Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

Part C: Persecution of the Shia by the Abbasid kings

The Abbasids did not fall in the category of the progeny of the Prophet (S), the Ahlul Bayt. Al-Abbas was a paternal uncle of the Prophet (S). The children of Ali and Fatima alone were called Shareef or Sayyid, a term which came to be used more commonly later to denote the progeny of the Prophet (S). A Sunni writer of repute states, “The offspring of Ali are known as the ‘Ahlul Bayt’, ‘Aal Muhammad’, ‘the Progeny of the Prophet’, ‘the Children of the Messenger’, ‘Aal Taha’ and ‘Aal Yasin’. They are also known by the title of ‘Sayyid’ or ‘Shareef’. ”1

Moulana Ali Naqi Naqvi draws a fallacious assumption that since Abdul Muttalib was the leader (Sayyid) of the Arabs, his children also came to be called ‘Sayyids’. It is a historical fact that none from the offspring of Abdul Muttalib’s other children, except those born to Ali, ever were called Sayyid.

Yet, the Abbasids assumed a garb of the Khilafah indirectly from Abu Hashim bin Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya, the grand son of Imam Ali (a.s.). In order to pretend a proximity to Imam Ali (a.s.), the Abbasids created a legend saying that Abu Hashim al-Alawi appointed Muhammad bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas as his successor (Khalifa) at the place called Hamiya. The Abbasids claimed that Abu Hashim was the Khalifa of Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya, who in turn got to the Khilafah from Imam Ali (a.s.). The Abbasids also claimed that Abu Hashim had a great following of the Shia of Khurasan. Based on the above assumption, Ibn Khaldun, Ibnul Athir, Abul Faraj al-Isfahani, and some other writers state that the Abbasids invited people towards the ‘contentment of Aal Muhammad’. The Abbasids claimed that before he died, Muhammad bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Abbas appointed his son Ibrahim, and when Ibrahim was arrested by Marwan al-Himar, he appointed his younger brother Abul Abbas Abdullah as-Saffah as his successor.

The Abbasids also contended that Abu Hashim sent twelve persons as his deputies to espouse his cause into the various districts of Iran. This contention is not supported by any historical record that would show that Abu Hashim bin Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya went anywhere near Khurasan or that he sent his emissaries. His father Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya himself was under the Imamate of the Fourth Imam Ali Ibn Husayn Zainul Aabidin (a.s.). Muhammad bin al-Hanafiyya predeceased Imam Zainul Aabidin (a.s.). Abu Muslim, who was a native of Khurasan, was appointed as one of the emissaries by Ibrahim. Abu Muslim succeeded in gathering huge support for the cause of ‘the contentment of Aal Muhammad’ since the people of Khurasan loved the Ahlul Bayt. The cruelty and oppression of the Umayyads had vexed the public and a revolt was already brewing. The cause of ‘the contentment of Aal Muhammad’ was heartily welcomed.

Though the Abbasids touted the cause of this conception, they cleverly did not disclose the name of the person, who was supposed to represent the Aal Muhammad, for the simple reason that if they had named themselves, it would have been contested since, as detailed above, the Abbasids did not fall in the category of Aal Muhammad. Therefore, they claimed that they represented the children of Imam Ali (a.s.).

[1] Abul Abbas as-Saffah (133–137 AH)

Abul Abbas as-Saffah became the first Abbasid Caliph in 133 AH, who controlled Asia, Egypt and West Africa. The truth is that having gained power in the name of Aal Muhammad, the Abbasids turned to be their tormentors.

In order to establish his reign, Abul Abbas indiscriminately killed the Shia and the Sunni. His brother Yahya, who was sent to quell the rebellion in Mosul, earned the title of ‘Shedder of Blood’. The Caliph’s title ‘as-Saffaah’ in itself means ‘butcher’. K. Ali writes, “The name as-Saffah (butcher), by which the caliph was known, is well chosen, for as such he is distinguished beyond all others in a dynasty that had small respect for human life. He intensified his cruelty and guilt by treachery in the face of solemn oaths and also by ingratitude, for amongst his victims there were not a few who had spent their lives in helping him to the throne.”2

The Abbasids were always suspicious that they might be dethroned, particularly by the Imams of the Shia. They also realized that unless held on a tight leash the public might see through their game and demand that an Alawid be invested with the Caliphate. For these reasons, they perpetrated untold hardships against anyone suspected to be a sympathiser with the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.). K. Ali, a Sunni present-day historian, wrote, “The murder of Abu Muslim and Abdullah who helped him greatly to raise the Abbasids to power and prestige, and his treatment toward the descendants of Ali, the fourth Caliph, are the darkest records in the Abbasid history.”3 It was actually as-Saffah’s younger brother, al-Mansur who was responsible for the murder of Abu Salama and Abu Muslim. The only reason behind the murder was that people such as Abu Salama Hafs bin Sulaiman in Kufa and Abu Muslim in Khurasan, were supporters of the Ahlul Bayt. Most of them were also greatly disappointed by the character of as-Saffah.

