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:
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”
By citing these references, it has become clear that:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
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.
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”
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.
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.
