Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Discourse One: Piety and Simplicity Scrutinized

Motive of Caliphs’ Piety

“People contemporary to the Prophet had become familiar and habituated to plain living. Besides, people were very much happy and gratified that their leader was living a simple life. This had become a particularity, a distinction and a standard of a leader.

If one in his worldly life used to adopt piety and keep himself from extravagance, ate simple food and wore coarse clothes, even though he did not have other qualifications of leadership, he was considered most qualified for leadership.”[63]

Accordingly it was natural that Caliphs should have adopted this way of life, which gives them a hand to deceive people and attain legitimacy to their usurped Caliphate. This weak point in public opinion had been of much benefit to Caliphs to draw from it as much advantage as they could in political and social aspects. Whatever capacity they had, they exerted efforts to abstain from worldly luxuries and comforts. This was a tool to deceive people. By doing so they got the pleasure of governing people - Arabs and non- Arabs.

The type of life they lived gave them required strength and needed ability to cheat and deceive people to an extent, which provided them a stand among them and brought the public opinion to their absolute favor. Such a gain on their part went a long way to silence people when the First Caliph confiscated Fadak and when the Second Caliph brought new things into religion that had not existed in the Prophet’s lifetime. Because:

“Abu Bakr and Umar did not very much take benefits from the Public Treasury. On the basis of this, people thought that if the Caliph confiscated one’s property or wealth it was not that he wanted to increase his own wealth.

People like that their rulers not be strict towards them in collecting taxes. And if the public pays taxes, the money should not be used for personal expenditure.”[64]

Ibn Abil Hadeed Motazalli narrates in his commentary of Nahjul Balagha what his teacher. Abu Ja’far Naqeeb had told about the deep influence of pious-looking politicians:

“The style that Abu Bakr and Umar had adopted in their political life attracted peoples’ general admiration because they distanced themselves from worldly riches and adopted piety, though a feign one.[65] They eschewed worldly decorations and greatness. They showed as if they are at a distance from worldly gains. They sufficed with a little of it. For food, they sufficed on very simple food. In clothes, they chose very coarse cloth. Whenever they got any worldly profit they divided it among the people. They did not corrupt themselves with worldly riches. This issue played a great part in attracting peoples’ hearts towards them. Caliphs remained always in good books of people and in their good will. Those who had a little doubt in their hearts said to themselves:

Had they been opponents of Prophet’s orders it would have been for their personal benefit. Some or other attachment to world could have been seen in them.

How they opposed the Prophet’s command and [at the same time] eschewed worldly pleasures; so they spoiled for themselves both the worlds. Would a man with a little sense do it?

It was this issue that left no doubt in anyone with regard to their actions;[66] they trusted their rulership and approved their character.

But people neglected one point in their calculations that is the pleasure of being in power. Being at the helm of affairs and ruling people and steering the government is itself a great luxury and a great gain.[67] For this, everything is sacrificed. Food and other things are of no importance for those who are after greater aims. Thus the poet says:

Some ignored the pleasure of riches.

But they did not ignore the pleasure of commanding and prohibition.

Abu Ja’far Naqeeb says: The difference of the two Caliphs with the third was the cause that the third was killed that way. People had deposed him. Uthman thought that he and his family has a share in the public belongings. Whatever does not belong to him and his family, he thought that it should belong to him. When it belongs to him, it belongs to his family too. If Uthman also had followed the system of his predecessors and kept his family away from public treasury, people would have been at his side. Even if he had changed the direction of prayers from Kaaba to Jerusalem or if he had reduced the five-time prayers to four, people would not have objected and none would have criticized him…”[68]

According to this analysis, we can understand the reason of peoples’ silence against innovations of the Second Caliph. Whatever wrong the Caliph did, it was regarded within a religious framework even by the Prophet’s Companions, even though it be against the Prophet’s practice.

Political Piety

Although it is claimed:

“He was so pious and God-fearing that he did not appoint Saeed bin Zaid in the consulting (Shura) committee because he was his cousin.”![69]

But it must be said: The fake piety that he had created around himself brought him popularity among the people. Through this means, he gained legitimacy for his Caliphate. He adopted the same policy in appointment of government staff.

Both Abu Bakr and Umar avoided giving jobs in government at low or high levels to their relatives and close ones - no matter how befitting or qualified they be for that job. This trick reflected among the people their piety and fear of God.[70]

Of course some exceptions were there:

A) Abu Moosa Ashari was an official of Umar in Basrah. Abdullah Ibn Umar was his son-in-law.[71]

B) Qadama bin Maz’oon was Abdullah bin Umar’s maternal uncle. He was Umar’s agent in Bahrain.[72]

Historical documents also show that Umar was well aware of the danger of appointing family members in government affairs. Therefore he avoided appointing his relatives and his dear ones.[73] Instead, he appointed outsiders who had their tribal backings.

“It is said that Umar had predicted Uthman’s fate in the following words: If Uthman becomes Caliph, sons of Abi Muit[74] and Umayyah[75] will dominate people. He will place public revenue at their disposal. I swear by God, if he reaches to Caliphate he will certainly do what I have said. Arabs will riot against him such that they will kill him in his own house.”[76]

How come Umar frame a committee of six persons and gave such powers to Ibne Auf[77] so that it was sure that Uthman would become the Caliph? This is a question that can only be answered by Umar himself.

Piety or Public Deception

The following document shows that it was Umar’s trick to deceive people by the cloak of piety he had donned. It was to protect himself from peoples’ objection. Because historical sources say:

“Hurmuzan[78] asked Umar: Do you allow me to cook food for Muslims?

Umar said: I am afraid you won’t be able to.

Hurmuzan: No. I can.

Umar: Then, the choice is yours.

Hurmuzan cooked food in various tastes of different varieties - sweet, pinching, sore, mild and hot. He came to Umar and informed him that the food was prepared. He invited Umar to come and eat the food.

Umar stood in the middle of the mosque and said loudly:

O, Muslims! I am a messenger of Hurmuzan to you. Then Muslims followed Umar. When Umar reached the house of Hurmuzan, he stopped at the door and said:

Wait here. Then he entered the house alone. He asked: Bring the food that is cooked. I like to see it. Then Umar asked to bring a huge plate for him. The plate was given to him. He ordered to put the food from each variety in it. Then Umar mixed it.

Hurmuzan shouted: What are you doing. You spoiled the food because some is sweet and some is salty.

Umar answered: Do you want Muslims to change their opinion about me. After doing this, he asked Muslims to enter the house and eat the food.”[79]

Hypocritical Piety

One of the claims to prove the piety of Caliphs is this:

“To prove Abu Bakr’s piety in not utilizing the public funds and showing his dislike to worldly luxuries these two examples are enough:

One day household members of Abu Bakr asked him get sweets for them.

His wife suggested that she would save some money from daily expenses for a few days until it makes a sum. Abu Bakr accepted his wife’s suggestion. After a few days, a small amount was saved. This amount was given to Abu Bakr to buy sweets. Abu Bakr took the amount and surrendered it to the Public Treasury. He said to the official of funds that experience proved that the sum was more than domestic expenses. So he ordered the treasury to reduce his monthly allowance by the same amount. For the past months, he ordered to collect the sum from his personal property he had before becoming Caliph.”![80]

“Another case: Abu Bakr in his last days sold the land he had bought during his Caliphate from the amount he had taken as his salary by consent of Muslims[81] to be used by Caliph, and returned it to the Public Treasury. He also made a will that all amenities utilized by him as Caliph should be returned to treasury.”[82]

Before analysis, we would like to draw the attention of our readers to a historical document in which you will see for yourself that Abu Bakr himself has admitted that he cannot refrain from the world and its attractions. Yet they claim:

“Abu Bakr was a man most indifferent to the world.”[83]

“It is mentioned in Mustadrak Sahihain Vol. 4, Pg. 309 that Zaid bin Arqam narrated: We were with Abu Bakr when he asked for something to drink.

Water mixed with honey was brought for him.

He took the glass close to his lips and wept for a long time then he wiped his tears.

He was asked: O Caliph of Prophet of God, why are you weeping?

Abu Bakr: I was with the Prophet of God. I saw him driving away something, but there was no one to be seen.

I asked: O the Messenger of Allah! What is it that you are warding off from you?

He said: It was the world that came to me personified. I told it to go away from me. She (the world) cried and returned and said: Even though you may flee from me but he that would come in your place after you would not be able to leave me.

This same story Khateeb Baghdadi has written in the Tarikh Baghdad Vol. 10, Pg. 286 and Abu Naeem has written in Hilyat al-Awliya Vol. 1, Pg. 30. Both of them have mentioned this too that Abu Bakr told that he feared that the world might occupy him in its pleasures. Muttaqi has also written is Kanzul Ummal Vol. 4, Pg. 37 that Abu Bakr wept fearing the world would entrap him…”[84]

Analysis of this quotation brings three points to the fore:

A) This story is narrated by Sunni sources in their reliable books. If relation or mutual attachment between Abu Bakr and the world is accepted, it would contradict the claim of his being pious.

B) If the claim of Abu Bakr of the talk of the world with the Prophet were true then there comes the attachment of the world and Abu Bakr, which contradicts the claim of his piety.

C) If this talk between Abu Bakr and Muslims is true, it seems that the confession of Abu Bakr before Muslims and his companions in that particular way was a salient quality with him and was a covering over his extraordinary inclination towards the world. The Caliph (Abu Bakr) here has invented the tradition to confirm his Caliphate and at the same time his piety. He wants to establish his probity before the events of Saqifah. He wants to prove by this invention of his, close familiarity between him and the Prophet. This will give popularity to his Caliphate and justification to him for that post. In the tradition invented by him these worlds are very much meaningful “…he that will come in your place after you.” How can it be believed when in order to justify the usurpation of Caliphate of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) they claim that the Prophet did not appoint anyone as his Caliph or successors?

The document leads us to a crossroad where one way leads to his confession of being worldly and enchanted by the world and the other is contrast in claim of his piety and fear of God, which compelled him to return public funds he had used during his Caliphate.

Abdullah, grandson of Abu Bakr (from his daughter), requested Asma, wife of Zubair, to recommend Abu Bakr. He was very much dear to Ayesha - his aunt.

His request from his grandfather Abu Bakr is interesting.

“When Abu Bakr became Caliph Abdullah was a youth. One day he came to Abu Bakr (his grandfather) and asked him to give him a huge piece of land. A hill too was in that land. Abu Bakr granted that big piece of land to his grandson to please him.

In Tarikh Ibn Asakir this story of wholehearted generosity of Abu Bakr to his own grandson, Abu Bakr bin Zubair is narrated as follows:

Abdullah requested his grandfather to give him a hill somewhere in Medina. Abu Bakr asked him what he wanted the hill for?

Abdullah answered: We had such a hill in Mecca. So we want to have a similar thing in Medina also. Abu Bakr spotted out a suitable location and granted it to Abdullah. He built two bridges in that place but now there is no sign of them.”[85]

Such irresponsible utilization of public funds is recorded in the annals of history. On the other hand conjectures are invented to dress the Caliph in a guise of piety.

“It is also said that when Abu Bakr was dying he said to his daughter Ayesha: We had Muslim affairs in our hands. But you know that I did not take even one Dinar or Dirham from public funds by way of salary…”![86]

In the same way we see the following claim repeated regarding the deprivation of family members and children of Caliph from minimum material needs through Abu Bakr:

“Abu Bakr adopted a life of piety since he became a Caliph. He took from public treasury the minimum amount in salary. His salary was not enough to purchase sweets for his wife and children. He lived such a stringent life at a time when conditions were improved, Islamic territories were stretched and expanded and the revenues too had increased.”[87]

On the other hand we hear this story from a girl grown and brought up in the house of Abu Bakr:

“Ayesha, in the days[88] of the Prophet, had several dresses and cloaks of different designs and fashions while other wives of Prophet had simple dresses of cheap quality.

Ayesha also wore gold and other jewellery.

Even in the days of Hajj when costly dresses and ornaments are ignored and not used Mother of believers did not abstain.”[89]

Allamah Sayyid Murtuza Askari has shown documents in this respect, which he has utilized in his analysis. We quote a few here:

A) The author of Tabaqaat writes on the basis of the narration from Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abu Bakr (son of Ayesha’s brother): Ayesha wore costly cloaks - mostly of yellow color. She had costly rings, which she used to wear.

B) A Muslim woman named Shamsia narrates: One day I visited Ayesha and found her wearing a yellow dress and a yellow headscarf.

C) Son of Ayesha’s sister, Urwah bin Zubair narrates: Ayesha had an upper dress of silk. She used to wear it on occasions. Later she gave it to Abdullah bin Zubair.

D) After passing away of Prophet, Muhammad bin Ashath brought a present of a skin coat, which she used to wear in winter.

E) A Muslim lady named Amina says that she saw Ayesha wearing upper dress of red color and headscarf of black color.[90]

F) Qasim bin Muhammad bin Abi Bakr says: Ayesha used to wear a yellow Hajj dress (Ihraam). At the time of Hajj, she performed Hajj wearing her gold ornaments and other costly things.[91]

The interesting thing is Ayesha wore such dresses and appreciated the dress of the ladies of Ansaar as a model for a Muslim lady. She says:

“I have not seen women better than the women of Ansaar. When this verse [verse of Hijab in Surah Noor] descended each one hurried to her woolen cloth, cut it and covered their heads with it as though a black crow was sitting on their heads.”[92]

Personal use of Public Funds

In the same way it is said that Abu Bakr lived a simple life and was very careful with public funds:

“Abu Bakr told his daughter, Ayesha, at the close of his death to surrender the camel, which he was riding and the bowl of his food and the gown he was wearing to the new Caliph who would succeed him. These things are prohibited to others than the Caliph.”![93]

In reply to this we have to rely on historical documents that show how he lavished bribes from Muslims treasury on his opponents to obtain their support. It is the worst type of advantage that puts the piety of Caliph to question.

A)

As you know the Prophet delegated Abu Sufyan to a certain district to collect Zakat. When Abu Sufyan returned to Medina the Caliphate of Ali was hijacked in the Saqifah conspiracy.

Abu Sufyan at first because of communal feelings proposed to Imam Ali (a.s.) of his acknowledgement to him as the Caliph but after “He got disappointed from Ali towards his own personal gains. On the other hand the government at that time was anxious for his campaign, which was in anticipation of government. Umar went to Abu Bakr and told him that Abu Sufyan had returned from his assignment. He warned Abu Bakr that they would not be safe from his mischief. The Prophet of God too, always treated him with care and affection for this very reason. Now he has some amount collected by him in Zakat. Although the amount with him belongs to the Public Treasury we should ignore the amount and give it to him to please him. Abu Bakr agreed and did the same.

