Comparison Between the Conditions of Imam Hasan(A.S.) and the Conditions of Imam Husayn(A.S.)

Many people think that the Hashimite pride, which always resulted from honorable attitudes, was more appropriate for the attitude of al Husayn, peace be on him, than the attitude of al-Hasan, peace be on him.
This is a primary viewpoint that suffers from the paucity of an innermost analysis and accuracy.
Al-Hasan was a Hashimite with high glory during all his attitudes. He was similar to his father and his brother in glory. Thus they were all an example to the original reformers in history. However, each one of them had a special jihad (armed struggle), message, and attitudes which he derived from the core of the conditions that surrounded him. These conditions were early examples of jihad, glory, supporting the usurped right to authority.
Al-Husayn faced death through killing during his condition, and al-Hasan retained his life through making peace (with Mu'awiya) during his condition. With these two ways they were able to continue their doctrine and to condemn their enemies. In the meantime these two ways were the necessary logical solutions for the problems of both conditions. These solutions were the best means, which al-Hasan and al-Husayn followed to please Allah, the Most High, not to win the life in this world. They (i.e., the solutions) are the real victory that last throughout history though al-Hasan and al-Husayn were apparently deprived of their rights and their succession to authority.
The two sacrifices (i.e., al-Husayn's sacrifice in his life, and al Hasan's sacrifice in his succession) are the utmost degrees to which the original leaders aspire during their human revolutionary attitudes.
The time factors accompanied both al-Hasan and al-Husayn during their succession. They created for each of them a private condition towards his supporters, and a private condition towards his enemy. In other words the two brothers had two different conditions. As their conditions were different, their ways of jihad were different. Therefore their ends were different.
The following are the conditions their supporters and their enemies caused:
1. The Conditions their Supporters caused
For al-Husayn, peace be on him, he suffered from the treason of his Kufan companions. Such a kind of treason helped al-Husayn take a step to pave the way for his glorious success in history. That is because the people had broken their pledge of allegiance to al-Husayn before he declared war mobilization. Thus his little army was empty of any traitorous person on the day when he stood to fight against his enemies to achieve his ideal objectives.
However, the treason from which al-Hasan, peace be on him, suffered at the Camp of Maskan and the Camp of al-Mada'in was quite different from that which al-Husayn suffered. That is because al-Hasan declared war mobilization, and then his army moved to the mentioned camps. However, the enemy rumors played an important role in scattering the army. Thus chaos, plots, and treason spread all over it. Accordingly, al-Hasan was unable to wage holy war (jihad) against his enemies. In other words this was the army through which al-Hasan lost hope of winning victory in that war.
From here we understand that Al-Hasan's supporters pledged allegiance to him, and accompanied him to his camps as holy fighters (mujahidin). However, they broke their allegiance to al-Hasan, disobeyed him, and joined his enemies. Thus they were worse than those who had broken their allegiance to al-Husayn before he met his enemies.
In this manner al-Husayn paved the way to fight against his enemies when the events of treason before the battle helped him form the most wonderful army in history in loyalty and obedience though his army was few in number.
As for al-Hasan, he was unable to retain supporters even from his sincere Shi'ites. For he was not sure that he would gather them and direct their movements because of the chaos which his enemies spread.
Therefore, isn't there a great difference between their two conditions towards their supporters?
 

2. The Conditions their Enemies caused
The enemy of al-Hasan was Mu'awiya, and the enemy of al Husayn was Yazid b. Mu'awiya. History is full of differences between Mu'awiya and Yazid. For example, the son (i.e., Yazid) had plain dullness, while the father (i.e., Mu'awiya) had a deep viewpoint that the people regard as smartness.
The enmity of these two men (i.e., Mu'awiya and Yazid) towards al-Hasan and al-Husayn did not result from an accidental condition. Rather it was a past historical enmity between banu Hashim and banu Umayya.
The Umayyads did not match the Hashimites one day. Rather the Umayyads showed enmity towards the Hashimites, for the former feared that the latter would take their authority. This is the reason why the people and the historians mention the Umayyads face to face with the Hashimites. Now we have the right to ask: Isn't there a great difference between those who follow desires and those who follow ideals? Isn't there a clear difference between those who had corrupt lineages and those whom Allah purified completely as it is in the Qur'an? Isn't there an obvious difference between the corrupt people and those who adopted intellectual talents, good manners, pure race, and sciences that have played an important role in developing man in all cultural fields? Such were the Hashimites who brought light to the world. [1]
How different they are!
What al-Hasan b. 'Ali anticipated was likely. For if he had waged a hopeless war against his historical enemy Mu'awiya b. Abu Sufyan b. Harb, the war would have led to the greatest disaster against Islam. Also it would have destroyed all Shi'ites of the members of the House (Ahl al-Bayt), peace be on them. In this connection Mu'awiya had excellent abilities to carry out this plan to end that long historical enmity towards 'Ali, his sons, and their Shi'ites.
We have already mentioned this subject. Thus there is no need to mention it again.
However, such a possibility was enough for al-Husayn when the young man (i.e., Yazid) antagonized him. That is because Yazid was luxurious. He was unable to solve problems nor was he able to mobilize the trends nor was he able to make plans: Moreover, his ambition was to be a king with many treasuries, even though he faced al-Akhtal the poet whose words al-Bayhaqi has narrated:
"Your religion, indeed, is like the religion of the donkey
Rather you are more unbelieving (person) than Hurmuz."
This possibility was sufficient for al-Husayn when the sword of terrorism (i.e., Yazid) began to chase the Shi'ites everywhere, made them homeless and imprisoned those great figures who followed the doctrines of the members of the House (Ahl al-Bayt), and to whom these doctrines were entrusted to convey them to the generations after them.
Thus al-Husayn thought that it was better for him to go on carrying out his decision. He was sure of his plan, his objectives, and their future towards his enemies.
As for al-Hasan, he was not as sure as his brother al-Husayn. That is because al-Hasan suffered from the spiritual backgrounds of his army. Moreover, among his enemies were Mu'awiya and his fearful servants who made spiteful hostile plans.
Finally, al-Husayn made use of Mu'awiya's mistakes such as his attacks against the peaceful Muslim cities, his attitude towards the conditions of the Peace Treaty of al-Hasan, his killing al-Hasan with poison, his pledge of allegiance to his son Yazid, and so on. All these errors of Mu'awiya, in addition to the support of the Muslim public opinion urged al-Husayn to take steps against the Umayyads.
In the meantime al-Husayn made us of the errors of Yazid, Mu'awiya's successor, who was fond of monkeys and wine. All these things were appropriate factors for al-Husayn to carry out his plan.
Al-Husayn's conditions towards his enemies, and his conditions towards his supporters agreed with each other on supporting his movement, carrying out his task, and leading him to the glorious victory through which he succeeded with Allah and in history.
As for al-Hasan, as we have already mentioned, he was tired of the conditions which his companions caused. Thus these conditions prevented him from obtaining martyrdom. Also he suffered from the conditions which his enemies caused. So these conditions prevented him from waging war against them though he was aware that such a kind of war would destroy his doctrines.
For this reason al-Hasan thought that it was necessary for him to develop his way of jihad, and to start his battle through making peace with Mu'awiya.
The objectives which al-Hasan wanted to accomplish through his Peace Treaty with Mu'awiya forced Mu'awiya and his party to face aquick failure in history.
Indeed, after this study, it is difficult for us to distinguish which of the two brothers (i.e., al-Hasan and al-Husayn), peace be on them, had a greater effect in his jihad, more intense influence on his objectives, and a more careful opinion in defeating his enemies.
It is obvious that the Umayyads faced many hardships after the Peace Treaty. That was because of al-Hasan's plans and his directions. Indeed all these hardships took place due to this successful plan which al-Hasan's enemies supported, whether they knew that or not.

