Post by Mohammed IbRaHim on Jan 15, 2014 22:46:08 GMT 5.5
Zakir Naik praises Yazid and claims that Karbala was a political episode
Dr. Zakir Naik praises Yazid and claims that Karbala was a political episode
(Astaghfirullah - We pray Allah - سبحانہ و تعا لی to save Islam from hypocrites).
He says (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) with Yazid's name and mentions a Hadith in Bukhari in which Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said the first Muslim Army who will invade the city of Constantinople (presently Istanbul) will be rewarded with Jannah. He claims Yazid was part of that army.
Zakir Naik claim is false, lie and slander on Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).
Not even a single Hadith mentioned in this context in the entire Hadith literature has the word "Constantinople" in its text. However, some Hadith scholars have mentioned the name "Constantinople" in their Hadith guides.
Read the following facts and you will know the height of Dr. Zakir Naik lies.
The wording of the Hadith are "awwalu jaishin min ummati yaghzoona madinata Qaisara maghfurullahum". [Meaning - "The first Muslim army who will invade the city of Qaiser-e-Room (Byzantine empire) will be Jannati."] Thus, it could be any city of Byzantine empire.
Read any Islamic History book written by any well known Islamic historian (including Salafi scholar Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Katheer etc.) it is mentioned that the first Muslim invasion of Constantinople, Byzantine empire took place in 42 H in which Yazid was not there.
The second invasion of Muslims on Byzantine empire was in 43 H under the command of Bu'sr bin Abi Arta, and the Army reached the city of Constantinople. Yazid was not part of this Army.
The third invasion of Muslims took place in 44 H under the command of Abd ar-Rahman bin Khaled bin Walid. In this invasion, Busr bin Abi Arta also participated and attacked Constantinople from Sea. Yazid was not part of this Army.
The fifth invasion of Constantinople was in 46 H under the command of Malik bin Abdullah. Yazid was not part of this Muslim Army.
The sixth invasion of Byzantine empire was undertaken in 47 H under the command of Malik bin Hubaira. Yazid was not part of this Army.
Three invasions took place on Byzantine empire in 49 H under the commands of (i) Malik bin Hubaira and (ii) Fazala bin Ubair. Fazala bin Ubair captured many cities of Byzantine empire. (iii) The third invasion of Byzantine empire took place in the same year under the command of Yazid bin Shajara Ar-Rahawi, who hailed from Syria. It is wrongly, may be deliberately, claimed by Wahhabis and their like minded Groups that the commander of this Army was Yazid bin Mu'awia, which is not true. Thus Yazid was not part of the three separate armies that invaded Byzantine empire, three times in 49 H.
The 8th invasion of Byzantine empire took place in 50 H and in this invasion, some people claim that Yazid bin Mua'wia was part of this Army. Thus Yazid was part of the Army of 8th invasion of Byzantine Empire.
But the Hadith says that the first Muslim Army who will invade Byzantine empire is Jannati. Then how come Yazid is claimed to be Jannati?
The Salafis mention Hadith Guide book Fatahul Bari written by Ibn Hajar Asqalani in which it is mentioned that 'the invasion of Constantinople took place in 52 H and the commander of this Army was Yazid. Even if we take this date as authentic, then this will be the ninth invasion of that city, and not the first one. Because, as we have mentioned earlier with authentic sources that 8 invasions had already taken place before this date. Therefore, Yazid cannot be part of the people who are declared Jannati by Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).
It is also mentioned in many Islamic History books that at the time of 8th invasion of Byzantine empire, Janab Muawiah wanted Yazid to participate, but he refused. We cannot go into these details here because our Article is becoming too long.
We do not understand why Zakir Naik wants to favor Yazid against Imam Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ).
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked by his son that a group of people (qawm) attribute us to [be with] Yazid , he replied, O son! Whoever believes in Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), how can they have any association with Yazid? And why should he not be cursed (laanat) when Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) sends laanat on him in his Book. The son asked where did Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) send laanat on him in His Book? The Imam replied “in this saying of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی)â€:
It is in Quran - 'Do you then have the sign that if you get the authority, spread disorder in the land and sever your ties of Kinship? These are they whom Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) has cursed and made them deaf from the truth and made their eyes blind'. (Sura Mohammad - صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), Verses 22-23), and then said, is there any greater fasaad than the assasination of Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ)?
(Reference - The above is mentioned in multiple sources such as Ibn Hajar Makki in al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa page 333, Tafsir Mazhari v. 8. p. 434 Imam Barzanji in al-Isha’at, Qadi Abu Ya’la in Mu’tamad al-Usool, ibn al-Jawzi and so on)
There are innumerable Quranic verses and Ahadith which clearly state that Ahle Bait-e-Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and children are pious and virtuous souls.
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti mentions in his book ‘The History of the Rightly Guided Caliphs’ (Taarekh ul Khulufaa al-Raashideen); “Nawfal bin Abi al-Faraat said ‘Once I was with Umar bin Abdul Aziz when a man said in his presence ‘Yazid, the leader of the believers’. Umar bin Abdul Aziz said [in shock] ‘Did you call Yazid the Leader of the Believers'? Umar then ordered for the man to be lashed 20 timesâ€.
Suyuti further writes that in the year 63 H. Yazid was involved in sacking Madinat al-Rasool, in killing a generation of the Companions, and in desecrating and robbing Madinah. Suyuti continues that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and his children are pious and virtuous souls.
It is in Hadith - Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said, whoever terrifies the people of Madinah, upon him is the curse of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), that of His angels and that of all the people of the world. (Sahih Muslim).
