Official reply by dr zakir naik on karbala & yazid

[mehwish_ali]

Do you remember Zakir Naik & his claiming Radhi Allaho Anho for Yazid?
Do you know the Only Argument of Zakir Naik that he used to justify it?
The Only Argument of Zakir Naik is only & only one Tradition of Bukhari.
Let us begin with Allah's name & let us expose the Lies of Zakir Naik regarding this tradition and after that no one would dare to say Radhi Allho Anho to Yazid. Insha-Allah.

The Fabricated Tradition by Nasibies of Syria

Nasibies of Syria were followers of Bani Umiyyah. Thus they fabricated a tradition through which they Yazid free of all his so many crimes against Islam & Ahlebait (as), and provided him with salvation to Jannah.
Here is the tradition.

حَدَّثَنِي إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ الدِّمَشْقِيُّ حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ حَمْزَةَ قَالَ حَدَّثَنِي ثَوْرُ بْنُ يَزِيدَ عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ أَنَّ عُمَيْرَ بْنَ الْأَسْوَدِ الْعَنْسِيَّ حَدَّثَهُ أَنَّهُ أَتَى عُبَادَةَ بْنَ الصَّامِتِ وَهُوَ نَازِلٌ فِي سَاحَةِ حِمْصَ وَهُوَ فِي بِنَاءٍ لَهُ وَمَعَهُ أُمُّ حَرَامٍ قَالَ عُمَيْرٌ فَحَدَّثَتْنَا أُمُّ حَرَامٍ أَنَّهَا سَمِعَتْ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ أَوَّلُ جَيْشٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يَغْزُونَ الْبَحْرَ قَدْ أَوْجَبُوا قَالَتْ أُمُّ حَرَامٍ قُلْتُ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ أَنَا فِيهِمْ قَالَ أَنْتِ فِيهِمْ ثُمَّ قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَوَّلُ جَيْشٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي يَغْزُونَ مَدِينَةَ قَيْصَرَ مَغْفُورٌ لَهُمْ فَقُلْتُ أَنَا فِيهِمْ يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ قَالَ لَا​

Link

Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Jihad Volume 4, Book 52, and Number 175:
Narrated Khalid bin Madan:
That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the seashore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'the first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."
​

We will prove that this narration is defective on the following 2 bases:

1. It has defects in Asnaad.
2. A comparison of this alone tradition to all other Traditions It is totally against ALL other Traditions about First Naval War & caesar's City. (This is the most important Part of our Discussion).

Defects in Asnaad of this tradition


Please note about this tradition that:

1. This Tradition is narrated by only & only one chain.
2. And all the narrators in this chain are Syrians (the headquarter of Muawiyyah and Bani Umiyyah). The people of Syria were famous for inventing narrations in support of Bani Umiyyah.

Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani (one of top most Alim who is even respected by Nasibies) writes under the commentary of this tradition:

قوله‏:‏ ‏(‏عن خالد بن معدان‏)‏ بفتح الميم وسكون المهملة، والإسناد كله شاميون​

i.e. all of it's narrators belong to Syria
Thawr bin Yazid [The Munafiq by Rasool's Standards]:

One of the Syrian Narrator is Thawr bin Yazid. Although none of the Syrian Narrator of this tradition had any love for Ahl al-Bayt, but this Thawr bin Yazid was the worst.
Ibn Saad (Sunni Scholar whose book is very important for Rajal Work) writes about him:

و كان جد ثور بن يزيد قد شهد صفين مع معاوية ، و قتل يومئذ ، و كان ثور إذا ذكر عليا قال : لا أحب رجلا قتل جدى​

Translation:

The (Syrian Ancestors) of Thawr bin Yazid were along with Muawiyyah at battle of Saffin and they were killed in this war (by Army of Ali Ibn Abi Talib). Whenever this Thawr bin Yazeed used to hear the name of Ali (ibn Abi Talib), he used to say:"I don't like to hear the name of that person who killed my Ancestors.​

Tabaqat Ibn Saad, Vol 7 under the topic: Thawr bin Yazid al Kalayee
​

And Yahya ibn Mueen, who is considered one of most authentic Authority in Rajal even by Nasibies, he writes:

"This Thawr bin Yazeed was included in that party which used to Curse Ali Ibne Abi Talib"..​

And Imam Malik never used to narrate from this Thawr bin Yazeed.
Sheikh Ahmad Ali Suharanpuri is an Alim of Tableeghi Jama'at and he wrote a commentary of Bukhari. He writes (vol. 1, page 409):

"The tradition of caesar's city has been narrated by Thawr bin Yazid and he was (extreme) enemy of Ameer-ul-Momineen (Ali ibn Abi Talib).
​

And biggest of all, the grand Hadith Master Ibn Hajar Asqallani writes (Book: Tehdhib-ul-Tehdib, vol 2, page 33):

Thawr bin Yazeed bin Ziyad was a Qadarite قدرياً (a misguided sect for Ahle-Sunnah), his grandfather sided with Mu'awiya in Sifeen, and he was killed in this battle. When he referred to 'Ali, he would say 'I do not deem a person that killed my grandfather to be my friend'.
​

Rasool's (saw) testify those who hate Ali Ibn Abi Talib, they are Munafiqs

These people have no shame.

Here is the the true face of their Nasibi Praiseful Reliable Narrator:

Sahih Muslim,Book 001, Number 0141:

Zirr reported: 'Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me
​

So, mystry remains there why are these People taking this open Nasibi Manafiq to be there praiseworthy Narrator of Hadith? Don't they have any shame about this?