[1] In reply to Mu'awiya, the Commander of the faithful Ali(a.s) said: "Inspite of our old established honor and our well- known superiority over your people, we did not keep away mixing with you and married and got married (among you) like equals although you were not so. How could you be so when (the position is that) from us is the Prophet while from you is the liar, from us the Lion of Allah while from you is the Lion of the allies, from us is the two Lords of the youth of Heaven while from you are the children of the fire, from us is the mistress of the women of the worlds while from you is the bearer of firewood, and there are many distinctions between you and us."

What is the Sunnis' attitude in regard to the revolution of Imam Husayn(a.s.)?

Every body recognizes the high rank of Imam Husayn (a.s.).His grandfather is the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.)was always describing Imam Husayn (a.s.), that he is the counter-balance of the Holy Quran. And in other tradition he (s.a.w.) declared that Husayn ibn Ali (a.s.) shall always remain an Imam whether he rises (rebelled against the oppressors) or not. He (s.a.w.) also insisted that the Muslims should love Imam Husayn (a.s.) and adhere to his teachings. Anyhow, it is well-known that Imam Husayn (a.s.) is the best person of his era after his father and elder brother. As it is known that Imam Husayn had rose up against the authority of Yazid ibn Mu`awiyah to fulfill his duty toward the Holy Quran and his Holy grandfather (s.a.w.) when he noticed that the Umayyad caliphs had exceeded the limits of Islam with their oppression and injustice. Imam Husayn (a.s.) followed the tradition of his grandfather, namely, "He who sees an oppressor and tyrant ruler, who is changing what is forbidden (haram) into what is allowed (halal) - those who broke their covenant with Allah and fight against the sunnah of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.). And in the face of this he doesn't try to contest or protest against that ruler's illegal deeds neither by speech nor by action, Allah shall put him in the same place where He shall put that tyrant."

Some of the chiefs in Kufa announced that they would assist Imam Husayn (a.s.) and promised to help him in letters that they wrote to Imam Husayn (a.s.) while he was in Medina. At the same time, some of the companions, whom the Sunnis are still eulogize, like Abdullah ibn`Umar, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr and many others, didn't give their allegiance to Imam Husayn (a.s.). We should ask why? Moreover, Abdullah ibn `Umar began calling the people to pay allegiance to Yazid, preventing them from assisting Imam Husayn (a.s.)!This had been recorded by al-Bukhari (vol.IX, the book of riots, chapter:`if he said anything before the folk'), and in Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal(vol.II, p.48) [This narration was conveyed by Naafi`].
Now, we ask this question from the Sunnis: Do you disagree with Imam Husayn's uprising? If we search in historical records we shall come to the conclusion that the Sunnis had preferred silence and agreed to be with those who remained behind. But all of us know that whosoever remains silent - not support his Imam (a.s.),
knowing that the Imam, the son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) is right - agrees with Yazid and his wicked deeds. Thus, these people shall be considered as those who have participated with Yazid's army and fought against Imam Husayn (a.s.) and were indirect partnersin the massacres of Yazid's army on the day of `Ashoora.
Infact, the rule of Yazid over the Islamic emperor was the continuation of`Umar, `Uthman, and Mu`awiyah rule.
Didn't Mu`awiyah fight against Ali (a.s.), and therefore the main factor of Imam Hasan's martyrdom? Didn't he submit the key of caliphate to his insane son Yazid, and by doing so breaking the covenants he gave to Imam Hasan (a.s.)?
We put these questions in front of those who assisted Yazid and stood with him. Those who remained behind and abandoned Imam Husayn(a.s.) in the hour of straightness, when he rose against oppression and corruption.I

What the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) Said Regarding Yazid

