Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Effect of Husayn’s Martyrdom on the Principle of Caliphate

In the past nations the appointment of the prophet’s caliph depended on divine will conveyed through divine text. At least this is what is proved from the stories and incidents of the Qur’an and other ancient books. Basically the same method should have been applicable for this nation also.

…the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah’s creation…1

And it is a fact. Thus the announcement:

Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter…2

It limits the responsibilities of creation and selection to the Being of the Almighty. And as for the firm text:

And it behoves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying.3

It does not even permit the intellectuals to say anything about caliphate.

On the basis of this alone the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) in Ghadeer Khumm acting upon the command of:

O Apostle! Deliver what has been revealed to you from your Lord…4

Appointed Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s) as his successor before thousands of people. And the unambiguous statement of: ‘Of whomsoever I am the master, this ‘Ali is also his master’ did not have any scope for doubt and uncertainty. Even those who had some ulterior plans for the future were compelled to say: “Congratulations to you, O ‘Ali, today you have become my master and the master of all the believing men and women.”

However, this expression of faith and confession during the lifetime of the Prophet very soon after his departure from the world was sacrificed at the altar of selfish motives. The time arrived to snatch the reins of power from the hands of the legatee of the Prophet so that their evil wishes may be fulfilled. On the other hand ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s) was busy in the funeral arrangements while some people with vested interests assembled in Saqifah Bani Sa’dah to fight over the caliphate. After numerous bitter arguments and fights, the high handedness of Umar at last placed the crown of caliphate on the head of Abu Bakr. And in this way, in place of the ancient principle of “divine appointment” the self-made principle of “consensus” was forced upon the community.

Now the time of Abu Bakr’s demise approached. In consonance with the principle of:

Is the reward of goodness aught but goodness?5

Abu Bakr wanted to see Umar occupying his place after him. But…someone should not consider “divine appointment” and “testament of the previous caliph” as synonymous. Because the one who becomes a caliph on the basis of the testament of the previous caliph, his caliphate depends only on this testament. The previous caliph only by his command compels the community to submit before the caliph of his choice and in this way all the responsibility of appointing the caliph and all the choice come together in the being of the former caliph. God and His Prophet have no connection with it. On the contrary, even though the revealing of “divine appointment” is based on the statement of the Prophet or the previous Imam, the actual choices of appointment and actual responsibilities are confined to the Being of the Almighty, and the Prophet or the previous Imam is only having a position of mouthpiece or informant in this matter and this difference is sufficient for the superiority of these two.

The circumstances were such that nothing could be done about it.6

The problem was that due to the negative reputation of Umar it was very unlikely that the method of “consensus” would help him in obtaining caliphate. Therefore, after two years and some months, ignoring the same principle of “consensus”, the former caliph appointed Umar as his successor through bequest.

And now it began to be said that along with consensus, the testament of the previous caliph is also an acceptable and valid method of caliphate.

In any case, some time passed in this way. Until the time Umar was wounded and felt his death approaching fast. Like before, this time too the staging of consensus was not risk-free. Umar’s statement that: ‘Now, the allegiance of Abu Bakr was an accident and Allah saved the people from its mischief,’ conveys this same precaution. It should not happen that the claimant appointed by the Prophet should succeed. There were other contingencies also that only Umar understood, that he did not want to himself make a bequest for anyone in particular. That is why, “This time the caliphate took up a new form and a committee of six persons was formed. Though apparently ‘Ali was also included in it, the rulers were such that only the one who was having the same opinions as Umar, had any chance to succeed.”

This incident on one hand bestowed caliphate to Uthman and on the other provided the community with yet another principle of caliphal appointment. Now along with consensus and testament, the ‘Shura’ also became a valid method of appointing a caliph.

Since at the end of the third period, the Islamic community has thrown aside from its neck every illegal compulsion and influence and the slain caliph had not been able to make arrangement for the next caliph after him according to his wishes, all the Muslims unanimously submitted to the original caliph selected by the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w). However, in this long period, moods had changed and a caliphate based on justice and truth was problematic to people inclined towards falsehood, therefore, first of all Talha and Zubair instigated Ayesha to participate in the Battle of Jamal so that this caliphate may be exterminated. After that Muawiyah began to enact bloody dramas on the plains of Siffeen.