 

[mehwish_ali]

The Importance of First Naval War V Bait-e-Ridhwan

Dear Readers,
Please tell if this tradition is true then doesn't it mean that importance of First Naval War and attacking caesar's City was EQUAL to Bait-e-Ridhwan?
Surely you would answer in "Yes" while in all these cases there is prediction of "Allah being Radhi" or prediction of "Jannah".
Now look at the importance of Bait-e-Ridhwan. Allah himself mentioning it in Quran. Then Rasool (saw) took himself the Bait on his hand. Then this Bait-e-Ridhwan becomes popular on tongues of each and every Muslim child. The companions who participated in that War were respected and kept above those who didn't participate.
Question: Why then this First Naval War Tradition, which is equally important as Bait-e-Ridhwan is narrated only by one Woman?

Do you know that this tradition of First Naval War & caesar's City is narrated only and only by One Woman.

Then few Questions are:

1. "If this First Naval War was also equally Important as Bait-e-Ridhwan, then why it has been Narrated Only and Only by One Woman?
2. And that too this story was related to this woman only and only after she had already died. So neither she could attest it nor deny it.

If this First Naval war was so important then doesn't it should be like this that:

• Rasool (saw) should have told these Glad Tidings of Jannah about First Naval War to his Sahaba again and again to encourage them to participate in this war.
• And then these Sahaba had to propagate those Glad Tidings of Jannah for this first Naval War in every corner of Muslim State so that Muslims had prepared them for this war to get the Jannah.

But No, contrary to all this:

• NONE of the Sahabi knew any thing about those Glad Tiding of Jannah.
• And none of them propagated it to others i.e. none of them narrated it to other.
• Even the Army which participated in this First Naval War, it knew Absolutely Nothing about any kind of those Glad Tidings of Jannah.

This tradition came only into Scene when:

• the First Naval War had already been over and several years had already passed to that first Naval War.
• Actually it came into being even long after the incident of Ceaser's City had also been over and Umm Haram (the woman who narrated it) had already died and there was no one to deny those Syrians from attributing lies to Umm Haram.

 

[mehwish_ali]

All the traditions from "History of Tabari" about Year 28 when First Naval War was conducted under Muawiyyah

Dear Readers,
The very important thing is this that you read all the traditions about year 29 in History Books, and afterwards No Nasibi will be able to deceive you by inventing such lies.
We are citing only Few Traditions from "History of Tabari" below and it should be enough (otherwise please consult all other Books and you will find same things)
Note: All the Traslation of these Traditions are given from English Version of Tabari [link: http://www.amazon.co...7...o.y=5&Go=Go ]
1st Tradition: Umar Ibn Khattab didn't know any Glad Tidings of First Naval War and didn't give permission

According to Ubaidah and Khalid:
In times of Umar bin al-Khattab, Muawiyyah pleaded with him about naval campaigns (ghazw al-bahr) and closeness of the Byzantines to Hims. He said, "In one of the villages of Hims, the inhabitants hear the barking of (the Byzantines) dogs and the squawking of their chickens." [He pressed Umar] until he was on the verge of being won over. So Umar wrote to 'Amr b. al-'As [saying] "Describe the sea and the seafarer to me, for I am uneassy about it."
According to 'Ubadah and Khalid: When ['Umar] informed him of the benefits for the Muslims and the damage to the Polytheists to be derived from (naval warfare), 'Amr wrote back to him [as follows]: "Verily I have seen a great creature [that is, the sea] ridden by a small one [that is, man]. If (the sea) is calm it rends the heart with anxiety, and if it is agitatd it leads the mind into confusion. On it certainty shrinks and doubt increases. Those who are on it are like a worm on a twig, if it bends he is drowned, and if he is saved he is astounded. "When 'Umar read (this letter), he wrote to Mu'awiyyah [as follows]:"No, by Him who sent Muhammad with the Truth, I shall never send any Muslim there."
Reference: History of Tabari, Volume 16, Events of 28 th Year,
​

Comments:

1. First of all a long long period had already passed away after the death of Rasool Allah (saw) and there is absolutely No Activity about this one of Most Important First Naval Ship.
2. After that came the Caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr who ruled 2 and a half years. But during this whole period we saw Absolutely No Mention of Glad Tidings of Jannah for this First Naval War.
   And we see no where any such enthusiasm about First Naval War as was shown by Hazrat Abu Bakr in sending the remaining Jesh of Usama.
   [Enthusiasm is on one side, there was not even a Mention of this Naval War]
3. Then came the Long Caliphate of Hazrat Umar Ibn al-Khattab which lasted over 10 years. In his time, Muslim Armies were sent to each and every corner and Muslim captured lands from Africa till Iran and North Asia. So, in these 10 years, every where Armies were sent but if not sent then it was for this First Naval War.
   Actually, there is Absolutely No Mention of any First Naval War.
4. Then Muawiyyah Ibn Abi Sufyan became Governor and he was the first one who wished to attack Byzantine Empire through Sea [But Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan was himself unaware of any Glad Tidings of First Naval War].
   But Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan didn't get any permission from Center.
   And while Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan was himself unaware of those Glad Tidings, therefore in order to convince Hazrat Umar Ibn Khattab he didn't use the argument of Glad Tidings of Jannah, but he wrote about "Barking of Dogs of Byzantine Empire and squawking of their chickens as his sole Argument.
5. Then Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan kept on trying to convince Hazrat Umar Ibn Khattab for many years but Umar never get Ready.
6. At end Hazrat Umar got little interested but after reading the letter of Amr bin Al-Aas he Swore to Allah that he would not send a Single Muslim on this Naval War (In other words, Umar swore to not to let any Muslim go to Jannah through this promised first Naval War).
7. Do Nasibies believe that Hazrat Umar became afraid after hearing about Sea? Didn't Hazrat Umar believe in Prophecy of Muhammad (saw) that participating in First Naval War is guarantee to Jannah?
8. Did a Single other Companion except for Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan mention during this whole period about these Glad Tidings of Jannah? [Actually Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan himself never mentioned it nor he knew about it & therefore he brought the argument of "Barking of Dogs" and "Squawking of hens" in order to get permission of Hazrat Umar Ibn al-Khattab]
   

