Why did the Kufans that believed in the legitimacy of the three Caliphs aid Imam Ali (as)

Why did the Kufans that believed in the legitimacy of the three Caliphs aid Imam Ali (as) and Imam Hussain (as)?

As we have mentioned above during the leadership of Imam Ali (as) the majority of Kufans believed in the leadership of the first three caliphs. If they sided with Imam Ali (as) against Muawiya it was based on the principle that he had acquired powered via the same principles and pre-conditions that were applied to the first three caliphs. The same principle was adopted by the inhabitants of Medina, which is why despite their upholding the legitimacy of Uthman bin Affan’s Caliphate, they chose to fight under the banner of Imam Ali (as) in Jamal and Siffeen against the seditious elements..

Now the question arises why did the Kufans help Imam Hussain (as) when the ascribed to the legitimate caliphates of the first three Caliphs but not that of Imam Hasan (as)?

There are some reasons for that:

1) The Kufans had already turned against the governors of Bani Ummayah during the reign of Uthman bin Affan.

2) Whilst deeming him to be a legitimate Caliph they nevertheless sent forces out against him.

3) They opposed the Godfather of the Ummayad clan Muawiya since he had committed mutiny against the fourth legitimate caliph Imam Ali (as).

4) On the orders of Muawiyah, Ziyah ibn Summiyah massacred Kufans and the Kufans did not forget his cruelty towards them.

5) Muawiyah forced and/or bribed many to offer their allegiance to his son Yazid [laeen]. Yazid was not only a drunkard, womanizer but also extremely cruel and opportunistic. This single act of Muawiya harmed political Islam in such a way that in its history for the first time the leadership was handed down to an incompetent son hence turning the Islamic way of election and selection into nepotism and favouritism.

On the other side of Equation was Hussain - the grandson of Prophet himself (peace be upon them) - whose nobility, character and decency were testified by his most staunch enemies themselves. That is why the Kufans wrote letters to Imam Hussain to come and help them out.

Shia of Muawiya during Muawiya’s rule in Kufa

Muawiya ruled the Ummah for 20 years. During his era he obviously succeeded in creating a group of loyalists and appointees in each and every city under his rule. This group was extremely anti Ahle-bait. The evidence to this claim is found in a letter that this group of Shiatul Muawiyah wrote to Yazid on the arrival of Muslim bin Aqeel. Since by now their loyalty had switched to his son Yazid bin Muawiyah bin Abu Sufyan.

"Abdallah b. Muslim. B. Said al Hadrami an ally of the Banu Umayyah…went out and wrote the following letter to Yazid b. Muawiyah: ‘Muslim bin Aqeel has come to al-Kufa and the Shia have given the allegiance to him on behalf of al-Husayn b. Ali b. Abi Talib. If you have any need of Kufa send a strong man there, who would carry out your orders in the same way you would at against your enemy. Al-Nauman b. Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man”. He was the first to write to him. Then Umarah b. Uqbah wrote to him in a similar vein. As did Umar b. Sad b. Abi Waqqas”

History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 30

It was this same Sad bin Abi Waqqas who subsequently fought Imam Hussain (as) and in fact was proud at firing the first arrow at him.
Returning to Tabari as soon as Yazid obtained receipt of this letter he issued an order to Ibn Ziyad who was the son of Ziyah ibn Summayah, in which he wrote something very interesting:

"My followers (Shia) among the people of al-Kufah have written to me to inform me that Ibn Aqil is in al-Kufah gathering units in order to spread rebellion among the Muslims. Therefore, when you read this letter of mine, go to a’-Kufah and search for Ibn Aqil, as if you were looking for a bead , until you find him. Then bind him in chains, kill him, or expel him."

History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 31

One can gauge from the above reference there were two groups of Shias in Kufa:

1) Uthmani Shias i.e. the Umayyads, who openly showed their hostility towards the Ahl’ul bayt and were the voluntary spies for Yazid’s government. They believed in the Caliphate of the first three Caliphs and rejected Imam Ali (as)’.
The famous Nasibi Ibn Taymiyah confesses in his own work:

"The Uthmani Shias were openly hostile towards Ali from pulpit".

Minhaj al Sunnah, Volume 1 page 178

The army stationed in Kufa was sent by Muawiya soon after he became the caliph and obviously had a soft spot for Muawiyah and Yazid since the majority of the soldiers were from Syria.

The ordinary Kufans fell within the political grouping of Shiatual Ali as opposed to Uthmani Shias affirmed belief in all four Caliphs. They were the majority in Kufa.

2) The original Shia, those who followed the Ahle Bait spiritually were in minority in Kufa.

Dear Readers, in order to properly understand the events of Karbala, one needs to understand the difference between these different competing groups.

Qazi Noorullah Shosteri's statement that the majority of Kufans were (Imami) Shias

In the end let us put another false claim of wicked Nawasib to the test. The Nawasib misquote frequently one of the claims of a famous Shia scholar namely Qazi Noorullah Shosteri and use it as base to claim that the majority of Shias of the city of Kufa were not believers in Khilafah of Shakhayn but actually Imami Shias.

They knowingly quote from Majalis al-Momineen, page 25:

Nawasib quote:

"There is no reason to prove that the Kufans were Shias. The Kufans being Sunni is against logic and needs to be proven even Abu Hanifa though (who was a Kufan) was a Sunni. " 

Reply One

Firstly, this quote of Qazi Noorullah is not geared towards the era of the battle of Karbala but toward the era of Abu Hanifa's lifetime and/or afterwards. He is not describing Kufa in 61 H - the Karbala era – he is describing the time during which Abu Hanifa lived in Kufa and/or afterwards at the most. Abu Hanifa was not even born during the times of Karbala.

Reply Two

Secondly, this is Qazi's personal opinion about Abu Hanifa’s era. The Nawasib need to show us some solid historical and factual based evidence to their claim of Kufa being Shia Imami city.

Reply Three

We have proven earlier by quoting authentic Sunni scholar and their authentic books that by the time of Karbala the Imami Shias were left in extreme minority in Kufa because the Nasibi governor Ziyah Ibn Summiyah slaughtered them mercilessly during his era.


Conclusion
 
 This is just another example of wickedness and hypocrisy of Nasibis who use these tools to deceive ordinary Sunnis. They never hesitate in quoting any historical evidence absolutely out of context and/or twist it to further their own agenda which is to lay the blame of slaughter of Aale-Nabi (peace be upon them) on the shoulder of Shia Imami Muslims in order to  absolve their forefathers from the most heinous crime committed by their first Imam Yazid-e-Laeen in the history of Islam and make fool of innocent Sunnis who are made to believe that all they are being told is the absolute truth. 

The actual beliefs espoused by the people of Kufa

The majority of Kufans were avid supporters of the Khilafat of the Shaikhain. The famous Sunni scholar Allamah Shibli Naumani in his world famous book Al-Farooq had credited the second caliph Omar for the construction of city of Kufa by writing:

"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.


Kufa in Iraq

 
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."

Omar the great (Al Faruq), Volume 2 page 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".

 Omar the great (Al Faruq), Volume 2 page 96
There is no doubting that the Kufan residents were loyal to Umar to the extent that he deemed Kufa to be the head of Islam. Now if the Nawasib are still delusional then we would like to question them to clarify to us that the main mosque that could gather 40 thousand worshippers and many smaller mosques that were built under the auspices of Omar were they all Shia Imami mosques? Was Omar intent on developing a huge Shia city, wherein beliefs centered on affirming that Ali (as) was the true Khalifa of the Prophet (s) and that he was an usurper?

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 (as) 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 Uthman bin Affan.

Allamah Yaqoot Hamawi is a famous Sunni scholar who wrote ‘Majma ul Buldaan'. This book contains a detailed history of different cities under Islamic rule. It contains a history of Kufa in its Volume 7 pages 295 – 300. He does not mention a single instance, that would suggest that Kufa was a Shia Imami city.

Kufa during the era of Imam Ali [as]

In my previous post we have given evidence that those who pledged their allegiance to Imam Ali (as) following the murder of Uthman bin Affan  believed in the Khilafat of the Shaikhain. Imam Ali has mentioned cited this himself, as is found in in Nahjul Balagha:

"People who pledged their allegiance to Abubakr and Omar and Uthman, pledged their allegiance to me on same basis that they pledged their allegiance to them. So according to that logic the one who was present cannot back out off their allegiance and the one who was absent during the allegiance does not have the right to declare the allegiance null and void. The consultation (Shurah) belongs to Mohajirun and Ansar."

