Why Do We Cry on Imam Hussain (AS) ??
Both of these narrations have been told from dreams, and
some might object that perhaps it means they are not as reliable, but
as narrated by Anas in Sahih Bukhari (v. 9, p. 104, hadith no. 122),
"The Prophet said, whoever has seen me in a dream, then no doubt that he
has seen me, for Satan cannot imitate my shape." In both of these
narrations, our Holy Prophet seems very upset, and his own wife wept as
the first hadith states. Therefore we can see that there is no wrong in
crying for our Holy Prophet's beloved grandson.
Not only mankind was affected by the tragedy of Karbala, but we see in numerous hadith in both the Ahle Sunnah and Shi'a sources that the heavens and the earth also wept over Imam Hussain, and that the Jinns too mourned his death (Majma al-Zawaid, v. 9, p. 199, hadith no. 15179). Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari in his Tafsir Tabari (v. 22, p. 33) and Wahabi scholar Nawab Molvi Siddiq Hasan Khan Bhophali in Tafseer Fatah ul-Bayan (v. 8, p. 326) stated, "Al-Seddi said 'When Hussain bin Ali was killed, the sky started weeping for him; the weeping of the sky was by turning red.'"
Even with proof, some wonder why it is necessary to cry, and wonder how it will help us.Tears for the sake of Allah are known for softening the heart and purifying it form hypocrisy. Crying because we feel the pain of our Prophet and how he must have felt at the sight of his beloved grandson being killed can only increase our love for him and our love for Allah, while intensifying our hatred towards injustice and the need to fight against it with our pens, tongues and through our actions.
Our beloved Prophet has also said, "Hussain is from me, and I am from Hussain." (Narrated in numerous sources including Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v. 4, p. 172; Al Tabarani, v. 3, p. 21; Mishkat al Masabih, hadith no. 6160.) So if Hussain is from our Prophet and he is from Hussain, then whose blood did the oppressors spill on the battlefield of Karbala? And if it was the blood of our Prophet running through the veins of al-Hussain, should we not cry for his tragedy?
The Holy Prophet himself has affirmed the reward for those who weep for Imam Hussain: "Whoever on the day of Ashura weeps for my son Hussain, Allah will place that person in Paradise alongside the Ulul Azm Prophets." (Isaba, v. 1, p. 226)
Not only mankind was affected by the tragedy of Karbala, but we see in numerous hadith in both the Ahle Sunnah and Shi'a sources that the heavens and the earth also wept over Imam Hussain, and that the Jinns too mourned his death (Majma al-Zawaid, v. 9, p. 199, hadith no. 15179). Imam Ibn Jareer Tabari in his Tafsir Tabari (v. 22, p. 33) and Wahabi scholar Nawab Molvi Siddiq Hasan Khan Bhophali in Tafseer Fatah ul-Bayan (v. 8, p. 326) stated, "Al-Seddi said 'When Hussain bin Ali was killed, the sky started weeping for him; the weeping of the sky was by turning red.'"
Even with proof, some wonder why it is necessary to cry, and wonder how it will help us.Tears for the sake of Allah are known for softening the heart and purifying it form hypocrisy. Crying because we feel the pain of our Prophet and how he must have felt at the sight of his beloved grandson being killed can only increase our love for him and our love for Allah, while intensifying our hatred towards injustice and the need to fight against it with our pens, tongues and through our actions.
Our beloved Prophet has also said, "Hussain is from me, and I am from Hussain." (Narrated in numerous sources including Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, v. 4, p. 172; Al Tabarani, v. 3, p. 21; Mishkat al Masabih, hadith no. 6160.) So if Hussain is from our Prophet and he is from Hussain, then whose blood did the oppressors spill on the battlefield of Karbala? And if it was the blood of our Prophet running through the veins of al-Hussain, should we not cry for his tragedy?