After creating carnage in Madinah in the incident of Harrah, the army of Yazid proceeded to Makkah to confront Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, a self-declared Caliph in Hijaz. In Makka, the Army of Yazid committed unthinkable war crimes. Please read Islamic History for details. To know more, watch the following important video clips.
Zakir Naik's claim is false, a blatant lie and slander on Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).
Not even a single Hadith mentioned in this context in the entire Hadith literature has the word "Constantinople" in its text. However, some Hadith scholars have mentioned the name "Constantinople" in their Hadith guides.
Read the following facts and you will know the height of Dr. Zakir Naik lies.
The wording of the Hadith are "awwalu jaishin min ummati yaghzoona madinata Qaisara maghfurullahum". [Meaning - "The first Muslim army who will invade the city of Qaiser-e-Room (Byzantine empire) will be Jannati."] Thus, it could be any city of Byzantine empire.
Read any Islamic History book written by any well known Islamic historian (including Salafi scholar Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Katheer etc.) it is mentioned that the first Muslim invasion of Constantinople, Byzantine empire took place in 42 H in which Yazid was not there.
The second invasion of Muslims on Byzantine empire was in 43 H under the command of Bu'sr bin Abi Arta, and the Army reached the city of Constantinople. Yazid was not part of this Army.
The third invasion of Muslims took place in 44 H under the command of Abd ar-Rahman bin Khaled bin Walid. In this invasion, Busr bin Abi Arta also participated and attacked Constantinople from Sea. Yazid was not part of this Army.
The fifth invasion of Constantinople was in 46 H under the command of Malik bin Abdullah. Yazid was not part of this Muslim Army.
The sixth invasion of Byzantine empire was undertaken in 47 H under the command of Malik bin Hubaira. Yazid was not part of this Army.
Three invasions took place on Byzantine empire in 49 H under the commands of (i) Malik bin Hubaira and (ii) Fazala bin Ubair. Fazala bin Ubair captured many cities of Byzantine empire. (iii) The third invasion of Byzantine empire took place in the same year under the command of Yazid bin Shajara Ar-Rahawi, who hailed from Syria. It is wrongly, may be deliberately, claimed by Wahhabis and their like minded Groups that the commander of this Army was Yazid bin Mu'awia, which is not true. Thus Yazid was not part of the three separate armies that invaded Byzantine empire, three times in 49 H.
The 8th invasion of Byzantine empire took place in 50 H and in this invasion, some people claim that Yazid bin Mua'wia was part of this Army. Thus Yazid was part of the Army of 8th invasion of Byzantine Empire.
But the Hadith says that the first Muslim Army who will invade Byzantine empire is Jannati. Then how come Yazid is claimed to be Jannati?
The Salafis mention Hadith Guide book Fatahul Bari written by Ibn Hajar Asqalani in which it is mentioned that 'the invasion of Constantinople took place in 52 H and the commander of this Army was Yazid. Even if we take this date as authentic, then this will be the ninth invasion of that city, and not the first one. Because, as we have mentioned earlier with authentic sources that 8 invasions had already taken place before this date. Therefore, Yazid cannot be part of the people who are declared Jannati by Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).
It is also mentioned in many Islamic History books that at the time of 8th invasion of Byzantine empire, Janab Muawiah wanted Yazid to participate, but he refused. We cannot go into these details here because our Article is becoming too long.
We do not understand why Zakir Naik wants to favor Yazid against Imam Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ).
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked by his son that a group of people (qawm) attribute us to [be with] Yazid , he replied, O son! Whoever believes in Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), how can they have any association with Yazid? And why should he not be cursed (laanat) when Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) sends laanat on him in his Book. The son asked where did Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) send laanat on him in His Book? The Imam replied “in this saying of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی)â€:
It is in Quran - 'Do you then have the sign that if you get the authority, spread disorder in the land and sever your ties of Kinship? These are they whom Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) has cursed and made them deaf from the truth and made their eyes blind'. (Sura Mohammad - صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), Verses 22-23), and then said, is there any greater fasaad than the assasination of Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ)?
(Reference - The above is mentioned in multiple sources such as Ibn Hajar Makki in al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa page 333, Tafsir Mazhari v. 8. p. 434 Imam Barzanji in al-Isha’at, Qadi Abu Ya’la in Mu’tamad al-Usool, ibn al-Jawzi and so on)
There are innumerable Quranic verses and Ahadith which clearly state that Ahle Bait-e-Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and children are pious and virtuous souls.
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti mentions in his book ‘The History of the Rightly Guided Caliphs’ (Taarekh ul Khulufaa al-Raashideen); “Nawfal bin Abi al-Faraat said ‘Once I was with Umar bin Abdul Aziz when a man said in his presence ‘Yazid, the leader of the believers’. Umar bin Abdul Aziz said [in shock] ‘Did you call Yazid the Leader of the Believers'? Umar then ordered for the man to be lashed 20 timesâ€.
Suyuti further writes that in the year 63 H. Yazid was involved in sacking Madinat al-Rasool, in killing a generation of the Companions, and in desecrating and robbing Madinah. Suyuti continues that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and his children are pious and virtuous souls.
It is in Hadith - Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said, whoever terrifies the people of Madinah, upon him is the curse of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), that of His angels and that of all the people of the world. (Sahih Muslim).
After creating carnage in Madinah in the incident of Harrah, the army of Yazid proceeded to Makkah to confront Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, a self-declared Caliph in Hijaz. In Makka, the Army of Yazid committed unthinkable war crimes. Please read Islamic History for details. To know more, watch the following important video clips.