[2] Abu Ja’far al-Mansur ad-Dawaniqi (137–159 A H)

As-Saffah, at his dying moments, nominated his younger brother Abu Ja’far Abdullah, who on becoming the caliph in 137 AH, assumed the title ‘al-Mansur’. Among all the Muslim monarchs, al-Mansur was the first to keep near him an executioner holding an unsheathed sword, ever ready to behead anyone instantly.

About al-Mansur’s cruel nature, Allama Abdur Rabbah reports, “When al-Mansur sat in his court, the executioners will bring row upon row of people and behead them so mush so that the blood used to flow in the court and splatter on to al-Mansur’s cloak. Al-Mansur then ordered his chaplain to preach to him. When the chaplain preached, al-Mansur used to sit with his head bowed down as if he were ashamed, but in no time another group of persons would be brought and beheaded as before.”4 People were brought on the ground that they were Alawid or on a mere suspicion that they sympathised with the Ahlul Bayt.

Al-Mansur ordered that the progeny of Imam Hasan (a.s.) should be gathered in one place. He got them chained and threw them into a dark cell. As they could not make out day from night, and the times for prayers, the prisoners divided the Qur’an into five parts in order to approximate the time of prayer and after finishing each part they offered prayers. There was no sanitation due to which they fell sick. When one died, the corpse was left to rot. Soon all of them died.5

Frequently, the progeny of Ali and Fatima and their sympathisers were gathered and al-Mansur ordered to be flogged so severely that the victims soon died.

Al-Mansur was the first person to make the victim stand and a masonry pillar raised all around him. Thus when the pillar was raised around him, Muhammad bin Ibrahim bin al-Hasan, was alive.6

One day, al-Mansur said, “By God, I do not find anyone as obedient as al-Hajjaj was to the progeny of Marwan.” Once, al-Musayyab got up and said, “My master, al-Hajjaj is nothing compared to us, for God has elevated our Prophet (S) to the highest position among His creation, and yet when you order us, we unhesitatingly carry out your orders to kill the Prophet’s progeny. Tell us; are we not more obedient to you than al-Hajjaj was to the progeny of Marwan?”7

Al-Mansur arrested Ibrahim bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin Ali ibn Abi Talib along with Abdullah bin al-Hasan, Abu Bakr bin al-Hasan, and his brothers Abbas, Abdullah, Hasan, and Ja’far, and Hamza bin Ishaq bin Ali bin Abdullah bin Ja’far. They were kept in confinement in Medina for three years. Thereafter, they were shifted to a dark dungeon in az-Zabadah where they all died one after another.8

Allama Muhammad Jawad wrote, “According to al-Mansur’s own admission, he had killed more than a thousand persons who were from the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.). He killed innumerable Shia and invented new and outrageous methods of torture and ultimate death.”9

Though several persons wrote to Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) asking him to accept the leadership of the Muslims, he refused. He was content to preach Islam at Medina. It is said that he had as many as six thousand students studying various sciences at his hand. Despite his noninterference with politics, Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) was always looked upon with suspicion by al-Mansur.

Al-Mansur often used to send for the Imam with the intention of killing him, but he always lost his nerve at the last moment. At-Tabari records in his Tarikhul Umam wal Muluk that the Imam demanded that al-Mansur should return the properties confiscated from him (the Imam).

Al-Mansur ordered the Imam to be poisoned. The order was carried out. There was a cenotaph on the Imam’s tomb but that was demolished in 1344 AH, by Abdul Aziz bin Sa’ud of Saudi Arabia.

In his last moments, al-Mansur called his wife and son al-Mahdi and entrusted a key saying that it was for the house that holds the most precious of all his possessions. He instructed that the house should be opened only after his death and that none except his wife and son al-Mahdi should enter inside. When al-Mansur died, his wife and son opened the house and were shocked to see rows upon rows of bodies of young, old people, and children with tags in their ears showing the branch of the Family of Fatima and Ali (a.s.) to which they belonged.10 Such was the cruelty of al-Mansur.

[3] Muhammad al-Mahdi (157-169 A H)

Al-Mahdi was as cruel as his father al-Mansur. He bore an unabated hatred toward the Shia and Sayyids. When he found that his father had hundreds of tagged bodies of the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.) stored in a house, as we saw above, he ordered all the bodies to be buried in a common ditch and a shop to be erected upon the ditch. He spared no effort to trace Ali and Fatima’s progeny and to incarcerate them until their death or to have them beheaded. Any person least suspected of harbouring good will towards the Ahlul Bayt was unceremoniously killed without trial. So ferocious was al-Mahdi that people concealed their identity for fear of being persecuted for being the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.). The Shia concealed their faith and preferred to be branded as zindiq (atheists) rather than to be known as Shia.

