Pages

Subscribe:

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Hazrat Jafar al-Tayyar’s (a.s.) martyrdom and mourning over Imam Husain (a.s.)

Critics of mourning (azadari) level the following charges in support of their claims:
  1. Weeping over dead is bidah (innovation) and there is no evidence of mourning from the Prophet’s
    (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم)
  1. Weeping is the cause of punishment for the person inside the grave.
  1. Food distributed to the mourners is innovation and has no place in Islam. In the least it is a waste of resources.
Reply
There is a reply to all the objections in a single event – the martyrdom of Hazrat Jafar al-Tayyar (عليه السلام)– cousin of the Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم).
Hazrat Jafar Ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) was the Holy Prophet’s (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) first cousin. He was among the standard bearers of the Muta battle, where he eventually embraced martyred. As soon as the Holy Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم)  was informed of his martyrdom, he rushed to meet his sons.
When the Holy Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) entered Jafar’s house, he called them aside and kissed them so that his eyes were soaked with tears.
When Jafar’s wife (Asma) witnessed this, she realized it must have something to do with her husband. So she asked: May my father and mother be ransom on you! Is there any news of Jafar and his companions?
He (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) said: Yes, today he has been martyred.
Asma cried loudly and women surrounded her. Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.) entered the house and exclaimed while weeping: ‘Alas, my uncle!’
Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) said: Mourners should weep over the likes of Jafar.
  • Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal v 6 p 370 trad 27,131
  • Al-Seerah al-Nabaviyyah v 5 p 31
  • Al-Seerah al-Halabiyyah v 2 p 790
Waqedi narrates:
After the martyrdom of Jafar Ibn Abi Talib (عليه السلام) when Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) entered the house of his daughter Hazrat Fatima Zahra (s.a.), he saw her weeping: ‘O my beloved uncle!’
He (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) said: Women should mourn over Jafar in such a way.
Then he (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) instructed: Prepare food for Jafar’s family and feed them.
  • Al-Maghazi v 2 p 214
Comprehensive reply to the skeptics
Traditions and reports related to Hazrat Jafar al-Tayyar’s (عليه السلام) martyrdom are conclusive in deriving the following points:
  • Weeping over dead is Sunnah of Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم).
  • Not only did the Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) himself mourn the dead, he was just as eager to see others mourn the dead. Hence, the instruction to mourn the likes of Jafar.
  • A Sunnah is opposite of bidah (innovation), hence if weeping is Sunnah, then it cannot be bidah. In fact, stopping the Muslims from mourning is bidah.
  • Contrary to the claims of the skeptics, weeping over the dead is not cause of punishment for the person inside the grave. Would the Holy Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم) legitimize weeping over Jafar al-Tayyar (عليه السلام) and indirectly punish his own cousin. The punishment over mourning relates to the dead from the disbelievers.
  • Feeding the mourners is a Sunnah of the Prophet (صلّى اللّه عليه و آله‏ و سلّم). Hence to dismiss the food as innovation or needless expenditure amounts to replacing the Prophet’s Sunnah with one’s own opinion.