Abu Sufyan was pleased and he paid allegiance to Abu Bakr.[94]

According to the narration of Tabari, Abu Sufyan did not pay allegiance to Abu Bakr until he got the post of commander for his son, Yazid bin Abu Sufyan, to the army in Syria.[95] ”[96]

“Our readers are aware of the fact that among them and Bani Umayyah chief (Abu Sufyan) there was no difference of views. I (the author)[97] believe that contradictions in their behavior were a strategy to create divisions in society. There was no motive at all of any good among them.”[98]

B)

Although it must be noted that diversion of public funds in such a way and bribing political adversaries was a common practice of Caliphs. Such misappropriation was in excess. They did it freely without fearing God. To prove this there are many historical documents but we quote here a few:

“When Abu Bakr was established in office he fixed salaries from public funds to Muhajireen and Ansaar women.

Share of a woman from Bani Adi bin al-Najjar was given to Zaid bin Thabit to deliver to her. Zaid went to her and presented the stipend. The woman asked him what it was for. Zaid told her that it was her share fixed by Abu Bakr. The woman replied: Do you want to take away my faith by this bribe? I swear by God, I will not accept anything from him.

The amount was returned to Abu Bakr.”[99]

This of course was not the first case and that woman, not the only woman to be bribed though she rejected. Such cases of expenditures that told on public funds are aplenty. Besides there are many cases of bribes given to persons of their own choice secretly and which were not recorded in books of treasury. For instance the Bani Aslam tribe got free provision in return to their support to Abu Bakr’s rule.[100]

Anyway the policy of terror, fear, greed and bribe -was at the top of the list that ran the administration of Abu Bakr’s rule. Such that he said:

I hope your hearts by terror and your bellies by food have been filled.[101]

At the end we would like to quote another case of misappropriation of public funds by Caliphs for their personal benefit and benefit of their families, particularly by Umar.

C)

“Zakwan a freed slave of Ayesha narrates: When Iraq was conquered, spoils of the war were distributed among Muslims. A basket was sent to Umar with a jewel. Umar showed the jewel to Muslims around him and asked its worth. Nobody knew its worth. He then asked them to allow him to send the jewel to Ayesha for the love the Prophet had towards her.[102]

All agreed.

He sent the jewel to her.

Ayesha said: O, God! What a great victory You have bestowed on Umar today...”[103]

Apparently Umar had forgotten what he himself had told Abu Bakr that public property cannot be granted to anyone that the Caliph likes. Acceptance of a few cohorts around the Caliph cannot be a sanction for this generosity. It belongs to all Muslims. The courtiers of Caliph are not peoples’ representatives. So their sanction does not carry any credit.

More interesting is that Ayesha accepted the jewel as a present. She immediately was pleased and praised Umar. She forgot her father’s will in which he had advised her not to use anything from public property or any sum from public funds because it belonged to Muslims. This shows that in fact there was no such will.

Anyway, public funds were used for personal interests very openly and freely. On the other hand they go on making claim after claim. For instance:

“Umar did not use his Caliphate for any personal benefit. He did not allow himself any sum from public funds for his private ends. He did not allow himself to lavish money on others from public funds.”[104]

D)

“Ibn Saad narrates from Saeed bin Aas Amawi[105] that he (Saeed) asked Umar to give him a piece of land surrounding his house. He wanted the land to expand his house.

He was encouraged to make such a request because Umar had given lands to some of his close associates.

The Caliph told him: Come after the Morning Prayer so that I may do what you want.

Saeed did accordingly. Then they both, Umar and Saeed, went to the spot to see the land.

Umar drew a line by his foot over the land and said this too is yours.

Saeed bin Aas said to Umar to enlarge the land to some extent because he had a large family.

In reply to this request, Umar said: This much is enough for you. However I’ll tell you a secret, which you please don’t disclose to anyone. After me, one will become Caliph that will give you what you request. He will attend to family ties and relations.

Saeed waited the whole duration of Umar’s Caliphate. When Uthman became a Caliph he did what Umar had predicted.”[106]

The interesting point is that Umar did not consult anyone in his charity of lands, which belonged to all Muslims. He did not obtain permission of any Muslim around him. He perhaps forgot the many times he had censured and blamed Abu Bakr in his similar procedure and had even refused the excuse that he (Abu Bakr) had consulted the people around him.

Clandestine Luxury

Claims are made that:

“Umar was an emperor who used to sit over naked ground instead of a throne embossed with jewels. He wore a coarse cloak - very ordinary and cheap, which was quite in line with the dress of a poor ordinary citizen. In his dress, there was no distinction as to differentiate him from others. In those days there were very costly cloths and pieces in the treasury that came from East and West as gifts and presents.”![107]

“Umar used to work from early morning to late at night and take wages for his labor. This he made a source for his livelihood and did not burden public funds.”![108]

“He did not have leisure to eat in ease and comfort or to wash his clothes. He did not go after luxury and pleasure.”![109]

“When Umar left the world he was in debts. His conscience did not let him to take a single Dirham from public funds.”![110]

On the other hand historical document indicates something else:

A - “Umar borrowed a great sum from public funds. It amounted to 86000 Dirhams.[111]

Now if we suppose his fixed annual expenses were five thousand Dirhams then such a loan as this would equal expenses of more than sixteen years.”[112]

Other matters recorded in history say:

B) “Umar gave one thousand Dirhams to one of his relatives.”[113]

C) “He fixed a dowry to one of his wives as forty thousand Dirhams.”[114]

D) “He presented 10000 Dirhams to one of his sons-in-law who had come from Mecca.”[115]

E) “One of the sons of Umar sold his share of inheritance to his brother, Abdullah bin Umar to the amount of a hundred thousand dirhams.[116] ”[117]

Abu Yusuf confirms all these cases and adds:

F) “Umar had four thousand distinguished horses in the way of God.

Umar used to give one of these horses to one whose share from public treasury was little and his needs more. Umar put this condition when he gave the horse: If you tire the horse or do not feed it properly or make it thin and lean, you will be held responsible. If you went to holy war with it and it got wounded you will not be accountable.”[118]

Although the last part of the narration is praise to Umar in some way or other, if the Sunni sect believes this praise they should also believe that Umar owned four thousand horses in the first place. If it is so, it will be in immediate contradiction with claims of his having had lived a poor life because of his piety. On the whole, it can be said:

“His pious life does not mean that he had no wealth during his Caliphate. According to sources Umar was among the rich ones of Quraish.”[119]

While it is said about him:

“Umar owned nothing and he did not desire to own anything.”[120]

Support to Royal life and Hoarding Wealth

Even though in this regard their claim is:

“Hazrat Umar succeeded in his days to stand like an iron wall against this tempest and hurricane and with all his power held it in abeyance.”![121]

But historical documents indicate opposite of this. Please note the following:

1 - Support to Muawiyah

“The Second Caliph used to issue special orders with regard to Muawiyah regardless of the fact that Muawiyah was one of the freed ones, yet Umar was enthusiastic to prepare him for Caliphate. So he tried to prepare ground for his (Muawiyah) coming to power.

It is enough to mention that:

A) Umar kept Muawiyah for years in the post of governor of Syria but did not check his accounts as was routine. While every year he sent auditors to check account books of his district collectors and provincial governors which sometimes ended in insult to the governors.

B) Umar did not keep his collectors and governors in their posts for more than two years. He either changed their locations or transferred them to other places.[122]

C) Muawiyah asked Umar to furnish him with instructions so that he acts thereupon accordingly. Umar said that he would neither issue any orders to him nor would restrict him from doing anything.[123]

D) These were the things in addition to other wrongdoings of Muawiyah, which Umar did know but overlooked. For instance he lent money on interest but Umar did not take any action against him.[124]

E) One day Muawiyah was censured and blamed in the presence of Umar. Umar said to them: Don’t blame the brave man of Quraish before me. He is so brave that he laughs even while he is angry.[125]

F) Umar paid as a salary of one thousand Dinars every month to Muawiyah from public funds. This amount is mentioned as 10000 dinars yearly in other narrations.[126]

G) Umar used to say about Muawiyah:

Beware of a man of Quraish - a man whose color is closer to black. Also beware of his son. He is one who goes to slumber when he is pleased and laughs when he is in rage.[127]

H) Once Umar saw Muawiyah and remarked: He is Choesroe of Arabs.[128]

I) One day Umar asked his companions: Will you speak about Choesroe and Caesar and their policies in the presence of Muawiyah?![129] ”[130]

Such praises for Muawiyah and his royalty while it is that:

“Sometimes Umar too had called himself a king.[131] ”[132]

It is interesting that in spite of these clear confessions of the Caliph it is still claimed that:

“Having had so much greatness and power he did not like to be counted among kings and rulers.”![133]

“This great sacred man instead of becoming proud and arrogant because of his battles - one of which was Jerusalem - became humble.”[134]

2 - Support to Tameem

[135]

Historical documents show that:

“In this period the Caliph made Tameem equal to the people of Badr and elevated him to the rows of great men of Islam. He was allotted a monthly salary of five thousand Dirhams.”[136]

Yes, this Caliph is reputed for piety and God-fearing nature.

“Umar had great reverence and respect with regard to Tameem. He used to attribute him as the best among the people of Medina.”[137]

While:

“About Tameem, it is said that he bought a dress for himself for one thousand Dirhams to wear it on the night of Power.[138] This amount was sufficient to buy two hundred sheep. By this amount, he could have fed hundreds of hungry men.”[139]

3 - Support to Zaid bin Thabit

[140]

Historical documents show that:

“Umar had a special affection towards Zaid bin Thabit. Abu Bakr during his reign asked Umar to appoint Zaid (who was a youth then) in Finance Department. When Umar became Caliph, Zaid came to him with money he had from the Treasury but Umar told him to keep it for himself.”[141]

4 - Support to Qunfudh

This happened in one of the years when Umar was checking the financial status of his personnel. Qunfudh was having twenty thousand dirhams of the treasury. Umar did not check the account and gave the money for his personal use even though that year he had confiscated half the property of all his officers.[142]

Properties of Staff Members

“Abdur Rahman bin Auf went to see Abu Bakr who was seriously sick. Abu Bakr spoke to him. One of his statements was:

Whoever among you I appointed as officer collected the revenue for himself.”[143]

“Umar bin Khattab [also] time to time used to call his officers to Medina. His officers had openly hoarded wealth from public funds. Umar checked their financial position and interrogated them. He used to take half of their money for public funds and the other half he left for themselves.[144] He neither changed their position nor transferred them.[145]

Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) did not like this policy. He told Umar:

If you think they are wrongdoers, why you take half of their wealth obtained by them illegitimately and return the other half? Why you keep them in their posts?

One day one of the interrogated officers asked the Caliph:

If this money is God’s why don’t you take all of it? If it is mine why you take half of it?[146] ”[127]

More interesting is that:

A)

Persons like Abu Huraira, governor of Bahrain was accused of misappropriation of public funds and the Caliph was notified of this accordingly.[148]

B)

“The Caliph confiscated the property of Abu Moosa Ashari,[149] governor of Basrah, but he was not dismissed from his job.”[150]

In other words, one whose property is confiscated because he misappropriated public funds is allowed to continue in his job!

There are further documents that show:

“A man named Zabbat bin Mohsin Anzai quarreled with Abu Moosa Ashari for spoils of war. Abu Moosa sent him to Umar. Umar, without asking him for the reason of his quarrel with Abu Musa, punished him. Zabbat was enraged and wanted to leave the place. At that time, Umar asked him the reason of the quarrel.

He replied: Abu Moosa has seventy Iranian slaves and a maid by name Aqeela. He said that Abu Moosa lives in such and such way. Then the man counted to Umar the spoils Abu Moosa had taken for himself.[151] In spite of this information about Abu Moosa, the Caliph did not dismiss him. The only thing Umar did was that he purchased Aqeela from Abu Moosa for himself!”[152]

Keeping in mind his partiality with freed slave like Muawiyah, Zaid bin Thabit and Tameen you can yourself judge the following claim about him:

“Umar was so astute and shrewd that he sensed the slightest change in the life of his personnel while they were in the hurricane of victories and spoils of war. He had a watch over all of them. He interrogated them without exemption to check their honesty and trustworthiness towards government and Muslims.”[153]

“Umar throughout the years of his Caliphate paid due care and attention to the work of his personnel and proceedings of his governors.”[154]

Selection of officers

The Second Caliph strongly believed that competency and astuteness in carrying out responsibility of government and military affairs was more important than faith and justice of his men.

A) Selection of Mughaira bin Shoba

Ibn Abde Rabb writes in the beginning of his book Iqdul Fareed under the topic of ‘Discretion of the ruler for those competent for the job’:[155]

“When the Caliph decided to appoint a new governor for Kufa in place of Ammar Yasir[156] he was confused because if he sent a man of probity he would be regarded as weak[157] and if he sent a man of ability, he would be considered a tyrant. At this juncture, Mughaira interfered and put the suggestion:

A man of probity if considered weak the weakness will be his own - not yours. But his inability is counted on you because it will have an immediate bearing on you. On the other hand a strong man will be to your advantage while the sins will be his alone!

The Caliph said: You are right! That man is yourself, because at the same time you are a tyrant also. This was the ground for his appointment and he was sent to Kufa.[158] ”[159]

In this way the Caliph preferred a profane man who had committed great many sins and crimes in Basrah when he was the governor there, but he (Mughaira) was never punished or dismissed. Now he was appointed governor of Kufa.

Historical annals say that Abu Bakr too had the same policy.

B) Selection of Khalid bin Waleed

Abu Bakr acted in the same way with Khalid bin Waleed and in spite of the wicked crimes Khalid perpetrated he made him commander of Syrian army.[160] In the meantime, Abu Bakr left a will[161] in which he had enjoined to send Khalid with governorship to Iraq as soon as he returns from Syria.[162]

C) Selection of Amr bin Aas

Similarly Abu Bakr surrendered Palestine and its affairs to Amr bin Aas. When Umar became Caliph, he transferred him to Egypt as a governor while he (Umar) himself had written a letter to Amr bin Aas addressing him as disobedient, son of disobedient (Al-Aasi ibnal Aasi).[163]

More interesting is the fact that Sunni scholars have themselves written that Umar bin Khattab said:

“One who appoints a transgressor to a job knowing that he is such, is like him only.”[164]

Anyway, in spite of all these historical records still they claim:

“Umar bin Khattab himself was epitome of justice. Therefore he wanted his district collectors and provincial governors to be like him - men of justice in all respects.”[165]

Piety without a Holy war

It is commonly known that the Prophet used to take the responsibility of the command of the army in important and key battles. In battles like Badr, Uhad, Khandaq, Khaiber, Conquest of Mecca, Hunain and Tabuk the Prophet himself was present. On the other hand historical annals show that neither Abu Bakr nor Umar were present in any of the battles or invasions for expanding Islamic territories though these battles took place during their Caliphate. Besides, these battles were called ‘Holy War’ that is war in the way of God. Neither Abu Bakr nor Umar took the command of the army nor directed military movements.

“Historians have unanimously narrated that Abu Bakr only once left Medina to wage a war. After Usamah returned from Mutah, he moved towards Zilqissa. There he prepared a well-equipped army. He gave the command of this army to Khalid bin Waleed while command of Ansaar group was responsibility of Thabit bin Qais. Earlier it was under command of Khalid. He issued orders to them to destroy Tolaiha and those who were from tribes of Asad and Fuzara and had gathered around Tolaiha under his command. So they had to move towards Buzakha. There are some historians who have mentioned the surprise attack launched by Bani Fuzara and that one man from them was killed. This happened in Zilqissa.”[166]

“Balazari and Muqaddasi have also mentioned the story of Zilqissa and the event of the attack of Bani Fuzara.

