Imam Husain(A.S.)-The Chief of Martyrs

Infamous Zakir Naik -the Supporter of Yazeed (l.a.)

Finally, the efforts of Agniveer to combat anti-national terror forces have yielded results. After detailed analyses of evil designs of promoter(s) of the threatening Peace TV made public by Agniveer, it has finally been banned by Intelligence Bureau, Government of India. To broadcast this channel now or support anti-India propaganda is a criminal offence.

It was exactly three years ago when Agniveer spearheaded the intellectual crusade against open terrorism by radical Islamist Zakir Naik. As liberal and secular Indians, it was impossible for us to even imagine that, in India, someone can threaten apostates (those who change their religion) of death penalty or abuse gods and deities of other faiths or insult Prophet whom billions of devotees consider messenger of God. But all this happened and kept happening for years. A man called Zakir Naik continued to enjoy the freedom of speech regardless of blasphemous acts he committed against all religions and their founders.

Some 3 years ago, Agniveer received a message. It was sent by an IRF (Islamic Research Foundation, Zakir Naik’s organization) official. The person gave reference to one of our articles on Vedas and mocked our efforts of reviving Vedic faith. He wrote-

Your religion of Vedas will die soon. We are converting Indians @ millions per month and your people will not even realize when they would become minority in this land. In next five years, India will be a Wahabi majority country. (He actually wrote Muslim Majority country but Islam as per them is Wahabism alone and they consider other Muslims like Sufis, Barelvis, Deobandis, Ahmadis and Shias as Kafirs/infidels/Non-Muslims. On their Peace TV, they often appeal to destroy these infidels).

This IRF official further wrote-

Agniveer! Convert to Islam soon or else you have no future. We invite you to the Peace Conference in which Dr Zakir Naik will welcome you to Islam and accept you all as his team members on stage and you will be his allies in his Dawah project (conversion). But if you refuse there is darkness ahead.

Till that date we never took this man called Zakir Naik and his works seriously. But that day we realized the gravity of the matter. A man was openly challenging us of converting this whole nation into slaves of Arabs on our own forum in our own country! This was alarming. And that was the time when Agniveer decided to fight this fanatic tooth and nail and destroy his evil designs against our motherland and its habitants he had planned with millions of petrodollars and support from Middle East.

We researched on this man and his work and were shocked completely. We found this man more dangerous than Osama Bin Laden and Taliban for society, country and world. His speeches, writings and ideology were so dangerous that no sensible person would ever agree to. We will discuss few of them here one by one so that readers could imagine how grievous it is to let this man preach in civilized world

1. His hatred towards Prophet Muhammad, Founder of Islam

a. He claimed that Prophet was a demon

While he was pretending to be a devout Muslim and representative of the only right sect of Islam leading to heaven, his hatred towards Prophet Muhammad was exposed soon. Zakir Naik claimed that a character named Mahamada in Bhavishya Purana, the book of Hindus, who was incarnation of Demon Tripurasur and was termed as ‘Ghost’ and ‘Rascal’ is none other than Prophet Muhammad. He preached this lie day in and day out and tried to fool Muslims and Hindus for months together. Soon Agniveer gave a tight slap to this fanatic for his heinous attempt of denigrating Prophet. Agniveer established that Mahamada of Bhavishya Puran is not Prophet Muhammad. Kindly visit this to read further. Agniveer also warned Muslims that this man is the biggest enemy of Islam today and needs to be stopped.

b. He praised Yazeed and prayed for him despite that Yazeed was responsible for killing Prophet Muhammad’s grandson in battle of Karbala and the massacre afterwards that claimed thousands of lives and rapes.

c. His Peace TV scholars provoked people to attack celebrations of Prophet Muhammad’s Birthday

Israr Ahmed, Main Scholar, Peace TV says-

“Attack those people physically and verbally who celebrate Milad Un Nabi- Birthday of Prophet Muhammad (saw).. Only those will be true Muslims who will wage Jihad against celebration of Prophet’s Birthday.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aiOlUPicjb0

This is the interpretation of a tradition found in Sahih Bukhari (the most revered book by Sunni) Holy Prophet said : "There will be twelve Caliph after me."

Interpretation by Sunni Scholar

According to Qazi Ayaaz., the import of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) through the tradition concerning twelve Imams (a.s.) was that the twelve Imams (a.s.) will exist only during the caliphs’ might, the strength of Islam and the steadfastness of its affairs. This occurred when consensus was found among the people on this issue till the decline of the Bani Umayyah when mischief arose amongst them in the reign of Waleed Ibn Yazid. Ibn Hajar, in his Fath al-Baari, has opted for this interpretation citing the tradition ‘All of them (caliphs) will be the unanimous choice of the people’ as evidence for the same. Thereafter, he proceeds to mention the names of the caliphs, who enjoyed the consensus of the people: Abu Bakr, Umar, Usman, Ali (a.s.), Muawiyyah, Yazid, Abd al-Malik and his four sons, Waleed, Sulaiman, Yazid and Heshaam.

He says, ‘Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz interrupted the chain between Sulaiman and Yazid. These are the seven after the four rightly-guided caliphs and when Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz is not counted amongst them. The twelfth of them is Walid Ibn Yazid Ibn Abd al-Malik.

Our Reply: This is the worst possible and most insulting interpretation of the Prophetic tradition, even if Ibn Hajar says that it is the most preferable of all interpretations. We will not argue about the antecedents of the Bani Umayyah and the incorrectness of attributing them to be from the Quraysh, as these traditions announce explicitly that the twelve Imams (a.s.) will be from the Quraysh.

Muawiyyah Ibn Abi Sufyan

How on earth can such tidings, which were announced as glorification of the twelve caliphs, be applicable for Muawiyyah’s caliphate? For, he is the one who

- Fought with Ameerul Momineen Ali Ibn Abi Taalib (a.s.), about whom the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) declared, ‘War against you (O Ali) is war against me’
- Organized speeches abusing Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) from the pulpits and,
- Poisoned to death Imam Hasan al-Mujtaba (a.s.), the chief of the youth of Paradise.

Yazid Ibn Muawiyyah

How on earth can these traditions apply for a beast like Yazid Ibn Muawiyyah, who

Fought against and mercilessly martyred Imam Husain (a.s.), his family and friends
Was a transgressor who committed sins publicly and announced his disbelief freely becoming a part of the renowned poems of Ibn al-Zab’ari, which he (Yazid) recited in joy when the severed head of Imam Husain (a.s.) was brought to him.
He was the one who ordered Muslim Ibn Aqabah to kill and plunder the people of Madinah on three occasions. During these attacks, he killed a number of companions and the city of Madinah was totally ransacked. It was during these attacks that more than 1000 Muslim virgins were raped and whenever a Muslim from Madinah offered his daughter in marriage, he did not guarantee her virginity saying, ‘Perhaps, she has lost her virginity during the Tragedy of Haraa.’ It is said that four thousand illegitimate children were born after this incident. Muslim, in his Saheeh, reports that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) warned, ‘Whoever frightens the people of Madinah, Allah will frighten him and upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels and all mankind.’[1]
Waaqedi narrates on the authority of Abdullah Ibn Hanzalah, ‘By Allah! We did not visit Yazid but that we feared a stone falling on our heads from the sky (as a divine punishment) because he was a man who married his mothers, daughters and sisters, drank wine, did not pray[2] and he is the one who had ordered the attack on the Holy Ka’bah.

