Tag: Q n A

Praise be to Allah.
It was narrated
by ‘Abd ar-Razzaaq in al-Musannaf (9718) from Ma‘mar, from az-Zuhri, that
the mother of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said:
When he was born, he rested on his arms, raising his head to heaven.

This is mursal,
although the isnaad is saheeh.

It was narrated
by Ibn Hibbaan (6335) and Abu Ya‘la (7163) via Muhammad ibn Ishaaq, from
Jahm ibn Abi Jahm, from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far (may Allah be pleased with
him), from Haleemah bint al-Haarith as-Sa‘diyyah… And he mentioned the story
of the breastfeeding of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him), in which it says that the mother of the Messenger of Allah (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) said:

… Then I gave
birth to him, and he did not come out as other infants come out; he came out
placing his hands on the ground, raising his head to heaven.

Shaykh Shu‘ayb
al-Arna‘oot said in his commentary on Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan:

In its isnaad
there is an interruption between ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far – who is the son of
Abu Taalib – and Haleemah.

Jahm ibn Abi
Jahm was mentioned by the author in ath-Thiqaat (4/113), where he
said: He narrates from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far and from al-Miswar ibn
Makhramah, who was the freed slave of al-Haarith ibn Haatib al-Qurashi.
Muhammad ibn Ishaaq, ‘Abdullah al-‘Umari and al-Waleed ibn ‘Abdillah ibn
Jamee‘ narrated from him. Al-Bukhaari (2/229) and Ibn Abi Haatim (2/521)
both mentioned him, but they did not say anything about him, good or bad.

No report is
known from Haleemah except this hadith, and there is no proof that she saw
the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) after his mission
began. End quote.

It was narrated
by al-Aajurri in ash-Sharee‘ah (964), al-Bayhaqi in ad-Dalaa’il
(1/132) and Ibn ‘Asaakir in at-Taareekh (3/91) that Muhammad ibn
Ishaaq said: Ibn Abi Jahm told me: someone who heard ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far
ibn Abi Taalib told me that he said: I was told, from Haleemah bint
al-Haarith, the foster-mother of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace
of Allah be upon him)… and he narrated this report.

This is a da‘eef
(weak) isnaad. Jahm ibn Abi Jahm is unknown. Adh-Dhahabi mentioned him in
al-Mizaan (1/426) and said: He is not known; he narrated the report from
Haleemah as-Sa‘diyyah. End quote.

He did not hear
this story directly from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far, because he said: someone who
heard ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far ibn Abi Taalib told me that he said.

And ‘Abdullah
ibn Ja‘far did not hear it from Haleemah as-Sa‘diyyah, because he said: I
was told, from Haleemah bint al-Haarith.

But this last
problem is minor, because ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far was a Sahaabi, but he was one
of the younger Sahaabah.

It was narrated
by Ibn Sa‘d in at-Tabaqaat (1/81, 120) via his shaykh al-Waaqidi, via
various isnaads, but al-Waaqidi is dubious. He was regarded as a liar by
Imam Ahmad and others. Abu Dawood said: I do not write down his hadith and I
do not narrate from him; I have no doubt that he made up hadith. Bandaar
said: I have not seen anyone who tells more lies than him.

Ishaaq ibn
Raahawayh said: In my view, he is one of those who fabricate hadith.

See: Tahdheeb
at-Tahdheeb (9/323-326).

So what he
narrates is of no value.

The hadith was
classed as da‘eef by Shaykh al-Albaani (may Allah have mercy on him), who
said in his commentary on al-Booti’s Fiqh as-Seerah:

This story was
not narrated via any isnaad which may be taken as evidence. The most
well-known of its versions is that which was narrated by Muhammad ibn Ishaaq
from Jahm ibn Abi Jahm from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far from Haleemah bint
al-Haarith as-Sa‘diyyah.

It was narrated
by Abu Ya‘la (1/128) and from him by Ibn Hibbaan in Mawaarid (1094)
and by Abu Nu‘aym in Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah (1/47) from Ibn Ishaaq.

It was also
narrated from him by al-Bayhaqi in Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah (1/108),
except that he said: Jahm ibn Abi Jahm – the freed slave of a woman from
Banu Tameem who was married to al-Haarith ibn Haatib; it was also said that
he was the freed slave of al-Haarith ibn Haatib – told us: someone who heard
‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far ibn Abi Taalib told us that he said: I was told, from
Haleemah bint al-Haarith.