(i) Watch this important video - I (ii) Watch this important video - II (iii) Watch this important video - III (iv)Watch this important video - IV
(10) DR. ZAKIR NAIK BANNED FROM ENTERING UK, CANADA AND SOME INDIAN CITIES
Dr. Naik has been banned from entering UK and Canada since June 2010 for his controversial speeches. Earlier, on October 30, 2009 the Uttar Pradesh Government banned his entry and lectures in Allahabad, Kanpur, Lucknow and other cities in UP State, India, for the same reason.
A website has been launched by Dr. Naik www.zakirnaikban.com where he is trying to influence public opinion in his favor and to create pressure on the three Governments who banned his entry. We do not want to go into details here as this is not the focus area of our Article.
(11) DR. NAIK'S POLITICAL ACTIVISM
Lately, Dr. Naik is playing the role of a political activist and a fighter in world politics. He says -
Quote - "If Osmana Bin Laden is fighting with the enemies of Islam, I am for him. If he is terrorizing the terrorist; if he is terrorizing the biggest terrorist - America, I am with him. Every Muslim should be terrorist. If a Muslim is terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam." - Unquote. View this disturbing video clip.
This kind of political activism is not good even for Muslims. How can you excite masses to fight with other countries even if it is established that injustices are done by them? This kind of incitements may create great disorder in the world and may lead to bloodshed on streets.
More than 90% of the countries are run by democratic Governments. There are set of democratic standards to change the people in power.
We strongly believe that we can change the course of events in the world by explaining to the people the virtues of tolerance, peace and love among human beings.
It is important that Dr. Naik changes his disturbing rhetoric in public and stop inciting young men and women to fight with people in power in other countries. He can always express his opinion against injustice done to Muslims in the name of terrorism by certain countries in the world. But he should concentrate to change this trend by changing the public opinion in those countries so that they elect honest peace loving Governments. This process may be tiresome and long, but this is the permanent solution to injustice in the world.
Dr. Naik is a raw gemstone which remained uncut and unpolished. Dr. Naik should have sat in the company of a true Shaikh of Ihsan for a few years and studied Islam under his guidance.
If he had studied Islam under a true Shaikh of Ihsan, the Shaikh would have removed the impurities, shapelessness and carved him into a beautiful polished gem which is useful to the People, Governments and Kings alike.
Alas, Dr. Naik could not use properly the important gifts of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) - exceptional memory, intelligence and debating skills. He thought he can understand Islam by memorizing books on his own.
Our intention behind writing this Article is not to hurt the feelings of Dr. Zakir Naik, his associates or anyone else. If someone feels that the information in the Article hurts his feelings, we regret it profoundly because this is not our intention. We strongly believe that the information will definitely provide an opportunity to all concerned to correct, for their own good and for the good of Muslim community in the world.
Dr Zakir Naik Exposes His lack of Islamic Knowledge ...
An analysis of the Hadith of Constantinople-(A REPLY TO ZAKIR NAIK)
An analysis of the Hadith of Constantinople
It is said about Yazid that because he participated in first siege of the city of Caesar i.e. Constantinople (Urdu–Qustuntuniya), he is worthy of being forgiven and he has already been forgiven. To prove this, a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari is quoted.
In The Following Lines, A Detailed Analysis Of This Hadith Is Being Penned
There is a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Vol 1, Pg No. 409, 410 (Hadith No. 2924)
It has been narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Umme Haraam (May Allah be well pleased with her) that she heard the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) say: The army from My Ummah, who will first perform jihad through the water (sea), has made Jannah obligatory for itself. Hadhrat Umme Haraam (May Allah be well pleased with her) entreated, "O Prophet of Allah , Am I among them? He (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: Yes. Then the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: The army from My Ummah, who will first attack the city of Caesar is forgiven. I entreated: Am I among them, O Prophet of Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)? He (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: No."
If the collections of Hadith, the books of Rijal and the canons of history are honestly gone through, then the falsity of the aforementioned deduction (including Yazid in this Hadith) will be understood easily. Using the above Hadith to include Yazid among those who have been forgiven is incorrect for many reasons.
First Interpretation Of This Hadith
In regard to this Hadith, the Hadith-Masters have given a opinion that the "city of Caesar" mentioned in the Hadith is not Constantinople, but Hims, which was the capital of Roman Empire in the days of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).
It is given in Fath ul Bari in the interpretation of this Hadith.
Translation: Some interpreters have said that the city of Caesar means the city which was the capital of the Roman Empire in the blessed era of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). That city is Hims. At that time, it was the capital of the Roman Empire.
This interpretation is all the more significant, because in Sahih Bukhari and in all other books, the word "Constantinople" is not used. Only "the city of Caesar" is mentioned. Caesar was the Emperor of the Roman Empire. The city in which he lived or was his capital will only be termed as "city of Caesar." According to the wording of the Hadith, that city is Hims. In the caliphate of Hadhrat Umar Al Faruq (May Allah be well pleased with him), in Hijri 15, an army under the command of Hadhrat Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah (May Allah be well pleased with him) attacked Hims. Muslims laid siege to Hims in harsh winter and the end of winter, they conquered it. In this battle, Hadhrat Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with him), Hadhrat Bilal (May Allah be well pleased with him), Hadhrat Miqdaad (May Allah be well pleased with him) and many other Sahabah participated.
Imam Ibn Atheer (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) has mentioned among the incidents of 15 Hijri, in Tarikh Kamil, Vol 2, Pg No. 339:
Translation: When Hadhrat Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah (May Allah be well pleased with him) finished the campaign of Damascus, he took the route of Ba'albak to Hims."