Suyuti and others report on the authority of Nawfil Ibn Abi al-Furaat, “I was with Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz, when a person while mentioning Yazid, said, ‘the chief of the faithfuls, Yazid Ibn Muawiyyah’. On hearing this, Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz (became angry) and asked, ‘You call Yazid as Ameerul Momineen?’ and ordered that he be whipped 20 lashes.”[3]

It is mentioned in Al-Sawaaeq that it was said to S’ad Ibn Hassaan, ‘The Bani Umayyah claim that the caliphate is among them.’ He retorted, ‘The sons of the blue-eyed (referring to Hind �” the wife of Abu Sufyaan) are lying. They are mere kings; nay, the worst of kings.’

Abd al-Malik Ibn Marwan

How on earth can these traditions be applied for the caliphate of Abd al-Malik, the treacherous, the one who prohibited the Islamic injunction of enjoining good (ا�…ر بال�…عروف).

Suyuti records, ‘Among the evil deeds of Abd al-Malik was the appointment of Hajjaaj as a governor for the Muslims and the sahaabaa (r.a.), who was degrading and insulting them through killings, assault, abuse and imprisonments. Indeed, he killed innumerable sahaabaa and great taabe’een, apart from the ordinary folks. He put a seal around the neck of Anas and other companions with the intent of degrading them. May Allah not have mercy on him and may Allah not forgive him.’[4]

Waleed Ibn Yazid Ibn Abd al-Malik

How on earth can these traditions be applied for a person like Waleed Ibn Yazid Ibn Abd al-Malik, the sinner, the alcoholic and the one who did not care for the prohibitions of Allah? He is the one who went for Hajj to drink wine atop the Holy Ka’bah, for which he received outright condemnation from the people.[5] He is the one who opened the Holy Quran and on seeing the verse, واستفتحوا و خاب كل�’ جب�’ار عنيد And they asked for judgment and every insolent oppressor was disappointed [6], he flung it on the ground and shot it with an arrow, reciting,

Are you threatening me with the (words of) insolent oppressor?

Here, I am that insolent and oppressor

When you (Quran) are brought on the Day of Gathering by your Lord

Say, O Lord, Waleed has ripped me apart.[7]

He continued to live in vulgar opulence and luxury till he was killed.

Is this the might and respect of Islam? Is this the representation of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)?

It is reported that when he left for Hajj, he carried along with himself dogs in trunks, got a dome fabricated as per the size of the Ka’bah to place it on its top and carried a few trunks of wine. By this he intended to place the dome on the Ka’bah and sit in it to drink wine. But his advisors dissuaded him from doing so fearing the wrath of the people. Waleed finally relented.[8]

Masoodi reports on the authority of Mubarrad, ‘Waleed has recited some poems in which he has overtly proclaimed disbelief, and while mentioning the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he said:

The Hashemites played with the caliphate

(Actually) neither any revelation came, nor did any Book descend

And say to Allah to stop me, my food

And say to Allah to stop me, my drink.[9]

Is’haaq Ibn Muhammad al-Azraq recounts, ‘I went to Mansoor Ibn Jahoor al-Azdi after the murder of Waleed. He had two maids from the slave-girls of Waleed… One of them said, ‘We were among his favorite and most respected slave-girls. He went to bed with her (indicating to the other slave girl), when the call for the prayer (azaan) was made. He ordered her to lead the prayers of the people while she was drunk, unclean and veiled.’[10]

Suyuti brings a narration from the Musnad of Ahmad: “A man will come for this nation, called Waleed, who will be more oppressive to his people than Fir’aun was for his nation.”[11]

Therefore, it will be more apt to name such persons as Fir’aun than the Caliphs (of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.)) as they resemble the disbelievers and the apostates more than the companions of Prophet Eesaa (a.s.) or the chiefs of the Bani Israel.

If we so desire, we can exhaust the discussion on the likes of the Bani Umayyah but we intend to cut it short due to fear of prolongation.

We say: How can Qazi Ayaaz be satisfied with appointing these tyrants as the caliphs of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), about whom he (s.a.w.a.) has given tidings, and has informed that they will act with guidance and that if they were not there, the world will be destroyed with its inhabitants, and that till they exist, the Islamic nation will continue to survive and that they are like the chiefs (نقباء) of the Bani Israel.

Even more stunning is their omission of Imam Hasan (a.s.) from the narration, despite the fact that he (a.s.) was clearly named as a caliph in the traditions narrated from his grandfather, the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.), and the inclusion of Yazid, Moawiyah and Bani al-Aas, whom he (s.a.w.a.) has cursed in these traditions.

And why did they not include Umar Ibn Abd al-Aziz among these caliphs?

(Abridged from the English translation of the book ‘Muntakhab al-Asar’, vol. 1, (published by Naba Publications, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran) by Ayatollah Lotfollah Saafi Golpaygani (may Allah prolong his life))!

[1] Murooj al-Zahab, vol. 3, pg. 69.

[2] Taarikh al-Khulafaa, pg. 209

[3] Al-Sawaaeq al-Mohreqah, pg. 219, printed at Cairo; Taarikh al-Khulafaa, pg. 209, printed at Egypt

[4] Taarikh al-Khulafaa, pg. 220

[5] Taarikh al-Khulafaa, pg. 250; Taarikh al-Tabari, vol. 7, pg. 209

[6] Surah Ibraheem (14): Verse 15

[7] Murooj al-Zahab, vol. 3, pg. 216

[8] Al-Kaamil fi al-Taarikh, vol. 3, pg. 394

[9] Murooj al-Zahab, vol. 3, pg. 216.

[10] Al-Eqd al-Fareed, vol. 2, pg. 290.

[11] Taarikh al-Khulafa, pg. 251

Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim are the two most revered Sunni books. The followers of these books claim that these are Sahih (all the traditions mentioned in these books are authentic and correct).

Let us see in short what these two books have mentioned regarding the conduct of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) with respect to mourning over the dead.

Let us first see the tradition from Sahih-e-Muslim:

Umme Salamah reported, “When Abu Salamah died I said, “I am a stranger in a strange land; I shall weep for him in a manner that would be talked of. I made preparation for weeping for him when a woman from the upper side of the city came there who intended to help me (in weeping). She happened to come across the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) who said, “Do you intend to bring the devil into a house from which Allah has twice driven him out? I (Umme Salamah), therefore, refrained from weeping and I did not weep. (Book #004, Hadith #2007)

In the above tradition the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has prohibited weeping over the dead for it brings the devil into the house.

Now let us see what is mentioned in Bukhari.

Narrated Anas bin Malik, “We were (in the funeral procession) of one of the daughters of the Prophet and he was sitting by the side of the grave. I saw his eyes shedding tears.” (Book #23, Hadith #374)

From the above tradition we see that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) wept for his daughter.

Analysis
1. Both books are claimed to be Sahih and authentic.
2. There are contradictory traditions in each book.
3. As per one tradition the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is prohibiting from crying over the dead while as per the other he himself is crying over his dead daughter.
4. So either one of the books is not Sahih or the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is not practicing what he is preaching.
5. If only one of the books is Sahih, then the authenticity of the other is in doubt.
6. If both are Sahih, then the authenticity of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is in doubt.

With the advent of Muharram, arrives the false propaganda against mourning and weeping over the dead from the so called followers of true Islam.

While these Muslims disagree with the Shias on the point of whether to weep or not, let us see whether two of their very revered personalities, Umar and Ayesha had a common view on this issue.