2nd Traditions from Tabari:

Junadah bin Abi Umayyah al-Azdi:
Mu'awiyyah had written a letter to 'Umar and provoke his interest in naval compaigns, saying, "O Commander of the Faithful, in Syria there is a village whose inhabitants hear the barking of the Byzantines dogs and the crowing of their roosters, for (the Byzantines) are directly opposite a certain stretch of the coast of (the district of) hims. Now 'Umar was doubtful about this because (Mu'awiyyah) was the one who advised it. He therefore wrote to 'Amr (as follows): "Describe the sea for me and send me information about it." 'Amr then wrote to him (as follows): "O Commander of the Faithful, I have seen a mighty creature ridden by a small one. It is naught but sky and water, and (those who travel upon it) are only like a worm on a twig: if it bends he drowns, and if he is saved, he is smazed.".
​

This tradition is same as 1st Tradition and therefore no Comments.

3rd Tradition: Umar Threatening Muawiyyah for persisting for this First Naval War

Junadah bin Abi Umayah and Rabi and Abu al-Mujalid:
'Umar wrote to Muawiyyah (as follows): "We have heard that the Mediterranean sea (bhar al-Sham) surpasses the longest thing upon the earth, seeking God's permission every day and every night to overflow the earth and submerge it. How then can I bring the troops to this troublesome and infidel being? By God, one Muslim is dearer to me than all that the Byzantines possess. Take care not to oppose me. I have given you a command, you know what al-'Ala'(bin al-Hadrami) encountered at my hands, and I did not give him such categorical orders."
​

Comments:

1. The Glad Tidings of Jannah for this First Naval war on one side, Hazrat Umar ibn Khattab was ferociously threatening Muawiyyah.
2. Had there been really any such Glad Tidings in reality, do you think this should have been the behaviour of Hazrat Umar Ibn Khattab?

4th and Last Tradition from Tabari: Forced Recruitment of Muslims to participate in this Naval War

Khalid bin Madan:
The first to conduct naval warfare was Mu'awiyyah bin Abi Sufyan in the time of 'Uthman bin Affan. He had sought 'Umar's permission for this but did not obtain it. When 'Uthman took Office, Mu'awiyyah persisted until at last 'Uthman decided to grant permission. He said, "Do not conscript the people or cast lots among them. Let them decide for themselves and whoever chooses [to go on] campaign in obedience [to your call], support and aid him."
​

Comments:

1. Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan failed to convince Hazrat Umar Ibn Khattab during his 10 years of Caliphate for this Naval war.
2. After this Hazrat Uthman ibn Affan was also not ready for the war of Jannah up till 4 years had been passed. Please remember that Hazrat Uthman became Caliph in year 24, while first Naval was conducted in year 28.

People who have studied history, they know how much influence did Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan had upon Hazrat Uthman ibn Affan due to their relationship. Therefore Hazrat Uthman ibn Affan used to accept his demands often, but in case of this war it still took Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan 4 complete years to get his permission.


Ok, permission was granted, but now look at the Conditions.

• For this war of Jannah Uthman is putting a condition that People should not be forced to join the army.
• Just keep in mind the Bait-e-Ridhwan and think that would it not be the case that after hearing the Glad Tidings of Jannah hundreds and thousands of Muslims from every corner of Islamic State should have automatically came out to participate in that war?
  But contrary to this, conditions were put for Forced recruitment of Muslims.
• Do you know how many Sahaba went to participate in this First Naval War from Center? Almost Zero number of Sahaba went to join this war of Jannah from center.
  So, neither Uthman sent a single Companion/Army from the Center despite those Glad Tidings, nor any Companion went for himself voluntarily in order to get Jannah and Glad Tidings.
  

 

[mehwish_ali]

2nd Part: Is there any other Tradition about Glad Tidings about First Attack on "caesar's City"?



The answer is: NO

• There exists not a single tradition which shows people who participated in that war had any idea of any kind of such Glad Tidings etc.
• Therefore, among several hundred thousands of Traditions, which are scattered in hundreds of Islamic Hadith and Islamic History books, there is not even a single tradition which backs up the claim of Glad Tidings about First Naval War or first attack on caesar's City.
• But how is it possible?

• 
  First attack on caesar's city has the same importance as "Bait-e-Ridhwaan". But still no one knows it (not even the army which participated in it).

History of Tabari has Only One line account of this First Attack

What to talk about Glad Tidings about this first attack on caesar's City, in Tabari, the biggest History book of Muslims, the whole event got only One line space to be mentioned. Imam Tabari wrote:

"Incidents in 49 Hijri
And Yazid bin Muawiyyah fought in Rome till he reached the Constantinople. Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Ibn Zubair and Abu Ayyub Ansari were also with him".
​

Online Link
But Allama Ibn Atheer (in his famous history book Tarikh-e-Kamil) gave a better account of incidents than Tabari which showed the real Face of Yazeed
في هذه السنة وقيل‏:‏ سنة خمسين سير معاوية جيشًا كثيفًا إلى بلاد الروم للغزاة وجعل عليهم سفيان بن عوف وأمر ابنه يزيد بالغزاة معهم فتثاقل واعتل فأمسك عنه أبوه فأصاب الناس في غزاتهم جوعٌ ومرض شديد فأنشأ يزيد يقول‏:‏ ما إن أبالي بما لاقت جموعهم بالفرقدونة من حمى ومن موم إذا اتكأت على الأنماط مرتفقًا بدير مروان عندي أم كلثوم وأم كلثوم امرأته وهي ابنة عبد الله بن عامر‏.‏ فبلغ معاوية شعره فأقسم عليه ليلحقن بسفيان في أرض الروم ليصيبه

Online Link​

Translation:

"In this year (49 Hijri) and some says 50 H, Mu'awiyah made preparations to take the towns and cities of Rome under Sufyan bin Auf. He sent out the army and ordered his son Yazeed to join him but Yazeed was lax in this regard, Mu'awiya therefore became silent on the matter. The army during the conquered suffered from sickness and hunger and upon receipt of this news, Yazeed recited a couplet:
Why shall I care about what the army facing in Farqadona from fever and smallpox
While I lay comfort in deluxe clothes at the house of Marwan with Um Kulthom".
Um Kulthoom bint Abdullah Ibn Aamir was Yazeed’s wife. When Muawiyah heard the couplets of Yazeed, he vowed to send him to Rome to Sufiyan bin Auf so that he also confronts hardship”
Nasibi Deception and Lies: Grand Sahaba like Ibn Abbas and Abu Ayyub Ansari participated in this war due to those Glad Tidings
​

This out and out a lie and Deception by Nasibies. There exists not a single tradition which backs up their lies and deceptions.
Contrary to Nasibies claim, we presented above the Tradition by Allama Ibn Atheer about how Yazid was sent to Rome By Force by Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan. This same tradition further tells us that those Grand Sahabas (Hazrat Ibn Abbas, Hazrat Abu Ayyub Ansari, Hazrat Abdullah Ibn Umar, Abdullah Ibn Zubair) did not go for this war at their own,but Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan sent them along with other Army along with Yazid.

فبلغ معاوية شعره فأقسم عليه ليلحقن بسفيان في أرض الروم ليصيبه ما أصاب الناس فسار ومعه جمع كثير أضافهم إليه أبوه وكان في الجيش ابن عباس وابن عمر وابن الزبير وأبو أيوب الأنصاري وغيرهم​

Tarikh-e-Kamil, by Ibn Atheer (online Link)
Translation:

When Muawiyah heard the couplets of Yazeed, he vowed to send him to Rome to Sufiyan bin Auf so that he also confronts hardship. And he (Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan) also sent a great number of additional army with him and in that army there were Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, Ibn Zubair and Abu Ayyub Ansari etc.

​

So, contrary to Lies and Deceptions, there is not a single hint in any tradition that these Grand Sahaba joined this war due to any Kind of Glad Tidigings. But Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan sent them on the front of Rom (at that time this was the most Important and difficult Front, while Muslim Forces already conquered Iran and other important countries).

It was Common Practice of Companions to go to Fronts for Wars

Secondly, it was common Practice of Companions to go to the Fronts for wars, and this had nothing to do with any glad tiding etc.
For example, at time when people of Madina turned against Uthman, many Sahaba were busy in Jahad at different fronts. And companions (Sahaba) in Madina wrote to them to come back to Madina as actual Jihaad was not on Fronts, but in Madina (against corrucption of Bani Ummiyyah, which were made leaders by Uthman).
According to al-Waqidi-—Abdallah b. Muhammad--his father:

the year 34 (6 54-5 5] certain of the Companions of the Messenger of God wrote to others [as follows]: "Come, for if you desire the jihad, then the jihad is here with us." The people maligned 'Uthman and censured him in the harshest language ever used against anyone, while the Companions of the Messenger of God were giving their opinions and listening, and among them no one forbade or prevented this save a few individuals: Zayd b. Thabit, Abit Usavd al-Saidi, Kab b. Malik, and Hassan b. Thabit.
​

Nasibi Argument: Abu Ayyub Ansari fought at older age, which proves he knew those Glad Tidings

This is another sick argument by Nasibies.
Instead of bringing such sick Conjectures, why not they bring a single Tradition which states that Abu Ayyub Ansari was not sent by Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan but he participated only due to any glad tidings?
Hazrat Ammar Yasir also fought along with Hazrat Ali ibn Abi Talib in Siffin against Muawiyyah ibn Abi Sufyan at age of 90 years where he got martyred.
Therefore, there is no way Nasibies keep on running away from bringing any clear tradition which talks about these Glad Tidings, but hiding behind their lies/deceptions and Qiyyassat (Conjectures).

May Allah (swt) also show right path to people like Zakir Naik, who still blindly ties themseleves to this Syrian Fabricated tradition and thus neglecting/hiding all crimes of Yazid Laeen and saying “Radhi Allaho Anho” for him.

 

[mehwish_ali]

History: Yazid was not the first who attacked caesar's City

Although what is written above, it is much more enough for death of Yazid Supporters.
But let us describe one more thing.
You all have heard that Lie has no feet to stand. A lier is exposed through the contradictions in his lies.
The interesting fact about this Hadith and Yazid is this that Yazid never conquered the Constantinople, but he was only able to reach till it's walls.
1st Fact: Yazid never conquered Constantinople

Imam Tabari wrote:
"Incidents in 49 Hijri
And Yazid bin Muawiyyah fought in Rome till he reached the Constantinople".
Online Link
And it is written in Wikipedia about the History of Constantinople:
ByzantineArab Wars
In 674 the Umayyad Caliph Muawiyah I besieged Constantinople under Constantine IV. In this battle, the Umayyads were unable to breach the Theodosian Walls and blockaded the city along the River Bosporus. The approach of winter however forced the besiegers to withdraw to an island 80 miles (130 km) away.
And at the website roman-empire.net, historical account is given in these words:
True History tells Arabs never conquered Constantinople, but it were Muslim Turks who conquered it.
Constantine IV Pogonatus (reign AD 668-685)
Constans II was succeeded by his son Constantine IV Pogonatus. The new emperor was only eighteen when he took the throne. AFter suppressing a usurper at Syracuse who had tried to make his profit out of the murder of his father, the young emperor plunged into the war with the Saracens.
For some time Moawiya, now Khalif of the Saracens, met with success against him. By AD 673 Moawiya was in possession of the Asiatic shore of the Sea of Marmora and laid siege to Constantinople itself. Then the tide turned. The Byzantine fleet, - armed with a new weapon, known as 'Greek Fire', a mixture of flammable oils which were blown at opponents with bellows, a little like an early flame-thrower, - recovered the mastery of the sea and drove off the Saracens. In ad 678 Moawiya had to sue for peace, and the hostilities were again suspended for several years.

