Analysing hadith blessing Yazeed - Part I
Has Yazeed been guaranteed Paradise?Here it comes, more from Azam Tariq (may Allah's curse be upon him):
Kr-hcy.com states:YAZID WAS THE COMMANDER OF MUSLIM FORCES WHO MARCHED TO CAESAR'S CITY. THIS EXPEDITION WAS SENT DURING THE REIGN OF HAZRAT MUAWIYAH AND IN THIS TASK FORCE WERE INCLUDED ELDERLY AND ILLUSTRIOUS SAHABA LIKE HAZRAT ABU AYYUB ANSARI WHOSE FUNERAL PRAYER WAS LED BY YAZID ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF HAZRAT AYYUB ANSARI HIMSELF. THIS EXPEDITION TOOK PLACE IN 51 H IN WHICH HAZRAT HUSAYN FOUGHT UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF YAZID. THIS WAS THE PIONEERING MUSLIM FORCE WHICH LANDED IN CAESAR'S CITY AND ACCORDING TO A HADITH NARRATED BY ABDULLAH BIN UMAR WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED BY BUKHARI, RASUL-ALLAH SAID:
"THE ARMY WHICH WILL FIRST EMBARK ON THE EXPEDITION OF CONTANTINOPLE WILL BLESSED." (BUKHARI).
YAZID WAS THE COMMANDER OF MUSLIM FORCES ON THIS EXPEDITION WHO WAGED JIHAD IN CAESAR'S CITY AND AS SUCH HE FALLS WITHIN THE PARAMETER OF ABOVE HADITH OF THE PROPHET (SAW). IN VIEW OF THIS IT IS NOT BECOMING ON ANY MUSLIM TO CAST ASPERIONS ON YAZID AS THE ENTIRE ARMY WHICH TOOK PART IN THIS COMPAIGN HAS BEEN BLESSED BY ALLAH IN THE CONTEXT OF ABOVE HADITH.
Let us analyse the complete tradition from Sahih al Bukhari, Book of Jihad Volume 4, Book 52, and Number 175:
Narrated Khalid bin Madan:
That 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi told him that he went to 'Ubada bin As-Samit while he was staying in his house at the seashore of Hims with (his wife) Um Haram. 'Umair said. Um Haram informed us that she heard the Prophet saying, "Paradise is granted to the first batch of my followers who will undertake a naval expedition." Um Haram added, I said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Will I be amongst them?' He replied, 'You are amongst them.' The Prophet then said, 'the first army amongst' my followers who will invade Caesar's City will be forgiven their sins.' I asked, 'Will I be one of them, O Allah's Apostle?' He replied in the negative."
These filthy Nasibi have only one hadith that they claim absolves their Imam of any wrongdoing, namely his participation in the army that conquered Caesar's City has assured him of Paradise. We all have to die one day and answer our Creator we have cited scores of Sunni sources that highlight Yazeed's deeds, his love of incest, homosexuality, drinking, singing, kufr aqeedah and his killing of Imam Husayn (as). Are we really going to just accept this single hadith in al Bukhari to neutralise all of Yazeed's deeds? We appeal to justice and shall cite the following replies:
Reply One : Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Muhammad bin Yahya deemed Bukhari an innovator and amongst Murijee
Fathul Baree Volume 13 page 490
Tabaqat Shaafeeya Volume 2 pages 12-13
Tareekh Baghdad Volume 2 page 32
"Imam Yahya deemed Muhammad bin Ismail Bukhari an innovator and a Murijee"
Reply Two : Bukhari did not trust the narrations of Imam Jafer Sadiq
Bukhari's Nasibi leanings are evident from this reference, and he steered clear of narrating tradition from the Imams from Ahl'ul bayt (as). This is clear from the fact that he didn't narrate from Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq (as), nor from his son Imam Musa Al-Kathem (as), nor from his son Imam Ali Ar-Reda (as), nor from his son Imam Muhammad Aj-Jawad (as), nor from his grandson Imam Hasan Al Askari (as) who was a contemporary of Bukhari. Why didn't Bukhari narrate from his own contemporary Imam of Ahl'ul Bayt (as)?
He narrated only two ahadith from the master of the youth of paradise, Imam Husayn Bin Ali (as). He only narrated six hadith from his son Imam Ali Bin Al Husayn Zaynul Abideen (as). He only narrated seventy-nine hadith from the City of Knowledge Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib (as)!
He also didn't narrate from Al-Hasan Al Muthana son of Imam Hasan (as). He didn't narrate from Zayd Bin Ali, nor from his son Yahya Bin Zayd, nor from Muhammad Bin Abdullah Bin Hasan Bin Hasan, nor from his brother Ibrahim, nor from Husayn bin Ali bin Hasan bin Hasan, nor from Yahya Bin Abdullah Bin Hasan, nor from Idris bin Abdullah, nor from Muhammad Bin Ja'far, nor from Ibrahim Bin Isma'eel bin Ibrahim bin Hasan bin Hasan, nor from his brother Qasem, nor from Muhammad bin Muhammad bin zayd bin Ali, nor from Ali bin Ja'far Al Aridi, etc.
