As for the stupid claim that the Shia killed Imam Husain (AS), I would like to first ask you what is the definition of Shia. If Shia means all those who claim to love Ahlul-Bayt, then I can tell you that ALL Muslims, with no exception from the time of the Prophet till today are Shia! Even the Wahhabis are Shia by your definition. Shia means "followers", and as such those who forsake their leader can not be considered his followers by any stretch of imagination.
The true followers (Shia) of Ahlul-Bayt have always been in minority. The Shia of Imam Husain were those who stayed with him in Karbala (beside those who did not have ability to join him due to justifiable reasons. Examples include, but are not limited to: Ibn Abbas and Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari who were both blind at that time.)
Those who fought Imam Husain comprise those you claim to be Tabi'een (disciples of companions) whom you believe you should follow! Those who fought Imam Husain were NEVER the followers of Ahlul-Bayt unless you believe in contradiction. Those who joined the army of Yazid were rather the followers of Satan. Yes, some of those who wrote to Imam Husain to come over Iraq, did not support him later, for the simple reason that they were not his followers but rather the followers of their own whims. They were people who were tired of the oppression of the Umayad, and they were looking for a an easy relief. Some of them thought if Imam Husain takes over the power and they will be able to get rid of oppression and more importantly they were thinking of reaching to money, position in his government. But after the pressure of the agent of Yazid in Kufah and the enforcement of marshal law, and when they saw that their lives are in jeopardy and their dreams are unlikely to take place, they forsook Imam Husain's deputy.
They were no better than Talha and Zubair who supported Imam Ali at the beginning for their own worldly interests, but when they found that the Imam will not fulfill such interests for them they went against him and
fought him. Do you ever claim that Talha and Zubair were the Shia of Ali?
Certainly not. Shia means "followers", and those who forsake their leader can not be considered his followers by any stretch of imagination.
The true followers (Shia) of Ahlul-Bayt have always been in minority. The Shia of Imam Husain were those who stayed with him in Karbala (beside those who did not have ability to join him due to justifiable reasons. Examples include, but are not limited to: Ibn Abbas and Jabir Ibn Abdullah al-Ansari who were both blind at that time.)
Those who fought Imam Husain comprise those you claim to be Tabi'een (disciples of companions) whom you believe you should follow! Those who fought Imam Husain were NEVER the followers of Ahlul-Bayt unless you believe in contradiction. Those who joined the army of Yazid were rather the followers of Satan. Yes, some of those who wrote to Imam Husain to come over Iraq, did not support him later, for the simple reason that they were not his followers but rather the followers of their own whims. They were people who were tired of the oppression of the Umayad, and they were looking for a an easy relief. Some of them thought if Imam Husain takes over the power and they will be able to get rid of oppression and more importantly they were thinking of reaching to money, position in his government. But after the pressure of the agent of Yazid in Kufah and the enforcement of marshal law, and when they saw that their lives are in jeopardy and their dreams are unlikely to take place, they forsook Imam Husain's deputy.
They were no better than Talha and Zubair who supported Imam Ali at the beginning for their own worldly interests, but when they found that the Imam will not fulfill such interests for them they went against him and
fought him. Do you ever claim that Talha and Zubair were the Shia of Ali?
Certainly not. Shia means "followers", and those who forsake their leader can not be considered his followers by any stretch of imagination.
Dear Brother, you, as a Sunni, acknowledge Imam Ali to be a righteous Caliph. Does that make you Shia? Certainly not. Similarly, most of those who were living under the government of Imam Ali were not his followers, and that was why they rebelled against him for their own worldly interest, the list include: Aisha/Talha/Zubair and their supporters, as well as those whom Imam Ali named them al-Khawarij (kharijites) who disobeyed Imam Ali in the battle of Siffin and announced that Ali is a polytheist (Mushrik). No doubt that Imam Ali gave an oath that he will fight and kill all of them except nine individuals who will be able to escape (one of which later murdered Imam Ali (AS)), and this exactly happened in the battle of Nahrawan. Imam Ali
never called them Shia, nor the historians claimed them as such, but you do! The Shia of Imam Ali are those for whom the Messenger of Allah as follows:
The Messenger of Allah said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you an your companions and your Shia (followers) will be in Paradise."
never called them Shia, nor the historians claimed them as such, but you do! The Shia of Imam Ali are those for whom the Messenger of Allah as follows:
The Messenger of Allah said to Ali: "Glad tiding O Ali! Verily you an your companions and your Shia (followers) will be in Paradise."
Sunni references:
(1) Fadha'il al-Sahaba, by Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v2, p655
(2) Hilyatul Awliyaa, by Abu Nu'aym, v4, p329
(3) Tarikh, by al-Khateeb al-Baghdadi, v12, p289
(4) al-Awsat, by al-Tabarani
(5) Majma' al-Zawa'id, by al-Haythami, v10, pp 21-22
(6) al-Darqunti, who said this tradition has been transmitted via numerous authorities.