The Kufans that came to kill Uthman bin Affan wanted to do so because they felt he had breached the condition on which he accepted office, namely his adherence to the path of the first two Caliphs, a violation they felt merited the death penalty. The people of Kufa were staunch supporters of Talha bin Obaidullah, this fact is well known as it has been recorded in Tareekh Tabari.

We for example read in the History of Tabari, Volume 16 page 43:

“They went down – Talha and Zubayr to Mecca four months after the killing of Uthman. Ibn Amir, a very rich man was there, and Yala b. Umayyah had arrived with him with a large sum of money and more than 400 camels. They gathered together in Aishah’s house and exchanged opinions. “Let’s go to Ali and fight him,” they said. “We don’t have the strength to fight the people of Medina,” one of them replied. “Let us rather enter al-Basrah and al-Kufah. Talhah has a following and popularity and support in al-Basrah”. So they agreed to go to al-Basrah and al-Kufah, and Abdullah b. Amir gave them much money and camels. Seven hundred men from Medina and Mecca set off, and other joined until their number reached 3000”.

During the Khilafat of Imam Ali (as) the Imami Shias began to settle in Kufa, we therefore had two kinds of Shia groups that lived in Kufa:

The political Shias who deemed the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar to be rightful.

The Imami Shias that considered Ali (as) as their Imam and considered him the rightful Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (s) and rejected the Khilafat of the Shaikhain. These Imami Shias were small in number and were the minority in Kufa.

The acceptance of Uthman’s caliphate by the political Shias of Kufa

The political Shias of Kufa deemed the Khilafat of Abu Bakr and Umar to be legitimate. They also considered the Khilafat of Uthman bin Affan to be legitimate because (according to them) he was selected based on the same criteria and terms as were his predecessors. They revolted against Uthman bin Affan because unlike his predecessors they accused him of nepotism by appointing his relatives as provincial Governors. Similarly since (according to them) Imam Ali (as) was selected on the same merits and criteria they sided with him against Muawiyah at Siffeen. That is why when Malik bin Ashter spoke against Uthman bin Affan the same political Shias attacked him physically

(Tarikh Tabari, v19, page 189).
During the battle of Siffeen when Muawiya’s army was facing a rout, and Amr bin Ass ordered that Qurans be raised on spears as a mechanism to halt hostilities Imam Ali (as) insisted that the fighting persist, but these same political Shias of Kufa disobeyed him (as) and insisted that the fighting be ceased. They also demanded that Malik bin Ashtar – an Imami Shia – stopped fighting and return to camp at a point when he was about to achieve victory. These events are well known and have been meticulously recorded in the works of Islamic history.

These were the same people who again revolted against Imam Ali (as) after the battle of Siffeen and evolved into the Khwarij Sect.

After the battle of Neharwan, Imam Ali (as) kept on demanding that these Political shias join him in his battle against Muawiyah but they kept on delaying and deceiving him, which is why Imam Ali (as) openly snubbed them in Nahajul Balagha at several points. After the martyrdom of Imam Ali (as) the same political shias of Kufa abandoned Imam Hasan (as) their nefarious activities forced him to abandon his struggle against Muawiyah and enter into a peace treaty with him.

The Political shias during the era of Imam Hussain (as)

After the peace treaty between Imam Hasan (as) and Muawiyah, Muawiyah became the unchallenged ruler over the Islamic world. He ruled for more then 20 years and began his reign by adopting several steps to strengthen his grip:

He declared Ziyad bin Sumayah to be his brother. (He was the product of the illegitimate union between Abu Sufyan and Sumayah.)

Ziyad lived in Kufa during the Khilafat of Ali (as) and hence knew the Imami Shias of Kufa very well.

Muawiya won over Ziyad by declaring Ziyad bin Summiya his brother and appointed him the governor of Kufa. In the words of the famous anti Imami Shia scholar al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi:

"Let us mention Ziyad - the product of fornication – his actions, under Muawiya’s guidance, the first thing that he demonstrated was his enmity towards the family of Ali".

 Tauhfa Ithna Ashari (Urdu), page 484 Published in Karachi

Ziyad bin Summiya slaughtered the twelve Imami Shias of Ali (as) and his supporters without mercy.

 [See Al Bidayah wa’l Nihayah, Volume 3, page 50, Tarikh Kamil, Volume 3, page 245, Tarikh Tabari Tabari, volume 6, page 155, Al Istiab, volume 1, page 138].
Allamah Muhammad bin Aqeel bin Hussain writes in Nasa al-Kifayah, page 70 (published in Bombay):

"Muawiyah appointed Ziyad Bin Sumaya governor over the people of Kufa and joined Basrah with it. As Ziyad had lived in Kufa during the time of Ali[k], he knew all the (Imami) Shias living there. He dragged (Imami) Shias from every nook and cranny and slaughtered them, threatened them, amputated their hands and legs, had needles pierced through their eyes, hanged them on trees, exiled them from Iraq making them homeless until no renowned (Imami) Shia remained in Iraq"


This is how the Shias of Imam Ali (as) were treated under Mu'awiya’s reign. Such was its severity that when Ziyads son become Governor of Kufa, he said to Hani bin Urwa (who was an Imami Shi'a):

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

History of Tabari, English translation - Volume 19 page 38
Similarly Ibn Abbas (ra) advised Imam Hussain (as) not to go to Iraq because in Kufa besides Hani and a few more Shias no Imami Shias were left alive. Let alone the majority of population of Kufa being of Imami Shiahs of Ahle Bait as claimed by Nawasib. When Ibn Abbas (ra) visited Imam Hussain (as) for the second time he advised him:

“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 some 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 a Shiah there and you would be remote from the people”.


It is obvious from the above facts that during Muawiya's 20 years reign all the believing Imami Shia population who were staunch supporters of Imam Ali (as) were systematically murdered.

Now the question arises who were the people left in Kufa and where were their loyalties?

The answer to that is those left in Kufa were Political shias who were not only supporters of who affirmed belief in the Khilafat of the Sheikheen and Uthman bin Affan as we have evidenced previously. That is why when Imami Shias such as Malik bin Ashtar spoke against the Khilafat of Uthman bin Affan, the people of Kufa got offended and attacked him, see Tareekh Tabari, Volume 5, Part 19, page 189.

History of Tabari, English translation - Volume 19 page 67

Did Shias Kill Imam Husain(a.s)!!

The political Shias who believed in the caliphate of Shaykhain versus religious-Imami Shias

Shias mourning Martyrdom of Imam Husain(a.s)


It has being part and parcel of postmodern Nasibi propaganda to insist that the ‘ancestors’ of the Shi’a were a treacherous people that consistently abandoned Imam Ali, Imam Hasan, Imam Hussain and the remainder Ahlulbayt Imams (Peace be upon them) and in some cases killed them. They seek to corroborate their claims by citing unknown texts by unknown authors as a mechanism for duping ordinary unsuspecting Muslims that do not possess a strong background on Islamic history. The shameless people lack the capability to direct these foolish allegations to us, the Shia of Ahlulbayt directly because as they are fully aware that the definition of the term ‘Shia’ did not carry same meaning back then as it does today.
 This was an all-encompassing term that referred to everyone including those who are called Sunnis today. The reality is the term Shia was not a homogenous term, and essentially incorporated the affiliates of Ali (as) with differing political and religious views;

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

The minority Shia that believed that Ali (as) had a divine mandate to rule as he had been appointed as Caliph by the Prophet (s) (hereafter referred to as Shia al-Khasa)

The majority Shia that believed that Ali (as) had the legal mandate to rule as he had been appointed as fourth Caliph by the Ummah, like the earlier Caliphs (hereafter referred to as Aama).

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

Which segment of what made up the generic term ‘Shia’ perpetrated these heinous actions that today’s Nawasib attribute to today’s Shia Imami (twelver) Sect?

Once this puzzle is solved all the pieces of this large complex jigsaw fit into place and one can easily gauge the treachery and the hypocrisy of the Nawasib. We will debunk the Nasibi propaganda in this article God willing.