Those who considered Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Ali bin Abi Talib (a.s) as the Prophet’s successor according to “divine appointment”, for them everyone who forsook the legitimate caliph deserved the death penalty. But those who considered consensus as the basis of this caliphate, for them these battles were very patience-testing. Because it was harming their self-conceited beliefs of “all companions are just” and “My companions are like stars, you follow anyone and you shall achieve guidance.” Therefore in order to give legitimacy to this method, a supposed prophetic tradition was obtained that: “If allegiance is given to two claimants of caliphate at the same time, then war must be waged against the one whose allegiance is later.”7

Note this! Those battles provided yet another criterion of caliphate.

After the martyrdom of Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s), Imam Hasan (a.s) reached the position of Imamate according to “divine appointment.” The intrigues of Muawiyah compelled the military officials of Imam Hasan (a.s) to act as his agents and Imam Hasan (a.s) could not have any choice but sign the treaty with Muawiyah and abdicate. According to the rule of: “whatever happened is appropriate and legal”, Muawiyah who had become eligible for death penalty due to the rule of: “When two persons reach caliphate…”, now was the rightful caliph. In order to accord legitimacy to his caliphate, which was achieved through fraud and deceit, the fourth principle of “force and power” was added to the legal methods of attaining caliphate.

(2) The most significant aspect of the British Constitution is that there are many things in it such that no details are written about them. Whatever tradition has continued from the past governments has become a precedent for the future governments. So much so that there is no explanation even about the post of the Prime Minister and his duties and rights and the axis of the British kingdom rests only on tradition. That is why it is called the unwritten constitution and the scholars of civilization consider it a unique example of its kind. However, probably they do not know that 1300 years ago the Muslim majority also, in designing the principle of caliphate had presented such an example of not only “unwritten constitution”, but also an unsettled constitution that its equal has not been seen yet.

After getting deviated from the straight path the further you go the further you shall become from destination. From 11 A.H. to 41 A.H. the Muslim majority continued to wander like the Bani Israel of the valley of Tiyah, and remained ignorant of the path of salvation. People of a discerning mind would have noted that the events did not conform to principles, rather the principles were made to conform to the events. In this brief time period, from testament to consensus and until force and power, no principle remained but that it was put into practice and taken advantage of depending upon the existing circumstances and contingencies. In the present laws of governance, I also do not know of any method, which is beyond those principles. Consequently, today every Muslim ruler is eligible to call himself “caliph of the Prophet” and no acceptable reason could be presented to expel him from this circle. The result of this all-embracing nature of the principle of caliphate was that Yazid also became the “caliph of the Muslims” and he, in fact, has conformed most to the principles of caliphate.8

Of the four elements of caliphate, Muawiyah, under the pretext of Hajj undertook a journey to Hijaz and he deceived the people there with his golden diplomacy to fulfill the condition of consensus. “Testament” was something that is for the time of death. That was also fulfilled at the deathbed. Also in a prolonged struggle Yazid achieved such power and force that the Islamic history fails to show anything equal to it.

In this connection, the following statements of Muawiyah are worth noting:

“O my son! I have made the stiff necks to humble for you. I have made the towns firm on your caliphate, and this kingdom and whatever it contains, is made into a tasty morsel for you.”9

In brief, it could be said that the child of Saqifah consensus was bred in the lap of “Shura” with the support of Muawiyah’s bequest and reached the highest stages of “force and domination.” And in this way his person was a synthesis of all the ‘principles of caliphate’.

(3) All the caliphs that preceded Yazid could fulfill only one of the principles of caliphate. Abu Bakr hid behind “consensus”, Umar was made the caliph by testament, Uthman reached the venerable position with the help of “Shura” (consultative committee) and Muawiyah obtained caliphate through force and domination.

If the appointed successor of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) had expressed his aloofness from these principles and in order to prove their falsity taken practical steps and armed struggle against the above caliphs there would have been only two possibilities, martyrdom or victory. And both these would have created some very dangerous misunderstandings.

If Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) or Imam Hasan (a.s) had confronted a particular caliph and got themselves martyred, people would have thought that these gentlemen only considered that particular principle illegitimate, through which that person had become a caliph. And they would have considered other methods valid and correct. What else could be concluded from their silence in other methods and opposing one method?

Also if each of them had opposed one caliph and as a result laid down their lives to martyrdom, in addition to other drawbacks it would have given birth to the accusation that these people, generation after generation have made it a habit to rise up for rulership and their practical protest would have been labeled as “family tradition”, reducing its significance and, by giving it a political color, destroyed its religious and divine status.

