I looked for a board which dealt with History of Islam, there is none on this forum, I reluctant choose this board as we will be dealing with broad spectrum events, that occurred in last over 1400 yrs. I decided to start from the point in history which was cause of division in Ummah. Not death of Ameerul Momineen Sayedna Hz. Uthamn Al Ghani [may Allah be pleased with him], but nomination of Yazid as Khalifah, thus laying foundation of succession according to some historians who would have us believe that this was a first instance, this not true, Ameerul Momineen Sayedna Hz. Hassan[ra] succeeded his father Ameerul Momineen Sayedna Hz. Ali[ra].

" Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]

It is an irony that one for whome the prophet[saw] had given good tiding of Paradise and who was recognized and accepted as khalifah by not less then 1000 companions[ra] of the prophet[saw] during his life time was later maligned and against whome unfortunatly a triade of most malicious propoganda was made.

Nomination of Yazid as suuccessor to Khilafah was in the best interest of the Ummah. The follower of Ibn Saba who were crushed by Hz. Muawiyah[ra] during his reign vehemently criticised the nomination so much so that it has been generally felt that the namination was in personal interest.

Nomination of succesor Khalifah was not an innovation as there was precedence for it. Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] had nominated Hz. Umar[ra] as his successor. A son succeeding the father was also not objectionable as there was precedence to it. Hz. Hassan[ra] succeeded Hz. Ali[ra] moreover those who bitterly criticised the nomination themselves believed in Imam, most of whome succeeded their fathers. Hz Muawiyah[ra] as a shrewd administrator successfully controlled the rivalries among various Arab Tribes and maintained Balance of power. The Arab Tribes of Syria were divided into two factions.

1. Himairites or [Yemeni] tribes who had settled in Syria earlier then the muslims conquest and considered themselves as sons of the soil.

2. Modharite tribes were those who came as conquerors. Hz. Muawiyah[ra] was considered Modharite. Since his wife belonged to Kalbi tribe Yazid had full sympathy of the Kalbi Tribe. Thus Yazid in his person represented both tribes.

More over Yazid was brought up on tribal atmosphere and had pro-Arab feeling. These feeling were required to oppose the non Arab elements [mostly persian] who were creating trouble for the Islamic state and were responsible for the murder of three Khalifahs.

Before officially declaring Yazid as his successor, Hz. Muawiyah[ra] brought up proposal before Ummah and the muslims from various provinces pledged supoort for the nomination. 50th year of hijra [670 CE] Hz. Muawiyah[ra] himself visited the Holy Cities of Makkah and Medina and brought the proposal to their notice. People of both the cities took oath of allegiance to Yazid. The four prominent persons viz. Abdur Rehman Bin Abu Bakr [ra] Abdullah Bin Umar[ra], Abdullah Bin Zubair[ra] and Hussain Bin Ali[ra], who had earlier opposed the nomination gave their consent by keeping silence. The repost that they kept silent under the threat are not only false but adversely reflect on the integrity of the above four persons.

WILL OF HZ. MUAWIYAH[RA]

In his will Muawiyah[ra] advised Yazid to deal with people of Iraq with caution as they are troublesome. He should not hesitate to frequently change governor if they so desire. The people of Hijaz should be dealt, with utmost courtesy.

Regardin Hussain[ra] Muawiyah[ra] advised that in case the people of Iraq try to gain his support in creating trouble and if he is over powered he should be treated with compassion and respect. Regarding Abdullah Bin Zubair he advised that no compassion should be shown to him. On 22 Rajab 60 hijrah [680 CE] Hz. Muawiyah[ra] breathed his last.

Hz. Muawiyah[ra] great success in restoring the unity and prestige of the Ummah was mainly due to his sincerity of purpose and his extraordinary qualities. He was clear headed, libral, good tempered and political genius. He had quallity of for-bearance and prudent mildness by which he tried to disarm the enemy, and his absolute self-control made him endure all circumstances and the master of any situation.