I say: This is a
da‘eef isnaad; there are two problems with it:

Firstly: there
is some problem with the isnaad, as is quite clear. In the first report, Ibn
Ishaaq narrates it by saying ‘an (from) with regard to all of its narrators.
In the second report, it is narrated with a clear statement of it having
been told from one narrator to another, even though al-Jahm says that he did
not hear it directly from ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far, and he says that ‘Abdullah
ibn Ja‘far did not hear it directly from Haleemah.

In the first
report, there is an interruption between Ibn Ishaaq and al-Jahm, because Ibn
Ishaaq is known for tadlees (saying ‘an (from) to give the impression that
it was heard directly from one narrator to another). In the second report
there is an interruption in two places in the isnaad.

Thus you may
learn that al-Haafiz was mistaken in his book al-Isaabah, where he
said (4/266): Ibn Hibbaan stated in his Saheeh that it was stated
that Haleemah told ‘Abdullah, because there is no basis for this idea
according to Ibn Hibbaan or anyone else whom we have mentioned.

It is very
unlikely that ‘Abdullah ibn Ja‘far could have met Haleemah, the wet-nurse of
the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), because
when the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) died, ‘Abdullah
was ten years old; even though no one mentioned when Haleemah died, one
would expect her to have died before the Messenger of Allah (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him). And Allah knows best.

Regardless of
whether the first or second report is more sound, in both cases there is an
interruption in the isnaad.

The other
problem with the hadith is that its main narrator, Jahm ibn Abi’l-Jahm, is
unknown. Adh-Dhahabi said in al-Mizaan: The story of Haleemah
as-Sa‘diyyah is not known to be his.

As for Ibn
Hibbaan, he mentioned him in ath-Thiqaat (1/31), according to his
method of verifying unknown narrators.

According to Abu
Nu‘aym, the story has two other isnaads, both of which are connected to
al-Waaqidi, who was a liar. One of the isnaads is from his shaykh, Moosa ibn
Shayba, who is layyin al-hadith (not strong in hadith), as al-Haafiz said in
at-Taqreeb. The other is from ‘Abd as-Samad ibn Muhammad as-Sa‘di,
from his father, from his grandfather, who said: Someone who used to tend
the sheep of Haleemah told me… These narrators are unknown.

End quote from
Difaa‘ ‘an al-Hadith an-Nabawi (39).

He also said in
his commentary on Saheeh Ibn Hibbaan (9/128):

… Ibn Ishaaq
stated in Seerat Ibn Hishaam (1/172) that the report was told from
one narrator to another, but he was not sure. He said: From ‘Abdullah ibn
Ja‘far ibn Abi Taalib, or from someone who narrated from him…

So we cannot be
sure that the isnaad is complete, especially since this Jahm is unknown and
no one regarded him as trustworthy except Ibn Hibbaan (4/113). Adh-Dhahabi
said in al-Mizaan and elsewhere: He is not known. End quote.

See: al-Mataalib
al-‘Aaliyah by Ibn Hajar, and the comment of the commentators
(17/180-182).

This hadith,
with its isnaads, is well known to the scholars of Seerah (the Prophet’s
biography), as Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: This hadith
was narrated via other isnaads, and it is one of the well-known hadiths that
were mentioned by the scholars of Seerah and Maghaazi (reports of military
campaigns).

End quote from
al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah (2/275).

Perhaps because
it is well-known, adh-Dhahabi classed it as qawiy (strong) and said
concerning this hadith of Ibn Ishaaq that is mentioned above:

This is a hadith
with a jayyid (good) isnaad.

End quote from
Tareekh al-Islam (1/48).

And Allah knows
best.

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:

Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, is the most truthful
of speakers. He, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And who is truer in statement
than Allah?”

[an-Nisa’ 4:87]

“and whose words can be truer
than those of Allah?”

[an-Nisa’ 4:122].

So it is not permissible to attribute any kind of lie to
Allah, may He be exalted, for Allah is majestic, exalted and holy, and He is
far above any such thing. The Prophet of Allah Yoosuf (peace be upon him)
was a Prophet and a siddeeq (one who is strong and true in faith); the word
siddeeq is an intensive form of noun and comes from a root meaning true and
sincere. ar-Raazi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Siddeeq is a word that describes anyone whose habit and
custom is to be truthful. End quote.

Tafseer ar-Raazi
(10/133).

Al-Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The siddeeq is the one whose actions confirm his words. End
quote.

