Is there any clarification regarding al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi’s killing of Sa'id ibn Jubayr (may Allah have mercy on him)?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Another question regarding the case of al-Hajjaj in the killing of Sa'id ibn Jubayr. A few days ago, a discussion took place, and some people said that al-Hajjaj was not a tyrant in his killing of Sa'id ibn Jubayr. In fact, one person went so far as to disparage Sa'id ibn Jubayr, saying that what is in al-Hajjaj’s foot is better than Sa'id ibn Jubayr’s head, and so on. What is your opinion on this matter? And does al-Hajjaj have any good deeds in the Islamic Shari'ah? Did he benefit the Islamic religion such that, even to this day, we can say that we should pray for his mercy and speak well of him, as we have also heard that he was wicked and so on?
The Shaykh : What was he? What was he worth?
Another questioner : Wicked.
The Shaykh : Yes, wicked. I understood from what you related about this unknown person of yours that he says al-Hajjaj’s killing of Sa'id ibn Jubayr (may Allah have mercy on him) was not an act of tyranny. It seems to imply that there is, of course, assuming the best of this unknown person of yours, that there is known tyranny by al-Hajjaj, but his killing of Sa'id ibn Jubayr was not tyrannical because he was excused. Does he mean this, or does he want to deny the attribute of tyranny from al-Hajjaj absolutely?
The questioner : This matter.
The Shaykh : Fine. In this matter, I will expand with my opponent and tell you why you do not accept, based on your faith, what you have reached regarding al-Hajjaj’s tyranny, and why you doubt this specific detail. I will forgive you for this detail in your narration, even if only for the sake of argument. But since you admit that al-Hajjaj was a tyrant, what do you gain by rescuing al-Hajjaj in this specific detail? If he is submerged in tyranny, what is the benefit? In that case, I say that discussing these people on such details yields no significant result.
The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh. The one discussing this is not an ignorant person; he is a learned person, and you said that he is the author of a book on the case of al-Hajjaj and this matter.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is how I imagined it.
The questioner : Evidence that it is such and such.
The Shaykh : That is how I imagined it, but I asked you and you answered: does he believe that al-Hajjaj was a tyrant or not? You answered me with yes.
The questioner : In my opinion...
The Shaykh : In that case, if I were in your position, I would not discuss the matter of Sa'id ibn Jubayr with him; I would discuss other matters with him. Al-Hajjaj being a tyrant is a settled matter, used as a byword, and it is not permissible to doubt it, because doubting self-evident matters... and we are content with the testimony of Asma' bint Abi Bakr that she applied the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) hadith that he was a great tyrant, is that not so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Therefore, this description applies to him, whether we accept that his killing of Sa'id was not tyrannical or we do not accept it. Thus, researching a specific detail while believing in the whole yields no benefit worth mentioning.
The Shaykh : What was he? What was he worth?
Another questioner : Wicked.
The Shaykh : Yes, wicked. I understood from what you related about this unknown person of yours that he says al-Hajjaj’s killing of Sa'id ibn Jubayr (may Allah have mercy on him) was not an act of tyranny. It seems to imply that there is, of course, assuming the best of this unknown person of yours, that there is known tyranny by al-Hajjaj, but his killing of Sa'id ibn Jubayr was not tyrannical because he was excused. Does he mean this, or does he want to deny the attribute of tyranny from al-Hajjaj absolutely?
The questioner : This matter.
The Shaykh : Fine. In this matter, I will expand with my opponent and tell you why you do not accept, based on your faith, what you have reached regarding al-Hajjaj’s tyranny, and why you doubt this specific detail. I will forgive you for this detail in your narration, even if only for the sake of argument. But since you admit that al-Hajjaj was a tyrant, what do you gain by rescuing al-Hajjaj in this specific detail? If he is submerged in tyranny, what is the benefit? In that case, I say that discussing these people on such details yields no significant result.
The questioner : Excuse me, Shaykh. The one discussing this is not an ignorant person; he is a learned person, and you said that he is the author of a book on the case of al-Hajjaj and this matter.
The Shaykh : Yes, that is how I imagined it.
The questioner : Evidence that it is such and such.
The Shaykh : That is how I imagined it, but I asked you and you answered: does he believe that al-Hajjaj was a tyrant or not? You answered me with yes.
The questioner : In my opinion...
The Shaykh : In that case, if I were in your position, I would not discuss the matter of Sa'id ibn Jubayr with him; I would discuss other matters with him. Al-Hajjaj being a tyrant is a settled matter, used as a byword, and it is not permissible to doubt it, because doubting self-evident matters... and we are content with the testimony of Asma' bint Abi Bakr that she applied the Prophet’s (peace and blessings be upon him) hadith that he was a great tyrant, is that not so?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Therefore, this description applies to him, whether we accept that his killing of Sa'id was not tyrannical or we do not accept it. Thus, researching a specific detail while believing in the whole yields no benefit worth mentioning.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.