Having seen Yazid’s perversities cited by prominent Sunni authorities, let us now look at the contents of the Traditions of the Prophet (S), as reported by the Sunni authorities For our purposes today, we shall dwell upon only those Traditions reported in Sahih Bukhari. As known by the majority of the people, to the Sunnis as well as the Wahabis, this book is regarded as the most authentic, surpassed only by the Holy Quran. To them, Traditions from this book are most reliable, beyond any doubt!
In Tradition Number 180 on page 147 of Volume Nine, it is stated that: “Amr bin Yahya bin Said bin Amr bin Said said: ‘My grandfather narrated to me thus: I was in the company of Abu Hurayra and Marwan in the mosque of the Prophet (S) in Madina. Abu Hurayra then said: I heard the truthful and trusted by Allah (i.e. the Prophet (S)) saying, “The destruction of my followers will be through the hands of young men from Quraish.” Marwan retorted: ‘May the curse of Allah be on these youths.’ Abu Hurayra said: If I could, I would have named these youths, and their parentage.’ Accompanied by my grandfather, I went to Syria to meet the progeny of Marwan at the time when they were the rulers there. Whenever my grandfather saw that these rulers were young men, he would tell us: Probably, these are among them (those young men mentioned by the Prophet (S)), and we used to reply, saying, You know better than us’.”
Before quoting the explanations of the above mentioned Tradition, those working with the English version should note that it does not fully correspond with the original Arabic text. The translator has omitted the significant part of the Tradition, printed in italics above, in the English version -- advertently or inadvertently.
Nonetheless, in his book, Fat’hul Baari, on page 10 of Chapter Thirteen, Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asqalaani mentions a narration of Ibn Abi Shayba which says that: “Abu Hurayra used to go to the market saying: ‘O Lord! Do not let me live to the year 60 A. H. nor witness the reign of the youths.’” Having said this, Imam Ibn Hajar adds, “In these words there is an indication that the first youth to come to power was in the year 60 A. H., and indeed, this is what actually happened. Yazid bin Muawiya’s succession took place in that year, and he remained in power till his death in 64 A. H. He was succeeded by his son, Muawiya, who died after a few months.”
Therefore, according to Imam Ibn Hajar, among “the Quraish youths” prophesized by the Prophet (S) to be the ones through whose hands the destruction of his followers would be, and whom Abu Hurayra wished the Almighty to keep him away from in the year 60 A. H., was Yazid. Did the Prophet’s prediction prove wrong? Wasn’t the Prophet’s community led astray through the massacres of Karbalaa, Madina and Macca as expounded hitherto? Or were those who were killed there polytheists and not Muslims? Despite all these, do we still insist that Yazid was Amirul Mu’minin?
Remember: Abu Hurayra did not disclose the names and the parentage of the Quraishi youths, not because he did not know them, but because he feared that if he did so he would endanger his life. This becomes clear when we revert to Sahih Bukhari (Tradition Number 121 on page 89 of Volume One). Which says: Narrated by Abu Hurayra: I have memorised two kinds of knowledge from Allah’s Apostle (S) I have propagated one of them to you and if I propagated the second, then my pharynx (throat) would be cut (i.e. killed).’”
Commenting on this Tradition, on page 216 of Chapter One of Fat’hul Baari, Imam Ibn Hajar says: “Scholars believe that the knowledge that Abu Hurayra did not disclose, relates to the Tradition in which names, life-style and the times of the evil monarchs have been mentioned. Abu Hurayra used to make a tacit reference about some of them, but would never mention their real names, fearing for his own life. For instance, by seeking refuge in the Almighty from year 60 and from the reign of the youths, he was making a tacit reference to the kingship of Yazid bin Muawiya whose reign was in the year 60 A.H.”
However, Imam Ibn Hajar was not the only person to draw this conclusion. Shihaabuddin Ahmad Al Qastwalaani too comes out with a similar interpretation of these Traditions. Those who know Arabic may refer to page 374 of Chapter One, and pages 11-12 of Chapter Fifteen of Irshaadus Saari.
Abu Hurayra, therefore, did not name Yazid, not because he did not know it, but because he was afraid that if he did so, his life would be in danger. In other words, he observed taqiyya (dissimulation)!
Was Abu Hurayra alone in practising taqiyya or others, too, observe it?

What Yazid did as a Ruler

In brief, these acts are narrated by Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy, on pages 29 to 41, and they are as follows:
1. He ordered his Governor of Madina, Khalid bin Hakam, to extract oath of allegiance from Husayn bin Ali bin Abi Talib, Abdullah bin Umar bin Al Khattab, Abdullah bin Al Abbas and Abdullah bin Zubair. (By then Abdur Rahman bin Abu Bakr was dead). The order was “He should make it absolutely sure that they accepted Yazid as the Caliph of all Muslims. If they refused to do so, then their properties should be confiscated, their marriages nullified, and their slaves be declared free.”
2. When the governor wanted to impose Yazid’s terms on Imam Husayn and Abdullah bin Zubair, they asked him to wait till the following day. Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy reports (page 30) that “On reaching their homes, they bade farewell to their kith and kin and went secretly to Mecca, which was the haven of safety for them…” When Yazid came to know about this, he was outraged and “revoked his governorship.”
3. No sooner had Yazid ascended the throne by force, than the people of Kufa (Iraq) “invited Imam Husayn to hasten to Iraq, to lead an uprising to dethrone the one who was most unworthy of being the Caliph of Muslims.” The Imam did not make an immediate move; rather, he dispatched to Kufa, his cousin, (Muslim bin Aqyl) to investigate the truth of the matter. Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy says (page 34-35), “Yazid appointed, as his governor of Kufa, one who was murderous, oppressive, high-handed and aggressive, and who was hostile to Sayyidna Ali and his progeny; his name was Ubaidillah bin Ziyad, the son of that person whom Muawiya declared to be his brother, only out of political necessity. As a matter of fact, though he (Ziyad bin Abihi) was regarded to belong to Muawiya’s clan of Umayyad, he was in no way related to Muawiya, neither was he from the tribe of Qureish or even an Arab! He was of illegitimate birth and so crafty that he dared compete with Muawiya. The latter, out of contrivance, thought it prudent to declare the former his brother and let him manage Iraq completely.” Thus Ziyad was the first bastard, in Islamic History, to be given the status of legitimacy!
4. Sheikh Abdallah writes on page 35, that having appointed this new governor, Yazid ordered him to “kill Muslim bin Aqyl, those who accompanied him, those who received him, and those who supported him; and imprison their neighbors and their kith and kin, showing them no mercy at all.” Indeed, these instructions were fully executed. “He did exactly what Yazid had instructed him to do. He killed all those he was instructed to kill, and he imprisoned all those he was ordered to imprison…”
In his book Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy does not write how Muslim bin Aqyl was martyred. However, other historians have recorded in their books, stating that he was taken to the top of the royal castle, he was then beheaded and both his severed head and body were thrown from the castle. Later his severed head was dispatched to Yazid!
5. As was described in Chapter One, Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy narrates on page 40 that after Imam Husayn a. s. and his followers had been beheaded brutally and their heads presented to Yazid, “he (Yazid) began to strike the teeth of Husayn, and singing aloud, he said: ‘Today, I squared up with Muhammad. The way he killed my ancestors on the Day of Badr, I killed his grandchildren. And now onwards this is going to be our policy: Whoever opposes us, we shall kill them, even if they happen to be our relatives…’”
O my Muslim brothers! Ask yourselves: Can a person, who has the audacity of saying that he took his revenge on Prophet Muhammad (S) for killing his (Yazid’s) polytheist ancestors, deserve to be addressed as Amirrul-mu’minin? Let alone calling him The Prince of Believers, can you consider him to be even a Muslim?  

Didn’t the Wahabis know of this fact? Or will they tell us that Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy, too, was a Shia?

