History Books

Reply Eight : The teachers of Khalid bin Madani were all Nasibi

We read in Tadheeb al Tadheeb Volume 3 page 119 Dhikr Khalid:

Khalid was from third generation of Ulema from Syria, he had three teachers, Mu'awiya bin Abu Sufyan, Suhar bin Yazeed and Hareez bin Uthman.

All three of his teachers were Nasibi enemies of Ahl'ul bayt (as). What reliance can we have on a hadith nararted by a scholar whose source of knowledge came from three KingPins of Salafi Aqeedah?

Reply Nine : Is this the only tradition that 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi narrated during his life?

We read in Fathul Bari Volume 6 page 102 Bab Maqeel Fi Qaathil al Rum

"Other than the hadith relating to Caesar's City this narartor 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi has narrated no other hadith. There is a distinction between [him and] 'Umair and Amr bin al Aswa since 'Umair was a Syrian".

This Nasibi Shaykh al Hadith is a very unusual creature whose only reason for existence was to award the killer of the Ahl'ul bayt (as) with Paradise in a fabricated Hadith made up on the payroll of the Umayyads to protect Yazeed's reputation amongst the Ummah they ruled over i.e. shut up and stop condemning him because the Holy Prophet (saws) said such and such about him, which he just didn't.

Reply Ten : 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi only taught one person

We read in Ahl'ul Sunnah authority work Muqaddimah Ibn Saleh page 23:

"The illiteracy of a narrator is established when we learn that in principles of Shari'a he had only two students"

Umair had only one student Khalid bin Madain and he was himself a Nasibi.

Reply Eleven : 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi's teacher was a non-Mahram woman

If we analyse the chain in Sahih al Bukhari it is as follows:

Khalid bin Madan - 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi -Um Haram.

We ask people to think over this matter logically. How is it that this 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi was unable to find a teacher for his entire life, then ventures into the home of a friend whose wife (a non mahram woman to Umair), as luck might have it happens to be an expert of hadith. After this fortunate and unlikely occurrence his entire research scholarship leads him to learn just one hadith from her, a hadith that guarantees Paradise for a man who (with the exception of Nasibi) the entire Muslim world sends curses on - the killer of Imam Husayn (as), Yazeed ibn Mu'awiya (LA).

Reply Eleven : The only narrator of this hadith is a woman

This is a crucial point. Why would Rasulullah (s) choose to locate non-mahram women to convey this hadith to? Is this the type of hadith that he (s) would not wish to convey to a wider audience, particularly to men participating in Jihad? Is this not a hadith that would boost morale / encourage soldiers to fight? Why keep it top secret, to the point that only one person knows of the rewards for participating in this expedition is a woman, who clearly will be unable to communicate this to an audience in a manner that 'esteemed' figures such as Abu Hurraira could do.

Additionally why convey to this woman? Why convey this to a woman, who was his (s) non-mahram that meant that she would have had to observe strict purdah in his presence? After all Rasulullah (s) had nine wives, could he not have conveyed this hadith to any of them? Why convey this to a woman that was not his (s) wife, relative or sister in law? And why did her husband not take this hadith and declare it to the masses in the battlefield? Surely this would have instilled true fighting spirit amongst masses, if they knew that they were to attain Paradise. Rather than do this, why did Um Haram choose to only convey this to her student 'Umair bin Al-Aswad Al-Anasi?

Worthy of note, when we read this hadith in sources other than Sahih al-Bukhari wherein Um Haram has narrated the tradition to her nephew Uns bin Malik there is no mention of maghfoor [Paradise], yet when she narrates it to a non mahram Umair she remembers that the participants are blessed with Heaven! Why did she forget to convey the words 'Paradise' to her nephew but then chose to entertain a non-mahram in her home and convey the hadith with this word to him? Smells very fishy.

Reply Twelve : Yazeed was not amongst the people that led the expedition

Umdah thul Qari page 649 Kitab Jihad

Al Isaba Volume 2 page 54 Dkikr Sufyan bin Auf

Al Fathowaath page 161

We read in Umdah:

"Mu'awiyah sent the army under the Leadership of Sufyan bin Auf they reached upto Constantinople. Those present in this army were Ibn Abbas, Ibn Zubayr and Abu Ayub Ansari. Abu Ayub died when they reached Egypt, the elderly Sahaba were with Sufyan they were not with Yazeed, since Yazeed was not of the rank to be in their midst".

When Yazeed was not even in this first naval expedition then the claims of this Nasibi are Batil. Azam Tariq's whole premise is thus flawed - Yazeed was part of this massive campaign but was not even in this key first expedition that took Constantinople. So where was he at the time?

Reply Thirteen : At the time that Constantinople was attacked Yazeed was at home drunk

Azam Tariq Nasibi sought to bless his Khalifah Yazeed by stating:

Kr-hcy.com states: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).

Not only is this hadith a lie but also so is the claim that Yazeed led this campaign and as evidence for this we have relied on the following authentic texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah:

Tareekh Kamil Volume 3 page 231 Events of 49 Hijri

Tareekh Ibn Khaldoon Volume 3 page 15

Tareekh Yaqoobi page 217

Murujh al Dhahab Volume 3 page 33

Shaheed ai Kerbala page 184

Mu'awiya aur isthikhlaaf ai Yazeed page 343

Imam Pak aur Yazeed Paleeth page 138

We read in Tareekh Kamil

"In 49 Hijri, Mu'awiya made preparations to take the towns and cities of Rome under Sufyan bin Auf. He sent out the army and ordered his son Yazeed to join him but Yazeed was lax in this regard - Mu'awiya therefore became silent on the matter. The army successfully conquered Rome and upon receipt of this news Yazeed recited a couplet".

We read in Muruj al Dhahab:

"Mu'awiya received information on the progress of the army and conveyed this news to Yazeed who said, "In this case I shall convene a function in home, joined by my fellow drunkards". Azam Tariq's Nasibi Khalifah was not even present when the army took Rome, an army that according to him had been blessed with paradise.

By citing the non attendance of Yazeed from Sunni sources we are seeking to demonstrate to actual run of the mill Sunnis that these fake Sunnis are extolling a fasiq / alcoholic / fornicator / mother/sister/daughter/dog/bear/man/young boy orifice penetrator- and as part of their efforts have even deemed it fit to cite a fabricated tradition to the Sunni majority.

Like Yazeed, Mu'awiya also conquered lands and what a surprise we even find a tradition stating that the participant of the first naval expedition shall be blessed with Paradise (Mu'awiya led this expedition). We reject these absurd claims since salvation is dependant on being momin and those that sought it fit to rebel against the Ahl'ul bayt (as), harm their reign, curse them and kill them are devoid of Iman and cannot benefit from salvation. If a Dhaalim and Fasiq shall not enter Hell then why will Shaythaan - since Shaythaan never committed an act of Shirk? It is implausible that the Holy Prophet (saws) who did not even promise Paradise to those who fought in the first battles of Badr and Uhud would promise it to a massive army fighting a war years after his departure from this world, led by the first khalifas the Sunni world itself say were 'not rightly guided'. What about the campaigns led by the so-called 'rightly guided' khalifas? As we have proven part of the reason these khalifas were 'not rightly guided' (a polite expression for them) is their cooking up of Hadith.

Adapted from the book: "Yazeed"