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.