6. After the martyrdom of Imam Husayn in 61 A.H., Yazid invaded Madina. Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy tells us about this thus (page 41): “A large number of the companions of the Prophet (S), and others were killed in Madina. There was a complete anarchy in Madina for three consecutive days. Destruction was rampant, not only in terms of lives and wealth, but also human dignity. All this was carried out by Yazid’s orders... As for those companions of the Prophet (S) whose lives were spared, Yazid ordered that they be branded on their backs as his slaves.” Lord of Mercy! This person (Yazid) is indeed Amirul Mu’minin (The Prince of The Believers) of the Wahabis!
Sheikh Abdallah presented this account covertly. Other narrators, however, have given a more overt description of these events. Among them is Ibn Kathir, who is highly esteemed by the international Wahabis in the same way that Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy is esteemed by the Wahabis of East Africa. In his book, Al Bidaya Wan Nihaya, Chapter Seven, page 220, he gives a numerical count of “the many companions of the Prophet killed as 700, comprising the notable Muhajir and Ansars, and for others as 10,000.” Elaborating what Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy calls “anarchy”, Ibn Kathir, on page 222, states that the atrocities committed by the orders of Yazid are indescribable, and their impact “is known only to Allah.” This is despite the fact that earlier, on page 220, he had already stated that “women were raped to the extent that 1000 of them became pregnant and gave birth to children though they were unmarried...”
Having narrated these evil deeds, and wishing us to be cautious about whom Yazid really was, Ibn Kathir, on page 223, quotes three Traditions of the Prophet (S) . . . . First, he takes a Tradition from Bukhari, quoting the Prophet (S) to have said “There will be none who will oppress the people of Madina without disintegrating the way salt dissolves in water.” Second, he borrows a Tradition from Muslim that says; “Whoever has bad intentions for Madina, Allah will melt him the way solder melts in fire, or He will dissolve him the way salt dissolves in water.” Third, he narrates on the authority of Ahmad bin Hanbal, who says, “He who wishes to cause fear through oppression to people of Madina, Allah will cause him to be gripped by fear, and to be cursed by Him, His angels and by everyone else. Moreover, on the Day of Judgment, Allah will not accept his repentance and will not grant him forgiveness.”
Now then, is there any salvation for Yazid after what was done in Madina by his orders as stated by Ibn Kathir (page 220), and Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy (page 41), and in light of the Traditions mentioned above? What type of Amirul Mu’minin is this who is subject to the curse of Allah, His angels and all human beings?
7. Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsi says, on page 41, that one year after the invasion of Madina, Mecca, too, was invaded. “Yazid’s army massacred many people and demolished Al Kaaba...” Here, too, Sheikh Abdallah’s narration is understated, though others have been more forthright. For instance, the same Ibn Kathir, on page 225, says that Yazid’s army “pelted Al Kaba with stones through the use of catapults and attacked it even with fire balls till its walls were set ablaze.” In Shadharaatudh Dhahab, Chapter Three, page 72, Ibnul Imaad Al Hanbali says that so much fire was used that “the entire building (Al Kaba) collapsed.”
This is what was meted out to “The House of Allah” which, according to the Holy Quran (Ch. 3: v 97), is a place where security is guaranteed to any one entering there, seeking refuge. This security was eliminated by Yazid. And this Yazid is the Amirul Mu’minin of the Wahabis who advocate that all Muslims, too, must view him as such! Subhaanallah!
In a nutshell, these are the evil deeds of Yazid. Let alone Amirul Mu’minin, would even a common Muslim dare commit such actions? Certainly not; then how come Yazid did so?

