Scholastic Theology (Kalam)

Scholastic Theology (Kalam) Author:
Publisher: www.alulbayt.com
Category: Miscellaneous Books

  • Start
  • Previous
  • 12 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 5398 / Download: 4627
Size Size Size
Scholastic Theology (Kalam)

Scholastic Theology (Kalam)

Author:
Publisher: www.alulbayt.com
English

This book is corrected and edited by Al-Hassanain (p) Institue for Islamic Heritage and Thought

Knowing Islamic Sciences

Murtadha Mutahhari

SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY

(Kalaam)

Translated by:

Najim Al-Khafaji

Table of Contents

Introduction. 3

Foreword. 4

Lesson One: Scholastic Theology. 5

The origins of kalaam. 5

Researching or following? 6

The early issues 6

Rational and traditional debate 8

Lesson Two: Scholastic theology, a definition  9

The name 9

Schools of scholastic theology. 10

Lesson Three: The Mu’tazilites (1) 13

Monotheism. 14

Lesson Four: The Mu’tazilites (2) 16

The origin of Justice 16

Monotheism. 17

The middle way. 17

Enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong. 18

Lesson Five: The Mu’tazilites (3) 20

The Divine 20

Natural science 20

Man. 20

Social and political issues 21

The process of change and history. 21

Lesson Six: The Ash’arites 25

Lesson Seven: The Shia (1) 29

Lesson Eight: The Shia (2) 33

1. Monotheism: 34

2. Justice: 35

3. Freewill and choice: 35

4. Inherent good and repugnance: 35

5. Graciousness and opting for what is in the best interest of man: 36

6. Originality of the intellect, its independence and authoritativeness: 36

7. The aim behind God’s Actions: 36

8. Bada’, or change of mind, of the Divine Action is acceptable: 36

9. Seeing God: The Mu’tazilites vehemently deny this question. 37

10. The belief of the godless: 37

11. The infallibility of the Prophets and the Imams: 38

12. Forgiveness and intercession: 38

Introduction

For sometime now, we have been looking at giving the up and coming generation the attention that they deserve. Our aim is to make available to them the sort of things and literature that they identify with and like in different languages, amongst which is English. It is an undeniable fact that English has become the primary language of communication between our second generations living here in the West.

Accordingly, the Alul Bayt (a.s.) Foundation for Reviving the Heritage, London, U.K. has recognised the need for setting up a publishing house whose duty it is to translate the gems of our religious and cultural heritage to the main living languages. After discussing the idea with Hujjatul Islam as-Sayyid Jawad ash-Shahristani, the establishment of Dar Al-Hadi in London, U.K. has become a reality.

It is a known fact that many members of our younger generation aspire to become acquainted with and/or study the different disciplines taught in the conventional centres of religious learning and scholarship. And yet, it has been difficult for them to materialise this aim because of the complexity of the subject matter.

However, we have been lucky enough to come across a series of books intended to untangle these often highly complex fields and make them readily discernable by the layman. The author, Martyr Murtadha Mutahhari, who is among the luminaries of our school of thought, has been known for his original thought and vast contribution to the Islamic library.

This series has been chosen to inaugurate a project that we hope will grow to satisfy a pressing need for familiarisation with such complex material, which our younger generation have heard of but yet to understand its content and objectives.

Introducing these generations to Islamic sciences in this style, which aims to unravel the vague and make meaningful the ambiguous, is our main goal.

In the end, we pray to the Almighty to make this effort of ours beneficial to those who aspire to gain this type of knowledge, and bestow success on us to produce these booklets. Our aim and hopes are to gain happiness in this world and the hereafter. And Allah is the best friend and helper.

Fadhil Bahrululum

Dar Al-Hadi Publications

London, U.K.

Thul Hijja, 1423 H. (February 2003)

Foreword

It is not strange to raise the question of how can one make simpler a complex subject such as the science ofkalaam or (scholastic theology)? This is what we have set out to do. In this booklet we have attempted to make the subject accessible as well as seeking to be as concise as possible.

This booklet is not only introduces the science ofkalaam to the reader but attempts to answer the questions on the subject as well. As such, questions like what is exactly the science ofkalaam ? What is it trying to achieve? What does it deal with? Why is it called by this name? And how did it come into existence? are questions that the booklet will attempt to examine.

However, the final say is that of the reader.

Fadhil Bahrul Uloom

Lesson One: Scholastic Theology

The science of scholastic, or speculative, theology (kalaam ) is an Islamic science. It is concerned with discussing Islamic beliefs, or what should be upheld of such beliefs from an Islamic perspective. Thus,kalaam seeks to explain the matters relating to these beliefs, advancing the evidence in support thereof and defending the same.

Muslim scholars divide the body of Islamic teachings into three categories:

1. Beliefs: This category deals with the questions and knowledge that one has to be familiar with and subsequently believe in, such as monotheism, the Attributes of the Creator, universal and exclusive prophethood, etc. However, Islamic schools of thought differed as to what constitutes the fundamentals of religion and thereby have to be espoused as such.

2. Ethics: This category deals with the issues and teachings that discuss the “status of man”, i.e. those questions relating to moral qualities and spiritual characteristics, such as fairness, piety, courage, integrity, wisdom, rectitude, truthfulness, trustworthiness, etc.

3. Laws: This category takes care of matters relating to the performance and mechanics of acts of worship, such as prayer, fast, hajj (pilgrimage), jihad, enjoining good and forbidding evil, sale and hire, marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. This category is known by another title, namely, jurisprudence.

According to such a division, Islamic teachings have become the main thrust of Islam, to the exclusion of Islamic sciences that discuss the preliminaries, such as humanities, logic, and to a certain extent philosophy.

Also, according to this dissection, there has been a focus on the relationship between Islamic teachings and man. That is, matters relating to man’s intellect have been given the name “beliefs”, whereas the title “ethics” has become synonymous with questions concerning man’s morals and spiritual welfare. As for the issues relating to how man goes about conducting his devotions, they have been given the name “jurisprudence”.

As shall, God willing, be explained, although jurisprudence is considered one science, from a juridical perspective, yet it consists of a number of sub sciences.

However,kalaam (speculative or scholastic theology) is the science that is concerned with Islamic beliefs or doctrines. It used to be called “fundamentals of religion” or “unity and attributes”.

The origins of kalaam

It is not possible to determine with absolute certainty when the science of scholastic theology started. Yet, the middle of the secondHijri (Islamic lunar calendar) century witnessed the beginning of the controversy between Muslims over issues of akalaam nature. Thus, questions of freewill, predestination, and justice, were debated. Perhaps, the first official seminary was that of al-Hassan al-Basri (d. 110 H.).

Two towering figures, who lived in the middle of the second century, come to mind, especially when one talks about vehement defence of man’s freewill. They are Ma’bad al-Juhni [d. 80/669] and Gheelan ad-Dimashqi

[of Damascus, d. 150/767]. On the other side of the ideological divide, there were the proponents of the doctrine of predestination. The latter were known as “jabri’ites ”, as opposed to the former, “qadri’ites”.

The differences between these two schools of thought had crept into other issues relating to divinity, natural and social sciences, man and resurrection. The qadri’ites were later known by the name, “mu’tazilites” [lit. the separatists, founded by Wasil bin Ata’ (130/748), the student of al-Hassan al-Basri after he had turned his back to his teacher] and thejabri’ites [from the Arabic rootjabr (necessity, compulsion)], “ash’ari’ites”, [i.e. named after the founder of the School, Abul Hassan Ali bin Ismail al-Ash’ari (d. 324/935)].

The orientalists and their disciples are adamant that the beginning of deductive work in the world of Islam started with that sort of debate.

Nevertheless, the truth is that deductive research in Islamic fundamentals emanated from the Holy Qur’an. The prophetic traditions and the sermons of Imam Ali (a.s.) used to provide the commentary on those Qur’anic passages. It has to be noted, though, that that scholarship varied in style and substance, pursuant to the calibre of Muslim speculative theologians (mutakalimeen).

Researching or following?

The Holy Qur’an has secured the pillars of belief according to reasoning. It has always aimed to make people reach conviction by way of intellection or rational judgement. The Holy Book does not consider worship in matters of belief sufficient. Therefore, fundamentals of religion have to be examined through logic.

