Who killed Imam Husain(a.s)- Yazid or Shias??

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.

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."
                             

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.

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.

Did the Shias hit themself as a Punishment that they left Imam Husain(a.s)??

 Dear Brothers in Islam, 

If your father (may Allah grant him long life if he is still alive) dies, what will be your reaction to his death?
If you loved him a lot, you or other members of your family will cry for him. crying is a sign of missing a highly dear one for a person who has human heart.

Now, suppose he has been killed on the path of Allah with some noble ideas to implement. What will be your reaction to his martyrdom? Do you pass from it as in the case of a simple death? Or you raise your voice and try to keep his noble ideas alive by REMINDING people of his actions and thoughts and give them a LESSON on his bravery and sacrifices, and asking people to join his path and to KEEP ALIVE his noble thoughts?

[ One side remark here is that, just imagine that you and your brothers and sisters mourn for your father who has been martyred, and meanwhile some body jumps and accuses you of killing your father because you are mourning for him and based on his logic mourning is a sign of feeling guilty of murdering. What will be your reaction to such corrupted logic? I am really interested to hear from you. ]

Now, let us go further and consider a religious leader who has spent his lifetime in learning the religion and teaching others the way one should live and explaining the Islamic duties and thoughts. If such person is martyred by the tyrannical rulers, then our commemoration will include a much wider aspect, since this man is no longer a father of an individual, but rather a father for all those who were benefiting from his knowledge and guidance.

Finally, if we consider the supreme level of the Prophet Muhammad and his Ahlul-Bayt who were the best of mankind, the most knowledgeable, the most illustrious, the most god-fearing, the most pious, the best in personal virtues, and the most honored before Allah and the leaders for all the generations till the day of judgment, then one can comprehend that keeping their path alive is a DUTY upon us as their followers.

By commemorating the martyrdom of Imam Husain (AS), we learn lessons from his noble thoughts and convictions. Learning about what happened to him and his companions in the history will provide us a light for the future.
Learning about his actions has inspiring effects on our actions as well.

Question from a Muslim Brother: The other more puzzling thing is what happens during the celebration. Again I might be wrong and please correct me in a gentle way if I am. Usually during this celebration, my Shia brothers start hitting themselves on the head (Is it at that time or am I wrong ?) until in some cases they faint or blood starts getting out of their heads. I have even seen (on TV) pictures of small children being hit or being made to hit themselves (I admit that those could be fabrications and out of context pictures but that's what I've seen and I am ready to be corrected). I ask my Shia brothers and sisters, is this the way to celebrate ? Why do you hit yourselves ? 

Our Answers: I have never heard of small children being hit, nor have ever seen adults are being hit. What you pictured should be really an amazing ceremony. No my dear friend, there is no such silly actions. These are propagated by those who hate to see the remembrance of Ahlul-Bayt, and they resort to all possible means to mock to Followers of the Members of the House of the Prophet (PBUH&HF). And you has become their voice unwittingly, I presume.

Usually the ceremony includes speech by a learned man with regard to the movement of Imam Husain and his aims and his message. Then the speech continues to reminding the heart-breaking events of the catastrophe of
Ashura and those who have human heart will cry, and mourn. Of course, there are traditions transmitted by Ahlul-Bayt which state, crying for Imam Husain, or making others to cry for him (through speech and reminding the events) has a lot of rewards. In fact, all the prophets of God without any exception cried for Imam Husain and commemorated Ashura, including Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF). Not only that, but also the Jinns (unseen creatures) mourn for Imam Husain. I have mentioned some of traditions affirming this fact in my previous posts quoting from Sunni collections.

Nonetheless, we affirm that hurting own body is forbidden. Some people may get very emotional and do that, yet the rest are not to be blamed. An analogy is the case when a person loses a dear one, where s/he will cry for him. Due to the height of emotion one (specially women) may start beating herself to the extent that it causes harm for her body. This is what is forbidden, while what has no harm to body (including beating chest) is allowed. Thus the commemoration can not be questioned by the innocent overreaction of certain individual(s).

Question from a Muslim Brother:The explanation that I was given (by Non-Shia's mind you),  that Shia hit themselves as a punishment that they left Imam Hussein go from Koufah alone with a few men and did not help him. At the same time it was them who sent for him to come and lead them to fight for his right to be the Khalifah.

Our Answers: It is really amazing that you readily accept such rumor without even giving it a second thought. Even I suppose the Shia killed Imam Husain in year 61 AH, why should I feel guilty about what some people did in the history?
Even suppose my father killed Imam Husain, then why should I feel guilty of what my father did? The sin of a sinner will never be inherited to his offspring. (The ancestors may have a share of such sin if they mislead their offspring, but the reverse is never true). Thus such argument that we cry for Imam Husain since our fathers allegedly killed him would be the most stupid interpretation on the reason behind commemoration of Imam Husain (AS). I shouldn't expect any more intelligence from the enemies of Ahlul-Bayt.

My dear brother, we cry in the memory of Imam Husain, for:

1- all the messengers of God cried for him;

2- all the Imams of Ahlul-Bayt cried for him;

3- we love him more than we love our fathers and our dear ones;

4- he is a Symbol of resistance against tyranny and the leader of the Martyrs for us;

5- we want to swear allegiance to him and his path and keep aloof from their enemies;

6- his aims have not been fully achieved and his blood has not been revenged yet. As such, we keep this event with all its emotion alive until such time that Imam Mahdi (AS) appears who will cleanse the surface of the Earth form all such tyrants;

7- condolence to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH&HF) and the members of Ahlul-Bayt;

8- abiding the instruction of Ahlul-Bayt in remembering this event and seeking the reward associated with it.
And there are much more reasons that you will find if you switch the books at your disposal and study some Shi`ite literature regarding to Imam Husain (AS).

Nadeem Sarwar says why shias are considered Kafirs by Enemies of Islam?

Is Aashura a day of mourning or rejoicing?

Doubt: The tenth day of Muharram is ‘Aashura’. The Jews of Madinah fasted on this day, the day on which Prophet Moses (a.s.) and his followers crossed the Red Sea miraculously. So the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) directed the Muslims to fast on the day of Aashura.

Reply: The report is inaccurate. The real report is:

The Prophet (s.a.w.a) on migrating to Madinah found the Jews fasting on the 10th of Muharram. On enquiry, he was told: It is an auspicious day; it is the day when Allah delivered the children of Israel from their enemy (i.e. Pharaoh); and, therefore, Moses fasted on that day.

The Prophet (s.a.w.a) said, ‘I am worthier of Moses than you.’

Thereupon, he fasted on that day and ordered (the Muslims) to fast.

Saheeh-e-Bukhaari vol. 3 Egypt ed.pg 54, Mishkaat al-Masaabih Delhi ed. 1,307 A.H. pg l72

It is noted by the commentator of Mishkaat al-Masaabih that ‘it was in the second year, because in the first year the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had arrived in Madinah after Aashura, in Rabi al-Awwal.

It should be noted that the Jews had their own calendar and monthly cycles. There is no logic in saying that they fasted on the 10th of Muharram unless it could be proved that this date always coincided with a Jewish day of fast.

