Between Condemnation and Exoneration: The Sunnī Scholarly Debate on Yazīd in Bilād al-Shām and Bilād al-Rūm (1300-1700)

Abstract

This thesis examines the Sunnī scholarly debate surrounding Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiya, the controversial Umayyad caliph, by analyzing historical and theological perspectives from Bilād al-Shām (the Levant) and Bilād al-Rūm (Anatolia) between 1300 and 1700. Through a comparative study of seventeen primary sources authored by fourteen scholars, the research explores key themes such as the legitimacy of Yazīd’s caliphate, his moral character, his role in the martyrdom of al-Ḥusayn, and the permissibility of cursing him. The study reveals a stark contrast between the ahl al-baytist tendencies of Ottoman scholars, who overwhelmingly condemned Yazīd, and the more nuanced, often apologetic stances of Levantine scholars, who sought to balance criticism with historical and theological justifications. By situating these debates within their regional and intellectual contexts, the thesis argues that the portrayal of Yazīd was deeply influenced by local historiographical traditions. The findings challenge the notion of a monolithic Sunnī position on Yazīd, highlighting instead the diversity of scholarly opinions across time and space.