As for the second matter:

The people of the Prophet’s city, Medina, revoked their pledge of allegiance to him and expelled his deputies and family. He sent an army against them, ordering it, if they did not submit to him after three days, to enter the city by force of arms and give the troops free rein there for three days. His soldiers thus spent three days in the Prophet’s city killing, plundering, and deflowering women whom they had no right to touch. He then sent an army to honoured Mecca, which they besieged. Yazīd died while they were still besieging Mecca. These were acts of aggression and injustice committed on his orders.

For this reason, the position held by Ahl al-Sunnah and the leading scholars of the Muslim community was that he should neither be reviled nor loved. Sālih ibn Ahmad ibn Hanbal said:

“I said to my father: ‘Some people say that they love Yazīd.’

“He replied: ‘My son, would anyone who believes in Allah and the Last Day love Yazīd?’

“I asked: ‘Father, why, then, do you not curse him?’

“He replied: ‘My son, when have you ever seen your father curse anyone?’”

It is also reported that he was asked: “Would you record hadith transmitted by Yazīd ibn Muʿāwiya?”

He replied: “No, certainly not! Was he not the one who did what he did to the people of Medina?”

Thus, the leading Muslim scholars regard Yazīd as merely one king among others. They do not love him as they love the righteous and the allies of Allah, nor do they revile him, for they do not approve of cursing a particular Muslim. This is because al-Bukhārī narrated in his Sahīh, on the authority of Umar ibn al-Khattāb—may Allah be pleased with him:

“There was a man known as Himār (‘Donkey’) who frequently drank wine. Whenever he was brought before the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—he would beat him. Then said