It is narrated from Saeed b. Musayyab that Ayesha mourned over her father after his death. When this news reached Umar, he ordered prohibition against it, but Ayesha rejected the caliph’s order. Then Hesham b. Walid was ordered to go to Ayesha and stop her from mourning loudly. As soon as the women acted as per Hesham’s order, they left the house and Umar addressed them saying, ‘Do you intend to chastise Abu Bakr by your weeping? Surely the dead are chastised due to weeping over them.’

(Sahih Tirmizi: tradition 1002)

From the above incident it can be concluded that:
1. If the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had actually prohibited weeping over the dead (as Umar claimed), then by crying, Ayesha disobeyed the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) order.

2. It can be argued that she must have been overcome by her emotions, but when Umar ordered her not to weep, she did not obey him thereby disobeying the so-called caliph of Muslims.

This makes Ayesha someone who
a. did not follow the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) tradition
b. was overcome by her emotions
c. disobeyed the so-called caliph

Yet, Bukhari has recorded many traditions from her in his Sahih.

A section of the Muslims who find themselves in a spot while defending Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) make lame excuses and indulge in Shia-bashing as if maligning Shias is the answer to all their woes. Among their most ludicrous claims is that the Shias themselves killed Imam Husain (a.s.) and are now repenting for the same.

Read the below 5 point article to this allegation against the Shias.

Doubt

A section of the Muslims who find themselves in a spot while defending Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) make lame excuses and indulge in Shia-bashing as if maligning Shias is the answer to all their woes. Among their most ludicrous claims is that the Shias themselves killed Imam Husain (a.s.) and are now repenting for the same.

Reply

1. Who killed Hamzah?

2. Role of companions

3. Yazid’s role

4. Who are the Shias?

5. Yazid’s forces were not Shias

Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)?

Who killed Ammar?

This lame excuse reminds one of the argument advanced by Yazid’s father nearly 1,400 years ago when he found himself similarly cornered in Siffeen on the count of being responsible for Ammar’s (r.a.) death, a fact prophesied by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

To deflect blame for killing Ammar b. Yasir (r.a.), one of the greatest companions for whom Paradise was assured, Muawiyah conveniently shifted the blame for the crime of murdering Ammar to Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) by suggesting that since Ali (a.s.) had got Ammar to the Battle of Siffeen, he was the one responsible for killing Ammaar and not Muawiyah.

Going by Muawiyah’s rationale the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is likewise responsible for killing his own uncle Hamzah who came to the Battlefield of Ohad on his (s.a.w.a.) instruction!

Apparently, shifting the blame from the perpetrator of the crime to those who are the farthest in committing it is the most favored response of these Muslims.

Let us see how we can identify the perpetrators of other crimes using the rationale of these Muslims.

Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)?

1. Of course, conventional wisdom suggests as backed by history that the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) lies with the infidels of Mecca who waged war against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Muslims.

2. And we have also seen that according to Muawiyah’s rationale, the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) was with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

3. According to the rationale of these Muslims, the responsibility for Hamzah’s death lies with another group altogether. Let’s refer to the 153rd verse of Surah Aale Imran (3) to find the answer:

‘When you ran off precipitately and did not wait for anyone, the Apostle was calling you from your rear…’

Since according to these Muslims, the treachery of the Shias killed Imam Husain (a.s.), it follows that the treachery of the companions in the Battle of Ohad killed Hamzah (a.s.).

However, for obvious reasons these Muslims won’t admit this fact and will apply their rationale selectively against the Shias.

Who killed Usman?

1. Conventional wisdom suggests that Usman was killed by the Muslims who laid siege to his house and ultimately killed him for his misguided policies.

2. But according to the rationale of these Muslims who put the blame squarely on those who act treacherously, the blame for killing Usman lies with his cousin – Muawiyah b. Abu Sufyan.

It is not a secret that the siege on Usman’s house lasted for over a month during which time he sent SOS to, among others, his cousin Muawiyah. However, for the period Usman was under siege which was considerable, Muawiyah did not send in his army to bail out Usman. This despite the fact that Muawiyah had a huge army at his disposal which only two years later took on the might of the entire Muslim army in Siffeen.

If Muawiyah had shown the same alacrity and enthusiasm in sending help to Medina to rescue Usman, that his son Yazid showed after ascending the throne to demand allegiance from Imam Husain (a.s.) in Medina, Usman’s life could well have been saved. Regardless, does this mean that Usman was a victim of Muawiyah’s treachery rather than the Muslims who actually killed him?

Going by the argument of these Muslims, the answer is yes – Muawiyah killed Usman.

Role of companions

Who killed Imam Husain (a.s.)?

According to this group of Muslims, Imam Husain (a.s.) was a victim of treachery by the Shias.

First and foremost if blame must be placed based on treachery, the companions and taabe’een displayed it in ample measure by not supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) against Yazid.

Treachery of the companions and taabe’een

علمائے اہل ِسنت (امام جلال الدین سیوطی،محدث شاہ عبدالعزیز دہلوی
امام سعد الدین تفتازانی وغےرہ) کا اقرار کہ معاویہ باغی تھا اور اسکے علاوہ صحابی ِرسول حضرت عمار بن یاسر (رض) کی شہادت اس بات کا قطعی ثبوت ہے کہ معاویہ باغی تھا
چلو ہم سلفیوں کے امام قاضی شوکانی کی کتابنیل الاوطار مے باغی کے بارے مے پڑھتے ہےں

امام ِوقت کے خلاف بغاوت کرنا مسجد میں زنا کرنے کے مترادف ہے
قاضی شوکانی نیل الاوطار، ج 7 ص 198 میں لکھتے ہیں:
واعلم أن قتال البغاة جائز إجماعا كما حكي ذلك في البحر ولا يبعد أن يكون واجبا لقوله تعالى { فقاتلوا التي تبغي } وقد حكي في البحر أيضا عن العترة جميعا أن جهادهم أفضل من جهاد الكفار إلى ديارهم إذ فعلهم في دار الإسلام كفعل الفاحشة في المسجد
یہ معلوم ہونا چاہیئے کہ اس بات پر اجماع ہے کہ باغی کے خلاف لڑنا جائز ہے جیسا کہ البحر میں درج ہے بلکہ اللہ تعالیٰ کے اس قول کے مطابق تو ایسا کرنا واجب ہے: "فقاتلوا التي تبغي" اور البحر میں یہ بھی درج ہے کہ تمام عترت کا کہنا ہے کہ باغیوں سے لڑنا کفار سے ان کی زمین پر لڑنے سے زیادہ افضل ہے کیونکہ باغیوں کا مسلمانوں کی زمین پر بغاوت کرنا مسجد میں زنا کرنے کے مترادف ہے۔

مام جلال الدین سیوطی اپنی کتاب تاریخ خلفاء، ص 200 میں لکھتے ہیںI:

زھری نماز ِعید کے حوالے سے کہتے ہیں کہ نماز سے قبل خطبہ دینے والا پہلا شخص معاویہ ہے۔

امام شافعی اپنی کتاب ’الام‘ ج ا ص 392 میں لکھتے ہیں

أخبرنا الشافعي قال أخبرنا إبراهيم قال حدثني داود بن الحصين عن عبد الله بن يزيد الخطمي ‏(‏أن النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- وأبا بكر وعمر وعثمان كانوا يبتدئون بالصلاة قبل الخطبة حتى قدم معاوية فقدم الخطبة‏)‏۔

امام شافعی کہتے ہیں کہ عبداللہ بن یزید الخطمی کا قول ہے کہ رسول اللہ (ص)، ابو بکر، عمر اور عثمان خطبہ سے قبل نماز ادا کرتے تھے حتی کہ معاویہ آیا اور اس نے خطبہ کو نماز سے قبل کردیا

ابن کثیر البدایہ والنہایہ، ج 8 ص 139 میں لکھتے ہیں:

وقال قتادة‏:‏ عن سعيد بن المسيب‏:‏ أول من أذن وأقام يوم الفطر والنحر معاوية‏.

