The Historical Stance of Sahaba, Ahl-e-Bayt, and Muhadditheen on Yazid
Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (RA) Was Also a Yazidi
We have had to deal with three types of Fitnahs (mischief/trials) related to Rafidhiyyat (Shi’ism): first, the Shia Rawafidh, second, the semi-Rawafidh, and third, those influenced by the Rawafidh. The first two are separated from the Ahl-e-Sunnah based on their beliefs and ideologies, and the difference between them and the Ahl-e-Sunnah is clear.
The third Fitnah, concerning those influenced by the Rawafidh, has infiltrated the Ahl-e-Sunnah. These people are found in all schools of thought within the Ahl-e-Sunnah. They parade around portraying themselves as Hussainis and call others Yazidis. According to these influenced Rawafidh, the so-called Hussainis, the Companion of the Messenger, Abdullah bin Umar (May Allah be pleased with him), is also a Yazidi.
Abdullah bin Umar (RA):-
He is the one who, according to the so-called Hussainis, regarding the person (Yazid) who killed Sayyiduna Hussain (RA) along with the Ahl-e-Bayt, terrified the people of Madinah, made Madinah lawful (for pillaging) for three days, violated the chastity of the women of Madinah, fathered a thousand illegitimate children, tied horses in Masjid-e-Nabawi, burned the Kaaba, and killed the Sahaba (Companions)—compared pledging allegiance (Bay’ah) to him with pledging allegiance to Allah and His Messenger, and he did not break his pledge. Instead, he issued severe warnings to those who broke their pledge.
From this, you can gauge how big of a Yazidi Abdullah bin Umar (RA) was in the eyes of the so-called Hussainis. Thus, after the killing of the family of Ali, including the so-called Hussain, Yazid turned towards Madinah and began a general massacre of the Sahaba. In response, the people of Madinah broke their pledge to Yazid and raised the flag of rebellion against him.
On this occasion, the Yazidi Abdullah bin Umar (RA) said:
It is narrated from Nafi’ that when the people of Madinah refused their allegiance to Yazid bin Muawiyah, Abdullah bin Umar (RA) gathered his servants and children and said: “I heard the Noble Prophet ﷺ saying: ‘A flag will be raised for every traitor on the Day of Resurrection,’ and we have pledged allegiance to this person (Yazid) in the name of Allah and His Messenger. To my knowledge, there is no greater betrayal than pledging allegiance to a person in the name of Allah and His Messenger and then waging war against him. And behold, O people of Madinah! If anyone of you breaks the pledge to Yazid and pledges allegiance to someone else, then there is no relationship left between me and him; I am separated from him.” (Sahih Bukhari)
Besides this, in other narrations of Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Umar (RA), harsh words have been narrated regarding those who break the pledge.
The Second Yazidi Sahabi: Abdullah bin Jafar
Abdullah bin Jafar (RA) is a Companion of the Messenger. He is the nephew of Sayyiduna Ali (RA), the cousin of Sayyiduna Hussain (RA), and the father-in-law of a tyrant, oppressor, and killer of the Sahaba and Ahl-e-Bayt like Yazid. Now, it is unknown whether Yazid was bad from the very beginning, or if he somehow became bad only after Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar (RA) married his daughter to him.
Let’s see what kind of a Yazidi he was.
The scan of Ibn Kathir’s (May Allah have mercy on him) book Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah is before you.
Sayyiduna Muawiyah (RA) told Yazid: “Undoubtedly, I have a friend among the people of Madinah; honor him.” Yazid asked, “Who is he?” Sayyiduna Muawiyah (RA) replied: “Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar (RA).”
And when he went to Yazid after the death of Muawiyah, Yazid doubled the stipends that Muawiyah used to give him. Sayyiduna Muawiyah owed him a stipend of six hundred thousand; Yazid gave him ten million. At this, Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar told Yazid:
“May my parents be sacrificed for you.”
Then Yazid gave him another ten million. So Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar said, “By Allah, I will not gather my parents for anyone after you” (meaning, I will not say ‘may my parents be sacrificed for you’ to anyone after you).
When Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar left Yazid’s presence, having been given twenty million dirhams by him, he saw two Bakhti (Bactrian) camels sitting at Yazid’s door, which had arrived as a gift from Khurasan. Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar (RA) went back to Yazid and requested three Bakhti camels so that he could ride them for Hajj and Umrah. And when Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar came to Syria to Yazid, Yazid asked his chamberlain, “What is the matter with these Bakhti camels at the door?” The chamberlain did not know about them, and the camels were loaded with various kinds of wealth. Yazid said, “Send them to Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar along with all the wealth.”
And Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar (RA) used to say, “Do you blame me for holding a good opinion about him (Yazid)?” (meaning, you must be crazy).
Whatever wealth and stipends Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Jafar (RA) received from Sayyiduna Muawiyah and Yazid, he would distribute all of it among the poor and needy.
So, according to the so-called Hussainis, you have just observed another Yazidi Sahabi who tells Yazid, “May my parents be sacrificed for you,” and also says, “I will say this only for you.” Believe me, they wouldn’t even say such things about those whom today’s so-called Hussainis label as Yazidis.
Yazidi Families and Tribes
During the event of Karbala, Sayyiduna Hussain (RA) alone revolted against Yazid; no one from among the Sahaba was with Sayyiduna Hussain (RA). But after this, the people of Madinah rebelled against Yazid. Now, the family of Hussain and the Ahl-e-Bayt had the opportunity to join the people of Madinah in this act, especially since the action of Sayyiduna Hussain (RA) was already present before them as an example.
But we see that instead of becoming Hussaini, they became Yazidi.
Accordingly, Imam Ibn Kathir (May Allah have mercy on him) states:
“Ali bin Hussain Zain-ul-Abideen (May Allah have mercy on him) and Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (RA) remained aloof from the people; these two did not depose Yazid.”
You have already observed Sayyiduna Ibn Umar being a Yazidi in the previous post, but Sayyiduna Hussain’s (RA) son, Zain-ul-Abideen—from the progeny of the Messenger, the Ahl-e-Bayt—also becoming a Yazidi is highly significant, worthy of reflection, and a resounding slap on the faces of the so-called Hussainis.
Didn’t Hussain’s (RA) son know what kind of monster Yazid was? This is Zain-ul-Abideen, who was present on the battlefield of Karbala, famously known as the ‘Sick one of Karbala’, a highly exalted personality. And this was after the tragedy of Karbala, during the Event of Harrah, when Yazid was allegedly severing the heads of the Sahaba, when Madinah was made lawful for three days according to the so-called Hussainis, horses were urinating in Masjid-e-Nabawi, the Kaaba was being burnt, and the foundation of a thousand illegitimate children was being laid—whose descendants would later curse Yazid.
Despite all this, Sayyiduna Hussain’s (RA) son, Sayyiduna Zain-ul-Abideen, did not stand against Yazid. Sayyiduna Hussain was against Yazid at a time when all the aforementioned crimes had not even occurred, but now a mountain of crimes was right in front of them, and the people of Madinah were also supporting the rebellion. Yet, Zain-ul-Abideen did not oppose Yazid; rather, like Sayyiduna Ibn Umar, he isolated himself from those opposing him. O so-called Hussainis, these Yazidis are emerging from the very house of Hussain (RA)! What will you do about them?
Imam Ibn Kathir (May Allah have mercy on him) further states:
“And similarly, not a single person from the Bani Abdul Muttalib deposed Yazid.”
This entire family turned out to be Yazidi!
Ibn Kathir narrates:
“Imam Baqir (May Allah have mercy on him) says, ‘None of the family of Abu Talib and the family of Bani Abdul Muttalib revolted during the days of Harrah.'”
This is Imam Baqir, the fifth Imam of the Shias, who is stating this, and he is declaring regarding both the family of Abu Talib and the family of Bani Abdul Muttalib that not a single person from these two families revolted against Yazid. Our question to the so-called Hussainis here is: Was the action of the people of Madinah who revolted against Yazid correct, or was the action of the Messenger’s progeny and family in not revolting against Yazid correct? This post will weigh heavily on the so-called Hussainis; they will fret while reading it but won’t be able to answer.
