Compiled by: Abu Ubaidah Muhammad Saqib
The matter of Yazid ibn Muawiyah is one of the most sensitive, delicate, and controversial topics in Islamic history. The approach of Ahl al-Sunnah in this regard is neither to exaggerate nor to be biased; neither to declare takfir without evidence nor to cover up oppression and injustice. When making judgments about personalities, Shariah principles, historical facts, statements of the learned Imams, and justice and fairness will be taken into account.
It should be clear that Yazid ibn Muawiyah was neither a companion (Sahabi), nor among the Rightly Guided Caliphs, nor a personality whose love is made a part of the religion. On the other hand, declaring absolute takfir or final judgment about his fate in the Hereafter is also not the method of Ahl al-Sunnah, because the matter of the Hereafter is entrusted to Allah Almighty. However, the major tragedies that occurred during his reign, especially the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him), the incident of Harrah against the people of Madinah, and the siege of Makkah, raise very serious questions about his period of rule.
While researching Yazid, it is necessary to keep a few fundamental points in mind. The first point is that there is no authentic chain of narration directly proving that Yazid gave the order for the killing of Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him). However, it is also a fact that it was the ruler's responsibility to punish the killers of Hussain, to hold the oppressive agent Ibn Ziyad accountable, and to justly remove the oppression done to the Ahl al-Bayt. Yazid did not fulfill this responsibility; instead of immediately dismissing or punishing Ibn Ziyad, he did not take effective action against his crime. For this reason, the scholars did not declare Yazid innocent of this tragedy.
The second point is that the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Hussain رضي الله عنه was not an ordinary political incident, but rather the oppressed martyrdom of the beloved grandson of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, a respected member of the Ahl al-Bayt, and the leader of the youth of Paradise. Silence on this event, leniency towards the killers, or presenting their crime as minor is not befitting of the people of faith. The stance of Ahl al-Sunnah is that Sayyiduna Hussain رضي الله عنه is an oppressed martyr, his killers are oppressors, and whoever consents to this oppression, defends it, or downplays it, does not act justly towards the Ahl al-Bayt.
The third point is that during Yazid's era, not only Karbala but also the incident of Harrah and the siege of Makkah occurred. The sanctity of Madinah Munawwarah, the status of the people of Madinah, and the greatness of Makkah Mukarramah are established by authentic hadiths. Treating such places and the faithful people there with harshness, military expeditions, and causing fear and terror cannot be seen as a minor governmental mistake. These events make Yazid's reign a dark and condemnable period.
Therefore, the prevailing and cautious Sunni stance regarding Yazid bin Muawiyah is that neither should love for him be held, nor should he be defended, nor should his crimes and the atrocities of his reign be downplayed, nor should his excommunication be declared without definitive evidence. His matter is entrusted to Allah Almighty, but disassociation from the oppression during his era, love for Ahl al-Bayt, respect for the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and disavowal of the killers of Hussain is the clear approach of the faithful.
The purpose of this discussion is not to incite sectarian emotions, but to clarify historical truth with justice: neither the takfir of Yazid, nor the purification of Yazid; rather disassociation from oppression, love for Ahl al-Bayt, and a balanced scholarly stance of Ahl al-Sunnah.
Yazid was neither a Companion nor a Rightly Guided Caliph, nor is his virtue solely due to his rule
شیخ الاسلام امام ابن تیمیہ رحمہ اللہ فرماتے ہیں: فلا يجوز أن يغلى لا في يزيد ولا غيره، بل لا يجوز أن يتكلم في أحد إلا بعلم وعدل. ومن قال: إنه إمام ابن إمام، فإن أراد بذلك أنه تولى الخلافة كما تولاها سائر خلفاء بني أمية والعباس فهذا صحيح، لكن ليس في ذلك ما يوجب مدحه وتعظيمه، والثناء عليه وتقديمه، فليس كل من تولى أنه كان من الخلفاء الراشدين والأئمة المهديين، فمجرد الولاية على الناس لا يمدح بها الإنسان ولا يستحق على ذلك الثواب، وإنما يمدح ويثاب على ما يفعله من العدل والصدق، والأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر، والجهاد وإقامة الحدود، كما يذم ويعاقب على ما يفعله من الظلم والكذب والأمر بالمنكر والنهي عن المعروف وتعطيل الحدود، وتضييع الحقوق، وتعطيل الجهاد.
Therefore, it is not permissible to exaggerate about Yazid or anyone else, and it is not permissible to speak about any person without knowledge and justice.
And whoever says that Yazid was the "Imam of Imams," if by this he means that he also became a ruler in the same way as the other caliphs of Banu Umayyah and Banu Abbas, then this is correct. But there is nothing in this that necessitates praising, glorifying, or preferring him over others.
It is not necessary that every person who becomes a ruler over people is among the Rightly Guided Caliphs and the guided Imams. Merely acquiring authority and governance over people does not make a person deserving of praise, nor does it entitle him to reward solely on that basis.
The definition and reward of a person depend on his justice, truthfulness, enjoining good, forbidding evil, striving in the way of Allah (jihad), and establishing the limits (hudud). Similarly, the blame and punishment of a person are due to his oppression, lying, commanding evil, preventing good, suspending the limits, violating rights, and abandoning jihad.
Reference: Jami' al-Masa'il - Ibn Taymiyyah - Ta'aat al-'Ilm:5/149
Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, said: He was only a king
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
The third opinion is that Yazid was one of the Muslim kings; he had both virtues and vices. He was born during the caliphate of Uthman, may Allah be pleased with him, and was not a disbeliever, but because of him, the martyrdom of Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, occurred, and he did what he did with the people of Harrah. He was neither a companion nor among the righteous saints of Allah.
Reference: Majmoo' al-Fatawa:4/483
Criticism of Yazid by Hafiz Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him
Hafiz Dhahabi wrote in the biography of Yazid bin Muawiya: [كان قويا، شجاعا، ذا رأي، وحزم، وفطنة، وفصاحة، وله شعر جيد، وكان ناصبيا، فظا، غليظا، جلفا،]
He was powerful, brave, opinionated, a man of firm planning, intelligent, and eloquent, and he was also a good poet, but he was a Nasibi, harsh-tempered, rough, and cruel.
Reference: Siyar A'lam al-Nubala - Dar al-Risalah (Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi):4/37
Imam San'ani, may Allah have mercy on him, quoted Dhahabi's statement:
أما قول الإمام الذهبي في سيره عن يزيد بأنه ممن لا نسبه ولا نحبه وأنه كان ناصبيًّا فظًّا غليظًا جلفًا...
As for Imam Al-Dhahabi's statement in his Siyar about Yazid, that he is among those whom we neither curse nor love, and that he was a Nasibi, harsh-tempered, rough, and barren.
Reference: Al-Tanweer Sharh Al-Jami' Al-Sagheer (Al-San'ani):1/100
The Martyrdom of Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) during Yazid's Reign and Governmental Responsibility
Hafiz Al-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) describes the severity of Yazid's reign as follows:
افتتح دولته بمقتل الشهيد الحسين، واختتمها بواقعة الحرة، فمقته الناس، ولم يبارك في عمره.
He began his rule with the killing of the martyr Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), and it ended with the incident of Al-Harra; therefore, people began to harbor enmity towards him, and his life was not blessed.
