The Hidden Truth about Karbala

The Hidden Truth about Karbala0%

The Hidden Truth about Karbala Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category: Imam Hussein
ISBN: 978-964-438-921-4

The Hidden Truth about Karbala

Author: A.K. Ahmed B.Sc. B.L.
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
Category:

ISBN: 978-964-438-921-4
visits: 32235
Download: 6440

Comments:

The Hidden Truth about Karbala
search inside book
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 46 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 32235 / Download: 6440
Size Size Size
The Hidden Truth about Karbala

The Hidden Truth about Karbala

Author:
Publisher: Ansariyan Publications – Qum
ISBN: 978-964-438-921-4
English

Chapter 13: The Muslim Empire

Mu’awiya’s extremely cunning nature was augmented by the advice and support of Marwan and Amr bin al-Aas. Besides his cruel nature, Mu’awiya was extremely cunning. When his attempts to search for defects in Imam Ali (a.s.) failed, he commenced the practice of praising the Banu Umayya the inveterate enemies of Imam Ali (a.s.), by inventing and propagating false traditions attributed to the Prophet (S). Mu’awiya bribed his henchmen and arranged for the propagation of daily calumnies and falsehoods against Imam Ali (a.s.) from on the pulpits after every prayer in every mosque of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. Any leader of the congregational prayers, who was not amenable to his bribes or threats, was ruthlessly removed or killed, and in the vacancy, Mu’awiya’s cronies were appointed. The propaganda was so fierce and systematic that soon people started comparing Mu’awiya with Imam Ali (a.s.).1 The propaganda was so vicious that when the news of Imam Ali’s martyrdom during offering the prayer in the mosque of Kufa reached the people of Syria, they wondered how Ali could have been killed in the mosque when he never attended any prayer.

Mu’awiya retained the control of Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, which he got in the early days of the Caliphate and appointed his kin and sycophants as his trusted advisors and representatives in various provinces. Except for an opportunistic and hypocritical conversion, neither Mu’awiya nor his father Abu Sufyan or his son Yazid had any regard or affinity for Islam. Abu Sufyan was from the Kuffar (disbelievers) of Mecca and he remained so. The Qur’an reveals that the Kuffar of Mecca asserted that there would be no other life than the one in this world; that there would be no life hereafter, and none would be resurrected or held accountable for his deeds.2 This philosophy was imbibed in the Banu Umayya in general and Abu Sufyan, Mu’awiya, and Yazid in particular, and was the cause of their cruel nature. They always held the view that there would be no life hereafter and no accounting for one’s deeds. They proclaimed that the Prophet (S) had invented these as myths in order to gain worldly power. It is their greed that converted Islam into a Muslim Empire by expanding territories and accumulating huge amount of illicit wealth, and in the process abandoning the spirit of Islam. Islam that emerged, during their rule, bore only a miniscule outward resemblance to the Islam propagated by the Prophet (S). In the hands of the Banu Umayya, Islam was devoid of its true spirit, philosophy, and the concept of God and the moral and ethical life and standards taught by the Prophet (S). Abu Sufyan, his son Mu’awiya and grandson Yazid abhorred the Divine commandments that demanded Muslims to lead a virtuous, pious, and peaceful life of coexistence with people holding different beliefs.

Mu’awiya’s denial of the afterlife and accountability naturally led him to addiction to all sorts of vices and the temerity to commit great atrocities against the poor. He harassed, persecuted, tortured or killed the companions of the Prophet (S) who resented his way of interpreting the way of life prescribed under Islam. He annihilated those who were even suspected to be sympathetic to Imam Ali (a.s.) or the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). Cunning as he was, Mu’awiya carried out in public, the pretension of being a Muslim, lest the power he gained as the head of the Islamic state be wrenched away by the public. Slowly, but systematically, he eroded minor injunctions of Islam, by letting go the transgressors and later rewarding those who could fallaciously justify their irreligious acts. He used the public funds not only to aggrandize himself but also to eliminate or silence any opposition and to purchase support.

His appointees to higher posts had no knowledge of Islam or any other sciences, but were well-versed in every evil trade and act. One of the governors, while drunken, offered four rak’as in the Morning Prayer instead of the obligatory two, and mockingly he told the congregation that, if they were not tired, he could perform several more. His son, Yazid used to make fun of Islam in the open court. Yazid’s conduct eroded the credibility and quality of Islam, causing great anxiety to the Imams (S) as well as the surviving companions of the Prophet (S) who were the true Muslims of the time. Simon Oakley wrote:“Among my authorities, I find one who, when treating of Hasan’s death, asserted that, in the treaties between him and Mu’awiya, it has been stipulated that Mu’awiya should never appoint a successor so long as Hasan lived, but should leave, as Umar had before, the election in the hands of a certain number of persons to be nominated by Hasan. Mu’awiya, therefore, being desirous of leaving the Caliphate to his son Yazid and thinking that he could not bring about his design so long as Hasan was alive, determined to get rid of him.”3

Mu’awiya hatched a plan to eliminate Imam Hasan (a.s.). Imam Hasan (a.s.) was poisoned by one of his wives at the instance of Mu’awiya who promised that he would get her married to his son Yazid. In his last moments, Imam Hasan (a.s.) expressed his wish to be buried beside his grandfather the Holy Prophet (S) and in the event of any opposition, to bury him at the common burial ground of al-Baqee’, so that any conflict and consequent division among Muslims might be averted. When Imam Husayn (a.s.) took the bier in order to bury Imam Hasan (a.s.) beside the Prophet’s tomb, Mu’awiya incited Aa’isha to have arrows showered on the coffin of Imam Hasan (a.s.). Thus, Imam Husayn (a.s.) was prevented from fulfilling the last wish of his brother. Imam Hasan (a.s.) was then buried in the graveyard of al-Baqee’ in Medina.