The famous anti-shia writer Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi substantiates our claim by conceding that in the early days the term Shia was a generic one that incorporated everyone:

"It should be known that the first Shias (who are the Sunnis and the Tafdiliyyah) were known in the old days as Shias. When the Ghulat and the Rawafid Zaydiyyah and Ismailiyyah took the name for themselves, Sunnis and Tafdiliyyah did not like this name for them and so hence adopted the name of Ahlu's-Sunnah wa’l Jamaah."

 
Tauhfa Athna Ashari (Urdu) page 16, published in Karachi

The twelver Imami Shia were called ‘Rafidhi’ (Rejectors) back in those days. The term ‘Shia’ means, ‘a group’ or ‘helpers’ or ‘followers’. Since the people of Kufa supported Imam Ali during the Battle of Jamal and Siffeen, their political affiliation placed them in the grouping of ‘The Shias (followers) of Ali (as)’. It was again, a political term used for the helpers of Ali or group of Ali. Similarly the opposing army i.e. the army Muawiyah was called ‘the Shias of Muawiyah’ or ‘Shias of Uthman’.

 The word ‘Shia’ was used for these two groups for pure political reasons and the same term also referred to those that adhered to the teachings of Ahlulbayt (as) and attested to their status as the rightful Imams that succeeded the Holy Prophet (s). It was these religiously affiliated Shias that are known as Imamia or twelvers or Imami Shia today.

The twelver Shia never accepted the Caliphate of Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman unlike the political Shia mentioned above who upheld their Caliphs as rightful, it was this group that emerged into what is termed in this day and age ‘Ahle Sunnah’ or ‘Sunnis’.

 The term ‘Shia’ was used for:

everyone that joined Imam Ali (as)’s forces against Muawiyah at Siffeen

those that considered Imam Ali (as) to be on the right path in this dispute

These same individuals deemed the Caliphate of the Shaykhain to be legitimate whilst the Imami or twelvers were called Rafidhi by their opponents.

The denial of the existence of political Shias by present day Nawasib

The Nawasib unile the twelver Shias refuse to accept the existence of political Shias during that era. Their stubbornness is curious, especially since the existence of political Shias is an established fact. Their refusal to acknowledge the existence of political Shias during that era is because to do so would debase their false claims and propaganda wherein they have insisted that the Shias killed Imam Hussain (as).

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

We will now prove that the political Shias’ existence at the embryonic stage can be dated to the era of Imam Ali (as) and continued its life during the immediate centuries that followed.

Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehalvi states as follows:

"The title Shi'a was first given to those Muhajireen and Ansar who gave allegiance (bay'ah) to Ali (may Allah enlighten his face). They were his steadfast faithful followers during his (Ali's) caliphate. They remained close to him; they always fought his enemies, and kept on following Ali's commands and prohibitions. The true Shi'a are these who came in 37 Hijri" 

Tauhfa Athna Ashari (Urdu) page 27, published in Karachi
(NB 37 Hijri -the year Imam Ali (as) fought Mu'awiya at Sifin).

The Ahle Sunnah scholars have acknowledged the existence of political Shias over several centuries

Whilst today’s Nawasib continue to peddle the same lie that the Kufis were Imamis or twever Shias, the scholars of Ahle Sunnah have made it abundantly clear in their writings that the term ‘Shia’ back did not carry the same connotation that it does today.

Let us quote the opinion of the renowned Sunni scholar Imam al-Dhahabi from his book Mizan al-Eitidal, Volume 3 page 552:

'Yes, most of the Syrian populations from the days of (the battle of) Siffeen rejected the Caliphate of Amir-al-Momineen Ali and considered themselves and their ancestors righteous for doing so. The Kufans likewise deviated from Uthman and loved Ali 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 Ali and Uthman but still preferred Ali over Uthman and had an extreme dislike of those that fought Ali at the same time they would supplicate, asking forgiveness of those that fought Ali.
This was a softer version of Shia.'

Similarly another legendry Sunni Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani wrote in his book Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 1 page 82:

“According to the early scholars, Shiat meant to have faith on Ali having preference over Uthman….although they preferred the Shaykhayn over them (Uthman and Ali)”

Thus, if we summarise the above writings of al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar we learn that:

1) The Shias of Kufa accepted the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn (Abu Bakr and Umar).

2) There were a group of Kufan Shias that rejected the Caliphate of Uthman bin Affan in the same manner that the people of Syria rejected the Caliphate of Ali (as).

3) Another group of Kufan Shia had a soft heart towards Uthman bin Affan but still preferred Ali (as) over him. This particular group of Kufan Shias not only believed in the Caliphate of the first three Caliphs but also prayed for forgiveness of all of those who fought against Ali such as Ayesha, Talha, Zubair, Muawiyah etc.

These were therefore the beliefs of the politicized Kufan Shia and this reality completely debases the propaganda of the Nawasib. It is fascinating that today’s Sunnis and Nawasib follow those Ulema that fell under the ambit of political Shia and rely on their works, but despite their political leanings they are categorised as ‘Ahle Sunnah’.

The only difference is during their lifetimes they preferred Ali (as) over Uthman.

Among such scholars is the famed scholar of Tafsir Imam Sufyan Thawri (d. 161 H). Writing about him Allamah Imtiaz Ali Al-Arishi writes on page 15:
"Back in those days the term Shia was exclusively used for those who preferred Ali over Uthman and we cannot rule out the possibility that Thawri preferred Ali over Uthman."

Even the Ghali Shia of those days attested to the Caliphate of the Shaykhayn

Up until now we only discussed the ordinary Shias political groups that were thought to have different opinions about the four Caliphs but what is interesting is that apart from ordinary Shias, al-Dhahabi also mentioned that those who were called ‘Ghulat Shia’ (extremist Shias) had beliefs that differed to the Ghulat of later times. He mentions in his book Mizan al-Eitidal, Volume 1 page 6:

"In those days (the early centuries of Islam) ‘Ghulat Shia’ were those that identified faults and abuses Uthman, Talha, Zubair, Muawiyah and all those that fought against Ali. They did not hold a good opinion about them. But nowadays ‘Ghulat’ are those that issue Takfeer against the above high ranking personalities and disassociate themselves from the Shaykhayn”.

Having cited the above facts, what evidence does Ibn al Hashimi have to describe the Aaama Shias of Kufa as the Imami or twelver or Khasa Shias and then blame them for the crimes committed by the latter?

Whilst Allah (swt) has commanded us in His Glorious Book not to commit injustice due to enmity of a certain nation such commands are for Muslims and it is down to these cyber takfeeris to decide if they wish to be counted as such.

Ali bin Abi Talib (as) and his political Shias

Before we can take a detailed look at Imam Hussain (as) and the role of the political Shias in Kufa during his era, it is important that we also look at the political Kufan Shia from the era of his father (as).

After the murder of Umar, the people of Medina presented the caliphate to Imam Ali on the caveat that he rules according to the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet (p) and the path of the Shaykhain (Abu Bakr and Umar)

[Sharh Fiqh Akbar, Page 66].

Ali bin AbiTalib refused to accept the requirement that he adhere to the path of the Shaykhain and hence the caliphate, Uthman bin Affan agreed to it, and he was appointed the Caliph. When Uthman bin Affan started to appoint wicked, opportunistic secular Umawi governors over Iraq the Iraqis rebelled and from the same city of Kufa, an army of men gathered to murder Uthman bin Affan because he was not following the Sunnah of Shaykhain (Abu Bakr and Umar). That evidences that the Kufans in these ranks attested to the caliphate of the Shaykhain that justified their rising against him. Like the Kufans large opposition also came from Egypt and Basra to murder Uthman for the very same reason.

Those Sahaba and Tabi’een that took the oath of allegiance for Ali bin Abi Talib’s Caliphate, also believed in the Caliphate of the Shaykhain. These were the same Sahaba and Tabi’een from Medina that fought under the banner of Ali (as) in the battle of Jamal and subsequently moved to Kufa so that they could fight against Muawiyah. These Sahaba and Tab’een were called the Shias of Ali throughout that era.

The battle of Siffeen occurred following the oath of allegiance to Ali (as). The army of Ali (as) was also defined within the political terminology of ‘Shias of Ali’. When this was an era of intense Fitnah, war and upheaval how could Imam Ali (as) successfully convert all these political Shias into twelver Imami Shias?

It were these same political Shias (believers in Shaykhain) that turned against Imam Ali (as) when he was about to achieve victory over Muawiyah and forced him to call back Malik Ashtar ( A staunch believer in Ali’s cause) from the battle or else they would murder Ali bin Abi Talib themselves.