Questions such as the existence of God and His unity should be resolved by way of rational judgement, so as the prophethood of Mohammad (s.a.w.). This is how the science of the fundamentals of religion emerged during the first century of the Islamic era.

The embracing of Islam by non-Arabs, the existence of different ideologies and principles, and the co-existence of Muslims with the followers of other religions, such as Jews, Christians, Magians, and Sabians, had precipitated debate between Muslims. Those developments and the interaction between all those peoples were instrumental in the appearance of groups, such as atheists, thanks to the general climate of freedom, especially at the time of the Abbasid caliphate. The latter did not mind the proliferation of such trends, provided that holding such views did not constitute any divergence from the ruling establishment’s general guidelines. Philosophy, which called for freethinking and the casting of doubt and false arguments, also came to the fore. All those developments called for scrutiny in the fundamental structures of Islam, with a view of consolidating them, hence the emergence of great speculative theologians (mutakalimeen) in the second, third and fourth centuries of the Islamic era.

The early issues

Perhaps, among the early issues, which became the bone of contention between Muslims, was the question of predestination and freewill. This was

quite natural, not least because it has a bearing on man’s destiny, hence, the importance attached to it by any sensible person.

There might not be a single intellectually mature society whose members do not engage in debate on these matters. Moreover, since the Holy Qur’an discussed these issues in many verses, it has become the driving force behind the dialogue on such questions between people.

Therefore, we should not go far in order to find a justification for the appearance of this issue in the world of Islam. As for the orientalists, they always seek to refute the originality of Islamic sciences and thought, in any way possible, above all, by tracing such knowledge and scholarship to domains outside the realm of Islam, especially, Christianity. That is why, they try to attribute the science ofkalaam (speculative theology) to some other ideology, i.e. not Islamic. After all, this is what they tried to do with even purely Arabic sciences, such as grammar, metrics, rhetoric, figures of speech, and Islamic gnosis, or mysticism (Irfan ).

The research in predestination and freewill also deals with the question of decree and destiny (qadha and qadr ). Insofar as its relationship with the human beings is concerned, it is called predestination and freewill (jabr and ikhtiyar ). And as far as its link with God is concerned, it is called decree and destiny. The research has been extended to cover the issue of [Divine] Justice (adl ) for the obvious correlation between predestination and injustice, on the one hand, and freewill and justice, on the other.

Justice, however, led to the study of the “inbuilt good and repugnance” (husn and qubh ) of the human actions; this in turn led to the study of reason (aql) and intellectual independence.

As a result of discussing all these topics, yet another subject came to the fore, viz. wisdom (hikma ), i.e. the wise intents and purposes of the Divine. The research had gradually developed to cover other topics, such as the unity of actions (Tawheed afa’ali ) and the unity of attributes (Tawheed sifati ). This will be discussed later on.

These scholastic theology issues and research had branched out into a plethora of subjects that have a philosophical dimension, such as the studies in the essence and manifestations of things and the composition of the body from inseparable parts. Scholastic theologians have considered carrying out those studies as necessary, i.e. preparing the ground for the discussions of the issues dealing with the fundamentals of religion, especially creation and resurrection (mabda’ and ma’ad ).

Thus, a number of issues, which used to be the exclusive domain of philosophy, had become part and parcel of the science of scholastic theology, hence the spanning of topics between philosophy andkalaam (speculative theology).

Reading speculative theology books, especially those written in the seventh century of the Islamic era onward, you will discover that mostkalaam issues were the ones discussed by philosophers, Muslims in particular.

Philosophy andkalaam had great impact on each other. One such influence was thatkalaam had introduced new subjects into philosophy. For its part, philosophy had widened the horizons ofkalaam , in that discussing

philosophical questions within a speculative theology setting had become necessary. Hopefully, we shall be able to expand on this subject by giving examples later on.

Rational and traditional debate

Despite the fact that the science ofkalaam is a deductive and analogous one, in the premises and principles it espouses to reaching logical conclusions, it consists of two parts, i.e. rational (aqli ) and traditional (naqli ).

Reason comprises the questions that are the exclusive preserve of reason, or intellect. Nevertheless, if tradition is resorted to in the process, it can be considered as an extra piece of evidence on the rational judgement. Issues of debate of this sort include monotheism, prophethood, and some topics relating to resurrection, where you cannot rely exclusively on tradition, i.e. the Holy Qur’an and Prophetic tradition (sunnah ). You have to count on reason.

Tradition is concerned with issues pertaining to the fundamentals of religion that one must believe and have faith in. However, since it is a branch of prophethood, and not above it, it is sufficient to prove the issues by way of divine revelation or authentic prophetichadith (tradition), such as those questions relating to imamate; according to Shiite doctrine, imamate is among the fundamentals of religion. The same goes for the majority of the topics that are relevant to the question of resurrection.

Lesson Two: Scholastic theology, a definition

It suffices to say that scholastic theology is a science that is concerned with studying the fundamentals of Islamic faith. In other words, it aims to clearly segregate the matters that relate to the fundamentals of religion, proving their veracity with demonstrative proofs and responding to scepticism and baseless arguments levelled against them.

In books that deal with logical and philosophical issues, there is a reference to the fact that for each and every science there is a special subject and that what sets any science apart from the other and makes it different is the uniqueness of the subject it discusses.

Of course, this is true. The sciences whose topics have realistic unity fit this description. However, there can be other sciences, whose topics are numerous, yet subjective, provided that there is a common goal to be served, which is the reason for such unity and subjectivity (I’itibar )

Scholastic theology is of the second type, in that the unity of its issues is not intrinsic and qualitative but a subjective one. Thus, it is not essential to look for one subject for the science ofkalaam (scholastic theology).

As for the sciences, whose subject matter can demonstrate a fundamental unity, there will not be a possibility of interlocking of their ingredients, i.e. interdependent co-existence. On the other hand, for sciences whose unities are subjective, there can be no harm if their issues intersect another science the unity of whose subject matter is central. This is the reason for the science ofkalaam having something in common with philosophy, psychology or sociology.

Some scholars tried to come up with a subject and a definition for the science ofkalaam , like those for philosophy. They advanced a number of theories in this regard. This is wrong. Having a unity of subject concerns the sciences that can demonstrate a natural unity of issues. Conversely, any science that lacks this intrinsic unity, in other words, it is subjective, there cannot be a single subject for it.

The name

There had been a debate concerning the name given to this science, i.e. why is it calledkalaam ? When was it given this name? Some attributed this name to the stature it gives the one who is familiar with it, in that he grows in stature the more he is involved in debate, or speech (kalaam ) and in reaching rational conclusions. Others say that the name was derived from the introductory phrase “Debating, or speaking of, this, or that issue..” scholastic theologians (mutakalimeen) used to start their writings or deliberations with. A third party said that it was named the science ofkalaam because it involves “debating, talking about, or discussing”, the issues the traditionists, or scholars of tradition, (ahlul hadith ) prefer to keep “quiet” about. A fourth group are of the opinion that the name can be traced back to the discussion in the context of this science about “God’s speech -kalaam ”, which led to untold conflict and killings; that is why that period was branded “the age of tribulation”, in that people of that time overindulged in argument and polemics about religious fundamentals and on whether God’s speech was eternal or created.

Schools of scholastic theology

As there was disagreement between Muslims on juridical issues and the branches of religion, ending in the setting up of different schools of thought, such as Jafari’ite, Zaidite, Hanafite, Shafi’ite, and Hanbali’ite, there was disagreement between them over doctrinal matters. Each group had adopted special principles. The most important amongkalaam (scholastic theology) schools of thought are Shiite, Mu’atazilite, Ash’arite, and Murji’ite.

At this juncture, a question, tinged with regret, may be posed about the disunity of Muslims over juridical and scholastic theology issues. Their differences inkalaam have given rise to their disunity in Islamic thought. Their differences over juridical matters have deprived them of the ability to show a united front in action.

Although posing the question and expressing regret are legitimate, yet the attention must be drawn to these two points:

1. The differences between Muslims over these issues are not so acute that they may shake the foundations of their doctrinal unity and joint programmes. The things they have in common are so many that they render the issues they disagree over insignificant.