Reference: Siyar A'lam Al-Nubala - Al-Risalah Edition (Shams Al-Din Al-Dhahabi):4/38
Note: This statement clearly indicates that Yazid's era of governance was not considered honorable or defensible by the scholars; rather, at its very beginning, the great tragedy of the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) occurred, and at its end, the painful incident of Al-Harra took place.
Shaykh Al-Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
أن يزيد لم يظهر الرضا بقتل الحسين وأنه أظهر الألم لقتله. والله أعلم بسريرته. وقد علم أنه لم يأمر بقتله ابتداء لكنه مع ذلك ما انتقم من قاتليه ولا عاقبهم على ما فعلوا؛ إذ كانوا قتلوه لحفظ ملكه الذي كان يخاف عليه من الحسين وأهل البيت. رضي الله عنهم أجمعين.
Yazid did not express approval of the killing of Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), rather he expressed grief and sorrow over his killing, and Allah Almighty knows best the state of his heart.
It is known that Yazid did not initially order the killing of Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), but despite that, he did not take revenge on his killers, nor did he punish them for what they had done; because they killed Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) to preserve his kingship, which he felt threatened by from Sayyiduna Hussain and the Ahl al-Bayt (may Allah be pleased with them).
Reference: Majmu' al-Fatawa: 27/480
Summary:
From these statements, it is understood that the moderate position of Ahl al-Sunnah is that it is not proven that Yazid was the direct killer of Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) or the absolute commander of his killing, but it is also not correct to absolve him of this tragedy; because this great tragedy occurred during his reign, the killers of Hussain committed this crime to save his government, and Yazid neither took retribution from them nor punished them. Therefore, defending Yazid, exonerating him, or presenting his reign as something to be proud of is against the statements of the scholars.
Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
قال عبد الرحمن بن مبارك: عن خالد بن عبد الله، عن مغيرة، عن الشعبي، قال: كان معاوية بن أبي سفيان بعث النعمان بن بشير أميرا على الكوفة، فكان عليها سبعة أشهر.
Imam Shu’bi (may Allah have mercy on him) narrates that Sayyiduna Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with them) appointed Sayyiduna Nu’man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with him) as the governor of Kufa, and he remained the governor of Kufa for seven months.
Reference: Al-Tarikh al-Kabir by Bukhari with the annotations of Mahmoud Khalil: 8/75, Number: 2223
From this evidence, it is understood that before Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, the governorship of Kufa was with Sayyiduna Nu'man ibn Bashir, may Allah be pleased with him. Later, when Muslim ibn Aqil, may Allah be pleased with him, arrived in Kufa and the matter of the allegiance of the people of Kufa arose, Nu'man ibn Bashir, may Allah be pleased with him, was removed and Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad was appointed as the governor of Kufa.
Yazid ibn Muawiya cannot be completely absolved of the crime of the killing of Hussain, may Allah be pleased with him, because he removed the companion Sayyiduna Nu'man ibn Bashir, may Allah be pleased with him, who was lenient in the matter of Muslim ibn Aqil, and appointed a harsh, tyrannical, and oppressive person like Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad as the governor of Kufa, and even after the incident of Karbala, he did not hold him accountable.
It is historically established that at the time Muslim bin Aqeel رضي الله عنه/رحمہ الله arrived in Kufa, Nu'man bin Bashir رضي الله عنه was the governor of Kufa. Then Yazid removed him and appointed Ubaidullah bin Ziyad as the governor of Kufa along with Basra. Ibn Kathir wrote: [وبلغ ذلك النعمان بن بشير، وهو أمير الكوفة] meaning this news reached Nu'man bin Bashir, and he was the governor of Kufa at that time. Then in the narration of Tabari, it is mentioned that Yazid also gave the governorship of Kufa to Ubaidullah bin Ziyad.
Question: Who were the direct killers?
Answer: The direct killers were those who surrounded Sayyiduna Hussain رضي الله عنه in the battlefield of Karbala and directly participated in his killing; such as the soldiers of Umar bin Saad's army, Shimr bin Dhi al-Jawshan, Sinan bin Anas, Khawli bin Yazid, etc. They are directly guilty of the crime of killing.
However, Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad is also included among the killers of Hussain, although he was not the direct killer wielding the sword on the battlefield of Karbala; because he was the original governmental commander, planner, the one who sent the army, and responsible for the killing. He sent Umar ibn Saad against Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), organized the battle, and after the killing, instead of punishing the killers, he patronized this oppression. Therefore, Ibn Ziyad will be included among the killers of Hussain as the commander, organizer, and the main governmental responsible person.
Question: Who was the political/administrative responsible person?
Answer: This responsibility lies with Yazid, because:
He removed a companion like Nu'man ibn Bashir (may Allah be pleased with him) and appointed Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad. Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad killed Muslim ibn Aqil, suppressed Kufa, and then sent the army against Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him). After the incident, Yazid neither killed Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad, nor immediately took retribution, nor gave him a punishment commensurate with the crime.
Later, the revenge for the killers of Hussain رضي الله عنه was taken during the time of Mukhtar Thaqafi, not by the order of Yazid. Ibn Kathir mentioned the incidents of the killing of Ubaidullah ibn Ziyad and Umar ibn Saad during Mukhtar's era.
In light of this principle, Yazid ibn Muawiya cannot be called the direct killer of Sayyidna Hussain رضي الله عنه, because the direct killing was carried out by the soldiers sent by Ibn Ziyad; and according to scholars, there is no clear initial order of killing proven from Yazid. However, it is also true that the killers of Sayyidna Hussain رضي الله عنه committed this crime to preserve Yazid's rule, and Yazid neither took retribution from these killers later, nor punished the responsible persons like Ibn Ziyad and Umar ibn Saad, nor fulfilled the legal right of the blood of the slain.
Therefore, Yazid cannot be absolved of the political, governmental, administrative, and moral responsibility for this great injustice. In this regard, it can be said that he is meaningfully involved and responsible for the blood of the killing of Hussain; that is, he is not the direct murderer, but by not punishing the killers of Hussain, not holding them accountable, and not fulfilling the Shariah requirements for this unjust blood, he does not remain safe from the consequences of this crime.
If it is proven before any ruler that an unjust killing has occurred, the killer is known, the conditions for Qisas (retribution) are met, and yet he deliberately does not carry out Qisas or protects the killer, then this is a great sin. It is culpable from many aspects:
[1] The sin of abandoning the command of Allah
Allah Almighty has said: [وَ لَکُمۡ فِی الۡقِصَاصِ حَیٰوۃٌ یّٰۤاُولِی الۡاَلۡبَابِ لَعَلَّکُمۡ تَتَّقُوۡنَ]
And O you who have intellect! There is life for you in Qisas.
Reference: Al-Baqarah: 179
(Meaning) Qisas is not merely revenge, but a Shariah system for the protection of lives in society. If a ruler suspends it despite having the power, he nullifies the justice established by Allah.
[2] Helping the killer and supporting oppression
If a ruler protects a murderer, appoints him to a position, does not punish him, or covers up his crime, then this is aiding the oppressor. The Quran commands:
[وَ لَا تَرۡکَنُوۡۤا اِلَی الَّذِیۡنَ ظَلَمُوۡا فَتَمَسَّکُمُ النَّارُ]
And do not incline toward those who do wrong, lest the Fire touch you.