The martyrdom of Imam Hasan (a.s.), further emboldened Mu’awiya in his evil designs. He issued orders that any one praising Imam Ali (S) or found relating traditions in praise of him or the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) should at once be beheaded, hanged, and cut into pieces. He also instructed the leaders of congregations in every mosque to curse, blaspheme, and spread falsehood about Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) and amply rewarded those who complied with this order. The greed of people encouraged them to invent ever-new traditions falsely attributed to the Prophet (S), praising the open enemies of Islam such as Marwan, Abu Sufyan, Mu’awiya… etc.

On the other hand, those, who refused to praise the Banu Umayya and other enemies of Islam, were punished severely. Maytham at-Tammar, who refused to curse Imam Ali (a.s.), was tortured, his limbs were torn apart, and his tongue was pulled out. His body was hung at the city center as a warning to those who did not obey Mu’awiya’s orders. Hijr bin Adiy al-Kindi (the great companion) was slaughtered for the same reason. Muhammad, son of the first Caliph Abu Bakr, who had special love and regard for Imam Ali (a.s.), was killed and his body was stuffed in the skin of a donkey and was burnt. In the city of Basra alone, eight thousand persons, who declared their love and obedience for Imam Ali (a.s.) as a part of their faith, were meticulously traced and brutally killed. The pensions of those, who were weak, disabled, old or orphans, was stopped if they were even suspected of entertaining any affection towards the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).4

After Imam Hasan (a.s.) had been poisoned, Imam Husayn (a.s.) lived peacefully in Medina, imparting religious teachings and had a great number of companions and followers. Mu’awiya, who had expanded his control over various provinces, started to disclose his desire to appoint his son Yazid as his successor. He was able to secure the assent of the Syrians and some people in Iraq and Egypt. Mu’awiya’s representative in Medina wrote to him stating that the people of Medina were not in favour of Yazid to succeed Mu’awiya. Aa’isha, Imam Husayn (a.s.), Abdullah Bin Umar, Abdurrahman bin Abu Bakr, Abdullah bin az-Zubair and others were mentioned as the opponents. Mu’awiya came to Medina and from on the pulpit of the Holy Prophet (S) he started to praise Yazid and suggested his name as the successor after him. Aa’isha interrupted him, shouted from her room, and asked which precedent Mu’awiya was following in nominating his son, when the earlier Caliphs did not appoint their sons.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) then got up and said that Yazid, being a flouter of basic Islamic principles, a known debauch, gambler and drunkard was not fit to be the ruler of the Islamic world. Imam Husayn (a.s.) suggested that it was essential to discuss the character of Yazid in a public meeting and discussion.5

Mu’awiya instructed Yazid to proceed to Medina via Mecca on the pretext of performing the Hajj and to give lavish gifts to the people of Medina and Mecca, in order to create an impression of his piety and generosity. To some extent, the ruse worked and people were deceived by the ostentatious gifts from Yazid.

Mu’awiya, under the advice of Marwan and Amr bin al-Aas then, proposed that he would later call a public meeting to know people’s preference regarding the matter of his succession. He assured Imam Husayn (a.s.), Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah Bin Umar, Abdullah Bin az-Zubair and all others who opposed Yazid that they would have their say in the public meeting. Cunning that he was, he dispatched his cronies to spread the false rumor that Imam Husayn (a.s.), Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah Bin Umar, Abdullah Bin az-Zubair and all others who had once opposed, had consented to Yazid being nominated as the successor of Mu’awiya.

Mu’awiya made elaborate arrangement for the public gathering. He instructed his cronies to disperse to strategic points in the crowd so that they might carry out his directions at a given signal. When the meeting commenced, Mu’awiya started praising Yazid as a pious and generous person. He told the people of Medina that they had themselves witnessed Yazid’s piety and generosity. When Imam Husayn (a.s.) tried to protest, Mu’awiya politely asked him to be patient and hear him fully. Mu’awiya assured, after he had finished his speech, Imam Husayn (a.s.) that he would have opportunity when his turn came to say whatever he pleased. Then, Mu’awiya proclaimed that all the nobles of Medina, including those present on the rostrum, have agreed to his nominating of Yazid as his successor. He then gave the signal to his cronies mingled in the crowd, who created a huge commotion by shouting slogans in favour of Yazid. In the confusion, nothing could be heard and a stampede was created and the gathering was forced to disperse. Imam Husayn (a.s.) and others opposed to Yazid were, thus, effectively prevented from voicing their objections, while the gathering noted their presence alongside Mu’awiya to be the sign of their approval of Yazid’s succession.6

Ronald P. Sokol wrote with reference to present-day world leaders,7 “A leader not subject to law may indulge in the propensity to assign a name, be it Jew, gypsy, terrorist, enemy combatant, or insurgent, and then to demonize that name until sight is lost of the other person’s humanity. When that point is reached, humiliation, torture, and death are inflicted without compunction. That propensity lies deeply embedded in the psyche. It stains democracies as well as dictatorships, presidents as well as tyrants… Law is our only tool for tempering that dark propensity.”

