Chapter Nine: Analysing hadith allegedly blessing Yazeed


Has Yazeed been guaranteed Paradise?

Here it comes, more from Azam Tariq (may Allah’s curse be upon him):


Let us analyse the complete tradition from Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Jihad Volume 4, Book 52, and Number 175:

Narrated Khalid bin Madan:
That ‘Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to ‘Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the seashore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. ‘Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, “Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition.” Um Haram added, I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Will I be amongst them?’ He replied, ‘You are amongst them.’ The Prophet then said, ‘the first army amongst’ my followers who will invade Caesar’s City will be forgiven their sins.’ I asked, ‘Will I be one of them, O Allah’s Apostle?’ He replied in the negative.”

These filthy Nasibi have only one hadith that they claim absolves their Imam of any wrongdoing, namely his participation in the army that conquered Caesar’s City. They allege that this allege attendance has assured him of Paradise. We all have to die one day and answer our Creator we have cited scores of Sunni sources that highlight Yazeed’s deeds, his love of incest, homosexuality, drinking, singing, kufr aqeedah and his killing of Imam Husayn (as). Are we really going to just accept this single hadith in Bukhari to neutralise all of Yazeed’s deeds? We appeal to justice and shall cite the following replies:

Reply One – The narrators of this hadith are enemies of Ahl’ul bayt (as)

If we consult Sahih Bukhari Volume 1 page 409 Kitab Jihad Rasheedeya Publishers Delhi 1377 Hijri and the commentary by Shaykh ul Hadith Ahmad Ali Shahranpuri, we read:

“The tradition relating to Caesar’s City was narrated by Thawr bint Yazeed he was an enemy of Commander of the Faithful Ali”.

If this doesn’t convince these Nawasib then we shall cite the following glittering obituary of the man recorded by Imam Ibn Saad:

“He is Thiqa in Hadeeth. It is said that he was a rejecter of Taqdeer. He died in 152 H in Bait al Muqaddas during the era of Abu Jaffar over the age of 60. The grandfather of Thawr was present in Siffeen and participated along side Muawiyah and was killed in the same war. Therefore whenever the name of Ali was taken before Thawr he used to say: “I do not love the man who killed my grandfather۔” 
 Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol 7 under the topic: Thawr bin Yazid al Kalayee

Moreover, when we read the biography of another narrator of the tradition namely Khalid bin Madan, we learn that he used to narrate from Imam of Nawasib while second category Nawasib used to narrate from him, this shall suffice to prove his firm association with Nasibism. We read in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 3 page 102:

”Khalid bin M’adan bin Abi Kuraib al-Kalaaei Abu Abdullah al-Shaami al-Hemsi, he narrated from Thawban, Ibn Amro, Ibn Umar, Utbah bin Abdulsalami & Mu’awyia bin Abi Sufyan…Narrated from him by Buhair bin Saeed, Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin al-Harith al-Taimi, Thawr bin Yazeed and Hariz bin Uthman…”

As we can see that one of his teachers was Imam of the Nasibi cult namely Muawiyah and notorious Nawasib such as Thawr bin Yazeed and Hariz bin Uthman used to narrate from him, this shall suffice to evidence the ideology that Khalid adhered to. What reliance can we have on a hadith narrated by a scholar whose source of knowledge came from three KingPins of the Nasibi cult? These so called defenders of Ahl’ul Sunnah are trying to get us to accept a hadith narrated by Nawasib to absolve their Imam of all wrongdoings!

Reply Two – The only narrator of this hadith is a woman

This is a crucial point. Why would Rasulullah (s) choose to locate non-mahram woman (namely Um Haram) to convey this hadith to? Is this the type of hadith that he (s) would not wish to convey to a wider audience, particularly to men participating in Jihad? Is this not a hadith that would boost morale / encourage soldiers to fight? Why keep it top secret, to the point that only person who knows of the rewards for participating in this expedition is a woman, who would clearly be unable to communicate this to an audience in a manner that ‘esteemed’ figures such as Abu Hurraira could do.

Additionally why convey this to a woman, who was his (s) non-mahram that meant that she would have had to observe strict purdah (veil) in his presence? After all Rasulullah (s) had nine wives, could he not have conveyed this hadith to any of them? Why convey this to a woman that was not his (s) wife, relative or sister in law? And why did her husband not take this hadith and declare it to the masses in the battlefield? Surely this would have instilled true fighting spirit amongst masses, if they knew that they were to attain Paradise. Rather than do this, why did Um Haram choose to only convey this to her student ‘Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi?

