Clarification of the Misconceptions About Azadari (Mourning)

A contemporary scholar Mr Abdul Ghaffar in the daily 'Hindustan' dated 21 June 1993 has raised certain objections about the 'Welcome to Mourning' (Istiqbale Aza). Perhaps his one-sided study might have plunged him into misunderstandings. Hence it became imperative for us to clarify his misgivings.

The summary of his objections, based on five premises, which are as follows:

Certainly the assassination of Hussain will kindle fire in the hearts of the believers until eternity, which will never extinguish. It is a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S) ?

 What is the proof of its authenticity ?

The mourning of Prophets (A) before Imam Hussain (A) is a meaningless thing.

The survival and resilience of Islam is based on its cardinal principles of Namaz, Roza, Hajj etc. Islam thrives on it and not on mourning of Imam Hussain (A).

Mourning and self-flagellation for Imam Hussain (A) is forbidden.

Mourning and establishing such gatherings does not have any relevance to the religion. Man should follow Qur'an and Traditions and not the practice of scholars.

Now we shall reply to the above-mentioned objections so that the foundation and base of Azadari may become evident to one and all. And none shall remain unaware of the existence found in reliable and authentic traditions.

Refutation to the First Objection

"Martyrdom of Hussain kindles such a fire in the hearts of the believers which will never extinguish."

This tradition is but a part of a lengthy narration which Imam Sadiq (A) had related from Holy Prophet (S). Complete tradition is quoted below:

Imam Sadiq (A) said:

"When Imam Husain (A) came to the Holy Prophet (S), he looked at him, hugged him and said: 'Martyrdom of Husain will generate such a fire in the hearts of believers which will never be extinguished.' Then he said' My parents be sacrificed for him who is the fountain-head of all mourning'. When the companions asked 'What does it mean?' He replied 'That no believer will remember him but mourning and weeping.'

The tradition was recorded by a great scholar of 8th Century AH. Shamsuddin Mohammed Aalim (died in 786AH.), who was given the title of' Collection of merits and excellences and total knowledge of the world and hereafter' by Shaikh Mohammed Yusuf Quraishi Shafei in his book 'Majmua' quoted from the book 'Al-Anwaar' written by Shaikh Abu Ali Mohammed bin Abi Bakr Hammam bin Sohail Katib Iskafi (died in 336 AH.), who was student of the renowned Sunni scholar of 3rd century AH. Abdur Razzaq. The narrator of this tradition was Ahmed bin Abi Hiraasa Bahuli, who related from Ibrahim bin Ishaque, who related from Hemad bin Ishaue Ansari, who quoted from Ibn Sinan and who narrated from Imam Sadiq (A).

This tradition has surprised our respected brethren Abdur Ghaffar but its authenticity was supported by Bukhari in 'Al Adab Al Mufrad', Ibn Majah in his 'Sunan' in the chapter of Merits of Imam Hassan and Imam Hussain (A). Hakim has written about it in his 'Mustadrak' pg 77 and Ahmad Bin Hambal in his 'Musnad' vol 4, pg 172. Apart from these stalwarts, other traditionalists have also narrated it in their books on the authority of Yali Bin Murrah and Jafar Bin Abdullah Ansari that 'Once the Holy Prophet (S) alongwith his companions was going to attend a feast. He saw Imam Husain (A) playing with his friends. The Holy Prophet (S) moved with agility and wanted to hug him. But when Imam Hussain (A) dodged him smilingly. This made the Holy Prophet (S) to laugh with him and be pleased. Finally he caught Imam Hussain (A) and took him in his arms, kissed him and said:

"Hussain is from me and I am from Hussain, Allah likes him who loves Hussain. He is one of my grandsons."

Refutation to the Second Objection

He objects that how come past Prophets (A) mourned and wept for Imam Husain (A) before his martyrdom ?