The Holy Prophet himself has affirmed the reward for those who weep for Imam Hussain: "Whoever on the day of Ashura weeps for my son Hussain, Allah will place that person in Paradise alongside the Ulul Azm Prophets." (Isaba, v. 1, p. 226)
آ دیکھ میرے غازیؑ , اونچا ہے علم تیرا
آ دیکھ میرے غازیؑ , اونچا ہے علم تیرا
دل سینے میں جب تک ہے , بھولے گا نہ غم تیرا
زینبؑ کی دعا بن کر , ایک وقت وہ آئے گا
ہر گھر پہ سجا ہو گا , عبّاسؑ علم تیرا
آ جاتی ہیں زہراؑ بھی , زینبؑ بھی زیارت کو
جب آٹھ محرّم کو , اٹھتا ہے علم تیرا
تابوت جب اٹھتا ہے , شبیرؑ کا اے غازیؑ
تابوت کے آگے بھی , چلتا ہے علم تیرا
وہ کون سے صدمے تھے , شہ ٹوٹ گئے جس سے
اک درد تھا زینبؑ کا , اور دوسرا غم تیرا
پرچم کا پھریرا تھا , یا آس تھی زینبؑ کی
زینبؑ کے کلیجے سے , غم کیسے ہو کم تیرا
بازار میں زنداں میں , دربار میں ہر لمحہ
زینبؑ کی تو سانسوں پہ , تھا نام رقم تیرا
جب بہہ گیا سب پانی , تب سانس تیری ٹوٹی
تھا سینے کے اندر یا , مشکیزے میں دم تیرا
آواز تیری سرور , شبّیرؑ سے وابستہ
عبّاسؑ سے وابستہ , ریحان قلم تیرا
دل سینے میں جب تک ہے , بھولے گا نہ غم تیرا
زینبؑ کی دعا بن کر , ایک وقت وہ آئے گا
ہر گھر پہ سجا ہو گا , عبّاسؑ علم تیرا
آ جاتی ہیں زہراؑ بھی , زینبؑ بھی زیارت کو
جب آٹھ محرّم کو , اٹھتا ہے علم تیرا
تابوت جب اٹھتا ہے , شبیرؑ کا اے غازیؑ
تابوت کے آگے بھی , چلتا ہے علم تیرا
وہ کون سے صدمے تھے , شہ ٹوٹ گئے جس سے
اک درد تھا زینبؑ کا , اور دوسرا غم تیرا
پرچم کا پھریرا تھا , یا آس تھی زینبؑ کی
زینبؑ کے کلیجے سے , غم کیسے ہو کم تیرا
بازار میں زنداں میں , دربار میں ہر لمحہ
زینبؑ کی تو سانسوں پہ , تھا نام رقم تیرا
جب بہہ گیا سب پانی , تب سانس تیری ٹوٹی
تھا سینے کے اندر یا , مشکیزے میں دم تیرا
آواز تیری سرور , شبّیرؑ سے وابستہ
عبّاسؑ سے وابستہ , ریحان قلم تیرا
Rivalry of Ommayyads v/s Hashmites and Karbala
Battle of Karbala was one battle in the age old war between Ommayyads and Hashmite clans. Even before Prophet Mohammed was born Ommayyads practised rivalry with Hashmites.
Makkan society was based on clans. Two prominent clans were Banu Hashim (Hashmite) and Banu Ommayya (Ommayyad). Makka was spiritual capital of Arabs.
Both political and spiritual leadership belonged to Hashmite. Prophet Mohammed was Hashmite by birth, when Prophet Mohammed declared Islam, Ommayyads who were already rival of Hashmite percieved Islam as another blow on their status and turned into most hostile enemies of Islam.
Hashmites and Ommayyads are named after Hashim and Ommayya respectively. Hashim was son of Abd Munaf. Hashim was also father of Abdul Mutallib, who was grandfather of Prophet Mohammed. Ommayya was adopted son of Abd Munaf. Legacy of Abd Munaf went to Hashim and became cause of rivalry.
On the eve of Prophet's birth Hashmite chief was Abdul Mutallib, Prophet's grandfather. Ommayyads oppossed Abdul Mutallib on various occassions but were unsuccessful. Abdullah father of Prophet Mohammed died before his birth so he came under care of grandfather.
After Abdul Mutallib's death, uncle of Prophet, Abu Talib father of Ali took Prophet under his care, Abu Talib also became chief of Hashmite. On Ommayyad side Utba grandson of Ommayya and his nephew and son in law Abu Sufyan (grandfather of Yazid) were Ommayyad chiefs.
When Prophet Mohammed declared Islam, Banu Ommayya turned into enemies of Islam. Prophet had influence of Abu Talib to protect him, till the time Abu Talib was alive Prophet's life was safe.
Makkan society was based on clans. Two prominent clans were Banu Hashim (Hashmite) and Banu Ommayya (Ommayyad). Makka was spiritual capital of Arabs.
Both political and spiritual leadership belonged to Hashmite. Prophet Mohammed was Hashmite by birth, when Prophet Mohammed declared Islam, Ommayyads who were already rival of Hashmite percieved Islam as another blow on their status and turned into most hostile enemies of Islam.
Hashmites and Ommayyads are named after Hashim and Ommayya respectively. Hashim was son of Abd Munaf. Hashim was also father of Abdul Mutallib, who was grandfather of Prophet Mohammed. Ommayya was adopted son of Abd Munaf. Legacy of Abd Munaf went to Hashim and became cause of rivalry.
On the eve of Prophet's birth Hashmite chief was Abdul Mutallib, Prophet's grandfather. Ommayyads oppossed Abdul Mutallib on various occassions but were unsuccessful. Abdullah father of Prophet Mohammed died before his birth so he came under care of grandfather.
After Abdul Mutallib's death, uncle of Prophet, Abu Talib father of Ali took Prophet under his care, Abu Talib also became chief of Hashmite. On Ommayyad side Utba grandson of Ommayya and his nephew and son in law Abu Sufyan (grandfather of Yazid) were Ommayyad chiefs.
When Prophet Mohammed declared Islam, Banu Ommayya turned into enemies of Islam. Prophet had influence of Abu Talib to protect him, till the time Abu Talib was alive Prophet's life was safe.
Sorrows of Orphan Baby Sakina, Imam Husain's daughter
After Karbala,
from Kufa to Damascus Imam Husain's left out family was captured and
imprisoned, among them was one 4 years old baby Sakina (as), she too
went through sorrows, among those a few:
4 yrs old thirsty, slapped, beaten up, orphan, bleeding, exhausted, handcuffed, chained, tired princess baby Sakina (as) conversing with her ailing, chained brother Imam Zainul Abideen (as):
4 yrs old thirsty, slapped, beaten up, orphan, bleeding, exhausted, handcuffed, chained, tired princess baby Sakina (as) conversing with her ailing, chained brother Imam Zainul Abideen (as):
Baby Sakina (as): What happens when thirst reaches it's utmost limit?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): My baby what makes you ask this question? Dear don't ask these questions......