And if in both cases, instead of martyrdom, they had achieved victory, and if these gentlemen had succeeded in taking over the administration and control of this apparent caliphate this would have been, in fact, the greatest failure because in that case the public would have considered their caliphate to be based on force and domination. They would have forgotten that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) has mentioned their “divine appointment.” They would have only considered the immediate cause. In this way, if a false principle was aimed to be destroyed, another one would have come into existence at their own hands and it would have been a great catastrophe.

That is why, in order to remove all misconceptions about their acceptance, they continued to protest verbally but they did not pay attention to any practical or military step in this regard.

The method of divine will towards falsehood is that no haste is exercised in taking revenge. Rather opportunities are created, respite is given, and restraint is exercised. Until the time falsehood reaches its pinnacle and a stage when there is no possibility of its return to truth. At that time it is given such a kick that all its foundations are demolished and it is made a lesson for all those who seek it:

And let not those who disbelieve think that Our granting them respite is better for their souls; We grant them respite only that they may add to their sins; and they shall have a disgraceful chastisement.10

The hidden wisdom is that, falsehood in its initial stages, resembles truth in such a way that a cursory glance cannot distinguish between the two. “Doubt is named doubt because it resembles truth.”11 And during this period its uprooting will not create any beneficial results. Therefore, Providence waits for a time when falsehood reaches such a high stage that it seems to be superior to truth:

That Allah might separate the impure from the good, and put the impure, some of it upon the other, and pile it up together, then cast it into hell…12

According to:

And you do not please except that Allah please…13

The caliphs appointed by the Messenger also followed this method. Abu Bakr and Umar etc. used to call themselves followers of Islam and to some extent acted upon its apparent rituals. In that period, falsehood had not completely separated from truth and Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) had to wait for that time when the deep veil is removed from the face of falsehood. Imam Hasan (a.s) also spent his life in truce, waiting for the same and Imam Husayn (a.s) also remained quiet for ten years due to the same reason. Until the time after Muawiyah’s death, when the seat of caliphate became soiled with the feet of Yazid. The time finally arrived for which the caliphs of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) had been waiting.

(4) If you glance at the battle of Karbala’ from the angle of the principles of caliphate you will see that on one side is Yazid behind whose back is the ferocious wolf of “consensus”, shielded by the excuse of “Shura”, having the support of bequest and the facade of “force and domination.”

On the other hand is Husayn (a.s) who is the claimant of Imamate but instead of being shielded by any self-concocted formula he has with him only the “appointment of the Messenger.” His companions have the collar of his allegiance but this allegiance is not like the principles of ‘consensus’ based on the “previous allegiance” so that it be said that it was given after the allegiance of Yazid.

Now let us see the features of both the parties in the mirror of reality.

You will see that even though Husayn (a.s) was unarmed of all those supposed proofs, but according to the sayings of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) his reputed personality was deserving of honor and respect of all the Muslims without any exception. The verse of purification is witness on the purity of his actions.

Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.14

The verse of Malediction has certified that he is the son of the Messenger.

Come let us call our sons and your sons…15

The verse of Devotion (Mawaddah) says that love and devotion towards him is obligatory on all.

Say: I do not ask of you any reward for it but love for my near relatives…16

His expedients are expedients of the Messenger. “Husayn is from me and I am from Husayn.” He is a blossom (beloved) of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). “The two of them are blossoms.” He is the leader of the youths of Paradise. “Hasan and Husayn are the chiefs of the youths of Paradise.” And finally the following saying of the Prophet is a clear proof for his Imamate, “The two of them are Imams, be they sitting or standing.” On the other hand Yazid, though he was a caliph of Muslims conforming to the laid down ‘principles’, his evil deeds were known to all. Among his black handiworks, apart from destroying the Prophet’s family are numerous other deeds. Some of them are mentioned below for the readers: (1) He was a denier in the coming of angels and revelation. (2) He considered the prophethood of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) as a pretext to obtaining temporal power and kingdom. (3) He imbibed wine openly. (4) He was an ardent fan of chess and music. (5) He loved dance and lute. (6) He committed incest. (7) He played with dogs and monkeys. (9) He dishonored the sanctified Mecca. (10) He showered the Holy Ka’ba with burning missiles and its curtain was burnt down and its building suffered serious damage. (11) He defiled the sanctity of the tomb of the Prophet. (12) He converted the Prophet’s mosque into a stable. (13) He martyred hundreds of companions. (14) After his forces attacked Medina, one thousand illegitimate children were born due to the rapes committed by them on Medinite ladies.

