Fasting on the Day of Ashura

By all standards, the day Imam Hussain, the grandson of the beloved Prophet Muhammad, was killed was a great tragedy. Indeed, it was the greatest tragedy. He was martyred, along with his family members, simply because he stood against injustice. The family of Yazeed (the Banu Umayyah) and the family of Ziyad rejoiced the day he was killed. Not only did they celebrate the day of Ashura, but they turned it into a tradition for subsequent years. They would gather their family and friends and rejoice at the martyrdom of Imam Hussain.

While fasting is a great form of worship, we the Shia have valid reservations regarding the fast of Ashura. It is always recommended to fast, anytime throughout the year (except Eid), but the problem is that there is a history of politics behind the fast of Ashura.

Killing the very grandson of the Prophet was a major crime, so Banu Umayya attempted to shift the focus of the people for the day of Ashura. Possessing power and money, they spread to the Muslims that Ashura is a blessed day. They did so by indoctrinating their people that on Ashura God saved Prophet Musa and his people from the pharaoh. He saved Prophet Ibrahim from the fire of Namrud, and so on. To thank God for that blessed day, they encouraged the people to fast on Ashura.

Here are several points that demonstrate how the hadeeths which speak of the fast of Ashura are fabricated. The Prophet probably never said them, but they were forged after him.

First: There are several hadeeths in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Tirmidhi which tell us when the Prophet arrived Medina, he saw the Jews fasting, Upon knowing the reason why they were fasting, he said we the Muslims are closer to Musa, so we should also fast. If you analyze these hadeeths, you will realize that they all go back to these four narrators who supposedly narrated them directly from the Prophet:

1- Ibn Abbas

2- Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari

3- Abu Huraira

4- Mu’awiya

The Prophet came to Medina the first year of the Hijra. As for Ibn Abbas, he was born three years before Hijra, which makes him four years old when the Prophet supposedly said this Hadith. In the Science of Hadith, the narration of a four-year-old boy is generally not accepted.

As for Abu Musa, he came from the tribe of Banu Ash’ar in Yemen. He became Muslim before the Hijra, but he was not seen in Medina till the battle of Khaybar in the seventh year after Hijra. The Prophet had sent him to Yemen to preach to his tribe. Hence, Abu Musa was not in Medina in the first year of Hijra, so how could he possibly narrate this hadith?

As for Abu Huraira, he also was not seen in Medina until after the battle of Khaybar in the seventh year of Hijra. He also came from Yemen.

As for Muawiya, the son of Abu Sufyan, he became Muslim in the eighth year of Hijra, so how could he narrate a hadith from the Prophet seven or eight years before he became Muslim?

Some of the hadeeth go back to Ibn Zubayr, who was also a young boy when the Prophet entered Medina.

Therefore, it is quite clear that all the narrators of this hadith were either not in Medina at the time, or they were young boys, so how can we possibly accept such a hadith? It is pretty convincing that the hadith was forged later on by Bani Umayya.

Second: Let’s look at the word “Ashura” which is mentioned in the hadith. According to Ibn Al-Atheer, there are two meanings to Ashura: an old meaning and a new meaning. The old meaning, which was during the Arab’s time and the Prophet’s time, meant the tenth day of any month. The new meaning surfaced after Imam Hussain was killed on the tenth of Muharram. After that, Ashura came to be known as the tenth of Muharram, but before that it was simply the tenth day of any month. So when the Prophet supposedly said this hadith, he just said Ashura, and he didn’t say the tenth day of which month. This demonstrates that the hadith was forged after the day of Ashura, and it slipped from the mind of the ones who forged it that before Ashura, the word had a different, more general meaning.

Third: Today, go to any Jew, even their scholars, and ask them: Do you have a fast on the day which God saved Moses, or a day which corresponds to the tenth of Muharram? They don’t, and they will tell you that even in the past they didn’t have such a fast. They fast on Yum Kippur, the day when Moses returned from Mt. Sinai and realized that his people were worshipping the calf. To expiate for their sin, they fasted, but they have no fast they day God saved them from the pharaoh. But the hadith in the books of Saheeh tells us that it was a tradition of the Jews, and they would all fast that day.

If you even look at the day the Jews fast, it never corresponded with the tenth of Muharram when the Prophet came to Medina. It corresponded with Muharram on the 28th year after Hijra.

Fourth: It seems the one who forged the hadith was not aware of how the Islamic Calendar originated. During the time of Umar, since Muslims wanted a set date to refer to, he created the Hijri calendar by seeking the advice of Imam Ali. So they decided to make the starting point the migration of the Prophet, and they made the first month Muharram. However, the Prophet entered Medina in Rabi-ul-Awwal, not in Muharram, and so the one who probably forged the hadith assumed that the Prophet entered Medina in Muharram because that is when the calendar starts. So the hadith tells us the Prophet when he first entered Medina he saw the Jews fasting on Ashura, but the Prophet didn’t enter Medina in Muharram, he did so in Rabu-ul-Awwal, ten months before Muharram! There’s a clear discrepancy here.

