The Hadith of Constantinople and Yazid
In the weekly ”الاعتصام‘‘
, an article by respected Professor Muhammad Sharif Shakir was published in two parts, in which the professor tried to prove that Yazid, the son of Sayyiduna Muawiyah, was also included in the first Muslim attack on Constantinople. Apart from quoting various statements here and there, he could not present a single authentic or good narration explicitly stating Yazid’s presence in the army.
It is established from the history of hadith and the chain of narration that there were several attacks on Madain Qasr and Atiah during the era of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), while in the authentic hadith of Sahih Bukhari, there is no explicit statement that:
a. Yazid bin Muawiyah participated in all these attacks.
b. Yazid participated in the first of these attacks.
Therefore, for those who claim that Yazid bin Muawiyah was included in the attack on Constantinople, reasoning from Sahih Bukhari is not correct.
From a hadith in Sunan Abi Dawood, it is clear that there was an attack on Constantinople even before Yazid’s attack, in which the commander of the entire army was Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Al-Walid. Since this hadith is a strong obstacle for those who insist on proving that Yazid’s attack was definitely forgiven, Professor Sahib writes in response to this narration:
Except for Abu Dawood, no other book mentions Abdul Rahman as the leader of the army that attacked Constantinople.
However, in the following books as well, with authentic chains, the leader of this attacking army is mentioned as Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Al-Walid.
a. Jami’ al-Bayan fi Tafsir al-Qur’an, known as Tafsir al-Tabari
b. Tafsir Ibn Abi Hatim al-Razi
In this narration, Ibn Wahb has specified that it is from hearing (sama’).
Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s research is that Ibn Wahb was not a fabricator (mudallis).
The chain of narration of Ibn Wahb is also available.
Hafiz Ibn Asa said:
’’أخبرنا أبو محمد بن الأكفاني بقرأتي عليه قال: ثنا عبدالعزيز بن أحمد : أنبأ أبو محمد بن أبي نصر : أنبأ ابو القاسم بن ابي العقب : أنا أحمد بن إبراهيم القرشي ثنا ابن عائذ : ثنا الوليد : ثنا عبد الله بن لهيعة والليث بن سعد عن يزيد عن أبي عمران التجيبى قال: غزونا القسطنطنية وعلى أهل مصر عقبة بن عامر الجهني وعلى الجماعة عبد الرحمن بن خالد بن الوليد “
In this chain, Laith bin Saad was a central narrator of the Sahih Sitta and was a “trustworthy, reliable jurist, and a famous Imam.”
Laith ibn Saad had complete adherence to Haywah ibn Shuraih, the teacher of Ibn Wahb. And praise be to Allah, from this detail it is clear that the chain of narration of this hadith in Sunan Abi Dawood is absolutely authentic. For this reason, Imam Hakim and Dhahabi have declared it authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim. If the condition is taken to mean that all the narrators in this chain are narrators of Bukhari and Muslim, then obviously this is a misconception because Muslim is not a narrator of Sahih Bukhari or Muslim, and if it is taken to mean that its narrators are trustworthy like the narrators of Bukhari and Muslim, the chain is continuous, and it is neither anomalous nor defective, then this is absolutely correct. The study of Al-Mustadrak also proves this, that Imam Hakim calls the narration of trustworthy narrators like those of Sahih Bukhari and Muslim or similar trustworthy narrators, صحیح عـلـى شــرط الشيخين أو على أحدهما, and Hafiz Dhahabi agrees with him. Imam Hakim says: وأنا أستعين الله على اخراج أحاديث رواتها ثقات قد احتج بمثلها الشيخان رضى الله عنهما أو أحدهما
Meaning: I seek Allah’s help in narrating those hadiths whose narrators are trustworthy. Bukhari and Muslim, or only Bukhari, or only Muslim have accepted these narrators as authoritative. This statement also supports the second point and it is the stronger view. Therefore, it is not correct for some contemporary scholars to propagate against Imam Hakim and Dhahabi regarding phrases like علی شرط الشیخین, etc. Further details will follow, InshaAllah Al-Aziz. It is remembered that illusions are exempt from this.
This phrase can have two meanings:
1. Except for Abu Dawood Shareef, this narration is not found with a chain of transmission in any other book. This is the clear meaning. However, the professor has denied this.
2. Ahkaam al-Quran by Al-Jassas
3. Mustadrak Al-Hakim
Both Al-Hakim and Al-Dhahabi have declared it authentic according to the conditions of Bukhari and Muslim.
From this authentic hadith, it is understood that in this army, the leader of the Egyptians was Sayyiduna Uqbah bin Amir, the leader of the Syrians was Sayyiduna Afzalah bin Ubaid. The overall commander of the entire army was Sayyiduna Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Al-Walid.
From another narration in Sunan Abi Dawood
, it is also proven that Abdul Rahman mentioned and Sayyiduna Abu Ayyub participated fully in Jihad.
In the narration of Sunan Tirmidhi, the words وعلى الجماعة فضالة بن عبید that have appeared are likely a misunderstanding for several reasons.
4. Among all the students of Haywah bin Shurayh, the words ” وعلى أهل الشام فضالة بن عبید “ are narrated.
b. Apart from the mentioned chain of Abu Dawood, this narration is not present in any other book with any other chain. This interpretation is highly unlikely. However, the chain in Tarikh Dimashq clearly shows its invalidity. The professor has objected to a phrase written by me, “These words are not found in any book other than Sunan Tirmidhi,” and has cited references from Tafsir Qurtubi, Mahasin al-Ta’wil, Taghyir al-Khazin, Gharaib al-Quran, and Ahkam al-Quran. However, this objection is invalid in many respects.