It is a very astonishing matter. Entire families are turning out to be Yazidis. These are the people who existed during the Yazidi era; they are not the 14th-century Hussainis. Supposedly, they didn’t know how bad Yazid was—the one responsible for the tragedy of Karbala and the mastermind of the tragedy of Harrah—but the fools of the 14th century know! Now it is up to you whether you want to side with the family of the Messenger, the Companions of the Messenger, and the progeny of the Messenger, or with these 14th-century so-called Hussainis. But remember this, these Ahl-e-Sunnah Hussainis are just like the Shia’s Alvis: neither are the latter true followers of Ali, nor are the former true followers of Hussain.
All the Muhadditheen (Hadith Scholars) Were Also Yazidis
You will often see the faction of so-called Hussainis showing you the quotes of scholars regarding Yazid, claiming that such and such scholar called Yazid a Fasiq-o-Fajir (sinner and transgressor), such and such said he was a bad person, such and such permitted cursing Yazid, etc.
But despite this, there is no consensus among the Ahl-e-Sunnah scholars on condemning Yazid. Instead, the stance of the majority (Jamhoor) of Ahl-e-Sunnah scholars is to maintain silence (Sukoot) regarding Yazid. Now, this silence is also a proof. To remain silent on all the crimes of Yazid counted by the 15th-century Hussainis is blatant Yazidiyyat in itself. They should have openly criticized Yazid like the Hussainis, but by advocating silence, the majority of Ahl-e-Sunnah scholars have provided proof of being Yazidis themselves. On the contrary, the scholars and Muhadditheen agree on Yazid being among the people of Paradise, so these Muhadditheen are also Yazidis.
The Holy Prophet ﷺ said:
أول جیش من أمتی یغزون مدینۃ قیصر مغفورلھم
The first army of my Ummah that will wage Jihad against the city of Caesar is forgiven.
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani (May Allah have mercy on him) quotes the statement of the commentator of Bukhari, Al-Muhallab (May Allah have mercy on him), under this Hadith: Al-Muhallab says that in this Hadith, the excellence (Manqabat) of Muawiyah (RA) is described because he was the first to wage naval Jihad, and the excellence of his son Yazid is also described because he was the first to wage Jihad in the city of Caesar.
Everyone knows what Manqabat means. They are extracting the excellence of Yazid from the Hadith. Have you seen what big Yazidis these Muhadditheen are?
The Imams of Hadith (Muhadditheen) unanimously declared Yazid to be the specific subject (Misdaaq) of this Hadith.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani (May Allah have mercy on him) says:
فإنہ کان أمیر ذلک الجیش بالاتفاق
“That he (Yazid bin Muawiyah) was unanimously the commander of that army.” (Fath al-Bari: 6/103)
Now, according to the 15th-century Hussainis, Yazid was not in the first army that attacked Constantinople, whereas Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani is presenting the consensus of the Muhadditheen that Yazid was unanimously the commander of this first army.
If this is not support for Yazid, then what is it? According to the Hussainis, a virtue is not even proven for Yazid, yet all the Muhadditheen are applying it to Yazid. This would be deemed unjustified support—that the Muhadditheen declared Yazid as the subject of the virtue mentioned in the Hadith. In this way, all these Muhadditheen have become Yazidis.
These are big names among these pro-Yazid factions; there is no need to write their names down, the so-called Hussainis know them very well. All the great commentators who have written commentaries on Sahih Bukhari have explicitly declared Yazid as the subject of this Hadith in their commentaries. And besides this, other scholars of Ahl-e-Sunnah have done the same in their respective books, including scholars like Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Kathir, and Imam Dhahabi.
If the so-called Hussainis say that the scholars of fourteen hundred years made a mistake in identifying Yazid as the subject of the Hadith of Constantinople, and we have correctly interpreted it in the 15th century, then we ask: if the scholars of fourteen hundred years could make a mistake about the Hadith of Constantinople, why couldn’t a few scholars make a mistake in calling Yazid a Fasiq-o-Fajir?
Either agree with the scholars on this too, that Yazid is the subject of the Hadith of Constantinople, or do not agree with them on that either, that Yazid is a Fasiq-o-Fajir. To pick and choose according to your own whims is hypocrisy.
But there is a difference between the two points.
Calling Yazid a Fasiq-o-Fajir is the personal opinion of some scholars, whereas Yazid’s inclusion in the forgiven/heavenly group is proven by Hadith. Now it is up to you to decide which statement is worth accepting and which is not.