Muqaddasi after narrating Abu Bakr’s journey to Zilqissa adds:

Then Khalid advanced towards the enemy with his army. Kharija bin Hisn saw Muslims were in a limited number so he gathered courage and attacked them with a few mounted warriors. As a result, Muslims fled and Abu Bakr too fled with them. His age put him out of breath which failed his legs so he took refuge by climbing up the nearest tree concealing himself in the foliage to escape the enemy…”[167]

“It is interesting how they fabricate narrations[168] and create stories to justify the Caliph’s absence in the field and the necessity for his presence in the capital (Medina).

They in the same way have forged narrations attributed to Amirul Momineen (a.s.) in which Ali (a.s.) restrained Abu Bakr and Umar not to personally take part in battles for the safety of their lives.”[169]

While Amirul Momineen (a.s.) although having devoted and loyal warriors around him like Malik Ashtar etc. himself commanded the Islamic forces in three battles of Jamal, Siffeen and Nahrawan and took an active part in them.

Pleasant Food

Let us see what food the Caliph used to eat and in this respect, what claims have been launched.

“He (the Caliph) was so frugal in food that no one liked to eat even one morsel of his food.”![170]

“Sometimes he (the Caliph) remained hungry for long that his belly used to impart sounds as an empty vessel does.”[171]

But what historical documents say is that:

A) “A man told Umar: You have put on weight.

Umar replied: Why should I not when I have women around me who have no pursuit except to fill my stomach?…”[172]

More interesting is that the Caliph himself chastised those who grew fat.

“The Caliph saw a man, who because of obesity walked huffing and puffing.[173]

He asked: What’s wrong with you?

The man replied: This is a blessing from God.

Umar said: No, this is a punishment from God. He is punishing you in this way.”[174]

B) The narrator says: “I was in Umar’s house at dinner time. He (Umar) was eating bread with meat...”[175]

C) “Ibn Abbas says that he visited Umar during his Caliphate. A vessel full of dates was brought that he may taste them. It contained a Saa-a[176] of dates.

He invited me to join and I only took one piece but he ate up all the dates emptying the vessel, then drank water from a flask kept near him. After that he put his head on a pillow, stretched his legs and relaxed…”[177]

D) Abdullah bin Umar narrates: “I saw my father that his mouth was watering. I asked him how he was feeling?

He said: I very much want to eat red shrimp[178] .”[179]

In the end, we leave to you to judge the truth of claims such as:

“Our lord Umar was a model and example to Muslims for his simple living, not getting entrapped in worldly pleasures and his humble and submissive nature.”![180]

Rivalry to piety of Amirul Momineen (a.s.)

Truly inspite of the fact that Amirul Momineen (a.s.) was at the pinnacle of piety and at the highest degree of probity, how can others gain a reputation among people as being models of piety just by pretending to be simple and pious? Thus even in criticism of the aristocratic attitude of the Second Caliph it is said:

“Umar inspite of his piety was the first to lay the foundation of Arab aristocracy[181] .”![182]

Reply to this claim should be searched in the spirituality of people who witnessed the piety of Amirul Momineen (a.s.) during the period of his rule.

“People want a leader who should not prefer his own family to the people. He should live like them with them. He should try for their well-being - not the well-being of his own circle. And Ali Ibne Abi Talib (a.s.) was such.

People were well aware of virtues and other tributes of Ali and also knew that he was not like Umar. To Ali there was no difference between an Arab and non-Arab, he did not overlook least disobedience to God, never cancelled the smallest penalty, never feared scolding anyone and except for divine standards and distinctions did not care for anything. It was all this that the people could not bear…”[183]

Caliphs had to maintain the show of simple living and poverty because days of Prophet were still fresh in memories of people. The Prophet had lived such and people had seen it. Therefore it became binding for Abu Bakr and Umar, but both pursued the practice of ignorant days behind this show of piety and poverty. They were partial to Arabs in relation to others. They gave preference to Quraish over the people. They satisfied their inner inclination[184] such as pride and self-lust. Of course their victories in expanding Islamic territories also served a shield to them. It silenced the people to a great extent. In the meantime, they preceded little by little in bringing a gradual change in the style of government. They distanced from the type of government the Prophet had. At the same time they pleased the people so that even to this day of ours they are pleased with them. Ali did not like any trickery and hypocrisy.

For this the piety of Caliphs was propagated to shadow the piety of Imam Ali (a.s.). Today they claim:

“The pious life of Ali was a shadow of the Prophet’s life and a ray of light of Caliphate Abu Bakr and Umar.”[185]

“Ali was like Umar in his piety.”[186]

Muawiyah and the Responsibility of the Imam’s Martyrdom

(First printed ‘Al-Jawwad’, September-October 1955 A.D.)

After expressing views on Taqiyyah, the Rizwan editor felt proud of his knowledge of history and he paid tributes to his chief, Muawiyah in the following manner:

Who killed the Imam?

Shias blame Amir Muawiyah for the assassination of Imam (as). Some Shias even say that the Imam was assassinated on the order of Muawiyah. However, Shia scholars have themselves concocted these allegations. Reliable Shia books prove that Amir Muawiyah had nothing to do in the Imam’s murder. Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes in Jalalul Uyun1 that Amir Muawiyah willed to Yazid at the time of his death:

1) But as for Imam Husain (as)! You know his relation and nearness to the Holy Prophet (S). He is a part of the Prophet. I know that the people of Iraq will call him and would not help him. If you get control over him, recognize his rights. Remember his rank of nearness to the Prophet. Do not make him recompense for his actions and do not break off the relations I have strengthened with him during this time. Beware! Do not give him any kind of trouble.

2) It is narrated in Nasikhut Tawarikh that Muawiyah made the following will to Yazid: O son! Do not be greedy. Beware, when you come to Allah you should not have the blood of Husain bin Ali upon your neck. Otherwise, you will not be at ease and remain under chastisement forever.

This narration is also from the book of Shias. At least it proves that Muawiyah was not involved in the martyrdom of Husain (as). He had willed Yazid to respect and help the Imam. Then we do not understand why Amir Muawiyah is blamed for the martyrdom of the Imam?

After quoting this objection from the beginning to the end I don’t know which statement should be replied first. By the grace of Allah, each word of this script is inviting an objection. However, I feel it appropriate to present an example of the historical knowledge of Rizwan editor and his associates before criticizing these wordings.

This same issue of Rizwan contained an article, “Coronation of Yazid and Problems of ‘is there more?’” by Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayed Muhammad Ahmad, the chief of the Federation of scholars of Pakistan, Lahore. Who can ask what this exalted personality means by this title. Why he says ‘is there more’ instead of ‘is there from more’.

Is it due to the age-old habit of making distortions? Anyway, the beauty of the title shows the significance of the subject matter. The chief of the Federation of the scholars of Pakistan does not even know that Imam Hasan (as) was martyred ten years before Yazid (l.a.) came to the throne. And that their Chief, Muawiyah had a significant role in this martyrdom. The poor man thinks that Imam Hasan (as) was also martyred in 61 A.H. I shall mention some selected sentences of this article in a sequence as follows:

“Sixtieth year of Hijrah and the month of Rajab…Unclean Yazid dirties the throne with his impure feet… He attacks Imam Hasan (r.a.) for the first time and poisons him a number of times. As a result, the liver of the beloved of the Messenger of Allah (S) came out in pieces.”

After that is mentioned the martyrdom and bequest etc. of Imam Hasan (as). Then he continues…

“…in short, after Yazid satisfied his unlucky heart with the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (r.a.), his eyes fell upon the Prince of the two worlds, Imam Husain (as)…and so on.”2

Do you see the historical knowledge of the chief of the federation of scholars of Pakistan? Even an elementary student of Islamic history will not make such a blunder. But where the only aim is to acquire offerings from people after donning the turban, where is the time for the pursuit of knowledge?

The problem is that the Rizwan editor has tried to undertake a journey, which requires great historical consciousness. The condition of his knowledge is such that he does not even know the sequence of important events. So it is very difficult to explain to him, ‘Who the assassin of the Imam (as) is?’

Let us consider his statements, one by one.

He says: “Shias blame Amir Muawiyah for the assassination of Imam (as).”

Whoever has provided you with this information has not conveyed it in full. Rather they consider it to be connected to much earlier incidents. Shias not only blame Muawiyah but also his predecessors for the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as). They say that the foundation of martyrdom of Imam Husain (as) was laid by your leaders in Saqifah itself. If the rights of the progeny of Muhammad (S) had not been usurped on that day, the tragedy of Kerbala would not have occurred.

They would not have dared to oppress the progeny of Muhammad (S). Hence we consider all, from those responsible for allegiance at Saqifah, to the lowest soldier of Yazid, responsible for the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as). We consider the root more important than the branches. The same thing is versified beautiful way by a poet thus:

“In what a nice way someone has said

That Husain was killed in Saqifah.”3

Also another poet has said about your second Caliph:

“The evil deed of Shimr was due to what he had done.

The blood of all the martyr is upon his neck.”4

These are open secrets well understood by your Imam Ghazzali and other scholars. Hence he issued the verdict, “It is prohibited for a preacher and a non-preacher to speak about Imam Husain (as) and his companions because it instigates enmity of companions (of Prophet).” The question is if Imam Ghazzali was not aware that this event of martyrdom occurred by courtesy of your ‘blessed companions’ and that the foundation of this tragedy has been laid at the hands of the companions, why else would he say that it causes incitement of the enmity of companions?

Also note that even during that period the common man was so conscious of history that he could estimate the causes of events. Otherwise how could the enmity of the companions develop just because a preacher is talking about Husain (as)? The reason is, when an event is viewed in a true light, the mind is led to the incidents prior to that event and one can reach a conclusion based on the relationship between them. It could thus be understood that ‘Husain was killed in Saqifah’. And in this way they would develop hatred to those companions. Thus even the common people understood these historical facts but who would explain them to the Rizwan editor?

“Who does not know this secret?

Though these are the secrets known to all.”5

What to say about others, Muawiyah himself has explained this fact. He says that he was the follower of the three caliphs especially the first caliph, in all these oppressive deeds. If Abu Bakr had not usurped the caliphate, he would never have opposed Ali (as). To be more precise, when Imam Ali (as) accepted the apparent caliphate, Muawiyah began to oppose him. Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, the son of the first caliph, wrote to Muawiyah describing the defects of Bani Umayyah and excellences of Amirul Momineen (as). He asked him to start obeying Amirul Momineen (as) or be prepared to face the chastisement of the Judgment Day. Muawiyah replied as follows:

“This is a letter from Muawiyah bin Sakhr to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr who accuses his own father. So to say: I received you letter in which you have described the power, highness and majesty of God, which He indeed is worthy of. You have also described the excellences due to which God chose the Holy Prophet (S).

You have also stated many things that show your weakness and denounce your father. You have also mentioned about the excellences of Ali bin Abi Talib, his peculiarities, nearness to the Prophet (S) and the Prophet (S) getting his help in times of need. Your arguments against me and finding my faults are due to the appreciation of someone else [i.e. Ali bin Abi Talib (as)]. It is not due to your own excellence. Hence, I thank God Who removed these excellences from you and gave them to someone else. The fact is that we (including your father, Abu Bakr) knew the excellences of Ali bin Abi Talib very well.

We knew that it was incumbent upon us to restore his right. God liked this bounty for His Prophet (S), which he had already chosen. God fulfilled His promise made to the Prophet (S), made His invitation open and enlightened His proof. When God called him back, your father and Farooq were the first to usurp the right of Ali (as) and who opposed him regarding his caliphate. They both united over this issue and made it evident. Then they called Ali to pay allegiance to him. Ali refused to pay allegiance to them. They intended to harass Ali and made considerable attempts to do so…

They neither associated Ali in any of their affairs nor revealed any secret to him till God gave them death. Then their third, Uthman stood up and followed their footsteps only. You and your companion started pointing out his faults. However, the foolish people far and wide were tempted by it. You both wished for hardships upon him and expressed your enmity. Finally you achieved your aims. Thus, O son of Abu Bakr! Beware, and compare your span with the inner area of your palm. You cannot compare yourself with the one (Muawiyah) whose empire is as large as the mountains. Pressure does not make his spear soft. Neither a speaker can understand his order. He has spread the throne of his rule and made his empire very strong.

Now the issue of caliphate that we are discussing; if it is correct, your father (Abu Bakr) alone had made the arrangements. We just followed his orders and became his partners. If your father had not behaved thus, we would also never have opposed Ali bin Abi Talib and on the contrary, accepted his caliphate. We only saw your father’s behavior with Ali and followed his footsteps. Now if you want accuse anyone, accuse your own father or refrain from this issue. And peace be on the one who had his desires fulfilled.”6

Even Yazid (whom Ahlul Sunnat accepted as caliph after Muawiyah) declares that he dared to oppress Ahlul Bayt (as) only because the two Shaykhs, Uthman etc. had opened the door of oppressing the Ahlul Bayt and he had only followed them. Thus after the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as), Abdullah bin Umar (son of the second caliph) wrote a letter to Yazid. Both the letter and its reply are present in History of Balazari, which is a work of a great Ahlul Sunnat scholar, Allamah Balazari. The actual text is as follows:

When Imam Husain (as) was martyred Abdullah bin Umar wrote a letter to Yazid bin Muawiyah: “After praise and salutations, you should know that this is a great catastrophe. A great tragedy has occurred in Islam. No day is equal to the day of the martyrdom of Husain (as).”

Yazid replied: “O fool! We acquired decorated houses, spread chessboards, and well-arranged cushions (i.e. a strong empire). So we fought a battle to safeguard our worldly life. If truth is against us (i.e. with Husain and his family) then your father is the first person who started usurping the rights.’”7

The eyes of Abdullah bin Umar opened on reading this reprimanding letter. He understood that if he has to maintain the prestige of his father he would have to support Yazid. Because of opposition of Yazid implies that the three caliphs be opposed. After all, they are links of the same chain, and opposing the three caliphs would eliminate one from the ‘Sunni circle’. Apart from this, he did not have the courage to reveal his father’s blunders and become a truthful one (like Muhammad bin Abi Bakr).

Hence he started supporting Yazid to such an extent that when the people of Medina decided to break allegiance of Yazid it was this Abdullah bin Umar who supported Yazid and became aloof from the people of Medina along with his family members, as mentioned in the books of history. Confession of a criminal is more important than his defensive arguments, but there should be someone who can understand it.

Keeping in mind all these issues, we have to accept that Saqifah was the foundation of not only the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as), but also the martyrdom of every member from the progeny of the Holy Prophet (S).

Hence those orators who say that Muawiyah was the only one involved in the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as) along with Yazid, narrate only a part of truth or act with utmost forbearance.

The next sentence is:

“Some Shias even say that the Imam was assassinated only on the order of Muawiyah.”