Baby Sakina (as): No! I want to know tell me what happens?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): One feels as if thorns have appeared on tongue, dear!
Baby Sakina (as): What if thirst is still not quenched, still further?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): One feels as if blood in body is boiling...
Baby Sakina (as): What if thirst is still not quenched, still further?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): Stop dear, I can't answer!
Baby Sakina (as): No! I want to know tell me what happens?
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): Dear, one feels as if bones have started to melt....
Baby Sakina (as): Then brother, Sakina (as) is going through this stage, I feel as if my bones are melting....
Later in Prison:
4 yrs old thirsty, slapped, beaten up, orphan, bleeding, exhausted, handcuffed, chained, tired princess prisoner baby Sakina (as) used to cry loudly in prison, accursed Yazid got disturbed in nearby palace, he ordered his guards thus:
Guards: Ali [Imam Zainul Abideen (as)] take this baby along with us, its an order.
Chained and handcuffed Imam Zainul Abideen (as) some how picks up Sakina (as) in arms and started to walk behind the guards.
Guards kept walking in cellar, and stopped at a dark underground barrack there.
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): Why you bought us here?
Guard: Wait!
Guard opens the door, and gets aside swiftly, Imam Zainul Abideen (as) feels a hot air blow from the underground barrack as if not opened since years.
Guard: Yazid ordered us to put Baby Sakina (as) alone in this barrack, because she had disturbed his sleep.
Imam Zainul Abideen (as) grabs Sakina (as) tightly on his chest, Sakina (as) also grabbed him tightly when she heard the order.
Imam Zainul Abideen (as): No, she is a baby of 4 years, she can't stay alone, forget about dark cellar, Oh God!
Guards forcibly opened the arms of Imam Zainul Abideen (as), snatched Baby Sakina (as) and threw her in the cellar, she kept shouting, Imam Zainul Abideen (as) was forcibly bought in the upper barrack. Slowly slowly Sakina (as) became silent day by day. Few days later when she was bought back in main barrack.
All imprisoned ladies hugged her but she kept silent, she looked at her father's cut head on spear and said:
Sakina (as): Oh father have you ever seen an old lady of my age, if not then see.....
Sakina (as) began to show grey hair of her to her father's head on spear. She later passed away in prison. Her grave lies in what was prison of Damascus, Syria during accursed Yazid's illegitimate caliphate.
Did Shias Kill Imam Hussain(a.s) ?
It
has being part and parcel of postmodern nasibi propaganda to insist that the
ancestors of the shi’a were a treacherous people that consistently abandoned
imam ali(a.s), imam hassan(a.s), imam hussain and the
remainder ahl-ul-bait imams(a.s) and in some cases killed them. They
seek to corroborate their claims by citing unknown texts by unknown authors as
a mechanism for duping ordinary unsuspecting muslims that do not possess a
strong background on islamic history. The shameless people lack the capability
to direct these foolish allegations to us, the shi’a of ahl-ul-bait(a.s)
directly because as they are fully aware that the definition of the term shi’a
did not carry same meaning back then as it does today.
This
was an all-encompassing term that referred to everyone including those who are
called sunnis today. The reality is the term shi’a was not a homogenous term,
and essentially incorporated the affiliates of ali(a.s) with
differing political and religious views.
We
have therefore from this point on sought to distinguish the key groupings as
follows:
The
minority shi’a that believed that ali(a.s) had a divine mandate to
rule as he had been appointed as caliph by the prophet(s.a.w.w)—(shi’a
al-khasa)
The
majority shi’a that believed that ali(a.s) had the legal mandate to
rule as he had been appointed as fourth caliph by the ummah, like the earlier
caliphs—(aama)
.
With
this fact in mind, the real question that should be addressed is:
Which
segment of what made up the generic term shi’a perpetrated these heinous
actions that today’s nawasib attribute to today’s shi’a imami (twelver) sect?
.
The
famous anti-shi’a writer muhaddith shah abdul aziz dehalvi substantiates our
claim by conceding that in the early days the term shi’a was a generic one that
incorporated everyone:
“it
should be known that the first shi’as [who are the sunnis and the tafdiliyyah]
were known in the old days as shi’as. When the ghulat and the rawafid zaydiyyah
and ismailiyyah took the name for themselves, sunnis and tafdiliyyah did not
like this name for them and so hence adopted the name of ahlu’s-sunnah wa’l
jamaah.”
Tauhfa
athna ashari…urdu…page 16…published in karachi
.
The
twelver imami shi’a were called rafidhi[rejectors] back in those days. The term
shi’a means ‘a group’ or ‘helpers’ or ‘followers’. Since the people of kufa
supported imam ali(a.s) during the battle of jamal and siffeen,
their political affiliation placed them in the grouping of the
shi’as[followers] of ali(a.s). It was again, a political term used
for the helpers of ali(a.s) or group of ali(a.s).
Similarly the opposing army i.e; the army of muawiyah(l) was called the shi’as
of muawiyah(l) or shi’as of uthman(l).
.
