Who are the adherents of the Nasibi killers of Imam Hussain (as)?

It is quite logical that those that deemed Yazid to be the rightful khalifa were the same individuals that killed Imam Hussain (as). We the Shi’a distance ourselves from Yazid and his supporters.

So Ansar.Org, kindly tell us, do you?

Do the Ahl’ul Sunnah and Nasibi express hatred towards those that supported Yazid and killed Imam Hussain (as)?

Unfortunately this is not the case. Nasibi claiming to adhere to the Sunni faith have written, praised and defended Yazid as a pious man. We have Pakistani Hanafi scholar Mahmood Abadi who wrote "Khilafat Muawiya aur Yazid”- wherein he praised Yazid, deeming the method of ruling used by Umar and Yazid to be the same.

Had the matter stopped there then no doubt that would be proof in itself, but what Ansar.Org are hiding from their followers is the fact that their Salaf Imams took ahadith from those that killed Imam Hussain (as). Proof of guilt lies with ‘association’ those with blood on their hands will have no shame / guilt in taking hadith from the killers of Hussain (as) since these are their descendants. Those who had no part in killing the Imam (as) would naturally revile his killers and have no association with these killers on matters pertaining to Deen. The ultimate criterion for determining WHO the actual killers of Hussain (as) lies in hadith. No doubt a group whose Salaf ancestors supported the Khilafah of Yazid and killed Imam Hussain (as) will have no shame in taking hadith from those same individuals.

Whilst we deem the cursing of Yazid, Ibn Sad, Ibn Ziyad etc to be a compulsory act, compare this to the respect afforded to Imam Hussain (as)’s killers by the Ahl’ul Sunnah Ulema…

Umar bin Sad bin Abi Waqqas

The role played by the notorious Kufi character Umar bin Saad, the son of famous Sahabi Saad bin Abi Waqas in killing Imam Hussain [as] is evidenced clearly in the books of history.

Imam Bukhari for example wrote in Tareekh al Sagheer:

Abu al-Muaali al-Ejli narrated from his father that he said: ‘When Hussain arrived in Karbala, Umar bin Sa'ad was the first individual who cut the ropes of the tents’
Tareekh al Sagheer, Volume 1, page 75

Dhahabi whilst writing on the life of Ibn Sa’d states in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 4 page 349:

“Umar bin Saad, the commander of the troops that fought against al-Hussain [ra], then al-Mukhtar killed him (Umar ibn Saad)”.

This accursed enemy of Ahlulbayt [as] was also not a Shia that affirmed belief in the divine Imamate of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) but was amongst the ancestors of the present day Ahle Sunnah and the Imams of Ahle Sunnah have accordingly relied upon him as a source of deriving religious instruction in the form of Hadiths narrated on his authority.

Ibn Hajr Asqalani writes in Tahdheeb al Tahdheeb Volume 7 page 396:

“Umar Ibn Sa’ad bin Abi Waqqas al-Zuhri Abu Hafs al-Madani lived in Kufa. He narrated traditions from his father and Abu Said al Khudri. His son Ibraheem and grandson Abu Bakr bin Hafs ibn Umar, Abu Ishaac Al-Sabayee, Ayzaar bin Hareeth, Yazid bin Abi Maryam , Qatada, Zuhri and Yazid bin Habeeb and others have narrated (hadith) from him”

The book can also be downloaded from a Wahabi/Salafi website:
 Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb, Vol 7 No. 747 - (Cached)

Regarding the level of truthness of this Nasibi ancestor of the Ahle Sunnah, we read that Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani has declared him ‘Seduq’ in Taqrib al-Tahdib, Volume 1 page 717 whilst Imam Ejli went expressed his satisfaction even further, as we read in Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 21 Biography No. 4240:

وقال أحمد بن عبد الله العجلي كان يروي عن أبيه أحاديث وروى الناس عنه وهو الذي قتل الحسين وهو تابعي ثقة

Ahmad bin Abdullah al-Ejli said: ‘He used to narrate traditions from his father, and the people narrated from him, and he is the one who killed al-Hussain, and he is Thiqa Tabayee’
 Tahdeeb al-Kamal, Volume 21 Biography No. 4240

Imam Dhahabi in his book Mizan al-Etidal, Volume 3 page 198 maintained the following opinion about this Nasibi:

هو في نفسه غير متهم

“He as a person is not criticized”

One of the most beloved Salafi scholars Shaykh Shoib al-Arnaut in his margin of Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal declared traditions narrated by Umar bin Saad as ‘Hasan’.
 Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, v1, p173 H 1487
 Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, v1, p177 H 1531
 Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal, v1, p182 H 1575

Similarly Shaykh Ahmed Shakir also wrote the margin of book Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal and he declared Hadith having Umar bin Saad in the chain as Sahih (see Musnad Ahmed, v3 p51). Imam Ibn Hajar in his book 'Hidayat al-Rawat' Volume 2 page 229 has also declared a tradition having this enemy of Imam Hussain (as) in the chain as 'Hasan'.

From here it should have dawned  that the killers of Imam Hussain (as) were actually the ancestors of the present day Ahle Sunnah. Your Salaf followed their way and deemed these figures to be reliable / respected personalities, basing the cornerstone of Deen – hadith in accordance with traditions that had been passed down by them.

Ubaydullah bin Ziyad

On Ibn Ziyad, Ibn Hajr Asqalani states:

He is Ubaydullah bin Ziyad , the prince of Kufa for Mu'awiya and his son Yazid and he is the one who prepared the armies from Al-Kufa to fight Al-Hussain [ra] until he was killed in Karbala. He was known as Ibn Marjana and she is his mother (Marjana) .

Ibn Asakir has mentioned his biography in Tarikh Dimashq and he was mentioned in Sunan Abi Dawood… And he narrated from Sa'ad bin Abi Waqas and Mu'awiya and Ma'qel bin Yasir and Ibn Umayyah the brother of Bani Ja'dah. And from those who narrated from him are Al-Hasan al-Basri and Abu al-Malih bin Usama.
Tajeel al Munfa Bazawaid Rijal al Aimah al Arbah, page 180

The book can also be downloaded from one of the favorite website of Wahabies/Salafies:
 No. 686

Ibn Kathir in Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252 Under the topic ‘Ibn Ziyad’ also recorded the place of Ibn Ziyad in the Sunni Hadith works.
  Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Vol 8 page 1252

If the Ansar claim that they bear enmity towards the Shi’a as they killed Imam Hussain (as) could they be so kind to comment on why their madhab take hadith from those that killed him? This proves that their leading recorders were at peace with taking hadith from the killers of Imam Hussain (as). Ansar, you claim to be the true adherents of Ahl’ul bayt (as) tell us, would true lovers of Ahl’ul bayt (as) take traditions from their killers?

If some ignorant Nasibi is still going to assert their ancestor Ibn Ziyad as Shia then allow us to present the words of Ibn ziyad which clearly proves that just like other Nasibis Ibn Ziyad also deemed Yazid as his Imam. Ibn Kathir records that Ibn Ziyad wrote to Umar Ibn Sa`d:

“Become obstacle between Hussain and water, treat them in the way Ameer al Momineen Uthman was treated and ask him and his companions to give bayah to Ameer al Momineen Yazid bin Muawiyah”al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu) Volume 8 page 1058

Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinawari records the statement of Ibn Ziyad:

“I killed Al Hussain due to the reason that he revolted against our Imam [Yazid] and the very Imam[Yazid] sent me the message to kill Al Hussain. Now if the murder of Hussain is a sin then Yazid is responsible for it”Akhbaar Tawaal, page 279 (Egypt) by Ahmed Bin Daud Abu Hanifa Dinwari

Hence we come to know that Ibn Ziyad likewise prominent Sunni scholars deemed Yazid as one of the caliphs of Islam or Ameer al Momineen.

“I killed Al Hussain on the orders of Yazid to kill him otherwise he would kill me therefore I chose to kill Hussain”
Tareekh Kamil, Volume 4 page 55 (Egypt)

Allamah Jalaluddin Suyuti writes in Tareekh Khulfa, page 182:

فكتب يزيد إلى واليه بالعراق عبيد الله بن زياد بقتاله

“Yazid wrote his ruler in Iraq Ibn Ziyad for the murder of Hussain”

We read that it was Yazid who gave orders to Ibn Ziyad for the murder of Imam Hussain[as] and those people who deemed Yazid as their caliph and Ibn Ziyad as their ruler made the instructions of Yazid practical. The case is clear like mirror. The army which Abu Bakr sent during his caliphate deemed him as their caliph not somebody else, same was the case with Umar when he send troops to Iraq, Iran and Syria. Those armies followed the instructions of their respective caliphs because they deemed them their caliphs or Imams and suppose if there was someone who didn’t deem Umar or Abu Bakr as his caliph, he could have easily refused to follow the instructions what ever the result might have been. Thus we see that Ibn Ziyad & Co. thoroughly obeyed Yazid without any hesitation.

Shimer bin Zil Joshan

Whilst we initially felt no need to write anything on this cursed Nasibi character that played a major role in the murder of Imam Hussain [as], the need has arisen from our very opponents whose association with him is such that they take Hadith from him. Before doing so let us consider the evidence submitted by today’s Nawasib champion to prove that Shimer was a Shia In his article with this sensational titled ‘A Shia Killed Sayyiduna Hussain’

Ibn al Hashimi states:

The man who killed Sayyiduna Hussain (i.e. gave the death-blow) was a man by the name of Shimr bin Thil-Jawshan and he was a Shia, as recorded in both Sunni and Shia books. Shimr was part of the Shia, and then he betrayed Sayyiduna Hussain and joined Yazid’s men, giving Sayyiduna Hussain the death-blow.
To provide a solid proof of this fact (i.e. that Shimr was a Shia), we refer to the esteemed and classical Shia scholar, Al-Qummi. Al-Qummi, author of the famous book “Mafaatihul-Jinaan”, writes in his book: “I say, Shimr was in the forces of Ameer al-Mu’mineen on the Day of Siffin.” (Al-Qummi, “Safinatun-Najaat”, vol.4, p. 492, Chapter Sheen Followed by Meem) 

Reply One – In 37 Hijri anyone that deemed Ali (as) to be the legitimate Khalifa and fought enemies was counted as Shia

If anything this references simply exposes the utter ignorance of Ibn al Hashimi. If Shimer was a Shia due to his participation alongside Ali (as) at Siffeen, will he acknowledge that other participants such as the famous companions Ammar Yasir (ra) and Umawya Qarni (ra) were also Shia and not Sunnis as Salafis always insist? Why should the Shia label be used for Shimer and not these two Sahaba? The fact of the matter is during the Caliphate of Ali (as) there were two distinct groups the Shia of Ali (as) and the Shia of Uthman. There was no such thing as the Ahl’ul Sunnah Sect. People were split into one of these two groups. Shia was a generic term for those that supported Ali (as) during his Khilafah of Ali (as) and the term incorporated:

Those that deemed it a religious obligation to support Ali (as) as he was the true immediate successor of the Prophet (s), belief that is today referred to as those of the Imami Shia

Those whose association with Ali (as) was linked to a belief that is in this day and age recognised as the belief of the Ahle Sunnah, these individuals were the early remnants of Sunnism, as they deemed Ali to be the fourth legitimate Head of State and accordingly fought alongside him, a fact succinctly attested to by Al Muhaddith Shah Abdul Aziz Dehlavi the Salaf of the Ahl’ul Sunnah were the pioneer Salaf in the army of Ali (as) that fought Muawiyah.