Worthy of note, when we read this hadith in sources other than Sahih Bukhari wherein Um Haram has narrated the tradition to her nephew Uns bin Malik there is no mention of maghfoor [Paradise], yet when she narrates it to a non mahram Umair she remembers that the participants are blessed with Heaven! Why did she forget to convey the words ‘Paradise’ to her nephew but then chose to entertain a non-mahram in her home and convey the hadith with this word to him?

Reply – The Sahaba’s ignorance of guaranteed Paradise issued by the Prophet (s) proves the tradition is fabricated

The fabricated tradition of Bukhari attributed two predictions to the Holy Prophet (s), firstly the glad tidings of paradise for the participants of the first naval war and then the glad tidings fabricated for the benefit of Yazeed according to which the sins of the army invading Caesar’s City would be forgiven. Let us now point out some visible defects in the first alleged glad tiding so that the second part will automatically be proven to be a fabrication.

We would like to ask our unbiased and prudent readers that if this tradition was true then doesn’t it mean that importance of first naval war and attacking Caeser’s city was equal to Bait Ridhwan (allegiance under tree) in terms of nature and its merits? Surely the answer would be in the affirmative since in both cases there are either glad tidings of Allah being pleased or guaranteed paradise for the respective participants. Now the importance of Bait Ridhwan is that Allah (swt) Himself mentioned it in the Holy Quran, it was then that the Sahaba bore their allegiance upon the blessed hands of the Prophet (s), Bait Ridhwan appeared on the tongues of each and every Muslim child. The companions who participated in that were respected and possessed a rank above those who didn’t participate.

Now the main question arises:
If this first naval war was also equally Important as Bait Ridhwan then why does it have only one narrator and that too a woman?

If the first naval war was associated with glad tidings of earning paradise then:

  • The Prophet (s) should have repeatedly cascaded these glad tidings of earning paradise and forgiveness of sins for participating in the first naval war and invading Caesar’s city to his Sahaba so as to encourage them to strive towards getting into that rank.
  • The Sahaba should have likewise propagated these crucial glad tidings associated with the first naval war and gathered together the Muslims to attack the city of Caesar and attain Paradise in the process.

Rather than this happening, NONE of Sahaba knew of such glad tidings of Jannah, in fact, even the Sahaba that participated in the first naval war were unaware that their participation had erased their sins and guaranteed them Paradise! The reality is long after the invasion of Caesar’s city the main objective behind fabricating such a tradition was to provide a safe path to Yazeed but since the genetic makeup of the Nasibi species has always comprised of imbeciles those with rational minds can easily distinguish truth from falsehood and identify basic weaknesses in the text of the tradition.

Let us now cite some historical accounts which shall prove that the Sahaba were unaware of any traditions indicating that glad tidings were associated with the first naval war.

First & second traditions: Caliph Umar Ibn Khattab didn’t know of any glad tidings for the first naval war nor did he authorize such a campaign

We read in History of al-Tabari:

According to Ubaidah and Khalid:
In times of Umar bin al-Khattab, Muawiyyah pleaded with him about naval campaigns (ghazw al-bahr) and closeness of the Byzantines to Hims. He said, “In one of the villages of Hims, the inhabitants hear the barking of (the Byzantines) dogs and the squawking of their chickens.” [He pressed Umar] until he was on the verge of being won over. So Umar wrote to ‘Amr b. al-’As [saying] “Describe the sea and the seafarer to me, for I am uneasy about it.”
According to ‘Ubadah and Khalid: When ['Umar] informed him of the benefits for the Muslims and the damage to the Polytheists to be derived from (naval warfare), ‘Amr wrote back to him [as follows]: “Verily I have seen a great creature [that is, the sea] ridden by a small one [that is, man]. If (the sea) is calm it rends the heart with anxiety, and if it is agitatd it leads the mind into confusion. On it certainty shrinks and doubt increases. Those who are on it are like a worm on a twig, if it bends he is drowned, and if he is saved he is astounded. “When ‘Umar read (this letter), he wrote to Mu’awiyyah [as follows]: “No, by Him who sent Muhammad with the Truth, I shall never send any Muslim there.

History of Tabari, Volume 16, Events of 28th Year

We also read:

Junadah bin Abi Umayyah al-Azdi:
Mu’awiyyah had written a letter to ‘Umar and provoke his interest in naval campaigns, saying, “O Commander of the Faithful, in Syria there is a village whose inhabitants hear the barking of the Byzantines dogs and the crowing of their roosters, for (the Byzantines) are directly opposite a certain stretch of the coast of (the district of) hims. Now ‘Umar was doubtful about this because (Mu’awiyyah) was the one who advised it. He therefore wrote to ‘Amr (as follows): “Describe the sea for me and send me information about it.” ‘Amr then wrote to him (as follows): “O Commander of the Faithful, I have seen a mighty creature ridden by a small one. It is naught but sky and water, and (those who travel upon it) are only like a worm on a twig: if it bends he drowns, and if he is saved, he is smashed.”

