Talk:Yazid I

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove the name Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr and Abd Allah ibn Abbas from the following sentence under the Heading:Oaths of allegiance.

"Unlike Husayn and Ibn al-Zubayr, Ibn Umar, Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, and Abd Allah ibn Abbas, who had also previously denounced Mu'awiya's nomination of Yazid,[c] paid allegiance to him"

Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr had died many years prior to ascension of Yazid and so, cannot have given his Oath at this time. Socondly, the reports and citations concerning Abd Allah ibn Abbas are uncertain and fallacious. 2A02:8071:6350:36A0:D5FA:E2A0:B3B6:5F14 (talk) 04:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 17:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Muslims know Yazid for a set of key elements of his career, and the following proposal is one of those key highlights. The information proposed already enjoys strong consensus on this article page in both Arabic and English, but is not highlighted in the introduction in English version as it is in the Arabic version, where a whole paragraph is dedicated to his relationship with Husayn Ibn Ali. The following proposal that is to be placed at the end of the first paragraph:

His caliphate was marked by his campaign against and subsequently killing¹ Muhammad's grandson Husayn ibn Ali at the Battle of Karbala ² and the start of the crisis known as the Second Fitna.

There is popular Sunni and Shia consensus that regards Yazid as an evil figure,³ from the time of his rule until present day, and consider him an affront to Islamic values.^4,5 The killing of Husayn to secure his succession⁶ crystallised opposition to Yazid as anti-Umayyad sentiment fomenting the Second Fitna.^7,8 Thus, his actions are associated in catalysing the development of the Shia identity.

1. Fischer, Michael M. J. (2003). Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. (pp. 19) ISBN 978-0299184735.
2. al-Muqarram, Sayyid 'Abd al-Razzaq (2024). مقتل الحسين [Maktal Al-Husayn]. Translated by Al-Jibouri, Yasin T. Qom, Iran: Al-Kharsan Foundation for Publications (published 1948). pp. 26–27, 30–32. (https://www.al-islam.org/maqtal-al-husayn-sayyid-abd-al-razzaq-al-muqarram)
3. Hawting, Gerald R. (2002). "Yazīd (I) b. Mu'āwiya". In Bearman, P. J.; Bianquis, Th.; Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E. & Heinrichs, W. P. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Volume XI: W–Z. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 309–311. ISBN 978-90-04-12756-2.
4. Hyder, Syed Akbar (2006). Reliving Karbala: Martyrdom in South Asian Memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pp.77) ISBN 978-0-19-537302-8.
5. Hathaway, Jane (2003). A Tale of Two Factions: Myth, Memory, and Identity in Ottoman Egypt and Yemen. New York: State University of New York Press. (pp. 47) ISBN 978-0791486108.
6. Fischer, Michael M. J. (2003). Iran: From Religious Dispute to Revolution. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. (pp.19) ISBN 978-0299184735.
7. Donner, Fred M. (2010). Muhammad and the Believers, at the Origins of Islam. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. (pp.179) ISBN 978-0-674-05097-6.
8. Lewis, Bernard (2002). Arabs in History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (pp.68) ISBN 978-0-19-164716-1.
9. Daftary, Farhad (1990). The Ismāʿı̄lı̄s: Their History and Doctrines. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (pp. 50) ISBN 978-0-521-37019-6.

Bro The Man (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

For comparison, the Arabic introduction for Yazid in wiki-Arabic translated.

Arabic version:

أبُو خالِد يَزيد بن مُعاوية بن أبي سُفيان بن حَرب بن أُميَّة بن عَبدِ شَمْس بن عَبدِ مَنَاف القُرشيُّ (23 رمضان 26 هـ - 14 ربيعُ الأوَّل 64 هـ / 20 يُوليو 647 - 12 نُوفَمْبَر 683 م)، ثاني خُلفاء بَني أُميَّة، حيث حكم في الفترة بين 15 رَجَب 60 هـ - 14 ربيعُ الأوَّل 64 هـ / 21 أبريل 680 - 12 نُوفَمْبَر 683 م.