Tafseer al-Qurtubi
(5/272)

Secondly:

Allah, may He be exalted, says in the story of Yoosuf (peace
be upon him) and his brothers (interpretation of the meaning):

“So when he had furnished them
forth with their provisions, he put the (golden) bowl into his brother’s
bag, then a crier cried: ‘O you (in) the caravan! Surely, you are thieves!’
They,
turning towards them, said: ‘What is it that you have missed?’
They said:
‘We have missed the (golden) bowl of the king and for him who produces it is
(the reward of) a camel load; I will be bound by it.’
They said:
‘By Allah! Indeed you know that we came not to make mischief in the land,
and we are no thieves!’
They (Yoosuf’s
(Joseph) men) said: ‘What then shall be the penalty of him, if you
are (proved to be) liars?’
They (Yoosuf’s
(Joseph) brothers) said: ‘The penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is
found, should be held for the punishment (of the crime). Thus we punish the
Zalimoon (wrong-doers, etc.)!’
So he
began (the search) in their bags before the bag of his brother. Then he
brought it out of his brother’s bag. Thus did We plan for Yoosuf (Joseph).
He could not take his brother by the law of the king (as a slave), except
that Allah willed it. (So Allah made the brothers to bind themselves with
their way of ‘punishment, i.e. enslaving of a thief.’) We raise to degrees
whom We please, but over each one who is possessed of knowledge is one more
knowing.
They ((Yoosuf’s
(Joseph) brothers) said: ‘If he steals, there was a brother of his (Yoosuf
(Joseph)) who did steal before (him).’ But these things did Yoosuf (Joseph)
keep in himself, revealing not the secrets to them. He said (within
himself): ‘You are in worst case, and Allah knows best the truth of what you
assert!’”

[Yoosuf 12:70-77].

Shaykh as-Sa‘di (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“So when he had furnished them forth with their provisions”
that is, when he had weighed out provisions for each of his brothers,
including this brother,

“he put the (golden) bowl” which was a vessel from
which he drank, and also used for measuring “into his brother’s bag,
then” they loaded up their luggage, but when they set out, “then a crier
cried: ‘O you (in) the caravan! Surely, you are thieves!’” Perhaps this
caller did not know what was really going on. 

They namely the brothers of Yoosuf “turning towards them”
– they had no concern except to dispel the accusation that had been made
against them, so they said: “What is it that you have missed?’” And
they did not say, “What have we stolen?” because they were certain that they
were innocent of theft. 

“They said: ‘We have missed the (golden) bowl of the king
and for him who produces it is (the reward of) a camel load” that is, as
a reward for finding it

“I will be bound by it” that is, I guarantee it – this
was said by the caller who was looking for it. 

“They said: ‘By Allah! Indeed you know that we came not to
make mischief in the land” by committing all kinds of sins

“and we are no thieves”, for stealing is one of the
worst kinds of making mischief in the land. They only swore because they
were confident that the Egyptians were aware that they were not making
mischief and were not thieves, as they knew them very well and were aware
that they were people of dignity and piety, who could not have committed
this theft; those who accused them knew that they could not have done that.
This is a more eloquent way of refuting the accusation than saying “By Allah
we did not make mischief in the land and we did not steal anything.” 

“They (Yoosuf’s (Joseph) men) said: ‘What then shall be
the penalty, if you are (proved to be) liars?”

 “They (Yoosuf’s (Joseph) brothers) said: ‘The penalty
should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the
punishment (of the crime)” that is, the one in whose saddle-bag it is
found should become the slave of the owner of the stolen item. According to
their religion, if the thief was proven to be guilty, he would become the
property of the owner of the stolen wealth. Hence they said: “Thus we
punish the Zalimoon (wrong-doers, etc.)!’”

“So he” the inspector “began (the search) in their
bags before the bag of his brother”, so that there would be no suspicion
that it had been done deliberately. When he did not find anything in their
baggage,

“Then he brought it out of his brother’s bag”. It does
not say “he found it” or “his brother stole it”, so as to reflect the
reality of the situation.

Thus Yoosuf accomplished what he wanted to do of keeping his
brother with him in such a way that his other brothers would not realise it,
Allah says (sa): “Thus did We plan for Yoosuf (Joseph)” that is, We
made easy for him this plan which enabled him to achieve something that was
not blameworthy

“He could not take his brother by the law of the king (as
a slave)” because there was nothing in that law that allowed enslavement
of the thief; rather they had some other penalty in such cases. Therefore if
the ruling had been referred to the king’s law, Yoosuf would not have been
able to keep his brother with him. But he made the ruling come from them, so
that he might achieve his aim.

