Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Piranepir And Sadaat Hasani

Recently a Sunni has written in his magazine about an amazing miracle of Pir Dastagir. He says that since he was a Hasani Sayyid, his spiritual effect is such that all Hasani Sadaat (descendants of Imam Hasan) are all Sunnis while the Sayyids (descendants) of Husayn (a.s.) are Shia. When a person is a bigot, he is blind and deaf. First of all, Abdul Qadir Jilani was not a Sayyid. It is a false claim and also that other Hasani Sadaat were Sunnis.

It is written in Umdatul Matalib that Pir Dastagir was not a Sayyid and he never even claimed thus. His sons also did not make such a claim. His grandson was first to claim it, but he could not prove his claim. Even if Abdul Qadir had been a Sayyid, he could not have the power to make anyone Shia or Sunni. Except Allah, no one has the power to make anyone a believer or infidel. Even the Holy Prophet (S) had no power to forcibly convert infidels into believers. Just as the Holy Quran says:

“Surely you cannot guide whom you love.”1

Such vain thoughts are possible only in such people. If a writer is not unbiased, he cannot write the truth. The claim that all the past and present Sadaat Hasani were Sunnis is false. There is nothing to prove that Hasani Sadaat should only be Sunnis and Husaini Sadaat only Shia. At present there are many Hasani Sadaat (descendants of Imam Husayn) who are Shias and many Husaini Sadaat who are Sunnis. The same had been in the past. Since disunity occurred in Sadaat, they never followed one and the same religion, as we have proved in the foregoing pages.

There was a tribe that descended from Imam Hasan (a.s.) and resided outside Medina. They were all Shias, but it seems the writer of Zujarul Awaam is unaware of this. This tribe still follows Shia religion even though Sunnis of Medina accuse them of various falsehoods, but they are not prepared to forgo their ancestral faith. Since they are Shias, Sunnis of Medina oppress them in various ways. Even the Turkish government did not accord them any respect. Except for menial and laborious jobs, these Sadaat do not have any gainful employment. They live in very difficult conditions, yet they do not wish to go away from there. If someone offers them Khums money, the Medinites snatch it away from them and the Turkish authorities are mute witnesses of this. Why do the heavens not crash at such atrocities on these Sayyids? It is nothing but the consequence of Umar’s words: “We have the Book of Allah with us.” Allah says in the Holy Quran:

“Say, I do not ask from you any recompense except the love of my family members.”2

And the Prophet said: “I leave among you two heavy things.” But the commands of Allah and His Prophet were not obeyed. The statement of ‘We have the Book of Allah with us’ became more powerful. Now I wish to ask whether such things have an iota of truth? The fact is that no miraculous power can make any Sayyid a Shia or Sunni, although it is very unlikely that a Sayyid should become a Sunni, but when the factors are such that can make him a Sunni, he becomes a Sunni. There are mainly three causes that can make a Sayyid, Sunni. They are as follows:

(1) The first cause is ignorance. That is, he doesn’t know what is the religion of Ali al-Murtadha’ (a.s.) and what is the religion of Zaid Ibn Thabit. He thinks the religion he is following was the same as the one his ancestor, Ali (a.s.) had and all Bani Hashim were believing in the same religion. Most of the time he has this misconception and the truth is never revealed to him.

But if he learns that the religion of his ancestor was distinct from the Farooqi religion or that the name of his ancestor has been removed from Quran, as we have shown above, he would not remain a Sunni for a moment. The same thing happened to this writer, who after studying the books had to give up the deviated religion.

(2) The second cause, which is not less powerful than the first one, is worldly position and power. When Ahlul Sunnat were in power, Shias had to observe dissimulation (Taqayyah) and thus they pretended to be Sunnis. Their children and descendants thus became Sunnis and still continue to be.

(3) The third cause is social influence and education. Usually many Sayyids at a young age are influenced by Ahlul Sunnat company and themselves become Sunni. They never give up their ancestral religion after research and study. It would not be surprising if one day such people were to become Jews or atheists due to the influence of company.

Similarly, due to education and training, there is a distance from ancestral religion. A good example is that of Sayyid Mahdi Ali Khan Sahab, Mohsinul Mulk. He was a Sadaat from a high family. His family religion was Imamiyah, but he left it and died on the faith of Ahlul Sunnat. I used to be astonished at his giving up his ancestral religion. But one day I heard him in a speech at Bankipur and from that day my astonishment ended. It seemed from his statements that beyond his grandfather, they were of a famous family. They were leaders of religion being Sayyids and they also had worldly power. But during the time of his father, they underwent difficult times. In his own words, they could not even afford five rupees a month to pay for a tutor.

In such a state of poverty, he was forced to go to Barabanki at the age of eight, where a royal personage took him under his care. He gained education and finally got a job under the British. Since he was very brilliant, he worked hard and soon he rose to a good administrative position and finally became the Deputy Collector.

Obviously, if the Nawab had continued to live with his family, he wouldn’t have got the chance to gain such education and to become a collector. What else could he have done rather than opt for the religion of the collectors, because he did not get any chance to get religious training at home? If he had gone under the care of a Padre, he would have become a Christian. There is no doubt that his family religion was Shiaism, but he did not get any teaching of Shia faith.

On the other hand he got training in the Hanafite School. The first impression is the most powerful one, so it was not unexpected from him. Thus, being a boy from a Shia family, he left his religion. His relatives used to be very surprised at this, but he did not do anything unexpected. He followed only the religion whose teachings had been inculcated in him. And that was also the religion of his benefactor who had taken him under his care and had done everything to provide him shelter and education. The Nawab used to remember his benefactor with gratitude.

It is well known that Nawab Mohsinul Mulk reached the position of collector and was based in Mirzapur. At that time, other Sunni officers like Imdad Khan served in the capacity of Deputy Collector. Though he was not a religious person, the Nawab took care to follow the exigencies and during his stay in Mirzapur, he wrote his book, Aayatul Bayyinah. The quality of this book is well known to all those who are well-versed in Ilmul Kalam (Scholastic Theology). Here we do not wish to evaluate his book. It is sufficient for us to prove that education and training in wrong hands can make a boy from a Shia family a Sunni.

Notes

1. Surah Qasas 28:56

2. Surah Shura 42:23

Caliphate is From Allah or Caliphate is From People – Its Connection with Composition of Marsiya (Elegy) Writing

It should be clear that Ahlul Sunnat Caliphate includes Imamate and in fact, Caliphate cannot be separated from Imamate. They consider it as an affair of people while Shias consider Caliphate as an affair ordained by Allah. Since Mir Anees1 was also a Shia, he also had the same view regarding Caliphate. That Caliphate which includes Imamate, is an affair ordained by Allah and in no case can it be an affair decided by the people.

All the elegies (Marsiya) of Mir were based on this very belief and all Shia Marsiya writers follow this belief in the past and still are. If the reader is not aware of this matter that Shia consider Caliphate a divine affair, which means that the Holy Prophet’s Caliph cannot be man-made because the Holy Prophet’s Caliph should be like the Holy Prophet (S), an infallible, this unaware person cannot gain any benefit from these Marsiya writers. For example if any person is not aware of the Christian belief of Trinity, he cannot appreciate Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Thus, the reader of Shia Marsiya must keep this in mind that as per the belief of Shias from the fourteen divine personalities, the personality about whom he is reading the Marsiya, is indeed infallible. Allah makes his infallibility obvious and only Allah has made him infallible, and if he is from the Twelve Imams, he is the Caliph and Imam from Allah’s permission and people have not selected him.

It is seen in the writings of Shia Marsiya writers that all these Shia poets consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the rightful Imam and the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S). They all confess to his infallibility. They consider his military action as Jihad and his killing as martyrdom. It is obvious that these views have no compatibility with Sunni faith.

The principles of faith of Ahlul Sunnat state that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was neither the Caliph of the Holy Prophet (S), nor the Imam of the time or infallible. His battle against Yazeed was an uprising and that is why his killing cannot be considered martyrdom. As mentioned by them: “Husayn engineered an uprising and was killed by the sword of his grandfather.” It is well-known that this statement was of Pir Dastagir Abdul Qadir Jilani in Ghaniyatu Talibeen. But it cannot be found in the printed version of this book.

But there can be no doubt that it is the statement of Abu Bakr Ibn Gharbi as Nawab Siddiq Husayn Khan Bhopali writes in his book Hujajil Karamah and the words are as follow: “There is no doubt that from the aspect of demand of religion of Ahlul Sunnat, the belief of Abu Bakr Ibn Gharibi is not inappropriate. It is a necessary thing that from the aspect of roots of belief, only this should be the belief of Ahlul Sunnat, but those Sunnat who have a contrary belief, are indeed unprincipled.”

In short, to read the Marsiya of Shia, it is necessary for the reader to be aware of Shia beliefs. Otherwise, he would not be able to fully understand the principles of Shia faith and nor would he be able to derive any pleasure from them. It should be clear that Ahlul Sunnat of Bihar who follow the Hanafite religion and who are safe from the influence of Wahhabis, look at the tragedy of Karbala’ as viewed by Shia. They consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) as the oppressed one and believe that his killing was martyrdom. Though they may be opposed to the rituals of mourning as practiced by Shias, they have no difference of opinion regarding the tragedy of Karbala’ itself.