2. Ideological and theoretical differences in a society that still demonstrate common ideological fundamentals are inevitable. So long as the differences stem from the same premises and principles and are a result of the different approaches to deduction, without compromising the main objects and aims, such differences are beneficial, in that they enhance research and scholarship. However, should these differences turn into entrenched positions, bigotry, and irrational inclinations, and the individual effort becomes obsessed with degrading others, without a real attempt to reform the approach, it would lead to disastrous results. The Shia (Shi’ite) school of thought makes it obligatory on themukallaf [compos mentis: The person obligated to observe the precepts of religion] to follow a living jurist (mujtahid). For their part, the jurists must exert themselves, through scholarship, to arrive at independent judgements, being vigilant as not to fall under the sway of the legal opinions of bygone generations of jurists and great personas. This ijtihad [lit. exertion: the process of arriving at judgements on points of religious law, using reason and the principles of jurisprudence “usul al-fiqh”] and independent thinking would inevitably cause difference in opinion. However, this particular issue is responsible for giving the Shia jurisprudence the extra edge, survival, and continuity. In its general outlines, difference is not a bad thing. What is condemnable is that difference resulting from ill intentions and evil ulterior motives of those who seek to sow discord among Muslims. Questions such as exploring the history of Islamic thought and the differences that came to the fore as a result of ill intentions and prejudice, the differences of opinion that emanated from rational thinking, and whether or not we should consider all issues ofkalaam as fundamental and juridical issues as peripheral are outside the scope of these lessons. Before starting to discuss the schools ofkalaam , we have to allude to the fact that a group of Muslim scholars were diametrically opposed to embarking onkalaam or rational study in the questions of fundamentals of religion. They branded this type of scholarship

an impermissible deed and a heresy, or innovation (bida’a ). This group is known as “ahlul hadith ”, or the proponents (scholars) ofhadith (tradition). On top of the list of outstanding scholars of this group was Ahmed bin Hanbal [d.245/833], the founder of the Hambalite Sunni juridical school of thought. The Hanbalites are archenemies of any sort ofkalaam , be it Mu’tazilite or Asha’rite, let alone Shiite. They are also known for their contraposition on philosophy and logic. The Hanbalite, Ibn Taymiyyah [d.728/1327], the well-known jurist passed a fatwa (edict) forbidding the involvement in scholastic theology (kalaam ) and logic (mantiq). Jalaluddin as-Suyuti, another member ofahlul hadith wrote a book entitled, “Sawn al-Mantiq wal kalaam an al-Mantiq wal kalaam ”, i.e. the “preservation of logic and speech from the encroachments of the sciences of logic and scholastic theology”. Malik bin Anas [d.179/795], the founder of the Malikite School of Thought, did not license any research into doctrinal issues. As we have already mentioned, the most important schools of scholastic theology are the Shiite, Mu’atazilite, Ash’arite, and Murji’ite. Some scholars considered the Kahrijite, and the Ismaelite among the schools of Islamic scholastic theology. However, we do not consider them as such. The Kahrijites have espoused a special brand of beliefs in the fundamentals of religion. Maybe, they were the first ones to do so. They have talked about some beliefs in the context of imamate, deeming those who reject it asfasiq (godless), whom they have branded unbeliever. Yet, (a) they did not establish an ideological school capable of deducing legal opinion; in other words, they did not set up an ideological system in the world of Islam; and (b) in our opinion, as Shia Muslims, their deviant ideological opinions have reached a proportion that they are considered outside the pale of Islam. However, this has made things palatable, in that the Khrijites have almost died out, except for a tolerant faction of them, i.e. the Abadhi’ites. The survival of the group is attributed to the broad-mindedness of its members. As for the Batinites (secretive), i.e. the Ismaelites, they have introduced so many unsavoury innovations into Islamic thought that it can be said that they left Islam in a state of topsy-turvy. For this reason, Muslims are not prepared to consider them as one of them any more. Some forty years ago, the Group for Rapprochement between Islamic Schools of Thought was established in Cairo, Egypt. The founding fathers were Twelver and Zaidite Shia, Hanafi’ites, Shafi’ites, Malikites, and Hanbalites. The Ismaelites tried very hard to be represented, but all Muslims gave them the cold shoulder. However, despite their apparent deviation from the right path, the Ismaelites, unlike the Kharijites – who did not have a distinct school of thought, have a school of thought, featuring scholastic theology and philosophy. Over the ages, famous intellectuals had emerged from their ranks, leaving behind an ideological heritage. Of late, the orientalists have shown keen interest in their opinions and books. Among the towering figures of the Ismaelites is Nassir Khisro al-Alawi, the Farsi famous poet (d. 841 H.). His known books are, Jami’ul Hukmain (the Compendium of the Two Rules), Wajhuddin (the Face of Religion), and Khawan (sic) Ikhwan (the Brothers). Abu Hatim ar-Razi (d. 332 H.), the author of A’alamun Nubbuwwah (The Beacons of Prophethood), is another great Ismaelite

figure. Another one is Abu Ya’qoub as-Sajistani (d. circa second half of the fourthHijri century), the author of Kashful Mahjoub (Unveiling the Concealed); the Farsi translation of this book was printed some ten years ago. Also, among other famous personalities of the Ismaelites is Hamiduddin al-Kirmani, the student of Abu Ya’qoub as-Sajistani. He was a prolific writer on the tenets of the Ismaelites. Abu Hanifa an-Nu’man bin Tahbit, known as Judge Nu’man and widely known as well by Abu Hanifa ash-Shii, i.e. the Ismaeli Shiite, [to differentiate him from the founder of the Sunni School of Thought, the Hanifi’ite ]. He undertook credible and good research in jurisprudence andhadith . His book, Da’a’imul Islam (the Pillars of Islam) is in circulation.

Lesson Three: The Mu’tazilites (1)

We embark on this study into the Mua’tazilites for a reason, which we will discuss later.

This group came into being towards the end of the first century of the Islamic era, or at the turn of the second century. Naturally, during this period,kalaam , or scholastic theology, had already developed into a fully-fledged science.

At the outset, we list down the Mua’tazilites’ distinctive systems of belief. We will then make reference to their famous personalities, stating some outstanding dates in their calendar, and ending with the process of change their doctrines had gone through before they took their final shape.

The issues the Mu’tazilites had discussed were diverse, in that they were not only interested in purely religious beliefs, which should be upheld from their perspective. Any thing that has a bearing on the religious, they did not hesitate to embark on discussing. Thus, issues of philosophical, social, humanitarian, and environmental dimensions were discussed. However, according to them, these issues have a relationship with issues of faith and conviction. They believe that discussing the latter was not going to come true unless the former subjects were discussed.

The Mu’tazilites hold five tenets, they consider fundamental to their core belief:

1. Monotheism, i.e. in Essence and Attributes.

2. Justice, i.e. God is Just and is incapable of doing injustice.

3. Promise and threat, i.e. God has promised those who obeyed Him with reward. By the same token, He has threatened those who disobeyed Him with punishment. And since the promised reward will not be revoked, so will the threat of punishment. However, forgiveness is feasible only with man’s repentance. Forgiveness will not be granted without it.

4. The middle way, i.e. thefasiq (godless), i.e. the person who has committed a cardinal sin, such as consuming alcohol, adultery, or lying, is neither a believer nor an unbeliever. That is, they are neither here nor there; in other words, half way between belief and unbelief.

5. Enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil; the Mu’tazilites argue that the way to know what is good and what is evil is not confined to sharia law, in that independent reasoning is capable of recognizing good and evil. Furthermore, they maintain that upholding this duty does not necessarily require the existence of an Imam, or leader, since it is the duty of all Muslims to uphold it. And yet, they also recognize that some aspects of this duty are the prerogatives of the leaders of Muslims, such as executing the Islamic penal code, preserving the integrity of Muslim territories, and other government affairs.

Mu’tazilite theologians discussed those fundamental tenets in detail, in works, such as alUsul al-Khamsa (the Five Fundamentals) by Judge Abdul Jabbar al-Mu’tazili, who was a contemporaneous to Sahib bin Abbad and as-Sayyid al-Murtadha Allamul Huda.