قتادہ نے سعید بن المسیب سے بیان کیا ہے کہ معاویہ وہ پہلا شخص تھا جس نے عیدالفطر اور عیدالاضحیٰ کے دوران اذان اور اقامت کہی۔

امام ابن حجر عقسلانی نے فتح الباری شرح صحیح بخاری، ج 2 ص 529 میں اس معاملہ کو مزید واضح کیا ہے:

اس بات پر اختلاف ہے کہ کس نے نماز ِعید میں اذان متعارف کرائی۔ ابن شیبہ نے ایک صحیح سند سے اس کام کو معاویہ کی طرف منسوب کیا ہے جبکہ شافعی کا کہنا ہے کہ یہ بصرہ میں ابن زیاد نے کیا اور داؤد کا کہنا ہے اسے مروان نے شروع کیا، لیکن روایات کی اکثریت اس سے متفق نہیں۔ اسے معاویہ نے شروع کیا بالکل اسی طرح جس طرح اس نے نماز ِعید سے قبل خطبہ شروع کردیا تھا۔

تو اس مرتبہ معاویہ کی مرضی کی تلوار نماز ِعید پر گری۔ جی ہاں ورنہ اصل طریقہ کیا ہے وہ ہم صحیح مسلم میں یوں پڑھتے ہیں:

وحدثنا محمد بن عبد الله بن نمير، حدثنا أبي، حدثنا عبد الملك بن أبي سليمان، عن عطاء، عن جابر بن عبد الله، قال شهدت مع رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الصلاة يوم العيد فبدأ بالصلاة قبل الخطبة بغير أذان ولا إقامة ثم قام متوكئا على بلال فأمر

حضرت جابر بن عبداللہ نے فرمایا کہ میں نے رسول اللہ (ص) کے ساتھ نماز ِعید ادا کی۔ انہوں (ص) نے خطبہ سے قبل نماز ادا کی بغیر اذان اور اقامت کے۔
صحیح مسلم، حدیث 2085

ویسے تو رسول اللہ (ص) کا مندرجہ بالا عمل نواصب کو بتانے کے لئے کافی ہونا چاہئے کہ جس معاویہ کا وہ احترام و تکریم کرتے ہیں وہ کتنا بڑا گستاخ ِرسول تھا کہ اس نے رسول اللہ (ص) کے عمل کو مکمل اور حجت نہ تسلیم کیا اور خود ہی شریعت میں تبدیلیاں کردیں لیکن پھر بھی ہم نماز ِعید کا درست طریقہ کار امام مالک کے حوالے سے بھی پیش کیے دیتے ہیں۔ موطا مالک، کتاب العیدین، حدیث 431:

حدثني يحيى، عن مالك، أنه سمع غير، واحد، من علمائهم يقول لم يكن في عيد الفطر ولا في الأضحى نداء ولا إقامة منذ زمان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى اليوم ‏.‏ قال مالك وتلك السنة التي لا اختلاف فيها عندنا ‏.‏

امام مالک نے کتنے علماء کو فرماتے ہوئے سنا کہ عید الفطر اور عید الاضحیٰ کی رسول اللہ (ص) کے زمانے سے آج تک اذان و اقامت نہیں ہوئی۔ امام مالک نے فرمایا کہ یہ ایک ایسی سنت ہے جس میں ہمارے نزدیک کوئی اختلاف نہیں۔
موطا مالک، کتاب العیدین، حدیث 431

اللہ اکبر
کیا اب بھی کسی ناصبی ابن تیمیہ کی اہلبیت (ع) دشمنی پر شک ہے؛؛؛
Written by Kamaal Haider

