Misbah-uz-Zulam; Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy

Misbah-uz-Zulam; Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy0%

Misbah-uz-Zulam; Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy Author:
Translator: Sayyid Akhtar Husain S.H. Rizvi
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: Imam Hussein

Misbah-uz-Zulam; Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy

Author: Sayyid Imdad Imam
Translator: Sayyid Akhtar Husain S.H. Rizvi
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category:

visits: 23778
Download: 2544

Comments:

Misbah-uz-Zulam; Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy
search inside book
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 146 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 23778 / Download: 2544
Size Size Size
Misbah-uz-Zulam; Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy

Misbah-uz-Zulam; Roots of the Karbala’ Tragedy

Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
English

Was Abu Talib a Disbeliever?

Ahlul Sunnat say that Abu Talib was a disbeliever! The writer wishes to state that Abdullah had two brothers, one of them was Zubair and other, Abu Talib. Regarding Zubair, it is said that he brought up the Prophet in his childhood, but in Tarikh Khamis1 it is seen that Abu Talib and Zubair had cast lots for this purpose and the lot fell in favor of Abu Talib and the Holy Prophet (S) had himself preferred Abu Talib, because he was more attached to him.

The fact was that Abu Talib loved the Prophet even more than his own children. He always slept besides him. Wherever the Prophet went, he went with him to protect him. When the Holy Prophet (S) reached maturity, Abu Talib told him: “I have many children and I am poor and Lady Khadija is going to appoint someone for Syria. If you approach her, she will definitely select you.”

When Khadija learnt of this, she sent her own messenger to the Holy Prophet (S) and requested that he accept her offer to trade her goods in Syria and that she was prepared to pay him twice the normal remuneration. The Prophet served her with great honesty and integrity and she realized that he was an extraordinary person and decided to marry him. Abu Talib also approved the proposal and the marriage was performed. Tarikh Khamis, Seeratul Muhammadiya and Seeratul Halabiyah show that the sermon of this marriage was recited by Abu Talib himself. He said in that sermon:

“Praise of the Lord who made us inheritors of the progeny of Ibrahim (a.s.) and entrusted us with the caretaking of Kaaba and pilgrims. And we became the ones to establish Divine laws and the Sanctuary of the Kaaba became our home and we became rulers of men. And though my cousin is without parents, in his lineage and family, in intellect and knowledge, he is the most superior. And wealth and position is temporary, while the wealth of the faith is forever. And soon that wealth will be become apparent.”

The last sentence is worth attention. This clearly shows that Abu Talib had recognized the spiritual qualities of the Prophet and had faith that he had the appointment of Allah. The sentences before this show that Abu Talib had not considered the material progress of the Holy Prophet (S). If it had been so, he would not have said:

“Wealth and position are temporary, but the wealth of the faith is forever.”

Glory be to Allah! What pure thoughts Abu Talib had. What else is religiosity? O opponents of Abu Talib, would you still consider this uncle of the Prophet an infidel? It was impossible that the successor of the Prophet and his rightful Caliph should be the son of some infidel. Anyway! The incident connected with the marriage of the Prophet is as follows: When as per the desire of Lady Khadija, the Holy Prophet (S) came to her, she held his hand, and said:

“My parents be sacrificed for you. Accept my spousehood, I hope that you would be a Prophet, you must acknowledge my favor.”

The Prophet said that if he is ever given prophethood, he would do as she says. Thus, the marriage of the Prophet was performed after the trip to Syria. After his marriage, the infidels of Quraish decided to kill him. Abu Talib collected all the Bani Hashim whether infidel or Muslim and said:

“Go to my house and stop the infidels of Quraish from this action. Then all the Bani Hashim did as they were advised.”

Those who call Abu Talib infidel, please tell us whether this action of his was of a Muslim or an infidel? The person who saved his life is called an infidel and those who left him surrounded with infidels and escaped to save their own skins (like the three Caliphs ran from Uhud and Hunayn), or sometimes excused themselves saying the infidels were their relatives; like Umar said Abu Jahl was his maternal uncle, so he could not kill him in Badr, and sometimes they refused to take up the challenge of the opponents due to their power; like Umar said regarding Amr Ibn Abde Wudd in the Battle of Khandaq; such people are considered perfect Muslims. They are Caliphs of the Prophet and Imams of the Muslim world! If this is the way Muslims judge truth and falsehood, then their religion is the strangest of things.

After this, if we see Sirul Muhammadiya2 we see that when the Quraish saw that Abu Talib refused to expose and destroy the Prophet, they brought Ammara the Quraishite to Abu Talib and said: “This lad is handsome and rich. You take him; and in return give us Muhammad (S).” Then they said: “What type of a person you are that you support one who has opposed your religion and insulted your people and the elders of the community?”

Abu Talib replied: “Your evil view has been very much painful to me. How good an advice you give me! That I rear your son and give my son to you so that you can kill him? By Allah, this is not possible.” After this, the Quraish began to trouble the Messenger of Allah (S). The Holy Prophet (S) told Abu Talib: “O Uncle! Find out a way to dispel the mischief of Quraish.”

Upon this, Abu Talib collected the whole Bani Hashim clan and said to them: “You all protect Muhammad and save him from the mischief of the enemies.” Except for Abu Lahab, all Bani Hashim accepted this request of Abu Talib.

Now, those who call Abu Talib a disbeliever, was it any kind of wrong behavior that Abu Talib indulged in against the founder of Islam? Fear Allah, my friends! A person who is so much supportive and helpful to the founder of Islam; should he be considered a disbeliever according to Muslim belief?