According to the belief of Shias, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was infallible like his grandfather, the Holy Prophet (S) and his father, mother and brother were, like the Holy Prophet (S) also infallible. And his successors from Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) to Imam Sahibul Asr (a.s.) are considered infallible. The Imamiyah consider these fourteen infallibles to be pure from small and great sins and to be immaculate in all aspects.

This however is not the belief of Ahlul Sunnat. But since Shia Marsiya writing is based on Shia beliefs, Imam Husayn (a.s.) is mentioned as an infallible in Shia Marsiya and his Imamate is considered a divinely ordained affair. On the basis of his infallibility and divine appointment, Shias ascribe to the belief in his oppressed position and his death is considered a martyrdom.

Thus, if the matter of infallibility and divine office is taken away, the structure of Marsiya writing crashes to the ground. Sometime ago, a book was published by Maulavi Nazir Ahmad Dehlavi, which shows that the writer had no connection with the belief of infallibility. That is, he did not even ascribe to the belief in the infallibility of the Holy Prophet (S).

Note

1. A very famous Urdu poet of India.

‘Devotion’ Of Maulavi Nazir Ahmad to the Holy Prophet and His Family

From the topic of his writing, it seems to be devotion, but he says: “We consider the Holy Prophet (S) to be having all the human weaknesses and regard him as human.”1 If this statement is correct, the Prophet cannot be in any way considered superior to Isa (a.s.) and from this statement, the infallibility of the Holy Prophet (S) is nullified. Indeed, being a prophet, Isa (a.s.) was infallible just as his followers agree to his infallibility and on the basis of his infallibility, he was away from all human weaknesses. In this way, the non-infallible cannot be superior to an infallible.

Now the Christians would know that a well-known Ahlul Sunnat scholar has made a statement, which testifies to the claim of the Christians and falsifies the claim of the followers of Muhammad. It is correct that: The people are on the religion of their rulers. Thus, the writer has only supported the religion of his masters, the British, who were ruling the country during this time, so it was not unexpected from him. The writer has, by his writing, repaid the favors of his British masters, especially, Sir William Mayer, who was the Lieutenant Governor and a well-known anti-Muslim personality. The Maulavi has written similar things about the Chief of the Lady of Paradise, Lady Fatima Zahra (s.a.), which shows that he had no regard for the infallibility of the great lady.

On page 99 of his book, he writes: “In spite of the fact that Fatima was not denied her rightful share of Fadak, she, on the basis of her enmity with Abu Bakr took a negative stance. She stopped speaking to Abu Bakr and made a request that she must be buried at night and these people should not be allowed to participate in her funeral. What a severe anger she had!”

We seek Allah’s refuge! O Maulavi fear Allah! You have written such a statement about the Chief of the Lady of Paradise! And accused her of anger? Can such words be justified for a daughter of the Holy Prophet (S) like Fatima (s.a.)? Except for an everlasting unfortunate person, such a misdemeanor cannot be performed by anyone. Whether Fatima (s.a.) rightfully expressed her dislike for Abu Bakr and Umar or not is beyond the scope of this discussion. Here, we just point out the disrespectful attitude of the Maulavi. Indeed, such a statement about the chief of the Lady of Paradise can only be issued by one who is an opponent of the family of the Holy Prophet (S). It seems that the writer had no manners at all, though he considered his style to be liberal.

There is no strength and power except by Allah.

Another example of the same type of misdemeanor is presented below. The Maulana says: “It was all the better for Islam that the male issues of the Holy Prophet (S) did not survive. Only a daughter survived him and due to her progeny, the Muslims were divided into Sunnis and Shias, who are forever fighting each other. If a male child had survived, he would have proved to be like the son of Nuh (a.s.).”

O Muslims! Is such writing according to Islamic etiquette that he is expressing satisfaction that the Holy Prophet (S) did not leave a male issue? First he said that his son would have proved to be like the son of Nuh (a.s.), then he expressed regret that his surviving daughter had issues and progeny. He wished that she were issueless. How can a Muslim pen such words? Or can be pleased with such writings? If such writings are not considered vile, what is?

Apparently, it seems that just as the Maulana is pleased at the absence of male issues of the Prophet, he was also unhappy that Lady Fatima had issues. If the Maulana had been present during the time of the Prophet, he would have congratulated the Prophet for his not having any son and he would have also expressed condolence on the birth of his grandsons. The statement of Maulana clearly shows that he is indeed hateful to the Sadaat, and he wished that all Sadaat became extinct. But when cruel people like Muawiyah and Yazeed could not destroy the Sadaat how can this Maulana succeed in his aim?

When the wretched infidels began to address the Prophet as childless, the divine command affected the spread of the Prophet’s progeny to such an extent that Muawiyah, Yazeed and all the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas got tired of killing the Sadaat, but they did not succeed in their mission. How can the Maulana be considered in any way effective in this matter?

The Maulana writes that if a son of the Prophet had survived, he would have been like the son of Nuh (a.s.). This is indeed a strange statement. It is not necessary that the son of every Prophet should be like Nuh’s son. However, one thing is certain that if the Prophet had left a son, he would also have been treated like the other members of the Prophet’s family at the hands of people like the Maulana.

The next example of this disrespect is on the page 99 of his book where he writes: “On one side was Fatima (s.a.) that she died but did not reconcile and on the other was ‘A’ysha, much more than this. In our country there is a belief that women are extremely stubborn and the same qualities were found in these two.”

Whatever the Maulana has written about Fatima (s.a.) will be recompensed by the Prophet but whatever he has written disrespectfully about ‘A’ysha caused consternation among Sunnis and after this he was greatly criticized by Ahlul Sunnat intellectuals. Apparently, Shias do not say anything because this sect was used to such disrespectful acts.

Now in the end, I am giving another statement of the Maulana by which we realize the devotion of the Maulana to the family of the Messenger (S), especially with regard to Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the tragedy of Karbala’. In the same book, on page 94, he writes: The Prophet willingly spent his life in poverty and hunger and he preferred it. He always prayed for such a life for himself: “O Allah! Make me live among the poor and count me among the group of the destitute.” And for his progeny he used to pray: “O Allah! Appoint the bare minimum sustenance for the progeny of Muhammad.”

The Progeny members could not remain content on their sustenance and they began to dream of kingdom and even lost their demeanor. How many conquests did His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) obtain when he was on the seat of Caliphate. Poor man! He could remain a Caliph only for four years and nine months. And in the beginning itself an internal war erupted. When he was free from it, Muawiyah usurped the Caliphate and he was just a Caliph for namesake.

After his death, his son, Hasan, tried his best to obtain Caliphate but within a period of six months, he had to forgo Caliphate and the power of governance completely came into the hands of Muawiyah and after his death this continued in his progeny. At that time, the Prophet’s progeny should have remained patient and content like their respected grandfather. But Husayn, the second son of Ali, did not accept the Caliphate of Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah. And reaching Kufa, he took allegiance of the people for his own Caliphate. Everyone knows the consequence of this. The future progeny of Fatima (s.a.) should have derived a lesson from this incident. But the greed of kingdom never allowed them to sit in peace.

In the view of this Maulana, Muhammad’s Progeny had no contentment and they were greedy for rulership. If Husayn Ibn Ali (a.s.) did not accept the Caliphate of Yazeed, it was a very unsuitable act. And when he did not do so, he had to suffer the consequence of his deed. This shows that the Maulana does not consider Muhammad’s Progeny worth honoring. Apparently, in his view, Muhammad’s Progeny was selfish and greedy. If the Maulana had only half the love for Muhammad’s Progeny that he has for their enemies, he would not have written such a book.

Patience, contentment and thankfulness were imbibed in the very souls of Muhammad’s Progeny and they had no desire for rulership. Imam Husayn (a.s.) had opposed Yazeed for religious factors. He considered it illegal to give allegiance to Yazeed and he also believed that the allegiance of Muslims for Yazeed was incorrect. Imam Husayn (a.s.) knew that he was the rightful Imam and the Caliph appointed by Allah. That is why he gave his life on the path of truth with absolute patience and satisfaction. The view of Maulana that Imam Husayn (a.s.) lost his life for greed of material world, could only be the belief of the followers of Yazeed and it cannot be a belief of any Muslim. The views of a person are in consonance with his character.

Here, I am reminded of an incident, which is very suitable at this juncture. A person who had become rich by chance, told a friend of mine that Husayn (a.s.) gave his life in pursuit of material wealth. If he had no greed of wealth and kingdom, he would not have rebelled against Yazeed. My friend replied: “Because you are prepared to lay your life for worldly wealth, always busy in selfish pursuit of wealth and spend a life of selfishness, you consider Imam Husayn (a.s.) like yourself. Indeed, one considers others like oneself.

I know what type of a person you are. Providence has not given you the ability to discern the merits of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Your internal make up is like Bani Umayyah and you are created only for the worldly life. How can you understand the benevolence, courage, magnanimity and other praised qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.)?” One who considers Caliphate and Imamate as divinely ordained affairs could not have a view like that of the Maulana. It is a pity that on the basis of false beliefs, Muslims used to consider Muhammad’s Progeny as ordinary people. They should look at them with an impartial view. How can the Maulana call himself a Muslim and refer to Imam Husayn (a.s.) in such words?

