Karbala Series Part 5: Vices of Yazid
- Anonymous
- Oct 12
- 33 min read
« Previous Part: Husayn's stance on Mu'awiyah »
« Next Part: Mu'awiyah's appointment of Yazid »
بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ
Yazid was born during the caliphate of Uthman b. Affan, in what is now modern-day Syria. His mother, Maysun bt. Bahdal was a Christian woman with whom Yazid spent much of his early life. It is perhaps because of this Christian influence on Yazid that he saw no issue with immoral or sinful behavior as a ruler, as he would have read in the Bible about the actions of prophets like David and Solomon, who are attributed with serious faults and transgressions. Perhaps, in Yazid’s mind, if great prophets could commit grave errors and still remain prophets, then a weak, non-prophet like himself would be even more justified in his conduct.
In his youth, he was deeply involved in fornication, addicted to alcohol, and spent his leisure time hunting for sport. He displayed no regard for daily prayers or other obligations of Islam. He became widely known for his immorality and blatant disregard for the shari’a of Allah, an issue beyond dispute given the abundance of evidence attesting to it. Yazid was also very fond of playing with monkeys. He had a pet monkey named ‘Abu Qays,’ with whom he even shared wine. He lived a lavish, indulgent lifestyle, fornicating with his father’s wives and their daughters.
His appearance was described by al-Dhahabi in Tarikh al-Islam by, Vol. 5, pg. 271:
وَقَالَ سَعِيدُ بْنُ حُرَيْثٍ: كَانَ يَزِيدُ كَثِيرَ اللَّحْمِ، ضَخْمًا، كَثِيرَ الشِّعْرِ.
Sa’id b. Hurayth said: Yazid was fat, large in build and abundant in poetry.
In this chapter, we will illustrate the evidence for all these claims to make the reader have full awareness of the character of Yazid.
Mu’awiyah’s initiative to fabricate for Yazid
To justify Mu’awiyah’s decision to appoint a fasiq like Yazid as his successor, the Umayyads and their followers fabricated virtues to portray Yazid in a better light. This campaign of fabricating virtues began with Mu’awiyah himself, who commanded his governors to publicly praise Yazid, even when such praise was entirely unfounded and contrary to the truth.
Al-Dhahak b. Qays al-Fihri
Al-Dhahak was one of Mu’awiyah’s governors in Syria, and he said as follows in Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 12, pg. 324:
Al-Mada’ini narrated from Idris b. Qadim from Umar b. Maymun that al-Dahhak b. Qays al-Fihri said to Muawiyah, after the people had taken their seats and this had been arranged by Muawiyah:
“O Commander of the Faithful, unify this Ummah through Yazid, for he is the most forbearing among us and the most knowledgeable.”
Then al-Ahnaf (b. Qays) said: “O Commander of the Faithful, disobey the one who commands you and advises you without considering your best interest. You are more aware of unity and more knowledgeable of uprightness.”
Muawiyah laughed and said: “That’s enough, may Allah have mercy on you.” It is also said that he (Ahnaf) replied: “You know more about Yazid’s nights and days than we do. We fear you if we believe you, and we fear Allah if we deny you.” So Muawiyah fell silent.
Note: The report was affirmed by Ibn al-Athir in his al-Kamil Fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3, pg. 100 - 101.
Al-Dhahhak here claims that Yazid would ‘unite’ the Ummah and was a knowledgeable and virtuous man. A claim that remains unsubstantiated with any of the actions that Yazid has done, neither before his caliphate nor after.
What is further interesting is that al-Ahnaf b. Qays warns Mu’awiyah about appointing Yazid, aware of the fact that no unity will be achieved with Yazid’s place in power. We shall return to that later on.
Amru b. Sa’id al-Ashdaq
Al-Ashdaq was Mu’awiyah’s governor in Mecca, who would likewise say in Kitab al-Amali Vol. 1, pg. 71 by al-Qali:
Abu Bakr narrated to us. He said: Abu Hatim narrated to me from al-Utbi who said:
When Muawiyah, may Allah have mercy on him, pledged allegiance to his son Yazid, people stood up to deliver speeches. Muawiyah said to Amr b. Said, “Stand up O Abu Umayyah.” So he stood, praised Allah and extolled Him, then said:
“As for what follows Yazid b. Muawiyah is a hope you look forward to and a destiny in which you find safety. If you seek refuge in his forbearance it will encompass you. If you need his counsel he will guide you. If you are in need of his wealth he will enrich you. He is a young man in his prime who was put to the test and excelled, tried and proved noble, challenged and his lot prevailed. He is the successor to the Commander of the Faithful and there is no successor [better] than him.”
Muawiyah then said: “You have spoken extensively O Abu Umayyah now sit down.”
Note: It was likewise mentioned in 'Uyun al-Akhbar by Ibn Qutaybah, Vol. 1, pg. 169 - 170.
Al-Ashdaq’s praise of Yazid is absurd, as he is making it seem to be that no one is entitled to Caliphate except for Yazid. What trait does Yazid have that makes him more entitled than anybody else, except for being the son of Mu’awiyah?
Al-Mughira b. Shu’ba
Mughira was one of Mu'awiyah's right hand men, and his statements about Yazid are the worst of them all. We read in Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, vol. 3, pg. 19:
Al-Tabari narrated with his chain: Al-Mughira came to Muawiyah and complained to him of weakness, asking to be relieved of his post. Muawiyah accepted his request and intended to appoint Saʿid b. al-ʿAs in his place. The companions of al-Mughira said to him, “Muawiyah has turned away from you.” He replied, “Take it easy,” then went to Yazid and subtly suggested the idea of pledging allegiance to him.
He (Mughira) said, “The prominent Companions and senior men of Quraysh have passed away, and those of similar age are gone. What remains are their sons, and you are among the best of them in character, judgment, and political ability. I do not know what prevents the Commander of the Faithful from designating you as successor.”
Yazid conveyed this to his father, who summoned al-Mughira and discussed it with him. Muawiyah said, “You saw what happened, the discord and bloodshed, after Uthman. In Yazid, you would have a worthy successor. Appoint him as your heir so that the people may take refuge in him after you, and no strife or bloodshed occurs. I will take care of Kufa for you, and Ibn Ziyad will handle Basra.” Muawiyah then returned al-Mughira to Kufa and instructed him to work toward securing allegiance for Yazid. Al-Mughira returned to Kufa and consulted those from the Shias of Banu Umayyah he could rely on, and they responded positively. He sent a delegation of them with his son Musa to formally invite Yazid’s pledge of allegiance.