If this is Muslim behavior, then a million salutes to such an attitude! What a way to thank for the favors of Abu Talib! In Tarikh Abul Fida3 we see that the Holy Prophet (S) told Abu Talib: “O my uncle! The Almighty has sent prophethood in the world through the Quran and there is name of Allah in the Quran and it refrains from evil acts.”

Abu Talib went to the Quraish and related the matter to them and said: “Do not break off relations. If Muhammad proves to be false in his claim, I will hand him over to you myself; but if he is true, you all must come to the path of truth.” The Quraish agreed. This shows that Abu Talib always acted in the interest of Islam and the founder of Islam. Yet the opponents of Abu Talib do not feel ashamed of calling him a disbeliever. The fact is that if Abu Talib had not been so protective and defending for the Prophet, he would not have survived the machinations of Quraish.

Please note how beautifully Abu Talib has conveyed the message of Islam to Quraish and at the same time prevented them from violence. O people who love justice! Please compare this statement of Abu Talib with that of Abu Bakr when he said: “Indeed! Muhammad is killed. You all turn back to your religion of ignorance!” Or Umar’s words: “I had never doubted prophethood so much before, as I doubted it today.” Then we shall realize which of the statement conveys acceptance of Islam and which one conveys denial.

Even Muslim and Bukhari have related that Abu Talib died a disbeliever and is being punished in Hell. Indeed, this report is concocted by Bani Umayyah and that is why it is against logic and rules of traditional science.

Thus, Ibn Abil Hadid writes in Sharhe Nahjul Balagha: “If Abu Talib had been a disbeliever, the Messenger of Allah (S) would not have loved a disbeliever, because the Almighty Allah has prohibited loving the infidels.”

Please note that one of the captioned forged traditions are related by Mughaira, whose friendship of Bani Umayyah and enmity to Ali (a.s.) is proved beyond any doubt. In addition to this, Mughaira was a terrible transgressor. The narrator of the second concocted report is Shaibah regarding whom Darqutni has argued and said: “This person is like a wheat seller. Apparently, he is trustworthy but inside he is a terrible Satan. He was also a terrible transgressor.”

It is a pity that opponents have taken such fabricated traditions as the basis and labeled Abu Talib as a disbeliever. And all this was carried out so that Ali (a.s.) is not proved superior to Abu Bakr and Umar! Apparently, the fathers of Abu Bakr and Umar had never accepted Islam. Thus, if Abu Talib is considered a Muslim, he would be considered superior by way of paternity. Thus, the best thing was to consider all their fathers disbelievers. To save the honor of the three, the religion may be put to humiliation!

There is another hidden cause in this. It is that from the aspect of Imamiyah religion, the father of Prophet and Imam must be steadfast on the religion of Allah. Thus, if the father of Ali (a.s.) is accepted as a Muslim, Ali (a.s.) would have to be considered at the position of an Imam to whom people refer in all their problems.

Thus, there was no other way except to fabricate traditions alleging Abu Talib to be a disbeliever. The fabrication of traditional reports was common during the time of Muawiyah. As mentioned above, 24000 traditions were fabricated in praise of Abu Bakr and against that numerous traditions were concocted to degrade Ali (a.s.) that make people shun and curse him. The curse of Allah be on the unjust people!

Seeratul Halabiyah4 says that the people of Quraish complained to Abu Talib regarding the Holy Prophet (S), Abu Talib said to the Holy Prophet (S): “My nephew! As far as I know, no action of yours is despicable.” The Messenger of Allah (S) said: “O uncle! Recite the confession formula (Kalima) so that my intercession will be in your favor on Judgment Day, even though you might have committed any sort of sin.”

Abu Talib said: “Son! If I had not been worried of the increase of the atrocities of Quraish, increase in their animosity and weakness of Muslims, I would have obliged you. But I will die only on the religion of my forefathers.” At the time of his death, Abu Talib made bequest to all Bani Hashim that they should obey Muhammad (S) and testify to his prophethood “so that you may be guided to truth.” At that time, the Holy Prophet (S) told him: “O uncle! You preach to others, what you yourself do not practice?” In reply to this Abu Talib said: “I know that you are true in your claim, but I am ashamed of the fact that Quraish will say I confessed to your prophethood due to the fear of death.”

The above tradition shows that Abu Talib sincerely supported Islam and secretly tried to make it popular. This is sufficient to qualify him to be called a Muslim. His refusal for public acceptance of Islam was not against reason. If he had openly announced his Islam before Quraish and Bani Hashim, his influence on them would have become nil.

Having confessed to Islam, he could not have saved the Messenger of Allah (S) from the enemies of Islam. If he had publicly become a Muslim, the Quraish and the infidels of his clan would not have paid any heed to his words.

In order to maintain proper influence, he remained as he was apparently. The ending of this influence would have been poison to the Holy Prophet (S). The Quraish would have killed him and due to this, Islam would have been finished before it could begin. Abu Talib was a very astute person and well understood the prevailing circumstances. He knew that by accepting Islam openly, he would not be able to serve Islam and the founder of Islam more. That is why apparently he remained on his previous condition. Although actually he had complete submission to Islam and well understood the merits of that faith. May Allah bestow him with the best of recompense.

Notes

1. Vol. 1, Pg. 253.

2. Pg. 88

3. Vol. I, Pg. 121.

4. Vol. 1, Pg. 366.

Why Ali Did Not Take Up Arms Against The Caliphs?