ولد يَزيد في قرية الماطرُون من نواحي الشَّام في عهد الخليفةُ الرَّاشِدي عُثمان بن عفَّان، وقد عاصر في صباه أحداث فتنة مقتل عُثمان، وكان بالقُرب من أبيه، والذي كان والي الشَّام آنذاك، حيث رفض مُعاوية خِلافة عليُّ بن أبي طالِب ما لم يتم القَصاص من قتلة الخليفة عُثمان أولًا، فدارت بينهما معركةٍ دامية وانتهت بالتحكيم، وباستمرار الخِلاف بين الطرفين لسنواتٍ عدة، وبعد اغتيال الخليفة عَلِي سنة 40 هـ / 661 م على يد ابن مُلجم الخارجيّ، تولَّى الحَسَن بن علي للخِلافة، والذي قرر التَّنازُل عنها لصالح مُعاوية، بهدف توحيد صُفوف المُسلمين وإنهاء الفتن.

وفي خِلافة أبيه مُعاوية، والذي أعاد الفُتوحات الإسلاميَّة إلى الواجِهة بعد توقُّفها لفترةٍ طويلة على غرار أحداث الفِتنة، تولَّى يزيد بأمرٍ من أبيه عدة حملات عسكريَّة ضد الإمبراطوريَّة البيزنطيَّة، بما في ذلك قيادته لأوَّل مُحاولة لفتح القُسْطَنْطِينيَّة والذي حوى عددًا من الصَّحابة آنذاك بين سنتي 53 و60 هـ / 674 - 678 م، إلا أن الشِّتاء القارس وصُعوبة الإمدادات وبُعد المسافة، اضطَّرهُم للعودة آنذاك. ومع ذلك، فقد مهَّد الخليفة مُعاوية لتولية يزيد من بعدهِ للخِلافة، على الرُّغم من مُعارضة بعضًا من كبار الصَّحابة آنذاك.

تولَّى يزيد الخلافة بعد وفاة والده سنة 60 هـ / 680 م، بعد أن بايعتهُ الأُسرة الأُمَويَّة والعديد من الصَّحابة في حياة أبيه كوليًا للعهد، إلا أنه بعد تولّيه للخِلافة، واجه مُعارضة قويَّة من قبل صحابيَّان بسبب رفضهم لفكرة الحُكم الوِراثي، هُما الحُسَين بن عَلِي بن أبي طالِب، وعبد الله بن الزُّبَير بن العوَّام، كما كان أهالي الكُوفة مُنزعجين من تولّيه الخِلافة، فراسلوا الحُسَين، وطلبوا منهُ القُدوم إليهم لمُبايعتهِ كخليفة ونُصرته، ولكنه ما إن وصل بالقُرب من مدينتهم، حتى تخلوا عن نُصرته وتبرأو من الكُتُب المُرسلة إليهم بعد تهديد والي الكُوفة عُبيد الله بن زياد، واضطَّر الحُسَين إلى مُقاتلة الجيش الأُمَويّ في هذه الحال، ورافِضًا للاستسلام الذي عُرض عليه بطريقة مُهينة، فكان مع قِلَّة من أنصاره وأهلُ بيته. انتهت المعركة الدَّامية بمصرع الحُسَين والعديد من إخوتهِ وأبنائه ومن أهلُ بيتِه مما أغضب جُموع المُسلمين لمقتل ابن بنت رسول الله.