“We raise to degrees whom We please” by means of
beneficial knowledge and knowledge of ways and means of achieving desired
goals, as We raised Yoosuf in status

“but over each one who is possessed of knowledge is one
more knowing.” Above each one who has knowledge is one who is more
knowledgeable than him, until knowledge ends with the Knower of the unseen
and the seen.

When the brothers of Yoosuf saw what happened, “They said:
‘If he” – namely this brother – “steals”, there is nothing surprising about
that, because “there was a brother of his (Yoosuf (Joseph)) who did steal
before (him).”  They were referring to Yoosuf (as); what they meant by
saying this was to declare their own innocence. In other words: this one and
his brother may commit acts of theft, but they are not our full brothers.

These words implied a great deal of disparagement, but Yoosuf
kept his thoughts to himself “revealing not the secrets to them” that
is, he did not respond to their words in a way that would be displeasing to
them; rather he restrained his anger and kept it to himself.

“He said (within himself): ‘You are in worst case”
because you blamed us when you are worse than us in that regard

“and Allah knows best the truth of what you assert”
against us, that is, He knows better than others, as you are accusing us of
theft when Allah knows that we are innocent.
Tafseer
as-Sa‘di (p. 402)
This was not
any kind of lying or prohibited deceit on the part of Yoosuf (peace be upon
him); rather it was good planning that Allah planned for him so as to
complete His blessing upon him and reunite him with his parents and family,
and so that his brothers might repent, and so that He might highlight to
them the wrong that they had done towards their father and their two
brothers, and so that Allah might complete His blessing upon their father
Ya‘qoob (peace be upon him) and restore to him his son after a lengthy
absence and great suffering. So Allah, may He be exalted, ordained this good
and blessed plan for His Prophet, so that these blessings might be attained
by all concerned. This does not come under the heading of wrongdoing, enmity
and prohibited deceit – Allah forbid.
The caller
who cried out “‘O you (in) the caravan! Surely, you are thieves!’”
thought that they were the ones who had stolen the king’s bowl, so he cried
out on the basis of what he knew; so he was not lying.
What Yoosuf
(peace be upon him) meant was that they had stolen from his father, and he
spoke the truth. This comes under the heading of double entendres by means
of which the truth may be found out and proof established.
Ibn al-Jawzi
(may Allah have mercy on him) said:
If it is
said: How could it have been permissible for Yoosuf to accuse of theft
someone who had not stolen anything? There are four answers to this
question:

1.
That what is meant is: You stole Yoosuf when you cut him off from his father
and threw him into the well. This was the view of az-Zajjaaj.

2.
That when the caller said this, he did not know that Yoosuf had issued
instructions that the bowl be placed in his brother’s bag, so he was not
lying when he said it. This was the view of Ibn Jareer.