Installation of Yazid as Ruler

Before Yazid’s reign in 60 A.H., his father, Muawiya bin Abi Sufyan, ruled over the Muslims. Both, the father and the grandfather, accepted Islam only as a measure of last resort, after the recapture of Mecca and their defeat as leaders of intense opposition against Prophet Muhammad (S).
This is the same Muawiya who, not only rebelled and waged a war against “The Fourth Caliph” (Imam Ali bin Abi Talib a. s.), who had been elected by the Muslims to be their Caliph, but also opposed and fought Imam Hasan (the brother of Imam Husayn a. s.), who, according to Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy, “was murdered by being poisoned” by Yazid, the so called Amirul Mu’minin! (Refer Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy’s book Maisha ya Sayyidnal Hasan (The Biography of Sayyidna Hasan) p. 24, 1999 ed., published by Adam Traders, Mombasa.
Ten years before he was poisoned, Imam Hasan had signed a ceasefire agreement with Yazid’s father, Muawiya, after an intense battle. In his book, on page 16, Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy states that one of the conditions of this ceasefire agreement was that Imam Hasan would cede Caliphate to Muawiya. However, on the death of Muawiya, the Caliphate would revert to Imam Hasan (a.s.), if he were still alive, or else, it would revert to Imam Husayn (a.s.).
Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy continues to explain on page 24 of the same book that “Yazid realized the fact that on the death of his father, he would lose the opportunity to inherit his rulership, which would pass on to Hasan, as per the treaty. He decided to murder him (Hasan) by poisoning him. He sent some trusted individuals secretly to Sayyidnal Hasan’s last wife, Jaada binti Asha-ath, who had no children with him. She was promised that if she murdered her husband, Yazid would marry her and that she would be given one hundred thousand Dirhams in advance, and much more, if she so wished. She was overcome by this temptation and poisoned her husband, who suffered for forty days, and passed away, a martyr…”
On page18 of his book titled The Biography of Sayyidina Husayn, Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy says: “Before the death of Sayyidina Hasan, Muawiya had made up his mind to unbind himself from his treaty to let Al Hasan, or any one else, to succeed him. He decided to make his favorite son, Yazid, heir-apparent to his throne. He would let the public know that on his death, there would be no nomination, except that his son, Yazid would become the Caliph. This would be done regardless of Hasan’s consent or not, and in face of acceptance or rejection by all and sundry.” He concludes thus: “So that they should continue to stay in their positions, most of his governors strongly supported this idea despite the fact that it was un-Islamic…”
After the martyrdom of Imam Hasan that resulted from him being poisoned, Muawiya planned his strategy to establish his son Yazid’s succession. But to do this was not easy. According to what Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy states in his book The Biography of Sayyidina Husayn on page 18, “(Muawiya) perceived the difficulties in breaching the covenant and planned to execute his stratagem stealthily by prompting his governors to air this view and thus create an impression that this idea was not his but that of his governors. He instructed his governors to promote this idea in their domains of authority casually, in the initial stage.”
Having done so, he then assembled them all at one venue and as preplanned, made each of them, one after the other, propose Yazid’s succession. However, all of them did not comply; among those who opposed this idea was Al Ahnaf bin Qays, who, according to Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy (refer his book Page 20), said: ‘No! We, the people of Iraq, and the people of Hijaz, too, are not in agreement with this. We are not satisfied with the prospect of having Yazid as the Caliph of Muslims. And you, more than any one else, know that your son is unfit (for this position). Do not purposely condemn yourself to Hell. As for us, we shall not be satisfied unless we see this position goes to one from the progeny of Ali.”
There ensued a commotion. Sheikh reports (page 20): “Abu Khunayf unsheathed his sword…Addressing Muawiya, he said, ‘Let him who opposes me taste this: he will then come to his senses.’ Preparing to go away, Muawiya said: ‘Indeed, this is a true patriot, one who is man of action, not mere words, one who is the best of all who are present here.’ The assembly then dispersed.”
Sheikh Farsy continues (page 21) saying that when Bibi Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, came to know about this, “she was very angry because Muawiya was going back on his promises given to Sayyidnal Hasan…”
This matter ended at that, and no further action was taken. However, after a while, (in 50 A.H.), Muawiya went to Medina, in the words of Sheikh Farsy, “to send out his feelers.” There, “he had a meeting with the sons of prominent companions (of the Prophet, (S)), namely, Abdullah bin Abbas bin Abdil Muttalib, Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib bin Abdil Muttalib, and Abdullah bin Zubair bin Awam; he did not call for Sayyidinal Husayn.” He talked with them very graciously so as to win their approval, but all of them turned him down, and he went home empty handed!
“On the death of Sayyidnal Hasan,” says Sheikh A.S. Farsy (page 22), “Muawiya ordered people of Syria to accept Yazid as their Caliph after him. They complied unanimously.” He then ordered the governor of Medina to force all people of Medina to accept Yazid (as their next Caliph). According to Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 23), “he (the governor of Medina) was deeply agitated, seeing no reason why a depraved young man should rule over the elders and the companions of the Prophet (S).” Therefore, he let Muawiya know his stand; Muawiya responded immediately, “writing him a letter to terminate his services as governor.”
On receiving this letter, the governor (Merwan bin Hakam) “was furious, and accompanied by elders of his maternal relatives and members of his clan (Bani Kinana), he went to Syria to meet Muawiya with a threat of a coup. Thus threatened, Muawiya treated the governor and his relatives with soothing words, plenty of cash and a life-long pension comprising three hundred pounds per month for him, and fifty pounds per month for each of his relatives...”
Back in Medina, the new governor implemented Muawiya’s orders fully, and reported to him those who were in the front line opposing this order. In turn, Muawiya dispatched to him individual letters for each one of them, and ordered him to extract from each of them a response. The addressees of these letters were: Abdullah bin Abbas bin Abdil Muttalib, Husayn bin Ali bin Abi Talib bin Abdil Muttalib, Abdullah bin Ja’far bin Abi Talib bin Abdil Muttalib, and Abdullah bin Zubair bin Saffiya bint Abdil Muttalib.” Sheikh A. S. Farsy reports in his book on page 24, that “the content of this letter was very harsh, warning the addressees that he would kill them if they refused to accept Yazid‘s succession to Caliphate after his death.”
As per Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 24), these dignitaries “responded in sharp and stern words. The longest reply was from Sayyidinal Husayn.”
On receiving these replies, Muawiya instructed his governor, once more, to put “severe pressure on them to make them comply. The governor did so, but with no success,” says Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 24). He, therefore, advised Muawiya to go to Medina to meet them personally.
Muawiya went to Medina and “after resting, he met secretly with each one of them separately, so that they should not give him one reply unanimously,” says Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 25). The first one he talked to was Imam Husayn a. s. “He told him, ‘My son! Do not create division in the community of your grandfather. Every one is satisfied that Yazid should succeed me as the Caliph. There are no opponents to this except you and those whom you lead. They have told me that as soon as you have agreed, they, too, will be satisfied.’ He (Imam Husayn) replied, ‘Bring them here and let them say so in my presence. For I do not believe that they have really told you so. However, if they truly reiterate what they have told you I, too, will, comply, but I’m certain that they will not concur.’ Muawiya retorted: ‘Fine, you can go, but do not disclose to any one any thing that transpired in the course of our conversation.” This is what Sheikh A. S. Farsy has recorded in his book on page 25.
After Imam Husayn a. s., Muawiya called Abdullah bin Zubair, and then Abdullah bin Umar bin al Khattab. They, too, gave the same reply as that of Imam Husayn a. s. - “verbatim”. Here, Sheikh A. S. Farsy, adds (page 25-26), Muawiya sent for Abdul Rahman bin Abi Bakrinis Sidiqq. They had an intensively bitter exchange of words. As they both were of the same age, their exchange of words was at par with each other, with anger.”
After that, Muawiya had to change his strategy. “On the next day,” says Sheikh A. S. Farsy (page 26), “he called for Sayyidinal Husayn and Abdullah bin Abbas.” After inquiring about “them and their families, he began to praise his son, Yazid, attributing to him qualities that he had, and ones that he did not have. Having done so, he told them, ‘For this reason he deserves to become the Caliph of Muslims…’” Sheikh A. S. Farsy says on page 26 that, Imam Husayn retorted by describing Yazid’s viciousness and then added, “Do not add more sins to what you have already accumulated for yourself. Enough is enough. You are violating Islamic values and Muslims’ rights. by imposing on them your whims.”
When this strategy also failed, Muawiya ordered that all the three dignitaries be presented to him: they being Abdur Rahman bin Aby Bakr, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubair. (See Sheikh A.S. Farsy, page 27). “He welcomed them collectively, and then told them, ‘This issue of Yazid’s succession is the choice of Allah and acceptable to all except you three. Be careful not to cause a calamity. Or else, you will incur both Allah’s and my wrath…’ All of them contradicted him… He decided to talk in confidence with Adur Rahman bin Abi Bakr. On hearing this talk about Yazid’s succession, Abdur Rahman said: ‘We don’t want that to happen. And if you implement your decision by force, we shall re-enact the first battle fought by the Muslims, you and those who share your views being on the side of polytheists, the way your father was then.’” So saying, Abdur Rahman walked out.
After three days, all the people of Medina were ordered to assemble. Muawiya kept close to himself all those who were opposing him; announced to those present that every nook and corner of his empire had accepted Yazid as their next Caliph except the people of Madina, and that if he knew of any other person better qualified than Yazid, he would have paved way for that person’s succession, but there was no such person. Then he warned them all that he did not want to hear any opposition. He adjourned the assembly, to resume it again in the evening.
Sheikh Abdallah narrates (page 28-29) that prior to going to this meeting, Muawiya “assembled all his opponents and went with them to the meeting. When he arrived there, he said, ‘I have arranged for hired killers to be present at the assembly. I shall announce to the public that you have now agreed with the succession of Yazid. He who does not value his life should raise his objection. For no sooner does he do so, than people will see his head rolling on the ground.’ And he had instructed his soldiers to instantly kill anyone who dared oppose him. Besides that, he made this threat known to all those who were present there, so that all of them remain in a state of fear.”
Now, this is Muawiya and this is how he planned his son’s succession -- that son, Yazid, whom the Wahabis regard as Amirul–mu’minin (the Prince of Believers), May Allah forgive us!
At this public assembly, assuming the same threatening posture that he had used in warning Imam Husayn and others, Muawiya mounted the pulpit and said, “Be my witness that those who had been opposing me (regarding Yazid’s succession) are now in agreement (with my proposal); and they are all present here. They are the patriots of Madina and the companions (of the Prophet (S). All is now well.” This is what Sheikh Abdallah S. Farsy narrates in his book, page 29. He then adds, “After that, he distributed large sums of money to the elders of each clan belonging to Muhajirs and Ansars, and others…” This is how Yazid secured his Caliphate in the month of Rajab, A.H. 60, on the death of his father.
O my Muslim brothers! If this is how things were, as portrayed by Sheikh Abdallah Saleh Farsy, then would any genuine Muslim, who truly understands his religion, and who wishes to protect the honor of Islam, ever perceive a man like Yazid to be among the leaders of Islam, let alone accept him as Amirul Mu’minin or the Prince of the Believers? Bear in mind that these are not the direct acts of Yazid as such; they were perpetrated by his father, Muawiya. However, the heinous acts that he himself committed after his succession surpasses those of his father.