Thursday, August 10, 2017

The Truth About Imam Husain’s Revolution

Different phenomena vary as to their realities. Similarly, every uprising or revolt is unique as to the truth/s underlying its eruption [and eventual success or otherwise]. In order to understand a particular matter, or a state of affairs, you should know the deeper reasons underling its existing form and the characteristics that gave it that specific appearance. You should also be conscious of the material causes of that matter, or issue, i.e. its constituents or ingredients. In other words:
The forces/causes that produced the revolt or uprising, which signify its truth are called “the causes at work”.
The nature of the revolt and its goals represent “its intents and purposes”.
The actual action plan, implementing it, and all what goes with it represent “its material causes”.
The end result that the revolt has come to produce represents its “overall picture”.
[Applying these parameters], was Imam Hussain’s uprising a result of an angry outburst?
Islam is different from some other movements for change or reform that took place as a result of certain circumstances that in turn led to eruptions.
Dialectics, for example, encourages heightening disagreements, inciting discontent, and showing opposition even for genuine reforms in order to bring things to a head on collision, i.e. an explosive revolution, not a conscious one.
Islam does not subscribe to these types of revolutions. The history of most Islamic revolts or uprisings speaks of the rationale behind such revolts, in that they came as a result of a complete understanding of the status quo they were determined to change. Thus, Imam Hussain’s revolt was not a result of an angry outburst, prompted by the pressures exerted by the Umayyad rule, especially during the reigns of Mu’aawiyah [the founder of the dynastic rule], and his son, Yezid.
Rather, it was a very well calculated move. What substantiates the position the Imam (a.s.) took in this regard was the letters he exchanged with both the men; and the sermons he gave on different occasions, especially that one he addressed the Companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.) in Mina, [in present day Saudi Arabia] with. All this evidence points in the direction of one conclusion. That is, the Imam was fully aware of what he was intending to do, viz. taking on the ruling establishment. His revolt was free from any angry reaction; rather, it was a purely Islamic uprising.
Looking at Imam Hussain’s revolt from another perspective, i.e. the way he was treating his followers, one can only come out with one conclusion. He was determined not to let the feelings of his companions run high, in a bid to avoid his revolt’s earning any description of an explosive one. Of this strategy was his repeated attempts to appeal to his companions to leave his company, with a view to sparing them the fate that was awaiting them all, i.e. him included. He used to remind them every now and then that they should not expect any materialistic gain in their march, other than definite death. After he commended his companions, describing them as among the best of friends, he pleaded with them one last time, i.e. on the eve of the 10th of Muharram, [62 AH, 680 CE], to leave if they so wished, making it clear to them that they would be safe, for the Umayyad’s were after his head alone.
You can hardly find a leader who aspires to utilize the dissatisfaction of his people to push them to revolt who talks in the same way Imam Hussain (a.s.) was talking to his companions. It is true that he was responsible for outlining to them their religious duty to rise against the despotic rule, in that resisting injustice and repression is such an obligation they have to discharge, yet he was seeking that his companions would discharge their responsibility of their own accord, i.e. without coercion.
That was why he reiterated to them to melt away from the battlefield under the cover of darkness because the enemy was not going to pursue them had they taken flight, nor had he wanted to force them to fight. He further advised them that he would absolve them from their oath of allegiance to him, should they have chosen to forsake him, in that he left it to their own consciences. That is, whichever way they decided, it had to be dictated by siding with the right, i.e. without compulsion, either from him or from the enemy. It would be their own choice alone. However, their decision to remain with the Imam gave the martyrs of Kerbala the high regard they are held with.
To draw a comparison between the position taken by Imam Hussain (a.s.) and Tariq bin Ziyad in the battle of Jabal Tariq [the Rock of Gibraltar], we would say that what Ibn Ziyad resorted to of action is symptomatic of a leader with a politician’s mentality, whereas Imam Hussain was conscious not to force the fight on his comrades in arms.
What Ibn Ziyad did was to burn all the food supplies save that which could sustain his troops for twenty-four hours. He then addressed them in a sermon to the effect that they had no choice but to win the battle, making it clear that if they did not win, the result would be one of two: They would either be routed by the army of the enemy or got drowned in the sea, should they have chosen to flee. In contrast, Imam Hussain (a.s.) left the choice to the small band of his followers to engage the enemy in combat or turn back, for neither the enemy nor he were coercing them to fight.

Indeed, the Imam’s revolt had its roots in the complete understanding, by all parties of his camp, of its inevitability. Thus, it should not be described as though it were brought about by a disgruntled man. This responsible revolt had a multiplicity of factors, in that it was neither a single entity nor a single-aim movement.

Among the differences that exist between matters of the physical world and the social one is that in the material world minerals always demonstrate a single essence. For instance, you cannot find, as a raw material, gold and copper in a single entity. In contrast, in social phenomena, it is quite possible that a single phenomenon might demonstrate a variety of realities and essences. Man is such a wonder because he can boast several essences at the same time.

Imam Hussain (A.S) Revolution's Results

What had Imam Husayn's revolution meant in history? Some people who are not familiar with its motives, innocently inquire about its results. Others have even questioned the wisdom of striking at a mighty force like the Umayyads, which was fatal. Although the revolution's motives have already been discussed, a brief review of the changes in the Muslim World after Imam Husayn's revolution is appropriate;

1. Murdering Imam Husayn (as) the grandson of the Prophet (S) was a great shock to the whole Muslim world. This is not to mention the way he was murdered or the treatment given to his family who had the highest esteem and respect of all Muslims. Consequently, all Muslims dissociated themselves from the Umayyad's deeds and policies. Indeed, who wants to share in the certain curse upon those who murdered the family of the Prophet?

