As salamu aleikum wa rahmatuLlahi wa barakatuhu dear brothers. What views do we share on Yazid ibn Muawiyah?
Wa alaikumsalam wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu
The correct Sunni Stance on Yazeed:
Here are the views of some renowned scholars of Ahlusunnah regarding Yazeed.
(i). Imam of Ahlesunnah Ahmad ibn Hanbal(rah):
قيل : لأحمد ابن حنبل أيؤخذ الحديث عن يزيد فقال : لا ولا كرامة أو ليس هو فعل بأهل المدينة ما فعل ؟ وقيل له : إن أقواما يقولون : إنا نحب يزيد فقال : وهل يحب يزيد من يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر ؟ فقيل له : أو لا تلعنه ؟ فقال : متى رأيت أباك يلعن أحدا
“It was said: Ahmad ibn Hanbal was asked: Would you take narrations from Yazeed?” He said: “No, and no karamah(honour) for him, was that not him who did to people of Madina what he has done?”. It was said to him: “Group says that they love Yazeed”. He asked: Does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day?” It was said to him: Would you curse him?”. Imam answered: When did you ever see your father curse anybody?. (Ibn Muflih Hanbali in “Adabu sharia” ,1/336).
(ii). Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali:
Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali did not hold the opinion of cursing and declaring Yazid to be a disbeliever. He refuted the allegation on Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal that he cursed Yazid. So he writes: “The statement of Imam Ahmad only establishes cursing on all of the oppressors and there is no clarification or specification for the permissibility of cursing Yazid only.” (Dhayl Tabaqaat al-Hanabillah, 2/356).
(iii). Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani(rah):
In his book “al-Imta bil al-Arba’in al-Matbainatus Samah”, he said:
وأما المحبة فيه والرفع من شأنه فلا تقع إلا من مبتدع فاسد الاعتقاد فإنه كان فيه من الصفات ما يقتضي سلب الإيمان عمن يحبه لأن الحب في الله والبغض في الله من الإيمان والله المستعان
Loving and glorifying him (Yazid) is not done except by innovator who has void belief because he (Yazid) had such characteristics that his lover deserves to be faithless, because to love and hate just for the sake of God is a sign of faith. (Source: “al-Imta bil al-Arba’in al-Matbainatus Samah p 96.)”
Hafidh Ibn Hajar also said:
– يزيد بن معاوية بن أبي سفيان الأموي أبو خالد ولي الخلافة سنة ستين ومات سنة أربع ولم يكمل الأربعين ليس بأهل أن يروى عنه من الثالثة مد
Yazeed bin Muawiyah bin Abi Sufiyan al Amwi Abu Khalid. He was not in those to whom one can narrate ahadith.[Taqreeb at Tahdeeb 7777]
(iv). Imam Abul Faraj Ibn Al-Jawzi(rah)
Imam Ibn al-Jawzi(rah) wrote a whole book with the name of “الرد على المتعصب العنيد المانع من ذم يزيد” (Refutation of The bigot and stubborn who says it is not allowed to condemn Yazid.)
(v). Imam al-Ghazzali said:
فإن قيل هل يجوز لعن يزيد لأنه قاتل الحسين أو آمر به قلنا هذا لم يثبت أصلا فلا يجوز أن يقال إنه قتله أو أمر به
“And if it would be said: Is it permitted to curse Yazeed because he killed Hussain or ordered to? We would say: It’s not established(from any authentic report), and it’s not permitted to say that he killed him or ordered to kill him”.(Ihya uloom al-Din , 3/125).