"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 Ithna Ashari (Urdu) page 27, published in Karachi

Now Ibn al Hashimi, tell us:

Were all "Sunnis" in the party of Imam Ali (as) during his Khilafate part of the "Shi'a" as we know them today?

Certainly not, they merely followed their belief of following the Head of State that acquires the bayya of the people. The army of Ali (as) comprised of two categories, those that believed that Ali (as) had to be obeyed because:

he was the legitimate Khalifa as he had been divinely appointed as such by the Prophet (s) – Those that are now referred to as Shias.

he was the legitimate Khalifa as he had secured the ijma of the Sahaba to the leader after Uthman – Those that are now referred to as Sunnis.

Now the onus is on Ibn al Hashimi to evidence that Shamir believed that Ali (as) was the divinely appointed leader after the Prophet (s) through any admission made by him? If he cannot he has no right to arrive at such an absurd conclusion.

Reply Two - People are judged by their beliefs at the time of committing an offence, not their past history

It is common sense that anyone is judging a person’s crime one looks at their beliefs at that time, their past is completely irrelevant. If we are to adhere to this approach would it be right for us to describe:

Salman Rushdie author of ‘The Satanic Verses’

Ibn Warraq author of ‘Why I am not a Muslim’

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, screen play writer of the anti Islam movie ‘Submission’

Magdi Allam baptized by the Pope in 2008

as Sunni Muslims because they were at some point in their lives Sunni?

 Is it right to refer to all the above as Sunnis even though we know that they are now apostates?

When we refer to Holy Prophet' (s)’ companions do we refer to them as idol worshipping, child murdering, drunks. No because that was during the period of Jahiliya . When we refer to them we refer to them respectfully because we recognise that they entered a different episode of their lives when they took the Shahada.

If for arguments sake Shimer was a Shia the fact is he was, if we want to judge him at the time of killing Imam Hussain (as) we need to know of his beliefs at that time. Was he a Shia of Ali (as) when he decapitated the head of Imam Hussain (as)? Certainly not, and the only relevant thing is to know of what he believed at that time. The fact of the matter is when he committed this vile deed he was from the Shia of Yazeed. What he was before has no bearing on his historical allegiances apart from the fact it demonstrates that he was probably not a true Shia of Ali (as) when he gave him bayya and then converted from a Khawarij into a Nasibi.

Even if he was a true Shia of Ali, it has no bearing on his deed apart from the fact it illustrates that even the best can be corrupted.

We can also cite the case of Ibless to understand matters further. He was undoubtedly from amongst the Shia of Allah but he rebelled and formed his own party. Shamir may have just been a run of the mill Shia from the thousands that of Shia that stood alongside Ali (as) at Siffeen, but Shaitan had an esteemed recognised position, he was once Chief of all angels. Do we cite the example of Ibless in order to discredit Allah as is the approach being adhered to by Ibn al Hashimi?

We can see from the example of Ibless that anyone can deviate the only important thing for us to decide is when Shamir turned 'evil' whose side he was on? He had taken the conscientious decision to side alongside the Caliph Yazid. So by siding with Yazeed and fighting under his flag he had lost his faith just like Shaitan had done

Reply Three – Shimer’s grounds for killing the Imam (as) evidences his beliefs mirror those of Sunnis not Shias

We read in Mizan al Itidal, Volume 2 page 280 Biography 3742:

Abu Isaac said: Shimer used to pray with us and say: ‘O God, you know that I am a righteous man thus forgive me’. I said: ‘How shall Allah forgive you when you participated in killing the son of Allah's messenger?’ He replied: ‘Woe to you! What should I have done? Our rulers ordered us to do so, we therefore did not disobey them, if we disobeyed them we would be worse than these animals’.
I said: ‘This is an awful excuse, verily obedience is only in relation to good things’.

We can see that Shimer believed that he was under a religious duty to kill the Imam (as) as it was incumbent on him to implement the orders of his rulers no matter how perverse. We would challenge Ibn al Hashimi to show us the belief of any Shia of Ali (as) whether from that era through to know that believes that there was a religious duty to kill Imam Hussain (as), as one had to adhere to the orders of the ruler. The Shia that believe Imamate is a divine right of the Ahl’ul bayt (as) have from the outset rejected all forms of man made leadership, and only believe that it is a right of Imam Ali (as) and his divinely appointed descendants – we are compelled to unconditionally obey them and them alone as Heads of State. An individual that believes that he had the legal mandate to kill the divinely appointed Imam (as) upon the orders of the illegitimate Head of State can never fall within the definition of a Shia. On the contrary, to believe that one must adhere to bad rulers unconditionally is the belief of the the Ahl’ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah, as attested to by the Salafi scholar Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql:

"It is not permissible to revolt against the Muslim ruler except in cases where he manifests clear unbelief (kufr buwaah), for which there is decisive proof from Allah concerning it".
The General precepts of Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah, by Shaikh Naasir al-'Aql, page 34 English translation by 'Abu 'Aaliyah Surkheel ibn Anwar Sharif, published by Message of Islam

Shimer as a Tabieen adhered to the very belief system on adhering to a ruler as Shaykh al-‘Aql comments on, which proves that he adhered to a belief system that would in this day and age be described as the Sunni belief system. Alhamdolillah Shimer beliefs had nothing to do with Shi’ism.

We can see from this admission that Shimer supported Ali (as) at Siffeen for the very reason that he supported Yazeed, a belief that the Head of State must be obeyed unconditionally because he is the Head of State. For Shimer it was nothing to do with some religious obligation to follow Ali (as) as the divinely appointed Imam, he (as) was the Caliph and had to be obeyed, he applied the same principle when Yazeed attained power.

Reply Four – The fact that the Sunni Hadith scholars narrated from Shimr and evidences his Sunni credentials

Shimer also acted as a source of knowledge for the respected Tabayee and scholar of Ahle Sunnah Abu Ishaaq al-Sabayee (d. 129 H) about whom Imam Dhahabi has recorded in Syar alam al-Nubala, Volume 5 page 392:

“The Sheikh, the scholar and Muhadith of Kufa”

In his other book Tazkirak al-Hufaz, Volume 1 page 114 Dhahabi recorded the following about Abu Ishaaq:

Fudhail bin Ghazwan said: ‘Abu Ishaaq used to recite Quran completely every three days and it has been said that he used coupisly fast, perform the the night prayers and guard his chastity, he was a container of knowledge and he has a lot of virtues’

This knowledgeable, pious and venerated Sunni scholar and Tabayee deemed Shimer worthy enough to be a trusted Hadith narrator as recorded by Dhahabi in Mizan al-Itidal under the biography of Shimer:

وعنه أبو إسحاق السبيعي

“And (narrated) from him Abu Ishaaq al-Sabayee”

We can hence see that a Hadith narrated by this filthy creature has been given a place in one of the most important Sunni Hadith books i.e. Musnad Ahmed bin Hanbal.

Shabath bin Rab’I

The Ansar had claimed that the Shia of Kufa had written letters to Imam Hussain (as) inviting him to join them in Kufa. One of the leading figures who no doubt Ansar will claim was Shia was Shabath bin Rab’i. His writing to Imam Hussain (as) is stated clearly in History of Tabari English translation, Volume 10 pages 25-26 and
  Al Bidayah Wal Nihayah (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1013.

We should point out that neither do we take hadith from this individual, nor do we praise him. He had no link to the Shi’a madhab rather has been declared as Huroori by the Sunni scholars. This ‘betrayer’ whom the Ansar would no doubt label as Shi’a is actually an authority narrator in the eyes of Ahl’ul Sunnah.

Dhahabi writes on him in Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla, Volume 4 page 150:

“He was from amongst those that rebelled against Ali, he rejected the arbitration, and then subsequently repented. He narrated (hadith) on the authority of Ali and Hudhaifa. Muhammad bin Ka’ab Al-Qarzi and Sulayman Taimee narrated (hadith) from him, in Sunan Abu Daud there is one hadith recorded from him”

Ibn Hajr writes in Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 4 page 226:

Shabath bin Rab'i al-Tamimi Al-Yurbo'i Abu Abd al-Quddous Al-Kufi, narrated from Hudhaifa and Ali may Allah be pleased with them, and from those who narrated from him are Mhammad bin Ka'ab Al-Qarzi and Sulayman A Taimee …. Darqatni states that he (Shabath) was a caller (Mu'azzen) for Sajah then he converted to Islam. Ibn Habban mentioned him in Al-Thuqat and states that he committed errors (in narrating hadith), they have narrated hadith on his authority where Fatima [r] had asked to be given a Servant۔ Al Ejli said that this wa the first individual who assisted in the killing of Uthman and also participated in the killing of Hussain [r].
 Tahdeeb al-Tahdeeb - (Cached)

We appeal to justice. Examine the life of this Nasibi / Khwaarijee. No rational person would ever conclude that he was a Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as). This so called ‘Shia’ Kufan that wrote letters to Imam Hussain (as) is a narrator of your Saha Sittah – Sunan Nasai and Abu Daud – you deem him to be an authority figure. Despite his writing to the Imam (as) he can never be defined as Shi’a – he never was a true Shi’a – simply a troublemaker who dedicated his entire life to playing an integral role in dissension. Despite this Imams of Ahl’ul Sunnah Nasai and Abu Daud deemed him to be a reliable source – tell us Afriki should we deem the killers of Imam Hussain (as) to be reliable honest individuals – or should we distance ourselves from such personalities? We should point out to Nasibi al Afriki that the harsh reality is it was your Salaf that invited Imam Hussain (as) and then subsequently killed him – that is why you still love the individuals and prove your appreciation for them by narrating hadith on their authority. Would you respect and rely on the words of an individual that murdered your grandson? If not, then why do you respect and accept the word of those that killed the grandson of Rasulullah (s)? Is such behaviour not an insult to the memory of Imam Hussain (as) and Rasulullah (s)? Would true followers of Ahl’ul bayt (as) behave in such a manner?