سبَّب مقتل الحُسَين إلى نمو المُعارضة ضد حكم يزيد وإلى شُعور النَّاس بضرُورة القيام بشيء. فاعتصم عبد الله بن الزُّبَير في مدينة مكَّة، وزادت شعبيَّتهُ في الحِجاز وتهامة. كما ثار أهل المَدينة المُنوَّرة في وجه يزيد في سنة 63 هـ / 682 أو 683 م، وخلعوا طاعتُه. وأمام هذه التحرُّكات المُعارضة ضده، قام يزيد بتجهيز جيشٍ لمحاربة عبد الله بن الزُّبَير، وكذلك لمُحاربة أهل المدينة بعد أن يُخيَّرهُم في العودة إلى الطَّاعة أو الحرب. لم تنتهِ الأمور كما يُرام بالنسبة إلى أهالي المدينة المُنوَّرة، فقد انهزموا أمام الجيش الأُمَويّ وتعرَّضت المدينة للنَّهب والفظائع على مدار ثلاثة أيام. كما تعرَّضت مدينة مكَّة المُقدَّسة إلى حملتين عسكريِّتين، أوَّلُها حملة عمرُو بن الزُّبَير، التي فشلت وانتهت بمقتله، والثانية كانت أكثر ضراوةً، حيث أصيبت الكَعْبَة بانهدام أجزاء منها نتيجة القصف الذي أحدثهُ الجيش الأُمَوي بقيادة الحُصَين بن نُمَير، وفي أثناء حِصار مكَّة، وعلى تلك الأحوال، وصلت الأنباء بوفاة الخليفة يزيد في إحدى قُرى حِمْص، ما جعل الجيش يعُود أدراجهُ نحو الشَّام لمعرفة الخليفة الجديد وتلقِّي الأوامر.

بُويع ابنهِ مُعاوية بن يزيد، والذي هالهُ ما أحدثهُ أبيه يزيد في مُحاربة المُعارضين المُسلمين من أجل السُّلطة، فتنازل عن الخِلافة بعد ستة أشهر، ودخلت البِلاد الإسلاميَّة المُمتدة على رُقعةٍ واسِعة إلى حربٍ بين المُطالبين بالخِلافة، حيث بُويع مُروان بن الحَكم في دِمَشْق كخليفةً من بَنِي أُمَيَّة، في مواجهة المُطالب بالخِلافة أيضًا عبد الله بن الزُّبير في مكَّة، والتي انتهت في أيَّام الخليفة عبد الملِك بن مُروان حيث استطاع فرض سُلطته على البِلاد لصالح الخِلافة الأُمَويَّة وبات المُؤسس الثَّاني للدولة. بقيت شخصيَّةُ يزيد مُثيرة للجدل بين المُؤرِّخين والعُلماء وعامَّةُ النَّاس، وذلك حول إسلامه أو كفره، فمن إجازة لعنه إلى رفض ذلك، وحول نُصبِهِ العداء لآل البيت إلى براءته منها، وحول شُربه للخمر أو تبرئته منها.

Translation:

Abu Khalid Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan bin Harb bin Umayyah bin Abd Shams bin Abd Manaf al-Qurashi (born 23 Ramadan 26 AH – died 14 Rabi' al-Awwal 64 AH / July 20, 647 – November 12, 683 AD), was the second caliph of the Umayyad dynasty. He ruled from 15 Rajab 60 AH until his death on 14 Rabi' al-Awwal 64 AH / April 21, 680 – November 12, 683 AD.

Yazid was born in the village of al-Matroun in the region of Greater Syria during the reign of the Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman ibn Affan. In his youth, he witnessed the turmoil surrounding the assassination of Uthman, and he remained close to his father, Muawiyah, who was then the governor of Syria. Muawiyah refused to acknowledge Ali ibn Abi Talib's caliphate unless the murderers of Uthman were brought to justice first, which led to a bloody conflict between them, ultimately ending in arbitration. The conflict between the two sides persisted for several years. After the assassination of Caliph Ali in 40 AH / 661 AD by Ibn Muljam, a member of the Kharijites, Ali’s son Hassan briefly became caliph but soon relinquished the position to Muawiyah to unite the Muslim ranks and end the strife.

During the caliphate of his father, Muawiyah, who resumed Islamic conquests after a long hiatus due to internal conflicts, Yazid was tasked with leading several military campaigns against the Byzantine Empire, including leading the first attempt to conquer Constantinople between 53 and 60 AH / 674–678 AD. Despite the severe winter, the logistical challenges, and the distance, which forced the army to withdraw, Muawiyah paved the way for Yazid to succeed him, despite opposition from some prominent companions of the Prophet.

