इमाम हुसैन का भारतप्रेम

यह एक सर्वमान्य सत्य है कि इतिहास को दोहराया नहीं जा सकता है और न बदलाया जा सकता है ,क्योंकि इतिहास कि घटनाएँ सदा के लिए अमिट हो जाती है .लेकिन यह भी सत्य है कि विज्ञान कि तरह इतिहास भी एक शोध का विषय होता है .क्योंकि इतिहास के पन्नों में कई ऐसे तथ्य दबे रह जाते हैं ,जिनके बारे में काफी समय के बाद पता चलता है .ऐसी ही एक ऐतिहासिक घटना हजरत इमाम हुसैन के बारे में है वैसे तो सब जानते हैं कि इमाम हुसैन मुहम्मद साहिब के छोटे नवासे ,हहरत अली और फातिमा के पुत्र थे .और किसी परिचय के मुहताज नहीं हैं ,उनकी शहादत के बारे में हजारों किताबें मिल जाएँगी .काफी समय से मेरे एक प्रिय मुस्लिम मित्र हजरत इमाम के बारे में कुछ लिखने का आग्रह कर रहे थे ,तभी मुझे अपने निजी पुस्तक संग्रह में एक उर्दू पुस्तक “हमारे हैं हुसैन “ की याद आगई ,जो सन 1960 यानि मुहर्रम 1381 हि० को इमामिया मिशन लखनौउसे प्रकाशित हुई थी .इसकी प्रकाशन संख्या 351 और लेखक “सय्यद इब्न हुसैन नकवी ” है .इसी पुस्तक के पेज 11 से 13 तक से कुछ अंश लेकर ,उर्दू से नकवी जी के शब्दों को ज्यों का त्यों दिया जा रहा , जिस से पता चलता है कि इमाम हुसैन ने भारत आने क़ी इच्छा प्रकट क़ी थी (.फिर इसके कारण संक्षिप्त में और सबूत के लिए उपलब्ध साइटों के लिंक भी दिए जा रहे हैं .)

 1-इमाम क़ी भारत आने क़ी इच्छा 
नकवी जी ने लिखा है “हजरत इमाम हुसैन दुनियाए इंसानियत में मुहसिने आजम हैं,उन्होंने तेरह सौ साल पहले अपनी खुश्क जुबान से ,जो तिन रोज से बगैर पानी में तड़प रही थी ,अपने पुर नूर दहन से से इब्ने साद से कहा था “अगर तू मेरे दीगर शरायत को तस्लीम न करे तो , कम अज कम मुझे इस बात की इजाजत दे दे ,कि मैं ईराक छोड़कर हिंदुस्तान चला जाऊं”
नकवी आगे लिखते हैं ,”अब यह बात कहने कि जरुरत नहीं है कि ,जिस वक्त इमाम हुसैन ने हिंदुस्तान तशरीफ लाने की तमन्ना का इजहार किया था ,उस वक्त न तो हिंदुस्तान में कोई मस्जिद थी ,और न हिंदुस्तान में मुसलमान आबाद थे .गौर करने की बात यह है कि,इमाम हुसैन को हिंदुस्तान की हवाओं में मुहब्बत की कौन सी खुशबु महसूस हुई थी ,कि उन्होंने यह नहीं कहा कि मुझे चीन जाने दो ,या मुझे ईरान कि तरफ कूच करने दो ..उन्होंने खुसूसियत से सिर्फ हिंदुस्तान कोही याद किया था 
गालिबन यह माना जाता है कि हजरत इमाम हुसैन के बारे में हिन्दुस्तान में खबर देने वाला शाह तैमुर था .लेकिन तारीख से इंकार करना नामुमकिन है .इसलिए कहना ही पड़ता है कि इस से बहुत पहले ही ” हुसैनी ब्राह्मण “इमाम हुसैन के मसायब बयाँ करके रोया करते थे .और आज भी हिंदुस्तान में उनकी कोई कमी नहीं है .यही नहीं जयपुर के कुतुबखाने में वह ख़त भी मौजूद है जो ,जैनुल अबिदीन कि तरफ से हिन्दुतान रवाना किया गया था .
इमाम हुसैन ने जैसा कहा था कि ,मुझे हिंदुस्तान जाने दो ,अगर वह भारत की जमीन पर तशरीफ ले आते तो ,हम कह नहीं सकते कि उस वक्त कि हिन्दू कौम उनकी क्या खिदमत करती”
2-इमाम हुसैन की भारत में रिश्तेदारी 
इस्लाम से काफी पहले से ही भारत ,इरान ,और अरब में व्यापार होता रहता था .इस्लाम के आने से ठीक पहले इरान में सासानी खानदान के 29 वें और अंतिम आर्य सम्राट “यज्देगर्द (590 ई ) की हुकूमत थी .उस समय ईरान के लोग भारत की तरह अग्नि में यज्ञ करते थे .इसी लिए “यज्देगर्द” को संस्कृत में यज्ञ कर्ता भी कहते थे .
प्रसिद्ध इतिहासकार राज कुमार अस्थाना ने अपने शोधग्रंथ “Ancient India ” में लिखा है कि सम्राट यज्देगर्द की तीन पुत्रियाँ थी ,जिनके नाम मेहर बानो , शेहर बानो , और किश्वर बानो थे .यज्देगर्द ने अपनी बड़ी पुत्री की शादी भारत के राजा चन्द्रगुप्त द्वितीय से करावा दी थी .जिसकी राजधानी उज्जैन थी ..और राजा के सेनापति का नाम भूरिया दत्त था .जिसका एक भाई रिखब दत्त व्यापर करता था . .यह लोग कृपा चार्य के वंशज कहाए जाते हैं .चन्द्रगुप्त ने मेहर बानो का नाम चंद्रलेखा रख दिया था .क्योंकि मेहर का अर्थ चन्द्रमा होता है ..राजाके मेहर बानो से एक पुत्र समुद्रगुप्त पैदा हुआ .यह सारी घटनाएँ छटवीं शताब्दी की हैं
. यज्देगर्द ने दूसरी पुत्री शेहर बानो की शादी इमाम हुसैन से करवाई थी . और उस से जो पुत्र हुआ था उसका नाम “जैनुल आबिदीन “ रखा गया .इस तरह समुद्रगुप्त और जैनुल अबिदीन मौसेरे भाई थे .इस बात की पुष्टि “अब्दुल लतीफ़ बगदादी (1162 -1231 ) ने अपनी किताब “तुहफतुल अलबाब ” में भी की है .और जिसका हवाला शिशिर कुमार मित्र ने अपनी किताब “Vision of India ” में भी किया है .
3-अत्याचारी यजीद का राज 
इमाम हुसैन के पिता हजरत अली चौथे खलीफा थे . और उस समय वह इराक के शहर कूफा में रहते थे . हजरत prm अली सभी प्रकार के लोगों से प्रेमपूर्वक वर्ताव करते थे . उन के कल में कुछ हिन्दू भी वहां रहते थे .लेकिन किसी पर भी इस्लाम कबूल करने पर दबाव नहीं डाला जाता था .ऐसा एक परिवार रिखब दत्त का था जो इराक के एक छोटे से गाँव में रहता था ,जिसे अल हिंदिया कहा जाता है . जब सन 681 में हजरत अली का निधन हो गया तो , मुआविया बिन अबू सुफ़यान खलीफा बना . वह बहुत कम समय तक रहा .फउसके बाद उसका लड़का यजीद सन 682 में खलीफा बन गया . यजीद एक अय्याश , अत्याचारी . व्यक्ति था .वह सारी सत्ता अपने हाथों में रखना चाहता था .इसलिए उसने सूबों के सभी अधिकारीयों को पत्र भेजा और उनसे अपने समर्थन में बैयत ( oth of allegience ) देने पर दबाव दिया .कुछ लोगों ने डर या लालच के कारण यजीद का समर्थन कर दिया . लेकिन इमाम हुसैन ने बैयत करने से साफ मना कर दिया .यजीद को आशंका थी कि यदि इमाम हुसैन भी बैयत नहीं करेंगे तो उसके लोग भी इमाम के पक्ष में हो जायेंगे .यजीद तो युद्ध कि तय्यारी करके बैठा था .लेकिन इमाम हुसैन युद्ध को टालना चाहते थे ,यह हालत देखकर शहर बानो ने अपने पुत्र जैनुल अबिदीन के नाम से एक पत्र उज्जैन के राजा चन्द्रगुप्त को भिजवा दिया था .जो आज भी जयपुर महाराजा के संग्राहलय में मौजूद है .बरसों तक यह पत्र ऐसे ही दबा रहा ,फिर एक अंगरेज अफसर Sir Thomas Durebrught ने 26 फरवरी 1809 को इसे खोज लिया और पढ़वाया ,और राजा को दिया , जब यह पत्र सन 1813 में प्रकाशित हुआ तो सबको पता चल गया . 
उस समय उज्जैन के राजा ने करीब 5000 सैनिकों के साथ अपने सेनापति भूरिया दत्त को मदीना कि तरफ रवाना कर दिया था .लेकिन इमाम हसन तब तक अपने परिवार के 72 लोगों के साथ कूफा कि तरफ निकल चुके थे ,जैनुल अबिदीन उस समय काफी बीमार था ,इसलिए उसे एक गुलाम के पास देखरेख के लिए छोड़ दिया था .भूरिया दत्त ने सपने भी नहीं सोचा होगा कि इमाम हुसैन अपने साथ ऐसे लोगों को लेकर कुफा जायेंगे जिन में औरतें , बूढ़े और दुधापीते बच्चे भी होंगे .उसने यह भी नहीं सोचा होगा कि मुसलमान जिस रसूल के नाम का कलमा पढ़ते हैं उसी के नवासे को परिवार सहित निर्दयता से क़त्ल कर देंगे .और यजीद इतना नीच काम करेगा . वह तो युद्ध की योजना बनाकर आया था . तभी रस्ते में ही खबर मिली कि इमाम हुसैन का क़त्ल हो गया . यह घटना 10 अक्टूबर 680 यानि 10 मुहर्रम 61 हिजरी की है .यह हृदय विदारक खबर पता चलते ही वहां के सभी हिन्दू( जिनको आजकल हुसैनी ब्राहमण कहते है ) मुख़्तार सकफी के साथ इमाम हुसैन के क़त्ल का बदला लेने को युद्ध में शामिल हो गए थे .इस घटना के बारे में “हकीम महमूद गिलानी” ने अपनी पुस्तक “आलिया ” में विस्तार से लिखा है 
4-रिखब दत्त का महान बलिदान 
कर्बला की घटना को युद्ध कहना ठीक नहीं होगा ,एक तरफ तिन दिनों के प्यासे इमाम हुसैन के साथी और दूसरी तरफ हजारों की फ़ौज थी ,जिसने क्रूरता और अत्याचार की सभी सीमाएं पर कर दी थीं ,यहाँ तक इमाम हुसैन का छोटा बच्चा जो प्यास के मारे तड़प रहा था , जब उसको पानी पिलाने इमाम नदी के पास गए तो हुरामुला नामके सैनिक ने उस बच्चे अली असगर के गले पर ऐसा तीर मारा जो गले के पार हो गया . इसी तरह एक एक करके इमाम के साथी शहीद होते गए .
और अंत में शिम्र नामके व्यक्ति ने इमाम हुसैन का सी काट कर उनको शहीद कर दिया , शिम्र बनू उमैय्या का कमांडर था . उसका पूरा नाम “Shimr Ibn Thil-Jawshan Ibn Rabiah Al Kalbi (also called Al Kilabi (Arabic: شمر بن ذي الجوشن بن ربيعة الكلبي) था. यजीद के सैनिक इमाम हुसैन के शरीर को मैदान में छोड़कर चले गए थे .तब रिखब दत्त ने इमाम के शीश को अपने पास छुपा लिया था .यूरोपी इतिहासकार रिखब दत्त के पुत्रों के नाम इसप्रकार बताते हैं ,1सहस राय ,2हर जस राय 3,शेर राय ,4राम सिंह ,5राय पुन ,6गभरा और7 पुन्ना .बाद में जब यजीद को पता चला तो उसके लोग इमाम हुसैन का सर खोजने लगे कि यजीद को दिखा कर इनाम हासिल कर सकें . जब रिखब दत्त ने शीश का पता नहीं दिया तो यजीद के सैनिक एक एक करके रिखब दत्त के पुत्रों से सर काटने लगे ,फिर भी रिखब दत्त ने पता नहीं दिया .सिर्फ एक लड़का बच पाया था . जब बाद में मुख़्तार ने इमाम के क़त्ल का बदला ले लिया था तब विधि पूर्वक इमाम के सर को दफनाया गया था .यह पूरी घटना पहली बार कानपुर में छपी थी .story had first appeared in a journal (Annual Hussein Report, 1989) printed from Kanpur (UP) .The article ”Grandson of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH

रिखब दत्त के इस बलिदान के कारण उसे सुल्तान की उपाधि दी गयी थी .और उसके बारे में “जंग नामा इमाम हुसैन ” के पेज 122 में यह लिखा हुआ है ,”वाह दत्त सुल्तान ,हिन्दू का धर्म मुसलमान का इमान,आज भी रिखब दत्त के वंशज भारत के अलावा इराक और कुवैत में भी रहते हैं ,और इराक में जिस जगह यह लोग रहते है उस जगह को आज भी हिंदिया कहते हैं यह विकी पीडिया से साबित है 
Al-Hindiya or Hindiya (Arabic: الهندية‎) is a city in Iraq on the Euphrates River. Nouri al Maliki went to school there in his younger days. Al-Hindiya is located in the Kerbala Governorate. The city used to be known as Tuwairij (Arabic: طويريج‎), which gives name to the “Tuwairij run” (Arabic: ركضة طويريج‎) that takes place here every year as part of the Mourning of Muharram on the Day of Ashura.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindiya

तबसे आजतक यह हुसैनी ब्राह्मण इमाम हुसैन के दुखों को याद करके मातम मनाते हैं .लोग कहते हैं कि इनके गलों में कटने का कुदरती निशान होता है .यही उनकी निशानी है .
5-सारांश और अभिप्राय 
यद्यपि मैं इतिहास का विद्वान् नहीं हूँ ,और इमाम हुसैन और उनकी शहादत के बारे में हजारों किताबे लिखी जा सकती हैं ,चूँकि मुझे इस विषय पर लिखने का आग्रह मेरे एक दोस्त ने किया था ,इसलिए उपलब्ध सामग्री से संक्षिप्त में एक लेख बना दिया था , मेरा उदेश्य उन कट्टर लोगों को समझाने का है ,कि जब इमाम हुसैन कि नजर में भारत एक शांतिप्रिय देश है ,तो यहाँ आतंक फैलाकर इमाम की आत्मा को कष्ट क्यों दे रहे हैं .भारत के लोग सदा से ही अन्याय और हिंसा के विरोधी और सत्य के समर्थक रहे हैं .इसी लिए अजमेर की दरगाह के दरवाजे पार लिखा है ,
“शाहास्त हुसैन बदशाहस्त हुसैन ,दीनस्त हुसैन दीं पनाहस्त हुसैन 
सर दाद नादाद दस्त दर दस्ते यजीद ,हक्का कि बिनाये ला इलाहस्त हुसैन “
इतिहास गवाह है कि अत्याचार से सत्य का मुंह बंद नहीं हो सकता है ,वह दोगुनी ताकत से प्रकट हो जाता है ,जैसे कि ,
” कत्ले हुसैन असल में मर्गे यजीद है “
6-संदर्भित किताबें और साइटें
अपने लेख को प्रमाणित करने के लिए यह सूचि दी जा रही है , ताकि लोग भी विस्तार से जान सकें और सच्चाई को स्वीकार करें
1-Brahmis followers of Imaam  Hussain
http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-31May04-Print-Edition/1605200441.htm

2-Brahmins Fought for Imam Hussain in the Battle of Karbala

http://smma59.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/brahmins-fought-for-imam-hussain-in-the-battle-of-karbala/


3-The Hindu Devotees of Imam Hussain (A.S.)
http://smma59.wordpress.com/2006/09/05/the-hindu-devotees-of-imam-hussain-as-2/
4-Relation of Imam Hussain with Indiaહજરત ઇમામ હુસેનના ભારત સાથેના સંબંધો
http://hi.shvoong.com/humanities/religion-studies/1909198-relation-imam-hussain-india/
5-The Story of Imam Hussein
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/Imam%20Hussein/Imam%20Hussein.html
6-Relationship  of Imam Husain  with India 
http://www.balawaristan.net/Documents/relationship-of-different-religions.html
7-Azadaar e Husain

http://alqaim.info/?p=1417


8-Hindus in Iraq

http://www.qatarliving.com/node/12239
9-Mohyal history
http://www.mohyal.com/index.php/general-mohyal-sabha/mohyal-history
10-Hussaini Brahmin 
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2008-01-21/patna/27750686_1_muharram-procession-hazrat-imam-hussain-month-of-islamic-calendar
11-JANG NAMA IMAM HUSSAIN
جنگ نامہ امام حسین
Auther Name : Dr.Qureshi Ahmed Hussain Ailadri
First Edition : 2001-Rs.150.00
http://www.punjabiadbiboard.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=5&products_id=26

मुझे पूरा विश्वास है कि इतने सबूतों के देखने के बाद लोग हिंसा का रास्ता छोडके मानवता और इमाम हुसैन के प्रिय भारत देश की सेवा जरुर करेंगे 

http://www.shiaforums.com/vb/f25/hindu-followers-muslim-imam-imam-hussain-s-9251/

शहादत इमाम हुसैन मानव इतिहास की बहुत बड़ी त्रासदी

प्रोफेसर अख्तरुल वासे

22 नवंबर, 2012

(उर्दू से अनुवाद- समीउर रहमान, न्यु एज इस्लाम)

मोहर्रम का महीना इस्लामी महीनों में कई मायनों में बहुत अहम है। इतिहास की बहुत सी अहम घटनाएं इसी महीने में हुई हैं। लेकिन दो घटनाएं ऐसी हैं जो इस महीने के विचार से बुनियादी स्तर पर जुड़ी हैं: लोग रसूलुल्लाह सल्लल्लाहू अलैहि वसल्लम के मदीना हिजरत और रसूलुल्लाह के दूसरे नवासे हज़रत हुसैन रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू की कर्बला में शहादत। हिजरत की घटना भी दुश्मनों से इस्लाम की रक्षा के लिए सामने आयी और कर्बला की घटना भी इस्लाम और इस्लामी व्यवस्था के कमज़ोर होने को जीवंत करने के लिए सच का साथ देने वालों के द्वारा उठाये गये क़दम के नतीजे में सामने आयी, इस प्रकार इन दोनों घटनाएं तर्क संगत पाई जाती हैं।

कर्बला की घटना न केवल इस्लामी बल्कि मानव इतिहास की एक बहुत बड़ी त्रासदी है। यही वजह है कि आज लगभग चौदह सौ साल गुज़रने के बावजूद ये घटना लोगों के मन में इस तरह ताज़ा है जैसे ये बस कल की बात है। मानव इतिहास की बहुत सी ऐसे घटनाएं हैं जो इंसानो के अक़्ल और ज़मीर को झिंझोड़  कर रख दिया। जो उसकी याददाश्त के अनमोल और अमिट हिस्सा बनकर रह गए। हजरत हुसैन बिन अली रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू की शहादत की ये घटना ऐसा ही है। ऐसी घटनाएं चाहे कितने ही दर्दनाक और दिल को दुखाने वाले ही क्यों न हों लेकिन वास्तविकता ये है कि वो ब्रह्मांड में खुदा की जारी सुन्नत और फितरत (प्रकृति) के तकाज़े के बिल्कुल मुताबिक होते हैं। अल्लाह की बनाई हुई प्राकृतिक व्यवस्था ये है कि जब भी उसके दीन को कोई खतरा होता है, अल्लाह किसी महान और पवित्र बंदे को दीन के मजबूत क़िले की सुरक्षा के लिए भेज देता है और उसके द्वारा उसकी रक्षा का काम अंजाम देता है।

एक हदीस में जो सुनन अबु दाऊद में शामिल है, बताया गया है कि अल्लाह ताला हर सदी के सिरे पर धर्म को अद्यतन करने और उसकी रक्षा के लिए किसी महान व्यक्ति को चुनता है। ये सिलसिला क़यामत तक बाक़ी रहेगा। हज़रत हुसैन रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू की गिनती इस्लाम धर्म की उन कुछ महान हस्तियों में होता है जिन्होंने अपने खून से इस्लाम के पौधे को सींचा और उसकी रक्षा  करने को अपना पहला कर्तव्य माना और हक़ीकत ये है कि क़यामत तक के लिए इस्लाम के किले की रक्षा के लिए अपनी जान को न्योछावर कर डालने की एक बेनज़ीर परंपरा स्थापित की।

