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

Nasibies are doing non stop propaganda that People of Kufa (i.e. Shias) were disloyal to Hussain and Hussain was killed due to them (This is a false accusation upon Shias and please read the reality in this Article).

It is time to show Nasibies the Mirror.

Betrayal of Sahaba of Madina: They were Disloyal & Coward (i.e. Nasibi Taqayyah) & Killers of Uthman

If Uthman was on Haq (right path), then there is no more Disloyalty & Cowardice that he was killed in the presence of thousands of Sahaba & Tabaeen of Madina.

Now Nasibies are welcome to comment upon the Bravery & Loyalty of these thousands of Sahaba & Tabaeen of Madina.

[Note: For us, Uthman was absolutely not on right path, and it were these Sahaba & Tabaeen themselves who killed Uthman. But Nasibies don't accept it, so let them answer how then Uthman was murdered in presence of thousands of these Sahaba & Tabaeen of Madina.]

Uthman's Dead Body was left to rot for 3 days before buried in Jewish Graveyard

Nasibies claim that Sahaba & Tabaeen of Madina were loyal to Uthman.

But it is enough to see how Uthman was left to rot by these Sahaba & Tabaeen in order to refute the Nasibi claim.

We are presenting all of the following Traditions from "History of Tabari" (Enlish Edition, Volume 15, Incidents of Year 35 Hijri), translated by Stephen Humphreys (University of Winsconsin, Madison), published by State University of New York Press.

Image: Cover Page of Book
Image: Page 246
Image: Page 247
Image: Page 248
Image: Page 249

These same traditions have also been mentioned by Ibn Kathir in his Al-badaya wa Al-Nahaya.

First Tradition

(Page 246)

It was related to me by ]a'far b. 'Abdallah al-Muharnmadi—'Amr b. Hammad and 'Ali b. Husayn-Husayn b. ‘lsa—his father-—Abu
Maymunah—Abu Bashir al-'Abidi:
'Uthman’s corpse} was thrown aside and left unburied for three days. Then Hakim bin Hizam al-Qurashi, who was a member of the clan of Asad b. ‘Abd al-'Uzza, and Jubayr b. Mut'im b. 'Adi b. Nawfal b. ‘Abd Manaf spoke to 'Ali about his burial, seeking his permission for ['Uthman’s) family to see to that. 'Ali granted them his permis-sion but when news of this spread people lay in wait for ['Uthman’s body] by the road, armed with stones. A few members of his family set out with |his body], intending to take him to an enclosure in Medina named Hashsh Kawkab, where the Jews used
to bury their dead. Now when ['Uthman's body] was brought out before the people, they stoned his bier and were bent on throwing him to the ground. When 'Ali hear that, he sent and demanded that they leave him alone. They did so, and ['Uthman’s body] was hurried along and interred in Hashsh Kawkab. When Mu‘awiyah b. Abi Sufyan gained supremacy over the Muslims (al-nas], he ordered that enclosure to be razed and transferred [‘Uthman’s body to al-Baqi'. Then he commanded the people to bury their dead around his grave, until ultimately (those graves] adjoined the cemetery of the Muslims.

Questions to Nasibies:

Ali, Talha, Zubair, Saad bin Abi Waqqas, Imam Hassan, Imam Hussain,........ and a lot of other Sahaba hundreds of other Tabaeen were present in Madiana and it's surroundings.
Tell us, what were they doing FOR THE COMPLETE 3 DAYS (i.e. Uthman's funeral was not burried for complete 3 days)?
People stoned the body of Hadhrat Uthman, broke his ribs, didn't let him washed (for burrial), didn't offered his funeral prayer (except for 5-6 of his relatives/slaves),..... could Nasibies tell us what those thousands of Sahaba and Taba'een of Madina did in order to protect Uthman?