The
word shi’a was used for these two groups for pure political reasons and the
same term also referred to those that adhered to the teachings of ahl-ul-bait(a.s)
and attested to their status as the rightful imams that succeeded the holy
prophet(s.a.w.w). It was these religiously affiliated shi’as that
are known as imamia or twelvers or imami shi’a today.
.
The
twelver shi’a never accepted the caliphate of abu bakr(l), umar(l) and
uthman(l) unlike the political shi’a mentioned above who upheld their caliphs
as rightful, it was this group that emerged into what is termed in this day and
age ahl-e-sunnah or sunnis.
.
The
term shi’a was used for:
- Everyone that joined imam ali(a.s)’s forces against muawiyah(l) at siffeen.
- Those that considered imam ali(a.s) to be on the right path in this dispute.
These
same individuals deemed the caliphate of the shaykhain to be legitimate whilst
the imami or twelvers were called rafidhi by their opponents.
.
The
nawasib unlike the twelver shi’as refuse to accept the existence of political
shi’as during that era. Their stubbornness is curious, especially since the
existence of political shi’as is an established fact. Their refusal to
acknowledge the existence of political shi’as during that era is because to do
so would debase their false claims and propaganda wherein they have insisted
that the shi’as killed imam hussain(a.s).
.
This
admission would unhinge centuries of efforts, motivated by their hatred of
acknowledging historical facts they deem it imperative to hide this reality.
.
We
will now prove that the political shi’as existence at the embryonic stage can
be dated to the era of imam ali(a.s) and continued its life during
the immediate centuries that followed.
.
Al
muhaddith shah abdul aziz dehalvi states as follows:
“the
title shi’a was first given to those muhajireen and ansar who gave allegiance
[bay'ah] to ali(a.s). They were his steadfast faithful followers
during his caliphate. They remained close to him; they always fought his
enemies, and kept on following ali(a.s)‘s commands and prohibitions.
The true shi’a are these who came in 37 hijri”
Tauhfa
athna ashari…urdu…page 27…published in karachi
(37
hijri -the year imam ali(a.s) fought muawiyah(l) at siffin)
.
The
ahle sunnah scholars have acknowledged the existence of political shi’as over
several centuries whilst today’s nawasib continue to peddle the same lie that
the kufis were imamis or twever shi’as, the scholars of ahle sunnah have made
it abundantly clear in their writings that the term shi’a back did not carry
the same connotation that it does today.
.
Mizan
al-eitidal… imam al-dhahabi…vol. 3…page 552
‘yes,
most of the syrian populations from the days of [battle of] siffeen rejected
the caliphate of amir-al-momineen ali(a.s) and considered themselves
and their ancestors righteous for doing so. The kufans likewise deviated from
uthman(l) and loved ali(a.s) over him because their ancestors were
the shi’as and helpers whilst we [the ahl-e-sunnah] love all four of the
caliphs. There was also a third group of shi’as in iraq who loved both ali(a.s)
and uthman(l) but still preferred ali(a.s) over uthman(l) and had an
extreme dislike of those that fought ali(a.s) at the same time they
would supplicate, asking forgiveness of those that fought ali(a.s).
This was a softer version of shi’a.’
.
Tahdeeb
al-tahdeeb… imam ibn hajar asqalani…vol. 1…page 82
“according
to the early scholars, shi’a meant to have faith on ali(a.s) having
preference over uthman(l)….although they preferred the shaykhayn over them
[uthman(l) and ali(a.s)].”
.
Thus,
if we summarise the above writings of al-dhahabi and ibn hajar we learn that:
1).
The shi’as of kufa accepted the caliphate of the shaykhayn [abu bakr(l) and
umar(l)].
2).
There were a group of kufan shi’as that rejected the caliphate of uthman(l) bin
affan in the same manner that the people of syria rejected the caliphate of ali(a.s).
3).
Another group of kufan shi’a had a soft heart towards uthman(l) bin affan but
still preferred ali(a.s) over him. This particular group of
kufan shi’as not only believed in the caliphate of the first three caliphs but
also prayed for forgiveness of all of those who fought against ali(a.s)
such as ayesha, talha, zubair, muawiyah(l) etc.
.
These
were therefore the beliefs of the politicized kufan shi’a and this reality
completely debases the propaganda of the nawasib. It is fascinating that
today’s sunnis and nawasib follow those ulema that fell under the ambit of
political shi’a and rely on their works, but despite their political leanings
they are categorised as ahl-e-sunnah.
.
The
only difference is during their lifetimes they preferred ali(a.s)
over uthman(l).
.
Among
such scholars is the famed scholar of tafsir imam sufyan thawri (d. 161 h).
Writing about him allamah imtiaz ali al-arishi writes:
“back
in those days the term shi’a was exclusively used for those who preferred ali(a.s)
over uthman(l) and we cannot rule out the possibility that thawri preferred ali(a.s)
over uthman(l).”
.
Up
until now we only discussed the ordinary shi’as political groups that were
thought to have different opinions about the four caliphs but what is
interesting is that apart from ordinary shi’as, al-dhahabi also
mentioned that those who were called ghulat shi’a [extremist shi’as] had
beliefs that differed to the ghulat of later times. He mentions in his book mizan
al-eitidal…vol. 1…page 6:
“in
those days [the early centuries of islam] ghulat shi’a were those that
identified faults and abuses uthman(l), talha, zubair, muawiyah(l) and all
those that fought against ali(a.s). They did not hold a good opinion
about them. But nowadays ghulat are those that issue takfeer against the above
high ranking personalities and disassociate themselves from the shaykhayn.”