हक़ीकत ये है कि दुनिया की कोई ऐसी क़ौम नहीं है जिसने इस घटना से प्रेरणा और आध्यात्मिक सीख न हासिल की हो और उसके विचारों और दृष्टिकोणों पर इसका कोई असर न पड़ा हो। महात्मा गांधी कहते हैं किः मैंने इस्लाम के शहीदे आज़म इमाम हुसैन के जीवन का अध्ययन किया है और कर्बला की घटनाओं पर मैंने विचार किया है। इन घटनाओं को पढ़कर मुझे ये स्पष्ट हुआ कि अगर हिंदुस्तान अज़ादी चाहता है तो उसे हज़रत हुसैन की शैली और चरित्र का पालन करना पड़ेगा।”

 

इस्लामी इतिहास में इस बात पर विद्वान लोग सहमत हैं कि रसूलुल्लाह सल्लल्लाहू अलैहि वसल्लम के नवासे की इस शहादत ने इस्लाम की रगों में ताज़ा खून को दौड़ाने में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाई। चारों खलीफा के समय के बाद इस्लामी राजनीतिक व्यवस्था जिस फसाद और बिगाड़ का शिकार हुआ। इस्लाम की सामूहिक व राजनीतिक आत्मा इस फसाद से हमेशा परहेज़ करती रही है। लेकिन इतिहास गवाह है कि सत्तावादी होने मिजाज़ किसी भी सिद्धांत और विचारधारा का पाबंद नहीं होता। इस सत्ता और शक्ति की चाहत ने जब इस बात की कोशिश की कि इस्लामी सिद्धांतों की अपनी मनमानी व्याख्या करे, इस्लामी व्यवस्था को उसके असल रुख से मोड़ दे तो हज़रत हुसैन रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू ने उम्मत की तरफ से अपना कर्तव्य समझकर इस व्यवस्था की रक्षा में अपनी कीमती जान कुर्बान कर दी। इस तरह शहादत हुसैन रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू सत्य के लिए आखरी हद तक खुद को लुटा देने और न्योछावर कर देने के ऐतिहासिक प्रतीक बन गये। उम्मत का शहीदे आज़म इस बात में यक़ीन रखता है कि हुसैन का क़त्ल वास्तव में यज़ीद की ही मौत है और ये कि इस्लाम की ज़िंदगी कर्बला जैसी घटनाओं में ही छिपी हैः

क़त्ल हुसैन असल में मरगे यज़ीद है

इस्लाम ज़िंदा होता है हर कर्बला के बाद

इसलिए हुसैनी रूह और जज़्बा, उम्मत में हमेशा बरकरार रहा। जब भी इस्लाम के कलमे को ऊंचा करने और सबसे बड़े जिहाद (सबसे बड़ा जिहाद ज़ालिम शासक के सामने कलमए हक़ को बुलंद करना है) के तहत वक़्त की जाबिर ताक़तों के खिलाफ मुकाबला करने की ज़रूरत आई, हुसैनी जज़्बे से भरपूर उम्मत की रक्षा करने वालों ने कभी इससे पीछे नहीं हटे। इसी शहादत की भावना की विरासत को संभाले हुए फ़िलिस्तीन के पीड़ितों ने आधी सदी से अधिक समय से अपने सीनों पर गोलियां खा रहे हैं। ज़ालिम व निर्मम यहूदी शक्तियां उनके अस्तित्व का एक एक कतरा निचोड़ लेने के लिए आमादा हैं लेकिन वो अपना सिर झुकाने और मैदान से पीछे हट जाने के लिए तैयार नहीं हैं। अभी पिछले दिनों आलम अरब दुनिया में जो महान क्रांति हुई और जिसने तानाशाहों की सरकारों के तख्ते पलट दिए और शोषण करने वालों और निरंकुशों के बीच बिखराव पैदा कर दिया, जिसकी गूंज और धमक विभिन्न देशों में अब भी सुनाई दे रही थी, निस्संदेह इस के पीछे यही हुसैनी भावना काम कर रही है। इस समय इस बात की भी कोशिश हो रही है कि कर्बला में हज़रत हुसैन रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू की शहादत को नये अर्थ दिये जायें और इसे ऐसे ऐसे अर्थ पहनाए जायें जिससे इस महान घटना के असल महत्व और उपादेयता बाक़ी न रहे। ये निस्संदेह अस्लाफ इकराम के नज़रिए और मसलक और उम्मत की सामूहिक अंतरात्मा से संघर्षरत है। उसे कभी भी उम्मेत का शहीदे आज़म कुबूल और बर्दाश्त नहीं कर सकता। शहादत इमाम हुसैन के सम्बंध में किसी बहस की नई बिसात बिछाने की जरूरत महसूस नहीं होती। बल्कि मेरी नज़र में ये बिल्कुल बकवास है। अलबत्ता, अल्लामा इब्ने तैमिया ने अपने फतवा में हज़रत हुसैन रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू की शहादत पर जो कुछ लिखा है वो यहाँ पेश कर देना मुनासिब होगा:

” जिन लोगों ने हज़रत हुसैन का क़त्ल किया या उसका समर्थन किया या उससे सहमत हुआ, उस पर अल्लाह की, मलाइका की और तमाम लोगों की लानत, अल्लाह ताला ने हज़रत हुसैन को इस दिन (यौमे आशूरा) शहादत से सरफ़राज़ किया और इसके ज़रिए उन लोगों को जिन्होंने उन्हें क़त्ल किया था या उनके क़त्ल में मदद की थी या इससे सहमत हुए थे, उन्हें इसके ज़रिए ज़लील (अपमानित) किया। उनकी ये शहादत इस्लाम के पहले के शहीदों की पैरवी में थी। वो और उनके भाई जन्नत में जाने वाले नौजवानों के सरदार हैं। दरअसल हिजरत, जिहाद और सब्र का वो हिस्सा उनको नहीं मिल सका था जो उनके अहले बैत को हासिल था। इसलिए अल्लाह ने उनकी इज़्ज़त व करामत को पूरा करने के लिए उन्हें शहादत से सरफ़राज़ किया। उनका क़त्ल उम्मत के लिए एक बड़ी मुसीबत थी और अल्लाह ताला ने बताया कि मुसीबत के वक्त इन्ना लिल्लाहे वइन्ना एलैहि राजेऊन पढ़ा जाए। कुरान कहता है: सब्र करने वालों को खुश खबरी सुना दो। जब उनको कोई मुसीबत पेश आती है तो वो कहते हैं कि हम अल्लाह के लिए हैं और हमें अल्लाह की तरफ़ ही लौटना है। अल्लाह की उन पर नवाज़िशें और रहमतें हैं और यही लोग हिदायत याफ्ता हैं।” (फतावा इब्ने तैमिया जिल्द 4 , सफ्हा- 4835)

सल्फ़ सालेहीन के इससे मिलते जुलते बहुत से बयान हैं। जिनका अध्ययन इस विषय पर लिखी गई किताबों में किया जा सकता है। ये अंश इसलिए दिया गया है कि जो लोग इस दृष्टिकोण से हटकर सोचते हैं उन्हें अपने दृष्टिकोण की समीक्षा करनी चाहिए। विशेष रूप से अल्लामा इब्ने तैमिया का दृष्टिकोण ऐसे लोगों की ज़बानों को बंद कर देने के लिए काफी है।

बहरहाल इतिहास में शहादत की घटनाएं हमेशा पेश आती रही हैं और पेश आती रहेंगी, लेकिन हज़रत हुसैन रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू की शहादत की घटना के कई पहलुओं से अपने अंदाज़ में अद्वितीय घटना है। रसूलुल्लाह स.अ.व. का नवासा जिसे रसूलुल्लाह स.अ.व. की पीठ पर सवारी का सौभाग्य प्राप्त हो, जिसके होंठों को रसूलुल्लाह स.अ.व. ने चूमा हो जिसे रसूलुल्लाह स.अ.व. ने जन्नत के लोगों का सरदार ठहराया हो, उसे अहयाए (पुनर्जीवन) इस्लाम के जुर्म में बहुत बेदर्दी और सफ्फ़ाकी से क़त्ल कर दी जाए। इस अत्याचार और बर्बर व्यवहार पर ज़मीन और आस्मान जितना भी मातम करें कम है। हज़रत हुसैन रज़ियल्लाहू अन्हू की शहादत की घटना को उम्मत कभी भुला नहीं सकती। वो उसके मन और आत्मा का हिस्सा बन चुका है। कर्बला की घटना अपनी सभी पीड़ाओं के साथ इस्लाम और उम्मते इस्लाम की रक्षा के लिए समर्पण और बलिदान की प्रेरणा देता रहेगा।

प्रोफेसर अख्तरुल वासे, ज़ाकिर हुसैन इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ इस्लामिक साइंसेज़, जामिया मिल्लिया इस्लामिया, नई दिल्ली, के प्रमुख हैं।

22 नवंबर, 2012,  स्रोत: इंक़लाब, नई दिल्ली

URL for Urdu article:

http://www.newageislam.com/urdu-section/prof.-akhtarul-wasey-پروفیسر-اختر-الواسع/martyrdom-of-imam-hussain-the-greatest-great-human-tragedyشہادت-امام-حسین-تاریخ-انسانی-کا-بہت-بڑا-المیہ/d/9397

URL for this article:

http://www.newageislam.com/hindi-section/प्रोफेसर-अख्तरुल-वासे-(अनुवाद–न्यु-एज-इस्लाम)/martyrdom-of-imam-hussain-the-greatest-great-human-tragedy-शहादत-इमाम-हुसैन-मानव-इतिहास-की-बहुत-बड़ी-त्रासदी/d/9398

हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम का जीवन परिचय

माता पिता

हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम के पिता हज़रत इमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम व आपकी माता हज़रत फ़तिमा ज़हरा सलामुल्लाह अलैहा हैं। आप अपने माता पिता की द्वितीय सन्तान थे।

जन्म तिथि व जन्म स्थान

हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम का जन्म सन् चार (4) हिजरी क़मरी में शाबान मास की तीसरी (3) तिथि को पवित्र शहर मदीनेमें हुआ था।