While a German scholar has contrary views. He writes: “Imam Husayn (a.s.) certainly did not undergo the hardships of Karbala’ for greed of wealth. It was for the defense of his grandfather’s religion that he suffered such tribulations.” The same scholar has penned a seven-volume book on Islamic Politics. The followers of truth must appreciate his impartiality and truthful view and gain divine rewards for this. He writes: “On one hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) saw that Yazeed has become the heir apparent and Bani Umayyah has got the rulership of Muslim lands. They were slowly gaining influence over the religious affairs of the Muslims. It was certain that in the due course, they would destroy the faith of Muslims and deviate them from the religion of his grandfather.

On the other hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was certain that due to ancestral enmity, Yazeed will destroy Bani Hashim whether he was given allegiance or not. This was the reason why he decided to start a revolution against Bani Umayyah. From the time Yazeed became the successor of Muawiyah, Imam Husayn (a.s.) considered it obligatory for himself to deny his obedience. He did not even conceal his opposition from anyone. And on the same basis, Yazeed was in pursuit to extract allegiance from him and to make him subservient. Imam Husayn (a.s.) moved towards martyrdom and established a superb example of revolution.”

Anyone who is aware of the historical realities of that time and the kind of carnage unleashed by Bani Umayyah and the way they had started distorting the religion of Muhammad (S) would indeed confess that if Imam Husayn (a.s.) had not laid down his life at Karbala’, the Muslim Ummah would have had quite a different Islam than what they are having now. It was the initial period of Islam and hence it was possible that its rituals and rules would have been destroyed completely. Imam Husayn (a.s.) had seen the character of Bani Umayyah during the Caliphate of his father, Ali (a.s.) and his brother Imam Hasan (a.s.), that is why immediately after Yazeed came to the throne, Imam Husayn (a.s.) traveled from Medina so that he may propagate true Islam in major Muslim areas. Wherever he went, people developed hatred towards Bani Umayyah.

Yazeed was also not unaware of these subtle factors. He knew that even if Imam Husayn (a.s.) got the support of people at any minor town and raised the standard or revolt due to the hatred of people towards Bani Umayyah and their love for Imam Husayn (a.s.), he would gain influence over all the kingdom of Islam and Bani Umayyah will be annihilated; that is why immediately after assuming the throne, Yazeed made a firm intention to kill Imam Husayn (a.s.). This was the only cause due to which Bani Umayyah contributed to their own eradication from the face of the earth.

The greatest proof that Imam Husayn (a.s.) willingly moved to martyrdom is that he was well aware of the military prowess of Bani Umayyah since the time of his father and brother. He was certain that he would be martyred and this was often stated after the martyrdom of his father. This proves that he had no ambition for rulership. He had time and again reiterated since he left Medina that he would certainly be killed. If it had not been a willing step, he would not have rushed to it, knowing fully well the military prowess of Bani Umayyah.

He also stated this to the people who had accompanied him, so that if any among them were after material benefits, they may leave his side. If Husayn (a.s.) had desired to save his life, he would have tried his best to collect an army. But instead of mobilizing forces, he was constantly beseeching his companions to leave him if they wanted to live. Knowing that it was the first step towards a revolution, Imam Husayn (a.s.) let himself be martyred in the most pitiful manner, so that people may be more affected by his sorrowful plight.

Obviously, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) had exploited the devotion that the people had towards him, he would have succeeded in raising a huge army. But if he were killed in those circumstances, it would have been said that he died for greed of wealth and rulership and the oppressed position that heralded the magnificent revolution would not have been achieved. Thus, except for whom it was impossible to leave; that is the sons, brothers, and nephews; he told them to leave him, but they did not agree. They were also such people whose piety and honor was much valued by the Muslims. Their martyrdom with Imam Husayn (a.s.) lent more effectiveness to the tragedy.

On the basis of his knowledge and diplomacy, and on the basis of the animosity of Bani Umayyah towards Bani Hashim, be left no stone unturned to highlight all this. Imam (a.s.) knew that after his martyrdom, the women and children of Bani Hashim, who were Muhammad’s Progeny would be made prisoners and would be taken from one place to another. This incident would spread in the Arab world and have such an effect as cannot be imagined. Thus, the way the prisoners were taken around, was in no way less cruel than being killed. Similarly, it created the same effect on Muslims as the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) had.

In these incidents, the enmity of Bani Umayyah to the Prophet’s family and their beliefs regarding Islam and their treatment of Muslims has been clearly brought out. This was the reason that Imam Husayn (a.s.) used to clearly tell those of his friends who restrained him from this journey that he was going for being killed. It was because their thoughts were limited and they had no idea of Imam Husayn’s aim, which is why they used to restrain him. The last reply of which was that he was going because it was the Will of Allah and his grandfather had ordered him to take the step. The people used to say that since he was going to be killed, he should not take women and children with him. On this Husayn (a.s.) used to reply that it was the Will of Allah that his family should be made prisoners.

The words of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were unique from the aspect of spirituality and apparently he did not take these steps to obtain rulership or power. And he also did not step into this great danger without being aware of consequences. The proof is that a year before this tragedy, he used to tell his close confidants who had an enlightened heart and perfect reason to comfort them that after his martyrdom, the Almighty Allah would prepare a group who would separate truth from falsehood. And who would visit their graves and weep on their tribulations and destroy the enemies of Muhammad’s Progeny. These people would follow the religion of his grandfather. He and his father would love them and on Judgment Day, they shall be raised with Muhammad’s Progeny.

O readers! What should be done! It is surprising that a scholar of non-Muslims is relating the incident of Karbala’ in such a way that informs of the great status of the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) while a Maulana of Delhi in spite of his claim for being a Muslim, lays false allegations on Imam Husayn (a.s.) that are not possible in any respectable people. No one can say that the Maulana was insane, but it is certain that his blind greed for worldly status had deprived him from the wealth of the love for Muhammad’s Progeny.

Note

1. Ummahatul Aimma, Pg. 33, line 7.

Tragedy Of Karbala’ Demands Close Attention

It should be clear that the incident of Karbala’ is such a tragedy that has attracted the attention of writers, philosophers, historians and all intellectuals. From the aspect of religion and ethics, it is such an incident in Islam that its equal is not found. Rather, if it is compared to other such incidents that are often recorded in war poems, we shall see that it does not have any equal. Since it is a factual incident, it is very much clear which people constituted the opposing groups and which group was on the side of Yazeed and which one sided with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Husayn’s Side

1. Imam Husayn (a.s.), the chief of the martyrs.

2. Muslim, paternal cousin of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

3. Aun and Muhammad, sons of Zainab binte Ali (a.s.).

4. Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.).

5. His Eminence, Ali Akbar who was brought up by Lady Zainab (S).

6. Ali Asghar, the six-month infant of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

7. Lady Zainab and Umme Kulthum, daughters of Ali (a.s.) and Fatima (s.a.) who loved Imam Husayn (a.s.) greatly.

8. Fatima Sughra, the younger daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.) whom the Imam (a.s.) had left in Medina because she was unwell.

9. Fatima Kubra, who had come to Karbala’ with Imam Husayn (a.s.).

10. Sakina, another daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

11. Lady Laila and Umme Rabab, the respected wives of Imam Husayn (a.s.).

12. Qasim Ibn Hasan.

13. Abbas Ibn Ali, standard bearer of Imam Husayn’s army, who was the half brother of Imam Husayn (a.s.), but was greatly devoted to the Imam (a.s.). He had no equal in his sincerity and sacrifice.

14. Hurr who was previously the commander of Yazeed’s forces, left them and joined the ranks of Imam (a.s.) and achieved the wealth of martyrdom.

15. Habib Ibn Mazahir, who was the childhood friend of Imam Husayn (a.s.). He was martyred in Karbala’ while he was of an advanced age.

16. Fizza, the maidservant of Lady Fatima (s.a.); after whose martyrdom she continued in the service of Lady Zainab.

17. Hind, the wife of Yazeed and who was devoted to the prophet’s family. She had no information of the tragedy of Karbala’ but when the prisoners were brought to Damascus she came to meet them in prison. It is not inappropriate to include her among the partisans of Husayn (a.s.).

18. Wahab Ibn Abdullah Kalbi and Zohair Qayn.

These exalted personalities are mentioned in the elegies (Marsiya).

Yazeed’s Side

1. Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah, the ruling Caliph.

2. Ibn Ziyad, son of Ziyad who was made a brother by Muawiyah. At the time of the tragedy of Karbala’, Ibn Ziyad was the governor of Yazeed in Kufa.

3. Umar Ibn Saad, Commander-in-Chief of Yazeed’s army.

4. Shimr, who mounted the chest of Imam (a.s.).

5. Khuli, who beheaded Imam Husayn (a.s.).

6. Hurmala, who martyred Ali Asghar by shooting an arrow at him.

7. Naufal.

8. Hakim Ibn Tufail.

Destruction of the Imam’s Enemies

All the above oppressors and also those unfortunate ones who participated in the killing of Husayn (a.s.) either died or were killed during three or four years. None of them survived to bear the sorrows of this world. Yazeed himself died within three and a half years of this incident. Indeed, the people who helped Yazeed and acted on his orders will be raised with him and they all would be recompensed like him and abide in Hell forever.