Ahlul Sunnat say that when the Messenger of Allah (S) passed away, why Ali (a.s.) did not take up arms against Abu Bakr? This proves that Ali (a.s.) approved of the Caliphate of Abu Bakr. The reply is that Ali (a.s.) definitely did not consider the Caliphate of Abu Bakr to be valid, but he obeyed the advice of the Holy Prophet (S) as seen from the book of Anwarul Nomania.

The tradition of Sulaym bin Qays Hilali is present therein which says: Someone asked Ali (a.s.) why he did not fight the Bani Teem, Bani Adi and Bani Umayyah because they had usurped Caliphate? Ali (a.s.) replied: “The Messenger of Allah (S) had told me: ‘Till you do not find supporters, you must refrain from Jihad.’”

Then he said: “When Moosa (a.s.) went to meet God, on Mt. Toor leaving in his place, his brother Haroon, as his Caliph and successor, Bani Israel started worshipping the calf against the commands of Haroon. At that time, Haroon decided to refrain from Jihad while Haroon was a Prophet and Jihad was permitted according to the scripture of Moosa (a.s.). Thus, when the Messenger of Allah (S) departed from the world, some people were attracted by Abu Bakr and paid allegiance to him and I was busy in the shrouding and burial of the Messenger of Allah (S). And after this, I was collecting and arranging the verses of the Holy Quran.”

We should know that Haroon and Ali (a.s.) refrained from Jihad due to hidden wisdom. If Haroon (a.s.) had started Jihad, Bani Israel would have been destroyed. In the same way, if Ali (a.s.) had taken up arms against Abu Bakr, the religion of the Messenger of Allah (S), which was in a nascent stage, would have become extinct very soon.

The calf worship of Bani Israel and turning away from the Imam of time by the people of Medina, both are very similar incidents. Indeed, there is no limit to the eloquence of Ali (a.s.). Why should it not be so? All those who are familiar, know the eloquence of Ali (a.s.). It is correct to say that the speech of the Master is the Master of speech. The speech of the Infallible is the speech of Allah and the speech of Allah is not in need of being praised by mortals.

In the same book of Anwarul Nomania, a person asked Imam Reza (a.s.) why Ali (a.s.) did not fight his enemies for 25 years though he did perform Jihad during his Caliphate? Imam Reza (a.s.) said: “Ali (a.s.) followed in the footsteps of the Messenger of Allah (S) in avoiding armed conflicts. After becoming the Prophet, the Messenger of Allah (S) did not fight the infidels during 13 years of his stay in Mecca and first 18 months in Medina. The reason was that for such a long time, he had very few helpers and supporters. But his refraining from Jihad for such a long time did not make his prophethood invalid. In the same way, the Imamate of Ali (a.s.) was not affected, if he did not take up arms.”

We should know that the action of Prophet and Imam is according to divine Knowledge. The past, present and future; all are exposed on the Prophet and the Imam (a.s.). After the passing away of the Holy Prophet (S) there was such a shortage of friends and helpers for Ali (a.s.) that only four companions of the Prophet were on his side: Miqdad, Ammar, Salman and Abu Dharr. On the other hand, most companions of the Prophet became aloof from him and were in support of the three Caliphs.

Allegation That Abdullah Ibn Umar Paid Allegiance To Yazeed

Ahlul Sunnat say that the allegation of Shias that he had given allegiance to Yazeed does not in any way indict Abdullah, because the son of the Imam of Shias, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya the son of Ali (a.s.) had also pledged allegiance at the hands of Yazeed.

The reply to this is that when Yazeed wrote a lengthy letter to Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya to pledge allegiance to him, Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya replied, “Yes, I have given allegiance to you.” He did not travel from Medina to Damascus to give the allegiance. Sitting in Medina, he sent such a reply to Yazeed’s letter so that he remains safe from Yazeed’s mischief. He was seeing how Yazeed had acted with Imam Husayn (a.s.) regarding the allegiance.

Now neither Imam Hasan (a.s.) was alive nor Imam Husayn (a.s.) and the Bani Hashim had been weakened a great deal. Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya himself was so handicapped due to the severing of the nerves of his arms in the Battle of Siffeen that he could not confront anyone. In such a helpless condition, what else could he have done? We should know that this tradition is of Baihaqi, who was a Sunni. There is no such report in Shias.1 This allegation of Ahlul Sunnat is based on their own tradition. There is no Shia tradition that can prove the allegiance of Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya at the hands of Yazeed.

In the view of the writer, the allegation of Shias on Abdullah Ibn Umar is useless. If any Ahlul Sunnat has given allegiance to Muawiyah or Yazeed what has he done against the demands of his religion? Just as Muawiyah was a valid Caliph, Yazeed also has the right to be called a proper Caliph. How can you blame an Ahlul Sunnat for pledging allegiance to a legitimate Caliph? That Yazeed was a legitimate Caliph for Ahlul Sunnat is proved by the statement of Ghazzali, which says that it was obligatory for Imam Husayn (a.s.) to obey Yazeed, because Muawiyah had made Yazeed the Caliph by bequest.

The fact is that Muawiyah had acted upon the practice of Abu Bakr. Thus, Abdullah Ibn Umar did not do anything wrong by the criteria of Sunni faith, though it may seem unacceptable according to Shia belief. In addition to nomination, the conditions of consensus, consultation and armed power were in favor of Yazeed. From the aspect of the followers of Caliphate, Yazeed was a legitimate Caliph and the allegiance of Abdullah Ibn Umar to him was an action to save himself from the death of ignorance, because according to the tradition of the Messenger of Allah (S):

“One who dies without recognizing the Imam of his time, dies the death of ignorance.”