The editor of Rizwan wants to save his Amir from the accusation of the Imam’s martyrdom. Even if the accusation of martyrdom is taken back it will not be possible to acquit him. Since the pieces of Imam Hasan’s liver prove that he is the culprit. Hasan and Husain (as) are equal in the eyes of the Prophet (S), Allah and we people. As you have not mentioned the name of Imam, let me explain to you how Muawiyah’s hands are smeared with the blood of the Imam. Numerous Ahlul Sunnat scholars accept it. Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr, a famous Ahlul Sunnat scholar, writes in his renowned work, Al Istiab fi Marefat As-haab as follows:

Qatadah and Abu Bakr bin Hafasa said, “Hasan bin Ali was poisoned. He was poisoned by his wife, Judah binte Ashath. A group of scholars believe that this poisoning was only the intrigue of Muawiyah. It was only as a result of what he paid to Judah.”

Allamah Sibte Ibn Jawzi, a renowned Ahlul Sunnat scholar writes in his famous book, Tadhkirah Khwaasul Ummah with more explanation:

“Imam Shabi says that Muawiyah made a secret pact with Judah and said, ‘If you poison Hasan I would marry you off to Yazid and reward you a hundred thousand dirhams.’ After the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (as), she asked Muawiyah to fulfill his promise. Muawiyah sent a hundred thousand dirhams to her along with a message, ‘I love Yazid and want him to remain alive otherwise I would have surely married you to him.’ Imam Shabi says that the proof of this statement is the assertion of Imam Hasan (as) at the time of his death, ‘I know that the sip of Muawiyah has become pleasant and he has fulfilled his wish. By Allah, he would not fulfill his promises and neither is he true to his word.’”

And my grandfather (Allamah Ibn Jawzi) writes in the book, As Safwah that Yaqub bin Sufyan has mentioned in his history that only Judah poisoned Imam Hasan (as). A poet has said regarding this:

‘You know that there are many ways of your consolation,

Thoughts that will take away your grief.

The demise of the Prophet (S), martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as),

Martyrdom of Husain (as) and the poisoning of Hasan (as).’8

Ibn Saad says that Muawiyah poisoned Imam Hasan (as) a number of times because Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (as) used to visit him in Syria (and he used to poison his guests there).”9

All these points are mentioned by the following Ahlul Sunnat scholars with explanation:

1) Allamah Zuhri in Tahzibul Kamal fee Asmair Rijal

2) Imam Zahabi in Tahzibut Tahzib

3) Shaykh Abu Abdillah Muhammad bin Umar Zainuddin Ibnul Waqidi in Miratul Ajaib

4) Allamah Zamakhshari in Rabi-ul-Abraar

5) Abul Hasanul Madayani in the History of Madayan

6) Allamah Ismail bin Ali bin Mahmud in Al-Mukhtar fil Akhbaar Khairul Bashar

7) Maulana Abdul Qadir bin Muhammad Tabari in Husnus Sareerah etc.

When Muawiyah got the news of the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (as) he exclaimed, ‘Allaho Akbar!’ (God is the Greatest) out of joy. When people asked the reason, they came to know that it is due to the martyrdom of the beloved of the Holy Prophet (S) and they rebuked him. Muawiyah said that his heart was at peace because of his demise. Mirza Mutamid Khan has quoted this incident in his book Miftahun Najah and narrated a lengthy conversation between Muawiyah and Ibn Abbas. I narrate it here in spite of my concern for brevity:

“Allamah Dayar Bakri writes in Tarikh Khamees that when Muawiyah received the news of the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (as), he recited a Takbir (Allaho Akbar). The Syrians also repeated the slogan after him. Thus Fakhta binte Qarza asked Muawiyah, ‘May God keep your eyes cool. What is the reason of this Takbir?’ He replied, ‘Hasan died.’ Fakhta said, ‘Do you shout the slogan of Takbir at the death of the son of Fatima (s.a.)?’ He said, ‘I have not recited Takbir because I am rejoicing at his distress but my heart it at peace.’”

Allamah Dayar Bakri says that this only constitutes ‘rejoicing at someone’s distress’. Without it a heart cannot be at peace at the death of someone else.

Zubair bin Bakar says that Ibn Abbas went to Muawiyah and Muawiyah had already received the news of the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (as). Thus Muawiyah performed a prostration of thanks and his face lit up in delight. Then he gave permission to the people to enter the court. He permitted Ibn Abbas last. He entered and Muawiyah made him sit beside himself. Muawiyah said, ‘Do you know about the incident that occurred in your family?’ Ibn Abbas replied in negative. Muawiyah said, ‘Imam Hasan (as) has expired. May God reward you greatly in this calamity.’ Ibn Abbas said, ‘From Him we come and to Him shall we return. We seek the reward of calamity of the death of Imam Hasan (as) from God only. I have got the news of your prostration and I am sure it is prostration of thanks out of the joy of this death. By Allah, neither his body will close your grave nor his life will increase your life.

We have already suffered the calamity of a greater personality (i.e. Amirul Momineen). Then God recompensed it (by Imam Hasan) (Hence you should not be happy at the demise of Hasan).’ Muawiyah asked the age of Imam Hasan (as). Ibn Abbas replied, ‘He was more honorable that I should be aware of the date of his birth!’ Muawiyah said, ‘I know that he has left behind small kids.’ Ibn Abbas said, ‘We all were young (in his presence) but have become elderly now.’ Muawiyah said, ‘You have become the head of your family now.’ Ibn Abbas replied, ‘Did not God keep Abu Abdillah Husain (as) alive that I should be the chief?’ He stood up saying so with tears flowing from his eyes. Muawiyah said, ‘May God do good to Ibn Abbas. By Allah, we never remained with him but that we found him the leader.’”

Allamah Damiri has also quoted this incident in brief using some different words in his book, Hayatul Haiwan.

The description of Muawiyah’s joy at the demise of Imam Hasan (as), his saying of Takbir, doing prostration of thanks etc. are found in the following books:

1) Nazalul Abrar and Miftahun Najah by Mirza Muhammad bin Mutamid Khan

2) Tarikh Khamis by Dayar Bakri

3) Hayatul Haiwan by Allamah Damiri

4) Rabiul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari

Now the Rizwan editor and his brother, Chief of the federation of scholars of Pakistan might have known that Amir Muawiyah could not be absolved of the responsibility of the Imam’s martyrdom. It is not strange for Muawiyah to be happy over the martyrdom of Ahlul Bayt (as). He had also expressed similar joy at the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as). A renowned Ahlul Sunnat Imam, Raghib Isfahani writes in one of his notable works, Mahazirat:

Hisham bin Hakam was asked whether Muawiyah was present in the battle of Badr. He replied, “Yes, from the side of the infidels.” Muawiyah and his forbearance was discussed in the presence of Sharik bin Abdullah who remarked, ‘Muawiyah was nothing but a fool. He was reclining on a cushion when the news of the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as) arrived. He sat upright and said, “O slave-girl! Sing a song as today my eye has become cool” and the slave-girl started singing this song: “Please send this message to Muawiyah bin Harb. May God never cool the eyes of one who rejoices over other’s distress. You involved us in the calamity of a personality who was the best among the people, in the month of Ramadan itself. You martyred a person who was better than all the riders and those who sit on the ship.”

Muawiyah picked up baton lying before him and hit it hard on her head. As a result, the brain of that slave-girl broke into pieces. Where was his tolerance on that day?

This extempore poem of the slave-girl of Muawiyah that: ‘You gave us calamity and sorrow’ and ‘You killed’ point to Muawiyah. The common historians have not paid attention to this aspect. Before we provide the explanation let us see the account of the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as) in brief. Here are some details commonly found in history:

Abdur Rahman bin Muljim was a Khariji. He and two other Kharijis planned to kill Amirul Momineen (as), Muawiyah and Amr bin Aas at the same time so that Muslims remain safe from wars. They fixed the dawn of 19th Ramadan for this job. One of them went to Damascus where Muawiyah lived. The second one went to Egypt where Amr bin Aas resided and Ibn Muljim arrived in Kufa where Ali (as) ruled.

The sword of Ibn Muljim was smeared with poison. Muawiyah did not go to lead morning prayers on the 19th of Ramadan and sent someone in his place and that person was killed. Amr bin Aas went to lead the prayers wearing a silk dress. Silk is prohibited for men but it is permissible in battles because sword strokes are deflected from it. The same thing happened. The Khariji hit him with the sword and it slipped and Amr Aas survived. Amirul Momineen (as) was injured in Kufa and the poison with which the sword was smeared proved more fatal than the injury.

If a neutral person reflects over this incident he could not but be surprised how on that very day Amr Aas wore a silk dress, which is prohibited. Also why Muawiyah sent another person to the Mosque when he used to lead the prayers himself always? Why was the sword of only Ibn Muljim smeared with a lethal poison? Why Muawiyah celebrated that his eyes were cooled on hearing the news of martyrdom? Why did his slave-girl, on the spur of the moment tell him that he had martyred the Imam and caused sorrow to them?

We will have to believe that Muawiyah and Amr Aas were behind the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as). They planned the attack in such a way that it should look like a Khariji conspiracy and they should remain safe from criticism and people should not think that they were involved in the martyrdom of Ali (as).

If the Rizwan editor or any of his supporter has any objection to this belief he go ahead and prove it.

Anyway, these issues were raked up because the Rizwan editor had tried to absolve Muawiyah completely from the martyrdom of the Imam. So I thought I should keep the mirror of reality in front of him in which he could see the face of his Amir and himself and know that the teeth of ‘Khalul Momineen’10 are smeared with the blood of more than one Imam.

As a matter of fact he has written the objection of Shias in a distorted manner so that it would be easy to discuss about them. In this too, instead of refuting the Shias he has quoted a will of his chief, Muawiyah. This style of argumentation is also an example of the intellectual perception of the Rizwan editor. The world over, it is a rule that the denial an accused does not have any value. Although if the testimony of others is reliable it is given a hearing. On the other hand if the accused confesses his guilt, it has great importance. But the Rizwan editor considers the denial of the accused as the sole and complete evidence of his justification. The strength of his claim is clear from this.

We feel it necessary to narrate some historical events in brief to explain the true facts:

Bani Umayyah were always opposed to the Holy Prophet (S). They supported the disbelievers in Badr, Uhad, Khandaq and other battles in order to destroy the aim and life of the Prophet (S). After the conquest of Mecca, when Abu Sufyan and others realized that it was impossible to succeed against the Messenger of Allah (S) they apparently accepted Islam. But they were always considered among those who had unstable belief. When the conspiracy of Saqifah took place after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), they came to Imam Ali (as) and said, “If you say, I can fill the streets of Medina with cavalry and infantry, and restore your rights.”

His Eminence, Ali (as) knew it well that his actual aim was not to support him but to cause bloodshed of Muslims. He also knew that the Messenger of Allah (S) had always remained aloof of Bani Umayyah and continued to consider it un-Islamic that Bani Umayyah should be given an important role or a rank in Islam and hence, he rejected this proposal.

Being dejected, he went to the first caliph and said, “You acquired the caliphate but what have I gained?” The first caliph, after consulting the second caliph presented him with the governorship of Syria to earn his support. He in turn transferred the governorship to his son, Yazid bin Abu Sufyan and Yazid became the governor. When Yazid died, he appointed his brother Muawiyah as his successor and Muawiyah succeeded him after his death.

And the first caliph allowed Muawiyah to continue in the post due to the original reasons. In this way a common opponent (Bani Hashim) united Bani Umayyah and the seat of caliphate. During the reign of the first three caliphs, the duty Bani Hashim’s destruction was performed by the caliphs themselves. But after them, when caliphate reached Amirul Momineen Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as), it was the time for Muawiyah to get into action. He knew that time was ripe for him to rise. Thus he continued to engage Amirul Momineen (as) in battles as long as the latter lived. Till at last, he (as) was martyred at the hands of Ibn Muljim (l.a.).

The Late Riyaz Banarsi has mentioned the account of events in Al-Karrar. He opines that Muawiyah had a great role in the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as) also. I have already shed light on this matter.

Imam Hasan (as) ascended the seat of caliphate after Amirul Momineen (as). Muawiyah continued to play his wicked tricks. He bribed the chiefs of the Imam’s army and won them to his side. Imam Hasan (as) had no option but to sign a peace treaty with Muawiyah. The conditions of treaty were such that Muawiyah would not appoint Yazid as his successor. Hence, his prime aim shall not be achieved. Thus, he poisoned Imam Hasan (as) through Judah binte Ashath and expressed joy when he got the news of his martyrdom. We have already mentioned the details in the foregone pages.

Obviously, the aim of Imam Hasan’s murder and use of abusive language for Amirul Momineen (as) was to pave way for the allegiance of Yazid. However, the personality of Imam Husain (as) was not like that of an ordinary person. His presence and opposition was enough to ruin all his plans. So at first, Muawiyah tried to call the Imam (as) towards him in a polite manner. But the Imam (as) was well aware of his cunning and he openly refused to pay allegiance to Yazid.

Now I shall quote, in parts, as required, the account of the later events from the history, Rauzatus Safa11 :

Muawiyah traveled to Hijaz along with a thousand riders. When he reached near Medina he happened to meet Imam Husain (as) first of all.

Muawiyah said to the Imam (as), “May luck not favor you. You are like that animal of sacrifice whose blood is ready to gush out. God will surely make your blood flow.”

He spoke in the same way to Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr and others also. Imam Husain (as) told him, “O Muawiyah! Keep quiet! Such talks do not befit us.”

Muawiyah said, “Not only this but you are worthy of worse things. You wanted a matter (caliphate) while God was against it. The intention of God was finally realized. (This is a complete picture of the belief of compulsion, that whatever happens is destined by Allah.)

He did not permit the Imam (as) to meet him in Medina. Imam Husain (as), Abdullah bin Umar, Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr and Abdullah Ibn Zubair went to Mecca. Muawiyah climbed the pulpit of the Messenger (S) and said, “If these four pay allegiance to Yazid it is all right; but if not, I will do what is needed to be done with them.” He uttered many such statements and issued many threats. Later, he stopped using harsh words upon the counsel of A’ysha and Abdullah Ibn Abbas that this trick might work. He came to Mecca, summoned the Imam and began the discussion of Yazid’s allegiance. He said, “If I had considered someone else worthy of caliphate I would have appointed him my heir apparent.” Imam Husain (as) said, “Keep quiet! O Muawiyah! People still exist, who are more worthy and better than your son in terms of parentage.”

Muawiyah said, “You imply yourself in this statement.”

Imam (as) replied, “There is nothing wrong even if I have implied thus?”

Muawiyah said, “Your parents are indeed better than the parents of Yazid but he is better than you in the matter of caliphate and administration.”

Imam (as) said, “How strange! That a drunkard and a transgressor could be better than me!”

Muawiyah said, “Keep quiet! Because if someone mentioned your name before Yazid he would not say anything about you except good.”

Imam (as) replied, “I say whatever I know about him and he should also say what he knows about me.”

Muawiyah said, “Get up and go back. Beware for your life and fear the people of Syria.”