YAZID

After death of Hz. Muawiyah[ra], people from various provinces accepted Yazid as Khalifah and took bai'at, Yazid diverted his attention to places where the bai'at was not yet completed. The Khalifah ordered the Governor of Medina to take bai'at from, Abdullah Bin Zubair, Abdullah Bin Umar and Hussain Bin Ali[ra]

Evening of 27th of Rajab the governor called the dignitiaries of Medina. Hussain[ra] sent word that he will take oath of allegiance next mornning in presence of the public but same night he left for Makkah. Similarly Abdullah Bin Zubair[ra] also left for Makkah and took residence in the Haram. Abdullah Bin Umar[ra] sent word that when all the others will take bai'at he will also follow suit. Later he and Abdullah Bin Abbas[ra] to the oath of allegiance.

In Makkah people of Kufa continued to keep contact with Hussain [ra] and letters started comming in large numbers pressing him to come to Kufa and assuring him their full co-operation. Abdullah Bin Zubair[ra] realizing that Hussain[ra] stay in Makkah wouold be dangerous for his future plans advised him to proceed to Kufa.

When Khalilfah recieved reports from Medina, he sent a letter to Abdullah Bin Abbas[ra] who was a senior member of the family of Huaain[ra] requesting him to prevent Hussain[ra] from taking any step which will create discord in the Ummah. On reciept of the letter Abdullah Bin Abbas[ra] sent reply to the Khalifah informing himthat he would suitably advise Hussain[ra] and that hopefully Hussain[ra] will not take any undesirable step

Hussain[ra] stayed in Makkah for over four months. During all the time letter and delegations continued to come from Iraq. The official wee aware of it and kept Khalifah informed but the attitude of the Khallifah was soft. The Iraqies were not stopped from visiting Hussain[ra].

Hussain[ra] could not decide to go. Out of 17 sons of Ali[ra] only five were with Hussain[ra]. The remainning brothers including Muhammad Bin Hanifiyah[rta] did not support Hussian[ra]'s favourable response to the rebellion of Iraq. Outside the family also no one was in support of his intended move.

Siege of Constantinople
49 to 59 Hijra [669 to 679 CE]

In the year 48 hijra when the Byzantines emperor Constantine was murdered, it was Hz. Muawiyah [ra] turn to take advantage of the situation. He made rpeparations and organized a two pronged attack, one from the land and other from the sea. He got 1700 war ships constructed. Cyprus was already conquered. The other small Islands near Greece was conquered. Cyprus was used as the Naval base. With these preparations the muslims fleet started. There was no opposition when the Muslim fleet sailed through Dardanelles. Thus the muslims Laid siege of Constantinope, Hz Muawiyah[ra] sent another force by land under the commad or his son Yazid Bin Muawiyah. The siege lasted for more then seven years.

This was the first campaign by the Muslims to occupy Constantinople. The Prophet[saw] had given the good tiding of paradise who took part in the campaign. Abdullah Bin Zubair[ra], Abdullah Bin Abbas[ra], Hussain Bin Ali[ra], and other distinguished Muslims Joined the campaign under the banner of Yazid Bin Muawiyah.

" Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]

Bro Fatah-Momin, why would you disregard my request for providing any authentic reference to your source of history before you paste more here? Anyone can bring such material, if its authenticity is not a question. Don't you agree with me on this? Our interest is on reliable accounts and not mere stories. Thanks.

Bro AhmadJoyia,

Why are you egar for the refrences, if you have any objection to any of the events that I have quoted here please present your proof and if possible I may be able to answer your objections to your satisfaction.

Let see if you believe this Hadith to be sahi or not?

" Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]

If you do then you should know that Yazid Bin Muawiyah did lead the forces against Ceaser's city. If you think this is not a correct representation of events, please post your version of History.

Bismillah,

Go ahead and give your references Brother Fatah.  Make it a reference post, and then we can get on with reading the story you are posting.

  Thanks!

One of the book that I am using is "A brief history of Islam " by Dr. Hasanuddin Ahmed. Pg: 140 to 150, "Biographies of the Women Companions of the Holy Prophet" By Qazi Mohammad Saeed will use other books to in future.

The only thing i am sure about in the history of islam is that the prophet and the faithful got persecuted, had to migrate and eventually fight against those who would not sease attacking them and killing them for their faith, the way of Allah got cleared from such intollerant opressors by the faithful and thus the affair of Allah was settled in the lands and they were victorious, in other words religious freedom was esteblished. This can all be found in the koran.