This analysis applies, very aptly, to Mu’awiya and his son Yazid who resorted to inventing falsehood, who threatened, bribed and set up thousands of persons to curse, defame and disparage Imam Ali (a.s.) and the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) from on the pulpits five times daily after every prayer. Mu’awiya humiliated, tortured and even killed several of the companions whom the Prophet (S) had highly praised for their integrity, sincerity, religious acumen and fearlessness in the face of adversity.

Imam Ali (a.s.) was targeted to be unjustly abused, because he represented the pure, simple and unaltered Islam, as propagated by the Prophet (S). There was no room in Imam Ali’s Islam for any materialist way of life or a gilded monarchy of pomp and power that was the cherished desire and practice of Mu’awiya, his ancestors and progeny. The result of Mu’awiya’s action was that, except for a few right thinking persons, Imam Ali (a.s.) and all the good that he stood for, came to be clouded and the real Islam propagated by the Prophet (S) was mutilated by misinterpretations, conjectures, heresy and innovations.

Yazid followed his father Mu’awiya’s footsteps with added arrogance and viciousness. He subverted the spirit of peaceful coexistence and brotherhood that Islam taught. Yazid substituted it with a constant strife for acquisition of power and territory, thereby creating chaos and mutilating beyond recognition the very sense of the word ‘Islam’ which means peace.

About Mu’awiya, Justice Amir Ali quotes Osborne,8 “The astute, unscrupulous and pitiless first Caliph of the Umayyads shrank from no crime necessary to secure his position. Murder was his accustomed mode of removing a formidable opponent. The grandson of the Holy Prophet (S) was poisoned. Malik al-Ashtar, the heroic lieutenant of Imam Ali (a.s.), was destroyed in a like way. To secure the succession of Yazid, Mu’awiya hesitated not to break the word he pledged to Imam Hasan (a.s.), the surviving son of Ali (a.s.) …The explanation for this anomaly is to be found in two circumstances, which I have more than once adverted. The first one is that truly devout and earnest Muslims conceived that he manifested his religion most effectively by withdrawing himself from the affairs of the world. The other is the tribal spirit of the Arabs, the conquerors of Asia, of North Africa, and of Spain. The Arabs never rose to the level of their position. Greatness had been thrust upon them. However, in the midst of their grandeur, they retained in all their previous force of intensity, the passions, the rivalries, the petty jealousies of the desert. They merely fought again on a wider field, the battles of the Arabs before Islam.”

The result of Mu’awiya’s usurpation of the leadership of the Islamic world, led to terrorist methods for acquiring territory and silencing the opposition. Unfortunately, to Mu’awiya goes the credit of being the first terrorist clothed in Islamic garb as also the credit for stamping that sobriquet ‘Islamic Terrorists’ which is now sought to be attached to any and every Muslim.

Notes

1. Nahjul Balagha.

2. Qur’an, 6:29, 11:7, 16:38, 17:49, 17:98, 19:66, 27:67, 32:10, 44:34, 45:24.

3. Life of Husayn The Saviour, p. 71 – 72.

4. Kitabul Imamah wes-Siyasah & Kitabul Ahdath, quoted in Life of Husayn The Saviour 73.

5. Balaghatul Husayn, P. 35, Sermons, Sayings & letters of Imam Husayn (a.s.). Compiled by Mustafa Mohsin Musavi, Urdu Translation by Moulvi Sayyid Muhammad Baqir.

6. Life of Husayn, p. 95-96.

7. Ronald P. Sokol, the International Herald Tribune, the Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad, 20 February 2005.

8. The Spirit of Islam, by Amir Ali.

Chapter 14: Yazid bin Mu’awiya bin Abu Sufyan

In his last days, Mu’awiya warned Yazid that he should be careful about how he would handle four persons; Imam Husayn (a.s.), Abdullah bin Umar, Abdullah ibn az-Zubair and Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, who opposed his succession. When Mu’awiya died in Syria, his son Yazid usurped the governorship of Syria and staked his claim as successor of the head of the Islamic State. Yazid appointed his kin and his henchmen as Governors of various provinces. He appointed his cousin al-Waleed bin Utbah bin Abu Sufyan as the Governor of Medina. Al-Waleed’s predecessor Marwan, who was banished by the Holy Prophet (S) and the first and the second Caliphs, was recalled to act as al-Waleed’s advisor.

Yazid’s fear of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was so great that he sent a special emissary with a letter to al-Waleed commanding him to get the oath of allegiance from Imam Husayn (a.s.), Abdullah Bin Umar, Abdullah bin Az-Zubair, with a special stress on Imam Husayn (a.s.), and to kill them if they refused.