Fifth: The prophet knows more about the Shariah of previous Prophets such as Prophet Musa, and he doesn’t need the Jews to teach him that. The Prophet is also higher than copying what the Jews would do.

Sixth: How come there is so much emphasis on the fast of Ashura around the world? Thousands of speeches are dedicated to it, millions of pamphlets are distributed encouraging people to fast on Ashura, and so on. There are many other days throughout the year which are highly recommended to fast, such as the 27th of Rajab, but how come you don’t see a single pamphlet or speech encouraging it? This shows that this is a political thing, originally designed to focus the attention away from the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain, and to consider it a blessed day. I don’t know how anyone can stand on the Day of Judgment before Prophet Muhammad and consider the very day his grandson was slaughtered a blessed day.

Thus, based on these reasons we Shia have our reservations on the fast of Ashura. Banu Umayya were behind it, and considering it a blessed day is not an offence to us the Shia, but an offence to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and his family.

-Syed Baqir Al Qazwini

Do Shias exaggerate the reward for Ziyarah of Imam Husain (a.s.)?

Some Muslims accuse the Shias of fabricating traditions regarding the ziyaarah of Imam Husain (a.s.), the Chief of Martyrs. They claim traditions that consider ziyaarah of Imam Husain (a.s.) equal to visiting Allah on His Throne (Arsh) and equal to hundreds of Hajj and Umrah are an exaggeration and are not supported by the Holy Quran or the intellect.

Reply

Such objections only show the dissenting party’s poor knowledge of Allah’s Book and the correct Sunnah. Let alone Imam Husain’s (a.s.) ziyarah, even simple acts of goodness can earn the reward of meeting Allah.

In Surah Kahf (18): Verse 110, Allah the Almighty declares:

فَمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو لِقَاء رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا وَلَا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا

“…therefore whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord.”

Performing good deeds is rewarded with meeting the Lord (لِقَاء رَبِّهِ). The good deed can be any one of the hundreds of good deeds defined by the Holy Quran and the correct Sunnah. It can be as basic as spending a dirham in the way of Allah the High.

Then why is it surprising if the ziyarah of Imam Husain (a.s.) is rewarded with meeting Allah on the Arsh? It must be noted over here that mention of Arsh in the tradition does not restrict Allah to a position; it underlines His magnificence and splendor and the importance of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) visitor.

Moreover, there are traditions which give so much importance to a believer (momin) that it boggles the mind. For instance:

‘The heart of a believer is Allah’s (Rahmaan) Arsh. When a believer’s heart is disturbed, it shakes the foundation of the Arsh.’

• Behaar al-Anwaar vol.. 55 p. 39
• Mer’aat al-Uqool fi Sharh-e-Akhbaar-e-Aal al-Rasool (a.s.), vol.. 12 p. 230

In a Hadis Qudsi, Allah the Almighty says, ‘The believer is from Me and I am from the believer.’

• Al-Jawaaher al-Saneeyyah of Shaikh Hurr al-Aamili (r.a.)

These traditions conclude that respecting a believer is a cause for divine proximity and is like revering Allah on His Arsh.

Then why is it surprising if Allah on His Arsh is pleased with the one visiting Imam Husain b. Ali (a.s.) who along with his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.) is the Chief of the Youths of Paradise?

The second argument that the reward for ziyarah is inconceivable and unacceptable to the intellect is just as ridiculous. How can the intellect perceive why and how Allah rewards a Muslim for a particular action?

Prophet Zakariyyah (a.s.) was puzzled to see the food near Janab Maryam (s.a.) especially since her chamber was not frequented by any mortal.

كُلَّمَا دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا زَكَرِيَّا الْمِحْرَابَ وَجَدَ عِندَهَا رِزْقاً قَالَ يَا مَرْيَمُ أَنَّى لَكِ هَـذَا قَالَتْ هُوَ مِنْ عِندِ اللّهِ إنَّ اللّهَ يَرْزُقُ مَن يَشَاء بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ

 “…whenever Zakariya entered the sanctuary to (see) her, he found with her food. He said: O Marium! whence comes this to you? She said: It is from Allah. Surely Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure.”

(Surah Aale Imran (3): Verse 37)

Janab Maryam’s (s.a.) response clearly states that Allah rewards those He pleases to the extent He pleases even to the amazement of His Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

There are many verses of the Noble Quran which state this fact:

أَن يُنَزِّلُ اللّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ

 “…Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases…”

(Surah Baqarah (2): Verse 90)

وَاللّهُ يَخْتَصُّ بِرَحْمَتِهِ مَن يَشَاء وَاللّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ

 “…and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.”