Note

1. Ref. Biharul Anwar, Vol. 10, Pg. 299.

Muawiyah Ibn Abu Sufyan

I have stated above that the Holy Prophet (S) absolutely despised the Bani Umayyah. So much so that he had even cursed this clan. The accursed tree in the Holy Quran denotes Bani Umayyah according to the unanimous view of the interpreters of Quran. The Holy Prophet (S) says: “I dreamt that Bani Umayyah were jumping on my pulpit like monkeys.”1

I have also described how Bani Umayyah became the rulers of Shaam (Syria) and how the Arab Kingdom passed into their hands. The Holy Prophet (S), after ten years of efforts, had left Bani Umayyah so weak that now there remained no capacity for them to create mischief. But in order to save their Caliphate, Abu Bakr and Umar made the Chief of this tribe, Abu Sufyan, the ruler of Shaam. Since Abu Sufyan could not move to Shaam himself, his elder son, Yazeed Ibn Abu Sufyan was appointed the governor of Shaam. He died within a period of four years and Muawiyah took his position.

With this, began the worldly ascendancy of Bani Umayyah and its main promoters were Abu Bakr and Umar. Similarly, the two were also responsible for all the calamities that visited the family of the Messenger (S). Muawiyah is the fifth Caliph of Ahlul Sunnat. He became a Caliph by use of force, but the condition of consensus was also present in him. Below we describe the traits of Muawiyah:

On page 194 of Tarikhul Khulafa and in Izalatul Khifa, it is written that Muawiyah said: “Since the Prophet told me that when you become a king be kind to the subjects, I always vied for rulership.”

Indeed, whatever kindness he might have done to common people, he was indeed very kind to the family of the Prophet after he became the ruler! The reward of this kindness will definitely, be given to him on the Day of Recompense by Ali (a.s.), Hasan (a.s.) and their numerous companions. The Prophet must have learnt through divine intuition, what Muawiyah was about to do, that is why he told him to be kind to the creatures of Allah.

Jabir bin Saad is reported to have said in Sahih Muslim2 that Muawiyah asked Saad bin Abi Waqqas why he did not curse Ali (a.s.)? It is also written in Asaatul Labeeb that Muawiyah forcibly told people not to relate any tradition in favor of Ali (a.s.) and no one should narrate any tradition from that person. Tarikh Abul Fida3 says:

In the initial period of the Caliphate of Imam Hasan (a.s.), in 41 A.H. upto 99 A.H., the Bani Umayyah Caliphs recited curses on Ali (a.s.) from pulpits till Umar Ibn Abdul Aziz discontinued the practice.4

It is also written in Tarikh Abul Fida5 that the agents of Muawiyah used to recite curse on Ali (a.s.) in the sermon of Friday prayers. In the same way, in Izalatul Khifa6 it is seen that Muawiyah told his officials: “You all force to curse Ali, anyone who praises him.” Thus, the preachers began to recite curse on Ali (a.s.) from the pulpits throughout the kingdom of Shaam. At that time, Shias of Kufa were under very perilous circumstances. No well-known Shia personality survived.

Muawiyah had written to his officers that if any Shia of Ali was in any government post, he should be expelled and he should not be paid any compensation. Anyone found having regard for Ali should be put to the sword and his house should be demolished. In those days, if a Shia visited another Shia, it was in an extremely secret manner. They would only open themselves up when they are absolutely certain they would not be exposed.

Masters were in fear of their slaves and maids and used to take oaths from them that they would not betray their Shia faith or they shall be destroyed. The time of the passing away of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was the most difficult period. They spent their life in dissimulation (Taqayyah). After the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.), Abdul Malik bin Marwan became the Caliph. The period was no better for Shias. The order of the Caliph was that people should practice hatred of Ali – as it was actual piety.

In Tarikhul Khulafa7 it is seen that the people of Shaam raised the pages of Quran as per the advice of Muawiyah. What an intelligent way to use the Quran! Muawiyah was indeed incomparable in deceitful ways. It is written on page 76 of Dar Asaatul Labeeb that Muawiyah started many innovations. The chief of them being kissing the Rukne Yamani8 in Kaaba and omitting Bismillaah (In the name of Allah…) etc.

The same book says, that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) passed away, Muawiyah said: “It was a spark that has now become silent.” Followers of Muawiyah must also consider Imam Hasan (a.s.) as a spark, and like their leader, should also celebrate the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.). If you really follow Muawiyah, you must act as he did. The Holy Prophet (S) would indeed intercede for such Muslims of Muawiyah on Judgment Day and their intercession is guaranteed. They must continue to follow Muawiyah.

In Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar9 , it is mentioned that Muawiyah said: “The responsibility of the killings of Muslims is on Ali, because if he had not fought, there would have been no bloodshed.” Ali (a.s.) replied: “It means that the killing of Hamza lies on the Prophet!” On page 83 of the same book, we see that the first king of Islam was Muawiyah and he is the greatest of the Bani Umayyah kings and he is also the rightful Imam.