Second Tradition:

Page 247
It was related to me by Ja'far—'Amr and ‘Ali—Husayn—his father—al-Mujalid b. Sa'id —Yasaar b. Abi Karib—his father Abu Karib, who had been an official in charge of ‘Uthman's treasury:

'Uthman was buried at twilight. Only Marwan b. al-Hakam, three of his free men, an his fifth daughter were present at his funeral. His daughter wailed in mourning and raised Her voice in lament for him. The people took stones and hooted "Long-bearded old idiot [i.e. Nathal]! She was nearly stoned. Then they said, "(Go to] the compotmd, the compound." And thus he was interred in a compound outside [Medina].

Comments:

It was 'Aisha bit Abi Bakr (the Mother of Believers) who started saying "Nathal" (old fool) to 'Uthman bin 'Affan. And these People, who are stoning/dragging Uthman's dead body, they are only following 'Aisha bint Abi Bakr. Therefore, 'Uthman was killed in fire which was ignited by 'Aisha bint Abi Bakr.

Third Tradition:

Page 248
According to Muhammad (al-Waqidi}—‘Abdallah b. Yazid al-Hudhali—'Abdallah b. Sa‘idah:

For two nights after he was killed, 'Uthman remained [where he had fallen] and they were unable to bury him. Then four men bore [his body] away-——Hakim b. Hizam, Jubayr b. Mut‘im, Niyar b. Mukram, and Abu Jahm b. Hudhayfah. When he was laid down so that the funeral prayer could be per-
formed for him, a band of the Helpers (Ansaar of Madina i.e. Sahaba and Tabaeen) came and forbade them to perform the prayer. These included
Aslam b. Aws b. Bajrah al-Saa'idi and Abu Hayyah al-Mazini among several others. They forbade (‘Uthman's supporters) to bury him at al-Baqi‘....
So they buried him in Hashsh Kawkab. When the Banu Umayyah reigned, they had that garden included in al-Baqi', and it is today the cemetery of the Banu Umayyah.

Comments:

Just see it were HELPERS (i.e. Residents of Madina), who consisted of Sahaba as well as Taba'een who forbade them to offer Funeral Prayer at that place.
And then these were the same Ansaar Sahaba and Taba'een who forbade that 'Uthman is burried in Muslim Graveyard.
And due to them 'Uthman was not even burried in Muslim Graveyard but in Jewish Graveyard.

Question for Nasibies is to tell us where were their Super Man like Hero Sahabas and Tabaeen from Madina and all the surroundings while 'Uthman's dead body left unburried for complete 3 days?

Fourth Tradition

Page 248
According to Muhammad (al-Waqidi)—‘Abdallah b. Musa al-Makhzumi:

When 'Uthman was killed, (his assassins) tried to cut off his head, but Na'ilah and Umm al-Banin fell upon him and stopped them. The two women screamed and beat [their] faces and rent their clothing. In the face of this, Ibn 'Udays said, "Leave him." And thus 'Uthman, his corpse still unwashed, was taken out and brougt to al-Baqi'. [The mourners] wanted to perform the funeral prayer for him in the place set aside for funerals, but the Helpers (Ansaar i.e. Sahaba and Tabaeen) refused (to allow that). 'Umayr bin Dhabi' appeared while 'Uthman was stretched out upon a door. 'Umayr jumped 0n him and broke one of his ribs, saying, “You left Dhabi’ in prison until he died there."

Fifth Tradition

Page 249
It was related to me by al-Harith—Ibn Sa°d—Abu Bakr b. ‘Abdallah b. Abi Uways—his grandfather’s paternal uncle, al-Rabi‘ b. Malik b. Abi 'Amir—(Al-Rabi's) father:

I was one 0f 'Uthmarfs pallbearers when he was killed. We carried him upon a door, and his head was bumping up and down on the door because
we were walking so fast. We wer possessed with fear until we interred him in his grave in Hashsh Kawkab.

Sixth Tradition:

We are citing from the following esteemed Sunni works:
1. Majma al-Zawaed, by Haythami, Volume 9, page 95
2. Al-Muj'am al-Kabir by Tabarani, Volume 1, page 79
3. Al-Istiab, by Ibn Abdulbar, Volume 3, page 1048

We read in Majma al-Zawaid:

وعن ملك يعني ابن انس قال قتل عثمان فأقام مطروحا على كناسة بني فلان ثلاثا

Malik bin Anas said: When Uthman was killed, his body was thrown in garbage for three days.