As for Europe and other nations, the moment they implemented religious freedom most muslimeen seased fighting against them because the mission was completed, except a few states who claimed islam as the state religion. A muslim can practice and call to his faith everywhere in the world without being persecuted or killed, this is the whole purpose of jihaad, except if the muslim is hostile and wishes to conquer by force, then what can you hold against those who deffend themselves against such. Bagiy in arabic is conquest and it is forbidden for the faithful to engage in such warfare, this too can be found in the koran.

Bismillah,

The history of our dear prophet's grandchildren is one of the most important things to know in Islaamic history.  He loved these children so much, and never departed from his love for them, yet look at this story of brutal murder for his family member!  When we pray, we pray for Muhammad, pbuh, and his family. 

Yes very true that Hz. Muhammad Mustafa-o-Mujtaba [saw] loved his grand children a lot, and did spend time with them. This does not give any one right to obscure the history and lay blame on the people who are innocent of the charges against them.

Must remember that Quran take precedence over all the other source. Including Hadith. In Quran Allah has raised the status and virtues of the companions of the Nabi Allah[saw] May Allah be pleased with them all.

The history has been obscured so musch that today no one know about the main participant of the events, eg. Ubaudullah Bin Ziad was right hand man of Hz. Ali [ra] and fought alongside him in battle of Jumal against Ummal momineen Hz. Ayesha siddika[ra], he was appointed Governor of Kufa during the life time of Ameerul Momineen Hz. Ali Assaduallah[ra].

Shimr the man who severed the head of Hz. Hussain[ra] from his body was the brother in law of Ameerul Momineen Hz. Ali[ra]. 

Why is the history of these characters not introduce to the muslims when narrating the history, who are the people who are obscuring the history for their personal gains and creating unbreachable rift in Ummah.  

According to Imam Ghazali"The person who entertains the idea that Yazid had given orders to kill Hz. Hussain[ra] is a fool. The details of this incidence can not be fully ascertained as the facts are shrouded by narrow mindedness"

The fact Ali bin Hussain[Zainul Abedin] who susrvived the massacre took the oath of allegiance at Damascus, throws the light on the intentions and position taken by Hz. Hussain[ra] at the later stage.

Very interesting. There are couple of things that need little clarification. In that you said "...Nomination of succesor Khalifah was not an innovation as there was precedence for it. Hz. Abu Bakr[ra] had nominated Hz. Umar[ra] as his successor. ..."

In this comparison, one must not forget to note that Hz. Umar's nomination was more of a recommendation to the Muslim Umma without any baisness of heirship. Definitely this is not the case with the nomination of Yazid by his father. Isn't it?

Similarly, you said "A son succeeding the father was also not objectionable as there was precedence to it. Hz. Hassan[ra] succeeded Hz. Ali[ra]  moreover those who bitterly criticised the nomination themselves believed in Imam, most of whome succeeded their fathers."

Is this a sufficient justification? I don't think so. What if I object to such an appointment who is definitely not among those who believe in nominations of Imamat from their fathers? Seconly, in this context, if we review the incident of Hz. Ali got murdered during his time of Khalifa, I don't know when was Hz. Hassan got nomination for such a Khalaafat? Some say that he (Hz Hassan) was asked by the people around to take over the seat temporarily till the new Khalifa is decided. There are certain missing links in your history that definitely need more elaboration in this matter.

Then you quoted that " Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]
" In this, can you elaborate as who was "Ceaser" and which city at the time of Rasulallah (and not after wards) was known as "Ceaser's City"? On a more important note, one may ask as to why was such a reward was prophesized for an invasion? Was Prophet Mohammad got hopeless (Naoozbillah) that Allah's rehma for Ceaser would not come and would not make him obeident to Allah till his country was invaded? I don't think so? 

In the last, brother can you tell us what was the age of Hz. Ali bin Hussain [Zainul Abedin] who survived the massacre, when he took the oath of allegiance at Damascus? I thought he was just a kid at that time. Isn't it? Then what is the significance of his allegiance? 

AhmadJoyia:" In this, can you elaborate as who was "Ceaser" and which city at the time of Rasulallah (and not after wards) was known as "Ceaser's City"? On a more important note, one may ask as to why was such a reward was prophesized for an invasion? Was Prophet Mohammad got hopeless (Naoozbillah) that Allah's rehma for Ceaser would not come and would not make him obeident to Allah till his country was invaded? I don't think so? 