However, this report remains unfound in the current versions of Tarikh al-Tabari. Nonetheless. It was affirmed in Ibn al-Athir’s al-Kamil Fi al-Tarikh, Vol. 3, pg. 97 - 98, who was likely quoting Tabari as well, which proves it was once there.
The story of Mughira will be returned to. However, his claim is worse than the others, as he claims there not to be any companions of the Prophet (SAW) left, yet there was Imam al-Husayn (AS), Ibn Umar, Ibn al-Zubayr, Ma’qil b. Sinan, Abdullah b. Handhala, and so-on. Moreover, he claims the superiority of Yazid over them, which is just absurdity.
Did Yazid spread Islam?
In defense of Yazid, some attempt to praise him on the basis that he participated in the siege of Constantinople. However, he never conquered it, and thus the hadiths which speak of the virtue of its commander do not apply to him. As for his mere participation in that campaign, it holds no special merit, for the Prophet’s (SAW) praise of an action in general does not entail that every individual who partakes in it will attain its reward. For example, there are hadith promising Paradise to those who call to the oneness of Allah, yet not everyone who professes it will enter Paradise
This was attested to by Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani in Fath al-Bari Vol. 9, pg. 193:
Al-Muhallab said regarding this hadith that it contains a virtue for Muʿāwiya, because he was the first to launch a naval expedition, and a virtue for his son Yazīd, because he was the first to lead an expedition against the city of Caesar. Ibn al-Tīn and Ibn al-Munīr, however, refuted this, explaining in summary that inclusion in this general statement does not mean one cannot be excluded by a specific proof.
The scholars agree that the Prophet’s statement, “They are forgiven,” is conditional upon them being among the people of forgiveness. Thus, if someone who took part in that expedition later apostatized, he would not be included in this general promise by consensus. This indicates that what is meant is forgiveness for those among them who fulfilled the conditions of forgiveness.
Similarly, Imam al-Qastalani says the same thing in Irshad al-Sari, Vol 6 pg. 408.
Contemporaries that have appraised Yazid
As a response to the lies of Mu’awiyah, we set out to collect a substantial amount of evidence to illustrate the well-known vices of Yazid at his time. This included his habitual drinking, partaking in unlawful marriages and fornication and many more.
This man, who is supposedly more fit for the Caliphate than Imam al-Husayn (AS) according to Mu’awiyah and his governors, would persist in what is haram and immoral without care for what Allah (swt) has commanded or forbidden. In contrast, Imam al-Husayn (AS) is the Master of Paradise, so what shall we make of this comparison?
Below we will mention Sahaba and Tabi’in that reprehended Yazid for his immoral behaviour.
Mu’awiyah himself
The vices of Yazid were well-known, even to Mu’awiyah. Thus, he tries to advise him as follows in Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 65, pg. 403:
…from Sulayman b. Ahmad (al-Tabarani), from Muhammad b. Zakariyya al-Ghallabi informed us, he said: Ibn Aishah reported from his father, who said:
Yazid b. Muʿawiyah, in his youth, was involved in drinking and behaved as some young men do. Muʿawiyah sensed this and wished to advise him gently. He said: "My son, how capable you are of fulfilling your desires without exposing yourself in a way that diminishes your dignity and worth.
Strive by day in pursuit of high aims, And be patient with the absence of the beloved and close ones. And when night arrives with its darkness, And the eyes of the watchers are veiled in sleep, Then meet the night with what you desire. For the night is the day of the clever one. How many an evildoer you think is devout, Has done strange deeds under cover of night. The night has veiled him with its curtains, So he slept in safety and lived in luxury. But the pleasure of the fool is exposed. A cure for every distant enemy.
This was also recorded by Ibn Kathir in al-Bidayah wal-Nihaya, Vol. 11, pg. 641 - 642 and he saw no issue in it.
How could Mu’awiyah propagate Yazid as being the most virtuous in that case, when he himself knew of his faults to be so bad that he had to point them out himself?
Ibn al-Zubayr
When confronted with the bay’ah of Yazid, Ibn al-Zubayr says the following in Tarikh Khalifa, pg. 156 - 157:
وَحَدَّثَنَا أَبُو الْحسن عَن بَقِيَّة بْن عَبْد الرَّحْمَن عَن أَبِيه قَالَ: فَقَالَ ابْن الزبير
أتأمرني ببيعة رجل يشرب الْخمر ويدع الصَّلَاة وَيتبع الصَّيْد
Abu al-Hasan narrated to us from Baqiyyah b. Abd al-Rahman, from his father, who said: Ibn al-Zubayr said:
"Do you command me to pledge allegiance to a man who drinks wine, abandons prayer, and hunts animals for leisure?"
These accusations against Yazid by Ibn al-Zubayr are not isolated, as similar remarks were made by other contemporaries.
Abdullah b. Handhalah
Abdullah was a companion of the Prophet (SAW), and he says the following in Tabaqat Ibn Sa'ad, vol. 5, pg 49:
Muhammad b. Umar informed us, he said: Isma'il b. Ibrahim b. Abd al-Rahman b. Abdullah b. Abi Rabi'ah al-Makhzumi narrated to us from his father.
And Ibn Abi Dhi'b narrated to us from Salih b. Abi Hassan. And Sa'id b. Muhammad narrated to us from Amr b. Yahya, from Ubad b. Tamim, from his uncle Abdullah b. Zayd.
And others also, each of whom narrated to me. They said:
When the people of Madinah revolted during the nights of al-Harrah, they expelled Banu Umayyah from Madinah and openly criticized Yazid b. Mu'awiyah and opposed him. They united behind Abdullah b. Handhalah and entrusted the matter to him. He pledged allegiance with them upon death and said: "O people, fear Allah, the One without a partner. By God, we did not rise up against Yazid until we feared that stones would be hurled upon us from the sky. A man who marries mothers, daughters, and sisters, drinks wine, and abandons prayer, by God, even if none of the people were with me, I would have still fought against him for the sake of Allah with full determination."
Ibn Hajar al-Haythami mentioned and accepted this report in Sawaiq al-Muhriqah, pg. 630 - 634.
Here, Yazid’s breaking of marriage laws, habitual drinking and abandonment of prayer are all exposed.
Ma’qil b. Sinan
From the words of the Sahabi Ma’qil b. Sinan, he says the following about Yazid in Mustadrak ‘ala al-Sahihayn, Vol. 3, pg. 598 - 599, Hadith # 6220:
…I heard Yahya b. Main say: “Maqil b. Sinan al-Ashja‘i witnessed the Conquest with the Prophet (SAW) and was killed on the day of al-Harrah in the year sixty-three.”