2nd Fact: From caesar's City, it is not meant Constantinople

In tradition the word of Constantinople is not used, but the word caesar's City is used. It is claimed that from caesar's City it is meant Constantinople, but this is not true, while Caesar ruled over many big major Cities and Muslims were attacking upon Roman Empire much before Yazid was born.​

3rd Fact: A brief history of Muslim Attacks upon Constantinople before Yazid

First Muslim Army which attacked Caesar's city was sent by Rasool (saw) himself, and it's commander was Zaid bin Harith & Rasool Allah (saw) had already given the prediction of Shahadat (martyrdom) of Jaffar Taiyyar, Zaid bin Harith and Abdullah before that news came to Madina.​

Here is the Link to Wikipedia about this first Islamic War of Mautta upon Caesar's City.

1. If we take the meaning of Capital of Caesar's City, then it was the city of Hims حمص" (also spelled Homs) which was also conquered during the times of Umar Ibn al-Khattab in 16th Hijri (Islamic year).The commander of this Army was Abu 'Ubaidah, and the Companion Yazid bin Abu Sufyan was included in it,​

1. 
   
   And if we use a lot of Imagination and take only Constantinople as Caesar's City, even then Muslims Armies invaded Constantinople several times before Yazid.​
   
   Ibn Kathir writes in his book al-Badaya Wa al-Nahaya:

Incidents of Year 32:​

This year Muawiyyah fought with Romans till he reached Constantinople. His wife 'Atika was with him.
Online Link (published by Nafees Academy Pakistan)
The next attack was done in Year 42 Hijri and Historians recorded it.
The 3rd attack was done in Year 43 Hijri under the command of Basr bin Artat. Ibn Kathir al-Damishqi wrote in al-Badaya wa al-Nahaya:
In this year Basr bin Artat fought with Romans till he reached the Constantinople. And according to Waqidi then he spent all the Winter Season there.
Online Link
The 4th attack was done under the command of Abdul Rehman bin Khalid bin Walid. Ibn Kathir al-Damishqi wrote in al-Badaya wa al-Nahaya:
This year (44 Hijri) Abdul Rehman bin Khalid bin Walid fought with Romans and Muslims were with him. They spent the winter season there and Basr bin Abi Artat was also there.
Online Link
The 5th attack was done in 46th Hijri year under the command of Abdul Rehman bin Khalif. They also spent winter season there. While some others said that name of the Commander was some thing else.
Reference: al-Badaya wa al-Nahaya, volume 8, page 73
The 6th attack was done under Malik bin Hubayrah (According to Sunnan Abud Dawud this was the time when Abdul Rehman bin Khalid bin Walid died)
And then the 7th attack was doe under the command of Sufyan bin Auf in 49th Hijri. They attacked Constantinople 3 times till Yazid was sent there by force.
So, this is the short history of attacks upon Constantinople before Yazid. Therefore, the Syrian fabricator of this Hadith was Jahil and didn't know the history that Muslims had already attack Constantinople 7 times before Yazid was forcefully sent there.
That is why one still need Aql (brain) and 'Ilm (knowledge) before telling a lie. The Syrian Fabricators of this Hadith didn't got even 'Aql or 'Ilm.
May Allah send his blessings upon Muhammad & his progeny. Amin.​

​

 

[dukelondon]

Zakir Naik is a scar on the face of Islam. Bloody Liar and hypocrite. Zakir Naik and his followers will get an eternal place with their beloved Yazid.

 

[mehwish_ali]

Zakir Naik is a scar on the face of Islam. Bloody Liar and hypocrite. Zakir Naik and his followers will get an eternal place with their beloved Yazid.

Dear brother,

I don't think this is going to serve much the cause of Islam. We have presented the Facts with Proofs and I am hopeful this will bring much better Results for cause of Islam and many people would be able to find the Truth. Insha-Allah.

 

[Malik495]

Always quote Raziallaho ta'ala anhu with the name of Hazrat Ameer Muaviyah (R.A) and all other Sahaba-e-kiram(Rizwanullah ilayhim ajmaeen)....

 

[mehwish_ali]

Always quote Raziallaho ta'ala anhu with the name of Hazrat Ameer Muaviyah (R.A) and all other Sahaba-e-kiram(Rizwanullah ilayhim ajmaeen)....

Malik Bhai,

I am afraid it will become the "Misguided Bidah" (Bidah-e-Saiyyah) when you compel others to write "Radhi Allaho Anhu" after the names of Sahaba Karam.

You must know that:

1) No where in Quran Allah has ordered the later coming Muslim Generations to always say "Radhi Allaho Anho" when ever names of Sahaba Karam are mentioned.

2) No where in Hadith Literature we find that Rasool (saw) has ordered later coming Musim Generations to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" after names of Sahaba Karam.

3) Neither Sahaba, nor Tabaeen used to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" after names of Sahaba.

4) Our Earlier written Books by earlier Salaf Ulama of first few Centuries didn't write any "Radhi Allaho Anho" after the names of Sahaba Karam.


But this is a newly Invented Custom by the later coming Muslim Generations who started using to say "Radhi Allaho Anho" after names of Sahaba Karam.

This Newly Invented Custom of "Radhi Allaho Anho" was basically a "Good Bidah" (Bidah-e-Hasana) to pray for the Pious Elders and Allah gives rewards for the good intentions.

Nevertheless, when any one says one "MUST" say it after names of Sahaba, then this would become making SHARIA at his own and will become absolutely the "Misguided Bidah". Keep every thing at it's place and don't transgress. If some one uses it, then it is good. But if some one doesn't use it, then don't make it Obligatory for others to do it.