Reference: Hud: 113
[3] The sin of wasting the blood of the murdered
Unjust killing is a great sin. Allah Almighty said: [وَ مَنۡ قُتِلَ مَظۡلُوۡمًا فَقَدۡ جَعَلۡنَا لِوَلِیِّہٖ سُلۡطٰنًا]
And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority.
Reference: Al-Isra: 33
[4] The sin of not doing justice
Allah Almighty's command is: [اِنَّ اللّٰہَ یَاۡمُرُ بِالۡعَدۡلِ]
Indeed, Allah commands justice.
Reference: An-Nahl: 90
And He said: [اِنَّ اللّٰہَ یَاۡمُرُکُمۡ اَنۡ تُؤَدُّوا الۡاَمٰنٰتِ اِلٰۤی اَہۡلِہَا ۙ وَ اِذَا حَکَمۡتُمۡ بَیۡنَ النَّاسِ اَنۡ تَحۡکُمُوۡا بِالۡعَدۡلِ]
Indeed, Allah commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice.
Reference: An-Nisa: 58
[5] Betrayal regarding the subjects
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said:
[ما من عبد يسترعيه الله رعية، يموت يوم يموت وهو غاش لرعيته، إلا حرم الله عليه الجنة] Whoever Allah appoints as a guardian over a people and then dies while betraying them, Allah will forbid Paradise for him.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari: 7150, Sahih Muslim: 142
Not punishing the culprit of unlawful killing is a betrayal of the peace, blood, and rights of the subjects.
[6] The Sin of Intercession or Leniency in Hudood and Qisas
The Prophet ﷺ said:
[إنما أهلك الذين قبلكم أنهم كانوا إذا سرق فيهم الشريف تركوه، وإذا سرق فيهم الضعيف أقاموا عليه الحد]The people before you were destroyed because when a noble person among them stole, they let him go, and when a weak person stole, they applied the punishment on him.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari: 3475, Sahih Muslim: 1688
Although this hadith is about the punishment for theft, the principle is clear: The law cannot be different for the powerful and different for the weak.
Conclusion
If the ruler has the power, the crime is proven, the murderer is known, and there is no Shariah obstacle to Qisas, yet he does not take Qisas from the murderer, then he is:
Oppressor, traitor, one who nullifies Allah’s command, one who tramples on the blood of the victim, and one who supports the murderer.
The same principle applies in the case of Yazid that if the killers of Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) were known to him, and despite that he did not take retribution, nor did he punish the real culprits, then he cannot be absolved of the political, administrative, and moral responsibility of that injustice. However, jurisprudentially, the “direct killer” and the “responsibility of the ruler” are two separate categories.
Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
[وقد علم أنه لم يأمر بقتله ابتداء لكنه مع ذلك ما انتقم من قاتليه ولا عاقبهم على ما فعلوا؛ إذ كانوا قتلوه لحفظ ملكه الذي كان يخاف عليه من الحسين وأهل البيت.]
It is known that Yazid did not initially order the killing of Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), but despite that, he did not take revenge from his killers, nor did he punish them for what they had done; because they killed Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) to save his own kingship, which he feared from Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) and the Ahl al-Bayt (may Allah be pleased with them).
Reference: Majmoo’ al-Fatawa: 27/480
Some people defend Yazid by arguing that a few Companions of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them, pledged allegiance to him, therefore Yazid is praiseworthy or defensible. This reasoning is incorrect, and the following are some arguments against it:
① Allegiance is a political matter, not a proof of virtue
Temporarily accepting someone's rule does not mean that the person is righteous, just, beloved, or defensible. Many rulers in history were tolerated by people to avoid sedition and bloodshed, but this does not imply endorsement of their oppression, immorality, or mistakes.
② Obedience is only in what is good
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: [إنما الطاعة في المعروف]
Obedience is only in what is good.
Reference: Sahih Bukhari: 7257, Sahih Muslim: 1840
From this hadith, it is understood that obedience or allegiance to a ruler does not mean endorsing all his actions. If a ruler commits oppression, that oppression should still be called oppression, even if his rule is politically accepted.
③ Patience with an oppressive ruler does not mean praising him
Among the Ahl al-Sunnah, not revolting against a tyrannical ruler to avoid fitnah and bloodshed is one issue, and calling that ruler pious, just, or beloved is a completely different issue. Not revolting does not mean endorsing oppression; rather, it can be a wisdom to avoid greater corruption.
④ The Approach of Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (RA)
Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (RA) forbade breaking the pledge of allegiance to Yazid, but this did not mean that he considered Yazid virtuous or endorsed all his actions; rather, his aim was to avoid fitnah, breach of covenant, and social chaos. It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari that when the people of Madinah broke the pledge of allegiance to Yazid, Ibn Umar (RA) gathered his family and forbade them from breaking the pledge.
Reference: Sahih Bukhari: 7111
This only proves that he did not consider breaking the pledge and causing fitnah to be correct; it does not prove that he considered Yazid’s oppression or the calamities of his era to be defensible.
⑤ Despite the Pledge, Oppression Remains Oppression
If allegiance were a proof of a ruler's virtue, then every ruler who received allegiance would necessarily be praiseworthy, which is false. The worth of a ruler is determined by his justice, piety, trustworthiness, establishment of truth, and the rights of the subjects, not merely by power or allegiance.
⑥ The tragedies of Yazid's era do not end with allegiance
During Yazid's era, serious incidents occurred such as the martyrdom of Sayyiduna Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), the failure to exact retribution from Hussain's killers, the incident of Harrah, and the siege of Makkah. Ignoring these tragedies on the basis of the political allegiance of some Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) is against scholarly integrity.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it is not correct to use the allegiance of some Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, as evidence of Yazid's virtue, love, praise, or defense. That allegiance could have been given for political order, protection from discord, or collective interest; however, this does not negate Yazid's oppression, the lack of retribution for the killers of Hussain, the incident of Harrah, or the disgrace of the siege of Makkah. The methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah is neither to declare takfir without evidence nor to justify a tyrannical ruler; rather, they consider it necessary to acknowledge the truth as truth, oppression as oppression, and to disassociate from the killers of the Ahl al-Bayt.
Question:
Regarding the jihad of Constantinople, the Prophet ﷺ gave glad tidings of Paradise to those who would participate in it. When was that attack carried out? Was Yazid bin Amir Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, involved in it?
Answer:
Reference: Sahih Bukhari: 2924
states that the Prophet ﷺ said: (أول جیش من أمتي يغزون مدينة قيصر مغفور لهم) The first army from my Ummah that attacks the city of Caesar (i.e., Constantinople) will be forgiven. From this authentic hadith, it is understood that there will be several attacks on Constantinople, and the first attack and army are the fulfillment of this prophecy. According to our research, the following major attacks on Constantinople took place during the era of the Companions:[1] The attack by Sufyan bin Awf (may Allah be pleased with him).
Reference: (Al-Asabah vol. 2, p. 56)
This attack occurred around 48 AH.
Reference: (Muhadharat al-Umam al-Islamiyyah vol. 2, p. 114)
[2] The attack on Constantinople by Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him) in 32 AH.
Reference: (Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah vol. 7, p. 166)
[3] The attack by Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid
Reference: (Sunan Abi Dawood: 2512 and its chain is authentic)
Abdul Rahman bin Khalid died in 46 AH.