(Surah Baqarah (2): Verse 105)

Jo Hussain se Ladenga - By Tahir ul Qadri

Was Imam Husain (a.s.) killed by Yazid or his Shias?

Doubt

A section of the Muslims who find themselves in a spot while defending Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) make lame excuses and indulge in Shia-bashing as if maligning Shias is the answer to all their woes. Among their most ludicrous claims is that the Shias themselves killed Imam Husain (a.s.) and are now repenting for the same.

Reply

1. Who killed Hamzah?

2. Role of companions

3. Yazid’s role

4. Who are the Shias?

5. Yazid’s forces were not Shias

Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)?

Who killed Ammar?

This lame excuse reminds one of the argument advanced by Yazid’s father nearly 1,400 years ago when he found himself similarly cornered in Siffeen on the count of being responsible for Ammar’s (r.a.) death, a fact prophesied by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

To deflect blame for killing Ammar b. Yasir (r.a.), one of the greatest companions for whom Paradise was assured, Muawiyah conveniently shifted the blame for the crime of murdering Ammar to Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) by suggesting that since Ali (a.s.) had got Ammar to the Battle of Siffeen, he was the one responsible for killing Ammaar and not Muawiyah.

Going by Muawiyah’s rationale the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is likewise responsible for killing his own uncle Hamzah who came to the Battlefield of Ohad on his (s.a.w.a.) instruction!

Apparently, shifting the blame from the perpetrator of the crime to those who are the farthest in committing it is the most favored response of these Muslims.

Let us see how we can identify the perpetrators of other crimes using the rationale of these Muslims.

Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)?

1. Of course, conventional wisdom suggests as backed by history that the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) lies with the infidels of Mecca who waged war against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Muslims.

2. And we have also seen that according to Muawiyah’s rationale, the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) was with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

3. According to the rationale of these Muslims, the responsibility for Hamzah’s death lies with another group altogether. Let’s refer to the 153rd verse of Surah Aale Imran (3) to find the answer:

‘When you ran off precipitately and did not wait for anyone, the Apostle was calling you from your rear…’

Since according to these Muslims, the treachery of the Shias killed Imam Husain (a.s.), it follows that the treachery of the companions in the Battle of Ohad killed Hamzah (a.s.).

However, for obvious reasons these Muslims won’t admit this fact and will apply their rationale selectively against the Shias.

Who killed Usman?

1. Conventional wisdom suggests that Usman was killed by the Muslims who laid siege to his house and ultimately killed him for his misguided policies.

2. But according to the rationale of these Muslims who put the blame squarely on those who act treacherously, the blame for killing Usman lies with his cousin – Muawiyah b. Abu Sufyan.

It is not a secret that the siege on Usman’s house lasted for over a month during which time he sent SOS to, among others, his cousin Muawiyah. However, for the period Usman was under siege which was considerable, Muawiyah did not send in his army to bail out Usman. This despite the fact that Muawiyah had a huge army at his disposal which only two years later took on the might of the entire Muslim army in Siffeen.

If Muawiyah had shown the same alacrity and enthusiasm in sending help to Medina to rescue Usman, that his son Yazid showed after ascending the throne to demand allegiance from Imam Husain (a.s.) in Medina, Usman’s life could well have been saved. Regardless, does this mean that Usman was a victim of Muawiyah’s treachery rather than the Muslims who actually killed him?

Going by the argument of these Muslims, the answer is yes – Muawiyah killed Usman.

Role of companions

Who killed Imam Husain (a.s.)?

According to this group of Muslims, Imam Husain (a.s.) was a victim of treachery by the Shias.

First and foremost if blame must be placed based on treachery, the companions and taabe’een displayed it in ample measure by not supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) against Yazid.

Treachery of the companions and taabe’een

In order to show Yazid in a positive light, these Muslims themselves claim that:

‘Several hundreds of companions despite being alive at the time kept aloof from the battle at Karbala to save the nation from entanglement and bloodshed. Had it been an encounter between good and evil, the companions who throughout their lives had not shirked jihad would have definitely thrown all their weight behind Imam Husain (a.s.).’

So the companions stayed away from Karbala citing confusion between truth and falsehood and not wanting to create bloodshed.

If the companions and taabe’een were indeed confused, then it is despite the fact that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had often declared that Imam Husain (a.s.) is the Lamp of Guidance and the Ark of Salvation. And that Imam Husain (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.) were the Chiefs of the Youths of Paradise. And that both of them were his sons according to the Verse of Mubahelah in Surah Aale Imran (3): 61 when they along with the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their parents Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) confronted the Christians of Najraan for malediction and drove them into submission.