After reading these traditions, we see that in the years that followed the the death of the Prophet (s)) no efforts were made to establish and float the Paradise guaranteed first naval expedition. This omission can better be explained if break down the relevant periods:

  1. The Caliphate of Abu Bakr followed the death of the Prophet (s) and lasted for two and a half years, yet during that entire period there was no mention of glad tidings being associated with the first naval war. This non compliance to the alleged words of the Prophet (s) was very different to the enthusiasm shown by Abu Bakr in sending the remaining army of Usama.
  2. Then came the lengthy 10 year tenure of Umar Ibn Khattab’s caliphate. In his time, Muslim Armies were sent were sent out to capture land that expanded the Islamic territory to regions such as Africa, Iran and North Asia. Despite this no first naval war was every mentioned or conducted in his reign.
  3. Whilst Muawiyah as Governor became the first person that expressed a desire to attack the Byzantine Empire through the sea he remained ignorant of any glad tidings associated with the first naval war. Muawiyah didn’t get permission from the Caliph and made no mention of glad tiding associated with such an expedition to convince him. He simply mentioned the barking of dogs of Byzantine Empire and the squawking of their chickens as his argument.
  4. Muawiyah spent years failing to convince Umar Ibn Khattab of the merits of his proposal. Subsequently, Umar began to have some interest in it but again after reading the letter of Amr bin Al-Aas he made an oath not send a single Muslim on the naval war.

Do the najis Nawasib believe that Umar became afraid after hearing about the sea? Didn’t Umar believe in the Prophecy of Muhammad (s) that participating in first naval war would guarantee entry into paradise? Why was he preventing his soldiers from getting the chance to attain Paradise? Was it not selfish if him to restrict such a beneficial opportunity? And why didn’t a single Sahabi during this lengthy period mention the alleged glad tidings attributed to the Prophet (s) in the tradition of Bukhari?

Third tradition: Umar admonishing Muawiyah for his constant attempts to persuade him to order the naval war

We read:

Junadah bin Abi Umayah and Rabi and Abu al-Mujalid:
‘Umar wrote to Muawiyyah (as follows): “We have heard that the Mediterranean sea (bhar al-Sham) surpasses the longest thing upon the earth, seeking God’s permission every day and every night to overflow the earth and submerge it. How then can I bring the troops to this troublesome and infidel being? By God, one Muslim is dearer to me than all that the Byzantines possess. Take care not to oppose me. I have given you a command, you know what al-’Ala’(bin al-Hadrami) encountered at my hands, and I did not give him such categorical orders.”

In this tradition we learned that no where the alleged glad tidings associated with the first naval war were discussed between the two popular Sahaba, Umar ibn Khattab admonished Muawiyah. Had there been really any such glad tidings associated wit the first naval war, would the followers of the Sahaba accept such a response from Umar Ibn Khattab?

Fourth tradition: Forced recruitment of Muslims to participate in the naval war

Khalid bin Madan:

The first to conduct naval warfare was Mu’awiyyah bin Abi Sufyan in the time of ‘Uthman bin Affan. He had sought ‘Umar’s permission for this but did not obtain it. When ‘Uthman took Office, Mu’awiyyah persisted until at last ‘Uthman decided to grant permission. He said, “Do not conscript the people or cast lots among them. Let them decide for themselves and whoever chooses [to go on] campaign in obedience [to your call], support and aid him.”

Uptil now, we learned:

  1. Muawiyah failed to convince Umar Ibn Khattab during his ten years reign to conduct a naval war.
  2. When Uthman became caliph he did not prepare a naval war until four years into his reign. Readers should remember that Uthman became caliph in year 24 H while first naval was conducted in year 28 H. People who have studied history know the influence Muawiyah yielded over Uthman due to their relationship and thus, Uthman would without hesitation accept his demands yet when it came to the first naval war, it took four years for Muawiyah to persuade Uthman.
  3. After four years, permission was given to Muawiyah on the condition that the people should not be forced to join the army put forward by Uthman. This fact destroys all the efforts of Nawasib to associate alleged glad tidings to the first naval war. Why the issue of forced recruitment in the naval army would not have even come into the equation, rather the Sahabah would be forcing their way onto the naval boats if they new that all participants attained a passport to Paradise!