Reference: (Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah vol. 8, p. 32)
During the time of Sayyiduna Muawiyah رضي الله عنه, there were approximately sixteen campaigns on Constantinople, both summer (Saifi) and winter (Shitai) campaigns, from Sha'ban 48 AH to Rabi' al-Thani 52 AH. In the last campaign, Abu Ayyub Ansari رضي الله عنه passed away. Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan was present in this expedition. From this detail, it is clear that Yazid's presence in the first army is not proven; therefore, he is not included in the generality of this hadith.
Reference: (See also Ilmi Maqalat (Vol. 1, pp. 305 to 312)
This excerpt is taken from the book of Sheikh Zubair Ali Zai رحمه الله
Reference: (Fatawa Ilmiya Al-Ma'roof Tawzeeh al-Ahkaam 2/484)
.Commentary: 1
From the narration of Sunan Abi Dawood, it appears that an expedition towards Constantinople had taken place even before the well-known campaign of Yazid bin Muawiyah. Abu Imran رحمه الله narrates:
[غزونا من المدينة نريد القسطنطينية، وعلى الجماعة عبد الرحمن بن خالد بن الوليد]
We set out from Medina intending to go to Constantinople, and the leader of this group was Abdul Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid.
Reference: Sunan Abi Dawood: 2512
This narration makes it clear that an army went towards Constantinople under the leadership of Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid ibn Walid, while the death of Abd al-Rahman ibn Khalid ibn Walid had already occurred before Yazid's well-known campaign to Constantinople. Therefore, it is not correct to definitively identify Yazid as the exact subject of the Sahih Bukhari hadith: [أول جيش من أمتي يغزون مدينة قيصر مغفور لهم].
At most, it can be said that Yazid participated in a later campaign to Constantinople, but it is not proven that he was part of the very first army to attack the city of Caesar. Hence, using the hadith of Constantinople as evidence for Yazid's absolute virtue, complete forgiveness, or purification of his subsequent deeds is questionable.
Commentary:2
It is not correct to definitively identify Yazid ibn Muawiya as the subject of the hadith of Constantinople and thereby prove his forgiveness or virtue; however, some scholars historically considered him the leader of that first army and included him in the generality of the hadith. But researchers have clarified that the generality of the hadith is conditional and does not provide a definitive guarantee of forgiveness for every individual.
Original Hadith
In Sahih Bukhari, it is narrated from Umm Haram (may Allah be pleased with her): [أول جيش من أمتي يغزون مدينة قيصر مغفور لهم]
The first army of my Ummah that will attack the city of Caesar, their forgiveness will be granted.
Question: Does "Madinat al-Qaisar" refer to Constantinople?
Answer: Commentators have generally taken Madinat al-Qaisar to mean Constantinople. Hafiz Ibn Hajar wrote in Fath al-Bari:
[يعني القسطنطينية] (meaning) it refers to Constantinople.
At the same place, the statement of Mahlab was quoted:
[في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر، ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر]
This hadith is a praise for Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with him) because he was the leader of the first naval expedition, and it is also a praise for his son Yazid because he was the first to attack Madinat al-Qaisar.
This is the statement from which arguments are made in favor of Yazid.
Ibn al-Tin and Ibn al-Munir followed up on this, the summary of which is:
[أنه لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: 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.]
The inclusion in this generality does not necessarily mean that, based on a specific argument, he cannot be excluded from this generality. Because there is no disagreement among the scholars that the statement of the Holy Prophet ﷺ "Their forgiveness has been granted" is conditional upon their being deserving of forgiveness.
Even if any person among those who participated in this army later becomes an apostate, it is unanimously agreed that he will no longer be included in this generality. From this, it is understood that the meaning is that only the person among them who meets the condition of forgiveness is forgiven.
Reference: Fath al-Bari Sharh al-Bukhari - Salafiyyah Edition: 6/102 Number: 2923
Three things about Yazid should be kept separate:
[1] The hadith is authentic
This hadith is authentic from Bukhari, so there is no dispute about the authenticity of the hadith.
[2] Yazid's presence in this army is historically well-known
Many scholars have written that Yazid was the commander of the first army to Constantinople. For this reason, some have considered him included in the generality of the hadith.
[3] But this does not prove the absolute forgiveness or justice of Yazid
Because the promise of forgiveness is conditional. Ignoring major later sins, oppression, not taking retribution from the killers of Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), the incident of Harrah, and the disrespect of Medina, and then saying "Yazid is forgiven in every case" is not correct.
Ibn Taymiyyah's position also maintains this balance
Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, neither considered Yazid a companion nor among the pious saints. He also wrote that Yazid did not initially order the killing of Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him), but he also did not take revenge from the killers, because they killed Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) to protect his rule. Therefore, according to Ibn Taymiyyah, it is also not correct to prove Yazid completely pure and innocent.
Reference: Majmoo' al-Fatawa: 27/480
Comment:3
Even if, hypothetically, Yazid ibn Muawiya is considered part of the first army of Constantinople, this does not prove his absolute forgiveness, justice, or innocence from later atrocities; because this expedition occurred before the event of Karbala, while the martyrdom of Hussain (may Allah be pleased with him) took place in 61 AH. Previous virtues cannot serve as a permission slip for later major sins, oppression, unjust killing, supporting murderers, and abandoning retribution. Just as if a person commits apostasy, murder, or oppression after performing Hajj, Jihad, or other virtues, the previous virtue does not guarantee forgiveness in every case, similarly, using the Hadith of Constantinople as definitive proof of salvation or purification for Yazid is not correct.
Because:
[1] The virtue of an accepted Hajj
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: [العمرة إلى العمرة كفارة لما بينهما، والحج المبرور ليس له جزاء إلا الجنة.]
One Umrah followed by another Umrah expiates the sins committed between them, and the reward of an accepted Hajj is nothing but Paradise.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari:1773
Warning:
Just as the glad tidings of an accepted Hajj do not absolve a person from subsequent oppression and sins, similarly, the general glad tidings of the Hadith of Constantinople cannot justify the atrocities committed after Yazid. Likewise, Ramadan, Jihad, prayer, charity, Umrah, Hajj, and even deeds of great virtue do not grant a free license to sin.
The principle of the Quran is clear:
[لَئِنۡ اَشۡرَکۡتَ لَیَحۡبَطَنَّ عَمَلُکَ وَ لَتَکُوۡنَنَّ مِنَ الۡخٰسِرِیۡنَ]Indeed, if you associate others with Allah, then surely your deeds will become worthless, and you will surely be among the losers.
Reference: Az-Zumar: 65
This verse indicates that previous good deeds can be nullified or rendered ineffective by subsequent prohibitive actions. Similarly, Allah Almighty has issued a very severe warning regarding unjust killing:
[وَ مَنۡ یَّقۡتُلۡ مُؤۡمِنًا مُّتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَآؤُہٗ جَہَنَّمُ خٰلِدًا فِیۡہَا]
And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally.
Reference: An-Nisa: 93
The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said: [كل ذنب عسى الله أن يغفره، إلا الرجل يقتل المؤمن متعمدا، أو الرجل يموت كافرا.]
It is possible that Allah forgives every sin except that (sin) of a person who intentionally kills a believer, or a person who dies as a disbeliever.
Reference: Sunan An-Nasa'i: 3989, Sunan Abi Dawood: 4270
Summary is:
It is not correct to present the Hadith of Constantinople as a proof for absolute forgiveness of a person, complete purification, or defense of subsequent atrocities. In the context of the Constantinople campaign, a severe warning against unjust killing has been mentioned, which indicates that jihad, army, battle, or any general virtue does not trivialize the great sin of unjust killing. Previous virtues stand on their own, and the crime of unjust bloodshed remains permanently punishable.