Some more proofs of the killers of Imam Hussain [as] being Nasibis while supporters of Imam Hussain [as] being Shia

Proof one

When Imam Hussain [as] left Makka and arrived at a place near Kufa, upon the orders of Hasees bin Tamim he was met by Hur bin Yazid who was accompanied by 1000 of his army men. Hur bin Yazid remained with Imam Hussain [as] so that he could not let Hussain [as] go to Madina and then both of those groups reached at Nainawa. Suddenly there appeared a rider on a fast mount coming from Kufa. He was bearing weapons and carrying a bow on his shoulder. They all stopped and watched him. When he reached there he greeted Hur and his followers but did not greet al Hussain and his followers. He handed Hur a letter from Ibn Ziyad. It said the following:

“… When this letter reaches you and my messenger comes to you, make al Hussain come to a halt. Let him stop at an open place without protection and water…”
History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102

Yazid bin Ziyad bin al Muhasir Abu al-Sha`tha al Kindi who was with al Hussain [as] looked at the messenger of Ibn Ziyad and recognized him. He asked him:

“Are you Malik bin Nusayr al Baddi? The other replied: “Yes”. He was the member of the tribe of Kindah. Yazid bin Ziyad exclaimed: “May your mother be deprived of you! What is the business you have brought!”. The other man retorted: “What is this that I have brought, I have obeyed my Imam and have remained faithful to my oath of allegiance”. Abu al-Sha`tha responded: You have been disobedient to your Lord and have obeyed your imam in bringing about the distruction of your soul. You have aquired shame and punishment of Hell-fire.Indeed God has said: “ We have made them imams, who summon people to the Hell-fire and on the Day of Resurrection they will not be helped”. You imam is one of those”
 History of Tabari, Volume 19 page 102

Dear readers, who was this messenger of Ibn Ziyad Malik bin Nusayr? This was the same individual who approached Imam Husasin (as) on the day of Ashur when he [as] fell from his horse suffering from severely injuries and struck him [as] on the head with his sword. The sword cut the hood of his (as) cloak and injured his head.
See:  History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 153

The words of that brutal person i.e “I have obeyed my Imam and have remained faithful to my oath of allegiance” clearly shows that he deemed Yazeed [la] to be his imam which is a conclusive proof of him being aloof from the madhab of Ali/Hussain [as], and his association with the Sunni madhab that deems Yazeed [la] to be their 6th imam a belief that Sahih Bukhari proves that Abdullah bin Umar the son of second caliph adhered to.

Proof Two

When Muslim bin Aqeel [as] was taking bayah from the Kufans who had gathered there on account of their disaffection with with the tyranny that the Bani Umayyah were subjecting them to, Yazeed [la] received a letter from Kufa written by Abdullah bin Muslim al Hadrami which contained the following text:

“Muslim bin Aqeel has come to Kufa and the Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali. If you have any need of Kufah then send a strong man there who will carry out your orders and act in the same way as you would against your enemy. Al Numan bin Bashir is a weak man or he is acting like a weak man”
 History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 30

He was the first man who wrote to Yazeed [la] and then Umarrah bin Uqbah and Umar bin Sa`ad also wrote along the same lines to Yazeed. Yazeed on receiving this letter wrote to Ibn Ziyad:

“My followers [Shia] among the people of Kufa have written to me to inform me that Ibn al Aqeel is in Kufa gathering units in order to spread rebellion among the Muslims. Therefore when you read this letter of mine go to Kufa and search for Ibn Aqeel as if you were looking for a bead until you find him. Then bind him in chains, kill him or expel him”
 History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 31

Yazeed [la] used the word “Shia” for his adherents in Kufa which has been translated as “followers” in English version but can be read in its original Arabic and Urdu version. Tarikh Tabari (Urdu), Volume 4 part 1 page 154, Nafees Academy Karachi

Dear readers, you must have recognized the writer of this letter Umar bin Sa`d. This was same cursed individual who was sent as an army chief for the murder of Imam Hussain [as] and he was the one who fired the first arrow at Imam al Hussain [as].
See: History of al Tabari, Volume 19 page 129

His words i.e “Shia have given the oath of allegiance to him on behalf of al Hussain bin Ali” clearly shows that he did not have any connection with the the Shia of Ali/Hussain [as] in fact we have already highlighted the prestigious place this individual enjoys among the hadith works of the Ahl’ul Sunnah. Crucially, the words of Yazeed [la] i.e “My Shia among the people of Kufa have written to me” strengthen our stance that Umar bin Sa`d was the Shia of Yazeed [la] and from the group/sect that deemed him [la] to be their Imam. Moreover the belief that Hussain rebelled against Yazeed accurately tallies with that of the present age Nasibis like Ibn Arabi etc. Are the Nasibis still going to show their stubbornness and remain shouting that the “killers of al Hussain were his own Shias” while we have already made the sect of His [as] killers known to everyone?

Proof Three

We read in history that on the day of Ashur when the war began and the majority if helpers of Imam Hussain [as]’s helpers were martyred a man namely Yazeed b. Maqil of the Banu Salimah of Abd Qays, came forward from the army of Umar bin Sa`d and called out to Burayr b. Hudayr who was the companion of Imam al Hussain [as]:

“How do you think God has treated you? Burayr replied, “By God! God has treated me well and treated you badly”. He answered “You are a liar. Even before today you were always a liar. Do you remember when I used to go with you among the Banu Lawdhan? Then you used to say that Uthman was a man who indulged himself excessively, that Mu’awiyah b. Abi Sufyan was one who was in error and who caused people to go astray, and that the Imam of guidance and truth was ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. Burayr retorted: “I testify that this is my opinion and belief”. Yazeed b. Maqil replied: “And I testify that you are one of those who are in error. Burayr called out: Then I challenge you to contest of curses. Let us call on God that the lair be cursed and the spreader of falsehoods be killed. Then come out for combat.” They both advanced and raised their hands to God, calling upon Him to curse the lair and the one who was truthful should kill the one who was false.

Each of them came advanced against the other. They exchanged blows. Yazeed b. Maqil struck Burayr b. Hudayr a light blow that did not do him any harm. Burayr b. Hudayr struck Yazeed b. Maqil a blow that cut through his halmet and penetrated his brain”.
 History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 132-133

Dear readers, do we still need to prove the madhab of the killers of Imam al Hussain [as] and the madhab of his helpers? Burayr b. Hudayr deemed:

Uthman a man who indulged himself excessively,

Mu’awiyah a follower and a guide of wrong path

‘Ali b. Abi Talib as Imam of guidance and truth

The above three beliefs tally up with the belief of the Shia Athna Asharis. Compare this to Yazeed b. Maqil who was among the opponents of Imam Hussain [as] and deemed Burayr b. Hudayr misguided for having those three beliefs in the same way that modern day Sunnis deem the Shi’as misguided for adhereing to these three believes.

If the filthy Nawasib like that of Sipah e Sahaba still insist that Shi’a killed Imam Hussain [as] whilst that are the true lovers of Ahllubait [as] then we have a simple and straight question to them:

“Do you Nawasib like the helper of Imam Hussain [as] Burayr b. Hudayr deem Uthman a man who indulged himself excessively, Mu’awiyah a follower and a guide of wrong path and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib as Imam of guidance and truth ?”

If your answer is in positive only then you have every right to to call yourselves the lovers of Ahlulbait [as] if you do not then you adhere to the school of thought followed by Yazeed b. Maqil who was among the killers of Imam Hussain [as].

Moreover the thing on which Mubahila took place between Burayr b. Hudayr and Yazeed b. Maqil along with its result is clear to all readers and that makes it clear as to which side adhered to the truth and which side adhered to misguidance.

Proof Four

After immense fighting that resulted in Burayr b. Hudayr being martyred his killer Ka`b bin Jabir Al Azdi left the scene, his wife or his sister said to him:

“You have given help against son of Fatimah and you have killed the leader of reciters of Quran. You have brought great disgrace. By God! I will never speak a word to you”
History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134

Ka`b bin Jabir Al Azdi then proudly recited a poetry:

“Ask that you be told about me - and you are blameworthy
at the battle against Hussain, while the spears were pointed….
I had with me a spear from Yazan- whose joints had not betrayed it,
And white sword which was sharpened, and both edges of it were cutting.
I singled him out amid a group whose religion was not my religion, for I am satisfied with Ibn Harb (i.e Yazid)…..
Tell Ubaydallah if you meet him,
That I am obedient and attentive to the Caliph…”
 History of al-Tabari Volume 19 pages 134

His words “whose religion was not my religion” clearly shows that his religion was different than the relgion of the helpers and followers of Imam al Hussain [as] while the religion of Imam Hussain [as] and his followers was affirmed through the words of Burayr b. Hudayr. Yet again his belief of deeming Yazeed as his caliph corroborates Sunni ideology espoused by Abdullah ibn Umar in Sahih al Bukhari. If Nawasib like that of Sipah e Sahaba and ansar.org accept the religion and beliefs told by Burayr b. Hudayr only then they should rightly deem themselves the followers of Ahl’lubait [as] otherwise they should be ashamed of sharing the same religions as the killers of Imam al Hussain [as].

Proof Five

Ibn Kathir records that when Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad caught Hani bin Urwah, he started to torture him. When the relatives of Hani gathered at his palace Ibn Ziyad through Qadi Shureh sought to turn them away by calming them:

“Ubaidullah Ibn Ziyad said to Hani: ‘Allah has made your blood Halal for me because you are Haroori’. Thus according to his orders he was locked up in next to a house and his tribe Banu Mazhaj came and stood at the door of the palace along with Umro bin al-Hajaj. They thought that Hani had been killed. When Ibn Ziyad heard their noise he asked Qadi Shureh who was near to him to go to the people and told them that the Ameer has detained him so that he could question him about Muslim bin Aqeeel. Therefore Qadi told them: ‘Your master is alive and our king has beaten him up to a extent where there was no danger to his life”
 Al Bidayah wal Niihayah, (Urdu) Vol 8 page 1018-1019 topic "Incident of Hussain bin Ali, reason of his exit from Makkah and situation of his murder"

If Nawasib have not recognized this Qadi Shureh; yet another follower of Ibn Ziyad then allow us to reveal his revered place in the madhab of Ahl’ul Sunnah. This main is not only praised by the Sunni Ulema but he has also narrated hadiths in principle hadith books like Bukhari. Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani records:

البخاري في الأدب المفرد والنسائي شريح بن الحارث بن قيس بن الجهم بن معاوية بن عامر الكندي أبو أمية الكوفي القاضي ويقال شريح بن شرحبيل ويقال بن شراحيل۔۔۔ وقال حنبل بن إسحاق عن بن معين شريح بن هانئ وشريح بن أرطاة وشريح القاضي أقدم منهما وهو ثقة وقال العجلي كوفي تابعي ثقة۔۔۔ المفرد وقال بن سعد توفي سنة 79 وكان ثقة

Shureh bin Al-Harith bin Qais bin Al-Juham bin Muawya bin Amer Al-Kindi Abu Amuaya Al-Kufi the Qadi, he is called Shureh bin Sharhabil or Sherahil narrated in Bukhari, Sunan Al-Nesa'i … Hanbal bin Ishaq narrate that Ibn Meen said about him: ‘Thiqah’. Al-Ejli said: ‘Kofi Tabee Thiqah’… Ibn Sa`ad said: ‘He died in year 79 and he is Thiqah’.
Tahdeeb al Tahdeeb, Volume 4 No. 574

If any Nasibi still accuse Shias of being involved in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] then it is just pure stubbornness, for the truth is that Sunni Ulema not only praised the associate of Ibn Ziyad but also deemed him worthy enough to derive their religion from him.