Imam Abi Bakar Al-Haythami said:‘The narrators are reliable’.

Moreover we read in Al-Istiab:

عن مالك قال لما قتل عثمان رضي الله عنه ألقى على المزبلة ثلاثة أيام

Malik said: ‘When Uthman [ra] was killed, they threw him in the garbage for three days’

How many Sahaba & Tabaeen offered Funeral Prayer for 'Uthman?

There were thausands of Sahaba & Tabaeen in Madina.

But at end, there were only 5 people from Bani Ummiyyah who offered funeral prayer (proofs are present in traditions above).

If really all the Sahaba & Tabaeen were in favour of 'Uthman, then not attending his funeral was the beginning of their cowardice (in Nasibies terminology "Taqqyyah") .... and the PEAK of their Cowardice/Disloyalty & Munafiqat (hypocracy) was when Talha & Zubair swore in name of Allah and gave oath of allegiance to 'Ali .... but as soon as they got the chance, they RAN away to Mecca and broke their allegiance.

Maulana Tariq Jameel describing about the oppression done on Imam Hussain and His greatness and Crying while talking about the Mazloomiat of Imam Husain.

He further said that we should be the follower of Imam Hussain and not of the accursed Yazid.

Where is Zakir Naik? Where is the accursed person? See Zakir Naik, open your ears, and look at your ignorance ... and look at the words of Maulana Tariq Jameel

The 90-minute film records pilgrims' decisions, Ashura itself and the intense emotions of the Shia mourning of Hussain's death. It includes footage of the bombings and their aftermath.

Assalam o Alikum

Agar humaray upper kufr k fatway lagtay hain, hamain Kafir kaha jata hai, tou humay chahyay un asbaab ki taraf b mutawajah rahain.

is topic ki ahmiyat is tarah bayan ki ja sakti hai k Mazhab e Tashayyu Dushman daar mazhab hai, Maslan agar koi fard Dushman daar ho tou wo apnay dushman se mohtaat rehta hai, aik lahzay k liay b apnay Dushman se gafil nahi rehta, kiun k gaflat ka nateeja halakat hai..

Lihaza agar hum apnay Dushman se gafil rahain tou humain hargiz yay gumaan nahi karna chahyay k humara Dushman b hum se Gafil ho gaya hai..

Humaray Dushman ki pahlay din se koshish rahi k humay Sunni Shia may taqseem kar dain, Shia or Sunni har do taraf is tarah k grouh ijaad kiyay jo aik dosray per kufr k fatway lagain, inho nay aisa mahool bana deya k aj Shia ka dushman Sunni, or Sunni ka sab se bara dushman Shia ha,

humaray buzurg batatay hain (Mumkin ha is forum per bhi mojood hon ) k aj se 30, 35 saal pahlay azadari may sab shareek hotay thay, Shia or Sunni aik sath jaloos e aza may shareek hotay thay, in ki sabeel hotee the, nazr o niyaaz sath mil kar kartay thay, baaz okaat nishan dahi karna b mushkil hota tha k kon shia ha or kon sunni, Hatta k aj b baaz ziyarat or Majalis k permit or license b Ahle Sunnat bradraan k zimaydaro k naam se mojood hain (Ref: Speech of Syed Jawad)

Akhir yay dushmania kiun barhnay lagi ?