Then he summoned Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubair one by one and discussed about the caliphate of Yazid (l.a.). All of them, except Abdullah bin Umar opposed him.

He distributed gifts to the people of Mecca except Bani Hashim. Abdullah bin Abbas who had come to Mecca from Medina with Muawiyah, complained about it and he mentioned the same reason that, “I am disappointed with Husain for he did not accept the caliphate of my son. Hence I have deprived Bani Hashim from rewards and gifts.”

Finally, after being persuaded by Ibn Abbas, he sent monies to all the people and the largest amount to Imam Husain (as) but he refused to accept it.

A day before leaving Mecca, he again called those four persons and raised the matter of Yazid’s caliphate. Abdullah bin Zubair presented three options:

1) Do not appoint anyone as the caliph and leave the selection to Muslims

2) Or appoint a Quraish other than Bani Umayyah

3) Or appoint a selection committee

Muawiyah asked him if any other option remained.

“No,” Ibn Zubair replied, “This was all I wanted to say.”

Muawiyah sought the advice of others and they also opposed the caliphate of Yazid. Muawiyah said:

“All right! Before I leave, I want to go on the pulpit to advise and admonish the people and leave this exhortation for tomorrow. I fear the people of Syria regarding you.”

The next day, that is the day of his departure, he summoned the chiefs of Quraish. These four personalities (including Imam Husain) arrived as promised the day before. Muawiyah climbed the pulpit and delivered a sermon as follows:

“Some baseless news is circulating in the public. Yesterday I heard some people say that Imam Husain (as), Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubair do not agree to the caliphate of Yazid and are not paying allegiance to him. I was surprised and called all these chiefs of Quraish and investigated the matter. They spoke kind and loving things and agreed to pay allegiance to Yazid. And I say this in their presence so that if there is any doubt, it should become clear.”

Immediately the Syrians (who were important characters in this drama) unsheathed their swords and said that if the four do not pay allegiance to Yazid openly they would kill them and sought Muawiyah’s permission to behead them.

When Muawiyah had fulfilled his aim, he persuaded them to overlook it, and the swords returned to the sheaths.

On the other hand, Imam Husain (as), Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubair were shocked. They began to wonder, “What the promise was and now what has happened? Now, if we refuse to pay allegiance the Syrian army would never leave us alive.” Left with no option, they remained quiet in this gathering and others paid allegiance to Yazid.

Muawiyah came down from the pulpit and the crowd dispersed. The people began to blame them (Imam Husain and others) for opposing Yazid at first then paying allegiance to him. It was then they explained that they were completely unaware of the allegiance, and that Muawiyah had resorted to deceit and made false statements. They also said: “We remained quiet due to the fear of the sword.”

These incidents clearly prove that Muawiyah was fully prepared to slay Imam Husain (as). He had created such an environment that if Imam Husain (as) was not having the Divine support, his martyrdom would occurred in Mecca instead of Kerbala and in 56 A.H. instead of 61 A.H. In this way, Muawiyah had created such an atmosphere that Imam Husain (as) was sure to be martyred. Yazid was taught that he should not refrain from shedding Husain’s (as) blood even in Mecca in order to strengthen his rule. Yazid followed this lesson after coming to the throne and he immediately sent thirty mercenaries to Mecca disguised as pilgrims to assassinate Husain (as) during circumambulation.

Knowing that Husain (as) would never accept the caliphate of Yazid in his life, making Yazid a caliph and teaching him through practical acts that the martyrdom of Husain was not a big issue, were the two important foundations on which the tragedy of Kerbala came into being. Hence we have to believe that “Muawiyah indeed had a hand in the martyrdom of Husain”. And also that he was in favor of this martyrdom. Otherwise why did he use threats time and again?

After reading the above incidents, any sensible person would be compelled to believe that Muawiyah himself wanted to martyr Imam Husain (as). However, his machinations were foiled by the foresight of the Imam and his discernment, and thus Muawiyah remained helpless. Yazid fulfilled this heartfelt wish of Muawiyah. As the poet says:

“What the father could not do, the son did.”

We recite in the Aamal (rituals) of Ashura (10th of Muharram):

“Curse of Allah be on the community that killed you all. And curse of Allah be on those who created the atmosphere for your slaying.”

Muawiyah died with the wish that he had himself murdered Husain (as) but nevertheless, he was indeed among those who harassed him, who was in favor of his slaying and those who created the atmosphere for his martyrdom. Such internal and external conditions are necessary in the background of such incidents, which are causes for this happening. If this is true it is correct to say that all the three caliphs, and Muawiyah and Yazid were equally responsible for the creation of such internal and external conditions for the event of Kerbala because this branch has sprouted from this same root.

Appointing Yazid as the heir-apparent against the terms of the treaty with Imam Hasan (as), threatening Imam Husain (as) time and again about it, knowing that he will not accept Yazid’s heir-apparency, to attribute falsehood to him in public, and surrounding him with naked swords; all these were practical lessons that Muawiyah imparted to Yazid, and Yazid acted on them. Therefore the responsibility of the deeds of Yazid rests on Muawiyah just as the responsibility of effect is on the cause.

In the same way Muawiyah was taught the lesson of usurping of the rights of Ahlul Bayt (as) by the two Shaykhs as both Muawiyah and Yazid have confessed in writing. Thus this matter is seen to have a long connection and the causes of Kerbala carnage are visible in the happenings of Saqifah.

It is possible that someone may think why Imam Husain (as) did not sacrifice his life in Mecca itself and instead remained quiet? This mode of action of Imam is itself a slap on the face of the Rizwan editor who writes again and again that:

“He (Imam) made it clear from his behavior that ‘a religion based on Taqiyyah is not mine’.”

Those who say this should come and see that not only Imam Husain (as) but also three Ahlul Sunnat saints and guides viz. Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr, Abdullah bin Zubair and Abdullah bin Umar are practicing Taqiyyah. They confess in clear words: “We remained quiet due to the fear of the sword.” These three Ahlul Sunnat leaders indeed committed an unlawful deed because the Ahlul Sunnat object to Taqiyyah. However, the reasons of Imam Husain’s (as) silence are as follows:

Firstly, Imam Husain (as) did not like that the honor of Mecca should be trampled, the proof of which is found in the time of Yazid also. When Yazid sent killers disguised as pilgrims to murder Imam (as) wherever they could find him, Imam (as) was compelled to change his intention of Hajj. He instead performed Umrah and left Mecca so these people do not destroy the honor of Mecca in their pursuit of the Imam’s murder.

Secondly, till that time the evil deeds of Yazid had not become so well known that people should openly abhor him. Neither his vicious actions had achieved fame. That is why at that time opposition to him could not obtain religious expedience, which came to be the case during his caliphate and after Yazid had become a famous libertine. People were assured that the grandson of the Prophet (S) was opposing Yazid only out of the love of religion. On the other hand, if he had opposed Muawiyah during the discussion of heir-apparency, people would have thought as justified by Muawiyah, that, ‘he is opposing Yazid even though Yazid is better than him because he himself wants to become the caliph’. Muawiyah had explained this to Bakal Ayari during the discussion with Imam (as) so that people may derive the same conclusion. In other words it would have been given a political color at that time, and this, the Imam was not ready to accept.

Thirdly, a lone martyrdom in a crowd could not have created such a dreaded effect on the Islamic World from the East to the West and from the South to the North that the whole world should start hating Yazid. The land of Kerbala and all those calamities were required so that this effect of martyrdom comes into existence. Thousands of people are killed due to political oppositions and no one cares about them. Hence martyrdom in this gathering of Mecca was void of any benefit. Everyone is aware of the intrigues of Muawiyah and he would have completely suppressed this martyrdom. Or he would have presented it in such a light that no one would have understood who was killed and why he was killed. On the other hand, Imam (as) attained an immortal way of propagation through a defensive battle and through the sufferings of his family members, which was not possible in Mecca.

Apparently, Imam (as) remained quiet due to all these three reasons according to Divine Will and acted upon Taqiyyah and then fought the battle of Kerbala. Would the Rizwan editor still say that, “He (Imam) made it clear from his behavior that ‘a religion based on Taqiyyah is not mine’.”

However, all these discussions were incidental and our main aim was to make it clear that Shias are right in considering Muawiyah responsible for the martyrdom of Imam (as). Not only Muawiyah but also the three caliphs are connected to this martyrdom. Hence, Allamah Balazari, a renowned Ahlul Sunnat scholar writes in Tarikh Balazari after the letter of Yazid, which he wrote to Abdullah bin Umar:

“Thus, it is said that Husain (as) was martyred on the day of Saqifah.”

These were the facts. Even if we accept the two evidences of the Rizwan editor against this, then also it is nothing but a veil of deceit so that those who hear it fall prey to misunderstandings like the Rizwan editor. Let us now investigate the veracity of the points mentioned in this will. The first sentence of this will as quoted by the Rizwan editor is as follows:

“But as for Imam Husain (as)! You know his relation and nearness to the Holy Prophet (S). He is a part of the Prophet (S).”

The question is whether Muawiyah himself cared about the honor of the Prophet? And what devotion he had with him that he should have respected a part of his body and his relatives? How much respect he truly had of the Prophet is obvious from the following incident:

Matraf bin Mughaira bin Shayba narrates, “I went to Muawiyah along with my father. My father used to visit him often and upon returning speak about Muawiyah and his intelligence, and he used to be astonished at him. So much so that when he returned one night he did not even eat his dinner and I found him depressed. I waited for a while thinking that this depression was only because of something related to us. At last, I asked him, ‘Why do you look so aggrieved tonight?’ he replied, ‘Today I am coming from the worst infidel and the most vile person.’ I asked, ‘Who is that?’

My father replied, ‘Today, I told him in private: O Master of the faithful! You have reached an age when it would have been better if you had acted justly and nicely and looked at your brothers (i.e. Bani Hashim) with kindness and improved relations with them. By Allah! Today they have nothing, which you may fear and you shall always be praised due to this good deed and rewarded by Allah.’ Muawiyah said, ‘Alas! Alas! How can I hope for the endurance of remembrance? See, a man of the Teem tribe (i.e. Abu Bakr) became a ruler.

He acted justly and did what he should have done, till he finally died, and with him his memory also perished; just his name, Abu Bakr remains. Then a man from Adi tribe (i.e. Umar) became the ruler. He struggled for many years till he finally died and his memory also ended, except that just his name is mentioned as Umar. But see how the name of Ibn Abi Kabsha12 is called out five times a day: “I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” Now after this which deed of mine and name shall endure? By Allah, there is none except Him, except that they shall be buried (destroyed).’”13

The intrinsic condition of Muawiyah’s heart is clear from this hatred and jealously towards the Holy Prophet (S) and the way he addresses him by the insulting title, which the infidels of Quraish had reserved for him.

When he had such opinions about the Holy Prophet (S) there is no question of honoring his relatives. That is the reason he continued to wage battles against the Commander of the faithful, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) and continued to have him cursed from the pulpits; so much so that even some Bani Umayyah were compelled to say, ‘Now that Ali is dead, what is the use of cursing him? And you got the kingdom.’ However, he did not accept it and for ninety long years, preachers continued to recite curses on Amirul Momineen (as) in all the Islamic towns, every Friday.

Some persons of Bani Umayyah told Muawiyah, “Your desire (of becoming a caliph) is fulfilled. Now it would be better that you stop cursing him (i.e. Ali).” He replied, “No, by Allah, I will not stop till children grow old and adults become aged with this habit, and none who glorifies Ali remains.”14

Muawiyah’s son well knew how the elder brother of Imam Husain (as) was treated and martyred. Yazid was also aware about the treatment meted out to Imam Husain (as) outside Medina and in the Prophet’s mosque. The advice of Muawiyah in such circumstances that, ‘If you get control over him, recognize his rights. Remember his rank of nearness to the Prophet. Do not make him recompense for his actions’, it is just a veil of deceit for the common people. While Yazid himself knew how much his father honored the rights of Ahlul Bayt (as) and to what extent he remembered their rank of nearness to Prophet (S) is obvious from the description of Matraf bin Mughaira about how Muawiyah looked upon Bani Hashim. His notoriety had increased so much that his own companion Matraf bin Mughaira bin Shayba had to say, “What is left with Bani Hashim to be feared? Treat them well so that you be remembered as a nice person.” The effect of this advice on Muawiyah is obvious from his reply. The most interesting statement is: ‘Do not break off the relations I have strengthened with him during this time. Beware! Do not give him any kind of trouble’.

The relations Muawiyah maintained with Imam Husain (as) are already mentioned above. If surrounding him with naked swords and saying, ‘I am looking at an animal of sacrifice whose blood is flowing in his blood-vessels about to gush out’, denotes strengthening relations, words like ‘hatred’ etc. would become meaningless.

Lastly, I would like to object against the statement that:

‘I know that the people of Iraq would call him and would not help him.’

Can the Rizwan editor tell us whether Muawiyah had knowledge of the Unseen? How did he know that the people of Iraq would call him and would not help him? Does it not prove that Muawiyah had instructed his agents to call Imam Husain (as) to Iraq and betray him at the last moment and this is what they did. Some of those who led Yazid’s forces in Kerbala were the same who sent letters to Imam (as) from Kufa. Who later became thirsty for the blood of that same Husain (as) whom they had invited through letters. As for the sincere believers who sent letters to Imam Husain (as), they either joined the Imam in Kerbala or were arrested by Ibn Ziyad (l.a.).

The intrigue of Muawiyah is clear from this discourse that how he had organized the martyrdom of Imam (as). Now what effect this apparent will could have on a son who very well knew the real intention of his black-hearted father? All these issues are just deceitful talks so that spectators remain unaware of the real strategy while Yazid had full knowledge about it. Or else, we have to believe that Muawiyah’s followers faked this will after Imam Husain’s martyrdom. And gradually it became a part of history.

The condition of the will of Nasikhut Tawarikh is similar. Then how could the Rizwan editor say: ‘At least it proves that Muawiyah was not involved in the martyrdom of Husain (as)’?

No. At least it proves that Amir Muawiyah and the people who made him governor were surely involved in the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as) and other members of the Prophet’s (S) progeny.

Now you must have understood why Amir Muawiyah is held responsible for the martyrdom of the Imam?

I am surprised that the Rizwan editor claims to be a Sayyid, yet he supports and defends Muawiyah, who was the worst enemy of the Prophet (S) and the murderer of his progeny.

That is why the poet Anwari has beautifully composed the following verses:

“They are devoted to the son of Hind (Muawiyah) but they don’t know how much harm came from him and those three guys.

His father broke the teeth of the Prophet and his mother chewed the liver of the uncle of the Prophet.

He usurped the rights of the son-in-law of the Prophet and his son beheaded the son of the Prophet.

Shouldn’t one curse and hate such people? Curse of Allah be on Yazid and the Progeny of Yazid.”