Proof Six

Apart from all the individuals we have discussed in this chapter that contributed to the murder of Imam Hussain [as] and his people, we would like to remind our readers of those personalities that we had discussed in previous chapters such as:

Muhamad bin Ashath, who arrested Muslim bin Aqeel [as] and sent him to his master Ibn Ziyad, who was not only a Sunni narrator of Sunni hadith books such as Mu'wata, Sunnan Abu Dawoud, Sunnan al-Nisai, and Sunnan Kubra but was also graded a reliabile authority by Sunni scholars like Ibn Hajar and Ibn Habban.

Umro bin Hareeth, a Sahabi, who narrated hadith in Sunni books, was the Police Chief in Kufa who was dispatched by his master Ibn Ziyad to arrest Muslim bin Aqeel’s.

Kathir bin Shihab was also an Ibn Ziyad henchman that narrated traditions from Umar bin al-Khatab in Sunni books.

Hajaar bin Abjur, another henchman of Ibn Ziyad who was also one of those who had written letters inviting Hussain [as]. Imam of Ahle Sunnah Ibn Habban included him in his collection of Thiqa narrators while Imam Ibn Saad graded him as an honorable man.

May Allah guide all muslims to the right path(i.e Path of Ali and his pure sons).Amen

History of the Shrine of Imam Husain(a.s)

Unlike any other city, Karbala has its named engraved in the memory of generations, and in the expanse of the Muslim world.
Believers remember that name with sorrow and distress, for they remember the history of the master of all martyrs, Imam Husain (a.s.) and his sacrifice for Islam.The wave of visit ors never stopped coming t o Karbala, from the time the Umayyad and Abbaside caliphsprevented the construction of the shrines to the t ime thebelievers were able to build t he precinct , despite the hardships and difficulties imposed on them.
And today , since Karbala is wit nessing new calamities, and the mausoleums of Imam Husain (a.s.) and his companions are subjected to destruction and neglect,and visit ors are prevented from reaching that place, it is
suitable to familiarise ourselves with Karbala.

Two main roads lead the visitor to Karbala. One isfrom the Iraqi capital Baghdad, through 'Al-Mosail', and the other is from the holy city of Najaf. However, either one excites the visitor with its greenish scenery along the sides.
Upon reaching Karbala, the holy place would drawthe visitor's att ention to its glorious minarets and domes
shining due to the light of its lord At the city's entrance, the visitor finds a row of houses decorat ed with wooden columns, and while proceeding further towards the holy mausoleum, he sees architechture similar, to some extent, to modern ones. 
Upon reaching t he holy shrine, one finds himself in front of a boundary wall that surrounds wooden gates covered with glass decorations, and when one enters one ofthose gates, he enters a precinct surrounded by small rooms called "Ewans".
The holy grave is located in the middle of the precinct,  surrounded by square shaped structures called "Rawaaq".
The grave itself is located in the middle of the grave site with golden windows around it, with beautiful illumination. It really is something great to see.

"Karbala" Origin & Meaning
There are many op in ions among dif ferent investigators, as to the origin of the word "Karbala".
Some have point ed out t hat "Karbala" has a connection to the word "Karbalaho", while others attemptto derive the meaning of word "Karbala" by analysing its spelling and language. They conclude that it originates from the Arabic word "KarBaabel" which was a group of ancient Babylonian villages that included Nainawa, Al-Ghadiriyya,The investigat or Yaqut al-Hamawy has pointed out that the meaning of "Karbala" could have several explanations, one of which is that the place where Imam Husain (a.s.) was killed is made of soft earth "Al-Karbalat".
Other writers made the connection between the name and the disas trous event which painted the desert wit h blood, and so the word "Karbala" was said to compose of two Arabic words: "Karb" meaning grief and sorrow, and "Balaa" meaning affliction. Such a connection, in fact, has no scientific evidence, since Karbala was known as such even before the arrival of Imam Husain (a.s.).

Martyrdom and popularity

Following the tenth of Muharram 61 AH (680 AD), after the martyrdom of Imam Husain (a.s.), people from far as well as tribes living nearby started visiting the holy grave.
A lot of those who came, stayed behind and/or asked their relatives to bury them there after their demise.
Despite many attempts by successive rulers, such as Al-Rashid and Al-Motawakkil, to put a restriction on the development of this area, it has nonet heles s spread with time to become a city.
Karbala, Al-Nawawees, and Al-Heer. This last name is today known as Al-Haaer and is where Imam Husain's (a.s.) grave is located.

Mausoleum of Imam Husain (a.s.)
On the other hand, the historian Ibn Al-Athir, stated that in the year 371 AH, Aadad Al-Dawla Al-Boowayhi
became the first to largely lay the foundations for large scale construction, and generously decorated the place. He also built hous es and markets around the p recinct , and surrounded Karbala with a high boundary wall turning it into a strong castle.
In the year 407 AH, the precinct caught fire due to the drop p ing of two large candles on t he wooden
decorations, but Hasan ibn Fadl (the state minister) rebuilt the damaged sections.
History has recorded the names of several rulers who shared the honour of widening, decorating or keeping the precinct in good condition. Amongst them is Fateh Ali al-Qajari, who in 1250 AH ordered the construction of two domes. One over Imam Husain's (a.s.) grave and the other over his brother Abu al-Fazl al-Abbas (a.s.).
The f irst dome is 27 meters high and comp letely covered with gold. At the bottom, it is surrounded with 12
windows, each of which is about 1.25 m away from the other, from the inside, and 1.30 m from the outside.The mausoleum has an area of 59 m / 75 m with ten gates, and about 65 rooms (Eewans), well decorated from the inside and outside, used as classrooms for studying.
As for the grave itself, in the middle of the precinct, it is called the "Rawzah" or garden and it has several doors.
The most famous one is called "Al-Qibla" or "Bab al-Dhahab". When it is entered, one can see the tomb of
Habib ibn Mazaahir al-Asadi, to the right hand side. Habib was a friend and companion of Imam Husain (a.s.) since their childhood. He was one of those who was honoured with martyrdom at the Battle of Karbala.
The resting place of Abbas bin Ali (a.s.)
This mass grave is at the foot of Imam Husain's (a.s.) grave. In part icular, besides Imam Husain (a.s .) 's grave are the graves of his two sons Ali Akbar and 6-month old Ali Asgher.Abu al-Fazl al-Abbas, peace be upon him, was the brother of Imam Hasan (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) and the standard-bearer of Imam Husain (a.s.) in the Battle of Karbala. He is well known in history for his valour, loyalty and similarity to his father, the Lion of Allah, Ali bin Abi Talib, peace be upon him.
The grave of Abbas (a.s.) received similar attention as that of Imam Husain (a.s.). In the year 1032 A.H., the King Tahmaseb ordered the decoration of the grave's dome. He built a window on the 'Zaree h' around the grave and organized the precinct. Other similar activities were done by other rulers.

As a matt er of fact, Karbala cont ains, bes ides the grave of Imam Husain (a.s.) and his brother, the grave of all the 72 mart yrs of Karbala. They were buried in a mas s grave which was then covered with soil to the ground level.The historian Ibn Kuluwayh (r.a. ) mentioned that those who buried Imam Husain (a.s.), made a special and rigid construction with signs above the grave.

Higher and bigger constructions above t he grave started during the ruling of Al-Saffah, but Harun al-Rashid
later on, put heavy rest rict ions to prevent p eople f rom visiting the grave.At the t ime of Al-Mamun, const ruction around the grave resumed until the year 236 AH when Al-Mutawakkil ordered the destruction and digging of the grave, and then filling the pit with wat er. His son, who succeeded him, allowed people to visit the grave, and since then building the precinct to the grave increased and developed step by step.Karbala was at first an uninhabited place and did not witness any construction act ivity, although it was rich in water and its soil fertile.

Tawabun Versus Talha and Zubair

Roza of Imam Husain in Karbala,Iraq

The Tawabun have been the target of Nasibi edicts that they killed Imam Hussain [as] by failing to aid him [as] whilst we have evidenced that they were unable to help Imam Hussain [as] for various reasons, but the irony is that the same Nawasib over look the roles of Talha and Zubair whose cases are quite distinct from the other Madinan residents. In this regard:

When the water supply was cut-off to Uthman’s residence, how many rebels did these two notable ones fight? [Talha was himself amongst those that prevented water from being delivered to Uthman].

Both of them were not present to aid Uthman at the time of his murder.

They did not participate in the funeral prayer of Uthman.

After Uthman’s murder, neither possessed the courage to avenge from his killing.

Both of them happlily gave bayya to Ali bin Abi Talib [as].

They then adopted Taqiyah in the months that followed, and exhibited no inward or outward desire to seek retribution for the slain Uthman

After some months, both of them went to Makka.

When people criticized them for breaking their allegiance to Ali bin Abi Talib [as], they suggested that it had been secured through duress.

After a gap of a few months, both men demanded vengeance for Uthman a stance for which they have been showered with glowing accolades from the present day Nawasib. Despite their hiatus, the Nawasib have never criticed them for failing to protect Uthman, rather they have deemed the delayed justice for Uthman movement a praiseworthy campaign that sought to avenge an unjust act. Curiously when the Tawabun after a brief hiatus deemed the conditions suitable enough to avenge the murder of Hussain [as], the same Nawasib that were so impressed by Talha and Zubair’s conduct declared the Tabwabun to be the murderers of Hussain [as]!

Kufi Shias Versus Companions of Prophet [s] & Uthman

 There is no doubt that the greatest allegation imposed on Kufan Shia is the fact they themselves acknowledge d their failure to come His [as] aid and sacrifice their lives for Him [as]. Whilst this was mainly on account of the difficulties that they were confronted with, that we have evidenced earlier; but still let us for arguments sake accept this allegation. Can this crime be compared to that performed by:

he Sahaba that abandoned the Prophet [s] in battle?

The Sahaba of Prophet [s] and friends of Uthman who left him alone in the capital and watched quietly as men frequenting from Egypt surrounded the confines of his residence?

The annals of history testify to the fact that:

When the Makkan Kuffar launched their assault, there were not even three men alongside the Holy Prophet during the battle of Uhud.

Allah (swt) testifies to the Sahaba fleeing during the battle of Hunain, and history informs us that during this testing time only twelve men remained by the side of the Prophet [s].

Not even twenty men were prepared to die for Uthman from amongst his companions on the day that he was killed.

Uthman's dead body remained unburied for three days, his friends among whom most of were the companions of Prophet [s] made no efforts to shrewd him and bury him. During those three days they did not even brave enough to conduct his funeral prayers.

When Uthman was ultimately buried his faithful companions did not even have the courage to bury him in a Muslim graveyard; rather he was buried in the Jewish quarter, of the city as recorded by Ibn Abdul Barr in Al-Istiab, Volume 3 page 104 and Imam Tabari in his Tarikh, Volume 3 page 438.

Not even ten friends of Uthman were prepared to bury him. Compare this to the fifty four Shia, and the near relatives of Imam Hussain [as] that sacrificed their lives for him. This figure does not include those that were imprisoned at the time. Is it reasonable that the Shia should be taunted for failing to aid the fallen Imam [as], or worse accused of killing him?