Another group from amongst the same political Shias (believers in the Shaykhain) - turned totally against Imam Ali at Tahkeem and displayed a willingness to fight him.

Recounting the betrayal of same political Shias, Imam Ali (as) mentions in one of his sermons in Nahajul Balagha

"Till yesterday I was giving orders but today I am being given orders, and till yesterday I was dissuading people (from wrong acts) but today I am being dissuaded." (Sermon 208).

Addressing the same Kufans Imam Ali bin Abi Talib says
"O' group of people who do not obey when I order and do not respond when I call you." (Sermon 180).

At another instance Imam Ali Bin Abi Talib tells the Kufans:

"I was sitting when sleep overtook me. I saw the Prophet of Allah appear before me, and I said: "O' Prophet of Allah ! what crookedness and enmity I had to face from the people. " The prophet of Allah said: "Invoke (Allah) evil upon them," but I said, "Allah may change them for me with better ones and change me for them with a worse one." (Sermon 70).

Ali (as) mentions in another sermon:

" By Allah, I did not come to you of my own accord. I came to you by force of circumstances. I have come to know that you say `Ali speaks lie. May Allah fight you! Against whom do I speak lie?" (Sermon 71).

So this was a short history of the political Shias of Kufa who previously believed in the Caliphates of the Shaykhain during the reign of Imam Ali (as). The real problem is that today's deceitful Nawasib want to distort the real history of Islam and present those political Shias as being the ancestors of the twelver Imami Shias and wish to apportion blame to them for the actions of these political Shias.

 The truth is during that era of upheaval a group of Shias were loyal to Imam Ali (as) unconditionally. They included personalities such as Ammar Yasir and Malik Ashtar etc. This group believed that the Caliphate of Ali (as) was a divine designation.

We for example see that after swearing allegiance to Imam Ali (as) Khuzaymah ibn Thabit is reported to have said:

"We have elected someone who was chosen for us by the Messenger of Allah (swt).”
Al-Mi'yar wa al-Muwazanah by Abu Jaffar al-Iskafi (d. 240 H), page 51
This view was also pointed out by Ibn Abbas to Umar who refuted his argument that the Quraysh deciding Caliphate after Abu Bakr was legally sound with these words:

‘If Quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as God did for them, then right would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied’

The History of Tabari, Volume 14, English translation, by G. Rex Smith, p137-138)
Darimiyyah Hujuniyyah, while describing for Mu'awiyah the reasons for favouring Maula Ali stated:

"I favour Ali for his love of the poor, his generosity towards strangers, his religious learning, his sacrificing character and for his having been designated for wilayah by the Messenger of Allah."

At- Wafidat min al-nisa 'ala Muawiyah by Abbas bin Bakaar, page 41
We read in the History of Tabari Volume 17 pagr 117, the following incident following the Battle of Siffin:

“When the Khawarij had left al-Kufah, the companions and supporters (shiah) of Ali came to him and gave him the oath of allegiance. They said ‘We are the friends of those whom you befriend and the enemies of those to whom you show enmity"

Iskafi says:

"The common people swore allegiance to Ali (as) on the basis of the Book and the Sunnah and the Shi'a of Ali on the basis of friendship of his friends and enmity of his enemies."

Al-Mi'yar wa al-Muwazanah, p. 194.
The stress on such an allegiance as a second allegiance in addition to the first one as well as its content points to the beliefs of the Shia al-Khasa who deemed the duty to follow Ali (as) a religious obligation as he had the divine mandate to be followed. 

What Abdullah Yusuf Ali said about Imam Husain(a.s)


Preface
The following pages are based on a report of an Address which I delivered in London at an Ashura Majlis on Thursday the 28th May, 1931 (Muharram 1350 A.H.), at the Waldorf Hotel. The report was subsequently corrected and slightly expanded. The Majlis was a notable gathering, which met at the invitation of Mr. A. S. M. Anik. Nawab Sir Umar Hayat Khan, Tiwana, presided and members of all schools of thought in Islam, as well as non-Muslims, joined reverently in doing honour to the memory of the great Martyr of Islam. By its inclusion in the Progressive Islam Pamphlets series, it is hoped to reach a larger public than were able to be present in person. Perhaps, also, it may help to strengthen the bonds of brotherly love which unite all who hold sacred the ideals of brotherhood preached by the Prophet in his last Sermon.
A. Yusuf Ali.

Imam Husain And His Martyrdom
Sorrow as a Bond of Union
I am going to talk this afternoon about a very solemn subject, the martyrdom of Imam Husain at Kerbela, of which we are celebrating the anniversary. As the Chairman has very rightly pointed out, it is one of those wonderful events in our religious history about which all sects are agreed. More than that, in this room I have the honour of addressing some people who do not belong to our religious persuasion, but I venture to think that the view I put forward today may be of interest to them from its historical, its moral and its spiritual significance. Indeed, when we consider the background of that great tragedy, and all that has happened during the 1289 lunar years since, we cannot fail to be convinced that some events of sorrow and apparent defeat are really the very things which are calculated to bring about, or lead us towards, the union of humanity.
How Martyrdom healed divisions
When we invite strangers or guests and make them free of our family circle, that means the greatest outflowing of our hearts to them. The events that I am going to describe refer to some of the most touching incidents of our domestic history in their spiritual aspect. We ask our brethren of other faiths to come, and share with us some of the thoughts which are called forth by this event. As a matter of fact all students of history are aware that the horrors that are connected with the great event of Kerbela did more than anything else to unite together the various contending factions which had unfortunately appeared at that early stage of Muslim history. You know the old Persian saying applied to the Prophet:
Tu barae wasl kardan amadi;
Ni barae fasl kardan amadi.
"Thou camest to the world to unite, not to divide."

That was wonderfully exemplified by the sorrows and sufferings and finally the martyrdom of Imam Husain.