[4] Abu Muhammad Musa al-Hadi (169-170 A H)

Though he ruled for a short period of one year, he became as notorious as his father was for his cruelty and persecution toward the Sayyids and the Shia. He imposed restrictions on the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.) who lived in Medina, and made them stand surety for each other. He made it obligatory on them to report every morning to the local authority. Often, they were made to wait for long hours just to insult them. The insults led to altercations. Being unable to bear the insults and harassment, al-Husayn bin Ali bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin Ali ibn Abi Talib called for the progeny of Imam Ali (a.s.) and the following persons gathered around him; Yahya, Sulaiman, and Idris the sons of Abdullah bin al-Hasan, Abdullah bin al-Hasan al-Aftas, Ibrahim bin Isma’eel, Umar bin al-Hasan, Abdullah bin Isma’eel, and Abdullah bin Ja’far. These ten persons were proceeding on their pilgrimage. They were joined by thirty-six persons who were the progeny of Ali (a.s.) and a few bondsmen. They went to the governor’s house early in the morning. On seeing them, the governor ran away. However, they were soon surrounded by the army of al-Hadi the Abbasid king and were massacred. The bodies remained lying on the ground for three days.11 Six persons were taken prisoners and were brought before al-Hadi who beheaded them.

[5] Haroon ar-Rashid (170-193 A H)

Haroon ar-Rashid was the son of al-Mahdi and the brother of al-Hadi. In his long reign of 23 years, he perpetrated great crimes of murdering the progeny of Ali and Fatima and their supporters. He either killed or imprisoned them to death. The following are a few names of those who were killed or jailed to death by Haroon ar-Rashid, in addition to the unnamed sixty ones from the Progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.) in Toos. Here are the names:

Ibrahim bin Isma’eel, Ali bin al-Hasan bin Ibrahim, Ali bin Hashim bin Buraid, Ma’qil bin Ibrahim, Abdu Rabbih ibn Alqama, Idris bin Abdullah, Hasanain bin Abdullah bin Isma’eel, Abbas bin Muhammad bin Abdullah, Abu Muhammad Hisham bin al-Hakam, Ali ibn Salih at-Taliqani, Ishaq bin al-Hasan bin Zaid…etc.

Haroon ar-Rashid was the first to order to demolish and remove Imam Husayn’s tomb. Before him, neither the Umayyads nor the Abbasids, though desired, dared to destroy the tomb of Imam Husayn (a.s.). However, they imposed severe restrictions on visiting the tomb.12

Imam Musa al-Kadhim (a.s.) was living in Medina. When Haroon visited the holy city, he went to the Prophet’s tomb and in order to show his proximity to the Prophet (S), he saluted the tomb saying ‘Peace be upon my cousin’. Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.), who was present at that time, put down Haroon ar-Rashid by saluting the Prophet’s tomb saying:‘Peace be upon my (grand) father.’ Thus, the Imam proved that if proximity in relationship was what would count, Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) was closer to the Prophet (S) than Haroon was.

Due to the above incident, Haroon felt so insecure that on several occasions, he made Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) travel from Medina to Baghdad to kill him, but, whenever he met the Imam, he was scared to take any precipitate action. Instead, on several occasions, Haroon imprisoned Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) for long periods. Seeing the piety of Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.), who was in prison for over a year, the jailor, at Basra, Eesa bin Ja’far bin Mansur wrote to Haroon ar-Rashid asking him to transfer the Imam to some other jail; otherwise he would himself release.

Haroon sent Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) from Basra to Baghdad and kept him imprisoned under al-Fadhl bin ar-Rabee’. Soon, al-Fadhl found that Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) was innocent and that he was being unjustly persecuted. Haroon learnt that Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) was living a relatively comfortable life. He sent his confident Masrur to spy upon al-Fadhl. Haroon gave two letters, one addressed to Abbas bin Muhammad and another one addressed to Sindi bin Hashak asking him to follow the instruction of Abbas bin Muhammad. Accordingly, Abbas inflicted one hundred whips on al-Fadhl bin ar-Rabee’ and handed over Imam al-Kadhim to the custody of Sindi bin Hashak. Sindi bin Hashak asked Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.) to lie on the floor and he made some Christian wrestlers to sit on, due to which the Imam died. According to Ardabili, Sindi bin Hashak inserted poison and martyred Imam al-Kadhim (a.s.)13

Haroon’s jealousy of the infallible Imams of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) was so intense that he closed down the university run by Imam as-Sadiq (a.s.) at Medina. He frequently ordered Imam as-Sadiq to leave Medina and travel to Baghdad just to disturb the Imam’s teaching of his students who were said to be more than four thousand ones. Very cleverly, Haroon ar-Rashid used the pretext of encouraging sciences and he invited different persons for debates. His son al-Ma’mun followed the same policy of diverting people from seeking knowledge from the Imams of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

[6] Abdullah al-Ma’mun (198- 218 AH)