اس سوال کا جواب دینے سے پہلے چند امور کا تجزیہ کرنا لازم اور ضروری ہے تاکہ معلوم ہوجائے وہ اسباب و علل کیا تھے کہ جن کی وجہ سے امام حسین نے یزید کی بیعت کو ٹھکرا دیا، خداکا دین اور اپنے نانا کی شریعت کو بچانے کیلئے اپنی جان کی بازی لگادی سب سے پہلے ہم کو یہ دیکھنا ہے کہ بیعت کے معنی اور مفہوم کیا ہے ؟
بیعت کے لغوی معنی: منتہی الا رب میں بیعت کے معنی۔ عہد و پیمان۔کے لکھے ہیں اور بیعت لفظ باع کا مصدر ہے جس کے معنی ہیں فروخت کر دیا۔ چونکہ خرید و فروش میں دو فریق میں عہد و پیمان ہوتا ہے اور اس معاملہ میں دو چیزیں (ایک دوسرے کے عوض میں )بیچنے اور خریدنے والے کے درمیان منتقل ہوتی ہیں تو اس کے معنی ہوئے طرفین کے درمیان عہد وپیمان اور دو چیزوں کا ایک دوسرے کی طرف منتقل ہونا ۔ جس کو قانونی زبان میں بدل کہتے ہیں ۔کوئی بھی معاملہ بغیر بدل کے جائز نہیں اور جس معاہدۂ بیع کی بنیاد پر بیعت کو قائم کیا گیا ہے اس میں بھی یہی شرط ہوتی ہے معاملۂ بیع قرآن شریف میں اس طرح ذکر ہوا ہے ۔ ومن الناس من یشری نفسہ ابتغاء مرضات اللہ ۔
اس بیع وشریٰ میں دونوں طرف سے حصول بدل ہے ۔ ایک فریق نے اپنا نفس بیچا اور دوسرے نے اپنی رضامندی اس کے عوض میں عنایت کی لیکن یہ خدا اور بندہ کے درمیان کامعاملہ ہے اگر بادشاہ اور رعایا کے درمیان بھی ہو تو عین مطابق اصول مذہب و قانون ہو گا دوسری بات یہ ہے کہ فریقین کے عہد و پیمان کے جوازکے لئے ان دونوں کی آزاد رای ہونا ضروری ہے اگر جبر و ا کراہ آ گیا توپھر اقرار و عہد و پیمان کی نوعیت و ماہیت بدل جاتی ہے ۔بیعت کی اصل نوعیت اور ماہیت معلوم کرنے سے یہ بات ثابت ہو جاتی ہے کہ اسلام میں حکومت اس عہد و پیمان کے اوپر مبنی ہے جو رعایا اور حاکم کے درمیان ہوتا ہے حاکم وعدہ کرتا ہے کہ میں تمہارے اوپر شرع و سنّت رسول کے مطابق حکومت کرونگا رعایا اقرار کرتی ہے کہ اگر تم نے احکام خدا اور رسول کے مطابق عمل کیا تو ہم تمہارے ہر ایک حکم کی اطاعت کرینگے گویا یہ اطاعت با دشاہ کے اسلامی طرز عمل کے سا تھ مشروط ہے لیکن حکومت کا یہ تخیّل اسلام کے علاوہ کسی اور مذہب یا قانون میں نہیں پایا جاتا ۔دیگر قوانین میں حکومت کی بناء طاقت و جبر کے اوپر ہوتی ہے اسلام میں حکومت کی بنا ء مذہب الہیہ پر ہے ۔اب ہمیں یزید کے طرز عمل کو دیکھنا ہے خود بخود یہ بات واضح و روشن ہو جائیگی کہ امام حسین نے یز یدکی بیعت کیوں نہیں کی تھی۔
تاریخ کے آئینہ میں یزیدکا کردار: یزید کی تصویر ہر ایک تاریخ کی کتاب میں اچھی طرح کھینچی گئی ہے مورّخ ابن کثیر دمشقی نہایت متعصّب مورّخ ہے اور ان لوگوں میں سے ہے جو یہ کہتے ہیں کہ حسینؑ یزید سے لڑ نے کے لئے گئے تھے وہ بھی یہ کہنے پر مجبور ہے کہ :
یزید شراب پینے اور رقص و سرود و شکار میں منہمک رہنے میں بہت مشہور ہو گیا تھا وہ رنڈیوں اور لونڈیوں کی صحبت پسند کرتا تھا، کتّوں اور بندروں کے ساتھ کھیلتا تھا، مینڈھوں اور مرغوں کی لڑ ائی کا شائق تھا، کوئی صبح ایسی نہیں ہوتی تھی کہ وہ شراب سے مخمور نہ اٹھے ، بندر کو علماء کے کپڑ ے پہنا کر ، گھوڑ ے پر بٹھا کر بازاروں میں پھراتا تھا بندروں کو سونے اور چاندی کے ہار پہناتا تھا اور جب کوئی بندر مرتا تو رنج و غم کرتا تھا ۔
(البدایہ والنہایہ فی التاریخ الجزء الثامن ص۵۳۲ ‘ والبلاغ المبین محمد سلطان مرزادہلوی۔حصّہ۲ ‘ص۸۸۶)
نتیجہ :اب جب ہم نے بیعت کی نوعیت ، اسلامی حکومت کی ماہیت اور یزید کی ہیئت معلوم کر لی تواب یہ معلوم کرنا بہت آسان ہو گیا کہ امام حسین ؑ نے ا سکی بیعت کیوں نہیں کی تھی در اصل اسلام میں وہ شخص حاکم نہیں ہو سکتا جو شرع اسلامی کی علانیہ ہتک کرتا ہو اور اس کے ان اوامر و نواہی کی بھی تعمیل نہ کرتا ہو جن میں نہ تاویل کا کوئی موقع اور نہ شبہ کی کوئی گنجائش ہو وہ بیعت طلب کرنے کا حقدا رہی نہ تھا کیوں کہ اس نے اپنی طرف سے کوئی عہد و پیمان نہیں کیا تھا کہ وہ اوامر و نواہی اسلام کے مطابق عمل کریگا اور بیعت میں طرفین کی طرف سے عہد وپیمان اور آزاد رای کا ہونا ضروری ہے لیکن بیعت یزید کی پیشکش میں دونو ں میں سے ایک شرط بھی نہیں پائی جاتی در حقیقت اس کو مطلقا حکومت کا کوئی حق ہی نہیں پہونچتا تھا پھر وہ کس بنیاد پر امام حسین سے بیعت طلب کر رہا تھا بلکہ اس کے بر عکس بیعت لینے کا اصلی حق امام حسین کو تھا کہ آپ کی بیعت کی جاتی۔ پس معلوم ہوا کہ حسین وارث تھے اور یزید غاصب ۔
ا س میں کچھ شک نہیں کہ امام حسین نے بیعت یزید سے نہایت سختی کے ساتھ انکار کیا کیونکہ امام جانتے تھے اور آخر وقت تک جانتے تھے کہ اگر وہ بیعت کر لیں تو پھر تمام مصائب یک لخت دور ہو جائیں گے ، پھر ان کے لخت جگر عزیز و اقارب اور احباب قتل اور اہل حرم تشہیر و رسوائی سے بچ جائیں گے ، لیکن اسلام کا کوئی نام لیوا نہ رہے گا شام سے تو اسلام ختم ہو ہی گیا تھا عرب سے بھی مفقود ہو جاتا اور پھر یزید واقعی کہہ سکتا تھا کہ میں نے اپنے دادا کا بدلہ لے لیا ۔اور پھر ان کے مذہب کو رائج کر دیا لیکن امام حسین کو ایک ایسی چیز کی حفاظت منظور تھی جو اس عظیم الشان فدیٔہ جان کے دیئے بغیر محفوظ نہیں رہ سکتی تھی اوروہ عزیز شے نماز‘ رسول کی شریعت اوراسلام کی حقّانیت تھی جس کو امام نے سجدے میں سرکٹا کرہمیشہ کے لئے زندۂ جاوید کر دیا۔

شیخ ناصر الدین البانی نے اپنے سلسلة الأحاديث الصحيحة میں رسول اللہ [ص] کی غیب کی پیشنگوئیوں کے حوالہ سے عنوان قائم کیا ھے جسکے ذیل میں ابن ابی عاصم کے طریق سے ایک روایت کی تخریج کری ھے رسول خدا [ص] نے فرمایا کہ پہلا شخص جو میری سنت کو تبدیل کرے گا وہ بنی امیہ سے ہوگا۔ شیخ البانی نے اس حدیث کی سند کو صحیح کہا ھے جبکہ حدیث کے متن کے حوالہ سے شیخ البانی لکھتے ہیں کہ شاید اس حدیث میں تبدیلی سے خلیفہ کے انتخاب کے طریقہ کار کی تبدیلی اور خلافت کو میراث بنالینا مراد ہو ۔
سلسلة الأحاديث الصحيحة//جلد4//صفحہ329//طبعہ مکتبہ معارف ریاض۔

ہماری نظر میں شیخ البانی کی یہ تاویل فاسد ھے جسکی رکاکت ظاہر ھے کیونکہ سنت رسول [ص] کے اسوہ حسنہ سے تعبیر ھے جسکا خلیفہ کے انتخاب کے طریقہ کار سے دور کا بھی کوئی تعلق نہی ھے۔

As Ahlebait Tv celebrated a yazid murdabaad day, they were being taken to court by noor tv and islam tv . I
was a bit supporised that yazid inspite of knowing the history these people still support yazid Astakfaar. Yazid was there ancester and they inherit their genes from him so no wonder why they don't feel the pain of Ahlebait A.s.
But let me remind you of some the crimes committed by that dreadful Beast Yazid(the hero of the Kafir Zakir Naik)

Dreadful Crimes of Yazid Ibne Muawiya

The First Dreadful Crime: Killing Abu Abdillah Al-Husain (as).

Yazid son of Muawiya with that inhuman and wicked qualities in his first year of his rule martyred the “Leader of the Youth of the Paradise” Abu Abdullah al-Husain(A.S.) and his family and companions in that tragic state.

The Second Dreadful Crime: Killing and raping thousands of Residents of Madina and Desecrating Masjid Nabavi

In his second year of his rule he created the deplorable incident of “Harrah” which blackened the pages of history. The people of Madinah after the martyrdom of Imam Husain (A.S.) came to know the evils of Yazid and refused to obey him and threw out the agents of Yazid from Madinah.

Yazid on previous advice of his father Muawiya, sent a heartless and bloody old man Muslim ibn Aqbah with a strong army towards the holy tomb of Prophet of Islam (S.A.W.) at Madinah. The army of Yazid in that holy city committed such heinous crimes that the pen is ashamed to describe it.

The army of Yazid confronted the people of Madinah within a mile from Madinah, at a place called “Harrah” in the command of Abdullah ibn Hanzala. A fierce battle took place. The people of Madinah who could not defend themselves took refuge in the tomb sanctuary of Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.). The Syrian Yazidi army entered Madinah. They broke the sanctity of that holy place and shed the blood of the people so much so that the holy mosque (Masjid Nabawi) was filled with blood which even reached Holy Prophet’s grave.