It appears that I am pinching on your sensitive nerve, are you one of the Munkir Hadith guys? the latest rage in Pakistan among liberal people. Nabi Allah[saw] only said what was told to him by Allah, if he[saw] prophesized and incident which did come to pass, it goes to prove his vision of the future of Ummah. Why are you having problem accepting the hadith which has been accepted by the scholars of Ummah for last 1400yrs, if you know better then them please put forth you argument. why do you not open up and say what is on your mind, so we can have a candid debate.

O my dear brother Fateh-Momin, why are you so apt in labeling others, though they merely ask you "reasonable" questions? A person's attitude reflects his intelligence and his knowledge more through logical and rational thinking and less from memorizing the text without understanding. Kindly see if you have any answers to my questions from logical analysis than from any thing else. One way to go about is to look, as what bro rami has also indicated, as what traditional scholars say about that hadith. This is more prudent especially once we know from the history that it was Heraclius who was incharge of Byzantium at the time of Rasulllah and not Ceaser. Following is the historical account of the message of Prophet Mohammad to Heraclius and then his reaction to this message. The obvious dicotomy of your narration and this historical account is quite visible. Kindly refer to The Life of Muhammad (Allah's peace and blessing be upon him) by Muhammad Husayn Haykal Translated by Isma'il Razi A. al-Faruqi .

In this book the author writes "...Muhammad mentioned to them that he was planning to send messengers to Heraclius, the Archbishop of Alexandria; to al Harith of Ghassan, King of al Hirah; to al Harith of Himyar, King of Yaman; and to the Negus of Abyssinia, calling them all to Islam. The companions approved and made for him a seal out of silver which read "Muhammad, the Prophet of God." Muhammad sent letters to these chiefs, an example of which is the message sent to Heraclius."

He further writes "...it is known that the Prophet's letter did reach Heraclius, and that the Emperor was not irritated by it. Instead of sending an army to conquer Arabia, Heraclius did in fact send a gentle letter in reply to Muhammad's message. It was this gentle response to Muhammad's message that a number of historians mistook as meaning that Heraclius had joined the ranks of Islam..."

Let me continue on the event of Seige of Constantinople, before I answer the post by AhmadJoyia as he use to making statement which he regrets in the end.

In the year 48 Hijrah when the Byzantine emperor Constantine was murdered, it was Mu'awiyah's turn to take advantage of the situation. He made preparations and organized a two pronged attack, one from the land and other from the sea. He got 1700 war ships constructed. Cyprus was already conquered. The other small island near Greece was conquered. Cyprus was used as the Naval Base. With these preparations the Muslim fleet started. There was no opposition when the Muslim fleet sailedthrough Dardanelles. Thus the muslims laid diege of Constatinople. Mu'awiyah sent another force by land under the command of Yazid Bin Mu'awiyah. The siege lasted for more then seven years. The Muslims fleet Suffered heavy losses because of Greek Fire. The siege had to lifted for the following reasons:

1. Inspite of preparations the Muslim fleet could not match the Byzantine fleet

2. The city og Constantinople was strongly fortified.

3. The Byzantines were having Greek Fire which the Muslims faced for the first time.

This was the first campaign by the Muslims to occupy Constantinople. The Prophet[saw] had given good tidings of paradise who took part in the campaign. Abdullah bin Zubair, Abdullah Bin Abbas, Hussain bin Ali [may Allah be pleased with them all] and other distinguised Muslims joioned the campaign under the banner of Yazid Bin Mu'awiyah

The Envoy to Caesar, King of Rome:

Al-Bukhari gave a long narration of the contents of the letter sent by the Prophet to Hercules, king of the Byzantines:

"In the Name of All�h,
the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

From Muhammad, the slave of All�h and His Messenger to Hercules, king of the Byzantines.

Blessed are those who follow true guidance. I invite you to embrace Islam so that you may live in security. If you come within the fold of Islam, All�h will give you double reward, but in case you turn your back upon it, then the burden of the sins of all your people shall fall on your shoulders.

