Zaid Hamid on Ghazwa e Hind a full interview

[jarves]

ur very very good chocolate milk, inna ghussa ... my friend i am talking about muslim rulers not Pakistani rulers ... kindly name one hindu ruler who rule on muslims??? ...

From where this came into?? I though we were discussing who Pakistani or Indians were the slaves.Always keep in mind all Muslims are not Pakistanis and all Indians are not Hindus and neither Pakistan is the fotress of Islam. Hindus ruling Muslims or vice versa doesnt matter.
Secondly Indian Muslims have a better claim than Pakistanis on being the ansectors of Arabs and Mughals made Delhi as there capital so technichally we ruled you for 7000 thousand years(2000 Muslim rule+5000 years of Hindu rule).

Now your second question of Hindu rulers ruling Muslims.Clearly you are so much delusional that you dont even know that there are so many rulers.Mughal Empire never ruled whole of India but some Northern parts of India and whole of Pakistan which means the rest of India was ruled by Hindu empires(which means that rest of the muslims were ruled by Hindus) also after the downfall of Mughal empire Marathas took control but i know being a Pakistani they do not teach you such things also they did not taught you what Arabs had to say about Hindu empires.

Now lets get to the first part again.Let me two more examples why Pakistanis cannot claim that they ruled Indians.

1-Buddhism also camme from Hinduism,Most of the eastern countries like Japan,China,Taiwan follow Buddhism or majority Buddhism followers does that mean that Hindus ruled over them for centuries?? Also India +Chian+Japan+other eastern countries togetherly will be the biggest empire and still will be in terms of power technology and everything.Now you got how stupid you Pakistanis sound??

2-If we go by your logic Christians of India and Pakistan can also say that we ruled Hindus,Muslims e.t.c for 200 years as Britishers are there ansectors

One more thing i want to add is Pakistani's claim IVC and Arab ansectory at the same time,i mean how stupid one can get??

Just cant explain how history is murdered in Pakistan.:

 

[Zarvan]

from religious point of view this is not something agreed upon. Mainly people use the Gharva e Hind term to satify their inner jingoism and xenophobia.
Please go through the below in detail.


Are these Ahadith authentic ?

1. Just a brief look at these will make it clear that none of these five ahadees are found in Sihah-e-Sitta. Two of these appear to be in the collections of ahadees by Imam Nisai but not in Sunan an-Nisai al Sughra, the book considered to be among the Sihah-e-Sitta, the six books considered most reliable by main-stream Muslims.
2. The others are not even found in the reliable collections of respected muhadiseen.
3. Note that Imam Nisai died in 915. The years of death of other respected muhadiseen to whom Sihah-e-Sitta are attributed to: Imam Bukhari in 870, Imam Muslim in 875, Abu Daud in 888, al-Tirmizi in 892,Imam Malik in 796, Ibn Maja in 886. All of them died before Imam Nisai. It does not make much sense that we have these ahadees being narrated through Imam Nisai but not through any of the other respected muhadiseen who lived before him.
4. They are narrated through a single chain. Reported only once through one companion of the Prophet.
5. Considering the reward for participating in this war and the importance of it, as these ahadees tell, they should have been narrated by more companions of the Prophet and should have been there in more books of ahadees.
6. It is very important to note that none of these are found in any of the collections of ahadees which theShia Muslims consider authentic. This raises the question if they were invented by the Ummayads/Abbasids considering their expansionist designs? This is also to be noted that Ummayads did reach Sindh, a part of Hind back then.
7. One must also note the fact that we don’t have any history report telling us about the use of theseahadees in the past by Muslim rulers or conquerors, even those who did invade India or waged a war on it. If they were respected and authentic ahadees, we should have such history reports.

it must be remembered that it would have been very easy for Muslim conquerors of India in the past, men like Mahmud of Ghazni, Shihabuddin Ghori, Timur, Nadir Shah and so on, to present the hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind and wield it as a weapon to justify their attacks on the country. The corrupt ulema associated with their courts could well have suggested this to them had they wished. However, no such mention is made about this in history books. In the eighteenth century, the well-known Islamic scholar Shah Waliullah of Delhi invited the Afghan warlord Ahmad Shah Abdali to invade India and dispel the Marathas, which he accepted, but yet Shah Waliullah, too, did not use this hadith as a pretext for this.
What if they are authentic ?

It is also pertinent to examine how some well-known contemporary Indian ulema look at this hadith report.

1. Maulana Abdul Hamid Numani, a leading figure of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind, opines that this hadith was fulfilled at the time of the ‘Four Righteous Caliphs’ of the Sunnis, soon after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad, when several companions of the Prophet came to India, mainly in order to spread Islam.
2. Mufti Sajid Qasmi, who teaches at the Dar ul-Uloom in Deoband, is also of the same opinion, although he believes that it might also refer to the invasion of Sindh by the Arabs under Muhammad bin Qasimin the eighth century.
3. On the other hand, Maulana Mufti Mushtaq Tijarvi of the Jamaat-i Islami Hind believes that it is possible that this hadith report is not genuine at all and that it might have been fabricated at the time of Muhammad bin Qasim’s invasion of Sindh in order to justify it.