All the above atrocities are recorded in the pages of Islamic history.

Husayn (a.s), with his magnificent personality, arrayed himself to confront Yazid. By this step he removed the veils from the eyes of unaware Muslims. Though ‘principles’ demanded that Yazid should be accorded a greater status than the first three caliphs, the fact was that, leave alone calling him a caliph, it was hardly right to call him a human being.

There is a tradition of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) accepted as authentic by both the sects (Shia and Sunni) that:

“One who dies without recognizing the Imam of the time, dies the death of ignorance.” If Husayn (a.s) who confronted Yazid while claiming Imamate and even after being martyred not only became eligible for Paradise, but he himself is the Chief of the youths of Paradise, it clearly implied that Yazid was definitely not the Imam of his time. And since the claim of Imamate and caliphate was limited to Husayn and Yazid, its absence in Yazid necessarily proves the Imamate of Husayn (a.s).

But the problem is that this matter does not end here. The caliphate of Yazid, as I have mentioned time and again, was a collection of consensus, Shura, testament and force and domination. While Husayn (a.s) considered his Imamate to have divine sanction. Therefore the success of Husayn (a.s) could not be said to be the personal victory of Husayn (a.s) alone. In fact it was the victory of ‘divine appointment’. Victory, against whom? Against ‘consensus’, against ‘Shura’, against ‘nomination’ and against ‘force and domination’. On the day of Ashura the martyrdom of Husayn (a.s) by defeating all those false deities clarified the rightfulness of Qur’anic principle of ‘divine appointment’.

The truth has come and the falsehood has vanished; surely falsehood is a vanishing (thing).17

The sycophants of Yazid’s time were another matter, today all the Islamic world is unanimous that by his sacrifice, Husayn (a.s) made fresh blood to flow in the dead veins of Islam; although Yazid had, by his words and deeds, left no stone unturned to bury it alive. Today the word ‘Yazid’ is considered an abusive epithet and the name of Husayn (a.s) with all its magnificence has covered the whole humanity. And along with this, the world is also compelled to submit to the principles that were saved by the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s).

This essay is throughout ‘scholastic’. Historical events are mentioned as backgrounds; therefore even the lengthiest narrations are condensed and presented in the briefest form. In this way the actual texts are disregarded. On the basis of historical popularity, most of the incidents are presented without providing references, however if anyone is interested he or she may refer to the books of history for complete details and they may also refer to the author’s book, Imamate.

Notes

1. Surah Rum 30:30

2. Surah Aale Imran 3:47

3. Surah Ahzab 33:36

4. Surah Maidah 5:67

5. Surah Rahman 55:60

6. Urdu couplet

7. Marratul Tahqeeq

8. For details refer to books of Islamic History like, Tarikh Ibne Khaldun, Tarikh Asim Kufi and Tarikh Tabari etc.

9. Amali, Saduq and all books of Islamic history

10. Surah Aale Imran 3:178

11. Nahjul Balagha

12. Surah Anfal 8:37

13. Surah Insan 76:30

14. Surah Ahzab 33:33

15. Surah Aale Imran 3:61

16. Surah Shura 42:23

17. Surah Bani Israel 17:81

Azadari and Innovation

On the day of Ashura the drums of victory were beating in the army of Yazid and wails arose from the camps of Husayn (a.s). But very soon the eyes of the world also saw that in spite of having used unlimited material means, Yazid failed miserably to vanquish Husayn (a.s). Neither could Yazidism take away the magnificent remembrance of Husayn (a.s) from the hearts, nor could it erase the sanctified mention from the tongues. Peace be on the slain one whose tomb lies in the hearts of his devotees. History testifies that from the time of Yazid until date, in every period and every century an organized propaganda is unleashed so that people do not continue to remember Husayn (a.s), but we see that day by day this name continues to become more and more illuminated, and the devotion towards Husayn (a.s) appeals to people of all faiths and communities.