Philosophy of Karbala’ Tragedy And Distribution Of Wisdom

It is well known that wisdom is of two kinds: religious and practical. Practical wisdom is of three types:

1. Good manners

2. Determination

3. Diplomacy.

The first of these is the personal trait of every person. The second is applicable to his relationship with his family members and the third is concerned with the affairs of the nation. All three of them are discussed with relation to the tragedy of Karbala’.

Manners And Etiquettes

This is the first type of practical wisdom. Every human being is concerned with this, though he may be of any class or creed. Being human, if one has no human manners, one is not considered a human being. It is well known that the Almighty has bestowed human beings with two types of existences. An apparent existence that is evident from his physical body that includes flesh and blood, organs and nerves. The next is his internal existence that includes his moral capabilities.

Moral capabilities are of two kinds: One is natural perception and the other is responsibility. The former are such that if they had not been in control of human beings, they would have never got superiority over other animals. The latter is opposite to these. If they are not paid attention to, human beings can be worse than animals. We must know that moral training is concerned with the first type. After considering the incident of Karbala’, it becomes evident that from the ethical point of view, it is a great matter of moral values.

That is, it is a great treasure of moral ethics. The good moral points are: helpfulness, faithfulness, bravery, charity, patience, satisfaction, forbearance, concealing of defects, forgiveness, mercy, favor, worship, meditation, piety, modesty, loyalty, sincerity, truthfulness and openness. In the same way, bad qualities are greed, anger, wrath, enmity, falsehood and jealousy etc.

It is necessary for man to cultivate good morals and to control bad habits and he must always strive in this direction. Another name of this practice is moral training. The incident of Karbala’ is such a great event that by considering its events, one can achieve moral perfection in full. Just as the partisans of Husayn (a.s.) present such interesting examples of moral perfection, the partisans of Yazeed exhibit the abased characteristics.

For examples, if Imam Husayn (a.s.) shows benevolence to the army of Hurr and his animals, the army of Ibn Ziyad repaid this kindness by preventing them the water of Euphrates. Rather, in return of the request of water, Hurmala shot an arrow at the six-month infant of Imam (a.s.), Ali Asghar and martyred him.

In the same way, we can present hundreds of examples from which we realize the good morals of the people of Husayn’s side and the evil nature of Yazeed’s partisans. Mir Anees, with his astonishing narrative capability, beautifully presents the picture of the morals of the two parties. Mir has shown how good were Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his followers.

And how evil were Yazeed and his cohorts. How far were Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his companions from material desires and how Yazeed and his compatriots were more inclined to wealth and pelf. Imam Husayn (a.s.) refused to pledge allegiance for the sake of religion and Yazeed for the sake of worldly life, was demanding allegiance of Imam Husayn (a.s.). For the sake of religion, the followers of Imam Husayn (a.s.) were his followers and the people followed Yazeed for material greed.

Mir Anees has realistically explained the benevolent qualities of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his side; including, Aun, Muhammad, Akbar, Abbas and Qasim. Hurr’s love for truth and the way he confessed to truth and how he changed sides when truth had become manifest to him. In the same way, Mir Anees has presented the admirable qualities and lent beauty to his composition. On the other hand, his poetry brought out the evil qualities and vicious traits of the partisans of Yazeed. In the knowledge of this writer, it is the natural duty of every person that he must study the elegies of Mir Anees from the aspects of moral values because the event of Karbala’ is extremely edifying and Mir Anees has described these events in a natural manner and in a beautiful style.

The statement of the Maulavi that Imam Husayn (a.s.) arose to gain power, informs about the evil thinking of this writer. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was certainly not a discontented person. Imam (a.s.) indeed did not arise for kingdom and greed of wealth. Imam (a.s.) considered himself the rightful successor of the Holy Prophet (S) and hence he refused to give allegiance to Yazeed.

The allegation of the Maulana for Imam Husayn (a.s.) that he was greedy, is no less than the atrocities committed by Ibn Ziyad and Shimr. Anyone who makes such allegations against the noble personality of Imam (a.s.) cannot be called a follower of the Holy Prophet (S). What type of Islam is it that is based on the enmity of Muhammad’s Progeny?

I am extremely regretful for the Maulavi and Mirza Hairat Dehlavi. Destiny has made these two gentlemen opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny, whereas the allegation perfectly fits the character of Muawiyah, because as per the command of the Holy Prophet (S): “This person will never be satiated by eating.”

It is justified that this allegation is concerned with the family of Yazeed. May Allah be merciful to this Maulana and people who have similar view and bestow them the ability to realize the merits of Muhammad’s Progeny. Their situation seems to be serious and we sincerely pray for their guidance.

Obviously, when a person considers Imamate and Caliphate as divine affairs, he cannot blame Imam Husayn (a.s.) for greed and discontentment. To consider the office of Caliphate an affair decided by the people is the first step towards the dishonor of the noble personages. Such people can never believe in spirituality. Till the time of his death, such a person will remain a materialist and nothing else. Thus, for these people, all are same: The Holy Prophet (S) and Abu Sufyan, Muawiyah and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). They are all equal in the view of those who have no spirituality.

Determination

It is a trait that is concerned with the family and society of the people. The first type of this wisdom as mentioned by us, is connected with the being of every person. No one is free from it. If a person lives in a corner of the world alone, then its relationship cannot be broken. But the next type, which in the terminology of rulership, is determination, it is clearly related to the children, friends and neighbors etc. This type informs us of their rights and how we should live among them. It is necessary for us to first improve our morals. And then we should become habitual of determination for achieving our aim. The tragedy of Karbala’ is also concerned with this type of moral quality.

We should know that the behavior of Imam (a.s.) with Lady Umme Laila, Umme Rabab, Lady Zainab, Fatima Sughra, Fatima Kubra, Sakina, Abbas, Ali Akbar, Ali Asghar, Aun, Muhammad, Habib Ibn Mazahir, Hurr and with all the participants of the event of Karbala’ informs us of the perfection of Imam’s morals. The behavior of the husband with the wife, the behavior of the brother with the sister, the behavior of the father with the son, the behavior of the uncle with the nephew, behavior of the friend with friend, of the master with his servants. All such ideal behaviors are explained through this great event in a beautiful manner.

Mir Anees, by divine help he received in composing the elegies (Marsiya), describes the events most eloquently. There is no doubt that the Mir has also, through his poetry, presented a study of moral science by this incident. The elegies of Mir only from these two aspects are such that ordinary people to whichever faith they may belong, must not deprive themselves from their study. Indeed, it is a misfortune not to get the chance of reading the Marsiyas of Mir Anees.

If Mir Anees were born in a European country, the educated public of that time would have sung his praises. But it is a pity that he was born in such an ignorant land, where his presence did not make any difference. The limit of ignorance is such that due to this carelessness, his literary compositions were printed on such cheap paper that even mediocre verse is printed on better material. The work of Mir Taqi Mir is printed in a beautiful edition. It is only so because it has reached the hands of those who have literary values and they could not publish it in any way less respectful. The writer is certain that when the Europeans realize the literary values of the compositions of Mir Anees they would definitely not leave any stone unturned in according it the respect that it deserves.

Civic Sense

This is the third type of moral ethics. It is the quality that is clearly related to the nation. All the efforts of the governments of the world are busy to find out these principles. In Europe, there is such a great demand for this that it is beyond the comprehension of we, Indians.

The incident of Karbala’ also has great cultural aspects. It is so much concerned with moral values that every kind is related to this event. Some of the cultural aspects of these events are discussed below.

Lady Fatima’s Sorrow and the Author

It may be remembered that Lady Fatima’s grief and sorrow may not be of any concern to her opponent but the writer considers it such a serious and terrible thing, which is impossible for him to put in writing. I regard the sinless lady’s grief or displeasure as a grief and displeasure of Allah and His Prophet, rather, more severe than that, because Lady Fatima is a beloved of both Allah and His Messenger.

Allah forbid, what havoc can be caused by such a sinless lady’s grief in the Hereafter? Everyone can guess it! Qadi Sanaullaah also was not unaware of the consequence of this grief, and therefore he gave the meaning of “ashamed” to “frowning.” Thanks to the Lord that the writer was not living during the time of Lady Fatima (s.a.). He cannot imagine in what way he would have erred. It is indeed his good luck that despite being full of errors and sins, he is saved from observing the grief of the Lady of Paradise. He cannot be more fortunate than this.

What Does Umar’s Behavior Show?

The abrupt and rude manner in which Umar tore down the command of the Caliph shows some things; first, there was no respect or honor of the Caliph in the heart and mind of Umar. Tearing off of the decree of the Caliph of the time and that too in his presence, makes it obvious that the one who made such an extraordinary gesture did not accord any importance to the position of the ruler. The reason of this is also not secret. Umar knew that Abu Bakr was a Caliph made by him (Umar) and that without his (Umar’s) help, his Caliphate would not run. Undoubtedly, this kind of thinking on the part of Umar was not untrue.