Hopefully you get the message. Insha-Allah.

 

[Pakistani1947]

Mr Dear Mahwish_Ali,

Wouldn't it be better if you had spend so much time and energy to pray and forgiveness of somebody instead of cursing somebody. I can't understand someone have some much hatred for a person that they would start defame a person just because that person asked Allah's forgiveness for somebody.

What a shame! There are Muslims who do not hesitate to defame scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik. The real problem is Jahil Ulema and their blind followers. The blind followers do not bother to use their own brain to seek the truth. These Jahil Ulema will not be able save you on the day of judgment. It is your Aamal (اعمال) who will save you. These Jahil Ulemas will be more worried about themselves on the day of judgment.

Dr. Zakir Naik is a Scholar of comparative religion. Hundreds of non-Muslim have accepted Islam after listening to his lectures. Non of us can compare himself with Dr. Zakir Naik's efforts toward preaching of Islam and his command in Qur'aan and Sunnah and other religions.

Dr. Zakir said "Yazeed (May Allah pleased with him)" , it had been a very disputed matter and scholars since centuries have different opinions. Assuming he was wrong, even then you can not declare him Kafir. You do not become Kafir by praying for somebody. He was not cursing anybody like some of our Muslims do, he was just praying to Allah for somebody's forgiveness.

In your opinion who is better (i) the one who asks Allah for somebody's forgiveness (ii) or the one who curse (لعنت) somebody?

Umm-al-mu'minīn Aisha bint Abu Bakr was the last wife of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). She is thus often referred to by the title "Mother of the Believers" أمّ المؤمنين umm-al-mu'minīn), per the description of Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) wives as "Mothers of Believers" in the Qur'an (33.6). Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA), was Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) cousin and son-in-law. In the battle of Bassorah, Ummul Momeneen Ayesha's (RA) and Ali (RA)'s army were face to face. Thousand of Muslims were killed in that battle. Finally, Ali (RA) captured Aisha (RA) but declined to harm her. He sent her back to Medina under military escort. Should we curse any of them (nauzobillah). Definitely, NOT. Allah knows best.

Think about it keeping in mind that ONLY Allah is Hazir Nazir.

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ ۖ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ ۗ وَأُولُو الْأَرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَىٰ بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ إِلَّا أَن تَفْعَلُوا إِلَىٰ أَوْلِيَائِكُم مَّعْرُوفًا ۚ
كَانَ ذَ****ٰلِكَ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا
The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah..

نبی مسلمانو ں کے معاملہ میں ان سے بھی زيادہ دخل دینے کا حقدار ہے اور اس کی بیویاں ان کی مائیں ہیں اور رشتہ دار الله کی کتاب میں ایک دوسرے سے زیادہ تعلق رکھتے ہیں بہ نسبت دوسرے مومنین اور مہاجرین کے مگر یہ کہ تم اپنے دوستوں سے کچھ سلوک کرنا چاہو یہ بات لوح محفوظ میں لکھی ہوئی ہے​

Quraan (Al-Ahzab 33:6)

 

[mehwish_ali]

Mr Dear Mahwish_Ali,

Wouldn't it be better if you had spend so much time and energy to pray and forgiveness of somebody instead of cursing somebody. I can't understand someone have some much hatred for a person that they would start defame a person just because that person asked Allah's forgiveness for somebody.

What a shame! There are Muslims who do not hesitate to defame scholars like Dr. Zakir Naik. The real problem is Jahil Ulema and their blind followers. The blind followers do not bother to use their own brain to seek the truth. These Jahil Ulema will not be able save you on the day of judgment. It is your Aamal (اعمال) who will save you. These Jahil Ulemas will be more worried about themselves on the day of judgment.

Dr. Zakir Naik is a Scholar of comparative religion. Hundreds of non-Muslim have accepted Islam after listening to his lectures. Non of us can compare himself with Dr. Zakir Naik's efforts toward preaching of Islam and his command in Qur'aan and Sunnah and other religions.

Dr. Zakir said "Yazeed (May Allah pleased with him)" , it had been a very disputed matter and scholars since centuries have different opinions. Assuming he was wrong, even then you can not declare him Kafir. You do not become Kafir by praying for somebody. He was not cursing anybody like some of our Muslims do, he was just praying to Allah for somebody's forgiveness.

In your opinion who is better (i) the one who asks Allah for somebody's forgiveness (ii) or the one who curse (لعنت) somebody?

Umm-al-mu'minīn Aisha bint Abu Bakr was the last wife of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). She is thus often referred to by the title "Mother of the Believers" أمّ المؤمنين umm-al-mu'minīn), per the description of Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) wives as "Mothers of Believers" in the Qur'an (33.6). Ali ibn Abi Talib (RA), was Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) cousin and son-in-law. In the battle of Bassorah, Ummul Momeneen Ayesha's (RA) and Ali (RA)'s army were face to face. Thousand of Muslims were killed in that battle. Finally, Ali (RA) captured Aisha (RA) but declined to harm her. He sent her back to Medina under military escort. Should we curse any of them (nauzobillah). Definitely, NOT. Allah knows best.

Think about it keeping in mind that ONLY Allah is Hazir Nazir.

النَّبِيُّ أَوْلَىٰ بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ مِنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ ۖ وَأَزْوَاجُهُ أُمَّهَاتُهُمْ ۗ وَأُولُو الْأَرْحَامِ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلَىٰ بِبَعْضٍ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ مِنَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ وَالْمُهَاجِرِينَ إِلَّا أَن تَفْعَلُوا إِلَىٰ أَوْلِيَائِكُم مَّعْرُوفًا ۚ
كَانَ ذَ****ٰلِكَ فِي الْكِتَابِ مَسْطُورًا
The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah..

