સૈયદુશ્શોહદા કોણ છે?

કેટલાક કહેવાતા મુસલમાનો, તેમના સ્વભાવ પ્રમાણે, એહલેબૈત (અ.મુ.સ.)ના દરેક સદગુણને રદીયો આપવા ઉતાવળ કરે છે. ત્યારે તેમાં સૌથી વધુ પ્રચલિત હોય તેવા કોઈ સદગુણને તદ્દન રદ કરી શકતા નથી તો પછી તેઓ ‘જો સમજાવી ન શકો તો ગુંચવી નાખો’ના સિધ્ધાંતનો સહારો લે છે. આવો જ એક સદગુણ ઈ. હુસૈન બીન અલી (અ.સ.)થી સંબંધિત છે જેને તેઓ સૈયદુશ્શોહદાના બદલે માત્ર સૈયદ તરીકે સંબોધે છે. આ કહેવાતા મુસલમાનો માટે એ ગમતી વાત નથી કે ઈમામ હુસૈન (અ.સ.)ને સૈયદુશ્શોહદા તરીકે સંબોધન કરવામાં આવે. તેથી તેઓ એવી વ્યકિતઓને તલાશ કરે છે જેઓ આ વિશેષણતા (સૈયદુશ્શોહદા)થી સંબંધિત હોય. જેથી ઈમામ હુસૈન (અ.સ.)ની મહત્તાને નકારી શકાય અથવા ઓછામાં ઓછું તેમની મહાનતા, સદગુણો અને શહીદીને ઘટાડી શકાય. તેઓએ ઈતિહાસમાંથી આવી એક વ્યકિતને શોધી છે જેનું નામ હઝરત હમઝા બીન અબ્દુલ મુત્તલીબ છે, જે પયગમ્બર (સ.અ.વ.)ના કાકા હતા. હઝરત હમઝા બીન અબ્દુલ મુત્તલીબનું ઈસ્લામમાં સ્થાન: હઝરતે હમઝાની શુરવીરતા, ઈસ્લામ માટે કુરબાની અને ઈસ્લામની મદદ અંગે કોઈ શંકા નથી. જંગે ઓહદમાં અલ્લાહની રાહમાં સર્વશ્રેષ્ઠ કુરબાની માટે તેમને સૈયદુશ્શોહદાનો લકબ આપવામાં આવ્યો તેમની શહાદતે પયગમ્બર (સ.અ.વ.)ને ખૂબજ દુ:ખી કર્યા જે અગાઉ કયારેય મુસલમાનોએ જોયું ન હતું. આપ (અ.સ.) એ બાબતે વધુ દુ:ખી હતા કે મુસલમાનો તેમના સગાવ્હાલાઓ કે જે ઓહદમાં મૃત્યુ પામ્યા હતા તેઓ ઉપર ગમ કરતા હતા પણ કોઈ હ. હમઝા (અ.સ.)નું ગમ મનાવતું ન હતું. આ બાબતે રસુલે ખુદા (સ.અ.વ.)એ બની હાશીમની ઔરતોને ઉત્તેજન આપ્યુ કે તેઓ જનાબે ફાતેમા ઝહરા (સ.અ.)ની આગેવાનીમાં હઝરત હમઝા (અ.સ.)ની કબ્રની નિયમિત ઝિયારત (મુલાકાત) કરે. (તારીખે તબરી ભાગ-7, પાના 137 (અંગ્રેજી), શૈખ અબ્દુલ હક્ક મોહદ્દીસે દહેલવીની મદારીજ અન્નબુવ્વહ, ભાગ-2, પાના 179 (ઉર્દુ) આમ છતાં ઈતિહાસના સૌથી ઓછા અભ્યાસુ વ્યકિત માટે પણ એ સ્પષ્ટ છે કે હઝરત હમઝા (અ.સ.)ને એટલા માટે આગળ કરવામાં આવે છે કે ઈમામ હુસૈન ઈબ્ને અલી (અ.સ.)ના સ્થાનને નીચું કરી શકાય. બધા જ ઈતિહાસકારોએ એકમતે નોંધ્યું છે કે હઝરત હમઝા (અ.સ.) ને હબશીએ શહીદ કર્યા જે હિન્દનો ગુલામ હતો અને હિન્દ મોઆવીયાની માં અને અબુ સુફીયાનની પત્નિ હતી. તેણે હઝરતે હમઝા (અ.સ.)નું દિલ ચાવીને તેના જંગલી અને ક્રુરતા ભર્યા સ્વભાવ અને પયગમ્બર (સ.અ.વ.) અને બની હાશીમ પ્રત્યે ઘૃણાની સાબિતી આપી. આમ તેણીને ‘હિન્દ-કલેજુ ચાવનાર’નું બિરૂદ મળ્યું અને જ.હમઝા સૈયદુશોહદાની શહાદતની સાથે, જ. હમઝા (અ.સ.)ને કત્લ કરવાના કારણે તણીને પણ યાદ કરવામાં આવે છે. હમણાના મુસલમાનો ત્યાં સુધી (કહેવા લાગ્યા છે) કે મોઆવીયાને હિંદના પુત્ર હોવાનું ગૌરવ હતું!!! અય સમજદારો, બોધ ગૂહણ કરો! અગાઉના મુસલમાનોએ જ. હમઝા (અ.સ.)ની કબ્ર ઉપર બાંધકામ કર્યું હતું એ બાંધકામને હેજાઝના શાસકોએ તોડી પાડયું. સ્પષ્ટ રીતે આ મુસલમાનો હઝરત હમઝાની કુરબાનીને માન્ય રાખે છે અને તેમને બીજા સહાબીઓ જેવા જ સમજે છે જેઓ પયગમ્બર (સ.અ.વ.)ને જોવાનું સદભાગ્ય પામ્યા હતા. જનાબે જઅફર બીન અબી તાલિબ (અ.સ.)નું ઈસ્લામમાં સ્થાન: ઈસ્લામ અને પયગમ્બર (સ.અ.વ.)ની રાહમાં કુરબાનીની ચર્ચા જઅફર બીન અબી તાલિબ (અ.સ.)ની ચર્ચા વગર અધુરી છે. બીજા એક સૈનિક કે જેને સૈયદુશ્શોહદા તરીકે યાદ કરવામાં આવે છે. જનાબે જઅફર બીન અબી તાલિબ (અ.સ.) જંગે મવતામાં શહીદ થયા જ્યાં મુસલમાનોની સંખ્યા ઘણી વધારે હતી. તેઓ અલમબરદાર હતા અને અલ્લાહ અઝઝ વ જલ્લ અને પયગમ્બર (સ.અ.વ.) માટે પોતાનું જીવન આપ્યું, તેમના બન્ને હાથ કલમ થયા પછી અલ્લાહે તેમને તેના બદલામાં હાથો અને પાંખો આપી જેના વડે તેઓ જન્નતમાં ફરીશ્તાઓ સાથે ઉડે છે. જઅફર (અ.સ.) નીચેની કુરઆનની આયતનું જીવંત ઉદાહરણ છે: ‘અને જે લોકો અલ્લાહની રાહમાં મારયા ગયા છે તેમને હરગિજ મરણ પામેલા સમજો નહિ; બલ્કે તેઓ પોતાના પરવરદિગાર પાસે જીવતા હોય (ઉત્ત્તમ) રોજી મેળવે છે.’ (સુ. આલે ઈમરાન 3:169) જે લોકો મૃત્યુ પામેલાઓને નિર્જીવ અને બિન ઉપયોગી સમજે છે, તેઓજ હઝરત હમઝા (અ.સ.) અને જનાબે જઅફર (અ.સ.) જેવા મહાન શહીદોના પ્રયત્નોને હલકા કરે છે અને તેમનો તેમના પ્રત્યેનો પ્રેમ અને આદરનો દાવો એ તેમના તૌહીદના નારા જેવા જ ખોખલો લાગે છે. ઈમામ હુસૈન (અ.સ.) જ. હમઝા (અ.સ.) અને જ. જઅફર (અ.સ.)ને કઈ રીતે યાદ કરે છે? જો આ મુસલમાનો જ. હમઝા (અ.સ.)ના સાચા ચાહક હોવાનો દાવો કરે છે અને તેમને સૈયદુશ્શોહદાનું માન આપે છે તો તેમના માટે એ જાણવું રસપ્રદ રહેશે કે ખુદ ઈમામ હુસૈન (અ.સ.)એ તેમને આશુરાના દિવસે કઈ રીતે યાદ કર્યા હતા. પરંતુ તેથી યઝીદના સૈનિકો ઈમામ હુસૈન (અ.સ.) ઉપર હુમલો કરવાથી તેમને અને તેમના અસ્હાબોને કત્લ કરવાથી ન અટકાયા અને આ બાબતે પયગમ્બર (સ.અ.વ.)ને હમઝા (અ.સ.)ની શહાદત કરતા વધુ ગમગીન કયા. જો આ મુસલમાનો જ. હમઝા (અ.સ.)ને આટલું બધું માન આપતા હોય, તો શું તેઓ એ બાબત સમજાવી શકશે કે, શા માટે જ. હમઝા (અ.સ.) સાથેનો સંબંધ ઈમામ હુસૈન (અ.સ.)ના જીવનને બચાવવા માટે પુરતો ન થયો? ઓછામાં ઓછું આજે કઈ ચીજ તેમને યઝીદને વખોડતા અને ઈમામ હુસૈન (અ.સ.)ની પ્રશંસા કરતા રોકે છે? તેમનો યઝીદ પ્રત્યેનો ઉંચો આદર હમઝા (અ.સ.)નું અપમાન છે. ખાસ એ કારણે કે યઝીદની દાદી હિન્દ જ. હમઝા (અ.સ.)ને શહીદ કર્યા હતા. યઝીદે જ.હમઝા (અ.સ.)ને કઈ રીતે યાદ કર્યા: એ યોગ્ય છે કે વાંચકોનું ધ્યાન તે અંગે ધ્યાન દોરીએ કે જ. હમઝા (અ.સ.) પ્રત્યે અને બની હાશીમના એ લોકો કે જેઓ બદ્ર અને ઓહદની જંગમાં શહીદ થયા તેમના અંગે યઝીદનો શું અભિપ્રાય હતો. કાઝી સનાઉલ્લાહ પાણીપતી (મૃત્યુ હી.સ. 1225)