The cause of this question is that Abdul Gaffar considers Prophets to be like ordinary mortals and thinks that they are unaware of the future happenings. While they are gifted with Divine Knowledge due to which they are aware of future happenings. They used to rejoice at joyous occasions and became sorrowful and uncomfortable at the sad incidents. It has been mentioned in reliable traditions that often Holy Prophet (S) mourned for Imam Hussain (A), which was obviously before his martyrdom.

The well-known scholar of 10th century A H. Allauddin Muttaqi Hindi in his book 'Kanzul Ummal' has quoted Ibn Abi Shaibah, who has related from Umme Salmah, the wife of Holy Prophet (S), that:

"Once Imam Hussain (A) came to Holy Prophet (S) when I was sitting near the door. I saw that Holy Prophet (S) had something in his palm, which was moved by him and weeping profusely. By now Imam Hussain (A) had fallen asleep in his lap. I asked about the matter. He replied: 'Jibreel has brought the sand of the place where Hussain will be martyred and informed me that people of my Ummat will slay him.'" (Kanzul Ummal, vol 2)

The great Sunni scholar of 8th century A H., Hafiz Nuruddin Haithami Shafei has related from Tabrani, who has narrated from Hazrat Aisha that:

"Once Imam Hussain Bin Ali (A) visited Holy Prophet (S), while he was in the middle of a revelation. He climbed on the shoulders of Holy Prophet (S), Jibrael asked from the Holy Prophet (S) that did he love him? The Holy Prophet (S) replied 'How could I not love my son'. Jibrael said: 'Surely your Ummat will kill him after you'. Then he stretched his hand and handed over a white sand to Holy Prophet (S) and said: 'Your son will be killed on this soil. The place is known as Taff.' After the departure of Jibrael, the Holy Prophet (S) came out, he had the same sand in his hand, he was weeping and he said: 'O Ayesha, Jibrael has informed me that my son Hussain will be killed on the land of Taff. My Ummat will pass through test after me.' Then the Holy Prophet (S) went, weeping profusely. Hazrat Ali (A), Hazrat Abu Bakr, Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Abu Zar were present there. When they all inquired about the cause of grief. He replied: "Jibrael has informed me that, after me, my son Hussain will be killed on the land of Taff. He also gave me the sand and said that it is from his grave." (Majmauz Zawaed, vol 9, pg 187)

Hakim Neshapuri has related a tradition from Umme Fazl that once in her dream she saw the Holy Prophet (S), whose limb got cut and fell in her lap. She related the dream to Holy Prophet (S), He replied "You have seen a good dream. InshaAllah, Fatema will give birth to a child and you will upbring him." Umme Fazl said soon after Fatema gave birth to Husain and I brought him up. Once I took him to Holy Prophet (S). When the Holy Prophet (S) looked at me, his eyes were brimming with tears. When I inquired about the cause of tears. He replied: "Jibrael had come to me and told me that after me, my Ummat will kill my son." I asked "Will it be this son?" He replied in the affirmative. Jibrael also brought reddish sand for me." (Mustadrak Hakim, vol 3, pg 176)

Are not these three traditions enough to prove that Prophets, and Holy Prophet (S) in particular, due to Divinely gifted knowledge were well-aware of the martyrdom of Imam Husain (A). They were aggrieved and mourned for him.

Refutation to the Third Objection

Undoubtedly Namaz, Fasting and Hajj are from the fundamental principles of Islam and none of the Muslim can repudiate it. But what about those things which are regarded as a matter of belief and related to the emotional feelings like the Oneness of Allah, Prophethood of Hazrat Mohammed (S) or for that matter love of Allah, His Prophet and Ahlul-Bayt. Are not these things also among the obligatory deeds. Are not these things higher than obligatory deeds of Islam? Qur'an and traditions bear testimony to the fact that faith has precedence upon deed. The pre requisite for acceptance of a virtue is correct belief. Belief in Allah and Prophet, Resurrection, avoidance of polytheism and disbelief, enmity with the enemies of Islam, love of Allah, Prophet Mohammed (S) and his Ahlul-Bayt are in fact total and absolute belief. Good deed leads to perfection and elevation of faith. Allauddin Muttaqi Hindi, a great Sunni scholar has recorded a tradition in his book 'Kanzul Ummal' from a great Sunni traditionalist and historian Ibne Asakir that Hazrat Ali (A) related from Holy Prophet (S) who said:

"O Ali! Islam is bare naked, it is covered by piety, its dress is guidance, its adornment is shame, its pillar is abstinence and its base is good deeds. The foundation of Islam is my love and love for myAhlul-Bayt." (Kanzul Ummal, vol 13, pg 90 and vol 6, pg 218)

Imamul Mohaddesin Ahmed Bin Hambal has related a tradition from Holy Prophet (S) in which he addressed his cousin Mutallib Bin Rabiah:

"By Allah faith will not enter any Muslim's heart unless for the sake of maintaining contact with me and he loves my Ahlul-Bayt (A)." (Musnad Ahmed, vol 3, pg 201)

The great traditionalist Hafiz Jalaluddin Suyuti has recorded from Tabrani that the Holy Prophet (S) said:

"Maintain love of my Ahlul-Bayt. Meet Allah in such a way that you maintain love with us. He will enter into paradise by our intercession. I swear by the One who holds my life in His hands that no deed will be accepted unless we Ahlul-Bayt approve of it." (Ahyaul Mayyit, Tradition No 18)

Hence if Namaz, Fasting, Zakat and Hajj are compulsory acts of Islam then the base of these acts is veritable faith and belief, which includes love of Ahlul-Bayt. Since Imam Hussain (A) is very much from Ahlul-Bayt, heartly attachment and love for him according to authentic tradition forms an indispensable condition for the veritability of faith. At this juncture a question arises that if by Qur'anic injunction and religious instruction someone loves Imam Hussain (A) from the depth of heart then is it possible that he will remain unmoved at his calamity and he will not express grief for him?

Therefore, we say that if Namaz, Fasting, Hajj and Zakat are pillars of Islam and its establishment are intact eternity of Islam. Then it is amply proved by traditions that love of Ahlul-Bayt and love of Imam Hussain (A) and mourning on him, which is an offshoot of love of Ahlul-Bayt, is the foundation of Islam. Its establishment is a pre-condition for establishing Islam.

Refutation to the Fourth Objection

The reply to this objection becomes evident from the earlier reply though. Allah, the Almighty, says in Qur'an:

"O Prophet say that I do not ask of you any reward except the love for my kindred" (Shura: 22).

Hence according to this verse love of Prophet (S), Ahlul-Bayt and Imam Hussain (A) is compulsory. And the best expression of love is to be pleased in the happiness of the beloved and to express grief at his sorrow. Hence mourning on Imam Hussain (A) for Muslims who believe in this Qur'anic verse is compulsory.

Factually speaking, it is highly surprising how can a Muslim dare to differ from clear injunctions of Qur'an and traditions and opine that act which is a part of belief is forbidden. It is really astonishing that how will this man face the Holy Prophet (S) and his Ahlul-Bayt on Qiyamat and how will he expect their intercession.

Is not there the story of Hazrat Yaqub (A) in Qur'an? Who wept at the separation of his son Hazrat Yusuf (A) for an age. So much so that he was blinded. While Hazrat Yusuf was not tormented by thirst, nor was he brutally killed, neither his sons were killed in his arms, his corpse was not trampled under the hoods of the horses, his tent was not set ablaze and even his women folk were not made captive.

 What you suggest that while following the practice of Hazrat Yaqub (A) how much shall we mourn?

Before the event of Karbala the Holy Prophet (S) often mourned for Imam Hussain (A). After the demise of Holy Prophet (S), Janabe Fatema (A) mourned for him so much that according to the narration of Ibne Sa'ad she was not seen smiling even for a day. Imam Zainul Abedeen (A) mourned for his father for his entire lifetime. Whenever a sheep was slaughtered and its head separated he used to say:

"My father's head was chopped off in the same manner. The son of the Prophet was slain in this way."

