➤ Investigative Analysis of the Narration Regarding Yazid’s Drinking and Abandonment of Salah
Source: Fatāwā ‘Ilmiyyah, Vol. 3 – Principles, Verification of Narrations, and Their Rulings, Page 212
❖ The Narration: Return of the People of Madinah and the Stance of Muhammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah
According to a narration:
When the people of Madinah returned from Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyah, ‘Abdullāh ibn Muṭī‘ and his companions came to Muhammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah and expressed their desire to break allegiance (bay‘ah) with Yazid. But Muhammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah refused their request.
Then ‘Abdullāh ibn Muṭī‘ said: “Yazid drinks wine, abandons prayer, and violates the commands of Allah’s Book.”
To this, Muhammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah responded: “I have not seen in him what you are saying, for I have visited him and stayed with him. I found him observant of prayer, seeking goodness, a student of religious knowledge, and a follower of the Sunnah.”
The people replied: “He did all of that to deceive you.”
(al-Bidāyah wa’n-Nihāyah 8/233, Tārīkh al-Islām by adh-Dhahabī 5/274)
❖ Scholarly Analysis:
الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام علىٰ رسول الله، أما بعد!
✦ Chain of Transmission (Isnād) Issue:
Both Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) and Ḥāfiẓ adh-Dhahabī (رحمه الله) have reported this narration from Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn ʿAbdillāh ibn Abī Sayf al-Madā’inī (d. 224 AH), without any chain of narration (isnād).
- Al-Madā’inī died in 224 AH
- Ibn Kathīr was born in 701 AH
- Adh-Dhahabī was born in 673 AH
These massive generational gaps, with no isnād mentioned, make the narration:
✔ Severely disconnected (منقطع)
✔ Unattributed (بِلا سند)
✔ Rejected (مردود) due to lack of transmission chain
✦ Claim of Shaykh Kifāyatullāh Sanāblī:
Shaykh Kifāyatullāh Sanāblī stated that:
“This narration has been cited with a chain by Ibn Kathīr and adh-Dhahabī from the book of al-Madā’inī.”
This claim is strange and baseless.
Questions that arise:
- What source did Shaykh Sanāblī rely on for this assertion?
- Can he name the specific book of al-Madā’inī and provide a full reference?
- Without an identified book or source, how can this claim be substantiated?
Without such verification, the narration remains unauthenticated.
❖ If the Narration Were Accepted as Authentic?
Even if, hypothetically, the narration is assumed to be authentic, it would imply:
✔ Yazid ibn Mu‘āwiyah was a wine drinker
✔ He abandoned prayer
❖ Status of ‘Abdullāh ibn Muṭī‘ (رضي الله عنه)
- He saw the Prophet ﷺ, and thus he is classified as a Ṣaḥābī.
Cited by scholars of rijāl as a companion:
- Ibn Ḥibbān (رحمه الله) – Kitāb ath-Thiqāt (3/219)
- Ibn al-Athīr (رحمه الله) – Usd al-Ghābah (3/262)
- Adh-Dhahabī (رحمه الله) – Tajrīd Asmā’ aṣ-Ṣaḥābah (1/335)
- Ibn Ḥajar (رحمه الله) – Fatḥ al-Bārī (6/615, under Ḥadīth 3602)
Ibn Ḥajar also wrote in Taqrīb at-Tahdhīb:
“Lahu ru’yah” — He saw the Prophet ﷺ
(Ḥadīth No. 3626)
Ibn Kathīr (رحمه الله) wrote:
“He was born during the life of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, who gave him tahnīk (chewing date and placing it in his mouth) and prayed for his blessing.”
(al-Bidāyah wa’n-Nihāyah 9/126 – Deaths of 73 AH)
❖ Whose Statement Takes Precedence?
When a Ṣaḥābī like ‘Abdullāh ibn Muṭī‘ (رضي الله عنه) states that:
“Yazid drinks wine and abandons prayer”
While a Tābiʿī like Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah (رحمه الله) negates it, then the companion’s statement is given precedence.
✦ Principle of Ḥadīth:
✔ Affirmation (إثبات) is given priority over Negation (نفي).
The statement of ‘Abdullāh ibn Muṭī‘ (رضي الله عنه) is affirmative, while that of Muhammad ibn al-Ḥanafiyyah is negational.
❖ Final Conclusion:
The narration in question is not established due to the absence of an authentic chain of narration.
Therefore, there is no proven evidence that Yazid ibn Mu‘āwiyah was a wine drinker or someone who abandoned prayer.
📅 Date: 26 March 2013
ھذا ما عندي، والله أعلم بالصواب