Commemoration of great virtues
There has been in our history a tendency sometimes to celebrate the event merely by wailing and tribulation, or sometimes by symbols like the Tazias that you see in India, - Taboots as some people call them. Well, symbolism or visible emblems may sometimes be useful in certain circumstances as tending to crystallise ideas. But I think the Muslims of India of the present day are quite ready to adopt a more effective way of celebrating the martyrdom, and that is by contemplating the great virtues of the martyr, trying to understand the significance of the events in which he took part, and translating those great moral and spiritual lessons into their own lives. From that point of view I think you will agree that it is good that we should sit together, even people of different faiths, - sit together and consider the great historic event, in which were exemplified such soul-stirring virtues as those of unshaken faith, undaunted courage, thought for others, willing self-sacrifice, steadfastness in the right and unflinching war against the wrong. Islam has a history of beautiful domestic affections, of sufferings and of spiritual endeavour, second to none in the world. That side of Muslim history, although to me the most precious, is, I am sorry to say, often neglected. It is most important that we should call attention to it, reiterated attention, the attention of our own people as well as the attention of those who are interested in historical and religious truth. If there is anything precious in Islamic history it is not the wars, or the politics, or the brilliant expansion, or the glorious conquests, or even the intellectual spoils which our ancestors gathered. In these matters, our history, like all history, has its lights and shades. What we need especially to emphasise is the spirit of organisation, of brotherhood, of undaunted courage in moral and spiritual life.
Plan of discourse
I propose first to give you an idea of the geographical setting and the historical background. Then I want very briefly to refer to the actual events that happened in the Muharram, and finally to draw your attention to the great lessons which we can learn from them.
Geographical Picture
In placing before you a geographical picture of the tract of country in which the great tragedy was enacted, I consider myself fortunate in having my own personal memories to draw upon. They make the picture vivid to my mind, and they may help you also. When I visited those scenes in 1928, I remember going down from Baghdad through all that country watered by the Euphrates river. As I crossed the river by a bridge of boats at Al-Musaiyib on a fine April morning, my thoughts leapt over centuries and centuries. To the left of the main river you have the old classic ground of Babylonian history; you have the railway station of Hilla; you have the ruins of the city of Babylon, witnessing to one of the greatest civilisations of antiquity. It was so mingled with the dust that it is only in recent years that we have begun to understand its magnitude and magnificence. Then you have the great river system of the Euphrates, the Furat as it is called, a river unlike any other river we know. It takes its rise in many sources from the mountains of Eastern Armenia, and sweeping in great zig-zags through rocky country, it finally skirts the desert as we see it now. Wherever it or its interlacing branches or canals can reach, it has converted the desert into fruitful cultivated country; in the picturesque phrase, it has made the desert blossom as the rose. It skirts round the Eastern edge of the Syrian desert and then flows into marshy land. In a tract not far from Kerbela itself there are lakes which receive its waters, and act as reservoirs. Lower down it unites with the other river, the Tigris, and the united rivers flow in the name of the Shatt-al-Arab into the Persian Gulf.
Abundant water & tragedy of thirst
From the most ancient times this tract of the lower Euphrates has been a garden. It was a cradle of early civilisation, a meeting place between Sumer and Arab, and later between the Persians and Arabs. It is a rich, well watered country, with date-palms and pomegranate groves. Its fruitful fields can feed populous cities and its luscious pastures attract the nomad Arabs of the desert, with their great flocks and herds. It is of particularly tragic significance that on the border of such a well-watered land, should have been enacted the tragedy of great and good men dying of thirst and slaughtered because they refused to bend the knee to the forces of iniquity. The English poet's lines "Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink" are brought home forcibly to you in this borderland between abundant water and desolate sands.
Kerbala and Its Great Dome
I remember the emotion with which I approached Kerbela from the East. The rays of the morning sun gilt the Gumbaz-i-Faiz, the great dome that crowns the building containing the tomb of Imam Husain. Kerbela actually stands on one of the great caravan routes of the desert. Today the river city of Kufa, once a Khilafat capital, is a mere village, and the city of Najaf is famous for the tomb of Hazrat Ali, but of little commercial importance. Kerbela, this outpost of the desert, is a mart and a meeting ground as well as a sacred place. It is the port of the desert, just as Basra, lower down, is a port for the Persian Gulf. Beautifully kept is the road to the mausoleum, to which all through the year come pilgrims from all parts of the world. Beautiful coloured enamelled tiles decorate the building. Inside, in the ceiling and upper walls, there is a great deal of glass mosaic. The glass seems to catch and reflect the light. The effect is that of rich coruscations of light combined with the solemnity of a closed building. The tomb itself is in a sort of inner grill, and below the ground is a sort of cave, where is shown the actual place where the Martyr fell. The city of Najaf is just about 40 miles to the South, with the tomb of Hazrat Ali on the high ground. You can see the golden dome for miles around. Just four miles from Najaf and connected with it by a tramway, is the deserted city of Kufa. The mosque is large, but bare and practically unused. The blue dome and the Mihrab of enamelled tiles bear witness to the ancient glory of the place.
Cities and their Cultural Meaning
The building of Kufa and Basra, the two great outposts of the Muslim Empire, in the 16th year of the Hijra, was a visible symbol that Islam was pushing its strength and building up a new civilisation, not only in a military sense, but in moral and social ideas and in the sciences and arts. The old effete cities did not content it, any more than the old and effete systems which it displaced. Nor was it content with the first steps it took. It was always examining, testing, discarding, re-fashioning its own handiwork. There was always a party that wanted to stand on old ways, to take cities like Damascus readymade, that loved ease and the path of least resistance. But the greater souls stretched out to new frontiers - of ideas as well as geography. They felt that old seats were like dead wood breeding worms and rottenness that were a danger to higher forms of life. The clash between them was part of the tragedy of Kerbela. Behind the building of new cities there is often the burgeoning of new ideas. Let us therefore examine the matter a little more closely. It will reveal the hidden springs of some very interesting history.
Vicissitudes of Mecca and Medina
The great cities of Islam at its birth were Mecca and Medina. Mecca, the centre of old Arabian pilgrimage, the birthplace of the Prophet, rejected the Prophet's teaching, and cast him off. Its idolatry was effete; its tribal exclusiveness was effete; its ferocity against the Teacher of the New Light was effete. The Prophet shook its dust off his feet, and went to Medina. It was the well-watered city of Yathrib, with a considerable Jewish population. It received with eagerness the teaching of the Prophet; it gave asylum to him and his Companions and Helpers. He reconstituted it and it became the new City of Light. Mecca, with its old gods and its old superstitions, tried to subdue this new Light and destroy it. The human odds were in favour of Mecca. But God's purpose upheld the Light, and subdued the old Mecca. But the Prophet came to build as well as to destroy. He destroyed the old paganism, and lighted a new beacon in Mecca - the beacon of Arab unity and human brotherhood. When the Prophet's life ended on this earth, his spirit remained. It inspired his people and led them from victory to victory. Where moral or spiritual and material victories go hand in hand, the spirit of man advances all along the line. But sometimes there is a material victory, with a spiritual fall, and sometimes there is a spiritual victory with a material fall, and then we have tragedy.
Spirit of Damascus
Islam's first extension was towards Syria, where the power was centred in the city of Damascus. Among living cities it is probably the oldest city in the world. Its bazaars are thronged with men of all nations, and the luxuries of all nations find ready welcome there. If you come to it westward from the Syrian desert, as I did, the contrast is complete, both in the country and in the people. From the parched desert sands you come to fountains and vineyards, orchards and the hum of traffic. From the simple, sturdy, independent, frank Arab, you come to the soft, luxurious, sophisticated Syrian. That contrast was forced on the Muslims when Damascus became a Muslim city. They were in a different moral and spiritual atmosphere. Some succumbed to the softening influences of ambition, luxury, wealth pride of race, love of ease, and so on. Islam stood always as the champion of the great rugged moral virtues. It wanted no compromise with evil in any shape or form, with luxury, with idleness, with the seductions of this world. It was a protest against these things. And yet the representatives of that protest got softened at Damascus. They aped the decadent princes of the world instead of striving to be leaders of spiritual thought. Discipline was relaxed, and governors aspired to be greater than the Khalifas. This bore bitter fruit later.