قاتلان ِامام حسین کون؟

یسے تمام نواصب یہ جھوٹ پھیلاتے آئے ہیں کہ امام حسین کے قاتل شیعان ِ اھل بیت (ع) ھی تھے۔ اس آرٹیکل میں ھم اس جھوٹے دعوٰی میں موجود تمام خامیوں پر روشنی ڈالینگے۔ اس موضوع کے متعلق ناصبی حضرات کے دٰعوں کا خلاصہ یہ ہے۔

1. شیعوں نے امام حسین (ع) کو خطوط کے ذریعے کوفہ آنے کی دعوت دی تاکہ وہ ان کی بیعت کریں اور اپنا امام تسلیم کر سکیں۔

2. امام حسین (ع) نے حضرت مسلم بن عقیل کو اپنا نمائندہ بنا کر کوفہ روانہ کیا تاکہ وہ وہاں کی صحیح صورتحال کا جائزہ لے سکیں۔

3. شیعوں نے حضرت مسلم بن عقیل کے ذریعے امام حسین کی بیعت کی۔

4. عبیداللہ ابن ذیاد کی کوفہ آمد پر انہی شیعوں نے مسلم بن عقیل کا ساتھ چھوڑ دیا۔

5. شیعہ امام حسین کی مدد کرنے سے قاصر رہے جس کی وجہ سے اُن کا قتل ہوا۔

ھم نے اس آرٹیکل میں تمام تاریخی شواھد کو مد ِنطر رکھتے ہوے اھل ِکوفہ کے اصل عقیدہ کو بیان کیا ہے اور ساتھ میں یہ بھی واضح کیا ھے کہ سید الشھداء اور ان کے رفقاء کے اصل قاتل کون تھے اور آج کون اان قاتلان کے پیروکار ہیں۔​

خلافتِ شیخین کو ماننے والے سیاسی شیعہ بالمقابل عقیدتی امامی شیعہ
آج کل سپاہ صحابہ اور دیگر ناصبی لوگوں کی جانب سے بہت سننے میں آتا ہے کہ شیعوں نے حضرت علی، حضرت حسن، حضرت حسین اور اہل بیت کے دیگر آئمہ کا ساتھ نہ دیا یا انہیں قتل کر دیا اور اس سلسلے میں تاریخ کی کچھ کتابوں سے حوالاجات بھی پیش کر دئے جاتے ہیں لیکن سپاہ صحابہ کے مکار ناصبی صرف عام لوگوں کو ہی بیوقوف بنا سکتے ہیں، ہم شیعانِ اہل بیت کے سامنے ان باتوں اور ایسے حوالاجات رکھنے کی ان کی کبھی ہمت نہیں ہوگی کیونکہ وہ جانتے ہیں کہ ہم اس تاریخی حقیقت سے نا آشنا نہیں کہ پچھلے زمانے میں شیعہ ہونے کا وہ مطلب نہیں تھا جو آج ہے ، اُس وقت تو سب ہی کو بشمول جنہیں آج سنی کہا جاتا ہے ، شیعہ ہی کہا جاتا تھا۔ اب سوال یہ ہوتا ہے کہ اس وقت کے کس شیعہ گروہ نے وہ حرکات کیں جن کا الزام ناصبی حضرات آج کل کے شیعوں پر لگا رہے ہیں۔ بس اگر یہ بات سمجھ میں آگئی تو سارا مسئلہ ہی حل ہو جائیگا اور سپاہ صحابہ جیسے ناصبیوں کے مکروہ چہرے عیاں ہو جائینگے اور جو انشاء اللہ ہم اس آرٹیکل میں کرینگے۔

انصار ویب سائٹ کے مصنف کی پیٹ میں بھی کچھ ایسا ھی درد اٹھا

اس بات کا بھی خدشہ ہے کہ جن لوگوں نے سیدنا حسین کی مدد نہیں کی انہیں غیر شیعہ کہا جائے۔ جعفری لکھتا ہے

'ان میں سے جنہوں نے امام حسین کو کوفہ بلایا اور پھر وہ 1800 جو امام حسین کے نمائندمسلم بن عقیل کی خدمت میں آئے وہ تمام مذہبی اعتبار سے شیعہ نہیں تھے بلکہ سیاسی بنیاد پر علی کے گھرانے کے حمائتی تھے۔ یہ ایک فرق جو قدیم شیعہ تاریخ جاننے کے لئے واضح طور پر ذہن نشیں کر لینا چاہئے'

سید نا حسین کا ساتھ چھوڑنے والوں کو گھرانہِ علی کے پیروکاروں سے الگ رکھنے کا جعفری کا مقصد عیاں ہے۔ وہ اس حقیقت پر شرم سار ہے کہ یہ شیعہ ہی تھے جنہوں نے اپنے امام کو بغاوت کی قیادت کرنے کے لئے دعوت دی اور پھر ان کی مدد نہ کی۔ ہم جس چیز پر جعفری کے مذہبی اور سیاسی پیروکاروں میں فرق کرنے کو رد کرتے ہیں وہ یہ ہے کہ خود سید نا حسین نے کوفیوں کو ایک سے زیادہ مرتبہ اپنا شیعہ کہا۔ یہ عجیب بات ہے کہ شیعہ کوفہ کو اپنا نہیں تسلیم کرتے لیکن اپنی پہچان تحریک توابین کے ساتھ کرنے میں فخر محسوس کرتے ہیں۔ تحریکِ توابین کی ابتداء میں کی گئی تقاریر سے یہ واضح ہے کہ یہ وہی لوگ تھے جنہوں نے سید نا حسین کو آنے کی دعوت دی اور بعد میں ان کا ساتھ چھوڑ دیا۔ اس سلسلے میں ان کا یہی نام ان کی ندامت کو ظاہر کرتا ہے۔ شیعوں کی جانب سے سید نا حسین کا ساتھ نہ دینے کے گناہ سے دور رہنے کی کوشش اور کچھ نہیں بس ایک ضعیف کوشش ہے۔

جیسا کہ ہم نے پہلے ذکر کیا، اہل سنت کو یہ نام تو بہت بعد میں ملا، جس زمانے کا ناصبی مصنف نے ذکر کیا اُس دور میں تو سب کو شیعہ ہی کہا جاتا تھا جن میں آج کل کے اہل سنت بھی شامل تھے لہذا ناصبی مصنف جب پچھلےدور کا ذکر کرے تو واضح کرے کہ وہ کس شیعہ گروہ کی بات کرتا ہے؟ معروف شیعہ مخالف اسکالر محدث شاہ عبد العزیز دہلوی نے بھی تصدیق کی ہے کہ اُس وقت تمام مسلمان شیعہ ہی کہلائے جاتے تھے۔

" اور یہ بھی جاننا چاہئے کہ شیعہ اولیٰ کہ فرقہ سنیہ و تفضیلیہ ہر دو کو شامل ہے پہلے شیعہ کے لقب سے مشہور تھا اور جب غلاۃ ، روافض ، زیدیوں اور اسماعیلیوں نے یہ لقب اپنے لئے استعمال کیا اور عقائد و اعمال میں ان سے شر و قباح سرزد ہونے لگے تو حق و باطل کے مل جانے کے خطرہ سے فرقہ سنیہ اور تفضیلیہ نے اپنے لئے اس لقب کو ناپسند کیا اور اس کی جگہ اھل ِ سنت وجماعت کا لقب اختیار کیا
تحفہ اثنا عشری (اردو) ، صفحہ 16 ، نور محمد کتب خانہ ، آرام باغ کراچی