As is evident, monotheism and justice are the only tenets that can be considered as those of belief/faith. As for the remaining three fundamentals, they are distinctly Mu’atazilite. Even “Justice”, which is a religious

necessity, as is evident in the Qur’an, being one of the five fundamentals of religion, has been considered as one of their five tenets, because they deem it among the features of their school of thought. Otherwise, it is not different from the Divine Omniscience and Omnipotence that are among the necessities of religion and its beliefs.

According to the Shia School of Thought, Justice is one of the five fundamentals of religion. At this point, one may pose a question as to the uniqueness of this fundamental that made it one of the five fundamentals. That is, as God is Just, He is Omniscient, Living, Hearing, Seeing, and Omnipotent. Man has to believe in all those Attributes. So, why was Justice singled out with distinction above the rest?

The answer to this question is that Justice does not have any merit over and above any other Attributes. As for Shia theologians, they have made it one of the five fundamentals of the faith, whereas the Ash’arites, who constitute the majority of Sunnis, denied it, unlike the other Attributes, such as Omniscience, Life, and Will.

Accordingly, believing in Justice is one of the characteristics of Shia beliefs, as is the case with the Mu’tazilites.

Therefore, the five tenets are the main features of the Mu’tazilite School of Thought, despite the fact that not all their beliefs are reflected in those five tenets, for they put forward and discussed many subjects relating to divinity, natural sciences, sociology, and the humanities.

Monotheism

Monoteism is of different orders and categories. These include Unity of the Essence (Tawheed thati), Unity of the Attributes (Tawheed sifati ), Unity of the Actions (Tawheed afa’ali ), Unity of worship (Tawheed ibadi ).

Unity of the Essence means that the Essence of God is one, none is like Him and no similitude can apply to Him. Everything else is created by Him and thus lower than Him in status and perfection; rather, it cannot be compared to Him. The Qur’anic verses, “None is like Him ” and “And there is none like unto Him ” testify to this.

Unity of the Attributes means that God’s Attributes, such as knowledge, power, life, will, perception, hearing, and vision are not distinct from His nature. In other words, any of these Attributes could qualify for His Essence.

Unity of the Actions means that all actions, including those of man, are commissioned with the will of God.

Unity of worship means that there is no one besides God who is worthy of worship. Worshipping others amounts to polytheism (shirk ) and thus causes estrangement from the domain of Islamic monotheism.

Exclusively worshipping the One and Only God is different from other categories, in that the other three relate to God, whereas Unity of worship relates to man.

In other words, upholding (a) the integrity of His Essence, rendering it devoid of any peer or similitude, (b) the unity of His Attributes, and (c) the Unity of the Actions, are considered His exclusive preserve. As for the unity of worship, it means that one should worship the One and Only God. And yet, unity of worship can still be considered of His own affairs, in that it

involves calling no associates with Him and that He is worthy of worship, i.e. being the True and Only God that should be worshiped; the phrase, “There is no god but God ” consists of all classes of monotheism. Naturally, it suggests unity of worship.

Unity of the Essence and Unity of worship are the two ancient parts of fundamentals of belief in Islam. For any Muslim to experience any mix-up in these two parts, he would not be deemed Muslim. That is why Muslims are unanimous in upholding these two fundamentals.

However, the Wahhabi sect, founded by Mohammad bin Abdul Wahhab, a follower of Ibn Taymiyyah al-Hanbali ash-Shami maintains that some of Muslims’ beliefs, such as intercession, and some of their devotional works, such as pleading with the prophets and the good Muslims go against the grain of worship. And yet, the rest of Muslims do not share the Wahhabis their views.

Therefore, the disagreement of the Wahhabis with the rest of Muslims does not revolve around the issue of whether the true Unity of worship is exclusively God’s or others’, such as the prophets. This goes without saying. Rather, the argument concentrates on whether or not these intercessions and invocations are types of worship. Muslim scholars refuted the Wahhabi argument with detailed counterargument and plenty of evidence.

As regards Unity of the Attributes, there has been a rift between the Mu’tazilite and Ash’arites, in that the latter denied it, whereas the former upheld it. Another disagreement erupted between the two schools regarding Unity of the Actions, but this time the other way round; the Ash’arites upheld it, whereas the Mu’tazilites rejected it.

When the Mu’tazilites call themselves Ahlut Tawhid (the People of Monotheism), and deem monotheism one of their five tenets, they mean Unity of the Attributes, and not that of the Essence or of Worship – because both of them are not subject of disagreement. The exclusion also goes for Unity of the Actions, because they (a) deny it and (b) deal with their belief in it under the tenet of Justice, which is the second in the order of the five fundamentals they advocate.

Both the Ash’arites and the Mu’tazilites are diametrically opposed to one another regarding the categories of Unity of the Attributes and Unity of the Actions. The proponents of each school discussed their evidence in support of their respective arguments. In a separate chapter, we shall discuss the Shia belief regarding the two categories.

The Second Court Session

First Tragic Scene: “List of Witnesses”

The court session resumed at 10AM sharp and after greeting remarks, the Chief Justice said:

Chief Justice: Thank you everyone, I’d like to stress once again the importance of abiding by the rules and regulations of the court and completely refraining from voicing any comments or reactions during the court proceedings. Otherwise, I will have to remove the violators from the courtroom. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

As for the defense motions which were presented yesterday, all of the judges have unanimously rejected the First motion, but accepted the Second motion with the condition that it would be within strict limits to both the defense and prosecution teams, and has accepted the Third motion. So, from now on, the jurors will be sequestered from the media (The Supreme Justice looks towards the jurors). We apologize for that and we ask that you fully cooperate with us by avoiding reading the daily newspapers and viewing media coverage which provides daily news and comments about this case. Of course this also includes internet access and receiving phone calls which are directly related to the case. Thank you.

Now, since the parties in this case have departed this world long time ago, both the prosecution and defense agreed upon depending on historical text references to provide events, evidences, and witnesses in this case. It is the right of the defense to discuss and refute every evidence or witness the prosecution presents. In the end, the verdict will be for the judges and jurors.

The prosecution has submitted a list of historical books and references which they will depend on in their presentation. This list will be recited out loud to you shortly, along with the names of their authors. The defense will have the right to object any of them if they feel that it is biased or not trustworthy for them.

In such case, the judges and jurors many only use these rejected references for the purpose of reassurance, but not to solely depend on them in deciding the truthfulness of the data. In other words, if a testimony was presented from one of the approved references (by both the prosecution and defense), then another testimony supporting that same testimony was presented from a controversial source, the jurors and judges may rely on them only for reassurance of the information that was presented in the approved source.

It is the right of the defense to respond or comment on any point presented. It is also the right of the prosecution to rebut in order to clarify any point to the jurors and judges, not just for the sake of argument. Re-rebuttal will also be allowed for the defense.

It has been decided that the judges have the right to question the prosecution and defense teams in any point raised or information presented. It will also be the right of the jurors to pose any question to both teams for clarification after they start deliberations and before reaching their verdict.

The court secretary will now begin to recite the list of historical books and references which the prosecution presented. The defense must respond to each of these references by either saying, “accepted” or “not accepted”.

There is a projector screen located on the witness stand which displays the name of all these books. During court proceedings, the names of each of the sources and references will be displayed on that screen, along with the page number and a screenshot of the original copy of the page. This will be made visible to the judges and jurors via their laptops available in front of them. Now, the court secretary may go ahead and recite out loud the list of the history books and references.

Court Secretary: (stands up and holds a paper from which she recites)

Thank you your Honor. Here is a list of references and history books which the prosecution has submitted. I request the defense to answer “accepted” or “not accepted” after the name of each book is recited.