O Muslims! Congratulations for getting such an Imam! The known fact is that Muawiyah uprooted the pulpit of Medina. The day he did this, the sun became dark and stars were seen. The writer of Tarikh Khamis writes10 that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) was sick, Marwan sent the information to Muawiyah. Muawiyah replied that when Imam Hasan (a.s.) dies, Marwan should immediately inform Muawiyah.

When Muawiyah got the news of Imam Hasan’s death, he recited “God is the Greatest” (Allaahu Akbar) aloud and the people of Shaam followed suit. Upon this, his wife said: “You are happy on the death of Fatima’s son?” Muawiyah said: “Not only am I happy; my heart has become restful.” O followers of Muawiyah! Do you also feel restful or not? If not, then what type of followers are you? The passing away of Imam Hasan (a.s.) should cause restfulness! What a strange thing indeed! Curse of Allah be on the unjust people.

It is written on page 199 of Tarikhul Khulafa that the first to recite the sermon in the sitting position, was Muawiyah. This was so, because he was very obese and had a huge belly. In the same way, he made innovations before Eid prayer; he removed one Takbeer (Allaahu Akbar) from the funeral prayer; he castrated males and kept them as slaves and he also uncovered the Holy Kaaba, though before this, there used to be layers on the Kaaba.

It seems that Muawiyah was only worried about this world. The thought of the Hereafter never troubled him. How evil is a man who castrates another man to enslave him? Such a practice is not sanctioned in any religion or community. Which is that evil deed Muawiyah was not capable of doing? Poison, deceit and intrigue was his staple diet. He was an exemplar of his tribe, Bani Umayyah. Bani Umayyah was cursed by the Holy Prophet (S).

On page 234 of Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, we see the statement of Tabari that the Messenger of Allah (S) said: “Muawiyah will not die on the Shariah of Muhammad.”

Also that Muawiyah will scream from the casket of fire that he was burning and the angel’s will reply: “You were from the transgressors and you deserved it.” The statement of Nasai is similar to this: The Prophet said: “It would be too much if Muawiyah could escape Hell fire, how can there be any good in him?11

This Nasai is the same person who used to relate the merits of Ali (a.s.). One day the people of Shaam asked him to mention some merits of Muawiyah. He said what merit Muawiyah had that could deserve mention? Yes, there is only one merit of Muawiyah that the Prophet said: “May Allah never fill your stomach.”

Upon this, the people of Shaam beat up Nasai, crushing his testicles, resulting in his death. The above prophecy was from the Prophet. It was proved true and Muawiyah was greedy all his life and was never satisfied till death. In view of the writer, the Prophet, due to his divinely bestowed knowledge, had known that Muawiyah will enter Hell and he would be burning. Actually the proof of existence of Hell is the existence of Muawiyah. There would be no lack of space in the domain of Muawiyah in the abode of fire. All his supporters, friends and followers will be accommodated with him. One gets a place in the neighborhood of one that loves.

Of the merits of Muawiyah is that he brought together the companions and the Tabein (companions of companions) on a single purpose to invent traditions criticizing Ali (a.s.). Of them were Amr Ibn Aas, Mughaira, Urwah and Zuhri and also Abu Huraira who is the favorite companion of the Sunnis. Urwah has fabricated a tradition on the authority of ‘A’ysha that His Eminence, Ali (a.s.) and Abbas will die on disbelief and the two of them will go to Hell. Refer Sharh Ibn Abil Hadid, page 194.

Apparently, it is a concocted tradition of Muawiyah, which is fabricated to counter the tradition of the Messenger of Allah (S) that prophesied that Muawiyah will go to Hell. That Muawiyah was finally relegated to Haawiya12 in Hell, those who cursed Ali (a.s.) were also due to Muawiyah, involved in new kinds of maladies in this world and at last after death, they were taken to the place where Muawiyah was dispatched.

The supporters of Muawiyah quote the following tradition of Tirmidhi to prove the superiority of Muawiyah: “O Allah! Make him a guide and the guided one.” And the tradition of Ahmad Hanbal: “O Allah! Teach the book to Muawiyah and save him from punishment.” But Muhaddith Dehlavi writes in Madarijun Nubuwwah that traditionists are unanimous that no tradition is proved authentic in praise of Muawiyah. Both these tradition are concocted.

Whatever the devotees of Muawiyah might say, the Prophet despised Muawiyah greatly. Thus, in Tarikh Abul Fida13 it is written that Muawiyah and his father accepted Islam at the time of the conquest of Mecca, but the Holy Prophet (S) continued to hate them. How can he be virtuous, one who is said to be an inmate of Hell by the Prophet? Only that person can believe in the merits of Muawiyah that is an opponent of the Messenger of Allah (S) and who harbors enmity to Ali (a.s.).

Now I will show what position Muawiyah has in Islam. The Imamite sect considers him a traitor, an enemy of Ali (a.s.) and the Prophet’s family (a.s.). He is absolutely irreligious and an inmate of hell on the basis of the sayings of the Holy Prophet (S). The Sufi sect is also against considering Muawiyah to be good. But Ahlul Sunnat consider him a rightful Caliph and Imam due to the demands of their faith they call his mistakes, mistakes of jurisprudence. They consider him fifth of their twelve Caliphs. Below we shall discuss his religious leadership.

Abu Shakoor Salmi’s Sharh Aqaide Nasafi14 indicates that after Ali (a.s.), the majority of companions and Muslims followed Muawiyah, son of Yazeed. They say it was valid, because Muawiyah had made a bequest for him and the companions and the Muslims obeyed Yazeed.

