegiance upon the blessed hands of the Prophet (s), Bait Ridhwan appeared on the tongues of each and every Muslim child. The companions who participated in that were respected and possessed a rank above those who didn’t participate.

Now the main question arises:

If this first naval war was also equally Important as Bait Ridhwan then why does it have only one narrator and that too a woman?

If the first naval war was associated with glad tidings of earning paradise then:

• The Prophet (s) should have repeatedly cascaded these glad tidings of earning paradise and forgiveness of sins for participating in the first naval war and invading Caesar’s city to his Sahaba so as to encourage them to strive towards getting into that rank.
• The Sahaba should have likewise propagated these crucial glad tidings associated with the first naval war and gathered together the Muslims to attack the city of Caesar and attain Paradise in the process.

Rather than this happening, NONE of Sahaba knew of such glad tidings of Jannah, in fact, even the Sahaba that participated in the first naval war were unaware that their participation had erased their sins and guaranteed them Paradise! The reality is long after the invasion of Caesar’s city the main objective behind fabricating such a tradition was to provide a safe path to Yazeed but since the genetic makeup of the Nasibi species has always comprised of imbeciles those with rational minds can easily distinguish truth from falsehood and identify basic weaknesses in the text of the tradition.

Let us now cite some historical accounts which shall prove that the Sahaba were unaware of any traditions indicating that glad tidings were associated with the first naval war.

First & second traditions: Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab didn’t know of any glad tidings for the first naval war nor did he authorize such a campaign

We read in History of al-Tabari:

According to Ubaidah and Khalid:

In times of Umar bin al-Khattab, Muawiyyah pleaded with him about naval campaigns (ghazw al-bahr) and closeness of the Byzantines to Hims. He said, “In one of the villages of Hims, the inhabitants hear the barking of (the Byzantines) dogs and the squawking of their chickens.” [He pressed Umar] until he was on the verge of being won over. So Umar wrote to ‘Amr b. al-’As [saying] “Describe the sea and the seafarer to me, for I am uneasy about it.”

According to ‘Ubadah and Khalid: When ['Umar] informed him of the benefits for the Muslims and the damage to the Polytheists to be derived from (naval warfare), ‘Amr wrote back to him [as follows]: “Verily I have seen a great creature [that is, the sea] ridden by a small one [that is, man]. If (the sea) is calm it rends the heart with anxiety, and if it is agitatd it leads the mind into confusion. On it certainty shrinks and doubt increases. Those who are on it are like a worm on a twig, if it bends he is drowned, and if he is saved he is astounded. “When ‘Umar read (this letter), he wrote to Mu’awiyyah [as follows]: “No, by Him who sent Muhammad with the Truth, I shall never send any Muslim there. ” 

History of Tabari, Volume 16, Events of 28th Year

We also read:

Junadah bin Abi Umayyah al-Azdi:

Mu’awiyyah had written a letter to ‘Umar and provoke his interest in naval campaigns, saying, “O Commander of the Faithful, in Syria there is a village whose inhabitants hear the barking of the Byzantines dogs and the crowing of their roosters, for (the Byzantines) are directly opposite a certain stretch of the coast of (the district of) hims. Now ‘Umar was doubtful about this because (Mu’awiyyah) was the one who advised it. He therefore wrote to ‘Amr (as follows): “Describe the sea for me and send me information about it.” ‘Amr then wrote to him (as follows): “O Commander of the Faithful, I have seen a mighty creature ridden by a small one. It is naught but sky and water, and (those who travel upon it) are only like a worm on a twig: if it bends he drowns, and if he is saved, he is smashed.”

After reading these traditions, we see that in the years that followed the the death of the Prophet (s)) no efforts were made to establish and float the Paradise guaranteed first naval expedition. This omission can better be explained if break down the relevant periods:

1. The Caliphate of Abu Bakr followed the death of the Prophet (s) and lasted for two and a half years, yet during that entire period there was no mention of glad tidings being associated with the first naval war. This non compliance to the alleged words of the Prophet (s) was very different to the enthusiasm shown by Abu Bakr in sending the remaining army of Usama.
2. Then came the lengthy 10 year tenure of Umar Ibn Khattab’s caliphate. In his time, Muslim Armies were sent were sent out to capture land that expanded the Islamic territory to regions such as Africa, Iran and North Asia. Despite this no first naval war was every mentioned or conducted in his reign.
3. Whilst Muawiyah as Governor became the first person that expressed a desire to attack the Byzantine Empire through the sea he remained ignorant of any glad tidings associated with the first naval war. Muawiyah didn’t get permission from the Caliph and made no mention of glad tiding associated with such an expedition to convince him. He simply mentioned the barking of dogs of Byzantine Empire and the squawking of their chickens as his argument.
4. Muawiyah spent years failing to convince Umar Ibn Khattab of the merits of his proposal. Subsequently, Umar began to have some interest in it but again after reading the letter of Amr bin Al-Aas he made an oath not send a single Muslim on the naval war.

Do the najis Nawasib believe that Umar became afraid after hearing about the sea? Didn’t Umar believe in the Prophecy of Muhammad (s) that participating in first naval war would guarantee entry into paradise? Why was he preventing his soldiers from getting the chance to attain Paradise? Was it not selfish if him to restrict such a beneficial opportunity? And why didn’t a single Sahabi during this lengthy period mention the alleged glad tidings attributed to the Prophet (s) in the tradition of Bukhari?