1) Maqtal Al-Husayn Lil Khwarizmi (The Killing of Al-Husayn by Khwarizmi)

Defense: (representative stands up) Accepted

Court Secretary: 2) Tarikh Al Tabari (History by Tabari)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 3) Tarikh (Al Kamel) / Ibn Al Atheer (History by son of Atheer)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 4) Murooj Al Dhahab Lil Mas’oodi (Block of Gold of Mas’oodi)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 5) Tarikh Al Ya’qoobi (History by Ya’qoobi)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 6) Al ‘Aqd Al Fareed Li Ibn ‘Abd Rabbo & Sharh Al Nahj Li Ibn Abi Al Hadeed

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 7) Al Bedaya Wal Nehaya Li ibn Katheer (The

Beginning and the End by Ibn Katheer)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 8) Mizan Al E’tedaal Lil Dhahabi (The Scale of Balance by Dhahabi)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 9) Irshad Al Sheikh Al Mufid (The Guidance of Sheikh Al Mufid)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 10) Maqatel Al Talibiyeen Li Abi Al Faraj Al Esfahani (The Massacres of Talibiyeen by Abi Al Faraj Al Asfahani)Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 11) Tarikh ibn ‘Asaker (History of Ibn ‘Asaker)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 12) A’laam Al Wara Lil Tabarsi (Events of the Past by Al Tabarsi)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 13) Maqtal Al ‘Awalem Ibn Nama (The Killing of the Famous Personalities by Ibn Nama)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 14) Al Khasa’es Lil Soyouti (The Characteristics by Soyouti)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 15) Tarikh Al Kholafaa Lil Soyouti (History of the Caliphs by Soyouti)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 16) Al ‘Isaba Li Ibn Hajar (The Target by Ibn Hajar)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 17) Manaqib ibn Shahr Ashoob (Virtues by Ibn Shahr Ashoob)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 18) Motheer Al Ahzaan Li Ibn Nama (Instigator of Grief by Ibn Nama)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 19) Seyar A’laam Al Nobala Al Dhahabi (Autobiographies of the Nobles)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 20) Al Lohoof Li Ibn Tawoos

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 21) Al Sawa’eq Al Mohreqa Li Ibn Hajar (The Burning Lightening by Ibn Hajar)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 22) Al Muntadhem Li Ibn Al Joozi (The Organized by Ibn Al Joozi)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 23) Al Jara-eh Wal Khara-ej Lil Qutb Al Rawandi (The Cause and Effects)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 24) Riyadh Al Ahzaan (Garden of Sorrows)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: Thank you your Honor. (sits down)

Chief Justice: Thank you Court Secretary. Dear respected judges and jurors, all the list of references that were accepted or rejected by the defense are displayed in front of you. So the total number of historical references presented were 24; 16 were approved by the defense and 8 were rejected. So these rejected references may only be used to support a piece of information which is cited in one of the 16 approved references. Please keep that in mind!

Second Tragic Scene: “The Prosecution Begins”

Chief Justice: Now, let us start our journey for searching the truth. I call the prosecution to start presenting his case and evidence to prove that the five defendants are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of all the charges against them. You may begin, Mr. Prosecutor.

(That distinguished prosecutor stood up with his glorious and prestigious look with a relaxed and beautiful shining face that calms the nerves. He

speaks with his melodious and sad voice which takes the minds and hearts away…it is as if there is an invisible strength which mesmerizes your ears…he stood up and said):

Prosecutor: Thank you your Honor, dear respected judges and respected jurors. Our case and our story…or rather our tragedy started on a Sunday morning in one of the days of the month of Rajab, the Islamic lunar month, in the year 60 A.H., which coincides with the Gregorian month April in the year 680 A.D.

It is the day when the ruler of the Muslims (Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan) died in his capital in Damascus after he took the pledge of allegiance for his son Yazid, the First defendant, to become the next ruler of the Islamic state after him. He took that pledge of allegiance for his son from the people by threatening, bribing, and terrorizing because the majority did not see Yazid to be qualified for this position as he lacked the knowledge, morality, and behavioral criteria required to be present in this position, according to Islamic law (Shari’a). It should be noted that the Islamic nation during that time extended from what is today Iran in the east till Egypt in the west. There were a good number of key religious figures in the Islamic society who did not give their alle-

giance to Yazid to take over after his father because of the reasons just mentioned. This fact cannot be denied by the defense team as it is mentioned in all historical references in front of you.

Anyways, after Muawiya’s death on that day, his son Yazid the First defendant automatically became the new ruler as it was planned and arranged before, despite the objection of the opponents.

It is well-known that the Islamic religion, upon which the laws of this new state were built at that time, does not condone forcing people to give their allegiance, against their own free will, to a new ruler. It prohibits the use of threat or persecution if a person does not voluntarily give his allegiance, let alone killing him. It was not either the practice of the rulers before the First defendant and it was not heard of.

This is clearly shown in the references present before you, and Yazid has been preceded by five rulers before him including his own father. Before Yazid, whoever wanted to give his pledge of allegiance to a new ruler can do so, and whoever doesn’t is free to exercise their free will. In both cases, this does not affect the individual civil rights in the Islamic state. No one, at least according to the majority of Muslims historians, was ever forced, persecuted, or kicked out or killed because of his refusal to give a pledge of allegiance to a Caliph (ruler).

This was the norm and the practice before the First defendant succeeded his father as Caliph. The first time in which force and terror was used in this regard was when the First defendant’s father tried to take the allegiance for his son during his lifetime, due to his prior knowledge of the lack of consensus or even a majority support for his son Yazid to become the next Caliph after him.

Muawiya has died and it was announced in Damascus that Yazid became the new ruler of the Islamic state. In order to strengthen the pillars of his regime, Yazid immediately sent a letter to his governor in Al-Madina who

was also his cousin, Al Waleed ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Sufyan. This was the first communication he sent since the beginning of his rule, and the quote of the letter is available in front of you as it has been narrated in the following books:

- Maqtal Al-Husayn Lil Khwarizmi

- Tarikh ibn ‘Asaker Tarikh Al Tabari Tarikh Al Ya’qoobi

All of these historical references have been approved by the defense. For the record, the letter reads:

“Verily, Muawiya was a servant of Allah (SWT) Who gave him bounties and rulership. Then He took his life to His mercy and reward. He lived for a specified lifespan and died on the precise time, and he gave a will to me: ‘I warn you from the household of Abi Turab (who are the victims in this case) and their audacity in shedding blood.’ Oh Al-Waleed, you know that Allah will take revenge for the oppressed one, Uthman ibn Affan (the Third Caliph) from the family of Abi Turab through the family of Abi Sufyan because they support truth and justice. So when you receive my letter, take the pledge of allegiance for me from all the people in Al-Madina!”

Then he wrote a small note attached to the letter which read:

“Attention! Force Al-Husayn, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, and Abdullah ibn Al Zubair (they all were the key figures in Al Madina who refused to give their pledge of allegiance to Yazid) to give their allegiance to me, without excuse or exception. Whoever of them refuses, behead him and send me his head! Wasalam.”

Dear respected judges and jurors, I think the letter speaks for itself. Not only does it carry a threat; it carries instructions and a direct order to kill any of those four individuals if he kept refusing to give his pledge of allegiance, especially the main victim in this case, Al-Husayn (as). It has been cited in Tarikh Al Tabari that the governor of Al Madina, Al Waleed ibn ‘Utbah whom this letter was addressed to, was surprised at the order of the new Caliph! He exclaimed,

“Am I to kill Al-Husayn simply because he refuses to give his pledge of allegiance?!”

His statement proves that this policy of killing those who do not give their allegiance to the new Caliph was not known before the First defendant. This was a new trend innovated by the First defendant which was not known or heard of before in the Islamic society, as it goes against the laws and principles of the Islamic religion which this new society was built on.

Ladies and gentlemen, Al-Husayn (as) is the grandson of the Holy Prophet who delivered this divine message from God which Muslims embraced. Thus, he was a very important religious figure in the Islamic nation and the solely surviving grandson of a prophet on the face of the earth. He was the focus of attention and veneration from everyone due to his exceptionally good manners, religiosity, noble personality and character, and his kinship to the Prophet of Islam (S).

Defense: Objection your Honor! This type of talk is a clear attempt to influence the jurors!

Prosecutor: I am only trying to explain to the jurors the circumstances during that period of time.

Chief Justice: Objection overruled. You may continue Mr. Prosecutor.

Prosecutor: To make the matter more clear, let’s give this example. Imagine that the new American president issues a decree just after his inauguration to arrest and execute all those who voted against him or abstained in the elections. Is this thinkable or even imaginable?!!

Defense: Objection your Honor! This is an imaginary question.

Chief Justice: Objection sustained. Please continue.