Al-Waleed sent for the persons named in the letter. His messengers found Imam Husayn (a.s.) and Abdullah Ibn az-Zubair in the mosque. They both replied that they would meet al-Waleed later. Abdullah ibn az-Zubair realized that for al-Waleed to send for them at that hour of night, the reason might be that Mu’awiya who was known to be seriously sick, must have died and that Yazid would have called for their allegiance. Ibn az-Zubair also realized that the occasion provided the chance for him to grab power that he so long cherished.

Instead of going to al-Waleed, ibn az-Zubair collected the members of his clan and his followers and sat with them in the safety of his house. When al-Waleed sent his henchmen who abused ibn az-Zubair and demanded that he should come out and meet al-Waleed immediately or else be killed. The terrified ibn az-Zubair sent his brother Ja’far to plead with al-Waleed to withdraw his men, with a promise that ibn az-Zubair would meet al-Waleed in the morning. Al-Waleed recalled his men believing that ibn az-Zubair would keep his promise. Immediately after al-Waleed’s men had left, ibn az-Zubair and his brother Ja’far rushed to Mecca through secret routes under the cover of the night. Next morning, al-Waleed sent for ibn az-Zubair only to find that he had already left Medina under the cover of the night. Al-Waleed sent eighty horsemen to trace az-Zubair and his brother. They searched all the known routes to Mecca but could not find the desert route followed by ibn az-Zubair.1 Ibn az-Zubair reached Mecca and sought asylum in the sanctuary of the Kaaba, where he sought to win over followers by pretensions to piety.

From the four persons summoned by al-Waleed, only Imam Husayn (a.s.) met him. Al-Waleed himself showed respect to Imam Husayn (S) and shirked the thought of causing any harm to the Prophet’s grandson. At the meeting, al-Waleed read out the first part of the letter demanding Imam Husayn’s allegiance, and then he gave the letter to Imam Husayn (a.s.) to read the later part. On seeing that the letter contained the command to kill him, Imam Husayn suggested that al-Waleed should gather the people of Medina in a public meeting and ascertain their opinion whether Imam Husayn (a.s.) should take the oath of allegiance acknowledging Yazid’s sovereignty. Al-Waleed agreed to do so, but the cunning Marwan intervened and told al-Waleed either to obtain the oath of allegiance there and then, or to kill Imam Husayn (a.s.) immediately. Imam Husayn (a.s.) became angry at the audacity of Marwan and raised his voice in protest, and the Hashimites, who were waiting outside, immediately rushed in.2 On realizing that the situation has become volatile, Marwan slunk away through a back door and al-Waleed pacified Imam Husayn (a.s.). Later, Marwan told al-Waleed, “You missed the best opportunity to kill Husayn and protect Yazid’s Caliphate.” The next day, there was a chance encounter between Marwan and Imam Husayn (a.s.). Marwan accosted the Imam and said, “I advice you to swear allegiance to Yazid and reap the benefits.” The Imam (a.s.) replied, “It is because of us [the infallible pones] God opened up creation. It is due to us that creatures get their sustenance, and it is due to us that life continues. The likes of me do not pay allegiance to the likes of him (Yazid).3 You want me to swear allegiance to Yazid who is an infidel and immoral person. No wonder it is you who is supporting Yazid, for it is you, Marwan, whom the Prophet (S) had banished for sedition and mischief.” Like his noble father Ali (a.s.), Imam Husayn neither surrendered to the threats nor was he trapped by flattery.

From the beginning until his end, Imam Husayn (a.s.) staunchly opposed the debauch and tyrant Yazid. He preferred to sacrifice himself and his near and dear fellows rather than to surrender before Yazid.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) was informed that under Amr ibn Sa’d ibn al-Aas, Yazid had dispatched a division of mercenaries with specific instructions to kill him wherever he might be found.4 Under pressure from Yazid, his governor al-Waleed sent his men to Imam Husayn’s house in the night when the Imam had gone to visit the Prophet’s tomb. On the following night also, al-Waleed’s men could not find Imam Husayn (a.s.) in his house, as the Imam (a.s.) had gone to visit the tombs of his mother and brother. Al-Waleed expressed his glee that he was spared the blood of Imam Husayn (a.s.) whom he presumed had already left Medina.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) was faced with two options; he had either to capitulate to the demands of Yazid or to leave Medina to prevent bloodshed. He left Medina in the morning, two days before the new moon of the month of Sha’ban in the year sixty of Hijra. Imam Husayn (a.s.) followed the highway from Medina to Mecca, unlike ibn az-Zubair who took flight in the night and reached Mecca through desert routes. The contrast brings out the fact that ibn az-Zubair ran for fear of life, whereas Imam Husayn (S) had no such fear. Secondly, the clandestine departure through secret routes shows that ibn az-Zubair had political aspirations, whereas Imam Husayn (a.s.) had no such intention. When Yazid learnt that al-Waleed did not carry out his orders and let Imam Husayn (a.s.) leave Medina, he replaced him with the notorious Marwan as the Governor of Medina and Mecca.