Their horses impured the Masjid by passing urine and dung. Among the persons who killed were seven hundred people who were famous for piety and nobility. Others who were massacred consisted of ten thousand innocent men, women and children.

The Syrian Yazidi commander left free the army to loot and rape. The shameless Syrian Yazidi army began the plunder and rape. Thousands of girls and women got pregnant those newborns later called “The Children of Harrah”. It is narrated that Yazidi army even committed rape in Masjid un-Nabawi.

A Sample Yazid’s Cruelty to the People of Madinah

Ibn Qutaibah in his book “Al-Imamah va Siyasah” described:

“One of the army man entered a woman’s house who had recently delivered a baby. Her new born baby was sucking milk in the lap of her mother. The man told that lady: Have you got money? She said: I swear God, the Syrian army did not left a single coin for me.

The army man said: Bring some thing for me else I will kill you and your infant.

The woman cried: Woe upon you, this is the child of Prophet’s companion (sahabi). I also gave oath of allegiance to Prophet (S.A.W.) at “Shajara Allegiance”, and pointing her infant told: My child, I swear God, if I have something, I will surely sacrifice upon you”.

Suddenly that accursed man snatched the infant’s leg who was sucking milk and pulled him away from mother’s lap and hit him to the wall. So that the infant’s brain got scattered before her mother’s eyes and spread all over the floor.

The lovely 'Shaikhs' of nasibi/wahabis Uthman al-Khamis who claimed that they love Ahlu-bait (a.s) wrote Amirilmuminin before the name of Yazid. They have opened a whole chapter in defence of Yazid b. Muawiyah (la) in his false book "Hiqbah min at-Tarikh". And chapter is named:

خلافة أمير المؤمنين يزيد بن معاوية

"The succession of Amirilmuminin Yazid"

And i'd like to inform you that there are many books which refutes the false attacks of al-Khamis and one of this books is Reply to the book Hiqba min at-Tarikh - Radd al-nafis ala abaṭil ‘Uthman al-Khamis

Dear Arabic Readers Please feel free to read and download the following book :

Yazeed
The second volume of the same book : Yazeed-the accursed one

یزید خلیفہ ابوبکر عمر عثمان سے افضل تھا
یزید سنیوں کا وہ واحد خلیفہ ہے جس کا انتخاب پہلی بار امت کے عام استصواب سے ہوا -
بغض یزید سے دور رہیں ورنہ بغض یزید کی وجہ سے جہنم میں جانا پڑے گا

The Sayyid speaks about the origin of the fast of Ashura and misconceptions.

من هم قتلة الحسیشی نعة الكوفة

Words of Wisdom From Imam Hussain

Shion Par Kya Guzri? By Agha Mehdi Lakhnavi

Sub Ke Hussain (A.S)

By: Bintul Huda

The book the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written in year 1954, contains the historical events that occurred to the British nation since the time of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him).

The book mentions for every year the events happened during it until it comes on the mention of the events happened during the year of 685 after Christ and it is the year of 61 Hijri – the year of martyrdom of the grandson of holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him & his progeny), Al-Imam Abi Abdellahil Hussein (peace be upon him) -, then the author mentions that in this year the sky rained blood and the people in Britain found that milk and butter turned to the blood!!!

Here are pictures from the book and the intended page.

Ayatullah Khoei

Here are some of hundreds of Fatawa, or verdicts, by eminent marajay of Shiite World regarding Azadari of Chief of Martyrs:

Grand Ayatullah ash-Sheikh Muhammad Hussain an-Naa’ini
(The teacher of the Marajay of the holy city of Najaf)

“There is no doubt as to the permissibility of the beating of the chest and the face with the hands to the point of redness or blackness (of the chest or the face). This is also extended to the lashing of the shoulders and the back with chains to the extent mentioned (above), and even if this led to bleeding. As for causing the bleeding of the head by sword beating, this is also allowed provided it does not lead to endangering harm, such as unstoppable bleeding or harm to the scull, etc. as it is known amongst the experts in doing this (hitting on the head).”

The above Fatwa by Grand Ayatullah ash-Sheikh Muhammad Hussain an-Naa’ini was endorsed and signed by the following eminent Marajay:

Ayatullah al-Udhma as-Seyyid Mohsen al-Hakim,
Ayatullah al-Udhma as-Seyyid Muhammad Kaadhem al-Shari’at Madari,
Ayatullah al-Udhma as-Seyyid Abd-el-A’la as-Sabzewary,
Ayatullah al-Udhma as-Seyyid Abul-Qassim al-Kho’i,
Ayatullah al-Udhma as-Seyyid Muhammad Ridha al-Gulpaygani,
Ayatullah al-Udhma as-Seyyid Ali al-Hussaini as-Seestani,
Ayatullah al-Udhma as-Seyyid Muhammad Saadiq ar-Rouhani,
Ayatullah al-Udhma al-Mirza Jawaad al-Tabrizi,
Ayatullah al-Udhma as-Sheikh Hussain al-Waheed al-Khurasani
And many other Maraje’ and eminent scholars…

Ayatollah al-Udhma al-Seyyid al-Kho’i
(The former leader of the Hawzah of the holy city of Najaf)

Question: Is there any problem with causing the bleeding of the head – TATBIR – as it is practiced, to express one’s grief about the martyrdom of our Imam Hussain peace be upon him, assuming there is going to be no permanent harm?

Answer: There is no problem with that, given the assumption made in the question, and Allah knows best.

Question: You stated that there is no problem in causing the bleeding of the head – known as TATBIR – if it does not lead to harm. It is said that it is not more than a permissible act, then can TATBIR be MUSTAHAB – desirable – if the intention was the upholding and honouring the Sha’a’er – signs of Allah – and sympathy with the Ahl-ul-Bayt, peace be upon them?

Answer: Most probably Allah Almighty would give thawab – reward (the individual) – for sympathising with the Ahl-ul-Bayt if the intention is sincere.

Grand Ayatullah as-Seyyid ash-Shirazi
Question: Some individuals say that I do not see shedding my tears as enough to express my grief for Imam Hussain (AS), his household and his followers on the day of Ashura. So is hitting myself with sword and injuring myself is allowed?

An Analysis of Hadeeth of Constantinople presented by Nasibin in favor of Yazeed. Maulana Ishaq (Ahle-Hadeeth Scholar) explains.

by
Ali Jaffri
12-04-2012 at 11:37 PM (2 Views)

A Sunni brother mentioned:

Imam Hussein (A.S) was truthful in his determination to change the munkar, but he was adviced by the likes of Ibn Abbas and Ibn Umar that he was overoptimistic with the people of Iraq and their help. Hussein, being a human who is not ma3soom like the prophets, exercised his Ijtihad.
Our Reply :

Based on what is even reported by the Sunnis, Imam Hussein knew that he will be killed in Ashura in Karbala, and yet he went forward. Not only Imam Hussein, but also all the Prophets of God knew about the detail of this catastrophe. From Adam, to Noah, to Moses, to Zakariyya, to Yahya (John), to Muhammad, all cried for Imam Hussein (A.S) and remembered him on the day of Ashura.