Al-Ma’mun was the son of Haroon Rashid. He was highly educated and was cunning. He was an expert politician. He killed his brother al-Amin, who was the caliph, after a prolonged battle of four years. Al-Ma’mun was a son of a bondwoman whereas al-Amin was of pure Abbasid descent. This created a rift between the Abbasids who were about eighty thousand people, and this constituted the biggest threat to al-Ma’mun. Like his predecessors, al-Ma’mun was also scared of the Alawids. Being a clever politician, he first forced Imam Ali ibn Musa ar-Ridha (a.s.) to marry his daughter and offered to nominate as his heir apparent. By this stratagem, al-Ma’mun had planned to subdue the Abbasids with the threat that if they rose in revolt against him, he would hand over the caliphate to the Alawids. For this purpose, he gave the title of ‘ar-Ridha’ based on the original Abbasid slogan of ‘ar-ridha min Aal Muhammad; (seeking) the contentment of the progeny of Muhammad’.

Such a prospect was horrifying to the Abbasids. Al-Ma’mun was also confident that once the pomp and glory of the earthly kingdom surrounded him, Imam ar-Ridha (a.s.) also would fall into the trap of all the attendant vices, just like the judge of judges Yahya bin Aktham had fallen. It is said that al-Ma’mun was initially not given to any vices, but when he got rid of his brother al-Amin, he felt safer and in course of time fell into all sorts of vices that he indulged in that along with his ministers, counselors, and religious heads.14

However, Imam ar-Ridha (a.s.) saw through the game of al-Ma’mun and consistently he refused to have anything to do with rulership. Under threat, Imam ar-Ridha was forced to accompany al-Ma’mun and sit next to him. Imam ar-Ridha explained that his position was similar to his grandfather Imam Ali’s when he was nominated and forced to participate in the Shura15 or to the Prophet Yousuf (a.s.) who became the minister of the king of Egypt.16 However, the Imam refused and never participated in the state affairs. Al-Ma’mun asked Abdullah bin Basheer to grow his fingernails. When they had grown to a considerable extend, he gave something that appeared to be tamarind, and asked Abdullah to squeeze it. According to a popular tradition, it was through grapes filled with poison that the Imam was made to consume and die.

There is an unending list of people who were martyred under al-Ma’mun’s orders. The well-known among them are:

Al-Hasan al-Harsh, al-Hasan bin Zaid, al-Hasan bin al-Husayn bin Zaid, al-Hasan bin Ishaq, Ali bin Abdullah, Abu Sara bin Mansur, Muhammad bin al-Husayn bin al-Hasan, Muhammad bin Zaid bin Ali, Muhammad bin Ja’far, Abdullah bin Ja’far, Muhammad bin Abdullah bin al-Hasan,… etc., in addition to thousands of their supporters.

[7] Al-Mu’tasim Billah (218-227 A H)

He was the son of al-Ma’mun and was nominated to the caliphate by his father. He inherited from his ancestors the hatred for the Prophet’s progeny. He imprisoned thousands of Shia and of the Prophet’s progeny who died in prison or were killed on the orders of him.

Al-Mu’tasim married his daughter Ummul Fadhl, apparently out of respect and love, to Imam Muhammad al-Jawad (a.s.), but in fact to keep a close watch on the activities of the Imam and to have an executioner ready to eliminate the Imam by poison. Thus, Imam al-Jawad (a.s.) was martyred by poison inserted to him by Ummul Fadhl at the behest of al-Mu’tasim

[8] Al-Mutawakkil `Alallah (232-247AH)

Al-Mutawakkil was the cruelest of all the Abbasid kings. He bore great ill will towards the progeny of Imam Ali and Fatima (a.s.) and their Shia. He used to abuse and tell lies against Imam Ali (a.s.) in the open court. His clown Ibadah, who was a eunuch, pretended to imitate Imam Ali (a.s.). When al-Mutawakkil’s son al-Muntasir Billah saw this, he chided his father saying that Imam Ali (a.s.) was the nephew of their grandfather Abbas bin Abdul Muttalib and allowing a clown to imitate him was the worst thing. Al-Mutawakkil was given to heavy drinking and was always surrounded by female dancers.

Al-Mutawakkil had abdicated his authority to the Turkish slaves who were whimsically running the administration of the state. Al-Mantasir Billah, with some disgruntled persons, killed his father al-Mutawakkil in 247 AH, when he heard him abusing Imam Ali and Fatima az-Zahra’ (a.s.).17

Al-Mutawakkil not only bore ill will, but he also hated the popularity of Imam Husayn’s tomb at Karbala to which millions flocked as pilgrims. Al-Mutawakkil wanted to erase the tomb completely. He destroyed the tomb seventeen times during his rule of fifteen years, but there is a record of four times; in the years 233, 236, 237 and 247 AH.18 Every time the tomb was erased a new and more magnificent structure was put up by the Shia.19 By al-Mutawakkil’s orders, anyone attempting to visit the tomb of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was arrested and sent to the governor of Kufa who either killed or punished him severely. Every time the tomb of Imam Husayn (a.s.) was demolished, the surrounding houses and shops of the Shia were demolished too. On four occasions, the entire town of Karbala was demolished.

