Did Shias Kill Imam Hussain(a.s) ?

It has being part and parcel of postmodern nasibi propaganda to insist that the ancestors of the shi’a were a treacherous people that consistently abandoned imam ali^(a.s), imam hassan^(a.s), imam hussain and the remainder ahl-ul-bait imams^(a.s) and in some cases killed them. They seek to corroborate their claims by citing unknown texts by unknown authors as a mechanism for duping ordinary unsuspecting muslims that do not possess a strong background on islamic history. The shameless people lack the capability to direct these foolish allegations to us, the shi’a of ahl-ul-bait^(a.s) directly because as they are fully aware that the definition of the term shi’a did not carry same meaning back then as it does today.

This was an all-encompassing term that referred to everyone including those who are called sunnis today. The reality is the term shi’a was not a homogenous term, and essentially incorporated the affiliates of ali^(a.s) with differing political and religious views.

We have therefore from this point on sought to distinguish the key groupings as follows:

The minority shi’a that believed that ali^(a.s) had a divine mandate to rule as he had been appointed as caliph by the prophet^(s.a.w.w)—(shi’a al-khasa)

The majority shi’a that believed that ali^(a.s) had the legal mandate to rule as he had been appointed as fourth caliph by the ummah, like the earlier caliphs—(aama)

.

With this fact in mind, the real question that should be addressed is:

Which segment of what made up the generic term shi’a perpetrated these heinous actions that today’s nawasib attribute to today’s shi’a imami (twelver) sect?

.

The famous anti-shi’a writer muhaddith shah abdul aziz dehalvi substantiates our claim by conceding that in the early days the term shi’a was a generic one that incorporated everyone:

“it should be known that the first shi’as [who are the sunnis and the tafdiliyyah] were known in the old days as shi’as. When the ghulat and the rawafid zaydiyyah and ismailiyyah took the name for themselves, sunnis and tafdiliyyah did not like this name for them and so hence adopted the name of ahlu’s-sunnah wa’l jamaah.”

Tauhfa athna ashari…urdu…page 16…published in karachi

.

The twelver imami shi’a were called rafidhi[rejectors] back in those days. The term shi’a means ‘a group’ or ‘helpers’ or ‘followers’. Since the people of kufa supported imam ali^(a.s) during the battle of jamal and siffeen, their political affiliation placed them in the grouping of the shi’as[followers] of ali^(a.s). It was again, a political term used for the helpers of ali^(a.s) or group of ali^(a.s). Similarly the opposing army i.e; the army of muawiyah(l) was called the shi’as of muawiyah(l) or shi’as of uthman(l).

.

The word shi’a was used for these two groups for pure political reasons and the same term also referred to those that adhered to the teachings of ahl-ul-bait^(a.s) and attested to their status as the rightful imams that succeeded the holy prophet^(s.a.w.w). It was these religiously affiliated shi’as that are known as imamia or twelvers or imami shi’a today.

.

The twelver shi’a never accepted the caliphate of abu bakr(l), umar(l) and uthman(l) unlike the political shi’a mentioned above who upheld their caliphs as rightful, it was this group that emerged into what is termed in this day and age ahl-e-sunnah or sunnis.

.

The term shi’a was used for:

• Everyone that joined imam ali^(a.s)’s forces against muawiyah(l) at siffeen.
• Those that considered imam ali^(a.s) to be on the right path in this dispute.

These same individuals deemed the caliphate of the shaykhain to be legitimate whilst the imami or twelvers were called rafidhi by their opponents.

.

The nawasib unlike the twelver shi’as refuse to accept the existence of political shi’as during that era. Their stubbornness is curious, especially since the existence of political shi’as is an established fact. Their refusal to acknowledge the existence of political shi’as during that era is because to do so would debase their false claims and propaganda wherein they have insisted that the shi’as killed imam hussain^(a.s).

.

This admission would unhinge centuries of efforts, motivated by their hatred of acknowledging historical facts they deem it imperative to hide this reality.

.

We will now prove that the political shi’as existence at the embryonic stage can be dated to the era of imam ali^(a.s) and continued its life during the immediate centuries that followed.

.

Al muhaddith shah abdul aziz dehalvi states as follows:

“the title shi’a was first given to those muhajireen and ansar who gave allegiance [bay'ah] to ali^(a.s). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his caliphate. They remained close to him; they always fought his enemies, and kept on following ali^(a.s)‘s commands and prohibitions. The true shi’a are these who came in 37 hijri”

Tauhfa athna ashari…urdu…page 27…published in karachi

(37 hijri -the year imam ali^(a.s) fought muawiyah(l) at siffin)

.

The ahle sunnah scholars have acknowledged the existence of political shi’as over several centuries whilst today’s nawasib continue to peddle the same lie that the kufis were imamis or twever shi’as, the scholars of ahle sunnah have made it abundantly clear in their writings that the term shi’a back did not carry the same connotation that it does today.

.