The first month of the Jews (Abib, later named Nisan) coincided with Rajab of the Arabs. W.O.E. Oesterley and Theodore H. Robinson have written that in Arabia the most important of all the new-moon festivals was that which fell in the month of Rajab, equivalent to the Hebrew month Abib, for this was the time when the ancient Arabs celebrated the Spring festival. (Hebrew Religion S.P.C.K., London 1955pg128)

Probably, in ancient times the two branches of Hazrat Ibrahim’s (a.s.) household followed the same system of intercalating an additional month. And in this way the 7th Jewish month, Tishri I, coincided with Muharram. And the Aashura of Muharram synchronized with 10th of Tishri I, the Jewish Day of Atonement �” a day of fast. The two calendars lost their synchronization when Islam, in the 9th year of Hijrah, disallowed intercalation. But on deeper consideration it transpired that this parity was lost long before the advent of Islam, because the Arabs did not follow any mathematical calculation in their intercalation. That was why Muharram of the 2nd year of Hijrah began on 5th July, 623 C.E. (Al-Munjid, 21st ed.), months before Tishri I (which always coincides with September-October).

Clearly, Aashura of Muharram in that year (or, for that matter, during the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) whole life at Madinah) had no significance whatsoever for the Jews.


Doubt: In the beginning, fasting on this day was obligatory but later, the fasts of Ramadan were made obligatory and the fast on the day of Aashura was made optional.

The sanctity of Aashura cannot be ascribed to this event for the simple reason that the sanctity of Muharram and the day of Aashura was established during the days of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), much before the birth of Husain (a.s.).

Reply:

The question is: Why did they fast on that day?

The Jewish Midrashic literature relates the 10th day of the 7th month (Yom Hakippurim �” Day of Atonement) to the event of bringing the tablets of the Covenant from Mount Sinai, as Dr. Mishael Maswari-Caspi has written in his letter.

The question is: If the Jews had wanted to keep the long-lost synchronization of Tishri I and Muharram in view, how was it that they forgot to narrate this tradition to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)?

The month in which God delivered the Israelites from Pharaoh was Abib (i.e. Rajab), as the Bible clearly states: Observe the month of Abib, and keep the pass-over unto the Lord thy God: for in the month of Abib the Lord thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. (Deut. 16:1)

The question is: How could the Jews transfer an event of Abib (originally coinciding with Rajab) to Muharram, in open defiance of their Torah?

Here is a point to ponder for the Muslims: The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was sent with a religion to abrogate all previous religions and Shariah. How was it that he deigned to imitate the custom of the Jews?

It is clear from above-mentioned facts that the Jews had no reason at all to fast on Aashura of Muharram at that period; and this story, built on that premise, is just that ” a fiction. Obviously, it was invented by a narrator who only knew that once upon a time Muharram coincided with the Jews’ Tishri I, but was totally unaware of contemporary Jewish religion and culture.

One feels constrained to mention here that this and other such traditions were forged by camp-followers of the Umayyads, after the martyrdom of Imam Husain (a.s.), as a part of their campaign to turn the 10th of Muharram into a day of rejoicing. These traditions are of the same genre as those which say that it was on the 10th of Muharram that Nuh’s (a.s.) ark rested on the mount, the fire became cool and safe for Hazrat Ibrahim (a.s.) and Hazrat Isa (a.s.) ascended to the heavens. In the same category came the traditions exhorting the Muslims to treat Aashura as a festival of joy, and to store one’s food-grains on this very day, as it would increase one’s sustenance and bring the blessings of Allah to the household.

Doubt: In fact, it is one of the merits of Husain (a.s.) that his martyrdom took place on this day. Another misconception is that it is an inauspicious month since Husain was killed during Muharram. Hence people avoid conducting marriages during this period.

This is baseless. If the death of an eminent person on a particular day renders that day unlucky for all times to come, no day of the year would be free from bad luck. The Holy Quran and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) have liberated us from such superstitious beliefs.

Reply:

This is nothing but blind prejudice since there are no traditions which state that it is haraam (unlawful) to conduct weddings on Aashura or in the month of Muharram and Safar. But what needs answering is whether a Muslim will choose to get married on the day his father or mother has passed away or on the day the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has passed away? Or will he exercise discretion and postpone the marriage by a few days as a mark of respect?

Are lamentations for Imam Husain (a.s.) part of Islam?

Doubt:
Lamentations, breast-beating and mourning in memory of Husain’s martyrdom are not sanctioned by Islam. Though such martyrdoms are tragic, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has forbidden holding mourning ceremonies on the death of any person.
People of Jaahiliyyah (ignorance) used to mourn over their deceased then the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) stopped the Muslims.

Shia Muslims mourning Martydom of Imam Husain(a.s)

Reply:
Azaadaari (mourning) is a means to express sorrow for the hardships suffered by the Ahle Bait (a.s.) at the hands of the caliphs of their time. The words of Imam of Ahle Sunnah Allamah Fakhrudeen Raazi are notable:

‘It is our firm belief that one who dies with love for the descendants of Muhammad (s) dies a martyr.’

(Tafseer-e-Kabir, vol 7, pg 390)

We read in Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah of Ibne Kasir in vol. 4, pg. 45, Beirut ed.
It is narrated by Abu Hurariah that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) used to visit the graves of martyrs every year. When he (s.a.w.a.) would reach the entrance of the mountain, he (s.a.w.a.) would say (to the martyrs): ‘Assalamoalaikum bi maa sabartum’. This means ‘Peace be on you due to your patience and you have reached a pleasant place due to this.’ Then after the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Abu Bakr also used to come (every year), and after him Umar used to do the same and then Usman also did the same.

We read in Al-Bidaayahwa al-Nihaayah vol. 6 pg. 360:

Umar said ‘Whenever I venture out at sunrise, I remember the death of my brother Zaid b. Khattab.’

Obviously the remembrance of his brother’s death did not make him laugh; he was sorrowful (azaadaar).

We find in Taarikh-e-Yaqoobi, vol. 1, pg. 3:

The father and mother of humanity (Hazrat Adam (a.s.) and his wife Hazrat Hawwa (a.s.)) wept for their son Haabeel for so long that their tears turned into a stream.

In Rauzah al-Shuhadaa, pg 30 the same incident has been quoted by Mulla Husain Waaiz Kashifi who adds:

Tears from Adam’s (a.s.) right eye were flowing like the River Dajla and like the River Euphrates from his left eye.

Perhaps the following tradition may prove more convincing:
After the burial of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), the companions in a state of sorrow were virtually throwing dust over themselves, and were crying due to the separation from their beloved. Especially Hazrat Faatemah (s.a.) was inconsolable; she was looking at the faces of her sons Imam Hasan (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) and was crying at their plight and her own plight. Even Aaesha was continuously crying and wailing. For several days and nights the voices of crying and mourning rose from this house which became house of grief (Baytul Huzn) and separation.

(Madaarij al-Nubuwwah, vol 2, pg. 753-754)

Mulla Ali Qaari in his book Al-Mirqaat fi Sharh al-Mishkaat from a narration by Imam Ahmed b. Hanbal quotes Imam Husain (a.s.):

‘Whoever weeps and cries upon me remembering my pain and miseries, Allah shall grant him Paradise.’

(Al-Mirqaat fi Sharh al-Mishkaatwith reference to Taarikh-e-Ahmedi, pg 277, printed in Kanpur)

One can refer to the Holy Quran via this hadis in Ahle Sunnah’s authoritative work Tafseer-e-Durr al-Manthoor,  vol. 4 pg 31:
The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) was asked: What was the extent of Hazrat Yaqoob’s (a.s.) mourning for his son? He (s.a.w.a.) replied, ‘It was on par with mourning of 70 men and women.’ And what was the reward for this? He (s.a.w.a.) retorted, ‘It is on par with one hundred martyrs.’