آج کل اثنا عشری یا امامی اہل تشیع ماضی میں "رافضی" کے نام سے جانے جاتے تھے۔ شیعہ کے لفظی معنی ہیں "گروہ" یا "حامی"۔ چونکہ اہلِ کوفہ نے جنگِ جمل و صفین میں علی ابن ابی طالب کا ساتھ دیا، اس لیے انہیں خالصتاً سیاسی معنوں میں"علی کا شیعہ" کہا جانے لگا یعنی حضرت علی کا حامی یا حضرت علی کا گروہ۔ اسکے مقابلے میں معاویہ کی فوج کو "شیعانِ معاویہ" یا پھر"شیعانِ عثمان" بھی کہا جاتا تھا۔ لیکن ان سیاسی شیعانِ عثمان یا شیعانِ علی کے علاوہ لفظ شیعہ کا استعمال ایک اور گروہ کے لئے بھی ہوتا تھا جو کہ اہل بیت علیہم السلام کا مذہبی اور عقیدتی معنوں میں سچا پیروکار تھا اور انہیں اللہ کی جانب سے براہ راست مقرر کردہ امام و خلیفہ بلافصل مانتا تھا اور جسے آج دنیا شیعہ اثنا عشری یا امامی شیعہ کے نام سے جانتی ہے، جنہوں نے کبھی بھی شیخین {یعنی حضرت ابوبکر و عمر} اور حضرت عثمان کی خلافت کو تسلیم نہیں کیا جبکہ دیگر شیعہ گروہ جن کا اوپر ذکر ہوا وہ ایسا کرتے تھے لہٰذا آج یہ لوگ اہلِ سنت و الجماعت کے نام سے جانے جاتے ہیں۔

آجکل جس مذہبی و عقیدتی گروہ کو 'مامی شیعہ' کہا جاتا ہے، انہیں ماضی میں عثمانیوں کی طرف سے مذھبی معنوں میں 'رافضی' کہا جاتا تھا جبکہ لفظ 'شیعہ' سیاسی معنوں میں ہر اُس شخص کے لیے استعمال ہوتا تھا جو کہ فوجِ معاویہ کے خلاف فوجِ علی میں شامل تھا، یا جس نے معاویہ کے خلاف علی ابن ابی طالب (ع) کی حمایت کی حالانکہ مذہبی طور پر وہ شخص شیخین (پہلے دو خلفاء) کی خلافت کو جائز و برحق مانتا تھا۔ لیکن وقت کے ساتھ ساتھ لفظ شیعہ کا یہ سیاسی استعمال ختم ہوتا گیا اور صرف مذہبی گروہ باقی رہ گیا جو اپنے آپ کو مستقل 'الشیعہ' کہتا رہا اور شیخین کی خلافت کو ماننے سے انکار کرتا رہا، جبکہ اُسکے مخالف اُسے 'رافضی' کہتے رہے۔

ناصبی حضرات کی جانب سے سیاسی شیعت کے وجود کا انکار

ناصبی حضرات ابھی تک اس بات کے انکاری ہیں کہ شیخین کی خلافت ماننے والوں کو ماضی میں کبھی شیعہ بھی کہا جاتا تھا۔ انکے اس دعویٰ پر حیرت ہے کیونکہ حقیقتِ حال یہ ہے کہ ان سیاسی شیعوں کا وجود کئی سو سالوں تک رہا ہے۔ مگر پھر بھی آج اگر سپاہ صحابہ جیسے نجس ناصبی ان سیاسی شیعوں کے وجود کے منکر ہیں، تو اسکی وجہ یہ ہے کہ اگر وہ اپنے ماننے والوں کو ان سیاسی شیعوں کی اصل حقیقت سے آگاہ کر دیں تو کوئی بھی اُنکے اس پروپیگنڈے پر توجہ نہیں دے گا کہ امامی شیعوں نے حسین (ع) کو قتل کیا ہے، لہٰذا وہ اپنی شیعہ دشمنی کی دکان مسلسل چلاتے رہنے کی غرض سے اس تاریخی حقیقت سے اپنے پیروکاروں کو آگاہ نہیں کرتے۔

آئیے اب ہم ثابت کرتے ہیں کہ ان خلافتِ شیخین کو ماننے والے سیاسی شیعوں کا وجود مولا علی (ع) کے دور سے شروع ہو کر کئی سو سال تک جاری رہا۔ شاہ عبد العزیز دہلوی اپنی مشہور شیعہ مخالف کتاب میں لکھتے ہیں:

سب سے پہلے وہ مہاجرین و انصار اور تابعین اس لقب شیعہ سے منقلب تھے جو ہر پہلو میں حضرت مرتضیٰ کی اطاعت و پیروی کرتے تھے اور وقت ِ خلافت سے ہی آپ کی صحبت میں رہے ، آپ کے مخالفین سے لڑے اور آپ کے امر و نواہی کو مانتے رہے۔ انہی شیعہ کو مخلصین کہتے ہیں۔ ان کے اس لقب کی ابتدا 37 ہجری سے ہوئی

What Happen to Hussain (AS) on the Day of Ashura ?

Tragedy of Karbala

Is it wrong to commemorate his martyrdom every year?

Courtesy : http://www.al-hadi.us/religion/index.html

I find it very unfortunate to discuss this question. Disturbingly, there are people who accuse the Shia'a of bida'a (innovation) because, every year, they intensely and passionately commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein, his family and companions at Karbala'. Every year and for 10 days, the followers of Ahlul Bayt commemorate and mourn over the tragedy of Karbala'. Is is really wrong, in principle, to commemorate Imam Hussein's martyrdom? What are these troubled and hateful people afraid of? Why do they not commemorate Imam Hussein as well? Is it really against the Sunnah to do so? Let me put it in a simpler way: is it wrong to commemorate the loss of a loved one? Is it not humane to do so? Did the prophet prohibit us to do so?? For the record, the true Ahlul Sunnah do not oppose this commemoration. The people who oppose this practice can not claim to be from Ahlul Sunnah. They are quite different and have their own agenda: oppose the Shia'a and make Kafir those who do not share their viewpoint.

Let me quote what ibn Katheer said in al-Bidaya wal-Nihaya and this exactly what these people say today about the Shia'a who commemorate the martyrdom of al-Hussein: 

Every Muslim will be saddened by the killing of Imam Hussein. He is from the leaders of the Muslims, and the son of the daughter of the messenger of Allah who is the preferred of his daughters. He was a great worshipper, courageous and generous. But it is not good when the Shia'a show their grief and sadness which is mostly artificial (theatrical) and hyprocritical.

His father was greater than him and he was killed. However, they do not commemorate his killing as they do for al-Hussein. His father was killed on a Friday while he was heading to Salat al-Fajr on 17th of Ramadan year 40 A.H. Similarly, Uthman was greater than Ali according to Ahlul Sunna wal-Jama'a. He was killed while under-siege in his residence in the month of Dhul-Hijja year 36 A.H. Yet the people do not commemorate his killing. Similarly, Umar is greater than Uthman and Ali. He was killed while praying Salat al-Fajr and reading the Quran. Yet, the people do not commemorate his killing. Similarly, al-Siddiq was greater than him and yet, the people do not commemorate his killing. And the prophet, who is the master of all in this world and the hereafter. He died as the prophets before him died. Yet, no one commemorates their death as these ignorant Rawaffid do for al-Hussein....