We would like to ask our critics:

‘Do you not believe that Uthman commanded the whole hearted, unflinching support of the Madinan populous when he became the Head of State? Did this support interpret in to their willingness to die for him?’

Justice would dictate that in the same way that the Kufan Shia are deemed the killer of the Imam [as] due to their failure to aid, Uthman’s companions should likewise be deemed his killers for their failure to rush to his aid at his hour of need. Why is there one rules for the Shia of Hussain [as] and a different rule for the Shia of Uthman?

The Shia of Uthman [Nawasib] killed Imam Hussain (as)

Imam Husain(a.s.) 's infant killed by an arrow in Karbala

History lifts the lid and exposes the true killers of Imam Hussain (as). On route to Kufa Imam Hussain (as) met Al Farazdaq and asked him about the situation in Kufa, he assessed the matter saying;

“The people’s hearts are with you but their swords are with the Banu Ummayya”.

Tabari English translation Volume 19 pages 70-71)

When the people had swords raised against Imam Hussain (as) there is then no basis to conclude that these individuals were Shi’a, rather they were Nasibi hiding in the midst of the people.

As mentioned earlier Shia Aama may have switched sides in light of their assessing the situation at the time, but when it comes to locating those with the blood of Imam Hussain (as) on their hands then another group of the Shia of Uthman were proud that they had committed such a deed, a fact that Nawasib always suppress from their adherents.

We have the example of Nafi bin Hilal who entered the battlefield of Karbala, in Imam Hussain (as)’s army declaring:

“I am al-Jamali. I believe in the religion of Ali. A man called Muzahim al Hurayth came against him crying “I follow the religion of Uthman”. Nafi replied, “Rather you follow the religion of Satan”. Then he attacked and killed him
Tabari Volume 19 pages 136-137

So here we see Yazid’s army was not Shi’a in the sense that Ansar.Org would like its readers to believe rather it was Uthmani.

Azrar bin Qays taunted Zuhayr bin al-Qayn (History of al-Tabari Volume 19 page 113):

“Zuhayr according to us you were not the Shi’ah from this family (bayt). You used to be a supporter of the party of Uthman. Zuhayr said, ‘Aren’t you presuming from my position that I am one of them?”

Note in the reply Zuhayr admitted that he was Uthmani Nasibi but we ask Afriki, ‘what was his position now?’ Clearly his position with the Imam (as) meant that he was a Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as).

From here the truth has been separated from falsehood, the true Sect has been distinguished from the false Sect – Yazid’s army were not Shi’a, but were in fact Nasibi / Uthmani whilst the army of Hussain comprised of the Shi’a of Ahl’ul bayt (as).

When Yazid’s forces encircled Imam Hussain (as) and his Sahaba, Ibn Ziyad sent a letter to Ibn Sad in which he stated:

“Stop the water of Hussain in the same way that Ameer’ul Momineen Uthman was treated”.
(Tabari Volume 19 page 107)

Ibn Kathir similarly records that Ibn Ziyad gave the order:

“Become an obstacle between Hussain and water and treat them in the same way that the pious, righteous and oppressed Amee’rul Momineen Uthman was treated”.
  Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1058

It is as clear as day that those that killed Imam Hussain (as) were those that deemed Uthman to be Ameer’ul Momineen. In Shia aqeedah we do not deem anyone other than Imam Ali (as) to be Ameer’ul Momineen, we do not even bestow this title to any of the other Imams. But the army of Yazid considered Yazid to be Ameerul Momineen, contrary to Shi’a Aqeeda.

Ibn Kathir further records:

“Ibn Ziyad wrote to Ameer al Harmain Umro bin Saeed and informed him “ Convey the glad tidings of Hussain’s death”, he asked a caller who then made its announcement . When a Banu Hashim women heard the announcement their they voices raised in lamentation, and Umro bin Saeed said: “ This is the revenge for the lamentation of the wives of Uthman bin Affan”
  Al Bidayah wal Nihayah (Urdu), Volume 8 page 1097

Those in Yazid’s army were not the Shi’a of Ali, rather they were Uthmani / Nasibis. If Ansar.Org are going to plead with us and claim that these are different terms then allow us to present the views of one of their own beloved Imams, Ibn Taymiyya:

“If Nasibi deem Ibn Sad to be an Uthmani it is on account his taking avenge for Uthman and praising him”
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 1 page 164

Ibn Taymiyya had also written that:

“Uthman’s Shi’a would openly curse Ali from the Mosque pulpits”.
Minhajj al Sunnah Volume 3 page 178

So we learn that those that martyred Imam Hussain (as) were NOT the Shi’a of ‘Ali (as) but were the Shi’a of Uthman – the Nasibi forces loyal to Yazid. Ibn Kathir (who was a student of Ibn Taymiyya) and other historians have shed light on the fact that amongst the killers were the sons of the Sahaba. Even prominent Sahaba such as Umar bin Harith and his family joined the ranks of Yazid’s army. As we have already proven Umar bin Harith was Ibn Ziyad’s, Chief of police, who arrested Muslim bin Aqeel (as) and presented him to Ibn Ziyad, who subsequently had him executed.

Yazid had given a free hand to Ibn Ziyad, and Marwan’s letter to Ibn Ziyad demonstrated that the aim was for Imam Hussain (as) to give bayya – if he refused then he was to be killed. It is ironic that the Ansar.Org state that the Shi’a of Ali (as) killed Imam Hussain (as) by inviting him to Kufa – the reality is the Nasibi Shi’a of Uthman had pre planned his murder before he even reached Kufa. If we were to accept that these individuals were the Shi’a of Ali (as), their very entry on to the battlefield in Yazid’s camp meant that they were now Shi’a of Uthman i.e. Nasibi.

The participation of the Sahaba and their sons in killing Muslim bin Aqeel (as)

Let us  cite a summary of the events recorded by Ibn Kathir records in Al- Bidayah [Arabic], Volume 7 page 154 and Volume 8 page 1002 of Urdu version published by Nafees Academy Karachi:

Upon returning to Makka he [Hussain] received letters from the people of Kufa, He sent Muslim bin Aqeel to go and assess the situation. Outwardly the people portrayed their support for Muslim bin Aqeel and in turn for Hussain – a thousand people gave bayya. Spies notified Nauman bin Basheer, he did not openly adopt tough measures, but in this regard gave a sermon warning people against sedition and urged the people to remain loyal in the bayya that been given to Yazid. One man stood up and said to Nauman ‘This matter cannot be curtailed without adopting force, the approach that you have adopted is like that of weak people”.

…Yazid said to Ibn Ziyad ‘When in Kufa find Muslim bin Aqeel and then kill him. Ibn Ziyad arrived in Kufa with seventeen men, having assessed the situation he spoke to the nobles in his palace and queried the whereabouts of Muslim bin Aqeel. There was some opposition but Ubaydullah abducted these nobles and deterred people from supporting Muslim.

It got to a point that by Maghrib prayers only thirty people remained with him, by night fall they also deserted him. That night Muslim stayed in the home of an elderly lady, her son notified Abdul Rahman bin Asheesh. Abdul Rahman told his father at that same time who was in Ubaydullah’s house, Ibn Ziyad asked why the secrecy, they told him and Ibn Ziyad immediately sent seventy to eighty men headed by Ibn Harith Makhzomi who was the head of police. Muhammad bin Ashath and Abdul Rahman were with them. They collectively captured [Muslim] and sent him to Ibn Ziyad’s residence. Upon reaching the doors of the residence (he was met by) some of the sons of the Sahaba standing there. Muslim did not recognise them although they recognised him. They were waiting to meet Ibn Ziyad, Muslim’s face and clothes were covered in blood, whilst in that state he made a request for water, one of the group said, ‘You will not be able to drink this until you taste the hot water of Hell’. Muslim replied ‘Son of Hell you are more ntitled to drink the fire of Hell; than me’.

Up until now we have discussed the scenario that emerged in Kufa with the arrival of Muslim bin Aqeel and Yazid’s orders that Ibn Ziyad to arrest and murder him. We hope that the Nawasib will not seek to absolve their spiritual father Yazid of Muslim’s murder by suggesting that the Shias of Kufa murdered him, and also hope they do not turn a blind eye towards those named Sahaba and their sons who were working for Yazid’s government. Let us give one such example, the police chief namely Umro bin Hareeth Makhzomi who had arrested Muslim bin Aqeel. Imam Dhahabi stated about him:

كان عمرو من بقايا أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم الذين كانوا نزلوا الكوفة... له صحبة ورواية.

“Umro bin Hareeth is counted amongst the Sahaba of Rasulullah (s) that had settled in Kufa… he is a Sahabi and have narrated from (Rasulullah)”.
Siyar Al-Aalam al-Nubla, Volume 3 page 418

Similarly Dhahabi in his other famed work Al-Kashif, Volume 2 page 74 Biography 4140 and Imam Ibn Hajar Asaqlani in Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb, Volume 1 page 732 Biography 5024 have counted Umro bin Hareeth amongst the Sahaba. The Hadiths nraated by him can be found in book like Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunnan Abu Dawoud, Sunnan al-Tirmidhi, Sunnan al-Nisai, Sunnan Ibn Majah.

Let us once again remind our readers about the role played by Umro bin Hareeth in Al-Bidayah wal-Nihayah, Volume 8 page 167:

وبعث ابن زياد عمرو بن حريث المخزومي وكان صاحب شرطته ومعه عبدالرحمن ومحمد بن الأشعث في سبعين أو ثمانين فارسا ، فلم يشعر مسلم إلا وقد أحيط بالدار

“Ibn Ziyad dispatched the police chief Umro bin Hareeth al-Makhzomi, Abdulrehman, Muhammad bin Al-Ash’ath and 70 or 80 soldiers then Muslim realized that they had surrounded his house”

Do our opponents not appreciate why Shias respect for a Sahabi is based on his conduct and deeds? The simplest litmus test is that a Sahabi who loved and adhered to Ahlulbayt [as], had reached the pinnacle of respect whilst Sahabi who inflicted injustice against the Ahulbayt [as] and hated, hurt and opposed them [as], will be afforded no protection when he appears before Allah [stw] so what right do these people have to demand that we respect such folk?

In the above cited historical reference, we learn of an accomplice of Umro bin Hareeth namely Muhammad bin Al-Ash’ath about whom we have already shed light , would remind our readers and reiterate that Nawasib may not like it but the reality is that like other killers of Hussain and the helpers of Hussain [as], Muhammad bin Al-Ash’ath did not believe that Imam Ali (as) was the legitimate Caliph after the Prophet (s) rather he believed that Ali (as) was the legitimate forth Caliph after the Prophet (s) a belief that would fall within the definition of Ahle-Sunnah. One can see from Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani’s Taqreeb al-Tahdheeb, Volume 2 page 57 biography 5760 that he was counted amongst Tabayeen and when it comes to his rank as a narrator of Sunni Hadith works he has been graded ‘Maqbool’.