And we read in Tafseer Khazaan vol.3 pg 253:

Yusuf (a.s.) said to Hazrat Jibrail (a.s.): Is my father adhering to mourning? Hazrat Jibrail (a.s.) said: The mourning of Yaqoob (a.s.) is on par with 70 men and women mourning. He then asked, ‘What is the reward for this mourning?’

He said: The reward for this mourning is on par with mourning of 100 martyrs.

Doubt: The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) stopped the Muslims from doing all this and directed them to observe patience by saying ‘Innaalillaahi wa innaa ilayhiraaji’oon’. A number of authentic traditions are available on the subject.
To quote one of them: He is not from our group who slaps his cheeks, tears his clothes and cries in the manner of the people of Jaahiliyyah. (Saheeh Bukhari).

Reply:

Please refer to the Holy Quran, which permits crying:

‘And he turned away from them, and said: O my sorrow for Yusuf! And his eyes became white on account of the grief, and he was a repressor (of anger).’

(Surah Yusuf (12): 84)

If you refer to the exegesis of this verse, it will be clear how much Prophet Yaqoob (a.s.) cried for his son ultimately forfeiting his eyesight in the process.
In Surah Nahl (16): 53, Allah declares: ‘And whatever favor is (bestowed) on you it is from Allah; then when evil afflicts you, to Him do you cry for aid.’
When Umar heard of Numan b. Muqrin’s death he beat his head and screamed, ‘O what a pity that Nu’man died.’

(Kanz al-Ummal, vol.8, pg. 117, Kitaab al-Maut)

As narrated by Tabari in his Taarikh vol. 9 pg. 183 (English translation by Ismail Poonawala):
Abbas narrates:
I heard Aaesha say: The Messenger of Allah died on my bosom during my turn, I did not wrong anyone in regard to him. It was because of my ignorance and youthfulness that the Messenger of Allah died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my chest and slapping my face along with the women.

(Ibn Katheer in al Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah vol 5, pg 420)

Also refer to Ibn Katheer in al Bidayah wan Nihayah:
The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) died while he was in my lap. Then I laid his head on a pillow and got up beating my face along with other women.

According to Saheeh-e-Bukhaari:
Anas b. Malik narrated:
We went with Allah’s Apostle (s.a.w.a.) to the blacksmith Abu Saif, and he was the husband of the wet-nurse of Ibrahim (the son of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.)). Allah’s Apostle took Ibrahim, kissed him and smelled him. Later, we entered Abu Saif’s house at that time, Ibrahim was breathing his last and the eyes of Allah’s Apostle (s.a.w.a.) started shedding tears.

Abdul Rahman b. 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.”

Saheeh-e-Bukhaari, vol 2, book 23, tradition 390

We read in the traditions about the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.):
‘The Prophet of Allah (s.a.w.a.) was in a state where he was beating his chest.’

References:

1.   Saheeh-e-Bukhari vol. 2 pg 50

2.   Sunan-e-Nesaai vol. 3 pg 305

3.   Adhaan al Mufreed pg 426

4.   Saheeh-e-Muslim vol 1 pg 291

5.   Musnad-e-Abi Awaana vol. 2 pg 292

‘There is nothing against Islam in expressing grief, sorrow or in crying and weeping at the loss of a loved one.’

Fayz al Bari fi Sharh-e-Saheeh Bukhari, vol 12, pg 462, Egypt ed.

We read in Ahle Sunnah’s authority work Maarij al-Nubuwwah chap 1 pg 248:
Hazrat Adam (a.s.) was so distressed that he smashed his hands onto his knees and the skin from his hands caused gashes from which bone could be seen.

We read in Al-Bidaayah wa al-Nihaayah vol. 5, pg 243:
‘When Prophet (s.a.w.a.) died on the bed, the women who were around him (s.a.w.) had made their faces red by beating their faces.’

Doubt: Even Husain (a.s.), shortly before his demise, had advised his beloved sister Zainab (a.s.), not to mourn over his death in this manner.
He said, ‘My dear sister! I swear upon you that in case I die you shall not tear your clothes, nor scratch your face…’

Reply:

It is obvious from the numerous incidents of Zainab’s (s.a.) weeping in the presence of Imam Husain (a.s.) before his martyrdom that these statements are false and misleading.

When the forces of Yazid planned to attack the camp of Imam Husain (a.s.), Hazrat Zainab (s.a.) came to Imam Husain (a.s.) and asked why was there so much noise outside their tents, Imam replied that I just saw Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in a dream and he (s.a.w.a.) said that I will be meeting him (s.a.w.a.) tomorrow, hearing this Hazrat Zainab (s.a.) started crying and beating herself on the face.

Al-Bidaayahwa al-Nihaayah, vol 8, pg 176, Beirut ed.

In the same book it is mentioned:
Hazrat Zainab (s.a.) heard the elegies from Imam (a.s.). Reflecting on the tragedy of Karbala and the martyrdom of Imam Husain (a.s.) she cried, lamented and beat herself on the head until she fainted.

Al-Bidaayahwa al-Nihaayah, vol 8, pg 177, Beirut ed.

Similarly, we read in Sunan-e- Ibn Maajah, vol. 2, pg 285, published 1313 AH in Egypt.
Saad b. Abi Waqqaas reported from Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) that he said ‘…shed tears and cry and if you can’t cry then make a crying face.’

The death of Imam Husain (a.s.) is an event on which not only humans, but even the jinn, angels, animals, birds, the sky and trees, have lamented. Thus, it is written that the sky wept for forty days on (the martyrdom of) Imam Husain (a.s.).

Yanabi al-Mawwaddah by Allamah Shaikh Sulaiman Hanafi Qundoozi, Constantinople ed. pg 392

Hafiz Abu Noaim writes in Hilyah al-Awliyaa on the authority on Imam Sha’bee, Zuhri, and Abu Qataadah:

When Imam Husain (a.s.) was martyred, the sun was eclipsed (so long) so that the stars appeared.

Waqiyaat-e-Karbala pg 75

Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi has narrated the lamenting and wailing of the jinn on pg. 96 of his book titled Sirr al-Shahaadatain. He has also quoted the verses of the elegy recited by the jinn while weeping over Imam Husain (a.s.).

Umme Salmah (r.a.) has also narrated: I heard the jinn mourning for Husain.

1.      Tarikh al-Kabir by al-Bukhari (the author of Saheeh), vol 4, part 1, pg 26

2.      Fazaa’il al-Sahaabah, by Ahmed b. Hanbal, vol 2, pg 776, tradition 1,373

3.      Tabarani, vol 3, pg 130-131

4.      Tahzib vol. 7

Suyuti states: When Imam Husain was martyred, the corners of the sky remained red for a four month period.

(Tafseer-e-Durr al-Manthoor vol. 6, pg. 31)

We find in the traditions that even the first and the second caliphs didn’t find lamenting loudly un-Islamic or against the Sunnah.

Refer to Kashf al-Ghummah pg. 175:

Abu Bakr and Umar would cry in such a way that the neighbors could hear them.

Again in the same book we read:
When Saad Ibn Maaz died, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), Abu Bakr and Umar cried. Ayesha narrates ‘I recognized the cries of Abu Bakr and Umar although I was in my house”.