Umar bin Faraj, the governor of Medina and Mecca, looted the properties of the progeny of Ali and Fatima (a.s.) and harassed the Shia in all possible manners. Similarly, the governors of Egypt and Kufa used to arrest the Shia on false allegations and they punished them unjustly.

The names of the despotic governors are as follows:[1] Ibrahim ad-Daizaj who demolished Imam Husayn’s tomb in 233 and 236AH, [2] Umar bin Faraj who demolished the tomb in 237 AH, [3] Harun al-Mu’ammari who demolished the tomb in 437 AH, [4] Ja’far bin Muhammad bin Ammar.

From the progeny of Imam Ali and Fatima (a.s.) al-Mutawakkil killed the following well-known and learned persons:al-Qasim bin Abdullah, Ya’qub bin Ishaq, Ahmed bin Isa, and Abdullah bin Musa.

Notes

1. Manaqib of ibn Shahr Ashub, vol. 2 p. 134 quoted in Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 29.

2. A Study of Islamic History by K. Ali. P. 229.

3. Ibid., P. 234.

4. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 93 quoting al-Iqd al-Farid, vol. 1 p. 41.

5. Ibid., p.101-102 quoting Muruj ath-Thahab.

6. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 103, quoting at-Tabari’s Tarikh.

7. Ibid., p. 104 quoting al-Mas’udi’s Muruj ath-Thahab. vol. 2 p. 171.

8. Ibid., p. 114-115 & 119 quoting Maqatil at-Talibiyin.

9. Ibid., p. 146 quoting ash-Shia wal Hakimun.

10. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 125-127 quoting at-Tabari’s Tarikhul Umam wal Muluk.

11. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 5 p. 187-199 quoting al-Mas’udi’s Muruj ath-Thahab, vol. 3, p. 336.

12. Ibid., vol. 6 p. 46 quoting from ‘History & Geography of Karbala.

13. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 6 p. 69-71.

14. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 6 p. 79 quoting Shibli Nomani’s ‘Al-Ma’mun’.

15. Ibid., p. 127.

16. Ibid., p. 128.

17. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 6 p. 164-171 quoting at-Tarikh al-Kamil, vol. 7 p. 20, Muruju ath-Thahab, vol. 2, ash-Shia wal Hakimun, p. 169…etc.

18. Masa’ibush Shia, vol. 6 p. 186-199.

19. Ibid., p. 186.

Part D: Persecuton of the Shia during the Period when a Multitude of Caliphs came to Rule the Muslim World

The animosity towards the Prophet’s progeny borne by the Umayyads is understandable for several reasons. Firstly, Islam put a hold on the unbridled life enjoyed by the Arabs in the pre-Islamic days. Thus, we find that immediately after the death of the Prophet (S), Abu Sufyan managed to get his son Yazid first and then Mu’awiya appointed as governor of Syria where they lost no time in reintroducing the use of alcohol, gambling, and bondwomen, as was the custom in the pre-Islamic days. Whatever they did was out of their old barbaric spirit asserting itself rather than following the restraints imposed by Islam. While in public, they pretended to follow Islamic tenets, in private they did everything that Islam had forbidden. The Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) were the stumbling block in their wayward life of pagan aristocracy.

Secondly, Islam forbade idol worship and polytheism that was so dear to the ancient Arabs. Mu’awiya and his succeeding Umayyads were more interested in the old Arab culture and poetry than in the traditions of the Prophet (S). For this purpose, they engaged writers at great expense to the state.

Thirdly, in the battles that ensued, many ancestors and near relatives of the Umayyads were killed. That is why we find the severed head of Imam Husayn (a.s.) kept in front of Yazid who gloated saying, “How I am sure that the spirits of my ancestors slain in (the battles of) Badr, al-Khandaq, and Hunain must be happy to see the severed head of the son of Ali ibn Abi Talib lying at my feet!”

Fourthly, the Umayyads always considered the Islamic movement not as a spiritual movement but as a political one leading to an empire. Therefore, when Abu Sufyan saw the huge gathering of devout Muslims, all that he could visualize was a great army powerful enough to create an empire.

Fifthly, neither Abu Sufyan nor his sons ever really embraced Islam. They were impelled more by hypocrisy and a ruse to save their skin and to grab whatever they could by joining their powerful enemy.

There might be several more reasons for the Umayyads to bear malice towards the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), but for the Abbasids, who came to power on the slogan that the caliphate was the inherent right of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.), animosity could spring only from a desire to cling to the power that so fortuitously fell in their lap. But a more important reason was the suspicion of an imagined threat from the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.).

However, the surprising thing is that the Ottomans, Ghaznawids, Mongols, and other Muslim rulers all over the globe, such as Saddam in recent days, bore animosity towards the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) in general and the Shia in particular that can not be normally explained.