Third tradition: Umar admonishing Muawiyah for his constant attempts to persuade him to order the naval war

We read:

Junadah bin Abi Umayah and Rabi and Abu al-Mujalid:

‘Umar wrote to Muawiyyah (as follows): “We have heard that the Mediterranean sea (bhar al-Sham) surpasses the longest thing upon the earth, seeking God’s permission every day and every night to overflow the earth and submerge it. How then can I bring the troops to this troublesome and infidel being? By God, one Muslim is dearer to me than all that the Byzantines possess. Take care not to oppose me. I have given you a command, you know what al-’Ala’(bin al-Hadrami) encountered at my hands, and I did not give him such categorical orders.”

In this tradition we learned that no where the alleged glad tidings associated with the first naval war were discussed between the two popular Sahaba, Umar ibn Khattab admonished Muawiyah. Had there been really any such glad tidings associated wit the first naval war, would the followers of the Sahaba accept such a response from Umar Ibn Khattab?

Fourth tradition: Forced recruitment of Muslims to participate in the naval war

Khalid bin Madan:

The first to conduct naval warfare was Mu’awiyyah bin Abi Sufyan in the time of ‘Uthman bin Affan. He had sought ‘Umar’s permission for this but did not obtain it. When ‘Uthman took Office, Mu’awiyyah persisted until at last ‘Uthman decided to grant permission. He said, “Do not conscript the people or cast lots among them. Let them decide for themselves and whoever chooses [to go on] campaign in obedience [to your call], support and aid him.”

Uptil now, we learned:

1. Muawiyah failed to convince Umar Ibn Khattab during his ten years reign to conduct a naval war.
2. When Uthman became caliph he did not prepare a naval war until four years into his reign. Readers should remember that Uthman became caliph in year 24 H while first naval was conducted in year 28 H. People who have studied history know the influence Muawiyah yielded over Uthman due to their relationship and thus, Uthman would without hesitation accept his demands yet when it came to the first naval war, it took four years for Muawiyah to persuade Uthman.
3. After four years, permission was given to Muawiyah on the condition that the people should not be forced to join the army put forward by Uthman. This fact destroys all the efforts of Nawasib to associate alleged glad tidings to the first naval war. Why the issue of forced recruitment in the naval army would not have even come into the equation, rather the Sahabah would be forcing their way onto the naval boats if they new that all participants attained a passport to Paradise!

By now, any rational and unbiased reader would understand that the tradition of Bukhari was fabricated by the Nawasib in their feeble attempt to provide some merits to the son of their master Muawiyah. Since the first part of the Bukhari tradition which alleges glad tidings of paradise for the participants of first naval war proved to be a fabricated the second part of the tradition which alleges glad tidings and the erasure of sins of the army invading Caesar’s City automatically becomes fabricated.

Has Yazeed been Guaranteed Paradise?

Analysing Hadith Allegedly Blessing Yazeed

Reply – At the time that Constantinople was attacked Yazeed was at home drunk

Azam Tariq Nasibi sought to bless his Khalifah Yazeed by stating:

YAZID WAS THE COMMANDER OF MUSLIM FORCES ON THIS EXPEDITION WHO WAGED JIHAD IN CAESAR’S CITY AND AS SUCH HE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETER OF ABOVE HADITH OF THE PROPHET (SAW).

Not only is this hadith a lie but so is the claim that Yazeed led this campaign and as evidence for this we have relied on the following authentic texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah:

1. Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 231 Events of 49 Hijri
2. Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon Volume 3 page 15
3. Murujh al Dhahab Volume 3 page 33
4. Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

We read in Tareekh Kamil:

في هذه السنة، وقيل: سنة خمسين، سير معاوية جيشاً كثيفاً إلى بلاد الروم للغزاة وجعل عليهم سفيان بن عوف وأمر ابنه يزيد بالغزاة معهم، فتثاقل واعتل، فأمسك عنه أبوه فأصاب الناس في غزاتهم جوعٌ ومرض شديد، فأنشأ يزيد يقول

“In this year (49 Hijri) and some says 50 H, Mu’awiyah made preparations to take the towns and cities of Rome under Sufyan bin Auf. He sent out the army and ordered his son Yazeed to join him but Yazeed was lax in this regard, Mu’awiya therefore became silent on the matter. The army during the conquered suffered from sickness and hunger and upon receipt of this news, Yazeed recited a couplet:

Why shall I care about what the army facing in Farqadona from fever and smallpox
While I lay comfort in deluxe clothes at the house of Marwan with Um Kulthom”.

Um Kulthoom bint Abdullah Ibn Aamir was Yazeed’s wife. When Muawiyah heard the couplets of Yazeed, he vowed to send him to Rome to Sufiyan bin Auf so that he also confronts hardship”

We read in Muruj al Dhahab:

“Mu’awiya received information on the progress of the army and conveyed this news to Yazeed who said, “In this case I shall convene a function in home, joined by my fellow drunkards”.

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini stated:

قلت الأظهر أن هؤلاء السادات من الصحابة كانوا مع سفيان هذا ولم يكونوا مع يزيد بن معاوية لأنه لم يكن أهلا أن يكون هؤلاء السادات في خدمته

“I say that it appears that those Sahaba were with Sufyan (bin Auf) not with Yazeed bin Mu’awiyah because he (Yazeed) didn’t deserve to have those Sahaba at his service” 

Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

By citing these references, it has become clear that:

1. Unlike the propaganda of Azam Tariq al-Nasibi al-Mala’oon, it was Sufyan bin Auf who was the commander of the army that went to Caesar’s City and not Yazeed.
2. Yazeed had no interest in participating in the Jihad and thus didn’t go with the army which clearly excludes him from the first army promised forgiveness in the alleged hadith.
3. On hearing the hardships the army confronted there, Yazeed became pleased at his decision of not going which is not a sign of a person worthy enough to have a glance at Paradise let alone enter it.
4. On hearing Yazeed’s satisfaction, Muawiyah decided to send him as a punishment.