3.
That the caller cried out, accusing them of theft, without any instructions
from Yoosuf to do so.

4.
That what is meant is: You are thieves as it appears to one who is not aware
of the reality of your situation; this is like the verse in which Allah says
(interpretation of the meaning): “Taste you (this)! Verily, you were
(pretending to be) the mighty, the generous” [ad-Dukhaan 44:49] – i.e.,
in your own mind you were mighty and generous, but not in Our view. And the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Ibraaheem told
three untruths” i.e., he said words that seemed to be lies, but they were
not really lies.  
End quote
from Zaad al-Maseer (2/457)
Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
What Yoosuf
(peace be upon him) meant was: You stole Yoosuf from his father, and he was
telling the truth when he said that.
What the
caller meant was: You stole the bowl; he thought that they had stolen it,
and he did not deliberately intend to lie, even though what he said was
untrue. End quote.
Majmoo‘
al-Fataawa (16/451). See also: al-Fataawa
al-Kubra (6/127)
Ibn al-Qayyim
(may Allah have mercy on him) said in Ighaathat al-Lahfaan (2/118):
Allah, may He
be exalted, inspired the brothers of Yoosuf (peace be upon him) to say: “The
penalty should be that he, in whose bag it is found, should be held for the
punishment (of the crime)” – this was a plan from Allah, may He be
exalted, in support of Yoosuf (peace be upon him) that He caused to be
uttered by his brothers. It was beyond Yoosuf’s control.
They could
have avoided that by saying “There is no penalty for him unless it is proven
that he is the one who stole it”, because the mere fact that it was found in
his bag did not necessarily mean that he was a thief. But Yoosuf (peace be
upon him) was just and would not have held them responsible without proof.
They could
also have avoided that by saying “His penalty should be the same as whatever
you do to thieves according to your law.” The custom according to the law of
the king of Egypt – as was narrated – was that the thief would be beaten and
fined double the value of the stolen property. If they had said that, he
could not have imposed upon them what he did not impose upon others;
therefore Allah, may He be glorified, says: “Thus did We plan for Yoosuf
(Joseph). He could not take his brother by the law of the king (as a slave),
except that Allah willed it.”
In other
words, he could not have taken him according to the law of the king of
Egypt, because in his law there was no way for him to take him.
The words “except
that Allah willed it” may mean: except that Allah willed that he should
take him by some other means. Or it may be that what is meant is: except
that Allah brought about some other means for him to take him according to
the law of the king, other than theft. End quote.
See also:
I‘laam al-Muwaqqi‘een (3/168)
Ibn Katheer
(may Allah have mercy on him):
“Thus did
We plan for Yoosuf (Joseph)” – this comes under the heading of planning
for good and to achieve that which Allah loves and is pleased with, because
of what it involves of wisdom and achieving the desired purpose. End quote.
Tafseer
Ibn Katheer (4/401)
The point is
that none of that comes under the heading of lying whatsoever; rather it
comes under the heading of good double entendres which, among other things,
lead to: the truth becoming manifest; the wrongdoers acknowledging their
mistake and repenting from it and seeking forgiveness from the one who was
wronged; bringing about reunion of the family; fulfilling the promise of
Allah to Ya‘qoob and Yoosuf (peace be upon them both); bringing about
Allah’s support to the one who had been wronged and fulfilling His plan for
him. All of this is part of the immense blessings that they attained through
these double entendres that were not lies, even though one who did not
understand the reality of the situation might think them to be lies.
And Allah
knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Before Islam, the Arabs used different names for the lunar months that were known at that time, until those names changed and became standardised throughout Arabia, and took their final forms at the end of the fifth century CE, during the era of Kilaab, who was the great-great-great-great-great-grandfather of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).
The naming of these lunar months with the names that are known today is based on certain reasons and meanings from which the names of the months were derived, as was mentioned by the scholars. Al-Haafiz Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
Shaykh ‘Alam ad-Deen as-Sakhaawi stated in a book that he compiled, entitled al-Mashhoor fi Asma’ al-Ayyaam wa’sh-Shuhoor, that Muharram is so called because it is a sacred (muharram) month. I think that it was so called to affirm its sanctity, because the Arabs used to change it, making it not sacred one year and making it sacred another year. He said: The plural form of Muharram is Muharramaat or Mahaarim or Mahaareem.
Safar is so called because their houses would be devoid of them when they went out to fight or to travel, and it would be said “safira al-makaan (the place has become empty)” when people left. The plural form of Safar is Asfaar.