(vi) Imam Ibn Salaah says:
لم يصح عندنا أنه أمر بقتل الحسين رضي الله عنه
“It is not authentic according to us that He(Yazid) commanded to kill Husayn.” ( قيد الشريد page 58, Al Khulaasa fi bayaani rayi 1/151)
(vii). Allama Ayni stated:
وَقَالَ الْمُهلب: فِي هَذَا الحَدِيث منقبة لمعاوية لِأَنَّهُ أول من غزا الْبَحْر، ومنقبة لوَلَده يزِيد، لِأَنَّهُ أول من غزا مَدِينَة قَيْصر. انْتهى. قلت: أَي منقبة كَانَت ليزِيد وحاله مَشْهُور؟ فَإِن قلت: قَالَ، صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم، فِي حق هَذَا الْجَيْش: مغْفُور لَهُم. قلت: لَا يلْزم، من دُخُوله فِي ذَلِك الْعُمُوم أَن لَا يخرج بِدَلِيل خَاص، إِذْ لَا يخْتَلف أهل الْعلم أَن قَوْله، صلى الله عَلَيْهِ وَسلم: مغْفُور لَهُم، مَشْرُوط بِأَن يَكُونُوا من أهل الْمَغْفِرَة حَتَّى لَو ارْتَدَّ وَاحِد مِمَّن غَزَاهَا بعد ذَلِك لم يدْخل فِي ذَلِك الْعُمُوم، فَدلَّ على أَن المُرَاد مغْفُور لمن وجد شَرط الْمَغْفِرَة فِيهِ مِنْهُم
al-Mulhab said: In this hadith there is virtue of Muawiyah(ra) because He is the first one who won naval expedition. And there is also a virtue of Yazeed because invaded Caesar’s City. I (al-Ayani) say what kind of Virtues of Yazeed? When his haal(condition) is famous? and If someone says that Prophet(saw) prayed for forgiveness in the right of this army. Then I say: It is not obligation that everyone is included in it without any specific evidence. There is no disagreement in people of knowledge that the saying of Prophet(saw) regarding maghfirah(forgiveness) is conditional that is If someone becomes murtad after the victory than he will not be the one who is forgiven with the agreement (of scholars). This is a proof that the forgiveness is conditional..[Umda tul Qari 14/198]
(viii). Imam al Qurtubi(rah):
He mentioned some ahadith regarding the destruction of Ummah by youngsters and commented
وكأنهم والله اعلم يزيد بن معاوية وعبيد الله بن زياد
As If they are Yazeed bin Muawiyah and Ubaidullah bin Ziyad. [alTadhkirah fe ahwaal al Akhirah page 562]
(ix). Shaykh Allama Muqbil ibn Hadi al-Wadi(rah) said:
مختلفٌ فيه بين أهل السنة ، فمنهم من يراه كافراً ، ومنهم من يراه فاسقاً ، والذي رجحه الحافظ الذهبي – ولعله الصواب إن شاء الله – أنه يعتبر فاسقاً ، وأمره إلى الله .
Ahlesunnah differed in regards to him. And from them who called him Kaafir, and from them who called him Faasiq. And hafidh adh-Dhahabi preferred opinion – which is more correct, inshAllah – that he was Faasiq. And his ruling upon Allah. (Source)
(x). Shaykh Zubair Ali Zaee(rah) said:
“We do not send lanah(curse) nor declare him(yazeed) Kaafir, We consider him a Tyrant, Majrooh and whose trustworthiness is not known. We give his case to Allah and we announce that we are free from all the Tyrants”. [His article on ten lies of Sanabili page 24]
(xi). Shaykh al-Islam Ahmad ibn Taymiyyah described people’s attitudes towards Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah, and said:
شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية الموقف من يزيد بن معاوية فقال :
افترق الناس في يزيد بن معاوية بن أبى سفيان ثلاث فرق ، طرفان ووسط .
فأحد الطرفين قالوا : إنه كان كافراً منافقاً ، وأنه سعى في قتل سبط رسول الله تشفِّياً من رسول الله وانتقاما منه ، وأخذاً بثأر جده عتبة وأخي جده شيبة ، وخاله الوليد بن عتبة وغيرهم ممن قتلهم أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بيد على بن أبى طالب وغيره يوم بدر وغيرها . وأشياء من هذا النمط وهذا القول سهل على الرافضة الذين يكفرون أبا بكر وعمر وعثمان فتكفير يزيد أسهل بكثير .