They desire to put out the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will not consent save to perfect His light, though the unbelievers are averse.1

Every dry and wet thing shall flow away in the flood of death. However the name of Husayn Ibn ‘Ali shall remain intact.2

For sometime the communal riots had silenced the flames of opposition to Azadari3 but recent news reports suggest that as soon as peace returned this spark is again ignited and blown by the selfish motives to demolish the structure of Islamic unity. Now vested interests have started calling the custom of Azadari to be a religious innovation.

These opponents of Azadari beguile the masses by saying that weeping is an innovation, Ta’ziyah4 is an innovation, Alam5 is an innovation, Majlis6 is an innovation, Ma’tam7 is an innovation, this is an innovation, that is an innovation. Thus for these people wearing the glasses of bigotry everything in the rituals of Azadari seems to be innovation and nothing else. And they are so much terrified of the furor of innovation that even before the commencement of Muharram these people depart for a tour of the countryside.

First of all I invite the people of taste to contemplate that even if Azadari is an innovation, how can it be expelled from the circle of honor and entered into the circle of prohibition?

What is innovation (Bid’ah)?

Innovation is generally defined as something new created after the completion of religion or it denotes the invention of new beliefs and rituals after the passing away of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w).8 In the same way Majmaul Bahrayn defines Bid’ah as:

“That which was not present in the period of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) is an innovation.”

Keeping these definitions in mind, not only Azadari but all the sciences and arts, which have safeguarded the survival of Islam, all of them seem to be wearing the label of ‘innovation’.

The present arrangement of the Holy Qur’an is innovation. The diacritics on the text of the Holy Qur’an are innovation. To transcribe it in the Naskh script is innovation. To bring out Qur’anic commentaries in book form is an innovation. Collecting traditions through new methods is an innovation. The science of narrators of traditions for determining their authenticity is an innovation. The study of sources to check the authenticity of traditional reports is an innovation. Compilation of jurisprudential works is innovation. Teaching and learning scholastic theology is innovation. Let us now move ahead… To select a caliph through consensus is innovation. Formation of a Shura consultative committee to select a caliph is innovation. The Tarawih9 Prayer is innovation. To derive the religious laws through analogy is innovation. To establish the public treasury is innovation. So much so, that even wearing the Sherwani10 is innovation. Conducting transactions through paper money is innovation. If you apply this criterion whatever was not present during the time of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) is all innovation and every innovation is prohibited.

If being an innovation, Azadari should be given up then we must say goodbye to the Hijri calendar and every type of religious education must be struck off. So much so, that even the recitation of Qur’an printed on paper must be avoided. And most important of all, the caliphate of the first three caliphs must also be weeded out from the garden of Sunnism.

…is as an evil tree pulled up from the earth’s surface; it has no stability.11

The source of all the sorrows and the root of all these evils is that Ahl al-Sunnah scholars have conditioned the minds of general public to regard all innovations as deviations and all the deviations lead to Hell fire. Although to consider every innovation and method to be prohibited is a mistaken notion. Both sects believe in fact that everything is permitted until its prohibition is not mentioned. Therefore the best thing would have been if they had pondered whether this innovation comes under prohibition or not, before labeling Azadari as innovation and misleading the general public. If it is possible to have it included among the prohibited deeds through a legal argument, then indeed to encourage people from refraining from it would be the greatest service to Islam.

But if you do (it) not and never shall you do (it), then be on your guard against the fire of which men and stones are the fuel; it is prepared for the unbelievers.12

Instead of getting oneself deviated by selfish motives and slaughtering the law of the Prophet it would have been better for them to commit suicide.

The great Ahl al-Sunnah scholar, Imam Asqalani says in Fathul Bari Sharh Sahih Bukhari to the effect that:

It is well-known among the majority that innovation, can be divided into all types of acts. The compilation of scholastic theology is an example of obligatory innovation. Recommended innovation is writing of scholarly books and establishment of religious schools. Permissible innovation includes new types of dishes. Detestable innovation is spending so much on food and clothes as does not reach the level of wasteful expenditure. And prohibited innovation, according to the people of truth is to rise up in revolt and everything opposed to the Shariah whose prohibition is proved.

Shia scholars have also explained this. Thus the Shahid Thani (Second Martyr) (a.r.) says in Sharh Lumah:

“It is said that all innovation is not prohibited. Rather some people have divided it into four types of actions.”