(Kashf al-Ghummah, pg. 174)

Ummul Momineen Aisha called people to read elegies on her father’s death and she herself lamented.

(Tarikh Kaamil, vol 2, pg 288; Iqd al-Fareed, vol 3, pg 65)

On the day that Abu Bakr died, the situation seemed as if Madinah would be flooded with tears.

(Tarikh al-Khamees, vol 2, pg 330)

There are numerous other traditions which prove the permissibility of Azaadaari in the light of the Holy Quran and the teachings of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) and his revered companions. However, some Muslims choose to ignore them and raise the bogey of azaadaari being a form of innovation and deviation.

Conclusion

It’s an undeniable fact that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has given all Muslims the bounty of Islam for which we collectively cannot repay him. However, the only way we could try to do that is to follow the Holy Quran which states:

Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives..

Surah Shura (42): 23

The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has also stated, ‘Husain (a.s.) is from me and I am from Husain (a.s).
The Quranic verse and prophetic tradition are more than enough for any Muslim worth his salt to acknowledge the excellence of Ahle Bait (a.s.). The least one can do is remember and love the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his family (a.s.) rather than remaining partial to those who were responsible ever since the advent of Islam for hurting the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a) like Abu Sufyan, his son Muawiyah and his grandson Yazid.

Shah Abdul Aziz Muhaddis-e-Dehlavi while explaining the philosophy of martyrdom writes in the preface of his book ‘Sirr al-Shahaadatain’:

‘The martyrdom of Imam Husain (a.s.) is in reality the martyrdom of his grandfather Muhammad Mustafa (s.a.w.a).’

Last few traditions from the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)
It has been mentioned in reliable traditions that often Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) mourned for Imam Husain (a.s.), which was obviously before his martyrdom.
The well-known scholar of 10th century A. H. Allauddin Muttaqi Hindi in his book ‘Kanz al-Ummaal’ has quoted Ibn Abi Shaibah, who has related from Umme Salmah, the wife of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), that ” Once Imam Husain (a.s.) came to Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) when I was sitting near the door. I saw that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had something in his palm, which affected him, making him weep profusely. By now Imam Husain (a.s.) had fallen asleep in his lap. I asked about the matter. He replied: ‘Jibrail has brought the earth of the place where Husain (a.s.) will be martyred and informed me that people of my Ummah will slay him.’

Kanz-ul-Ummaal vol. 2

One day, Umm Fazl, wife of Abbas ” the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) uncle ” approached the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and informed him (s.a.w.a.), ‘O Prophet of Allah! I had a nightmare. I dreamt as if a piece of your flesh was flung in my arms.’

The Prophet (s.a.w.a.) informed, ‘The dream is true. Faatemah will give birth to a son and he will be brought to you.’ As predicted on Husain’s (a.s.) birth, he was brought in my lap. One day, I brought the infant to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.). For some time, the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) took his eyes away from the infant. When he (s.a.w.a.) glanced at the infant again, his eyes welled up with tears.

I said, ‘May my father and mother be sacrificed on you O Prophet of Allah, why are you crying?’


He (s.a.w.a.) informed, ‘I have just been informed by Jibrael that my nation will kill him.’


I asked, ‘Will it be this son?’ He replied in the affirmative. Jibraeel also brought reddish sand for me.’

Al-Mustadrak alaa al-Saheehain by Haakim Neishapouri, vol 3, pg 176

Yazid b. Muawiyah – A Branch of the Cursed Tree

His father’s name was Muawiyah and that of his grandfather ” Abu Sufyan. His grandmother was Hinda ” the one who ate the liver of Hazrat Hamzah (a.s.), the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) uncle, after the battle of Ohad. She was notorious throughout Mecca as being a woman of loose character. She had a string of lovers and paramours. Abu Sufyan’s cousin Musaafir b. Amr who was famous among the Quraish for his good looks, generosity and skill as a poet, became Hinda’s lover. Even after marrying Abu Sufyan, Hinda did not severe her amorous and illicit relationship with Musaafir. And so Musaafir is one of the four people considered to have possibly fathered Muawiyah.

Sharho Nahjil Balaghah by Ibne Abil Hadid, vol. 1, pg. 30

One Eye man,Mufti of Mecca defending Maloon Yazeed

Yazid’s mother’s was Maisoon b. Bakhdal Kalbi, a Christian. She was extremely beautiful due to which Muawiyah became inclined towards her. However when she conceived Yazid, Muawiyah abandoned her. Hence, Yazid was born in her house where she and many other women of immoral character breast-fed him.

Yazid’s genealogy and the immoral deeds of his parents and grandparents have been widely chronicled. Abu Sufyan, Hinda the liver eater, Marwaan and their cronies were in the forefront in opposing the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the Ahle Bait (a.s.).

The despicable attributes of Yazid
Every society and all religions of the world declare alcoholism, gambling, genocide, incest, fornication and the like to be the worst of actions. Humanity deems that any person who indulges in these acts should be condemned. Islam has denounced these activities, declared them to be unlawful (Haraam) and threatened with severe punishment, both in this world as well as the hereafter, for those who commit them. Moreover, a friendly relationship with such people too is prohibited in Islam. A far cry indeed from declaring such persons to be caliphs and leaders. 

The Holy Quran says:‘And obey not from among them any sinner or ungrateful one.’(Surah Insaan (76):24)

According to Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanavi, sinner or ungrateful implies “a wrongdoer or an unbeliever”.

The word of Quran is clear. They have no one to blame but themselves for having chosen such persons as their leaders. Now let us throw some light on Yazid’s character.

Yazid relieved Walid of his position as Governor of Medina and appointed Usman b. Muhammad b. Abu Sufyan in his place. Usman despatched a delegation of notables of Medina which included Abdullah b. Amr-e-Makhzoomi, Abdullah b. Hanzala Ansari, Fandar b. Zubair and others to Yazid who gave them a great reception and on their departure, showered them with lavish gifts. However, when the same delegation returned to Medina, its members spoke out against Yazid and his deeds, saying:

‘We have visited a person who has no faith whatsoever. One who drinks wine, plays the tambourine and has prostitutes thronging his court. He plays with dogs and sleeps with children and slave-girls. O people, bear witness that we hereby dismiss Yazid from the post of Caliphate.’

On hearing this, many refused to acknowledge Yazid as a Caliph.

Tarikh-e-Tabari, vol. 4, pg. 3, The Events of 62 A.H.

Here we have Tabari bringing to light the gist of Yazid’s abominable qualities by narrating one incident. However other writers like Masoodi in Murooj al-Zahab, Sibt b. Jawzi in Tazkeratul Khawaas, Tabari in Taarikhul Umam, Ibn Athir in Al-Kaamil, Yaqoobi in his Taraikh and others have also recorded numerous unabashed sins and iniquities of Yazid. Here, we restrict ourselves to mentioning a few incidents.

After the tragedy of Karbala, Yazid invited Ibn Ziyaad to his court, bestowed gifts upon him and gave him a free rein in his harem. One night, while lying intoxicated with his head in Ibn Ziyaad’s (l.a.) lap, he ordered that songs be sung and then addressed the wine bearer thus:

‘O wine bearer! Give me wine enough to fill my heart with joy. Then let Ibn Ziyaad drink similarly, for he is the one who is aware of my secrets and possessions. The one whose hands strengthen my caliphate, the one who fills my coffers with war-booty, the one who killed the Kharijite (Imam Husain (a.s.), God forbid), and has vanquished my enemies and those envious of me.’