According to analogy, the obedience of Yazeed was obligatory on Imam Husayn (a.s.). Thus, I (Abu Shakoor) say: “Muawiyah was a scholar who had committed no transgression and he was also a trustworthy man. If he had no trustworthiness, Imam Hasan (a.s.) would not have signed a peace treaty with him. After Ali (a.s.), Muawiyah was a just Imam, a righteous and pious person in the religion of Allah.”

The above statement of Abu Shakoor Salmi informs us of a few things:

First of all, Muawiyah was made a Caliph in the same way as Abu Bakr was appointed Caliph by consensus.

Secondly, the son of Muawiyah was made Caliph and Imam by will, just as Umar was appointed a Caliph.

Thirdly, since the companions and Muslims had approved the appointment of Yazeed, it was necessary for Imam Husayn (a.s.) to consider the obedience of Yazeed to be compulsory.

Fourthly, Muawiyah was a non-transgressing scholar and was trustworthy.

Fifthly, if there had been no trustworthiness in Muawiyah, Imam Hasan (a.s.) would not have signed a peace treaty with him.

Sixthly, Muawiyah was a just Imam, righteous and pious in the religion of Allah. Now what remains to be said for Muawiyah and Yazeed? The father is like Abu Bakr and son is like Umar in the affair of Caliphate and Imamate. Muawiyah himself was on the practice of Abu Bakr and Umar, so why his son should not have acted according to their practice?

However, Imam Husayn (a.s.) could not have obeyed Yazeed, because on the basis of his religious beliefs, leave alone Yazeed, he did not even consider, Muawiyah and his peers (like Umar and Abu Bakr) worthy of obedience, because the four of them were not the Caliphs of the Prophet; they were made Caliphs by the people. On the other hand, Imam Husayn (a.s.) considered himself to be the Caliph of the Prophet, and he was correct in this way. Then how could Imam Husayn (a.s.) obey Yazeed?

The fact is that neither Imam Husayn (a.s.) considered Yazeed to be a rightful Caliph and Imam on the basis of appointment by will nor he considered Umar to be so. Imam Husayn (a.s.) and other Imams of the family of the Prophet considered Caliphate and Imamate to be divinely ordained and not something decided by the people. Such a person cannot be expected to obey Yazeed.

Indeed, in the view of Ahlul Sunnat, Yazeed seems to be one whose obedience is compulsory. If it had not been so, such a large number of Muslims, the people of Shaam and other unscrupulous religion-sellers would not have taken precedence in giving allegiance to Yazeed. But when Imam Husayn (a.s.) had remained aloof from all the preceding so-called Caliphs, what was so special in Yazeed that he should have given allegiance to him? Imam Husayn (a.s.) was an Imam like his father and a member of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

If he had been a Sunni, he could have paid allegiance to Yazeed, Muawiyah, Umar, Abu Bakr and all the Caliphs and Imams of Ahlul Sunnat. As for as the matter of trustworthiness and non-transgression of Muawiyah, except for Abu Shakoor Salmi, no sane person could agree to it. If Muawiyah had been so, why was the Prophet displeased with him? Why should he (S) prophesize that Muawiyah will go to hell? If he had any type of merit, why did the writer of Madarijun Nubuwwah write that no merit of Muawiyah is confirmed?

And why would Nasai had said that on the basis of the saying of the Prophet, if Muawiyah escapes the fire of Hell, it is sufficient? What merit can there be in him? Abu Shakoor Salmi can write whether he likes about Muawiyah but according to Ali (a.s.) the abode of Muawiyah is Haawiya (in Hell). This statement of Ali (a.s.) is based on the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S). Thus, according to both their sayings, Muawiyah belongs to Hell.

The argument of Abu Shakoor that if there had been no trustworthiness in Muawiyah, Imam Hasan (a.s.) would not have signed a peace treaty with him, is also mentioned in the book Ashatul Lumaat15 to prove the correctness of the Imamate of Muawiyah. It is like saying: “That the signing of the Treaty of Hudaibiya proves the validity of the religion of Meccan infidels.”

The reason for signing the treaty was that the faithless Muslims of that time, especially the people of Shaam, had become opposed to Imam Hasan (a.s.). With what strength could he have fought the father of Yazeed? Muawiyah had been made so powerful by Umar and Uthman that this traitor had no problem in confronting His Eminence, Ali (a.s.). What did Imam Hasan (a.s.) had that he could have fought an enemy of the family of the Prophet?

What recourse did Imam Hasan (a.s.) have, except to sign the treaty? Signing the treaty does not prove any superiority of Muawiyah? If Caliphate obtained through force is considered valid by Ahlul Sunnat, let it be so. Apparently, the signing of the treaty by Imam Hasan (a.s.) was very much appropriate. The army and wealth of Muawiyah was much more than the military and wealth of Imam Hasan (a.s.). The result of such a fighting would have been nothing, except defeat. The followers of Imam Hasan (a.s.) would have been killed in vain. Keeping these consequences in mind, Imam Hasan (a.s.) made peace with the enemies. But how could this treaty make his enemy a rightful Imam and a Caliph? Yes, if Imam Hasan (a.s.) had signed the treaty saying:

“O Muawiyah! You and your tribe had been a helper and supporter of Islam since the time of the Prophet and the Holy Prophet (S) has not said that you and your tribe will go to Hell and you are deserving of Imamate and Caliphate by the divine command,” it would have proved the correctness of the Caliphate of Muawiyah. Just suppose, instead of Muawiyah some transgressing king had attacked Imam Hasan (a.s.) and he had made peace with him due to his inability to confront him, according to the logic of Abu Shakoor Salmi that king would not have been considered a transgressor, because Imam Hasan (a.s.) could not have made peace with a transgressor. Obviously, in such situations a person only sees the best option rather than insist on the trustworthiness and religiosity of the foe.