After these explanations what intelligent person can say that the circle ‘all innovation is deviation’ also includes things which are in the position of obligatory, recommended and permitted? Keeping the same things in view, the First Martyr, (Shahid Awwal) (r.a.) has said: “Matters that developed after the period of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) are of various types. In our opinion innovation is applicable only to those things that fall under the prohibited category.

It is thus clarified that the standard of permissibility and impermissibility is not whether it existed in the time of the Prophet (s.a.), rather we should check whether the particular act conforms to the divine will or not.

Azadari rituals conform to Divine Will

How do we explain the rituals of Azadari? It could be briefly explained as: To establish the remembrance of the immortal tragedy of Karbala’ and “to express ones grief and sorrow on this tragic event.” Now we should see if the remembrance of the events of the righteous predecessors conforms to divine will or not. What I feel is that, the Almighty Allah through the religious law, made us committed to always remember His proximate ones and keep their feats in our view. In the five-times daily prayers we utter at least ten times:

“Guide us on the right path. The path of those on whom You have bestowed favors.”13

The point worth noting is that until we do not honor and respect the feats of the proximate servants of God, and do not keep their sacrifices in our view, the actual purport of the above invocation cannot be realized.

Now lets move further and glance at the parts and method of another great pillar of Islam, viz. Hajj. You will see that in the rituals of Hajj from the beginning until the end, the complete episode of Prophet Ibrahim and Prophet Ismail (a.s) is sketched.

Why has ‘Sayy’ (jogging) between Mt. Safa and Mt. Marwah been made compulsory? It is only because Lady Hajrah had ran between these two hills with infant Ismail (a.s) in search of water. And that is the reason why the Holy Qur’an, ignoring the great peaks of the Himalayas and Pamirs, honored by calling these two small hillocks as ‘signs of Allah’.

Today the Zamzam water is considered the best gift from a Hajj pilgrim. Why is it so? Is not the cause of this greatness only and only that this water spring erupted at the command of Allah to quench the thirst of Ismail?

The 8th of Zilhajj is called the Day of Tarwiyah only because it was on the night preceding this day when Ibrahim (a.s) had seen the dream in which he was slaughtering his son and the whole of next day he spent in contemplation.

The 9th of Zilhajj is called the ‘Day of Arafah’ only because on that day he had received the realization (Irfan) of sacrificing his son. The rituals of both these days are promulgated in remembrance of those same incidents.

To perform the sacrifice at Mina on the 10th of Zilhajj is an important duty of Hajj. Pages of History tell us about the reason behind it.

On the same day at the same place, Prophet Ibrahim (a.s) had tried to sacrifice Ismail (a.s) with his own hands in the path of God. Though the scribes of the tablet of ‘erasing and rewriting’ selected a ram in place of Ismail (a.s), however, the Holy Qur’an has kept the memory of this sacrifice alive and called all the animals of sacrifice as ‘signs of Allah’.

…and whoever respects the signs of Allah, this surely is (the outcome) of the piety of hearts.14

These events prove that it is one of the ancient practices of Almighty Allah to keep the memory of past events alive and it is His continuing habit. Yes, the condition is that those events should be connected to His selected servants.

Now I would like to ask whether Husayn (a.s) was not among the proximate ones of the Almighty? Were his events not extremely significant? For the sake of Allah, act with justice! When the incomplete sacrifice of Ismail (a.s) is so much dear to Allah that He made it a pillar of Islam then would He not like the remembrance of the ‘great sacrifice’? Which is having such terrible aspects that the sacrifice of Ismail (a.s) is nowhere equal to it in anyway. If like other Muslim sects the Shias had also allowed modifications in the Islamic law after the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) the rituals of Azadari are so important that they would have been also included among obligatory acts like Hajj etc. But still it cannot be denied that it conforms to the Divine will.

…the nature made by Allah in which He has made men; there is no altering of Allah’s creation…15

If we present the scenes of the events of Karbala’ before the people and year after year express our anguish and sorrow for the tragedy, what objections can be leveled against it? We only do that which we see the Almighty doing.

Those who object that Shias practice seasonal grief should note that the events of Ibrahim and Ismail (a.s) have been regulated by divine timetable and accept their folly.

