Analysing hadith blessing Yazeed
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.
Reply One
Let us analyse the complete tradition fromSahih al Bukhari
, Book ofJihad 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 consultSahih 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 inSunan 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 inal 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.
Reply Eight
The teachers of Khalid bin Madani were all Nasibi We read inTadheeb 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 inFathul 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 workMuqaddimah 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 inTareekh 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.
Reply Fourteen
Texts purporting Yazeed to have been present in this 'Paradise-bound army' are lies.
We appeal to our Sunni brothers: are these advocates of Yazeed not the same people that have relied on the texts of irreligious alleged scholars? These Nasibi claim that Shi'a writers are in effect seditious Iranian Ibn Saba elements of Jewish origin. We challenge these followers of Yazeed to prove to us from the Qur'an and Sahih hadith that Yazeed was present in the army that according to Umm Haram had been blessed with Paradise - and these people's claims shall be proven false.
The fact is we curse all these commentators who claim that Yazeed was praiseworthy / deserving of Paradise - and for that aim they rely on a hadith that had been recorded by an Iranian - called Ismail Bukhari - so let's ignore him as he may be an Ibn Saba Magian. In fact it is the Nasibis who practice a form of Islam pioneered by men like Mu'awiya and that perpetrates fabricated Umayyad Hadith to this day, and upon which they base their 'Deen' (Cult).
Since Mu'awiya and Yazeed both never accepted Islam in their hearts (proved in this article and the one on Mu'awiya) it is quite reasonable to say the Nasibis represent the Jahiliyya element in Islam - their cult is that which is influenced by the pagan Meccans like Abu Sofyan and Mu'awiya and the hardness of their hearts to this day to Muhammad (saws) and his family is indicative of that hatred - for their cult was founded by our dear Prophet (saws)'s worst enemies. That's why when the Fatwa from the Shia came on Salman Rushdie's head, the scholars of Saudi Arabia were quiet they didn't feel for the Holy Prophet (saws) like Shias and Sunnis do.
In the words of mainstream Sunnis the silence from the Sunni world was deafening. So next time, be you Shia or Sunni, and you hear the Nasibis stop you saying Salam to the Prophet (saws) and calling it bid'a - just pause - that Nasibi voice is the voice 1,400 years later of the Prophet (saws)'s enemies. It's the voice of Abu Jahl, Abu Lahab, Abu Sofyan, Mu'awiya and Yazeed. It's the voice of Shaitan. That's why something in you makes you react against it, or something in you will make you turn away from it if they've already snared you...Insha Allah. We challenge Azam Tariq Nasibi to: Present us this hadith from an Arab scholar who recorded in his book that the first army to enter Rome shall be in Paradise, and then:
Produce an authentic Arab source with a Sahih Isnad confirming the presence of Yazeed in that army.
How can one even entertain the notion that Yazeed will attain Paradise? A man that killed the descendents of the Prophet (saws) kills Ahl'ul bayt (as) and also allows the occurrence of gang rapes of the Sahaba's daughters in Medina. If Yazeed can enter Paradise then by the same token then so can the killers of Hadhrath Uthman. They did a lot less harm than Yazeed did.
Reply Fifteen
Sunni Ulema have stated that Yazeed was not deserving of Paradise
As proof we shall rely on the following authentic Sunni texts:
Fathul Bari Volume 6 page 102, Kitab Jihad
Umdah'thul Qari fi Sharh Bukhari Volume 6 page 649 Bab ba Qeel fi Qaathil al Rum
Mu'awiya aur Isthakhlaf ai Yazeed page 391
Imam Pak aur Yazeed Paleeth page138
Shaeed ai Kerbala aur Yazeed page 184
Siraaj al Muneer Volume 1 page 80, the letter 'Alif'
We read inUmdah
:
"Yazeed's character is well known. If people cite the fact that this hadith points to the conquerors of Rome attaining Paradise - it is not incumbent to incorporate Yazeed here (in this group). It does not guarantee Paradise for all combatants, since there is no dispute amongst the people of knowledge, that Rasulullah's order was placed on a condition - the only participants that can rely on the promise of Paradise are those worthy of attaining it. Those that participated and then subsequently apostatised will not be counted as those deserving of Salvation".
We read inFathul Bari
:
"Some state that the hadith relating to the city of Caesar constitutes a merit of Yazeed, but Ibn Atheer and al Muneer have stated that even if Yazeed was one of those in that army being referred to in the Caesar tradition, it does not prevent Yazeed from being excluded from this group, since there is no dispute amongst the people of knowledge, that the only participants that can rely on the promise of Paradise are those worthy of attaining it. Those that participated and then subsequently apostatised will not be counted amongst these people".
We could say the same thing about the Day of Hudaibiya using this same logic of Sunni scholarship - many of the companions there apostatised AFTER the Treaty. Thus Allah's words giving peace to those who swore
allegiance to the Prophet (saws) under the tree at Hudaibiya only apply to those who did not later apostasies and were thus worthy of this merit and did not betray its beatific sense, which many did when they denied Ali (as) the khilafat. The same applies according to these scholars when dealing with the combatants in the battle for Constantinople.