If a person participates in a virtuous campaign but later becomes involved in the unjust killing of a believer, rejoices over that killing, supports the killers, or engages in the wasting of innocent blood, then the warning against unjust killing remains for him. This is why Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, mentioned in Fath al-Bari this fundamental principle that the generality of a hadith does not necessarily entail definite and unconditional forgiveness for every individual; forgiveness is only for those who are deserving of forgiveness. In other words, if a person later commits acts that prevent forgiveness, he cannot claim that general virtue as a definite proof for himself.
Now, Sayyiduna Hussain, may Allah be pleased with him, is not an ordinary believer but a companion, from the Ahl al-Bayt, the leader of the youth of Paradise, and the beloved grandson of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. Therefore, covering the killing of him, the support of his killers, the failure to take retribution from the killers, and the neglect of the Shariah requirements regarding this innocent blood under the generality of the Hadith of Constantinople is a weak and unfair scholarly argument.
An Important Question: Is it possible that Yazid repented?
The answer is: Mere "it is possible" cannot be used to exonerate any historical criminal. Repentance is a great act, but to say that a particular person repented from a certain wrongdoing requires clear and proven evidence. If every oppressor is excused by simply saying "he might have repented," then the same possibility can be applied to the greatest oppressors, murderers, and sinners in history, and thus the door to condemning oppression and crime would be closed.
And another point: According to the Quran and Sunnah, the fundamental requirements of true repentance are: abandoning the sin, feeling remorse from the heart, having a firm intention not to repeat it, and if the sin involves the rights of others or collective injustice, then rectifying and compensating for it.
Abandoning the Sin
Allah Almighty says: [وَ لَمۡ یُصِرُّوۡا عَلٰی مَا فَعَلُوۡا وَ ہُمۡ یَعۡلَمُوۡنَ]
And they do not persist in what they have done, while they know.
(Meaning) Persistence means to continue sinning recklessly and carelessly. Neither expressing regret nor repenting. Otherwise, if a person sincerely repents and then commits a sin, it is not called persistence, as mentioned in the previous benefit. [وَ هُمْ يَعْلَمُوْنَ] means that upon knowing the sin of an act, one does not persist in it.
Reference: Tafseer: Abdul Salam bin Muhammad Bhattvi, may Allah have mercy on him], [Al Imran:135
Seeking Forgiveness/Returning
Allah Almighty says: [ذَکَرُوا اللّٰہَ فَاسۡتَغۡفَرُوۡا لِذُنُوۡبِہِمۡ]
So they remember Allah and ask forgiveness for their sins.
Reference: Al Imran:135
Feeling Remorse from the Heart
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: [الندم توبة]
Remorse (shame) is repentance.
Reference: Sunan Ibn Majah:4252
Firm Intention Not to Repeat
Allah Almighty says: [یٰۤاَیُّہَا الَّذِیۡنَ اٰمَنُوۡا تُوۡبُوۡۤا اِلَی اللّٰہِ تَوۡبَۃً نَّصُوۡحًا]
O you who have believed! Repent to Allah with sincere repentance.
Reference: At-Tahrim:8
If the sin relates to the rights of people or collective injustice, then its correction and compensation should also be made.
Allah Almighty said: [فَمَنۡ تَابَ مِنۡۢ بَعۡدِ ظُلۡمِہٖ وَ اَصۡلَحَ فَاِنَّ اللّٰہَ یَتُوۡبُ عَلَیۡہِ ؕ اِنَّ اللّٰہَ غَفُوۡرٌ رَّحِیۡمٌ]
Then whoever repents after committing oppression and reforms, indeed Allah will accept his repentance. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Reference: Al-Ma'idah:39
Therefore, if during the reign of a ruler innocent blood has been shed, the killers are known, and despite this, the killers are not punished with Qisas, the rights of the oppressed are denied, and the oppression is not rectified, then it is not sufficient to merely say, "Perhaps he repented." The matter of Yazid's Hereafter is entrusted to Allah, but in this world, the claim of his repentance cannot be established without clear evidence, and it is not correct to use this possibility to justify his atrocities, defend the lack of Qisas for the killers of Hussain, or to prove his character as pure.
The incident of Harrah and some partial details of the siege of Mecca have different levels of authenticity according to the sources, so here only the essential facts are mentioned which are well-known in reliable historical sources: During the reign of Yazid, an army marched on Medina, the people of Medina were killed, the city of the Prophet was thrown into fear, then the siege of Mecca took place and the House of Allah was damaged. This established fact is sufficient to indicate the gravity of these events, because the sanctity of Mecca and Medina is proven by authentic hadiths.
During the reign of Yazid bin Muawiya in 63 AH, the incident of Harrah occurred between the people of Medina and Yazid's army. It is proven by an uninterrupted chain of narration in Sahih Bukhari that the people of Medina had broken their allegiance to Yazid bin Muawiya.
Narrated by Nafi’ (may Allah have mercy on him):
[لما خلع أهل المدينة يزيد بن معاوية، جمع ابن عمر حشمه وولده]
When the people of Medina broke their allegiance to Yazid bin Muawiya, Sayyiduna Ibn Umar (may Allah be pleased with them both) gathered his servants and children.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari: 7111
Imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
[وأما ابن عمر فقال: إذا اجتمع الناس بايعتُ، ثم بايع، وأما الحسين فسار إلى مكة، فوافَتْه بيعة أهل الكوفة، فسار إليهم بعد أن أرسل ابن عمه مسلم بن عَقِيل لأخذ البيعة، فظفر به عبيد الله بن زياد أميرها فقتله، وجهز الجيش إلى الحسين، فقُتِل في يوم عاشوراء سنة إحدى وستين. ثم إن أهل المدينة خَلَعوا يزيد في سنة ثلاث وستين، فجهَّز إليهم مسلم بن عقبة المُرِّي في جيش حافل، فقاتلهم فهزمهم، وقُتِل منهم خلق كثير من الصحابة وأبنائهم، ومِنْ أكابر التابعين وفضلاءهم، واستباحها ثلاثة أيام نَهْبًا وقتلًا، ثم بايع من بقي على أنهم عبيد ليزيد، ومن امتنع قتله.]
Regarding Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them both, he said: When the people agreed, I gave the pledge of allegiance, and then he gave the pledge. As for Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him, he proceeded towards Mecca. Then the pledge of allegiance from the people of Kufa reached you, so you set out towards them, before which you had sent your cousin Muslim ibn Aqil to receive the pledge. Then the governor of Kufa, Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, took control over Muslim ibn Aqil and killed him, and prepared an army against Husayn, may Allah be pleased with him. Thus, you were martyred on the day of Ashura in the year 61 AH.
Then the people of Madinah deposed Yazid in 63 AH / broke their allegiance to him, so Yazid sent Muslim bin Uqbah Murri with a large army towards them. He fought the people of Madinah, defeated them, and many of the Companions, their descendants, and the prominent scholars and virtuous followers among them were killed. Then Madinah was made permissible for plunder and killing for three days. After that, those who remained were made to pledge allegiance on the condition that they were slaves of Yazid, and whoever refused was killed.