In such circumstances, how can the respect of the Caliph get room in the heart of Umar? This is not mere guessing. Umar definitely was pressurizing Abu Bakr to such an extent that on one occasion the latter had to complain saying: “If it is to be like this, what was the use of making me a Caliph?” Not only this, once it had so happened that Abu Bakr held Umar’s beard, crying: “May your mother weep over you (may you die).” Obviously, it is difficult to believe that a patient man like Abu Bakr will do so to anybody. But when someone crosses limits, even a patient man loses his patience. Those who have knowledge know that all these events are recorded in history. Readers may refer at least to the history of Abdul Fida, Tarikh al Mukhtasar fee Ahwaalil Bashar.

Second, the tearing off of the Caliph’s order shows that the court of justice was a court of justice only in name. Though Abu Bakr did hear cases and give decisions but their enactment or repealing was in the hands of Umar. All this goes to prove that Umar had made Abu Bakr as a strategic Caliph, while practically it was Umar himself who was the Caliph. After two years, this concealment no longer remained necessary.

Third, the aforesaid gesture of Umar also shows that Abu Bakr’s court of justice was not bound by any rules. Apparently, Umar nor anybody else had any such legal right to annul the Caliph’s order in this way. We don’t know what was the official post of Umar at the time of the first Caliphate. If he was a government pleader, then certainly a government pleader has no such right to tear off the Caliph’s decree in such a humiliating manner. And if he was holding a post higher than that of the Caliph of the time in the court of justice, even then this type of interruption in the dealing of a subordinate court does not appear appropriate and legal. Fourth, such deeds of Umar make his enmity to Lady Fatima and His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) quite obvious.

It looks quite clear that from the very beginning, Umar was trying to assure that Fadak is not restored to Lady Fatima (s.a.) and this enmity of Umar to Fatima is no secret. Only those who close their eyes cannot observe this malice and enmity. Fifth, a very ugly kind of harshness becomes apparent from all these deeds of Umar. Taking this into consideration, the commentator of Nahjul Balagha writes: “Even if law or right was not in favor of Lady Fatima, the Caliphate ought to have taken it into account that Fatima was a grief stricken woman claimant, her parents had passed away and the demise of her father had made her extremely gloomy.”

I say that at the time of writing about such sympathetic words, the commentator forgot that even before the case of Fadak and after the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) the condolence given to the Lady of Paradise by the Caliphate was that Umar was sent by Abu Bakr to burn down the house of this lady1 or he had proceeded of his own. When such a harsh treatment was given soon after the Prophet’s demise, any sympathetic or mild attitude could not have at all been expected at the time of Fadak proceedings in the court of law, which was after quite a long period of time. Why look only at this matter of Fadak?

A look at history shows that the Ummah of the Prophet imagined that it was unlawful to behave nicely with the holy progeny of Prophet! Even today, this behavior is no less visible. Only those descendants of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) (Sadaats) who had left the path of Bani Hashim and entered the path of Sunni, expect less enmity from the Ummah of the Holy Prophet (S). Otherwise, those who stayed on the path of their elders are even today fearing the same bad attitude from the Prophet’s Ummah, which had begun right from the moment of the demise of the Messenger.

Note

1. Ref. Tarikh Abul Fida

Legal Viewpoint in the Fadak Affair

It should be remembered that this event of Fadak, like that of the ‘incident of paper’, is an issue of major difference between Shias and Sunnis. The men of intelligence may opine in their own manner, but I could not yet understand as to what kind of Prophet’s word were, “There is no inheritance among us prophets. Whatever we leave behind is charity,” which goes against both Torah and Quran. The Holy Quran clearly talks about Prophet Sulaiman’s being an heir of Prophet Dawood (a.s.). The subject in Taurat is also similar.

For obvious reasons, these words cannot be the words of the Prophet. It could have been another thing had the Prophet said so in his own case. His so saying regarding all other messengers appears totally out of place. Imamiyah scholars say that these words “we do not leave inheritance” are both against Arab literary usage as well as tradition. So this cannot be a phrase uttered by the Prophet, because he was one of the best speakers of Arabic language.

Qadi Shazan seems to be silent in the face of this objection. What else could he have ever done when he had no reply at all? It was a fake phrase, because from Sahih Bukhari1 it appears that the Prophet had left ‘his white mule on which he used to ride, his weapons, and the estate of Fadak’ as his inheritance. Likewise, his leaving behind of some other things is also known from books like, Isafur Raghebeen etc.2 , and all this does not fall in the jurisdiction of the said phrase, making them non-inheritable because the Prophet’s other things like headwear etc. were with Imam Husayn (at the time of Karbala’) by way of inheritance, not as charity (Sadaqah).

Anyway, because of this Fadak event, a jurisprudential difference arose between Sunnis and Shias and it is that in the matter of testimony, the witness of a husband in favor of his wife and/or a father’s testimony in favor of his son/daughter is not acceptable.3 Contrary to this, Shias have accepted such testimony as admissible in law.

Apparently, in this matter, the legal progress of time seems to be in favor of Shias. Wisdom also says that it is not necessary that a husband or a father will always lie because of the relationship and a non- related fellow too, just like a related one, can give false evidence. How can such persons be declared as unreliable in law merely because of their relations? The judge should look at the person’s character. To declare a witness inadmissible merely because of relationship is to kill justice.

In case of Fadak, the court ought to have seen what kind of a witness Ali (a.s.) was. Could Ali (a.s.) give a false testimony? Or was it impossible? To declare him unfit for testimony merely because of relationship is a matter, which shows only a lack of legal courage. The court should have admitted the testimony of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) because the whole world of that time was aware of his personality. Everyone knew about the superiority of knowledge and wisdom of Ali (a.s.) and also knew that Ali would not lie even if two thousand Fadaks were at stake.

The fact is that both Abu Bakr and Umar were aware of the truthfulness of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) but Umar did not want that Fadak should be restored to Lady Fatima. It is natural that one does not have friendship with one’s enemy or opponent. Umar had an old enmity with Lady Fatima. In such circumstances, it was not unexpected of Umar to say that Ali’s testimony did not carry weight. The description of this enmity will be given in the event of the marriage of Umme Kulthum. Therefore it is not mentioned here.

Notes

1. Vol. 5, Pg. 159.

2. Pg. 10

3. Ref. Sharhe Mawaqif, Naval Kishor Press, Maqsad Raabe az marsad Raabe, Pg. 735

Helpers Of Judgment On Fadak

Those who had helped to get the aforesaid decision in the matter of Fadak say that “if Fadak was confiscated illegally from Lady Fatima, why was it not returned to her during the Caliphate of His Eminence, Ali (a.s.)? This only shows that Fatima’s claim was unfair.” The reply to this question is that if the research of Fakhruddin Razi is correct, during the days of Imam Ali (a.s.) Caliphate, Fadak was in the possession of Ali (a.s.). What was then he to take back?

The said Imam (Razi) writes: “The first Caliph despite the testimony of Umme Aiman, did not give Fadak to Lady Fatima and that Umar gave it to Ali (a.s.) and so it was in the possession of Ali at the time of the latter’s Caliphate.” This does provide a sort of answer to the one who raised the question. But in my view, this statement of Fakhruddin Razi is far from circumstantial evidence. Why would Umar do like that? Fadak was continuously out of the hands of Muhammad’s Progeny. It was returned to them for the first time by Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz.

Anyway, the writer replies to the questioner that had Lady Fatima been alive during the days of Ali’s Caliphate he would certainly have given Fadak to her, because he was certain that the Holy Prophet (S) had gifted the property to Fatima. Had he not been aware of this fact, he would not have been produced as a witness by Lady Fatima but when Fatima was no more, Ali (a.s.) did not pay any attention to the matter of Fadak. The fact is that Ali (a.s.) was terribly grieved by the demise of Lady Fatima (s.a.) and his heart was never inclined to renew all the unpleasant events afresh.

Those who know the conditions of human heart can read more in my statement. But how can stonehearted, harsh-natured and selfish people know what sentiments are and what they demand? Moreover, immediately after his becoming a Caliph, people had started harassing him too much. Muawiyah misled ‘A’ysha and instigated her to fight against Ali (a.s.), Zubair and Talha broke allegiance and joined ‘A’ysha. This led to the Battle of Camel.

Then from Muawiyah’s side, there was a severe uproar and anarchy till the time of Ali (a.s.) martyrdom. How could he pay any attention to Fadak, being engaged in all these troubles? The fact is that during the period of Caliphate, which was a national and a religious affair, he had no time at all to look at his personal problems in those four years and five months. Due to these reasons, Fadak, which had gone out of hands of Ahlul Bayt, remained out of their possession during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) also.

The Rest of the Fadak Tragedy

What happened to Fadak thereafter, was that Umar bin Abdul Aziz gave Fadak to Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.). It should be noted that among the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah, this is the only one who can be said to have humane qualities. The rest of the Caliphs’ rule was nightmare, or they were the ones whom humanness had not even touched. When this Caliph, Umar the second, restored Fadak to Ahlul Bayt, people told him: “You have taunted the first two Shaykhs (Caliphs).”1 In response the Caliph said: “The two Shaykhs had, by confiscating Fadak, opened a door of taunts for themselves.”