On the way to Mecca, Imam Husayn met Abdullah ibn Mutee’ who inquired as to where the Imam (a.s.) was going. The Imam (a.s.) replied that for the present he was heading to Mecca. On hearing this, ibn Mutee’ said, “I was afraid that you may be heading towards Kufa [on account of the thousands of letters addressed by the Kufians]. Kufa is the place where your father Imam Ali (a.s.) was martyred. The Kufians are the most treacherous and untrustworthy. They deserted your brother Imam Hasan (S) when he was attacked by Mu’awiya’s men. Do not go to Kufa but stay in Mecca, for once you are killed we will be annihilated.”5

The animosity of Yazid towards Imam Husayn was because of his inherent character and his denial of Islam, a religion ostensibly professed for political gain and just to stay in power. Yazid openly derided the Holy Prophet (S) and Islam. He was a debauch and a drunkard of vile nature. Yazid, by descent or by himself, never possessed any noble qualities. His grandfather was Abu Sufyan who plotted and carried out several plots to kill the Prophet (S). His grandmother was Hind who chewed the martyr Hamza’s liver. His mother was Maysoon, a Christian planted by the Christians to avenge the defeat conceded by them when they were confronted by the Prophet (S) at the event of Mubahala. He had no pity or mercy for anyone. He killed people in thousands even before the battle of Karbala. Like his grandfather Abu Sufyan, Yazid also believed that there would be no life other than this and that there would be no heaven or hell and no accountability for one’s evil and sinful acts. Nicholson wrote, “The slaughter of Husayn does not complete the tale of Yazid’s enormities. Medina, the Prophet’s city, having expelled its Umayyad governor, was sacked by the Syrian army, while Mecca itself, where Abdullah bin az-Zubayr had set up as rival Caliph was besieged, and the Kaaba laid in ruins’.6

Allama Sayyid Zeeshan Haider Jawadi writes, “The evil personality and character of Yazid was never in dispute among Muslims, but his faith and the nature of Islam was always in dispute. Above all is the dispute whether Yazid deserves to be cursed or not. However, it is well established and acknowledged by every unprejudiced scholar that Yazid’s Islam was never the real Islam and that his character was such that he deserved to be cursed.”7

The following renowned Sunni scholars of merit approve of cursing Yazid:8

[a] Allama al-Barazanji in his book ‘Al-Isha’ah’ and Ibn Hajar in as-Sawa’iq record that when Ahmed ibn Hanbal’s9 son asked his father about cursing Yazid, he replied, “How can Yazid not be cursed when God himself has cursed him.” He then quoted the Qur’anic verse in which those who create chaos and bloodshed are cursed.

[b] Ibn Khaldun says that Judge Abu Bakr bin al-Arabi al-Maliki wrote in his book ‘Al-Awasim wel Qawasim’ that it would be absolutely wrong to say that Imam Husayn (a.s.) was slain by the sword of his grandfather. Yazid was never an Islamic ruler. The fundamental requisite of Islamic rule is justice and equity and there was never a person more just than Imam Husayn (a.s.).

[c] At page 254 of Preface to History (Muqaddimat at-Tareekh) is mentioned, ‘the fact that the Islamic scholars are united in admitting the irreligiousness of Yazid and they hold that such a person can not be an Islamic ruler and that any action taken against him can not be construed as impermissible.

[d] The silent endurance by the companions of the Prophet (S) and the next generation (Tabi’een),10 was not on account of their approval of Yazid’s evil character, but because they did not like bloodshed and therefore they did not consider it proper to assist him.

[e] Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali says that in the eyes of ibn Aqeel and ibnul Jowzi, it is permissible to oppose an unjust ruler, just as Imam Husayn (a.s.) stood up to oppose Yazid’s tyranny. Assuming for a moment, if Yazid’s rule in its initial stage, is considered as that of a lawful ruler, his rule automatically forfeits its legality and validity after he had killed Imam Husayn (a.s.), desecrated the Kaaba, and disgraced Medina.

[f] Allama at-Taftazani, the author of ‘Sharh al-Aqaiid an-Nasafiyya’ writes that Yazid’s willingness before and his joyous celebrations after the martyrdom of Imam Husayn (a.s.) are established beyond doubt. Such a person cannot be attributed to have any faith. On the other hand, he deserves to be cursed and God’s curse is upon his accomplices and assistants.

[g] Ibn Hazm wrote in his book ‘Al-Muhalla’ that Yazid believed only in a worldly, materialistic life. There is no justification for his deeds. He was an absolute despot and tyrant. The attempts of some scholars to justify his deeds are nothing but unjust excesses.

[h] Hafiz writes at page 298 of his book ‘Rasayil’ that the worst and inhuman crime of slaying Imam Husayn (a.s.), capturing his womenfolk, desecrating of Imam Husayn’s severed head, looting Medina, and desecrating the Kaaba are sufficient proof of Yazid’s stone heartedness, enmity towards the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), hatred, cunningness, hypocrisy, and lack of faith. Every degenerate tyrant is a cursed one. In fact, those who do not curse the accursed ones deserve, in turn, to be cursed.

[i] Burhan al-Halabi writes that both Sheikh Muhammad Bakri and his father used to curse Yazid and prayed, “May God throw Yazid in the deepest part of Hell.”

[j] Ath-Thahabi writes in ‘Siyer A’laamun Nubala’’ that Yazid bin Mu’awiya was an inveterate enemy of Imam Ali and the Ahlul Bayt, self-conceited, ill mannered, characterless, drunkard, and debauch. He started his rule with the murder of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his household, and completed it with the incident of al-Harrah in the year 63 AH.