.
Having
cited the above facts, what evidence does ibn al hashimi have to
describe the aaama shi’as of kufa as the imami or twelver
or khasa shi’as and then blame them for the crimes committed by the
aaama?
.
Whilst
allah(s.w.t) has commanded us in his glorious book not to commit
injustice due to enmity of a certain nation such commands are for muslims and
it is down to these cyber takfeeris to decide if they wish to be counted as
such.
.
Before
we can take a detailed look at imam hussain(a.s) and the role of the
political shi’as in kufa during his era, it is important that we also look at
the political kufan shi’a from the era of his father(a.s).
.
After
the murder of umar(l), the people of medina presented the caliphate to imam ali(a.s)
on the caveat that he rules according to the qur’an, the sunnah of the prophet(s.a.w.w)
and the path of the shaykhain [abu bakr(l) and umar(l)].
Sharh
fiqh akbar…page 66
.
Ali(a.s)
bin abi-talib(a.s) refused to accept the requirement that he adhere
to the path of the shaykhain and hence the caliphate was given to uthman(l) bin
affan as he agreed to it. When uthman(l) bin affan started to appoint wicked,
opportunistic secular umawi governors over iraq the iraqis rebelled and from
the same city of kufa, an army of men gathered to murder uthman(l) bin affan
because he was not following the sunnah of shaykhain [abu bakr(l) and umar(l)].
That evidences that the kufans in these ranks attested to the caliphate of the
shaykhain that justified their rising against him. Like the kufans large
opposition also came from egypt and basra to murder uthman(l) for the very same
reason.
.
Those
sahaba and tabi’een that took the oath of allegiance for ali(a.s)
bin abi talib(a.s)’s caliphate, also believed in the caliphate of
the shaykhain. These were the same sahaba and tabi’een from medina that fought
under the banner of ali(a.s) in the battle of jamal and subsequently
moved to kufa so that they could fight against muawiyah(l). These sahaba and
tab’een were called the shi’as of ali(a.s) throughout that era.
.
The
battle of siffin occurred following the oath of allegiance to ali(a.s).
The army of ali(a.s) was also defined within the political
terminology of shi’as of ali(a.s). When this was an era of intense
fitnah, war and upheaval how could imam ali(a.s)successfully convert
all these political shi’as into twelver imami shi’as?
.
It
were these same political shi’as [believers in shaykhain] that turned against
imam ali(a.s) when he was about to achieve victory over muawiyah(l)
and forced him to call back malik ashtar [a staunch believer in ali(a.s)’s
cause] from the battle or else they would murder ali(a.s) bin abi
talib(a.s) themselves.
.
Another
group from amongst the same political shi’as [believers in the
shaykhain]-turned totally against imam ali(a.s) at tahkeem and
displayed a willingness to fight him.
.
Recounting
the betrayal of same political shi’as, imam ali(a.s) mentions in one
of his sermons in nahajul balagah :
“till
yesterday i was giving orders but today i am being given orders, and till
yesterday i was dissuading people [from wrong acts] but today i am being
dissuaded.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 208
.
Addressing
the same kufans imam ali(a.s) bin abi talib(a.s) says :
“o’
group of people who do not obey when i order and do not respond when i call
you.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 180
.
At
another instance imam ali(a.s) bin abi talib(a.s) tells
the kufans:
I
was sitting when sleep overtook me. I saw the prophet(s.a.w.w)
appear before me, and i said: “o’ prophet of allah ! What crookedness and
enmity i had to face from the people.” The prophet(s.a.w.w)
said: “invoke (allah) evil upon them.” But i said, “allah may change
them for me with better ones and change me for them with a worse one.” Nahajul balagah…sermon 70
.
Ali(a.s)
mentions in another sermon:
“by
allah(s.w.t)! I did not come to you of my own accord. I came to you
by force of circumstances. I have come to know that you say ali(a.s)
speaks lie. May allah(s.w.t) fight you! Against whom do i speak
lie?” Nahajul balagah…sermon 71
.
So
this was a short history of the political shi’as of kufa who previously
believed in the caliphates of the shaykhain during the reign of imam ali(a.s).
The real problem is that today’s deceitful nawasib want to distort the real
history of islam and present those political shi’as as being the ancestors of
the twelver imami shi’as and wish to apportion blame to them for the
actions of these political shias.
.
The
truth is during that era of upheaval a group of shi’as were loyal to imam ali(a.s)
unconditionally. They included personalities such as ammar yasir(r.a),
malik ashtar nakahi(r.a) and meesam tammar(r.a) etc. This
group believed that the caliphate of ali(a.s) was a divine
designation.
.
We
for example see that after swearing allegiance to imam ali(a.s)
khuzaymah ibn thabit is reported to have said:
“we
have elected someone who was chosen for us by the messenger(s.a.w.w)
of allah(s.w.t).”
Al-mi’yar
wa al-muwazanah…abu jaffar al-iskafi [d. 240 h]…page 51
.
This
view was also pointed out by ibn abbas(a.s) to umar(l) who refuted
his argument that the quraysh deciding caliphate after abu bakr(l) was legally
sound with these words:
“if
quraysh had made the same choice for themselves as god did for them, then right
would be theirs, unrejected and unenvied”
The
history of tabari…vol. 14…english translation…g. Rex smith…page 137-138
.