Tazkirah al-Khawaas by Sibt ibn Jauzi, pg 290

This and several other incidents also serve as reminders to those who deny Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.).

Proclamation of enmity with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and the denial of the Day of Judgment.

Yazid while addressing Aalia, a concubine of his harem sung the following verses:

‘O Aalia! Come near me, give me wine and sing me a song,
Because I dislike praying to Allah, 0 Aalia! Speak to me of Aby Sufyan who was a great man,
As he moved with great swiftness towards Ohad (to battle the Muslims),

He showed great valour against Muhammad (i.e. he killed many Muslims),

And caused the wailing and grieving Muslim women to gather in a large group,

O Umme Ahim (Aalia’s acronym), after I die, marry again,

And hope not to meet me on the Day of Reckoning,

For all that has been said about that day is meaningless and untrue;

Spoken merely to pacify the heart.’

Tazkirah al-Khawaas by Sibt ibn Jauzi pg 291

The following poem proves that Yazid never submitted to Islam nor to the teachings of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

‘Neither has any divine information descended nor any revelation made (to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.)).

Naasekh al-Tawaarikh, ch. 3, pg.136, Taarikh-e-Tabari, vol. 11, pg. 358

Why Yazid should be Cursed!!!

Many Muslims have adopted a diplomatic and face-saving stand on cursing Yazid. At least where killing of the Prophet’s son (according to the Verse of Mubaahelah) Imam Husain (a.s.) is concerned, they advance a range of excuses exonerating Yazid of the crime. In a last-ditch attempt they claim that the matter is not very clear and assuming silence (as opposed to cursing) is a more prudent.

While these excuses are untenable and the subject matter of another article, the door on cursing Yazid will never shut as Imam Husain’s (a.s.) murder was not his only crime. As we have seen in this article, Harrah was another stigma on Yazid that cannot be washed away with the biggest ocean of excuses. Because even if these Muslims belittle Imam Husain’s (a.s.) status by considering his killing to be insignificant, do they dare to make the same concession regarding the violation of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.), his shrine, his city, his companions and other members of his nation?

Opinion of Sunni scholars

We have listed the view of renowned Sunni scholars on Yazid’s role in Harrah and merit in cursing him:

1)Ibne Kaseer, the renowned Ahle Sunnah scholar and student of Ibne Taymiyyah in Al Bidaayah wa al Nihaayah (Urdu), vol 8 pg 1,146, records:

Yazid committed a major sin by ordering Muslim b. Utbah to make Medinah permissible (Mubaah) for three days. This was a most horrible mistake. Many companions and their children were slaughtered. We have already mentioned that he had Ubaidullah b. Ziyaad kill the grandson of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) Husain and his companions and in those three days numerous heinous acts were perpetrated in Medinah about which nobody knows except Allah. Yazid wanted to secure his governance but Allah did against his wishes and punished him. Surely Allah killed him likewise. Allah established His grip over the oppressor’s towns, no doubt His grip is intense.

Likewise, Ibne Kaseer writes in Al Bidaayah wa al Nihaayah (Urdu), vol 8 pg 1,146:

Prophet (s.a.w.a.) said whoever perpetuated injustice and frightened the residents of Medinah, the curse of Allah, His Angels and all people is on such a person.

2) Amro b. Bahr al-Laysi (exp. 255 H) deemed Yazid to be an accursed. Popularly known as Al-Jaahiz, he stated in his book Al-Risaalah al-Haadiyah al-Ashar, pg 398:

The evil deed which Yazid committed by killing Hussain and took the daughters of Allah’s messenger as slaves and hit the lips of Husain’s (head) with the stick and scared the people of Medinah and destroyed the Kaabah, shows that he (Yazid) was rough, stone-hearted, Naasibi, possessed bad thoughts, venom, hatred, hypocrite, was out of the pale of faith, a transgressor and an accursed, and who ever forbid cursing the accursed is himself an accursed person.

Yazid’s role in Harrah and in terrorizing its citizens is more evident than the midday sun. This makes him worthy of being cursed till the Day of Judgement. No excuse and pretext is acceptable.

And for those who continue to resist cursing him even after this, there is the book of Sibt ibne Jauzi titled appropriately:

‘Al-Rad ala al-Mutassib al-Aneed al-Maane min Zamme Yazid’

 which means:

‘Rebuttal to the stubborn fanatic who refrains from cursing Yazid’

Duty of the Muslims
Today, when visitors go to Medinah, they witness a spotless Masjidun Nabawi in all its splendour and glory. However, they must recollect the dreadful incident of Harrah. When they see the shrine of our beloved Prophet (s.a.w.a.), his pulpit, the strip between the shrine and the pulpit, the mosque flooring, the imposing walls, they must call to their minds the ruthless murder, rape and looting that the walls and flooring, the shrine and the pulpit have witnessed. They must remember Yazid who appointed Musrif on this mission and made all this possible.

Instead of glossing over this crime and other more heinous crimes Muslims must distance themselves from Yazid because those who are pleased with an action are like the perpetrators of the action. Instead of worrying about defending Yazid, these Muslims must be worried about their own hereafter. Why align oneself with an accursed person and assume the burden of his crimes when it is far easier and rational to criticize him and share no blame for his crimes and in this way please Allah and His Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

Reference:http://www.seratonline.com/2012/01/22/12840/harrah-another-proof-of-yazids-transgression/

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.)!

Grand Mufti of Mecca defended Yazid(l.a) in one of his speech

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 retaliatesObviously 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.

On entering the city of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) ” Medinatun Nabi, Musrif perpetrated such adversities that indeed he and his master, Yazid, will be remembered in history for a very long time. On entering Medinah, Musrif and his army showed utter disdain for the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) shrine, which was only to be expected from Yazid’s henchmen. They entered the revered shrine of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) along with their horses. They used the shrine as a horse-stable. As in a stable, their animals urinated and excreted in the holy shrine. The animals even littered the strip between the pulpit of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his grave, which according to traditions is a garden from Paradise.

However, they were not content with defiling the shrine of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.). They were intent on unleashing their tyranny and oppression on the Medinites in a most inhuman manner. They set about doing this most systematically. Musrif and his army began butchering the Medinites mercilessly. In this regard, they did not make any discrimination between the Muhaajireen and the Ansar, the companions of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.), women and children. They killed whoever got in their way.  We have outlined below a historical record of their butchery from various sources, Shiite as well as Ahle Sunnah.

Rape, murder and plunder
Madaini narrates from Zohri that Yazid’s army killed 700 famous Medinites from the Quraysh, Muhajireen and Ansar. In addition to these, they also massacred 10,000 other unknown Medinites, including women, children and men ” both free men and slaves.



Abul Faraj narrates ” 200 from the progeny of Abu Taalib (a.s.) were martyred. Two of these were the children of Abdullah b. Jafar ” Abu Baqr b. Abdullah b. Jafar and Aun-e-Asgar b. Abdullah b. Ja’far. Aun-e-Akbar was martyred in Karbala along with Imam Husain (a.s.).
Masoodi narrates ” Jafar b. Muhammad b. Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) was also slain in the incident of Harrah. Apart from the progeny of Abu Taalib (a.s.), several from Bani Hashim were massacred viz Fazl b. Abbas b. Rabiyyah b. Haaris b. Abdul Muttalib, Hamzah b. Abdullah b. Nawfal b. Haaris, Abbas b. Utbah b. Abi Saeed. In addition to these, 4,000 other known personalities were slain from Quraysh and Ansar. Many other unknown and ordinary Medinites were also killed.

