i think this had been a very debatable topic among the different muslims sects and historains. instead of resorting to the books of history lets see what ahadith books say about it. i m here quoting hadith/narrations 2 from sahih bukhari and one from sahih muslim{called sahihain} .
it clearly shows that bayat was taken for yazid and sahaba even did bayat of him and were remained stick to it.
as far as asool e kafi by sheikh jafer al kalaini is concerened i went through the book, though not that thoroughly, but cud not find ne narration in this respect i.e. bayat of yazid
Narrated Nafi`: When the people of Medina dethroned Yazid bin Muawiya, Ibn Umar gathered his special friends and children and said," I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazid) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazid, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me." 9.227: *Sahih Bukari *
It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that 'Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti' in the days at Harra in the time of Yazid b. Mu'awiya. Ibn Muti' said: Place a pillow for Abu 'Abd al−Rahman (family name of 'Abdullah b. 'Umar).
But the latter said: I have not come to sit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). I heard him say:
One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya. Bk 20, Number 4562: *Sahih Muslim *
so this hadith may be considered as agreed upon {hadith narrated in both sahih muslim and sahih bukhari is called agreed upon and is considered most authentic after the holy quaran , as far as sunni muslims are concerned} as the words of both hadiths are almost the same as well as the context, though addressees are different.
newayz the above hadiths do not tell when the bayaat was taken. lets see what Imam muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari indicates in Sahih Bukhari about the era of oath.
Narrated Yusuf bin Mahak:
Marwan had been appointed as the governor of Hijaz by Muawiya. He delivered a sermon and mentioned Yazid bin Muawiya so that the people might take the oath of allegiance to him as the successor of his father (Muawiya). Then Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr told him something whereupon Marwan ordered that he be arrested. ButAbdur−Rahman entered Aisha's house and they could not arrest.
Marwan said, "It is he (AbdurRahman) about whom Allah revealed this Verse:−− 'And the one who says to his parents: 'Fie on you! Do you hold out the promise to me..?'
On that, `Aisha said from behind a screen, "Allah did not reveal anything from the Qur'an about us except what was connected with the declaration of my innocence (of the slander).
6.352:
Sahih Bukhari
historians have mentioned that hazrat muavia asked each of his governor to take bayaat for the succession of yazid {after the endorsement of the akabir sahaba and tabain in syria } in their provinces to avoid ne controversy in future for the appointment of next caliph. when did that bayat actually happened is not that confirmed. historains have different opnions about it. but it is said that it was the period between 51 to 58 hijra. As hazrat aisha died in 678 AD and hazat yazid became caliph in 680. since it happened before the death of hazrat aisha, as evident from narration mentioned above, so it had been taken before 58 hijra. and when mauvia died ppl ratified the bayat of succession.
a humble request it is part of history so take it in the light of history ............
maverick u look good debating with 12ers as most of them here are blissfully ignorant of hadith rijal and history ....
HOWEVER my views are 180 degrees different from u wrt muawiyah yazid and other ummayyads.
Now if u want to selectively quote bukhari its ur choice , but i mentioned to u earlier views of abdullah b umar and clarified his position.if u read same bukhari he mentions his opinion about eligibility of khilafat and condemns the taliq just as his father did.
and in 2nd hadith why r u condemning the son of abu bakr siddiq for the sake of marwan and muawiyah ? God sake's man have some fear of God , my sheikh said one thing very well he said that those who hate ali murtaza will also hate umar farooq and abu bakr siddiq now i know how its so true
wrt bayat in syria, they were only supporters of muwiayah who endorsed yazid's bayat and not even all of them read the biography of abdur rehman b khalid who was his own supporter and see how he was eliminated by muawiyah.banu makhzum khalids tribe then withdrew support from banu ummayyah
now mr khandalvi quotes number of sahaba in syria from rijal books but when time comes to read the same books for biographies of other sahaba he dismisses them as "shia sources" u can see their munafiqat.
i hope u dont get carried away by the 12er attitudes and become influenced by nasibi propoganda