Snare of Riches
Meanwhile Persia came within the Muslim orbit. When Medain was captured in the year 16 of the Hijra, and the battle of Jalula broke the Persian resistance, some military booty was brought to Medina - gems, pearls, rubies, diamonds, swords of gold and silver. A great celebration was held in honour of the splendid victory and the valour of the Arab army. In the midst of the celebration they found the Caliph of the day actually weeping. One said to him, "What! a time of joy and thou sheddest tears?" "Yes", he said, "I foresee that the riches will become a snare, a spring of worldliness and envy, and in the end a calamity to my people." For the Arab valued, above all, simplicity of life, openness of character, and bravery in face of danger. Their women fought with them and shared their dangers. They were not caged creatures for the pleasures of the senses. They showed their mettle in the early fighting round the head of the Persian Gulf. When the Muslims were hard pressed, their women turned the scale in their favour. They made their veils into flags, and marched in battle array. The enemy mistook them for reinforcements and abandoned the field. Thus an impending defeat was turned into a victory.
Basra and Kufa: town-planning
In Mesopotamia the Muslims did not base their power on old and effete Persian cities, but built new outposts for themselves. The first they built was Basra at the head of the Persian Gulf, in the 17th year of the Hijra. And what a great city it became! Not great in war and conquest, not great in trade and commerce, but great in learning and culture in its best day, - alas! also great in its spirit of faction and degeneracy in the days of its decline! But its situation and climate were not at all suited to the Arab character. It was low and moist, damp and enervating. In the same year the Arabs built another city not far off from the Gulf and yet well suited to be a port of the desert, as Kerbela became afterwards. This was the city of Kufa, built in the same year as Basra, but in a more bracing climate. It was the first experiment in town-planning in Islam. In the centre was a square for the principal mosque. That square was adorned with shady avenues. Another square was set apart for the trafficking of the market. The streets were all laid out intersecting and their width was fixed. The main thoroughfares for such traffic as they had (we must not imagine the sort of traffic we see in Charing Cross) were made 60 feet wide; the cross streets were 30 feet wide; and even the little lanes for pedestrians were regulated to a width of 10.5 feet. Kufa became a centre of light and learning. The Khalifa Hazrat Ali lived and died there.
Rivalry and poison of Damascus
But its rival, the city of Damascus, fattened on luxury and Byzantine magnificence. Its tinsel glory sapped the foundations of loyalty and the soldierly virtues. Its poison spread through the Muslim world. Governors wanted to be kings. Pomp and selfishness, ease and idleness and dissipation grew as a canker; wines and spirituous liquors, scepticism, cynicism and social vices became so rampant that the protests of the men of God were drowned in mockery. Mecca, which was to have been a symbolical spiritual centre, was neglected or dishonoured. Damascus and Syria became centres of a worldliness and arrogance which cut at the basic roots of Islam.
Husain the Righteous refused to bow to worldliness and power
We have brought the story down to the 60th year of the Hijra. Yazid assumed the power at Damascus. He cared nothing for the most sacred ideals of the people. He was not even interested in the ordinary business affairs of administration. His passion was hunting, and he sought power for self-gratification. The discipline and self-abnegation, the strong faith and earnest endeavour, the freedom and sense of social equality which had been the motive forces of Islam, were divorced from power. The throne at Damascus had become a worldly throne based on the most selfish ideas of personal and family aggrandisement, instead of a spiritual office, with a sense of God-given responsibility. The decay of morals spread among the people. There was one man who could stem the tide. That was Imam Husain. He, the grandson of the Prophet, could speak without fear, for fear was foreign to his nature. But his blameless and irreproachable life was in itself a reproach to those who had other standards. They sought to silence him, but he could not be silenced. They sought to bribe him, but he could not be bribed. They sought to waylay him and get him into their Power. What is more, they wanted him to recognise the tyranny and expressly to support it. For they knew that the conscience of the people might awaken at any time, and sweep them away unless the holy man supported their cause. The holy man was prepared to die rather than surrender the principles for which he stood.
Driven from city to city
Medina was the centre of Husain's teaching. They made Medina impossible for him. He left Medina and went to Mecca, hoping that he would be left alone. But he was not left alone. The Syrian forces invaded Mecca. The invasion was repelled, not by Husain but by other people. For Husain, though the bravest of the brave, had no army and no worldly weapons. His existence itself was an offence in the eyes of his enemies. His life was in danger, and the lives of all those nearest and dearest to him. He had friends everywhere, but they were afraid to speak out. They were not as brave as he was. But in distant Kufa, a party grew up which said: "We are disgusted with these events, and we must have Imam Husain to take asylum with us." So they sent and invited the Imam to leave Mecca, come to them, live in their midst, and be their honoured teacher and guide. His father's memory was held in reverence in Kufa. The Governor of Kufa was friendly, and the people eager to welcome him. But alas, Kufa had neither strength, nor courage, nor constancy. Kufa, geographically only 40 miles from Kerbela, was the occasion of the tragedy of Kerbela. And now Kufa is nearly gone, and Kerbela remains as the lasting memorial of the martyrdom.
Invitation from Kufa
When the Kufa invitation reached the Imam, he pondered over it, weighed its possibilities, and consulted his friends. He sent over his cousin Muslim to study the situation on the spot and report to him. The report was favourable, and he decided to go. He had a strong presentiment of danger. Many of his friends in Mecca advised him against it. But could he abandon his mission when Kufa was calling for it? Was he the man to be deterred, because his enemies were laying their plots for him, at Damascus and at Kufa? At least, it was suggested, he might leave his family behind. But his family and his immediate dependants would not hear of it. It was a united family, pre-eminent in the purity of its life and in its domestic virtues and domestic affections. If there was danger for its head, they would share it. The Imam was not going on a mere ceremonial visit. There was responsible work to do, and they must be by his side, to support him in spite of all its perils and consequences. Shallow critics scent political ambition in the Imam's act. But would a man with political ambitions march without an army against what might be called the enemy country, scheming to get him into its power, and prepared to use all their resources, military, political and financial, against him?
Journey through the desert
Imam Husain left Mecca for Kufa with all his family including his little children. Later news from Kufa itself was disconcerting. The friendly governor had been displaced by one prepared more ruthlessly to carry out Yazid's plans. If Husain was to go there at all, he must go there quickly, or his friends themselves would be in danger. On the other hand, Mecca itself was no less dangerous to him and his family. It was the month of September by the solar calendar, and no one would take a long desert journey in that heat, except under a sense of duty. By the lunar calendar it was the month of pilgrimage at Mecca. But he did not stop for the pilgrimage. He pushed on, with his family and dependants, in all numbering about 90 or 100 people, men, women and children. They must have gone by forced marches through the desert. They covered the 900 miles of the desert in little over three weeks. When they came within a few miles of Kufa, at the edge of the desert, they met people from Kufa. It was then that they heard of the terrible murder of Husain's cousin Muslim, who had been sent on in advance. A poet that came by dissuaded the Imam from going further. "For," he said epigramatically, "the heart of the city is with thee but its sword is with thine enemies, and the issue is with God." What was to be done? They were three weeks' journey from the city they had left. In the city to which they were going their own messenger had been foully murdered as well as his children. They did not know what the actual situation was then in Kufa. But they were determined not to desert their friends.
Call to Surrender or Die
Presently messengers came from Kufa, and Imam Husain was asked to surrender. Imam Husain offered to take one of three alternatives. He wanted no political power and no revenge. He said "I came to defend my own people. If I am too late, give me the choice of three alternatives: either to return to Mecca; or to face Yazid himself at Damascus; or if my very presence is distasteful to him and you, I do not wish to cause more divisions among the Muslims. Let me at least go to a distant frontier, where, if fighting must be done, I will fight against the enemies of Islam." Every one of these alternatives was refused. What they wanted was to destroy his life, or better still, to get him to surrender, to surrender to the very forces against which he was protesting, to declare his adherence to those who were defying the law of God and man, and to tolerate all the abuses which were bringing the name of Islam into disgrace. Of course he did not surrender. But what was he to do? He had no army. He had reasons to suppose that many of his friends from distant parts would rally round him, and come and defend him with their swords and bodies. But time was necessary, and he was not going to gain time by feigned compliance. He turned a little round to the left, the way that would have led him to Yazid himself, at Damascus. He camped in the plain of Kerbela.
Water cut off; Inflexible will, Devotion and Chivalry
For ten days messages passed backwards and forwards between Kerbela and Kufa. Kufa wanted surrender and recognition. That was the one thing the Imam could not consent to. Every other alternative was refused by Kufa, under the instructions from Damascus. Those fateful ten days were the first ten days of the month of Muharram, of the year 61 of the Hijra. The final crisis was on the 10th day, the Ashura day, which we are commemorating. During the first seven days various kinds of pressure were brought to bear on the Imam, but his will was inflexible. It was not a question of a fight, for there were but 70 men against 4,000. The little band was surrounded and insulted, but they held together so firmly that they could not be harmed. On the 8th day the water supply was cut off. The Euphrates and its abundant streams were within sight, but the way was barred. Prodigies of valour were performed in getting water. Challenges were made for single combat according to Arab custom. And the enemy were half-hearted, while the Imam's men fought in contempt of death, and always accounted for more men than they lost. On the evening of the 9th day, the little son of the Imam was ill. He had fever and was dying of thirst. They tried to get a drop of water. But that was refused point blank and so they made the resolve that they would, rather than surrender, die to the last man in the cause for which they had come. Imam Husain offered to send away his people. He said, "They are after my person; my family and my people can go back." But everyone refused to go. They said they would stand by him to the last, and they did. They were not cowards; they were soldiers born and bred; and they fought as heroes, with devotion and with chivalry.
The Final Agony; placid face of the man of God
On the day of Ashura, the 10th day, Imam Husain's own person was surrounded by his enemies. He was brave to the last. He was cruelly mutilated. His sacred head was cut off while in the act of prayer. A mad orgy of triumph was celebrated over his body. In this crisis we have details of what took place hour by hour. He had 45 wounds from the enemies' swords and javelins, and 35 arrows pierced his body. His left arm was cut off, and a javelin pierced through his breast. After all that agony, when his head was lifted up on a spear, his face was the placid face of a man of God. All the men of that gallant band were exterminated and their bodies trampled under foot by the horses. The only male survivor was a child, Husain's son Ali, surnamed Zain-ul-'Abidin - "The Glory of the Devout." He lived in retirement, studying, interpreting, and teaching his father's high spiritual principles for the rest of his life.
Heroism of the Women
There were women: for example, Zainab the sister of the Imam, Sakina his little daughter, and Shahr-i-Banu, his wife, at Kerbela. A great deal of poetic literature has sprung up in Muslim languages, describing the touching scenes in which they figure. Even in their grief and their tears they are heroic. They lament the tragedy in simple, loving, human terms. But they are also conscious of the noble dignity of their nearness to a life of truth reaching its goal in the precious crown of martyrdom. One of the best-known poets of this kind is the Urdu poet Anis, who lived in Lucknow, and died in 1874.
Lesson of the Tragedy
That briefly is the story. What is the lesson? There is of course the physical suffering in martyrdom, and all sorrow and suffering claim our sympathy, ---- the dearest, purest, most outflowing sympathy that we can give. But there is a greater suffering than physical suffering. That is when a valiant soul seems to stand against the world; when the noblest motives are reviled and mocked; when truth seems to suffer an eclipse. It may even seem that the martyr has but to say a word of compliance, do a little deed of non-resistance; and much sorrow and suffering would be saved; and the insidious whisper comes: "Truth after all can never die." That is perfectly true. Abstract truth can never die. It is independent of man's cognition. But the whole battle is for man's keeping hold of truth and righteousness. And that can only be done by the highest examples of man's conduct - spiritual striving and suffering enduring firmness of faith and purpose, patience and courage where ordinary mortals would give in or be cowed down, the sacrifice of ordinary motives to supreme truth in scorn of consequence. The martyr bears witness, and the witness redeems what would otherwise be called failure. It so happened with Husain. For all were touched by the story of his martyrdom, and it gave the deathblow to the politics of Damascus and all it stood for. And Muharram has still the power to unite the different schools of thought in Islam, and make a powerful appeal to non-Muslims also.
Explorers of Spiritual Territory
That, to my mind, is the supreme significance of martyrdom. All human history shows that the human spirit strives in many directions, deriving strength and sustenance from many sources. Our bodies, our physical powers, have developed or evolved from earlier forms, after many struggles and defeats. Our intellect has had its martyrs, and our great explorers have often gone forth with the martyrs' spirit. All honour to them. But the highest honour must still lie with the great explorers of spiritual territory, those who faced fearful odds and refused to surrender to evil. Rather than allow a stigma to attach to sacred things, they paid with their own lives the penalty of resistance. The first kind of resistance offered by the Imam was when he went from city to city, hunted about from place to place, but making no compromise with evil. Then was offered the choice of an effectual but dangerous attempt at clearing the house of God, or living at ease for himself by tacit abandonment of his striving friends. He chose the path of danger with duty and honour, and never swerved from it giving up his life freely and bravely. His story purifies our emotions. We can best honour his memory by allowing it to teach us courage and constancy.
The End