Thus, this revolution had done the task of unveiling the Umayyad's un-Islamic character to the general public and left no doubt in any person's heart about the Umayyad's substance.
Therefore, the concepts which the Umayyad's were propagating in order to distort the ideals of Islam found no listening ear any longer, diverting the Umayyad's mischief of changing Islamic concepts and ideals.

2. Imam Husayn's revolution set a lively example as to the duty of Muslims in such conditions. It had deeply penetrated peoples’ hearts and produced great pains within them for not doing their Islamic duty. This feeling which pained people all the time transformed into repentance and then to an open revolt against the Umayyad's regime. Thus, the revolution provided the stimulant to move their spirit and set it in a dynamic movement. Indeed, the Islamic movement was put to a new gear throughout the rest of the Islamic history.

A series of revolutions manifesting Imam Husayn's revolutionary spirit and reforms emerged at successive intervals. Tawabeen's revolution took place immediately after Karbala's tragedy. Another revolution at Madina was aiming at doing away with the Umayyads deviated regime. Al-Mukhtar Al-Thaqafi led another revolution which stormed the Umayyad's regime in Iraq and he was able to punish all principal collaborators in the campaign against Imam Husayn in Iraq. Mitraf ibn Al-Mughira's revolution against Hajjaj and Abdul Malik was another result.
However, there were a chain of revolutions in all parts of the Muslim world which eventually did away with the Umayyad's regime. Imam Husayn's revolution was the principal slogan of the revolutionaries against the Umayyad's. The Abasides came and soon their conduct was exposed as not that which the family of the Prophet was advocating. They realized that the revolution’s results were stolen and before they could do anything, the main personalities which carried the revolt through were treacherously eliminated by murder, poison and imprisonment.
The attempts to restore Islamic conduct have never ceased throughout Islamic history. Bitter experiences and intermittent material failures are natural results of struggle. Most importantly is the triumph of the Islamic spirit against intimidation and attempts to obscure its shining face and glory. A ceaseless revolution in Muslim lives is a reality, which the enemies of Islam failed to extinguish.

The secret key of this blessed revolution lies in the firm faith in God, the unshakable conviction, which puts material supremacy and gain in an inferior position to God's satisfaction. These ideals were demonstrated by Imam Husayn when the Muslims were in need of such an example most.
The revolution of Imam Husayn was not solely for changing a government, if it was so, then it would be wrong to call it a revolution. Imam Husayn was advocating a drastic change in the social set up, the economic and political structures and refining Islamic concepts from foreign ideas which had crept into Muslims' minds and thoughts.

Imam Husayn wanted to change the life of Muslims to be in conformity with Islamic laws and ideals. Indeed, this explains one main reason for why Imam Husayn was let down by the tribes of Kufa after being promised support, and his call was ignored by the rest of the Muslim world. Hence, a revolution means a drastic change in one's life or the collective life when applied to a large scale.

For more detail ....please read the Full Article Here 

Imam Hussain's Revolution: Reasons and Motives

All those who are familiar with the Imam's life do certainly realize that his role in serving Islam had started very early in his life. He has contributed to the rising Islamic movement when he was a boy, and played a significant role, when his father was the Commander of the faithful, taking part in all three wars that his father fought along with the rest of the faithful companions and followers.
When his brother Hassan (A.S.) became Imam, he obeyed and followed him in all what he said or did. Then his role entered a new stage with the passing away of his brother. And since the role of any Imam of Ahl ul-Bait is defined in accordance with the nature of the social and political conditions of his age, the Imam drew a new course in determining the direction of the Islamic movement.

Winds of Revolution:
When Muawiah died in the middle of Rajab of year 60(Hijra), and his son Yazied took power, and ordered his walis to ask for the people's pledge of loyalty and especially that of Imam Hussain (A.S.), a wave of rejection and opposition to the policy of betrayal and tyranny mounted, and the Imam decided to rise to his religious responsibilities as the lawful Imam and the leader of the Islamic nation entrusted with the task of preserving its divine message.