Now we seek a reply from Janab Abdul Gaffar - why should we stop mourning and expressing grief on Imam Hussain (A) which is an Islamic principle, and a Sunnat of Holy Prophet (S). In the end we request Janab Abdul Gaffarthat about any religious matter unless he does not make impartial study and investigations he should not pursue the matter blindly otherwise his actions will be nothing but plain waste. We also suggest that he should refer some of the Sunni books like Maqtal-al-Husain by Mowaffeq Bin Ahmad Khwarizmi Hanafi, Qurratul Ain fil Baka Alal Husain by Mohammed Mobin Tanava Hanafi, Sawadul Ain fi Rethail Husain by Abu Bakr Hadrami Shafei, Fasle TarjamatuI Imam Al Husain Az Tarikhe Damishq by Ibn Asakir and such other books and compilations. And he should accept the religious factuality of Imam Hussain (A) and cease associating with the enemies of Islam thus causing a rift in the unity of the Muslims. He should know that some of the most difficult stages on the Day of Qiyamat will be giving explanation of such verdicts and rulings which a man makes inadvertently. There are such traditions in Sihahe Sitta where it is mentioned that on the Day of Quiyamat angels will bring some companions to the Fountain of Kausar and they will turned away because they did not fulfil their rights towards Holy Prophet (S).

The Aims and Objectives of Imam Hussain's Stand

What was the course of Imam Hussain's (A) revolution? What reasons prompted him to initiate such a great and unmatched upspring? Did he intended to overthrow the Yazid regime? Did he wish to end the Umayyid dynasty? These and such other questions keep cropping in the mind and everyone wants to know the satisfactory replies, specially the mourner of Imam Hussain (A) are more eager in this regard.

When Imam Hussain (A) was preparing to leave on his longest journey, he bid adieu to the grave of his grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S.AW). Then he wrote a legacy addressing his brother Mohammed Bin Hanafiyyah in which he explained the aims and objectives of his uprising. We are quoting an extract from the same legacy hereunder.

 He wrote thus:

"And surely the aim of my stand is not inspired by vain exultation and it is also not for the quest of kingdom, Neither it is to cause dissension and corruption nor it is to wrong anybody unjustly."

These sentences of Imam Hussain (A) are sufficient enough to beat all the criticisms and accusation leveled against him by the enemies of Islam and the enemies of Imam Hussain (A).) Now the question arises if these were not the motives of Imam's uprising than why did he took stand? What were the aims of his uprising? Thus continued Imam Hussain (A)

"The purpose of my stand is the reformation of my grandfather's nation. I intend to enjoin goodness and forbid evil. I want to emulate my grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S)and my father Alt Bin Abu Talib (A). Whosoever accepts me by accepting the truth, then Allah is higher than the truth. And whosoever rejects me then I will bear patiently until Allah adjudges between me and them and He is the best Judge."

In this legacy the chief of martyrs has explained three purposes for his stand:

The reformation of his grandfather's nation
Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil
Renewal and Revival of the tradition of the Holy Prophet (S) and Imam Ali (A)

These purposes are not different than each other rather these are complementary to each other because, nation can be reformed only by means of bidding good and forbidding evil. The tradition and path of the Holy Prophet (S) and Imam Ali (A) is goodness and anything other than that is evil. Some facts are stated by Imam Husain (A) in his other sermons and letters but in other words. When he reached Mecca he wrote a letter to the people of Basra thus;

"I invite you towards the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S) because indeed Sunnah has been mutilated and hereby is revived. Whoever will accept my words, then I will guide him towards the straight path". (Tarikhe-Tabari vol.7, pg.240)

In another letter to the people of Kufa he wrote thus:

"By God, Imam is the one who acts on the commands of the Book, deals with Justice, followed the truth and reserves his self for the pleasure of Allah."

