Imam Husain(A.S.)-The Chief of Martyrs

A contemporary scholar Mr Abdul Ghaffar in the daily 'Hindustan' dated 21 June 1993 has raised certain objections about the 'Welcome to Mourning' (Istiqbale Aza). Perhaps his one-sided study might have plunged him into misunderstandings. Hence it became imperative for us to clarify his misgivings. The summary of his objections, based on five premises, which are as follows: Certainly the assassination of Hussain will kindle fire in the hearts of the believers until eternity, which will never extinguish. It is a tradition from the Holy Prophet (S) ?  What is the proof of its authenticity ? The mourning of Prophets (A) before Imam Hussain (A) is a meaningless thing. The survival and resilience of Islam is based on its cardinal principles of Namaz, Roza, Hajj etc. Islam thrives on it and not on mourning of Imam Hussain (A). Mourning and self-flagellation for Imam Hussain (A) is forbidden. Mourning and establishing such gatherings does not have any relevance to the re

What was the course of Imam Hussain's (A) revolution? What reasons prompted him to initiate such a great and unmatched upspring? Did he intended to overthrow the Yazid regime? Did he wish to end the Umayyid dynasty? These and such other questions keep cropping in the mind and everyone wants to know the satisfactory replies, specially the mourner of Imam Hussain (A) are more eager in this regard. When Imam Hussain (A) was preparing to leave on his longest journey, he bid adieu to the grave of his grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S.AW). Then he wrote a legacy addressing his brother Mohammed Bin Hanafiyyah in which he explained the aims and objectives of his uprising. We are quoting an extract from the same legacy hereunder.  He wrote thus: "And surely the aim of my stand is not inspired by vain exultation and it is also not for the quest of kingdom, Neither it is to cause dissension and corruption nor it is to wrong anybody unjustly." These sentences of Imam Hussain (A) ar

Mourning rituals and self harm as found in the Qur'an We read in Surah Nisa 004.148 YUSUFALI: Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done; for Allah is He who heareth and knoweth all things. We read in Tafseer Ibn Katheer Volume 2 page 20 Surah Nisa, under the commentary of this verse: "Ali bin Abi Talib(a.s) said that Ibn Abbas commented on the Ayah and said, “Allah does not like that the evil should be uttered in public, He does not like that any one should invoke Him against anyone else, unless one is wronged. In this case, Allah allows one to invoke Him against whoever wronged him. Hence Allah's statement Allah loveth not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, except where injustice hath been done'" Shia Muslim mourning Imam Hussain This verse makes it clear that the public relaying of injustice is permissible. Relaying the suffering of a victim is permissible. The tra

As Shi'a we believe that our 12 Imams were Rasulullah (s)'s legitimate successors, appointed by Allah (swt). We deem Imam Hussain (as) to be the third in the chain.  As part of the proof from Sunni traditions we cite hadith such as this: "The Islamic religion will continue, until the hour has been established, or you have been ruled over by 12 Caliphs, all of them being from Quraish" Sahih Muslim, hadith number 4483, English translation by Abdul Hamid SiddiquiSharh Fiqh Akbar by Mulla 'Ali Qari is the Hanafi Book of aqaid. On the very first page it is stated that the book sets out the aqeedah of Ahl'ul Sunnah wa al Jamaah. So there is no room for the Nasibi to make the excuse that this is JUST a viewpoint. Everything set out in this book is the aqeedah of Hanafi Sunni Muslims. Mulla Ali Qari sets out who the 12 khalifas are: Abu Bakr Umar Uthman Ali Mu'awiya Yazeed Abdul Malik bin Marwan Walid bin Abdul Malik bin Marwan Sulayman bin Abdul Malik bin Ma