Azadari of Husayn (a.s) is not Innovation

Now let me explain that the Azadari of Husayn (a.s) is not included among the ‘events after the Prophet’. Rather the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) had performed it. Please pay attention to the following narration of Allamah Ibn Hajar Makki, which he has quoted on the authority of Shobi and also Musnad of Ahmad Ibn Hanbal:

Amir al-Mu’minin (a.s) said: One day I came to the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) and saw tears in his eyes. I asked, “Has someone angered you?” Why are there tears in your eyes?” The Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said, “A little while ago Jibraeel told me that Husayn shall be slain at the banks of Euphrates. Jibraeel asked me if I would like to get the soil of that place so that I can smell it. I said, ‘Yes.’ Thus Jibraeel extended his hands and then gave me a handful of soil, due to which tears flow from my eyes.”

This tradition informs us that weeping for Imam Husayn (a.s) is not only permissible, rather it is the Sunnah (practice) of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) and according to:

…whatever the Apostle gives you, accept it…16

It is obligatory for us to emulate it. The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) was so much upset when he heard the forecast of the martyrdom of his beloved grandchild. Pay attention to this. If the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) had been alive after the incident of Karbala’, what his condition would have been? And how he must have made elaborate arrangements for the Azadari of his son?

This incident also contains the point worth noting that in spite of the fact that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) loved Husayn (a.s) to an indescribable degree and Husayn was himself present before the eyes of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) and he (the Prophet) was also given the news of the martyrdom but in order to create more intensity in the emotion of grief he felt it necessary that he sends for the soil of the place of Husayn’s martyrdom and smell it. The sentence: “Jibraeel extended his hands and then gave me a handful of soil, due to which tears flow from my eyes,” tells us that if we also keep before us the water skin, the standard, the Taboot,17 Ta’ziyah, Tauq,18 Zanjeer,19 cradle and arrow in order to increase our emotions of grief it would exactly be according to the verse of Qur’an:

…you have in the Apostle of Allah an excellent exemplar…20

And it would be a perfect emulation of the practice of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w). Before the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s), except for soil of the place of his martyrdom no other article was available which could have spurred the sorrowful emotion, therefore he had to be content upon this much. Now after the martyrdom when we are aware of all the details of the martyrdom and it is also possible to picture them in our imagination, why should we not express them all? So that we could form as much detailed imagination as is possible and to give as much condolence as is possible to the personality of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) for his grief?

Although this tradition, along with the Azadari of Husayn (a.s) also proves the justification of all the things connected with Husayn I feel that I should present the justification of some pillars of Azadari in brief, based on the events of the time of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w).

Nauha103 and Majlis104

The following incident is recorded in Madarijun Nubuwwah, Maarijun Nubuwwah and other books as well. It is that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) did not weep for anyone as much as he did for His Eminence, Hamzah. He stood before the bier of Hamzah, wept and that also loudly, and so much so that he fainted. He used to say:

“O Hamzah! O uncle of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w)! O lion of Allah and His Prophet! O one who performed the good deeds. O Hamzah, O one who removed the sorrows, O Hamzah! O one who removed the enemies from the face of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w).”

The above blessed words of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) clearly justify the dirges and mournful poetry that is recited in the rituals of Azadari.

…who has a heart or he gives ear and is a witness.21

After that when the ladies of Medina began to lament upon the martyrs of Uhad and the sound of lamentation from the house of His Eminence, Hamzah did not reach the blessed ears of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w), he exclaimed sadly: “Alas! There is no lady to lament the death of my uncle, Hamzah!” When the Helpers (Ansar) heard this, they sent their ladies to the house of Hamzah and they arrived there and immediately organized a mourning assembly and began to weep and wail. When the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) heard their wails he prayed for them that may the Almighty Allah be pleased with them, with their children and grandchildren.

This incident, beyond any doubt proves that to mourn the martyrdom of one who has laid down his life in the path of God, the collective loud wailing of a large number of people is not only a legitimate act, it is in accordance with the direction of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w).

…sufficient as a witness…22

Keeping this incident in mind which is a perfect proof, please pay attention to the following narration of Abdullah Ibn Umar that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) said: “The weeping of the living causes chastisement to the dead one. Even if we disregard the fact that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) had expressed the desire for ladies to weep on His Eminence, Hamzah and he prayed good for those who wept, how can you explain away the verse of Qur’an that says:

…and no bearer of burden shall bear the burden of another…23

Does this verse not refute the above statement? Now side by side this, also pay attention to the report of the respectable traditionist, Ayesha, who when told about the above report of Abdullah Ibn Umar that ‘the dead are punished because of the weeping of the living ones’, said, “May Allah forgive him, he has not lied intentionally. He has either forgotten or misunderstood. The fact is that some Jews were weeping for a person who had died in their community and the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) was passing that way. He (s.a.w) said: “These people are weeping for him though he is involved in divine punishment in his grave. (Refer to chapter of weeping for the dead). All sects accept this tradition.