By now, any rational and unbiased reader would understand that the tradition of Bukhari was fabricated by the Nawasib in their feeble attempt to provide some merits to the son of their master Muawiyah. Since the first part of the Bukhari tradition which alleges glad tidings of paradise for the participants of first naval war proved to be a fabricated the second part of the tradition which alleges glad tidings and the erasure of sins of the army invading Caesar’s City automatically becomes fabricated.

Reply – At the time that Constantinople was attacked Yazeed was at home drunk

Azam Tariq Nasibi sought to bless his Khalifah Yazeed by stating:


Not only is this hadith a lie but so is the claim that Yazeed led this campaign and as evidence for this we have relied on the following authentic texts of Ahl’ul Sunnah:

  1. Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 231 Events of 49 Hijri
  2. Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon Volume 3 page 15
  3. Murujh al Dhahab Volume 3 page 33
  4.  Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

We read in Tareekh Kamil:

في هذه السنة، وقيل: سنة خمسين، سير معاوية جيشاً كثيفاً إلى بلاد الروم للغزاة وجعل عليهم سفيان بن عوف وأمر ابنه يزيد بالغزاة معهم، فتثاقل واعتل، فأمسك عنه أبوه فأصاب الناس في غزاتهم جوعٌ ومرض شديد، فأنشأ يزيد يقول

“In this year (49 Hijri) and some says 50 H, Mu’awiyah made preparations to take the towns and cities of Rome under Sufyan bin Auf. He sent out the army and ordered his son Yazeed to join him but Yazeed was lax in this regard, Mu’awiya therefore became silent on the matter. The army during the conquered suffered from sickness and hunger and upon receipt of this news, Yazeed recited a couplet:

Why shall I care about what the army facing in Farqadona from fever and smallpox
While I lay comfort in deluxe clothes at the house of Marwan with Um Kulthom”.

Um Kulthoom bint Abdullah Ibn Aamir was Yazeed’s wife. When Muawiyah heard the couplets of Yazeed, he vowed to send him to Rome to Sufiyan bin Auf so that he also confronts hardship”

We read in Muruj al Dhahab:

“Mu’awiya received information on the progress of the army and conveyed this news to Yazeed who said, “In this case I shall convene a function in home, joined by my fellow drunkards”.

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini stated:

قلت الأظهر أن هؤلاء السادات من الصحابة كانوا مع سفيان هذا ولم يكونوا مع يزيد بن معاوية لأنه لم يكن أهلا أن يكون هؤلاء السادات في خدمته

“I say that it appears that those Sahaba were with Sufyan (bin Auf) not with Yazeed bin Mu’awiyah because he (Yazeed) didn’t deserve to have those Sahaba at his service”
 Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

By citing these references, it has become clear that:

  1. Unlike the propaganda of Azam Tariq al-Nasibi al-Mala’oon, it was Sufyan bin Auf who was the commander of the army that went to Caesar’s City and not Yazeed.
  2. Yazeed had no interest in participating in the Jihad and thus didn’t go with the army which clearly excludes him from the first army promised forgiveness in the alleged hadith.
  3. On hearing the hardships the army confronted there, Yazeed became pleased at his decision of not going which is not a sign of a person worthy enough to have a glance at Paradise let alone enter it.
  4. On hearing Yazeed’s satisfaction, Muawiyah decided to send him as a punishment.


Reply – Sunni scholars have discounted Yazeed from the glad tidings of forgiveness mentioned in the tradition

Even if for the sake of argument it is believed that the tradition of Bukhari is not fabricated, the present day Nawasib would still attain no advantage for their father Yazeed through this tradition since the Sunni Imams, have asserted that the tradition guarantees glad tidings for those worthy of it, not Yazeed. To evidence this we have relied on the following esteem Sunni sources:

  1.  Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199
  2.  Faydh al-Qadir, Volume 3 page 109 Tradition 2811
  3.  Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 102
  4. Irshad al Sari, Volume 5 page 101
  5. Siraj al-Munir Sharah Jami al-Saghir by Shaykh Ali bin Ahmed Azeezi, Vol 1 page 79
  6. Sharah Tarajum

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Badruddin al-Aini in commentary of this tradition records:

وقال المهلب في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر انتهى قلت أي منقبة كانت ليزيد وحاله مشهور فإن قلت قال في حق هذا الجيش مغفور لهم قلت لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله مغفور لهم مشروط بأن يكونوا من أهل المغفرة حتى لو ارتد واحد ممن غزاها بعد ذلك لم يدخل في ذلك العموم فدل على أن المراد مغفور لمن وجد شرط المغفرة

Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contain a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazeed because he invaded Cesar’s city.
I say that what kind of merits could there be for Yazeed while his status is known! If you say that He (s) said about this army that their sins are forgiven then I say its not necessary to include each and every one without any exception because the scholars agree that the forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because had some one among the invaders become apostate after the invasion, he would have not been included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional.