فكل مسلم ينبغي له أن يحزنه قتله رضي الله عنه، فإنه من سادات المسلمين، وعلماء الصحابة، وابن بنت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم التي هي أفضل بناته، وقد كان عابداً وشجاعاً وسخياً، ولكن لا يحسن ما يفعله الشيعة من إظهار الجزع والحزن الذي لعل أكثره تصنع ورياء. وقد كان أبوه أفضل منه فقتل، وهم لا يتخذون مقتله مأتماً كيوم مقتل الحسين، فإن أباه قتل يوم الجمعة وهو خارج إلى صلاة الفجر في السابع عشر من رمضان سنة أربعين، وكذلك عثمان كان أفضل من علي عند أهل السنة والجماعة. وقد قتل وهو محصور في داره في أيام التشريق من شهر ذي الحجة سنة ست وثلاثين، وقد ذبح من الوريد إلى الوريد، ولم يتخذ الناس يوم قتله مأتماً. وكذلك عمر بن الخطاب وهو أفضل من عثمان وعلي، قتل وهو قائم يصلي في المحراب صلاة الفجر ويقرأ القرآن، ولم يتخذ الناس يوم قتله مأتماً. وكذلك الصديق كان أفضل منه ولم يتخذ الناس يوم وفاته مأتماً، ورسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم سيد ولد آدم في الدنيا والآخرة، وقد قبضه الله إليه كما مات الأنبياء قبله، ولم يتخذ أحد يوم موتهم مأتماً يفعلون فيه ما يفعله هؤلاء الجهلة من الرافضة يوم مصرع الحسين. ولا ذكر أحد أنه ظهر يوم موتهم وقبلهم شيء مما ادعاه هؤلاء يوم مقتل الحسين من الأمور المتقدمة، مثل كسوف الشمس والحمرة التي تطلع في السماء، وغير ذلك. وأحسن ما يقال عند ذكر هذه المصائب وأمثالها ما رواه علي بن الحسين: عن جده رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أنه قال: ((ما من مسلم يصاب بمصيبة فيتذكرها وإن تقادم عهدها فيحدث لها استرجاعاً إلا أعطاه الله من الأجر مثل يوم أصيب منها)). رواه الإمام أحمد وابن ماجه.‏

Now the reasons why it is not wrong to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussein:

1. Is it wrong to periodically remember your lost loved ones? Is it inhumane? Is it Haram?? Is it wrong, inhumane and Haram to weep for them when remembered?? When the prophet lost his beloved uncle Abu Talib and his beloved wife Umna Khadija, two priceless losses and few days apart, the prophet called that year the year of Sadness (A'am al-Huzn). Badriddeen al-A'aini reported in U'umadatul Qari the following:
   
   
   ....because Abu Talib and Khadija died within three days. Sa'aed said in his book Kitab al-Nussuss that the prophet named this year the Year of Sadness...
   وأيا ما كان، فلم يشهد أمر أبي طالب لأنه توفي هو وخديجة في أيام ثلاثة، قال صاعد في (كتاب النصوص) : فكان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يسمي ذلك العام عام الحزن،
   
   Imam Abdul-Wahab al-Sha'arani wrote in Kashf al-Ghumma A'an Jami'i al-Ummah:
   
   Then Umna Khadija died after Abu Talib, and the prophet named that year the Year of Sadness.
   ثم توفيت خديجة رضي الله عنها بعد أبي طالب فسمى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ذلك العام عام الحزن
   ibn Mandhur al-Afriqi wrote in Lissan al-A'arab:
   
   The year of Sadness: it is the year in which Umna Khadija and Abu Talib died, so the prophet named that year the Year of Sadness.
   Tha'alab reported this from ibn al-Aa'arabi, who said: they both died 3 years before the Hijra (the migration to Medina).
   وعامُ الحُزْنِ: العامُ الذي ماتت فيه خديجةُ -رضي الله عنها- وأَبو طالب فسمّاه رسول الله -صلى الله عليه وسلم- عامَ الحُزْنِ.
   حكى ذلك ثعلب عن ابن الأَعرابي، قال: وماتا قَبْل الهِجرة بثلاث سنين.
   In fact the prophet never stopped remembering Umna Khadija, even while he was married to his other wives. This fact is well-known among the scholars of both denominations. This consistent remembrance made Umna A'aysha so jealous that she used to ill-describe her. The details of her jealousy can be found here: Umna Aysha.
   
   The point is the prophet continued to remember his beloved wife long after her death. This is the Sunnah of the prophet. For the prophet to declare the year he lost his uncle and his wife the Year of Sadness indicates that his loss affected him for a while. Therefore, remembrance of Imam al-Hussein is not against the Sunnah.
   
   

Why Imam Hussein (a.s.) Is not being forgotten?

The importance of the history of life of Imam Hussein (also Husayn) (a.s.) which has been converted to one of most sensational epics of human history is not only because of arousing most powerful waves of sensations of millions of people around itself every year and creates a ceremony which is more sensational than other ceremonies, but its importance is mostly because that: It has no “motive” other than pure religious and humanly and popular sensations and feelings and this magnificent ceremony that observes in respect and commemoration of this historical incident has no need to preliminaries and advertisements and it is unexampled in its kind in this aspect.

Most of us know this truth, but the point which has not been truly cleared for lot of people (especially non-Muslim thinkers) yet and still is remained like a puzzle in their minds is that: Why is this historical incident which has several similar examples in “quantity and quality” emphasized so much? Why does the ceremony which is observed in respect and commemoration of this memory set up more magnificent and more sensational from the last year?

Why today that there is no sign of “Umavi (related to Umayya) party” and their companions and heroes of this incident must have been forgotten, the incident of Karbala has become eternal?!

The answer to this question should be sought among the main motives of this revolution; we assume that analyzing this matter is not so hard and complicated for persons who are familiar with the history of Islam.

In more clear way, the bloody incident of Karbala is not a chart of a battle between two political competitors for achieving the throne of leadership or estates or lands.

Also, this incident has not been emanated from the explosion of hatreds of two hostile tribes which begins for gaining tribal privileges.

In fact, this incident is a clear scene of the battle between two doctrines related to individuals and beliefs that its blazing fire has not been extinguished during the adventurous history of mankind, from the farthest times to today; this fight is the continue of the fight of all prophets and reformer men of the world and in other hand it is the continue of the battles “Badr and Ahzab”.

We all know that when prophet of Islam (s.a.) arose as the leader of an intellectual and social revolution, for saving the mankind from all kinds of idolatry and superstitions and saving people from the claws of ignorance and oppression and collected the oppressed and truth-wanting groups of people who were the most important elements of evolution around himself, at this time oppositions of this reforming movement who were rich idolaters and usurious persons pf Mecca as their heads used all of their forces for repressing this voice of freedom and creativity of these anti-Islamic acts was in hands of “Umavi party” and their leader Abu Suffian.

Mourning ( Azadari ) is not a Bid'at ( Innovation ) - PROVED!!

First Objection:

 Martyrdom should be celebrated not mourned!!!
REPLY:-
Rasulullah(saww) mourned those that were martyred!!              

Many companions were martyred in the battles that took place during the time of the Holy Prophet (s) and of course all of them succeeded in their respective examinations. Hamza was named as the Lord of the Martyrs, and hence received a larger but rather than express joy at what his uncle had attained he cried and lamented over him and asked that the women of Quraysh to likewise.
1) Seerat un Nabi, volume 1, page 345.
2) Ma'arij al Nabuwat, Rukn 4, chapter (Bab) 6, page 123

Similarly we have already cited the incident where Holy Prophet (s) wept over the martyrdom of Jaffar Ibn Abi Talib (as). If mourning for a martyr is incorrect than what do Nawasib think about Holy Prophet (s)? The fact of the matter is that Prophet (s) himself gave best reply of the pathetic Nasibi belief for celeberating the martyrdom rather to mourn it.

The Holy Prophet (s) said : “Yes, Today Jafar has been martyred there, but the troubles and the plight that he went through before being martyred are very grieving.”
Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaya, Volume 4 page 673

This proves that mourning and lamenting for a martyr was practiced by the Holy Prophet (s) and hence it is Sunnah of the Prophet whilst celebrating the loss of a martyr has no textual proof.
1) Seerat un Nabi, volume 1, page 345.2) Ma'arij al Nabuwat, Rukn 4, chapter (Bab) 6, page 123
Similarly we have already cited the incident where Holy Prophet (s) wept over the martyrdom of Jaffar Ibn Abi Talib (as). If mourning for a martyr is incorrect than what do Nawasib think about Holy Prophet (s)? The fact of the matter is that Prophet (s) himself gave best reply of the pathetic Nasibi belief for celeberating the martyrdom rather to mourn it.
The Holy Prophet (s) said : “Yes, Today Jafar has been martyred there, but the troubles and the plight that he went through before being martyred are very grieving.”
Al-Bidayah wa al-Nihaya, Volume 4 page 673
This proves that mourning and lamenting for a martyr was practiced by the Holy Prophet (s) and hence it is Sunnah of the Prophet whilst celebrating the loss of a martyr has no textual proof.

 Lady Hajra mourned when she heard of her son’s pending death!!                    Traditions record that Hajra fainted when she visited the spot where her husband intended to slaughter his son. Some of the narrators say that it was this very grief that gradually caused her death. Nasibi logic would dictate that Hajra should have been doubly happy because her son was alive and also got the rewards for succeeding in the examination - she should have kept praising Ismail (as), however, she was a mother and not a foe, the latter would have been happy at the hardships faced by her son and husband. It is natural that whenever a loved one is in trouble, or if he has faced hardships, it always causes pain and sorrow, hence those who love Imam Husayn (as) will mourn and cry and his enemies will praise their persecutors.
 One can never rejoice over the terrible suffering of the Ahl’ul bayt (as)!!!
Whilst martyrdom is the sign of a great individual, it is also a time of reflection / sadness at an individual's suffering.
 One can never rejoice over the terrible suffering of the Ahl’ul bayt (as)!!!
Whilst martyrdom is the sign of a great individual, it is also a time of reflection / sadness at an individual's suffering. One can never rejoice over the terrible suffering of the Ahl’ul bayt (as)When our fourth Imam Zayn ul Abideen (as)was asked that which incident was of most pain to you during and after the Karbala? Imam (as) replied"Shaam! Shaam! Shaam!"