نبی مسلمانو ں کے معاملہ میں ان سے بھی زيادہ دخل دینے کا حقدار ہے اور اس کی بیویاں ان کی مائیں ہیں اور رشتہ دار الله کی کتاب میں ایک دوسرے سے زیادہ تعلق رکھتے ہیں بہ نسبت دوسرے مومنین اور مہاجرین کے مگر یہ کہ تم اپنے دوستوں سے کچھ سلوک کرنا چاہو یہ بات لوح محفوظ میں لکھی ہوئی ہے​

Quraan (Al-Ahzab 33:6)

First of all I really appreciate that you talk in descent manner. May Allah bless you. Amin.

Now please read my posts above and tell me where have I cursed Zakir Naik.

I do have problems with the above mentioned Bani Ummiyyah People who had hatred against Ali Ibn Abi Talib and they are Nasibies. I do have problems with people who have fabricated the Ahadith in favour of Bani Umiyyah Caliphs and they are indeed Nasibies.

As far as Zakir Naik is concerned, no where have I cursed him, but I have presented the FACTS and Realities along with DALAEEL and Proofs. And Allah (swt) also asks in Quran to bring your DALEEL if you are truthful.

And our topic here is not YAZID or making him a pious Sahabi or sending the DUA "Radhi Allaho Anho" after his name. But our Topic is the fabricated Hadith to elevate the Status of Caliphs of Bani Umiyyah and this is direct LIES upon Rasool Allah (saw).

As far as Yazid is concerned, then another thread could be open and there I will quote you the Quranic Verses how Allah is Himself Cursing the KILLERS in Quran and Promising that abode of such People is eternal Hell fire.

Here is the Promise of Allah:

"And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense shall be hell, he shall abide therein and God's wrath (Ghazibullaho) shall be on him and his curse (lanato), and is prepared for him a great torment" (al-Quran, Surah Nisa, v 93).
​

Yazid's Killings in the City of Rasool Allah (saw)

The head of Tableeghi Jama'at, Maulana Muhammad Zakaria writes in his book "Aujaz al Masalik":

"The army that Yazeed had sent to Medina comprised of 60,000 horsemen and 15,000 foot soldiers. For three days they shed blood freely, 1000 women were raped and 700 named Quraysh and Ansar were killed. Ten thousand women and children were made slaves. Muslim bin Uqba forced people to give bayya to Yazeed in such a manner that people were enslaved and Yazeed could sell them as he pleased, no Sahaba who were [with the Prophet (saws)] at Hudaibiya were spared".​

And Ibn Katheer in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1146. The events of 63 Hijri, stated:

"Yazeed committed a major sin by ordering Muslim bin Utbah to make Medina Mubah for three days. This was a most horrible mistake. Many Sahaba and their children were slaughtered. We have already mentioned that he had Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad kill the grandson of Rasulullah (s) Husayn and his companions and in those three days numerous heinous acts happened in Madina about which nobody knows except Allah. Yazeed wanted to secure his governance but Allah did against his wishes and punished him. Verily Allah killed him likewise Allah made grip over the oppressor's towns, no doubt His grip is painful and strict".​

Here is the Image of Ibn Kathir's work:

One who attacks Medina is cursed

Ibn Kathir writes in Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 Page 1147:

"Rasulullah (s) said whoever perpetuated injustice and frightened the residents of Medina, the curse (la'nat) of Allah (swt), His Angels and all people is on such a person"​

Just read it for yourself about those who make killings in Madina, the city of Rasool Allah (saw).

Ulama Cursing Yazid for these Crimes

Ok, I am running out of time at moment. But in next mail I will give the references of Ulama who cursed Yazid for his wrong doings, including:

1) Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal
2) Imam Abu Hanifa
3) Imam Malik
4) Imam Shafi'i

5) Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani
6) Hafidh Jalal ud Din Syuti
7) Allamah Alusi
8) Allamah Taftazani
9) Allahmah Shawkani
10) Ibn Jauzi

............ and a lot more.

At end, I am quoting only the statement of great Allamah Ibn Hajar al-Asqallani:

Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:

وأما المحبة فيه والرفع من شأنه فلا تقع إلا من مبتدع فاسد الاعتقاد فإنه كان فيه من الصفات ما يقتضي سلب الإيمان عمن يحبه لأن الحب في الله والبغض في الله من الإيمان والله المستعان

'Loving and glorifying him is not done except by a heretic who has void belief because he (Yazeed) had such characteristics that his lover deserves to be faithless, because to love and hate just in the sake of God is the sign of faith'​

Al-Emta bil al-Arbaeen, page 96

 

[highflier]

@mehwish

@mehwish
i would really love if you could send all the data you wrote here to the ULMAS who were against zakir naik so they can debate with him, may be they don't know this or u can urself call for a debate as u got so much knowledge:33:

 

[mehwish_ali]

@ Brother hiflyer:

I am absolutely not so much knowledgeable and all that is written, it has been achieved from Ulama who are already working upon it and spreading the truth. We could help this TRUTH too by sending it to all those whom we know. Insha-Allah.

Really, when the real facts are presented then I never hear an answer with DALEEL, but only lame excuses and complaints and all other kind of stuff including abusing etc.

