Q: Mufti Saheb, I have heard that some of the narrations in the book “Revealing the True Facts of Yazeed ~ The Incident of KARBALA and the Events that Followed” are quoted through a weak, shia narrator, by the name of Abu Mikhnaf. Is this correct? If it is, then can we quote from such narrators?
A: It pleases us to see that people are querying regarding the reliability of the kitaab, as our Deen teaches us to be cautious and particular regarding the sources through which we acquire our Deen. Furthermore, this gives us the opportunity to once more review the kitaab and ascertain whether the queries and concerns raised are valid.
Before discussing the status of the historian, Abu Mikhnaf, Lut bin Yahya, I regard it imperative to explain, as a prelude, the various types of ‘ilm in Deen as well as the Ahaadith and narrations that can be used for establishing each type of ‘ilm. This is vitally important in order for us to be able to understand each point in its proper perspective.
The Various Types of ‘Ilm in Deen
There are primarily five types of ‘ilm in Deen:
1) The first is the ‘ilm of Aqaaid (beliefs). This ‘ilm relates to the Sifaat (attributes) of Allah Ta’ala and the fundamental beliefs of Islam and hence holds the highest position in Deen. Only such Ahaadith will be accepted which are saheeh and are of the highest levels of authenticity and reliability.
2) The second is the ‘ilm of Ahkaam (laws and injunctions of Deen pertaining to halaal and haraam). This ‘ilm also holds an extremely high position in Deen. However, it is lower in status than Aqaaid. In regard to this type of ‘ilm, authentic Ahaadith are required to establish Deeni laws and Ahkaam. However, it is allowed that the status of these Ahaadith be lower than the status of the Ahaadith mentioned in the first type.
3) The third is the ‘ilm of Fazaail A’maal (the rewards promised for certain virtuous deeds). As for this type of ‘ilm, even weak Ahaadith can be presented in support, provided they fulfil certain criteria laid down by the Muhadditheen. Imaam Bukhaari (rahimahullah’s) Al-Adabul Mufrad and the kitaabs of fazaail prepared by the Muhadditheen are examples to substantiate this point.
4) The fourth type is the ‘ilm of Tafseer. Since this ‘ilm revolves around aspects relating to the occasions of revelation of the Aayaat and its details, weak narrations can also be used to establish this knowledge, on condition that the Ahaadith fulfil the criteria explained by the Mufassireen and Muhadditheen.
5) The fifth type is the ‘ilm of Tareekh and Siyar (narrations pertaining to historical information). As far as this type of ‘ilm is concerned, the Muhadditheen have permitted accepting all types of narrations, even though they may be extremely weak, as long as they are not fabrications and do not contradict the fundamentals of Deen and the established aspects of Shari’ah.[1]
The above is merely a basic outline of the various types of ‘ilm in Deen. It should however be borne in mind that all these sciences of ‘ilm have their own principles that have been explained by the authorities of each science. In order for one to correctly understand each science and benefit fully from it, it is incumbent for him to adhere to the principles that govern that respective science. Failing to adhere to the principles of each science will create mass confusion in Deen, resulting in the structures of Deen being ruined.
Nowadays, we find that this has become the hallmark of the salafees, that they apply the usools of Hadith that have been prepared for accepting Ahaadith of Ahkaam to the narrations of Tareekh (historical information). They do not realize that the science of Tareekh is the lowest science and that permission has been granted to accept extremely weak narrations provided they are not fabrications and do not contradict the fundamentals of Deen and the established aspects of Shari’ah.[2]
The Status of the Historian, Abu Mikhnaf
As far as the historian, Abu Mikhnaf, Lut bin Yahya, is concerned, there are mainly two objections raised against his narrations. The first objection is that the Muhadditheen have declared him as a very weak narrator. The second objection is that he is a shia narrator. Therefore, in the light of these objections, are we allowed to accept the narrations reported by him?
The First Objection
As far as the first objection is concerned, it should be noted that despite the Muhadditheen declaring him as a very weak narrator and regarding his narrations unfit to establish Shar’ee Ahkaam (Shar’ee laws), they have recognised him as an authority in the field of Tareekh (history) and have accepted his narrations. (As we have seen above that the science of Tareekh is the lowest science, due to which even the narrations of extremely weak narrators are accepted, provided the narrator is not a fabricator and his narrations do not contradict the fundamentals of Deen and the established aspects of Shari’ah).
Furthermore, the senior ranking Muhadditheen, the likes of Hafiz ibnu Hajar Asqalaani (in Fathul Baari[3] and Al-Isaabah), Allama Qastallani (in Irshaadus Saari[4]), Allama Ibnu Jareer Tabari (in Taareekhul Umam wal Mulook), Allama Ibnu Katheer (in Al Bidaayah wan Nihaayah), Allama Ibnu Khalli Kaan (in Wafayaatul Ayaan) (rahimahumullah) and others have all accepted his narrations regarding Tareekh and Siyar and included them in their commentaries on Hadith and books of Tareekh.