Reference: Lisan al-Mizan - T Abi Ghuddah (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani): 8/506 Number: 8594
Note: The plundering of Madinah is established from the statement of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him; however, the detail of ‘permitted for three days’ is transmitted as a historical narration in Tabarani and others, but its chain of transmission is not authentic and continuous; therefore, it will not be presented as having an absolutely authentic chain.
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked about Yazid:
[أخبرني محمد بن علي، قال: ثنا مهنى، قال: سألت أحمد عن يزيد بن معاوية بن أبي سفيان، قال: هو فعل بالمدينة ما فعل؟ قلت: وما فعل؟ قال: قتل بالمدينة من أصحاب النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وفعل، قلت: وما فعل؟ قال: نهبها، قلت: فيذكر عنه الحديث؟ قال: لا يذكر عنه الحديث، ولا ينبغي لأحد أن يكتب عنه حديثا، قلت لأحمد: ومن كان معه بالمدينة حين فعل ما فعل؟ قال: أهل الشام؟ قلت له: وأهل مصر، قال: لا، إنما كان أهل مصر معهم في أمر عثمان رحمه الله]
The narrator says: I asked Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, about Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan, and he said: Is he not the one who did what he did to Medina? I said: What did he do? He said: He killed people among the companions of the Prophet ﷺ in Medina, and whatever else he did, he did. I said: And what else did he do? He said: He plundered Medina. I said: Should hadith be narrated from him? He said: Hadith should not be narrated from him, and it is not appropriate for anyone to write hadith from him. I said to Imam Ahmad: When he did what he did in Medina, who were with him? He said: The people of Sham. I said: And the people of Egypt? He said: No, the people of Egypt were with him regarding the matter of our master Uthman, may Allah have mercy on him.
Reference: Al-Sunnah by Abu Bakr bin Al-Khallal: Number 845], [Adwaa Al-Masabeeh, Tahqeeq Mishkat Al-Masabeeh: p.271, verified by Hafiz Zubair Ali Za'i, may Allah have mercy on him, and its chain is authentic
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[وأما الأمر الثاني: فإن أهل المدينة النبوية نقضوا بيعته وأخرجوا نوابه وأهله فبعث إليهم جيشا؛ وأمره إذا لم يطيعوه بعد ثلاث أن يدخلها بالسيف ويبيحها ثلاثا فصار عسكره في المدينة النبوية ثلاثا يقتلون وينهبون ويفتضون الفروج المحرمة.]
As for the second matter, it is that the people of Madinah al-Nabawi broke their allegiance to Yazid, expelled his deputies and family members from Madinah. In response, Yazid sent an army towards them and ordered that if they did not obey after three days, the army should enter Madinah by force and make it permissible for three days. Accordingly, his army stayed in Madinah al-Nabawi for three days; they killed, looted, and violated sacred sanctities.
Reference: Majmu' al-Fatawa: 3/412
In summary:
The incident of Harrah was a very serious tragedy during the reign of Yazid bin Muawiyah. It is established from Sahih Bukhari that the people of Madinah broke their allegiance to Yazid. Imam Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) mentioned in detail the military expedition against the people of Madinah, the killing and plundering, and the killing of prominent Tabi‘in and virtuous people. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (may Allah have mercy on him) explicitly considered Yazid responsible for the killing of the Companions and looting in Madinah and disliked narrating hadith from him.
This shows that the era of Yazid was not merely a period of minor political disagreement, but it involved such major tragedies concerning the Ahl al-Bayt, the people of Medina, and the two holy sanctuaries that scholars did not consider praising, loving, or exonerating Yazid as correct. Therefore, the incident of Harrah is a very important historical and scholarly argument that weakens the defense of Yazid.
However, the methodology of Ahl al-Sunnah is neither to declare him a definite disbeliever nor to present him as a righteous, beloved, or defensible personality. His fate in the Hereafter is entrusted to Allah Almighty, but calling the oppression of his era oppression, disassociating from the injustice done to the people of Medina, and not presenting this incident as trivial is a requirement of scholarly integrity.
The Severity of the Incident of Harrah
Saeed ibn al-Musayyib, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[وقعت الفتنة الأولى يعني مقتل عثمان فلم تبق من أصحاب بدر أحدا ثم وقعت الفتنة الثانية يعني الحرة فلم تبق من أصحاب الحديبية أحدا ثم وقعت الثالثة فلم ترتفع وللناس طباخ]
When the first rebellion broke out, that is, the martyrdom of Uthman (may Allah be pleased with him), it did not leave any of the Companions of Badr alive. Then when the second rebellion broke out, that is, the Battle of Harrah, it did not leave any of the Companions of Hudaybiyyah alive. Then when the third rebellion broke out, it did not occur until there was no goodness or intellect left among the people.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari:4024
The Influence of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him):
Ibn Kathir also narrated from Abdullah ibn Wahb the statement of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him): [وقال عبدُ الله بن وَهْبٍ، عن الإمام مالك: قُتِلَ يومَ الحَرَّة سبعمئة رجلٍ من حَمَلةِ القُرآن، حسبت أنه قال: وكان فيهم ثلاثة من أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وذلك في خلافة يزيد]
Abdullah ibn Wahb narrated from Imam Malik that on the day of the Battle of Harrah, seven hundred of the bearers of the Quran were killed; I think he said: among them were three Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and this happened during the caliphate of Yazid.
Reference: Al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya - Dar Ibn Kathir:6/348], [Dala'il al-Nubuwwah – al-Bayhaqi:6/474
The Influence of Hasan al-Basri (may Allah have mercy on him):
[أخبرنا أبو الحسين أخبرنا عبد الله أخبرنا يعقوب حدثنا ابن عثمان أخبرنا عبد الله: هو ابن المبارك، أخبرنا جرير بن حازم قال: سمعت الحسن يقول: لما كان يوم الحرة قتل أهل المدينة حتى كاد لا ينفلت أحد. وكان فيمن قتل ابنا زينب ربيبة رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. قال جرير: وهما ابنا عبد الله بن زمعة بن الأسود]
Hasan Basri, may Allah have mercy on him, was heard saying: When the day of the incident of Harrah came, the people of Madinah were killed, to the extent that almost no one survived. Among those who were killed were the two sons of Zainab, who was the stepdaughter of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ.
Jarir says: They were both sons of Abdullah bin Zim'ah bin Aswad.
Reference: Dala'il al-Nubuwwah – Al-Bayhaqi:6/474-475
Note: The chain of narration is authentic/strong up to Hasan Basri.
It is narrated from Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Zaid رضي الله عنه:
قال: لما كان زمن الحرة أتاه آت ، فقال له: إن ابن حنظلة يبايع الناس على الموت، فقال: لا أبايع على هذا أحدا بعد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم.
During the time of the Battle of Harrah, a man came to him and said that Abdullah bin Hunthala was taking allegiance from people to die for (against Yazid). He said that after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, I will not give allegiance to anyone for death.
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari:2959
[Explanation and Benefits: Maulana Dawood Raz, may Allah have mercy on him]
Hadith Footnote: The details of the Battle of Harrah are that in 63 AH, Hazrat Abdullah bin Hunzalah and several people from Medina went to see Yazid.
At that time, he was taking the pledge of allegiance for his caliphate from the people.
The delegation from Medina assessed Yazid and found him unfit for the caliphate.
Disgusted by his inappropriate actions, they returned to Medina and pledged allegiance to Hazrat Abdullah bin Zubair ؓ for the caliphate.