Shia't k ander Nuseri circles nay shamoliat ikhtiyaar ki, or is tarah ghul mil gae jaisay aqaid may koi faraq he na ho, ahista ahista in ki rasai minber tuk honay lagi, or inho nay apnay paleed afkaar bari maharat se humaray minber tuk pohchae, aj hum Mushahida kar saktay hain k Imam Ali a.s k fazail bayan kartay huay jo baaz dostaan nadani may hadain paar kar jatay hain, yay sab ittefaqan aisay nahi hua hai, yay in ki kai sala mehnat hai jo apnay samar dekha rahi hai,

Shia't k ander he aik or grouh ejaad hua jis ka kaam joloos may theek Ahlesunnat ki masajid k bahir ja kar Hazrat Umer, or Abu Bakar per or Bibi Ayesha per tabara karna or galian deyna tha ( Jo k islami taleemat k lihaaz se kabi b jaiz nahi )
Baqaida Tabbara road banaye gae, print media, websites, youtube, hatta k minber istimaal huay, baaz ilaqay may ahlesunnat ki aqsariat honay k bawajood yay amul majlis k doraan kiyay gae, or zulm bala zulm yay k fitnay ko ibadat samjh kar anjaam deya jata raha. (Fee sabeel illlahh Fasaad)
*************************************

is k bar'aks ahleSunnat musalmaano k ander aik grouh ijaad kia gaya jo aqaid k lihaaz se khawarij se kum nahi thay, Saudi paisa or Zia ul Huq k support se inho nay maderso or masajid ko istimaal kartay huay Shia k barhtay huay Asr o Rasookh ko kum karnay k liay kaam shoro kia.. or fatwoo ki factories laga dein..
Jaisa k pahlay tazkira hua k Nuserio nay Shia't k ander apnay qadam jamana shoro kiyay, or Mushrikana Nazryaat ka parchaar kia, is fitnay se in Khawarij numa Nasibio nay bharpoor faida uthaya.. Shia per Shirk or Kufr k fatway lagae, Amm faham sunni ko shia k khilaaf khara kar deya, zahir ha in k paas shia ko badnaam karnay k liay buhat acha bahana tha,

Inho nay Kaha shia mushrik hain wo Hazrat Ali r.a k sath aise sifaat shamil kartay hain jo Allah se Makhsoos hai
Wo Sahaba or Bibi Ayesha ko khulay Aam galian deytay hian
Wo Namaz e Juma or jama't k qail nahi
Wo zuljana ko sajday kartay hain
or is k ilawa ajeeb o gareeb qisam k propaganda huay

Lihaza Saudi paisa apna kaam dekha gaya, aj ap survey kar lain k sab se ziada propaganda pori duniya may kis k khilaaf hua hai? Yahee waja hai k aj Tashayyu k sab se ziada dushman hai.

عاشورا کے خون بار واقعے سے تقریبا 14 صدیاں گذرنے کے باوجود، یا زخم ابھی آسمان و زمین میں تازہ کائنات پوری عزادار ہے سیدالشہداء امام حسین علیہ السلام کی۔
تازہ ترین عاشورائی واقعے میں اتوار 10 محرم الحرام 1434 (26/نومبر 2012) کو عاشورائے اباعبداللہ علیہ السلام کے موقع پر سیدالشہداء علیہ السلام کے میوزیم میں رکھی ہوئی قبر شریف امام حسین (ع) کی اصل تربت کا رنگ خون میں بدل گیا۔
یہ واقعہ عینی شاہدین کی حیرت زدہ آنکھوں کے سامنے اور عاشورائے حسینی کے موقع پر رونما ہوا اور میوزیم کے اہلکاروں نے اس واقعے کی تصدیق کی ہے اور اس واقعے کی تصویریں آستانۂ مقدسۂ حضرت علمدار کربلا ابوالفضل العباس علیہ السلام سے ویب سائٹ "الکفیل" نے شائع کی ہیں۔
نیز آیت اللہ العظمی سیستانی کے نمائندے اور آستانۂ امام حسین علیہ السلام کے متولی حجت الاسلام والمسلمین شیخ عبدالمہدی الکربلائی نے ذاتی طور پر میوزیم میں جاکر اس واقعے کا مشاہدہ کیا اور ہزاروں افراد نے میوزیم کا دورہ کیا۔