 

[Bret Hawk]

@ Mehwish Ali

Your obsession to jump into the bandwagon of Yazid Ibn Muawiya’s hatred is understandable and no doubt that you have to tow the dogma of your sect here. First and foremost I have to mention here my intense love for Ahlul Bayt of Prophet PBUH and no doubt that the tragedy of Karbala evoke some strong emotions in my consciousness as well whenever I use to study the tragic events of that account through various sources. However it would be a miscarriage of justice here to blame the wrong person/s (Presumably by many Sunni and Oriental scholars of Islamic history) for that cruel massacre of the household of Prophet SAW. Lets have a look on some of the prime sources of material / literature from where the main accounts of the tragedy of Karbala has been traced for centuries;


Primary Sources


The primary sources of the battle of Karbala can be traced firstly from a Akhbari Shia historian Abi Mikhnaf (D.157 AH) in “Kitab Al Maqtal Al Hussain” and later the same titled book was authored by again a Shia historian Ahmad Ibn Atham (d.314 AH) Then two prominent Sunni scholars of history appear on the canvas Ibn Saad (d.230 AH) and Ahmad Ibn Yahya Al-Baladhuri (d.297 AH). One should keep in mind their death years and also the year of 61 AH when the battle of Karbala took place. Now having said that lets look at the authority of Abi Mikhnaf’s works in the eyes of the contemporary critics of Muslim history in this link;

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...d=0CCoQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Abu Mikhnaf&f=false


It would become obvious that how much authentic and reliable the accounts of Abi Mikhnaf were after having a glance on that scholarly piece of material. Needless to mention the merits of the subsequent secondary sources of those events that took place at Karbala in Muharram 61 AH by various other Muslim historians until the emergence of the giant Ibn Khaldun.(d.808 AH) to whom the modern world acknowledges him the father of modern social sciences including the academic field of historiography and its philosophy.


Long before Ibn Khaldun, his predecessors Imam Al Ghazali (d.505 AH) & Imam Ibn Taymmiya (d. 1328 C.E) also raised some grave objections on the objectivity and authenticity of the accounts of Karbala by many Islamic historians and labelled them nothing but a heap of rubbish. Therefore before you say anything against a Muslim you have to be cent percent sure that whether it is justified to slur that individual, in the light of objective investigation, for his presumed criminal acts. I don’t have to state this whole episode here in detail but rather it would be suffice to mention here that unless and until a comprehensive and un-repudiate proof of Yazid Ibn Muawiyaa’s alleged involvement in the murder of Imam Hussain RA and his blessed household is presented to the critics of Islamic history then it is not allowed and permissible to wrongly curse and lynch him. That’s the case of many Sunni scholars of Islam in the past and present and I hope you would reconsider your line of thinking after viewing the facts of the history in the mirror of objectivity and impartiality.

 

[mehwish_ali]

Bret Hawk brother,

سوال گندم اور جواب چنا؟؟

You are very unjust with us. Here the topic is not Karbala, but the LIE upon Rasool Allah (saw). We have discussed 2 things:

1) Nasibi Syrian Bani Ummiyyah supporter Thawr bin Yazid fabricating Hadith and telling a lie upon Rasool Allah (saw). This Thawr bin Yazid is the one who is filled with Hatred against Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

2) The incident of حرہ where Yazid killed thousands of Muslim Sahaba and Tabaeen in Madina, the beloved city of Rasool Allah (saw).

And about Karbala we have not discussed it yet (which I will do in separate thread after we are finished with present Topic).

Once again look at the Witness of Rasool Allah (saw) about 4th Rashid Caliph Ali Ibn Abi Talib:

Sahih Muslim,Book 001, Number 0141:
Zirr reported: 'Ali observed: By Him Who split up the seed and created something living, the Apostle (may peace and blessings be upon him) gave me a promise that no one but a believer would love me, and none but a hypocrite would nurse grudge against me​

And when Zakir Naik is believing in this Thawr bin Yazid (who is MUNAFIQ according to witness of Rasool Allah (saw)), then is it really our FAULT to bring the mistake of Zakir Naik in the light? Brother Hawk, you are unjust to us.

Some times it is better to simply accept the mistake and go further. Otherwise still sticking to the the MUNAFIQ Thawr bin Yazid is going to bring you no where except for brining you in near YAZID in his grave.

We all are Muslims, we all are Human beings, and we all could make mistakes. But acknowledging mistakes is the best way out. Unfortunately, neither Zakir Naik acknowledge his mistakes, nor his supporters have acknowledged it. More unfortunate thing is this that Zakir Naik started bringing the Sectarian Talk in his Speech. There may be extreme people on both sides, but if Zakir Naik is really an Alim, then he must avoid such cheap tactics.

 

[Bret Hawk]

I’ve never mentioned in my post that what you’ve posted in your thread about the fabricated Hadiths of First Naval Attack on Constantinople leaded by Yazid Ibn Muawiyya is factually incorrect. I admit and it’s proved to be wrong by non other than the giant historian of Islam Ibn Khaldun that Yazid was not in that first army of Muslims who attacked the capital of Byzantine. Coming back to my point in earlier post that in likewise manner there are also many fabricated accounts and statements from the members of your sect as well in slurring the names of great Sahaba RA Ajmayen and other upright Muslim figures who were happened to be on a collision course with your ancestors in the earliest epoch of Islamic history because of some great misunderstandings and conniving of the implicit and explicit antagonists of Muslim Ummah. Time will reveal who is unjust to whom in this highly controversial matters of our tainted history but all I’ll ask you to stay impartial and unbiased whilst analysing any historical event and account especially when it relates to the sensitive topics of Salaf As-Saleehin of Islam.

 

[syedzali]

zakir naik might be nasl e yazeed thats why......

dunya gol hai pakistan 1947 mein bana quaid e azam was founder america ko chalay jana chaahiy yazeed ghalat thaa hussain haq par thay these are some of the facts muslim and especially pakistani comunity have consensus aisay mein dr naik nay yeh shosha kyoon chora i don't have any idea the only thing come to my mind that he might be nasl e yazeed

 

[Pakistani1947]

Please see official reply by Dr. Zakir Naik on Karbala & Yazid, Now please stop defaming him. According to him, "My target is not small minority of Muslim sect, but the whole world, which includes non-Muslim.":

 

[Mujahid]

Jazzak Allah khir

 

[MKR_KAS]

may allah be pleased with you for posting such a nice clarification by Dr.Zakir Naik.