He (A.S.) went to his grandfather's (S.A.W) grave, and recited the following prayer:
"O God, This is the grave of your Prophet, Muhammad (S.A.W) and I am his daughter's son, and I have come to know what you undoubtedly know. O God, I like to enjoin the good and reject the evil. I ask you O All-Mighty God by this grave and by who is in it to choose for me what would please You and Your Prophet".

Thus Imam Hussain (A.S.) pledged that he would defend the message whatever the cost, as long as it would lead to Allah's satisfaction.

The Imam went on to meet with his relatives and followers and inform them of his intention to leave to Mekkah. He was met by a lot of opposition of those who tried to dissuade him, either because they were afraid that he would get killed, or because they were not courageous enough to follow him. But his resolve to uphold the right was not shaken by such objections or threats.
He declared his first revolutionary communiqué which took the form of a will he wrote to his brother, Muhammad bin Al-Hanifiah:
"...I did not revolt for the cause of evil tyranny or corruption, but to reform my grandfather's (Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W)) nation. I want to enjoin the good and denounce the evil, and take the course of my father and grandfather".

This eternal communiqué was the official declaration of his revolution.
The Imam (A.S.) traveled to Mekkah and there he chose to stay at the house of Al-Abass bin Abdul Mutalib, where the faithful believers of Mekkah, as well as those outside it, started to visit him and pledge loyalty to him. News about the political uprising in Kaufa reached Mekkah, and the leaders of the city wrote a letter in which they declared their opposition to the Ummayad rule, and they would not accept anybody else but Imam Hussain (A.S.) to rule them. This letter was followed by many other letters asking the Imam to come to their city to assume his rule as an Imam of the faithful.
 
On the way to the Greater Martyrdom:
Yazid became so worried that he decided to send an army led by Amr bin Saad bin Al-Ass, to kill the Imam wherever they found him and whatever the costs. When the Imam heard that Yazied's army was heading towards Mekkah, he was afraid that they would violate the sanctuary of the City, so he decided to leave to Kaufa although he knew before hand the ultimate destiny he was to face.
Imam Hussain (A.S.) and his companions headed towards Iraq; although he was certain that he was going to be killed. But he believed that the true victory of Allah's message would be realized through his martyrdom, since there was no one else to stand up for the oppression. He knew that the nation would not wake up except by such a great shock. Therefore, let this shock be his martyrdom, along with Ahl ul-Bait who went all the way with him.

The Reasons of the Revolution:
Imam Hussain (A.S.) did not possess the necessary force that would enable him to win; he did not even rely on those who wrote to him from Kaufa. For he declared his revolution before he received their letters and delegates. Al-Hijaz too did not give him enough support to be able to stand against the Ummayads. Therefore he decided to leave to Iraq for the sole reason of preventing any blood shedding in the Holy City of Mekkah. Moreover, he knew that he was destined to die; yet he went on.
Why then did he insist; and why did he declare his revolution?
To answer this question, one should be aware of the following facts:
First: Yazied represented a real danger to the Islamic nation, for he was not a true Muslim. He was not properly educated with the teachings of Islam. And he used to drink alcohol, gamble, and commit all other sins according to historic sources. He said: Banu Hashim staged a play to obtain the Kingdom. Actually, there was neither any news (from Allah) nor any revelation. Such a man could not be entrusted with the affairs of the nation. Nevertheless, the faithful forces, with Imam Hussain (A.S.) as their leader, had benefited a lot from these points of weakness in the personality of such an evil ruler.

Friday, April 28, 2017

ઈમામ હુસૈન અ.સ ને કોણે કત્લ કર્યા? યઝીદ કે શિઆઓ

ઈમામ હુસૈન અ.સ ને કોણે કત્લ કર્યા? યઝીદ કે શિઆઓ
        શંકા
                મુસ્લિમોનો એક વિભાગ જે પોતાની જાત ને યઝીદ નો બચાવ કરવા માટે કે ઈમામ હુસૈન અ.સ ના કત્લ માટે યઝીદ જવાબદાર નથી માટે નબળા બહાનાઓ બનાવે છે અને પોતાની પીડાઓ માટે શિય્યત ને જવાબદાર ગણાવે છે ,તે આક્ષેપો માંથી એક ખુબજ મોટો આક્ષેપ એ છે કે શિયાઓ એ પોતેજ ઈમામ હુસૈન અ.સ ને કત્લ કર્યા અને હવે તેઓ આ કાર્ય માટે પસ્તાવો કરે છે