We read inIrshad Sari
byShahabadeen Taftazani
:
"People have cited the Caesar hadith so as to prove that Yazeed is in Heaven and our reply to such a claim is Even if Yazeed was amongst the combatants there is no reason why he cannot be removed from this group since there is no dispute amongst the people of knowledge, that the only participants that can rely on the promise of Paradise are those worthy of attaining it. Those that participated and then subsequently apostatised will not be counted amongst these people. May Allah's curse (la'nat) be upon Yazeed and such disgraceful people" After citing the comments of Ibn al Muneer [see above], Shahabadeen Taftazani states that: ".according to Sa'dadeen Taftazani some Ulema have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed by name - since by ordering the execution of Husayn he committed Kufr. His ordering the killing of Husayn, being happy at his death and his paining the Ahl'ul bayt are proven facts".
InSiraj al Muneer
,Allamah Shaykh 'Ali bin Ahmad Azeezi
after citing the tradition from al Bukhari states:
"Having been satisfied at the killing of Husayn, the Ulema of Ahl'ul Sunnah have deemed it permissible to curse Yazeed, since he ordered his killing and was happy at his death. Imam Taftazani and Ibn Hajr Asqalani in Sharh Mubeeya commented that a scholar of the rank of Imam Ibn Hanbal issued takfeer against Yazeed".
We appeal to those with just minds:
Ibn Hajr Asqalani
Allamah Taftazani
Aini
Ali bin Ahmad Azeezi
Ibn Atheer
Ibn Muneer
The above six personalities are all reputed classical Sunni Ulema that rejected the notion that Yazeed was blessed with Paradise. Taftazani openly cursed Yazeed and these comments serve as a slap in the face of Maulana Azam Tariq. We would like to say to these Nasibi attempts, 'you have failed to prove that Yazeed attained Paradise. Your attempts are futile, and the hadith that you worship fails to mention your dear Khalifah by name. You stand in opposition to 99% of Sunni scholars. NO scholar till this age, and it is a corrupt age, said what you say about Yazeed. ' In this context it is worth noting that in regard to the rising of Sofyan and Raja and the final age, the Holy Prophet (saws) said, as we all know, that the scholars would be liars. Dear brothers, Sunni and Shia.
The lying by the Ansar group, the Saudi scholars, the Pakistani Wahabis, and the Nasibis in general, and that we have exposed....the sheer blatant pathological compulsive lying that we have shown you ...is the biggest proof to date that the scholars of the Muslims lie. This is a sign of the last
age. Till this age NO scholar of any persuasion extolled Yazeed. Today, the Nasibis are doing this. This lying is so blatant that it appals. It is exactly as our Prophet (saws) said of this age. The scholars would be the liars and the worst of people in the Ummah.
This doesn't mean all scholars. It means Nasibi scholars. Protect yourself from them, for the Prophet (saws) wept for they would take Muslims to Hellfire with them. Despite his citing the hadith that allegedly purports to Yazeed being in Paradise, Nasibi Azam Tariq has failed in his efforts to get Muslims to sign up to the 'We love Yazeed Fan Club'. For these Nasibi, Paradise is so cheap that Yazeed, killer of Imam Husayn (as), raper of the companions' wives in Madina, burner of the Ka'aba, can enter it. If Yazeed's massacre of the Ahl'ul bayt (as) is no barr on his entering Paradise then by the same token:
The killers of Uthman should also enter Paradise.
The Rafidi, whose affiliation is with Ahl'ul bayt (as), who distance themselves from their enemies should also be deemed as momin, and there should be no barr on the amount of tabarra they do, since like Yazeed they will also be in Heaven.
It is indeed unusual that in the eyes of these Nasibi the Shi'a who condemn those Sahaba that harmed, fought and cursed the Ahl'ul bayt are kaafirs as they curse the Sahaba, whilst a fasiiq, fajir, incestuous, paedophile, homosexual drunkard who attacks Medina, slaughters the Sahaba, upholds the rape of their daughters, in Kerbala corners, starves and massacres the family of the Prophet (s) including the Leader of the People of Paradise is a momin.
These pathetic Nasibi should know that murder is a big sin, whilst cursing is a lesser sin - your Imams Mu'awiya and Yazeed cursed and killed the family of the Prophet and cursed them and yet you exalt them as pious Muslims. You say the murderer of the Chief of the Youths of Paradise will be in Paradise also. Yes, Husayn (as) is by the accounts of all Muslims, Shia and Sunni, leader of the Heavenly Youth (and since we are all youths in Paradise according to the Qur'an this means he is the leader with his brother (who also held this title from the Prophet (saws) of the believers who make it to Heaven). Why don't you wake up and smell what you shovel.
The Devil has taken hold of your scholars' minds. How can the murdered and the murdered both be in Paradise. They can both be in Hell. They cannot both be in Heaven. Still less a Heaven where the murdered is the Leader of its Youth.
0%
Author: Rafed Network