At that time Yazid was not even born let alone participating in the battle. Yazid was born in HIJRI 26 as Imam Ibn Atheer (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) wrote in Bidayah wan Nihayah, Vol 9, Pg No. 76.
Translation: "Yazid bin Mu'awiyah was born in 26 Hijri
A possible objection against this Hadith might be that in the Hadith mentioned, first the Jihad by sea is mentioned, in which Hadhrat Umme Haraam (May Allah be well pleased with her) is a participant, then the siege of the city of Caesar is mentioned. If the city of Caesar is Hims, then it should have been mentioned first but it is not so.
The Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) first mentioned the Jihad by sea and then the siege of the city of Caesar. It should be remembered that the order of incidents might be according to what is being said or might be according to the order of occurrence. In this Hadith, it is according to what is said, not in the order of occurrence.
Second Interpretation Of This Hadith
Other interpreters have opined that "the city of Caesar" means Constantinople. Still Yazid is not included in the ambit of the said Hadith as Muslims attacked Constantinople a number of times and the glad tidings of forgiveness are only for those who participated in the first siege.
Now, what is to be seen is that, when did Muslims attack Constantinople for the first time and which is the first army?
First Attack On Constantinople
It is written in Bidayah wan Nihayah, Vol 7, Pg No. 179 about the first army which attacked Constantinople.
Translation: Hadhrat Ameer Mu'awiyah (May Allah be well pleased with him) attacked Rome in Hijri 32 and fought battles after battles till he reached the city of Constantinople :
It is given in Tarikh Kamil, Vol 3, Pg No. 25.
This shows that Constantinople was first attacked by Hadhrat Ameer Mu'awiyah (May Allah be well pleased with him). There is no mention of Yazid participating in this siege. According to Bidayah wan Nihayah, Vol 9, Pg No. 76. Yazid was born in 26 Hijri, so in Hijri 32, he was a kid of 6 years.
Second Attack On Constantinople
The second time, in 43 A.H the Muslims attacked Rome under the leadership of Hadhrat Basar bin Artaah (May Allah be well pleased with him) and fought their way to Constantinople. It is written in Bidayah wan Nihayah Vol 8, Pg No 27.
A critical historian of the like of Ibn Khaldun has also mentioned this incident. It is written in Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, Vol 3, Pg No.9:
Translation: Then Hadhrat Basar bin Artaayh (May Allah be well pleased with him) entered the country of Rome in 43 Hijri, he kept moving forward till he reached Constantinople."
Third Attack On Constantinople
The third attack on Constantinople was in 44 Hijri or 46 Hijri. It is written in Tarikh Kamil in the incidents of the year of 44 Hijri:
Translation: In 44 Hijri Muslims, with Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them) entered Rome and spent winter there only and Hadhrat Basar bin Artaah (May Allah be well pleased with him) fought through the sea. Tarikh Kamil, Vol 3, Pg no. 298
It is given in the same book in the incidents of 46 Hijri:
Translation: Hadhrat Malik bin Abdullah (May Allah be well pleased with him) remained in the kingdom of Rome and it has been said that Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them) and returned to Hims the same year and passed away into the presence of Allah."
The commander of third army to attack to Constantinople was Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them). This attack has been mentioned not only in the books of history, but also in Sunan Abu Dawood, which is a reliable book from the Sihah Sittah (the 6 most authentic and reliable books of Hadith). It is given in Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol 1, Kitabul Jihad, Pg No. 340 (Hadith No: 2151), "Muslims attacked Constantinople and in this battle, Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with him) was the commander.
Translation: It has been narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Abu Imran (May Allah be well pleased with him): We left Madina with the intention of attacking Constantinople. The commander of the army was Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with him). The Romans had their backs to the ramparts. A person readied himself for attack. The people said: La ilaha illallah, he is taking himself to death. Hadhrat Abu Ayyub Ansari (May Allah be well pleased with him) said: This verse has been revealed about us, when Allah helped the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and made Islam dominant, then we said, 'Come let us remain with our property and wealth and set them right,' then Allah sent this command: And spend in the way of Allah and do not put yourself in mortal danger.†Surah Baqra- 195 and so to take oneself to death is to remain with our property, busy oneself in setting them right and abandon Jihad. Hadhrat Abu Imran says that Hadhrat Abu Ayyub Ansari (May Allah be well pleased with him) used to perform Jihad for the sake of Allah , to the extent that he was buried in Constantinople."
According to the above mentioned details, the army, which attacked Constantinople under Ameer Mu'awiyah (May Allah be well pleased with him) in 32 Hijri is the first army and this is the army, which according to Sahih Bukhari, is forgiven.
It is made clear by the Hadith of Sunan Abu Dawood, that the commander of the army, which attacked Constantinople was Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them), who passed away in either 46 or 47 A.H, as given in Tarikh Kamil in the incidents of 46 Hijri
Sunan Abu Dawood is from among the Sihah Sittah (the six most authentic books of Hadith). It is by all standards more preferable than the books of history. This proves beyond doubt that under the leadership of Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them) Constantinople was attacked before 46 or 47 Hijri, as the canons of history and Rijal establish that Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them) passed away in 46 or 47 Hijri.
In 32 Hijri, in 43 Hijri, in 44 Hijri or 46 Hijri, Yazid did not participate in any of these 3 sieges.
Dr. Zakir Naik praises Yazid and claims that Karbala was a political episode
(Astaghfirullah - We pray Allah - سبحانہ و تعا لی to save Islam from hypocrites).