Allama Zahabi (rahimahullah) even recorded his narrations regarding Karbala in Tareekhul Islam and explicitly mentioned under the narrations of Karbala that even though he is not an authentic narrator, however in regard to Tareekh, his narrations can be accepted.[5] He mentions in Tareekhul Islam:
وقال أبو مخنف وليس بثقة لكن له اعتناء بالأخبار
In fact, in Albidaaya Wan Nihaayah, Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah) refers to him as an Imaam of Tareekh in many places. In one place, Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah) has explicitly titled a separate chapter:
وهذه صفة مقتله مأخوذة من كلام أئمة هذا الشأن لا كما يزعمه أهل التشيع من الكذب
Explaining the description of how Hazrat Husain (Radiyallahu Anhu) was killed from the authorities of this science and refraining from quoting the lies that are contained in the narrations of the Shias.
Thereafter Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah) commenced this chapter with the narrations of Abu Mikhnaf. It is also worth noting that Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah) had painstakingly separated the shia narrations from the accepted narrations in his kitaab, Albidaaya Wan Nihaayah. He, therefore mentioned the following statement:
وقد أورد ابن عساكر أحاديث في ذم يزيد بن معاوية كلها موضوعة لا يصح شيء منها، وأجود ما ورد ما ذكرناه على ضعف أسانيده وانقطاع بعضه والله أعلم. (البداية والنهاية 8/234)
All the narrations that Allama Ibnu Asaakir had recorded regarding the defamation of Yazeed bin Mu’aawiyah are fabrications and none of them are authentic. The best narrations (regarding Yazeed) are those which I have mentioned (i.e. in my kitaab Albidaaya Wan Nihaayah), despite the fact that their chains are weak and that some of the narrations have been narrated with missing links in the chain.
From this statement of Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah), we understand that the narrations found in his kitaab, Albidaaya Wan Nihaayah, are such that they can be accepted in Tareekh despite the weakness in the chains. This is on account of the fact that there are a lot of allowances given in Tareekhi narrations and the weakness in the chains are overlooked more than in any other field.
Certain scholars of the recent past who had written on this topic misunderstood the following statement of Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah) in Albidaaya Wan Nihaayah and concluded that Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah) had discredited Abu Mikhnaf, whereas this is incorrect. Below we will present the actual wording of Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah) to prove that Allama Ibnu Katheer (rahimahullah) had attested to the reliability of the historian, Abu Mikhnaf, in regard to narrations that pertain to Tareekh (history).
وأما ما روي من الاحاديث والفتن التي أصابت من قتله فأكثرها صحيح، فإنه قل من نجا من أولئك الذين قتلوه من آفة وعاهة في الدنيا، فلم يخرج منها حتى أصيب بمرض، وأكثرهم أصابهم الجنون.وللشيعة والرافضة في صفة مصرع الحسين كذب كثير وأخبار باطلة، وفيما ذكرنا كفاية، وفي بعض ما أوردناه نظر، ولولا أن ابن جرير وغيره من الحفاظ والائمة ذكروه ما سقته، وأكثره من رواية أبي مخنف لوط بن يحيى، وقد كان شيعيا، وهو ضعيف الحديث عند الائمة، ولكنه أخباري حافظ، عنده من هذه الاشياء ما ليس عند غيره، ولهذا يترامى عليه كثير من المصنفين في هذا الشأن ممن بعده والله أعلم (البداية والنهاية 8/203)
Haafiz ibn Katheer (rahimahullah) has written the following:
As far as those narrations are concerned which mention calamities that had befallen the people who were involved in the killing of Hazrat Husain (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), then most of them are saheeh (authentic), as very few of those who were involved in his killing were spared from calamity and disaster in this world. Hence, they were afflicted with sickness before leaving this world and most of them became insane.
The Shi’ah and Rawaafidh have many false and unfounded narrations relating to the martyrdom of Hazrat Husain (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). However, the narrations which we have mentioned are sufficient and though there is weakness in some of these narrations, I would not have recorded them if it was not for the fact that ibn Jareer (rahimahullah) and other Imaams and Huffaaz recorded these same narrations. The majority of these narrations are from Abu Mikhnaf, Lut bin Yahya. He was a Shi’ah and is regarded by the Muhadditheen to be a weak narrator. However, he is a reliable historian and an authority who has recorded details and aspects pertaining to this topic which others have not recorded, and it is for this reason that many authors of kitaabs who came after him relied on his reports in dealing with this topic – and Allah Ta’ala knows best. (Albidaaya Wan Nihaayah 8/203)
Apart from this, it should be borne in mind that at times, a certain narrator could be ruled as a weak narrator in regard to a particular science, whereas he is declared as an Imaam in another science. A Few examples to illustrate this point are as follows:
In regard to the famous Imaam of qiraat, Imaam Hafs, we find that the Muhadditheen have ruled him as a very weak narrator in Hadith, even though he is considered an Imaam in the science of qiraat.[6] Similarly, we find that despite the narrator, Muqaatil bin Sulaimaan, being classified by the Muhadditheen as a very weak narrator, he holds the position of an Imaam in Tafseer.[7] Another example to illustrate this point is the famous narrator, Muhammed bin Umar Al-Waaqidi. The Muhadditheen do not accept his narrations in Ahkaam (laws of Deen). However, in the field of Tareekh and Siyar, they recognise him as an Imaam and accept his narrations.[8]
After viewing these examples, we should understand that similar is the case of the historian, Abu Mikhnaf. The mere fact that the Muhadditheen have ruled him as a very weak narrator in other departments of Deen will not mean that his narrations in Tareekh are not acceptable according to them. Otherwise, we find that it is these very same Muhadditheen (who were mentioned above the likes of Hafiz ibnu Hajar Asqalaani, Allama Zahabi, Allama Qastallani, Allama Ibnu Jareer Tabari, Allama Ibnu Katheer, Allama Ibnu Khalli Kaan (rahimahumullah)) who have ruled him as a weak narrator in the kitaabs of rijaal who have themselves accepted his narrations in Tareekh and included them in their kitaabs. Hence, we have only followed the standard set by these great senior ranking Muhadditheen in quoting his narrations in the field of Tareekh (history). Similarly, we see the respected scholar who authored the kitaab, “Karbala – A ‘bloody’ conspiracy and the secrets behind it”, also followed the same standard and used certain narrations wherein Abu Mikhnaf appears in the chains.