It should be remembered that Umar bin Abdul Aziz was among the last Caliphs of Bani Umayyah and it is a fact that he was very justice-loving among Bani Umayyah and it was because of his good and truth-loving nature that he restored Fadak to Ahlul Bayt. But in response to his just nature his community poisoned him. Truthfulness in the matter of Ahlul Bayt is not an easy thing. Such truth-telling involved a sure risk to life during the Caliphates of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas. But now since the British are ruling2 , a risk to life is not more felt. Yet various harms are not totally ruled out.

Anyway, when the Caliphate went out of the hands of Bani Umayyah those Caliphs of Bani Abbas, who cared for the rights of Ahlul Bayt, like Mamoon, Motasim and Wathiq, had returned Fadak to the progeny of Lady Fatima. But then Mutawakkil, the Ahlul Bayt-hater (Nasibi) again snatched it from Ahlul Bayt and gave it to his barber. But Mutazz once again restored it to Fatima’s progeny. Then Motaqifa returned it to Ahlul Bayt but Muktafi again snatched it.

It is written in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid on Pg. 493 that, “When Umar bin Abdul Aziz became the Caliph, he returned Fadak to the progeny of Hasan and according to another narration to the progeny of Zainul Aabideen and thus Fadak continuously remained in the hands of Bani Fatima but in his time, Yazeed Aatikaa snatched it.

Thereafter, it remained in the hands of the progeny of Marwan. Thereafter, Saffah, the Abbasid returned it to Abdullah bin Hasan, but Abu Ja’far Mansoor again snatched it. Then Mahdi Abbasi returned it to Bani Fatima. Then Moosa bin Mahdi and his brother Haroon Rashid confiscated it and it remained in the hands of Abbasids thereafter. Then Haroon Rashid returned it to Bani Fatima.

Notes

1. Ref. the narration of Abul Qadam in Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, Pg. 306

2. Refers to the period this book was compiled.

Opponents Make Light of the Fadak Affair

With a view to lessen the importance of the Fadak affair, the opponents of Lady Fatima (s.a.) say that the matter of Fadak was never significant, that it was only an orchard with some date trees etc. and hence its income was not considerable. One of the recent claimants of omniscience goes further to assert that the orchard comprised of sixteen or seventeen date trees and a spring of water and and that its annual income never exceeded fourteen annas1 (very less amount).

Such statements are issued, so that those who have no knowledge may imagine that the matter of Fadak was insignificant, about which the people in favor of Fatima (s.a.) are raising so much hue and cry quite unnecessarily. But those who undertake a deep research, know that Fadak was a hamlet, which was very fertile and well populated that there were several orchards and springs in it.

The writings of the author of Rauzatul Safa show that its annual income was four thousand gold coins. One dirham equals ten rupees. From this account, its income in those days was about forty thousand rupees per year. This is what history says. Anyway, it was a considerable amount and was in no way insignificant. The claim that it was worth only fourteen annas (less than a rupee) cannot be accepted as authentic for the following reasons:

Had the annual income of Fadak been only equal to fourteen annas (sixteen annas made a rupee till the last century AD), its dealing would not have been as described above, that is how was it that some of the Caliphs were snatching it away from Muhammad’s Progeny and some were restoring it to them? All this only goes to show that in the eyes of the Caliphs of the time, Fadak did have some importance and value!

Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz returned Fadak to Muhammad’s Progeny. Had the matter been so insignificant, as claimed by the opponents of Lady Fatima (s.a.), it would not have been necessary for a justice-loving Caliph to attend to it after about a hundred years of confiscation by the first Caliph. The very words uttered by this truth-loving Caliph: “Abu Bakr and Umar had themselves opened floodgates of taunts for them by snatching Fadak” show that Fadak had a significant value and importance.

As a matter of fact, had the value of Fadak been so insignificant as claimed, then neither the people of Caliph Umar bin Abdul Aziz’s time would have told him: “You have taunted Abu Bakr and Umar” nor the Caliph would have replied to them as above. The nature of this dialogue shows that the significance was such that both the Caliph and the people had paid attention to it. Doubtlessly, the above events show that even after the passing of a hundred years, the affair called for attention. That is why a Caliph of the time had to attend to it and the people also were alerted by it. It would never have been so, had Fadak been an insignificant thing.

If Fadak was not a province and if it was merely a small garden having some trees, then according to nature, such a little garden would not have lasted from the time of Abu Bakr till the time of Umar bin Abdul Aziz, especially when no one knows since when had that garden existed! The opponents of the Leader of the women of both the worlds (Fatima) should think that if a garden cannot last for such a long time what was that thing which Caliph Umar, the second, returned to the holy progeny of the Holy Prophet (S)?

This only shows that Fadak was not merely a garden but was a village, having several fruit trees and also some springs which was returned by the wise Caliph to Muhammad’s Progeny. It is also known that after the time of this just Caliph, some Caliphs used to confiscate it and some used to restore. So the existence of this thing for such a long time and its confiscation and restoring also proves that it was not a mere little garden but that it was a province.

Fadak, which was given by Mutawakkil the Nasibi to his barber, was surely a province of Fadak. Reason does not allow us to believe that a Caliph had gifted a garden having only an income of less than a rupee per annum to his barber of choice. Gifting such a trifling thing to a man of Caliph’s trust is incomprehensible, especially when that area was at a distance of about three months’ journey from the capital, Baghdad. It would have been like not giving at all.

Knowledgeable people know that the Caliphs of Bani Abbas were among the richest kings of the time, who gave away millions to their well-wishers. So it is unbelievable that such a Caliph could have confiscated such a cheap garden at a far off place from the capital from Ahlul Bayt to gift it to his man of choice. Surely that place was valuable and so the Caliph gifted it to his man of trust.

It may be noted that the misunderstanding of those who believe that the garden claimed by Lady Fatima was a garden of only a few trees seems to be based on an imagination that Fadak was a group of those trees which were planted by the Holy Prophet (S) himself in the province of Fadak and their number was not more than ten or eleven. Allamah Ibn Mitham Bahraini writes on Pg. 20 of Sharh Nahjul Balagha that in Fadak, there were eleven trees planted by the Holy Prophet (S) himself and those trees were in the possession of the progeny of Fatima (s.a.) and the Ahlul Bayt were giving the fruits of these trees to Hajj pilgrims, who used to recite benedictions on the Prophet (Durood) on receiving these fruits. But then some gentlemen ordered to cut off those trees and so it was done. This writer says:

“May my soul be sacrificed for the trees planted by the Holy Prophet (S) and may thousands of trees of Paradise be sacrificed for those trees.”

In short, it should be understood that Fadak was a fertile land and never a bunch of fruit trees, as some foolish people have believed. Ibn Abbas writes in his Tafseer that the Holy Prophet (S) used to distribute the produce of Fadak among Bani Abdul Muttalib. This proves that Fadak was yielding much produce. Similarly, narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim also show that Fadak was an area near Khaybar and reliable commentators have written that the Holy Prophet (S) used to distribute Fadak grain between his near and dear relatives. How astonishing on the part of those unwise people who have understood that Fadak was a bunch of merely eleven trees which were planted in Fadak!

Note

1. Indian currency

Causes Of Aale Muhammad’s Dishonor

Causes of Aale Muhammad’s1 Dishonor

It should be clear that here the writer has no argument whether Fatima (s.a.) was on the right in the matter of Fadak or not. Here, we only need to see the effects of deprivation of Fadak from Muhammad’s Progeny. It is well known that Muhammad’s Progeny used to receive a considerable income from the orchards of Fadak and they used to spend a major portion of it on the poor and destitute. Thus, its deprivation caused a decrease in their worldly status. There is no doubt that just as the loss of rulership caused public dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny, In the same way, the loss of Fadak caused a private loss.

Doubtlessly, the deprivation of Fadak is seen as the second rung of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny. With these two a third fear struck Muhammad’s Progeny and that was the rise of Bani Umayyah who were suppressed by the Holy Prophet (S) but had now became the rulers of Syria (Shaam). Their rapid rise to power in Shaam had no parallel in case of any other tribe. Those who are conversant with history know that the progress of Bani Umayyah was at the cost of Muhammad’s Progeny. The Bani Umayyah continued to take revenge from Muhammad’s Progeny as is obvious from the statement of Muawiyah’s son. Yazeed, the son of Muawiyah says:

“Where are the slain ones of Badr? They should see how we have taken revenge from Muhammad’s Progeny.”

It was after the carnage of Karbala’ when Imam Zainul Aabideen (a.s.) was presented in the court of Damascus and the singer sang Yazeed’s poetic composition. The poem also had the following couplet:

The Bani Hashim had played a game with the people. Neither glad tidings arrived, nor any revelation descended.

This shows that the frustrated Bani Umayyah considered the prophethood of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be a play and they were actually ignorant of its truth. Anyway, there is no doubt that the rise of Bani Umayyah put an end to the worldly status of Muhammad’s Progeny. The material wealth of Bani Umayyah was such that when Abu Bakr was made the Caliph, Abu Sufyan, the chief of Bani Umayyah came to Ali (a.s.) and said in a concerned way: “O Ali! The matter of Caliphate has been decided but you made no effort to obtain it? If you desire I can fill the desert of Medina with riders of Mecca and destroy that Caliphate in a moment.”