Musrif also made the wealth, honour and women of the Medinites permissible for his men for three days. In this period, his men did as they pleased. They looted the houses of the Medinites and ravaged their daughters and women.  They did not follow any law except that of Yazid and considered permissible everything under the sun and even raped women inside Masjidun Nabawi ” the most sacred mosque for Muslims after Masjidul Haraam.

Madaini narrates ” After the incident of Harra, there were 1,000 women who gave birth to children whose fathers were not known and these were referred to as the children of Harrah. According to another report there were 10,000 such women. As per a report in Akhbaar al-Daul, Yazid’s men raped 1,000 virgin girls.

Shaikh Sulaiman Balkhi Naqshbandi in Yanabiul Mawaddah writes ” The Medinites were subjected to a course of tyranny and oppression for several days. It was impossible for any Medinite to enter Masjidun Nabawi. To the extent dogs used to enter the Masjid and urinated on the venerated pulpit of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) on which he (s.a.w.a.) narrated many a sermon and revelation.

Ibne Hajar also reports about dogs defiling Masjidun Nabawi. Then he narrates how Musrif forcibly took oath from the Medinites on behalf of Yazid and in this manner tried to complete their humiliation and disgrace. Those who rejected his invitation were killed immediately.

Reference: http://www.seratonline.com/2012/01/22/12840/harrah-another-proof-of-yazids-transgression/

Reply to Dr Zakir Naik ka Yazeed (lanatullah alaihe)

Answer to the well wishers of Yazid (L.A)

By: Dr. Sakhawat Hussain Sandralvi

It's a shame that Mufti Mohammad Rovais Khan Ayyubi has written four fake, insulting, and full of lying articles in a newly born weekly newspaper called Nida-e-Waqat (New York) in which he insulted Sayyid-us- Shuhadaa Imam Hussain (a.s.).

His quotations and statements are false, his claims are not genuine. Mufti has written that Shias have killed Imam Hussain (a.s.) to protect Yazid and his army. Let me clarify that Shias are loyal to their Imams even in severe hardships.

Zakir Naik, well wisher of Yazid(l.a)

We have been commemorating the days of martyrdom for 1369 years (since the tragedy of Karbala). Shias never wrote letters to Imam Hussain, but the letters were written by disloyal so called Muslims of Kufa to Imam Hussain. All of them wrote to Imam that we do not have any Imam please come, we will make you Imam. Mufti, Shias always have Imams and they don't appoint Imam, they believe that Imam is appointed by Allah.

Lovers and Defenders of Yazeed

The famous historian Tabari narrates that twelve thousand letters were written to Imam Hussain, but according to him there were only two free Shias living in Kufa so two people can not write twelve thousand letters. Mufti further more writes that Yazid was not responsible for killing Imam Hussain (a.s.) I ask Mr. Mufti the following questions and I will pursue to the next issue in the next article :

1. In the letter which was written to Waleed by Yazid Why did Yazid ask for Waleed to send head of Imam Hussain with the answer of this letter?
2. Why didn't Yazid condemn the killing of Imam Hussain(a.s.) and his faithful companions?
3. Why Yazid did not fire Obaidullah -ibn-Ziad, Omar-ibn-Saad, and Shimmr from their posts?
4. Why Yazid insulted the head of Imam Hussain in his court if he was not happy with this killing?
5. Who arranged all the jashans in Damascus besides Yazid?
6. Who ordered to insult the grand daughters of Prophet and the other ladies of Ahlulbait in the market of Damascus?
7. If Yazid was not the planner of killing of Imam Hussain (a.s.) why he asked Imam Zain-ul-Abideen that who is winner of this war ?
8. When Sayyida Zainab asked Yazid if Prophet comes today and sees his grand daughter heads uncovered will he support you or us why he did not reply?
9. When Abdullah-ibn-Omar cursed on Yazid while saying you are killer of Imam Hussain why he did not deny?
10. If Yazid was not responsible for the tragedy of Karbala why he kept Ahlulbait in jail for one year?
11. If Yazid was not responsible for the tragedy of Karbala why he awarded the killers of Imam Hussain(a.s.)?
12. If Shias were the killers of Imam Hussain how come none of 3,80,000 killers who were killed by Mukhtar never claimed Shiaism?

Mufti writes that Shimmr was the real brother of Umm-ul-Baneen, Mufti should know he was neither brother nor cousin.

Who wrote letters to Imam Husain(a.s) and invited him to Kufa?

Objections : The Shi’a of Imam Ali a.s invited Imam Hussain(as)"by writing letters and requesting that he come to Kufa so that they can recognise him as their Imam.

Our Reply:
There are few words in this sentence, highlighted.

1- Shia of Imam Ali a.s. This is the first word. The definition of this word is not something tough to find. Therefore, to say all people of Kufa were Shia of Imam Ali a.s is out of logic. In the history of Islam up till that time, there was not any city with majority of Shia of Imam Ali (a.s.), especially Kufa suffered harsh treatment for 20 long years by Muawiyah's illegitimate brother Zeyad and then his son Ubedullah Ibn Zeyad. Shia of Imam Ali a.s were persecuted, killed and were forced to live under oppression. Therefore yes, those weak shias of Imam Ali a.s did write to their Imam when Muawiyah died and ray of hope emerged. And yes they were the only few who believed in Imamat and called upon there Imam. They were not the opportunistic and there faith is clearly visible from the contents of their letters. Due to the activity of these shia of Imam Ali a.s, other inhabitants of Kufa, common muslims who believed in Imam Ali a.s not as Imam but the fourth Caliph along with first three found opportunity in throwing the tyrant umayyad oppression and joined in calling upon Imam Hussain( a.s) for help not as Imam but as the son of the fourth caliph, grandson of Holy Prophet (s.a.w )and leader of youths of paradise (Abdullah Ibn Zubair was not that influential at that time as compare to Imam Hussain a.s even to common muslim of those era. Plus he himself was in hidings in Makkah and even tried to stopped Imam Hussain a.s from rising against Yazid).

Now lets see the content of the letters and see;

Letter written by minority shias of Imam Ali (a.s)

“We do not have any leader [who could lead us in war] therefore please come to us so that through you, we can gather to aid the truth [Haq]. And Nauman bin Bashir is in Dar ul-Amara, we neither attend Friday prayers nor the Eid prayers with him. When we get the news that you are coming, we will make him expel him and send him to Syria”.

This letter was sent through Abdulah bin Hamdani and Abdullah bin Daal and this was the first letter to be written by the minority Shia to Imam Hussain [as] which he received in Makka on the 10th of Ramadhan.

Letter written by other than Imam Ali's  (a.s) shia

“Fields are flourishing again and trees are bearing fruits and ponds are flowing. Thus, you can come whenever you want towards an army, that is prepared for you”

This letter had seven signatories namely Shabath bin Rib’I, Hajar bin al-Jabar, Yazid bin Haritth, Yazid bin Raweem, Azrah bin Qays, Umro bin al-Hajaj al-Zubaydi, Muhamad bin Umari Tamimi. 

See Tarikh Tabari, Volume 6 page 197.

Just compare the content of these letters written initially with the above one. The earlier letters contained the beliefs of the senders, cited the injustice of Muawiya and his descendant, the admission of Hussain’s right of Imamate, whilst the above cited letter made reference to nothing save material acquisition. In every society, there exist a segment of opportunists who always fly with the direction of wind.