The Second Objection
As far as the issue of him being a shia is concerned, then it should be remembered that the information that is being reported from him does not pertain to any of the shia beliefs or practices. Rather the information reported merely pertains to the finer details of certain unanimously accepted events that occurred in history and there is absolutely no problem in narrating that. Therefore, Allama Tabari, Allama Ibnu Katheer, Allama Zahabi (rahimahumullah) and others narrate the details of these events from him.
Apart from this, one should understand that the mere basis of him being a shia does not necessitate that nothing can be narrated from him, for we find that there are many narrators in Bukhaari Shareef and Muslim Shareef who despite being shias, Imaam Bukhaari and Imaam Muslim (rahimahumallah) accepted their narrations and even included them in their kitaabs. However, it should be understood that these shia narrators who are found in Bukhaari Shareef and Muslim Shareef were not like the shias of today. Rather, they belonged to the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah.
The Muhadditheen explain that in the time of the Sahaaba, Tabi’een and Aimmah, the word Shia was generally used for a person who was part of the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah, but differed in just one aspect, that they used to regard Hazrat Ali (Radiyallahu Anhu) as being greater than Hazrat Usmaan (Radiyallahu Anhu). Apart from that, there was no other problem in regard to their beliefs or actions. They were thus unlike the shias of today who (Al Iyaazu Billah) regard the Qur’an to be distorted and revile the Sahaabah (Radiyallahu Anhum), believing that they (with the exception of a few) had all turned apostate after the demise of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam). When this class of people were referred to in the time of Sahaaba and Tabi’een, they were generally referred to as rawaafidh.
Another important aspect to bear in mind is that these rawaafidh who existed during the time of the Sahaaba and Tabi’een were of different sects. Some sects were declared as kaafir while others, despite deferring with the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaah in certain aspects were not declared as kaafir.
If it is proven that Abu Mikhnaf was only a Shia (as he is termed as a shia in the rijaal kitaabs and not a raafidhi, and bearing in mind that the rijaal kitaabs are the main source in defining the exact position of the narrator) then there is no doubt that his narrations can be accepted in Tareekh, even though he is declared as a very weak narrator in the other sciences of Deen.
On the contrary, if he is supposedly regarded as a raafidhi, as Allama Zahabi (rahimahullah) has termed him thus in Tareekhul Islam, then in this case accepting narrations that will lend support to the Shia beliefs, actions and traditions will not be permissible. However, accepting narrations of Tareekh from him will still be permissible, on account of him being an authority in the field of Tareekh and not being a fabricator. In fact, when we examine the narrators of Bukhaari Shareef, we come across certain narrators who despite being from the rawaafidh (not the shia), yet Imaam Bukhaari (rahimahullah) had accepted their Ahaadith and included them in his kitaab. Imaam Bukhaari (rahimahullah) only accepted the Ahaadith of such narrators due to them being truthful and honest and the nature of their wrong beliefs being such that it did not lead to them coming out of the fold of Islam.[9]
Apart from this, it should be remembered that Imaam Bukhaari (Rahmatullahi Alayh) only accepted the Ahaadith of these narrators as a further support for other Ahaadith that had already been established in the chapter. Therefore, this will not affect the authenticity of the kitaab (Bukhaari Shareef) in anyway. In contrast, when we view the issue of Abu Mikhnaf, we understand that his narrations have not been made the basis of proving Yazeed being a faasiq. Rather, this has already been established through overwhelming reports and narrations. If one has to ignore and disregard his narrations, the abundant reports and narrations that have been transmitted regarding the fisq of Yazeed will in no way be affected.