Scholars and historians argue that even if they are considered as authentic, it might be the case that they talk about an event which has already happened.

1. On the other hand, if this hadith report is indeed genuine—which it might well be—in my view, the battle against India that it predicted was fulfilled in the early Islamic period itself, and is not something that will happen in the future. This, in fact, is the opinion of the majority of the ulema, qualified Islamic scholars. And this view accords with reason as well.
2. It is quite likely that the ghazwat ul-hind that this report predicted took the form of the attack by an Arab Muslim force on Thana and Bharuch, in coastal western India , in the 15th year or the Islamic calendar in the reign of the Caliph Umar.
3. Equally possibly, it could have been fulfilled in the form of the missionary efforts of some of the Prophet’s companions soon after, in the reign of the Caliphs Uthman and Ali, in Sindh and Gujarat .
4. Some other ulema consider this hadith to have been fulfilled in the form of the attack and occupation of Sindh by Arab Muslims led by Muhammad bin Qasim in the 93rd year of the Islamic calendar, which then facilitated the spread of Islam in the country.
5. This might well be the case, for the hadith report about the ghazwat ul-hind contained in the Masnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, a well-known collection of Hadith narratives attributed to the Prophet, mentions that the Muslim army that would attack India would be sent in the direction of Sindh and Hind.

more at ALE Xpressed » Blog Archive » The myth of Ghazwa-tul-Hind

I have gone this through a lot of times and all Hadees are authentic the secular and slaves of India can't accept the fact so they come with crap again and again I have gone through all of this several times

 

[Zarvan]

from religious point of view this is not something agreed upon. Mainly people use the Gharva e Hind term to satify their inner jingoism and xenophobia.
Please go through the below in detail.


Are these Ahadith authentic ?

1. Just a brief look at these will make it clear that none of these five ahadees are found in Sihah-e-Sitta. Two of these appear to be in the collections of ahadees by Imam Nisai but not in Sunan an-Nisai al Sughra, the book considered to be among the Sihah-e-Sitta, the six books considered most reliable by main-stream Muslims.
2. The others are not even found in the reliable collections of respected muhadiseen.
3. Note that Imam Nisai died in 915. The years of death of other respected muhadiseen to whom Sihah-e-Sitta are attributed to: Imam Bukhari in 870, Imam Muslim in 875, Abu Daud in 888, al-Tirmizi in 892,Imam Malik in 796, Ibn Maja in 886. All of them died before Imam Nisai. It does not make much sense that we have these ahadees being narrated through Imam Nisai but not through any of the other respected muhadiseen who lived before him.
4. They are narrated through a single chain. Reported only once through one companion of the Prophet.
5. Considering the reward for participating in this war and the importance of it, as these ahadees tell, they should have been narrated by more companions of the Prophet and should have been there in more books of ahadees.
6. It is very important to note that none of these are found in any of the collections of ahadees which theShia Muslims consider authentic. This raises the question if they were invented by the Ummayads/Abbasids considering their expansionist designs? This is also to be noted that Ummayads did reach Sindh, a part of Hind back then.
7. One must also note the fact that we don’t have any history report telling us about the use of theseahadees in the past by Muslim rulers or conquerors, even those who did invade India or waged a war on it. If they were respected and authentic ahadees, we should have such history reports.

it must be remembered that it would have been very easy for Muslim conquerors of India in the past, men like Mahmud of Ghazni, Shihabuddin Ghori, Timur, Nadir Shah and so on, to present the hadith about the ghazwat ul-hind and wield it as a weapon to justify their attacks on the country. The corrupt ulema associated with their courts could well have suggested this to them had they wished. However, no such mention is made about this in history books. In the eighteenth century, the well-known Islamic scholar Shah Waliullah of Delhi invited the Afghan warlord Ahmad Shah Abdali to invade India and dispel the Marathas, which he accepted, but yet Shah Waliullah, too, did not use this hadith as a pretext for this.
What if they are authentic ?

It is also pertinent to examine how some well-known contemporary Indian ulema look at this hadith report.

1. Maulana Abdul Hamid Numani, a leading figure of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind, opines that this hadith was fulfilled at the time of the ‘Four Righteous Caliphs’ of the Sunnis, soon after the demise of the Prophet Muhammad, when several companions of the Prophet came to India, mainly in order to spread Islam.
2. Mufti Sajid Qasmi, who teaches at the Dar ul-Uloom in Deoband, is also of the same opinion, although he believes that it might also refer to the invasion of Sindh by the Arabs under Muhammad bin Qasimin the eighth century.
3. On the other hand, Maulana Mufti Mushtaq Tijarvi of the Jamaat-i Islami Hind believes that it is possible that this hadith report is not genuine at all and that it might have been fabricated at the time of Muhammad bin Qasim’s invasion of Sindh in order to justify it.