The root cause is to be found in the following facts:

Immediately after the Prophet’s demise, several legends were invented to create a divide between the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) on the one hand and the rest of Muslims on the other. Firstly, a tradition was put forward as an argument against the claim of the Ahlul Bayt (a.s.) that the Prophet (S) had said, “We the prophets neither inherit nor bequeath.” The tradition appeared to be so noble in content that it was accepted by many without inquiring whether the Prophet (S) had really said so or not. Obviously, the said tradition is contrary to the Qur’an which speaks about Prophets inheriting one from the other and Prophets praying for a successor to carry on the Divine Mission. Hence, the tradition is an obvious invention. In fact, none from the large number of the Prophet’s companions, except two persons, testified to hearing the said tradition from the Prophet (S).

Another legend was that the Prophet (S) did not wish to place the spiritual as well as the temporal leadership in one place. Even this tradition had no corroborators. No reason was given as to when and why the Prophet (S) said so, particularly when he himself held both the offices. This tradition is also contrary to the Qur’an that speaks of the kingdoms bestowed upon the Prophets David, Solomon…etc.

Regarding the invention of such legendary traditions, Nicholson wrote, “During the first century of Islam, the forging of Traditions became a recognized political and religious weapon, of which all parties availed themselves. Even men of the strictest piety practised this species of fraud, and maintained that the end justified the means.”1

The effect of the legends was that the infallible Imams became the acknowledged spiritual leaders while the Caliph assumed the temporal rulership. The only object of these legends was to separate the spiritual leadership (wilaya) from the temporal rulership (mulk), and to keep the temporal leadership out of the reach of the Ahlul Bayt. It is this later motive that was responsible for the creation of further fast legends such as that Ali and his Shia never offered prayers and that the Shia were heretics. The false propaganda that Ali and his Shia were heretics deserving to be cursed after every prayer, was first started by Mu’awiya in the year 12 AH, and spread by him throughout the Muslim world that he later came to preside over. As a result of Mu’awiya’s orders, Imam Ali (a.s.) and his Shia were cursed from on seventy thousand pulpits everyday, and false stories about them were spread throughout the Muslim world for over half a century. This put unshakable roots in the minds of common Muslims, so much so that even in these enlightened days they persist in several Muslim countries.

Sheikh Shamsuddin Abu Abdullah bin Makki bin Hamid al-Aamuli al-Juzaini known as ‘the First Martyr’ was a great scholar of his time. He had written several books. The accusation against him was that he was a Shia and therefore deserved to be killed. First, he was imprisoned for one year and then he was asked to tender an apology that he refused because it would then amount to admission of guilt. He was martyred at the instance of Judge Burhanuddin al-Maliki and Judge Abbaad ibn Jama’a ash-Shafi’iy on Jumada II, 786 AH in Damascus. On the persistence of Judge Abbaad ibn Jama’a, he was beheaded and his body was hung from gallows and later was burnt.

The ‘Second Martyr’ is Sheikh Zainuddin bin Ali bin Ahmed bin Muhammad bin Jamal bin Taqiyyuddin bin Salih. He was martyred on the allegation that he was Shia and so he deserved to be killed. When he came to know that he was likely to be arrested, he left on pilgrimage. When the Judge came to know this, he wrote to the king of Rome that a person who was not from the four sects of Sunnis and who was a Kharijite had taken refuge in his (the king) domain, and that he should be arrested forthwith. The king sent an emissary to find out if what the judge had written was true, and at any rate to apprehend the man and bring him alive. The emissary found Sheikh Zainuddin bin Ali in Mecca. The Sheikh asked to be his guest until he would complete the pilgrimage. They both left for Rome. On the way, they met another person. On being told that the Sheikh was a Shia Scholar, the stranger told the emissary, “Do you not apprehend that this Sheikh may complain to the king that you have ill-treated him and that on such complaint the king may punish you?” The emissary believed that such could be the case. He beheaded the Sheikh near a canal. He carried the head and left the body. During the night, the residents of the village saw radiant beings visiting the spot where the Sheik’s headless body was lying. The next day, they buried the Sheik’s body and built a building with a dome over it. This happened in the year 966 AH. When the king was enraged to see that his emissary had killed the Sheikh and brought his head instead of following his orders, the emissary was hanged.2