Whilst Ibn Kathir did not mention the names of those individuals who at the door step of Ibn Ziyad taunted Muslim bin Aqeel [as] Imam Tabari has named a few of those people, such as Kathir bin Shabibah b. al Husayb al Harithi, about whom we read in prominent Sunni book Tabaqat al-Kabir by Ibn Saad, Volume 4 page 104:

“He narrated traditions from Umar bin Khattab and was one of Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan’s Governors”.
 Tabaqat al-Kabir by Ibn Saad, Volume 4 page 104

Upon receiving the news that Imam Hussain (as) was making his way to Kufa Marwan bin Hakam wrote to Ibn Ziyad, stating:

“Hussain ibn Ali is heading in your direction. He is Fatima’s son and she is the daughter of Rasulullah (s). By Allah! We deserve nothing greater than bringing him into our possession".
al Bidayah, Volume 8 page 165

As Imam Hussain (as) made his way to Kufa, Yazid also wrote to Ibn Ziyad stating:

“I have heard Hussain is making his way to Kufa. From amongst my Governors it is you that is being tested, freedom shall depend on the successful completion of this mission, otherwise you maybe be enslaved again, in the same way that slaves are freed, or freemen are made slaves”
al Bidayah, Volume 8 page 165

The Nasibi objections towards the Sahabi Suleman bin Sard (ra) and the Tawabun

Muslim ibn Aqeel Killed in Kufa

The main objection that the hypocritical Nasibis have against the Sahabi Suleman bin Sard (ra) and those who repented along with him is that their repentance evidences their involvement in the murder of Imam Hussain (as) and the real murderers like Ibn Ziyad and Umar ibn Saad are innocent of this crime.

These Nasibis quote Qazi Noorullah Shostari from his book 'Majalis Momineen':

Nawasib quote:
"(The Tawabun gathered and said) We are sorry for what we did and we want to repent, may Allah have mercy on us and forgive us, and those amongst this group that had gone to Karbala began to repent, Suleman bin Surd said that there is no other way for us but to raise swords in the same way that the Bani Israel killed each other. Like it is mentioned in Quran: ‘We did injustice on ourselves….’. After saying this, all the Shia came down on their knees in order to seek repentance. 

There is no doubt that the Sahabi Suleiman ibn Surd was not involved in the murder of Imam Hussain (as) in any way, shape or form. These hypocritical Nawasib are using the above reference out of context so that it suits their own agenda of false propaganda. The above passage is about those political Shias and adherents to the Caliphate of the Sheikhayn who went to Karbala when they were forced to do so by Ibn Ziyad. Now let us delve into this Nasibi propaganda.

Reply one - Suleman bin Surd is one of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (s)

We will debunk the fabricated claim of Suleman bin Surd being involved in the murder of Imam Hussein (as) later in the article but let us first establish that he was a noble Sahabi and not only that but Hadith narrated from him can be found the Six Ahle Sunnah Canonical Hadith works

 [see Al-Jame Al-Bayan Al-Rijaal Sihah Sitta, Volume 1 page 172, Haiderabad Deccan].

We read in al Aqd al Shameen fi Tareekh al Jildh al Kameen, Volume 4 page 607 that:

"Sulayman bin Surad al Khuza'i benefited from the companionship of Rasulullah (s) and narrated hadith from him (s)".

Imam Abu Muhammad Abdullah bin Asad al-Yameni popularly known as Al-Yafee states in Miraat al Janaan Volume 1 page 141 – Hyderabad edition:

"Sulayman (ra) was a Sahabi of the Prophet (s), hadith have been narrated on his authority".

The famous Sunni scholar Ibh Katheer mentions in his book Al-Bidayah wal Nihayah, Volume 8 page 271:

"They (the Tawabun) gathered at the house of a noble Sahabi Suleman bin Surd".

The two very famous Sunni scholars Imam Dhahabi and Imam Ibn Hajr Asqalani likewise counted Suleman bin Surd as one of the noble Sahaba.

1. Al-Kashif by Imam Dhahabi, volume 1 page 461 Biography 2101.
2) Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb by Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani, volume 1 page 378 Biography 2582.

Now let us remind Ahle Sunnah and more importantly the Wahabis/Salafis of their basic belief which has been penned down by famous Sunni scholar Muhammad Al-Khamees in his book Etiqad Ahl al-Sunnah, page 135:

“Following the Sahaba and Tabayeen is obligatory on all religious issues”

We read a similar thing in Ejmal al-Isaba by Khalil al-Alaaei (d. 761 H), page 66:

“There is an Ijma amongst the Tabayeen to follow the Sahaba, adopt their opinions and give fatwas according to their statements without any condemnation”

Imam of the Salafis Ibn Qayim in his book Elam al-Muwaqeen, Volume 4 page 123 wrote a separate chapter about proving the obligation of adhering to the Sahaba and he gave the following title to the chapter:

“The proofs that following the Sahaba is obligatory”

Now we would like to ask these Nawasib how can they call a noble Sahabi like Suleman bin Surd a murderer and that too of the grandson of the Holy Prophet [s] Imam Hussein (as)?

The very fact that Nawasib consider Shias to be Kafir is that they claim we are selective in our obedience and respect of the Sahaba whereas according to them each and every Sahabi is to be respected and those who don't do so are Kaffirs. If the Nawasib themselves are disrespecting the famed Sahabi Suleman bin Sard then they are either Kaffir according to their own preaching and / or they are hypocrites because as soon as the matter of Ahlulbait is spoken they modify their own rulings.

Reply Two - Qazi NoorUllah Shostari's reference is not a piece of historical evidence

The second part of our argument is that we want the Nawasib to prove that the above used passage is not Qazi’s personal view but a historical fact, but they will never be able to prove the same since there is not a single evidence in the history of Islam that shows Suleman bin Sard himself was involved in the murder of Imam Hussain (as). On the contrary, there are numerous historical evidences that he was not even present in Karbalah. The only ‘sin’ that this noble Sahabi committed was that he was not able to come to help Imam Hussain (as) in Karbalah. Imam Dhahabi writers:

"Sulayman bin Surad, the Leader of the al Khuza'i in Kufa, the Sahabi,he has a few narrations from Ubay and Jubayr bin Mut'im from Yahya bin Ya'mar and Uday bin Thabit and Abu Ishaq and others. Ibn Barr states 'He (Sulayman) was amongst those that wrote to Imam Hussain [r] and gave him bayya. They were unable to support him and greatly regretted this, and subsequently waged war. I am of the opinion that he was a pious religious individual, he joined the army on account of his sin of failing to support Hussain [r], he made tauba (asked for forgiveness) and left to avenge the shedding of his (Hussain's) blood, this army was known as the army of the Tawabun"

Siyar al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 3 page 394 -395 (Beirut edition)

Dhahabi further writes about Suleiman bin Surd and Mussayab bin Najaba:

"Gave an order to commence Jihad against Ibn Ziyad. Backed by a strong army of thousands, Sulayman stated 'If I am killed your leader is Mussayab".

Siyar al-Aalam al-Nubla Volume 3 page 395

We should point out that Musayyab bin Najaba is one of the Tabayeen and Hadith narrated from him can be read in Tirmidhi. Imam Ibn Abdul Barr writes about Sulayman bin Surad:

"Sulayman bin Surad….. was a good, pious and religious man. During jahiliyya his name was 'Laseer' – Rasulullah (s) changed it to Sulayman….. He was amongst those that wrote to Hussain ibn 'Ali [r] and invited him to Kufa. When he [Hussain] arrived he abandoned him and then he (Hussain) was killed, Sulayman bin Surad, Mussayib bin Najbah al-Fazari and others expressed regret for having failed to aid Hussain [r] and die with him".

al Istiab Volume 2 pages 43-44

The above evidence clearly shows that the Tawabun did not participate in the battle of Karbala but the above mentioned Qazi Noorullah Shostri’s reference only shows that all of them were repenting for not being able to go and help Imam Hussain (as) at his time of need. Ibn Katheer has also recorded the letter of Musayyab Ibn Najaba which evidences that he was unable to aid the Imam due to the curfew-like conditions imposed by the by government and not only that he staunchly hated Yazid and his army who perpetrated the massacre in Karbalah.

"Allah (swt) has tested us, in relation to supporting the son of Rasulullah's daughter. We were exposed as liars, he relied on our support and we failed to provide it, we broke our promise, we shall kill those that killed him and his family".

al Bidayah Volume 8 page 247

The above passage points out two groups of people:

The First group that was not able to reach and help Imam Hussain (as).

This first group wanted to avenge the murder of Imam Hussain [as] from a second group that murdered him [as].

Thus, when we analyze the sole comments of Qazi Nootullah Shostri in light of the annals of history, the former is then left with no value. It is obvious from the above discussion that this passage was Qazi Noorullah’s personal view and not historical evidence. For Nawasib to cling to this passage and try to distort the history of Islam is shameful. It is also obvious if looked at through the prism of history that the statement of Suleman bin Surad in the above cited Qazi’s passage is not talking about his being involved in the murder of Imam Hussain but he was merely referring to those ‘Aama’ who actually participated in the massacre of Karbalah under the flag of Ibn Ziyad whether under duress or not.

So where do the Nawasib hide now? Why don't they come out and declare a noble Sahabi as a murderer of Imam Hussain? We are sure that no Nasibi is going to come out and do the same, all they will do is keep playing with the comments of Shia scholars in order as propaganda fodder to ‘prove’ that the Kufan majority were Shias in a religious sense, so as to hide the reality, namely that the Tawabun comprised of the noble Sahaba such as Suleman bin Surd.  

Was Ibn Ziyad Shia al-Khasa??

The Nasibi accusation that Ibn Ziyad was Shia al-Khasa and not a Shia of Muawiya

It is interesting that some present day Nawasib claim that Ibn Ziyad was amongst the Shias of Imam Hussain [as] i.e. was Shia al-Khasa as a method to cover the sins of their ancestors. The unbiased readers of history should know that besides believing in the caliphate of Shaykhayn, he also believed in the caliphate of Uthman. He is a narrators of Sunni hadith literature, no Sunni scholar of Hadith has declared him Shia. Yazid in his views about Ibn Ziyad stated:

O cup-bearer, make me such a drink that shall quench the thrust of each joint of my body. Then stand up and give a similar drink to Ibn Ziyad.Who is a pure friend, who is honest, who supports me, who is the investment of my life and my hand during a war.

Murooj al-Dahab, Volume 1 page 377

The deviation of Ibn Ziyad from the path of Allah and his apostle was well known amongst the people of Kufa. That is why we read that when Muslim bin Aqeel was residing at the house of Hani bin Urwah, the news that Ibn Ziyad was about to come to meet Sharik bin Awur disseminated to which Sharik asked Muslim bin Aqeel to make the most of the opportunity and kill Ibn Ziyad but he came and went while Muslim did not make any attempt to kill him. Later, Sharik asked Muslim bin Aqeel the reason for not killing Ibn Ziyad to which Muslim replied:

“There were two reasons for that. Firstly Hani didn’t like Ibn Ziyad to be killed in his house, secondly no believer should be murdered.”