Scholars and historians argue that even if they are considered as authentic, it might be the case that they talk about an event which has already happened.

1. On the other hand, if this hadith report is indeed genuine—which it might well be—in my view, the battle against India that it predicted was fulfilled in the early Islamic period itself, and is not something that will happen in the future. This, in fact, is the opinion of the majority of the ulema, qualified Islamic scholars. And this view accords with reason as well.
2. It is quite likely that the ghazwat ul-hind that this report predicted took the form of the attack by an Arab Muslim force on Thana and Bharuch, in coastal western India , in the 15th year or the Islamic calendar in the reign of the Caliph Umar.
3. Equally possibly, it could have been fulfilled in the form of the missionary efforts of some of the Prophet’s companions soon after, in the reign of the Caliphs Uthman and Ali, in Sindh and Gujarat .
4. Some other ulema consider this hadith to have been fulfilled in the form of the attack and occupation of Sindh by Arab Muslims led by Muhammad bin Qasim in the 93rd year of the Islamic calendar, which then facilitated the spread of Islam in the country.
5. This might well be the case, for the hadith report about the ghazwat ul-hind contained in the Masnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal, a well-known collection of Hadith narratives attributed to the Prophet, mentions that the Muslim army that would attack India would be sent in the direction of Sindh and Hind.

more at ALE Xpressed » Blog Archive » The myth of Ghazwa-tul-Hind

Are they authentic ?
The writer of the original article has given a very good set of questions that challenge the authenticity of these Ahadith. And if answer of these questions goes against the Ahadith, we can safely declare Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind as false or fabricated. So let’s explore them one by one.

Just a brief look at these will make it clear that none of these five ahadees are found in Sihah-e-Sitta. Two of these appear to be in the collections of ahadees by Imam Nisai but not in Sunan an-Nisai al Sughra, the book considered to be among the Sihah-e-Sitta, the six books considered most reliable by main-stream Muslims.

Factually wrong: Imam Nisai has narrated this Hadees in both of his books; ‘As Sunan al Sughra (also known as Al Mujtaba) as well as in ‘As Sunan Al Kubra. This is exactly the same book in which writer suggests it does not exist but the fact is that it is there in the same book. Would you like to see that?

Learning Aspect: Please browse Sunan-Nasai available online or in any public/Islamic library. Sunan-Nasai is available at Scribed.com,Ekabakti.com (you can also download that from the links given at the end of this article) and there will be 1000s of online reading resources which you can try. I encourage you to visit any nearest library and find Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind yourself. Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind exist at:

• Sunan-Nasai (Al Sughra/ Al Mujtaba) Vol. 3/6
  • Chapter No. 26 – KitabulJihad
    • Sub Chapter No. 41 - Ghazwatulhind
      • Hadith No. 3173 (By Hazrat Abu Hurraira)
      • Hadith No. 3174 (By Hazrat Abu Hurraira)
      • Hadith No. 3175 (By Hazrat Soban)

Note: There are two Hadith narrated by Abu Hurraira and one by Hazrat Soban. Somtimes two Ahadith of Abu Hurraira are considered as one Hadith and therefore three Ahadith of Sunan-Nasai are sometimes described as two Ahadith.

The others are not even found in the reliable collections of respected muhadiseen.

Factually Wrong: Immam Nasai is one of the most credible and respectable Mohadis. To establish his credibility further, Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, (Sheikh Ul Islam) narrated this Hadees in ‘Masnad’. And Immam Ibn-e-Kaseer (the author of Tafseer ibn-e-Khatir) mentions this Hadees with his reference in his book ‘Al-Badaya Wa Nahaya’.

Also it is important to note that in the list of books called Sahi Sita (6 credible books of Hadith), Sunan-Nasai is accepted third most credible book after Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim.

Note that Imam Nisai died in 915. The years of death of other respected muhadiseen to whom Sihah-e-Sitta are attributed to: Imam Bukhari in 870, Imam Muslim in 875,Abu Daud in 888, al-Tirmizi in 892,Imam Malik in 796, Ibn Maja in 886. All of them died before Imam Nisai. It does not make much sense that we have these ahadees being narrated through Imam Nisai but not through any of the other respected muhadiseen who lived before him.

Learning Aspect: There are thousands of Ahadith which are narrated by Immam Nasai and not all of them exist in Sahi Bukhari or Sahi Mulims or other books of Ahadith. Also Sahi Bukhari has narrated hundreds of Ahadith which are not listed on other books. To judge the credibility of a Hadith, this is not a criteria to see if it exists in other books too but there are parameters and defined procedures to evaluate whether given Hadith is credible or not-credible. [Learn what makes a Hadith Sahi, Hasan or Zaeef]

They are narrated through a single chain. Reported only once through one companion of the Prophet.

Factually Wrong: Hadith has been quoted by multiple narrators with independent chain of references.

Learning Aspect: Ahadith mentioned in Sunan-Nasai Al Sughra quotes it with reference to “Hazrat Soban” and “Hazrat Abu Hurraira” independently. There are 3 unique and credible chain of narration for the 3 Ahadith mentioned in Sunan-Nasai.