These words of Imam imply that only he can be an Imam who possesses these characteristics and the one who does not possess them cannot be an Imam. Hence Yazid Bin Muawiyah has had no right to the caliphate. When he reached at 'Baiza', a place near Karbala and was besieged by the contingent of Hur, then he addressed his men and the army of Hur in these words:

"The one who sees a tyrant King who is making unlawful as lawful, violating the pledge (of God), opposing the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (S) ruling on the servant of Allah with sins and oppression. And by his words and actions does not oppose the King and does not strive to reform the circumstances, then it behooves Allah to hurl him into Hell along with the King."

Then he continued about the Yazidi regime thus:

"They have shun the obedience of Allah and acted following Shaitan. They are instigating commotion and dismissing the divine laws. They are expending from the public exchequer for their selfish end and are changing the prohibited things to permissible thing."

In the first sermon at Karbala he spoke thus:

"Can't you see that the truth is not followed and the falsehood is not shunned.? In such circumstances a believer should desire to meet Allah. Surely I regard death as nothing but an honour and life with Oppressors as anything but disgrace." Tarikhe-Tabari, vol.-7pg.300)

Nevertheless the unique and unparalleled revolution of Imam Hussain (A) which began in Rajab 60 AH. and apparently ended with the glorious martyrdom of Imam Hussain (A), his kith, kin and companions was not in vain. The purpose of this revolution was to revive and rejuvenate Islam (which was distorted and Yazidi regime wanted to annihilate it), and also to reform the nation of the Holy Prophet (S). Some of the Sunni Traditionalists have added a phrase of 'and on the path of Khulafa Rashedeen'. It is an addition made in the reign of Umayyid dynasty because the term 'Khulafa-Rashedeen' was coined by the Historians and Scholastic Theologians of that time and this term was not in use at the time of Imam Hussain (A).

Moreover, Imam Hussain (A) was critical about the behavioural pattern of the caliphs, then how he could have desired to follow their paths ?

Why Shia do Matam and self flaggellation?

Mourning rituals and self harm as found in the Qur'an
We read in Surah Nisa 004.148
YUSUFALI: Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done; for Allah is He who heareth and knoweth all things.

We read in Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 2 page 20 Surah Nisa, under the commentary of this verse:

"Ali bin Abi Talib(a.s) said that Ibn Abbas commented on the Ayah and said,

“Allah does not like that the evil should be uttered in public, He does not like that any one should invoke Him against anyone else, unless one is wronged. In this case, Allah allows one to invoke Him against whoever wronged him. Hence Allah's statement Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done'"

Shia Muslim mourning Imam Hussain

This verse makes it clear that the public relaying of injustice is permissible. Relaying the suffering of a victim is permissible. The traditions from Bukhari also proves that mourning is permissible when one is citing the pains inflicted on the aggrieved party hence any tradition that contradicts this must be ignored.

Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 2, Book 23, Number 336 :

Narrated by Jabir bin 'Abdullah
When my father was martyred, I lifted the sheet from his face and wept and the people forbade me to do so but the Prophet did not forbid me. Then my aunt Fatima began weeping and the Prophet said, "It is all the same whether you weep or not. The angels were shading him continuously with their wings till you shifted him (from the field). "

Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 2, Book 23, Number 390 :

Narrated by Anas bin Malik
We went with Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) to the blacksmith Abu Saif, and he was the husband of the wet-nurse of Ibrahim (the son of the Prophet). Allah's Apostle took Ibrahim and kissed him and smelled him and later we entered Abu Saif's house and at that time Ibrahim was in his last breaths, and the eyes of Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) started shedding tears. 'Abdur Rahman bin 'Auf said, "O Allah's Apostle, even you are weeping!" He said, "O Ibn 'Auf, this is mercy." Then he wept more and said, "The eyes are shedding tears and the heart is grieved, and we will not say except what pleases our Lord, O Ibrahim ! Indeed we are grieved by your separation."

Sahih Bukhari ,Volume 2, Book 23, Number 338 :

Narrated by Anas bin Malik
The Prophet said, "Zaid took over the flag and was martyred. Then it was taken by Jafar who was martyred as well. Then 'Abdullah bin Rawaha took the flag but he too was martyred and at that time the eyes of Allah's Apostle were full of tears.