It is for this reason that the Ulama, Muhadditheen and great luminaries of Deen, throughout every century of Islam, considered Yazeed to be a faasiq and held him fully responsible for the crimes he committed. If the reports were unfounded and unauthentic, we would have not found so many Ulama of such a high rank concurring against Yazeed. The statement of Hazrat Shaikh Moulana Muhammad Zakariyya (Rahmatullahi Alayh) bears testimony to this fact, where he mentioned: “As for the claim that all the reports regarding Yazeed’s evil and vice are incorrect and unfounded, then this claim is difficult to substantiate. When the historical reports are so numerous that they reach close to the rank of tawaatur, then rejecting them will result in losing reliance in history entirely.”[10]
Among the great Ulama and luminaries of the past who declared Yazeed as a faasiq were:
1. Hazrat Abdullah bin Zubair (Radiyallahu Anhu)
2. Hazrat Abu Hurairah (Radiyallahu Anhu)
3. The Son of Yazeed (Demise: 64 Hijri)
4. Hazrat Sa’eed bin Musayyib (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 94 Hijri)
5. Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Azeez (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 101 Hijri)
6. Hazat Hasan Basri (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 110 Hijri)
7. Imaam Abu Haneefah (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 150 Hijri)
8. Imaam Maalik (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 179 Hijri)
9. Imaam Ahmad bin Hambal (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 241 Hijri)
10. Imaam Abu Bakr Jassaas Hanafi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 370 Hijri)
11. Ibnu Hazm Zaahiri (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 456 Hijri)
12. Imaam Baihaqi Shaafi’ee (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 458 Hijri)
13. Qaadhi Abu Ya’laa Mowsili (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 458 Hijri)
14. Shaikh Ebrahim bin Ismail (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 534 Hijri)
15. Qaadhi Iyaadh Maaliki (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 544 Hijri)
16. Allaamah Ibnul Jowzi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 597 Hijri)
17. Allaamah Ibnul Atheer Shaafi’ee (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 630 Hijri)
18. Ibnu Salaah (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 643 Hijri)
19. Mufassir Qurtubi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 671 Hijri)
20. Allaamah Ibnu Taimiyyah Hambali (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 728 Hijri)
21. Allaamah Zahabi Hambali (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 748 Hijri)
22. Allaamah Ibnu Katheer Shaafi’ee (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 774 Hijri)
23. Allaamah Taftaazaani Hanafi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 791 Hijri)
24. Allaamah Ibnu Khaldoon (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 808 Hijri)
25. Author of Fataawa Bazzaaziyah (Demise: 827 Hijri)
26. Haafiz Ibnu Hajar Asqalaani Shaafi’ee (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 852 Hijri)
27. Allaamah Suyuti Shaafi’ee (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 911 Hijri)
28. Allaamah Ibnu Hajar Makki Shaafi’ee (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 974 Hijri)
29. Allaamah Ibnu Hajar Makki Shaafi’ee (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 974 Hijri)
30. Mullah Ali Qaari (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 1014 Hijri)
31. Hazrat Mujaddid Alf Thaani Hanafi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 1034 Hijri)
32. Shaikh Muhaddith Abdul Haqq Dehlawi Hanafi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 1052 Hijri)
33. Shah Waliyyullah Hanafi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 1176 Hijri)
34. Allaamah Bahrul Uloom Lukhnowi Hanafi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 1225 Hijri)
35. Allaamah Aaloosi (Rahimahullah) (Demise 1270 Hijri)
36. Hazrat Moulana Abdul Hayy Lukhnowi (Rahimahullah) (Demise: 1304 Hijri)
37. Hazrat Moulana Abdul Haqq Haqqaani (Rahimahullah) – The Author of Tafseer-e-Haqqaani (Demise: 1336 Hijri)
38. Hazrat Moulana Salaamatullah Saheb Kashfi
39. Hazrat Moulana Qaasim Naanotwi Hanafi
40. Hazrat Moulana Rasheed Ahmad Gangohi
41. Hazrat Moulana Khaleel Ahmad Sahaaranpuri
42. Hazrat Mufti Azeezur Rahmaan Uthmaani
43. Allaamah Anwar Shah Kashmiri
44. Hazrat Mufti Jameel Ahmad Saheb Thaanwi
45. Mufti Abdush Shakoor Tirmizi
46. Hazrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thaanwi Hanafi
47. Hazrat Moulana Husain Ahmad Madani Hanafi
48. Hazrat Mufti Muhammad Shafee Saheb Hanafi
49. Hazrat Moulana Abdush Shakoor Lukhnowi
50. Hazrat Moulana Yusuf Binnori
51. Hazrat Mufti Mahmood Gangohi
52. Hazrat Moulana Qari Muhammad Tayyib Hanafi
53. Hazrat Moulana Muhammad Ameen Safdar Hanafi
54. Hazrat Moulana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi
Conclusion
Below we will present few relevant points for one to consider:
1. We find that after Yazeed’s demise, his pious and just son addressed the people who appointed him as khalifa after his father and said: “As far as my father, Yazeed, is concerned, you are all aware of the injustice and atrocities for which he is responsible regarding the killing of Hazrat Husain (Radiyallahu Anhu) and the Ahle Bayt. You are similarly well aware of the bloodshed that he caused in Madeenah Tayyibah and Makkah Mukarramah, where thousands, among whom were the Sahaabah and Taabi’een, were brutally massacred. As for myself, I do not wish to tread in the footsteps of my father. Hence I decline to accept this office of khilaafat on account of the fear that I may also fall into the same sins as my father.”[11] From this statement of the son of Yazeed we get a glimpse of the reality of how he viewed the actions of his father.