Darimiyyah
hujuniyyah, while describing for mu’awiyah(l) the reasons for favouring maula
ali(a.s) stated:
“i
favour ali(a.s) for his love of the poor, his generosity towards
strangers, his religious learning, his sacrificing character and for his having
been designated for wilayah by the messenger(s.a.w.w) of allah(s.w.t).”
At-
wafidat min al-nisa ala muawiyah…abbas bin bakar…page 41
In
the history of tabari…vol. 17…page 117 the following incident following
the battle of siffin is written:
“when
the khawarij had left al-kufah, the companions and supporters [shi’a] of ali(a.s)
came to him and gave him the oath of allegiance. They said ‘we are the
friends of those whom you befriend and the enemies of those to whom you show
enmity’.”
.
“the
common people swore allegiance to ali(a.s) on the basis of the book
and the sunnah and the shi’a of ali(a.s) on the basis of friendship
of his friends and enmity of his enemies.”
Al-mi’yar
wa al-muwazanah…abu jaffar al-iskafi…page 194
.
The
stress on such an allegiance as a second allegiance in addition to the first
one as well as its content points to the beliefs of the shi’a al-khasa
who deemed the duty to follow ali(a.s) a religious obligation as he
had the divine mandate to be followed.
.
We
showed the different groups of shi’as that resided in kufa at the time of ali(a.s).
Same groups existed at the time of imam hussain(a.s) and the shi’a
al-khasa of kufa helped imam hussain(a.s) in every way they were
able to do so. It were the aaama of kufa who betrayed imam hussain(a.s) and
fought him. And in the end at the time of zaid(a.s) ibn ali(a.s)
ibn hussain(a.s) they changed their name to ahl-e-sunnah.
And now some groups among them including nasibis, deobandis, salafis and
wahabis are attacking shi’a al-khasa of the crime they committed.
Saddam's execution exposes double-standards of Muslim World
This
year (2007), on the day of the Islamic Feast of Sacrifice - Eid al-Adha
- the Fatah and the Hamas factions of the Palestinians fought each
other, in which several people were killed. On the same day, 20 Muslim
extremists were killed in Tunisia and the clashes in Bangladesh
continued over election procedure. In Somalia violence between the party
of Islamic Courts and the government forces claimed the life of many
fighters. All of them were Muslims and they wrangled with each other in
the name of Islam. Each of the disputant party had politicians and
clerics, supporting either side, none of whom bothered to appeal for the
cessation of killings as this was supposed to be a sacred day in the
Islamic calendar. But as soon as the news of the execution of Saddam hit
the news-wires, there was an upheaval in the Arab media and in the
political circles. Overnight, one of the most brutal mass-murderer of
the century was turned into a "martyr" and "hero of the Arab world". No
stone remained unturned in the Arab media, especially, that run by the
Pan Arab nationalists (racists), to protest against�the execution of
Saddam on the day sacred to all Muslims. Even if he had been executed on
some other day, those who had objected to his trial in the first place
and had considered the court to be illegal under occupation, would have
had a million excuses to react with dismay at his execution.
Under the full glare of history, Saddam neither respected the sanctity of human life nor the sanctity of any religion. He killed his own sons-in-law in the Islamic sacred month of Ramadan. He invaded Kuwait and caused misery to the entire nation on the sacred day of Ashura. He killed his victims and tortured political prisoners and their families, including women and children throughout the sacred months, sacred days and sacred nights, without any trials. Ironically, the same media, politicians and clerics raised no question about the sanctity of the sacred days, as if Saddam was above all sanctities. This explains that the media furore over his execution was politically and not religiously motivated. For centuries, the ruthless dictators accustomed at looting their own nations escaped justice with the conspiracy of the court-clerics (or Ulama al-Su' - the wicked clergy). One of the historic achievements of the present Iraqi government, like it or not, is to subject a tyrant like Saddam to the rule of law; to stand trial in an open court according to the Iraqi and not American jurisdiction, and to grant him a fair chance of being heard. This was the first time in history that, an absolute dictator in the Muslim world, had to face justice for his crimes against humanity, which neither he nor the dictators like him in the region, would have ever imagined. But the poor Muslim populace has been trained throughout history by the court-clerics to glorify the tyrants and autocrats. Such a mind-set cannot and will not be changed overnight.
When the leader of the military junta grabs power through the barrel of the gun, his first task is to wipe out any sign of opposition. This process, in the case of Saddam, continued since the Ba'th Arab Socialist party assumed power in Iraq 35 years ago. The figure of the dictator is then magnified as the "father of the nation", and this is how, the man in the street starts corrupting his mind with mental pictures that portray the tyrants as heroes. In the schools, the children are taught to sing hymns and hail the dictator as soon as his name is mentioned. The cinema-goers are expected to clap and shout praises when the dictator appears on the screen. There is a history of more than a thousand years behind this tragic process, in which the lackeys of the regime who stand to gain most by way of position and wealth, together with the officially controlled media, are the co-conspirators in corrupting the mind of ordinary people. In the main news-bulletins on the TVs, a good half-an-hour is often spent (or wasted) showing the officials and tribal leaders shaking hands and kissing the cheeks and rubbing the noses with the tyrant, with no commentary but only background music. This is happening in this twenty-first century - the century of enlightenment and awareness.