…Muhammad b. Umar said: “Maqil b. Sinan b. Muzahhir b. Araki b. Fatayan b. Subay‘ b. Bakr b. Ashja‘ witnessed the Conquest with the Messenger of Allah (SAW).”
Abu Abd al-Rahman b. Uthman b. Ziyad al-Ashja‘i narrated to me from his father, who said: Maqil b. Sinan al-Ashja‘i had accompanied the Prophet (SAW) and carried the banner of his people on the Day of the Conquest. He was a young man, fresh and vigorous.
He lived on until al-Walid b. Utbah b. Abi Sufyan, who was the governor of Madinah, appointed him. Ma’qil b. Sinan and Muslim b. Uqbah, also known as Musrif, met. Ma’qil spoke with Musrif, socializing with him until the name of Yazid b. Muawiyah came up.
Ma’qil said: “I went out, forced to give allegiance to this man. By divine decree and destiny, I ended up going to him. He is a man who drinks wine and fornicates in the Sacred Precinct.” He then spoke critically of him and listed other traits he had.
He said to Musrif: “I wanted to say this in front of you.” Musrif replied: “As for reporting this to the Commander of the Faithful today, by Allah, I will not do that. But I give a covenant and binding promise to Allah, if my hands ever gain power over you and I have the ability, I will strike out the light in your eyes.” When Musrif entered Medina and carried out his assault during the days of al-Harrah, Ma’qil b. Sinan, who was at that time the commander of the Muhajirun, was captured and brought before Musrif.
Musrif said to him: “O Maqil b. Sinan, are you thirsty?” He replied: “Yes, may Allah set the emir's affairs right.” Musrif said: “Pour him a drink in a crystal vessel.” So they poured it for him. Then he asked: “Did you drink and are you quenched?” He said: “Yes.” Musrif said: “By Allah, you will never again desire what brings joy. O Nawfal b. Musahiq, rise and strike his neck.” So he rose and executed him in captivity.
The poet of the Ansar said: Behold, these are the Ansar mourning their nobility, And Ashja‘ mourns Ma’qil b. Sinan.
The companions of the Holy Prophet (SAW) were forced to give allegiance to this tyrant, and Ma'qil's words testify to Yazid’s drunkenness and fornication. However, what is particularly heart-breaking about this report is that even a man as wicked as Muslim b. Uqbah decided to give Ma’qil water before killing him, fulfilling his thirst before he died.
So what about Imam al-Husayn (AS) in the plains of Karbala? Was he not more entitled than Ma’qil to receive water before he was killed? What about his family and children? Were they also not entitled to water?
Mughira claims that Yazid was the best among the sons of the companions. Not only did Mughira lie about there not being any remaining companions, but he lied that Yazid was even comparable to them.
Al-Mundhir b. al-Zubayr
The son of the famous companion, al-Zubayr b. ‘Awwam, says in Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol. 19, pg. 198 - 199:
قَالَ لوط: وَحَدَّثَنِي أَيْضًا مُحَمَّد بن عَبْدِ الْعَزِيزِ بن عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ عوف: ورجع المنذر من عِنْدَ يَزِيد بن مُعَاوِيَة
إن يزيد واللّه لقد أجازني بمائة ألف درهم، وإنه لا يمنعني ما صنع إليَّ أن أخبركم خبره، وأصدقكم عنه، واللّه إنه ليشرب الخمر، وإنه ليسكر حتّى يدع الصّلاة
According to Lut b. Yahya Abu Mikhnaf – Muhammad b. Abd al-Aziz b. Umar b. Abd al-Rahman b. Awf: Al-Mundhir b. Zubayr said:
"By God! Yazid made a gift of a hundred thousand dirhams to me but what he did to me does not prevent me from telling you about him, I will speak truthfully about him. By God! He drinks wine and gets so drunk that he misses the prayer."
Yazid’s crimes of bribery are widespread and learnt from his father, but in this case it was not enough to stop the bribed from speaking against him for how wicked he was. He was an alcoholic that abandoned the prayer!
Muhammed b. Abdullah b. Sa’id
The grandson of Sa’id b. Yazid, one of the companions of Paradise, also states in Kitab al-Ma'arif by Ibn Qutaybah, pg. 143:
محمد بن عبد الله بن سعيد، كان يقول الشعر، وهو القائل ليزيد بن معاوية يوم الحرّة: لست منّا وليس خالك منّا … يا مضيع الصّلاة للشّهوات
Muhammad b. Abdullah b. Sa‘id used to compose poetry. He is the one who said to Yazid b. Muawiya on the Day of al-Harra: 'You are not one of us, and neither is your uncle (i.e. Ziyad)… O you who neglects prayer for lustful desires!'
This line is particularly powerful, as it demonstrates Yazid’s view of the shari’a of Islam, and how much he cared about the religion. The phrase he uses is linked to the verse of the Qur’an which discusses the deviance and error of Bani Isra’il:
فَخَلَفَ مِنۢ بَعْدِهِمْ خَلْفٌ أَضَاعُوا ٱلصَّلَوٰةَ وَٱتَّبَعُوا ٱلشَّهَوَٰتِ ۖ فَسَوْفَ يَلْقَوْنَ غَيًّا
But they were succeeded by generations who neglected prayer and followed their lusts and so will soon face the evil consequences. [19:59]
Hasan al-Basri
The Tabi’i giant, Hasan al-Basri, would likewise be a staunch criticiser of Yazid b. Mu’awiyah. He himself affirms his wickedness in Tarikh al-Tabari Vol 18, pg. 154:
Abu Mikhnaf reported from al-Saqaʿb b. Zuhayr, from al-Hasan, who said:
"There were four traits in Mu'awiyah and had there been only one, it would have been ruinous. They are: seizing the caliphate by the sword without consultation, while the companions and people of virtue were still present; appointing his son Yazid as successor, who was a drunkard, wine-drinker, wore silk, and played stringed instruments; claiming Ziyad as his son, even though the Messenger of Allah said, ‘The child belongs to the [lawful] bed, and the adulterer gets the stone’; and killing Hujr ibn ‘Adi and his companions. Woe to him for what he did to Hujr and the companions of Hujr!
It was also recorded in Tarikh Abi al-Fida Vol. 1, pg. 259 and narrated by Ibn al-Jawzi.