Prosecutor: Ladies and gentlemen, this letter stands as a strong and irrefutable proof of the guiltiness of the First defendant in the first individual charge against them. We now present to you another letter as the second piece of evidence which clearly proves without any doubt that the First defendant is guilty in the First individual charge.

This second letter is a lengthy one sent from Abdullah ibn Abbas, the cousin of the victim in this case (Al-Husayn), addressed to the First defendant. This correspondence was in response to a letter which this defendant had sent to him after the crime in Karbala by almost a year. The First defendant asks, in his primary letter, the support of Ibn Abbas in his (First defendant) fight against Abdullah ibn Al-Zubair, his rival. This reply letter by Ibn Abbas is cited in the following sources: Maqtal Al-Husayn Lil Khwarizmi, Tarikh Al Ya’qoobi, and Tarikh Al Tabari. All of these resources are approved by the defense and here is a piece of this lengthy letter in which Ibn Abbas says to Yazid ibn Muawiya, the First defendant:

“If I forgot everything, I will never forget that you pushed Al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali out from the sacred city of the Prophet (Madina) to the sacred city of Allah (SWT) (Makkah). Then you sent your men to assassinate him there, so you forced him to depart Makkah to the city of Al-Kufa. He left Makkah in the state of fear and caution, however, if he decided to stay and to permit for himself to fight and violate the sanctity of Makkah, he would’ve been the most protected among its inhabitants and the dearest to its people and the most obeyed among the inhabitants of the two holy sanctuaries, Makkah and Madina. But he (Al-Husayn) hates to be the one who violates the sanctity of the Holy Kaaba and the city of the Prophet (S). So he respected this sanctity while you didn’t when you sent your men to force him to fight in Makkah.”

It is clear from this letter that Ibn Abbas accuses the First defendant that he is the one who instigated and forced Al-Husayn (as) to leave Al-Madina, his homeland, and head to Makkah, accompanying his family under the threat of them being killed. That is because he knew very well the consequences they will face from the new ruler and his men if they stayed in Al-Madina.

Defense: Objection your Honor! The last part of the prosecutor’s statement is a personal prediction intended to influence the judges and jurors.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, I am simply trying to clarify to all of you the reason why Al-Husayn (as) took his family and children with him in this journey and chase which ended in a horrible massacre in the land of Karbala. Most of these family members and children were victims; some were slaughtered and others were killed or lost in the desert or were taken as

captives. We should explain to the judges and jurors why this family and these women and children left with Al-Husayn (as) in his caravan, and why he insisted on having them accompany him despite the surrounding dangers due to threat and persecution.

That is because he knew very well what the new ruler was capable of doing with his family if he left them behind. We will address this shortly while presenting the personal life of the First defendant and his father who established this dictatorship rule which was based on oppression and terror. So, what we stated was not a personal prediction or imagination. Rather, it is a logical conclusion based on facts and events.

Chief Justice: Objection overruled. You may continue.

Prosecution: Ladies and gentlemen, Al-Husayn the victim was forced to leave his homeland in Al Madina accompanied by his family. He left during the night to save his life and his family from inevitable death after he received official notification from the governor Al Waleed ibn Uqbah that if he doesn’t give his pledge of allegiance to the First defendant, he will be killed and his head will be sent to the new ruler in Damascus. Al-Husayn (as) left in a state of fear just like Prophet Musa (as) left Egypt to escape the aggression of Pharaoh.

Defense: Objection your Honor. That comparison has nothing to do with this particular case. It is only intended to influence the emotions of the jurors.

Chief Justice: Objection sustained.

Prosecutor: Al-Husayn (as) and his family went out looking for a safe haven and he didn’t have any better option than going to Makkah where the House of Allah (SWT) is situated. The Arabs and Muslims sanctify this land and do not shed blood there. Sure enough, Al-Husayn (as) and his family arrived to the sacred Haram, but when the First defendant learned that Al-Husayn (as) escaped from Al-Madina and arrived in Makkah, he went crazy. So he fired his cousin from the governorship of Al-Madina and hired someone else because his cousin was hesitant in carrying out the mission assigned to him which is killing Imam Husayn (as).

Then he sent a letter to his governor in Makkah, ‘Amr ibn Sa’eed ibn Al ‘Aas ordering him to track Al-Husayn (as) and watch him closely, and to plan a plot to assassinate him in the sacred Haram since it would not be possible to kill him publicly as that would surely cause great mischief especially since the Hajj (pilgrimage) season was approaching and the new ruler (the First defendant) was still in his beginning days and his opponents were many and the opposition was wide-spreading.

This plot was clearly obvious from the previous letter addressed from Ibn Abbas to the First defendant. As Ibn Abbas stated, the First defendant was not satisfied with chasing Al-Husayn (as) in Al-Madina but now he is after him in Makkah which is a safe haven for every human and even animals! He was threatening Al-Husayn (as) that he would kill him which pushed Al-Husayn (as) to hasten leaving Makkah even though there was only one day left for the Hajj.

That happened when he became sure of the conspiracy and plan to assassinate him. In order to understand the state of mind of Al-Husayn (as)

and the extent of conspiracy against his life, we present to you the following narration by Al-Husayn (as) when he was in a dialogue with Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn Abbas in Makkah. This text which we present is quoted in Maqtal Al-Husayn Lil Khwarizmi and Tarikh Al Tabari which has been approved by the defense team.

Al-Husayn (as) says, “Oh son of Abbas, what would you say about a group of people who forced the grandson of the Prophet (S) out of his home and the place of settlement and birth, and the sacred Haram of the Prophet (S)?! They deprived him from neighboring the tomb and mosque of his grandfather. They terrorized and threatened him and left him without a place to seek refuge to or a safe haven to stay. They intend by their actions to kill him and shed his blood!”

In another instance, he says, “No way, Oh Ibn Umar! Those people will not leave me alone. Whether they reach me or not, they will keep chasing me until they force me to pay allegiance against my will or kill me!”

We could certainly imagine now the extent of fierce chasing and threatening which took place at the two sacred Harams which forced Al-Husayn (as) to leave with his family from Makkah to Al-Kufa after receiving many communications from its people inviting him and promising to protect him and his family if he answered their invitation. They promised to provide him a safe haven and to protect him from the oppression of the new tyrant regime which was headed by the First defendant, Yazid ibn Muawiya.

Chief Justice: The court will now be dismissed and will resume tomorrow morning at 10AM sharp. Court is dismissed…..

The Second Court Session

First Tragic Scene: “List of Witnesses”

The court session resumed at 10AM sharp and after greeting remarks, the Chief Justice said:

Chief Justice: Thank you everyone, I’d like to stress once again the importance of abiding by the rules and regulations of the court and completely refraining from voicing any comments or reactions during the court proceedings. Otherwise, I will have to remove the violators from the courtroom. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.

As for the defense motions which were presented yesterday, all of the judges have unanimously rejected the First motion, but accepted the Second motion with the condition that it would be within strict limits to both the defense and prosecution teams, and has accepted the Third motion. So, from now on, the jurors will be sequestered from the media (The Supreme Justice looks towards the jurors). We apologize for that and we ask that you fully cooperate with us by avoiding reading the daily newspapers and viewing media coverage which provides daily news and comments about this case. Of course this also includes internet access and receiving phone calls which are directly related to the case. Thank you.

Now, since the parties in this case have departed this world long time ago, both the prosecution and defense agreed upon depending on historical text references to provide events, evidences, and witnesses in this case. It is the right of the defense to discuss and refute every evidence or witness the prosecution presents. In the end, the verdict will be for the judges and jurors.

The prosecution has submitted a list of historical books and references which they will depend on in their presentation. This list will be recited out loud to you shortly, along with the names of their authors. The defense will have the right to object any of them if they feel that it is biased or not trustworthy for them.

In such case, the judges and jurors many only use these rejected references for the purpose of reassurance, but not to solely depend on them in deciding the truthfulness of the data. In other words, if a testimony was presented from one of the approved references (by both the prosecution and defense), then another testimony supporting that same testimony was presented from a controversial source, the jurors and judges may rely on them only for reassurance of the information that was presented in the approved source.

It is the right of the defense to respond or comment on any point presented. It is also the right of the prosecution to rebut in order to clarify any point to the jurors and judges, not just for the sake of argument. Re-rebuttal will also be allowed for the defense.