(7) al-Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar Haythami , Ch. 11, section 1, p247
Thus the Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) used to say the phrase of "Shia of Ali". This phrase is not something invented later! Prophet Muhammad PBUH&HF) said that the true followers of imam Ali will go to Paradise, and this is a great felicity. Also Jabir Ibn Abdillah al-Ansari narrated that:
The Messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "The Shia of Ali are the real victorious in the day of resurrection/rising"
Sunni references:
- al-Manaqib Ahmad, as mentioned in:
- Yanabi al-Mawaddah, by al-Qundoozi al-Hanafi, p62
- Tafsir al-Durr al-Manthoor, by al-Hafidh Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, who quotes the tradition as follows: "We were with the Holy Prophet when Ali came towards us. The Holy Prophet said: He and his Shia will aquire salvation on the day of judgment."
The "day of rising" could also refer to the day of rising of al-Mahdi (AS).But in more general term, it means the day of judgment.
The stupid claim that Shia killed Imam Husain follows that the Prophet states those who will kill Imam Husain will go to Paradise! Perhaps, you believe that's why Yazid did so.
Such claim by Wahhabis has been made solely to cover the nasty face of the tyrannical leaders of that time and to drift the attention from their horrible crime, and to justify their rule. It will not be surprising that they have gone as far as saying it was the legitimate right of Yazid to take all possible action to preserve his dynasty. In contrast with the claim of these individuals, the Sunni history confirms that Imam Husain was killed by the direct order of Yazid (LA):
Ubaydullah Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid in Kufah) was leaving Iraq to Syria after killing the battle of Karbala, with a guard of his followers. Shuraih (the payroll Judge who gave verdict that the blood of Imam Husain is Halaal) noticed that he was silent for a long time, he approached him and said: "O Ubaydullah, I think it bothered you that you killed Husain?! Ubaydullah said: No! Indeed Yazid had ordered me to either kill Husain or he (Yazid) will kill me.
Sunni reference: History of Ibn Athir, v4, p140
The above gives evidence to the fact that he was Yazid who gave the direct order to kill Imam Husain (AS). Later, when the scandal of his horrible crime and the abuse of the household of the Prophet started shaking his regime, he condemned the act of Ibn Ziyad in public and disassociated himself. It has also been reported that:
Yazid ordered the head of Husain brought to Syria, when it was put tohim he started abusing it and beating it with his stick and said the following Poetry:
I wish that my elders in Badr witness the fear of Khazraj from the falling of the swords. Then they would have cherished and savored (my act) and by saying O Yazid may your arm be powerful (for getting revenge by killing Husain).
Sunni refernces:
- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch. 11, pp 331-332
- al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48
- Tarikh Alisalm v5, p18-19
Ibn al-Jawzi comments:
It is not difficult to understand why Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid in Kufah) fought Husain, but the more surprising was the brutality of Yazid in abusing the head of Husain and whipping Husain's mouth with his stick, and ordering to carry the household of the Prophet on camels without saddle, and many other shameful acts such as displaying his head in the city. It is certain that he (Yazid) did not have any intention but to humiliate (the household of the Prophet) by displaying the head. Such action is permissible only for al-Khawarij and transgressors. Had not Yazid have the rancor of the al-Jahiliyyah(the era before Islam) and the malice of (the defeat of his clan in the battle of Badr, he would have respected the head (of Imam Husain)when he had received it and he would have buried it with shroud.
It is not difficult to understand why Ibn Ziyad (the governor of Yazid in Kufah) fought Husain, but the more surprising was the brutality of Yazid in abusing the head of Husain and whipping Husain's mouth with his stick, and ordering to carry the household of the Prophet on camels without saddle, and many other shameful acts such as displaying his head in the city. It is certain that he (Yazid) did not have any intention but to humiliate (the household of the Prophet) by displaying the head. Such action is permissible only for al-Khawarij and transgressors. Had not Yazid have the rancor of the al-Jahiliyyah(the era before Islam) and the malice of (the defeat of his clan in the battle of Badr, he would have respected the head (of Imam Husain)when he had received it and he would have buried it with shroud.
Sunni references:
- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, pp 331,quoted from Ibn al-Jawzi.
- al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p48
Also Ibn Jawzi in his commentary about Ibn Hanbal's damning of Yazid said:
"would there be a greater crime than killing Husain?!"