‘Abdul-Malik b. Marwan
Ibn ‘Asakir records in Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 37, pg. 135:
خبرنا أبو غالب محمد بن الحسن أنا أبو الحسن السيرافي أنا أحمد بن إسحاق نا أحمد بن عمران نا موسى نا خليفة قال وقال أبو عاصم عن ابن جريج عن ابيه قال
ولست بالخليفة المستضعف يعني عثمان ولا الخليفة المداهن يعني معاوية ولا الخليفة المأبون يعني يزيد بن معاوية
Abu Ghalib Muhammad b. al-Hasan narrated to us, I am Abu al-Hasan al-Sirafi, I am Ahmad b. Ishaq, who narrated from Ahmad b. Imran, who narrated from Musa, who narrated from Khalifa, who said: Abu Asim reported from b. Jurayj from his father that he said: [Abdul Malik said:]
"I am not the weak caliph," meaning Uthman, "nor the compromising caliph," meaning Mu’awiyah, "nor the homosexual caliph," meaning Yazid b. Mu’awiyah.
Ibn Kathir likewise recorded it in al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Vol. 12, pg. 383 and took no issue with it.
However, this report in Tarikh Ibn Khayyat, pg. 273 states:
قَالَ أَبُو عَاصِم عَن بْن جريج عَن أَبِيه قَالَ
حج علينا عَبْد الْملك بْن مَرْوَان سنة خمس وَسبعين بعد مقتل ابْن الزبير عَاميْنِ فَخَطَبنَا فَقَالَ أما بعد فَإِنَّهُ كَانَ من قبلي من الْخُلَفَاء يَأْكُلُون من هَذَا المَال ويؤكلون وَإِنِّي وَالله لَا أداوي أدواء هَذِهِ الْأمة إِلَّا بِالسَّيْفِ وَلست بالخليفة المستضعف يعَني عُثْمَان وَلَا الْخَلِيفَة المداهن يعَني مُعَاوِيَة [ولا الخليفة المأفون- يعني يزيد]
Abu Asim said that Ibn Jurayj narrated from his father that he said:
Abdul Malik b. Marwan, “By Allah, I will not treat the ailments of this nation except with the sword. I am not the weak caliph, meaning Uthman, nor the comprising caliph, meaning Mu’awiyah [nor the foolish caliph- meaning Yazid].”
The footnote states that some of the manuscripts mention the part about Yazid but record it as المأفون (the one with a weak intellect) instead of المأبون (the homosexual). Either way, it still presents the vices of Yazid.
Note: This version of Abdul-Malik’s speech is also recorded in al-Baladhuri’s Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 7, pg. 212 and with a different chain in Abu Hilal al-’Askari’s Kitab al-Awa’il, pg. 250.
Battle of Harra
The Battle of Harrah should be known as the “Tragedy of Harrah”, as it was the day that the Umayyads invaded the sanctity of Medina. The reason for this invasion was that the ‘Arab tribes of Medina rejected the caliphate of Yazid and refused to pledge their allegiance to him.
As a result, Yazid commanded his army to go and invade Medina. Some of his governors refused after the backlash attained from Karbala, but Muslim b. ‘Uqbah was more than pleased to take on the mission. Alongside al-Numayr b. Hissan, he went to Medina with a large army to commit atrocities therein.
Why did Harra happen
The people in Medina had always been opposed to Yazid due to the irreligiosity and frequent partaking in major sins.
We read in Mukhtasar Tarikh Dimashq vol. 7, pg. 397 - 398:
"When Ali ibn Abi Talib was killed, Muawiya initiated his plan to appoint Yazid. The tribe of Rabia opposed this, and the tribe of Abd al-Qays joined them in refusing to give allegiance (bay'ah). The tribe of Bakr b. Wail and the tribe of Khalid ibn al-Muammar also joined the opposition. When Rabia refused to give bay'ah, other Arab tribes followed suit. This deeply frustrated Muawiya."
Tabari also records in Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol. 19, pg. 198:
According to Abū Mikhnaf-Abd al-Malik b. Nawfal b. Musahiq-Humayd b. Hamzah, a mawla of the Banu Umayyah:
An inexperienced young man came, who had no knowledge of affairs, who had not learnt the lessons of age, and who had not been trained by experience, he could hardly understand anything about his authority and his task. He sent a delegation from the people of Medina to Yazid.
Among them were 'Abdallah b. Hanzalah al-Ghasil al-Anşārī, 'Abdallah b. Abi Amr b. Hafş b. al-Mughirah al-Makhzūmi, al-Mundhir b. al-Zubayr and many of the nobles of the people of Medina.
They came to Yazid b. Mu'awiyah, and he treated them generously and well. He gave them gifts, and then they left him. They all came back to Medina except for al-Mundhir b. al-Zubayr. He went to 'Ubaydallah b. Ziyad at al-Başrah. Yazid had made a gift of a hundred thousand dirhams to him.
When those members of the delegation returned to Medina, they stood among the people and publicly cursed and vilified Yazid. They said, "We have come from a man who has no religion, who drinks wine, who plays lutes, who passes his time with songstresses, who plays with dogs and spends his evenings talking to robbers and young men. We ask you to bear witness that we repudiate him." The people followed them.
This was affirmed by al-Samhudi in Wafa al-Wafa Vol. 1, pg. 103.
In Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 21, pg. 224 we read:
...Aḥmad ibn Sulaymān, from al-Zubayr ibn Bakkār, who said: ʿAlī ibn Ṣāliḥ narrated to me, from Ibn al-Kābulī, who said:
The people of Medina, both their slaves and their women, used to say:
“By Allah, Yazīd shall not attain it until iron strikes his skull. The commander after him is Saʿīd b. Uthman.”
They meant: Yazīd would not attain the caliphate; the rightful commander after Muʿāwiyah was Saʿīd b. ʿUthmān. His mother was Umm ʿAbd Allāh bint al-Walīd ibn ʿAbd Shams.
The people of Medina, even prior to the tragedy of Karbala, had vigorously opposed Yazid’s appointment by Mu’awiyah. The reason for this opposition can be seen from the words of some of the Medinian Chiefs like Abdullah b. Handhala, Mundhir b. al-Zubayr, Ma’qil b. Sinan and others: Yazid was an immoral fasiq that did not care for the shari’a.
Occurrences at Harra
Below we shall mention a list of events and horrors that went down under the command of Yazid in the city of Medina.
Ahmad b. Hanbal is said to say the following about the Battle in in Kitab al-Sunnah by al-Khallal, Vol. 1 - 3, pg. 520, Report # 845:
Muhammad b. Ali reported from Muthena that he said: I asked Ahmad about Yazid b. Muawiyah. He said: “Isn’t he the one who did what he did in Medina?” I said: “And what did he do?”