It has been decided that the judges have the right to question the prosecution and defense teams in any point raised or information presented. It will also be the right of the jurors to pose any question to both teams for clarification after they start deliberations and before reaching their verdict.

The court secretary will now begin to recite the list of historical books and references which the prosecution presented. The defense must respond to each of these references by either saying, “accepted” or “not accepted”.

There is a projector screen located on the witness stand which displays the name of all these books. During court proceedings, the names of each of the sources and references will be displayed on that screen, along with the page number and a screenshot of the original copy of the page. This will be made visible to the judges and jurors via their laptops available in front of them. Now, the court secretary may go ahead and recite out loud the list of the history books and references.

Court Secretary: (stands up and holds a paper from which she recites)

Thank you your Honor. Here is a list of references and history books which the prosecution has submitted. I request the defense to answer “accepted” or “not accepted” after the name of each book is recited.

1) Maqtal Al-Husayn Lil Khwarizmi (The Killing of Al-Husayn by Khwarizmi)

Defense: (representative stands up) Accepted

Court Secretary: 2) Tarikh Al Tabari (History by Tabari)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 3) Tarikh (Al Kamel) / Ibn Al Atheer (History by son of Atheer)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 4) Murooj Al Dhahab Lil Mas’oodi (Block of Gold of Mas’oodi)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 5) Tarikh Al Ya’qoobi (History by Ya’qoobi)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 6) Al ‘Aqd Al Fareed Li Ibn ‘Abd Rabbo & Sharh Al Nahj Li Ibn Abi Al Hadeed

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 7) Al Bedaya Wal Nehaya Li ibn Katheer (The

Beginning and the End by Ibn Katheer)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 8) Mizan Al E’tedaal Lil Dhahabi (The Scale of Balance by Dhahabi)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 9) Irshad Al Sheikh Al Mufid (The Guidance of Sheikh Al Mufid)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 10) Maqatel Al Talibiyeen Li Abi Al Faraj Al Esfahani (The Massacres of Talibiyeen by Abi Al Faraj Al Asfahani)Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 11) Tarikh ibn ‘Asaker (History of Ibn ‘Asaker)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 12) A’laam Al Wara Lil Tabarsi (Events of the Past by Al Tabarsi)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 13) Maqtal Al ‘Awalem Ibn Nama (The Killing of the Famous Personalities by Ibn Nama)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 14) Al Khasa’es Lil Soyouti (The Characteristics by Soyouti)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 15) Tarikh Al Kholafaa Lil Soyouti (History of the Caliphs by Soyouti)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 16) Al ‘Isaba Li Ibn Hajar (The Target by Ibn Hajar)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 17) Manaqib ibn Shahr Ashoob (Virtues by Ibn Shahr Ashoob)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 18) Motheer Al Ahzaan Li Ibn Nama (Instigator of Grief by Ibn Nama)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 19) Seyar A’laam Al Nobala Al Dhahabi (Autobiographies of the Nobles)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 20) Al Lohoof Li Ibn Tawoos

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 21) Al Sawa’eq Al Mohreqa Li Ibn Hajar (The Burning Lightening by Ibn Hajar)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 22) Al Muntadhem Li Ibn Al Joozi (The Organized by Ibn Al Joozi)

Defense: Accepted

Court Secretary: 23) Al Jara-eh Wal Khara-ej Lil Qutb Al Rawandi (The Cause and Effects)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: 24) Riyadh Al Ahzaan (Garden of Sorrows)

Defense: Not accepted

Court Secretary: Thank you your Honor. (sits down)

Chief Justice: Thank you Court Secretary. Dear respected judges and jurors, all the list of references that were accepted or rejected by the defense are displayed in front of you. So the total number of historical references presented were 24; 16 were approved by the defense and 8 were rejected. So these rejected references may only be used to support a piece of information which is cited in one of the 16 approved references. Please keep that in mind!

Second Tragic Scene: “The Prosecution Begins”

Chief Justice: Now, let us start our journey for searching the truth. I call the prosecution to start presenting his case and evidence to prove that the five defendants are guilty beyond any reasonable doubt of all the charges against them. You may begin, Mr. Prosecutor.

(That distinguished prosecutor stood up with his glorious and prestigious look with a relaxed and beautiful shining face that calms the nerves. He

speaks with his melodious and sad voice which takes the minds and hearts away…it is as if there is an invisible strength which mesmerizes your ears…he stood up and said):

Prosecutor: Thank you your Honor, dear respected judges and respected jurors. Our case and our story…or rather our tragedy started on a Sunday morning in one of the days of the month of Rajab, the Islamic lunar month, in the year 60 A.H., which coincides with the Gregorian month April in the year 680 A.D.

It is the day when the ruler of the Muslims (Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan) died in his capital in Damascus after he took the pledge of allegiance for his son Yazid, the First defendant, to become the next ruler of the Islamic state after him. He took that pledge of allegiance for his son from the people by threatening, bribing, and terrorizing because the majority did not see Yazid to be qualified for this position as he lacked the knowledge, morality, and behavioral criteria required to be present in this position, according to Islamic law (Shari’a). It should be noted that the Islamic nation during that time extended from what is today Iran in the east till Egypt in the west. There were a good number of key religious figures in the Islamic society who did not give their alle-

giance to Yazid to take over after his father because of the reasons just mentioned. This fact cannot be denied by the defense team as it is mentioned in all historical references in front of you.

Anyways, after Muawiya’s death on that day, his son Yazid the First defendant automatically became the new ruler as it was planned and arranged before, despite the objection of the opponents.

It is well-known that the Islamic religion, upon which the laws of this new state were built at that time, does not condone forcing people to give their allegiance, against their own free will, to a new ruler. It prohibits the use of threat or persecution if a person does not voluntarily give his allegiance, let alone killing him. It was not either the practice of the rulers before the First defendant and it was not heard of.

This is clearly shown in the references present before you, and Yazid has been preceded by five rulers before him including his own father. Before Yazid, whoever wanted to give his pledge of allegiance to a new ruler can do so, and whoever doesn’t is free to exercise their free will. In both cases, this does not affect the individual civil rights in the Islamic state. No one, at least according to the majority of Muslims historians, was ever forced, persecuted, or kicked out or killed because of his refusal to give a pledge of allegiance to a Caliph (ruler).

This was the norm and the practice before the First defendant succeeded his father as Caliph. The first time in which force and terror was used in this regard was when the First defendant’s father tried to take the allegiance for his son during his lifetime, due to his prior knowledge of the lack of consensus or even a majority support for his son Yazid to become the next Caliph after him.

Muawiya has died and it was announced in Damascus that Yazid became the new ruler of the Islamic state. In order to strengthen the pillars of his regime, Yazid immediately sent a letter to his governor in Al-Madina who

was also his cousin, Al Waleed ibn ‘Uqbah ibn Abi Sufyan. This was the first communication he sent since the beginning of his rule, and the quote of the letter is available in front of you as it has been narrated in the following books:

- Maqtal Al-Husayn Lil Khwarizmi

- Tarikh ibn ‘Asaker Tarikh Al Tabari Tarikh Al Ya’qoobi

All of these historical references have been approved by the defense. For the record, the letter reads:

“Verily, Muawiya was a servant of Allah (SWT) Who gave him bounties and rulership. Then He took his life to His mercy and reward. He lived for a specified lifespan and died on the precise time, and he gave a will to me: ‘I warn you from the household of Abi Turab (who are the victims in this case) and their audacity in shedding blood.’ Oh Al-Waleed, you know that Allah will take revenge for the oppressed one, Uthman ibn Affan (the Third Caliph) from the family of Abi Turab through the family of Abi Sufyan because they support truth and justice. So when you receive my letter, take the pledge of allegiance for me from all the people in Al-Madina!”

Then he wrote a small note attached to the letter which read:

“Attention! Force Al-Husayn, Abdullah ibn Umar, Abdul Rahman ibn Abi Bakr, and Abdullah ibn Al Zubair (they all were the key figures in Al Madina who refused to give their pledge of allegiance to Yazid) to give their allegiance to me, without excuse or exception. Whoever of them refuses, behead him and send me his head! Wasalam.”