Yazid assumed the caliphate after his father’s death in 60 AH / 680 AD, having been pledged allegiance by the Umayyad family and many of the Prophet’s companions during his father’s lifetime as the designated heir. However, upon assuming the caliphate, he faced strong opposition from two companions who rejected hereditary rule: Husayn ibn Ali and Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr. The people of Kufa were also displeased with Yazid’s accession and invited Husayn to come to Kufa and pledge allegiance to him as caliph. However, when Husayn approached the city, the people of Kufa abandoned him after being threatened by the governor of Kufa, Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad. Husayn was forced to fight the Umayyad army with only a few of his supporters and family members, refusing a humiliating surrender. The bloody battle culminated in the martyrdom of Husayn, along with many of his brothers, sons, and family members, which enraged many Muslims, as Husayn was the grandson of the Prophet.

The killing of Husayn led to growing opposition to Yazid's rule and a widespread sense of the need to act. Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr took refuge in Mecca, where his popularity grew throughout the Hijaz and Tihama regions. The people of Medina also revolted against Yazid in 63 AH / 682 or 683 AD and renounced their allegiance to him. In response, Yazid prepared an army to suppress both Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr and the people of Medina, offering them the choice between returning to obedience or facing war. The Medinans were defeated by the Umayyad army, and Medina was subjected to three days of looting and atrocities. Mecca also faced two military campaigns: the first led by Amr ibn al-Zubayr, which failed and resulted in his death, and the second, more brutal campaign during which the Kaaba was damaged by Umayyad artillery under the command of Husayn ibn Numayr. During the siege of Mecca, news arrived of Yazid’s death in one of the villages of Homs, prompting the army to retreat to Syria to determine the next caliph.

Yazid’s son, Muawiyah II, was pledged allegiance as his successor but was horrified by what his father had done to maintain power and abdicated the caliphate after six months. The vast Islamic lands plunged into a civil war over the caliphate, with Marwan ibn al-Hakam being declared caliph in Damascus by the Umayyads, while Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr claimed the title in Mecca. The conflict ended during the reign of Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, who managed to consolidate Umayyad power and became the second founder of the Umayyad dynasty. Yazid’s legacy remains controversial among historians, scholars, and the public, with debates surrounding his faith, whether he should be cursed or not, his hostility toward the Prophet’s family, and accusations of alcohol consumption. Bro The Man (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

First, Arabic wiki article is not a standard for writing articles on English wiki. They have their own policies. English wiki articles are subject to English wiki policies. Secondly, Arabic wiki article is terrible whereas this article on the level of any professional English language encyclopedia on Islam. Compare the this and the Arabic wiki article with the Encyclopedia of Islam or Iranica article and you will see why. Moreover, see WP:Lead. The lead section is representative summary of the article. Each main point of the article is presented summarily. The purpose of lead section not to overemphasize points which you like. The lead as it currently stands correctly represents the main points of the article giving due weight to each point. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It says, "It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Bro The Man (talk) 18:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and that is what the current lead does. Whereas you want to emphasize one specific point, thus making unrepresentative summary. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 18:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Statement of academic fact without its implication and without respective academic opinion is not informative. Those opinions themselves have consensus. I understand that you are proud of this article, this history is ours to collectively share. I respect that it has achieved a high rating, but that doesn't mean that this article now becomes frozen and static in time.

I have read the article and I appreciate the attention to detail within it, taught a few things that I myself was not aware of. And in light of that, I hope were able to see eye and continue with this transparency and honesty.

I'm open to negotiating to achieve a consensus.

1st suggest: At the end of the first paragraph.

His caliphate was marked by his campaign against and subsequently killing¹ of Muhammad's grandson Husayn ibn Ali at the Battle of Karbala ² that precipitated the crisis known as the Second Fitna. His actions are associated in catalysing the development of the Shia identity.