2. It is reported that Hazrat Umar bin Abdul Azeez once said: Had I been in Yazeed’s place and even if Allah Ta’ala had to forgive me and allow me to enter Jannah, I will not enter. What face will I have before Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) knowing full well that I killed his grandson (Hazrat Husain (Radiyallahu Anhu))?[12]
3. Allama Zahabi (rahimahullah) has reported with an authentic chain that on one occasion, a person spoke highly of Yazeed in the presence of Umar bin Abdul Azeez (rahimahullah) and referred to Yazeed using the title “Ameerul Mu’mineen”. Umar bin Abdul Azeez (rahimahullah) was greatly disturbed at this and commanded that the man be lashed twenty times. He then said regarding Yazeed: “Such a person is not fit to be called by the title Ameerul Mu’mineen.”[13]
If this was the view of the son of Yazeed and Umar bin Abdul Azeez, who belonged to the Banu Umayyah and were from the family of Yazeed, one can well imagine and gauge what the views of others present in his era would have been.
4. Allaamah Zahabi (rahimahullah) has written the following in Siyar A’alaamin Nubalaa regarding Yazeed: “Yazeed, the son of Hazrat Mu’aawiyah (Radiyallahu Anhu), was a Naasibi who was foul mouthed, cruel and barbaric. He would consume wine and perpetrate numerous wrongs and evils. He commenced his rule with the killing of Hazrat Husain (Radiyallahu Anhu) and terminated it with the incident of Harrah due to which many cursed him. He never enjoyed any form of barakah in his life and there were numerous people – such as the people of Madeenah Munawwarah – who, after the martyrdom of Hazrat Husain (Radiyallahu Anhu), rose against Yazeed.”[14]
5. Some scholars feel that Yazeed did not command the killing of Hazrat Hussain (Radhiyallahu Anhu). If we assume that Yazeed did not command the killing of Hazrat Husain (Radiyallahu Anhu) (even though there is evidence to the contrary), he neither took any action against the murderers nor did he dismiss them from their positions. Hence, he did not show the love for the Ahle Bayt that was expected of an ordinary Muslim. When this was his conduct, his being completely innocent in this affair is greatly questionable.
7. As far as the Hadeeth regarding Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) giving glad tidings for the army which conquered Constantinople and Yazeed being found in that army is concerned, there are many answers that have been profferred by the Muhadditheen. We will briefly present the answer of Hazrat Shah Waliyyullah (rahimahullah). He explains:
Some people attempt to prove the salvation and forgiveness of Yazeed through the blessed statement of Nabi (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) “مغفور لهم” (i.e. they are forgiven), as the annals of history testify to the fact that he was not only a member of the second army, but rather its head and leader.
The correct view, however, is that this Hadeeth can only establish the forgiveness of his sins that were committed prior to participating in this expedition as the action of jihaad is classified under the category of actions which expiate past sins, not future sins. This Hadeeth would have only proven the salvation and forgiveness of Yazeed if “forgiveness until the Day of Qiyaamah” had also been mentioned. Therefore, all the evil acts perpetrated by Yazeed after this expedition, viz. the killing of Husain (Radiyallahu Anhu), laying ruin to the city of Madeenah Munawwarah, persistently drinking wine, etc, are left to the will and decision of Allah Ta’ala. If Allah Ta’ala wishes, He may forgive him and if He wishes, He may punish him – as is the case with all other sinners.[15]
8. Apart from the assassination of Hazrat Husain (Radiyallahu Anhu) and his companions, the many other wrongs and evils that are attributed to Yazeed reported by the Sahaabah (Radiyallahu Anhum) and Taabi’een (rahimahumullah) cannot be ignored, such as his drinking wine, listening to music amidst dancing women, forgoing Salaah, waging war against the people of Madeenah Munawwarah and Makkah Mukarramah, etc.
We make dua that Allah Ta’ala unite the entire Ummah of Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam) and bless them with the Taufeeq of remaining on the path of the Sunnah. Aameen.
And Allah Ta’ala (الله تعالى) knows best.
[1] ويجوز عند أهل الحديث وغيرهم التساهل في الأسانيد ورواية ما سوى الموضوع من الضعيف، والعمل به من غير بيان ضعفه في غير صفات الله تعالى والأحكام كالحلال والحرام، ومما لا تعلق له بالعقائد والأحكام.