We Shias perform all these acts as Allah (swt) has permitted us to do so, and the opposition is only on account for their love and support for Imam Husayn (as)’s killers.

Mourning and shedding blood is the Sunnah of Prophet Adam (as)

The Hanafi Fiqh deems Yazeed to be the Sixth Khalifa of Rasulullah (s)

As Shi'a we believe that our 12 Imams were Rasulullah (s)'s legitimate successors, appointed by Allah (swt). We deem Imam Hussain (as) to be the third in the chain.

 As part of the proof from Sunni traditions we cite hadith such as this:

"The Islamic religion will continue, until the hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by 12 Caliphs, all of them being from Quraish"
Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid SiddiquiSharh Fiqh Akbar by Mulla 'Ali Qari is the Hanafi Book of aqaid.

On the very first page it is stated that the book sets out the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. So there is no room for the Nasibi to make the excuse that this is JUST a viewpoint. Everything set out in this book is the aqeedah of Hanafi Sunni Muslims. Mulla Ali Qari sets out who the 12 khalifas are:

Abu Bakr

Umar

Uthman

Ali

Mu'awiya

Yazeed

Abdul Malik bin Marwan

Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan

Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan

Umar bin Abdul Aziz

Yazeed bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan

Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan 

References: Sharah Fiqah Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, p 176 (publishers Muhammad Saeed and son, Qur'an Muhalla)]"

 Sharah Fiqha Akbar, by Mulla Ali Qari, page 70 (published by Qadeemy Kutub Khana, Aram Bagh, Karachi)

It would be quite appropriate to ask why Imam Hasan (as) is missing from this list? Do the Ahl'ul Sunnah not deem him to be a Khalifa? If so then why does this book of Hanafi fiqh remove his name from the list?

Of course remaining faithful to Hanafi aqeedah, later Sunni Ulema have defined this hadith in the same way. We now present Siratun Nabi by Allamah Shibli Numani and Syed Sulaiman Nadvi.

Sufficient as to its rank are the words of the Sunni scholar Muhammad Atiqul Haque in his "Heroes of Islam":

"Sirat an Nabi is a unique book on the life of the Prophet and is acclaimed as one of the best books in the world. He wrote only four volumes of this book and the remaining four volumes were written by his disciple, Syed Sulayman Nadvi". (p130)

These are Nadvi and Numani's comments taken from Volume 3 page 380:

"In Sahih Muslim Kitab ul Imara Rasulullah (s) said, This Islamic Government would last until it has been ruled over by 12 people. This Rulership will not end until these 12 Rulers are at the helm of the State. Islam will be "protected and respectable" (the Urdu says Mahfooz aur muazziz) during their reigns. Abu Daud in Kitab al Mahdi records these words "The Deen will remain intact as long as 12 people have ruled it and the Ummah will recognize them". Among the scholars of Ahle Sunah Qadi Iyad explains these words (of Abu Daud) 'Among all khalifas these 12 khalifas who aided Islam were pious', Hafidh Ibn Hajar counts the following as Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu'awiya, Yazeed, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazeed bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan"
 Sirat un Nabi, (Urdu) Volume 3 page 380 published in Lahore

Writing on the 12 Khalifa hadith modern day Hanafi scholar, Hakeem Mahmood Ahmad Zafar Sialkoti, on page 261 of his book (Urdu) "Sayyadina Mu'awiya (ra), Shukhsiat aur kirdhaar", states:

"These 12 khalifas are good natured, pious men and in their reigns Islam shall be protected and respectable, their reigns shall be in accordance with the Qur'an and Sunnah and in their reign the rule of justice shall be apparent. Mulla Ali Qari put forward these 12 as "Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Mu'awiya, Yazeed, Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Umar bin Abdul Aziz, Yazeed bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan, Hasham bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan "

Sharra Fiqa Akbar page 184; Fathul Bari Volume 3 page 182) According to Mulla Ali Qari's above statements its quite evident that Mu'awiya is a Rightly Guided Khalifa".