Reply – Sunni scholars have discounted Yazeed from the glad tidings of forgiveness mentioned in the tradition

Even if for the sake of argument it is believed that the tradition of Bukhari is not fabricated, the present day Nawasib would still attain no advantage for their father Yazeed through this tradition since the Sunni Imams, have asserted that the tradition guarantees glad tidings for those worthy of it, not Yazeed. To evidence this we have relied on the following esteem Sunni sources:

1. Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199
2. Faydh al-Qadir, Volume 3 page 109 Tradition 2811
3. Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 102
4. Irshad al Sari, Volume 5 page 101
5. Siraj al-Munir Sharah Jami al-Saghir by Shaykh Ali bin Ahmed Azeezi, Vol 1 page 79
6. Sharah Tarajum

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini in commentary of this tradition records:

وقال المهلب في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر انتهى قلت أي منقبة كانت ليزيد وحاله مشهور فإن قلت قال في حق هذا الجيش مغفور لهم قلت لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله مغفور لهم مشروط بأن يكونوا من أهل المغفرة حتى لو ارتد واحد ممن غزاها بعد ذلك لم يدخل في ذلك العموم فدل على أن المراد مغفور لمن وجد شرط المغفرة

Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contain a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazeed because he invaded Cesar’s city.

I say that what kind of merits could there be for Yazeed while his status is known! If you say that He (s) said about this army that their sins are forgiven then I say its not necessary to include each and every one without any exception because the scholars agree that the forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because had some one among the invaders become apostate after the invasion, he would have not been included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional. 

Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

Likewise Imam Abdul Rauf Munawi while commenting on this tradition records:

لا يلزم منه كون يزيد بن معاوية مغفورا له لكونه منهم إذ الغفران مشروط بكون الإنسان من أهل المغفرة ويزيد ليس كذلك لخروجه بدليل خاص ويلزم من الجمود على العموم أن من ارتد ممن غزاها مغفور له وقد أطلق جمع محققون حل لعن يزيد

“It is not necessary that Yazeed is forgiven just because he was with them, since the forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness while Yazeed is not so and there is an exception in his case according to a reliable proof, but if we want to be stubborn in dealing with this tradition that it include every one then we have to include who ever become apostate among the invaders, in addition a group of scholars declared the lawfulness of cursing Yazeed” 

Faydh al-Qadir, Volume 3 page 109 Tradition 2811

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari presents his arguments relying on the arguments of two more Sunni scholars namely Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir:

قال المهلب في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر وتعقبه بن التين وبن المنير بما حاصله أنه لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله صلى الله عليه و سلم مغفور لهم مشروط بأن يكونوا من أهل المغفرة حتى لو ارتد واحد ممن غزاها بعد ذلك لم يدخل في ذلك العموم اتفاقا فدل على أن المراد مغفور لمن وجد شرط المغفرة فيه منهم

Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contain a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazeed because he invaded Cesar’s city.

Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir answered back and said that it is not necessary to include every one without any exception because the scholars agree that forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because if some one among the invaders became apostate after the invasion, he will not be included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional. 

Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 102

Similarly, Imam Qastalani in his famed commentary of Sahih Bukhari namely Irshad al Sari, Volume 5 page 101 stated:

“In this hadith, Muhalab has inferred about Yazeed’s caliphate and he being worthier to enter paradise by saying that he was included in the generality of the word ‘Maghfoor lahum’ in this hadith. This has been refuted in the manner that this has been said just in support of Bani Umayah and Yazeed being included in its generality doesn’t mean that he is unable to be excluded from it on the basis of some special reason because there isn’t any dispute in the fact that the aforesaid words of ‘Maghfoor lahum’ by Prophet (s)are conditional for those people deserving of forgiveness (Maghfarah), if somebody among them becomes apostate after the war then there is a consensus that such a person will no longer be included in this glad tiding. This has been said by Ibn Munir and verily some scholars have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed for example Saaduddin Taftazani”

By giving examples of one apostatizing after falling into the category of those who are forgiven, the Imams of Ahle Sunnah sought to prove that even if an individual falls under the category of a group that has been given the glad tiding of forgiveness, he must be a deserving candidate, once he falls into that category he shall be held accountable for the subsequent sins committed by him. This can further be explained by the following Hadith recorded in Musnad Abi Yala, Volume 7 page 32 which has been declared Sahih by the margin writer of the book Hussain Salim Asad:

أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : يا معاذ قال : لبيك يا رسول الله قال : بشر الناس أنه من قال : لا إله إلا الله دخل الجنة

Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: “Oh Ma’az”. Mu’az said: “Yes Allah’s messenger”. He (s) said: “Tell the people, who ever said ‘there is no God except Allah’ will enter paradise”.

If we interpret the aforesaid words of Prophet (s) literally, that would mean that all those who after reciting ‘there is no God except Allah’ commit adultery, take bribes, consume alcohol, commit theft, murder the innocent and commit all other sorts of sin will not be held accountable for them, which is illogical and unIslamic. Reciting the Kalima certainly makes one eligible to enter paradise as long as one also obeys the other Islamic injunctions.

Analysing Hadith Allegedly Blessing Yazeed

Analysing Hadith Allegedly Blessing Yazeed

Has Yazeed been guaranteed Paradise?