Who are Shiites??-A Speech from Hassnain RajabAli

Dr. Zakir Naik (Yazid) VS SYED AMMAR NAKSHAWANI(HUSSAINI)

Who was Ziyad? Was he a Shia of Ali??

Ziyad was a very intelligent man, a good politician, wise and a shia of Alee (a.s), who made him a governor in Fars. When Muawiya joined Ziyad to himself (by saying that you are son of Aboo Sufiyan and my brother) he turned into the worst enemy of the family (of the Prophet) and Shi'ee of Alee (a.s) and he is the one who killed Hujr Ibn Adi and his people...

Source: Lisan al-Mizan Asqalani Vol 3, Pg. # 531

"Ziyad (لعنت اللہ) was always in search of the Shiites of Alee (عليه السلام) and killed them, when Hassan Ibn Alee (عليه السلام)  heard it he prayed to Allah (swt) and said: "O my Allah (swt) put his death soon, because death is his punishment". 

Source: Majmahul Zawahid Haithami Vol 6, Pg. # 408

This has also been recorded in: Mohjam al-Kabir Tabarani Vol 3, Pg. # 68, Siyar Ahlam Nobala Zahabi Vol 3, Pg. # 496, Tarikh al-Islam Zahabi Vol 4, Pg. # 210

Ibn Ziyad now as a governor for Yazid (la) set out spy's in order to seek out any loyal supporters of the Imam Hussain (a.s). It was brought to his attention Hani ibn Urwa (r.a) was among them. Ibn Ziyad (la) threatened Hani to give up the location of Muslim bin Aqeel to which he refused. Ibn Ziyad (la) remind him that he would not spare his life as it was not done so with Hujar ibn Adi and his friends. Hani ibn Uraw (r.a) refused to do so which later lead to him been murdered by Yazid (la) and his henchmen. The testimony of Ibn Ziyad to Hani Ibn Urwa also verify's that the loyal supporters of Ahlulbayt (a.s) were few in numbers.

(فقال عبيدالله : يا هاني اما تعلم ان ابي قدم هذا البلد فلم يترك احدا من هذه الشيعة الا قتله غير ابيك وغير حجر ، وكان مع حجر ما قد علمت ،)

"Don't you know Hani, when my father came to this land, he did not spare the life of any one of the Shi'ee except for your father and Hujr? (And) You know what happened to Hujr?!"

Source: Tarikh Al-Tabari Vol 5, Pg. # 361

On the acknowledgement of this letter Yazid (l.a) issued an order to Ibn Ziyad  (l.a) in which he ordered Muslim bin Aqeel (a.s) to be either killed or expelled.

ثم دعا مسلم بن عمرو الباهلي وكان عنده فبعثه إلى عبيد الله بعهده إلى البصرة ، وكتب إليه معه : أما بعد ؛ فإنه كتب إلي شيعتي من أهل الكوفة يخبرونني أن ابن عقيل بالكوفة يجمع الجموع لشق عصا المسلمين ، فسر حين تقرأ كتابي هذا حتى تأتي أهل الكوفة فتطلب ابن عقيل كطلب الخرزة حتى تثقفه فتوثقه أو تقتله أو تنفيه ، والسلام.)

"My followers among the people of Kufah have written to me to inform me that Muslim bin Aq'eel is in Kufah gathering units in order to spread rebellion among the Muslims. Therefore, when you read this letter of mine, go to Kufah and search for Ibn Aq'eel, as if you were looking for a bead, until you find him. Then bind him in chains, kill him!, or expel him."

Source: Tarikh Al-Tabari Vol 5, Pg. # 357

Before Imam Hussain (a.s) departed for Karbala, Ibn Abbas (r.a) advised him against it. Ibn Abbas found the invitation very suspicious as he was aware the people of Iraq who had loyalty towards the Ahlulbayt (a.s) had been none existent.

(أتى الحسين عبد الله بن العباس ، فقال : يابن عم إني أتصبر ولا أصبر ، إني أتخوف عليك في هذا الوجه الهلاك والاستئصال ، إن أهل العراق قوم غدر فلا تقربنهم ، أقم بهذا البلد فإنك سيد أهل الحجاز ، فإن كان أهل العراق يريدونك كما زعموا ، فاكتب إليهم فلينفوا عدوهم ، ثم أقدم عليهم فإن أبيت إلا أن تخرج فسر إلى اليمن ، فإن بها حصونا وشعابا وهي أرض عريضة طويلة ولأبيك بها شيعة ، وأنت عن الناس في عزلة)

“Cousin I invoke patience, but I do not have it. I fear you destruction and extirpation in this exercise. The Iraqis are a treacherous people. So don’t go near them. Remain in this land, for you are the leader of the people of Hijaz. If the Iraqis want you as they claim, write to them that they should drive out their enemies, and then you will come to them. If you insist on leaving, then go to Yemen. There, there are fortresses and gorges. It is a vast distant land. Your father had Shi'ee there and you would be remote from the people”.

Source: Tarikh Tabari Vol 5, Pg. # 383 - 384, Al-Kamel Fi Tarikh Ibn Athir Vol 3,  Pg. # 400, Al-Bedaya wa Nehaya Vol 11, Pg. # 469, Ansab al-Ashraf Balazari, Vol 3,  Pg. # 374

From this brief introduction it can be established the Imami Shi'ee during the Tragerdy of Karbala made the minority population. Now the question arises as to what was the creed of these people? and to whom was their loyalty with?. The so called 'Ahl Sunnah' have attempted to confuse people by suggesting these people had been Sh'iees of Ali (a.s) and thus present day Shi'ee are damned for neglecting the Imam (a.s). This concept is against the holy Qur'an itself as it has been revealed 'That no burdened person shall bear the burden of another', meaning every soul shall carry its own injustices, whether disbelief or sin, and none else shall carry its burden of sin. If we was to exert the same logic with those of Kufa can we blame the present day people of Hijaz for been cursed in not aiding to protect Hamzah (a.s), Uthmaan (la), or even the martyr's of  Karbalah? Or the Prophet (saw) himself! in which many of the companions fled from battle leaving him (saw) stranded which resulted in his face been striked. Could anyone use such feeble logic?  Inshallah'tala in our next article we will be dealing with the creed of those who wrote the letter to the Imam (a.s).