Notes

1. A Literary History of the Arabs, p. 145 [2003].

2. Shahide Salis (the Third Martyr) by Mirza Muhammad Hadi Sahib Aziz Lucknowi, p. 12-13.

Part E: Persecution under the Mongols and Recent Times

Persecution by the Mongols

During Akbar’s rule, Judge Noorullah ash-Shushtari, known as (the Third Martyr) and popularly called ‘Qadhi (judge) Sahib’, migrated from Iran to India. He was a great scholar in all the five schools of Jurisprudence (fiqh) ; the Hanafite, Shafiite, Malikite, Hanblite, and Shiism. His knowledge was appreciated by Akbar who appointed him as the chief judge of Lahore. Ash-Shushtari accepted the appointment with a precondition that he would administer justice according to any of the five schools of Jurisprudence. His knowledge of the Islamic sects had convinced him that there was always a parallel in one of the four Sunni schools of Jurisprudence. Accordingly, he gave judgment according to that school of Sunni Jurisprudence that was in agreement with the Shiite thought. Complaints started pouring that ash-Shushtari was administering judgment according to the Shiite Jurisprudence. Ash-Shushtari showed that in fact he gave Judgment according to one of the four Sunni schools, which incidentally was in agreement with the Shia Law. Akbar realized the wisdom of ash-Shushtari and refused to entertain any complaint against him.1

When Akbar died, his son Jahangir killed Ali Quli Khan and took his widow, famous Noor Jehan as his wife. We may recall the incident of Khalid bin al-Waleed with Malik bin Nuwayra where Khalid killed Malik and committed adultery with his wife. By his nature, like Khalid bin al-Waleed, Jahangir was also a tyrant.

One of the Sunni scholars Makhdumul Mulk Abdullah al-Ansari became all-powerful in Jahangir’s court. He was an extremist. He issued a Fatwa that it was not only impermissible but had become sin to perform the Hajj in the circumstances then prevailing. When asked to explain he said, “In these days, if pilgrims travel by land, they will have to pass through the land of the Rafidhite (Twelver Shia) ] which is sin. On the other hand, if the pilgrim takes a ship, all ships belong to the Europeans where they will find the portraits of Jesus and Mary which amounts to idolatry that is sin.”2 Makhdumul Mulk equated the Shia to idolaters and thereby indirectly declared them as disbelievers.

Makhdumul Mulk could not find fault with the judgments rendered by Noorullah ash-Shushtari. He therefore planted a spy who pretended to be a Shia. He gained the confidence of ash-Shushtari and got access to two books on Shiism, namely, ‘Ihqaqul Haq’ and ‘Majalisul Mo’minin’. The spy pretended to be deeply interested in the books and, after taking ash-Shushtari’s permission to read them, he took them to his house. He passed on copies of the books which became powerful weapons in the hands of those who were inimical to ash-Shushtari. They took the books to Jahangir as a proof that ash-Shushtari was Shia who deserved to be executed. Jahangir agreed to their demand and ash-Shushtari was flogged with barbed whips that virtually stripped his skin. This was in the year 1019 AH. Ash-Shushtari’s dead body was left lying on the open ground for several days.3

An Iranian nobleman, who was holding a high post in Gwalior, dreamt that Lady Fatima (a.s.) was asking him to bury the body of the martyr ash-Shushtari. The Iranian took permission from Jahangir and buried the body near the Civil Court, a few yards away from Changi Chowki. In the year 1188, Muhammad Mansur Musavi Nishapuri constructed a shrine over the tomb. In the year 1290, a compound wall was constructed enclosing the huge area of endowed land by Sayyid Ali Naqi, Deputy Collector. In the year 1309, Tahsildars Kifayat Husayn and Khan Bahadur Sayyid Abul Hasan and Sayyid Nazim, an advocate, fixed iron doors, and with donations collected by the public. Nazim Husayn also started the Majlis which has continued until now. In 1332 AH, a committee was formed that supervised the construction of four buildings to accommodate men and one building to accommodate women. They were constructed under the direction of the Secretary Nawab Muhammad Sajjad Ali of Sheesjh Mahal.4

Adil Shahi and Qutub Shahi the kings of Deccan were Shia. Aurangzeb persecuted and killed several of them. My father told me that my ancestors, who were Shia living in Bijapore, were hunted down and killed. The younger members of the family were made to stand and walls raised around them, that if old structures were to be pulled down now, skeletons would be found in the walls. Because of the persecution, my grandparents left Bijapore and settled in Vellore of North Arcot District of the erstwhile Madras State. They were pious people and until now, their graves in Qasba near the Fort at Vellore are revered both by Hindus and Muslims alike. However, in the process, they were forced to conceal their faith, offer prayers only privately in closed rooms, and shut themselves up during the first ten days of Muharram. In course of time, Vellore and some surrounding villages acquired their own Shia population. Madras being a cosmopolitan city, soon attracted the Shia who settled in pockets in areas such as Thousand Lights on Mount Road, Triplicane, Royapettah, Perambur, Pudupet…etc., and spread to several outskirts of Chennai. Madras gave birth to several Shia scholars such as Moulvi Hasan Raza from Pudupet, Moulvi Nabiul Ahmed Khan, Moulvi Ghulam Muhammad Mehdi Khan, his son Ghulam Muhammad Taqi Khan, and S.V. Mir Ahmed Ali from Thousand Lights; and lastly, my mentor and teacher Mirza Ghulam Abbas Ali Sahib from Royapettah. There were such great businessmen like the Khaleelis. It is said that the Khaleelis acquired so many properties on Mount Road that the British Government issued a notification, prohibiting sale of any property to the Khaleelis.