2nd suggestion: after the first paragraph and before the second. This brings up the second last sentence from the last paragraph.

Yazid is considered an illegitimate ruler, a tyrant, and an affront to Islamic values^4,5 by many Muslims due to his hereditary succession, the killing of Husayn, and his attack on Medina and Mecca which damaged the Kaaba by fire.

3rd Suggestion: Readjusting the last paragraph to accomodate the extracted sentence.

Yazid continued Mu'awiya's decentralized model of governance, relying on his provincial governors and the tribal nobility. He abandoned Mu'awiya's ambitious raids against the Byzantine Empire and strengthened Syria's military defences. As such, modern historians take a milder retrospective view of Yazid, and consider him a capable ruler, albeit less successful than his father. No new territories were conquered during his reign.

Thank you for engaging with me. Bro The Man (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The content of your first suggestion is already present at the end of the 1st para, except for your claim that Yazid's actions caused the emergence of the Shia, which is false. Sects emerge out of historical processes not because of actions of one man. It is true that the battle of Karbala played a major role in the development of religious aspects of Shi'ism, but there were various other factors (Penitents, Mukhtar and Kaysaniyya, Zayd's revolt, and son on). Regarding your 2nd suggestion, Second Fitna is also mentioned in the 1st para and his image among the Muslims is present in the last para. Your 3rd suggestion: this would be actionable if we agree on your first 2 suggestions, which we do not. Your 3rd suggestion also doesn't do much except moving the bit on conquered territories to the end, which is no bad, but I see no reason for it. Apart from adding historical inaccuracies, as pointed out above, your proposed edits do nothing but to reshuffle the material already present in the lead for no good reason. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

This won't be productive if you, alone might I add, will not engage reciprocally. Bro The Man (talk) 20:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Well you haven't explained why these changes need to be made. As I said, except one change, the rest in your proposal consists of rearranging the material already in the lead. You haven't put forth any convincing reasons for your change. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I request that the introduction of this article be revised to more accurately reflect the historical framing of the events at Karbala and Yazid I’s association with them. At present, the page refers to the “Battle of Karbala” and to Husayn ibn Ali as a rebel, but this isn't objective, but rather framed towards the Ummayad lens since Husayn was venerated by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and the Ummah afterward as a result—“Hasan and Husayn are the leaders of the youth of Paradise” (Sunan al-Tirmidhi, Hadith 3768; Musnad Ahmad, Hadith 1061). The current terminology is misleading and obscures the nature of what occurred.

According to early historians (al-Tabari, Baladhuri, Ya‘qubi) and modern scholarship (e.g. S.A. Ayoub, *Redemptive Suffering in Islam*; Syed Akbar Hyder, *Reliving Karbala*), Husayn did not command a conventional army. He was traveling with a small caravan of family members—including women, children, and a small band of supporters—when they were intercepted near Karbala. Yazid’s governor blockaded their access to water, besieged them for days, and finally massacred Husayn, his relatives, and his companions. The survivors, mostly women and children, were taken captive and humiliated in Yazid’s court.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the event as “a brief military engagement” in which Husayn’s group “was defeated and massacred.” Hyder (2006) and other modern historians emphasize that this was not a symmetrical battle but an atrocity that became foundational to Islamic communal memory.

Because of this, Yazid is primarily remembered not for administrative achievements but for his responsibility in ordering and authorizing the events that led to Husayn’s death, the starvation of his camp, and the humiliation of his family. This is central to his bisectarian historical reputation and should be reflected in the introduction.