After this there remains no point in further analyzing or discussing the report of Abdullah Ibn Umar.

Taboot and Ta’ziyah

Making a Ta’ziyah and paying homage to it is labeled as idol worship. Though it is foolishness to call a replica of a non-living thing as an idol, and that too from the tongues of those whose traditional reports prove that it is recommended to make the replica of even living things. Ayesha is reported to have said:

“I used to play with my doll in the presence of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) and some of my friends used to play with me. When the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) used to enter they hid themselves from him. Then the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) used to send them to play with me again.” Muhaddith Dehlavi, in explanation of this tradition says, “It is permitted to make a doll and play with it.”24

Anyway, let us move away from this discussion. If you want to hear the Holy Prophet (s.a.w) speak of making a replica of a grave see the following traditional report:

A companion told the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) that he has vowed to kiss the threshold of Paradise and the Hourul Ein.25 The Holy Prophet (s.a.w) told him: Go and kiss the feet of your mother and the forehead of your father. He asked what he should do if his parents were not alive anymore? He was told to kiss their grave. Again he asked what he should do if he didn’t know where their grave was? The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) told him to, “Draw two lines and consider one as the grave of the mother and the other as the grave of the father and kiss them, and do not break your vow.”

This tradition is itself so detailed and self-explanatory that there seems no need of further elaboration.

Ma’tam

If I am unable to present an instance of Ma’tam26 (Chest beating) during the lifetime of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) it is perhaps due to my shortsightedness. However, the following incident is sufficient enough to prove my claim:

Mutawakkil ordered that Ma’tam should be held at the place where funeral prayer was recited on the bier of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal. Thus 2.5 million people gathered at that place and Muslims, Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and people of four schools performed Ma’tam there.

This is the same Mutawakkil who had tried to erase even the traces of the tomb of the blessed son of the Holy Prophet (s.a.w). But today he is so much moved at the death of Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal that he himself is arranging for Ma’tam and in following him the four schools of thought mourn the tragedy. So much so, that the figure of people performing Ma’tam reaches to 2.5 millions, and at that time no one felt the need to say anything against it, that Ma’tam is an innovation. Rather histories describe the event in a boastful way.

But you should not think that the same tone and same acceptance is expressed in case of the Ma’tam of Husayn (a.s). Allamah Suyuti writes in Tarikhul Khulafa in the account of Caliph Muit that: “Women performed Ma’tam for Husayn (a.s) and this was the first time that Nauha was done for Husayn (a.s) in Baghdad and this innovation (Bid’ah) continued for many years.” Its really a great pity that in the view of the great scholars of Islam, the respect of the son of the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) is not equal to that of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal.

In the end I only wish to state that time is such a medicine that cures even the deepest wounds; but the grief for Husayn (a.s) is such that even after the passage of so many centuries it still retains its original freshness. This itself is the proof that the mourning for Husayn (a.s) is having Divine assistance.

Notes

1. Surah Taubah 9:32

2. Urdu couplet

3. Mourning rituals for the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.)

4. An effigy of the tomb of Imam Husayn (a.s.)

5. A replica signifying the standard carried by His Eminence, Abbas in the battle of Karbala’

6. A mourning assembly

7. Beating of chest

8. Qamus

9. Special prayers recited by Sunnis during the month of Ramadan

10. A long coat worn in India and Pakistan

11. Surah Ibrahim 14:26

12. Surah Baqarah 2:24

13. Surah Fatiha 1:6-7

14. Surah Hajj 22:32

15. Surah Rum 30:30

16. Surah Hashr 59:7

17. Effigy of a bier

18. Iron-collar

19. Chain

20. Surah Ahzab 33:21

21. Surah Qaf 50:37

22. Surah Nisa 4:79

23. Surah Anam 6:164

24. Mishkatul Masabih, Jame al-Usool, Jame Bain as-Sahiain

25. The Hourie of Paradise

26. Beating of chest in mourning