 

The Uthmaani Shi'ee cursed Ali and used to loudly speak it on pulpits and elsewhere.

Source: Minhaj Al-Sunnah Vol 6, Pg. # 201

Muawiyah Paves The Way

During this reign of Muawiya's (l.a) he appointed Ziyad Ibn Sumaya (l.a) in charge of Kufah and surrounding areas. In this period and even before many loyal supporters of Ahlulbayt (a.s) were systematically murdered. Before Muawiyah's (la) passed away he had appointed his son Yazid (la) as his successor. Yazid (la) followed in the lines of his cursed father and now had appointed the son of Ziyad Ibn Sumaya known as Ibn Ziyad (la) to take his demonic position

إذ لجأ بنو أمية إلى الفتك بمحبي أهل البيت وإذلالهم. فقتلوا حجر بن عدي صبراً في عهد معاوية لأنه أنكر سب علي على المنابر

“The Umayyad's killed and humiliated the lovers of Ahlulbayt (a.s), and ruthlessly killed Hujr bin Adi  during Muawiyah's reign on account of his criticism of their act of cursing Imam Alee (a.s) from the pulpits”

Source: Hasan bin Farhan al-Maliki ‘Qeraah fi Kutub al-Aqaed’, Pg. #  170 

"Ubaydullah ibn Ziyad was with Alee (r.a), Imam Alee (r.a) used him in some duties, until Alee (r.a)  was killed and Hasan (a.s) gave the government to Muawiya, then Muawiya joined Ziyad to himself and gave him the government of two iraqs (Kufa and Basra), he was governor untill he died"

Source: Al-Istiab Vol 2, Pg. # 524

The Analysis Of Kufah

In order to understand the political, social and economical situation of Kufa prior to the event of Karbalah one needs to delve into the history in order to get a clear picture of how  Kufa was developed into a state. It was founded during the leadership of Umar Ibn Khataab  (la), and it was inhabited by more than one thousand Companions of the  Prophet (saw)  including twenty-four who had participated in the battle of Badr. Notable Sunni scholars such as  Allamah Shibli Naumani in his famous book 'Al-Farooq' had praised Umar ibn Khataab (la) for the construction of city of Kufa:-


"When a number of cities were conquered, Saad bin Waqqas wrote to Omer that Arabs are becoming spoiled (with all the successes), Omer wrote back to find a spot that has both land and sea strategic importance. Hence Suleiman Hazeefah choose the land of Kufa and named it such.


The city was founded in 17 AH and, as Omar had expressly commanded, houses sufficient to lodge forty thousand persons were constructed. Arab tribes were allotted separate quarters under the supervision of Hayaj ibn Malik. Omar had given explicit instructions with regard to the planning of the city as well as its construction.... the Jami Masjid was built on a raised squared platform and was so spacious that forty thousand persons could pray in it at one time."


Source: Al Farooq, Vol 2, page #  94 - 95

 

"Besides the Jami Masjid, separate mosques were built for each tribe based quarter of the city. Among the settled tribes in Kufah were twelve thousand men from Yemen and eight thousand from the Nazar Clan. There were numerous other tribes settled such as Saleem, Saqeef, Humdaan, Bajablah, Nim-ul Lat, Taghlab, Bani Asad, Nakha, Kindah, Azd, Mazainah, Tamim Muharab, Asad and Amirm Jadilah and Akhlat, Juhaina, Muhjaz, Hawazin, etc".


"In Omar's lifetime the city came to attain such greatness and splendor that the Caliph called it the head of Islam. It had indeed become a center of Arab power".


Source : Al Faruq, Vol 2, pg. # 96

 

These historical facts have also been recorded in:-

Source: Al-Kamel Fi Tarikh Ibn Athir Vol 2 Pg. #  37 - 375,  Fotuh ul-Boldan Balazari  Pg. # 387 - 389, Balazari Pg. # 387 - 389, Tarikh ul-Islam al-Zahabi Pg. # 170, Tarikh Tabari Vol 4, Pg. # 44 -  47

There is no doubting that the Kufan residents were loyal to the leadership of the Sheikhan to the extent that they deemed Kufa to be the head of Islam. Now if the Nawasib are still delusional in regards to this, we would like to question them to clarify to us would the mosque that holds 40 thousand worshippers were they all Shi'ee Imami mosques? Was Umar (la) intent on developing a huge Shi'ee city, wherein beliefs centered cursing him and affirming that Alee (a.s) was the true leader of the Prophet?

We are not able to find any valid sources from the history of Islam that affirm that at the time of Martyrdom of Imam Hussain (a.s) the majority of Kufans were Imami Shias on the contrary we find numerous sources that tell us clearly that the majority of Kufans were followers of Uthmaan bin Affan (l.a). And their hostality towards the Ahlulbayt (a.s)  is evident to the extent that some of these Uthmaan Shi'ee used to curse Alee bin Abi Taalib (a.s).

(وكان من شيعه عثمان من يسب علي ويجهر بذلك على المنابر وغيرها لأجل القتال الذي كان بينهم وبينه.)

Truth Behind Karbalah Part I

The enemy's of Ahlulbayt (a.s) have perpetuated lies that the Shi'ee had been responsible for the tragedy that transpired in Karbala. The purpose of this article is to refute such claims and bring to light the true face of the enemy. Firstly it is important to establish the term 'Shi'ee' in early Islamic history. One finds it perplexing that the term ‘Ahle Sunnah’ was non existent in early Islamic history and those who comprise of ‘Ahl Sunnah’ today were actually once referred to as ‘Shias’! Unknown to many, the first Shi'ee encompassed all the groups that would later be deemed the present day 'Sunni' and 'Shi'ee'.