It is also important to learn that there exist more than 14 “Ravis”who have quoted the same Hadith with “slight changes” but because of weaker chain of narrations, those Hadith are not given their due significance. Regarding Ahadith of Sunan-Nasai, there are more than 16 witnesses of one Hadith alone. So there aremultiple, independent and credible narrators who quote these Adhadith in various times all being independent of each other in various books.

Considering the reward for participating in this war and the importance of it, as these Ahadees tell, they should have been narrated by more companions of the Prophet and should have been there in more books of Ahadees.

First: Hadith of Ghazwatulhind are not “the” most important Hadith as it is about future events instead of belief or practices which constitute Fiqa (the Islamic Law).

Second: there are already multiple witnesses to the Hadith and Multiple and Independent Muhadiseen have narrated it.

Third: there are extremely important Ahadith which were narrated by Hazrat Ayesha Sadiqa and Hazrat Ans bin Malik alone as they were among few companions of Prophet Mohammad PBUH who stayed close to him at times when others were not. This has never been a pattern of the life of Prophet Mohammad PBUH that the most important Hadith would be told before many Sahaba (R) and least important ones would be told before one, two or few companions.

It is very important to note that none of these are found in any of the collections of ahadees which the Shia Muslims consider authentic. This raises the question if they were invented by the Ummayads/Abbasids considering their expansionist designs? This is also to be noted that Ummayads did reach Sindh, a part of Hind back then.

Learning Aspect: Shia Muslims do not rely on source of Ahadith outside Silsila of Ahle-e-Bait. That’s why Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind is not the only Hadith but there thousands of Ahadith in Sunni Muslim’s books but not in Shia Mulims’s books. For more learning:Wikipedia: Shia Muslims books of Ahadith.

One must also note the fact that we don’t have any history report telling us about the use of these ahadees in the past by Muslim rulers or conquerors, even those who did invade India or waged a war on it. If they were respected and authentic ahadees, we should have such history reports.

Factually Wrong: Muslims in the past made several military expeditions in the light of these Ahadith. The commentary by Ibn-e-Kathir (written around 1370 AD, some 700 years ago) on that “Ghazwa-e-Hind” Hadith is worth reading and he interpreted that Hadith and clearly written that all those Muslim rules who launched expedition on Hind were Jihad. He included Mohammad Bin Qasim and Mahmood Bin Subugtagin [Mehmood Ghaznavi] and many other Turk Kings as well.

After understanding various aspects about Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind, we can establish

• Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind hasn’t been discovered recently and Muslims know them since the time of Holy Prophet PBUH.
• Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind are Authentic and found in Sunan-Nasai Al Sughra, one of the 6 credible books of Ahadith.
• These Ahadith have multiple narrators and Independent Silsila of Naration.
• Muslims in the past knew about these Ahadith, referenced them and used them in their books.
• There has been multiple expeditions against Hind by Muslims in the past on the basis of Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind.

In the “What if they are authentic ?” section, the writer has provided testaments of Ulema who believe Ahadees to be true. The only difference of opinion they have is that in their opinion, the Ahadith have came true already. If these Hadith were non-credible, the Ulema must have rejected them the first place, but rather they gave their opinion about the fulfillment and believed these Ahadith have already came true.

The Ulema who has given this verdict include:

• Maulana Abdul Hamid Numani, a leading figure of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind.
• Mufti Sajid Qasmi, who teaches at the Dar ul-Uloom Deoband.

Are these Ahadith fulfilled already?
Now let’s look at all the Ahadith of GhazwatulHind once again and try to understand if they have been fulfilled already.

In addition to 2 Ahadith of Sunan-Nasai, there exist 3 more Ahadith and one of them says

“A King of Jerusalem (Bait-ul-Muqaddas) would make a troop move forward towards Hindustan. The Warriors destroy the land of Hind; would possess its treasures, then King would use those treasures for the décor of Jerusalem. That troop would bring the Indian kings in front of King(of Jerusalem). His Warriors by King’s order would conquer all the area between East & West. And would stay in Hindustan till the issue of Dajjal”.

Reference: Naeem bin Hammad(R) Ustaaz Imam Bukhari(R) narrate this Hadees in his book ‘Al-Fitan’. In it, the name of the quoter is not mentioned who related it to Hazrat Kaab(R.A.). But some Arabic words are being used, so this would be considered intersected. Those wordings are: (Almuhkamubnu Naafi-in Amman Haddasahu An Kaabin).

In the last line, the Hadith says “And would stay in Hindustan till the issue of Dajjal”. The Dajjal didn’t arrive after the expeditions on Hind in the past. That means the battle which is being referred to hasn’t happened yet.

Question: Does it mean Muslims would arrive in Hind as conquerors and thereafter would stay there centuries after centuries until Dajjal would appear? Is Hadith referring to past expeditions and settled Muslims of Hind of today?