नाम करण

आप के जन्म के बाद हज़रत पैगम्बर(स.) ने आपका नाम हुसैन रखा। तथा आपके माथे पर चुम्बन कर के कहा कि तेरे सम्मुख एक महान् विपत्ति है। अल्लाह तेरी हत्या करने वाले पर लानत करे।

उपाधियां

हज़रत इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम की मुख्य उपाधियां मिस्बाहुल हुदा, सैय्यिदुश शोहदा, अबु अबदुल्लाह व सफ़ीनातुन निजात है।

पालन पोषण

इतिहासकार मसूदी ने उल्लेख किया है कि इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम छः वर्ष की आयु तक हज़रत पैगम्बर(स.) के साथ रहे। तथा इस समय सीमा में  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम को सदाचार सिखाने ज्ञान प्रदान करने तथा भोजन कराने  का उत्तरदायित्व स्वंम पैगम्बर(स.) के ऊपर था।  पैगम्बर(स.)  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम से अत्यधिक प्रेम करते थे। वह उनका छोटा सा दुखः भी सहन नहीं कर पाते थे।  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम से प्रेम के सम्बन्ध में पैगम्बर(स.) के इस प्रसिद्ध कथन का शिया व सुन्नी दोनो सम्प्रदायों के विद्वानो ने उल्लेख किया है। कि पैगम्बर(स.) ने कहा कि हुसैन मुझसे हैऔर मैं हुसैन से हूँ। अल्लाह तू उससे प्रेम कर जो हुसैन से प्रेम करे।

हज़रत पैगम्बर(स.) के स्वर्गवास के बाद हज़रत  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम तीस (30)  वर्षों तक अपने पिता हज़रत इमामइमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम के साथ रहे। और सम्स्त घटनाओं व विपत्तियों में अपने पिता का हर प्रकार से सहयोग करते रहे।

हज़रत इमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम की शहादत के बाद दस वर्षों तक अपने बड़े भाई इमाम हसन के साथ रहे। तथा सन् पचास (50) हिजरी में उनकी शहादत के पश्चात दस वर्षों तक घटित होने वाली घटनाओं का अवलोकन करते हुए मुआविया का विरोध करते रहे । जब सन् साठ (60) हिजरी में मुआविया का देहान्त हो गय, व उसके बेटे यज़ीद ने गद्दी पर बैठने के बाद हज़रत   इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम से बैअत (आधीनता स्वीकार करना) करने के लिए कहा, तो आपने बैअत करने से मना कर दिया।और इस्लामकी रक्षा हेतु वीरता पूर्वक लड़ते हुए शहीद हो गये।

इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम का क़ियाम व क़ियाम के उद्देश्य

हज़रत  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम ने सन् (61) हिजरी में यज़ीद के विरूद्ध क़ियाम (किसी के विरूद्ध उठ खड़ा होना) किया। उन्होने अपने क़ियाम के उद्देश्यों को अपने प्रवचनो में इस प्रकार स्पष्ट किया कि—-

1—जब शासकीय यातनाओं से तंग आकर हज़रत  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम मदीना छोड़ने पर मजबूर हो गये तो उन्होने अपने क़ियाम के उद्देश्यों को इस प्रकार स्पष्ट किया। कि मैं अपने व्यक्तित्व को चमकाने या सुखमय जीवन यापन करने या उपद्रव फैलाने के लिए क़ियाम नहीं कर रहा हूँ। बल्कि मैं केवल अपने नाना (पैगम्बरे इस्लाम)  की उम्मत (इस्लामी समाज) में सुधार हेतु जारहा हूँ। तथा मेरा निश्चय मनुष्यों को अच्छाई की ओर बुलाना व बुराई से रोकना है। मैं अपने नाना पैगम्बर(स.) व अपने पिता इमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम की सुन्नत(शैली) पर चलूँगा।

2—एक दूसरे अवसर पर कहा कि ऐ अल्लाह तू जानता है कि हम ने जो कुछ किया वह शासकीय शत्रुत या सांसारिक मोहमाया के कारण नहीं किया। बल्कि हमारा उद्देश्य यह है कि तेरे धर्म की निशानियों को यथा स्थान पर पहुँचाए। तथा तेरी प्रजा के मध्य सुधार करें ताकि तेरी प्रजा अत्याचारियों से सुरक्षित रह कर तेरे धर्म के सुन्नत व वाजिब आदेशों का पालन कर सके।

3— जब आप की भेंट हुर पुत्र यज़ीदे रिहायी की सेना से हुई तो, आपने कहा कि ऐ लोगो अगर तुम अल्लाह से डरते हो और हक़ को  हक़दार के पास देखना चाहते हो तो यह कार्य अल्लसाह को प्रसन्न करने के लिए बहुत अच्छा है। ख़िलाफ़त पद के अन्य अत्याचारी व व्याभीचारी दावेदारों की अपेक्षा हम अहलेबैत सबसे अधिक अधिकारी हैं।

4—एक अन्य स्थान पर कहा कि हम अहलेबैत शासन के उन लोगों से अधिक अधिकारी हैं जो शासन कर रहे है। 

  इन चार कथनों में जिन उद्देश्यों की और संकेत किया गया है वह इस प्रकार हैं——-

1-इस्लामी समाज में सुधार।

2-जनता को अच्छे कार्य करने का उपदेश ।

3-जनता को बुरे कार्यो के करने से रोकना।

4-हज़रत पैगम्बर(स.) और हज़रत इमाम अली अलैहिस्सलाम की सुन्नत(शैली) को किर्यान्वित करना।

5-समाज को शांति व सुरक्षा प्रदान करना।

6-अल्लाह के आदेशो के पालन हेतु भूमिका तैयार करना।

यह समस्त उद्देश्य उसी समय प्राप्त हो सकते हैं जब शासन की बाग़ डोर स्वंय इमाम के हाथो में हो, जो इसके वास्तविक अधिकारी भी हैं। अतः इमाम ने स्वंय कहा भी है कि शासन हम अहलेबैत का अधिकार है न कि शासन कर रहे उन लोगों का जो अत्याचारी व व्याभीचारी हैं।

इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम के क़ियाम के परिणाम

1-बनी उमैया के वह धार्मिक षड़यन्त्र छिन्न भिन्न हो गये जिनके आधार पर उन्होंने अपनी सत्ता को शक्ति प्रदान की थी।

2-बनी उमैया के उन शासकों को लज्जित होना पडा जो सदैव इस बात के लिए तत्पर रहते थे कि इस्लाम से पूर्व के मूर्खतापूर्ण प्रबन्धो को क्रियान्वित किया जाये।

3-कर्बला के मैदान में  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम की शहादत से मुसलमानों के दिलों में यह चेतना जागृत हुई; कि हमने  इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम की सहायता न करके बहुत बड़ा पाप किया है।

इस चेतना से दो चीज़े उभर कर सामने आईं एक तो यह कि इमाम की सहायता न करके जो गुनाह (पाप) किया उसका परायश्चित होना चाहिए। दूसरे यह कि जो लोग इमाम की सहायता में बाधक बने थे उनकी ओर से लोगों के दिलो में घृणा व द्वेष उत्पन्न हो गया।

इस गुनाह के अनुभव की आग लोगों के दिलों में निरन्तर भड़कती चली गयी। तथा बनी उमैया से बदला लेने व अत्याचारी शासन को उखाड़ फेकने की भावना प्रबल होती गयी।

अतः तव्वाबीन समूह ने अपने इसी गुनाह के परायश्चित के लिए क़ियाम किया। ताकि इमाम की हत्या का बदला ले सकें।

4- इमाम हुसैन अलैहिस्सलाम के क़ियाम ने लोगों के अन्दर अत्याचार का विरोध करने के लिए प्राण फूँक दिये। इस प्रकार इमाम के क़ियाम व कर्बला के खून ने हर उस बाँध को तोड़ डाला जो इन्क़लाब (क्रान्ति) के मार्ग में बाधक था।

5-इमाम के क़ियाम ने जनता को यह शिक्षा दी कि कभी भी किसी के सम्मुख अपनी मानवता को न बेंचो । शैतानी ताकतों से लड़ो व इस्लामी सिद्धान्तों को क्रियान्वित करने के लिए प्रत्येक चीज़ को नयौछावर कर दो।

6-समाज के अन्दर यह नया दृष्टिकोण पैदा हुआ कि अपमान जनक जीवन से सम्मान जनक मृत्यु श्रेष्ठ है।
Extracted from : www.shiyat.ewebsite.com/

Reasons Behind the Commemoration of Imam al-Husain (AS)

Let me put it in simple words. If your father (may Allah grant him long life if he is still alive) dies, what will be your reaction to his death? If you loved him a lot, you or other members of your family will cry for him. crying is a sign of missing a highly dear one for a person who has human heart.
Now, suppose he has been killed on the path of Allah with some noble ideas to implement. What will be your reaction to his martyrdom? Do you pass from it as in the case of a simple death? Or you raise your voice and try to keep his noble ideas alive by REMINDING people of his actions and thoughts and give them a LESSON on his bravery and sacrifices, and asking people to join his path and to KEEP ALIVE his noble thoughts?