[k] Ath-Thahabi writes in page 496 of the 8th volume of the book ‘Mir’atuz Zamaan’ that when asked about cursing Yazid, Sibt bin al-Jowzi replied that Imam Ahmed (bin Hanbal) considered it appropriate to curse Yazid and we [his followers] also do not approve of him because his deeds were most despicable. If people are content to stop with their dislike, it is all right, but we too would have cursed him.

The above reference establish that scholars and historians of all times, who were just and did not carry any prejudice, declared Yazid to be an unjust ruler, infidel and hypocrite who deserved to be cursed. None of them approved of Yazid’s character.

In recent times, some writers attempt to support Yazid on the ground that Yazid was not personally involved in the slaying of Imam Husayn (a.s.) or responsible for the subsequent events that took place. They hold that Ibn Ziyad and Ibn Sa’d were solely responsible for the horrible deeds… he certainly deserves to be cursed.”11

It is only a few ignorant and irreligious writers who seek to justify the legitimacy of Yazid’s rule and consider that his fight against Imam Husayn (a.s.) in the battle of Karbala was nothing but a struggle for power. Such writers are, in reality, the progeny of Yazid, and therefore, until recently, used to consider Yazid as the Commander of the Faithful [Ameerul Mo’minin]. They have conspired to legitimize Yazid’s oppressive and tyrannous rule to downplay Imam Husayn’s sacrifice and martyrdom by declaring Imam Husayn (a.s.) to be a militant against the established rule.12

Imam Husayn (a.s.), as his father Imam Ali (a.s.), never aspired for political leadership, but he expressed his reservations against the sinful and debauch Yazid’s taking control of the affairs of the Islamic world. Imam Husayn (a.s.) continued to propagate Islamic sciences as the acknowledged Imam. He never collected any army nor did he plan to overthrow Yazid. Yet Yazid was mortally afraid that a day would come when people would be attracted to the Islamic teachings of Imam Husayn (a.s.), and Yazid’s own misdeeds would lead to a revolt. He sought Imam Husayn’s seal of approval and he demanded that Imam Husayn (a.s.) should openly acknowledge Yazid as the legitimate ruler of the Islamic world. Like his father Imam Ali (a.s.), Imam Husayn (a.s.) refused to do so and he preferred to remain in Medina discharging his duties as the acknowledged Imam of the time.

Notes

1. Nafasul Mahmoom, Urdu Translation by Allama Sayyid Safdar Husayn Najafi, Abbas Book Agency Lucknow, p 95.

2. Nafasul Mahmoom, p 94, Life of Imam Husayn [s] [The Saviour] p. 100.

3. Nuzhatul Masa’ib, vol. I p.195 quoting ibn Nama.

4. Maqtal al-Husayn by al-Muqarram, 165, quoted in Imam Husayn (a.s.) & Tragic Saga of Karbala, p. 51.

5. Nafasil Mahmoom, p 109, al-Kamil of Ibnul Athir, 19-4 quoted in Imam Husayn (a.s.) & Tragic Saga of Karbala, p 53.

6. A Literary History of Arabs, Adam Publishers [2003] p. 198.

7. Nuqooshe Ismat, p. 279.

8. Ibid., p. 279 – 281.

9. Note:Ahmed bin Hanbal is the founder of the Hanbalite sect of Sunni Muslims.

10. Tabi’een:the next generation, which did not personally meet or hear the Prophet [s] but narrated traditions they heard from the companions of the Prophet (S).

11. Nuqooshe Ismat, p. 280–281.

12. Note:Those who defend Yazid conveniently forget and forsake the well-known doctrines of conspiracy, accountability and vicarious liability. When the commander of an army entitled to take credit for victory gained through his men, he is also responsible for the atrocities committed by his deputies.

Chapter 15: Imam Husayn migrates to Mecca

Imam Husayn (a.s.) had a great following among the people of Medina who had seen the Prophet (S) showering his love and affection on him. Imam Husayn’s eminence in teaching the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Prophet (S) and his knowledge of the Islamic Jurisprudence and other sciences and his noble character had endeared him to the people of Medina. In addition to this, he had his near relatives (the Hashimites) and several esteemed companions of the Prophet (S) who revered Imam Husayn (a.s.) so highly. Imam Husayn (a.s.) enjoyed the respect and admiration of the people of Medina and Mecca.

Had Imam Husayn (a.s.) desired to wage war against the tyrannical establishment with a view to succeed to power, Medina was the most suitable place to commence the struggle.

However, Imam Husayn (a.s.) chose to avoid any conflict. Therefore, he chose to leave Medina when he was threatened and pressurized to accept Yazid as the Caliph.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) was fully aware of the Qur’anic injunction to migrate when faced with oppression.1 He was also aware that his grandfather, the Prophet (S), acted according to those injunctions. Imam Husayn (a.s.) was facing severe persecution and extreme pressure to accept Yazid as the Caliph. Had Imam Husayn (a.s.) sworn allegiance to Yazid it would have amounted to approve all the anti-Islamic deeds of Yazid. If Imam Husayn (a.s.) had remained in Medina, it would certainly have led to his massacre along with the Banu Hashim and all the true believers. Imam Husayn (a.s.) consulted Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya and others who unanimously thought that it would be better for Imam Husayn (a.s.) to leave Medina and seek sanctuary in Mecca, instead of capitulating to the wretched Yazid.