When Yazid got the news, he appointed Muslim bin Uqbah as commander and sent a large army to Medina.
This army committed many atrocities against the people of Medina, killing hundreds of thousands of companions, followers, common people, elites, men, women, and even children.
This incident took place in a field adjacent to Medina called Harrah.
That is why it is named after it.
The meaning of Abdullah bin Zaid was that we have already pledged allegiance to the hand of the truthful supporter of the Prophet ﷺ even unto death.
Now there is no need to renew it under anyone else's hand.
It is understood that allegiance can also be pledged unto death,
which implies steadfastness and patience.
Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[ثم ولي ابنه أبو خالد يزيد بن معاوية ثلاث سنين وثلاثة أشهر. واضطربت الأمور، ونهض الحسين بن علي، رضي الله عنهما، إلى الكوفة، وقتل هنالك.وخالفه أهل المدينة، وكانت وقعة الحرة التي قتل فيها خيار الناس.]
Then Muawiyah, may Allah be pleased with him, was succeeded by his son Abu Khalid Yazid ibn Muawiyah, who ruled for three years and three months. During his reign, the situation deteriorated; Sayyiduna Husayn ibn Ali, may Allah be pleased with both of them, set out towards Kufa and was martyred there. Then the people of Madinah opposed Yazid, which resulted in the incident of Harrah, in which the best people of the Ummah were killed.
Reference: Rasa'il Ibn Hazm:162/2-163
In the incident of Harrah, many Companions, Tabi‘in, and people of virtue from Madinah were martyred. To avoid lengthiness, only ten famous names are mentioned here.
[1] Muhammad ibn Thabit ibn Qais ibn Shamas al-Ansari: (Companion)
[ولد في عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم، وبزق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم في فيه، سكن المدينة، وقتل يوم الحرة سنة ثلاث وستين]
Muhammad ibn Thabit ibn Qais ibn Shamas al-Ansari was born during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ placed his blessed saliva in his mouth. He lived in Madinah and was killed on the day of the incident of Harrah in 63 AH.
Reference: Ma‘rifat al-Sahaba by Abu Nu‘aym:1/182
[2] Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm al-Ansari (Tabi‘i)
[اختلف في كنيته، فقيل: أبو القاسم، وقيل: أبو سليمان، وقيل: أبو عبد الملك، ذكر فيمن أدرك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، ذكره البخاري، ويقال: إنه ولد في عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سنة عشر من الهجرة، وقتل يوم الحرة سنة ثلاث وستين]
There is a difference of opinion regarding the kunya of Muhammad bin Amr bin Hazm Al-Ansari; it is said: Abu al-Qasim, and it is said: Abu Sulayman, and it is said: Abu Abdul Malik. He is mentioned among those who lived during the time of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Imam Bukhari has also mentioned him. It is said that he was born in the 10th year of Hijra during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and was killed on the day of the Incident of Harra in 63 AH.
Reference: Ma'rifat al-Sahaba by Abu Nu'aym: 1/183
[3] Abdullah bin Zaid bin Asim al-Mazini al-Ansari al-Khazraji: (Companion)
[من بني النجار، شهد بدرا، وقتل يوم الحرة سنة ثلاث وستين يكنى أبا محمد]
Abdullah bin Zaid bin Asim al-Mazini al-Ansari al-Khazraji was from Banu Najjar. He participated in the Battle of Badr and was martyred on the day of the Incident of Harra in 63 AH. His kunya was Abu Muhammad.
Reference: Ma'rifat al-Sahaba by Abu Nu'aym: 3/1655
[4] Mu'qal bin Sinan al-Ashja'i: (Companion)
[أبو سنان وقيل: أبو محمد، سكن الكوفة، وقتل يوم الحرة في ذي الحجة سنة ثلاث وستين وهو معقل بن سنان بن مطهر بن قينان بن سبيع بن بكر بن أشجع، شهد فتح مكة، روى عنه علقمة، ومسروق ، ونافع بن جبير، والحسن بن أبي الحسن، قتله مسلم بن عقبة صبرا]
Muqail bin Sinan Ashja'i, his kunya was Abu Sinan, and it is also said Abu Muhammad. He resided in Kufa and was killed on the day of the Battle of Harrah in Dhul-Hijjah 63 AH. His lineage is Muqail bin Sinan bin Mutahir bin Qinan bin Subai' bin Bakr bin Ashja'. He participated in the Conquest of Mecca. Alqama, Masruq, Nafi' bin Jubayr, and Hasan Basri (may Allah have mercy on them) narrated from him. He was killed by Muslim bin Uqba while in captivity.
Reference: Ma'rifat al-Sahaba by Abu Nu'aym: 5/2510
[5] Abdullah bin Hanzala: (Tabi'i)
[وقتل عبد الله بن حنظلة يوم الحرة سنة ثلاث وستين، وكانت الأنصار قد بايعته يومئذ، وبايعت قريش عبد الله بن مطيع، وكان عثمان بن محمد ابن أبى سفيان قد أوفده إلى يزيد بن معاوية، فلما قدم على يزيد حباه وأعطاه، وكان عبد الله فاضلا في نفسه، فرأى منه ما لا يصلح. فلم ينتفع بما وهب له، فلما انصرف خلعه في جماعة أهل المدينة، فبعث إليه مسلم بن عقبة، فكانت الحرة.]
Abdullah bin Hanzala was killed on the day of the Battle of Harrah in 63 AH. On that day, the Ansar pledged allegiance to him, while the Quraysh pledged allegiance to Abdullah bin Mut'i.
Uthman bin Muhammad bin Abi Sufyan had sent Abdullah bin Hunzalah as a delegation to Yazid bin Muawiyah. When they reached Yazid, Yazid gave them gifts and presents. Abdullah bin Hunzalah was a righteous and virtuous person by nature; he saw things at Yazid's court that were not correct; therefore, he did not benefit from the wealth given by Yazid. When he returned, he broke allegiance with Yazid along with a group of people from Madinah. Then Yazid sent Muslim bin Aqabah towards them, which led to the incident of Harrah.
Reference: Al-Isti'ab fi Ma'rifat al-Ashab - T. Al-Bajawi: 3/893-894 No: 1517
Introduction:
Abdullah bin Hunzalah is a Tabi'i, the son of the Companion of the Prophet Sayyiduna Hunzalah bin Abi Aamir (RA). He was a prominent leader of the people of Madinah in the incident of Harrah and was martyred in the same event.
[6] Abdullah bin Zaid bin Asim bin Ka'b: (Companion)
He was from Banu Mazin bin Najjar, known by the name Ibn Um Amarah. He did not participate in Badr. He took part in the killing of Musaylimah the Liar alongside Wahshi bin Harb رضي الله عنه; Wahshi threw the spear and Abdullah bin Zaid struck with the sword. He is the narrator of the famous hadith of ablution. He was martyred in the incident of Harrah in 63 AH.
Reference for the hadith of ablution:
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari: 185, Sahih Muslim: 235.
Reference: Al-Isti'ab fi Ma'rifat al-Ashab - edited by Al-Bajawi: 3/913, No. 1540
[7] Muhammad bin Abi Jahm bin Hudhayfah bin Ghanam al-Adawi: (Tabi'i)
[ولد على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم. وقتل يوم الحرة، وذلك سنة ثلاث وستين.]