જવાબો :

        ૧,કોણે હમઝા અ.સ ને શહીદ કર્યા ?
        ૨,સાથીદારો નો રોલ
        ૩,યઝીદ નો રોલ
        ૪, શિયાઓ કોણ છે?
        ૫,યઝીદ નાં સૈનિકો ની ટુકડીઓ શિયા ન હતી

        જ.હમઝા ને કોણે શહીદ કર્યા?
        કોણે જ. અમ્માર અ.સ ને શહીદ કર્યા?
                આ નકામું બહાનું યાદ અપાવે છે કે તે દલીલ ની જે યઝીદ નાં પિતાએ ૧૪૦૦ વર્ષ પહેલા સીફ્ફીન માં રજુ કરી હતી.કારણ કે તે પોતે જવાબદાર હતો જ. અમ્માર ર.અ  ને કત્લ કરવામાં જેની તસ્દીક હ.રસુલે ખુદા સ.અ.વ એ કરી હતી
        હ.અમ્માર ર.અ જે એક મહાન સહાબી છે જેના માટે જન્નત નક્કી છે તેના કત્લ નો દોષ મોઆવિયાએ બચવા માટે હ.અમીરુલ મોઅમેનીન અલી ઇબ્ને અબી તાલિબ અ.સ પર નાખ્યો,તેણે એવી દલીલ કરી કે,કેમ કે હ.અલી અ.સ જ.અમ્માર ને જંગે સીફ્ફીન માં લાવ્યા હતા એટલે તે જવાબદાર ગણાય નહિ કે મોઆવિયા(લા.અ)
       
        અગર મોઆવિયા નાં આ તર્ક (વિચાર) ને સ્વીકારી લેવામાં આવે તો તેનાપ્રમાણે હ. રસુલે ખુદા સ.અવ. જવાબદાર છે પોતાના કાકા જ.હમઝા ર.અ. ના કત્લ માટે( નૌઝોબીલ્લાહ),કારણ કે હ. હમઝા.ર.અ. જંગે ઓહદ માં હ. રસુલે ખુદા સ.અ.વ નાં કહેવાથી આવ્યા હતા.
                દેખીતી રીતે પોતાના આક્ષેપો પોતે કરેલો ગુનોહ બીજા લોકો પર નાખવો જે આ કાર્ય થી પર છે તે આ મુસલમાનો ની જૂની આદત છે .
                        આવો આપણે જોઈએ કે કેવી રીતે આપણે ગુનેહગાર ને ઓળખી શકીએ  મુસલમાનો ના આ તર્ક ના આધારે :
                કોણે જ. હમઝા અ.સ ને કત્લ કર્યા ?

                 (૧) ચોક્કસ,ઇત્હાસની રોશનીમાં  સહી સમજણ બતાવે છે કે હ. હમઝા અ.સ ને કત્લ કરવા માટે ઝીમ્મેદાર મક્કા નાં એ લોકો છે કે જેઓએ હ.રસુલે ખુદા સ.અ.વ. અને મુસલમાનો સાથે જંગ કરી હતી
        (૨) અને આપણે જોયું કે મોઆવિયનાં તર્ક પ્રમાણે હ. હમ્ઝા અ.સ ને કત્લ કરવા માટે જવાબદાર હ.રસુલે ખુદા સ.અ.વ છે (નૌઝોબીલાહ)

        (૩) મુસ્લિમો નાં તર્ક પ્રમાણે હ. હમઝા અ.સ ના મૃત્યુ નાં જવાબદાર બીજો અલગજ સમૂહ છે,આવો આપણે જવાબ શોધવા માટે સુ.આલે ઇમરાન ની આયત  ૧૫૩ નો સહારો લઈએ