My phrase means that this narration with its chain is not found in any other book. The respected professor has not been able to refute this claim.
I have this narration with the reference of Tirmidhi.
This narration is mentioned without a chain of transmission. I do not currently have Qasmi’s Tafsir Mahasin al-Ta’wil (later I have also obtained this Tafsir, Alhamdulillah). In all these books, this narration is present without a chain and with reference to Tirmidhi or transmitted from Tirmidhi, therefore all these references are useless. My point is different, and the professor’s interpretation is different. والعلم عند اللہ
Even if this is present in a thousand books with reference or transmission from Tirmidhi, the objection still stands. I request the professor to present any other chain besides Tirmidhi.
All the students of Haywah bin Shurayh consider the leader of the people of Egypt to be Uqbah bin Amir. And this is the same statement in the narration of Laith bin Saad and Ibn Lahi’ah from Yazid bin Abi Habib, as we have presented. Therefore, this matter is unanimous.
Both students of Haywah, Abdullah bin Yazid al-Muqarrami and Abdullah bin al-Mubarak, unanimously state that the leader of the people of Sham was Fudala bin Ubaid. This is the same statement in the narration of Laith bin Saad and Ibn Lahi’ah. The professor’s criticism of Abu Abdur Rahman al-Muqri is nothing more than trickery.
Due to the adherence to Sheikh al-Islam Ibn al-Mubarak
, there is no opportunity here to elaborate on the defense of al-Maqri.
These words are not found in any book other than Sunan al-Tirmidhi.
Researchers have pointed out the doubt in Tirmidhi’s narration. For example,
وعلى الجماعة فضالة بن عبيد والصواب أنه على أهل الشام كما في باقي الروايات ، أما على الجماعة فكان عبد الرحمن بن خالد بن الوليد
Mr. Khalil Ahmad Saharanpuri Anbiathvi Deobandi writes:
فظهر بهذه الروايات أن عبد الرحمن بن خالد كان أمير أعلى الجميع
That is, from these narrations it is evident that Sayyiduna Abdul Rahman bin Khalid was the commander of the entire army.
History shows that there were many attacks on Constantinople.
Hafiz Ibn Kathir writes:
Sayyiduna Muawiyah launched sixteen military campaigns on Roman lands.
One army attacked in winter (Shawati) and another in summer (Sawā’if).
Among these armies, the leader of the Sawā’if
was Yazid.
In the narration of Laith bin Saad and Ibn Lahi’ah, the leader of the people of Sham is also stated to be Fudala bin Ubaid. There is disagreement among the students of Al-Dahhak bin Mukhlad. In the narration of Abd bin Humaid, the words of ” وعلی الجماعة فضالة بن عبید “ are present (Tirmidhi), but in the narrations of Amr bin Al-Dahhak and Ubaidullah bin Saeed, there is no mention of this.
From this detail, it is understood that the narration of Al-Dahhak bin Mukhlad is anomalous and rejected due to opposition from Ibn Al-Mubarak and others, as well as disagreement among his students. If it were correct, it would mean that there were many attacks on Constantinople. In some, the commander of the army was Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Al-Walid, in others Fudala bin Ubaid, and in others Yazid bin Muawiyah or someone else, etc. Therefore, from Tirmidhi’s narration, the professor’s claim is by no means proven that there was only one attack on Constantinople and that Yazid was present in that attack.
The researchers referred to are Sayyid al-Hilimi and Sabri al-Shafi’i. These are the same researchers referenced by Professor Muhammad Sharif Sahib in Weekly Ahl-e-Hadith Lahore, Volume 29, Issue No. 9, column number, and further on this page at column number, where he writes that Hafiz Zubair Sahib, who cited the commentary of Tafsir Nasa’i, gave an ambiguous reference. Who is Muhshi? From where did he take these words? سبحان اللہ
In fact, even before all these armies, there is evidence of an army’s attack on Constantinople in which Sayyiduna Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) was also included. This attack took place in 32 AH, corresponding to 653-652 AD.
At that time, Yazid was approximately six years old.
From this single evidence alone, it becomes as clear as daylight that the narration about the “first army” does not correctly apply to Yazid.
Warning:
Before Yazid bin Muawiya’s final attack, besides the previous attacks on Constantinople, there was another attack as well.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar writes:
واسـتـعـمـل معاوية سفيان بن عوف على الصوائف وكان يعظمه
And Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) appointed Sufyan bin Awf as the commander in the summer campaigns against Constantinople, and you used to honor him. In Muhammad Al-Hafiri’s
it is mentioned that:
’’وفی ۵۴۸ جهز معاوية جيشاً عظيما لفتح قسطنطنية وكان على الجيش سفیان بن عوف “
Muawiya sent a great army for the conquest of Constantinople, whose commander was Sufyan bin Awf (may Allah be pleased with him).
Warning:
The reference from Muhadharat is taken from another book.
Summary of Investigation:
Two points about Yazid bin Muawiya are extremely important.
➊ It is not proven that he was present in the first attacking army on Constantinople.
➋ Silence should be maintained regarding Yazid, as he is a weak narrator in hadith transmission.
This attack on Constantinople was from the direction of Mudeeq al-Qustantiniyah, a place near the city. Hafiz Dhahabi writes:
فيها كانت وقعة المضيق بالقرب من قسطنطنية و أمير ها معاوية
In this narration, the event of Madiq took place, which is near Constantinople, and its governor was Muawiyah; therefore, this attack was also on Constantinople.