1. 1. 1. Proposed replacement introduction text:

> **Yazid I** (born July 20, 647 CE / Ramadan 23, 26 AH – died November 12, 683 CE / Rabi‘ al-Awwal 14, 64 AH) succeeded his father Mu‘awiya I as the Umayyad caliph in 680 CE (60 AH). His accession was contested by several prominent Muslims, most notably Husayn ibn Ali—the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad—who refused to pledge allegiance and left for Kufa. > > En route, Husayn and his small caravan of family members, women, and companions were intercepted near Karbala by forces under Yazid’s governor. Acting on Yazid’s authority, the Umayyad troops blockaded them from water, besieged the camp for days, and ultimately massacred Husayn, his relatives, and his companions. The surviving women and children were taken captive and brought to Yazid’s court, where they were subjected to public humiliation. > > Husayn’s killing generated profound resentment in the Hejaz and catalyzed the Second Fitna (civil war). Yazid’s reign continued the political structure of his father, fortifying Syria but achieving no territorial expansion. His caliphate remains controversial, defined above all by his role in Husayn’s death and the events of Karbala.

This phrasing is not sectarian. It reflects objective historical evidence and modern scholarship, which agree that the event was not a conventional battle but the massacre of a besieged family caravan, carried out under Yazid’s orders and remembered as the defining feature of his reign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.66.2.118 (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:NPOV. Day Creature (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Day Creature, thanks for taking the time to look at this. Could I know why the framing of "The Battle of Karbala" was kept? Is there more citation needed to show it as a misrepresentation? 96.66.2.118 (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Your edit request was rejected because it is an entirely biased portrayal of Yazid I that fails to reflect the views of modern scholars, who generally regard him more positively than the traditional Islamic view. Furthermore, your proposed text shows signs of being AI-generated. Day Creature (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

The rejection based on biased portrayal of Yazid is understood, but the main effort was to properly reframe the "Battle" of Karbala. Scholars note that a sustained fight between large organized armed forces is not what occured, therefore the term "Battle" of Karbala is misleading to some scholars, implying vastly more parity and contest than what was. Hyder (2006) supports this. This could quite easily be more accurately referred to as a siege. It's important to add context to best fit implications. Even an addendum to the mention of a battle to share that some modern scholarship call it a massacre or a siege. If this is a semantical critique that you're sympathetic to, please let me know and I can try another hand at a direct revision. 68.49.64.218 (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change ( in the Traditional Muslim view page) Yazid is considered an evil figure by many Muslims to the present day,[12] not only by the Shia, who hold that the ruling position rightly belonged to Husayn's father Ali and his descendants, including Husayn, whom Yazid killed to strip him of his right,[78] but also by many Sunnis, to whom he was an affront to Islamic values.[79][80] For the Shia, Yazid is an epitome of evil.[81][82] He is annually reviled in the Ashura processions and passion plays,[83][84] and rulers considered tyrannical and oppressive are often equated with him.[85][86] Before the Iranian Revolution, the Shah of Iran was called the "Yazid of his time" by the Iranian cleric Rouhollah Khomeini,[87][81] as was the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein by the Iraqi Shia during the Iran–Iraq War for his ban on pilgrimages to the holy sites of Shia Islam.[88] Among the Sunnis, the Hanafi school allows cursing of Yazid,[89] whereas the Hanbali school and many in the Shafi'i school maintain that no judgment should be passed on Yazid, rather tyrants in general should be cursed.[90] However, the Hanbali scholar Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1201) encouraged the cursing.[90][h] According to al-Ghazali (d. 1111), cursing Yazid is prohibited, for he was a Muslim and his role in the killing of Husayn is unverified.[91]