IMAM HUSAIN REFUSED ADVICE TO ABANDON HIS MISSION


Imam Husain's friends and relatives tried to dissuade him from going to Kufa, saying that the Kufans who had asked him to come were notoriously unreliable. Many people flocked to the Bani Umayya and received money and political favors in return for their support.

Therefore, according to many of his supporters, Imam Husain had no chance to subdue them. They asked him to abandon the journey. They urged him to go to Yemen where he had many followers, and where he could live in peace. But Husain could not explain the reality of his situation. However, he satisfied each of them with a brief reply. He told close companions and relatives, like his brother, Muhammad Bin Hanafiyya: "You are saying the correct thing. I also know that I shall not achieve any apparent domination, but I am not going for worldly conquest. I am going in order to be killed. I wish that through the strength of my suffering tyranny, I may root out the very foundation of oppression and cruelty. I saw my grandfather, the Prophet, in a dream telling me: 'Make a journey to Iraq. Allah Almighty wants to see you murdered.'"

Muhammad Bin Hanifiyya and Ibn Abbas said: "If this is so, why are you taking women with you?" He replied: "My grandfather said that Allah wants to see them captives. So, according to the command of the Holy Prophet, I am taking them with me." The captivity of the women would be the conclusive part of his martyrdom. They would demonstrate to the world the Umayyad cruelty to the Prophet's descendants. Bibi Zainab, the daughter of Ali and Fatima, made an eloquent protest in Yazid's crowded court, where hundreds of people, including the nobility, the great men of the Bani Umayya, and foreign ambassadors celebrated their victory. The fourth Imam, Zainu'l-Abidin Ali Ibn Husain, also made an eloquent appeal for justice from the pulpit of the Umayyad mosque, in Yazid's presence.

After extolling the merits and attributes of Allah, Zainu'l-Abidin said: "O people! We, the descendants of Muhammad, have been endowed by Allah with six qualities and have been made superior to the whole creation by being granted seven virtues. We have been given knowledge, forbearance, valor, beautiful appearance, eloquence, bravery, and are loved by the believers. We are superior to every man in that the Prophet Muhammad is from us; the Siddiq Ali Bin Abu Talib is from us; Ja'far-e-Tayyar is from us; Hamza is from us, two grandsons of the Prophet, Hasan and Husain, are from us; and the Mahdi (the guided one)
of this People (Imam-e-Hujjat Bin Hasan) is from us. One who does not know me should know about my family and family status; I am the son of the most exalted and virtuous Prophet of Allah, Muhammad Mustafa!"

Then from the same pulpit from which Mu'awiya and Yazid had cursed Ali, the Imam praised his illustrious grandfather, Ali, before Yazid and the chiefs of the Bani Umayyad. Many Syrians had never before heard Ali's qualities and virtues. The Imam said: "I am the son of the man who fought in the presence of the holy Prophet; who fought the infidels at Badr and Hunain; who never for a moment lost faith in Allah. I am the son of the most pious of the believers, the heir of the prophets, the slayer of the unbelievers, the ruler of the Muslims, the grace of the worshipers, the crown of those who weep in awe of Allah, the most patient of the patient, the best of the performers of prayer. I am the son of the man who was helped by Gabriel and Michael. I am the son of the man who was the protector of the honor of the Muslims and the slayer of the disbelievers. I am the son of the man who fought holy war against the enemy, who was the pride of the Quraish, the foremost of those who accepted the message of Allah and His Prophet, the first of those who embraced Islam, the tongue of the wisdom of Allah, the helper of the religion of Allah, the guardian of the commandments of Allah, the garden of Allah's wisdom, the repository of His knowledge. I am the son of the chief of the patient ones, the breaker of barriers, whose heart was more steadfast, whose resolution more firm, whose disposition more steady than anyone's. He was a fierce lion on the battlefield, who cut down the enemy with his sword and scattered them as a violent storm scatters straw. He was the bravest among the people of the Hijaz, the most valiant among the Iraqis, the purest Muslim, he who swore allegiance at Aqaba, the hero of Badr and Hunain, the courageous man on the occasion of allegiance under the tree, the unique sacrificer during the Holy Prophet's migration, the chief of the Arab world, the guardian of the Holy Ka'ba, the father of two grandsons of the Holy Prophet. These are the virtues of my grandfather, Ali Bin Abu Talib. I am also the son of Khadija-e-Kubra; I am the son of Fatima Zahra; I am the son of one who was murdered by a blow to the back of the neck; I am the son of one who left this world thirsty; I am the son of one who was deprived of water while water was allowed to the rest of creation. I am the son of one whose body was neither bathed nor shrouded; I am the son of one whose sacred head was raised on the point of the sword; I am the son of one whose women were affronted on the soil of Karbala and taken captive. I am the son of one whose women were brought to Syria as captives." Then the holy Imam wept with a loud cry, and continued: "I am.... I am...." that is, he went on narrating the virtues of his forefathers and the victimization of his holy father and the Ahle Bait. As a result of his address, people wept. After the martyrdom of Imam Husain, the first majlis (assembly for mourning) for the brutal sufferings of Imam Husain was held in this central mosque of the Umayyads. Imam Zainu'l-Abidin, after narrating Ali'svirtues in the presence of the enemies, gave such a moving account of the sufferings of his revered father that agonized weeping rose from the Syrians in the presence of Yazid. He became frightened and left the mosque.

It was from this mosque, due to the Imam's address, that people rose against Yazid. Because of popular outcry, Yazid was forced to curse Ubaidullah Bin Marjana for his vicious deed. Eventually, the castle of the Bani Umayya's tyranny was destroyed. Today we do not find in all of Syria a single tomb of the Bani Umayya.

 Imam Husain frequently foretold his martyrdom. He once spoke in Mecca, on Tarwia day (8th day of Dhu'l-Hijja, 60 A.H.), saying: "Death is attached to every member of the progeny of Adam as a necklace is attached to a young woman. I am as eager to meet my ancestors as Jacob was to meet Joseph. The place where I shall fall has already been selected for me, and I must go to that place. I see wild leopards killing me, tearing apart my body, between Nawawi's and Karbala."