"Say (O Muhammad ): �O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but All�h, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides All�h.� Then, if they turn away, say: �Bear witness that we are Muslims.� " [3:64][]

The Muslim envoy, Dihyah bin Khalifah Al-Kalbi, was ordered to hand the letter over to king of Busra, who would in turn, send it to Caesar.

Incidentally, Abu Sufyan bin Harb, who by that time had not embraced Islam, was summoned to the court and Hercules asked him many questions about Muhammad and the religion which he preached. The testimony which this avowed enemy of the Prophet gave regarding the personal excellence of the Prophet�s character and the good that Islam was doing the human race, left Hercules wonder-struck.

Al-Bukh�ri, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, narrated that Hercules sent for Abu Sufyan and his companions, who happened to be trading in Ash-Sham, Jerusalem. That was during the truce that had been concluded between the polytheists of Quraish and the Messenger of All�h . Hercules, seated amongst his chiefs of staff, asked, "Who amongst you is the nearest relative to the man who claims to be a Prophet?" "I (Abu Sufyan) replied: �I am the nearest relative to him from amongst the group.� So they made me sit in front of him and made my companions sit behind me. Then he called upon his translator and said (to him). �Tell them (i.e. Abu Sufyan�s companions) that I am going to ask him (i.e. Abu Sufyan) regarding that men who claims to be a Prophet. So if he tells a lie, they should contradict him (instantly)�. By All�h had I not been afraid that my companions would consider me a liar, I would have told lies", Abu Sufyan later said.

Abu Sufyan�s testimony went as follows: "Muhammad descends from a noble family. No one of his family happened to assume kingship. His followers are those deemed weak with numbers ever growing. He neither tells lies nor betrays others, we fight him and he fights us but with alternate victory. He bids people to worship All�h Alone with no associate, and abandon our fathers� beliefs. He orders us to observe prayer, honesty, abstinence and maintain strong family ties." "Hercules, on hearing this testimony, turned to his translator bidding him to communicate to us his following impression which reveals full conviction in the truthfulness of Muhammad�s Prophethood: �I fully realize that Prophets come from noble families; he does not affect any previous example of Prophethood. Since none of his ancestors was a monarch, we cannot then allege that he is a man trying to reclaim his father�s monarchy. So long as he does not tell lies to people, he is for the more reason, immune to telling lies as regards All�h. Concerning his followers being those deemed weak with numbers ever growing, it is something that goes in agreement with questions of Faith until this latter assumes its full dimensions geographically and demographically. I have understood that no instance of apostasy has as yet appeared among his followers, and this points to the bliss of Faith that finds its abode in the human heart. Betrayal, as I see, is alien to him because real Prophets hold betrayal in abhorrence. Bidding worship of All�h with no associates, observance of prayer, honesty and abstinence and prohibition of paganism are traits bound to subject to him all my possessions. I have already known that a Prophet must arise but it has never occurred to me that he will be an Arab from among you. If I was sure I would be faithful to him, I might hope to meet him, and if I were with him, I would wash his feet.� Hercules then requested that the Prophet�s letter be read. The observations of the emperor and finally the definite and clear-cut exposition of the Islamic message could not but create a tense atmosphere amongst the clergy present at the court. We were ordered to go out." Abu Sufyan said, "While coming out, I said to my companions, �The matter of Ibn Abi Kabshah (i.e. Muhammad ) has become so prominent that even the king of Banu Al-Asfar (i.e. the Romans) is afraid of him.� So I continued to believe that All�h�s Messenger would be victorious, till All�h made me embrace Islam." The king did not embrace Islam � for it was differently ordained. However, the Muslim envoy was returned to Madinah with the felicitations of the emperor.

On his way back to Madinah, Dihyah Al-Kalbi was intercepted by people from Judham tribe in Hasmi, who looted the presents sent to the Prophet . Zaid bin Haritha at the head of five hundred men was despatched to that spot, inflicted heavy losses on those people and captured 1000 camels, 5000 of their cattle and a hundred women and boys. The chief of Judham who had embraced Islam filed a complaint with the Prophet, who gave a positive response to the former�s protest, and ordered that all the spoils and captives be returned.