Rabee‘ al-Awwal is so called because they did not travel during that month (the word irtibaa‘, derived from the same root, means “not travelling”). The plural form is Arbi‘aa’, like the word naseeb (pl. ansibaa’), or Arbu‘ah like the word ragheef (pl. arghufah). The same may be said concerning Rabee‘ al-Aakhir as was said concerning Rabee‘ al-Awwal.
Jumaada is so called because water froze during that month (jumood means freezing).
And he said: In their calculations, the months did not rotate through the seasons, although there is some doubt concerning that, because their months were connected to lunar cycle, so they would inevitably rotate through the seasons. Perhaps they called Jumaada by this name the first time, when water froze because of the cold. The plural form of Jumaada is Jumaadiyyaat, like the word hubaara (pl. hubaariyyaat). The word may be either masculine or feminine, so one may say Jumaada al-Oola or al-Awwal, and Jumaada al-Aakhir or al-Aakhirah.
The name of Rajab comes from the word tarjeeb, which means veneration. The plural form is Arjaab or Rijaab or Rajabaat.
The name of Sha‘baan comes from the word tasha‘‘ub (scattering), as the tribes would scatter and disperse to raid others. The plural form is Sha‘aabeen or Sha‘baanaat.
The name of Ramadan comes from the word ramda’, which refers to intense heat. Another word from the same root is used to refer to the thirst of camels when they become thirsty. The plural form is Ramadaanaat or Ramaadeen or Armidah.
The name of Shawwaal comes from a word referring to camels raising their tails for the purpose of copulation. The plural form is Shawaawil or Shawaaweel or Shawwaalaat.
The month of Dhu’l-Qa‘dah – or, in my view, Dhu’l-Qi‘dah – is derived from the word qu‘ood (rest), as during this month they would rest from fighting and travelling. The plural form is Dhawaat al-Qa‘dah.
Dhu’l-Hijjah – or, in my view, Dhu’l-Hajjah – is so called because they performed Hajj during this month. The plural form is Dhawaat al-Hijjah.
End quote from Tafseer Ibn Katheer (4/128-129)
See also: al-Mufassal fi Tareekh al-‘Arab qabl al-Islam by the historian Jawaad ‘Ali (16/91ff)
There is nothing wrong with mentioning the names of the months, explaining their meanings and the sources from which they were derived, and the reasons why they are so called, as explained by the historians and linguists, especially if there is an educational purpose behind that, even though the origin may have been forgotten and no longer has anything to do with the names of the months, because they rotate through the seasons, as is well known, and therefore the meaning has nothing to do with the well-known shar‘i rulings on the months.
For more information, please see the answer to question no. 170242
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.Abrahah made preparations to enter Makkah; he mobilised his army and prepared his elephant. Then when he was in Wadi Muhassir, between Muzdalifah and Mina, the elephant knelt down and would not get up to advance towards the Ka‘bah.
It was said that when they made the elephant face towards Makkah, Nufayl ibn Habib al-Khath‘ami came up to the elephant and stood beside it, then he took hold of its ear and said: Sit down, Mahmoud, for you are in the sacred land of Allah. Then he let go of its ear, and the elephant knelt down. Nufayl left, running up to the top of the mountain. They beat the elephant to make it stand up, but it refused. So they struck its head to make it stand up, and it refused. They turned it around as if to go back to Yemen, and it got up and ran in that direction. They turned it to face towards Syria, and it did the same thing; they turned it to face towards the east, and it did the same thing; but when they turned it to face towards Makkah, it knelt down.
Whilst they were like that, Allah, may He be exalted, sent against them birds in flocks from the sea. Each bird was carrying three stones, one in its beak and one in each of its feet; the size of the stones was like the size of chickpeas or lentils. None of the army were struck but his limbs were cut off and he died, but not all of them were struck; those who were spared fled, rushing towards the road by which they had come.
See: al-Lu’lu’ al-Maknun by al-‘Azimi (1/61).
As-Salihi said: When the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) came to the bottom of Wadi Muhassir, he made his she-camel speed up and run quickly. This was his habit in places where the punishment of Allah had come down upon His enemies, and that was the place where there happened to the people of the elephant that which Allah has told us about.
Hence that wadi was called Wadi Muhassir, because the elephant halted (hasara) there and did not proceed any further.
Muhassir is an area between Mina and Muzdalifah; it does not belong to either of them.”(Subul al-Huda wa’r-Rashad  8/474).
Al-Fayyumi said: Wadi Muhassir is between Mina and Muzdalifah.
It is named thus because the elephant of Abrahah grew tired there and could not proceed any further, which caused sorrow (hasarat) to its owners.”(Al-Misbah al-Munir  1/135).
And Allah knows best.

