Response to the Lie That Caliph Al Walid Bin Yazid and Muhammad Bin Harun Were Homosexuals
Content of the Doubt
One of the enemies of Islam claims that (Omar ibn al-Khattab), (Al-Walid ibn Yazid) and (Muhammad ibn Harun al-Rashid) were homosexuals!!!
Response to this lie:
This talk☝️ is stupid and not historically correct. For example:
- Contemporary Shiites were the first to accuse Omar ibn al-Khattab of treating himself with men’s semen, and they claimed that this matter was mentioned in Sunni books!
But what the Shiites claim is a lie, and this matter was not mentioned in the Sunni books at all, and it was not even mentioned in the books of the ancient Shiites.
The first person to invent this lie was the cursed Shiite, Nimat Allah al-Jaza’iri , who died approximately three centuries ago. Al-Jaza’iri claimed that al-Suyuti mentioned in his book (Hashiyat al-Qamus) that Omar ibn al-Khattab used to treat himself with men’s semen!
But Al-Suyuti did not write a book with this name at all, and this book is a fictitious book from the mere delusions of the lying Shiite Algerian.
It is not reasonable that the Prophet Muhammad would befriend and sit with a homosexual man and marry his daughter Hafsa!
secondly:
As for Al -Walid bin Yazid , it is not authentically reported that he was an anomaly…
As for the narrations that the enemies of Islam cite against Al-Walid bin Yazid , they are not authentic, and they are as follows:
★ Al-Tabari narrated in the book “Al-Tarikh” (7/250-251) the following:
.
[On the authority of Ahmad ibn Zuhair, who is the son of Abi Khaithama, on the authority of al-Madaini Ali ibn Muhammad, on the authority of Amr ibn Marwan al-Kalbi: When al-Walid was killed, his left hand was cut off and sent to Yazid ibn al-Walid… Then he ordered that the head be taken to his brother Sulayman, and Sulayman, the brother of al-Walid, was among those who sought to kill his brother. Ibn Farwah washed the head, put it in a basket, and brought it to Sulayman. Sulayman looked at it and said: “Away with him! I testify that he was a drunkard, a dissolute, and immoral man. The immoral man wanted to kill me.” Ibn Farwah came out of the house and was met by a female slave of al-Walid. He said to her: “Woe to you! How severely he cursed me! He claimed that he wanted to kill himself!” She said: “By God, the wicked man lied. He did not do it. If he wanted to kill himself, he did it, and he would not have been able to resist him.”]
But this narration is weak, as the narrator (Amr bin Marwan Al-Kalbi) or (Omar bin Marwan Al-Kalbi) is an unknown person and no documentation has been proven about him.
Then the story includes that Al-Walid’s maid defended Al-Walid after his death and confirmed that he was not gay.
It is also understood from Ibn Fura’s words that he did not believe Sulayman’s words when he said that Al-Walid was a dissolute person.
Then, Sulayman was hostile to Al-Walid, and therefore we cannot accept this statement from him, because this is called (the wound of peers).
★ As for the second narration, it is:
Ibn Saad mentioned in the book “Al-Tabaqat Al-Kubra” (5/355-356):
Muhammad ibn Umar informed us. He said: Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad told us, on the authority of his father, who said: Al-Zuhri would always criticize and criticize Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik for the deposition of al-Walid ibn Yazid. He would mention grave matters that he would not utter, even mentioning that children dye their hair with henna. And he said to Hisham: It is not permissible for you to do anything except divorce him. But Hisham was unable to do that because of the contract he had made for him.
This narration is ☝️ weak, as it was narrated by the lying Shiite AlWaqidi , who attributed it to (Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi al-Zinad) , who is a weak narrator. Then we do not know how (Al-Zuhri) obtained this information about Al-Walid , especially since Al-Zuhri’s transmissions are very weak.
Then, the narration ☝️ did not explicitly mention that Al-Walid bin Yazid was committing fornication with the boys, but rather all that was mentioned in it was that the boys were dyed with henna; that is, they were applying henna.
Third:
As for (Muhammad bin Harun al-Rashid) , it is not authentic that he committed fornication with young boys.
★ As for the narrations cited by the enemies of Islam, they are as follows:
The following is mentioned in Al-Tabari’s History (8/508):
It was mentioned on the authority of Hamid bin Saeed, who said: When Muhammad became king, and Al-Ma’mun wrote to him and gave him his pledge of allegiance, he sought out eunuchs and bought them, and he paid a high price for them, and made them his private quarters during the night and day, and they were the ones who took care of his food and drink, and his orders and prohibitions, and he imposed on them a duty which he called the locusts, and a duty from the Abyssinians which he called the crows, and he rejected the free women and the slave girls until they were thrown away.
But this narration ☝️ is weak and not authentic, as it has no chain of transmission at all, and we do not know who started this rumor, and the narration did not say that (Muhammad bin Harun al-Rashid) was committing fornication with the young boys, but all that was mentioned in the narration is that he bought the young boys at a high price, so they would sit with him day and night in his food and drink, in his commands and prohibitions, and in his privacy, and he refused the free women and the slave women. This may be understood from the fact that he did not sit with the women in the ruling court.
By the way, this weak narration contradicts history. History tells us that Muhammad bin Harun did not reject women and slave girls, but rather he had a wife named (Lubana bint Ali al-Mahdi) …, and he also had a son named (Musa) .
When his slave girl, who was the mother of his son, died, Muhammad bin Harun was deeply saddened by her death.
Muhammad bin Harun had a number of concubines who served him in the ruling court.
Indeed, Muhammad bin Harun imprisoned Abu Nuwas for his debauchery, then released him after that and ordered him to stay away from drinking alcohol and homosexuality… This was mentioned by Ibn Kathir in the book (Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah).
The bottom line is that the Shiites were distorting the image of the Umayyad and Abbasid rulers and inventing lies about them, especially since some Shiites sided with Al-Ma’mun against Al-Amin Muhammad ibn Harun .
As for those who cite al-Dhahabi’s words , al-Dhahabi is a later historian, and he relied on some of these weak earlier narrations without verifying them. I responded to them above, so there is no need to cite al-Dhahabi.
Islam commands the bringing of truthful witnesses to testify against any sinner, whether he is a drunkard, an adulterer, or someone else. So where are these truthful witnesses?!
Even if we assume that Al-Walid bin Yazid and Muhammad bin Harun were practicing homosexuality, this has no relation to us as Muslims, because each person bears his own burden.
Many of the world’s kings have practiced debauchery throughout history, so why do the enemies of Islam focus on criticizing the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs in particular?!