والطرف الثاني : يظنون أنه كان رجلًا صالحاً وإمام عدل ، وأنه كان من الصحابة الذين ولدوا على عهد النبي وحمله على يديه وبرَّك عليه . وربما فضَّله بعضهم على أبى بكر وعمر ، وربما جعله بعضهم نبيَّا …
وكلا القولين ظاهر البطلان عند من له أدنى عقل وعلم بالأمور وسِيَر المتقدمين ، ولهذا لا ينسب إلى أحد من أهل العلم المعروفين بالسنة ولا إلى ذي عقل من العقلاء الذين لهم رأى وخبرة
والقول الثالث : أنه كان ملكا من ملوك المسلمين له حسنات وسيئات ولم يولد إلا في خلافة عثمان ، ولم يكن كافرا ، ولكن جرى بسببه ما جرى من مصرع الحسين وفعل ما فعل بأهل الحرة ، ولم يكن صاحبا ولا من أولياء الله الصالحين ، وهذا قول عامة أهل العقل والعلم والسنة والجماعة .
ثم افترقوا ثلاث فرق فرقة لعنته وفرقة أحبته وفرقة لا تسبه ولا تحبه وهذا هو المنصوص عن الإمام أحمد وعليه المقتصدون من أصحابه وغيرهم من جميع المسلمين قال صالح بن أحمد قلت لأبي : إن قوما يقولون : إنهم يحبون يزيد فقال يا بني وهل يحب يزيد أحدٌ يؤمن بالله واليوم الآخر !! فقلت يا أبت فلماذا لا تلعنه ؟ فقال : يا بني ومتى رأيت أباك يلعن أحداً .
وقال أبو محمد المقدسي لما سئل عن يزيد فيما بلغني لا يُسَب ولا يُحَب وقال : وبلغنى أيضا أن جدنا أبا عبد الله بن تيمية سئل عن يزيد فقال : لاننقص فيه ولا نزيد وهذا أعدل الأقوال فيه وفي أمثاله وأحسنها
The people differed concerning Yazeed ibn Mu’aawiyah ibn Abi Sufyaan, splitting into three groups, two extreme and one moderate.
One of the two extremes said that he was a kaafir and a munaafiq, that he strove to kill the grandson of the Prophet(saw) to spite the Messenger of Allaah and to take revenge on him, and to avenge his grandfather ‘Utbah, his grandfather’s brother Shaybah and his maternal uncle al-Waleed ibn ‘Utbah and others who were killed by the companions of the Prophet(saw) , by ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib and others on the day of Badr and in other battles – and things of that nature. To have such a view is easy for the Raafidis who regard Abu Bakr, ‘Umar and ‘Uthmaan as kaafirs, so it is much easier for them to regard Yazeed as a kaafir.
The second extreme group think that he was a righteous man and a just leader, that he was one of the Sahaabah who were born during the time of the Prophet and were carried and blessed by him. Some of them give him a higher status than Abu Bakr and ‘Umar, and some of them regard him as a prophet. Both views are obviously false to one who has the least common sense and who has any knowledge of the lives and times of the earliest Muslims. This view is not attributable to any of the scholars who are known for following the Sunnah or to any intelligent person who has reason and experience.
The third view is that he was one of the kings of the Muslims, who did good deeds and bad deeds. He was not born until the caliphate of ‘Uthmaan. He was not a kaafir but it was because of him that the killing of al-Husayn happened, and he did what he did to the people of al-Harrah. He was not a Sahaabi, nor was he one of the righteous friends of Allaah. This is the view of most of the people of reason and knowledge and of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.
Then they divided into three groups, one which cursed him, one which loved him and one which neither cursed him nor loved him. This is what was reported from Imaam Ahmad, and this is the view of the fair-minded among his companions and others among the Muslims. Saalih ibn Ahmad said: I said to my father, some people say that they love Yazeed. He said, O my son, does anyone love Yazeed who believes in Allaah and the Last Day? I said, O my father, why do you not curse him? He said, O my son, when did you ever see your father curse anybody?
Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed: according to what I have heard he is neither to be cursed nor to be loved. He said, I also heard that our grandfather Abu ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed and he said: we do not deny his good qualities or exaggerate about them. This is the fairest opinion. (Source: Majmoo’ Fataawa Shaykh al-Islam, part 4, p. 481-484).
taken from
https://youpuncturedtheark.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/debunking-the-innovationbidah-of-celebrative-rituals-by-nasibis-on-ashura/