 “ (તે સમયને યાદ કરો) જ્યારે તમે આગળને આગળ નાસી જતા હતા અને પાછા વળીને પણ કોઈને જોતા ન હતા અને પાછળથી રસૂલ તમને બોલાવી રહ્યો હતો, .......
            જેમકે મુસ્લિમો નાં તર્ક મુજબ શિયાઓ નાં વિશ્વાસઘાતે હ. ઈમામ હુસૈન અ.સ ને કત્લ કર્યા તેજ રીતે સહાબીઓ ના વિશ્વાસઘાતે જંગે ઓહદ માં હ. હમઝા અ.સ ને કત્લ કર્યા
                જો કે સ્પષ્ટ કારણો આ મુસ્લિમો કબુલ નહિ કરે અને આ મુસ્લિમો પોતાના તર્કઓ ને શિયાઓ ની વિરુદ્ધ રજુ કરશે

ઉસ્માન લ.અ ને કોને કતલ કર્યો?
        (૧)સહી સમજણ બતાવે છે કે ઉસ્માન લ.અ ને કત્લ મુસ્લિમો એ કર્યો કે જેઓએ તેના ઘર પાસે ઘેરો કર્યો અને અંતે તેણે કતલ કર્યો તેની ખરાબ અનીતિ ને કારણે

        (૨) પરંતુ આ મુસ્લિમો નાં તર્ક પ્રમાણે જે આક્ષેપ મુકે છે સીધો તેના પર જેઓ વિશ્વાસઘાત કરે છે તેના પ્રમાણે તો ઉસ્માન ને કત્લ કરવાનો જવાબદાર મોઆવિયા બિન અબી સુફયાન થાય
        આ વાત છુપી નથી કે ઉસ્માન ના ઘરનો ઘેરાવ એક મહિના સુધી ચાલ્યો હતો તે દરમિયાન તેણેઅમુક લોકો ને મદદ માટે પયગામ મોકલ્યા હતા,તેમાંથી એક તેનો પીતરાય ભાઈ મૌવીયાહ પણ હતો. જો કે મોઆવિયા એ પોતાના સૈનિકોને મોકલ્યા ના હતા જે ઉસ્માન ને બહાર નીકાળે,અને આ હકીકત છે કે મોઆવિયા પાસે મોટું લશ્કર હતું છતાં મદદ ન કરી અને બે જ વર્ષ પછી આજ લશ્કર જંગે સીફ્ફીન માં આવ્યું હતું .

Harrah – Another proof of Yazid’s transgression

A group of Muslims seek to exonerate Yazid b. Muawiyah of all his crimes. As a matter of fact, these Muslims do not even acknowledge the crimes and for the most evident crime of killing the son of Allah’s Prophet — Imam Husain b. Ali (a.s.), they are quick to gloss over it with the most weird claims including the ridiculous one of Shias themselves having killed Imam Husain (a.s.)!

To such Muslims, it is fitting to point out that not every crime perpetrated by Yazid is easy to sweep under the carpet. Although no crime can parallel the killing of Imam Husain (a.s.), Yazid is responsible for many crimes that are evident even to the most biased historian and no one doubts even for a moment that Yazid is the perpetrator of these crimes. If the most biased historian was to ignore Imam Husain’s (a.s.) killing under one pretext or another, there is no way for him to ignore Yazid’s other crimes. The incident of Harrah is one such crime and all Muslims regardless of their sect are unanimous that the responsibility for Harrah lies at the doorstep of Yazid b. Muawiyah.

But first an interesting comparison to underscore Yazid’s antecedents.

Who is most despicable, Yazid or Firaun?
Yazid is often referred to as the Firaun of the Islamic nation. But this comparison is not entirely fair to Firaun. Yazid was far worse than Firaun and he dared to commit some of the most heinous crimes in the history of mankind that even Firaun hesitated from committing.

A very interesting incident that occurred in Yazid’s court highlights how he was far more wretched than Firaun. After the incident of Karbala, the women of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) household were brought in Yazid’s court devoid of their veils. Along with the women was Allah’s Proof — the son of Imam Husain (a.s.) — Imam Zainul Abedeen (a.s.). Yazid began gloating over his success in front of his courtiers and sought to belittle the exalted status of Imam Husain (a.s.) and his father — Ameerul Momineen (a.s.). However, Zainul Abedeen (a.s.) despite being fettered in heavy chains and shackles was not intimidated and gave a fitting reply to Yazid’s taunts. This sparked off a dialogue between Yazid and Zainul Abedeen (a.s.) in which Imam (a.s.) as expected, held the upper hand and crushed Yazid’s arguments with utter disdain. This did not go down well with Yazid and he turned to his advisors to counter Zainul Abedeen (a.s.). His advisors advised him to condemn Zainul Abedeen (a.s.) to death.

When Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.), who was merely two years and some months old at the time, heard this suggestion made by Yazid’s advisors, he addressed Yazid, ‘They have recommended to you as opposed to the recommendation of the courtiers of Firaun. When he (Firaun) asked their opinion regarding Prophet Moosa (a.s.) and Prophet Haroon (a.s.), they said: Give respite to him and his brother, while these people recommend that you should kill us, whilst there is a reason for this.’

Yazid was confused with this argument and sought the reason for Firaun’s benevolence towards Prophet Moosa (a.s.) and Prophet Haroon (a.s.) in this matter.

Imam Baqir (a.s.) clarified, ‘The reason why Firaun did not kill Moosa (a.s.) was because he (Firaun) was of legitimate birth, while a Prophet and his children are only slain by the illegitimate ones.’ When Yazid heard Imam’s (a.s.) explanation he became silent and hung his head in shame. (Nafasul Mahmoom, Section 13, from Isbaat al-Wasiyyah of Masoodi)

It is apparent that Yazid was subdued by Imam Muhammad Baqir’s (a.s.) arguments and his silence only affirms his guilt. His sending the captives back to Medinah is further admission of this guilt. What is ironical however is that even though Yazid had accepted that he was wrong in slaying the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), he still finds widespread support from his ardent fans who 1,400 years after Karbala insist on affixing his name with the reverential suffix ‘May Allah be pleased with him’ something that is reserved for the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) choicest companions like Hazrat Salman Muhammadi (r.a.), Hazrat Abu Zarr Ghaffari (r.a.), Hazrat Miqdaad (r.a.), etc.

Yazid’s reign lasted for three years and nine months. In a short period of just 45 months, Yazid perpetrated crimes that would make even the most oppressive tyrants shudder. In the very first year of his reign (61 AH), he dispatched a huge army to murder the son (according to the verse of Mubaahelah) of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) — Imam Husain (a.s.). The army was given explicit orders to show no mercy to Imam Husain (a.s.), to cut all water supply to his tents, to surround him and his women, to kill the men mercilessly, to take the women captive and parade them on the streets without their veils.

Yazid stands exposed
After Imam Husain’s (a.s.) martyrdom, news of Yazid’s transgressions spread far and wide. The people of Medinah dispatched a delegation to Syria to get first-hand information of Yazid’s offenses. As was expected the delegation was disgusted with Yazid’s corrupt ways and returned to inform the Medinites of his innumerable vices — alcoholism, chess addiction, seeking entertainment with singing girls, dogs and monkeys, indulging in intercourse with mehram women (mother, sister), abandoning prayers, and topping all this by murdering the grandson of their beloved Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

The Medinites were appalled to hear that the Caliph of the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) nation indulged in such unmentionable indecencies. They began cursing Yazid openly and finally drove out his governor — Usman b. Muhammad b. Abi Sufyan, along with Marwan b. Hakam and other members of Bani Ummayyah from Medinah. They appointed Abdullah b. Hantala as the governor and gave him their allegiance.

Yazid retaliates
Obviously a man of Yazid’s status and tyrannical temperament would not take such a rebellion lying down. He immediately dispatched a large army towards Medinah under the command of Musrif b. Aqbah Muri (also called as Mujrim). When Musrif approached Medinah, he camped at a place called Harrah-e-Raqim (Sangistaan), which is at a distance of one mile from the mosque of Suroore Ambiya. Seeing Yazid’s army camped outside their city, the Medinites came out to fight the army. Yazid’s army was equipped with lot of ammunition and overwhelmed the Medinites in every department. Consequently the Medinites were no match against this army and a large number of them were killed in the ensuing battle. The accursed Marwan b. Hakam was constantly inciting Yazid’s army to attack the Medinites. Finally the Medinites realized that they could not successfully counter the army and retreated to Medinah and sought shelter in the shrine of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

Medinah under attack
However, Musrif was not satisfied at overcoming the Medinites in battle. Being Yazid’s associate, he wanted to complete their humiliation and wished to be remembered in history for this. So he entered Medinah with all pomp and splendour at the head of his massive army. This incident became famous as the incident of Harrah and occurred in Zilhajj 63 A.H., three months before Yazid’s death.