Yazid was the first person in the history of the Caliphate to be nominated as heir based on a blood relationship, and this became a tradition afterwards.[26] As such, his accession is considered by the Muslim historical tradition as the corruption of the caliphate into a kingship. He is depicted as a tyrant who was responsible for three major crimes during his caliphate: the death of Husayn and his followers at Karbala, considered a massacre; the aftermath of the Battle of al-Harra, in which Yazid's troops sacked Medina; and the burning of the Ka'ba during the siege of Mecca, which is blamed on Yazid's commander Husayn ibn Numayr. The tradition stresses his habits of drinking, dancing, hunting, and keeping pet animals such as dogs and monkeys, portraying him as impious and unworthy of leading the Muslim community.[58] Extant contemporary Muslim histories describe Yazid as "a sinner in respect of his belly and his private parts", "an arrogant drunken sot", and "motivated by defiance of God, lack of faith in His religion and hostility toward His Messenger".[92] Al-Baladhuri (d. 892) described him as the "commander of the sinners" (amir al-fasiqin), as opposed to the title commander of the faithful (amir al-mu'minin) usually applied to the caliphs.[93] Nevertheless, some historians have argued that there is a tendency in early Muslim sources to exonerate Yazid of blame for Husayn's death, and put the blame squarely on Ibn Ziyad.[44] According to the historian James Lindsay, the Syrian historian Ibn Asakir (d. 1176) attempted to stress Yazid's positive qualities, while accepting the allegations that are generally made against him.[58][94] Ibn Asakir thus emphasised that Yazid was a transmitter of hadith (the sayings and traditions attributed to Muhammad), a virtuous man "by reason of his connection to the age of the Prophet", and worthy of the ruling position.[95] to Yazid ibn Muʿawiya remains one of the most debated figures in early Islamic history. While later sectarian narratives—particularly within Shia tradition—cast him in a negative light due to the events surrounding Karbala, a substantial body of Sunni scholarship, early historiography, and contemporary academic research presents a more balanced and at times favorable assessment of his life, character, and political role.

Scholarly Perspectives on Yazid’s Responsibility

Classical Sunni scholars frequently emphasized that Yazid should not be categorically condemned. Al-Ghazali explicitly prohibited cursing Yazid, arguing that a Muslim cannot be declared sinful without certainty, and that his direct involvement in the death of Husayn ibn ʿAli is not proven. Many early historians attribute the decisive responsibility for Karbala to the governor ʿUbayd Allah ibn Ziyad rather than to Yazid himself, and several accounts describe Yazid expressing regret and distancing himself from the killing.

Numerous jurists in the Hanbali and Shafiʿi traditions also maintained the principle of tawaqquf (withholding judgment) regarding Yazid, due to the lack of conclusive evidence implicating him personally.

Dynastic Succession and Governance

Yazid’s appointment as heir marked the first hereditary succession in the Islamic polity. While later writers criticized this as the beginning of dynastic rule, many modern historians argue that this development reflected pragmatic political needs. The rapidly expanding Umayyad state required continuity, stability, and administrative consistency—elements that hereditary succession helped secure.

Through this lens, Yazid’s rule represents a pivotal moment in the consolidation of the Islamic empire rather than a deviation from it.

Alternative Historical Assessments

Although some later historical sources depict Yazid negatively—often shaped by political rivalries and the polemical environment of subsequent centuries—others preserve more favorable accounts. Ibn ʿAsākir, one of the most respected historians of Damascus, emphasized Yazid’s virtues, his participation in early Islamic campaigns, his role as a transmitter of hadith, and his connection to the generation close to the Prophet.

Modern academic analysis also notes that early historiography is diverse and that many anti-Yazid reports emerged significantly later, influenced by evolving sectarian and political contexts.

The Hadith of Constantinople and Yazid’s Merit

A central point emphasized by pro-Yazid scholars is the famous hadith concerning the first Muslim army that marches against Constantinople. This narration is found in Musnad Ahmad and other collections.

Exact Hadith (Arabic + Translation)

Arabic: «أَوَّلُ جَيْشٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يَغْزُونَ مَدِينَةَ قَيْصَرَ مَغْفُورٌ لَهُمْ»

Transliteration: “Awwalu jayshin min ummatī yaghzūna Madīnata Qayṣar maghfūrٌ lahum.”

Translation: “The first army of my Ummah to attack the City of Caesar (Constantinople) will be forgiven.”

Historical sources report that Yazid was a commander in this very first expedition toward Byzantine lands, launched during the caliphate of his father Muʿawiya. Those who defend Yazid’s reputation argue that this hadith is evidence of prophetic praise and divine forgiveness for the participants of that campaign. Vixrt0y (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2025 (UTC)