The Holy Prophet (S) had also this in view and he had not considered whether his opponents were disbelievers or not, but by the logic of Abu Shakoor Salmi, they could not be considered disbelievers, because the Prophet could not make peace with infidels. Indeed, the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is a very astounding faith. Though there are many strange things in the world, this religion is the strangest of all.

Because Ahlul Sunnat religion is based on opposition to Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), that is why this rule is framed that if the companions commit any mistake or become eligible for curse and criticism even then with the help of interpretation they can be saved from blame, even if that interpretation is against Quran and tradition. There is no need to comment on this rule.

According to the principle of Ahlul Sunnat, an Imam cannot become disqualified on the basis of transgression and injustice. Because most Sunni Imams, after the Righteous Caliphs had committed sins and transgression and the scholars of the time were under the control of the unjust Imam. Obviously, if infallibility is not accepted as a necessary condition of Imamate, it is one and the same thing, whether the Imam is good or bad. Ahlul Sunnat want an Imam. It is not important what type of an Imam he is. That is why on this principle, Yazeed is as qualified for Imamate as Abu Bakr was. Thus, Yazeed is one of the twelve Caliphs of Sunnis. What a strange rule, under which every transgressor and sinner can become an Imam of Ahlul Sunnat just as often was seen and the Caliphs of Bani Umayyah are included in the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat.16

In this book17 it is written that all battles fought against Ali (a.s.) were not because of the Caliphate. They occurred due to the mistake of jurisprudence. For example, the Battle of Jamal and Siffeen. But on page 395 of Seeratul Muhammadiya, it says that the confrontation between Ali (a.s.) and Muawiyah was the confrontation of Caliphate. Then the statement of Nasafi regarding the mistake of jurisprudence will be proved invalid. Now we don’t know what is the correct position.

It is proved in history that Muawiyah totally denied the Caliphate of Ali (a.s.). Thus, Muawiyah practically opposed Amirul Mo-mineen in the treaty, as clearly mentioned in Shawaahidun Nubuwwah.18 The fact is that the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is a concocted one. If one thinks deeply in this matter, it is proved that there is a great shield in Ahlul Sunnat called the mistake of jurisprudence. It was created to protect the opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) from criticism.

Apparently, it is seen that Ahlul Sunnat tried their best so that no blame should come on the opponents of Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Even though in this venture, the interpretation of Quran and tradition may be distorted beyond recognition.

Notes

1. Tafseer Nishapuri, Tafseer Baidhawi and Tafseer Kabir of Razi

2. Vol. 2, Pg. 278.

3. Vol. 1, Pg. 212.

4. Ref. Tarikh Khamis, Vol. 2, Pg. 317.

5. Vol. 1, Pg. 196

6. Vol. 2, Pg. 96

7. Pg. 72

8. A sacred place in Holy Kaaba.

9. Pg. 79

10. Vol. 2, Pg. 294.

11. Ref. Tarikh Ibn Khallikan

12. A particular section of Hell.

13. Pg. 198

14. Pg. 102

15. Vol. 47, Pg. 678.

16. Ref. Sharh Aqaide Nasafi

17. Ibid.

18. Pg. 87

Yazeed Bin Muawiyah Bin Abu Sufyan

Allamah Suyuti writes that Muawiyah wrote to Marwan, the Governor of Medina, to take allegiance for Yazeed. Marwan told the people of Medina that Muawiyah has ordered them to give allegiance to Yazeed, as it is the practice of Abu Bakr and Umar.1 On page 197 of the same book, it is written that when Muawiyah made Yazeed the heir apparent and began to take allegiance, the people of Shaam paid the allegiance.

Marwan bin al-Hakam tried to take allegiance from the people of Medina, but Husain, Abdullah Ibn Zubair and Abdul Rahman bin Abu Bakr prevented it and due to that, the men of Medina refused to pledged allegiance. Then Muawiyah came to Medina with 1000 riders and explained the matter to ‘A’iysha. It was then that the people of Hijaz gave allegiance for Yazeed.

In brief, Muawiyah made Yazeed, the Caliph by inheritance and left this world. The day Muawiyah died, people gave allegiance of Caliphate to Yazeed and a royal edict was issued for people to give allegiance. Everyone acted on this, except Husain and Abdullah Ibn Zubair, who went into hiding from Walid, the governor of Medina.2 Abdullah Ibn Umar wrote a very sincere letter to Yazeed after the death of Muawiyah.

But the people of Medina broke the allegiance of Yazeed. The reason was that Yazeed had appointed Ammar bin Muhammad bin Abu Sufyan, his cousin, as the governor of Medina. Some people complained about him to Yazeed, exposed his transgression and alcoholism and at last externed him from the city.

When Abdullah Ibn Umar learnt of this, he collected a vast body of men and said: “I have heard from the Holy Prophet (S) that on Judgment Day every traitor will be given a painful chastisement and it is for this very reason I have given allegiance to Yazeed. And this allegiance has the approval of Allah and the Prophet and in my view nothing is greater than the fact that one should pledge allegiance on the command of Allah and the Prophet and then go back on his word. And I do not find any justification for refusing to give allegiance.