Ali (a.s.) said: “Abu Sufyan! You were creating mischief in the days of ignorance (Jahiliya) too. And now that you have proffered Islam, your machinations are still intact.”

Ali (a.s.) replied to Abu Sufyan in that manner because Abu Sufyan was from the Bani Umayyah and the Holy Prophet (S) had even cursed this tribe. In such circumstances, Ali (a.s.) could not tolerate any kind of pact with Abu Sufyan. Ali (a.s.) followed the Prophet in every matter. His aloofness from Abu Sufyan was justified. If he had shown any inclination to Abu Sufyan’s offer, it would have been absolutely against the desire of the Prophet. It is well known that the Bani Umayyah were dead opposed to both, the religion of Allah and the Messenger of Allah (S). The Holy Prophet (S) had put this tribe in its place in ten years. Now this tribe had no satanic power remaining.

Thus, if Ali (a.s.) sought the co-operation of Abu Sufyan, he would have been the cause of Bani Umayyah’s revival just as the two Shaykhs (Abu Bakr and Umar) were. That is, Abu Sufyan was made partner in rulership in order to save the seat of Caliphate. The result was that Bani Umayyah regained its lost strength and in no time, it became the supreme ruler of the Islamic lands.

It is indeed astonishing that this act, committed by the first Caliphate was clearly opposed to the aims of the Messenger of Allah (S). The consequences of this single mistake are not hidden from the people who know. And what to say of the mischiefs created in Islam itself? Words cannot describe the havoc wreaked upon the family of the Prophet. Doubtlessly, if Ali (a.s.) had agreed to Abu Sufyan’s offer, the blame of all the disasters and the carnage of Karbala’ would have come on Ali (a.s.).

Thus, after getting this reply from Ali (a.s.), Abu Sufyan came to Abu Bakr and Umar and said: “At last you have achieved your aim, but we have no share in your success. I shall destroy your Caliphate in no time.” The two were much worried at this threat of Abu Sufyan. They knew that to destroy the Caliphate was not difficult for Abu Sufyan. With all helplessness, they told Abu Sufyan: “You too become a partner in our success, what is the need to destroy the Caliphate?”

Thus, it was agreed that Abu Sufyan would send his son, Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan to rule Syria. This son ruled Syria for four years and after his death, his younger brother inherited the rulership of Syria during Umar’s Caliphate. His late brother was not at all learned and thus his death was a boon to Bani Umayyah. As soon as Muawiyah took over the reins of government, the wealth of Bani Umayyah began to increase rapidly till finally, Muawiyah became the ruler of all the Islamic lands.

We should know that as the Bani Umayyah gained wealth and strength, the Bani Hashim became further away from power and rulership. Due to the above reasons, the Bani Hashim were out of the common populace and their apparent status was no more. Then even though they got rulership during the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.) they could not regain their lost position. Even after gaining the Caliphate, His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) could not dethrone Muawiyah. Ali (a.s.) continued to confront the Bani Umayyah but even after all the turmoil, Muawiyah continued to remain in power. The limited and temporary status of Bani Hashim ended with the martyrdom of Ali (a.s.).

Though Imam Hasan (a.s.) was the successor of his respected father, within a period of six months he had to forgo rulership due to Muawiyah’s onslaught. Here we do not debate whether Ali (a.s.) was on the right or Muawiyah or whether the forced abdication of Imam Hasan (a.s.) by Muawiyah was justified or not. Our aim in presenting these historical facts is only to show the terrible calamities that befell Muhammad’s Progeny after the passing away of the Prophet, due to which their status fell in the view of public, day by day and this finally culminated into the incident known as the tragedy of Karbala’.

Anyway, after the abdication of Caliphate, Imam Hasan (a.s.) became a pensioner of Muawiyah. This was by no means a great insult of Muhammad’s Progeny. At that time, all the Islamic lands were under the domination of Bani Umayyah. Muawiyah was not the chief of Bani Umayyah and ruler of Shaam alone. Being the Caliph of the time, his power extended to even Mecca and Medina.

However, there lived in Medina, Imam Hasan, Imam Husayn (a.s.) and other Bani Hashim. But none of the Bani Hashim had any kind of rulership. The command and the monetary wealth of the government were all in the hands of Muawiyah. In spite of this, Muawiyah was not satisfied. At last, the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.) pleased the heart of the Caliph.2 But that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was yet alive was not a lesser worry to Muawiyah.

Muawiyah knew that Imam Husayn (a.s.) had inherited the valor of his father. So to remain careless of him would be against reason. Therefore, he used to tell his son: “Do not consider your throne safe. Imam Husayn (a.s.) is still alive.” Even though Muawiyah was anticipating danger from Imam Husayn (a.s.), the condition of Bani Hashim had deteriorated and day by day their economic conditions worsened. Gradually, the people did not consider the grandson of the Messenger of Allah (S) to be worthy of being followed.

An example of this loss of position is that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) came out to confront Bani Umayyah, he had no more than 150 people with him. Seeing this condition of the Muslims, he returned to the city. It is obvious that as they had lost rulership, they could not bank on the support of the general Arab populace.

Only the Bani Hashim, who could never forsake them, offered their support. It was so, because they had true devotion to the Messenger of Allah (S) due to which they considered honoring Bani Hashim an obligatory duty upon themselves. Other people professed support to Bani Umayyah. And why should they not? When all the dominions of Islam were transferred into the hands of Bani Umayyah?

Another example of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny is that at the time of his passing away, Imam Hasan (a.s.) had made a bequest that he should be buried next to the Holy Prophet (S) and this bequest was natural. Also, Imam Hasan (a.s.) considered himself worthy of it. But its result was that when Imam Husayn (a.s.) moved with the bier of Imam Hasan (a.s.) towards the burial place of the Prophet, the opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny showered arrows on the bier.

We don’t know how many arrows were shot, but we can estimate from the fact that 60 arrows hit the bier of the Infallible Imam. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was enraged at this lack of support of the Muslims and unsheathed his sword. However, the matter did not reach the stage of bloodshed. Keeping in mind the kind of nature of Imam Hasan (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.) forsook confrontation and took the last remains of his brother to Jannatul Baqi for burial.

This incident shows that till that time there was a considerable decrease in the status of Bani Hashim. They were not even capable to fulfill the last wish of their departed leader in opposition to the people’s desire. We consider the bequest of Imam Hasan (a.s.) justified because it fulfilled all the conditions of natural emotions. In the view of the just people who was more deserving to be buried next to his grandfather than Imam Hasan (a.s.)? But what is the reply of injustice of the people? O Allah! O Allah!

Now we present another example of the dishonor of Bani Hashim, which was also caused by Bani Umayyah. It is that in Damascus, curses were recited on His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) after every prayer, especially after the Friday Prayer. And as the writer has mentioned above, the initiator of this was Muawiyah. This custom continued for a long time till Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz, the Umayyad Caliph, discontinued it.

The discussion of cursing will follow soon. In any case, if Shias had not adopted this type of cursing, they would have gained the sympathy of many of their opponents and this would have been a very effective instrument for the expansion of Shiaism. After this, we shall mention another example of the dishonor of Muhammad’s Progeny, which would show how the honor of Muhammad’s Progeny had decreased after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S).

The incident is that Imam Hasan (a.s.) wrote a letter to Ziyad regarding some matter. Ziyad being of illegitimate birth was called by the name of Ibn Sumayyah. Imam Hasan (a.s.) also addressed Ziyad by this name and he had no intention to insult Ziyad, but this enemy of Allah replied to the letter of Imam Hasan (a.s.) addressing him as Hasan Ibn Fatima (s.a.). Imam Hasan (a.s.) was an absolutely good-natured person and he replied with utmost forbearance that:

“Everyone knows my father well, I am the son of Ali.” This shows to what extent Muhammad’s Progeny had fallen in the estimation of public that an illegitimate born disregarded the honor of even a leader like Imam Hasan (a.s.). Ziyad, the one whose hereafter was destroyed, insulted the daughter of the Prophet and the people of that time did not object? What type of Muslims are these who glorify the age of Bani Umayyah and Bani Abbas and the tears of the Muslims of this time are unabated.

Regarding the incident of Karbala’, it is necessary to know something about people like Ziyad. He is the same whose son, Ibn Ziyad was Yazeed’s commander and who had come from Basra to fight Imam Husayn (a.s.). Ziyad himself was actually of doubtful paternity, but he was such a resourceful person that Muawiyah felt the need to make him his brother. Indeed, he was most useful for the Caliph. He created brotherhood by announcing publicly that Ziyad is the biological son of Abu Sufyan Ibn Harb. But to confirm this, a witness was not found, except a person who testified that:

“One day Abu Sufyan had come to my tavern which is at a distance of 20 km from Mecca. At that time, Abu Sufyan was on a journey. Reaching my tavern he asked for wine. When I served, he consumed it and became intoxicated. After being intoxicated he asked for a woman. There was no woman except for a slave girl of mine and I presented it to her. On hearing this, Abu Sufyan said that she was not nice as her belly was large. But later when he became more intoxicated he asked me to get her. The woman was brought to him.”

Whatever the tavern-keeper said after this does not deserve to be mentioned here.