In his book, Muwaizul Muttaqeen Maulana Syed Muhammad Mahdi quotes from Lulu al-Bahrain an amusing incident of Allamah Hilli (a.r.). It is would not be unfit to present its translation here. He writes:

Allamah Hilli (a.r.) held a dialogue with the Ahlul Sunnat scholars in the court of King Muhammad Khuda Banda. When the debate was over and the rightfulness of the religion of twelve Imams became as clear as daylight, Allamah delivered an eloquent sermon containing praise of God and salutations on the Prophet (S) and the infallible Imams (as). When

Syed Mosuli (a Sunni scholar who had suffered defeat in the debate) heard this, he asked, “What is the proof in support of sending salutations on persons other than the prophets?” Without disturbing his sermon, Allamah replied by reciting the verse:

“Who, when a misfortune befalls them, say: Surely we are Allah's and to Him we shall surely return. Those are they on whom are blessings and mercy from their Lord…”15

Allamah wanted to convey that as innumerable calamities befell Ahlul Bayt (as) and they remained patient only for the sake of God, that is why they are worthy of salutations. On hearing this, Syed Mosuli said obstinately, “Which calamity befell the progeny of the Prophet in which they remained patient and became worthy of salutation?” Allamah (who was a Shaykh) gave an apt reply, “What can be a greater calamity that in their generations is born a person like you who prefers accursed hypocrites and ignorant ones to his venerable ancestors.” The audience burst into laughter at this and all became very surprised and pleased to hear this reply.

Thus the saying has become famous that: ‘A Syed can never be a Sunni’.16

Notes

1. Page 421-422

2. Pg. 17 and 18

3. Persian Couplet

4. Persian Couplet

5. Persian Couplet

6. Muruz az-Zahab on the margins of Tarikh Kamil, Vol. 3, Pg. 89, Printed at Egypt. Fazaile Bahira Fee Mahasin, Cairo, Egypt, and Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Part 3, Pg. 162, Iran.

7. History, Balazari Pg. 462

8. Arabic Couplet

9. Tadhkirah-e-Khwaasul Ummah, Account of Imam Husain (a.s.)

10. A title of Muawiyah meaning, ‘Uncle of the believers’

11. Vol. 3, Pg. 28-31

12. A derogatory title given by the Quraish infidels to the Messenger of Allah (S)

13. Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid Mutazali, Part 5

14. Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid Mutazali,

15. Surah Baqarah 2:156-157

16. Persian Couplet

Muawiyah and the Responsibility of the Imam’s Martyrdom

(First printed ‘Al-Jawwad’, September-October 1955 A.D.)

After expressing views on Taqiyyah, the Rizwan editor felt proud of his knowledge of history and he paid tributes to his chief, Muawiyah in the following manner:

Who killed the Imam?

Shias blame Amir Muawiyah for the assassination of Imam (as). Some Shias even say that the Imam was assassinated on the order of Muawiyah. However, Shia scholars have themselves concocted these allegations. Reliable Shia books prove that Amir Muawiyah had nothing to do in the Imam’s murder. Mulla Baqir Majlisi writes in Jalalul Uyun1 that Amir Muawiyah willed to Yazid at the time of his death:

1) But as for Imam Husain (as)! You know his relation and nearness to the Holy Prophet (S). He is a part of the Prophet. I know that the people of Iraq will call him and would not help him. If you get control over him, recognize his rights. Remember his rank of nearness to the Prophet. Do not make him recompense for his actions and do not break off the relations I have strengthened with him during this time. Beware! Do not give him any kind of trouble.

2) It is narrated in Nasikhut Tawarikh that Muawiyah made the following will to Yazid: O son! Do not be greedy. Beware, when you come to Allah you should not have the blood of Husain bin Ali upon your neck. Otherwise, you will not be at ease and remain under chastisement forever.

This narration is also from the book of Shias. At least it proves that Muawiyah was not involved in the martyrdom of Husain (as). He had willed Yazid to respect and help the Imam. Then we do not understand why Amir Muawiyah is blamed for the martyrdom of the Imam?

After quoting this objection from the beginning to the end I don’t know which statement should be replied first. By the grace of Allah, each word of this script is inviting an objection. However, I feel it appropriate to present an example of the historical knowledge of Rizwan editor and his associates before criticizing these wordings.

This same issue of Rizwan contained an article, “Coronation of Yazid and Problems of ‘is there more?’” by Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayed Muhammad Ahmad, the chief of the Federation of scholars of Pakistan, Lahore. Who can ask what this exalted personality means by this title. Why he says ‘is there more’ instead of ‘is there from more’.

Is it due to the age-old habit of making distortions? Anyway, the beauty of the title shows the significance of the subject matter. The chief of the Federation of the scholars of Pakistan does not even know that Imam Hasan (as) was martyred ten years before Yazid (l.a.) came to the throne. And that their Chief, Muawiyah had a significant role in this martyrdom. The poor man thinks that Imam Hasan (as) was also martyred in 61 A.H. I shall mention some selected sentences of this article in a sequence as follows:

“Sixtieth year of Hijrah and the month of Rajab…Unclean Yazid dirties the throne with his impure feet… He attacks Imam Hasan (r.a.) for the first time and poisons him a number of times. As a result, the liver of the beloved of the Messenger of Allah (S) came out in pieces.”

After that is mentioned the martyrdom and bequest etc. of Imam Hasan (as). Then he continues…

“…in short, after Yazid satisfied his unlucky heart with the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (r.a.), his eyes fell upon the Prince of the two worlds, Imam Husain (as)…and so on.”2

Do you see the historical knowledge of the chief of the federation of scholars of Pakistan? Even an elementary student of Islamic history will not make such a blunder. But where the only aim is to acquire offerings from people after donning the turban, where is the time for the pursuit of knowledge?

The problem is that the Rizwan editor has tried to undertake a journey, which requires great historical consciousness. The condition of his knowledge is such that he does not even know the sequence of important events. So it is very difficult to explain to him, ‘Who the assassin of the Imam (as) is?’

Let us consider his statements, one by one.

He says: “Shias blame Amir Muawiyah for the assassination of Imam (as).”

Whoever has provided you with this information has not conveyed it in full. Rather they consider it to be connected to much earlier incidents. Shias not only blame Muawiyah but also his predecessors for the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as). They say that the foundation of martyrdom of Imam Husain (as) was laid by your leaders in Saqifah itself. If the rights of the progeny of Muhammad (S) had not been usurped on that day, the tragedy of Kerbala would not have occurred.

They would not have dared to oppress the progeny of Muhammad (S). Hence we consider all, from those responsible for allegiance at Saqifah, to the lowest soldier of Yazid, responsible for the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as). We consider the root more important than the branches. The same thing is versified beautiful way by a poet thus:

“In what a nice way someone has said

That Husain was killed in Saqifah.”3

Also another poet has said about your second Caliph:

“The evil deed of Shimr was due to what he had done.

The blood of all the martyr is upon his neck.”4

These are open secrets well understood by your Imam Ghazzali and other scholars. Hence he issued the verdict, “It is prohibited for a preacher and a non-preacher to speak about Imam Husain (as) and his companions because it instigates enmity of companions (of Prophet).” The question is if Imam Ghazzali was not aware that this event of martyrdom occurred by courtesy of your ‘blessed companions’ and that the foundation of this tragedy has been laid at the hands of the companions, why else would he say that it causes incitement of the enmity of companions?

Also note that even during that period the common man was so conscious of history that he could estimate the causes of events. Otherwise how could the enmity of the companions develop just because a preacher is talking about Husain (as)? The reason is, when an event is viewed in a true light, the mind is led to the incidents prior to that event and one can reach a conclusion based on the relationship between them. It could thus be understood that ‘Husain was killed in Saqifah’. And in this way they would develop hatred to those companions. Thus even the common people understood these historical facts but who would explain them to the Rizwan editor?

“Who does not know this secret?

Though these are the secrets known to all.”5

What to say about others, Muawiyah himself has explained this fact. He says that he was the follower of the three caliphs especially the first caliph, in all these oppressive deeds. If Abu Bakr had not usurped the caliphate, he would never have opposed Ali (as). To be more precise, when Imam Ali (as) accepted the apparent caliphate, Muawiyah began to oppose him. Muhammad bin Abu Bakr, the son of the first caliph, wrote to Muawiyah describing the defects of Bani Umayyah and excellences of Amirul Momineen (as). He asked him to start obeying Amirul Momineen (as) or be prepared to face the chastisement of the Judgment Day. Muawiyah replied as follows:

“This is a letter from Muawiyah bin Sakhr to Muhammad bin Abu Bakr who accuses his own father. So to say: I received you letter in which you have described the power, highness and majesty of God, which He indeed is worthy of. You have also described the excellences due to which God chose the Holy Prophet (S).

You have also stated many things that show your weakness and denounce your father. You have also mentioned about the excellences of Ali bin Abi Talib, his peculiarities, nearness to the Prophet (S) and the Prophet (S) getting his help in times of need. Your arguments against me and finding my faults are due to the appreciation of someone else [i.e. Ali bin Abi Talib (as)]. It is not due to your own excellence. Hence, I thank God Who removed these excellences from you and gave them to someone else. The fact is that we (including your father, Abu Bakr) knew the excellences of Ali bin Abi Talib very well.

We knew that it was incumbent upon us to restore his right. God liked this bounty for His Prophet (S), which he had already chosen. God fulfilled His promise made to the Prophet (S), made His invitation open and enlightened His proof. When God called him back, your father and Farooq were the first to usurp the right of Ali (as) and who opposed him regarding his caliphate. They both united over this issue and made it evident. Then they called Ali to pay allegiance to him. Ali refused to pay allegiance to them. They intended to harass Ali and made considerable attempts to do so…

They neither associated Ali in any of their affairs nor revealed any secret to him till God gave them death. Then their third, Uthman stood up and followed their footsteps only. You and your companion started pointing out his faults. However, the foolish people far and wide were tempted by it. You both wished for hardships upon him and expressed your enmity. Finally you achieved your aims. Thus, O son of Abu Bakr! Beware, and compare your span with the inner area of your palm. You cannot compare yourself with the one (Muawiyah) whose empire is as large as the mountains. Pressure does not make his spear soft. Neither a speaker can understand his order. He has spread the throne of his rule and made his empire very strong.

Now the issue of caliphate that we are discussing; if it is correct, your father (Abu Bakr) alone had made the arrangements. We just followed his orders and became his partners. If your father had not behaved thus, we would also never have opposed Ali bin Abi Talib and on the contrary, accepted his caliphate. We only saw your father’s behavior with Ali and followed his footsteps. Now if you want accuse anyone, accuse your own father or refrain from this issue. And peace be on the one who had his desires fulfilled.”6

Even Yazid (whom Ahlul Sunnat accepted as caliph after Muawiyah) declares that he dared to oppress Ahlul Bayt (as) only because the two Shaykhs, Uthman etc. had opened the door of oppressing the Ahlul Bayt and he had only followed them. Thus after the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as), Abdullah bin Umar (son of the second caliph) wrote a letter to Yazid. Both the letter and its reply are present in History of Balazari, which is a work of a great Ahlul Sunnat scholar, Allamah Balazari. The actual text is as follows:

When Imam Husain (as) was martyred Abdullah bin Umar wrote a letter to Yazid bin Muawiyah: “After praise and salutations, you should know that this is a great catastrophe. A great tragedy has occurred in Islam. No day is equal to the day of the martyrdom of Husain (as).”

Yazid replied: “O fool! We acquired decorated houses, spread chessboards, and well-arranged cushions (i.e. a strong empire). So we fought a battle to safeguard our worldly life. If truth is against us (i.e. with Husain and his family) then your father is the first person who started usurping the rights.’”7

The eyes of Abdullah bin Umar opened on reading this reprimanding letter. He understood that if he has to maintain the prestige of his father he would have to support Yazid. Because of opposition of Yazid implies that the three caliphs be opposed. After all, they are links of the same chain, and opposing the three caliphs would eliminate one from the ‘Sunni circle’. Apart from this, he did not have the courage to reveal his father’s blunders and become a truthful one (like Muhammad bin Abi Bakr).

Hence he started supporting Yazid to such an extent that when the people of Medina decided to break allegiance of Yazid it was this Abdullah bin Umar who supported Yazid and became aloof from the people of Medina along with his family members, as mentioned in the books of history. Confession of a criminal is more important than his defensive arguments, but there should be someone who can understand it.

Keeping in mind all these issues, we have to accept that Saqifah was the foundation of not only the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as), but also the martyrdom of every member from the progeny of the Holy Prophet (S).

Hence those orators who say that Muawiyah was the only one involved in the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as) along with Yazid, narrate only a part of truth or act with utmost forbearance.

The next sentence is:

“Some Shias even say that the Imam was assassinated only on the order of Muawiyah.”

The editor of Rizwan wants to save his Amir from the accusation of the Imam’s martyrdom. Even if the accusation of martyrdom is taken back it will not be possible to acquit him. Since the pieces of Imam Hasan’s liver prove that he is the culprit. Hasan and Husain (as) are equal in the eyes of the Prophet (S), Allah and we people. As you have not mentioned the name of Imam, let me explain to you how Muawiyah’s hands are smeared with the blood of the Imam. Numerous Ahlul Sunnat scholars accept it. Allamah Ibn Abdul Barr, a famous Ahlul Sunnat scholar, writes in his renowned work, Al Istiab fi Marefat As-haab as follows:

Qatadah and Abu Bakr bin Hafasa said, “Hasan bin Ali was poisoned. He was poisoned by his wife, Judah binte Ashath. A group of scholars believe that this poisoning was only the intrigue of Muawiyah. It was only as a result of what he paid to Judah.”

Allamah Sibte Ibn Jawzi, a renowned Ahlul Sunnat scholar writes in his famous book, Tadhkirah Khwaasul Ummah with more explanation:

“Imam Shabi says that Muawiyah made a secret pact with Judah and said, ‘If you poison Hasan I would marry you off to Yazid and reward you a hundred thousand dirhams.’ After the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (as), she asked Muawiyah to fulfill his promise. Muawiyah sent a hundred thousand dirhams to her along with a message, ‘I love Yazid and want him to remain alive otherwise I would have surely married you to him.’ Imam Shabi says that the proof of this statement is the assertion of Imam Hasan (as) at the time of his death, ‘I know that the sip of Muawiyah has become pleasant and he has fulfilled his wish. By Allah, he would not fulfill his promises and neither is he true to his word.’”

And my grandfather (Allamah Ibn Jawzi) writes in the book, As Safwah that Yaqub bin Sufyan has mentioned in his history that only Judah poisoned Imam Hasan (as). A poet has said regarding this:

‘You know that there are many ways of your consolation,

Thoughts that will take away your grief.

The demise of the Prophet (S), martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as),

Martyrdom of Husain (as) and the poisoning of Hasan (as).’8

Ibn Saad says that Muawiyah poisoned Imam Hasan (as) a number of times because Imam Hasan and Imam Husain (as) used to visit him in Syria (and he used to poison his guests there).”9

All these points are mentioned by the following Ahlul Sunnat scholars with explanation:

1) Allamah Zuhri in Tahzibul Kamal fee Asmair Rijal

2) Imam Zahabi in Tahzibut Tahzib

3) Shaykh Abu Abdillah Muhammad bin Umar Zainuddin Ibnul Waqidi in Miratul Ajaib

4) Allamah Zamakhshari in Rabi-ul-Abraar

5) Abul Hasanul Madayani in the History of Madayan

6) Allamah Ismail bin Ali bin Mahmud in Al-Mukhtar fil Akhbaar Khairul Bashar

7) Maulana Abdul Qadir bin Muhammad Tabari in Husnus Sareerah etc.