Praise be to Allah.
Firstly: 

The Muslims are still faced with troubles and challenges
because of the narration of fabricated reports in historical books. If the
wise person reflects upon the words of Allah, may He be exalted
(interpretation of the meaning): “That
was a nation who has passed away. They shall receive the reward of what they
earned and you of what you earn. And you will not be asked of what they used
to do” [al-Baqarah 2:134],
then holds his tongue and refrains from discussing the hadiths that speak of
tribulation, disavows wrongdoing before his Lord, and believes that he
should love the family of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon
him) and hate those who show enmity towards them, that will be better for
him before his Lord and will be safer in terms of protecting his religious
commitment. 

Many of the reports which have been narrated about
tribulations that occurred among the Muslims were narrated via single
narrators (as opposed to a large number of narrators at each stage of the
chain of transmission) who were either dubious, liars or unknown. It is not
permissible for anyone to rely upon any of the reports narrated by such
people, because they do not meet the standards of good character (that are
required of narrators). Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of
the meaning): “O
you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news,
verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become
regretful to what you have done”
[al-Hujuraat 49:6].

Among these false reports is that which was narrated by at-Tabari
in his Tareekh (5/461) and Ibn ‘Asaakir in Tareekh Dimashq
(69/176), via Abu Makhnaf, from al-Haarith ibn Ka‘b, from Faatimah bint
‘Ali, who said: 

When we were brought before Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah, he felt
sorry for us, issued instructions that something (food) be brought to us,
and spoke gently to us. Then a ruddy-faced man from Syria stood up and said
to Yazeed: O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, give me this one – meaning me, for I was a
pretty young girl. I got scared, because I thought that they would not
refrain from such a thing, and I held onto the garment of my sister Zaynab.
My sister Zaynab was older and wiser than me, and she knew that that would
not happen, so she said (to that man):

You are lying by Allah, you vile man! That is not for you or
him. Yazeed got angry and said (to her): You are lying, by Allah! I may do
that, and if I want to do it, I will do it. She said: No, by Allah. Allah
has forbidden that for you, unless you leave our religion and follow some
religion other than ours. Yazeed got angry and lost his temper, and he said:
Are you speaking to me like that? Rather it is your father and your brother
who have left the religion! 

Zaynab said: Rather you, your father and your grandfather
were guided by virtue of the religion of Allah, the religion of my father,
the religion of my brother, the religion of my grandfather. He said: You are
lying, O enemy of Allah! She said: You are a tyrant, who slanders people
wrongfully and suppress them. By Allah, it was as if he felt ashamed, so he
fell silent. Then the Syrian said again: O Ameer al-Mu’mineen, give me this
girl. He said: Get out; may Allah strike you dead! 

This was also narrated by Ibn Katheer in al-Bidaayah
wa’n-Nihaayah (11/562) via Abu Makhnaf. 

Abu Makhnaf’s full name is Loot ibn Yahya. Adh-Dhahabi said:
He is a worthless narrator of stories; he is not to be trusted; he was
ignored by Abu Haatim and others. Ad-Daaraqutni said: He is weak. Ibn Ma‘een
said: He is not trustworthy. And he said, on one occasion: He is nothing.
Ibn ‘Adiyy said: He is a fanatical Shi‘i, a narrator of their reports. 

Mizaan al-I‘tidaal. 

So this report is a lie and is not sound. 

The same applies to what they say about Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah
poking the teeth of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) with a stick
[after he had been killed and beheaded]. 

Zaynab said to him: 

Do you think, O Yazeed, after you have gained control over us
and we have ended up being driven as slave women are driven, that we are
insignificant to Allah and that you are honoured by Him, and that this was
because you are of high status before Him, so you began to behave in an
insolent manner and began to look at yourself with jubilant self-admiration?
Is it fair, O son of the freed ones [people of Quraysh who were let off by
the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) when they surrendered
following the conquest of Makkah, despite their years of enmity towards
him], to keep your womenfolk and slave women out of sight and to drive the
daughters of the Messenger of Allah like prisoners of war, after you have
torn their veils and forced them to show their faces, and their enemies
drive them from one land to another? 

This is something for which there is no basis in the books of
the scholars; rather it is something that was narrated only by the Raafidis
who are known for lying. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)
said:

What is proven in Saheeh al-Bukhaari is that the head
of al-Husayn was brought and placed in front of ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad, who
started poking at the teeth with a stick in the presence of Anas ibn Maalik. 

In al-Musnad it says that this happened in the
presence of Abu Barzah al-Aslami. 

But some people narrated with an interrupted isnaad that this
poking of the teeth happened in the presence of Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah. This
is false. End quote. 

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa
(27/469) 

He also said: 

Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah was in Syria, and was not in Iraq at
the time of the killing of al-Husayn. Whoever narrated that he poked his
teeth with a stick in the presence of Anas and Abu Barzah, in front of
Yazeed, is definitely lying, and his lie is well known on the basis of
mutawaatir reports. End quote. 

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa
(27/4 70) 

Secondly: 

The well-known view is that Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah did not
issue orders for the killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him)
and did not approve of it. He cursed Ibn Ziyaad for killing him, and he
honoured the family of al-Husayn who had been with him during that march of
his, and during their march back to Madinah. He did not detain them and keep
them with him. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)
said: 

Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah was born during the caliphate of
‘Uthmaan ibn ‘Affaan (may Allah be pleased with him) and was not one of
those who were well-known for religious commitment and righteousness. He was
one of the Muslim youth, and he became caliph after his father’s death
despite the objections of some of the Muslims and with the approval of
others. He was courageous and generous, and he did not openly commit
shameful deeds as his opponents said concerning him. During his reign
several significant events occurred, one of which was the killing of al-Husayn
(may Allah be pleased with him). 

He did not issue orders that al-Husayn be killed, and he did
not express joy at his killing, and he did not poke the teeth of al-Husayn
(may Allah be pleased with him) with a stick or carry the head of al-Husayn
(may Allah be pleased with him) to Syria. But he did issue orders that al-Husayn
(may Allah be pleased with him) be resisted and his efforts to become caliph
were to be hindered, even if that meant fighting him. 