A Mourning Shia Muslim

[ One side remark here is that, just imagine that you and your brothers and sisters mourn for your father who has been martyred, and meanwhile some body jumps and accuses you of killing your father because you are mourning for him and based on his logic mourning is a sign of feeling guilty of murdering. What will be your reaction to such corrupted logic? I am really interested to hear from you. ]
Now, let us go further and consider a religious leader who has spent his lifetime in learning the religion and teaching others the way one should live and explaining the Islamic duties and thoughts. If such person is martyred by the tyrannical rulers, then our commemoration will include a much wider aspect, since this man is no longer a father of an individual, but rather a father for all those who were benefiting from his knowledge and guidance.
Finally, if we consider the supreme level of the Prophet Muhammad and his Ahlul-Bayt who were the best of mankind, the most knowledgeable, the most illustrious, the most god-fearing, the most pious, the best in personal virtues, and the most honored before Allah and the leaders for all the generations till the day of judgment, then one can comprehend that keeping their path alive is a DUTY upon us as their followers.
By commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Husain (AS), we learn lessons from his noble thoughts and convictions. Learning about what happened to him and his companions in the history will provide us a light for the future. Learning about his actions has inspiring effects on our actions as well.
  Question : The other more puzzling thing is what happens during the celebration. Again I might be wrong and please correct me in a gentle way if I am. Usually during this celebration, my Shia brothers start hitting themselves on the head (Is it at that time or am I wrong ?) until in some cases they faint or blood starts getting out of their heads. I have even seen (on TV) pictures of small children being hit or being made to hit themselves (I admit that those could be fabrications and out of context pictures but that’s what I’ve seen and I am ready to be corrected). I ask my Shia brothers and sisters, is this the way to celebrate ? Why do you hit yourselves ?
I have never heard of small children being hit, nor have ever seen adults are being hit. What you pictured should be really an amazing ceremony. No my dear friend, there is no such silly actions. These are propagated by those who hate to see the remembrance of Ahlul-Bayt, and they resort to all possible means to mock to Followers of the Members of the House of the Prophet PBUH&HF). And you has become their voice unwittingly, I presume.
Usually the ceremony includes speech by a learned man with regard to the movement of Imam Husain and his aims and his message. Then the speech continues to reminding the heart-breaking events of the catastrophe of Ashura and those who have human heart will cry, and mourn. Of course, there are traditions transmitted by Ahlul-Bayt which state, crying for Imam Husain, or making others to cry for him (through speech and reminding the events) has a lot of rewards. In fact, all the prophets of God without any exception cried for Imam Husain and commemorated Ashura, including Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF). Not only that, but also the Jinns (unseen creatures) mourn for Imam Husain. I have mentioned some of traditions affirming this fact in my previous posts quoting from Sunni collections.
Nonetheless, we affirm that hurting own body is forbidden. Some people may get very emotional and do that, yet the rest are not to be blamed. An analogy is the case when a person loses a dear one, where s/he will cry for him. Due to the height of emotion one (specially women) may start beating herself to the extent that it causes harm for her body. This is what is forbidden, while what has no harm to body (including beating chest) is allowed. Thus the commemoration can not be questioned by the innocent overreaction of certain individual(s).
Question :  The explanation that I was given (by Non-Shia’s mind you), that Shia hit themselves as a punishment that they left Imam Hussein go from Koufah (?) alone with a few men and did not help him. At the same time it was them who sent for him to come and lead them to fight for his right to be the Khalifah.
It is really amazing that you readily accept such rumor without even giving it a second thought. Even I suppose the Shia killed Imam Husain in year 61 AH, why should I feel guilty about what some people did in the history? Even suppose my father killed Imam Husain, then why should I feel guilty of what my father did? The sin of a sinner will never be inherited to his offspring. (The ancestors may have a share of such sin if they mislead their offspring, but the reverse is never true). Thus such argument that we cry for Imam Husain since our fathers allegedly killed him would be the most stupid interpretation on the reason behind commemoration of Imam Husain (AS). I shouldn’t expect any more intelligence from the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt.
 
My dear brother, we cry in the memory of Imam Husain, for:
 
1- all the messengers of God cried for him;

2- all the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt cried for him;

3- we love him more than we love our fathers and our dear ones;

4- he is a Symbol of resistance against tyranny and the leader of the Martyrs for us;

5- we want to swear allegiance to him and his path and keep aloof from their enemies;

6- his aims have not been fully achieved and his blood has not been revenged yet. As such, we keep this event with all its emotion alive until such time that Imam Mahdi (AS) appears who will cleanse the surface of the Earth form all such tyrants;

7- condolence to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) and the members of Ahlul-Bayt;

8- abiding the instruction of Ahlul-Bayt in remembering this event and seeking the reward associated with it.

And there are much more reasons that you will find if you switch the books at your disposal and study some Shi`ite literature regarding to Imam Husain (AS).
As for the stupid claim that the Shia killed Imam Husain (AS), I would like to first ask you what is the definition of Shia. If Shia means all those who claim to love Ahlul-Bayt, then I can tell you that ALL Muslims, with no exception from the time of the Prophet till today are Shia! Even the Wahhabis are Shia by your definition. Shia means “followers”, and as such those who forsake their leader can not be considered his followers by any stretch of imagination.
The true followers (Shia) of Ahlul-Bayt have always been in minority. The Shia of Imam Husain were those who stayed with him in Karbala (beside those who did not have ability to join him due to justifiable reasons. Examples include, but are not limited to: Ibn Abbas and Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari who were both blind at that time.)
Those who fought Imam Husain comprise those you claim to be Tabi’een (disciples of companions) whom you believe you should follow! Those who fought Imam Husain were NEVER the followers of Ahlul-Bayt unless you believe in contradiction. Those who joined the army of Yazid were rather the followers of Satan. Yes, some of those who wrote to Imam Husain to come over Iraq, did not support him later, for the simple reason that they were not his followers but rather the followers of their own whims. They were people who were tired of the oppression of the Umayad, and they were looking for a an easy relief. Some of them thought if Imam Husain takes over the power and they will be able to get rid of oppression and moreimportantly they were thinking of reaching to money, position in his government. But after the pressure of the agent of Yazid in Kufah and the enforcement of marshal law, and when they saw that their lives are in jeopardy and their dreams are unlikely to take place, they forsook Imam Husain’s deputy.
They were no better than Talha and Zubair who supported Imam Ali at the beginning for their own worldly interests, but when they found that the Imam will not fulfill such interests for them they went against him and fought him. Do you ever claim that Talha and Zubair were the Shia of Ali? Certainly not. Shia means “followers”, and those who forsake their leader can not be considered his followers by any stretch of imagination.
BTW, you, as a Sunni, acknowledge Imam Ali to be a righteous Caliph. Does that make you Shia? Certainly not. Similarly, most of those who were living under the government of Imam Ali were not his followers, and that was why they rebelled against him for their own worldly interest, the list include: Aisha/Talha/Zubair and their supporters, as well as those whom Imam Ali named them al-Khawarij (kharijites) who disobeyed Imam Ali in the battle of Siffin and announced that Ali is a polytheist (Mushrik). No doubt that Imam Ali gave an oath that he will fight and kill all of them except nine individuals who will be able to escape (one of which later murdered Imam Ali (AS)), and this exactly happened in the battle of Nahrawan. Imam Ali never called them Shia, nor the historians claimed them as such, but you do! The Shia of Imam Ali are those for whom the Messenger of Allah as follows:
The Messenger of Allah said to Ali: “Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you and your companions and your Shia (followers) will be in Paradise.”
Sunni references:
(1) Fadha’il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655
(2) Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu’aym, v4, p329
(3) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289
(4) al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani
(5) Majma’ al-Zawa’id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22
(6) al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous authorities.
(7) al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247
Thus the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) used to say the phrase of “Shia of Ali”. This phrase is not something invented later! Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) said that the true followers of imam Ali will go to Paradise, and this is a great felicity. Also Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari narrated that:
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: “The Shia of Ali are the real victorious in the day of resurrection/rising”
Sunni references:
– al-Manaqib Ahmad, as mentioned in:
– Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p62
– Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, who quotes the tradition as follows: “We were with the Holy Prophet when Ali came towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shia will aquire salvation on the day of judgment.”
The “day of rising” could also refer to the day of rising of al-Mahdi (AS). But in more general term, it means the day of judgment.
The stupid claim that Shia killed Imam Husain follows that the Prophet states those who will kill Imam Husain will go to Paradise! Perhaps, you believe that’s why Yazid did so.
Such claim by Wahhabis has been made solely to cover the nasty face of the tyrannical leaders of that time and to drift the attention from their horrible crime, and to justify their rule. It will not be surprising that they have gone as far as saying it was the legitimate right of Yazid to take all possible action to preserve his dynasty. In contrast with the claim of these individuals, the Sunni history confirms that Imam Husain was killed by the direct order of Yazid (LA):
Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid in Kufah) was leaving Iraq to Syria after killing the battle of Karbala, with a guard of his followers. Shuraih (the payroll Judge who gave verdict that the blood of Imam Husain is Halaal) noticed that he was silent for a long time, he approached him and said: “O Ubaydullah, I think it bothered you that you killed Husain?! Ubaydullah said: No! Indeed Yazid had ordered me to either kill Husain or he (Yazid) will kill me.
Sunni reference: History of Ibn Athir, v4, p140
The above gives evidence to the fact that he was Yazid who gave the direct order to kill Imam Husain (AS). Later, when the scandal of his horrible crime and the abuse of the household of the Prophet started shaking his regime, he condemned the act of Ibn Ziyad in public and disassociated himself. It has also been reported that:
Yazid ordered the head of Husain brought to Syria, when it was put to him he started abusing it and beating it with his stick and said the following Poetry:
I wish that my elders in Badr witness the fear of Khazraj from the falling of the swords.
Then they would have cherished and savored (my act) and by saying O Yazid may your arm be powerful (for getting revenge by killing Husain).
Sunni refernces:
– Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch. 11, pp 331-332
– al-Radd Ala al-Muta’assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48
– Tarikh Alisalm v5, p18-19
Ibn al-Jawzi comments:
It is not difficult to understand why Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid in Kufah) fought Husain, but the more surprising was the brutality of Yazid in abusing the head of Husain and whipping Husain’s mouth with his stick, and ordering to carry the household of the Prophet on camels without saddle, and many other shameful acts such as displaying his head in the city. It is certain that he (Yazid) did not have any intention but to humiliate (the household of the Prophet) by displaying the head. Such action is permissible only for al-Khawarij and transgressors. Had not Yazid have the rancor of the al-Jahiliyyah (the era before Islam) and the malice of (the defeat of his clan in) the battle of Badr, he would have respected the head (of Imam Husain) when he had received it and he would have buried it with shroud.
Sunni references:
– Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, pp 331, quoted from Ibn al-Jawzi.
– al-Radd Ala al-Muta’assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p48
Also Ibn Jawzi in his commentary about Ibn Hanbal’s damning of Yazid said:
“would there be a greater crime than killing Husain?!”
It should be noted that many Sunni scholars allow explicit curse of Yazid, among them are Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn al-Jawzi. Ahmad proves his opinion by Quran. (See al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v8, p223; also Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of Ch. 11, pp 331-332; also al-Radd Ala al-Muta’assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48).
However, as Ibn Hajar wrote, the least thing that is agreed upon by ALL the Sunni scholars (including the pseudo ones) is as follows:
It is unanimously agreed that it is permissible to curse those who killed Husain (may Allah be pleased with him) and those who ordered his killing and those who allowed it and those who were pleased with that action, without explicitly mentioning the name of Yazid.
Sunni reference: Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, p334
Let us now see the opinion of the son of Yazid about his father and grandfather, who was the witness from within the royal family!
…When (Yazid) offered the kingdom (throne) to his son, Muawiyah the second, in order that the flag of caliphate continues to wave in the house of Abi Sufyan!!
After his death, Muawiyah the second, gathered the people on a well known day, he stood in them preaching, he said:
“My grandfather Muawiyah stripped the command from those who deserved it, and from one who is more justified of it, for his relation to the Messenger of Allah and his being first in Islam, and that is Ali Ibn Abi Talib, he (Muawiyah) took over it by your help as you are fully aware.”
“Then following it my father Yazid wore the command after him, and he did not deserve it. He quarreled with the son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and by that he shortened his own life… He rode his whim and hope left him behind.” Then he cried and continued:
“Surely, the greatest problems of us is our knowledge of his bad behavior and his awful ending, and that he killed the progeny (Itrah) of the Messenger of Allah, and he permitted drinking alcohol, and he fought in the sanctuary of Mecca, and destroyed the Ka’ba.”
“And I am not the one who is dressing up for your command, nor the one to be responsible for your followers… You choose for yourselves..!!”
Sunni References:
– Khulafaa al-Rasool, by Khalid Mohammed Khalid, p531 (The above Quote included author’s punctuation.)
– Sawa’iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, pp 336
Now, please offer these reports to your Wahhabi friend and see if they to know better than the son of Yazid as to who killed Imam Husain.
Also Shabrawi wrote in his book that:
“Would any man of reason doubts that Yazid killed Husain?”
Sunni reference: Alethaf, by Shabrawi, pp 62,66
Moreover, In Ibn Abbas’s reply to a letter by Yazid, he said:
Do not think that I will forget your crime of killing Imam Husain (AS)
Sunni reference: Tarikh Ya’qubi, v2, p249
Then can any man of reason think that Yazid did not order killing Imam Husain?!!! The above was just few Sunni documents out of many, to prove this fact. Please refer to the articles of Br. Abbas which were posted in SRI for more.