Thus it is essential for one to distinguish which group of Shi'ee were responsible. The ‘Twelver Imami Shi'ee’ in those days were called ‘Rafidhi’ (Rejectors). It was these religiously affiliated Shias that are known as ‘Imami Shia’ today. The ‘Imami Shia’ never accepted the Khalifat of Aboo Bakr, Umar, and Uthmaan, Muawiyah, Yazid (Allah's curse be upon them all!), where as the other Shi'ee factions did. The Shias, ‘Shia Rafidhi's’ as they are now known then, became those that upheld the right of Imam Alee (a.s) to be the first appointed khalifah. The forefather of the Nasbis Muawiyah (la) also used this the term 'Rafidhi's' to describe the  followers of Amir Al Momineen (a.s). Salafi Ibn Al Aatham narrated that Muawiyah sent a letter to Amer bin Al Aas (Allah's curse be upon both of them) in which the following words are recorded: 

“The Rafidah of Yemen, Basrah, Kufa and Hejaz are being assembled in aid of Alee bin Abi Taalib”.

Source: Al Futooh, vol. 2, Pg. #  382

 

Similarly the term Shi'ee was also referred to the opposing factions which had been called ‘Shi'ee of Muawiyah’ or ‘Shi'ee of Uthmaan’. The word ‘Shi'ee’ was used for these groups for purely political reasons.  Even Salafi Sheikh Bilal Philips has recorded in his works:

"The term was first used to describe both 'Alee's followers (Shee'ah 'Alee) as well as those of Mu'aawiyah (Shee'ah 'Alee)

Source: Ibn Al Jawzee's The Devil's Deception edited by Bilal Philips Pg. # 39

 

The existence of the ‘Shi'ee Rafidhi's has been abundantly clear from the works of classical Sunni Ulema, who acknowledge that the term ‘Shia’ in the past did not carry the same connotation that it does today. Let us quote the renowned Nasbi scholar, Imam al-Dhahabi: 

علي رضي الله عنه من يوم صفين، ويرون أنهم وسلفهم أولى الطائفتين بالحق، كما أن الكوفيين - إلا من شاء ربك - فيهم انحراف عن عثمان وموالاة لعلى، وسلفهم شيعته وأنصاره، ونحن - معشر أهل السنة - أولو محبة وموالاة للخلفاء الاربعة، ثم خلق من شيعة العراق يحبون عثمان وعليا، لكن يفضلون عليا على عثمان، ولا يحبون من حارب عليا من الاستغفار لهم فهذا تشيع خفيف..

“Yes, most of the Syrian populations from the days of (the battle of) Siffeen rejected the Caliphate of Amir-al-Momineen Alee and considered themselves and their ancestors righteous for doing so. The Kufans likewise deviated from Uthmaan and loved  Alee over him because their ancestors were the Shias and helpers whilst we, the Ahle Sunnah love all four of the Caliphs. There was also a third group of Shias in Iraq who loved both  Alee and Uthmaan but still preferred  Alee over Uthmaan and had an extreme dislike of those that fought  Alee at the same time they would supplicate, asking forgiveness of those that fought Alee. This was a softer version of Shia”

Source: Al-Dhahabi, Meezaan al-`Itidaal, vol. 6, Pg. 153

 

 Also Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says:


“According to the early scholars, Shiat meant to have faith on Alee having preference over Uthmaan, and `Alee was correct in his wars and those who opposed him were in error, although they preferred the Shaykhayn over them (Uthmaan and Alee)...


(But Ibn Hajr does not stop there he continues to say)


And maybe some of their beliefs was that `Alee was the best creation after the Messenger of Allāh (saw), and if they believe that, and have devote faith, truthful and diligent, then there is no disallowing his narrations, and if it is not with other motives. As for the shee`ism that is known to the muta’akhireen (later scholars), it is the pure Rafd (rejection), and it is not permissible to accept narrations from a raafiDee, ghaali and not from a kiraami”


Source: Ibn Hajr, Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, vol. 1, pg. #  94

 The mitigating conclusion is that the ‘Shias of Kufa’ accepted the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn (Aboo Bakr and Umar). Some Kufan Shias rejected the Caliphate of Uthmaan bin Affan in the same manner that the people of Syria rejected the Caliphate of  Imam Alee (عليه السلام) . Others while sympathetic to Uthmaan bin Affan, still preferred Imam Alee (عليه السلام) . This particular faction not only believed in the Caliphate of the first three Caliphs but also prayed for forgiveness of all of those who fought against Imam Alee (عليه السلام) such as Ayesha (لعنت اللہ), Talha (لعنت اللہ), Zubair (لعنت اللہ), Muawiyah (لعنت اللہ) and so forth.

 

Na Pouchye key kiya Hussain(a.s)Hai -Mir Hasan Mir

Matam-Beating Chest and Head

Matam or the beating of the chest is a ritual Shias do during the Islamic month of Maharrum and Safar.  

It is one of the most confused, misinterpreted concepts in the Shia sect, after mutha of course (heh) 

I feel like this subject is very touchy and emotional for Shias, and for Sunnis it is very confusing.

Outwardly it appears that Shias are harming themselves and the question comes up isn’t self-harm haram. 

I hope I can make sense of what matam is about and give my personal opinion on it. This is all from personal experience, not from any other resources

I was born and raised Shia so these customs and traditions were normal to me and I never questioned it. Never had a reason to either, I believed in it and I understood why we did it. For those of you who don’t know the story of Karbala, definitely read on it, it will give you more insight. But growing up it was always tradition for me. You heard poetry in the beginning of the program then listened to a speech which then related to an aspect of Karbala which would make you cry. Accompanying that would be more sad poetry where everyone would beat their chest in sync. 

There are a couple of reasons in my opinion for why this is a tradition and these are personal reasons, so these can change from person to person

1. Often when someone is overcome with grief or sadness they hit their head or their knee with their hands, it is a natural reaction. In old Arab times they used to throw sand on their heads as a sign of mourning. When someone is overcome with grief they aren’t thinking about what they are doing rather just trying to let their emotions out. People sometimes even shout things or call out to someone out of sadness and their emotions. It’s natural for anyone to hit themselves while they are mourning and so the question is if these atrocities happened to your family wouldn’t you be overcome by grief? Well it happened to the Prophet (SAW)’s family whom we have the utmost respect for and when something like this happens then indeed we should mourn as if they were our own.

2. As Shias, we imagine that if we were there we would certainly give our life in the name of Islam, for Imam Hussain (as) So when you hear the poems where the poet is talking about the army of Hussain and the battle, you want to show that you would be willing to give your life. The way I see it is it’s like a battle cry (for lack of better term)

The thing with Maharrum is that it hasn’t been told how to commemorate it. Of course there are traditions but essentially it is up to the believer in which he/she decides what feels right. Wearing black, performing in such rituals, alams, juloos, blade matam, chains, these are all up to the individual. It’s a whole other feeling, like no other, which words can barely touch upon. To really understand, you have to experience it, you have to hear the stories, the poetry, you have to feel it.