Imam Hussein, before he leaves Medina, saw the Messenger of Allah in dream who told him:

"Verily Allah willed to see you martyred. Verily Allah willed to see your family captives"

He knew that he will be killed where and how. There was no error in his part or what you called overestimation of the people of Iraq. A person who goes to a battle which has an uncertain ending, never takes his family, women, and children with him, and never put their lives in to jeopardy. But Imam Hussein did all that, knowing all the tragic events which will happen to them from setting their tents on fire (by the soldiers of Yazid) to plundering them and moving them from town to town. But he took with him women and children because they were supposed to deliver a message to the people of each town and to wake them up from their deep sleep. No doubt that the event of Karbala was a turning point in the destiny of the religion of Islam, by which the religion was immuned form annihilation. Individuals, however, are not immune from going astray. But the blast in Karbala and its inspiring effects on the hearts of people never let Islam to be eradicated.

Another brother mentioned that if one knows that by going to certain place, he would be certainly killed, the going to that place is considered to be suicide, and as such, how could Imam Imam-Hussein go toward Karbala if he knew that he would be killed?

    The above question is interesting. Imam Hussein knew where and how he will be killed and who will kill him. This was the case for the other Imams of Ahl-ul-Bayt as well. Even Sunnis narrated that the Prophet (PBUH) told Imam Ali who kills him and when will he be killed. But none of them avoided what Allah foreordained. Thus Imams having the knowledge of when they die is confirmed by both Sunni and Shia.
    It should be noted that the prophets and Imams share with the rest of humanity the means for obtaining knowledge which Allah has given: the senses, the intellect, etc. They also possess special powers and means which other people do not have. In carrying out the commands of Allah in which people have also responsibility, and likewise in ordinary behavior, the prophets and Imams only make use of the first way of knowing, that is the commonly available means. The second means (extraordinary means) is only used by them in duties and works which are connected with their position of prophet hood and Imamate.
    Thus in matters such as knowing the beginning of the month, passing judgment, finding out if something is unclean or pure, etc., they make use of ordinary means such as sighting of the moon, and so forth, which anyone else employs. The extraordinary means of knowledge cannot be the basis for their action (unless in some rare circumstances when Allah wishes otherwise), and what they volitionally do must be determined by the means available to everyone. In other words, the act of Imam is based on the conclusion of pieces of evidences which can be obtained by the ordinary human beings, and not by the information related to what Allah has foreordained, otherwise a contradiction would arise: For instance, Allah foreordained that Imam Ali be killed by Ibn Muljam (LA) in the Mosque on a specific date, but since Imam Ali knows this via an extraordinary means of knowledge given by Allah, if he avoids the Mosque, he would have gone against what Allah foreordained which is impossible.
Likewise, Imam Hussein (A.S) though knew most of the people of Iraq will not follow him, he did his duty by answering their unanimous call. Imam Hussein sent his agent, Muslim Ibn Aqeel to Kufa, since he wanted to do the investigation as an ordinary human being does. This is while he knew the situation in Kufa by extraordinary means of knowledge and that Muslim Ibn Aqeel will be killed, yet he was not supposed to act based on what is concealed from an ordinary human being. He acts based on the extraordinary means of knowledge only if Allah wishes so and such circumstances are rare.

Thus, such extraordinary knowledge has spiritual aspect as being the Representative of Allah (Khlifatullah), and the reason for it must be sought on this level, and it is not for the purpose of influencing and controlling the events on the level of ordinary understanding.
    Source: al-islam.org

We find in surat ul kauthar

إِنَّ شَانِئَكَ هُوَ الْأَبْتَرُ

Surely your enemy is the one who shall be without posterity,
keep this thing in mind; and read what the greatest Muawiya lover ibn kathir wrote

فمنهم معاوية بن يزيد بن معاوية يكنى أبا ليلى، وهو الذي يقول فيه الشاعر‏:‏

إني أرى فتنة قد حان أولها * والملك بعد أبي ليلى لمن غلبا

وخالد بن يزيد يكنى أبا هاشم كان يقال‏:‏ إنه أصاب علم الكيمياء، وأبو سفيان، وأمهما أم هاشم بنت أبي هاشم بن عتبة بن ربيعة بن عبد شمس‏.‏

وقد تزوجها بعد يزيد بن مروان بن الحكم وهي التي يقول فيها الشاعر‏:‏

أنعمي أم خالدٍ * ربَّ ساعٍ كقاعد

وعبد العزيز بن يزيد ويقال له‏:‏ الأسوار، وكان من أرمى العرب، وأمه أم كلثوم بنت عبد الله بن عامر وهو الذي يقول فيه الشاعر‏:‏

زعم الَّناس أنَّ خير قريشٍ * كلهم حين يذكرون الأساور

‏(‏ج/ص‏:‏ 8/60‏)‏

وعبد الله الأصغر، وأبو بكر، وعتبة، وعبد الرحمن، والربيع، ومحمد، لأمهات أولاد شتىَّ‏.‏

ويزيد، وحرب، وعمر، وعثمان‏.‏

فهؤلاء خمسة عشر ذكراً، وكان له من البنات‏:‏ عاتكة، ورملة، وأم عبد الرحمن، وأم يزيد، وأم محمد، فهؤلاء خمس بنات‏.‏

وقد انقرضوا كافة فلم يبق ليزيد عقب، والله سبحانه أعلم‏.‏

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/view...251&CID=133#s1

So basically, he is enumerating the sons and daughters of yazeed paleed

here is summary

Sons
1-mawia bin yazeed
2-khalid bin yazeed
3-abu sufian
4-abdullah
5-abdullah asghar
6-umar
7-abu bakar
8-atba
9-rabi
10-mohammad
11- yazeed
12-harb
13- umar
14-uthman
15-abdul aziz

Daughters

1-atika
2-ramla
3-um abdur rehman
4-um yazeed
5-um mohammad

Now

pay attention to these words

وقد انقرضوا كافة فلم يبق ليزيد عقب، والله سبحانه أعلم‏.‏

no doubt, all of these got extinct/died, and yazeed did not leave behind anything; and allah is great and the most knowledgeable

we start with this narration from al-bidaya wa an nihaya;

وقد قال الإمام أحمد‏:‏ حدثنا أبو عبد الرحمن، ثنا حيوة، حدثني بشير بن أبي عمرو الخولاني‏:‏ أن الوليد بن قيس حدثه أنه سمع أبا سعيد الخدري يقول‏:‏ سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول‏:‏ ‏(‏‏(‏يكون خلفٌ من بعد ستين سنة أضاعوا الصلاة واتبعوا الشهوات فسوف يلقون غياً، ثم يكون خلف يقرأون القرآن لا يجاوز تراقيهم، ويقرأ القرآن ثلاثة مؤمن ومنافق وفاجر‏)‏‏)‏‏.‏

‏(‏ج/ص‏:‏ 8/253‏)‏

فقلت للوليد‏:‏ ما هؤلاء الثلاثة‏؟‏

قال‏:‏ المنافق كافر به، والفاجر يتأكل به، والمؤمن يؤمن به

http://www.al-eman.com/Islamlib/view...51&CID=132#s12
Abu Saeed said that Holy Prophet said that after 60th year, their will be men who will miss salat, follow lust and will be thrown in hell; then there will be men who will recite quran, but it will not pass their throats, and there will be three people who would recite quran, momin-monafiq-fajir;
narrator asked waleed what is this?
he said that monafiq will negate it, fajir will try to eat thru it/earn money; and momin will believe in it

Imam Al-Nawasib, Ibn Kathir, had written in Al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya.