 " Th first amongst my followers who will invade Ceaser's city will be forgiven their sins."
[Sahi Al; Bukhari, Vol. I P. 109, Translation by Mohd. muhsin Khan]

Now if we read the hadith wording carefully it explicitly state "INVADE CEASER'S CITY" Mr.AhmadJoyia has different meaning of the the word "invade" in his vocabulory it mean to send "Envoy with a letter of Dawah"

Fateh-Momin wrote: Let me continue on the event of Seige of Constantinople, before I answer the post by AhmadJoyia as he use to making statement which he regrets in the end.

Thanks bro for your concern for me, though not without malice, that too, by completely ignoring to respond to my other questions as well. Ok, coming back to the topic, it is interesting to note that you provided two names for the Byzantine emperor, i.e when you say "In the year 48 Hijrah when the Byzantine emperor Constantine was murdered, it was Mu'awiyah's turn to take advantage of the situation." in one of the narrations and another when you say "Al-Bukhari gave a long narration of the contents of the letter sent by the Prophet to Hercules, king of the Byzantines". In this view, can you provide any explanation as which emperor and / or city was being referred by Rasullalah in your quoted hadith?

Secondly, if we critically look at the situation that you are trying to portray, it seems like that on one end Prophet was sending dawah messages through peace missions and on the other side he was instigating Muslims to invade the Christian capital without providing any reason to it. How these two apperantly  mismatch strategies can be reconciled, keeping in view the verses of Quran for the Christians as you also quoted from the Shahi Bokhari? I shall reinstate them here for completion purposes.

"Say (O Muhammad ): �O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but All�h, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides All�h.� Then, if they turn away, say: �Bear witness that we are Muslims.� " [3:64]

AhmadJoyia wrote:   Thanks bro for your concern for me, though not without malice, that too, by completely ignoring to respond to my other questions as well. Ok, coming back to the topic, it is interesting to note that you provided two names for the Byzantine emperor, i.e when you say "In the year 48 Hijrah when the Byzantine emperor Constantine was murdered, it was Mu'awiyah's turn to take advantage of the situation." in one of the narrations and another when you say "Al-Bukhari gave a long narration of the contents of the letter sent by the Prophet to Hercules, king of the Byzantines". In this view, can you provide any explanation as which emperor and / or city was being referred by Rasullalah in your quoted hadith? Secondly, if we critically look at the situation that you are trying to portray, it seems like that on one end Prophet was sending dawah messages through peace missions and on the other side he was instigating Muslims to invade the Christian capital without providing any reason to it. How these two apperantly  mismatch strategies can be reconciled, keeping in view the verses of Quran for the Christians as you also quoted from the Shahi Bokhari? I shall reinstate them here for completion purposes. "Say (O Muhammad ): �O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), come to a word that is just between us and you, that we worship none but All�h, and that we associate no partners with Him, and that none of us shall take others as lords besides All�h.� Then, if they turn away, say: �Bear witness that we are Muslims.� " [3:64]

See how craftly you mix two posts togather, the post I continued the siege of constantinople is different from the one where I quote from Book about the life of the Blessed prophet. Hercules was the king during the life time of Nabi Allah[saw] and the siege happened in 48 Hijrah right after the Constantine passsed away. Why do you not do the math at home before you post any responses. Please also learn difference between Dawah and Invasion.

Fatah-Momin wrote: See how craftly you mix ,....

Thanks bro again for being typical. Your persistant abuses on my intentions are now coming to the understanding of everyone on this forum more than any where else.

... two posts togather the post I continued the siege of constantinople is different from the one where I quote from Book about the life of the Blessed prophet. Hercules was the king during the life time of Nabi Allah[saw] and the siege happened in 48 Hijrah right after the Constantine passsed away. Why do you not do the math at home before you post any responses. Please also learn difference between Dawah and Invasion.

Humbly stated, your reply is far away from the logical reasoning I have presented. Kindly see if one needs tutoring to understand "logic". Obviously, this forum is not the right place for such an activity. Nevertheless, it is exactly this math that provides total refutation of your understanding of the hadith that you quoted for invasion. In fact, its not me who is joining the two occassions, but you yourself when you said in one of your earliest posts "This was the first campaign by the Muslims to occupy Constantinople. The Prophet[saw] had given the good tiding of paradise who took part in the campaign." Hopefully, now you may realise the point I have highlighted. Hope to hear logical reasoning than emotional from you. May Allah bless us all.