شیعہ اور سنی کتب میں منقولہ معتبر احادیث میں مروی ہے کہ جبرائیل امین (ع) نے کربلا کی خاک میں سے تھوڑی سی مٹی امام حسین علیہ السلام کی شہادت کی خبر کے ساتھ ہی رسول اکرم صلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ و سلم کے سپرد کی اور رسول اکرم (ص) نے وہ مٹی ام المؤمنین امّ سلمہ کے پاس رکھ لی اور فرمایا: "جب اس مٹی کا رنگ خون کے رنگ میں بدل جائے تو سمجھ لینا کہ میرے فرزند حسین (علیہ السلام) کربلا کی سرزمین پر قتل ہوئے ہیں"۔
حدیث کا متن یہ ہے: عن عمر بن ثابت عن الاعمش عن شقيق عن امّ سلمة قالت: كان الحسن والحسين (عليهما السلام) يلعبان بين يدي رسول اللّه (صلى الله عليه وآله) في بيتي؛ فنزل جبریل فقال: "يا محمّد إن امتك تقتل ابنك هذا من بعدك" و أومأ بيده إلى الحسين(ع). فبكى رسول اللّه (صلى الله عليه وآله) وضمّه إلى صدره ثم قال رسول اللّه(ص): "وضعت عندك هذه التربة" فشمّها رسول اللّه (ص) قال: ريح كرب و بلاء، و قال: "يا ام سلمة إذا تحولت هذه التربة دماً فاعلمي أن ابني قد قتل
".
ترجمه: عمر بن ثابت نے اعمش سے اور اعمش نے شقیق سے روایت کی ہے کہ جناب ام سلمہ نے کہا: ایک دن حسن اور حسین علیہما السلام میرے گھر میں رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ و آلہ و سلم کے سامنے کھیل رہے تھے کہ اسی وقت جبرائیل (ع) نازل ہوئے اور رسول اللہ (ص) سے عرض کیا: آپ کے بعد آپ کی امت آپ کے اس بیٹے کو قتل کرے گی اور امام حسین علیہ السلام کی طرف ہاتھ سے اشارہ کیا۔ رسول اللہ (ص) روئے اور امام حسین (ع) کو اپنے سینے سے لگایا۔ اس کے بعد رسول اللہ (ص) نے جبرائیل کی دی ہوئی مٹی کو سونگھا اور فرمایا "اس سے کرب و بلاء کی بو آرہی ہے۔ اور مجھ سے مخاطب ہوکر فرمایا: اے ام سلمہ! میں یہ مٹی تمہارے پاس رکھتا ہوں اور جب یہ خون میں بدل جائے تو جان لو کہ میرے بیٹے حسین قتل کئے گئے ہیں۔
سنی محدثین ـ جنہوں نے یہ حدیث نقل کی ہے ـ میں سے بعض کے نام درج ذیل ہیں:
ابن حجر عسقلانی، "تہذيب الہذیب"،
ابن ابی بکر ہیثمی، "مجمع الزوائد"
الطبرانی، "المعجم الکبیر"

by

Ali Jaffri

In Surat Saafaat: 101-109, Allah says:
We gave him (Hazrat Ibraheem A.S) the tidings of a son possessing forbearance (hilm).
And when the son (Hazrat Ismail A.S) was old enough to walk about with him (some mufassireen have translated sa'ya as to work) (Ibraheem) said: “O my son I have a seen in a dream that I should sacrifice you (for the pleasure of Allah)". He (the son) responded: O my father! Do what you are commanded. If Allah pleases, you will find me of the patient ones."
So when they had both submitted (to Allah), he (Ibraheem) flung him (his son) down upon his face.
We called out to him saying: "O Ibraheem!
You have indeed fulfilled the vision. Surely thus do We reward those who do good deeds
Most surely that was tremendous (manifest) trial!”*
Then We ransomed him (Ismail) with a great sacrifice (bidhibhin 'azeem).
And we shifted (this blessing) on him (who is from) among the generations (to come) in later times.
Peace be upon Ibraheem!
The above verse paints the picture of a father and son. The father was commanded by Allah to sacrifice his beloved son. The son willingly accepted to be the sacrifice for the pleasure of Allah. By Allah's Grace the son is saved. Allah says the dhibhin 'azeem will come from the later generations. This was a test of obedience to Allah's command. Ibraheem dearly loved Ismail, but he loved Allah more. He agrees to sacrifice his son for the pleasure of Allah. Ismail is a youth with a whole life time ahead of him. Yet not only he agrees to be the sacrifice but also assures his father that he will, inshallah, find him amongst the patient one.
The most poignant statement is that of Allah when He says it was indeed a tremendous trial for the father and the son!
To perpetuate the memory of this test we perform pilgrimage where every ritual is connected with the love which a father and a mother have for their child. Sa'ee reminds us of infant Ismail's thirst and a mother's frantic search for water to quench the baby's thirst. The journey to Mena with a halt at Arafah retraces the journey undertaken by the father and son to fulfill Allah's command.
Where are there any circumstances to call for such a sacrifice? One can find no reference to it. Was it recorded by any historian? No, Allah recorded it and reminds the Muslims of the events year after year during the pilgrimage.
Over three thousand years later, on the 10th of Muharram in 61 Hijrah, history witnessed the situation re-enacted on the battle-field of Karbala. Then a sacrifice was called for to protect and save Islam and all its values from being trampled under the unclean feet of Yazid. Wahdaniyyah was at stake! Prophet hood was at stake! Justice was at stake! The belief of accountability on the Day of Judgement was at stake!