Answer: According to Hadith, the Muslims will capture the Kind of Hind and present him before King of Jerusalem. In the past conquests over Hind, such incident did not happen. So that gives us an indication that past campaigns against Hind were not GhazwatulHind. Following Hadith makes this aspect further clear which says:

“Some people of My Ummah will fight with Hindustan, Allah would grant them with success, even they would find the Indian kings being trapped in fetters. Allah would forgive those Warriors. When they would move towards Syria, then would find Isa Ibn-e-Maryam(A.S.) over there”

Reference: Naeem bin Hammad did narrate this Hadees in ‘Al Fitan’.

Thus Hadith is reffering to the warriors who would conquer Hind and when they would move back, they would find Isa Ibn-e-Maryam (A.S) in Syria. Thus same army would Join Hazrat Isa (R.A) who would conquer Hind and this event never took place in the past battles.

It is also important to note that the events of Dajjal, the Immam Mehdi and Prophet Isa (A.S) are connected and will happen within a short period of time, one after the other. There is good deal of detail available on this the subject at Shia.org (which discusses Shia and Sunni point of view) and a Sunni Fatwa which explains and connects these Ahadith without leaving a shadow of doubt whether the time of Ghazwatulhind was in the past or lies ahead of us. However if we only consider Ahadith of Sunan-Nasai, we wouldn’t be able to derive any conclusion.

Some contradictions and flaws found in the original article.

• The writer gives wrong information, claiming Ahadith of GhazwatuHind do not exist in Sunan-Nasai al Sughra but later in the references of First Hadith, Mentions the references to Sunan-Nasai AlMujtaba which is the same Sunan-Nasai Al Sughra and Al Mujtaba is its second name. [Wiki Reference] It is sad to know that the writer does not know names of books of Ahadith.
• The writer himself quotes one of the Hadith that has broken chain of command and insist the event has already taken place, while ignoring 2 similar Ahaidth (similar because they also lie outside Sunan-Nasai/Sunan-Nasai Al Sughra/Sunan-Nasai Al Mujtaba) that give answer to his own question.
• After acknowledging the Ahaidth of Ghazwatulhind do not exist in the book accepted by Shia Alims, he has presented Fatwa by a Shia Alim who cannot testify in any case.
• In the Section “Opinions of Scholars”, the given references who speak against are weak and not compareable to Jimeat-Ulema-i-Hind or Dar-ul-Aloom Deoband who are in the favor and who represent millions of Muslims.
• People with no religious background are considered adequate to comment on religious aspect while Alims and Mohadaseen are considered as non-credible.
• Representing “Al Mawarid Institute”, the ‘Editor’ has mentioned only 3 out of 6 books of Ahadith who he searched for reference for “Ghazwatulhind”. His searched books include Sahi Bukhari, Sahi Muslim and Moutha etc. It is essential that whoever gives Fatwa must do so after making complete research and exploring every possible authentic resource. But the “alim” made search through ’3 etc’ books. The ‘Editor’ did not mention name of Sunan Nasai altogether, thus an incomplete research cannot be accepted as basis of a Fatwa.
• Reference Article written by Khalid Zaheer ( Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of University of Central Punjab) himself states that he has not made any study on the authenticity of these Ahadith.
• The writer claims Ahadith of GhazwatulHind to be in the “Collection o f Immam Nasai” withuot giving name of thatcollection and negates their existance in Sunan Nasai. However Ahadith of GhazwatulHind exist in Sunan-Nasai (both collections of Ahadith known as Al Kubra and Al Sughra/ Al Mujtaba).
• The over-all understanding of writer on the subject is weak and he has made claims without making research.

Since deen is a sensitive subject and not everybody who follows religion has capacity to make research, who-ever writes about religion must have adequate knowledge and research in hand before writing something. It is unfortunate that writer has been factually incorrect and used selective material to build his argument. I request all Muslims to make proper research before believing or accepting anything about religion.

May Allah help you find the right path and may all Muslims be on Sirat-e-Mustaqeem. Aamin.
@MM_Haider​

 

[MM_Haider]

Are they authentic ?
The writer of the original article has given a very good set of questions that challenge the authenticity of these Ahadith. And if answer of these questions goes against the Ahadith, we can safely declare Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind as false or fabricated. So let’s explore them one by one.

Just a brief look at these will make it clear that none of these five ahadees are found in Sihah-e-Sitta. Two of these appear to be in the collections of ahadees by Imam Nisai but not in Sunan an-Nisai al Sughra, the book considered to be among the Sihah-e-Sitta, the six books considered most reliable by main-stream Muslims.

Factually wrong: Imam Nisai has narrated this Hadees in both of his books; ‘As Sunan al Sughra (also known as Al Mujtaba) as well as in ‘As Sunan Al Kubra. This is exactly the same book in which writer suggests it does not exist but the fact is that it is there in the same book. Would you like to see that?