 Umdat al Qari, Volume 14 page 199

Likewise Imam Abdul Rauf Munawi while commenting on this tradition records:

لا يلزم منه كون يزيد بن معاوية مغفورا له لكونه منهم إذ الغفران مشروط بكون الإنسان من أهل المغفرة ويزيد ليس كذلك لخروجه بدليل خاص ويلزم من الجمود على العموم أن من ارتد ممن غزاها مغفور له وقد أطلق جمع محققون حل لعن يزيد

“It is not necessary that Yazeed is forgiven just because he was with them, since the forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness while Yazeed is not so and there is an exception in his case according to a reliable proof, but if we want to be stubborn in dealing with this tradition that it include every one then we have to include who ever become apostate among the invaders, in addition a group of scholars declared the lawfulness of cursing Yazeed”
 Faydh al-Qadir, Volume 3 page 109 Tradition 2811

Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his esteemed commentary of Sahih Bukhari presents his arguments relying on the arguments of two more Sunni scholars namely Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir:

قال المهلب في هذا الحديث منقبة لمعاوية لأنه أول من غزا البحر ومنقبة لولده يزيد لأنه أول من غزا مدينة قيصر وتعقبه بن التين وبن المنير بما حاصله أنه لا يلزم من دخوله في ذلك العموم أن لا يخرج بدليل خاص إذ لا يختلف أهل العلم أن قوله صلى الله عليه و سلم 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

Ibn al-Muhalab said that this hadith contain a merit for Muawiyah because he is the first one who invaded through sea and a merit for Yazeed because he invaded Cesar’s city.
Ibn al-Tiin and Ibn al-Munir answered back and said that it is not necessary to include every one without any exception because the scholars agree that forgiveness is conditional by being for the one who deserve forgiveness, because if some one among the invaders became apostate after the invasion, he will not be included among those who had been forgiven, which proves that the forgiveness (in the hadith) is conditional.

 Fathul Bari, Volume 6 page 102

Similarly, Imam Qastalani in his famed commentary of Sahih Bukhari namely Irshad al Sari, Volume 5 page 101 stated:

“In this hadith, Muhalab has inferred about Yazeed’s caliphate and he being worthier to enter paradise by saying that he was included in the generality of the word ‘Maghfoor lahum’ in this hadith. This has been refuted in the manner that this has been said just in support of Bani Umayah and Yazeed being included in its generality doesn’t mean that he is unable to be excluded from it on the basis of some special reason because there isn’t any dispute in the fact that the aforesaid words of ‘Maghfoor lahum’ by Prophet (s)are conditional for those people deserving of forgiveness (Maghfarah), if somebody among them becomes apostate after the war then there is a consensus that such a person will no longer be included in this glad tiding. This has been said by Ibn Munir and verily some scholars have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed for example Saaduddin Taftazani”

By giving examples of one apostatizing after falling into the category of those who are forgiven, the Imams of Ahle Sunnah sought to prove that even if an individual falls under the category of a group that has been given the glad tiding of forgiveness, he must be a deserving candidate, once he falls into that category he shall be held accountable for the subsequent sins committed by him. This can further be explained by the following Hadith recorded in Musnad Abi Yala, Volume 7 page 32 which has been declared Sahih by the margin writer of the book Hussain Salim Asad:

أن النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم قال : يا معاذ قال : لبيك يا رسول الله قال : بشر الناس أنه من قال : لا إله إلا الله دخل الجنة

Anas narrated that the prophet (s) said: “Oh Ma’az”. Mu’az said: “Yes Allah’s messenger”. He (s) said: “Tell the people, who ever said ‘there is no God except Allah’ will enter paradise”.

If we interpret the aforesaid words of Prophet (s) literally, that would mean that all those who after reciting ‘there is no God except Allah’ commit adultery, take bribes, consume alcohol, commit theft, murder the innocent and commit all other sorts of sin will not be held accountable for them, which is illogical and unIslamic. Reciting the Kalima certainly makes one eligible to enter paradise as long as one also obeys the other Islamic injunctions.


Shia Pen Newsletter

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive regular updates on our new publications.
Shia Pen uses the "Google Groups" system for its newsletters. Subcribe Now →