Although martyrdom is a high status a fact recognised by our Imams, the unveiling the daughters of Muhammad (s), making them prisoners and parading then bare head and foot through the streets of Damascus, is not a happy occasion, is this something that the Bani Hashim should be proud of? Should they rejoice at such humiliation?
Although martyrdom is a high status a fact recognised by our Imams, the unveiling the daughters of Muhammad (s), making them prisoners and parading then bare head and foot through the streets of Damascus, is not a happy occasion, is this something that the Bani Hashim should be proud of? Should they rejoice at such humiliation?

SECOND OBJECTION:
Shia rituals are a waste of money Shi'a waste money and blood on this Day - why? 

Reply –
        The Eid sacrifice should likewise be deemed a waste of money
At Mina on one day hundreds of thousands of goats are slaughtered and there meat often goes to waste, if its okay for such a waste of money on that day then why the objection to mourning for Imam Husayn (as)? If such spending at Mina is remember the event of Ismail (as) the Shi'a can also do the same on Ashura.

When our fourth Imam Zayn ul Abideen (as) was asked that which incident was of most pain to you during and after the Karbala? Imam (as) replied"Shaam! Shaam! Shaam!"
Although martyrdom is a high status a fact recognised by our Imams, the unveiling the daughters of Muhammad (s), making them prisoners and parading then bare head and foot through the streets of Damascus, is not a happy occasion, is this something that the Bani Hashim should be proud of? Should they rejoice at such humiliation?

THIRD OBJECTION:
You cannot mourn over someone that is alive! 

Imam Husayn (as) is alive so why do you do participate in mourning rituals for the living? 

Reply – 

          This exposes the hypocrisy of the Nawasib
Herein lies clear proof of Nasibi contradictions. When we debate on the concept of using the Imams (as) as a means of approach the same Nasibi objects, saying that you can't seek help from the dead!
Is this not a blatant contradiction! For these Nasibi Mullah there example is like that of a dog in Surah Araf 007.176
"His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect."

FOURTH OBJECTION:    

Quran prohibits the visiting of graves! 

Allah has forbidden us to visit graves, as is clear from Surah Tauba, so why do the Shi'a create image depicting the grave of Imam Husayn (as)?
Reply –

This prohibition refers to the graves of hypocrites!
In this verse Allah has forbidden the holy Prophet (s) to go to the grave of a Munafiq. Hence a person who thinks that his parents or Imams are Munafiq should abstain from going to their graves and making their images.

FIFTH OBJECTION:

– Azadari is an unnecessary waste of public money!!The Shi'a population give a lot of money to Ulama and Zakireen, that's why they are not speaking against this. If they don't get this money, then this Azadari will also come to an end.

Reply –
Those that donate towards Azadari are duly rewarded by Allah (swt)
[Shakir 9:74] ... because Allah and His Messenger enriched them out of His grace; therefore if they repent, it will be good for them; and if they turn back, Allah will chastise them with a painful chastisement in this world and the hereafter, and they shall not have in the land any guardian or a helper.Look at how these people are getting jealous. These Mullahs receive no grace for implementing the of bidah of Tarawih, whereas the Shi'a Ulama and Zakireen praise Ali (as) and his family, and Allah blesses them with His grace in this world and in the next. The Nasibi Mullahs are people who keep burning in jealousy here, and also in the next world. Inshallah.

SIXTH OBJECTION:
All symbols associated with Azadari are false
The Shi/'a processions depict false Blood and False Arrows, the blood and arrows is placed over the Zuljanah, upon which Shi'as weep is false.
Reply:
                  When the brothers of Yusuf (as) came to Yaqub (as) and told him that their brother Yusuf (as) had been eaten by a wolf, and that all that remained was his bloodied shirt, the blood was not that of Yusuf (as), but was kept by Yaqub (as) as a symbol over his suffering. Yaqub (as) would weep bitterly when looking at that replica. The cradle of six month old Asghar (as) is not the real cradle, but it symbolises the suffering of a six month old child, as such we think of him (as) when we look at the cradle, remembering that a child of such a tender age met a fate wherein an arrow used to hunt wild beasts was fired in to his neck. Yaqoob (as) placed the shirt over his eyes and bloodies his face with it.
We can see that the Sunnah of one Prophet was to look at the replica and mourn over it profusely.
Yaqub (as) started weeping bitterly after looking at that replica. If such symbols constitute Bidah or shirk, then the Nawasib should apply a Fatwa on the Nabi (as) in the first instance. All of these symbols serve as a reminder of the tragedy of Karbala, and the callous manner in which innocent men were killed, and their women folk taken prisoner. We weep in the same way that Yaqub (as) wept over the sufferings of his son.

SEVENTH OBJECTION:

In Repudiation of The Criticisms on Azadari of Imam Husain (a.s.)

ઇમામે મઝલુમની અઝાદારીના વિરોધોના જવાબો

Mumbai’s largest circulated daily newspaper, The Times of India had published an article on February 6, 2006 by an extremist, Abu Bakr, captioned ‘Why should Muharram be considered sacred?’ The article and its claims were effectively debunked in the same newspaper. Following is the gist of the article.

Mr. Abu Bakr: Unfortunately your inability to follow the teachings of Islam is reflected in your writings. Let us examine what you have written and what the reality actually is.

You wrote:

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

The Answer:

The hadith you have quoted is in actuality thus:

The Prophet (s.a.w.a) on migrating to Madina found the Jews fasting on the 10th of Muharram. On enquiry, he was told: “It is an auspicious day; it is the day when God delivered the children of Israel from their enemy (i.e. Pharaoh); and, therefore, Moses fasted on that day.” The Prophet (s.a.w.a) said, “I am worthier of Moses than you are.” Thereupon, he fasted on that day and ordered (the Muslims) to fast.

(Al- Saheeh of al-Bukhari, Vol.3; Egypt ed.; p.54. Mishkatul-Masabih; Delhi ed.; 1307 A.H.; p.l72)

It is noted by the commentator of Mishkatul-Masabih that “it was in the second year, because in the first year the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had arrived at Madina after ‘Aashura, in Rabi’ul-awwal.”

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

The first month of the Jews (Abib, later named Nisan) coincided with Rajab of the Arabs. W.O.E.Oesterley and Theodore H.Robinson have written that in Arabia “the most important of all the new-moon festivals was that which fell in the month of Rajab (sic), equivalent to the Hebrew month ‘Abib, for this was the time when the ancient Arabs celebrated the Spring festival.” (Hebrew Religion; S.P.C.K., London; 1955; p.128)

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

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

You wrote:

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

You further state:

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

The Answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You wrote:

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

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

The Answer:

This is nothing but blind prejudice since there are no traditions which state that it is haraam (unlawful) to conduct weddings on Aashura or in month of  Muharram and Safar. I would like to ask you that will you get married on the day your father or mother die or will you postpone it for a month or so as a mark of respect or consideration? (I wouldn’t be surprised if you say  – there is no harm).

You wrote:

Lamentations, breast-beating and mourning in memory of Husain’s martyrdom are not sanctioned by Islam. Though such martyrdoms are tragic, the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) has forbidden holding mourning ceremonies on the death of any person.

People of Jaahiliyyah (ignorance) used to mourn over their deceased then The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) stopped the Muslims …………..”

The Answer:

Hasn’t it occurred to you that had it not been for these mourning rituals, the distinction between the path of Imam Husain (a.s.) and that of Yazid would have been destroyed. Yazid will for ever be deemed as a hateable man who symbolises filth, shame, debauchery, decadence, immorality, mental corruption, and all the ingredients existent in the DNA of Iblis (Devil).

We deem our Azadari (mourning) as the means via which we can express our sorrow for the Ahle bait (a.s.). The words of Imam of Ahle Sunnah Allamah Fakhrudeen Raadhi are very important:

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

(Tafseer-a-Kabir, vol. 7, p. 390, line No. 9)

Crying and Blood shed for Imam Husain (as) from Qur'an

فَمَا بَكَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ السَّمَاءُ وَالْأَرْضُ وَمَا كَانُوا مُنْظَرِينَ

"And neither heaven nor earth shed a tear over them: nor were they given a respite (again)"

Holy Quran Sura Dhukhan, Verse:29  (44:29)

---Tafseer of the above verse in narrations from the Imam's (as)---

Ibrahim Al Nakhai narrates:

عن إبراهيم النَّخعيِّ قال : خرج أمير المؤمنين عليه السلام فجلس في المسجد واجتمع أصحابه حوله وجاءَ الحسين عليه السلام حتّى قام بين يديه فوضع يده على رأسه فقال : يا بني إنَّ الله عَيَّرَ أقواماً بالقُرآن ، فقال : فما بَكَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ السَّماءُ وَالأرضُ وَما كانُوا مُنظَرينَ ، وأيْمُ اللهِ ليَقتلنّك بَعدي ، ثمّ تبكيك السَّماءُ والأرض

The Commander of the Believers (as) came out and sat in the mosque and his companions gathered around him. Then Imam Husain (as) came and stood in front of him.