آج کے دور کے نواصب بھرپور کوشش کرتے ہیں کہ کسی نہ کسی طرح اپنے جد یزید (لعین) کو قتل ِحسین کے الزام سے بچالیا جائے لیکن وہ یہ حقیقت بھول جاتے ہیں یزید نے صرف آل ِمحمد و اصحاب کے قتل کا گناہ انجام نہیں دیا بلکہ اس ملعون کی تمام زندگی کبائر گناہ میں ڈوبی ہوئی تھی اور سانحہ ِکربلا کے بعد واقعہ ِحرہ جس کے دوران جو حرکات یزید اور یزیدی لشکر نے انجام دیں، انہیں بیان کرتے ہوئے کئی عمائے اہل ِسنت کے ہاتھ کانپ اٹھے ہیں۔

علامہ ابن حزم جو کہ مسلک ِاہل ِسنت اور خصوصا ْسلفی اور اھل حدیث طبقہ میں معتبر عالم سمجھے جاتے ہیں اور انہیں "امام الجلیل ،المحدث الفقیہ ،الاصولی،قوی العارضہ،شدید المعارضہ،بالغ الحجت،صاحب تصنیف ،مجدد القرن الخامس" جیسے القابات سے نوازہ جاتا ہے، یزید کے متعلق لکھتے ہیں:

یزید بن معاویہ سے اس کے والد کے انتقال ہونے پر بیعت کی گئی .اس کی کنیت ابوخالد تھی. حسین بن علی بن ابی طالب (ع) اور عبداللہ بن زبیر بن العوم نے اس کی بیعت سے انکار کیا ،پھر امام حسین علیہ السلام والرحمہ تو کوفہ کی طرف نہضت فرماگئے اور کوفے میں داخل ہونے سے پہلے ہی آپ (ع) کو شہید کر ڈالا گیا. حسین (ع) کی شہادت عثمان کی شہادت کے بعد اسلام میں تیسری مصیبت اور عمر بن خطاب کی شہادت کے بعد چوتھی مصیبت اور اسلام میں رخنہ اندازی ہے کیونکہ حسین (ع) کی شہادت سے مسلمانوں پر علانیہ ظلم توڑا گیا،اور عبداللہ بن زبیر نے مکہ معظمہ جا کر جوار الہیٰٰ میں پناہ لی. اور وہیں مقیم ہوگئے . یزید نے مدینہ نبوی حرم رسول اللہ (ص) اور مکہ معظمہ کیطرف جو اللہ تعالیٰٰ کا حرم ہے .اپنی فوجیں لڑنے کے لئے بھیجیں . چنانچہ حرہ کی جنگ میں مہاجرین اور انصار جو باقی رہ گئے تھے .ان کا قتل عام کیا . یہ حادثہ فاجعہ بھی اسلام کے بڑے مصائب اور اس میں رخنہ اندازمیں شمار ہوتا ہے کیونکہ افاضل مسلمین ،بقیہ صحابہ اور اکابر تابعین میں بہترین مسلمان اس جنگ میں کھلے دھاڑے ظلما`` قتل کر دیئے گئے اور گرفتار کر کے ان کو شہید کر دیا گیا.یزیدی لشکر کے گھوڑے رسول اللہ (ص) کی مسجد میں جولانی دکھاتے رہے اور "ریاض الجنہ" میں آنحضرت (ص) کی قبر اور آپ (ص) کے منبر مبارک کے درمیان لید کرتے اور پیشاب کرتے رہے . ان دنوں مسجد نبوی میں کسی ایک نماز بھی جماعت نہ ہوسکی اور نہ بجز سعید المسیب کے وہاں کوئی فرد موجود تھا انھوں نے مسجد نبوی کو بالکل نہ چھوڑا اگرعمرو بن عثمان بن عفان اور مروان بن الحکم (یزید کے سالار لشکر) مجرم مسلم بن عقبہ کے سامنے یہ شہادت نہ دیتے کہ یہ دیوانہ ہے تو وہ ان کو بھی ضرور مار ڈالتا اور اس نے اس حادثہ میں لوگوں کو اس پر مجبور کیا کہ وہ یزید بن معاویہ سے اس شرط پر بیعت کریں کہ وہ اس کے غلام ہیں چاہے وہ ان کو بیچے ،چاہے ان کو آزاد کرے اور جب اس کے سامنے ایک صاحب نے یہ بات رکھی کہ ہم قرآن و سنت رسول (ص) کے حکم کے مطابق بیعت کرتے ہیں تو اس نے ان کے قتل کا حکم دیا اور انکو گرفتار کر کے فورا`` قتل کر دیا گیا .اس مسرف یا مجرم مسلم بن عقبہ نے اسلام کی بڑی بے عزتی کی .مدینہ منورہ میں تین دن برابر لوٹ مار کا سلسلہ جاری رہا ، رسول اللہ (ص) کے صحابہ کو ذلیل کیا گیا اور ان پر دست دارازی کی گئی .ان کے گھروں کو لوٹا گیا ،پھر یہ فوج مکہ معظمہ کا محاصرہ کیا گیا اور بیت اللہ پر منجنیق سے سنگباری کی گئی . یہ کام حصین بن نمیر کی سر کردگی میں شام کے لشکروں نے انجام دیا جس کی وجہ یہ تھی کہ مجرم بن عقبہ مری کو تو جنگ حرہ کے تین دن بعد ہی موت نے آدبوچا تھا اور اب اس کی جگہ سالار لشکر حصین بن نمیر ہو گیا تھا اور اللہ تعالی ٰٰ نے یزید کو بھی اسی طرح پکڑا جس طرح وہ غالب قدرت والا پکڑتا ہے .چنانچہ واقعہ حرہ کے بعد تین ماہ سے کم ، اور دو ماہ سے زائد کی مدت میں موت کے منہ میں چلا گیا اور یزیدی لشکر مکہ معظمہ سے واپس چلے گئے .یزید کی موت 15 ربیع الاول 64 ھجری کو واقع ہوئی .اس وقت اس کی عمر کچھ اوپر تیس سال تھی . اس کی ماں کا نام میسون بنت بجدل کلبیہ تھا.یزید کی مدت حکمرانی کل تین سال آٹھ ماہ اور کچھ دن تھی

جوامع السیرہ ،رسالہ :اسماء الخلفاء و والولاۃ و ذکر مددھم، ص 357(دارالمعارف مصر)۔

I don't know why the hell they want to prove that YAZEED (Lanatulah Alaih) was innocent and among Taba'een. Shame on supporters & promoters of Yazeed.

Khuda insab ko inke jadd Yazeed ke sath mehshoor farmaye!

عجیب تیری سیاست عجیب تیرانظام
یزید سے بھی مراسم حسین کو بھی سلام

***Hussainiyat zindabad***
Yazeediat murdabad

امام حسین پر رونے کا ثواب جنت ہے :فضائل الصحابہ ،امام احمد

حدثنا أحمد بن إسرائيل قال رأيت في كتاب أحمد بن محمد بن حنبل رحمه الله بخط يده نا اسود بن عامر أبو عبد الرحمن قثنا الربيع بن منذر عن أبيه قال : كان حسين بن علي يقول من دمعتا عيناه فينا دمعة أو قطرت عيناه فينا قطرة اثواه الله عز و جل الجنة

یعنی
:حسین بن علی [علیہا السلام ] فرمایا کرتے تھے جو کوئی ہمارے اوپر ایک آنسو بہائے یا ایک قطرہ اشک بہائے خدا وند اس کا اجر ،جنت قرار دیگا

فضائل الصحابة ج 2 ص 675
المؤلف : أحمد بن حنبل أبو عبد الله الشيباني
الناشر : مؤسسة الرسالة - بيروت
الطبعة الأولى ، 1403 - 1983
تحقيق : د. وصي الله محمد عباسFor Scan Pages See Below