The difference between the two concepts of Imamate. Those that deemed the station of Imamate to be man appointed and than it was based on ijma. This school of thought developed into what is today Ahl'ul Sunnah. Those that deemed the station to be based on the appointment of Allah (swt) and his Prophet (s) a school today deemed Shi'a Ithna Ashari. On the one side we head the Imam of the people [ie. The Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah] and on the other side was the Imam appointed by Allah (swt) - the Imam of the Shi'a. As Shi'a we reject the claim that Yazeed was a legitimate khalifa, rather we make it clear that a fasiq can not occupy the position of Khalifa of Rasulullah (s). Hence we believe that the duty was to support Imam Hussain (as) as we deem him to be the legitimate Khalifa of Rasulullah (s).  This automatically places us at logger heads with Ahl'ul Sunnah who believe that: 1)Appointment of the Khalifa is the based on the ijm'a of the public. 2) Once bayy

It is quite logical that those that deemed Yazid to be the rightful khalifa were the same individuals that killed Imam Hussain (as). We the Shi’a distance ourselves from Yazid and his supporters. So Ansar.Org, kindly tell us, do you? Do the Ahl’ul Sunnah and Nasibi express hatred towards those that supported Yazid and killed Imam Hussain (as)? Unfortunately this is not the case. Nasibi claiming to adhere to the Sunni faith have written, praised and defended Yazid as a pious man. We have Pakistani Hanafi scholar Mahmood Abadi who wrote "Khilafat Muawiya aur Yazid”- wherein he praised Yazid, deeming the method of ruling used by Umar and Yazid to be the same. Had the matter stopped there then no doubt that would be proof in itself, but what Ansar.Org are hiding from their followers is the fact that their Salaf Imams took ahadith from those that killed Imam Hussain (as). Proof of guilt lies with ‘association’ those with blood on their hands will have no shame / guilt in taking had

Unlike any other city, Karbala has its named engraved in the memory of generations, and in the expanse of the Muslim world. Believers remember that name with sorrow and distress, for they remember the history of the master of all martyrs, Imam Husain (a.s.) and his sacrifice for Islam.The wave of visit ors never stopped coming t o Karbala, from the time the Umayyad and Abbaside caliphsprevented the construction of the shrines to the t ime thebelievers were able to build t he precinct , despite the hardships and difficulties imposed on them. And today , since Karbala is wit nessing new calamities, and the mausoleums of Imam Husain (a.s.) and his companions are subjected to destruction and neglect,and visit ors are prevented from reaching that place, it is suitable to familiarise ourselves with Karbala. Two main roads lead the visitor to Karbala. One isfrom the Iraqi capital Baghdad, through 'Al-Mosail', and the other is from the holy city of Najaf. However, either one excites

Roza of Imam Husain in Karbala,Iraq The Tawabun have been the target of Nasibi edicts that they killed Imam Hussain [as] by failing to aid him [as] whilst we have evidenced that they were unable to help Imam Hussain [as] for various reasons, but the irony is that the same Nawasib over look the roles of Talha and Zubair whose cases are quite distinct from the other Madinan residents. In this regard: When the water supply was cut-off to Uthman’s residence, how many rebels did these two notable ones fight? [Talha was himself amongst those that prevented water from being delivered to Uthman]. Both of them were not present to aid Uthman at the time of his murder. They did not participate in the funeral prayer of Uthman. After Uthman’s murder, neither possessed the courage to avenge from his killing. Both of them happlily gave bayya to Ali bin Abi Talib [as]. They then adopted Taqiyah in the months that followed, and exhibited no inward or outward desire to seek retribution for the

 There is no doubt that the greatest allegation imposed on Kufan Shia is the fact they themselves acknowledge d their failure to come His [as] aid and sacrifice their lives for Him [as]. Whilst this was mainly on account of the difficulties that they were confronted with, that we have evidenced earlier; but still let us for arguments sake accept this allegation. Can this crime be compared to that performed by: he Sahaba that abandoned the Prophet [s] in battle? The Sahaba of Prophet [s] and friends of Uthman who left him alone in the capital and watched quietly as men frequenting from Egypt surrounded the confines of his residence? The annals of history testify to the fact that: When the Makkan Kuffar launched their assault, there were not even three men alongside the Holy Prophet during the battle of Uhud. Allah (swt) testifies to the Sahaba fleeing during the battle of Hunain, and history informs us that during this testing time only twelve men remained by the side of the Prophe