Muhammad bin Abi Jahm bin Hudhayfah bin Ghanam al-Adawi was born during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and was killed in the incident of Harrah in 63 AH.
Reference: Al-Isti'ab fi Ma'rifat al-Ashab - edited by Al-Bajawi: 3/1368, No. 2323
Introduction:
He is a Tabi'i / one who lived during the Prophetic era, because he was born during the Prophetic period but there is no established hearing or narration from the Prophet ﷺ. He was killed in the incident of Harrah.
[8] Muhammad bin Amr bin Hazm al-Ansari: (Tabi'i)
[Born in the tenth year of Hijrah in Najran, and his father was an agent for the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم.]
It is said: He was born two years before the death of the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him. His father named him Muhammad and gave him the kunya Abu Sulayman. He wrote to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, about this, and the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, wrote back: Name him Muhammad and give him the kunya Abu Abd al-Malik. So he did, and hardly any child born in the family of Amr ibn Hazm named Muhammad was not given the kunya Abu Abd al-Malik.
Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm was a jurist. A group of the people of Medina narrated from him, and it is narrated from his father and others among the Companions.
It is also narrated from him that he said: I used to be called Abu al-Qasim among the maternal uncles of Banu Sa'dah, but they discouraged me, so I changed my kunya to Abu Abd al-Malik.
He was killed on the Day of al-Harrah at the age of fifty-three, and al-Harrah was in the year sixty-three. It is said that on the Day of al-Harrah, thirteen men from his family were killed along with Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm. It is said that the Muhammads were the harshest against Uthman:
Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr, Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhayfah, and Muhammad ibn Amr ibn Hazm.
Muhammad bin Amr bin Hazm Al-Ansari was born in Najran in 10 AH, at which time his father was the agent of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. One narration states that he was born two years before the death of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. His father named him Muhammad and gave him the kunya Abu Sulayman, then he wrote to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, who replied: Name him Muhammad and give him the kunya Abu Abdul Malik; so he did accordingly.
Muhammad bin Amr bin Hazm was a jurist; a group of the people of Madinah narrated from him, and he narrated from his father and other Companions. He was killed in the incident of Al-Harra in 63 AH, at the age of 53. It is said that thirteen members of his household were also killed with him in the incident of Al-Harra.
Reference: Al-Isti'ab fi Ma'rifat al-Ashab - edited by Al-Bajawi: 3/1375 Number: 2339
He is a Tabi'i / Witness of the Prophetic Era. He was born in the Prophetic era, but there is no established hearing (sama') from the Prophet ﷺ. He was a jurist of Madinah, narrated from the Companions, and was martyred in the incident of Al-Harra.
[9] Al-Harith bin Abdullah bin Ka'b: (Companion)
[ابن مالك بن عمرو بن عوف بن مبذول الأنصاري. شهد الحديبية وما بعدها، وقتل يوم الحرة، وقد ذكر أبو عمر أباه.]
Harith bin Abdullah bin Ka'b bin Malik bin Amr bin Awf bin Mabdhool Al-Ansari. He participated in the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the subsequent battles/incidents, and was killed on the day of the Incident of Harrah. Abu Umar also mentioned his father.
Introduction:
He is a Companion, participated in the Pledge of Hudaybiyyah. Martyred in the Incident of Harrah.
Reference: Asad al-Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahabah - T. Al-Rifai:1/492 No:916
[10] Mu'adh bin Al-Simmah: (Companion)
[مُعَاذ بن الصِّمَّة بن عَمْرو بن الجَمُوح. شهد أُحداً وما بعدها، وقتل يوم الحَرَّة. وهو ابن أخي معاذ بن عمرو بن الجَمُوح الذي يأتي ذكره، إن شاء الله تعالى.]
Mu'adh bin Al-Simmah bin Amr bin Jamuh. He participated in the Battle of Uhud and the subsequent battles/incidents, and was killed on the day of the Incident of Harrah. He is the nephew of Mu'adh bin Amr bin Jamuh, who will be mentioned later, InshaAllah.
Introduction:
He is a Companion. Participated in the Battle of Uhud and was martyred in the Incident of Harrah.
Reference: Asad al-Ghabah fi Ma'rifat al-Sahabah - T. Al-Rifai:5/212 No:4960
In summary:
The incident of Harrah in 63 AH was a very painful tragedy in Islamic history, in which many Companions, Followers, those who witnessed the Prophetic era, jurists, and people of knowledge from Medina were killed. This incident clearly proves that the loss was not limited to common people only, but the religious, scholarly, and respected classes of the Ummah were also affected.
For more details, study the following books:
[الإصابة في تمييز الصحابة (ابن حجر العسقلاني)]،[أسد الغابة في معرفة الصحابة - ت الرفاعي]،[الاستيعاب في معرفة الأصحاب - ت البجاوي]، [معرفة الصحابة لأبي نعيم]
After the incident of Harrah, Yazid's army moved from Medina towards Mecca, where action was taken against Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Zubair (RA) and Mecca was besieged. This siege occurred during the time of Yazid bin Muawiya, while later, during the era of Abdul Malik bin Marwan, a second siege took place at the hands of Hajjaj bin Yusuf, in which Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Zubair (RA) was martyred.
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
[ثم أرسل جيشا إلى مكة المشرفة فحاصروا مكة وتوفي يزيد وهم محاصرون مكة وهذا من العدوان والظلم الذي فعل بأمره.]
Then Yazid sent an army towards Makkah Mukarramah, and they besieged Makkah. Yazid died while they were besieging Makkah. This is among the atrocities and injustices carried out by his order.
Reference: Majmoo' al-Fatawa: 3/412
Ibn Hazm, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[وحاصر ابن الزبير-رضى الله عنه- فى المسجد الحرام، واستخفّ بحرمة الكعبة والإسلام؛ فأماته الله في تلك الأيّام؛]
And he besieged Abdullah ibn Zubair, may Allah be pleased with him, in Masjid al-Haram, and he belittled the sanctity of the Ka'bah and Islam; therefore, Allah Almighty caused him to die in those very days.
Reference: Jamhara Ansab al-Arab - Ibn Hazm: p.112
Hafiz Dhahabi, may Allah have mercy on him
[افتتح دولته بمقتل الشهيد الحسين، واختتمها بواقعة الحرة، فمقته الناس، ولم يبارك في عمره.]
He began his rule with the killing of the martyr Hussain, may Allah be pleased with him, and it ended with the incident of Harrah; therefore, people began to harbor enmity towards him, and his life was not blessed.
Reference: Siyar A'lam al-Nubala - Dar al-Risalah (Shams al-Din al-Dhahabi): 4/38
Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him, says:
[ثم توجه إلى مكة لحرب ابن الزبير، فمات في الطريق، وعهد إلى الحُصَين بن نمير، فسار بالجيش إلى مكة، فحاصَرَ ابن الزبير، ونصبوا المَنْجَنيق على الكعبة فهوت أركانُها ثم احترقت،]
Then Muslim bin Uqbah Ibn Zubair رضي الله عنه headed towards Mecca for battle, but he died on the way, and he appointed Haseen bin Numeer as his successor. Then Haseen took an army and went to Mecca, besieged Ibn Zubair رضي الله عنه, and they installed a catapult on the Kaaba, which weakened its structure, and then it caught fire.
Reference: Lisan al-Mizan - T Abi Ghuddah (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani): 8/506