The Commander of the Believers (as) placed his hand over the head of Husain (as) and said:

O My Son! Allah has degraded some people in the Quran by saying; neither did the heavens weep over them, nor the earth, nor were they granted respite’ (44:29). I swear to Allah that they will kill you after me and then the heavens and the earth will weep over you.

[Note: There are many more narrations which say the same as in this narration]

Source: Kamil Al Ziyarat Chapter.28 Hadees.2

http://www.rafed.net/books/doaa/kamil/k08.html#93    

---How did the heavens and the Earth weep for Imam Husain (as)??---

Narrated from Umar ibn Wahab, from his father, who said:

أخبرنا عُمَرُ بنُ وَهْب ، عن أبيه ، عن عليِّ بن الحسين عليهما السلام قال : إنَّ السّماء لم تبكِ منذ وضعتْ إلاّ على يحيى بن زَكريّا والحسين بن عليِّ عليهم السلام ، قلت : أيّ شيء كان بكاؤها؟ قال : كانت إذا استقبلت بثوب وقع على الثَّوب شبه أثر البراغيث من الدَّم

Ali ibn Husain (as) [Imam Sajjad (as)] said:

The Heavens have never wept over anyone since the day they were created except for Yahya ibn Zakariyya (as) and Husain bin Ali (as).

I asked, “How did the heavens weep?”

Imam (as) replied, “If you would have faced (the wind) with a garment, you would have seen something similar to a red mist of blood on it.”

Source: Kamil Al Ziyarat Chapter.28 Hadees.12

http://www.rafed.net/books/doaa/kamil/k08.html#93 

Imam Raza (as) in a long narration to Riyan ibn Shabeeb:

يا ابن شبيب لقد حدثني أبي ، عن أبيه ، عن جده أنه لما قتل جدي الحسين أمطرت السماء دما وترابا أحمر

Imam Raza (as) said, “O Ibn Shabeeb! My father narrated that his father (s) quoted on the authority of his grandfather (s) that when they murdered my grandfather Al-Hussein (s), the heavens cried (dark) red blood and dirt.

Source: Uyun Akhbar Al Riza Vol.1 Pg.299 / Bihar Al Anwar Vol.44 Pg. 286

http://www.al-shia.org/html/ara/books/lib-hadis/behar44/a29.html


Dawud bin Farqad narrates:

عن داودَ ابن فَرْقَد قال : سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول : كان الَّذي قَتَلَ الحسينَ بنَ عليٍّ عليهما السلام ولد زنا ، والَّذي قَتل يحيى بن زَكريّا ولد زنا ، وقال : احمرَّتِ السَّماء حين قُتل الحسين بن عليٍّ سنة ، ثمّ قال : بَكتِ السَّماء والأرض على الحسين بن عليٍّ وعلى يحيى بن زَكريّا ، وحُمرتها بُكاؤها

I heard Aba Abdillah (as) [Imam Sadiq (as)] say:

The Killer of Husain ibn Ali (as) was conceived illegitimately and the killer of Yahya ibn Zakariyya (as) was also conceived illegitimately. When Husain ibn Ali (as) was killed, the heavens turned red for one year.The heavens and the earth have (only) wept over Husain ibn Ali (as) and Yahya ibn Zakariyya (as) and the heavens weep by becoming red.

Source: Kamil Al Ziyarat Chapter.28 Hadees.21

http://www.rafed.net/books/doaa/kamil/k08.html#93    

Narrated from Ali bin Mus-hir Al Quraishi who said:

عن عليِّ بن مُسْهِر القُرَشيِّ «قال : حدَّثتني جدَّتي أنّها أدركتِ الحسين بن عليٍّ عليهما السلام حين قُتل فمكثنا سنة وتسعة أشهر ، والسّماء مثلُ العَلّقةِ مثلُ الدَّم ، ما ترى الشَّمس

My grandmother told me that she was alive at the time of killing of Husain bin Ali (as).

She said, “The heavens turned red like blood after the killing of Husain (as) for one year and nine months, and we could not (even) see the sun.”

Source: Kamil Al Ziyarat Chapter.28 Hadees.5

http://www.rafed.net/books/doaa/kamil/k08.html#93 

Abi Ma’shar narrates from Al Zuhri who said:

حدَّثني أبو مُعْشر ، عن الزُّهْريّ قال : لمّا قتل الحسين عليه السلام أمطرتِ السّماء دماً . لمّا قتل الحسين عليه السلام لم يبق في بيت المَقْدِس حَصاةٌ إلاّ وجد تحتها دمٌ عَبيط

When Husain (as) was killed, the heavens rained blood, and no stone was removed in Bayt Al-Maqdis without (one) seeing fresh blood under it.

Source: Kamil Al Ziyarat Chapter.28 Hadees.20

http://www.rafed.net/books/doaa/kamil/k08.html#93

12th Imam (atfs) Shedding tears of blood for Imam Husain (as)

Imam of the time, Imam Az Zaman (atfs) himself says the following in Ziyarat-e-Nahiya:

  فَلَئِنْ أَخَّرَتْنِى الدُّهُورُ ، وَ عاقَني عَنْ نَصْرِك َ الْمَقْدُورُ وَ لَمْ أَكُنْ لِمَنْ حارَبَك َ مُحارِباً، وَ لِمَنْ نَصَبَ لَك َ الْعَداوَةَ مُناصِباً ، فَلاََ نْدُبَنَّك َ صَباحاً وَ مَسآءً ، وَ لاََبْكِيَنَّ لَك َ بَدَلَ الدُّمُوعِ دَماً

"Since I haw been pushed behind by the passage of time and being prevented from helping you by fate and I could not fight those who had fought you. And (since) I had rot been able to face your enemies I will continue to weep morning and evening and weep for you with tears of blood."

Source: Ziyarat Al Nahiya.
http://www.ziaraat.org/other/nahiya.php

Fasting on the Day of Ashura

By all standards, the day Imam Hussain, the grandson of the beloved Prophet Muhammad, was killed was a great tragedy. Indeed, it was the greatest tragedy. He was martyred, along with his family members, simply because he stood against injustice. The family of Yazeed (the Banu Umayyah) and the family of Ziyad rejoiced the day he was killed. Not only did they celebrate the day of Ashura, but they turned it into a tradition for subsequent years. They would gather their family and friends and rejoice at the martyrdom of Imam Hussain.

While fasting is a great form of worship, we the Shia have valid reservations regarding the fast of Ashura. It is always recommended to fast, anytime throughout the year (except Eid), but the problem is that there is a history of politics behind the fast of Ashura.

Killing the very grandson of the Prophet was a major crime, so Banu Umayya attempted to shift the focus of the people for the day of Ashura. Possessing power and money, they spread to the Muslims that Ashura is a blessed day. They did so by indoctrinating their people that on Ashura God saved Prophet Musa and his people from the pharaoh. He saved Prophet Ibrahim from the fire of Namrud, and so on. To thank God for that blessed day, they encouraged the people to fast on Ashura.

Here are several points that demonstrate how the hadeeths which speak of the fast of Ashura are fabricated. The Prophet probably never said them, but they were forged after him.

First: There are several hadeeths in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Tirmidhi which tell us when the Prophet arrived Medina, he saw the Jews fasting, Upon knowing the reason why they were fasting, he said we the Muslims are closer to Musa, so we should also fast. If you analyze these hadeeths, you will realize that they all go back to these four narrators who supposedly narrated them directly from the Prophet:

1- Ibn Abbas

2- Abu Musa Al-Ash’ari

3- Abu Huraira

4- Mu’awiya

The Prophet came to Medina the first year of the Hijra. As for Ibn Abbas, he was born three years before Hijra, which makes him four years old when the Prophet supposedly said this Hadith. In the Science of Hadith, the narration of a four-year-old boy is generally not accepted.

As for Abu Musa, he came from the tribe of Banu Ash’ar in Yemen. He became Muslim before the Hijra, but he was not seen in Medina till the battle of Khaybar in the seventh year after Hijra. The Prophet had sent him to Yemen to preach to his tribe. Hence, Abu Musa was not in Medina in the first year of Hijra, so how could he possibly narrate this hadith?