By the same token, Yazeed is also a rightly guided khalifa since he describes the twelve as rightly guided, ruling by the Qur'an and Sunnah.

We have already proven in our posts that the vast bulk of the Shi'a had been exterminated. If (as you assert) the Shi'as were responsible for killing Imam Hussain (as) then why did the majority Ahl' ul Sunnah not come to his aid? After all they were in the majority, there were millions of such individuals, what was their position at that time? Did the Ahl'ul Sunnah side with Imam Hussain (as) and support him OR were they with Yazeed? This is something that Ansar have no answer to, whilst they will assert that it was not mandatory to support Imam Hussain (as), the words of Rasulullah (s) prove otherwise…

It was incumbent upon ALL Muslims to support Imam Hussain (as)

Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah al Hafidh Jalaladun Suyuti records this tradition in Khasais al Kubra, on tha authority of Sahaba Uns bin Harith:

"I heard Rasulullah (s) say 'Verily my son [Hussain] will be killed in a land called Kerbala, whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him".
Khasais al Kubra Volume 2 page 125 (Maktaba Nurree Rizvi Publishers, Pakistan

So tell us:

Did those that you deem as Salaf (Sahaba and Tabieen) take heed of this hadith and support Imam Hussain (as)?

Did your lead figure Abdullah Ibn Umar come to the aid of Imam Hussain (as)?

If the duty was to pledge support to Imam Hussain (as) then why did the Salaf pledge loyalty to Yazeed, and continue to support him - even after Kerbala?

Ibn Umar's unwavering support for Yazeed was such, that he declared that one who leaves Yazeed "there will be separation between him and me" -. Rasulullah (s) stated that it was incumbent to support Imam Hussain (as). Whose words do Ahl'ul Sunnah attribute greater credence to, Ibn Umar or Rasulullah (s)?

The harsh reality those who would today be deemed Ahl'ul Sunnah (the majority) at that time had given bayya to Yazeed and gave him vocal and physical support. That is why even today they deem the killers of Hussain (as) to be men of truth and Yazeed's Khilafath to be rightful. If they can prove otherwise we challenge to refute our claim.

Did the tragedy of Karbala highlight the Shi'a / Sunni schism?

The difference between the two concepts of Imamate.

Those that deemed the station of Imamate to be man appointed and than it was based on ijma. This school of thought developed into what is today Ahl'ul Sunnah.

Those that deemed the station to be based on the appointment of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) a school today deemed Shi'a Ithna Ashari.

On the one side we head the Imam of the people [ie. The Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah] and on the other side was the Imam appointed by Allah (swt) - the Imam of the Shi'a. As Shi'a we reject the claim that Yazeed was a legitimate khalifa, rather we make it clear that a fasiq can not occupy the position of Khalifa of Rasulullah (s). Hence we believe that the duty was to support Imam Hussain (as) as we deem him to be the legitimate Khalifa of Rasulullah (s).

 This automatically places us at logger heads with Ahl'ul Sunnah who believe that:

1)Appointment of the Khalifa is the based on the ijm'a of the public.

2) Once bayya is given the Khalifa rule is legitimate.

3)Once bayya is given it is incumbent upon the people to support the Khalifa

In accordance with these principles the Ahl'ul Sunnah deem Yazeed to be the legitimate Khalifa of the time, and that it was incumbent upon the people to support him by any means necessary. The struggle was indeed a battle of two concepts and can be deemed to be a struggle between Sunni / Shi'a viewpoints on Imamate.