He replied: “He killed people in Medina from among the companions of the Prophet SAW and did other things.” I asked: “What else did he do?” He said: “He looted it.” I asked: “Can hadith be transmitted from him?” He said: “No hadith should be transmitted from him, and no one should write hadith from him.”
I said to Ahmad: “And who was with him in Medina when he did what he did?” He said: “The people of al-Sham (Greater Syria).” I said to him: “And the people of Egypt?” He said: “No, the people of Egypt were only with them in the matter of ‘Uthman.”
Al-Suyuti writes in Tarikh al-Khulafa, pg. 167:
In the year 63 AH, news reached Yazid that the people of Madinah had rebelled against him and deposed him. He sent a large army to fight them, then ordered the army to proceed to Mecca to confront Ibn al-Zubayr. They arrived, and the Battle of al-Harrah took place at the gates of Taybah (Madinah) and what do you know of the Battle of al-Harrah?
Al-Hasan al-Basri once mentioned it and said: By Allah, hardly anyone escaped from them. A multitude of the Companions and others were killed. Madinah was plundered, and a thousand virgins were violated.
Verily we belong to Allah, and to Him we return. He said: Whoever terrifies the people of Madinah, Allah will terrify him, and upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all people.
The reason the people of Madinah deposed Yazid was that he indulged excessively in sin.
Ibn Kathir writes in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihaya, vol. 11, pg. 619 - 627:
Muslim ibn 'Uqbah, who is considered by the early Muslims as an evil man and may Allah curse him, was allowed by Yazid to enter Madinah for three days. During this time, he killed many noble and knowledgeable individuals, looted a great deal of wealth, and caused immense evil and corruption. These events were mentioned by more than one source.
Al-Madaini reported from a scholar from Madinah who said, "I asked Al-Zuhri how many people were killed on the Day of Harrah, and he said, 'Seven hundred from among the people, including muhajireen, Ansar, their allies and others whom I do not know, such as free men, slaves, and others. The total reached ten thousand.'"
Yazid made a grave and heinous mistake by allowing Muslim ibn 'Uqbah to violate Madinah for three days. This was a major and outrageous mistake, considering the killing of the Companions and their children. It has been previously mentioned that he was also responsible for the killing of Husayn and his companions at the hands of 'Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad.
During those three days, unspeakable and unimaginable atrocities were committed in the sacred city of Madinah, known only to Allah Almighty.
Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani writes in Lisan al-Mizan, vol. 8, pg. 506:
Then the people of Medina renounced allegiance to Yazid in the year 63 AH, so Yazid dispatched a large army against them under the command of Muslim b. ‘Uqbah al-Murri. He fought them and defeated them. A great number of the Companions, their sons, and many of the leading and virtuous successors were killed. The city was subjected to three days of unrestricted looting and killing. Those who remained alive were forced to pledge allegiance as slaves to Yazid, and whoever refused was executed.
Ibn Hazm writes in Jawami' al-Sira, pg. 357 - 358:
They killed the remaining sahaba on the Day of Harrah. This event marked one of the greatest tragedies for Islam as Muslims, companions, and the best Tabi'in were unjustly killed during the battle. Horses roamed freely in Rasulullah's Mosque, trampling and defiling it between the grave and the pulpit. No congregation gathered in Rasulullah's Mosque, and no one remained there except Sa'id b. Al-Musayyab...
Yazid compelled people to pledge allegiance to him by considering them his slaves. If he wished, he would sell them, and if he wished, he would free them. Some of them mentioned the allegiance based on the Quranic rulings and the Sunnah of Rasulullah, but Yazid ordered their execution, and their heads were cut off mercilessly.
The criminal and transgressor of Islam committed acts of violation and looted Medina three times. He showed disrespect to the companions of Rasulullah, extended his hands towards them, and confiscated their property. These companions sought refuge in the honorable city of Mecca, where they were besieged. The Kaaba was bombarded with stones from catapults. Haseen b. Numair Al-Sakuni.
We read in Tarikh Dimashq, Vol. 58, pg. 107:
…Abdullah b. Amr narrated to us, he said: Ahmad b. Mu'awiyah narrated to us, he said: al-Asma'i narrated to us, from Jarir b. Hazim, from al-Hasan that he mentioned the Day of al-Harrah and said:
"By God, hardly anyone (from Medina) escaped from among them (Yazid’s army). And indeed, the two sons of Zaynab bt. Umm Salamah, who was the stepdaughter of the Messenger of God (SAW) were killed.
So they were brought and placed before her. She said: 'By God, the affliction upon me because of you two is immense and it is, in this one' (and she pointed to one of them), 'greater than it is in this one' (and she gestured to the other), 'because this one stretched out his hand, and I am not safe from what he did, while this one remained in his house, and they entered upon him and killed him, so I have hope for him.'"
We read in Ibn al-Jawzi’s al-Radd 'ala al-Muta'asib, pg. 67 - 68:
…Abu al-Hasan al-Mada'ini narrated from Abu Abd al-Rahman al-Qurashi from Khalid from his aunt Umm al-Haytham bint Yazid: She said:
"I saw a woman from Quraysh making tawaf, and a black man came upon her and she embraced him and kissed him. I said to her, 'O servant of Allah, do you do this with this black man?!' She said: 'His father had intercourse with me during the Day of al-Harra, and I gave birth to him.'"
And from al-Mada'ini, from Abu Qurrah, he said: Hisham b. Hassan said: "A thousand women from among the people of Madinah gave birth after the Day of al-Harra without having a husband."
I say: Whoever wants to witness wonders, let him look at what befell the people of Madinah on the Day of al-Harra, when Yazid allowed his troops to loot and ravage. The report is from what we heard from our Shaykh Abu al-Fadl b. Nasir and it is in several volumes, but we avoided going into too much detail.
Of course we cannot ignore the fact that Yazid burned down the Kaaba during the siege of Mecca as noted in Sahih Muslim 1333f:
The House was burnt during the time of Yazid b. Muawiya when the people of Syria had fought (in Mecca). And it happened with it (the Ka'ba) what was (in store for it).