As for Abu Huraira, he also was not seen in Medina until after the battle of Khaybar in the seventh year of Hijra. He also came from Yemen.

As for Muawiya, the son of Abu Sufyan, he became Muslim in the eighth year of Hijra, so how could he narrate a hadith from the Prophet seven or eight years before he became Muslim?

Some of the hadeeth go back to Ibn Zubayr, who was also a young boy when the Prophet entered Medina.

Therefore, it is quite clear that all the narrators of this hadith were either not in Medina at the time, or they were young boys, so how can we possibly accept such a hadith? It is pretty convincing that the hadith was forged later on by Bani Umayya.

Second: Let’s look at the word “Ashura” which is mentioned in the hadith. According to Ibn Al-Atheer, there are two meanings to Ashura: an old meaning and a new meaning. The old meaning, which was during the Arab’s time and the Prophet’s time, meant the tenth day of any month. The new meaning surfaced after Imam Hussain was killed on the tenth of Muharram. After that, Ashura came to be known as the tenth of Muharram, but before that it was simply the tenth day of any month. So when the Prophet supposedly said this hadith, he just said Ashura, and he didn’t say the tenth day of which month. This demonstrates that the hadith was forged after the day of Ashura, and it slipped from the mind of the ones who forged it that before Ashura, the word had a different, more general meaning.

Third: Today, go to any Jew, even their scholars, and ask them: Do you have a fast on the day which God saved Moses, or a day which corresponds to the tenth of Muharram? They don’t, and they will tell you that even in the past they didn’t have such a fast. They fast on Yum Kippur, the day when Moses returned from Mt. Sinai and realized that his people were worshipping the calf. To expiate for their sin, they fasted, but they have no fast they day God saved them from the pharaoh. But the hadith in the books of Saheeh tells us that it was a tradition of the Jews, and they would all fast that day.

If you even look at the day the Jews fast, it never corresponded with the tenth of Muharram when the Prophet came to Medina. It corresponded with Muharram on the 28th year after Hijra.

Fourth: It seems the one who forged the hadith was not aware of how the Islamic Calendar originated. During the time of Umar, since Muslims wanted a set date to refer to, he created the Hijri calendar by seeking the advice of Imam Ali. So they decided to make the starting point the migration of the Prophet, and they made the first month Muharram. However, the Prophet entered Medina in Rabi-ul-Awwal, not in Muharram, and so the one who probably forged the hadith assumed that the Prophet entered Medina in Muharram because that is when the calendar starts. So the hadith tells us the Prophet when he first entered Medina he saw the Jews fasting on Ashura, but the Prophet didn’t enter Medina in Muharram, he did so in Rabu-ul-Awwal, ten months before Muharram! There’s a clear discrepancy here.

Fifth: The prophet knows more about the Shariah of previous Prophets such as Prophet Musa, and he doesn’t need the Jews to teach him that. The Prophet is also higher than copying what the Jews would do.

Sixth: How come there is so much emphasis on the fast of Ashura around the world? Thousands of speeches are dedicated to it, millions of pamphlets are distributed encouraging people to fast on Ashura, and so on. There are many other days throughout the year which are highly recommended to fast, such as the 27th of Rajab, but how come you don’t see a single pamphlet or speech encouraging it? This shows that this is a political thing, originally designed to focus the attention away from the Martyrdom of Imam Hussain, and to consider it a blessed day. I don’t know how anyone can stand on the Day of Judgment before Prophet Muhammad and consider the very day his grandson was slaughtered a blessed day.

Thus, based on these reasons we Shia have our reservations on the fast of Ashura. Banu Umayya were behind it, and considering it a blessed day is not an offence to us the Shia, but an offence to Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him and his family.

-Syed Baqir Al Qazwini

Do Shias exaggerate the reward for Ziyarah of Imam Husain (a.s.)?

Some Muslims accuse the Shias of fabricating traditions regarding the ziyaarah of Imam Husain (a.s.), the Chief of Martyrs. They claim traditions that consider ziyaarah of Imam Husain (a.s.) equal to visiting Allah on His Throne (Arsh) and equal to hundreds of Hajj and Umrah are an exaggeration and are not supported by the Holy Quran or the intellect.

Reply

Such objections only show the dissenting party’s poor knowledge of Allah’s Book and the correct Sunnah. Let alone Imam Husain’s (a.s.) ziyarah, even simple acts of goodness can earn the reward of meeting Allah.

In Surah Kahf (18): Verse 110, Allah the Almighty declares:

فَمَن كَانَ يَرْجُو لِقَاء رَبِّهِ فَلْيَعْمَلْ عَمَلًا صَالِحًا وَلَا يُشْرِكْ بِعِبَادَةِ رَبِّهِ أَحَدًا

“…therefore whoever hopes to meet his Lord, he should do good deeds, and not associate anyone in the worship of his Lord.”

Performing good deeds is rewarded with meeting the Lord (لِقَاء رَبِّهِ). The good deed can be any one of the hundreds of good deeds defined by the Holy Quran and the correct Sunnah. It can be as basic as spending a dirham in the way of Allah the High.

Then why is it surprising if the ziyarah of Imam Husain (a.s.) is rewarded with meeting Allah on the Arsh? It must be noted over here that mention of Arsh in the tradition does not restrict Allah to a position; it underlines His magnificence and splendor and the importance of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) visitor.

Moreover, there are traditions which give so much importance to a believer (momin) that it boggles the mind. For instance:

‘The heart of a believer is Allah’s (Rahmaan) Arsh. When a believer’s heart is disturbed, it shakes the foundation of the Arsh.’

• Behaar al-Anwaar vol.. 55 p. 39
• Mer’aat al-Uqool fi Sharh-e-Akhbaar-e-Aal al-Rasool (a.s.), vol.. 12 p. 230

In a Hadis Qudsi, Allah the Almighty says, ‘The believer is from Me and I am from the believer.’

• Al-Jawaaher al-Saneeyyah of Shaikh Hurr al-Aamili (r.a.)

These traditions conclude that respecting a believer is a cause for divine proximity and is like revering Allah on His Arsh.

Then why is it surprising if Allah on His Arsh is pleased with the one visiting Imam Husain b. Ali (a.s.) who along with his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.) is the Chief of the Youths of Paradise?

The second argument that the reward for ziyarah is inconceivable and unacceptable to the intellect is just as ridiculous. How can the intellect perceive why and how Allah rewards a Muslim for a particular action?

Prophet Zakariyyah (a.s.) was puzzled to see the food near Janab Maryam (s.a.) especially since her chamber was not frequented by any mortal.

كُلَّمَا دَخَلَ عَلَيْهَا زَكَرِيَّا الْمِحْرَابَ وَجَدَ عِندَهَا رِزْقاً قَالَ يَا مَرْيَمُ أَنَّى لَكِ هَـذَا قَالَتْ هُوَ مِنْ عِندِ اللّهِ إنَّ اللّهَ يَرْزُقُ مَن يَشَاء بِغَيْرِ حِسَابٍ

 “…whenever Zakariya entered the sanctuary to (see) her, he found with her food. He said: O Marium! whence comes this to you? She said: It is from Allah. Surely Allah gives to whom He pleases without measure.”

(Surah Aale Imran (3): Verse 37)

Janab Maryam’s (s.a.) response clearly states that Allah rewards those He pleases to the extent He pleases even to the amazement of His Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

There are many verses of the Noble Quran which state this fact:

أَن يُنَزِّلُ اللّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ

 “…Allah should send down of His grace on whomsoever of His servants He pleases…”

(Surah Baqarah (2): Verse 90)

وَاللّهُ يَخْتَصُّ بِرَحْمَتِهِ مَن يَشَاء وَاللّهُ ذُو الْفَضْلِ الْعَظِيمِ

 “…and Allah chooses especially whom He pleases for His mercy, and Allah is the Lord of mighty grace.”

(Surah Baqarah (2): Verse 105)

Jo Hussain se Ladenga - By Tahir ul Qadri

Was Imam Husain (a.s.) killed by Yazid or his Shias?

Doubt

A section of the Muslims who find themselves in a spot while defending Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.) make lame excuses and indulge in Shia-bashing as if maligning Shias is the answer to all their woes. Among their most ludicrous claims is that the Shias themselves killed Imam Husain (a.s.) and are now repenting for the same.

Reply

1. Who killed Hamzah?

2. Role of companions

3. Yazid’s role

4. Who are the Shias?

5. Yazid’s forces were not Shias

Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)?

Who killed Ammar?