He says (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ) with Yazid's name and mentions a Hadith in Bukhari in which Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said the first Muslim Army who will invade the city of Constantinople (presently Istanbul) will be rewarded with Jannah. He claims Yazid was part of that army.
Zakir Naik claim is false, lie and slander on Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).
Not even a single Hadith mentioned in this context in the entire Hadith literature has the word "Constantinople" in its text. However, some Hadith scholars have mentioned the name "Constantinople" in their Hadith guides.
Read the following facts and you will know the height of Dr. Zakir Naik lies.
The wording of the Hadith are "awwalu jaishin min ummati yaghzoona madinata Qaisara maghfurullahum". [Meaning - "The first Muslim army who will invade the city of Qaiser-e-Room (Byzantine empire) will be Jannati."] Thus, it could be any city of Byzantine empire.
Read any Islamic History book written by any well known Islamic historian (including Salafi scholar Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Katheer etc.) it is mentioned that the first Muslim invasion of Constantinople, Byzantine empire took place in 42 H in which Yazid was not there.
The second invasion of Muslims on Byzantine empire was in 43 H under the command of Bu'sr bin Abi Arta, and the Army reached the city of Constantinople. Yazid was not part of this Army.
The third invasion of Muslims took place in 44 H under the command of Abd ar-Rahman bin Khaled bin Walid. In this invasion, Busr bin Abi Arta also participated and attacked Constantinople from Sea. Yazid was not part of this Army.
The fifth invasion of Constantinople was in 46 H under the command of Malik bin Abdullah. Yazid was not part of this Muslim Army.
The sixth invasion of Byzantine empire was undertaken in 47 H under the command of Malik bin Hubaira. Yazid was not part of this Army.
Three invasions took place on Byzantine empire in 49 H under the commands of (i) Malik bin Hubaira and (ii) Fazala bin Ubair. Fazala bin Ubair captured many cities of Byzantine empire. (iii) The third invasion of Byzantine empire took place in the same year under the command of Yazid bin Shajara Ar-Rahawi, who hailed from Syria. It is wrongly, may be deliberately, claimed by Wahhabis and their like minded Groups that the commander of this Army was Yazid bin Mu'awia, which is not true. Thus Yazid was not part of the three separate armies that invaded Byzantine empire, three times in 49 H.
The 8th invasion of Byzantine empire took place in 50 H and in this invasion, some people claim that Yazid bin Mua'wia was part of this Army. Thus Yazid was part of the Army of 8th invasion of Byzantine Empire.
But the Hadith says that the first Muslim Army who will invade Byzantine empire is Jannati. Then how come Yazid is claimed to be Jannati?
The Salafis mention Hadith Guide book Fatahul Bari written by Ibn Hajar Asqalani in which it is mentioned that 'the invasion of Constantinople took place in 52 H and the commander of this Army was Yazid. Even if we take this date as authentic, then this will be the ninth invasion of that city, and not the first one. Because, as we have mentioned earlier with authentic sources that 8 invasions had already taken place before this date. Therefore, Yazid cannot be part of the people who are declared Jannati by Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).
It is also mentioned in many Islamic History books that at the time of 8th invasion of Byzantine empire, Janab Muawiah wanted Yazid to participate, but he refused. We cannot go into these details here because our Article is becoming too long.
We do not understand why Zakir Naik wants to favor Yazid against Imam Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ).
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked by his son that a group of people (qawm) attribute us to [be with] Yazid , he replied, O son! Whoever believes in Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), how can they have any association with Yazid? And why should he not be cursed (laanat) when Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) sends laanat on him in his Book. The son asked where did Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) send laanat on him in His Book? The Imam replied “in this saying of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی)â€:
It is in Quran - 'Do you then have the sign that if you get the authority, spread disorder in the land and sever your ties of Kinship? These are they whom Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) has cursed and made them deaf from the truth and made their eyes blind'. (Sura Mohammad - صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), Verses 22-23), and then said, is there any greater fasaad than the assasination of Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ)?
(Reference - The above is mentioned in multiple sources such as Ibn Hajar Makki in al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa page 333, Tafsir Mazhari v. 8. p. 434 Imam Barzanji in al-Isha’at, Qadi Abu Ya’la in Mu’tamad al-Usool, ibn al-Jawzi and so on)
There are innumerable Quranic verses and Ahadith which clearly state that Ahle Bait-e-Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and children are pious and virtuous souls.
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti mentions in his book ‘The History of the Rightly Guided Caliphs’ (Taarekh ul Khulufaa al-Raashideen); “Nawfal bin Abi al-Faraat said ‘Once I was with Umar bin Abdul Aziz when a man said in his presence ‘Yazid, the leader of the believers’. Umar bin Abdul Aziz said [in shock] ‘Did you call Yazid the Leader of the Believers'? Umar then ordered for the man to be lashed 20 timesâ€.
Suyuti further writes that in the year 63 H. Yazid was involved in sacking Madinat al-Rasool, in killing a generation of the Companions, and in desecrating and robbing Madinah. Suyuti continues that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and his children are pious and virtuous souls.
It is in Hadith - Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said, whoever terrifies the people of Madinah, upon him is the curse of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), that of His angels and that of all the people of the world. (Sahih Muslim).
After creating carnage in Madinah in the incident of Harrah, the army of Yazid proceeded to Makkah to confront Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, a self-declared Caliph in Hijaz. In Makka, the Army of Yazid committed unthinkable war crimes. Please read Islamic History for details. To know more, watch the following important video clips.
Zakir Naik's claim is false, a blatant lie and slander on Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).