Of course, however, as we would expect, the Sunni scholars have decided to support the actions of Yazid of burning down the Kaaba. This was mentioned by Ibn Taymiyyah in Minhaj al-Sunnah, Vol. 4, pg. 577:
وَأَمَّا مُلُوكُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ، مِنْ بَنِي أُمَيَّةَ وَبَنِي الْعَبَّاسِ [وَنُوَّابُهُمْ] ، فَلَا رَيْبَ أَنَّ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ لَمْ يَقْصِدْ إِهَانَةَ الْكَعْبَةِ: لَا نَائِبُ يَزِيدَ، وَلَا نَائِبُ عَبْدِ الْمَلِكِ الْحَجَّاجُ بْنُ يُوسُفَ، وَلَا غَيْرُهُمَا. بَلْ كُلُّ الْمُسْلِمِينَ كَانُوا مُعَظِّمِينَ لِلْكَعْبَةِ، وَإِنَّمَا كَانَ مَقْصُودُهُمْ حِصَارَ ابْنِ الزُّبَيْرِ. وَالضَّرْبُ بِالْمَنْجَنِيقِ كَانَ لَهُ لَا لِلْكَعْبَةِ، وَيَزِيدُ لَمْ يَهْدِمِ الْكَعْبَةَ، وَلَمْ يَقْصِدْ إِحْرَاقَهَا: لَا هُوَ وَلَا نُوَّابُهُ بِاتِّفَاقِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ. وَلَكِنَّ ابْنَ الزُّبَيْرِ هَدَمَهَا [تَعْظِيمًا لَهَا]، لِقَصْدِ إِعَادَتِهَا وَبِنَائِهَا عَلَى الْوَجْهِ الَّذِي وَصَفَهُ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - لِعَائِشَةَ - رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهَا - وَكَانَتِ النَّارُ قَدْ أَصَابَتْ بَعْضَ سَتَائِرِهَا فَتَفَجَّرَ بَعْضُ الْحِجَارَةِ.
As for the Muslim rulers, from the Umayyads and Abbasids and their deputies, there is no doubt that none of them intended to violate the Kaaba—neither Yazid’s deputy, nor the deputy of ʿAbd al-Malik, al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, nor any others. Indeed, all Muslims honored the Kaaba.
Their aim was only the siege of Ibn al-Zubayr. The striking with the catapult was directed at him, not at the Kaaba. Yazid neither demolished the Kaaba nor intended to burn it; neither he nor his deputies did so, by the agreement of the Muslims.
Rather, Ibn al-Zubayr demolished it to honor it, intending to restore and rebuild it in the manner described by the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) to ʿA’isha (may Allah be pleased with her). The fire had reached some of its coverings, causing some of the stones to crack.
What a great excuse to attack the Ka'aba! Allah (SWT) will definetly accept this excuse on the day of Judgement, for by claiming that it was “not their intention to destroy the Ka'aba" it will cover up their fighting in the Holy Land of Mecca for the sake of power. And how does a regular person get mistaken for the giant building of the Ka'aba? Ajeeb.
After Yazid defeated the people of Medina, he makes the repeats the same poetry that he made after the killing of Imam al-Husayn (AS) in al-Dinawari (d. 282)’s al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, pg. 395, which shows his disbelief in Islam:
لَيْتَ أَشْياخِي بَبَدْرٍ شَهِدُوا ... جَزْعَ الخَزْرَجِ مِن وَقْعَ الْأَسَلُ
حين حَكَّتْ بِقُبَاءَ بَرْكَهَا ... وَاسْتَحَرُ القَتَلُ في عَبْد الأَشَ
Then [Muslim] set out with the army for Mecca and wrote to Yazid informing him of what had been done to Medina. Thereupon, Yazid recited:
"Would that my forefathers at Badr had witnessed… The terror of Khazraj at the lances' strike,
When fate soaked its robe in their streaming blood… And slaughter raged against Banu 'Abd al-Ashhal!"
Frightening the people of Medina
The Battle of Harra proves that Yazid was viewed as a fasiq, even prior to Karbala. However, it also is a way to establish that Yazid is an accursed man.
This is because the hadith in Musnad Ahmad b. Hanbal, vol. 27, pg. 92 states:
حَدَّثَنَا أَنَسُ بْنُ عِيَاضٍ اللَّيْثِيُّ أَبُو ضَمْرَةَ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنِي يَزِيدُ بْنُ خُصَيْفَةَ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللهِ بْنِ عَبْدِ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنِ أَبِي صَعْصَعَةَ، عَنْ عَطَاءِ بْنِ يَسَارٍ عَنِ السَّائِبِ بْنِ خَلَّادٍ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ:
"مَنْ أَخَافَ أَهْلَ الْمَدِينَةِ ظُلْمًا أَخَافَهُ اللهُ وَعَلَيْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللهِ وَالْمَلَائِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ، لَا يَقْبَلُ اللهُ مِنْهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ صَرْفًا وَلَا عَدْلًا"
Anas b. ‘Iyad al-Laythi Abu Damrah said: Yazid b. Khusayfah narrated to me, from ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abd al-Rahman b. Abi Sa’sa’ah, from ‘Ata b. Yasar, from al-Sa’ib b. Khallad, that the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said:
"Whoever frightens the people of Medina unjustly, Allah will frighten him, and upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all people. Allah will not accept from him on the Day of Resurrection any charity or justice."
Note: The Hadith was authenticated by Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut in the footnote.
In a different variant from Anas b. Malik in Sahih al-Bukhari 1867, it states:
Narrated Anas: The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Medina is a sanctuary from that place to that. Its trees should not be cut and no heresy should be innovated nor any sin should be committed in it, and whoever innovates in it an heresy or commits sins (bad deeds), then he will incur the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people."
The Hadith makes it clear that the actions that Yazid committed during the battle of Harra would lead to him being accursed and Ibn Kathir attests to the fact that many Sunni scholars have confirmed this explanation in his in Al-Bidayah Wal-Nihayah, Vol. 11, pg. 630’:
This hadith and others like it have been used as proof by those who permit the cursing of Yazid ibn Muʿawiyah. It is a narration attributed to Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, favored by al-Khallāl, Abū Bakr ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, al-Qāḍī Abū Yaʿlā, and his son al-Qāḍī Abū al-Ḥusayn. Shaykh Abū al-Faraj Ibn al-Jawzī supported this view in a dedicated work and permitted cursing him.
Scholarly appraisals of Yazid
After reviewing these faults of Yazid, the major scholars of Ahlus Sunnah end by highlighting Yazid as a wicked man. We shall quote them to show the authenticity of all the sources we have mentioned.
Ibn Taymiyyah goes as far to say in Majmu’a al-Fatawa, Vol. 4, pg. 484:
ومن آمن بالله واليوم الآخر : لا يختار أن يكون مع يزيد ، ولا مع أمثاله من الملوك ، الذين ليسوا بعادلين .
Whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day would never choose to be with Yazīd, nor with others like him among kings who are unjust.
Ibn Kathir concludes in his al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Vol. 11, pg. 659:
It has been reported that Yazid became known for musical instruments, drinking wine, singing, hunting, keeping boys, songstresses, and dogs, as well as organizing fights between rams, bears, and monkeys. There was not a day when he wouldn’t wake up drunk.