Obedience of that Imam is obligatory on whom consensus has taken place. And refusal to give allegiance on the basis of transgression is not allowed.”3

All this shows that Abdullah Ibn Umar had special attachment to the allegiance of Yazeed. He had not done the allegiance of Yazeed under any compulsion. People of justice may compare this allegiance with the allegiance of Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya. The fact is that Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya just said: “I am prepared to give allegiance or I give your allegiance,” and in this way he passed over the demand of Yazeed. Anyone having some faith cannot blame Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya for allegiance. But Ahlul Sunnat blame Muhammad Ibn Hanafiya in order to justify the actions of Abdullah Ibn Umar regarding the allegiance of Yazeed.

Most Ahlul Sunnat scholars are seen in support of Yazeed. Ibn Hajar Makki writes in Sawaiqul Mohreqa that it is not allowed to curse Yazeed or call him a disbeliever, because he was from the believers and his affair is in Allah’s hand.

In Sharhe Fiqhe Akbar4 Mulla Ali Qari and Ghazzali have stated that the killing of Imam Husain (a.s.) is not proved on Yazeed, so it does not make Yazeed a disbeliever.

It is not allowed to blame a Muslim for having committed a Greater sin without any proper investigation. Abu Shakoor Salmi writes in the marginal notes of Sharh Aqaide Nasafi5 that the allegiance and obedience of Yazeed was obligatory on Imam Husain (a.s.), because his Caliphate was legitimate. It is written in Hayatul Haiwan6 that Ghazzali says: “If at all, the blame of Husain’s killing is proved on Yazeed, it would only be that he has killed a Muslim. He might have repented for it. Thus, Yazeed who was a Muslim must not be cursed.”

It is written in Tarikh Ibn Khallikan that according to Ghazzali, Yazeed is deserving of mercy and it is recommended to invoke blessings on him. Tafseer Baidhawi7 says that divine help was given to Yazeed in view of the prophecy of the verses of Holy Quran. The greatest support is seen in the fact that Yazeed is one of the twelve Caliphs of Ahlul Sunnat.

It is mentioned is Sharh Fiqhe Akbar that the Holy Prophet (S) said that there will be twelve Caliphs after him. The four of them are the righteous Caliphs (Khulafa Rashideen), i.e. Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali (a.s.) and the rest are Muawiyah and his son, Yazeed, Abdul Malik bin Marwan and his four sons. Yazeed bin Abdul Malik, Sulaiman, Hisham and Walid and of them is Umar bin Abdul Aziz. This shows that the Caliphate of Yazeed came into being in accordance with the saying of the Messenger of Allah (S). Now what can be said of Yazeed? Father and son, both became the successors of the Prophet.

In Shahristani’s Al-Milal Wan-Nihal8 it is said that Ahlul Sunnat believe in the Caliphate of Muawiyah, Yazeed and Bani Marwan. All this shows that the foundation of the religion of Ahlul Sunnat is based on enmity to Ahlul Bayt of the Prophet. The fact is that from the time of Abu Bakr, till today, it has continuous opposition to the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) and it will continue till Judgment Day.

Now let us find out whether Yazeed was pleased with the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) or not? Why should he not be happy? When he had, before this, written to Walid that if Husayn does not give allegiance, he should be beheaded and his head should be sent to Medina? If Walid could not carry out these instructions and Ibn Saad did it instead, it was same for Yazeed. He became happy by this according to the dictates of reason.9

It is written therein: When Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his companions were martyred and their blessed severed heads were brought to Yazeed, he became extremely happy; but when Muslims criticized him, he became ashamed. In the same way, it is written on page 102 of Sharh Aqaide Nasafi that Yazeed indeed approved the killing of Husayn and was pleased when it was carried out. He used to be happy at the martyrdom and the insult to the family of the Prophet.

This report is narrated by a large number of historians and traditionists. After this, the commentator writes: “I do not approve the cursing of Yazeed, his friends and supporters.” Curse of Allah be upon him. One would pose a question whether Muawiyah could be considered among the supporters of Yazeed or not? If not, why not? In Tarikh Balazari10 it is written that when Imam Husayn (a.s.) was martyred, Abdullah Ibn Umar wrote to Yazeed: “A great calamity occurred in Islam and a tragedy has occurred. That is, Husayn is martyred!” Yazeed replied: “O foolish man! I am sitting in my house on a restful couch. If our opponents were on the right, your elders were the first to initiate this trend.”

On this basis, people say that Husayn was killed on the day of Saqifah.

This reply of Yazeed is very much appropriate. Saqifah was the first of the chain of events that finally culminated in the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.). The fact is that as there arose controversies in Islam, which brought new kinds of calamities on the Prophet’s family, there was bloodshed of Muslims and due to disunity among Muslims they are weak and downtrodden in every part of the world.

The root cause of all this lacunae is Umar, the father of Abdullah. Yazeed was aware of all this, that is why he could give such a fitting reply to Abdullah Ibn Umar. The fact is that if Umar had not been there and if he had not been such a severe opponent of the Prophet’s family, the history of Islam would have been quite different. The writer has written a great deal in this regard and it is not worth repeating here.

Notes

1. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 195

2. Hayatul Haiwan, Vol. 1

3. Qastalani, Vol. 10, Pg. 162.

4. Pg. 87

5. Pg. 102

6. Hayatul Haiwan

7. Pg. 33

8. Pg. 8

9. Ref. Tarikhul Khulafa, Pg. 308.

10. Pg. 462