Learning Aspect: Please browse Sunan-Nasai available online or in any public/Islamic library. Sunan-Nasai is available at Scribed.com,Ekabakti.com (you can also download that from the links given at the end of this article) and there will be 1000s of online reading resources which you can try. I encourage you to visit any nearest library and find Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind yourself. Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind exist at:

• Sunan-Nasai (Al Sughra/ Al Mujtaba) Vol. 3/6
  • Chapter No. 26 – KitabulJihad
    • Sub Chapter No. 41 - Ghazwatulhind
      • Hadith No. 3173 (By Hazrat Abu Hurraira)
      • Hadith No. 3174 (By Hazrat Abu Hurraira)
      • Hadith No. 3175 (By Hazrat Soban)

Note: There are two Hadith narrated by Abu Hurraira and one by Hazrat Soban. Somtimes two Ahadith of Abu Hurraira are considered as one Hadith and therefore three Ahadith of Sunan-Nasai are sometimes described as two Ahadith.

The others are not even found in the reliable collections of respected muhadiseen.

Factually Wrong: Immam Nasai is one of the most credible and respectable Mohadis. To establish his credibility further, Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal, (Sheikh Ul Islam) narrated this Hadees in ‘Masnad’. And Immam Ibn-e-Kaseer (the author of Tafseer ibn-e-Khatir) mentions this Hadees with his reference in his book ‘Al-Badaya Wa Nahaya’.

Also it is important to note that in the list of books called Sahi Sita (6 credible books of Hadith), Sunan-Nasai is accepted third most credible book after Sahi Bukhari and Sahi Muslim.

Note that Imam Nisai died in 915. The years of death of other respected muhadiseen to whom Sihah-e-Sitta are attributed to: Imam Bukhari in 870, Imam Muslim in 875,Abu Daud in 888, al-Tirmizi in 892,Imam Malik in 796, Ibn Maja in 886. All of them died before Imam Nisai. It does not make much sense that we have these ahadees being narrated through Imam Nisai but not through any of the other respected muhadiseen who lived before him.

Learning Aspect: There are thousands of Ahadith which are narrated by Immam Nasai and not all of them exist in Sahi Bukhari or Sahi Mulims or other books of Ahadith. Also Sahi Bukhari has narrated hundreds of Ahadith which are not listed on other books. To judge the credibility of a Hadith, this is not a criteria to see if it exists in other books too but there are parameters and defined procedures to evaluate whether given Hadith is credible or not-credible. [Learn what makes a Hadith Sahi, Hasan or Zaeef]

They are narrated through a single chain. Reported only once through one companion of the Prophet.

Factually Wrong: Hadith has been quoted by multiple narrators with independent chain of references.

Learning Aspect: Ahadith mentioned in Sunan-Nasai Al Sughra quotes it with reference to “Hazrat Soban” and “Hazrat Abu Hurraira” independently. There are 3 unique and credible chain of narration for the 3 Ahadith mentioned in Sunan-Nasai.

It is also important to learn that there exist more than 14 “Ravis”who have quoted the same Hadith with “slight changes” but because of weaker chain of narrations, those Hadith are not given their due significance. Regarding Ahadith of Sunan-Nasai, there are more than 16 witnesses of one Hadith alone. So there aremultiple, independent and credible narrators who quote these Adhadith in various times all being independent of each other in various books.

Considering the reward for participating in this war and the importance of it, as these Ahadees tell, they should have been narrated by more companions of the Prophet and should have been there in more books of Ahadees.

First: Hadith of Ghazwatulhind are not “the” most important Hadith as it is about future events instead of belief or practices which constitute Fiqa (the Islamic Law).

Second: there are already multiple witnesses to the Hadith and Multiple and Independent Muhadiseen have narrated it.

Third: there are extremely important Ahadith which were narrated by Hazrat Ayesha Sadiqa and Hazrat Ans bin Malik alone as they were among few companions of Prophet Mohammad PBUH who stayed close to him at times when others were not. This has never been a pattern of the life of Prophet Mohammad PBUH that the most important Hadith would be told before many Sahaba (R) and least important ones would be told before one, two or few companions.

It is very important to note that none of these are found in any of the collections of ahadees which the Shia Muslims consider authentic. This raises the question if they were invented by the Ummayads/Abbasids considering their expansionist designs? This is also to be noted that Ummayads did reach Sindh, a part of Hind back then.

Learning Aspect: Shia Muslims do not rely on source of Ahadith outside Silsila of Ahle-e-Bait. That’s why Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind is not the only Hadith but there thousands of Ahadith in Sunni Muslim’s books but not in Shia Mulims’s books. For more learning:Wikipedia: Shia Muslims books of Ahadith.

One must also note the fact that we don’t have any history report telling us about the use of these ahadees in the past by Muslim rulers or conquerors, even those who did invade India or waged a war on it. If they were respected and authentic ahadees, we should have such history reports.

Factually Wrong: Muslims in the past made several military expeditions in the light of these Ahadith. The commentary by Ibn-e-Kathir (written around 1370 AD, some 700 years ago) on that “Ghazwa-e-Hind” Hadith is worth reading and he interpreted that Hadith and clearly written that all those Muslim rules who launched expedition on Hind were Jihad. He included Mohammad Bin Qasim and Mahmood Bin Subugtagin [Mehmood Ghaznavi] and many other Turk Kings as well.