He would tie a monkey to a saddled horse with ropes and lead it around, dressing the monkey in golden caps, and likewise the boys. He used to race horses, and when a monkey died, he would grieve for it. It is said that the cause of his death was that he carried a monkey and began to make it jump around, and it bit him.
Other things have also been mentioned about him. And God knows best about the authenticity of that.
Even Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani says in Al-Emta bil al-Arbaeen, pg. 96:
‘Loving and glorifying him is not performed except by a heretic who has void belief because he (Yazid) had characteristics that his lover deserves to be faithless, because to love and hate just in the sake of God is the sign of faith’
Al-Damiri describes the Shafi’i view in his Hayat al-Hayawan al-Kubra Vol. 4, pg. 272:
Al-Kiya al-Harasi, the Shafi‘i jurist, was asked about Yazid b. Mu‘awiyah - whether he was among the Companions or not, and whether it is permissible to curse him or not. He replied: “He was not among the Companions, for he was born during the days of ‘Uthman”. As for the statements of the early scholars, each of Abu Hanifah, Malik, and Ahmad had two opinions - one explicit and one implicit.
But in our (Shafi‘i) school, we have only one opinion: the explicit permissibility, without even needing implication. And how could it not be so, when he was a hunter with leopards, a player of dice, and a habitual drinker of wine?
Even Ahmad b. Hanbal when he is asked about Yazid’s corruption in character, he says that he is accursed in the Qur’an! We read this in al-Alusi’s Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 13 pg. 227:
Al-Barzanji in al-Ishā‘a and al-Haythamī in al-Ṣawā‘iq report that Imām Aḥmad, when his son ʿAbd Allāh asked him about cursing Yazīd, replied: “How can one not curse the one whom Allah has cursed in His Book?.ʿAbd Allāh said: “I have read the Book of Allah, Mighty and Exalted, and I did not find in it a curse upon Yazīd.”
So the Imām said: “Indeed, Allah says: ‘Would you then, if you were given authority, spread corruption in the land and sever your ties of kinship? It is they whom Allah has cursed…’ (Qur’an 47:22–23). And what corruption and severing of kinship is worse than what Yazīd committed?”
Al-Alusi further goes to opine in Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani, Vol. 13 pg. 228 - 229
What predominates in my view is that this wicked one (Yazīd) did not truly believe in the Prophethood of the Messenger of Allah. The sum of what he committed against the sanctity of Allah’s Sacred Precinct, the sanctity of the Prophet’s household, his pure and purified progeny, both during their lives and after their deaths, and the disgraceful acts he carried out, is no less of a sign of his unbelief than throwing a page of the Noble Qur’an into filth.
I do not believe that his reality was hidden from the senior Muslims of that time, but they were overpowered, subjugated, and had no recourse but patience until Allah’s decree came to pass. Even if one were to concede that this accursed one was a Muslim, then he was a Muslim who amassed among the major sins more than can be encompassed by any expression.
I hold that it is permissible to curse someone like him by name, even if it were unimaginable that there could be his equal among the transgressors. It is apparent he never repented, and the possibility of his repentance is weaker than that of his belief.
Ibn Hazm rules in al-Muhalla, vol. 11, pg. 335:
Whoever calls for an interpretation that does not contravene the Sunnah may be excused. For example, interpreting Mu‘awiyah’s action in seeking retribution from the killers of ‘Uthman before Ali’s pledge is excusable, because it does not contravene any aspect of religion; it is merely a personal error in a particular matter.
However, those who rise solely for worldly gain, as Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyah, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, and ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan did against Ibn al-Zubayr, as Marwan ibn Muhammad did against Yazid ibn al-Walid, and as others rose under Marwan, are not excused, for their actions have no justification; they are pure transgression.
Al-Jahith says in his Rasa'il Vol. 2, pg. 12 - 14:
“The abominations committed by Yazīd—such as the killing of al-Ḥusayn (peace be upon him), carrying the daughters of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) as captives, striking the teeth of al-Ḥusayn with a stick, terrifying the people of Madīnah, and demolishing the Kaʿbah—bear witness to his cruelty, harshness, enmity, corruption of judgment, rancor, hatred, hypocrisy, and departure from faith. Indeed, the wicked one is accursed, and whoever forbids cursing the accursed is himself accursed.”
Early historians such as Abi Mikhnaf, al-Kalbi, Ibn Ayyah all say the following in Ansab al-Ashraf, Vol. 5, pg. 299::
Al-Umari narrated to me from al-Haytham b. Adi from Ibn Ayyash and Awana, and from Hisham b. al-Kalbi from his father, and from Abu Mikhnaf and others. They said:
Yazid b. Muawiya was the first to openly display drinking wine, indulgence in singing, hunting, keeping female singers and male servants, and amusement with what the wealthy laugh at, such as monkeys, and contests involving dogs and roosters. Then, at his hands came the killing of al-Husayn, the killing of the people of al-Harra, and the striking and burning of the House (the Ka‘bah). He was, as it is seen, sound in determination, firm in resolve, he would not intend a thing but that he pursued it.
The ‘Adawiyyah
The love of Yazid by his followers grew so strong that a whole sect emerged to venerate his status. This sect was described to us by Ibn Taymiyyah in Majmu’a al-Fatawa, vol. 4, pg. 482:
The second group thinks that he was a righteous man, a just leader, and that he was among the “Companions” who were born during the time of the Prophet (SAW) and that the Prophet carried him in his arms, blessed him, and perhaps some even preferred him over Abū Bakr and ʿUmar. Some even went so far as to claim he was a prophet. They narrate falsely regarding “Shaykh ʿAdī” or the slain Ḥasan, that seventy saints had their faces turned away from the qiblah because they hesitated concerning Yazīd. This is the view of the extreme ʿAdawis, Kurds, and others among the misled.
Indeed, Shaykh ʿAdī was from the Banū Umayyah and was a righteous, devout, and virtuous man, and nothing is preserved from him except that he called to the Sunnah, the same Sunnah preached by others like Shaykh Abū al-Faraj al-Maqdisī, whose creed matched his. However, others added to the Sunnah fabrications and misguidance from forged hadiths, false anthropomorphisms, and exaggeration regarding Shaykh ʿAdī and Yazīd, along with excessive vilification of the Rāfiḍah, claiming that their repentance is never accepted, and other such things.
Both of these views are clearly false to anyone with the slightest intellect or knowledge of reality and the ways of the early generations. Thus, neither view is attributed to any scholar known for adhering to the Sunnah, nor to any rational person with sound judgment and experience.