Imam Husain knew that he would not reach Kufa, the capital of Syria. He knew that he would be killed by men who were like ferocious beasts, cutting his body to pieces. He undertook the journey for the purpose of martyrdom and not for political reasons. Along the way he told people of his impending death. He told his companions and relatives that one instance was sufficient to prove the worthlessness of this world. He said that after the beheading of the Prophet John, the head was presented to an adulteress. He said that his own head would soon be taken to the drunkard, Yazid.

Consider the matter for a moment. Hurr Bin Yazid Riyahi with a cavalry of 1,000 soldiers obstructed Husain's way. Kufa was only thirty miles away. Hur had been appointed by Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad to detain Imam Husain. Hur would neither let him proceed to Kufa, nor leave his company without further orders. Why did the Imam surrender himself to Hur?

If Husain had sought political power, he certainly would never have been stopped by Hur, who had not more than 1,000 soldiers. The Imam had 1,300 soldiers. Having defeated them, the Imam could have reached Kufa, where he had widespread support.

From there, being reinforced, he could have confronted the enemy and gained domination. But he accepted Hur's order, stopped there in the desert surrounded by the enemy. After four days enemy reinforcements arrived there, and the Prophet's son was forced to endure cruel suffering.

The best evidence in support of my view is the Imam's address on the night before The Day of Ashura.

Until that night 1,300 soldiers were ready to fight for him. Husain gathered the people together and told them: "Those who have come here for worldly gain should know that tomorrow whoever remains on this soil will be killed. The enemy is after me alone; I lift the binding force of allegiance from your necks. It is night, and you can depart in the darkness." Many accepted his proposal and departed. Only 42 people remained, 18 Bani Hashim and 24 companions. After midnight, 30 enemy soldiers moved toward the Imam's camp for a night attack, but when they heard Husain reciting the Holy Qur'an, they were filled with emotion and joined the Imam. These were the 72 people who sacrificed their lives on the Day of Ashura. Most of them were pious people, and many were reciters of the Holy Qur'an.

Husain's noble sacrifices are acknowledged today by friend and foe alike. Even those alien to our religion are impressed by his heroism. In the French Da'iratu'l-Ma'arif, there is a lengthy article entitled "Three Martyrs" written by a learned British woman. Her theme is that in all of history there have been three martyrs who, by sacrificing their lives, have been most influential in advancing the cause of truth.

The first was Socrates, and the second was Jesus (the writer was a Christian). We Muslims, of course, believe that Jesus was not crucified.

The Holy Qur'an clearly says:

"And they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Jesus) and most surely those who differ therein are only in doubt about it. They have no knowledge concerning it, but only follow conjecture. They did not kill him for certain. Nay! Allah took him up to Himself." (4:157-158)

The third martyr she writes, was Husain, the grandson of Muhammad. She writes: "When we take stock of historical events and assess the circumstances under which these three persons offered their lives, we acknowledge that the sacrifices of Husain excelled those two. The fact was that Socrates and Christ offered only their own lives for sacrifice in the way of God, but Husain left his home for a distant desert land to be surrounded by the enemy. He and his entire family were martyred for the cause of truth. He sent his friends and relations to confront the enemy and to sacrifice their lives for the religion of Allah.

This was in fact harder than giving up his own life."

The most glaring example of the tyranny suffered by Husain was the brutal murder of his six-month old son. He brought the baby in his hands asking for water for him (which was in abundance), but the ruthless enemy, instead of giving him water, killed the child with an arrow. The enemy's barbarism proves that Imam Husain was a victim of tyranny. His incredible forbearance completely ruined the power of the Bani Umayya and condemned them before the world. It was due to his, and his respected Ahle Bait's, sacrifices that the religion of Muhammad received new life.

I advise Zakir Naik and and his Collegues to go and study more about Imam Husain(a.s) before making any comments on such a great personality.

Imam Husain(A.S.) was never desirous of Political Power


Imam Husain(a.s) Dome in Karbala,Iraq
 Every good or bad action is based on our knowledge of Allah. The objectors should first
recognize Allah, and then they should acknowledge the divine book, the Qur'an. From that
acknowledgement it follows that we recognize that whatever is in that book is praise. Anyone who believes that Husain Ibn Ali was motivated by worldly goals denies the truth of the Holy Qur'an. Allah  Almighty has given evidence of Husain's purity in the Holy Qur'an. He says: "Allah desires only to keep away uncleanness from you, O people of the house! And to purify you with a thorough purifying." (33:33)

Most of your ulema, like Muslim, Tirmidhi Tha'labi, Sijistani, Abu Nu'aim Isfahani, Abu Bakr Shirazi, Suyuti, Hamwaini, Ahmad Bin Hanbal, Zamakhshari, Baidhawi, Ibn Athir, and others have held that this verse was revealed in praise of the holy five, the Ahle Bait (people of the House): Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. This verse is the greatest proof for the infallibility and purity of these holy people. The greatest impurity is love for worldly power. There are many hadith from the Prophet and the Imams condemning aspiration for worldly power and the fulfillment of our carnal desires. The Prophet said, "Love and friendship with the world is the root of all evil." Abu Abdullah Husain had no love for worldly power. He certainly did not risk his life and the lives of his family in order to attain transitory rule in this world.
If Imam Husain's stand against Yazid were merely for worldly power, the Prophet would not have ordered people to help him. Your own ulema confirm this point. Sheikh Sulayman Balkhi Hanafi in his Yanabiu'l-Mawadda from the histories of Bukhari, Baghawi, and Ibnu's-Sikkin from Zakha'iru'l-Uqba of Imamu'l-Haram Shafi'i, and Sirat-e-Mulla narrate from Anas Bin Harith Bin Bayya, who said that he heard the Holy Prophet say: "Verily, my son Husain will be killed on the soil of Karbala. Every one of you who is present at that time must help him."

The report continues: "Anas Bin Harith reached Karbala and, in obedience to the command of the Prophet, was martyred along with Imam Husain." It follows, therefore, that at Karbala Imam Husain stood for the cause of truth and not for love of this world. Imam Husain's undertaking the journey with a small group, including his women and small children, is another indication that he left his home not for the purpose of gaining rule. If that had been his intention, he would have gone to Yemen, where he had
widespread support. Yemen would have been the logical base for launching military operations. In fact his friends repeatedly encouraged him to go to Yemen, but they were not aware of his purpose. But Imam Husain knew that there was no means of attaining apparent success. His journey, begun with 84 people, including women and children, aimed at a basic good. The holy tree - la ilaha ill'allah (there is no god except Allah) - was grown by his grandfather, nourished with his blood and the blood of the martyrs of Badr, Uhud, and Hunain. The tree was entrusted to an excellent gardener, Ali Bin Abu Talib, who was held back by threats of murder and arson. The result was that the spring of Tawhid (oneness ofAllah) and prophethood had taken on an autumnal change. Gradually the administration of the garden fell into the hands of the malicious Bani Umayya.

Since the caliphate of Uthman Bin Affan, the Bani Umayya controlled the administration of the empire. Abu Sufyan, old and blind, but his appetite for power as keen as ever, cried out to the Umayyad Court:

"O Bani Umayya! Keep the caliphate in your own family. Paradise and hell are myths. O Bani Umayya!

Take hold of the caliphate like a ball. I swear that by which I swear, that I always wished such rule for you. Take care of it so that your descendants may be its heirs."

These unbelievers ejected the rightful gardeners from the garden. The life-water was stopped and the holy tree shrivelled until the reign of Yazid, when it appeared to be destined to die. Imam Husain undertook the journey to Karbala to water the garden of Prophethood and to strengthen the holy tree of la ilaha ill'Allah. Some people ask why Imam Husain did not raise the flag of opposition in Medina.

They do not understand that if he had remained in Medina, his objective would have remained unclear. Imam Husain went to Mecca in the month of Rajab and addressed thousands of people, telling them that Yazid was uprooting the tree of tawhid. He said that Yazid, who claimed to be the Caliph of the Muslims, was destroying the foundation of Islam. Addicted to wine and gambling, Yazid amused himself with dogs and monkeys. Imam Husain considered the sacrifice of his life necessary for the preservation of Islam.