Here it comes, more from Azam Tariq (may Allah’s curse be upon him):

YAZID WAS THE COMMANDER OF MUSLIM FORCES WHO MARCHED TO CAESAR’S CITY. THIS EXPEDITION WAS SENT DURING THE REIGN OF HAZRAT MUAWIYAH AND IN THIS TASK FORCE WERE INCLUDED ELDERLY AND ILLUSTRIOUS SAHABA LIKE HAZRAT ABU AYYUB ANSARI WHOSE FUNERAL PRAYER WAS LED BY YAZID ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF HAZRAT AYYUB ANSARI HIMSELF. THIS EXPEDITION TOOK PLACE IN 51 H IN WHICH HAZRAT HUSAYN FOUGHT UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF YAZID. THIS WAS THE PIONEERING MUSLIM FORCE WHICH LANDED IN CAESAR’S CITY AND ACCORDING TO A HADITH NARRATED BY ABDULLAH BIN UMAR WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED BY BUKHARI, RASUL-ALLAH SAID:

“THE ARMY WHICH WILL FIRST EMBARK ON THE EXPEDITION OF CONSTANTINOPLE WILL BLESSED.” (BUKHARI).

YAZID WAS THE COMMANDER OF MUSLIM FORCES ON THIS EXPEDITION WHO WAGED JIHAD IN CAESAR’S CITY AND AS SUCH HE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETER OF ABOVE HADITH OF THE PROPHET (SAW). IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS NOT BECOMING ON ANY MUSLIM TO CAST ASPERSIONS ON YAZID AS THE ENTIRE ARMY WHICH TOOK PART IN THIS CAMPAIGN HAS BEEN BLESSED BY ALLAH IN THE CONTEXT OF ABOVE HADITH.

Let us analyse the complete tradition from Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Jihad Volume 4, Book 52, and Number 175:

Narrated Khalid bin Madan:

That ‘Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to ‘Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the seashore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. ‘Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, “Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.” Um Haram added, I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Will I be amongst them?’ He replied, ‘You are amongst them.’ The Prophet then said, ‘the first army amongst’ my followers who will invade Caesar’s City will be forgiven their sins.’ I asked, ‘Will I be one of them, O Allah’s Apostle?’ He replied in the negative.”

These filthy Nasibi have only one hadith that they claim absolves their Imam of any wrongdoing, namely his participation in the army that conquered Caesar’s City. They allege that this allege attendance has assured him of Paradise. We all have to die one day and answer our Creator we have cited scores of Sunni sources that highlight Yazeed’s deeds, his love of incest, homosexuality, drinking, singing, kufr aqeedah and his killing of Imam Husayn (as). Are we really going to just accept this single hadith in Bukhari to neutralise all of Yazeed’s deeds? We appeal to justice and shall cite the following replies:

Reply One – The narrators of this hadith are enemies of Ahl’ul bayt (as)

If we consult Sahih Bukhari Volume 1 page 409 Kitab Jihad Rasheedeya Publishers Delhi 1377 Hijri and the commentary by Shaykh ul Hadith Ahmad Ali Shahranpuri, we read:

“The tradition relating to Caesar’s City was narrated by Thawr bint Yazeed he was an enemy of Commander of the Faithful Ali”.

If this doesn’t convince these Nawasib then we shall cite the following glittering obituary of the man recorded by Imam Ibn Saad:

“He is Thiqa in Hadeeth. It is said that he was a rejecter of Taqdeer. He died in 152 H in Bait al Muqaddas during the era of Abu Jaffar over the age of 60. The grandfather of Thawr was present in Siffeen and participated along side Muawiyah and was killed in the same war. Therefore whenever the name of Ali was taken before Thawr he used to say: “I do not love the man who killed my grandfather۔” 

Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol 7 under the topic: Thawr bin Yazid al Kalayee

Moreover, when we read the biography of another narrator of the tradition namely Khalid bin Madan, we learn that he used to narrate from Imam of Nawasib while second category Nawasib used to narrate from him, this shall suffice to prove his firm association with Nasibism. We read in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 3 page 102:

”Khalid bin M’adan bin Abi Kuraib al-Kalaaei Abu Abdullah al-Shaami al-Hemsi, he narrated from Thawban, Ibn Amro, Ibn Umar, Utbah bin Abdulsalami & Mu’awyia bin Abi Sufyan…Narrated from him by Buhair bin Saeed, Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin al-Harith al-Taimi, Thawr bin Yazeed and Hariz bin Uthman…”

As we can see that one of his teachers was Imam of the Nasibi cult namely Muawiyah and notorious Nawasib such as Thawr bin Yazeed and Hariz bin Uthman used to narrate from him, this shall suffice to evidence the ideology that Khalid adhered to. What reliance can we have on a hadith narrated by a scholar whose source of knowledge came from three KingPins of the Nasibi cult? These so called defenders of Ahl’ul Sunnah are trying to get us to accept a hadith narrated by Nawasib to absolve their Imam of all wrongdoings!

Reply Two – The only narrator of this hadith is a woman

This is a crucial point. Why would Rasulullah (s) choose to locate non-mahram woman (namely Um Haram) to convey this hadith to? Is this the type of hadith that he (s) would not wish to convey to a wider audience, particularly to men participating in Jihad? Is this not a hadith that would boost morale / encourage soldiers to fight? Why keep it top secret, to the point that only person who knows of the rewards for participating in this expedition is a woman, who would clearly be unable to communicate this to an audience in a manner that ‘esteemed’ figures such as Abu Hurraira could do.

Additionally why convey this to a woman, who was his (s) non-mahram that meant that she would have had to observe strict purdah (veil) in his presence? After all Rasulullah (s) had nine wives, could he not have conveyed this hadith to any of them? Why convey this to a woman that was not his (s) wife, relative or sister in law? And why did her husband not take this hadith and declare it to the masses in the battlefield? Surely this would have instilled true fighting spirit amongst masses, if they knew that they were to attain Paradise. Rather than do this, why did Um Haram choose to only convey this to her student ‘Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi?