After understanding various aspects about Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind, we can establish

• Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind hasn’t been discovered recently and Muslims know them since the time of Holy Prophet PBUH.
• Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind are Authentic and found in Sunan-Nasai Al Sughra, one of the 6 credible books of Ahadith.
• These Ahadith have multiple narrators and Independent Silsila of Naration.
• Muslims in the past knew about these Ahadith, referenced them and used them in their books.
• There has been multiple expeditions against Hind by Muslims in the past on the basis of Ahadith of Ghazwatulhind.

In the “What if they are authentic ?” section, the writer has provided testaments of Ulema who believe Ahadees to be true. The only difference of opinion they have is that in their opinion, the Ahadith have came true already. If these Hadith were non-credible, the Ulema must have rejected them the first place, but rather they gave their opinion about the fulfillment and believed these Ahadith have already came true.

The Ulema who has given this verdict include:

• Maulana Abdul Hamid Numani, a leading figure of the Jamiat ul-Ulema-i Hind.
• Mufti Sajid Qasmi, who teaches at the Dar ul-Uloom Deoband.

Are these Ahadith fulfilled already?
Now let’s look at all the Ahadith of GhazwatulHind once again and try to understand if they have been fulfilled already.

In addition to 2 Ahadith of Sunan-Nasai, there exist 3 more Ahadith and one of them says

“A King of Jerusalem (Bait-ul-Muqaddas) would make a troop move forward towards Hindustan. The Warriors destroy the land of Hind; would possess its treasures, then King would use those treasures for the décor of Jerusalem. That troop would bring the Indian kings in front of King(of Jerusalem). His Warriors by King’s order would conquer all the area between East & West. And would stay in Hindustan till the issue of Dajjal”.

Reference: Naeem bin Hammad(R) Ustaaz Imam Bukhari(R) narrate this Hadees in his book ‘Al-Fitan’. In it, the name of the quoter is not mentioned who related it to Hazrat Kaab(R.A.). But some Arabic words are being used, so this would be considered intersected. Those wordings are: (Almuhkamubnu Naafi-in Amman Haddasahu An Kaabin).

In the last line, the Hadith says “And would stay in Hindustan till the issue of Dajjal”. The Dajjal didn’t arrive after the expeditions on Hind in the past. That means the battle which is being referred to hasn’t happened yet.

Question: Does it mean Muslims would arrive in Hind as conquerors and thereafter would stay there centuries after centuries until Dajjal would appear? Is Hadith referring to past expeditions and settled Muslims of Hind of today?

Answer: According to Hadith, the Muslims will capture the Kind of Hind and present him before King of Jerusalem. In the past conquests over Hind, such incident did not happen. So that gives us an indication that past campaigns against Hind were not GhazwatulHind. Following Hadith makes this aspect further clear which says:

“Some people of My Ummah will fight with Hindustan, Allah would grant them with success, even they would find the Indian kings being trapped in fetters. Allah would forgive those Warriors. When they would move towards Syria, then would find Isa Ibn-e-Maryam(A.S.) over there”

Reference: Naeem bin Hammad did narrate this Hadees in ‘Al Fitan’.

Thus Hadith is reffering to the warriors who would conquer Hind and when they would move back, they would find Isa Ibn-e-Maryam (A.S) in Syria. Thus same army would Join Hazrat Isa (R.A) who would conquer Hind and this event never took place in the past battles.

It is also important to note that the events of Dajjal, the Immam Mehdi and Prophet Isa (A.S) are connected and will happen within a short period of time, one after the other. There is good deal of detail available on this the subject at Shia.org (which discusses Shia and Sunni point of view) and a Sunni Fatwa which explains and connects these Ahadith without leaving a shadow of doubt whether the time of Ghazwatulhind was in the past or lies ahead of us. However if we only consider Ahadith of Sunan-Nasai, we wouldn’t be able to derive any conclusion.

Some contradictions and flaws found in the original article.