Not even a single Hadith mentioned in this context in the entire Hadith literature has the word "Constantinople" in its text. However, some Hadith scholars have mentioned the name "Constantinople" in their Hadith guides.
Read the following facts and you will know the height of Dr. Zakir Naik lies.
The wording of the Hadith are "awwalu jaishin min ummati yaghzoona madinata Qaisara maghfurullahum". [Meaning - "The first Muslim army who will invade the city of Qaiser-e-Room (Byzantine empire) will be Jannati."] Thus, it could be any city of Byzantine empire.
Read any Islamic History book written by any well known Islamic historian (including Salafi scholar Al-Dhahabi, Ibn Katheer etc.) it is mentioned that the first Muslim invasion of Constantinople, Byzantine empire took place in 42 H in which Yazid was not there.
The second invasion of Muslims on Byzantine empire was in 43 H under the command of Bu'sr bin Abi Arta, and the Army reached the city of Constantinople. Yazid was not part of this Army.
The third invasion of Muslims took place in 44 H under the command of Abd ar-Rahman bin Khaled bin Walid. In this invasion, Busr bin Abi Arta also participated and attacked Constantinople from Sea. Yazid was not part of this Army.
The fifth invasion of Constantinople was in 46 H under the command of Malik bin Abdullah. Yazid was not part of this Muslim Army.
The sixth invasion of Byzantine empire was undertaken in 47 H under the command of Malik bin Hubaira. Yazid was not part of this Army.
Three invasions took place on Byzantine empire in 49 H under the commands of (i) Malik bin Hubaira and (ii) Fazala bin Ubair. Fazala bin Ubair captured many cities of Byzantine empire. (iii) The third invasion of Byzantine empire took place in the same year under the command of Yazid bin Shajara Ar-Rahawi, who hailed from Syria. It is wrongly, may be deliberately, claimed by Wahhabis and their like minded Groups that the commander of this Army was Yazid bin Mu'awia, which is not true. Thus Yazid was not part of the three separate armies that invaded Byzantine empire, three times in 49 H.
The 8th invasion of Byzantine empire took place in 50 H and in this invasion, some people claim that Yazid bin Mua'wia was part of this Army. Thus Yazid was part of the Army of 8th invasion of Byzantine Empire.
But the Hadith says that the first Muslim Army who will invade Byzantine empire is Jannati. Then how come Yazid is claimed to be Jannati?
The Salafis mention Hadith Guide book Fatahul Bari written by Ibn Hajar Asqalani in which it is mentioned that 'the invasion of Constantinople took place in 52 H and the commander of this Army was Yazid. Even if we take this date as authentic, then this will be the ninth invasion of that city, and not the first one. Because, as we have mentioned earlier with authentic sources that 8 invasions had already taken place before this date. Therefore, Yazid cannot be part of the people who are declared Jannati by Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم).
It is also mentioned in many Islamic History books that at the time of 8th invasion of Byzantine empire, Janab Muawiah wanted Yazid to participate, but he refused. We cannot go into these details here because our Article is becoming too long.
We do not understand why Zakir Naik wants to favor Yazid against Imam Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ).
Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked by his son that a group of people (qawm) attribute us to [be with] Yazid , he replied, O son! Whoever believes in Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), how can they have any association with Yazid? And why should he not be cursed (laanat) when Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) sends laanat on him in his Book. The son asked where did Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) send laanat on him in His Book? The Imam replied “in this saying of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی)â€:
It is in Quran - 'Do you then have the sign that if you get the authority, spread disorder in the land and sever your ties of Kinship? These are they whom Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) has cursed and made them deaf from the truth and made their eyes blind'. (Sura Mohammad - صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم), Verses 22-23), and then said, is there any greater fasaad than the assasination of Husain (رضئ اللہ تعالی عنہ)?
(Reference - The above is mentioned in multiple sources such as Ibn Hajar Makki in al-Sawa’iq al-Muhriqa page 333, Tafsir Mazhari v. 8. p. 434 Imam Barzanji in al-Isha’at, Qadi Abu Ya’la in Mu’tamad al-Usool, ibn al-Jawzi and so on)
There are innumerable Quranic verses and Ahadith which clearly state that Ahle Bait-e-Rasulullah (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and children are pious and virtuous souls.
Imam Jalaluddin Suyuti mentions in his book ‘The History of the Rightly Guided Caliphs’ (Taarekh ul Khulufaa al-Raashideen); “Nawfal bin Abi al-Faraat said ‘Once I was with Umar bin Abdul Aziz when a man said in his presence ‘Yazid, the leader of the believers’. Umar bin Abdul Aziz said [in shock] ‘Did you call Yazid the Leader of the Believers'? Umar then ordered for the man to be lashed 20 timesâ€.
Suyuti further writes that in the year 63 H. Yazid was involved in sacking Madinat al-Rasool, in killing a generation of the Companions, and in desecrating and robbing Madinah. Suyuti continues that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) and his children are pious and virtuous souls.
It is in Hadith - Prophet (صلى الله عليه و آله وسلم) said, whoever terrifies the people of Madinah, upon him is the curse of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی), that of His angels and that of all the people of the world. (Sahih Muslim).
After creating carnage in Madinah in the incident of Harrah, the army of Yazid proceeded to Makkah to confront Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, a self-declared Caliph in Hijaz. In Makka, the Army of Yazid committed unthinkable war crimes. Please read Islamic History for details. To know more, watch the following important video clips.