Dear brother, you have very distorted information for which you have no evidence. I am afraid, you are confusing between the government and people. Most people of Persia were the followers of Ahlul-Bayt from the beginning of their conversion to Islam. One reason for their tendency to Shia was the discrimination that Umar enforced between the rights of Arabs and non-Arabs. Another reason was the injustice of some governors and their misconduct that was being carried on in the name of Islam, and so on. This gave reason to people for searching the truth and they found the shining light of Ahlul-Bayt and their followers such as Salman al-Farsi who was also an important factor. However, later, Umayad and Abbasid oppressive governments continued their injustice to Arabs and non-Arabs alike! They prosecuted the followers of Ahlul-Bayt in Persia, Iraq, Hijaz, and other places. The early Sunni government in Iran did not represent the belief of people as much as the today’s governments in Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, United Arab Emirate, Amman, and Bahrain (which are all Shia dominated) do not represent the belief of their people.
As for the Fatimid rule in Egypt, you should better know that they were the offshoot of Ismailis. We do not consider Fatimid to be Shia of Imam Ali at all. They were among the political movements appeared centuries later. Again the difference between the belief of people and the government should be noticed. Your claim concerning the conversion in Egypt is false. Based on “The Encyclopedia of Islam,” the majority of people in Egypt were Sunnis during the entire reign of Fatimid, and as such, no conversion occurred when the Fatimid government collapsed. It was politically started and politically ended.
Thus neither in Iran nor in Egypt mass conversion from Sunni to Shia or vice versa occurred. No body can force a person to convert into another religion or school of thought, since belief is in the heart of People and not in ID. Those who convert their religion in their heart due to the pressure of government, did not have religion at all! Recall the existence of many Arabs inside Hijaz in the Arabian Peninsula (what is now known as the kingdom of Saudi Arabia) who have been Shia of Imam Ali (AS) from the time of Imam Ali till now despite the fact that Hijaz has had the most oppressive regimes since the early history of Islam.

Excerpt from http://www.al-islam.org/encyclopedia/

You can download it here: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?u8s29wc88gcct3i

Why Arab States align themselves with Israel against Shias?

On tenth day of Ashura Muslims and in particular Shias commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, the Prophet Mohammed’s grandson about whom he said “Hussein is from me and I am from Hussein”.

Pictures of Shias beating themselves with hands and chains will be beamed around the world by western media, happy to perpetuate the myth that Muslims are violent.

And this year Americans in particular will be paying a closer attention, after the Oscar winning Jewish Director Oliver Stone’s son Sean Stone astonished America by articulating his conversion to being a Shia and accused Piers Morgan who tried to portray him as some nutter, ‘a warmonger’ while defending Iran.

What the TV screens will not be showing is the grief and pain felt by the Shias for the death of a leader about whom Mahatma Ghandi said “I learnt from Hussein on how to achieve victory while being oppressed”.

Shias are also mourning a time in history when the Prophets message and teachings were subverted by the forces against humanity, which not only attempted to wipe out the whole of the Prophets family, but ensured that every direct descendant who followed the 11 Imams were all systematically put into prisons and murdered.

The followers of the ahlalbayt (the 12 infallible Imams) as they are called have tried throughout years of persecution to keep the practices of the Prophet alive as well as the incident where Prophet Mohammed stood in Ghadeer e Qum where he picked up Imam Ali’s hand and said “to whomever I am the Mawla (supreme authority) so is Ali the Mawla” in front of over 120,000 pilgrims (a historically recorded event)

Today Shia’s have grown in strength because of the rise of Iran after the Iranian revolution in 1979, however the need to ‘wipe them out’ is still continuing.

According to Director for External Affairs at ‘The Moshe Dayan Centre for Middle Eastern and African Studies’ Shias is the real threat. In 2009 he said:
“Israel is now a strange partner of the Sunni Arab states,”

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan however this alliance according to him is an “alliance of anxiety for Israel” as the Sunni Arabs are not as confident as the Shias and Iran and as a result he believes that Israel cannot rely on the Sunni states in the same way that the Sunni states can rely on Israel.

This alliance must come as a real surprise to critics of Israel, who are aware the lengths the Zionists have gone to pump millions into Islamophobic think tanks and organisations like (Rand, Centre for Social Cohesion) and through the pro Israel media to misrepresent Islam and ferment hatred.

Their propaganda has been so successful that a 2011 Pew research poll found that 40% of US adults think that Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions. Even though a Europol study of terrorism found 99.6% of terrorist attacks from 2006 to 2008 were committed by non Muslims.

However the issue of misrepresentation not only involves Muslims but all who question the status quo, as European groups realised at the height of the Occupy Wall Street movement which according to the media had nothing to do with Zionists bankers and the Federal Reserve Bank, but rather people annoyed at losing their jobs.

In order to understand why Arab States are in an unspoken alliance with Israel, we need to look at the growth of sectarianism and why Shias are seen as the biggest threat.

In a documentary about Iraq war, an American soldier said something on the lines of…

    “We don’t have a problem with the Sunnis it’s the Shias who we are afraid of its something to do with their leader who was killed centuries ago and they are willing to lay their life down for him”.

    Of course the leader he was talking about was no mere man, Imam Hussein who stood against oppression and tyranny with only 72 men against thousands strong army, and set an example that ‘might is not right-right is might’.

    The story of Imam Hussein’s martyrdom at Karbala is the story of Jihad. The term Jihad is confusing today, as the essence has been filtered out by warped Muslim rulers and western propaganda maligning the term making it synonymous with terrorism.

    This can be seen in Britain alone where Muslims groups are tripping over themselves to denounce Jihad while British Islamic clerics like Abu Qatada who has been revealed by The Times in 2004 to be a MI5 double agent, encourages violent jihad?

    Jihad actually means to stand up against oppression and tyranny.

    The problem facing humanity, is that if we are expecting the UN to stop the atrocities against defenseless Palestinians or the Rohingyas in Burma or stop America’s proxy wars on Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and now Syria where Washington is directly responsible for recruiting, arming, funding mercenaries and death squads, we are fooling ourselves as the UN is as described by Gordon Duff, Senior Editor at Veterans Today a “cheap con”  “…where 5 nations have total veto power over any real action”.

    As people around the world clamor for justice the UN which was set up to protect the rights of nations has become what Iran’s leader Imam Khameni has described it as:

        “..an illogical, unjust and completely undemocratic structure and mechanism. ….It is through abusing this improper mechanism that America and its accomplices have managed to disguise their bullying as noble concepts and impose it on the world”.

    As Israel carried out another attack on Gaza Daniel Mabsout writing in ‘ De-Liberation’ said: “It is the continuation of the war on Syria and is being cooked in Israeli/NATO kitchens and its goal is the liquidation of the Palestinian cause by targeting its armed Resistance”

    On the issue of Arab rulers he states: “…the Arab League that is a dead corpse became as busy as a beehive concerning Syria: gathering and rallying and threatening and expelling. And now they will continue their conspiracy by covering for Israel”.

    The paradox here is why Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Gulf States which are dictatorships, aligning themselves with Israel and US and funding the so called Arab Spring? To implement democracy?

    Or is it that instead of democracy all they are doing is leaving a bloody trail of death and destruction to establish a greater Israel which will be easier to implement once Shia Iran has been dismantled. Which probably suits all parties concerned.

    Why the Arab states are aligning themselves with Israel and the West can be explained clearly in a book titled ‘Terrorism and the illuminate’ a three thousand year history by David Livingstone’.

    Livingstone explains how in ‘their typical strategy of “divide and rule”, the British, through their Masonic agent, sought to undermine the Ottoman Empire.’

    He writes that it was not legal in Islam to fight another Muslim therefore “the British devised a method that would create a new interpretation of Islam that would sanction such murder, but under the guise of “Jihad”.

        “This new interpretation became known as Wahhabism and was founded by British agent, Mohammed Abdul Wahhab.”

    Mohammed ibn Abdul Wahab was born in 1703 in Najd, Saudi Arabia. A region where Prophet Mohammed, had predicted would emerge only  “disturbances, disorder and the horns of Satan”.

     According to Livingstone Abdul Wahhab traveled and settled in Bagdad where he married a rich woman.

    Livingstone quotes another historian Stephen Schwartz in the “The two faces of Islam” and that “Mir’at al Harramin, a Turkish work by Ayyub Sabri Pasha, written in 1888, states that in Basra, Abdul Wahab had come into contact with a British spy named Hempher who “inspired in him the tricks and lies that he had learned from the British Ministry of the Commonwealth”.