Moreover, the Quran, which was a sufficient recourse for the Muslims after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise, has prescribed a solution for confusion:

‘…so ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.’ (Surah Nahl (16): Verse 43)

It is a common fact recorded by Sunni commentators of the Noble Quran that Imam Husain (a.s.) was among the People of the Reminder (Ahle Zikr).

Scores of Sunni scholars over the years have recorded these and other virtues of Imam Husain (a.s.) in their books.

Why did the companions and taabe’een, who were present in the time of Imam Husain (a.s.) and were witness to many of these narrations and incidents, lack the judgment to distinguish between Imam Husain (a.s.) and Yazid?

More so when we find clear instructions from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) urging the Muslims to support Imam Husain (a.s.) as evident from the following narration:

The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) companion Anas b. Haaris relates –

I heard Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.) say: ‘Verily my son, (Husain), will be killed in a land called Karbala; whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.’

Tarikh-o-Damishq vol 14 p 223

Are these Muslims suggesting that Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqqas, who led Yazid’s army in Karbala and was among the leading taabe’een, and the son of a leading companion, had never heard of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) virtues? This despite the fact that Imam Husain (a.s.) was also his cousin? Then why did he fight Imam Husain (a.s.)? If this is not an example of treachery by the companions and taabe’een then what is?

It follows that the confusion between truth and falsehood was not the reason for the companions abandoning support to Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala. It was plain treachery which we saw in ample measure in Ohod and Hunain despite the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence in their midst. Obviously when the companions did not support the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in his life time, it is too much to expect them to support his grandson (a.s.) 50 years after his (s.a.w.a.) demise.

Therefore we hold the companions responsible for abandoning their duty in supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala and in this way being responsible for killing him.

Yazid’s role

Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.)

Of course, notwithstanding everyone else who contributed to the turn of events in Karbala, Yazid’s role is unmistakable. He is the one who sought to subjugate Imam Husain (a.s.) into giving him allegiance as various historical records testify.

We read in Maqtal al-Husain of Khaarazmi:

Yazid wrote: ‘Force Husain, Abdullah b. Umar and Abdullah b. Zubair to give allegiance and don’t spare them.’

We also find in the same source:

When he (Waleed) read Yazid’s letter for him (Marwan) and consulted him in the matter and said: ‘What do you think we shall do?’ He (Marwan) replied: ‘Send for them now and ask them to give allegiance and obey us. If they accept, we will let them go but if they reject you should arrest them and strike off their heads.

This is clearly Yazid demanding allegiance and triggering the chain of events culminating in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) martyrdom. All other excuses like Shias killing Imam Husain (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) revolting against Yazid etc. have no merit and are only advanced to hide the real culprit – Yazid b. Muawiyah.

Yazid’s letter to Ubaidullah b. Ziyad (l.a.)

We read in Mataalib al-So’l:

Ibn Ziyad wrote to Husain – I have received information that you have arrived in Karbala, and Yazid has told me not to kill you, provided you accept his authority and mine.

Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Taarikh al-Khulafaa:

Yazid wrote to his governor in Iraq, Ubaidullah b. Ziyad, ordering him to fight him (Husain). Therefore, he (Ibn Ziyad) sent an army consisting of four thousand people led by Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqaas.

Zahabi records in Siyar Aalam al-Nobala, vol.3 p. 305:

Muhammad Ibn al-Dahak narrated from his father: When Husain marched, Yazid wrote to his governor Ibn Ziyad: Husain is marching to Kufa and he is a problem of your time not of other times, your state not of other states and you not for the other governors. At that time you might be free or be slaved.’ Therefore Ibn Ziyad killed him (on Yazid’s beckoning) and sent his head to him (Yazid).

Ibn Ziyad’s own admission that he killed Imam Husain (a.s.) on Yazid’s orders

In Taarikh al-Kaamil, vol.4 p. 112, we find:

He (Yazid) wrote to Ubaidullah b. Ziyad ordering him to march towards Medina and surround (Abdullah) Ibn Zubair in Mecca.

He (Ibn Ziyad) replied: I can’t give both these things to this transgressor (Yazid), after killing the grandson of Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.), I am not now going to assault the Ka’bah.

Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.)

We read in Tareekh al-Kaamil:

Ibn Abbas replied to Yazid’s letter stating: ‘… you killed Husain as well as the youths from Bani Abdul Muttalib who were beacons of guidance and famed stars; your troops marched towards them on your orders.’

Testimony of Abdullah b. Umar that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.)

We read in Maqtal al-Husain:

Ibn Umar wrote to Yazid: Hasn’t your heart gone black yet? You murdered thefamily of the Prophet?

Muawiyah b. Yazid’s testimony that his father Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.)