(ويجوز عند أهل الحديث وغيرهم التساهل في الأسانيد) الضعيفة (ورواية ما سوى الموضوع من الضعيف والعمل به من غير بيان ضعفه في غير صفات الله تعالى) ، وما يجوز ويستحيل عليه، وتفسير كلامه، (والأحكام كالحلال والحرام، و) غيرهما، وذلك كالقصص وفضائل الأعمال والمواعظ، وغيرها (مما لا تعلق له بالعقائد والأحكام) .ومن نقل عنه ذلك: ابن حنبل، وابن مهدي، وابن المبارك، قالوا: إذا روينا في الحلال والحرام شددنا، وإذا روينا في الفضائل ونحوها تساهلنا. (تدريب الراوى)
[2] قال العلامة نور الدين الحلبي الشافعي في انسان العيون في سيرة الامين المأمون (صلى الله عليه وسلم): ولا يخفى أن السير تجمع الصحيح والسقيم والضعيف والبلاغ والمرسل والمنقطع والمعضل دون الموضوع ومن ثم قال الزين العراقي رحمه الله )وليعلم الطالب أن السيرا تجمع ما صح وما قد أنكرا ( وقد قال الإمام أحمد بن حنبل وغيره من الأئمة إذا روينا في الحلال والحرام شددنا وإذا روبنا في الفضائل ونحوها تساهلنا وفي الأصل والذي ذهب إليه كثير من أهل العلم الترخص في الرقائق ومالا حكم فيه من أخبار المغازي وما يجرى مجرى ذلك وأنه يقبل منها مالا يقبل في الحلال والحرام لعدم تعلق الأحكام بها (السيرة الحلبية)
[3] وكلام أبي مخنف الأخباري يدل على أنه أراد بني أمية فأنه ذكر من طريق أخرى أن بن عباس لما حضرته الوفاة بالطائف جمع بنيه فقال يا بني إن بن الزبير لما خرج بمكة شددت أزره ودعوت الناس إلى بيعته وتركت بني عمنا من بني أمية الذين إن قبلونا قبلونا أكفاء وأن ربونا ربونا كراما فلما أصاب ما أصاب جفاني ويؤيد هذا ما في آخر الرواية الثالثة حيث قال وأن كان لا بد لأن يربنى بنو عمي أحب إلى من أن يربني غيرهم فإن بني عمه هم بنو أمية بن عبد شمس بن عبد مناف لأنهم من بني عبد المطلب بن هاشم بن عبد مناف فعبد المطلب جد عبد الله بن عباس بن عبد المطلب بن عم أمية جد مروان بن الحكم بن أبي العاص وكان هاشم وعبد شمس شقيقين قال الشاعر عبد شمس كان يتلو هاشما وهما بعد لأم ولأب وأصرح من ذلك ما في خبر أبي مخنف فإن في آخره أن بن عباس قال لبنيه فإذا دفنتموني فالحقوا ببني عمكم بني أمية ثم رأيت بيان ذلك واضحا فيما أخرجه بن أبي خيثمة في تاريخه في الحديث المذكور فإنه قال بعد قوله ثم عفيف في الإسلام قارئ للقرآن وتركت بني عمي إن وصلوني وصلوني عن قريب أي اذعنت له وتركت بني عمي فآثر على غيري وبهذا يستقيم الكلام وأصرح من ذلك في رواية بن قتيبة المذكورة أن بن عباس قال لابنه على الحق بابن عمك فإن أنفك منك وأن كان أجدع فلحق على بعبد الملك فكان آثر الناس عنده قوله فآثر على بصيغة الفعل الماضي من الأثرة (فتح الباري)
[4] وفي رواية أبي مخنف وأن ابن الزبير يمشي القهقرى. قال في فتح الباري: وهو المناسب لقوله في عبد الملك يمشي القدمية، وكان الأمر كما قال ابن عباس فإن عبد الملك لم يزل في تقدم من أمره حتى استنقذ العراق من ابن الزبير وقتل أخاه مصعبًا ثم جهز العساكر إلى ابن الزبير بمكة فكان من الأمر ما كان، ولم يزل أمر ابن الزبير في تأخير إلى أن قتل -رحمه الله- ورضي عنه. (إرشاد الساري)
[5] ويروى عن عقبة بن سمعان قال: كان الله قد جهز عمر بن سعد في أربعة آلاف لقتال الديلم، وكتب له عهده على الري، فلما أقبل الحسين طالباً للكوفة دعا عبيد الله عمراً وقال: سر إلى الحسين، قال: إن تعفيني، قال: فرد إلينا عهدنا، قال: فأمهلني اليوم أنظر في أمري، فانصرف يستشير أصحابه، فنهوه. وقال أبو مخنف وليس بثقة لكن له اعتناء بالأخبار: حدثني مجالد، والصقعب بن زهير أنهما التقيا مراراً الحسين، وعمر بن سعد قال: فكتب عمر إلى عبيد الله: أما بعد، فإن بعد، فإن الله قد أطفأ الثائرة، وجمع الكلمة، وأصلح أمر الأمة، فهذا حسين قد أعطاني أن يرجع إلى المكان الذي منه أتى، أو أن يأتي أمير المؤمنين فيضع يده في يده، أو أن يسير إلى ثغر) من الثغور، فيكون رجلاً من المسلمين، له ما لهم وعليه، وفي هذا لكم