Bangalore, Mysore and its suburbs also have a sizeable population of Shia. Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad has the largest Shia population. Vizag, Masuliptam, Nagaram and Nellore also have sizeable Shia populations.

Hyderabad has its own legends. The Nizam was prevailed upon to issue an order prohibiting breast-beating and to the Chant of ‘Husayn’, ‘Husayn’ in the famous Ashura procession of Bi Bi ka Alam. The Sunnis had argued that breast-beating is barbaric and should be banned in these enlightened days. When the Shia came to know about the ordinance, they approached the Nizam who had a soft corner for the Shia. He gave them counsel and said, ‘you go ahead with the procession on the lines I have given you.’ When the procession started, the Shia started chanting ‘Ibne Zehra wa wayla’ while striking their heads. The Sunnis rushed to complain to the Nizam. The Nizam replied, “At your instance, I have banned breast beating. What can I do if they strike their head? I have also banned the use of the words “Husayn” as desired by you. It will not be an offence if the Shia use the word “Ibne Zehra” though that word also refers to Husayn. They have not violated my order. ”

In the late seventies through the eighties, there was a rash of politically manipulated communal violence in the city of Hyderabad which was frequently subjected to imposition of curfew. Once, the curfew fell on the day of Ashura. Prominent Shia met and decided that, come what may, they would take out, as usual, the procession of Bi Bi ka Alam and perform all the usual rituals of Matam. They went to speak to the Police Commissioner Mr. Pavithran and to convey the resolution of the Shia to hold the procession as usual despite the curfew. Mr. Pavithran was a very sensible person and he had observed that the Shia localities had the lowest crime rate and that never did any untoward incident occur during the Ashura procession. He therefore allowed the Ashura procession of the Bi Bi ka Alam to be taken out as usual. The Sunnis and some extremist Hindus objected saying that in the procession, Shia youth would come out openly with their swords and knives and would likely use the occasion to use the weapons against their opponents. They asked, ‘Would Mr. Pavithran permit them to come out openly with their swords and knives?’ They argued that the Shia should at least be banned from doing ‘Matam’ with swords and knives. Mr. Pavithran replied, “If you want to put your swords and knives to the same purpose of beating yourselves, as the Shia do, then, to that extent I have no objection if you too carry weapons to beat yourselves.”

One of the great miracles of Imam Husayn (a.s.) to the present day is that the wounds of those who beat themselves with chains, knives, and swords never become septic and none is known to have died in the long history of the Ashura processions anywhere in the world. I had personally witnessed a team of Germans taking video of the Shia, young and old, beating themselves with chains, Knives, and swords in the Ashura procession at Diwan Devdi, Hyderabad. One of the team members told me that they were puzzled by the fact that the chain, knife, or sword used by one individual was used by another without cleaning it. Looked at scientifically, this should lead to gangrene because the blood group of one individual using the knife or sword may be ‘A’ and the next person using the same sword may belong to a different blood group. The gentleman told me that when they collected samples of blood from various individuals and found that all the blood samples had turned to ‘O’ group, and later when the blood of the same individuals was tested later, they belonged to various blood groups. None of the participants ever needed or took ATS injection.

In order to obliterate this living miracle, a very attractive proposal was mooted that instead of letting the blood flow on the roads on the Day of Ashura, the Shia should donate their blood that could be used to save lives. Many Shia were impressed by the novelty and apparent nobility of the cause. Soon, it was realized that the motive behind the suggestion was to dilute the effect that the procession made on the onlookers and to erase the miraculous nature of Matam during Ashura. Our ancestors sacrificed their properties and lives to keep the memory of Karbala fresh in the minds of generations to come. Unfortunately, even among the Shia, there has arisen a minority that holds prayer to be superior to Majlis. There is no comparison between the two; if prayer is like the Book of God, Majlis is the remembrance of the Prophet’s progeny (a.s.).

Remember that the Prophet (S) had said, “I am leaving among you two precious things entwined and knit together like a strong rope; the Book of God and my Progeny. They will never separate from each other until they will come to me at the Pond in the Paradise. If you cling fast to them, you will never go astray at all.” An unnecessary controversy is raised to separate the Book of God from the Progeny of the Prophet (S) in an attempt to glorify one over the other. Glorifying one means demeaning the other and that could only be the work of Satan. The atrocities against the Shia were so severe that they preferred to remain in anonymity. It is only recently that the world has started to take notice of the Shia. It is for the Shia to put forth their religious beliefs through their writings and to establish their exclusiveness through their conduct. We should try to weed out some undesirable elements that are a blot on the name and character of the Shia, by educating our masses.

Notes

1. Ibid., p. 23-24

2. Shahide Salis, P. 22.

3. Ibid., P. 24.

4. Shahide Salis, P. 25-26.