The Nasibi have left no stone unturned in their efforts to protect Yazeed, and what a surprise! They find a tradition that they deem to be so solid that they in effect destroy everything that
the Sunni Ulema had stated before!
THE SHIAS HAVE DONE A LOT OF MUD-SLINGING ON THE CONDUCT AND CHARACTER OF YAZID TRYING OUT OF MALICE AND PREJUDICE TO FALSELY PROJECT HIM AS ADDICTED TO WINE AND PASSION ON ACCOUNT OF
SHEER ILL-WILL AND ENMITY. THIS HAS BEEN REFUTED BY MUHAMMAD BIN-AL-HANIFA, THE ELDER BROTHER OF HAZRAT HUSAYN WHO REMARKED:
“WHATEVER ILL YOU SAY ABOUT HIM (YAZID), I HAVE WITNESSED NONE OF THE SAME. I HAVE STAYED WITH HIM AND FOUND HIM A REGULAR WORSHIPPER (I.E. FAST OBSERVER OF SALAT), WELL WISHER OF OTHERS,
FONDER OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF SHARI’AH AND ABIDING BY THE SUNNAH OF THE PROPHET (SAW).” (VOL. VIII P. 233 ).
THEREFORE, UNENLIGHTENED MUSLIMS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SHIAS SHOULD NOT TRANSGRESS THE LIMITS OF CURSING YAZID IN THEIR LOVE FOR HAZRAT HUSAYN AND AHLE-BAIT.
The reference comes from Ibn Kathir’s famed work ‘al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaya’ and both Azam Tariq and Abu Sulaiman produced this same reference as evidence of Yazeed’s immense piety but the
episode is not going to help the Nawasib since Ibn Kathir quoted it without mentioning the original source or its chain of narration which was quite unusual on Ibn Kathir’s part. Thus, this
episode will be considered baseless and weak until our opponent proves that it is considered as authentic in their school. Still for the sake of arguments we would also like to add some
additional replies for the followers of Mu’awiya to mull over.
We find no evidence in any Shi’a book, wherein Muhammad al Hanafiyya had made such a claim. This reference can only be located in a book belonging to the people of Mu’awiya, and such a
reference has no bearing on the Shi’a.
This is a fabricated tradition for no Shia or Sunni scholar with the exception of some Nasibis, and only those of this age and none of the past, believe to be authentic. For they all state
that Yazeed was a fasiq and a fajir. If, however, he had made these comments, which he did not, then he would have been in clear error. It should be pointed out that neither was Muhammad al
Hanafiyya a Prophet or an Imam. These are not the words of an Imam (as) or Prophet (s) so they mean absolutely nothing in our eyes.
Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah ibn Zubaur and Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah bin Hanzala, are all counted by the Ahl’ul Sunnah as Sahaba and they openly condemned Yazeed’s character. In
addition when our own Imam Husayn (as) condemned Yazeed, then any attempts to present him in a favourable light are worthless to us.
We read in al-Bidaya wa al-Nihaya, Volume 8 page 217 under the events of 63 Hijri when a movement began against Yazeed, and the Sahaba began to testify with regards to Yazeed’s fasiq status,
every person began to say they would revoke the bayya in the same way that they remove a shoe. Soon there was an entire stack of shoes. We can judge the extent to which the Sahaba hated
Yazeed, by the fact that compared bayya to Yazeed to a shoe. It is highly improbable that Muhammad al Hanafiyya would have heaped criticism on the people of Medina for opposing Yazeed.