Reply Three : The Sunni Ulema have deemed this narration as worthless
Fathul Bari Volume 6 page 120, Kitab Jihad
Umdahthul Qari Volume 6 page 648
Irshad Sari Volume 5 page 140 Kitab Jihad
Siraaj al Muneer Sharh Jami al Sagheer Volume 2 page 80
The above leading Sunni scholars have rejected this hadith that Nasibi Azam Tariq cited to defend his Imam.
Reply Four : All the narrators of this tradition are Syrian
Ibn Hajr Asqalani and al Aini in their analysis of this hadith commented that its narrators are all Syrians that constitutes sufficient grounds to reject it, since any hadith devoid of narrators from Makka, Medina makes that hadith worthless. Bukhari narrated this from Ishaq bin Yazeed who narrated the tradition from Bukhari's own teacher Abu Abdu'Rahman bin Yahya bin Hamza, who was the Qadhi of Damascus, this was the heart of the Yazeedi / Nasibi homeland.
Reply Five : the narrators of this hadith are enemies of Ahl'ul bayt (as)
If we consult Sahih al Bukhari Volume 1 page 409 Kitab Jihad Rasheedeya Publishers Delhi 1377 Hijri and the commentary by Shaykh ul Hadith Ahmad 'Ali Shahranpuri we read:
"The tradition relating to Caesar's City was narrated by Sawaar binte Yazeed he was an enemy of Commander of the Faithful 'Ali".
If this doesn't convince these Nasibi then we shall cite Tadheeb al Tadheeb Volume 2 page 33, Dhikr Sawaar binte Yazeed:
Sawar binte Yazeed bin Ziyad was an irreligious man, his grandfather sided with Mu'awiya in Sifeen, and he was killed in this battle. When he referred to 'Ali, he would say 'I do not deem a person that killed my grandfather to be my friend'.
These so called defenders of Ahl'ul Sunnah are trying to get us to accept a hadith narrated by this Nasibi!
Reply Six : The people of Syria in the eyes of the Qur'an, Hadith, the Sahaba and Ahl'ul Sunnah Ulema
We read in Sunan al Kabir Volume 8 page 174
Do not say that the people of Syria committed kufr; rather say they committed Fisq (transgression).
Tareekh al Damishq
"Umar bin Ubayd was asked when we read this verse 'Those that rule against the orders of Allah are Fasiq, does this refer to the people of Syria' he replied 'yes'.
This proves that the people of Syria were fasiq and we shall now cite from Tareekh Damishq proof that the Syrians did not deserve to be deemed Imams of Shari'a that could narrate traditions
When Umar would be angered with someone he would expel that person to Syria
Abu Hurayra narrated, in Syria there is a Devil that calls out loudly in a manner that leads people astray
[This voice was raised in 60 Hijri with the bayya to Yazeed].
Amr bin Aas stated the people of Syria are different from all others; they disobey Allah (swt).
Sheeba urged that people refrain from taking hadith from a Syrian.
Abdur Rahman bin Hadi was asked 'which people's hadith are most reliable? He replied the people of Hejaz, the people of Basra then the people of Kufa. He was then asked 'What of the people of Syria?' He replied by opening his hand, 'when it comes to the people of Syria they narrate traditions with open hands".
The people of Syria find it hard to listen to hadith praising 'Ali.
Here it's proven that the Syrians of the time were a population comprised of criminals and men who would naturally be on the payroll of the khalifa Yazeed as Damascus was his capital and powerbase where he lived and he centred his army. The people of Syria were the worst of people they were die-hard lovers of Mu'awiya that rebelled against the lawful Imam 'Ali ibn Abi Talib (as). This was the hub of the Banu Ummaya Kingdom where the cursing of Imam 'Ali (as) went on for some ninety years - people had a hatred of Imam 'Ali in their hearts and the Salaf Ulema deemed these people to be careless / untrustworthy narrators of hadith. Despite this, we have this contemporary Nasibi trying to get people to accept a sole hadith whose narrators are all Syrians, one who happens to be an open Nasibi.
Reply Seven : Bukhari is the ONLY person to have recorded the word 'maghfoor' - Paradise
We read in al Bidaya wa al Nihaya Volume 8 page 222:
In the hadith that makes reference to Caesar's City, Imam Bukhari is the sole individual to have recorded the words maghfoor; all the other books do not record this word.
We appeal to these Nasibi advocates, why did all the other hadith narrators remove this word. Either every one of these is dishonest or Bukhari added it in to fit in with his support for Yazeed.
We all know that the Sunni scholars say the Sahih of Bukhari is their most authentic work of Hadith. Yet, despite this, ALL the countless Sunni scholars, just some of whom we have quoted and all who would have been well-versed in Sahih Bukhari, have nevertheless condemned Yazeed and many said he will burn in hellfire. Thus they have placed the sheer number of other authentic chains above the testimony of Bukhari. Thus though this Hadith exists in Bukhari it is not accepted by Sunni scholars. In itself this is a contradiction in the Sunni religion as many of the same scholars say Bukhari is 100% authentic! Perhaps now the reader can understand how many Hadith in Bukhari that portray the sahaba as Santas are coined. They were cooked up by men of the payroll of the likes of Yazeed and Muawiya, and were passed down to enter Bukhari a couple of generations later - old wives tales.
Adapted from the book: "Yazeed"
Share this article