Dear respected judges and jurors, I think the letter speaks for itself. Not only does it carry a threat; it carries instructions and a direct order to kill any of those four individuals if he kept refusing to give his pledge of allegiance, especially the main victim in this case, Al-Husayn (as). It has been cited in Tarikh Al Tabari that the governor of Al Madina, Al Waleed ibn ‘Utbah whom this letter was addressed to, was surprised at the order of the new Caliph! He exclaimed,

“Am I to kill Al-Husayn simply because he refuses to give his pledge of allegiance?!”

His statement proves that this policy of killing those who do not give their allegiance to the new Caliph was not known before the First defendant. This was a new trend innovated by the First defendant which was not known or heard of before in the Islamic society, as it goes against the laws and principles of the Islamic religion which this new society was built on.

Ladies and gentlemen, Al-Husayn (as) is the grandson of the Holy Prophet who delivered this divine message from God which Muslims embraced. Thus, he was a very important religious figure in the Islamic nation and the solely surviving grandson of a prophet on the face of the earth. He was the focus of attention and veneration from everyone due to his exceptionally good manners, religiosity, noble personality and character, and his kinship to the Prophet of Islam (S).

Defense: Objection your Honor! This type of talk is a clear attempt to influence the jurors!

Prosecutor: I am only trying to explain to the jurors the circumstances during that period of time.

Chief Justice: Objection overruled. You may continue Mr. Prosecutor.

Prosecutor: To make the matter more clear, let’s give this example. Imagine that the new American president issues a decree just after his inauguration to arrest and execute all those who voted against him or abstained in the elections. Is this thinkable or even imaginable?!!

Defense: Objection your Honor! This is an imaginary question.

Chief Justice: Objection sustained. Please continue.

Prosecutor: Ladies and gentlemen, this letter stands as a strong and irrefutable proof of the guiltiness of the First defendant in the first individual charge against them. We now present to you another letter as the second piece of evidence which clearly proves without any doubt that the First defendant is guilty in the First individual charge.

This second letter is a lengthy one sent from Abdullah ibn Abbas, the cousin of the victim in this case (Al-Husayn), addressed to the First defendant. This correspondence was in response to a letter which this defendant had sent to him after the crime in Karbala by almost a year. The First defendant asks, in his primary letter, the support of Ibn Abbas in his (First defendant) fight against Abdullah ibn Al-Zubair, his rival. This reply letter by Ibn Abbas is cited in the following sources: Maqtal Al-Husayn Lil Khwarizmi, Tarikh Al Ya’qoobi, and Tarikh Al Tabari. All of these resources are approved by the defense and here is a piece of this lengthy letter in which Ibn Abbas says to Yazid ibn Muawiya, the First defendant:

“If I forgot everything, I will never forget that you pushed Al-Husayn ibn ‘Ali out from the sacred city of the Prophet (Madina) to the sacred city of Allah (SWT) (Makkah). Then you sent your men to assassinate him there, so you forced him to depart Makkah to the city of Al-Kufa. He left Makkah in the state of fear and caution, however, if he decided to stay and to permit for himself to fight and violate the sanctity of Makkah, he would’ve been the most protected among its inhabitants and the dearest to its people and the most obeyed among the inhabitants of the two holy sanctuaries, Makkah and Madina. But he (Al-Husayn) hates to be the one who violates the sanctity of the Holy Kaaba and the city of the Prophet (S). So he respected this sanctity while you didn’t when you sent your men to force him to fight in Makkah.”

It is clear from this letter that Ibn Abbas accuses the First defendant that he is the one who instigated and forced Al-Husayn (as) to leave Al-Madina, his homeland, and head to Makkah, accompanying his family under the threat of them being killed. That is because he knew very well the consequences they will face from the new ruler and his men if they stayed in Al-Madina.

Defense: Objection your Honor! The last part of the prosecutor’s statement is a personal prediction intended to influence the judges and jurors.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, I am simply trying to clarify to all of you the reason why Al-Husayn (as) took his family and children with him in this journey and chase which ended in a horrible massacre in the land of Karbala. Most of these family members and children were victims; some were slaughtered and others were killed or lost in the desert or were taken as

captives. We should explain to the judges and jurors why this family and these women and children left with Al-Husayn (as) in his caravan, and why he insisted on having them accompany him despite the surrounding dangers due to threat and persecution.

That is because he knew very well what the new ruler was capable of doing with his family if he left them behind. We will address this shortly while presenting the personal life of the First defendant and his father who established this dictatorship rule which was based on oppression and terror. So, what we stated was not a personal prediction or imagination. Rather, it is a logical conclusion based on facts and events.

Chief Justice: Objection overruled. You may continue.

Prosecution: Ladies and gentlemen, Al-Husayn the victim was forced to leave his homeland in Al Madina accompanied by his family. He left during the night to save his life and his family from inevitable death after he received official notification from the governor Al Waleed ibn Uqbah that if he doesn’t give his pledge of allegiance to the First defendant, he will be killed and his head will be sent to the new ruler in Damascus. Al-Husayn (as) left in a state of fear just like Prophet Musa (as) left Egypt to escape the aggression of Pharaoh.

Defense: Objection your Honor. That comparison has nothing to do with this particular case. It is only intended to influence the emotions of the jurors.

Chief Justice: Objection sustained.

Prosecutor: Al-Husayn (as) and his family went out looking for a safe haven and he didn’t have any better option than going to Makkah where the House of Allah (SWT) is situated. The Arabs and Muslims sanctify this land and do not shed blood there. Sure enough, Al-Husayn (as) and his family arrived to the sacred Haram, but when the First defendant learned that Al-Husayn (as) escaped from Al-Madina and arrived in Makkah, he went crazy. So he fired his cousin from the governorship of Al-Madina and hired someone else because his cousin was hesitant in carrying out the mission assigned to him which is killing Imam Husayn (as).

Then he sent a letter to his governor in Makkah, ‘Amr ibn Sa’eed ibn Al ‘Aas ordering him to track Al-Husayn (as) and watch him closely, and to plan a plot to assassinate him in the sacred Haram since it would not be possible to kill him publicly as that would surely cause great mischief especially since the Hajj (pilgrimage) season was approaching and the new ruler (the First defendant) was still in his beginning days and his opponents were many and the opposition was wide-spreading.

This plot was clearly obvious from the previous letter addressed from Ibn Abbas to the First defendant. As Ibn Abbas stated, the First defendant was not satisfied with chasing Al-Husayn (as) in Al-Madina but now he is after him in Makkah which is a safe haven for every human and even animals! He was threatening Al-Husayn (as) that he would kill him which pushed Al-Husayn (as) to hasten leaving Makkah even though there was only one day left for the Hajj.

That happened when he became sure of the conspiracy and plan to assassinate him. In order to understand the state of mind of Al-Husayn (as)

and the extent of conspiracy against his life, we present to you the following narration by Al-Husayn (as) when he was in a dialogue with Abdullah ibn Umar and Abdullah ibn Abbas in Makkah. This text which we present is quoted in Maqtal Al-Husayn Lil Khwarizmi and Tarikh Al Tabari which has been approved by the defense team.

Al-Husayn (as) says, “Oh son of Abbas, what would you say about a group of people who forced the grandson of the Prophet (S) out of his home and the place of settlement and birth, and the sacred Haram of the Prophet (S)?! They deprived him from neighboring the tomb and mosque of his grandfather. They terrorized and threatened him and left him without a place to seek refuge to or a safe haven to stay. They intend by their actions to kill him and shed his blood!”

In another instance, he says, “No way, Oh Ibn Umar! Those people will not leave me alone. Whether they reach me or not, they will keep chasing me until they force me to pay allegiance against my will or kill me!”

We could certainly imagine now the extent of fierce chasing and threatening which took place at the two sacred Harams which forced Al-Husayn (as) to leave with his family from Makkah to Al-Kufa after receiving many communications from its people inviting him and promising to protect him and his family if he answered their invitation. They promised to provide him a safe haven and to protect him from the oppression of the new tyrant regime which was headed by the First defendant, Yazid ibn Muawiya.

Chief Justice: The court will now be dismissed and will resume tomorrow morning at 10AM sharp. Court is dismissed…..