The execution of Saddam exposed with a stroke, the rotten mind-set which has manoeuvred the sentiments and emotions of the Muslim people for centuries and is directly responsible for the backwardness of this community. The autocrats had to sympathise with him because they see their own image on the gallows if their people become aware and conscious of the great theft of national resources committed by the ruling elites and the members of their tribe. The Palestinians are bound to mourn Saddam's execution because their suicide bombers were given a cheque of US$ 25000 for each suicide attack, not from his personal wealth, but from the wealth he had robbed from the treasury of his nation. The malice of the Pan Arab nationalists turned his execution into "Jihad" in order to vent their hatred against the Kurds in the North and the Shias in the South, who have emerged as the main contestants for power that was monopolised as God-given right of the minority for more than a thousand years. The radicals had to turn his execution into "martyrdom" because the only criterion through which the doors of heavens open for people like them is to emulate al-Qaeda and the Saddami terrorists. Among the Arab rulers, nobody could understand the position of Saddam more than Gaddafi, who is engaged in grooming his son as his heir-apparent, after 37-years of dictatorship, precisely as Saddam was planning to leave his Presidency for his sons.
The reaction of the Palestinians against the execution of Saddam was double-faced. The question they should have asked themselves before offending the feelings of millions of Iraqis whose lives he had�traumatised forever is, can they ever forget and forgive a number of massacres that they hold the Israelis of committing, including the Sabra and Shatila? If not, then they should have known that Saddam had carried out massacres and genocide a hundred times worse against his own citizens. At least, Sharon will take a credit that he never killed any Jew. But Saddam will be remembered as a butcher whose main victims were his own people.
In the aftermath of the execution of Saddam, history is being boldly distorted in broad day-light and the Arab world is pretending as if there was nothing called the campaign of Anfal - the genocide of the Kurds in Halabjah, and the massacres and mass-graves in the South. There is a consensus among the secular Arabs, the extremist Islamists and the Arab political leaders, who are turning a blind-eye towards crimes against humanity committed by Saddam, including the torture-chambers in Abu Ghuraib which continued throughout his reign. The racists are only interested in Abu Ghuraib to highlight the American excesses against the political prisoners. With this type of crippled sense of justice, no wonder the other day, a Saddami declared on al-Jazeera TV that his followers will perform Hajj (pilgrimage) to the burial site of Saddam, who is now the "Amir (leader) of the martyrs"!
In the wake of the execution of Barazan al-Takriti and Awad al-Bandar, both of whom were found guilty for crimes against humanity in an open trial which continued for more than a year, Tariq al-Hashemi, the Vice-President of Iraq said that their execution is a set-back for political reconciliation (reported by al-Jazeera on 15 Jan. 2007). The political reconciliation process announced by al-Maliki, the Prime Minister of Iraq was heavily qualified from the inception that it will never include the terrorists and the Saddamis whose hands are dipped in the blood of innocent Iraqi people. But the position that the Vice-President adopted was obviously motivated by the sectarian affiliation, and not by national interest. Otherwise, full documentary evidences were presented in the open court against the high profile ciminals like Barazan and Bandar. Hence, to link their execution with the political process was equivalent to making a mockery of the Iraqi court and the Iraqi laws.
Conclusion : Saddam was no less than Yazid ( may Allah curse him )
For the love of Yazid Ibn Mu'awiyah (Answer to Dr Naik)
Courtesy : http://www.ahlulbayt-academy.org
When
Dr. Zakir Naik said publicly on Peace TV, "Yazid, may Allah be pleased
with him", he meant exactly what he said. What was in his subconscious
emerged on his tongue. In his speeches and Q&As posted on Youtube,
he indulges into the Wahhabi indoctrinated rant against whom they brand
as "grave worshippers" who seek the "intercession of the dead". They
know very well that there are no Muslims who worship graves. What type
of Da'awah (calling people towards the path of God) is this, where the
Da'ee (the caller) resorts to misrepresenting the faith and beliefs of
others because of political motives and rivalries?
The graduates from the School of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab have caused mayhem on international arena, with suicide bombings and indiscriminate killing of innocent men, women and children, including disabled and infants, all in the name of Jihad and Islam. One hardly hears a word of condemnation from the so-called Da'ees against the cowardly acts of the terrorists who committed the atrocities of 9/11, 7/7, Madrid bombing and the daily suicide bombings in Iraq, just because those who are massacred are not from their ilk. What one hears at the most on the pulpits, is half-hearted, illegible, face-saving, vague condemnation or sheer double talk. Is this behaviour of the scholars according to Islamic teachings?
In a question posed from the audience, shown on Peace TV, Dr. Naik claimed under flimsy excuses, that he is a "pakka Hanafi" and a "pakka Shafa'ee". In reply to another question he said, to divide oneself into Sunni or Shia is against the Quran. His Q&As (permanently chaired by none other than his own brother) did not get an opportunity to point out to him that if being divided into Sunni or Shia is against Islam, then there is no question of being Hanafi or Shafa'ee because both of them took pride in calling themselves Sunnis. These contradictory rhetoric can only work in an audience which is unaware, uninformed and cannot contest on the basis of knowledge.