This lame excuse reminds one of the argument advanced by Yazid’s father nearly 1,400 years ago when he found himself similarly cornered in Siffeen on the count of being responsible for Ammar’s (r.a.) death, a fact prophesied by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

To deflect blame for killing Ammar b. Yasir (r.a.), one of the greatest companions for whom Paradise was assured, Muawiyah conveniently shifted the blame for the crime of murdering Ammar to Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) Ali b. Abi Talib (a.s.) by suggesting that since Ali (a.s.) had got Ammar to the Battle of Siffeen, he was the one responsible for killing Ammaar and not Muawiyah.

Going by Muawiyah’s rationale the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) is likewise responsible for killing his own uncle Hamzah who came to the Battlefield of Ohad on his (s.a.w.a.) instruction!

Apparently, shifting the blame from the perpetrator of the crime to those who are the farthest in committing it is the most favored response of these Muslims.

Let us see how we can identify the perpetrators of other crimes using the rationale of these Muslims.

Who killed Hamzah (a.s.)?

1. Of course, conventional wisdom suggests as backed by history that the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) lies with the infidels of Mecca who waged war against the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Muslims.

2. And we have also seen that according to Muawiyah’s rationale, the responsibility for killing Hamzah (a.s.) was with the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.).

3. According to the rationale of these Muslims, the responsibility for Hamzah’s death lies with another group altogether. Let’s refer to the 153rd verse of Surah Aale Imran (3) to find the answer:

‘When you ran off precipitately and did not wait for anyone, the Apostle was calling you from your rear…’

Since according to these Muslims, the treachery of the Shias killed Imam Husain (a.s.), it follows that the treachery of the companions in the Battle of Ohad killed Hamzah (a.s.).

However, for obvious reasons these Muslims won’t admit this fact and will apply their rationale selectively against the Shias.

Who killed Usman?

1. Conventional wisdom suggests that Usman was killed by the Muslims who laid siege to his house and ultimately killed him for his misguided policies.

2. But according to the rationale of these Muslims who put the blame squarely on those who act treacherously, the blame for killing Usman lies with his cousin – Muawiyah b. Abu Sufyan.

It is not a secret that the siege on Usman’s house lasted for over a month during which time he sent SOS to, among others, his cousin Muawiyah. However, for the period Usman was under siege which was considerable, Muawiyah did not send in his army to bail out Usman. This despite the fact that Muawiyah had a huge army at his disposal which only two years later took on the might of the entire Muslim army in Siffeen.

If Muawiyah had shown the same alacrity and enthusiasm in sending help to Medina to rescue Usman, that his son Yazid showed after ascending the throne to demand allegiance from Imam Husain (a.s.) in Medina, Usman’s life could well have been saved. Regardless, does this mean that Usman was a victim of Muawiyah’s treachery rather than the Muslims who actually killed him?

Going by the argument of these Muslims, the answer is yes – Muawiyah killed Usman.

Role of companions

Who killed Imam Husain (a.s.)?

According to this group of Muslims, Imam Husain (a.s.) was a victim of treachery by the Shias.

First and foremost if blame must be placed based on treachery, the companions and taabe’een displayed it in ample measure by not supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) against Yazid.

Treachery of the companions and taabe’een

In order to show Yazid in a positive light, these Muslims themselves claim that:

‘Several hundreds of companions despite being alive at the time kept aloof from the battle at Karbala to save the nation from entanglement and bloodshed. Had it been an encounter between good and evil, the companions who throughout their lives had not shirked jihad would have definitely thrown all their weight behind Imam Husain (a.s.).’

So the companions stayed away from Karbala citing confusion between truth and falsehood and not wanting to create bloodshed.

If the companions and taabe’een were indeed confused, then it is despite the fact that the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) had often declared that Imam Husain (a.s.) is the Lamp of Guidance and the Ark of Salvation. And that Imam Husain (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.) were the Chiefs of the Youths of Paradise. And that both of them were his sons according to the Verse of Mubahelah in Surah Aale Imran (3): 61 when they along with the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and their parents Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) confronted the Christians of Najraan for malediction and drove them into submission.

Moreover, the Quran, which was a sufficient recourse for the Muslims after the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) demise, has prescribed a solution for confusion:

‘…so ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know.’ (Surah Nahl (16): Verse 43)

It is a common fact recorded by Sunni commentators of the Noble Quran that Imam Husain (a.s.) was among the People of the Reminder (Ahle Zikr).

Scores of Sunni scholars over the years have recorded these and other virtues of Imam Husain (a.s.) in their books.

Why did the companions and taabe’een, who were present in the time of Imam Husain (a.s.) and were witness to many of these narrations and incidents, lack the judgment to distinguish between Imam Husain (a.s.) and Yazid?

More so when we find clear instructions from the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) urging the Muslims to support Imam Husain (a.s.) as evident from the following narration:

The Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) companion Anas b. Haaris relates –

I heard Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.) say: ‘Verily my son, (Husain), will be killed in a land called Karbala; whoever amongst you is alive at that time must go and help him.’

Tarikh-o-Damishq vol 14 p 223

Are these Muslims suggesting that Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqqas, who led Yazid’s army in Karbala and was among the leading taabe’een, and the son of a leading companion, had never heard of Imam Husain’s (a.s.) virtues? This despite the fact that Imam Husain (a.s.) was also his cousin? Then why did he fight Imam Husain (a.s.)? If this is not an example of treachery by the companions and taabe’een then what is?

It follows that the confusion between truth and falsehood was not the reason for the companions abandoning support to Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala. It was plain treachery which we saw in ample measure in Ohod and Hunain despite the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) presence in their midst. Obviously when the companions did not support the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in his life time, it is too much to expect them to support his grandson (a.s.) 50 years after his (s.a.w.a.) demise.

Therefore we hold the companions responsible for abandoning their duty in supporting Imam Husain (a.s.) in Karbala and in this way being responsible for killing him.

Yazid’s role

Yazid’s role in killing Imam Husain (a.s.)

Of course, notwithstanding everyone else who contributed to the turn of events in Karbala, Yazid’s role is unmistakable. He is the one who sought to subjugate Imam Husain (a.s.) into giving him allegiance as various historical records testify.

We read in Maqtal al-Husain of Khaarazmi:

Yazid wrote: ‘Force Husain, Abdullah b. Umar and Abdullah b. Zubair to give allegiance and don’t spare them.’

We also find in the same source:

When he (Waleed) read Yazid’s letter for him (Marwan) and consulted him in the matter and said: ‘What do you think we shall do?’ He (Marwan) replied: ‘Send for them now and ask them to give allegiance and obey us. If they accept, we will let them go but if they reject you should arrest them and strike off their heads.

This is clearly Yazid demanding allegiance and triggering the chain of events culminating in Imam Husain’s (a.s.) martyrdom. All other excuses like Shias killing Imam Husain (a.s.) and Imam Husain (a.s.) revolting against Yazid etc. have no merit and are only advanced to hide the real culprit – Yazid b. Muawiyah.

Yazid’s letter to Ubaidullah b. Ziyad (l.a.)

We read in Mataalib al-So’l:

Ibn Ziyad wrote to Husain – I have received information that you have arrived in Karbala, and Yazid has told me not to kill you, provided you accept his authority and mine.

Jalaluddin Suyuti records in Taarikh al-Khulafaa:

Yazid wrote to his governor in Iraq, Ubaidullah b. Ziyad, ordering him to fight him (Husain). Therefore, he (Ibn Ziyad) sent an army consisting of four thousand people led by Umar b. Saad b. Abi Waqaas.

Zahabi records in Siyar Aalam al-Nobala, vol.3 p. 305:

Muhammad Ibn al-Dahak narrated from his father: When Husain marched, Yazid wrote to his governor Ibn Ziyad: Husain is marching to Kufa and he is a problem of your time not of other times, your state not of other states and you not for the other governors. At that time you might be free or be slaved.’ Therefore Ibn Ziyad killed him (on Yazid’s beckoning) and sent his head to him (Yazid).

Ibn Ziyad’s own admission that he killed Imam Husain (a.s.) on Yazid’s orders

In Taarikh al-Kaamil, vol.4 p. 112, we find:

He (Yazid) wrote to Ubaidullah b. Ziyad ordering him to march towards Medina and surround (Abdullah) Ibn Zubair in Mecca.

He (Ibn Ziyad) replied: I can’t give both these things to this transgressor (Yazid), after killing the grandson of Allah’s Prophet (s.a.w.a.), I am not now going to assault the Ka’bah.

Testimony of Ibn Abbas that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.)

We read in Tareekh al-Kaamil:

Ibn Abbas replied to Yazid’s letter stating: ‘… you killed Husain as well as the youths from Bani Abdul Muttalib who were beacons of guidance and famed stars; your troops marched towards them on your orders.’

Testimony of Abdullah b. Umar that Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.)

We read in Maqtal al-Husain:

Ibn Umar wrote to Yazid: Hasn’t your heart gone black yet? You murdered thefamily of the Prophet?

Muawiyah b. Yazid’s testimony that his father Yazid killed Imam Husain (a.s.)