Worthy of note, when we read this hadith in sources other than Sahih Bukhari wherein Um Haram has narrated the tradition to her nephew Uns bin Malik there is no mention of maghfoor [Paradise], yet when she narrates it to a non mahram Umair she remembers that the participants are blessed with Heaven! Why did she forget to convey the words ‘Paradise’ to her nephew but then chose to entertain a non-mahram in her home and convey the hadith with this word to him?

Hadith Referring to Yazeed and his Era

Hadith Referring to Yazeed and his Era

Abu Hurraira sought protection from the events of 56 Hijri

1. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 114
2. Fatah ul Bari Volume 13 page 10 Kitab al Fitan
3. Tareekh al Islam (Dhahabi) Volume 2 page 339 Dhikr Abu Hurraira
4. Al Isaba Volume 4 page 200 Dhikr Abu Hurraira
5. Al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 6 page 228

Abu Hurraira would walk through the markets and ‘O Allah don’t accept the events of 56 Hijri and I don’t see this boy’s reign’

In Fatah ul Bari Ibn Hajr states that:

“Abu Hurraira was referring to the youth of Quraysh”

Abu Said al Khudri’s condemnation of 60 Hijri

1. Tafseer Ibn Katheer, Volume 3 page 128, Surah Maryam verse 59
2. Majm’a al Zawaid, Volume 6 page 231
3. Musnad Ibn Hanbal, Volume 3 page 38
4. Fatah ul Qadeer, Volume 3 page 329
5. Al Bidayah wa al Nihaya, Volume 8 page 230

Ibn Kathir states:

“Abu Said al Khudri narrates that he heard Rasulullah (s) say after 60 Hijri undeserving people shall ignore prayers and enter the deepest part of Hell”.

This hadith is also a condemnation of Yazeed since he became the Leader immediately after 60 Hijri.

Rasulullah (s) said Yazeed will destroy my religion

We read in al Bidayah Volume 8 page 231 Dhikr Yazeed:

"Justice shall rule my Ummah until the first individual who shall destroy my Deen, from the Banu Ummayaa his name shall be Yazeed."

Yes, Imam of the Nawasib Yazeed is accused of destroying the Deen by the Holy Prophet (saws) himself. I say we destroy the Deen of the Nasibis. Their Deen is different to that of other Muslims, Shia or Sunni.

The Fatwa of Ibn Umar

The Fatwa of Ibn Umar and the Implications Derived Thereof

Talking of the incident of Hara, we deem it an apt opportunity to discuss the role of Abdullah Ibn Umar with respect to Yazeed and the defences for him that are commonly advanced by certain segments of Ahle Sunnah.

Hara was a horrific event; it involved the ethnic cleansing of the last remnants of those with a nexus with Rasulullah (s), the surviving Sahaba and Tabieen that followed them, individuals that as per Sunni beliefs were the best of generations. Slaughter and rape are not uncommon in war, we often hear such despicable crimes being perpetuated during the Rwandan civil war and when the Serbs sought to ethnically cleanse Yugoslavia of its Muslim inhabitants. Anyone that hears of such crimes is shocked, what is moiré shocking is the fact that the ransacking of Madina, the murder and rape of its female inhabitants was not by any non Muslim army during the crusades, this was a crime perpetuated by the Muslim head of state we have already quoted the comments of the translator of Sahih Muslim:

“The city of Messenger (peace be upon him) was brutally attacked and such horrifying atrocities were perpetuated upon the citizens as the very thought of them makes one‘s hair stand on end”.

Just reading about it make’s one’s hair stand on end, can one imagine how the Madinan population would have felt, the men folk were slaughtered, the women sexually violated and turned into captives, are these crimes not sufficient enough to cause an individual with a hear to distance himself from Yazeed and all that he stood for? Was the ransacking of Madina not sufficient evidence that Yazeed had nothing to do with the Deen? We are sure that any rational, just individual would agree with us that this would be enough proof for anyone to distance themselves from Yazeed, but not for one prominent individual by the name of Abdullah Ibn Umar. Following Hara and all the horrors associated with it, Abdullah Ibn Umar convened a private gathering of his near and dear ones and made clear his views on Yazeed and his views on those that had opposed him at Harra, and this is how this fact has been recorded in Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227:

Narrated Nafi’:

When the people of Medina dethroned Yazeed bin Muawiya, Ibn ‘Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, “I heard the Prophet saying, ‘A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazeed, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me.”

So the facts are clear that Ibn Umar:

• was advising those within his close circle
• it was at a time when the people of Madina had broken their bayya to Yazeed
• relied upon a Hadith that any individual that breaks bayya will be raised as a betrayer on the Day of Judgment
• underlined in no uncertain words that the bayya to Yazeed was pursuant to the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle
• would distance himself from anyone that broke the bayya to Yazeed

There is no way that these comments can be put down to taqiyya. Ibn Umar was not making some public declaration in the market it was a private audience with those closest to him and took the form of firm religious advice. In that advice not only did he condemn those that rebelled against Yazeed and made it clear that they would be raised as betrayers on the next world in other words suffer eternal damnation, pursuant to a Hadith of the Prophet (s) he reaffirmed his loyalty to Yazeed making it that he was a legitimate head of state, and his right to rule was in accordance with conditions set by Allah (swt) and his Rasul, in other words he had the legal backing of Shariah, negating the right of any individual to oppose him by breaking bayya. The thought of an individual turning his back on Ibn Umar made him so irate that he made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with such an individual.

Lest not forget this Islamic advice is being made after the Hara and all the heinous crimes that flowed from it. Crimes such as murder, mass rape and the pillaging of Madina may well have taken place but to Ibn Umar there was no Islamic basis to oppose Yazeed he remained the legal head of State in accordance with the conditions set by Allah and his Rasul (s), such conditions were not in any way negated by what Yazeed ordered either at Karbala or Hara!