رضاً، وللأمة صلاح. فلما قرأ عبيد الله الكتاب قال: هذا كتاب ناصح لأميره، مشفق على قومه، نعم قد قبلت، فقام إليه شمر بن ذي الجوشن فقال: أتقبل هذا منه وقد نزل بأرضك وإلى جنبك: والله لئن خرج من بلادك ولم يضع يده في يدك ليكونن أولى بالقوة والعز، ولتكونن أولى بالضعف والعجز، فلا تعطه هذه المنزلة فإنها من الوهن، ولكن لينزل على حكمك هو وأصحابه، فإن عاقبت فأنت ولي العقوبة، وإن غفرت كان ذلك لك، والله لقد بلغني أن حسيناً وعمر بن سعد يجلسان بين العسكرين فيتحدثان عامة الليل، فقال له: نعم ما رأيت الرأي رأيك. (تاريخ الإسلام للذهبي 5/195)
[6]حفص بن سليمان الأسدي أبو عمر البزاز الكوفي الغاضري بمعجمتين وهو حفص بن أبي داود القارىء صاحب عاصم ويقال له حفيص متروك الحديث مع إمامته في القراءة من الثامنة مات سنة ثمانين وله تسعون ت عس ق (تقريب التهذيب)
حفص بن سليمان أبو عمر الاسدي مولاهم البزاز المقرئ صاحب عاصم وابن زوجته له عن علقمة بن مرثد وقيس بن مسلم وعنه لوين وابن حجر وعمرو الناقد ثبت في القراءة واهي الحديث قال البخاري تركوه توفي 18 وله تسعون ت ق (الكاشف في معرفة من له رواية في الكتب الستة)
[7] وقال الخليلي محله عند أهل التفسير محل كبير وهو واسع لكن الحفاظ ضعفوه في الرواية (تهذيب التهذيب)
قال السيوطي في كتابه الفريد في فنون التفسير المسَمَّى بـالإتقان في علوم القرآن (2-415) : وروى عن السدّي الأئمة مثل الثوري وشعبة ؛ لكنّ التفسير الذي جمعه رواه أسباط ابن نصر ، وأسباط لم يتفقوا عليه ، غير أن أمثل التفاسير تفسير السدي . فأما ابن جريج فإنه لم يقصد الصحة ، وإنما روى ما ذُكِر في كل آية من الصحيح والسقيم . وتفسير مقاتل بن سليمان ، فمقاتل في نفسه ضعَّفُوه ، وقد أدرك الكبار من التابعين ، والشافعي أشار إلى أن تفسيره صالح . انتهى كلام الإرشاد .
[8] قال الذهبي: وقد تقرّر أن الواقدي ضعيف ، يحتاج إليه في الغزوات والتاريخ ، ونورد آثاره من غير احتجاج . أما في الفرائض ، فلا ينبغي أن يذكر ، فهذه الكتب الستة ، و مسند أحمد ، وعامة من جمع في الأحكام ، نراهم يترخصون في إخراج أحاديث أناس ضعفاء ؛ بل ومتروكين ، ومع هذا لا يخرجون لمحمد بن عمر ( أي : الواقدي ) شيئا ، مع أن وزنه عندي أنه مع ضعفه يكتب حديثه ويروى ؛ لأني لا أتهمه بالوضع. (سير أعلام النبلاء)
[9] عباد بن يعقوب الرواجني الكوفي أبو سعيد رافضي مشهور إلا أنه كان صدوقا وثقة أبو حاتم وقال الحاكم كان بن خزيمة إذا حدث عنه يقول حدثنا الثقة في روايته المتهم في رأيه عباد بن يعقوب وقال بن حبان كان رافضيا داعية وقال صالح بن محمد كان يشتم عثمان رضي الله عنه قلت روى عنه البخاري في كتاب التوحيد حديثا واحد مقرونا وهو حديث بن مسعود أي العمل أفضل وله عند البخاري طرق أخرى من رواية غيره خ (فتح الباري)
فصل في تمييز أسباب الطعن في المذكورين ومنه يتضح من يصلح منهم للاحتجاج به ومن لا يصلح وهو على قسيمن وسلم الأول من ضعفه بسبب الاعتقاد وقد قدمنا حكمه وبينا في ترجمة كل منهم أنه ما لم يكن داعية أو كان وتاب أو اعتضدت روايته بمتابع وهذا بيان ما رموا به فالإجاء عنه بمعنى التأخير وهو عندهم على قسمين منهم من أراد به تأخير القول في الحكم في تصويب إحدى الطائفتين اللذين تقاتلوا بعد عثمان ومنهم من أراد تأخير القول في الحكم على من أتى الكبائر وترك الفرائض بالنار لأن الإيمان عندهم الإقرار والاعتقاد ولا يضر العمل مع ذلك والتشيع محبة على وتقديمه على الصحابة فمن قدمه على أبي بكر وعمر فهو غال في تشيعه ويطلق عليه رافضي وإلا فشيعي إن فإن انضاف إلى ذلك السب أو التصريح بالبغض فغال إلا في الرفض وإن اعتقد الرجعة إلى الدنيا فأشد في الغلو والقدرية من يزعم أن الشر فعل العبد وحده والجهمية من ينفي صفات الله تعالى التي أثبتها الكتاب والسنة ويقول إن القرآن مخلوق والنصب بغض علي وتقديم غيره عليه والخوارج الذين أنكروا على علي التحكيم وتبرءوا منه ومن عثمان وذريته