Mizan al-eitidal… imam al-dhahabi…vol. 3…page 552

‘yes, most of the syrian populations from the days of [battle of] siffeen rejected the caliphate of amir-al-momineen ali^(a.s) and considered themselves and their ancestors righteous for doing so. The kufans likewise deviated from uthman(l) and loved ali^(a.s) over him because their ancestors were the shi’as and helpers whilst we [the ahl-e-sunnah] love all four of the caliphs. There was also a third group of shi’as in iraq who loved both ali^(a.s) and uthman(l) but still preferred ali^(a.s) over uthman(l) and had an extreme dislike of those that fought ali^(a.s) at the same time they would supplicate, asking forgiveness of those that fought ali^(a.s). This was a softer version of shi’a.’

.

Tahdeeb al-tahdeeb… imam ibn hajar asqalani…vol. 1…page 82

“according to the early scholars, shi’a meant to have faith on ali^(a.s) having preference over uthman(l)….although they preferred the shaykhayn over them [uthman(l) and ali^(a.s)].”

.

Thus, if we summarise the above writings of al-dhahabi and ibn hajar we learn that:

1). The shi’as of kufa accepted the caliphate of the shaykhayn [abu bakr(l) and umar(l)].

2). There were a group of kufan shi’as that rejected the caliphate of uthman(l) bin affan in the same manner that the people of syria rejected the caliphate of ali^(a.s).

3). Another group of kufan shi’a had a soft heart towards uthman(l) bin affan but still preferred ali^(a.s) over him. This particular group of kufan shi’as not only believed in the caliphate of the first three caliphs but also prayed for forgiveness of all of those who fought against ali^(a.s) such as ayesha, talha, zubair, muawiyah(l) etc.

.

These were therefore the beliefs of the politicized kufan shi’a and this reality completely debases the propaganda of the nawasib. It is fascinating that today’s sunnis and nawasib follow those ulema that fell under the ambit of political shi’a and rely on their works, but despite their political leanings they are categorised as ahl-e-sunnah.

.

The only difference is during their lifetimes they preferred ali^(a.s) over uthman(l).

.

Among such scholars is the famed scholar of tafsir imam sufyan thawri (d. 161 h). Writing about him allamah imtiaz ali al-arishi writes:  

“back in those days the term shi’a was exclusively used for those who preferred ali^(a.s) over uthman(l) and we cannot rule out the possibility that thawri preferred ali^(a.s) over uthman(l).”

.

Up until now we only discussed the ordinary shi’as political groups that were thought to have different opinions about the four caliphs but what is interesting is that apart from ordinary shi’as, al-dhahabi also mentioned that those who were called ghulat shi’a [extremist shi’as] had beliefs that differed to the ghulat of later times. He mentions in his book mizan al-eitidal…vol. 1…page 6:

“in those days [the early centuries of islam] ghulat shi’a were those that identified faults and abuses uthman(l), talha, zubair, muawiyah(l) and all those that fought against ali^(a.s). They did not hold a good opinion about them. But nowadays ghulat are those that issue takfeer against the above high ranking personalities and disassociate themselves from the shaykhayn.”

.

Having cited the above facts, what evidence does ibn al hashimi have to describe the aaama shi’as of kufa as the imami or twelver or khasa shi’as and then blame them for the crimes committed by the aaama?

.

Whilst allah^(s.w.t) has commanded us in his glorious book not to commit injustice due to enmity of a certain nation such commands are for muslims and it is down to these cyber takfeeris to decide if they wish to be counted as such.

.

Before we can take a detailed look at imam hussain^(a.s) and the role of the political shi’as in kufa during his era, it is important that we also look at the political kufan shi’a from the era of his father^(a.s).

.

After the murder of umar(l), the people of medina presented the caliphate to imam ali^(a.s) on the caveat that he rules according to the qur’an, the sunnah of the prophet^(s.a.w.w) and the path of the shaykhain [abu bakr(l) and umar(l)].

Sharh fiqh akbar…page 66

.

Ali^(a.s) bin abi-talib^(a.s) refused to accept the requirement that he adhere to the path of the shaykhain and hence the caliphate was given to uthman(l) bin affan as he agreed to it. When uthman(l) bin affan started to appoint wicked, opportunistic secular umawi governors over iraq the iraqis rebelled and from the same city of kufa, an army of men gathered to murder uthman(l) bin affan because he was not following the sunnah of shaykhain [abu bakr(l) and umar(l)]. That evidences that the kufans in these ranks attested to the caliphate of the shaykhain that justified their rising against him. Like the kufans large opposition also came from egypt and basra to murder uthman(l) for the very same reason.

.

Those sahaba and tabi’een that took the oath of allegiance for ali^(a.s) bin abi talib^(a.s)’s caliphate, also believed in the caliphate of the shaykhain. These were the same sahaba and tabi’een from medina that fought under the banner of ali^(a.s) in the battle of jamal and subsequently moved to kufa so that they could fight against muawiyah(l). These sahaba and tab’een were called the shi’as of ali^(a.s) throughout that era.