Ibn Taymiyyah goes to deny that Shaykh ‘Adi b. Musafir had any of the views that his sect attributes him with. It is not relevant to us to refute Ibn Taymiyyah on this point, rather we merely aim to make mention of this group to show how intense the love some ‘Muslims’ had for Yazid due to the amount of fabrications that circulated about him from the nawasib that hated Imam al-Husayn (AS) and celebrated his death. They went so far to say that Yazid was a Prophet of God!
The True Reason why most Sunnis don’t curse Yazid
A-Dhahabi mentions in the biography of the Abd al-Maghith in Siyar A’lam al-Nubala, vol. 21, pg. 160:
Abd al-Mughith b. Zuhayr, was a Shaykh, Imam, hadith scholar, ascetic, righteous man, and follower of the Sunnah. He was considered one of the last of the Salaf. He was born in the year 500 AH.
He was deeply devoted to hadith traditions, studied and copied books, compiled and authored works, and was known for his piety, integrity, adherence to the Sunnah, commanding presence, and high status in people’s hearts.
He authored a treatise on the virtues of Yazid, in which he presented strange and absurd claims; had he not written it, it would have been better. He composed it in response to Ibn al-Jawzi, and animosity arose between them.
Ibn Taymiyyah, our Shaykh, related: It was said that when the Caliph al-Nasir heard that ʿAbd al-Mughīth had been prohibited from reviling Yazid, he disapproved, visited him, and questioned him about it.
ʿAbd al-Mughīth acted ignorant of the matter and said: "O man, my intention was merely to restrain tongues from cursing the caliphs. Otherwise, if we were to open this door, then the current caliph would be more deserving of being cursed, for he does such and such," and he began listing his sins. The caliph said, “O Shaykh, pray for me,” and left.
Abd al-Maghith wrote a book praising the supposed virtues of Yazid, which was filled with so many fabrications that even al-Dhahabi was forced to acknowledge its falsehoods. His motivation was to refute Ibn al-Jawzi, who famously permitted the cursing of Yazid. If someone like Abd al-Maghith, who was considered reliable, could get away with promoting lies about Yazid, how many other so-called trustworthy scholars within Ahl al-Sunnah may have done the same?
Abd al-Maghith’s encounter with Ibn Taymiyyah reveals the real reason he was defending Yazid: to avoid falling into hypocrisy. If Yazid is to be cursed, then logically, those who committed the same crimes or worse must also be cursed. All praise is due to Allah, who has protected the Shi’a from such contradictions. We curse all those who were like Yazid, without exception.
If a Sunni was to curse all those like Yazid, which is essentially all of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs, then such a faith is meaningless. Why should we adhere to a faith whose leaders, the so-called successors of the Prophet (SAW), are collectively all deserving of curses and hated by the Prophet himself? Would it not be more reasonable to follow a path led by the most pious individuals of their time, leaders whom the Prophet (SAW) undoubtedly loved and affirmed?
Yazid’s death
Yazid’s alcohol problem extended to his strange obsession with monkeys. It’s reported that he would give his monkey wine to drink and dance with it and that he died due to that. Consider the following report in Ansab al-Ashraf, vol. 5, pg. 300:
Al-Mada’ini, al-Haytham, and others said: Yazid b. Mu’awiyah had a monkey which he placed in front of him, nicknamed it “Abu Qays,” and used to say: “This is an old man from the Children of Israel who committed a sin and was transformed.”
He would give it nabidh to drink and laugh at what it did. He would place it on a wild she-donkey and send it off with the horses, and it would outrun them. One day, he mounted it on the donkey and began reciting: Hold on, O Abu Qays, to the edge of its reins. For there is no liability upon it if you perish.”
And a Shaykh from the people of al-Sham told me that the cause of Yazid’s death was that he mounted his monkey on the donkey while he was drunk, then ran after it, and either his neck snapped or something inside him ruptured.
This report was also narrated by Abu ‘Amr al-Shaybani (d. 206 H), who was quoted by Ibn Hamdoon in Tadhkirat al-Hamduniyyah, vol. 9, pg. 151. Ibn Kathir mentioned this being the reason for Yazid’s death as well in al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Vol. 11, pg. 659.
However, in another report from Siyar A’lam al-Nubala Vol. 4 pg. 37, it says:
Ziyad al-Harithi said: 'Yazid served me alcohol unlike any I have tasted before.' I said: 'O Amir al-Mu'minin, I have never tasted anything like this.' He said: 'This is pomegranate juice mixed with honey from Isfahan, sugar from Ahwaz, raisins from Ta'if, and cold water.'
Muhammad b. Ahmad b. Masma' said: 'Yazid became drunk, and he stood up and danced, then fell on his head, causing it to split open and his brain became exposed.
This report was affirmed by Ibn Hibban in Kitab al-Thiqat by Ibn Hibban, Vol. 1, pg. 236.
Alternatively, a contemporary of Yazid says in Tarikh al-Tabari, Vol. 20, pg. 70 - 71:
Narrated to me by Umar ibn Shabba, who said: Ali ibn Muhammad told us, he said: Muslima ibn Muharib informed us that Salm ibn Ziyad sent the spoils of Samarkand and Khwarezm as gifts to Yazid ibn Muawiya…
Then (after Yazid died) Ibn Uradah said:
Oh you king who causes his door to be barred, matters have occurred recently of great importance!
Those slain at Junzah and those at Kabul, and Yazid whose hushed-up affair has been made known.
Oh Bans Umayyah, the end of your rule led to a corpse at Huwwärin, these remaining.
His fate came upon him while by his pillow was a cup and a wineskin filled to the brim and overflowing.
Many a plaintive singing gid weepe by his drunk en companions, with a cymbal, now sitting and now standing
Muslima said: When Ibn Uradah’s poem became known, Salm disclosed the deaths of Yazid ibn Muawiya and Muawiya ibn Yazid, and he called the people to pledge allegiance willingly so that the affairs of the people could be settled under a caliph. They pledged allegiance but after two months, they broke it.
Based on all these sources, it looks like the majority of credible evidence demonstrates that Yazid died while in a drunk state. How exactly he died seems to be disputed, but it was the consequence of his drinking.
Some other scholars like al-Diyarbakri, al-Samhudi and others mention that Yazid died due to a throat inflammation that caused him to suffocate from lack of air. However, these are opinions affirmed only by later historians without much evidence.
« Previous Part: Husayn's stance on Mu'awiyah »
« Next Part: Mu'awiyah's appointment of Yazid »