وقاتلوهم فإن أطلقوا تكفيرهم فهم الغلاة منهم والإباضية منهم أتباع عبد الله بن أباض والقعدية الذين يزينون الخروج على الأئمة ولا يباشرون ذلك والواقف في القرآن من لا يقول مخلوق ولا ليس بمخلوق وهذه أسماؤهم خ م إبراهيم بن طهمان رمى بالإرجاء خ م إسحاق بن سويد العدوي رمى بالنصب خ إسماعيل بن أبان رمى بالتشيع خ م أيوب بن عائذ الطائي رمى بالإرجاء خ م بشر بن السري رمى برأي جهم بهز بن أسد رمى بالنصب خ م ثور بن زيد الديلي المدني رمى بالقدر خ م ثور بن يزيد الحمصي رمى بالقدر خ م جرير بن عبد الحميد رمى بالتشيع ع ا جرير بن عثمان الحمصي رمى بالنصب خ م حسان بن عطية المحاربي رمى بالقدر خ الحسن بن ذكوان رمى بالقدر خ حصين بن نمير الواسطي رمى بالنصب خ خالد بن مخلد القطواني رمى بالتشيع خ م داود بن الحصين رمى بالقدر خ م ذر بن عبد الله المرهبي رمى بالإرجاء زكريا بن إسحاق رمى بالقدر سالم بن عجلان رمى بالقدر سعيد بن فيروز البختري رمى بالتشيع سعيد بن عمرو بن أشوع رمى بالتشيع سعيد بن كثير بن عفير رمى بالتشيع خ م سلام بن مسكين الأزدي أبو روح البصري رمى بالقدر خ م سيف بن سليمان المكي رمى بالقدر خ شبابة بن سوار رمى بالإرجاء خ شبل بن عباد المكي رمى بالقدر خ م شريك بن عبد الله بن أبي نمر رمى بالقدر خ م عباد بن العوام رمى بالتشيع خ عباد بن يعقوب رمى بالرفض خ عبد الله بن سالم الأشعري رمى بالنصب خ م عبد الله بن عمرو أبو معمر رمى بالقدر خ م عبد الله بن عيسى بن عبد الرحمن بن أبي ليلى رمى بالتشيع خ م عبد الله بن أبي لبيد المدني رمى بالقدر خ م عبد الله بن أبي نجيح المكي رمى بالقدر عبد الأعلى بن عبد الأعلى البصري رمى بالقدر عبد الحميد بن عبد الرحمن بن إسحاق الحماني رمى بالإرجاء عبد الرزاق بن همام الصنعاني رمى بالتشيع عبد الملك بن أعين رمى بالتشيع عبد الوارث بن سعيد التنوري رمى بالقدر عبد الله بن موسى العبسي رمى بالتشيع عثمان بن الصالح البصري رمى بالإرجاء عدي بن ثابت الأنصاري رمى بالتشيع عطاء بن أبي ميمون رمى بالقدر عكرمة مولى بن عباس رمى برأي الأباضية من الخوارج علي بن الجعد رمى بالتشيع علي بن أبي هاشم رمى بالوقف في القرآن عمر بن ذر رمى بالإرجاء عمر بن أبي زائدة رمى بالقدر عمرو بن مرة رمى بالإرجاء عمران بن حطان رمى برأي القعدية من الخوارج عمران بن مسلم القصير رمى بالقدر عمير بن هانئ الدمشقي رمى بالقدر عوف الغلام البصري رمى بالقدر الفضل بن دكين أبو نعيم رمى بالتشيع فطر بن خليفة الكوفي رمى بالتشيع فتادة بن دعامة رمى بالقدر وقال أبو داود لم يثبت عندنا عنه قيس بن أبي حازم رمى بالنصب كهمس بن المنهال رمى بالقدر محمد بن جحادة الكوفي رمى بالتشيع محمد بن حازم أبو معاوية الضرير رمى بالإرجاء محمد بن سواء البصري رمى بالقدر محمد بن فضيل بن غزوان رمى بالتشيع مالك بن إسماعيل أبو غسان رمى بالتشيع هارون بن موسى الأعور النحوي رمى بالقدر هشام بن عبد الله الدستوائي رمى بالقدر ورقاء بن عمرو اليشكري رمى بالإرجاء الوليد بن كثير بن حيي المدني رمى برأي الإباضية من الخوارج وهب بن منبه اليماني رمى بالقدر ورجع عنه يحيى بن حمزة الحضرمي رمى بالقدر يحيى بن صالح الوحاظي رمى بالإرجاء (هدي الساري)
[10] معارفِ شيخ ص66
[11] الكوكب الدري 2/80 ، تاريخ الخميس لحسين بن محمد بن الحسن الديار بكري المتوفى 966ه 2/301 ، النجوم الزاهرة في ملوك مصر والقاهرة ليوسف بن تغري بردي بن عبد الله الظاهري الحنفي ، أبو المحاسن ، جمال الدين المتوفى 874هـ 1/165 ، البدء والتاريخ – المنسوب إلى أبي زيد البلخي المتوفى 507ه
[12] وفيات الأعيان 6/353
[13] تاريخ الخلفاء ص209 ، تهذيب التهذيب 11/315 ، تذهيب تهذيب الكمال للإمام الذهبي 10/100
[14] سير أعلام النبلاء 4/37
[15] كشف الباري – كتاب الجهاد جلد أول – ص687
Answered by:
Mufti Zakaria Makada
Checked & Approved:
Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)