When Muawiyah got the news of the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (as) he exclaimed, ‘Allaho Akbar!’ (God is the Greatest) out of joy. When people asked the reason, they came to know that it is due to the martyrdom of the beloved of the Holy Prophet (S) and they rebuked him. Muawiyah said that his heart was at peace because of his demise. Mirza Mutamid Khan has quoted this incident in his book Miftahun Najah and narrated a lengthy conversation between Muawiyah and Ibn Abbas. I narrate it here in spite of my concern for brevity:

“Allamah Dayar Bakri writes in Tarikh Khamees that when Muawiyah received the news of the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (as), he recited a Takbir (Allaho Akbar). The Syrians also repeated the slogan after him. Thus Fakhta binte Qarza asked Muawiyah, ‘May God keep your eyes cool. What is the reason of this Takbir?’ He replied, ‘Hasan died.’ Fakhta said, ‘Do you shout the slogan of Takbir at the death of the son of Fatima (s.a.)?’ He said, ‘I have not recited Takbir because I am rejoicing at his distress but my heart it at peace.’”

Allamah Dayar Bakri says that this only constitutes ‘rejoicing at someone’s distress’. Without it a heart cannot be at peace at the death of someone else.

Zubair bin Bakar says that Ibn Abbas went to Muawiyah and Muawiyah had already received the news of the martyrdom of Imam Hasan (as). Thus Muawiyah performed a prostration of thanks and his face lit up in delight. Then he gave permission to the people to enter the court. He permitted Ibn Abbas last. He entered and Muawiyah made him sit beside himself. Muawiyah said, ‘Do you know about the incident that occurred in your family?’ Ibn Abbas replied in negative. Muawiyah said, ‘Imam Hasan (as) has expired. May God reward you greatly in this calamity.’ Ibn Abbas said, ‘From Him we come and to Him shall we return. We seek the reward of calamity of the death of Imam Hasan (as) from God only. I have got the news of your prostration and I am sure it is prostration of thanks out of the joy of this death. By Allah, neither his body will close your grave nor his life will increase your life.

We have already suffered the calamity of a greater personality (i.e. Amirul Momineen). Then God recompensed it (by Imam Hasan) (Hence you should not be happy at the demise of Hasan).’ Muawiyah asked the age of Imam Hasan (as). Ibn Abbas replied, ‘He was more honorable that I should be aware of the date of his birth!’ Muawiyah said, ‘I know that he has left behind small kids.’ Ibn Abbas said, ‘We all were young (in his presence) but have become elderly now.’ Muawiyah said, ‘You have become the head of your family now.’ Ibn Abbas replied, ‘Did not God keep Abu Abdillah Husain (as) alive that I should be the chief?’ He stood up saying so with tears flowing from his eyes. Muawiyah said, ‘May God do good to Ibn Abbas. By Allah, we never remained with him but that we found him the leader.’”

Allamah Damiri has also quoted this incident in brief using some different words in his book, Hayatul Haiwan.

The description of Muawiyah’s joy at the demise of Imam Hasan (as), his saying of Takbir, doing prostration of thanks etc. are found in the following books:

1) Nazalul Abrar and Miftahun Najah by Mirza Muhammad bin Mutamid Khan

2) Tarikh Khamis by Dayar Bakri

3) Hayatul Haiwan by Allamah Damiri

4) Rabiul Abrar by Allamah Zamakhshari

Now the Rizwan editor and his brother, Chief of the federation of scholars of Pakistan might have known that Amir Muawiyah could not be absolved of the responsibility of the Imam’s martyrdom. It is not strange for Muawiyah to be happy over the martyrdom of Ahlul Bayt (as). He had also expressed similar joy at the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as). A renowned Ahlul Sunnat Imam, Raghib Isfahani writes in one of his notable works, Mahazirat:

Hisham bin Hakam was asked whether Muawiyah was present in the battle of Badr. He replied, “Yes, from the side of the infidels.” Muawiyah and his forbearance was discussed in the presence of Sharik bin Abdullah who remarked, ‘Muawiyah was nothing but a fool. He was reclining on a cushion when the news of the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as) arrived. He sat upright and said, “O slave-girl! Sing a song as today my eye has become cool” and the slave-girl started singing this song: “Please send this message to Muawiyah bin Harb. May God never cool the eyes of one who rejoices over other’s distress. You involved us in the calamity of a personality who was the best among the people, in the month of Ramadan itself. You martyred a person who was better than all the riders and those who sit on the ship.”

Muawiyah picked up baton lying before him and hit it hard on her head. As a result, the brain of that slave-girl broke into pieces. Where was his tolerance on that day?

This extempore poem of the slave-girl of Muawiyah that: ‘You gave us calamity and sorrow’ and ‘You killed’ point to Muawiyah. The common historians have not paid attention to this aspect. Before we provide the explanation let us see the account of the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as) in brief. Here are some details commonly found in history:

Abdur Rahman bin Muljim was a Khariji. He and two other Kharijis planned to kill Amirul Momineen (as), Muawiyah and Amr bin Aas at the same time so that Muslims remain safe from wars. They fixed the dawn of 19th Ramadan for this job. One of them went to Damascus where Muawiyah lived. The second one went to Egypt where Amr bin Aas resided and Ibn Muljim arrived in Kufa where Ali (as) ruled.

The sword of Ibn Muljim was smeared with poison. Muawiyah did not go to lead morning prayers on the 19th of Ramadan and sent someone in his place and that person was killed. Amr bin Aas went to lead the prayers wearing a silk dress. Silk is prohibited for men but it is permissible in battles because sword strokes are deflected from it. The same thing happened. The Khariji hit him with the sword and it slipped and Amr Aas survived. Amirul Momineen (as) was injured in Kufa and the poison with which the sword was smeared proved more fatal than the injury.

If a neutral person reflects over this incident he could not but be surprised how on that very day Amr Aas wore a silk dress, which is prohibited. Also why Muawiyah sent another person to the Mosque when he used to lead the prayers himself always? Why was the sword of only Ibn Muljim smeared with a lethal poison? Why Muawiyah celebrated that his eyes were cooled on hearing the news of martyrdom? Why did his slave-girl, on the spur of the moment tell him that he had martyred the Imam and caused sorrow to them?

We will have to believe that Muawiyah and Amr Aas were behind the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as). They planned the attack in such a way that it should look like a Khariji conspiracy and they should remain safe from criticism and people should not think that they were involved in the martyrdom of Ali (as).

If the Rizwan editor or any of his supporter has any objection to this belief he go ahead and prove it.

Anyway, these issues were raked up because the Rizwan editor had tried to absolve Muawiyah completely from the martyrdom of the Imam. So I thought I should keep the mirror of reality in front of him in which he could see the face of his Amir and himself and know that the teeth of ‘Khalul Momineen’10 are smeared with the blood of more than one Imam.

As a matter of fact he has written the objection of Shias in a distorted manner so that it would be easy to discuss about them. In this too, instead of refuting the Shias he has quoted a will of his chief, Muawiyah. This style of argumentation is also an example of the intellectual perception of the Rizwan editor. The world over, it is a rule that the denial an accused does not have any value. Although if the testimony of others is reliable it is given a hearing. On the other hand if the accused confesses his guilt, it has great importance. But the Rizwan editor considers the denial of the accused as the sole and complete evidence of his justification. The strength of his claim is clear from this.

We feel it necessary to narrate some historical events in brief to explain the true facts:

Bani Umayyah were always opposed to the Holy Prophet (S). They supported the disbelievers in Badr, Uhad, Khandaq and other battles in order to destroy the aim and life of the Prophet (S). After the conquest of Mecca, when Abu Sufyan and others realized that it was impossible to succeed against the Messenger of Allah (S) they apparently accepted Islam. But they were always considered among those who had unstable belief. When the conspiracy of Saqifah took place after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (S), they came to Imam Ali (as) and said, “If you say, I can fill the streets of Medina with cavalry and infantry, and restore your rights.”

His Eminence, Ali (as) knew it well that his actual aim was not to support him but to cause bloodshed of Muslims. He also knew that the Messenger of Allah (S) had always remained aloof of Bani Umayyah and continued to consider it un-Islamic that Bani Umayyah should be given an important role or a rank in Islam and hence, he rejected this proposal.

Being dejected, he went to the first caliph and said, “You acquired the caliphate but what have I gained?” The first caliph, after consulting the second caliph presented him with the governorship of Syria to earn his support. He in turn transferred the governorship to his son, Yazid bin Abu Sufyan and Yazid became the governor. When Yazid died, he appointed his brother Muawiyah as his successor and Muawiyah succeeded him after his death.

And the first caliph allowed Muawiyah to continue in the post due to the original reasons. In this way a common opponent (Bani Hashim) united Bani Umayyah and the seat of caliphate. During the reign of the first three caliphs, the duty Bani Hashim’s destruction was performed by the caliphs themselves. But after them, when caliphate reached Amirul Momineen Imam Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as), it was the time for Muawiyah to get into action. He knew that time was ripe for him to rise. Thus he continued to engage Amirul Momineen (as) in battles as long as the latter lived. Till at last, he (as) was martyred at the hands of Ibn Muljim (l.a.).

The Late Riyaz Banarsi has mentioned the account of events in Al-Karrar. He opines that Muawiyah had a great role in the martyrdom of Amirul Momineen (as) also. I have already shed light on this matter.

Imam Hasan (as) ascended the seat of caliphate after Amirul Momineen (as). Muawiyah continued to play his wicked tricks. He bribed the chiefs of the Imam’s army and won them to his side. Imam Hasan (as) had no option but to sign a peace treaty with Muawiyah. The conditions of treaty were such that Muawiyah would not appoint Yazid as his successor. Hence, his prime aim shall not be achieved. Thus, he poisoned Imam Hasan (as) through Judah binte Ashath and expressed joy when he got the news of his martyrdom. We have already mentioned the details in the foregone pages.

Obviously, the aim of Imam Hasan’s murder and use of abusive language for Amirul Momineen (as) was to pave way for the allegiance of Yazid. However, the personality of Imam Husain (as) was not like that of an ordinary person. His presence and opposition was enough to ruin all his plans. So at first, Muawiyah tried to call the Imam (as) towards him in a polite manner. But the Imam (as) was well aware of his cunning and he openly refused to pay allegiance to Yazid.

Now I shall quote, in parts, as required, the account of the later events from the history, Rauzatus Safa11 :

Muawiyah traveled to Hijaz along with a thousand riders. When he reached near Medina he happened to meet Imam Husain (as) first of all.

Muawiyah said to the Imam (as), “May luck not favor you. You are like that animal of sacrifice whose blood is ready to gush out. God will surely make your blood flow.”

He spoke in the same way to Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr and others also. Imam Husain (as) told him, “O Muawiyah! Keep quiet! Such talks do not befit us.”

Muawiyah said, “Not only this but you are worthy of worse things. You wanted a matter (caliphate) while God was against it. The intention of God was finally realized. (This is a complete picture of the belief of compulsion, that whatever happens is destined by Allah.)

He did not permit the Imam (as) to meet him in Medina. Imam Husain (as), Abdullah bin Umar, Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr and Abdullah Ibn Zubair went to Mecca. Muawiyah climbed the pulpit of the Messenger (S) and said, “If these four pay allegiance to Yazid it is all right; but if not, I will do what is needed to be done with them.” He uttered many such statements and issued many threats. Later, he stopped using harsh words upon the counsel of A’ysha and Abdullah Ibn Abbas that this trick might work. He came to Mecca, summoned the Imam and began the discussion of Yazid’s allegiance. He said, “If I had considered someone else worthy of caliphate I would have appointed him my heir apparent.” Imam Husain (as) said, “Keep quiet! O Muawiyah! People still exist, who are more worthy and better than your son in terms of parentage.”

Muawiyah said, “You imply yourself in this statement.”

Imam (as) replied, “There is nothing wrong even if I have implied thus?”

Muawiyah said, “Your parents are indeed better than the parents of Yazid but he is better than you in the matter of caliphate and administration.”

Imam (as) said, “How strange! That a drunkard and a transgressor could be better than me!”

Muawiyah said, “Keep quiet! Because if someone mentioned your name before Yazid he would not say anything about you except good.”

Imam (as) replied, “I say whatever I know about him and he should also say what he knows about me.”

Muawiyah said, “Get up and go back. Beware for your life and fear the people of Syria.”

Then he summoned Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubair one by one and discussed about the caliphate of Yazid (l.a.). All of them, except Abdullah bin Umar opposed him.

He distributed gifts to the people of Mecca except Bani Hashim. Abdullah bin Abbas who had come to Mecca from Medina with Muawiyah, complained about it and he mentioned the same reason that, “I am disappointed with Husain for he did not accept the caliphate of my son. Hence I have deprived Bani Hashim from rewards and gifts.”

Finally, after being persuaded by Ibn Abbas, he sent monies to all the people and the largest amount to Imam Husain (as) but he refused to accept it.

A day before leaving Mecca, he again called those four persons and raised the matter of Yazid’s caliphate. Abdullah bin Zubair presented three options:

1) Do not appoint anyone as the caliph and leave the selection to Muslims

2) Or appoint a Quraish other than Bani Umayyah

3) Or appoint a selection committee

Muawiyah asked him if any other option remained.

“No,” Ibn Zubair replied, “This was all I wanted to say.”

Muawiyah sought the advice of others and they also opposed the caliphate of Yazid. Muawiyah said:

“All right! Before I leave, I want to go on the pulpit to advise and admonish the people and leave this exhortation for tomorrow. I fear the people of Syria regarding you.”

The next day, that is the day of his departure, he summoned the chiefs of Quraish. These four personalities (including Imam Husain) arrived as promised the day before. Muawiyah climbed the pulpit and delivered a sermon as follows:

“Some baseless news is circulating in the public. Yesterday I heard some people say that Imam Husain (as), Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubair do not agree to the caliphate of Yazid and are not paying allegiance to him. I was surprised and called all these chiefs of Quraish and investigated the matter. They spoke kind and loving things and agreed to pay allegiance to Yazid. And I say this in their presence so that if there is any doubt, it should become clear.”

Immediately the Syrians (who were important characters in this drama) unsheathed their swords and said that if the four do not pay allegiance to Yazid openly they would kill them and sought Muawiyah’s permission to behead them.

When Muawiyah had fulfilled his aim, he persuaded them to overlook it, and the swords returned to the sheaths.

On the other hand, Imam Husain (as), Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr, Abdullah bin Umar and Abdullah bin Zubair were shocked. They began to wonder, “What the promise was and now what has happened? Now, if we refuse to pay allegiance the Syrian army would never leave us alive.” Left with no option, they remained quiet in this gathering and others paid allegiance to Yazid.