Imam Husayn (a.s.) preferred to migrate and move away from Medina. The best place he could choose was Mecca. The sanctuary of the Holy Kaaba, where even the killing of a mosquito is prohibited right from the pre-Islamic days, should have provided safety to Imam Husayn (a.s.) and his family. However, this was not to be.

In preferring to migrate rather than to stay at Medina and create a possible confrontation with the forces of Yazid, Imam Husayn (a.s.) followed the footsteps of his grandfather the Prophet (S). The Prophet (S) had set an example in his migration from Mecca to Medina in similar circumstances on the command of God. Imam Husayn (a.s.) could not, at any cost, accept an enemy of Islam as a ruler over Muslims. Moulvi al-Haj Ghulam Abbas Ali gives the reason for Imam Husayn (a.s.) in leaving Medina:“In fact, the Umayyads fostered an inborn animosity to the Prophet (S) and his family. Their main object was to destroy even the last surviving soul among the Ahlul Bayt and their adherents. Husayn (a.s.) had noted that his brother’s retirement to private life could not improve the Islamic world and set it thinking to distinguish the right from the wrong. Even his murder in secret was coolly heard by the Arabs and could not bring on a revolution. Husayn (a.s.) was sure that he would have to share the same fate as that of his elder brother and that the Umayyad’s animosity would pursue and kill him wherever he would go. However, he desired that his valuable blood should not be so easily shed and the whole matter hushed up without a proper consequence. He was prepared to suffer martyrdom publicly and reap its fruit for religion. He wanted to show the public how brutal and irreligious the Umayyads were and how the shedding of human blood, even that of the children of the Prophet (S), was a crime calculated as nothing… Above all, he wanted to set a lesson for upholding the right under the most adverse circumstances, in order to please God and thus tread the most difficult path of love and annihilate his separate existence in the All Pervading Existence, unmindful of the severe persecution at the hands of the devilish folk. His means to this end was not aggression, but passive resistance in order that he might not be blamed for any oppressive act on his part.”2

Islam deprecates suicide. The protection of one’s life and the prevention from exposing one’s self to imminent danger is an obligatory part of a Muslim’s faith. Mirza Ghulam Abbas Ali further notes, “For fear of being criticized by the public that when he was sure of his murder at Medina, he ought to have taken shelter at Mecca and to be free before God from the blame that he had brought the trouble and ruin on himself, Husayn (S) thought it wise to settle within the precincts of the Kaaba.”3

On the night preceding his departure, Imam Husayn (a.s.) visited the tombs of his grandfather the Prophet (S), his mother Fatima (S) and brother Imam Hasan (a.s.). At the Prophet’s tomb after performing his prayers, Imam Husayn (a.s.) dozed off and in his vision, the Prophet (S) said, “I see you being butchered by the very people who expect my intercession. Wretched that they are, I shall not intercede for them. Soon, you will join me, your parents, and your brother. God has reserved for you the place in the Paradise that could only be attained through martyrdom.” Returning home, Imam Husayn (a.s.) narrated his dream to his relatives and friends.4

Imam Husayn (a.s.) met Umm Salama, his step-grandmother and the surviving wife of the Prophet (S). Umm Salama had heard from the Prophet (S) that Imam Husayn (a.s.) would be martyred at Karbala. She repeated what she had heard from the Prophet (S) and showed a vial of mud given to her by the Prophet (S). Imam Husayn (a.s.) retold his dream, gave a vial containing mud of Karbala, and asked Umm Salama to keep both vials together. He then told Umm Salama that on the day of his martyrdom the mud in both the vials would turn into blood.5 A similar incident is reported through the Prophet’s wife Aa’isha.

Imam Husayn’s elder daughter Fatima as-Sughra (the youngest) was ill at the time when Imam Husayn (a.s.) left Medina. He entrusted Fatima as-Sughra to the care of Umm Salama. Imam Husayn (a.s.) met Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya and discussed the situation. Muhammad suggested that the Imam (a.s.) should leave Medina immediately and proceed to Mecca, which was a safe sanctuary for every one. He then suggested that in case there was any threat of bloodshed and desecration of the Kaaba, the Imam should proceed to Yemen. If even in Yemen there would be a threat to his life, the Imam should move on to the desert and mountains and keep moving until things settled down. Hearing these words, the Imam (a.s.) blessed Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya for his advice.6

Later, in a testament written to Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya, Imam Husayn (a.s.) himself set out the reason for his leaving Medina in the following words:“I am leaving (Medina) not to create sedition, corruption, or in jest. I am leaving with the sole object of guiding the Umma of my grandfather, the Prophet (S). I shall enjoin the good (al-Amr bil Ma’ruf) and forbid the wrong (an-Nahi anil Munkar). I follow the footsteps of my grandfather and my father Ali ibn Abi Talib. If anyone wants to respond to my righteous call, it is better in the eyes of God. On the other hand, if anyone has any objection, I shall be patient and seek God’s Arbitration between me and the people, for God is the best Judge.”7