It should be noted that many Sunni scholars allow explicit curse of Yazid, among them are Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and Ibn al-Jawzi. Ahmad proves his opinion by Quran. (See al-Bidayah wa al-Nihayah, by Ibn Kathir, v8, p223; also Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of Ch. 11, pp 331-332; also al-Radd Ala al-Muta'assib al-Aneed, by Ibn al-Jawzi, p47-48). However, as Ibn Hajar wrote, the least thing that is agreed upon by ALL the Sunni scholars (including the pseudo ones) is as follows:
It is unanimously agreed that it is permissible to curse those who killed Husain (may Allah be pleased with him) and those who ordered his killing and those who allowed it and those who were pleased witt that action, without explicitly mentioning the name of Yazid.
Sunni reference: Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, p334
Let us now see the opinion of the son of Yazid about his father and grandfather, who was the witness from within the royal family!
...When (Yazid) offered the kingdom (throne) to his son, Muawiyah the second, in order that the flag of caliphate continues to wave in the house of Abi Sufyan!!
After his death, Muawiyah the second, gathered the people on a well known day, he stood in them preaching, he said:
"My grandfather Muawiyah stripped the command from those who deserve it, and from one who is more justified of it, for his relation to the Messenger of Allah and his being first in Islam, and that is Ali Ibn Abi Talib, he (Muawiyah) took over it by your help as you are full aware."
"Then following it my father Yazid wore the command after him, and he did not deserve it. He quarreled with the son of the daughter of the Messenger of Allah, and by that he shortened his own life... He rode his whim and hope left him behind." Then he cried and continued:
"Surely, the greatest problems of us is our knowledge of his bad behavior and his awful ending, and that he killed the progeny (Itrah)of the Messenger of Allah, and he permitted drinking alcohol, and he fought in the sanctuary of Mecca, and destroyed the Ka'ba."
"And I am not the one who is dressing up for your command, nor the one to be responsible for your followers... You choose for yourselves..!!"
Sunni References:
- Khulafaa al-Rasool, by Khalid Mohammed Khalid, p531 (The above Quote included author's punctuation.)
- Sawa'iq al-Muhriqah, by Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, end of ch 11, pp 336
Now, please offer these reports to your Wahhabi friend and see if they to know better than the son of Yazid as to who killed Imam Husain.
Also Shabrawi wrote in his book that:
"Would any man of reason doubts that Yazid killed Husain?"
Sunni reference: Alethaf, by Shabrawi, pp 62,66
Moreover, In Ibn Abbas's reply to a letter by Yazid, he said:
Do not think that I will forget your crime of killing Imam Husain (AS)
Sunni reference: Tarikh Ya'qubi, v2, p249
Then can any man of reason think that Yazid did not order killing Imam Husain?!!! The above was just few Sunni documents out of many, to prove this fact.
Throughout Islamic history many mass conversions between Sunni and Shia occured. Two big examples are Egypt (Shia mostly and then mass conversion to Sunni) and Iran (Sunni mostly at one time and then mass conversion to Shia).
Dear brother, you have very distorted information for which you have no evidence. I am afraid, you are confusing between the government and people.
Most people of Persia were the followers of Ahlul-Bayt from the beginning of their conversion to Islam. One reason for their tendency to Shia was the discrimination that Umar enforced between the rights of Arabs and non- Arabs. Another reason was the injustice of some governors and their misconduct that was being carried on in the name of Islam, and so on. This gave reason to people for searching the truth and they found the shining light of Ahlul-Bayt and their followers such as Salman al-Farsi who was also an important factor. However, later, Umayad and Abbasid oppressive governments continued their injustice to Arabs and non-Arabs alike! They prosecuted the followers of Ahlul-Bayt in Persia, Iraq, Hijaz, and other places. The early Sunni government in Iran did not represent the belief of people as much as the today's governments in Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, United Arab Emirate, Amman, and Bahrain (which are all Shia dominated) do not represent the belief of their people.
As for the Fatimid rule in Egypt, you should better know that they were the offshoot of Ismailis. We do not consider Fatimid to be Shia of Imam Ali at all. They were among the political movements appeared centuries later.
Again the difference between the belief of people and the government should be noticed. Your claim concerning the conversion in Egypt is false. Based on "The Encyclopedia of Islam," the majority of people in Egypt were Sunnis during the entire reign of Fatimid, and as such, no conversion occurred when the Fatimid government collapsed. It was politically started and politically ended.
Thus neither in Iran nor in Egypt mass conversion from Sunni to Shia or vice versa occurred. No body can force a person to convert into another religion or school of thought, since belief is in the heart of People and not in ID. Those who convert their religion in their heart due to the pressure of government, did not have religion at all! Recall the existence of many Arabs inside Hijaz in the Arabian Peninsula (what is now known as the kingdom of Saudi Arabia) who have been Shia of Imam Ali (AS) from the time of Imam Ali till now despite the fact that Hijaz has had the most oppressive regimes since the early history of Islam.
Comments
Post a Comment