So those were these common muslims of kufa, who did not show up. Letters were written by both, but shia of Imam Ali a.s were either killed or imprisoned or few managed to joined Imam Hussain a.s in Karabala. The common muslim were again made quite or even forced to join and assist syrian Army. Therefore the name of Yazid's army commander was Omar Bin Saad Bin Abi Waqas (very respected Sunni sahaba's son) and not some Ibn Ashtar.

Also look at the letter written to yazid( l.a) at that time and by whom,
“Muslim bin Aqeel has come to Kufa and the Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali. If you have any need of Kufah then send a strong man there who will carry out your orders and act in the same way as you would against your enemy. Al Nauman bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man”

History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 30

Those who wrote this letter were:

    Abdullah bin Muslim bin Saeed Hadharmi
    Ammarah bin Uqbah
    Umar bin Saad bin Abi Waqas

In Short all the types of people wrote letters( Sunnis and Shias alike)  to Imam Hussain(a.s), to fulfill their various objectives and only true followers (Shias) of Imam Hussain supported him. So dont blame Shias of Ali but blame the people of Kufa in not supporting Imam Hussain(a.s). 

One more thing which I want to add here is, well people of Kufa did not support Imam(a.s) but then who were the murderers of Imam and his family and friends, and what were their beliefs and why do we not come together to curse such people.(Yazid,Shimr, Umar-e-Saad etc.)

Whoever support Yazid and praised him killed Imam Hussain(a.s.)

Whoever today loves Yazeed and Muawiyah and praises them then his group is the one who killed Imam Hussain
The conversation is nonesense if there is no agreement on the definition of Shia and Sunni and its also nonesense if we want to turn it into a sectarian thing to attack the sunnies of today or the shias of today as they have no direct role in that event.

The shias of Hussain were 72 people plus all the ones who got jailed and persecuted for standing with Imam Hussain and the rest were common muslims, but if we suppose that shias killed Hussain, where  were sunnis ? Why they didnt even invite him or protect him? Hussain was the grandson of Holy Prophet(s.a.w) and most pious and God-fearing person on earth.
 

Well , if you define Sunnis to be followers of Abubakr and Shia to be the followers of Ali, then you can say that Abu bakr gave the leadership to Umar and Umar to Uthman and Uthman made Muawiya the governor of shaam, Muawiya opposed the caliphate of Ali and later became leader by force and  gave it to Yazeed(l.a)  so Abubakr is to be blamed for killing of Imam Husain !!!

Who invited Imam Husain(a.s) to Kufa?

Who invited, well people of Kufa invited. People of Kufa includes majority sunnis, minority shia of Imam Ali a.s and plus those who saw the majority looking upon Imam Hussain a.s for help and for their worldly gains decided to follow the direction of flowing river.
Again, a sunni brother asked : why would sunni invite as they do not believe in Imamat?

Reason: because for sunnis Imam Hussain a.s was the only living grandson of Prophet s.a.w, the most pious and the leader of youth of paradise. They found him the best option to rule as compare to Yazid. Main stream sunnis were not only in Hijaz but in Kufa also the maority was of those main stream sunnis. Imam Hussain a.s did travel to Makkah first but he saw the place is not free from his killers and so as medina which was under yazid's governor. People of Kufa were willing to fight for justice as it was near Umayyad capital as compare to Hijaz and they were the one getting affected first. 

Abdullah Ibn Zubair also left medina and went into hiding in Makkah, Abdullah Ibn Umar accepted Yazid's rule and Abdur Rehman also went into hidings and it was only Imam Hussain a.s who rose his voice against tyranny. Therefore main stream sunni muslims chose Imam Hussain a.s along with Shias of Imam Ali a.s for help.

 Caliph Umar founded this city and made his people to live in it. Umar ruled for 10-12 years followed by Uthman (Bani Umayyan) for another long period. Ruler of Kufa was cousin of Uthman (foster brother may be) and then comes Imam Ali a.s who ruled for just 5 yrs and then again 6 months of Imam Hassan a.s followed by 20 years of Muawiyah.

Imam Ali a.s did not make Kufa his capital as Shias were in majority. Imam Ali a.s is not only shia leader. It is shias first Imam and sunnis 4th Righteous Guided Caliph so he made that city capital because it was close to western borders where people were making more fitna.

Conclusion: Its nothing about sunni or shia - people are gonna go round thinking their fellow muslims are responsible for the massacre - it was SO long ago and we can't compare the killers to anyone living today. I went to a sunni mosque where they were mourning and remembering ashura.
We are all here to learn from each others.

Initially, Sunnis did not kill imam hussain .. Yazid Army did , and all muslim were against it.
Who is Yazid compare to Imam Hussain . Imam Hussain is a Sayed and also Sayed shabab aljannah.
Imam Hussain was the first person in this world who looked like our prophet   

Who are Shias?

There were no such thing as Ahle Sunnah or Sunnis at the time of Imam Husain(a.s) . Also there was no such thing as Shia Isna Ashari or any other Shia sect at that time. It was Muslims all the way through. Everything kicked off later on after the Prophet's [pbuh] death. First the Muslims were divided into two groups. Those who selected and accepted Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] as the first Khalif of the Muslims were known as just Muslims. They had nothing to do with Ahle Sunnah or being Sunni because Ahle Sunnah didn't start to develope until Imaam Abu Hanifa's time. From there on Sunnis start to form and other Ahle Sunnah groups started to emerge. Those people who opposed the meeting in Sakeefa and rejected the appointment of any Khalif by the Ummah because they believed that the Prophet [pbuh] named, nominated and appointed his successor, like every great leader does which was Hazrath Ali [ra], were later on named as Shiayaan-e-Ali [ra]. This is were the Shia, with the ideology of Khilaafath-e-ilahiya, started to develope. This was the birth point of the main stream Shia of today. Also the term Shia was used in general. Shia means follower/supporter. This term was used for everyone on common grounds for example: during the battle of Jamal and Safeen the common Muslims were also divided into two groups. Shia-e-Ali [ra] and Shia-e-Aisha [ra] during the Battle of Jamal then Shia-e-Ali [ra] and Shia-e-Muavia during the battle of Safeen.  The situation is the same when it comes to Hazrath Hassan [ra] and Ameer Muavia or Hazrath Hussain [ra] and Yazeed. The followers and supporters of each and everyone was known as a Shia. So when you talk about Shia regarding history it depends on who's Shia you are talking about. It was the Muslims who accepted Hazrath Abu Bakar [ra] as the first Khalif. It was the same Muslims who accepted Hazrath Umar [ra] as the second Khalif. It was the same Muslims who accepted Hazrath Usmaan [ra] as the third Khalif. It was the same Muslims who pesterd and persuaded Hazrath Ali [ra] to become the fourth Khalif when no one dared to take on Khilaafath after the murders of the previous two Khalifs. It was the same Muslims who betrayed Hazrath Ali [ra] during the battles of Jamal and Safeen. It was the same Muslims who pesterd and persuaded Hazrath Hassan [ra] to become the fifth Khalif of the Muslims and later on betrayed him by joining the camp of Ameer Muavia or refusing to fight him. It was the same Muslims who accepted Ameer Muavia as the sixth Khalif and Yazeed as the seventh. It was the same Muslims who informed Hazrath Hussain [ra] of Yazeed's intentions and ways regarding the Quran and Sunnah. It was the same Muslims who promised aid and support to Hazrath Hussain [ra] and invited him. It was the same Muslims who let Hazrath Hussain [ra] and his companions down for example Hazrath Muslim bin Aqeel [ra] etc by being afraid of standing up to Yazeed's governers, companions, army etc and by being afraid of Yazeeds response.