Muawiyah came down from the pulpit and the crowd dispersed. The people began to blame them (Imam Husain and others) for opposing Yazid at first then paying allegiance to him. It was then they explained that they were completely unaware of the allegiance, and that Muawiyah had resorted to deceit and made false statements. They also said: “We remained quiet due to the fear of the sword.”

These incidents clearly prove that Muawiyah was fully prepared to slay Imam Husain (as). He had created such an environment that if Imam Husain (as) was not having the Divine support, his martyrdom would occurred in Mecca instead of Kerbala and in 56 A.H. instead of 61 A.H. In this way, Muawiyah had created such an atmosphere that Imam Husain (as) was sure to be martyred. Yazid was taught that he should not refrain from shedding Husain’s (as) blood even in Mecca in order to strengthen his rule. Yazid followed this lesson after coming to the throne and he immediately sent thirty mercenaries to Mecca disguised as pilgrims to assassinate Husain (as) during circumambulation.

Knowing that Husain (as) would never accept the caliphate of Yazid in his life, making Yazid a caliph and teaching him through practical acts that the martyrdom of Husain was not a big issue, were the two important foundations on which the tragedy of Kerbala came into being. Hence we have to believe that “Muawiyah indeed had a hand in the martyrdom of Husain”. And also that he was in favor of this martyrdom. Otherwise why did he use threats time and again?

After reading the above incidents, any sensible person would be compelled to believe that Muawiyah himself wanted to martyr Imam Husain (as). However, his machinations were foiled by the foresight of the Imam and his discernment, and thus Muawiyah remained helpless. Yazid fulfilled this heartfelt wish of Muawiyah. As the poet says:

“What the father could not do, the son did.”

We recite in the Aamal (rituals) of Ashura (10th of Muharram):

“Curse of Allah be on the community that killed you all. And curse of Allah be on those who created the atmosphere for your slaying.”

Muawiyah died with the wish that he had himself murdered Husain (as) but nevertheless, he was indeed among those who harassed him, who was in favor of his slaying and those who created the atmosphere for his martyrdom. Such internal and external conditions are necessary in the background of such incidents, which are causes for this happening. If this is true it is correct to say that all the three caliphs, and Muawiyah and Yazid were equally responsible for the creation of such internal and external conditions for the event of Kerbala because this branch has sprouted from this same root.

Appointing Yazid as the heir-apparent against the terms of the treaty with Imam Hasan (as), threatening Imam Husain (as) time and again about it, knowing that he will not accept Yazid’s heir-apparency, to attribute falsehood to him in public, and surrounding him with naked swords; all these were practical lessons that Muawiyah imparted to Yazid, and Yazid acted on them. Therefore the responsibility of the deeds of Yazid rests on Muawiyah just as the responsibility of effect is on the cause.

In the same way Muawiyah was taught the lesson of usurping of the rights of Ahlul Bayt (as) by the two Shaykhs as both Muawiyah and Yazid have confessed in writing. Thus this matter is seen to have a long connection and the causes of Kerbala carnage are visible in the happenings of Saqifah.

It is possible that someone may think why Imam Husain (as) did not sacrifice his life in Mecca itself and instead remained quiet? This mode of action of Imam is itself a slap on the face of the Rizwan editor who writes again and again that:

“He (Imam) made it clear from his behavior that ‘a religion based on Taqiyyah is not mine’.”

Those who say this should come and see that not only Imam Husain (as) but also three Ahlul Sunnat saints and guides viz. Abdur Rahman bin Abi Bakr, Abdullah bin Zubair and Abdullah bin Umar are practicing Taqiyyah. They confess in clear words: “We remained quiet due to the fear of the sword.” These three Ahlul Sunnat leaders indeed committed an unlawful deed because the Ahlul Sunnat object to Taqiyyah. However, the reasons of Imam Husain’s (as) silence are as follows:

Firstly, Imam Husain (as) did not like that the honor of Mecca should be trampled, the proof of which is found in the time of Yazid also. When Yazid sent killers disguised as pilgrims to murder Imam (as) wherever they could find him, Imam (as) was compelled to change his intention of Hajj. He instead performed Umrah and left Mecca so these people do not destroy the honor of Mecca in their pursuit of the Imam’s murder.

Secondly, till that time the evil deeds of Yazid had not become so well known that people should openly abhor him. Neither his vicious actions had achieved fame. That is why at that time opposition to him could not obtain religious expedience, which came to be the case during his caliphate and after Yazid had become a famous libertine. People were assured that the grandson of the Prophet (S) was opposing Yazid only out of the love of religion. On the other hand, if he had opposed Muawiyah during the discussion of heir-apparency, people would have thought as justified by Muawiyah, that, ‘he is opposing Yazid even though Yazid is better than him because he himself wants to become the caliph’. Muawiyah had explained this to Bakal Ayari during the discussion with Imam (as) so that people may derive the same conclusion. In other words it would have been given a political color at that time, and this, the Imam was not ready to accept.

Thirdly, a lone martyrdom in a crowd could not have created such a dreaded effect on the Islamic World from the East to the West and from the South to the North that the whole world should start hating Yazid. The land of Kerbala and all those calamities were required so that this effect of martyrdom comes into existence. Thousands of people are killed due to political oppositions and no one cares about them. Hence martyrdom in this gathering of Mecca was void of any benefit. Everyone is aware of the intrigues of Muawiyah and he would have completely suppressed this martyrdom. Or he would have presented it in such a light that no one would have understood who was killed and why he was killed. On the other hand, Imam (as) attained an immortal way of propagation through a defensive battle and through the sufferings of his family members, which was not possible in Mecca.

Apparently, Imam (as) remained quiet due to all these three reasons according to Divine Will and acted upon Taqiyyah and then fought the battle of Kerbala. Would the Rizwan editor still say that, “He (Imam) made it clear from his behavior that ‘a religion based on Taqiyyah is not mine’.”

However, all these discussions were incidental and our main aim was to make it clear that Shias are right in considering Muawiyah responsible for the martyrdom of Imam (as). Not only Muawiyah but also the three caliphs are connected to this martyrdom. Hence, Allamah Balazari, a renowned Ahlul Sunnat scholar writes in Tarikh Balazari after the letter of Yazid, which he wrote to Abdullah bin Umar:

“Thus, it is said that Husain (as) was martyred on the day of Saqifah.”

These were the facts. Even if we accept the two evidences of the Rizwan editor against this, then also it is nothing but a veil of deceit so that those who hear it fall prey to misunderstandings like the Rizwan editor. Let us now investigate the veracity of the points mentioned in this will. The first sentence of this will as quoted by the Rizwan editor is as follows:

“But as for Imam Husain (as)! You know his relation and nearness to the Holy Prophet (S). He is a part of the Prophet (S).”

The question is whether Muawiyah himself cared about the honor of the Prophet? And what devotion he had with him that he should have respected a part of his body and his relatives? How much respect he truly had of the Prophet is obvious from the following incident:

Matraf bin Mughaira bin Shayba narrates, “I went to Muawiyah along with my father. My father used to visit him often and upon returning speak about Muawiyah and his intelligence, and he used to be astonished at him. So much so that when he returned one night he did not even eat his dinner and I found him depressed. I waited for a while thinking that this depression was only because of something related to us. At last, I asked him, ‘Why do you look so aggrieved tonight?’ he replied, ‘Today I am coming from the worst infidel and the most vile person.’ I asked, ‘Who is that?’

My father replied, ‘Today, I told him in private: O Master of the faithful! You have reached an age when it would have been better if you had acted justly and nicely and looked at your brothers (i.e. Bani Hashim) with kindness and improved relations with them. By Allah! Today they have nothing, which you may fear and you shall always be praised due to this good deed and rewarded by Allah.’ Muawiyah said, ‘Alas! Alas! How can I hope for the endurance of remembrance? See, a man of the Teem tribe (i.e. Abu Bakr) became a ruler.

He acted justly and did what he should have done, till he finally died, and with him his memory also perished; just his name, Abu Bakr remains. Then a man from Adi tribe (i.e. Umar) became the ruler. He struggled for many years till he finally died and his memory also ended, except that just his name is mentioned as Umar. But see how the name of Ibn Abi Kabsha12 is called out five times a day: “I testify that Muhammad is the Messenger of God.” Now after this which deed of mine and name shall endure? By Allah, there is none except Him, except that they shall be buried (destroyed).’”13

The intrinsic condition of Muawiyah’s heart is clear from this hatred and jealously towards the Holy Prophet (S) and the way he addresses him by the insulting title, which the infidels of Quraish had reserved for him.

When he had such opinions about the Holy Prophet (S) there is no question of honoring his relatives. That is the reason he continued to wage battles against the Commander of the faithful, Ali Ibn Abi Talib (as) and continued to have him cursed from the pulpits; so much so that even some Bani Umayyah were compelled to say, ‘Now that Ali is dead, what is the use of cursing him? And you got the kingdom.’ However, he did not accept it and for ninety long years, preachers continued to recite curses on Amirul Momineen (as) in all the Islamic towns, every Friday.

Some persons of Bani Umayyah told Muawiyah, “Your desire (of becoming a caliph) is fulfilled. Now it would be better that you stop cursing him (i.e. Ali).” He replied, “No, by Allah, I will not stop till children grow old and adults become aged with this habit, and none who glorifies Ali remains.”14

Muawiyah’s son well knew how the elder brother of Imam Husain (as) was treated and martyred. Yazid was also aware about the treatment meted out to Imam Husain (as) outside Medina and in the Prophet’s mosque. The advice of Muawiyah in such circumstances that, ‘If you get control over him, recognize his rights. Remember his rank of nearness to the Prophet. Do not make him recompense for his actions’, it is just a veil of deceit for the common people. While Yazid himself knew how much his father honored the rights of Ahlul Bayt (as) and to what extent he remembered their rank of nearness to Prophet (S) is obvious from the description of Matraf bin Mughaira about how Muawiyah looked upon Bani Hashim. His notoriety had increased so much that his own companion Matraf bin Mughaira bin Shayba had to say, “What is left with Bani Hashim to be feared? Treat them well so that you be remembered as a nice person.” The effect of this advice on Muawiyah is obvious from his reply. The most interesting statement is: ‘Do not break off the relations I have strengthened with him during this time. Beware! Do not give him any kind of trouble’.

The relations Muawiyah maintained with Imam Husain (as) are already mentioned above. If surrounding him with naked swords and saying, ‘I am looking at an animal of sacrifice whose blood is flowing in his blood-vessels about to gush out’, denotes strengthening relations, words like ‘hatred’ etc. would become meaningless.

Lastly, I would like to object against the statement that:

‘I know that the people of Iraq would call him and would not help him.’

Can the Rizwan editor tell us whether Muawiyah had knowledge of the Unseen? How did he know that the people of Iraq would call him and would not help him? Does it not prove that Muawiyah had instructed his agents to call Imam Husain (as) to Iraq and betray him at the last moment and this is what they did. Some of those who led Yazid’s forces in Kerbala were the same who sent letters to Imam (as) from Kufa. Who later became thirsty for the blood of that same Husain (as) whom they had invited through letters. As for the sincere believers who sent letters to Imam Husain (as), they either joined the Imam in Kerbala or were arrested by Ibn Ziyad (l.a.).

The intrigue of Muawiyah is clear from this discourse that how he had organized the martyrdom of Imam (as). Now what effect this apparent will could have on a son who very well knew the real intention of his black-hearted father? All these issues are just deceitful talks so that spectators remain unaware of the real strategy while Yazid had full knowledge about it. Or else, we have to believe that Muawiyah’s followers faked this will after Imam Husain’s martyrdom. And gradually it became a part of history.

The condition of the will of Nasikhut Tawarikh is similar. Then how could the Rizwan editor say: ‘At least it proves that Muawiyah was not involved in the martyrdom of Husain (as)’?

No. At least it proves that Amir Muawiyah and the people who made him governor were surely involved in the martyrdom of Imam Husain (as) and other members of the Prophet’s (S) progeny.

Now you must have understood why Amir Muawiyah is held responsible for the martyrdom of the Imam?

I am surprised that the Rizwan editor claims to be a Sayyid, yet he supports and defends Muawiyah, who was the worst enemy of the Prophet (S) and the murderer of his progeny.

That is why the poet Anwari has beautifully composed the following verses:

“They are devoted to the son of Hind (Muawiyah) but they don’t know how much harm came from him and those three guys.

His father broke the teeth of the Prophet and his mother chewed the liver of the uncle of the Prophet.

He usurped the rights of the son-in-law of the Prophet and his son beheaded the son of the Prophet.

Shouldn’t one curse and hate such people? Curse of Allah be on Yazid and the Progeny of Yazid.”

In his book, Muwaizul Muttaqeen Maulana Syed Muhammad Mahdi quotes from Lulu al-Bahrain an amusing incident of Allamah Hilli (a.r.). It is would not be unfit to present its translation here. He writes:

Allamah Hilli (a.r.) held a dialogue with the Ahlul Sunnat scholars in the court of King Muhammad Khuda Banda. When the debate was over and the rightfulness of the religion of twelve Imams became as clear as daylight, Allamah delivered an eloquent sermon containing praise of God and salutations on the Prophet (S) and the infallible Imams (as). When

Syed Mosuli (a Sunni scholar who had suffered defeat in the debate) heard this, he asked, “What is the proof in support of sending salutations on persons other than the prophets?” Without disturbing his sermon, Allamah replied by reciting the verse:

“Who, when a misfortune befalls them, say: Surely we are Allah's and to Him we shall surely return. Those are they on whom are blessings and mercy from their Lord…”15

Allamah wanted to convey that as innumerable calamities befell Ahlul Bayt (as) and they remained patient only for the sake of God, that is why they are worthy of salutations. On hearing this, Syed Mosuli said obstinately, “Which calamity befell the progeny of the Prophet in which they remained patient and became worthy of salutation?” Allamah (who was a Shaykh) gave an apt reply, “What can be a greater calamity that in their generations is born a person like you who prefers accursed hypocrites and ignorant ones to his venerable ancestors.” The audience burst into laughter at this and all became very surprised and pleased to hear this reply.

Thus the saying has become famous that: ‘A Syed can never be a Sunni’.16

Notes

1. Page 421-422

2. Pg. 17 and 18

3. Persian Couplet

4. Persian Couplet

5. Persian Couplet

6. Muruz az-Zahab on the margins of Tarikh Kamil, Vol. 3, Pg. 89, Printed at Egypt. Fazaile Bahira Fee Mahasin, Cairo, Egypt, and Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid, Part 3, Pg. 162, Iran.

7. History, Balazari Pg. 462

8. Arabic Couplet

9. Tadhkirah-e-Khwaasul Ummah, Account of Imam Husain (a.s.)

10. A title of Muawiyah meaning, ‘Uncle of the believers’

11. Vol. 3, Pg. 28-31

12. A derogatory title given by the Quraish infidels to the Messenger of Allah (S)

13. Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid Mutazali, Part 5

14. Sharh Nahjul Balagha, Ibn Abil Hadid Mutazali,

15. Surah Baqarah 2:156-157

16. Persian Couplet