Fatah-Momin wrote: I think bro either you do not want to understand the issue or you have an hidden agenda in both the cases it is intentional.

Your thinking is not logical, though I am very sorry to say this, my brother. I have neigther any "hidden agenda" nor it is true that I don't want to understand the issue. Rather, I shall appreciate that there is some one who is bringing the other side of the story as well, which is new to me at least. However, one must proceed with caution with all the logical analysis of the material to sift right from the wrong. It is in this context that all my questions are from your own material that you have posted uptill now, not from "bad" but sincere intentions to understand them in their right perspective. Since its you who is providing this info, therefore, its understanding is assumed to be with you. But if you are simply cutting and pasting from the book that you referred, though the efforts are still commendable, but understanding of the issue becomes even more important. It is in this regard that my questions become even more important to look at. 

In the end, I don't have any opinions about early personalities of Islam except that they all were humans.

You say "proceed with caution" and when I do you say  "conclusion that fears me alot from too precautionary a note" Make up your mind, which route you want to take.

rami

I think that you did not read the last two post by me all the refrences are well documented. I have highlighted some for your benifit.

The work originaly published in Arabic it was translated and indexed by my friend in english on my request, refrences are already within the posts. 

Are you saying your friend is of the same status as tabari?

^ where did this come from?

The work originaly published in Arabic it was translated and indexed by my friend in english on my request, refrences are already within the posts.

What is the name of the work it self that your friend authored and the author himself not whohe is quoting.

When you refrence a work you give the title of the work you your self are copying from not where Author of the book you are quoting is getting his information from. after that is done then you say the source for his views are tabari, ibn hajar etc. You dont say this is from ibn hajar directly which is what you are doing by not clearly saying the title of the work and the name of its author.

i have no problem with the sources i know who they are but i would like to know the name of the work you are getting the information from directly.

Are you saying your friend is of the same status as tabari?

^ where did this come from?

it came from here,

Yes this is translation from Arabic to english directly from the work of scholar like At-Tabari and other.

Fatah-Momin wrote: You say "proceed with caution" and when I do you say  "conclusion that fears me alot from too precautionary a note" Make up your mind, which route you want to take.

Oh, what a correlation of my two posts in two different contexts at two different threads? Is this logical? Though, in both of my quotes, it is "cuation" that I preferred and not "too precautionary", only if anyone has sane understanding of the two opposites. Nevertheless, I do see you avoiding my questions on this thread, in totality, without giving any reasonable reply. Should I conclude that either you don't know the answer or are hiding facts with some "hidden agenda"? I leave the matter to Allah to decide. Indeed only Allah knows the best. 

rami,

You asked me to provied refrences, there are refrences in every post now, if you doubt any please look it up and post it here. That is all I can suggest. As I have not been able to understand the motive for your line of objection. I have not claimed I or my friend to be a scholar of any degree. We do read books written by scholars.

You do have the right to post your version of the history, if you want to use this thread please go head, or you can initiate your own thread.

rami:When you refrence a work you give the title of the work you your self are copying from not where Author of the book you are quoting is getting his information from. after that is done then you say the source for his views are tabari, ibn hajar etc. You dont say this is from ibn hajar directly which is what you are doing by not clearly saying the title of the work and the name of its author.

These are direct quotes from the books and sources mentioned.

rami: Your friend compiled a historical work which was published in arabic and translated into english and you are posting it on this forum.

^ I never claimed this, what I said was that he translate Arabic work for me when I require it for a specific article, as I do not know Arabic language.

Find below the work of one of the most respected shia scholar Mullah Baqir Majlisi:

Hazrat Ameer Maveeyah(ra) advice his son Yazeed


However, none of the books relating the tragic event contains a single expression clearly stating that those two Khal�fas were smeared with the blessed blood of Hadrat Husayn. Not even the vaguest implication that Hadrat Mu��wiya might have had to do with the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn has been witnessed throughout the literature assigned to the event, let alone a clear statement that it was done by his order. What is unanimously stated (by all books and scholars) is that the martyrdom of Hadrat Husayn did not take place during the caliphate of Hadrat Mu��wiya. Molla B�qir Mejl�s�, relates Hadrat Mu��wiya�s last advice to his son Yaz�d as he was dying, as follows:

�You know what relation Im�m Husayn �radiy-All�hu �anh� is to the Messenger of Allah. He is a part from the beloved Prophet�s blessed body. He is an offspring from the flesh and blood of that most honourable person. I understand that the inhabitants of Iraq invite him to go there and be with them. But they will not help him; they will leave him alone. If he should fall into your hands, behave in appreciation of his value! Remember the closeness and affection of the Messenger of Allah �sall-All�hu �alaihi wa sallam� to him! Do not get back at him for his behaviour! Mind you don�t break the substantial ties I have established between him and us! Be extra careful lest you should hurt or offend him!� This advice of Hadrat Mu��wiya�s to (his son) Yaz�d is written in the three hundred and twenty-first (321) page of the book Jil�-ul�uy�n, which was written by Muhammad B�qir bin Murtad� Fayz� Khoras�n�, a Shiite leader, who is better known with his nickname Molla Muhsin. He died in 1091 [1679 A.D.].

rami

Here is a example I wanted a peice of history translated for an on going debate a friend of mine got  material from shia source, which I could not locate on the english sites,

��� ����� �� ������� �� ��� ��� ������ ����� ����� ���� ���� ������ ���� ���� ��� ��� ������� �� ���� �� ��� ��� ���� ������ ���� �� ������ ��� ���� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� �� ��� ���� ������ ��� ��� .
���� ��� ( 3 ) �� ���� ������ ���� ����� ��� ���� ������ ����� ������� �� ������ ����� ������� ������� ( 4 ) � ��� ���� ��� �� ���� ������ : ��� ������ ������ ����� �� ��������

http://www.shiabooks.info/books/htm1/m013/13/no1304.html - http://www.shiabooks.info/books/htm1/m013/13/no1304.html
`Allamah Majlisi said: "Some scholars have asserted that ibn Saba was a Jew who accepted Islam and started voicing his opinion of the `wilayat' (divine appointment) of `Ali. While a Jew, he propounded the exaggerative notion that Yusha ibn Nun was divinely appointed to succeed Prophet Musa, he thus adopted a similar stance with regard to `Ali in relation to the Holy Prophet. He was the first to subscribe to the belief of Imamate, and he openly vitriolated his enemies (i.e. the first three Caliphs) and branded them as infidels. The origin of Shi'ism and rafidizm is thus based on Judaism." (Bihar al-Anwar, vol. 25, p. 287).

I have posted this work all over the net, no I have not compiled the work, it is a good idea though. Here are the links to some of the work that I have collected:

http://www.shani.offlife-hosting.com/board/index.php?showforum=32 - http://www.shani.offlife-hosting.com/board/index.php?showfor um=32

http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showforum=44 - http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showforum=44

here is my one of the best collection of shia beliefs about Quran

http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showtopic=1039 - http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showtopic=1039

Most of the sources on the links are shia Sources that have been quoted for example:

Al-Shafi/Al-Kafi
Page#140 Book of Imaan and Kufar Vol:IV
Imam Abu Abdullah[AS] said: "Taqeeyah [to lie] is 90% of the deen[religion] and one who does not use Taqeeyah has no deen[religion], lie is in every thing other than Nabeez [wine of barley] and Masah over leather socks"

On this particular link it quote exclusively from shia sources only about the corruption[naouzobillah] of Quran,

http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showtopic=1039 - http://www.kr-hcy.com/board/hcf/index.php?showtopic=1039

No this is not shia refutation this is only an humble effort to expose the muslims to other version of Islamic history which has obscured by the vested interest, if you or any one else take it in a different direction, then it depends on each individual and not one me.

As far as who is getting the original information, most of it I get directly and like I said some I get translated, if you have objection to the content, please present your argument to the contrary and if I have knowledge to answer inshallah I will repond, I have been through many threads on this board and site, never have I seen such cross examination of the content as you are doing to this thread, is there a reason for it? This is a debate forum every one has right to present their views in a civil manner and I have maintained such behavior.

It is your scrutiny of this thread that is puzzeling and unprecedent, why do you not do the reasearch on your own and then get back to me. I think this is a tactic on your behalf to deviate the thread off the course.

I have not broken any site rules neither have I been rude to any one and this site claim to representing tolerant and liberal Islam, then why all of sudden such exteremisn?