(i) Watch this important video - I (ii) Watch this important video - II (iii) Watch this important video - III (iv)Watch this important video - IV
(10) DR. ZAKIR NAIK BANNED FROM ENTERING UK, CANADA AND SOME INDIAN CITIES
Dr. Naik has been banned from entering UK and Canada since June 2010 for his controversial speeches. Earlier, on October 30, 2009 the Uttar Pradesh Government banned his entry and lectures in Allahabad, Kanpur, Lucknow and other cities in UP State, India, for the same reason.
A website has been launched by Dr. Naik www.zakirnaikban.com where he is trying to influence public opinion in his favor and to create pressure on the three Governments who banned his entry. We do not want to go into details here as this is not the focus area of our Article.
(11) DR. NAIK'S POLITICAL ACTIVISM
Lately, Dr. Naik is playing the role of a political activist and a fighter in world politics. He says -
Quote - "If Osmana Bin Laden is fighting with the enemies of Islam, I am for him. If he is terrorizing the terrorist; if he is terrorizing the biggest terrorist - America, I am with him. Every Muslim should be terrorist. If a Muslim is terrorizing the terrorist, he is following Islam." - Unquote. View this disturbing video clip.
This kind of political activism is not good even for Muslims. How can you excite masses to fight with other countries even if it is established that injustices are done by them? This kind of incitements may create great disorder in the world and may lead to bloodshed on streets.
More than 90% of the countries are run by democratic Governments. There are set of democratic standards to change the people in power.
We strongly believe that we can change the course of events in the world by explaining to the people the virtues of tolerance, peace and love among human beings.
It is important that Dr. Naik changes his disturbing rhetoric in public and stop inciting young men and women to fight with people in power in other countries. He can always express his opinion against injustice done to Muslims in the name of terrorism by certain countries in the world. But he should concentrate to change this trend by changing the public opinion in those countries so that they elect honest peace loving Governments. This process may be tiresome and long, but this is the permanent solution to injustice in the world.
Dr. Naik is a raw gemstone which remained uncut and unpolished. Dr. Naik should have sat in the company of a true Shaikh of Ihsan for a few years and studied Islam under his guidance.
If he had studied Islam under a true Shaikh of Ihsan, the Shaikh would have removed the impurities, shapelessness and carved him into a beautiful polished gem which is useful to the People, Governments and Kings alike.
Alas, Dr. Naik could not use properly the important gifts of Allah (سبحانہ و تعا لی) - exceptional memory, intelligence and debating skills. He thought he can understand Islam by memorizing books on his own.
Our intention behind writing this Article is not to hurt the feelings of Dr. Zakir Naik, his associates or anyone else. If someone feels that the information in the Article hurts his feelings, we regret it profoundly because this is not our intention. We strongly believe that the information will definitely provide an opportunity to all concerned to correct, for their own good and for the good of Muslim community in the world.
Dr Zakir Naik Exposes His lack of Islamic Knowledge ...
An analysis of the Hadith of Constantinople-(A REPLY TO ZAKIR NAIK)
An analysis of the Hadith of Constantinople
It is said about Yazid that because he participated in first siege of the city of Caesar i.e. Constantinople (Urdu–Qustuntuniya), he is worthy of being forgiven and he has already been forgiven. To prove this, a Hadith from Sahih Bukhari is quoted.
In The Following Lines, A Detailed Analysis Of This Hadith Is Being Penned
There is a Hadith in Sahih Bukhari, Vol 1, Pg No. 409, 410 (Hadith No. 2924)
It has been narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Umme Haraam (May Allah be well pleased with her) that she heard the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) say: The army from My Ummah, who will first perform jihad through the water (sea), has made Jannah obligatory for itself. Hadhrat Umme Haraam (May Allah be well pleased with her) entreated, "O Prophet of Allah , Am I among them? He (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: Yes. Then the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: The army from My Ummah, who will first attack the city of Caesar is forgiven. I entreated: Am I among them, O Prophet of Allah (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam)? He (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) said: No."
If the collections of Hadith, the books of Rijal and the canons of history are honestly gone through, then the falsity of the aforementioned deduction (including Yazid in this Hadith) will be understood easily. Using the above Hadith to include Yazid among those who have been forgiven is incorrect for many reasons.
First Interpretation Of This Hadith
In regard to this Hadith, the Hadith-Masters have given a opinion that the "city of Caesar" mentioned in the Hadith is not Constantinople, but Hims, which was the capital of Roman Empire in the days of the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam).
It is given in Fath ul Bari in the interpretation of this Hadith.
Translation: Some interpreters have said that the city of Caesar means the city which was the capital of the Roman Empire in the blessed era of the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam). That city is Hims. At that time, it was the capital of the Roman Empire.
This interpretation is all the more significant, because in Sahih Bukhari and in all other books, the word "Constantinople" is not used. Only "the city of Caesar" is mentioned. Caesar was the Emperor of the Roman Empire. The city in which he lived or was his capital will only be termed as "city of Caesar." According to the wording of the Hadith, that city is Hims. In the caliphate of Hadhrat Umar Al Faruq (May Allah be well pleased with him), in Hijri 15, an army under the command of Hadhrat Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah (May Allah be well pleased with him) attacked Hims. Muslims laid siege to Hims in harsh winter and the end of winter, they conquered it. In this battle, Hadhrat Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with him), Hadhrat Bilal (May Allah be well pleased with him), Hadhrat Miqdaad (May Allah be well pleased with him) and many other Sahabah participated.
Imam Ibn Atheer (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) has mentioned among the incidents of 15 Hijri, in Tarikh Kamil, Vol 2, Pg No. 339:
Translation: When Hadhrat Abu Ubaidah bin Jarrah (May Allah be well pleased with him) finished the campaign of Damascus, he took the route of Ba'albak to Hims."