To which Hani replied:

“By Allah, had you killed him, it would not have been a murder of a Muslim rather of a Fasiq, Fajir and a dishonest person, no doubt I did not like him to be killed in my house…”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 6 page 4

The facts are as follows:

Ibn Ziyad was son Ziyad bin Sumaya the bastard brother of Muawiya

Muawiya appointed Ziyad as the Governor of Kufa,

Yazid appointed Ibn Ziyad to the same post

In light of this reality we ask those with open minds, was Ibn Ziyad Shia al-Khasa or Shia of Muawiya.

The arrival of Ibn Ziyad and fear this struck in the people of Kufa

With regards to Ibn Ziyah we read in the History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 33-34:

“When he reached al-Kufah, he was wearing a black turban and he was veiled. News of Husayn’s departure had reached the people; they were expecting his arrival. When Ubaydallah came, they thought he was al-Husayn. Ubaydallah could not pass a group of people without their greeting him. They said,

“Welcome, son of the Apostle of God your arrival is a happy event”. He saw in their joy at seeing al-Husayn something to trouble him. Muslim b. Amr said, “Retire, for this is the governor, Ubaydallah ibn Ziyad”. As he came in view he checked his mount, and he only had some ten men with him”.

The fleeing of the people evidences the fact that none of the Kufans did not deem Ibn Ziyad to be a Shia al Khasa they deemed him a Nasibi like his cruel illegitimate father.

The imposition of curfew like conditions in Kufa

Arab districts had a caretaker that would act as a registrar who would record births, marriages, deaths, conduct a local census locate the whereabouts of know felons.

We read in the History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 34:

“Then he went down; he put the arifs and the people to a severe test and said, Write to me about the strangers, those among you who are sought by the Commander of the Faithful, those among you from Haruriyaah and the trublemakers whose concern is discord and turmoil. Whosoever of you makes these lists for us will be safe from harm. But those of you who do not write anyone will have to guarantee that there is no opponent in his irafah who will oppose us, and no opponent who will try to wrong us. Anyone who does not do so will be denied protection, and his blood and his property will be permitted to us. Any arif in whose irafah is found anyone who is wanted by the Commander of the Faithful, whom he has not reported to us, will be crucified at the door of his house, and I will cancel that irafah from [the diwan] of payment, or he will be sent to a position in Uman [or] al-Zarrah”

This rule of fear and tyranny wherein people were in effect being watched over by state spies, created fear amongst the Kufans who knew only to well the consequences of opposing Ibn Ziyad, this reality had a greater influence over the Kufan populous than their support for the Imam [as] .

The official forces of Muawiya were already situated in Kufa

The thing that most people overlook when discussing Kufa and its people is the official army and police that were present in Kufa from the outset of Muawiya’s reign had been dispatched from Syria. Ziyad bin Sumaya used these troops to co-ordinate mass slaughter of the Kufans over many years. These same troops then came under the command of Ibn Ziyad, so the Kufans knew what to expect from the governor and his troops, if he was making threats there was a reasonable prospect that ot would be carried out.

The arrest of those who aided Muslim bin Aqeel [as]

Later, one of the tactics used by Ibn Ziyad was apprehend those that supported Muslim bin Aqeel, he gave this task to the Yemeni tribal leader Kathir b. Shibab and Muhammad b. al-Ashath.

We read in the History of Tabari Volume 19 page 49:

“Kathir met a man from Kalb called Abd al-Ala b. Yazid. He was carrying arms with the intention of joining Ibn Aqil with his fellow youths. He seized him and took him to Ibn Ziyad. Kathir told Ibn Ziyad about the man, but the man told Ibn Ziyad that he had been intending to come to him. Ibn Ziyad retorted “Sure, sure! I remember that you promised me that!” Ibn Ziyad ordered the man to be imprisoned.

Muhammad b. al-Ashath went out until he reached the houses of the Banu Umarah. Umarah b. Salkhan al-Azdi came to him; he was on his way to Ibn Aqil and was carrying arms. Muhammad b. al-Ashath seized him and sent him to Ibn Ziyad who imprisoned him”

It is also worth noting that the enemy of Ahlulbayt Muhammad bin al-Ashath cited above, was from amongst the the Aama i.e. the ancestors of present day Ahle Sunnah and not from the Shia al-Khasa. The very Muhammad bin al-Ashath is a narrator of those principle Hadith books of Ahle Sunnah that have been deemed reliable enough to take the guidance from in shape of Hadith.

The books that contain his narrations can be found in:

1. Mu'wata, v2, p519

2. Sunnan Abu Dawoud, v2, p146

3. Sunnan al-Nisai, v7, p302

4. Sunnan Kubra, by Bayhaqi, v5, p332

Imam Ibn Haban included him in his collection of Thiqa narrators i.e. al-Thiqat as recorded in Tahdib al-Kamal, Volume 24 page 496 whilst Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in Taqreeb al-Tahdeeb, Volume 2 page 57 biography 5760 counted him amongst the Tabayeen and when it comes to his rank as a narrator of Sunni Hadith he has been graded as ‘Maqbool’ by him. The tradition narrated by him in one of the six principle Hadith books of Ahle Sunnah namely Sunnan Abu Dawoud has been graded ‘Sahih’ by the Imam of Salafies Nasiruddin Al-Albaani in his book Sahih Sunnan Abu Dawud, Vol 2 page 670 Hadith 2997.

This enemy of Ahlulbayt [as] was also amongst those killed by Mukhtar when he avenged for the murder of Imam Hussain [as] as we read in Tahdeeb al Kamal, Volume 24 page 496:

“Al-Mukhtar killed him in year 66”

This Nasibi benefied from his familial links with a prominent Sahabi family, as we read in Tahdeeb al Kamal, Volume 24 page 495:

“Muhammad bin al-Ash'ath bin Qays al-Kindi Abu al-Qasim al-Kufi, his mother is Um Farwa bin Abi Quhafa the sister of Abu Bakr al-Sidiq”

The news about the arrival of supporting forces from Syria

Another tactic used by Ibn Ziyad was the dissemination of the rumors across Kufa that central forces were about to arrive in Kufa from Syria so as to create panic amongst the people to the extent that:

“Women began to come to their sons and brothers, urging them to go away as the people would be enough without them. Every man went to his son or his brother telling him, ‘Tomorrow the Syrians will come against you. What have you to do with the war and this evil doing? Go away.’ Thus, each took someone away. They continued to disperse so that by the time evening came Muslim b Aqil only had thirty men with him in the mosque”.

History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 50-51

This was the time when fear and awe among the people of Kufa was at its climax and hence no one was coming out of his home and pin drop silence type of situation had developed in the city with no one knowing the situation of another of his friend or relatives.

The situation faced by the Shia al-Khasa due to the efforts of Ibn Ziyad

The handful Shia al-Khasa of Kufa that remained were most affected by the situation. They sought safe havens in Kufa but in vain. Ibn Ziyad knew that Hussain bin Ali [as] was due to arrive in Kufa and although the determination and morale of the people was badly debilitated by that time, his arrival would have been resurrected their morbid states, hence in the wake of this apprehension, he started tracing all such individuals who posed a risk to the State and would support Hussain [as] arriving in Kufa and had them arrested including Mukhtar bin Abu Ubaida Thaqafi, Abdullah bin Harthi bin Nofal etc.

On the other hand, after the martyrdom of Muslim bin Aqeel [as], Yazid wrote to Ibn Ziyad:

“I have been informed that al Husayn b. Ali has set out for Iraq. Therefore set lookouts and watches, and be vigilant against suspicious characters. Arrest anyone on suspicion but only kill those who fight against you”

History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 64

A policy of arrests and incarceration were swiftly implemented. The extent of this operation can be understood from the testimony of Ibn Ziyad following the death of Yazid:

“There was no individual who about whom were suspicions that he might oppose the government that was not imprisoned”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 18

Furthermore, when following the death of Yazid, Ibn Ziyad was fleeing from Kufa to Syria he met Sayf, to whom Ibn Ziyad said:

“I was just saying to myself that I wish I had issued an order that the prisoners be brought out and beheaded”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 70

[This is because the same prisoners such as Mukhtar brought about a revolution to overthrow the Umawis]

It was through these methods that the State quashed the machinations of their opponents and gained complete control over Kufa. Ibn Ziyad then set about apprehending and threatening the residents cities neighbouring Kufa wherein sizeable Shia communities resided such as Basrah and Madain.

Installing barricades in Kufa and its subrubs to prevent the arrival of Shias from other cities

Now upon the instructions of Yazid, strict surveillance of all the exits of different cities and barricades were installed for this purpose. Tabari informs us Ibn Ziyad sent:

“al Husayn b. Tamim, the commander of the police to station himself at al-Qadisiyyah to set the cavalry between the area of al-Qadisiyyah to Khaffan and the area of al-Qadisiyyah to al-Qutqutanah and to La’la”

History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 83

Professor Howard in his footnote on the same page informs us that:

“La’la was a halting place between al-Kufah and al-Basrah”.

What this means is that armies had been strategically posted in a manner that made entry into Kufa near impossible, access into Kufa had in effect been blocked.

We learn on the next page that, Qays bin Mushir who was carrying the letter of Imam Hussain [as] to the people of Kufa was arrested by al-Husayn b. Tamim at al-Qadisiyyah who transferred him to Ibn Ziyad who had him executed. When Imam Hussain [as] himself arrived at the said locations, he enquired about the situation from the people living at desert areas who told Him [as]:

“By Allah we don’t know anything except the fact that neither we can exit nor can we enter”

Hurr bin Yazid al-Rahiaye and his troops who had intercepted Imam Hussain [as] and his supporters at al-Qadisiyyah and said to him:

“These men from al-Kufah are not among the party that came with you. I will either detain them or send them back”. Al-Husayn answered, ‘I will defend them in the same way I would defend my own life. They are only my supporters and helpers…they are my followers and they are just like those who came with me”

History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 98

By the time when that Imam Husasin [as] had reached Karbala, men were being recruited from al-Nukhaylah to fight him.

See History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 129.

The arrest of those Kufans that did not want to fight Hussain bin Ali [as]

The reality is the Shia al-Khasa were either murdered or imprisoned whilst on the orders of Ibn Ziyad, the Aama of Kufa were being forced to go Karbala and fight Hussain bin Ali [as]. Such Aama of Kufa did not want to fight the Imam [as], which is why they fled back to Kufa if they got the opportunity. Ibn Ziyad sought to counter their efforts through the dispatching of Suwayd bin Abdulrehman Munqari and other men to Kufa who would apprehend such people and return them back to the army against the Imam [as] . On one occasion Suwayd arrested a Syrian man on personal business in Kufa he sent him to Ibn Ziyad who sought to create an example of him by having him executed, thus all those Aama who had sought to avoid the pending battle were returned to Karbala,

see Akhbar Tawal, page 252.

All this proves the following points:

The majority of Shia al-Khasa of Kufa who were the proven helpers and supporters of Imam Hussain [as] were brutally murdered with the remainder imprisoned, in this way, a great number of those who might have otherwise reached the Imam [as], were deprived of that opportunity.