His deputies went too far in following his commands, and ash-Shamar
ibn Dhi’l-Jawshan incited ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad to kill him, so ‘Ubaydullah
ibn Ziyaad attacked him. Al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) asked
them to let him come to Yazeed, or go and guard the Muslim border, or to go
back to Makkah. 

But they did not allow him (may Allah be pleased with him) to
do any of these things, and the only choice they gave him was to surrender
to them, and Ziyaad ordered ‘Umar ibn Sa‘d to fight him, and they killed him
unlawfully, him and a number of his family members (may Allah be pleased
with them). 

The killing of al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him) was
a great calamity, for the killing of al-Husayn and of ‘Uthmaan before him
were two of the greatest causes of tribulation in this ummah. They were
killed by the worst of people before Allah. 

When his family (may Allah be pleased with them) came to
Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah, he honoured them and let them go to Madinah. It was
narrated that he cursed Ibn Ziyaad for killing him and said: I would have
been content with the obedience of the people of Iraq, without the killing
of al-Husayn. Yet despite that, he did not take any action to show
disapproval of his killing or to avenge him, when he should have done that.
So the Muslims criticised him for not doing what he should have done, in
addition to other things. 

As for his opponents, they added other lies and fabrications
about him. End quote. 

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa
(3/410) 

It was narrated that after that he regretted the killing of
al-Husayn and he used to say: What could have happened if I had put up with
some annoyance and let him come to my house, and let him have what he
wanted, even if that led to weakening of my power and authority, for the
sake of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
and in showing due respect to him and to the members of his household? 

Then he would say: May Allah curse Ibn Marjaanah [i.e.,
‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad], for he attacked him and forced him to fight, when
he had asked him to let him go and let him come to me, or to go and guard
one of the borders of the Muslims until Allah, may He be exalted, took his
soul in death. But he did not do that, and he refused to let him do (any of
those things), and he killed him, and by killing him he made me hateful to
the Muslims and instilled enmity in their hearts against me, so that both
righteous and evildoers hate me, because of what people think of the
seriousness of my having killed Husayn. I wish I had never had anything to
do with Ibn Marjaanah, may Allah curse him and be angry with him. 

Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah
(11/651); Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’ (4/370)

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

Yazeed ibn Mu‘aawiyah: the worst of his deeds for which he
may be criticised is drinking alcohol and committing some shameful deeds. As
for the killing of al-Husayn, he – as his grandfather Abu Sufyaan had said
on the day of Uhud [regarding the mutilation of Hamzah (may Allah be pleased
with him) and others who had been killed during the battle] – did not issue
orders to that effect, nor did it upset him. 

We have seen above that he said: If it were me, I would not
have done to him what Ibn Marjaanah – meaning ‘Ubaydullah ibn Ziyaad – did.
And he said to the envoys who brought al-Husayn’s head to him: Less than
this would have been sufficient obedience. He did not give them any reward,
and he honoured the family members of al-Husayn and restored to them
everything that had been
taken from them, and many times more, and he sent them back to Madinah in a
very dignified and honourable manner. His family in his house mourned for
al-Husayn with al-Husayn’s family – who were lodged with them – for three
days. End quote. 

Al-Bidaayah wa’n-Nihaayah
(11/650) 

This is not a defence of Yazeed or siding with him. The
moderate view concerning him is that he comes under the same ruling as other
bad and unjust rulers, so he is not to be regarded as an ally or as an
enemy, and he is not to be loved or reviled. 

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him)
said:

Hence the view of those who follow the beliefs of Ahl as-Sunnah
and the leading scholars of the ummah is that he is not to be reviled or
loved. Saalih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said: I said to my father: Some people
say that they love Yazeed. He said: O my son, would anyone who believes in
Allah and the Last Day love Yazeed? 

I said: O my father, why do we not curse him? He said: O my
son, when did you ever see your father curse anyone? End quote. 

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa
(3/4 12) 

He also said: 

Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi said, when he was asked about Yazeed
– according to what I heard: He is not to be reviled or to be loved. I also
heard that our grandfather Abu ‘Abdullah ibn Taymiyah was asked about Yazeed
and he said: Do not underestimate his misdeed and do not exaggerate about
it. 

This is the most equitable and best of the opinions
concerning him and others like him. End quote. 

Majmoo‘ al-Fataawa
(4/483) 

For more information about the correct attitude concerning
Yazeed, please see fatwa no. 23116 

And Allah knows best.