Among the Sunnis, there are two major Schools in the IndoPak subcontinent. The Deobandis categorically undermine and neglect the role played by the noble progeny of the Prophet in reviving and protecting Islam and the Qur'anic knowledge. They are the IndoPak version of the Wahhabis who would rather blot all the Hadiths that have appeared in their own Sihah in favour of Ahl ul Bayt. But they refer to the Sihah (their six books of collection of Hadiths) by picking and choosing whatever suits their interest. Then there are the Brailvies, who are in vast majority, and they proclaim their love for Ahl ul Bayt (the family of the Prophet). They also curse publicly Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, the confirmed Nasibi (the enemy and dispiser of the Prophet's family). The best example can be seen and heard in the speeches of the celebrated Hanafi Sufi scholar, Professor Muhammad Tahir al-Qadri, who attracts four times as much crowd as Dr. Naik does.
When Dr. Naik said that the "war of Karbala" (it was a battle, not a war) was a political war and not for Islam, and that the best thing is to follow Islam and the example of Prophet Muhammad, he absolved his Caliph, Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah, from every inhuman and barbaric atrocities he had committed against the innocent, pious, noblest, righteous men and the nearest and dearest members of the Prophet's family. If it has escaped the attention of any Da'ee that the Qur'an speaks in more than 500 verses against all types of oppression and oppressors, then this so-called Da'ee is spreading crippled and half-baked information about the Qur'an and Islam.
Islam has adopted an uncompromising attitude against the oppressors in favour of the oppressed. And what Dr. Naik did was to turn the tables in favour of Mu'awiyah and Yazid, according to the Sunnah of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul Wahhab.
Yazid, who was illegally imposed by his father as a hereditary ruler of the Muslims, against the teachings of the Qur'an and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (saww), was a declared debaucherer, tyrant, atrocious man who had no religious scruples and had breached the religious morals publicly. Hence, by invoking the pleasure of God for Yazid, Dr. Naik in fact blasphemed the teachings of Islam. But the political motivation converts even the learned people into obstinacy.
Even the six books of Hadiths speak about the oppression and injustices of Banu Umayyah. The history, except the distorted version of the opportunists, who lived on the stipends of Banu Umayyah, are full of events portraying the evil of Banu Umayyah. Hence, when Dr. Naik calls for following the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (saww), has he himself understood what the teachings of the Prophet were? The Prophet had strictly prohibited mutilation of the dead bodies, even if they be the bodies of mad dogs. But his Caliph's forces trampled under the hooves of the horses, the corpses of the most pious and learned members of the Prophet's family. It cannot have escaped his attention that in the six collection of the Hadiths, many sayings of the Prophet have been narrated in favour of Imam Hassan and Imam Hussayn and Amirul Mo'mineen Ali (a.s.). In contrast, how many Hadiths can the advocates of Wahhabism produce in favour of Yazid or his father? The answer is double zero.
When Dr. Naik talks about following the example of Prophet Muhammad, and then goes on to support what Yazid did, declaring Karbala to be a political "war" and not for religion, then he has blasphemed the Prophet. Yazid assembled the entire force of his evil empire to besiege the small entourage of 72, headed by the grandson of the Prophet, whom the Prophet himself loved very dearly. Yazid's forces on the orders from Yazid and Ibn Ziyad, kept them hungry and thirsty, and then massacred them in the most savage way imaginable. What type of Muslim can defend the killer of the family members of his own Prophet? What type of Muslim can find excuses for a Caliph who revived all the practices of Jahiliyyah (the Era of Ignorance) by captivating the ladies of the Prophet's family, severing the heads of the most righteous men and displaying them from one city to another? What type of Muslim can excuse the Caliph whose forces ripped apart the throat of an infant with an arrow over a demand to quench his thirst? No wonder they cannot see any evil and bestiality in the suicide bombings and massacre of innocent people.
Much more learned than Dr. Naik can ever be was Allamah Jalaluddin al-Sayyuti, a Sunni scholar, who was an exegete of the Qur'an, a historian and a jurist. in his Tarikh al-Khulafa (History of the Caliphs) he writes that two Companions of the Prophet created mischief in the affairs of the people: (i) Amr ibn al-Aas for raising the Qur'an on the lances and (ii) Mughira bin Shu'aba for advising Mu'awiyah to nominate his son Yazid to the Islamic Caliphate (p. 229). Al-Sayyuti also writes, "May Allah curse Ibn Ziyad and the murderers of Hussayn and Yazid also" (p. 231). He narrates that Nofal bin Abi Furat referred to Yazid in the presence of Umar bin Abdul Aziz as "Amirul Mo'mineen Yazid". Umar bin Abdul Aziz reacted by punishing him with 20 lashes (p. 232) for dignifying Yazid.
Al-Suyuti writes that in the year 63 H. Yazid was involved in sacking Madinat al-Rasool, in killing a generation of the Companions, and in desecrating and robbing Madinah. His troopers rapped 1000 virgin daughters of the Companions of the Prophet. Al-Suyuti continues that the Prophet had said, whoever terrifies the people of Madinah, upon him is the curse of Allah, that of His angels and that of all the people of the world, quoting Sahih Muslim. After creating carnage in Madinah in the incident of Harrah, the army of Yazid proceeded to Makkah to confront Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, a self-declared Caliph in Hijaz. In the process, they set fire to the holy Ka'aba (p. 232).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)