Ahl'ul Sunnah deem Yazeed to be the legitimate Khalifa of Rasulullah (s)

Nasibi writer Abu Sulaiman gave a glowing endorsement of Yazeed's legitimate right to rule in his article on Mu'awiya, stating:

 

Mu'awiyah was eager for people's agreement to give allegiance to his son Yazeed. He resolved to take allegiance to Yazeed as a crown prince. So he consulted the grandest companions, the masters of the people and the district's governors. They all accepted. Delegations from the districts came with acceptance to give allegiance to Yazeed. Many Companions gave him the allegiance as well. Al-Hafedh Abdul ghani Al-Maqdisay says: "His (Yazeed's) caliphate is rightful, sixty of the companions of the prophet peace be upon him gave him the allegiance. Ibn Umar was one of them." [Qayd Al-Shareed min Akhbar Yazeed, by Ibn Khaldoun, p.70] 

 

This is an interesting fact since according to Ahl'ul Sunnah aqeedah opposition to the rightful Imam constitutes rebellion - by relying on this fatwa taken from Nasibi Ibn Khaldun's work Ansar are covertly indicating that Imam Hussain (as) was a baghi (Allah forbid) as he opposed the rightful khalifa. Are actual Sunnis content with this type of thinking, one that endorses Yazeed's right to rule and in effect makes Imam Hussain (as) a baghi?

This endorsement is further attested in Sahih al Bukhari. After the event of Harra, Ibn Umar reaffirmed his undying loyalty to Yazeed:

Narrated Nafi':

When the people of Medina dethroned Yazeed bin Muawiya, Ibn 'Umar gathered his special friends and children and said, "I heard the Prophet saying, 'A flag will be fixed for every betrayer on the Day of Resurrection,' and we have given the oath of allegiance to this person (Yazeed) in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle and I do not know of anything more faithless than fighting a person who has been given the oath of allegiance in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle , and if ever I learn that any person among you has agreed to dethrone Yazeed, by giving the oath of allegiance (to somebody else) then there will be separation between him and me."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 88, Number 227

So in the eyes of Abdullah ibne Umar the bayya of Yazeed that Imam Hussain (as) opposed was "in accordance with the conditions enjoined by Allah and His Apostle" i.e. Completely legitimate, and breaking the Jamaah would lead to individuals being raised as betrayers on the Day of Judgement.

He gave bayya to Yazeed and yet the Ahl'ul Sunnah deem Ibn Umar to be a high authority figure! The son of Khalifa of Ahlul Sunnah Umar bin Khattab deemed the Khilafath of Yazeed to be rightful and deemed his obedience to be on par with obedience with Allah and His Rasul!

Abdullah bin Umar was no ordinary person the leading texts of Ahl'ul Sunnah inform us that he was one of the advisers to the Shura committee that had been established to choose the successor to Umar.

This tradition in al Bukhari clearly eludes to the fact that in Madina the people were seeking to turn their backs on Yazeed. Seeing such opposition Ibn Umar was advocating the religious duty to remain loyal to the Imam of the Jamaah - to Yazeed so much so that Ibn Umar was reconfirming Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa and that the duty was to obey him failure do so was such a sin that the perpetrator would be raised as a betrayer on the Day of Judgement. Ibn Umar warned against abandoning Yazeed and revoking Bayya - whoever separates from Yazeed "there will be separation between him and me".

Tell us , was Ibne Umar a follower of Shi'a Madhab or an adherent what in this day and age is deemed Ahl'ul Sunnah?

There is no doubting that Ibn Umar adhered to the faith which developed in to Ahl'ul Sunnah. This fact leaves actual 'Sunnis' with a somewhat difficult choice, you either you distance yourself from Ibn Umar or accept Yazeed as the rightful Khalifa. Clearly for Nasibis  they have no qualms in affiliating themselves with Ibn Umar's fatwa and they proudly declare:

 

"It is proven in Saheeh Bukhari that Ibn Umar gave allegiance to Yazeed" 

It clear that the killers of Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful Khalifa, so which religion did they adhere to? Yazeed's supporters were those that deemed Yazeed to be the rightful khalifa over the Ummah as is proven from Al Bukhari. Clearly Ibn Umar can never be deemed to have adhered to the Shi'a Madhab. He is the leading authority of Ahl'ul Sunnah, in fact is one of their key narrators of Hadith.