• The writer gives wrong information, claiming Ahadith of GhazwatuHind do not exist in Sunan-Nasai al Sughra but later in the references of First Hadith, Mentions the references to Sunan-Nasai AlMujtaba which is the same Sunan-Nasai Al Sughra and Al Mujtaba is its second name. [Wiki Reference] It is sad to know that the writer does not know names of books of Ahadith.
• The writer himself quotes one of the Hadith that has broken chain of command and insist the event has already taken place, while ignoring 2 similar Ahaidth (similar because they also lie outside Sunan-Nasai/Sunan-Nasai Al Sughra/Sunan-Nasai Al Mujtaba) that give answer to his own question.
• After acknowledging the Ahaidth of Ghazwatulhind do not exist in the book accepted by Shia Alims, he has presented Fatwa by a Shia Alim who cannot testify in any case.
• In the Section “Opinions of Scholars”, the given references who speak against are weak and not compareable to Jimeat-Ulema-i-Hind or Dar-ul-Aloom Deoband who are in the favor and who represent millions of Muslims.
• People with no religious background are considered adequate to comment on religious aspect while Alims and Mohadaseen are considered as non-credible.
• Representing “Al Mawarid Institute”, the ‘Editor’ has mentioned only 3 out of 6 books of Ahadith who he searched for reference for “Ghazwatulhind”. His searched books include Sahi Bukhari, Sahi Muslim and Moutha etc. It is essential that whoever gives Fatwa must do so after making complete research and exploring every possible authentic resource. But the “alim” made search through ’3 etc’ books. The ‘Editor’ did not mention name of Sunan Nasai altogether, thus an incomplete research cannot be accepted as basis of a Fatwa.
• Reference Article written by Khalid Zaheer ( Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences of University of Central Punjab) himself states that he has not made any study on the authenticity of these Ahadith.
• The writer claims Ahadith of GhazwatulHind to be in the “Collection o f Immam Nasai” withuot giving name of thatcollection and negates their existance in Sunan Nasai. However Ahadith of GhazwatulHind exist in Sunan-Nasai (both collections of Ahadith known as Al Kubra and Al Sughra/ Al Mujtaba).
• The over-all understanding of writer on the subject is weak and he has made claims without making research.

Since deen is a sensitive subject and not everybody who follows religion has capacity to make research, who-ever writes about religion must have adequate knowledge and research in hand before writing something. It is unfortunate that writer has been factually incorrect and used selective material to build his argument. I request all Muslims to make proper research before believing or accepting anything about religion.

May Allah help you find the right path and may all Muslims be on Sirat-e-Mustaqeem. Aamin.
@MM_Haider​

would you be so kind to give reference of link from where you copy pasted the above. I would like to go through in detail.

 

[Zarvan]

http://ghazwatulhind.wordpress.com/

 

[punit]

Both in 65 and 28 you got your butts kicked it was tribals who took 48 Azad Kashmir and in 65 you were brutally defeated

of course! in 1965 glorious army of Djinns defeated hindooo paleeds and snatched Lahore from India!

 

[Zarvan]

of course! in 1965 glorious army of Djinns defeated hindooo paleeds and snatched Lahore from India!

In 65 your all plans failed you General ran away leaving his Jeep behind few thousand of your soldiers were taken prisoners your Air Force lost several Fighter Jets and your coward navy didn't bother to come out of their Naval Bases so you are fee to talk crap that would not change you humiliating defeat in 1965

 

[punit]

In 65 your all plans failed you General ran away leaving his Jeep behind few thousand of your soldiers were taken prisoners your Air Force lost several Fighter Jets and your coward navy didn't bother to come out of their Naval Bases so you are fee to talk crap that would not change you humiliating defeat in 1965

have i said any thing contrary ! 1965 was brilliant success for the combined armies of Pakistani armies and djinns they invaded and captured Indian territories like J&K, Khem Karan, Lahore etc

 

[JustAnotherWomen]

In 65 your all plans failed you General ran away leaving his Jeep behind few thousand of your soldiers were taken prisoners your Air Force lost several Fighter Jets and your coward navy didn't bother to come out of their Naval Bases so you are fee to talk crap that would not change you humiliating defeat in 1965

Yes totally and Kashmir is part of Pakistan
Lashkars are indians
26 11 happened in karachi
Moscow is part of Ukraine
Afghanistan invaded US

AND Than someone sent u to this universe.

 

[danger007]

am amazed.. with elite trolling. .. No god will tell you to invade other countries. .. no god will help you... Hamid looks like cartoon network for me.. India is capable enough to send pak into stone age... it just purely wet dream of that looney toon and elite....

 

[Rahi812]

so according to ur garbage India was a country back in 1000 AD

invading someones home killing and butchering in name of religion ........but again we are talking about religion of peace

I think this is not in the religion, Arabs as i know, do not know about this thing. This is all about religion for political purpose. Which, I think, is a big harm to the religion itself.

 

[Thirdfront]

This must be the glaring example of fallacy of self fulfilling prophecy...

 

[Zarvan]

am amazed.. with elite trolling. .. No god will tell you to invade other countries. .. no god will help you... Hamid looks like cartoon network for me.. India is capable enough to send pak into stone age... it just purely wet dream of that looney toon and elite....

Mr GOD always helps those with Islam he tests them with troubles but final victory is always those who follow ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW and your country will be turned into history really soon don't you worry

 

[nair]

Why do you guys take Zahid Hamid seriously..... at times i get a feel that i am watching Kapil sharma's show....

 

[JustAnotherWomen]

Mr GOD always helps those with Islam he tests them with troubles but final victory is always those who follow ALLAH and his RASOOL SAW and your country will be turned into history really soon don't you worry

You make god look like a blackmailer. Either follow me or I will take your candy. Is god a bully or what?


Regarding making history
Soon Kashmir will be pakistan
Soon Hindus will end
Soon India will be part of Pakistan
Soon soon soon

70 monSOON to ho gaye aur kitna soon lol...