Miles away from Mecca we once again we see a father and a son. Ali Akbar is standing in front of Imam Hussein. He says, "Father, I request for permission to go and fight the enemies of Islam." Imam looks at his son lovingly. He says, "Akbar, you have my permission. May Allah be with you! But Akbar, you know how much your mother, sisters and aunts love you. Go and say farewell to them." Akbar goes into the tent of his mother. Every time he wants to come out of the tent the mother, aunts and sisters pull his cloak and say, "O Akbar, How can we live without you!"
Finally Imam Hussein goes in and pleads with all to let Ali Akbar go.
Imam helps his son mount the horse. As Akbar begins to ride towards the battlefield, he hears foot-steps coming from behind. He looks back and sees his father. He says, "Father, we have said good-bye, why are you walking behind me?" Hussein replies, "My son, had you been a father you would surely have understood how difficult it is for a father to part from his son!!"

After a fierce battle Akbar is over-powered by the enemy who rush from all sides. As he falls from his horse, he cries out. "O Father, my last salaams to you!" As he hits the ground a spear which had wounded him and lodged in his chest breaks. The blade remains embedded in Akbar’s chest.
When our Imam heard Akbar's salaam he looked at Furaat where Abbas lay and said, 'Abbas! Now that this brother of yours needs you most, where have you gone?' With all his strength sapped by the anguish in Akbar's voice, Hussein began to walk towards the battle-field.
When Imam Hussein got to where Akbar lay he took him in his arms. Akbar had his right hand on the chest. He placed his left arm over the shoulder of his father. Hussein said, "Akbar, why do you embrace me with one arm only?" Akbar would not reply. Hussein tried to move Akbar's hand. Akbar resisted. Imam gently moved the hand. Then he saw it! He saw that dreadful blade of spear sticking out of his son's chest. Imam Hussein laid Ali Akbar on the ground and sitting on his knees he put both his hands on the blade of the spear. He then looked at Najaf, and cried out, "Father, I too have come to my Khaiber!" He pulled out the blade.
Jibraeel (A.S) cried out "Marhaba! Marhaba!”* Akber took a deep sigh and then lay still!
Assalamu 'alaika ya waritha Ibraheema khaleelillah!

Hum Shias matam kyuon Karte Hain ??

Exrtacted from : http://agniveer.com

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

Pages

Betrayal of Sahaba of Madina: They were Disloyal & Coward (i.e. Nasibi Taqayyah) & Killers of Uthman

Uthman's Dead Body was left to rot for 3 days before buried in Jewish Graveyard

First Tradition

Second Tradition:

Comments:

Third Tradition:

Comments:

Fourth Tradition

Fifth Tradition

Sixth Tradition:

How many Sahaba & Tabaeen offered Funeral Prayer for 'Uthman?

Reply

Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)?

Role of companions