This was not the single episode of Ibn Umar’s advocacy, he also went to the home of people to vouch for Yazeed’s Khilafat as can be gauged from this tradition in Sahih Muslim, Kitab al Imara Book 020, Number 4562:

It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that ‘Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti’ in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the People Of Medina) at Harra in the time of Yazeed b. Mu’awiya. Ibn Muti’ said: Place a pillow for Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman (family name of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar). But the latter said: I have not come to sit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). I heard him say: One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya.

NOTE

In the Bukhari tradition he gathered his close ones together and pledged his support for Yazeed, relying on a Hadith to support his stance. In this tradition he personally goes to the home of an acquaintance with one specific objective, to reiterate the legitimacy of Yazeed’s khilafat and the Islamic rulings for one that opposes him. He cites two traditions to evidence his support for Yazeed:

• one who withdraws his hand from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment,
• one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya

If we bring together all the traditions relied upon by Ibn Umar from the Sahihayn as part of his representing his client Yazeed we learn three things:

Those that break the bayya to Yazeed will be raised as betrayers in the next world

Those that break the bayya to Yazeed will have no defence in the next world

Those who died without having given bayya to Yazeed as their leader will die the death of jahliyya

This Fatwa of Ibn Umar, based on his reliance on three traditions means that in his eyes:

• All of the Sahaba in Madina that broke their bayya will be punished in the next world accordingly
• All those Sahaba that died without having given bayya to Yazeed whether that be by not having even given (Imam Hussain (as), his family and Sahaba) or broke it (all the Sahaba and Tabieen in Hara) died the death of apostates.

Now our questions are as follows:

1. How does the Sunni aqaid that all the Sahaba are just, truthful and guaranteed Paradise concur with the viewpoint of Ibn Umar that all those that opposed Yazeed by either not giving him bayya or breaking died the death of jahilyya? Dying the death of jahilyya cannot be deemed to be the stance of people that are just and truthful.
2. If Ibn Umar was so worried that failing to give Yazeed bayya, results in people dying the death of jahiliyya, why did he not inform Imam Hussain (as) as such before he left Madina?
3. If the Hadith relied on by Ibn Umar for Yazeed were correctly applied why is it that no other Sahaba of the Prophet (s) alive at that time recollected it as proof of Yazeed’s Khilafat?
4. If Ibn Umar was warning people not to died in a state wherein they have not accepted Yazeed, since doing so leads to an individual dying the death of Jahilyya, why did he not rely on this Hadith himself, after all according to Fatah ul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari, v6 p145 Ibn Umar never gave bayya to Imam Ali (as) but gave it to Yazeed. Was he not fearful that he might die the death of Jahiliyya by not giving baya to his Amir of time? If so why was he prepared to take a risk and wait until Muawiyah became Khalifa to give bayya to an Amir? Was Yazeed more worthy of recognition to avoid the death of Jahiliyya than Yazeed? Fatah ul Bari, volume 6 page 145
5. If those that break their bayya to Yazeed will die the death of Jahiliyya and be raised as Baghis in the next world, why is the same Hadith not applied to those that broke the bayya to Ali (as), fought him and died in a state wherein they had not recognized him?

This Fatwa of Ibn Umar carries major implications for the Sunni belief system:

• Most Sunnis regard Imam Hussain (as), his family and supporters who lost their lives in Karbala as martyrs, Ibn Umar views them as dying the death of jahiliyya
• Must Sunnis regard those Sahaba that broke the bayya to Yazeed and died in that stat, laying their lives against the principle that he was not the legitimate head of state died as martyrs, Ibn Umar views them as dying the death of jahilyya, and persons who will be raised as betrayers in the next world
• Sunnis believe that all the Sahaba that fought in wars after the Prophet (s) during the Caliphate of Ali (as) will be forgiven, as they exercised ijtihaad, for which they will get one reward if wrong and two if right. The Fatwa of Ibn Umar negates that completely he stated that those Sahaba that lost their lives Hara, will have no defence whatsoever on the Day of Judgment rather they will die the death of kaafirs and will be raised as rebels in the next world. Why did he not say they will forgiven as they exercised ijtihad, for which they will get one reward if wrong and two if right? Who knows the Shariah better today’s Sunni Mullah or Abdullah Ibn Umar?

The above points leave Sunni Muslims in a serious quandary. As a Sahabi he is regarded as just and truthful meaning that his Fatwa on those that opposed Yazeed by either not recognizing him or breaking bayya and dying in that state will die the death of jahiliyya was also accurate as it was given by a just and truthful man. Once they accept his reliance upon these Hadith then that automatically means all the other Sahaba died kaafirs then means that they cannot be regarded as just and truthful.

If Ibn Umar’s interpretation of Hadith to evidence his pro Yazeed stance was wrong then that destroys his credibility, it openly leads to one questioning his probity, he can no longer be viewed as just and truthful after all he was relying on Hadith to prove the legitimacy of a major transgressor, a view that was not shared by all of the other Sahaba of the time. If that approach is taken then questions need to be asked of all that he says, that means that Sunnis will have to reject the thousands of his narrations in Sahih Bukhari. So what can they do?