.

The battle of siffin occurred following the oath of allegiance to ali^(a.s). The army of ali^(a.s) was also defined within the political terminology of shi’as of ali^(a.s). When this was an era of intense fitnah, war and upheaval how could imam ali^(a.s)successfully convert all these political shi’as into twelver imami shi’as?

.

It were these same political shi’as [believers in shaykhain] that turned against imam ali^(a.s) when he was about to achieve victory over muawiyah(l) and forced him to call back malik ashtar [a staunch believer in ali^(a.s)’s cause] from the battle or else they would murder ali^(a.s) bin abi talib^(a.s) themselves.

.

Another group from amongst the same political shi’as [believers in the shaykhain]-turned totally against imam ali^(a.s) at tahkeem and displayed a willingness to fight him.

.

Recounting the betrayal of same political shi’as, imam ali^(a.s) mentions in one of his sermons in nahajul balagah :

“till yesterday i was giving orders but today i am being given orders, and till yesterday i was dissuading people [from wrong acts] but today i am being dissuaded.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 208

.

Addressing the same kufans imam ali^(a.s) bin abi talib^(a.s) says :

“o’ group of people who do not obey when i order and do not respond when i call you.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 180

.

At another instance imam ali^(a.s) bin abi talib^(a.s) tells the kufans:

I was sitting when sleep overtook me. I saw the prophet^(s.a.w.w) appear before me, and i said: “o’ prophet of allah ! What crookedness and enmity i had to face from the people.” The prophet^(s.a.w.w) said: “invoke (allah) evil upon them.” But i said, “allah may change them for me with better ones and change me for them with a worse one.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 70

.

Ali^(a.s) mentions in another sermon:

“by allah^(s.w.t)! I did not come to you of my own accord. I came to you by force of circumstances. I have come to know that you say ali^(a.s) speaks lie. May allah^(s.w.t) fight you! Against whom do i speak lie?” Nahajul balagah…sermon 71

.

So this was a short history of the political shi’as of kufa who previously believed in the caliphates of the shaykhain during the reign of imam ali^(a.s). The real problem is that today’s deceitful nawasib want to distort the real history of islam and present those political shi’as as being the ancestors of the twelver imami shi’as and wish to apportion blame to them for the actions of these political shias.

.

The truth is during that era of upheaval a group of shi’as were loyal to imam ali^(a.s) unconditionally. They included personalities such as ammar yasir^(r.a), malik ashtar nakahi^(r.a) and meesam tammar^(r.a) etc. This group believed that the caliphate of ali^(a.s) was a divine designation.

.

We for example see that after swearing allegiance to imam ali^(a.s) khuzaymah ibn thabit is reported to have said:

“we have elected someone who was chosen for us by the messenger^(s.a.w.w) of allah^(s.w.t).”

Al-mi’yar wa al-muwazanah…abu jaffar al-iskafi [d. 240 h]…page 51

.

This view was also pointed out by ibn abbas^(a.s) to umar(l) who refuted his argument that the quraysh deciding caliphate after abu bakr(l) was legally sound with these words:

“if quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as god did for them, then right would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied”

The history of tabari…vol. 14…english translation…g. Rex smith…page 137-138

.

Darimiyyah hujuniyyah, while describing for mu’awiyah(l) the reasons for favouring maula ali^(a.s) stated:

“i favour ali^(a.s) for his love of the poor, his generosity towards strangers, his religious learning, his sacrificing character and for his having been designated for wilayah by the messenger^(s.a.w.w) of allah^(s.w.t).”

At- wafidat min al-nisa ala muawiyah…abbas bin bakar…page 41

In the history of tabari…vol. 17…page 117 the following incident following the battle of siffin is written:

“when the khawarij had left al-kufah, the companions and supporters [shi’a] of ali^(a.s) came to him and gave him the oath of allegiance. They said ‘we are the friends of those whom you befriend and the enemies of those to whom you show enmity’.”

.

“the common people swore allegiance to ali^(a.s) on the basis of the book and the sunnah and the shi’a of ali^(a.s) on the basis of friendship of his friends and enmity of his enemies.”

Al-mi’yar wa al-muwazanah…abu jaffar al-iskafi…page 194

.

The stress on such an allegiance as a second allegiance in addition to the first one as well as its content points to the beliefs of the shi’a al-khasa who deemed the duty to follow ali^(a.s) a religious obligation as he had the divine mandate to be followed.

.

We showed the different groups of shi’as that resided in kufa at the time of ali^(a.s). Same groups existed at the time of imam hussain^(a.s) and the shi’a al-khasa of kufa helped imam hussain^(a.s) in every way they were able to do so. It were the aaama of kufa who betrayed imam hussain^(a.s) and  fought him. And in the end at the time of zaid^(a.s) ibn ali^(a.s) ibn hussain^(a.s) they changed their name to ahl-e-sunnah. And now some groups among them including nasibis, deobandis, salafis and wahabis are attacking shi’a al-khasa of the crime they committed.