    The details of this relationship are outlined in a little known document by the name of ‘The Memoirs of Mr. Hempher:  – A British Spy to the Middle East’, first published in a series in the German paper Spiegel, The Memoirs outlines the autobiographical account of Hempher, who claims to have acted as a spy on behalf of the British government, with the mission of seeking ways of undermining the Ottoman Empire. Hempher claims, “we were designing long term plans to wage discord ignorance poverty and even diseases in these countries”.

    He outlines how the strategy was to obstruct education and “Aggravate economic decline through sabotage”. “Accustom statesmen to such indulgences as sex, sports, alcohol, gambling, and interest banking. Then, in order to make the new generation hostile towards their rulers and scholars, expose them for their corruption.” Also “In order to spread the misconception that Islam is chauvinistic towards women, they must encourage the misinterpretation of the verse in the Koran” regarding women.

    One of the main reforms implemented through Wahab’s mouth was to discourage people from visiting sacred sites, relics, graves saying visiting them was tantamount to apostasy.

    Wahab was financed by the British to carry out the task. Wahab settled around 1744 in Dir‟iyya, an oasis controlled by Muhammad Ibn. Saud (1746-1765) where he made a pact with Ibn Saud pledging British financial assistance and arms for his military support in the propagation and enforcement of Wahabism. The alliance was cemented by Ibn Saud’s marriage to the daughter of Abdul-Wahab, the beginning of frequent intermarriage between the two families that continues to the present.

    Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth made possible the dissemination of Wahabi ideas through religious propaganda and financial assistance to mosques and schools from Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Philippines the Middle East, and so on.

    During the Afghan war against the Soviet Union, Saudi financed charities that educated and cared for Afghan refugees in Pakistan. The religious schools educated the boys and later produced the foot soldiers for the Taliban, who seized control of much of Afghanistan during the 1990’s and established a state based on Wahabi doctrine which forbade education and suppression of women.

    Osama bin Laden was heavily involved in recruitment and training of Arabs coming to Afghanistan to wage jihad against Soviet occupiers. This was the basis for the terrorist organization Al Qaeda that developed in the 1990s which continues to carry out atrocities.

    Which begs the question, if Wahabism is a western doctrine aimed at subverting the growth of real Islam, then who is al Qaeda working for? The answer may explain why Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims then westerners.

    It may also explain why the killer of Imam Hussein, Yazid a man known for his debauchery and oppression has a respected position in Wahabi doctrine.

    It also explains why it has been important for Britain, US and Israel to continue suppressing the message and teachings of Imam Hussein and his followers.

    Their message must be potent if a small group called Hezbollah managed to defeat Israel’s high tech war machine during the Lebanon war in 2006 and how in the same way in the Iranian revolution under Imam Khomeini people stood with nothing but the Koran against bullets, tanks and the best equipped army in the world and managed to throw out an exploiting empire.

        “The sacrifice of Imam Hussain is not limited to one country, or nation, but it is the hereditary state of the brotherhood of all mankind.”- Dr Rajendra Prasad an Indian politician who became the first President of India.

        written by Shabana syed

        Source : veteranstoday

The Kufr of Yazeed by a Sunni Speaker

Salafi Mufti says bayat of Yazeed was islamic!!!

In this video, you will see that Salafi Mufti said that Yazeed was caliph on truth and Imam Hussain(AS) naudobillah erred by coming up against him.

Modarrsi replies to him

video is having english subtitles

This is a speech being delivered by Ayatollah Modarresi at the shrine of Imam Hussein in response to the slanderous comment made by the top Wahhabi cleric in Saudi Arabia.. Keep watching to see the fury of the audience..

One would think that after almost 14 centuries, the mission of Imam Hussein and the pristine nature of his message is transparently clear. On the same token, one would also think that the demonic nature of Yazeed and his cohorts is also as abundantly obvious.

For how could anyone exploit people’s ignorance of the hard historical facts and justify the barbaric murder of Imam Hussein? How can anyone conceivably explain the vicious slaughtering of the 6 month old infant and the starving of women and children to death? And after all the atrocities committed by Yazeed’s army, how can anyone brand his authority as “legitimate” or even go as far as to have the audacity to blame Imam Hussein for the crimes committed on Ashura 61 A.H.?!

And if an ignorant individual were to be found who is blind to the manifest truth, they might be dismissed as illiterate or simply insane, but when a the top ranking, government appointed cleric makes those outrageous assertions, it reveals deeply rooted malice and venomous scorn towards every divine ideal and every ethical standard. It speaks of far ranging moral dilemmas and a seriously flawed and perverted sense of judgment.

The attached video shows one such individual. He is Abdul Aziz Aal Al Sheikh, the grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and the direct grandson of Bin Abdul Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabi religion which is responsible for every atrocity, and every act of terror around the world. The video also includes footage from people’s reaction to the comments and the utter outrage at the shrine of Imam Hussein in the holy city of Karbala and the historic speech by one of Iraq’s leading Shia scholars, Ayatollah Sayed Hadi Al Modarresi, in which he emphatically denounced the comments by the Wahhabi cleric and challenged him to reveal his true intentions during the Arba’een processions.

 

Is Crying for Dead causes Punishment to the Dead ??

We would have heard this 100′s of times and people are fed up with this idea that Holy prophet asws had said this : “Crying for Dead causes Punishment to the Dead”
 

And so if someone cries for dead, the dead is punished;and this propaganda increases in moharram

so let us see what ayesha had to offer in this regard

we find in Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal :

Abu bakar says that when rafi’I bin khadeej died, we heard ibn umar that dead is punished when his neighbors cry for him. I came to umra and told him so he replied that Ayesha said that holy prophet asws said this about a jew lady that these people are crying and she is being punished; then Ayesha recited the verse that none will bear the weight of others

[Musnad ahmad, urdu, vol 11, page 31, narration 24616]

Sheikh hamza says isnaad is sahih
[Musnad ahmad, takhreej of ahmad shakir and hamza ahmad, vol 17, page -234]

We further find

Ibn umar said that Holy Prophet asws said that dead is punished when his family cries for him; when someone asked this from Ayesha, she said that he has hallucinated, holy prophet asws said that people are crying where as he is being punished for his sins

[Musnad ahmad, urdu, vol 11, page 84]

Sheikh hamza says isnaad is sahih [Musnad ahmad, takhreej of ahmad shakir and hamza ahmad, vol 17, page 287]

Sheikh shoaib says isnaad is sahih on condition of sheikhain [musnad ahmad, vol 40, page 347-348, narration 24302 ]

Yet again, we find

Urwa said that once Ayesha told him that o nephew! Ibn umar erred in listening, actually holy prophet asws passed by a grave and he said that he is being punished due to his deeds and his family is crying for him; otherwise by god! None will bear the weight of others 

[Musnad ahmad, urdu, vol 11, page 178-179, narration 25144]

Sheikh hamza says isnaad sahih [Musnad ahmad, takhreej of ahmad shakir and hamza ahmad, vol 17, page 390]

Sheikh shoaib says isnaad are sahih, narrators are all thiqa and narrators of sheikhain
[musnad ahmad, takhreej of sheikh shoaib; vol 41, page 181-182 narration 24637]

Again we find

Abu bakar said that when rafi’I bin khadeej died, I heard Abdullah bin umar that dead is punished due to weeping of his neighbors. I came to umra and told him about this; he said that Ayesha said that may allah forgive abu abdurrehman, he is not lying but he has forgotten; holy prophet asws passed by grave of a jew lady on which people were crying, so he said that people are crying where as she is being punished

{molvi zafar iqbal says that narration is sahih as per bukhari, muslim and ibn haban}

[musnad ahmad, urdu, vol 11, page 210]

Yazeed: a killer of sahaba and a thief:- Ahmad bin Hanbal (sahih sanad)

We find in al-sunnah by al khalal that he mentioned with a sahih chain from Ahmad bin Hanbal  who said

أخبرني محمد بن علي قال ثنا مهنى قال سألت أحمد عن يزيد بن معاوية بن أبي سفيان قال هو فعل بالمدينة ما فعل قلت وما فعل قال قتل بالمدينة من أصحاب النبي وفعل قلت وما فعل قال نهبها قلت فيذكر عنه الحديث قال لا يذكر عنه الحديث ولا ينبغي لأحد أن يكتب عنه حديثا قلت لأحمد ومن كان معه بالمدينة حين فعل ما فعل قال أهل الشام قلت له وأهل مصر قال لا إنما كان أهل مصر معهم في أمر عثمان رحمه الله

narrator asked ahmed bin hanbal about yazeed ibn mawia and he replied : he did to madina what he did , so i asked : and what did he do ? he  said : he killed in madina from companions of rasool Allah and did other things ,so i asked him : what did he do ; so he said : robbed it , so i said : can hadith be narrated from him so he answered : hadith must not be narrated from him and nobody should write his hadith . so i asked ahmed : and who was with him when he did in madina what he did ? he said : people of syria so i said : what about people of egypt? he said :people of Egypt were with them in matter of uthman

[kitab-us-sunnah, vol 3, page 520]

researcher of the book, atiya zehrani termed it

“isnaad sahih”

scans can be seen here

http://ahlubait.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/yazeed-a-killer-of-sahaba-and-a-thief-ahmad-bin-hanbal-sahih-sanad/

Yazid Vs Zakir Naik [Lies of First Navel War/Caesar’s City]

Zakir Naik ( A well wisher of Yazeed (la))

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 & All other Nasibies is only & only one Tradition of Bukhari.

Let us begin with Allah’s name & let us expose the Lies of Nasibies 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 made first 2 Caliphs of Bani Umiyyah free of all there so many crimes against Islam & Ahlebait (as), and provided them 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.
They are absolutely not ashamed to praise the Open Munafiqeen & declare them their Imams and Reliable Narrators of Hadith.
Shame on these people who all the time cry that Shias are Kafirs while they crticize Sahaba, but when any of their Nasibi Imam curse Imam Ali and Ahl al-Bayt, then he becomes the praiseworthy Reliable Narrator of their Ahadith.
Here is the the true face of their Nasibi Imam & 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 (& Kafir according to their Standards while cursing Sahaba is Kufr according to them) to be there praiseworthy Narrator of Hadith? Don’t they have any shame about this?

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.