Imam Hussain (as) fought with Yazid ibn Muawiya to save Islam

Imam Hussain (as) fought with Yazid ibn Muawiya in 61 AH to save Islam. Yazid needed Imam Husain's Bayat (oath of allegiance) to legitimized his rule as Imam Hussain (as) was the rightful successor. Imam Hussain (as) refused to give his allegiance as he knew that Yazid was not only corrupt and oppresive but also an enemy of Islam, who wanted to destroy Islam and take revenge of his uncles and family members who had fought with Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and died in the early battles.

When Imam Hussain (as) was told that he had to give Bayat to Yazid otherwise he would be killed, Imam Hussain (as) replied that: a man like him could not give Bayat to a man like Yazid ibn Muawiya.

By saying this Imam Hussain (as) was trying to tell everyone that what Yazid believed in was totally opposite to what Imam Hussain (as) believed in. Yazid was the follower of Shaitan while Imam Hussain (as) was the follower of Allah (SWT).

Imam Hussain (as) knew that himself, his friends and family were to die in Karbala. He also knew that this was the only way that he could show to the other Muslims that Yazid was an enemy of Islam and was in fact destroying it.

Imam Hussain (as) wanted people, when they heard about the events of Karbala to know that it was not for power but for Islam and this is how to get into the army of Imam Hussain (as) you needed to be a believer and not a soldier. Imam Hussain's (as) army had all kinds of people:

Imam Hussain (as) had rich, noble men. He had freed slaves. He had old and young men. He had men who had done wrong and repented (e.g. Hazrat Hurr - the commander of Yazid ibn Muawiya army). He had pious men.
Imam Hussain (as) was very kind and always thought about others before himself.

When Imam Hussain (as) was traveling to Karbala knowing what was going to happen to him and his family, he met Hazrat Hurr - the commander of Yazid army and his soldiers. Imam Hussain (as) knew that this was the army sent by Yazid ibn Muawiya to fight Imam Hussain (as) and his followers.

This was the army that was going to stop Imam Hussain (as) and his followers from getting water. This was the army who was going to kill Imam Hussain (as) and his family and friends.

Although Imam Hussain (as) knew all this, when Imam Hussain (as) saw how thirst the army looked and that they had no water, Imam Hussain (as) immediately told his brother Hazrat Abbas (as) to give their water to the army of Hazrat Hurr.

 Not only did Imam Hussain (as) and his men give water to the army but also to their horses. 

Whenever other Muslims heard about the events of Karbala, they would ask themselves, why it was that men from different backgrounds, different circumstances, different ways of life, all came together to fight and die with Imam Hussain (as). 

Every Muslim regardless of his colour, his race, his background, his financial situation, his age, could identify himself with one martyr in the army of Imam Hussain (as) and through him understand why Imam Hussain (as) did what he did.
Imam Hussain's sacrifice started a Hussaini Revolution that not only took down Yazid's rule, but still continues after 1400 years today and is revived every year in Muharram with mass commemorations accross the world by Shia Muslims.

Imam Hussain (as) and Martyrdom in the way of Truth (Islam)

Imam Hussain (as) was a man of faith and action. During nights, he worshipped Allah (SWT) in privacy, while during the day he worked hard and guided the people. He was constantly mindful of the poor and the needy, and he used to visit them and cheer them up. He used to tell his followers: "Be always in touch with the needy, for Allah (SWT) does not love the arrogant".

 Imam Hussain (as) always helped the poor as much as he could. At night he would carry sacks of food to the houses of the poor by following the footsteps of his father Imam Ali (as) and leave them near the doors. He worked hard to eradicate poverty, establish justice and acquaint the people with Allah (SWT).

During the time of Imam Hussain (as) a tyrant called Yazid ibn Muawiya became the ruler. Yazid called himself the successor of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw), but this was a lie. He used to spend the income of the Islamic realm on drinking, gambling and wild parties. Public wealth was wasted for supporting his regime and the rights of the poor were trampled upon. In this way he totally scorned the instructions of Islam.

When Yazid ibn Muawiya became ruler of the Muslims he immediately demanded Imam Hussain (as) to recognize him as the ruler and accept his leadership (give Bayat); but Imam Hussain (as) was the true successor of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) and could not accept and endorse the leadership of an oppressor. Imam Hussain (as) began to enlighten and awaken the people about Yazid ibn Muawiya and exhorted them to dissociate from him. He would tell them: "Do you not see that the truth is being trampled upon and the falsehood and oppression are prevailing? In such conditions, a Muslim must be ready for martyrdom in defense of the right. Martyrdom and self-sacrifice for the sake of truth is victory and success, while life with the oppressors is no more than shame and disgrace."

At that time the people of Kufa (Iraq) were loving followers of Imam Hussain (as) who had been suffering at the hands of Yazid and his father, Muawiya. They invited Imam Hussain (as) to Kufa to lead them against Yazid and his wicked rule. Imam Hussain (as) had indeed decided to rise up and fight, and so he accepted the invitation and set off for Kufa.

When Imam Hussain (as) and his followers were near Kufa, they were met by Yazid's troops under the leadership of Hazrat Hurr. The troops wanted to arrest Imam Hussain (as) and his followers and take them to Yazid. Imam Hussain (as) told them: "Never will I accept disgrace and surrender to Yazid ibn Muawiya. Death for me is superior to disgrace and I am ready to defend Islam and the Muslims until I get martyred."

At a place called Karbala Imam Hussain (as), his family and helpers were surrounded by Yazid's troops. Imam Hussain (as) and his followers stood firm as they fought against thousands of troops of Yazid. Finally, on 10th Muharram, 61 AH (the day we call 'Ashura'), they were martyred.

Imam Hussain (as) and his followers were martyred, but they did not submit to injustice and oppression. They defended Islam and the Muslims. With their blood they saved Islam and the Holy Qur'an from the danger of annihilation at the hands of Yazid ibn Muawiya. Imam Hussain (as) fought against oppression and defended the religion of Islam, and by doing so he taught the world the greatest lesson on freedom and righteousness.

 For this reason we call Imam Hussain (as) "Sayyid al-Shuhada" which means lord of the martyrs. Now the turn has come for us to safeguard and defend Islam. We must shoulder this magnificent responsibility.

Imam Hussain (as) his kindness, charity and love for the poor

Imam Hussain (as) is the grandson of Holy Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). He was well known for his kindness, charity and love for the poor.

 One day when Imam Hussain (as) was riding through the streets of Madina, he came across some beggars who had gathered together to eat the food that they had begged for during the day. The beggars saw Imam Hussain (as) and invited him to join them.
Imam Hussain (as) was not allowed to take anything given in charity (Sadaqah) as he was from the family of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw). Sadaqah is forbidden (Haraam) for all members of the family (Ahlul Bayt) of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw). Imam Hussain (as) got off his horse and sat down with the beggars.

 Imam Hussain (as) then explained to them that although he would love to eat with them, he could not because as a member of the family of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) he could not take Sadaqah. As an alternative he invited all of the beggars to his house for food so that they could all eat together.