The tragedy of Hara and the open advocacy of Ibn Umar create serious questions for those Sunnis that love Imam Hussain (as) and support the stance that he took, deeming it one that revived the faith. The ordinary person on the street might be moved by what happened to the Ahl’ul bayt (as) at Karbala and the Sahaba at Hara and hate Yazeed, but not Ibn Umar .Abdullah Ibn Umar does not concur with modern day popular Sunni opinion, he was an out and out advocate of Yazeed and supported him through thick and thin at every stage of his life of debauchery, even when Madina rose up against him having recognized his atrocious conduct, Ibn Umar loyally stood behind him insisting to the people that his Khilafat was pursuant to the conditions set by Allah (swt) and his Rasul (s) and that anyone opposing him would die the death of Jahiliyya and that he wanted nothing to do with anyone that abandoned him. Perhaps it was for this very reason that the Urdu translator of Sahih Bukhari, Maulana Syed Naib Hussain (revision done by Maulana Syed Muhammad Ali) adopted blatant tahreef when translating this tradition when he replaced the name Yazeed with Muawiyah, so that it seemed as if Ibn Umar was rebuking those that had broken their bayya to Muawiyah, when the original/Arabic text has the words Yazeed ibn Muawiyah!

Sahih Bukhari, Arabic to Urdu translation by Maulana Syed Naib Hussain, Vol 3 page 657 Hadith 54 (Ghulam Ali & Sons publications, Lahore)

The tragedy of Hara and the Fatwa of Ibn Umar after it has major implications for those that adhere to the thought that all the Sahaba are just and truthful on its head, and highlights how baseless this doctrine is.

The Incident of Hara

The Incident of Hara

The atrocities committed against the Ahlulbayt (as) and the brutal murder of the grandson of holy Prophet (s), his family and his companions were not the only crimes perpetuated by Yazeed rather that was just the beginning of his malicious reign. After the slaughter of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) in Karbala, he continued from where he left off and exhibited further heinous and vicious aspects of his persona against the people of Harra. To shed light on the incident, allow us to cite the words that we read in the footnote of a tradition of Sahih Muslim:

We read in Sahih Muslim, Hadith 1851:

“The incident of Harra is indeed one of the most despicable events of early Islamic history. It occurred in 63 H at the fag [sic] of the reign of Yazeed. The sum and substance of this event is that the people of Madina on seeing the atrocities of his un-Islamic conduct in the affairs f the state had raised the standard of revolt against him and turned his governor out of the city and elected Abdullah b. Hanzala as the new Governor of Madina. When Yazeed heard of it, he sent Muslim b. Uqba al-Murri at the head of 12,000 soldiers to attack Madina. The city of Messenger (peace be upon him) was brutally attacked and such horrifying atrocities were perpetuated upon the citizens as the very thought of them makes one‘s hair stand on end. There was plunder and massacre on a large scale and ever a large number of woman was (The details of this incident can be seen in Ibn Athir, Vol iii, pp-310-13). 

Sahih Muslim, Vol III-A page 259 Footnote No. 2 (Dar-ul-Ishat, Urdu Bazar, Karachi)

Whilst it is evident that the writer was ashamed of mentioning the historical fact that a large number of women folk from the families of the Sahaba were raped by Yazeed’s forces, let us cite it from the History of al-Fakhri, translated by C.E.J. Whitting, London, 1947, pp. 113-115 wherein we learn that Yazeed initially instructed Ubaydullah bin Ziyad to lead an army assault on Medina, who offered excuses, as a result of which he then appointed Muslim bin Uqbah to lead the charge:

“Then Muslim, son of ‘Uqbah, for three days gave Madinah to the sack. He murdered, looted and took prisoners, so that it was said that a man of Madinah thereafter, if he gave his daughter to wed, would not guarantee her virginity, “She may have been raped in the battle of Harrah.”

Imam Darmi records in his Sunan, Volume 1 page 57 No. 94:

أخبرنا مروان بن محمد عن سعيد بن عبد العزيز قال لما كان أيام الحرة لم يؤذن في مسجد النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ثلاثا ولم يقم ولم يبرح سعيد بن المسيب من المسجد وكان لا يعرف وقت الصلاة إلا بهمهمة يسمعها من قبر النبي فذكر معناه

Saeed bin Abdul Aziz states that during the days of Hara, neither Adhan nor Iqamah was given for three days in the Mosque of the Prophet (s) despite this Saeed bin al-Musayib did not depart from the mosque, he would acquire receipt of the prayer times through faint voice of the Adhan coming from the grave of the Holy Prophet (s).

Imam Suyuti in his famed work Tarikh ul Khulafa writes as follows:

و في سنة ثلاث و ستين بلغه أن أهل المدينة خرجوا عليه و خلعوه فأرسل إليهم جيشا كثيفا و أمرهم بقتالهم ثم المسير إلى مكة لقتال ابن الزبير فجاؤوا و كانت وقعة الحرة على باب طيبة و ما أدراك ما وقعة الحرة ؟ ذكرها الحسن مرة فقال : و الله ما كاد ينجوا منهم أحد قتل فيها خلق من الصحابة رضي الله عنهم و من غيرهم و نهبت المدينة و افتض فيه ألف عذراء فإنا لله و إنا إليه راجعون ! قال صلى الله عليه و سلم : [ من أخاف أهل المدينة أخافه الله و عليه لعنة الله و الملائكة و الناس أجمعين ] رواه مسلم

“And in year 63 hijri, he came to know that the people of Madina had separated from him, so he sent a huge army to them and ordered that they be murdered and that they then head to Makka and kill Ibn Zubair, so there was Hara on the gate tayyaba and how can one realize what Hara was? Hassan said: ‘By Allah! There was none that was saved, that included companions of Prophet, and others, they looted the city, and took the virginity of a thousand women’.
The Holy Prophet (s) had said; “Whosoever frightens the people of Madina, Allah (swt) shall frighten him. The curse of Allah (swt), his angels, and all the people shall be upon such an individual” [narrated muslim].