At that time Yazid was not even born let alone participating in the battle. Yazid was born in HIJRI 26 as Imam Ibn Atheer (May Allah shower His Mercy on him) wrote in Bidayah wan Nihayah, Vol 9, Pg No. 76.
Translation: "Yazid bin Mu'awiyah was born in 26 Hijri
A possible objection against this Hadith might be that in the Hadith mentioned, first the Jihad by sea is mentioned, in which Hadhrat Umme Haraam (May Allah be well pleased with her) is a participant, then the siege of the city of Caesar is mentioned. If the city of Caesar is Hims, then it should have been mentioned first but it is not so.
The Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) first mentioned the Jihad by sea and then the siege of the city of Caesar. It should be remembered that the order of incidents might be according to what is being said or might be according to the order of occurrence. In this Hadith, it is according to what is said, not in the order of occurrence.
Second Interpretation Of This Hadith
Other interpreters have opined that "the city of Caesar" means Constantinople. Still Yazid is not included in the ambit of the said Hadith as Muslims attacked Constantinople a number of times and the glad tidings of forgiveness are only for those who participated in the first siege.
Now, what is to be seen is that, when did Muslims attack Constantinople for the first time and which is the first army?
First Attack On Constantinople
It is written in Bidayah wan Nihayah, Vol 7, Pg No. 179 about the first army which attacked Constantinople.
Translation: Hadhrat Ameer Mu'awiyah (May Allah be well pleased with him) attacked Rome in Hijri 32 and fought battles after battles till he reached the city of Constantinople :
It is given in Tarikh Kamil, Vol 3, Pg No. 25.
This shows that Constantinople was first attacked by Hadhrat Ameer Mu'awiyah (May Allah be well pleased with him). There is no mention of Yazid participating in this siege. According to Bidayah wan Nihayah, Vol 9, Pg No. 76. Yazid was born in 26 Hijri, so in Hijri 32, he was a kid of 6 years.
Second Attack On Constantinople
The second time, in 43 A.H the Muslims attacked Rome under the leadership of Hadhrat Basar bin Artaah (May Allah be well pleased with him) and fought their way to Constantinople. It is written in Bidayah wan Nihayah Vol 8, Pg No 27.
A critical historian of the like of Ibn Khaldun has also mentioned this incident. It is written in Tarikh Ibn Khaldun, Vol 3, Pg No.9:
Translation: Then Hadhrat Basar bin Artaayh (May Allah be well pleased with him) entered the country of Rome in 43 Hijri, he kept moving forward till he reached Constantinople."
Third Attack On Constantinople
The third attack on Constantinople was in 44 Hijri or 46 Hijri. It is written in Tarikh Kamil in the incidents of the year of 44 Hijri:
Translation: In 44 Hijri Muslims, with Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them) entered Rome and spent winter there only and Hadhrat Basar bin Artaah (May Allah be well pleased with him) fought through the sea. Tarikh Kamil, Vol 3, Pg no. 298
It is given in the same book in the incidents of 46 Hijri:
Translation: Hadhrat Malik bin Abdullah (May Allah be well pleased with him) remained in the kingdom of Rome and it has been said that Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them) and returned to Hims the same year and passed away into the presence of Allah."
The commander of third army to attack to Constantinople was Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them). This attack has been mentioned not only in the books of history, but also in Sunan Abu Dawood, which is a reliable book from the Sihah Sittah (the 6 most authentic and reliable books of Hadith). It is given in Sunan Abu Dawood, Vol 1, Kitabul Jihad, Pg No. 340 (Hadith No: 2151), "Muslims attacked Constantinople and in this battle, Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with him) was the commander.
Translation: It has been narrated on the authority of Hadhrat Abu Imran (May Allah be well pleased with him): We left Madina with the intention of attacking Constantinople. The commander of the army was Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with him). The Romans had their backs to the ramparts. A person readied himself for attack. The people said: La ilaha illallah, he is taking himself to death. Hadhrat Abu Ayyub Ansari (May Allah be well pleased with him) said: This verse has been revealed about us, when Allah helped the Holy Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) and made Islam dominant, then we said, 'Come let us remain with our property and wealth and set them right,' then Allah sent this command: And spend in the way of Allah and do not put yourself in mortal danger.†Surah Baqra- 195 and so to take oneself to death is to remain with our property, busy oneself in setting them right and abandon Jihad. Hadhrat Abu Imran says that Hadhrat Abu Ayyub Ansari (May Allah be well pleased with him) used to perform Jihad for the sake of Allah , to the extent that he was buried in Constantinople."
According to the above mentioned details, the army, which attacked Constantinople under Ameer Mu'awiyah (May Allah be well pleased with him) in 32 Hijri is the first army and this is the army, which according to Sahih Bukhari, is forgiven.
It is made clear by the Hadith of Sunan Abu Dawood, that the commander of the army, which attacked Constantinople was Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them), who passed away in either 46 or 47 A.H, as given in Tarikh Kamil in the incidents of 46 Hijri
Sunan Abu Dawood is from among the Sihah Sittah (the six most authentic books of Hadith). It is by all standards more preferable than the books of history. This proves beyond doubt that under the leadership of Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them) Constantinople was attacked before 46 or 47 Hijri, as the canons of history and Rijal establish that Hadhrat Abdur Rahman bin Khalid bin Walid (May Allah be well pleased with them) passed away in 46 or 47 Hijri.
In 32 Hijri, in 43 Hijri, in 44 Hijri or 46 Hijri, Yazid did not participate in any of these 3 sieges.