For the non Shia al-Khasa of Kufa who could have shown a determination and willingness to help Hussain bin Ali [as], the surveillance and barricade system leading upto to Kufa made it impossible for them. Had they sought to come out, they would have been arrested either at al-Nukhaylah which was situated between Kufa and Karbala or somewhere after al-Nukhaylah such as Khaffan and the area of al-Qadisiyyah to al-Qutqutanah or La’la.

Ibn Ziyad introduced military conscription for all Kufans of fighting age that required them to join the forces against Hussain bin Ali [as] and in this way, as a way of protecting their lives, those of their families and their material possessions.

Duress was complimented with efforts to ‘convince’ the Shia Aama that Yazid was legitimite head of state

It is clear that when Ibn Ziyad began his terror campaign it was the second group of “Shi’a” the ‘Aama’ that were brought to heel – not the ‘Shia al Khasa’ mentioned earlier since they had already been exterminated in Kufa. This group of Shi’a still believed that Imamate was the right of the people, they were happy and the manner in which Yazid had acquired power and deemed Imam Hussain [as] to be the right candidate for the job, could be swayed easily since their beliefs were not based on any religious conviction.

A two-pronged strategy was formulated to essentially change the hearts and minds of those Kufan majority, duress to bring to people in line, coupled with convincing the people to get behind Yazid as he was legitimate Head of State. If they had any doubts these were laid to rest by advocates of Yazid such as the sahaba Abdullah Ibn Umar (as we shall expand on later). This group therefore set aside their personal views and abandoned support for Imam Hussain [as] and joined hands with Yazid as he in their eyes had obtained the ijma of the people. These individuals were Shi’a when they gave bayya and sided with Ali [as] following the death of Uthman. They deemed Imam ‘Ali [as] to be the legitimate fourth khalifa as he had obtained the ijma of the people. Their being Shi’a of Ali [as] was only as long as Imam ‘Ali [as] was khalifa.

Once these people were convinced that Yazid had secured bayya from the other Arab provinces and had ardent supporters like Ibn Saba it was easy for them to revise their view on Yazid and recognize his succession as Khalifa was indeed legitimate as it was based on ijma. The Kufans may have had sympathies towards Imam Hussain [as] that influenced their decision to write to him, but influential words of support for Yazid’s right to rule from notables such as Ibn Umar, ensured that their faltering loyalty to Khalifa Yazid was restored.

The aid of Imam Hussain [as] by Shia al-Khasa even after severe hardships

Despite such extreme obstacles, we see in the annals of history that the Shia al-Khasa who had initiated the movement and had written letters to Imam Hussain [as] and had promised their support to Him [as] did reach him [as] in Karbala and died for him [as] .

Those that heard Muslim bin Aqeel [as] read out the letter of Imam Hussain [as], and pledged their support included Abis b. Abbi Shabab al Shakiri, Said b. Abdallah al Hanafi and Habib bin Muzahir al Faqasi,

 (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 29)

 all three reached the Imam [as] and were martyred defending him.

In Kufa, Muslim bin Aqeel, gave positions of responsibility to Muslim b. Awsaja al Asadi and Abu Thumamah al Saidi (History of Tabari Volume 19 page 98) both men fought alongside the Imam [as] and laid down their lives in his path (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 137 and 142)

Those that never flinched from their support for Imam Hussain [as] until their corpses were strewn before Imam Hussain [as] included the Shia al-Khasa of Kufa such as:

1) Burayr b. Hudayr, about whom, Professor Howard writes in the footnote of History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 119 “From his position among the followers of al-Husayn, he seems to have been a leading member of the Kufan Shias. He died fighting for al-Husayn”. Burayr knew the Holy Quran by heart, a fact testified by one of Ibn Sa’d’s very own soldiers who said: “This man Burayr b. Hudayr is the reciter of the Quran (qari). He often recited the Quran to us in the mosque”

History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 133

2) Anas bin Harith, one of the companions of the Holy Prophet [s] who has been mentioned by Ibn Athir in his book Asdal Ghaba and Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his book Al-Isaba. Ibn Athir stated “He was among the people of Kufa and had gone to help Hussain when he had arrived in Karbala”

3) Nafi bin Hilal al Jamali al Muradi (History of Tabari Volume 19 page 145) who was from the Madh-haj tribe of Kufa

4) Hanzala bin Asad al-Shibami (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages pages 146-7)

5) Mujammi b. Abdallah al Aidhi (History of Tabari Volume 19 page 150)

6) al Murraqa Asadi (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 162-3)

7)Sayf bin al Harith (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 146)

8) Malik b. Abd b. Suray (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 146)

9)Abdullah b. Umayr al Kalbi (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 129-130)

10)al Qasim bin Habib Azdi (History of Tabari Volume 19 page 143)

11)Zuhayr b. al-Qaun al Bajali (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 126)

12)Yazid bin Ziyad al Musahir (History of Tabari Volume 19 pages 126)

13)Aiz bin Majma

14)Umar bin Khalid Sedadi

15)Janada bin Harith Salmani

16)Muwaid bin Umro

17)Sawar bin Munam Hamdani

18)Umar Qarza Ansari

19)Naseem bin Ejlan Ansari

20)Abdullah bin Bashar Khash’ami

21)Saalim bin Umro Kalbi

22)Muslim bin Kathir Azdi

23)Harith bin Amra al-Qays Kindi

24)Bashar bin Umar Kindi

25)Dafi’ bin Abdullah Azdi

26)Nauman bin Umro

27)Masud bin Hajaj Tamimi

28)Juwain bin Malik Taimi

29)Umar bin Zabi’ya Taimi

30)Habab bin Aamir Taimi

31)Umya bin Saad Taiyee

32)Zarzam bin Malik Thalabi

33)Kanan bin Attique Thalabi

34)Qasit bin Zuhair Kardus bin Zuhair Thalabin

35)Jibla bin Ali Shebani

It is indeed very strange to see that narrow-minded Nawasib have never noticed the names of the above named al-Shia al-Khasa martyrs. Whilst their bigoted eyes are quick on the Shia Tawabun but become blind when it comes to the textual evidences of the loyalty of but the above cited Shia al-Khasa. They also fail to make reference to the Nawasib killers of Imam Hussain [as] who have been deemed worthy narrators of Sunni Hadith literature.

The above cited men were of the al-Shia al-Khasa who by one way or the other reached to Imam Hussain [as] and laid down their lives. As for those Shia al-Khasa who either did not or were unable to reach to Imam Hussain [as], there exists no evidence of their playing a role in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] whilst those with the Imams blood on their hands have been graded as men of truth in the world of Sunni hadith narrations!

Imam Ibn Jarir Tabari recorded:

“When Hussain was killed and Ibn Ziyad returned to Kufa from al-Nukhaylah, the Shias met and maligned one another and expressed regret at their weaknesses, they thought that they had committed a big crime as they had invited Hussain by promising him their support upon his arrival, they did not go and he was killed in their neighbourhood and they didn’t help him at all and they thought that this mistake cannot be removed from them except by killing those who participated in his murder or lay down their lives in this”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 27

This further debases Nasibi claims and proves that whilst some Shia al-Khasa of Kufa might have failed to help Imam Hussain [as] they certainly played no role in his murder.

Two key points can be gauged from this,

This group of Shias failed to come to the aid of Imam Hussain [as]

They sought vengeance from that group that had partaken in the murder of Imam Hussain [as].

Verily, this group of Shias who were Shias al-Khasa did not play any role in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] and the maximum wrong committed by them was that they were unable to reach to Imam Hussain [as] and help him, and that may have been due to the preventative methods that had been employed by Ibn Ziyad that we cited earlier.

It was then that a gathering was convened in Suleman bin Surd al-Khuzai’s house wherein Musayib bin Najba addressed them:

“We used to be proud of our truthfulness and would praise our Shia party but Allah tested us and it was at that time that we came to know that our claims were wrong. We invited Hussain, sent messages to come and we would help him, but when he came we hid ourselves to the extent that he got killed in our neighborhood, neither did we physically help him nor did we support him through our tongues, nor did we afford him protection in our properties, nor did we send our tribe to aid him. Now how will be respond to Allah and his Prophet [s] when the grandson of the Prophet [s] was killed in our country? Verily, our mistake is not worth hearing. But now we have an opportunity to kill all those who participated in his murder or we can at least lay down our lives in this task”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 48

This further demolishes Nasibi propaganda and proves those that played even a minor role in the murder of Imam Hussain [as] did not have any connection with the group called the al Shia al-Khasa.

Later, Suleiman bin Surd was chosen as the leader of the Tawabun movement and the speech that he had gave, that he subsequently repeatedly delivered on Fridays was:

“We were proudly raising our necks whlist waiting for the Ahlulbayt of the Prophet and kept assuring them of our aid and convinced him to come here. But when he arrived, we displayed weakness and brought clumsiness into our work and kept worrying as to what was going to happen to the extent that the grandson of the Prophet got killed in our country at a nearby location when he was seeking aid but no one was adhered to justice. A group of Fasiqeen made him the target of their spears to the extent that he got martyred”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 49

This also affirms that fact that they had got trapped in Kufa and a group of Fasiqeen that killed Imam Hussain [as] was different from them and these notables acquired the rank of becoming Sunni hadith narrators.

The Shaykh and notable ones of the Aama were responsible for the murder of Imam Hussain [as] not the Shia

Following Yazid’s death a group of Shias came to Suleman bin Surd and suggested that it was the right time to rise up and take vengeance from the state officials during what were uncertain times, Suleman bin Surd responded with this sermon:

“Having analyzed the situation, I have found that the killers of Hussain are the tribal leaders of Kufa and they are responsible for his murder by the time that they learn of your plans and know that it is going to affect them, they will get prepared to vehemently oppose you. And having analyzed those that are prepared to be my supporters, I found that they are in a number from whom avenge could neither be acquired nor could the aim be achieved, nor could any damage be caused to the enemy, on the contrary, these people will be cut down like anything. Thus the best thing is that you dispatch your men around and have them convince people to join us”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 52

This proves that the killers of Imam Hussain [as] were the Shaykhs and tribal leaders of Aama and they had nothing to do with this group of Shia. Moreover, the reality regarding the number of Shia al-Khasa residing in Kufa is also clarified from this sermon, they did not possess a distinct number and could have been eliminated quites easily before the Aama of Kufa. Later, the speech given by Ubaidullah bin Abdullah was:

“The enemies were determined to kill the grandson of the Prophet whilst friends did not assist him. Verily, his killers deserve wrath and those who abandoned him deserve to be admonished, Neither will his killer have any grounds before Allah nor will there be any reasoning worth hearing by those that abandoned him, except if they sincerely repent and conduct Jihad against his killers and fight the oppressors”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 52

When people arrived in Karbala from Kufa with the intention of avenging the murder of Imam Hussain [as], Mathna bin Makhbariya gave a speech that contained the following important sentence:

“Hussain and and his Ansar were killed by a group that we deem them as our enemies and we dissociate ourselves from them, we have now left our homes in order to destroy every one of them”

Tarikh Tabari, Volume 7 page 221

All of these historical evidences make it clear that not a single Shia al-Khasa was the army that killed Imam Hussain [as]