We also read:

و سار جيش الحرة إلى مكة لقتال ابن الزبير فمات أمير الجيش بالطريق فاستخلف عليهم أميرا و أتوا مكة فحاصروا ابن الزبير و قاتلوه و رموه بالمنجنيق و ذلك في صفر سنة أربع و ستين و احترقت من شرارة نيرانهم أستار الكعبة و سقفها و قرنا الكبش الذي فدى الله به إسماعيل

”When the army of Hara left for Makka so as to fight Ibn Zubayr, the commander died, so a new commander was appointed. They then surrounded Makka and proceeded to fight Ibn Zubayr and fired stones from a catapault, the flames of which burnt down the curtains of the Kaaba as well as its ceiling and the horn of the ram which was replaced as a scarifice for Ismail (as) by Allah (swt).”

Ibn Kathir states:

وقد أخطأ يزيد خطأ فاحشا في قوله لمسلم بن عقبة أن يبيح المدينة ثلاثة أيام، وهذا خطأ كبير فاحش، مع ما انضم إلى ذلك من قتل خلق من الصحابة وأبنائهم، وقد تقدم أنه قتل الحسين وأصحابه على يدي عبيد الله بن زياد.

وقد وقع في هذه الثلاثة أيام من المفاسد العظيمة في المدينة النبوية ما لا يحد ولا يوصف، مما لا يعلمه إلا الله عز وجل، وقد أراد بارسال مسلم بن عقبة توطيد سلطانه وملكه، ودوام أيامه من غير منازع، فعاقبه الله بنقيض قصده، وحال بينه وبين ما يشتهيه، فقصمه الله قاصم الجبابرة، وأخذه أخذ عزيز مقتدر وكذلك أخذ ربك إذا أخذ القرى وهي ظالمة إن أخذه أليم شديد.

“Yazeed committed a big mistake by telling Muslim bin Utbah to continue with the bloodshed in Madina for three days. This was a huge and Fahash mistake and the bloodshed of Sahaba and their sons was further added to it while it has just been previously mentioned that Hussain and his Sahaba had been killed at the hands of Ibn Ziyad. During those three days, such huge crimes were committed that cannot be counted and cannot be mentioned; only Allah knows about them. Yazeed by sending Muslim bin Utbah had sought to strengthen the roots of his government and extend it without any obstacle. But contrary to his wishes, Allah punished him and became an obstacle to his desires and Allah, who (swt) breaks the backbone of the oppressors, likewise broke the backbone of Yazeed and He (swt) apprehended him in the same manner that a powerful all conquering individual apprehends someone ‘Even thus is the grasp of thy Lord when He graspeth the townships while they are doing wrong. Lo! His grasp is painful, very strong’.

Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1146; Nafees Academy Karachi

We read in ‘Aujaz al masalik’ that Shaykh al hadith Muhammad Zakaria stated:

“The army that Yazeed had sent to Medina comprised of 60,000 horsemen and 15,000 foot soldiers. For three days they shed blood freely, 1000 women were raped and 700 named Quraysh and Ansar were killed. Ten thousand women and children were made slaves. Muslim bin Uqba forced people to give bayya to Yazeed in such a manner that people were enslaved and Yazeed could sell them as he pleased, none of the Sahaba that were present [with the Prophet (saws)] at Hudaibiya were spared”.

Ibn Hazm has summarized the entire incident in the following manner:

The oath of allegiance administered to Yazeed occurred following the death of his father; his title was Abu Khalid, Hussain bin Ali and Abdullah bin Zubair refused to pay the allegiance; then Hussain (peace by upon him) left for Kufa, and he was martyred before entering Kufa, this was the third sad incident following the death of Uthman and the fourth one following the martyrdom of Umar and was an interruption in Islam because oppression was openly declared against the Muslims with his martyrdom. Abdullah bin Zubair the went to Makka wherein he sought refuge in the House of Allah and resided there.

Yazeed sent his army towards Madina and Makka that amongst the holy sites of Allah (swt), so in the battle of Hara, those of Muhajir and Ansar that remained therein were killed and this horrendous incident is also amongst the worst tragic incidents of Islam, creating a break in it because esteemed Muslims, the remnants of the Sahaba and the honorable Tabayeen were openly killed in it or apprehended and then martyred. The horses of Yazeed’s army were present in the mosque of the Holy Prophet (s) and in Riadh ul Jannah, between the grave of the Rasulullah (s) and his pulpit, they defecated therein; no prayer was offered during those days. And there remained none, save Saeed ul Masayib, he did not leave the mosque at all and had Amro bin Uthman bin Afan and Marwan bin Hakam not testified to him being insane to Muslim bin Uqba [the leader of the army], he would have likewise been killed. He (Muslim bin Uqba) also compelled people to administer their oaths of allegiance on the condition that they were the slaves of Yazeed bin Mu’awiya, whether he sells them or frees them and when an individual said that we would pledge allegiance on the condition the allegiance was pursuant to the terms of the Quran and Sunnah, an order was made to kill him, the said individual was subsequently captured and killed; this sinner Muslim bin Uqba insulted Islam immensely; there was looting in Madina for three days; the companions of Rasulullah (s) were insulted and maltreated; their houses were robbed. The army then surrounded Makka and stoned the House of Allah (swt) via catapults and this was done under the supervision of Hussain bin Numair by the Syrian battalions and this was because the sinner ibn Uqba died three days after the battle of Harra and the leader was now Hussain bin Numair. Allah likewise apprehended Yazeed in the same manner, the Owner of power and glory, apprehends others; he died in under three months but over two months (that is between 2 and 3 months) and Yazeed’s forces returned from Makka. Yazeed died on 15 Rabi ul awal, 64 Hijri, his age was just above 30, his mother was Maisoon bint Bajdal Kalbia, the era of his rule was three years, eight months and a few days.

Jawama’e al-Sirah, pages 357-358