Unless we understand the terms “Amr bil Ma’ruf” and “Nahi anil Munkar”, it is difficult to understand the stress laid on those two terms said by Imam Husayn (a.s.). Simply put, the two terms “Amr bil Ma’ruf” and “Nahi ’anil Munkar” mean the “do’s” and “don’ts” of Islam. In other words, the terms denote what is permissible and what is prohibited in Islam. Imam Husayn (a.s.) said that above all things, God made ‘Amr bil Ma’ruf’ and ‘Nahi anil Munkar’ obligatory on man. In fact, “Amr bil Ma’ruf” and “Nahi ’anil Munkar” is, firstly, to invite people towards Islam and the defending against oppression by fighting the tyrant. Secondly, ‘Nahi anil Munkar’ means abstinence from doing what is prohibited. In the spiritual sense, the terms mean acknowledging and obeying the Creator and shunning Satanic evil. In the temporal sense, it means an equitable and just distribution of wealth by the wealthy and equitable distribution among the poor. In both these senses, Amr bil Ma’roof and Nahi Anil Munkar is made obligatory on every human being.

Regarding the situation prevailing at that time, Imam Husayn (a.s.) said, “You did not entrust your affairs to the learned and pious people, but you surrendered yourselves before those who acted according to their whims and were slaves of their worldly desires, which made them fearlessly do mean things. As a result of this, the weaker section of the society is terrorized, trampled and driven away from their land. Today, you find in every town and city, their puppets that are steeped in ignorance, but pretentiously give edicts based on mere conjecture and surmise. They create mischief and spread discord. Might is prevailing over right and common man has been enslaved into submission. They are torturing and killing the learned and the pious. They have forgotten that there is a Creator who will raise them from their graves and call them to account for their deeds. O God, You are our witness that we never had any greed for power or position; nor did wealth or any worldly pleasure attract us. Whatever we did was only to establish the faith, to guide men on to the right path and to protect the poor from exploitation and misery.”8

What troubled the Banu Umayya was the later aspect, namely, the Ahlul Bayt’s concern for the poor and the pious. Yazid perceived a threat that if Imam Husayn (a.s.) took up the cause of the poor, the Banu Umayya would lose the control of the treasury and power.

While leaving Medina, Imam Husayn (a.s.) did not take any armed contingent of his friends and followers. He took only his family members, but no specific number is mentioned in the books.9 However, it is not in dispute that the following persons accompanied Imam Husayn (a.s.) in his migration from Medina:

1. Zainul Aabidin; his (Imam Husayn) son aged 20 years, who succeeded Imam Husayn (S) as the fourth Imam

2. Ali al-Akber; his son aged 17 years

3. Muhammad al-Baqir; son of Zainul Aabidin aged five years, the fifth Imam

4. Abul Fadhl al-Abbas; his (Imam Husayn) stepbrother

5. Al-Qasim bin al-Hasan (S)

6. Abdullah bin al-Hasan (S)

7. Abu Bakr bin al-Hasan (S)

8. Ahmed bin al-Hasan (S)

9. Ja’far bin Aqeel

10. Abdurrahman bin Aqeel

11. Own bin Aqeel

12. Ali bin Aqeel

13. Abdullah bin Aqeel

14. Muslim bin Aqeel; Imam Husayn’s cousin

15. Abdullah bin Muslim

16. Muhammad bin Muslim

17. Muhammad bin Abi Sa’eed bin Aqeel

18. Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Aqeel

19. Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Aqeel

20. John; Abu Dharr’s servant, an African

21. Umm Kulthoom; widowed sister

22. Zainab (a.s.) ; sister of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and wife of Abdullah bin Ja’far

23. Layla; wife of Imam Husayn (a.s.) and mother of Ali al-Akbar (a.s.)

24. Shahr Banu; wife of Imam Husayn (a.s.)

25. Sukaina; daughter of Imam Husayn (a.s.), aged 4 years

26. Ali al-Asghar (a.s.) ; infant, son of Imam Husayn (a.s.)

27. The wife of Imam Hasan (a.s.)

28. Fidhdha; Imam Husayn’s governess and the bondmaid of his mother Fatima (S). Fidhdha was an Abyssinian princess.

Had Imam Husayn (a.s.) planned to create any revolt or attempt to gain power, neither would he have left Medina where he had plenty of supporters, nor would he have chosen to take his family members consisting mostly of women and children. This shows that Imam Husayn (a.s.) left Medina primarily in response to the urgent and insistent call of the Iraqis for religious guidance and also to avoid capitulating to Yazid’s demand leading to serious conflict and avoidable blood shed. Never can any worldly aspirations or desire for power or wealth be attributed to Imam Husayn (a.s.).

Notes

1. For details see Chapter 2 above.

2. Life of Imam Husayn the Saviour, p. 131 – 132.

3. Life of Imam Husayn the Saviour, p. 134.

4. Amali of Sheikh as-Saduq, Awalimul Ulum, quoted in Imam Husayn (a.s.) & Tragic Saga of Karbala, p. 45.

5. Nafasul Mahmoom, p. 107.

6. Nafasul Mahmoom, p 97, 102.

7. Biharul Anwar, Vol. 44 p. 329.

8. Balaghatul Husayn, P. 61-71, Sermons, Sayings & letters of Imam Husayn[s], compiled by Mustafa Mohsin Musavi, Urdu Translation by Moulvi Sayyid Muhammad Baqir.

9. Nafasul Mahmoom, p. 96.