Those who desire to know the details may refer to Abul Fida’s Tarikhul Mukhtasar fi Ahwaalul Bashar. Anyway, on hearing this testimony, the Caliph was enraged and said to the tavern keeper: “You have come here to testify or to heap abuses?” In any case, this testimony of the tavern-keeper proved the brotherhood of Ziyad to the Caliph. And from that time, Ziyad became a man with family. Congratulations to Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan for such a brother and to all the opponents of Muhammad’s Progeny.

Notes

1. Progeny of Muhammad

2. Ref. Tarikh Khamis

Atrocities on Muhammad’s Progeny and how they Bore Them Patiently

O people of justice! Just see what atrocities Muhammad’s Progeny had to bear after the passing away of Muhammad Mustafa (S). Indeed, the progeny of no other person has borne such problems as the progeny of the Arabian Prophet, and that too at the hands of his own nation. This is not a new opinion presented by this writer, even the companions of the Prophet, who followed Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) used to see those injustices and say: “We have not seen anyone inflicted with such atrocities as the household of the Prophet after his passing away.” Allaahu Akbar (God is the Greatest)!1

Apparently, there is no limit to the atrocities and there were different types of atrocities, but Muhammad’s Progeny continued to bear them. Indeed, the patience of Ayyub (a.s.) is nothing in comparison to the patience of Muhammad’s Progeny. The patience of Imam Husayn (a.s.) in face of the handiwork of Amir Muawiyah, the patience of the elder brother of Imam Husayn (a.s.) even after he was poisoned, shows the caliber of their patience. In the same way, steadfastness of Imam Husayn, his patience and obedience is seen defeating human aspiration!

It is worth noting that the age of Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was four years at the time of the tragedy of Karbala’. He accompanied the prisoners to Damascus and upon the orders of Yazeed Ibn Muawiyah, the prisoners were exhibited in the bazaars of Damascus, when a Syrian woman following the custom of that country tried to offer him a loaf of bread, which she had made the expiation of her son. It was an ancient custom according to which people used to offer bread loaves to the prisoners after expiating them over their children.

Even though Imam Muhammad Baqir (a.s.) was only four and he was also hungry, yet he refused to accept the bread and said: “We are Muhammad’s Progeny and alms (Sadaqah) is prohibited for us.” O those who value infallibility of Muhammad’s Progeny, such a differentiation of the prohibited or lawful is only possible by one who is born an infallible. This incident clearly shows the difference between true and false Imams. Reason says that only such an Imam can be the true successor of the Messenger of Allah (S). Doubtlessly, the Messenger of Allah (S) was infallible.

O Allah, bless Muhammad and the Progeny of Muhammad.

Reason can never accept that the successor of an infallible could be a fallible person. Those who have considered it possible have, without any argument, been irrational.

Note

1. Refer to Murujuz Zahab of Masudi, Pg. 166, and Tarikh Kamil of Ibn Kathir, Vol. 5

A Glance at the Religious Leadership of Muhammad’s Progeny

Respected readers! Please note that the humble writer has mentioned the points that show the worldly loss of honor of Muhammad’s Progeny. Now we shall mention the religious aspects that caused decrease in the respect of Muhammad’s Progeny, as a result of which, a major part of the Islamic world remained deprived of their leadership.

There is doubt that worldly dishonor and loss of religious positions did not in any way cause personal harm to Muhammad’s Progeny. But surprising are those who were the causes of these misdemeanors towards Muhammad’s Progeny and still continue to be so. Today, neither the Bani Umayyah remains not the Bani Abbas and there remains no hope of any benefit from their past kingdoms, but thousands are still devoted to them, just like when they were in power. Even today, such people are inimical to the name of Muhammad’s Progeny as their enemies were in the bygone days. Even though Husayn (a.s.) is not present, there is no dearth of Shimrs and Ibn Ziyads.

The condition is such that an Ahlul Sunnat scholar wrote an article in an Urdu newspaper based on some virtues and merits of Ali (a.s.). This article caused a lot of consternation among the enemies of Ali (a.s.) and people wrote letters criticizing this article and wanted to know since when the writer has adopted Shia religion. They asked him what was the need to pen such an article? The poor scholar had no reply and he remained quiet. Anyway, the next issue of that paper carried an extensive article in praise of Muawiyah. It is a pity that it is no more the reign of Muawiyah, otherwise, the writer would have received a handsome reward from the wealth of Shaam (Syria).

This is the extent of malice to Muhammad’s Progeny today; so you can imagine what it would have been when Bani Umayyah were in power! Now I request the just people to study the factors that caused decrease in the religious position of Muhammad’s Progeny. They are as follows:

Compilation of Quran and Its Harmful Effect On The Religious Leadership Of Bani Hashim

It seems that the Quran was compiled and collected during the time of Holy Prophet (S) and its compiler was Ali (a.s.) as apparent from the traditions of Bukhari, Suyuti and Damiri. He had collected the Quran in the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (S) and according to the report of Bukhari, he used to announce that he had the Quran systematically arranged by the Prophet. However, the matter of Caliphate was decided; as a result of which the Bani Hashim were distanced from rulership.

Thus, after sometime, it became famous that Ali (a.s.) was busy in collecting the Quran. Learning of this, Abu Bakr appointed Zaid bin Thabit and Ubayy Ibn Kaab to collect the Quran. These people did as ordered by the Caliph.

There is no doubt that Ali (a.s.) had collected the Quran during the lifetime of the Prophet. The Holy Prophet (S) had himself given the name and the sequence of the verses of each chapter of the Quran. But what happened to the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.)? There was no sign of it. But it is learnt that a copy of the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.) existed upto the time of Saffah, the Abbasid ruler.1 When it survived till the reign of Saffah, there can be no doubt about its existence during the time of Abu Bakr, when its collector, Ali (a.s.) was himself present.

It is surprising that Abu Bakr did not ask for the Quran collected by Ali (a.s.). What was the use of appointing Zaid bin Thabit? Books of both the sects show that Abu Bakr did not involve Ali (a.s.) in this matter at all. He neither asked Ali (a.s.) to collect the Quran, nor did he take any advice from him. This disregard by the Caliph doubtlessly created an aspect of decrease in Ali’s status in the people’s view. People are aware that from the aspect of tradition of the two heavy things, Ali (a.s.) could not be considered separate from Quran. Even today, those who believe in the veracity of the Holy Prophet (S) consider Ali (a.s.) to be with the Quran on the basis of the prophetic tradition: “The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with the Quran.”

Thus, the action of the Caliph to have the Quran collected by people other than Ali (a.s.) was a one-sided matter and any matter concerning the Quran had no one more deserving than Ali (a.s.). In addition to be the subject of the tradition:

“The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with Quran.”

He was also the gate of knowledge according to the Holy Prophet (S). But when the Quran collected by him was not give currency, naturally people began to consider him less important from that aspect of religious leadership. Indeed, if the Quran collected by him had become popular, he would have earned great credit and respect among the populace. Apparently, the matter of gathering the Quran seems to be a secret affair. But it was one of the strongest causes for the dishonor of Bani Hashim.

In view of this writer, this incident was the second after the incident of “we have the Book of Allah”, which brought worldly loss of status for Bani Hashim. We all know that the matter of collecting the Quran affected the people of all ages and even today its effects are obvious. For example, as in past, in this age also, programs of Quranic recitation are held. The memorizers recite the Quranic verses and the scholars explain the meaning, quoting the relevant traditions of the Holy Prophet (S). But not once do they refer to the tradition:

“The Quran is with Ali and Ali is with the Quran.”

But if this Quran had been the one collected by Ali (a.s.), they would have been compelled to recite the above tradition also. In that case, the remembrance of the ‘Silent Quran’ would have been accompanied with the remembrance of ‘Speaking Quran’. The ‘Speaking Quran’ denotes His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). He has referred to himself as the ‘Speaking Quran’.2 Anyway, if this omission from Quran recitations programs does not show disrespect of Bani Hashim, what else does? Only those considered worthy of remembrance are remembered. Who remembers those unworthy of remembrance?

It would not be out of place to mention a belief of Ahlul Sunnat that Allah is so angry with Shias that they are not able to memorize the Quran! Apparently, this implies that Shias never make efforts to memorize the Quran. I have seen two or three memorizers of Quran. One of them being the son of Mir Mahdi Husayn Sahab, who recites the Quran every year in the holy month of Ramadhan at Lodi Qada. The witness of this is Hafiz Abdul Majeed Khan Sahab who presently resides at Natwal.

There are even some Shia memorizers of Quran (Hafiz) in the principalities of Rampur, Amroha and Lucknow. Maulana Hafiz Kifayat Husayn Sahab is ever ready to travel anywhere and recite the Quran for anyone who so desires. And there were numerous people from Shias who learnt the Quran by heart.

For example, Asim, Amash, Ibn Abbas, Abul Aswad etc. Even Ahlul Sunnat consider them excellent Huffaz (pl. of Hafiz = one who knows the Quran by heart). In short, we can say that it is a stupid notion that Shias cannot memorize the Quran. Leave alone Shias, Christians, Jews and atheists could become Hafiz if they strive for it. Indeed, bigotry is something that makes one blind to truth, and it is the greatest impediment to research.

Notes

1. Ref. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 260

2. Refer Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 72