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 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 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 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 became Governor and he was the first one who wished to attack Byzantine Empire through Sea [But Muawiyyah was himself unaware of any Glad Tidings of First Naval  War].
   But Muawiyyah didn’t get any permission from Center.
   And while Muawiyyah was himself unaware of those Glad Tidings, therefore in order to convince 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 kept on trying to convince Umar Ibn Khattab for many years but Umar never get Ready.
6. At end 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 Umar became afraid after hearing about Sea? Didn’t 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 mention during this whole period about these Glad Tidings of Jannah?  [Actually  Muawiyyah himself never mention 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 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, 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 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 failed to convince Umar Ibn Khattab during his 10 years of Caliphate for this  Naval war.
2. After this Uthman was also not ready for the war of Jannah up till 4 years had been passed. Please remember that 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 had upon Uthman due to their relationship. Therefore Uthman used to accept his demands without any hesitation, but in case of this war it still took Muawiyyah 4 complete years to get his permission.

Ok, permission was granted, but now look at the Funny Condition.

• 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.
  Next Question is: How many of those Sahaba joined voluntarily the War who were present near Muawiyyah at that time?

  Interesting, there were only 3 volunteer Companions  ‘Ubada, his wife and Abu Darda.
  And this Companion ‘Ubada (the husband of Umm Haram) thought really bad of Muawiyyah and he criticized Muawiyyah severely (see later).

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. This same tradition further tells us that those Grand Sahabas (Ibn Abbas, Abu Ayyub Ansari, Ibn Umar, Ibn Zubair) did not go for this war at their own,but Muawiyyah 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) 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 Nasibies 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 sent them on the front of Rome (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-Sa°idi, Ka°b b. Malik, and Hassan b. Thabit.

Reference:
History of Tabari, Volume 15, Page 140, English Translation, State University of New York Press

And Imam Tabari also recorded the following tradition which is more clear than above.

It was related to me by ]a°far b. ‘Abdallah al—Muhammadi— ‘Amr—Muhammad b. Ishaq b. Yasar al-Madani328—his paternaluncle °Abd al-Rahman b.· Yasar:

When the people saw what Uthman was doing, the Companions (Sahaba)of the Prophet in Medina wrote to the Companions who were scattered throughout the frontier provinces: “You have gone forth but to struggle in the path of Almighty God, for the sake of Muhammad’s religion. In your absence the religion of Muhammad has been corrupted and forsaken. Come then and reestablish Muhammad’s religion.” Thus, they came from every direction until they killed (°Uthman).
Reference:
History of Tabari, Volume 15, Page 183, English Translation, State University of New York Press

So, it was common practice of Sahaba to go to fronts for Jihaad. Therefore, it is big fat lie from Nasibies that these Grand Sahaba joined this Jihaad only and only due to any Glad Tidings (there is absolutely no mention of any Glad Tidings whatsoever).

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 but he participated only due to any glad tidings?

Ammar Yasir also fought along with Mawla Ali (as) in Siffin against Muawiyyah 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).

At end, we are thankful to Allah (swt) for giving us Taufeeq to make these Nasibi deceptions clear. Shukar al-Hamdolillah.

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.

Allahuma Sallay Allah Muhammad wa Aale Muhammad.

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.

1^st 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”:

Byzantine–Arab 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.

2^nd 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.

3^rd 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.

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 16^th Hijri (Islamic year).The commander of this Army was Abu ‘Ubaidah, and the Companion Yazid bin Abu Sufyan was included in it,

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 3^rd 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 4^th 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 5^th attack was done in 46^th 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 6^th 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 7^th attack was doe under the command of Sufyan bin Auf in 49^th 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.

Nasibi Deception: Claiming Tradition of Anas  “Supports” the Tradition of Syrian Narrators about First Naval War/Caesar’s City

Please be aware of this Nasibi Deception. They bring the Tradition of Anas and claim that it support the tradition of Syrian Narrators about First Naval War/Caesar’s City. It is out and out a lie. Here is the tradition of Anas:

Bukhari,Volume 4, Book 52, Number 56:

Narrated Anas bin Malik:

Um Haram said, “Once the Prophet slept in my house near to me and got up smiling. I said, ‘What makes you smile?’ He replied, ‘Some of my followers who (i.e. in a dream) were presented to me sailing on this green sea like kings on thrones.’ I said, ‘O Allah’s Apostle! Invoke Allah to make me one of them.” So the Prophet invoked Allah for her and went to sleep again. He did the same (i.e. got up and told his dream) and Um Haran repeated her question and he gave the same reply. She said, “Invoke Allah to make me one of them.” He said, “You are among the first batch.” Later on it happened that she went out in the company of her husband ‘Ubada bin As-Samit who went for Jihad and it was the first time the Muslims undertook a naval expedition led by Mu awiya. When the expedition came to an end and they were returning to Sham, a riding animal was presented to her to ride, but the animal let her fall and thus she died.

So, contrary to Nasibi Deception, not only this Tradition of Anas has absolutely nothing in support of Syrian Narrators about First Naval War/Caesar’s City, but it is also contradicting it in a sense while:

• There is Absolutely no mention of “Paradise being Granted” to All who go for “FIRST Naval War” (as had been claimed by the Syrian Nasibi Narrators)
• There is Absolutely no mention of “Forgiveness of ALL Sins” of those All who invade the Caesar’s City (as had been claimed by the Syrian Nasibi Narrators)

So, this tradition is itself the biggest Proof of Lies of  Syrian Narrators. Please also note:

• The most important part of Nasibi Syrian tradition was “Granting of Paradise & Forgiveness of All Sins” for first Naval War and Caesar’s City, but this Tradition of Anas particularly neglecting this most important part.
• Anas was the nephew of this woman Umm Haram. So, he was able to hear and understand the hadith much better. So, how came Umm Haram didn’t narrate this most important part to her own Nephew, but narrate these Glad Tidings to only and only one Syrian, who was Na-Mahram to her?
• So Anas didn’t know about those Glad Tidings and thus he didn’t went to those wars.
• Also thus Anas was unable to tell to any other Sahabi those Glad Tidings and thus none of them went from the center to the attain the Paradise.

Actually the husband of Umm Haram (‘Ubada bin Samit) was also unaware of those Glad Tidings and he thought  badly about Muawiyyah and he criticized Muawiyyah severly for his wrong-doings

al-Eqd al-Fareed, Volume 1:

It is narrated that when Amro bin al-A’as went to Mu’awya and stoodbeside him in Ali’s case after (Mu’awya) gave him Egypt as a booty. He(Amro bin Al-A’s) said to him (Mu’awiya): ‘There is a honorable andwell reputed man in your country, if he stands beside you, you will ownthe hearts of the people, he is Ubada bin al-Samit.’ Mu’awiya sent to him, so when he (Ubada) arrived, (Mu’awiya) made spacefor Ubada between him and Amro bin al-A’as, then he (Ubada) sat between them.Then Mu’awiya praised Allah and then he mentioned the merits of Ubadaand his vanguard of Islam, then he mentioned the merits of Uthman andwhatever had happened to him, then he motivated (Ubada) to stand besidehim. Ubada said: ‘I heard what you said, do you know why I sat betweenyou in your place?’ They said: ‘Yes, because of your honor, virtue andyour vanguard of Islam. He (Ubada) said: ‘By Allah, that is not why Isat between you, and I would never sit between you in your place, butwhen we were marching along with the Prophet for Tabuk battle, helooked at both of you walking talking. So He looked at us and said:’If you see them gathered, separate them because they never gather for the good.”

http://www.al-eman.n…?BID=195&CID=30

Imam Ibn abi Sheybah records:

Abi al-Ash’ath said: ‘Once we were in a battle and Muawiyah was ourleader, thus we obtained Gold and Silver, then Muawiyah ordered a man to sell it to the people, hence the people got attracted to it. Ubadabin al-Samit then forbade them from doing that, so they returned to it,the man then complained to Muawiya at which Mu’awyia said: ‘Why is there a man attributing fabricated Hadith to Allah’s messenger?’ Ubada replied: ‘By Allah we will keep narrating hadith of Allah’s messenger even if Muawyia dislikes it.’

Musnaf Ibn Abi Sheybah, Volume 5 page 297 Tradition 363 (2)

Muhadith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalwi in his anti-Shia book records the following incident:

“Abada bin Samit was in Syria when he saw Muawiya’s convoy comprisedof a queue of camels having alcohol on thier back. Abada asked: “Whatare these?”. People answered: “These are alcohol that Muawiya has sentfor the purpose of selling”. Abada came with a knife and he cut theropes on the camels till all the alcohol spilled out”

Tuhfa Athna Ashariya (Farsi), page 638

The tradition can be read in Tarikh Ibn Asakir, Volume 26 page 197 andin Siyar Alam al Nubla, Volume 2 page 10 but it seems that the name ofMuawiya as been deleted from the recent versions of these books andinstead the word “Fulan” (sucn ahd such person) appears, but in anycase, the fact that Abada bin Samit spilled the alcohol belonging tothe ruler of Syria is still recorded in these books and shall sufficeto point out the ruler of Syria namely Muawiya. Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut,wrote in the margin of Siyar Alam Nubla that the tradition is ‘Hasan’.

Allamah Muttaqi Ali Hindi has recorded a similar kind of incident in this manner:

Muhammad bin Ka’ab al-Qurdhi said: ‘Abdulrahman bin Sahl al-Ansariparticipated in a war during Uthman’s reign and Mu’awiya was a ruler ofSyria, then a barrel of alcohol passed before him (Abdulrahman), so hewent there while holding his spear and penetrated into every barrel,the slaves resisted him, till Mu’awiya was informed about that.(Mu’awiya) said: “Leave him, he is an old man and has lost his mind’.(Abdulrahman) said: ‘By Allah, he has lied, I didn’t lose my mind, butthe messenger of Allah forbade us to drink it, I swear by Allahthat if I live till I see what I heard from the Messenger of Allahabout Mu’awiya, either I will split and open Muawiya’s stomach or Iwill die’.

Kanzul Ummal, Volume 5 page 713 Hadith 13716

The tradition is also present in the following esteemed Sunni books:

• Faydh al-Qadir, by al-Manawi, Volume 5 page 462, Tradition 7969
• Tarikh Damishq, Volume 34 page 420
• Asad al-Ghaba, Volume 1 page 699, topic- Abdurehman bin Sahl bin Zayd
• Al-Isaba, Volume 4 page 313, Translation 5140

Allahumma Sallay Allah Muhammad wa Aale Muhammad.

Notice:

This article is written by Wilayat.Net

Please feel free to host this article at your websites. You don’t even need to give the name of wilayat.net. We make this article free of all types of copyright issues.